iTunes downloads: too ££?

Fair enough but it's still not like pirating.  There's quite a big difference.  Before eBay and the internet, didn't you ever go to a second-hand record-shop or a car boot sale and buy used records/CDs/tapes? By selling-on the CD/record/tape the original purchaser has relinquished their right to own the album and passed it to you.  In effect they paid the artists rights on your behalf, and the artist hasn't lost out because still only one copy of the album has been sold. That's the huge, very critical difference between re-selling and pirating that I think you need to understand.

I fail to see the distinction.  At least if someone pirates, there is a chance of them loving the music and then going and buying a legitimate CD.  If you buy the music secondhand, the artist makes no money.  Again, not saying you are doing anything wrong, I just don't see the point in second hand music.

Only for deleted music.  I did go through a frustrated period at uni.  I got fed up with buying so many CD's that were rubbish, so would copy from mates and then buy if it was worthy of my cash.  Now with iTunes, spotify and youtube there is not really an excuse for that.

Again, not saying you are doing anything wrong,  but if someone creates something, you pay for the experience of it, you never own the rights to it.  If you get bored of it, I don't think its right for someone else to get it for free, they too should reward the creator.

Paul, if you can't see the difference, I can't help you. When I buy used records, CDs and tapes - so long as they are originals of course - my conscience is clear. The buyer has passed on their right to own the album quite legitimately to the new buyer, the very same copy of the very same album has just simply been passed on to a new keeper, and the artist, record-company, media-manufacturer, distributor and original retailer are no worse off nor better off than if the original buyer had just kept it. Nothing immoral has taken place.

I do respect your choice to only buy new music, and I respect your reasons, but I don't respect even so much the slightest hint of a suggestion that buying used media is at all like pirating.  You need to recognise the difference.

I'm not questioning the legality of buying second hand music, it's very simple to grasp.  It's also very simple to grasp that piracy and second hand music has the same net gain for the artist.  We seem to be arguing diferent points.   I'm not claiming that second hand music buying is the same as piracy, because I am not claiming second hand music buying is illegal.  I undersrand your point about transfer of ownership.  I am only stating I think it to be pointless, and no better for the artist than piracy in terms of their personal gain.  Hopefully this makes clear my point.

My understanding is, if I buy a second hand CD, I have purchased the rights to listen to the music as well. It's up to the conscience of the seller to not copy it in his/her computer before selling on, not mine.

Well you are Paul, in fact that was the crux of your very first post in the thread. Allow me to quote it for you:

Truth is if you want my opinion you realised you made a stupid statement that you didn't think through before hitting 'submit' and you've been trying to dig yourself out of it since, especially when your original last post on the first page actually said "sorry I thought you were talking about used CDs", or something similar, and you edited it within seconds...

Anyhow...what's the chance of this thread veering back on track and discussing the prices of  iTunes downloads...

Sorry, didn't realise "no better" = "the same".  This is boiling down to an Lhc style debate about semantics.  Yawn.

 

I did edit  because i misread your statement (you edited too,making me post twice cos you wanted to clarify your statement.  Who cares?) but the fundamentals of my point remain the same. I'm not trying to win something here, try re-reading my posts without the assumption I'm 'digging myself out of something' and they should seem reasonable.

 

So buy the second hand CD then send all the money you saved off the price of a new one to the artist. Their cut of the total money you spend will be much bigger that way too.

I like it. Not sure that Paul Hobbs would though, regardless of standpoint.

Back on track, I cannot understand why anyone would buy a higher priced download that is a compressed version of the CD and has had all the artwork and cover notes removed.

Suckers.

Like I said, I respect your choice to always buy new albums, but what concerns me is the fact you don't appear to be able to tell the difference between piracy and passing-on the right to play the same copy of the same album to someone else. I guess it's something you're just going to have to work out for yourself.

And as for paying the artist a second time, well I know it was said tongue-in-cheek, but that wouldn't be appropriate either. If you buy a new car then later sell it, the manufacturer doesn't expect to receive its cut of the sales-price. Feel free to substitute 'car' with 'CD' or anything else you can think of which has the potential to be passed to another keeper and re-used.  The only difference is that CDs can be perfectly duplicated at home (more or less) or streamed illegally, but that's not the debate.

+1 to both scoot and Overdose.

 

Gotta side with the Major on this one. There's no distinction between CDs and any other goods that might be sold second hand. If you buy, for example, a second hand CD player the object gets passed on and the designer / manufacturer / retailer only gets their one initial payment. I suppose the confusion may lie in the fact that with a CD you get both the physical object and a licence to reproduce privately the intellectual property. The best analogy might be a book. IF someone copies the data on the CD (or photocopied the book) then people would lose out. But this is not the responsibility of the second purchaser, it is that of the seller. Whenever I've sold CDs (be it tat at car boot sales or rarities online) I have never kept a copy. No different from buying and selling second hand hifi. 

I got into the hole iTunes thing in a big way, i had Apple TV's in every room with TV's and had iPod docks in 3 rooms, Apart from sync problems i had with Apple TV and some download problems with iTunes i found myself questioning what the devil was i doing.

Firstly i was paying more for films and music in a lower res and to top it of you had to pay extra for the storage, so for instant a HD movie of iTunes would cost £14 then the extra 4gig of storage would push an extra £2 ontop of the film, then to top it of when you have finish with say a TV series or a film you may not like you can't sell it on.

All Apple TV's apart from which will be going soon have been sold on and been replaced with Sony Blu Ray players which cost me half the price and all films are now brought in Blu Ray.

The iPod dock in the living room has been replaced with a Yamaha HiFi system so i can start listening to CD's and i can rip what i need 

Yep a dose of common sense is not a bad thing, especially if you want more functionality than iTunes, iPods and docks will give you. Even if iTunes offered true lossless 16/44 downloads, it would still often be cheaper to actually buy the CD and rip it. I will continue to buy CDs, both new and used, until true hi-res downloads become standard. I won't hold my breath.