That makes no sense but does play into the hands of the industry. I’d suggest people expect to pay a fair price for equipment and the stuff to play on it. I need food to live but I don’t expect to pay over the odds to eat.
If that’s a Val Doonican record it’s currently in Oxfam along with 20 or so Cliff Richard albums 
1 Like
Food is the same thing though. Go to posh restaurant and you can pay a lot of money for very little food.
Or you can pay a fiver for pudding, chips and gravy!
Technically I believe that in Britain it is illegal to make a copy, regardless of what you do with the original. However i think that in the unlikely event of being caught and prosecuted, the chances of a sognificant penalty are vanishingly small if you still have the original.
1 Like
Fair price is the thing, though, isn’t it?
What makes £6,000 on a set of 6 sockets set in a nice case, “expensive but worth it for the SQ uplift”
yet
" £40 on a record…daylight robbery!"
( Not actual quotes, obviously! )
2 Likes
You’re ignoring my point which is classic social media I guess. Enjoy your £6,000 thingummy
1 Like
Not ignoring…promise. Maybe I missed it.
I’ll re-read.
(I don’t have an M6!) 
Not sure about ‘full ownership of the file’…
For clarity, I’m not saying vinyl is exorbitantly expensive - I’m saying some artists/labels seem to knock out nicely recorded/produced vinyl in decent sleeves/inners at a price which looks like a bargain compared with similar product from other artists/labels. I’m excluding audiophile pressings.
My latest vinyl on On-U Sound cost £22.85 and sounds great. I have a prerelease order in for Robyn Hitchcock at £21.99. Some companies charge roughly twice the price of a CD. Others?
2 Likes
Thanks! 
The price variations of different records are a bit of a mystery to me too if we’re looking at major labels.
1 Like
I think spreading a 40 minute album over two vinyl discs and then charging £40 because it is a “double” is a bit of a swizz tbh, especially in these days of reducing waste. Also some heritage artists charging £40 for albums recorded 40+ years ago seems a bit off as well (I am looking a you Kraftwerk) although I am sure the artist only gets a tiny percentage of this. Does the artist get any say in pricing or is it down the the label?
Not so now, you can make legal personal copies of electronic media you own in the UK. Clearly if you later don’t own that media, then it’s copy must be deleted or it would be unlawful, as you would be violating copyright law protecting the musicians/artists you are listening to.
That is a welcome sensible development!
Nice to see that a modicum of common sense has been applied, though with that change being made exactly a decade ago, it’s fascinating to see people still trying to warn us that it’s illegal!
Mind you, did illegality ever stop ‘home taping’ being a thing?
Building on that theme, has there even been a single prosecution, actual or threatened, of anyone in the UK for copying CDs to MP3 for personal use, even when it was (theoretically) illegal? People can wag their fingers all day about something being illegal, but if the authorities turn a blind eye the concept of illegality becomes meaningless in practice.
Mark
If you have a CD or LP you have bought, do you not fully own that physical thing? (This is irrespective of your one time paid licence to play it whenever you want.) If so, in what way do you not fully own a music album file you have bought, or made? Or are you referring to illegal copies, which the information SiS linked clarifies would only apply to copies where you have disposed of the physical media?
Interesting, when was the change made? Oddly the info doc linked by SiS doesn’t reference the specific regulation or order making the change, so there was no indication that it was a decade ago as you indicate.
The front cover of the document is clearly dated October 2014.
On page three, it states the changes ‘apply from 1 October’.
I make that exactly one decade and 20 days ago!
! I missed that!
1 Like
There was a famous case back in 1981 when Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers were due to release “Hard Promises”. His record company, MCA, wanted to release the album for $9.98, $1.00 more than the normal price for vinyl at the time. Tom Petty refused to let them release the album and eventually MCA agreed. “If we don’t make a stand one of these days records are going to be $20” he said at the time.
I thought that there had been a subsequent ruling that making a digital copy was in fact illegal and that this is technically the current position although not enforced…