How often can you be charged for the same product ?

[Rik Meleet]

Back in 1973 I bought Pink Floyd's album "dark side of the moon". I paid for the vinyl, the music and the copyright of the artist's work. I paid for everything so I could legally listen to the music.

Then the CD's were invented by Philips and in the 1980's a lot of albums were "digitally remastered" to compact discs. Apparently these shiny discs were virtually indestructable and would last at least 100 years. Since I feared my vinyl album could get scratched or break I went out and bought the Pink Floyd compact disc "dark side of the moon". I paid for the material, but I also had to pay again for the copyright - but I had already paid in 1973 for that. I had already paid to be allowed to listen to those specific songs. I was doubly charged here.

In the 21st century we got a DVD-player. I want Pink Floyd's "dark side of the moon" on DVD. Do I need to be charged a 3rd time for the same copyright ?
It makes you wonder; how many times can a person be charged for the same product?? And is this fair? Should people that own a vinyl copy of an album and have thus already paid for the copyright be charged for the material and production-cost of the disc or DVD only?

Inspired by aimeeandbeatles' mp3 download thread

 

[Godwynn]

Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.

You bring up good points, but I do think if you repurchase the product the second payment should cover the costs of the materials needed to produce the second item. If we go down that route then we have to chop up costs, what is the payment for the actual musical property and what is the payment for the materials. However for expediency it would be easiest to just purchase the music again.

 

[GenMarshall]

You should be charged for the same product.

 

[wicshade]

if im not mistaken every so many years the producers have to renew the copyright or else anybody can copy and distribute it, not sure how long it is but i think for books it is like 30 to 40 years.

and the producer probably had to buy a new copyright every time the rereleased the product, im not certain on this but i think you would find this to be the case.

 

[Perfection]

Well if you own a music store, like a whole crap ton.

 

[emzie]

You weren't charged three times for the same product. You were charged three times for the same content. Very different.

 

[warpus]

Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.

You bring up good points, but I do think if you repurchase the product the second payment should cover the costs of the materials needed to produce the second item. If we go down that route then we have to chop up costs, what is the payment for the actual musical property and what is the payment for the materials. However for expediency it would be easiest to just purchase the music again.

I agree; but then if you buy a CD you have already paid the copyright for.. all you should have to pay is $2 at most... if all you're paying for is materials.

I agree with the OP - when you buy a CD or a DVD, you are paying not for the materials.. you are paying for the right to listen to the music.. you are paying for the copyright.

There is a cost associated with mass-production of CDs, but yeah.. it's not that much.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you would have properly maintained your original album and record player, you would have only needed one purchase.

 

[taper]

When I buy a CD, the first I do is rip to a lossless format on my computer. This will let me record to whatever media might be invented in the future. I paid for a license to listen to this music, and I intend to do that without ever having to paid for the same content again. And yes, this is perfectly legal for personal use.

 

[JonnyB]

How often can you be charged for the same product ?

As many times as you are willing to pay for it.

 

[Shylock]

1. Nobody forced you to buy anything.
2. The DVD has more stuff than the CD or the record, so it has new stuff.

 

[warpus]

If you would have properly maintained your original album and record player, you would have only needed one purchase.

What you need and what you are legally entitled to are two entirely different things.

 

[LordRahl]

What you need and what you are legally entitled to are two entirely different things.

Not according to communists...

 

[JollyRoger]

What you need and what you are legally entitled to are two entirely different things.

You are legally entitled to the copyrighted material in the medium that you purchased it. If you want it in another format, legal entitlement to that copyrighted material in the other format is going to cost you something.

 

[Stapel]

Rik,

I doubt you bought any albums in 1973. But you very well might have bought albums from 1973.

Anyway, I simply download whatever I have on vinyl (a lot) from the internet. That's as legal as you get it, not?

 

[warpus]

You are legally entitled to the copyrighted material in the medium that you purchased it. If you want it in another format, legal entitlement to that copyrighted material in the other format is going to cost you something.

That might be the letter of the law (perhaps), but it was not the original spirit of the law.

 

[JollyRoger]

That might be the letter of the law (perhaps), but it was not the original spirit of the law.

The law was developed before the digital age when there was more of a physical cost to reproducing copyrighted material. Certainly, if you lost a book or a record, you would not have had an expectation of it being replaced for you. You would likely have expected to pay full price for the replacement. In the digital age, you are getting the material in a more flexible format. You are getting better quality of sound as technology develops and you are getting more mobile and flexible use of the material as technology moves forward. Why should you get more flexibility and higher quality for free?