OK, So I know most people equate the two, and really, they're in the same boat in a lot of different cases, but the thing is, the MPAA is different to the RIAA. What I mean by that is, for a movie that costs 20 million dollars and two years to produce, it costs you about $25 for two DVDs filled with extra features. I got two DVDs for $15 each for movies that are slightly new (Incredibles and Pirates). I also got two CDs for an average of $25 (new Soilwork and Lacuna Coil), which I thought I did pretty well at (you get em at $20 if you do really well).
Here's the difference: 20 million dollars, a couple of years, a hundred odd people, and practically a day's worth of content, including a complete musical score, commentary, acting, etc. Sometimes you even get these separately (as in, the musical score by itself). This is incredible value when compared with a CD. What you get with a CD is a work of 20 thousand dollars in a couple of months, by about 10 odd people. You get about an hour's worth on a CD. Does it make sense that it's costing you more for the CD than the DVD? It doesn't to me.
Don't get me wrong, the MPAAs ridiculous screwy secure HD intiative is totally fucked up, and shows some idiotic minds at work behind the scenes there, but you simply can't argue that value for money wise, a DVD is a lot better than a CD. You can't even argue on content here, because an excellent DVD can equal the impact of an excellent CD, and recording artists have gotten lazy from years of image building and "cool" over skilled audio.
So like nathan said "fuck computers" and bought... a mac, I'm saying "fuck music", and I guess I'm going hunting for something that makes music worth it again.