Ethical - you'll have to decide. Legal? Not according to the RIAA. For one thing, you would be format shifting, which is not part of the 'bundle of rights' sold to you with the cd. By shifting the format from cd to mp3 - you would be creating a new copy. Many people feel that it is fair use - but the RIAA and MPAA disagree. You can legally space shift (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia), that is, transfer a song from your computer to your ipod - but it is not clear whether you can format shift, i.e. transfer a song from a cd to your computer, especially if you are changing it from audio format to digital (aac or mp3).

Either way - if you download a new copy from the internet to replace an old one, it seems clear that the RIAA would consider that illegal - music is not fungible - one copy isn't the same as any other copy. So your copy, on your scratched cd, is completely different from the exact same song downloaded from the internet, even if, to the best of human hearing, they are identical.

The MPAA recently said that they felt making backup copies is illegal - of dvds you already own....

"http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/10/mpaas_bizarroworld_l.html"

Interesting. How about copying from CD to cassette, say if I want to listen to an album I own in my wife's car, which has a tape deck but no CD player? Is that considered format shifting?

It would be - but it would be less likely to raise the label's ire, even if you did it with your entire collection - because you would be going from digital to analog - it would be a lower quality copy you would be creating. Legally speaking, there is no difference between cd -> tape and cd -> pc, but practically speaking, the latter is the only one to potentially reduce revenues for them.

BTW - I'm only giving one side of the story - many people, EFF and myself included, believe that fair use permits a broad variety of uses that the RIAA and MPAA would seek to make illegal. Right now, the whole area is grey, as we haven't had any real guidance from the courts. Myself, I believe that fair use permits anything that doesn't harm the copyright owner. If I own GnR's Greatest Hits, I'm going to rip it - I'm never going to buy a second copy from iTunes to listen on my ipod. However, if you asked me for a copy, saying you wanted it, but were hesitating because of the price, I wouldn't make one for you, as I would be eliminating a sale for the copyright owner. However, this is just my personal belief, not a model for a workable DRM scheme.

Personally, I like what EFF has proposed - everyone who wants to trade music pays $5 a month for the priviledge, added on to their ISP bill - that gets them a password allowing them onto the Label's Napster - you could download whatever you wanted for your own personal use. I believe most computer users would pay the $5 every month, whether they regularly used the service or not. Copyright owners would then be compensated based upon how often their song was downloaded. Britney would still be rich, my Uncle Bill would still earn enough to pay for all his golf stuff and vacations, and Carl, you would get a check for some smaller amount, as I would immediately download Socrates Johnson, my copy of which has disappeared.