Slashdot Mirror
Downloaded Music Gets More Expensive
Reverberant writes "Just as the online music market is starting to gain traction, what to music execs want to do? Why, raise prices, of course! Under consideration is raising the price of online singles up to $1.25 to $2.49, or bundling less desirable tracks with hot singles."
Most albums have 0-1 decent songs on them. I wouldn't mine paying for single songs from albums like that. If the album is decent all the way through, I am going to jsut buy the CD.
Geez louise! That's exactly the problem with CD distribution in the first place! They still want me to believe I need to spend over $ 16 bucks on a disc that I know damn well cost them only $ 0.40 to manufacture and distro. Even with a couple bucks to the artist and the studio, it's overpriced. Then, I have to buy 12 or more songs, of which I'm only ever going to like about 3. Which is why I want my iTunes and MP3s in the first place. I like to be able to take even my legitimately purchased music and reduce it to the set of what *I* want to listen to. Isn't that my right as a consumer? Oh, and let me pick the medium to do it, whether that's my PC, my iPod, or a CD mix I burn for the car...
(and maybe also first post?)
Ich suche die Leidenschaft, die keine Leiden schafft.
Of course the industry wants to bundle bad tracks with good, or to raise the price-- if people just buy what they want, it wrecks their whole business model of investing heavily in a few "artists" and making sure they make it-- if people just listen to the few tracks of the few artists they like, not enough money will be flowing through the system for the execs to skim the requisite off the top. CD sales would go down, and... oh wait ;)
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
They want to charge what the market will bear, so as participants in that market we should refuse to bear their prices.
It's holding steady at $0.00 per song, last I checked. ;-)
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Trying to get me to buy a cd or downloaded music for anything other then $10 when DVDs are loaded with tons of extra for only $15 or so.
Daily Shenanigans
The point you missed here is, competition normally drives prices down. They know this too, thats why they want to artifically inflate prices so they can continue riding high.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Yes, I believe this is called an "album" these days.
Will they ever learn? Having to buy whole albums with only a single good tune was one of the major reasons why online music became so popular, and why P2P is so useful. Downloading single songs is great, costs very little yet delivers exactly what we want.
And now they're going to "bundle" it up again? Force us to get more than what we want with the package, and obviously pay for it?
They'll never learn...
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Even though the record companies have ultimate control over their portion of the price, something inherent as an Apple users tells me that Apple would either lower their profits from each song to keep the price lower, or possibly raise incentives to purchase songs, like giving the Music Store a refreshed look, or increasing play quality as an option for high-speed users.
I truly doubt that Apple would just raise prices to $1.25 without a fight, there is nobody who is more pro-music in the technology sector than Steve Jobs himself.
Let's see: $2.49 x 10 songs = $24.90
And I sort of consider 10 songs to be a short album (unless its classical, jazz, etc..)
Brilliant ideas abound with music execs. CD's cost too much, so lets offer music online that costs even more! Hahaha, I'll enjoy seeing them squirm even more, harping to the newpapers that their sales are declining due to evil pirates.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
Magnatune experimented with what I would term "tipware". Here, you pay a certain amount in excess of a minimum (like at a restaurant) as opposed to donationware where the minimum is $0. Data is available from this, and it might surprise you.
-I am an elective eunuch.
A strategy like this will only serve to discourage legit online music purchases, and throw fuel onto the fire of P2P illegal file sharing.
From the article, it's stated that only one album is at $16.99. Sure, it's a popular album, but it's only one album. And although another handful or so are at the more expensive cost of twelve or thirteen dollars, the vast majority of the albums are at the ten dollar mark. The chances that consumers are going to like an increase in the price of singles is highly doubtful. If we have to, we would only grudgingly.
As for me, I continue to use my Pepsi caps to score free music. Pepsi, not Apple, has gotten my money for music.
Yes, you read that right - online stores just selling downloads are charging *more* than Amazon does for the CD itself (and Amazon typically has free shipping if you get at least $25 worth of stuff). That's seriously ridiculous: while I'm looking at this new "revolution" of pay-for-download music optimistically, I must admit that having the hard copy is still just better. Much better audio quality if you're an audiophile, ability to rip it and do what you want with it, and while the jewel cases suck the little inserted booklets are often pretty handy. Stick the CD and the booklet into your 288 CD binder and you're good to go. Unless they start packaging downloads with nicely designed info files with picures and lyrics and such, I'm not interested.
These record companies are getting absolutely sickening. I mean, the legitimate file sharing companies are making next to no profit thanks to the already high licensing fees from the RIAA. Prices for legitimate songs off these networks is close to the same as buying the CD even though the overhead for distribution is much less, and now they want to raise prices. Keep it up RIAA, can't wait to see your sales go down by another 7% next year.
