Why are downloaded cd's so expensive? Is it a rip-off?

[microstrip]

I guess I find it hard to be passionate about plastic, aluminum and inferior file formats. Music to me is about the music itself, and the quality. And if I can get it in a superior format that occupies no physical space, can be easily cued up with a mobile GUI etc, it works for me!(...)

I feel happy it works for you. But please remember some of us are not passionate about plastic, aluminum and inferior file formats. We are passionate about the music we bough at a certain place, that has some emotional connection for us, at some specific moment. We shared this plastic and aluminum disc with friends, we took it to music sessions in their music systems. For me , music, and BTW, audio, are social activities, that connect me with friendly people. Next Christmas, I will offer nice CD albums (good music, also probably with nice covers) beautifully packed to several people. Sorry, but I can not find any pleasure sending them links to download sites.

The times are changing, surely. I must say that I have more music (CDs and LPs) than time to listen to it. And I confess rituals increase my listening pleasure. YMMV.

But I am seriously considering a music server ...

 

[Blizzard]

thats his opinon thats why.. bit extream but ultimately its the music thats important and he is right. i am fond of my cds in a way but because of their content. i dont get all teary eyed when i see one in a bin or on the street.

i read his statement and found it a little abrasive too but thats blizzards style to communicate in absolute statements. maybe its a bit lazy of him but thats hardly a crime and certainly not something to get so up tight about.

a bit of a jolt now and then is good so dont go a changeing Mr B.

I actually threw my 300 CD collection in the garbage after burning to disk. Good riddance. The Rega Planet 2000 CD player which was the last one I owned was enough to turn me off CD's for life when it skipped every time I cranked it up. I remember watching this this back in the 90's and thinking WOW, I sure can't wait until this becomes mainstream!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXRZX6vOctM

 

[microstrip]

I actually threw my 300 CD collection in the garbage after burning to disk. (...)

Is is legal? Aren't you obliged to keep proof of ownership because of the copyright of the music?

 

[amirm]

Is is legal? Aren't you obliged to keep proof of ownership because of the copyright of the music?

It is legal (in US). The proof is only needed if you are challenged. And no one is going to challenge you. Companies don't want to go after their customers who pay their bills. They will go after obvious violators that are sharing the bits on networks and such. And when they have knowledge of such violations.

 

[still-one]

Is there a license anyway for music? Maybe it is buried in the registration process but I buy a ton of music and other than Pono, none of them make me accept any kind of license. The entire process is a "buying" process form shopping cart to purchase. If so in US are protected by first sale doctrine and can choose to sell the downloads anyway.

.

Lucky you aren't someones lawyer. No you are not protected by the first sale doctrine. There is a line drawn between physical and digital media and the courts have ruled on this.

Just because someone is unlikely to go after individual unless they are flaunting the practice or acting commercially does't make it legal. Like others we all decide which laws we choose to break such as speeding, jaywalking, recreational drugs, etc . Stealing music (or anything) is not one I choose to break.

 

[amirm]

Lucky you aren't someones lawyer. No you are not protected by the first sale doctrine. There is a line drawn between physical and digital media and the courts have ruled on this.

No, I am not that lucky. I have lived in that world for more years than I can count. It was not a pleasant part of my job but it was our charter at Microsoft to facilitate the flow of music to our customers at a time when labels were so against digital distribution. I dealt with attorneys on both sides and sat across the record label executives including the head of the labels.

To be clear, to the extent you are not getting content under a license, then it is a purchase and first sale doctrine holds in US. It is the responsibility of the content owner/distributor to mark digital content as being sold to you as a licensed product. If they don't, then the mere fact that it is "digital" does not make it licensed. When music came DRM protected, it always had a license agreement to go with it. Once DRM protection was removed, then folks have become less picky and as I said, I don't see such license agreements.

If you have case law that says all digital content is licensed as such, then I love to read it.

Just because someone is unlikely to go after individual unless they are flaunting the practice or acting commercially does't make it legal. Like others we all decide which laws we choose to break such as speeding, jaywalking, recreational drugs, etc . Stealing music (or anything) is not one I choose to break.

You should not at all steal music. Can't think of a worse combination of being an audiophile and stealing music.

When you buy music and sell it to someone else and erase the copies you have, it does not fit any definition of stealing in my book. Indeed by accident I bought two copies of the same download, one from Prostudiomasters and one from HDTracks. I will say clearly here for anyone who wants to go after me, that I feel no compunction whatsoever from giving away one of those copies to someone else.

