Slashdot Mirror
CD Price-Fixing Suit Ruling
Jay Langhurst writes "As the AP reported Friday, if you filed a claim before March 3, 2003 online or otherwise you'll be getting a gift in the mail from those monopolistic music companies in the form of a check for about $13!"
Not quite. A large part of the single song price is convenience-- it increases apple's costs significantly to offer single songs. If you want to buy an album through the iTMS, you'll pay (for almost all albums) approx. $10.
For to end yet again.
$75.7 million/5.6 million CDs = $13.52 per CD. But isn't that the 'fixed' price for CDs? Wasn't this suit about how they should be priced much lower?
This strikes me much like the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case that had them distributing several hundred milliion dollars worth of software and operating systems to schools. In that case, it was a little bit more blatant, since it was obviously an attempt to use the settlement to undercut Apple's education market without fear of repercussions. In both, though, the settlement is for an inflated dollar value that doesn't really reflect the cost of the product they're distributing.
-T
No...this is the standard thing you see in the back of magazines (usually Parade) all the time.
When you signed up as a claimant, you accepted the terms of the settlement. You said "Yes, the state attorneys general came up with a solution that I find to be adequate".
As pursuant to that, you can't personally do anything else against the industry in terms of price fixing....When you registered, the issue became closed to you.
Me? I haven't bought a CD in years. This money is going into an iPod, so I can play all those lovely 192 kbps mp3s....yummm....
(or maybe tuition....heh)
Just a heads-up, I'm biased as I work at a record store...
The Eagles just released a single and instead of selling it through everybody, they only are selling it through one retailer! So even though the "price fixing" lawsuit finished, by selling through only one retailer, the music consumer ends up paying a higher price because the retailer doesn't have to compete for business. Using this Eagles single and the new Metallica as an example:
The new Metallica: loads of competition. Best Buy price for first week: 9.99. Wholesale price to record stores (and Best Buy): 11 bucks and change. Net Margin? Negative!
The Eagles DVD single. no competition. Best Buy price: 6.99. Wholesale price to record stores (and Best Buy): 4-5 bucks. Net Margin? 28-40%
Also, compare the price of that DVD single with others --- a lot of DVD singles have run only a couple of bucks (heck, the last McCartney DVD single was actually FREE to encourage people to buy the full length) --- so in this case the manufacturer actually raised their price also because there would be no competition on it.
The frustrating thing about this is that the Eagles are directly responsible - they made this big deal about leaving all the major record companies - but when they did, they made even worse decisions than the major record companies did - independent record stores like mine are locked out from selling the record, while the one major company makes big bucks on it. Considering all the BS Don Henley gives about fighting corporations and such, he's just a washed up hypocrite.
This lawsuit and subesquent settlement has nothing to do with losing money due to P2P trading, so please don't try to associate the two. The RIAA has been ordered to pay damages that were caused when they conspired to raise prices of a commodity without the knowlege of the general public. Once again, that's CONSIPIRACY, which is ILLEGAL .
You're right about the way people steal music (to a point), but it's not hurting the RIAA as much as they want the public to believe. Hell, I'm a musician, and I think sharing .mp3 files is GREAT!.
As far as people creating their own music, some can, some can't. For example, I have a pretty good sense of rhythm and meter; my Dad is so devoid of rhythm that many a family member has joked about my being the "mailman's child." I love him, but I can only imagine what horrors he'd unleash if he were left to his own design for musical entertainment.
And since I'm already here anyway, please tell me what you meant here:
The creators can music do not have to give the rights that they do not want to give.
Mom says my
In the ultimate move of spite, take the $13 the RIAA is settling with and give it back to Jesse Jordan, the student who's life savings was taken by the RIAA in a "symbolic move." It's his money, we're just giving it back to him.
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
And i never signed the form, does that mean i can still sue?
I have over 500 LEGAL cds in my collection. I am owed more then a tiny 13 dollars.
---- Booth was a patriot ----