See, this is my annoyance...
"they charged £7.99 on iTunes and £7.49 on Amazon - both higher than the £7.32 average CD cost in 2010"
I'm not advocating piracy (and can't we get a better name for it than that - it's not the same as real piracy in any way) of course, but I frequently go on to iTunes looking to buy a CD, often not a new release, and find it for x amount. If I then look for an actual physical CD, I can often find it on Amazon or any number of other outlets (even high street ones) for less than x, including shipping. Often for half of x as I did recently for an (out of embarassment) unnamed 70s/80s "best of" CD..
In what world is it worth paying double for music that is of technically lower audio quality with no physical backup?
Yes, I could burn the AACs to a CD, but then that costs me more to make the backup. And yes, I know that the iTunes 256kbps AACs sound fine, and I can't actually tell the difference between them and CD-ripped WAVs, but what happens in 10 years time when we all decide a new audio format is needed, and we have to transcode? I'd rather have the CD and re-rip than have to transocde, so for me, the digital download content has LESS value than the physical product.
You can repeat this exercise with movie content, eg: Harry Potter 7 part 2:
£10 to download on iTunes or
£14 for 3D BluRay, (seperate) 2D BluRay, DVD copy, *and* a digital copy from iTunes
Seriously, what is better value there? I don't think it's the iTunes route.
Seems to me that the legal methods would get more traction if they actually looked at the real value of the offering. It's less than a physical equivalent, and it costs them a lot less than a physical equivalent, and so they should sell it for less than the physical equivalent.
I'm not saying it has no value - I don't think many (sane) people would argue that, but really, it's not worth MORE than it was when it was a "real" thing.