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.