As far back as I can remember, music companies have been telling us that CDs are so expensive because a very large part of the money goes into royalties for the artist(s) and promotions. Well, that's what they'd say (and I'm not disagreeing on this point) to explain why CDs cost about $10 to $12, The cost of the blank CD is just about two bits. Well, if that's the case, I'd like to see the RIAA come up with standards on two points.
One: the cost of a double CD should be the same (or virtually the same) as that of a single CD (at least here in India, double CDs cost just about twice as much as a single CD). After all, I for one can't see the music company paying the artist twice the royalty on every CD sold, just because it's a double CD. And they probably don't spend more on promotions in these cases. Two: if I damage an original CD, why should I have to fork out the complete price for a new CD to replace it? There should be a provision by which if I return the original, damaged CD, I should be able to get a new copy of the CD at, say, a tenth (or even a fifth) of the sale price. After all, the physical component of the CD doesn't cost them that much, does it?
As of today, if I feel that my CD is getting scratched badly and won't last long, I can at least back it up to my hard drive in the MP3 format - or even write myself a new copy via my CD-R. But their latest move is to make sure that my computer won't even be able to recognize the CD - to prevent music piracy. Well, there goes my last hope down the drain. So, my only option is to fork out the complete price for a new CD. I believe the word is: loot.