And that is the best way to judge the situation. If it feels like stealing then don't do it. Otherwise don't go by stuff you read online. Present company excepted of course.

 

[still-one]

No, I am not that lucky. I have lived in that world for more years than I can count. It was not a pleasant part of my job but it was our charter at Microsoft to facilitate the flow of music to our customers at a time when labels were so against digital distribution. I dealt with attorneys on both sides and sat across the record label executives including the head of the labels.

To be clear, to the extent you are not getting content under a license, then it is a purchase and first sale doctrine holds in US. It is the responsibility of the content owner/distributor to mark digital content as being sold to you as a licensed product. If they don't, then the mere fact that it is "digital" does not make it licensed. When music came DRM protected, it always had a license agreement to go with it. Once DRM protection was removed, then folks have become less picky and as I said, I don't see such license agreements.

If you have case law that says all digital content is licensed as such, then I love to read it.


You should not at all steal music. Can't think of a worse combination of being an audiophile and stealing music.

When you buy music and sell it to someone else and erase the copies you have, it does not fit any definition of stealing in my book. Indeed by accident I bought two copies of the same download, one from Prostudiomasters and one from HDTracks. I will say clearly here for anyone who wants to go after me, that I feel no compunction whatsoever from giving away one of those copies to someone else.

And that is the best way to judge the situation. If it feels like stealing then don't do it. Otherwise don't go by stuff you read online. Present company excepted of course.

This is a good summary. The last cases that hit Federal Courts was in 2013. The EU laws are different.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=nulr

 

[amirm]

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=nulr

Thanks. But that supports my position with this line right at the beginning: "Licensing agreements impose use restrictions on digital content."

As I said this is key. If you were giving a license agreement before buying your music, then you are obligated to the terms within. When you are not, this does not apply. There is no notion here that all digital content is licensed.

If there is something else in there please let me know and I will read it.

 

[still-one]

Thanks. But that supports my position with this line right at the beginning: "Licensing agreements impose use restrictions on digital content."

As I said this is key. If you were giving a license agreement before buying your music, then you are obligated to the terms within. When you are not, this does not apply. There is no notion here that all digital content is licensed.

If there is something else in there please let me know and I will read it.

When are you not given a license agreement when acquiring digital content legally? Apple, Amazon, HDtracks.......

and

In addition, the first sale doctrine does not protect ReDigi’s distribution of Capitol’s copyrighted works. This is because, as an unlawful reproduction, a digital music file sold on ReDigi is not “lawfully made under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). Moreover, the statute protects only distribution by “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord . . . of that copy or phonorecord.” Id. Here, a ReDigi user owns the phonorecord that was created when she purchased and downloaded a song from iTunes to her hard disk. But to sell that song on ReDigi, she must produce a new phonorecord on the ReDigi server. Because it is therefore impossible for the user to sell her “particular” phonorecord on ReDigi, the first sale statute cannot provide a defense. Put another way, the first sale defense is limited to material items, like records, that the copyright owner put into the stream of commerce. Here, ReDigi is not distributing such material items; rather, it is distributing reproductions of the copyrighted code embedded in new material objects, namely, the ReDigi server in Arizona and its users’ hard drives. The first sale defense does not cover this any more than it covered the sale of cassette recordings of vinyl records in a bygone era.

 

[still-one]

After perusing the CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, Plaintiff, VERSUS REDIGI INC., Federal Case I do stand corrected that it appears you can transfer your legally acquired digital content only if you sell the original disc (hard drive) or device (iPod) onto which you loaded the content.

Section 109(a) still protects a lawful owner’s sale of her “particular” phonorecord, be it a computer hard disk, iPod, or other memory device onto which the file was originally downloaded. While this limitation clearly presents obstacles to resale that are different from, and perhaps even more onerous than, those involved in the resale of CDs and cassettes, the limitation is hardly absurd – the first sale doctrine was enacted in a world where the ease and speed of data transfer could not have been imagined. There are many reasons, some discussed herein, for why such physical limitations may be desirable. It is left to Congress, and not this Court, to deem them outmoded.

