I will organize my thoughts now.
First off, things got off to a "questionable" start when the record was posted at $999 dollars with a prominent musician's wife and also musician-in-itself claimed that the item needed to be sold to help pay for pregnancy. To some, such as my lowly self, this just screams "laughable," or at the very least, "questionable." So, that set off some minor fireworks for me and I basically just sat back and started enjoying the show as fanboys rolled in, people argued, and both sides (if it can even be reduced to that: what side am I on?) felt with total certainty that they were correct about the legality of the transaction, whatever that was anyway. Facts remained unknown, the illustrious details of IDM's creme de la crepe. And thus, it was seen that such movements could only be leading toward a sort of double-retardation with members rolling in claiming that "everyone except for me is retarded" and "they are wrong."
Such a weepy sort of crybaby style makes poverty stricken pieces of shit like myself feel a bit annoyed. Who are these illustrious friends of the great BoC? And why do they deserve 999$! GOD DAMMIT!
In the end though that is all just backstory, completely irrelevant to the problem at hand. See, we don't need the details of the relationship between the seller and the artist. We don't need to know anything about whether it was the fanboys defending BoC from "posers." We don't need to know if any single anybody involved was a crybaby. The motivation is irrelevant.
What matters is whether there is, or is not, something to be said for the argument that such a sale could be contested by the group. COULD BE. It doesn't have anything to do with whether said band would want to, or would even consider doing so. It has only to do with the logic of law. If there is such law, and such a possibility, than all the cries of "BOC FANBOYS ARE AUTISTIC!!" would be silenced once and for all. So, we should find out, is there such a possibility? I should not that the existence of such a possibility would not have any bearing on whether there exists a contingent of autistic BoC fanboys. I only mean to clarify that the issue is not one of sentiment, but simply a matter of determining whether the ethic-action of the seller is really as clear cut as has been claimed.
Now, I should note that it was mentioned that the Beatles had a similar situation where an early recording of them was put on auction, something along these lines. Perhaps a demo. Either way, the Beatles were able to stop this auction in its tracks. Why is this? And how does this differ from the present case?
Imagine you send a demo for an album you are working on to a friend. Imagine that you are planning to finish this album and sell it yourself. But imagine that your friend thinks that this album is worth a lot of money and decides to sell it himself. The question here is: is this legally acceptable? Could I, the creator, stop this sale by claiming that it was a demo, not meant for resale? Could I claim that the music contained on the CD was my creation, and that selling the CD represented a breach of trust. Could it be said that selling the music on the CD represented a sort of breaking of copyright law, whereby I have control over the material on the disc, and selling it and spreading it around basically is taking the material out of my control, without my permission?
The problem here is that I have a plan for my music. I want it to be a certain way, as I have been working on it and would like to present it properly. However, a friend who I was working with decides to take it upon himself to take the demo I lent him and sell it on his own terms. For whatever reason the music is worth a shitload of money.
But that brings us to the complication. Where is the line between the object and the sound contained within? This is a collectors item. It is a rarity. It is in possession of one party. However, the musical copyright material on the item is an abstract form. It is NOT properly in possession of the party. It is strange how proceeds from these rarities get kicked back to people who had nothing to do with their creation. It is also curious how such valuable items can contribute nothing to the artist who brought them that value. It really is just the art world, I guess.
I can only conclude now by saying that my logic may not be as strong as I thought. But still, I think there are some interesting dimensions to this problem that have not been given enough consideration. I don't like the idea that I have passed out these DEMOS to my friends, as I have, and the fact that someday in the future when I am more well known, these demos could be sold without my approval. I think part of this is the idea that the mere exposure of a piece of music immediately risks its reproduction on the internet, and hence taking it out of the control of the creator.
I still really do think this could be contested, and I still think it is less clear than anyone is saying.