Digital Music Downloads Too Expensive?

threeofnine writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article written by a copyright and technology lawyer asking if we are paying too much for digital downloads. From the article: 'Parallel imports are unavailable in the Australian digital market, however. Australian consumers cannot purchase downloads from iTunes or Wal-Mart in the US, which are often cheaper than downloads available here, without a US-issued credit card. And restrictive licensing conditions imposed by copyright owners also limit the sale of digital downloads across international borders. For both reasons Australian consumers miss out. And retailers cannot buy downloads from overseas and resell them here, even if it is worthwhile for them to do so. In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300 per cent more expensive.'"

Comments

both sides of their mouths.

[yagu]

Interesting key (and somewhat conflicting) points from the article:

This is not the fault of retailers. Prices for digital downloads are based on wholesale prices, and are determined on a territorial basis by record companies based on their perception of what each market can bear

and:

As a border-free environment, the internet was supposed to bring down market barriers. But record companies use the internet to create boundaries and increase protectionism in the market for sound recordings, to the detriment of consumers

So, in addition to lobbying in the United States to encumber music and entertainment beyond any previous restrictions (to the point of unusability if they get their way), the music industry tries to layer artificial geographical artifacts over the internet to further increase their (already obscene) profits. I find it interesting the entertainment wonks get away with this under the "protection of artists and intellectual property" canards juxtaposed next to the argument that many people lose their jobs to outsourcing as a result of the "global economy" and the breaking down of these alleged geographic boundaries.

Seems like those in power define by expedience.

(As an aside, another tasty tidbit in the article:

When will parallel-import laws be extended to the digital market, so that Australian consumers are finally charged a fair price for downloads?

I find this an interesting question -- maybe when Americans are also charged a fair price for music (they aren't today). Sigh.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[TubeSteak]

Those two points aren't contradictory at all.

Both support the assertion that the recording industry is still artificially keeping prices up.

Maybe someone will start up a business to issue low value American credit cards to foreigners so they can buy from iTunes. Even if it makes digital downloads 200% more expensive, there's still a savings.

Stop the RIAA

[zufar]

EFF is collecting signatures to stop RIAA

To The United States Congress: We are the customers and former customers of the member labels of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing....

Let's slashdot the Senate and House Commerce!

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anita Coney]

Actually, in the US it is not illegal. Actually, there is a little known loophole in US law that allows you to import music from outside the US without any copyright violation.

17 USC 602(a)(2) says that "importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time" is NOT infringement.

Thus, if you "import" one song from say, allofmp3.com, or from some other foreign server, for personal use, and do not distribute it to anyone else, the RIAA could not legally come after you.