Are We Being Ripped Off?

[DSJR]

I read that the Beatles' catalogue is regarded as EMI's "Crown Jewels," in other words, a cash cow for the record company. A shame that ALL digital releases don't get the TLC that the Beatles' recordings had in recent years.

I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.

[Themis]

I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.

Well, LPs produced now are still cheaper than the equivalent CD issues. For instance, the last Pacebo is cheaper as a LP (with the DVD in it) than the same CD+DVD pack.
Go figure...

[Rare Bird]

I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.

Dunno dave the music i buy i have to import, without the shipping your talking £14 quidish..

[webby]

I downloaded loads of Beach Boys stuff from the Smile sessions from a fan blog. You can't buy that stuff, so it's not stealing, it's sharing. Listening to that has given me a greater appreciation of the Beach Boys which has lead to more actual purchases of theirs and Brian Wilson's CDs. So, go figure.

[Griffster]

Webby, a mate of mine introduced me to the Zappateers forum which operates on a similar principle. If it was ever released by Zappa then it's a big no-no, but anything else, bootlegs, interviews, TV footage etc, which hasn't ever been available to buy, then it's "there for the share". I applaud this approach, it shows respect for the artist.

For what it's worth, I wholly support everything that was said in the letter. I believe that artists deserve to be paid for their music. But I also think that the record labels have demonstrated time and again that they are greedy, and the perceived legitimisation of downloading and torrents is the direct result. The record labels are reaping what they've sown and deserve every bit of it.

Stuff 'em!

For the record, I don't actually illegally download music, I prefer to own the physical media, with a few exceptions bought through iTunes in the past.

[webby]

One point of the letter that really got me thinking was that of remasters and why we buy them when we own the original recordings, be that on CD or LP.

I've bought remastered CDs by U2, Simple Minds, and The Beatles amongst others. I'm sure there are many here who have bought many, many more. Why is a recording remastered? Seems to me an admission that the original wasn't mastered as good as it could have been. Or of course newer technology enables to improve the master. I don't know the technicalities of it to be fair. However, the question remains; why do we have to pay twice?

Recently, iTunes introduced iTunes Plus; a bit rate of 256kbps (less the DRM) instead of the previous 128kbps. If you'd purchased tracks at 128, you could upgrade them to 256 for a nominal fee. 30p I think it was, so roughly 35% premium for twice the quality.

I'd love to take back my U2 CD's and exchange them for the remasters and pay my £3!

[Rare Bird]

Lee i wouldnt give one pence for a MP-3 download.

[webby]

I have bought iTunes tracks before but I got a £15 voucher when I bought 2 CD's in Sainsburys once.

Obviously it's the idea of the upgrade price I was highlighting.

[Peter Galbavy]

Is it not true that if a product hasnt had it's patent re newed for over ten years anyone can copy the design! I was also under the impression if a certain album hasnt had a re-issue for over the same period it's public domain! So why is illegal to down load a 40 year old album thats been deleted with no re-issues since the 70's?

Nope. The area of IP (Intellectual Property) is a hobby of mine. I am not a legal professional so anything I say may be worth what you paid for it. That said, there are a number of different types of protection in the UK which is nicely summarised in the title of the primary legislation in use, the "Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1984". This has been supplemented and enhanced over the years but fundementally Copyright exists in works which are "creative" while patents exist on "inventions". Design and Database rights also exist with specific focus.

In history Copyrights were first issued AFAICR in the reign of Liz I as a social contract to allow authors and publishers the protection of the law which up until then was a free for all. The idea being that if you publish a work then you get legal protection for a number of years in *exchange* for that work becoming public domain after that time. Patents have a longer history and are about giving someone an exclusive to exploit a specific technology for a time period.

IMHO the problem of Copyrights in this day and age is the "Disney effect" where large media companies have lobbied internationally for ever increasing timescales for protection without the flip-side of the work becoming public property,ever. The original timescales of about 17 years (I am not sure what the very early timescales were) was about half the working life of the author/publisher, but now for most works it's 90 year longer than the life of the original creator. Hmm.

Oh, in the UK there is no defense of "Fair Use" unlike in the US and some other countries. By ripping a CD you are effectively breaking terms of the CDPA. It's the elephant in the room for the media companies, and this is one reason they really want to get us downloading rather than buying physical media because thenthey can start lobbying for enforcement against ripping CDs at home.

[Rare Bird]

Are you saying that if i rip all my CD to FLAC files i'm breaking the law?

I'm also breaking the law downloading a 40 year old vinyl burn thats never had a CD released or a vinyl re issue for around 30 years?