Birds still fly, fish still swim, and Record Executives^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h wolves still hunt and kill prey.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Is there ANYONE at the top of the music industry who has a clue? Consumers get a chance to get choices and pay half-decent prices. So what does the industry do? Take away the choices (the whole reason why people we're moving to online music) and raise the prices! They want to take away every reason to buy things online. They act like jerks to customers, customers demand something better, something better comes, the industry tries to change it to treat customers like jerks.
What a winning business strategy. QUICK! Call Donald Trump and tell him the great idea!.
Does anyone else get the feeling that music industry execs don't listen to any music? How else could they be so radically out of touch with what they are doing to consumers?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I wish that the RIAA would "get it". Their sibling organization, the MPAA, has at least realised that if the merchandise is inexpensive enough, people will buy it, despite their objections on DRM (region codes) and forced things like the startup commercials. I don't like what the MPAA did to try to get DeCSS, but their products are cheap enough that I feel that I'm getting my money's worth by buying them.
The RIAA charges as much for a CD as the MPAA for a movie. I don't feel that this is worthwhile, and thus I don't buy music, while I'll buy a DVD once a month. There's no reason to charge more than $10 for a regular CD. $17.99 is just ridiculous to expect from someone for twelve songs, with only two of those being particularly memorable.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
This just totally makes me sick. As soon as I feel that the two sides have made some headway in the deal, the music execs are trying to get their grubby paws on the rest of the deal.
;)
This is a slap in the face to Apple and everyone else who joined the online music store business because they feel they were just trying to make a good fair deal (Napster doesn't count because they are sell-outs and Microsoft just wanted to "enforce a standard" of WMV) to both the consumer and industry.
The music industry doesn't need regulation, the music EXECS need regulation. Who wants to regulate?
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Well, it that doesn't inspire and promote piracy, I don't know what will.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
... just like CDs did.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Not crap attached to it.
Not stuff that'll cost more than it's worth.
I thought they had got this right, and now they come up with this crap.
If they had half a brain they would've realized by now that songs should be sold like domains are now.
Remember when domains cost $35? Now that they've opened it up, everyone and their grandma is selling domains, most of the time very cheaply. And you're not stuck having to buy hosting or other crap like what the music execs want to do now.
Imagine when (if) this will happen for music! Everyone and their grandma sellings songs, for cheap! And unlike domains, you can sell any song more than once!
But, for now, we're stuck with this BS. Oh well...
AC comments get piped to
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Waitress:
Waitress:
Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
I remmeber a while back, when itunes was relatively new, there was an article that detailed a good many of the restrictions places on people who wanted to publish on itunes. two of those were $1 a song and, more importantly, no picking and choosing which songs were available for download. the whole shebang, or nothing.
:)
w a/ viewAlbum?playlistId=1324726
I now see a lot of albums with only a few songs available for download, and some saying "album only". go look up shakira's new one (if only to see shakira, she's a hottie
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
1. Jump from the airplane without opening a parachute. When falling, sue the ground for being hard and the air for being soft, but refuse to do the sensible thing everyone is suggesting.
2. When just seconds from hitting the rocks, finally open a parachute in desperation
3. As soon as they slow the fall to survivable speed, start thinking about folding the parachute again and toughing it out.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!
As long as prices are high, piracy increases. Why should music be any different from anything else? :P
...or bundling less desirable tracks with hot singles.
Sheesh, don't they get it? I can't speak for everyone of course, but this is the very reason I have stopped buying CDs by pretty much every artist out there.. There are only a few bands now that I even buy the CD for, because most of it is one or two good songs, and the rest is just filler. Just when I thought they were starting to catch on, they go and do something stupid again.
Well, maybe the MPAA will get it right, and offer paid downloads without commercials and extra crap that a lot of people simply don't want. Once bandwidth and (good) video capture equipment gets cheaper, they may have a chance to do things that are good for the customer and still profitable. I guess I just don't get it, the *AA industries (and most companies) always seem to see customer satisfaction and profitablity as mutually exclusive. What's known about the guy that is taking Valenti's place, Congressman Billy Tauzin?
Segfault
I signed up to iTunes a while ago, but just really started using it in the last few weeks. What I've found is that the music I like is there in the form of "partial" albums. Today I was ready to fork out 9.99 for Johnny Cash's Live at Folsom Prison, only to find out that it's missing two tracks and it'd be cheaper to buy the cd than download it.
Another thing I noticed is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon can only be purchased as an album, and it's around 17 bucks! While that's still a fair price, it defeats the purpose of this.
Tin-foil comment: What a thoroughly ridiculous idea. I'd almost think they fear the piracy might go down and their pro-legislation arguments might lose weight.
