Not that I want to defend journalists but I can see why they thought this was of special interest. If I give you you a .wav of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, I am g

Not that I want to defend journalists but I can see why they thought this was of special interest. If I give you you a .wav of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, I am gifting you something meaningful - an experience, a feeling of awe, or relaxation or whatever your reaction to listening it will be. I consider that to be of value. If someone asks you "And what did she give you for your birthday" you can say "Stabat Mater! The Kirkby/Bowman recording!" and nobody would ask "Was that a CD or on iTunes"? They would understand both the nature and the intent of the gift. It's yours the same way the CD was yours - you have the ability to listen to it whenever you want at no cost to you. Therefore you, the recipient, continue to derive value. I think the reason the journalist is boggling with the otter thing, is that it appears to be of no value to them, and doubts that it is of any value to the donor either (unlike Aunt Edna's horrid sweater, which while it may not be of any value to Cousin Johnny, it is at least of value to her, and she thinks, albeit mistakenly, that it might be of value to him, and also has a material cost). So I think they are surprised that someone can pay real money to transact something that has no intrinsic value nor any usage value to either the gifter or the recipient. Which does put it in a different category than digital music.