CD-Wow, the online retailer, has been hit with a £41million fine for selling CDs sourced in Hong Kong, a breaking of an undertaking it made in 2004.
The cash will go to the BPI, effectively meaning that record companies are being rewarded for ripping off people by enforcing artificially high CD prices in the UK. It'll help offset falling CD sales, which are falling, in part, because people are tired of being asked to pay ridiculous sums of money for pieces of plastic that are sold cheaper elsewhere in the world.
Not, of course, that that's how the BPI sees it:
"CD-Wow is no consumer champion," countered the BPI's chief executive, Geoff Taylor, who said the company had undermined "the legitimate businesses of UK retailers and record companies".
"The vibrancy of British music depends on a fair return on the investments that allow British talent to shine.
"This decision is an important step in ensuring that British music has a bright future."
Yes. How was that again, sorry? Is the implication that British artist's music is sold at a loss in Hong Kong? But that can't be the case, can it? These are legal recordings, and money from a CD goes back to the labels whether the CD is wholesaled in Hong Kong for eventual sale in Leytonstone or Wan Chai.
If the UK record labels have cut poor deals which mean they're not getting a fair return for their investment when tracks are sold abroad, that's hardly the fault of the UK consumer - and why should the UK consumer be forced to pay over the odds to compensate their losses?
If the UK record labels have cut good deals which mean they are getting a fair return on their investment when tracks are sold abroad, there's no problem anyway.
And the consumer could ask "why am I being forced to pay more to cover bad investment decisions by companies?" The BPI often runs out its justification for charging high prices in the UK as saying that it needs to cover the costs of its flops, but why should someone have to pay an extra two quid to buy a record by a band they like because some idiot in an office somewhere decided to pour their company's money into an absolute turkey?
Why don't they ask consumers if that's the way they think it should be? Perhaps they could offer, say, purchasers of a Jackson Browne album the chance to pay a couple of extra quid in order to offset the losses on the Paris Hilton album. If the record labels are convinced that their way of doing things works in the consumer interest, why not put that to test?