What's That Got to Do with the Price of CDs in China? (Or You Don't Need a 2nd Title)

I can't be bothered to dig it up, but there was a thread some time ago. I don't remember what it was about but, in it, people were complaining about the price of CD's. It was then someone made the point that you're not paying for the CD, but the rights to listen to the music. It made sense at the time, but now I have an argument against that.

If you were indeed paying for the rights to listen to the music contained in a CD, you would be allowed to take your old records, eight tracks, tapes, and MD's into a music store and trade them straight up for the CD version of the same album. Seeing as how you already paid for the rights to listen to them, you're only upgrading the medium. The fact that you can't do this only proves you're paying for the CD and its packaging which makes it ridiculously overpriced.

Now, if you got to a used music store and give them a CD, they'll give you a dollar or two in return which you can use to purchase other CD's in the store. So, I'll agree that the rights to listen to the music contained on the CD are worth a dollar or two. This still leaves $18 you're paying for the CD and its packaging.

Indidentally, I saw a copy of Fantastic 4: Rise Of The Silver Surfer in Wal-Mart when it first came out. They advertised that if you purchase the DVD, you can download the movie online for $1.99. Why would you pay two dollars to download a movie you just bought? Why would they charge you to download it if you already paid for the rights to watch it?

The entertainment industry needs to make up its mind. Are we paying for the material or the rights to listen to/view the content? If we're paying for the latter, they need to start some kind of exchange program. I no longer have an MD player and I want a CD version of my prerecorded MD.

Anything to line the pockets of the head honchos of each company. It's the same as releasing original and deluxe editions of music albums. Why the hell would someone wanna buy the original when the deluxe has so much more for a couple dollars extra? It's simple marketing. Take 2 items, however make one better, raise the price a bit, and people will still flock to the more expensive item.

The problems you are listing comes from an out-of-date view of property. Digital media no longer deals strictly in that fashion and so you can't just treat it as property that one can sell or trade or whatever.

The examples you give only show how shoddy the RIAA is at justifying doing what they do. People found a way to (albeit illegally) mass duplicate their produced material and share it quickly. I still think it's illegal, akin to say, you buying a bunch of empty tapes and copying legit cassettes. However and obviously, it's more complicated than that.

I should seriously follow some RIAA court transcripts, if they can be found. If somebody knows how to find any or has some, gimme a shout.

i dont think we are buying the rights to the music as much as we are buying the object that contains the music. if it was the rights to listen to the music we were buying then anyone who did not pay for the cd would not be aloud to listen to it.

ive always thought with the 2 cds i boguht in my lifetime i was buyinmg the object not the rights. if it was the rights then if the cd breaks im aloud to go and download it seeing as i bought my rights to listen to it whenever i want.

as for buying the movie online for 2 bucks are you sure it wasnt download the soundtrack of the movie for 2 bucks? i mean thatd make more sense but if that isnt the case then it was just poor marketing really.

The ad said, "Download this movie for $1.99 with the purchase of the DVD." I have to assume that means the movie and not the soundtrack. The question is why someone would pay to download a movie they just bought when it's quicker and free to just rip it.

The industry doesn't care about why they need to justify how much you pay for CDs, they want money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ceej

The ad said, "Download this movie for $1.99 with the purchase of the DVD." I have to assume that means the movie and not the soundtrack. The question is why someone would pay to download a movie they just bought when it's quicker and free to just rip it.

---

well you could jsut buy the movie buy the download then sell then either return the movie or if you cant sell it to a store that buys games and movies. you just boguth a very cheap movie. see the word trys to rip you off but theres always a way to rip them off as well.

Is a CD like some kind of big MP3 file or...?

--Edit: This is a CD. It's a physical disc that has the music on it, not a digital file.--

I think it's more like you're buying one license to listen to the music. I don't know if any of you are familiar with computer software over official networks (like schools and offices), but with most programs you only have one license for one machine. If you want to install it on another machine you're supposed to buy another license (whether or not it's tied to physical copies).

With music I'm thinking it's the same thing. You buy a CD, that's a one-shot license right there. If you lose it and have to get another one, that's your fault. If you have a record that's identical to the cd and you want to 'trade', it obviously doesn't work that way. Need a new license.

As for the movie download thing, it's likely another license that you're getting for the right and ability to download and view an official piece of video.

The cost of CD albums is a balance of the license and the physical form. CDs really don't cost that much. Even in Bermuda, where stuff is expensive, I can buy a roll of 50 CD blanks for about $30. The average CD album here costs $20.

I'm unable to officially purchase music off of places like iTunes, but I wonder if someone can compare this for me/the thread:
Cost of buying an entire recent album off of iTunes (or similar service)
vs
Cost of buying the CD of the same recent album in a store.

I would really like to know.

JKTrix is on the right track with the license stuff, but when you buy a CD, or pay to download you're also paying for all the work that went into making the album. Recording an Album generally isn't cheap. Neither is all the marketing on the part of the label, or the costs to distribute the album across the continent and internationally, as well as the artists cut and the profit margin worked into it for the label, and the margins added by the retail store.

The actual cost of the CD is very low, but the costs involved in making the content and getting it somewhere you can purchase it are generally quite high, particularly compared to how well (or rather, how poorly) some albums will sell. I'm not sure why people are still complaining about this though. CD prices have come down a lot in recent years; to the point that I've seen some selling for as little as $14 when they're brand new. Not that much more than buying online, plus you get a physical copy with the album art (something I like to have personally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

I'm unable to officially purchase music off of places like iTunes, but I wonder if someone can compare this for me/the thread:
Cost of buying an entire recent album off of iTunes (or similar service)
vs
Cost of buying the CD of the same recent album in a store.

I would really like to know.

---

Hmm, I got an album for $10 off iTunes recently, costs twice that much in the store.

Everyone knows it's a scam to keep artists starving while they trudge under crappy contracts and to keep the masses believing they really need to spend so much~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rengori

The industry doesn't care about why they need to justify how much you pay for CDs, they want money.

---

I've got to agree with this. I think that the price of CDs is really quite ridiculous which is part of the reason why I don't tend to buy them. I don't listen to a great deal of music to begin with (certainly nothing that's being released these days), I'm fairly frugal with my money and I just don't see £10 as being a worthy investment, quite frankly.

What JKTrix said makes sense about the whole 'licence' to listen to the music and I'd agree with that analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

--Edit: This is a CD. It's a physical disc that has the music on it, not a digital file.--

---

Wonderful what we can do nowadays ;)

These are all good points. Well... Everything after my last post, anyway.

By the way, why did the title of my thread get changed? It was grammaitically incorrect on purpose. It still is, by the way. If you're going to make CD plural, you add an apostrophe between the D and the S. It was a play on, "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China," with CD sounding like "tea." So, if someone could go in there and remove that S so as to return the title of the thread to its original state, I would appreciate that. Also, all my words were capitalized and now the smaller words aren't. These little things kind of bother me.