The argument quoted isn't valid. It's talking strictly of the delivery method for a good that can be delivered many different ways. Same can apply to a CD. But as soon as you take the CD out of the picture, you're onto a different argument entirely.

More appropriate would be whether you're buying an original piece of art, or a lithographic reproduction. Even though it's not as appropriate as I'd like, because the CD itself is also a reproduction.

I've been noticing a lot of arguments for hot topics lately going the way of the analogy to try and put them into some "other" perspective. This isn't necessary though and only serves to cloud the issue in many of these cases.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not devaluing the artistic merit of the music itself, but I'm not getting the same quality music in all circumstances. And I very much place a value on that because it directly affects my current and future enjoyment of my purchase.

With the CD you're pretty much future-proofed as file-based formats evolve. As long as they don't surpass the quality of current CDs of course. With an MP3 you will further alter the content and lose additional quality should you desire to format-shift. One is a master copy and the other a preview copy. Since I'm always on the look out to get CDs for $5, I'm not willing to pay *more* for downloaded altered/compressed copies.

I'd probably be willing to pay as much for FLAC downloads packaged with a high resolution PDF of the cover and liners. But that's not likely to happen due to the fear of someone turning around to mass-produce and sell "reprints"