 

[NorthStar]

That is great; I obey all the ? laws, and use the money from my paychecks to purchase my ? and encouraging the artists who recorded it, and the studio recordings from the music record labels. :b

In a way I am putting bread and wine on the tables of all the people I buy music from. ...I am a good citizen in my country, on my planet. :b

And I have been doing that since age 13, when I was starting to purchase albums (LPs) @ my local Woolworth store for $4.99 each. ...Then the prices went up to $5.99, $6.99, $7.99 and now $49.99.
Digital is inferior but cheaper. ...And you can put it in your iPod and MP3 player...on the go. ...Try to carry your LPs and listen to them on your bike, car, boat, bus, plane and ferry.

 

[asiufy]

Why does it have to be so black-and-white? Why can't people just enjoy both? I mean, I must be some kind of freak for doing just that...

I totally get microstrip's post about the physical item having specific memories attached to them. Before being bit by the audiophile bug, I already loved music, and purchased quite a few pieces, and one of the things I enjoy is just going through my LPs and reminiscing about the chase of one specific item, or the place/situation in which I acquired another LP/CD, etc. This is, to me, as part of the music as the music itself.

*BUT*, I also get folks' willingness to go for the fast route, download, 2 minutes and it's ready to go. I have all my CDs (all 9000+ of them) in our server, and I also enjoy going through that collection with an iPad immensely. It's hugely satisfying to have that much music at your fingertips, or get a tip on a new artists and be able to check it out within minutes, without having to get out of the chair!

So, again, why does it have to be so black-and-white, only one way to go about this?

 

[NorthStar]

I'm seeing lots of colors, and my childhood memories will never die away (when buying those LPs). ...That, is more precious than all the digital pizzazz of the world. It has more value in my life than all black and white Charlie Chaplin silence flicks...almost.
Today you can still visit your thrift stores, and feel like a kid again flipping through the LPs.

* 9,000 CDs is a fair chunk of "rainbow" plastic. But it doesn't smell as good as vinyl. :b ...And digital ? downloads smell nothing, nada.
Music is all about the smell in the atmosphere, the essence in our heart, the emotional impact in our soul.

Two days ago I was holding a mint Beatle's album...the White Album. Try to have the same feeling holding the CD or a digital download...not even close.

 

[NorthStar]

sounds like your descibing my fav pair of underpants i dont care they have holes in them they are my friends

Calvin Klein?

 

[NorthStar]

My mum just called me, and then it's time for my peanut butter/jelly sandwich. :b

 

[James David Walley]

Oh, boy...it seems like there isn't a discussion around that can't be turned into a vinyl versus digital thread by someone wanting to ride the particular hobbyhorse...

I get the point of digital downloads having a high price when it comes to hi-res material unavailable through other media, or rare discs that are pretty much out-of-print (and I have to thank some labels for making such recordings available to download from places like Presto Classical when I'd have had no hope of finding them otherwise). But what gets my goat are cases where Redbook-quality downloads are being offered at prices significantly higher than those for which you could purchase the CDs themselves. One of these instances happened last night. I started thinking about how my Schubert symphony collection was lacking, and decided to research what are currently thought of as high-quality sets. I found that the highly-praised Abbado set was available for download at Presto, at 16/44.1 resolution, for $37.50. Sounds great...until you check Amazon. There, the same set is going for $25.31 -- that's new, from Amazon itself, with free two-day shipping. If you don't mind waiting a few days more, you can get it through a dealer at Amazon Marketplace (once again, a new, sealed copy) for $19.94 -- almost half-off from the download's price. As a matter of fact, I was able to get that plus a "used - like new" copy of the classic Böhm set for a grand total, including shipping, of only about $1 more than I would have paid to download the Abbado alone. Crazy...

 

[Sal1950]

Recordings done by the big commercial labels that sell the CD's for $11 at WalMart, etc. Yes we're getting majorly ripped off by the download sites. Prices should be at least 30, maybe 50% less than the manufactured and distributed hard copies.
Recordings done by small specialty studios and sold in limited numbers to the audiophile, etc. communities; I don't know. Their costs to produce and the volume of sales are all over the board, as are the current selling prices by various labels. But the guys using three or more different pricing levels for 24/96-24/192-and various DSD speeds should be shot, a obvious ripoff. It don't cost a penny to transcode to DSD and if the original recording is DSD it's cheaper. I'm no dummy, stick your DSD.

 

[APP]

Seems to me that if you want to make a real profit the recording business is no longer the right place to do so.
If the prices are over priced where are the price busters of quality recordings?

 

[Kefas]

The new Sound Liaison album, their first purely classical download, but as always impeccable SQ, on introduction sale at the moment, same price, $10, all file types.
DSD as well. That is cheap ;http://www.soundliaison.com/