Wednesday, September 15, 2004 :
I-Tunes
What do you think about the idea that I–Tunes (whizzy though it is) is totally ripping off the British public by charging 79p to download a song when this only costs 67p in France and Germany (and 55p in the US)?
UK customers are barred from purchasing from the European or US sites by the requirement that payment be made by a credit card registered to an address in one of those countries. With no shipping costs involved, what is the real justification for this? My guess is that they would plead copyright restrictions, tax rules or the need to fight credit card fraud. But in relation to France and Germany, at least, why is this not against the free market principles for which the common market is supposed to stand?
On a similar note, I was somewhat annoyed recently when I wanted to buy a digital download from Amazon. I would be paying by credit card. I would download over the internet. The amazon.co.uk price was more–or–less in pounds what the amazon.com price was in dollars. On putting my credit card details into the US site, I was told that European customers were not allowed to order digital downloads from the US. What a rip off. Result? I said stuff it and decided I might as well just buy the hardcover edition and get it shipped.
The internet is obviously a force encouraging global competition in a worldwide marketplace, because it allows price comparison and sometimes purchase across national boundaries. Aren’t attempts by companies to restrict this (whether it be under the guise of copyright restrictions or whatever), basically attempts to continue to partition the world market, with a view to restricting ‘virtual’ parallel imports and to continuing to rip customers off as much as possible?
Interesting point about the levy. But I can't help feeling that it's reaching a little bit to ascribe cheaper legal music downloads via PC's in Europe to the fact that Europeans are already charged a levy on their PC purchases, effectively to compensate artists for the illegal downloading of music in breach of copyright to the detriment of the artists that the law-makers have deemed a consequence of the sales of the PCs. Are we suggesting that the extra money charged on the UK downloads goes into a similar fund to compensate artists for illegal downloads? I bet it doesn't. Anyone?
« Home
want more?