So who's going to wipe all their MP3 player copies.

[BearTricks]

I agree that the artist deserves to be paid for their work, but the problem is that digital technology is creating a world in which the old model of recording and releasing a physical product is no longer a viable strategy. I think the abject failure of Jay Z's 'Tidal' app, after being endorsed by a number of high profile artists, proved that a lot of the music industry is digging its heels in because they can't see a way forward that doesn't heavily favour the consumer rather than the artist without a complete overhaul of the recording industry.

It's far too easy to download music either cheaply or illegally these days. I don't really listen to much music, and when I do I tend to use Spotify or the radio. I pay for Netflix monthly, but when I was a teenager and somehow had much more disposable income than I do now, I bought a CD on most weekends. Today I really can't justify spending money on music, so I just don't listen to it. That would probably be unthinkable to my 16 year old self but he didn't have bills to pay (And timber to buy).

 

[JakeS]

I also think that once you've paid for it then you should be able to maintain that. So for example I bought a CD in 1986 and now it won't play, I should be able to obtain a copy of the CD for the cost of the CD and not pay all the other fees again. The same should be true for films. If I bought a VHS film in 1980 then I should be able to get a DVD or Blu ray version without having to double pay the artists and studios and taxes etc

I think this is a issue harder to justify.
If you buy a car a part of the cost is design, R&D, advertising etc, if you then crash it would you expect to buy another one without those costs ?
Also products like DVD and Blu-Rays are significantly different to an original VHS, you're buying a better quality product and one with added features like menus and possibly added content too, so not really 'like for like'.

I would agree with you that a DVD or BluRay version of a film I own on VHS is pushing it, but I do absolutely agree that if I buy a CD and then after a while it doesn't play, the record company should morally replace it for me for the cost of the CD and postage alone.

Why? Because the whole reason I'm supposedly not allowed to copy that music to MP3 and listen to it on my phone is that buying the physical CD only gets me ownership of the physical media and a license to the music, not ownership of the music itself. Which is fine, and I don't mind the situation and I don't have anything against paying for CDs and all that... right up until the point that the record company expects me to pay again for the license that I already paid for to the same music just because their supposedly-indestructible compact disc format turned out to not be so immortal as they predicted it would be in the eighties and actually a load of CDs just randomly fail over time. I still have the license, I still paid for the license, but because of the realities of physical media I can no longer actually exercise that license.

I'm happy to pay for the reproduction costs of the CD and the postage costs, I'm happy to re-use the case and insert and booklet that I already have, they don't need to send me that again. I'm not happy to pay again for a license that I already have because the industry is happy to have its cake and eat it regarding what I do and do not own when I buy a CD.

Comparing it to a car part is a spurious argument for two reasons.

Firstly because I'm quite happy to pay for the physical element that actually failed.

Secondly... well, if I demanded that Nissan send me a replacement gearbox if the gearbox on my car failed, that would incur quite significant manufacturing and material costs on their part. If I made my own replacement gearbox from my own materials in my own time, Nissan wouldn't care in the least. If the record companies allowed me to make copies of my CDs to MP3 format and keep them on my computer and/or phone, the cost to them would be zero, I'd still be only listening to the music that I have a license to and I'd still be paying for that license, and that's all the record company should care about. Instead they want that facility to be illegal, because like that they can charge me again for another duplicate license in order to download the MP3 from iTunes or Amazon or whatever to my PC, and another duplicate license in order to have it on my phone... meanwhile I can still only realistically listen to that music once at the same time.

the music industry is digging its heels in because they can't see a way forward that doesn't heavily favour the consumer rather than the artist

Let's be honest, the recording music industry doesn't give two spiky fruit about the benefits to the artist. If they did, they wouldn't be taking more than twice as much profit off of each CD sold according to that BBC breakdown!

In other industries I've seen similar breakdowns for it's never been the case that any single entity gets a larger cut of the RRP than the retailer* or the taxman. That the recording industry apparently awards themselves more money from the sale of a CD than the retailer gets or the taxman gets or the artist gets kind of demonstrates that they're digging their heels in because they can't see an alternative way forward that heavily favours them.

* (Noting that the retailer's "cut" also covers the discount they probably have to offer in order to be competitive...)

 

[Steve Maskery]

I have to say that I am quite heartened to see that there is such a good understanding of Intellectual Property being displayed in this thread.
As a creator of specialist IP (I wish I had the market size of any mainstream musician!) I get quite disheartened when I see my work copied (as I know it is) with the attitude "I bought it, I can do what I like with it". And I agree that anyone who has bought the original can copy it for their own use on one of their other devices. I certainly don't object to people doing that with my discs. Copying them, keeping that on a device and then selling off the original is another thing altogether.

At the end of the day, people will carry on making IP just because they have it in them, and some people will recognise it's value and pay up and others will recognise its value and steal it. Such is the way of the world.