Earth: Mostly Harmless

And right on cue… …a massive abuse of copyright legislation.

May 30, 2007 on 1:08 am | 1 Comment
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: bpi, british-phonographic-industry, cd-wow, cds, copyright, court, hong-kong, intellectual-property, ip, law, music, music-industry

CD-Wow, the popular online music retailer has been ordered to pay £41m compensation to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) for… buying CDs in Hong Kong and selling them to UK customers, in violation of its 2004 undertaking not to do so.

Hang on a minute. These are legal, legitimate CDs - I know because I’ve bought a few myself.

CD-Wow does, then, pay whatever royalties are due wherever they source the discs from as part of their purchase price. And the CDs, being legitimate, were released by the very record companies themselves (perhaps not the same subsidiary, but branches legally entitled to release the records nonetheless).

So who exactly is getting scammed by CD-Wow’s practices? No-one. And as for the ruling - sounds like it’s the consumer, as usual.

Why do people buy from CD-Wow? Because it’s cheaper. And they’re buying legally, at a time when the music industry is continuing to moan about ‘piracy’. CD-Wow were certainly in breach of the 2004 agreement, but that agreement was an extremely stupid precedent.

The BPI claims that CD-Wow’s tactics undermine “the legitimate businesses of UK retailers and record companies”. I’d like to say a few things on that.

• Your failed business model is not my problem.
• I, as the consumer, should be the judge of retail value, rather than having it decided for me by a cartel
• CD-Wow were among the cheapest retailers. You couldn’t compete. Why should I care?
• Evidently, the music industry charges different prices around the world for a (bit-for-bit) identical product. Silly, but fair enough if people are willing (and foolish enough) to pay the higher prices. But in no way should rights groups be able to stop people importing cheaper-sourced ones abroad.

If someone could please explain to me how the 2004 ruling and its subsequent enforcement possibly advance the free market and/or benefits the consumer in any way, shape or form, I positively beg them to explain it to me.

Answers on a locally sourced cartel-authorized postcard please.