Article:
Downloading music gets more expensive
Ethan Smith
Wall Street Journal
Apr. 7, 2004 11:00 AM
To see the future of online music prices, look no further than "Fly or Die," the new album by rock-meets-hip-hop trio N.E.R.D.
For months, digital-music services have been touting albums for $9.99 to entice more people to buy online. But Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store has been charging $16.99 for "Fly or Die," while Roxio Inc.'s Napster service sells the 12-song collection for $13.99. Both prices are higher than the $13.49 that Amazon.com charges for the CD itself. The same pricing shifts are showing up on albums by a growing slate of artists, from Shakira to Bob Dylan.
Unburdened by manufacturing and distribution costs, online music was supposed to usher in a new era of inexpensive, easy-to-access music for consumers. In many cases, buying music online is still cheaper than shopping for CDs at retail outlets. But just a year after iTunes debuted with its 99-cent songs and mostly $9.99 albums, that affordable and straightforward pricing structure is already under pressure.
All five of the major music companies are discussing ways to boost the price of single-song downloads on hot releases - to anywhere from $1.25 to as much as $2.49. It isn't clear how or when such a price hike would take place, and it could still be months away. Sales of such singles - prices have remained at 99 cents - still account for the majority of online music sales.
The industry is also mulling other ways to charge more for online singles. One option under consideration is bundling hit songs with less-desirable tracks. Another possibility is charging more for a single track if it is available online before the broader release of the entire album from which it is taken. There is also talk of lowering the price on some individual tracks from older albums.
Several record-company executives acknowledged that pricing changes are being discussed at all five major companies.
The new pricing developments come as digital-music sales are growing steadily. Some 25 million digital tracks were sold in the first three months of this year, versus 19.2 million for all of the second half of last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
That growth is why some in the industry are uncomfortable with the talk of price increases. Most music-company executives believe that the download market is still in a critical early-growth stage, which could be disrupted by raising prices. "For us right now the issue is not, 'Do we make another $300,000 by raising the price five cents?"' says a music company executive. "It's making sure the market grows."
Revenues in the music industry have been dragging in recent years, in part because of the rise of illegal downloading services. Raising digital-music prices could spur additional illicit downloading. Weaning people off those illegal services by giving them an alternative that they consider viable is critical to the industry's future profitability.
N.E.R.D's "Fly or Die" is far from the only album that now costs significantly more to download from iTunes than to buy on CD. And many high-profile albums from two of the big five music companies, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment and EMI Group PLC, are now priced on iTunes and its competitors well above the $9.99 norm. Sony artist Pete Yorn's "Musicforthemorningafter," for example, costs $13.99 on iTunes and $10.88 on average in retail stores, according to the NPD Group. Albums by EMI artists from Kylie Minogue to Blur also cost more in digital than physical form. (EMI also distributes N.E.R.D.)
The reason this disparity is so pronounced at EMI and Sony is that both companies routinely set wholesale prices for online albums higher than their competitors, according to people familiar with the matter.
If you average the price of a CD to $18 and with 13 tracks that comes out to $1.38 per track. Until they offer 44.1Khz+ CD-quality tracks, you won't catch me paying for any of that stuff. Why should I pay up to twice as much for a track with limited playability and a fraction of the quality found on a CD?
Granted, a lot of CDs are padded with bad songs, but that's not my problem.
I don't buy songs-per-track and won't until it's CD-quality. I might consider what the industry is offering IF the quality were there, but it isn't. It's a joke. Then again, maybe I'm the oddball that hasn't blown his earing by having a pair of bazookas mounted in the back seat?
What's most interesting about the online music sales is that it says a lot about the state of the music industry. We buy SONGS now. We are less interested in artists as we are "hits". The band has taken a back seat to the packaging of individual songs. That probably explains why half the bands these days all sound the same.. they might as well because it's all about the track, not the music, not the message, not the group.
Video killed the radio star. The Internet will kill the concept of a band/album.
Music industry expects us to pay just as much for downloadable music (with lesser quality and no package) as we pay for the already overpriced CD's...? Prices need to be significantly lower for regular CD's, and especially for online music!!
Virgin Megastores recently offered 6 CD's for 30, basically working out at a fiver a go. I bought my first Cd's for years during this deal, because music once again became affordable for me.
Similarly, a lot of people don't object to legally purchusaing music from iTunes etc. If they're going to push the prices up again, the same thing will happen, more and more people will turn to downloading it for free P2P. Untill the record companies wise up to these simple facts, we're just going to keep going round in circles.
lets give more money to the RIAA so that they can sue people. Now I know artists need to be reimbursed and all, but this is exactly why I won't buy any music online unless it's directly from the artist.
JtK
AllOfMP3.com
Da Blog
RIAA Exec #2: Yes. Brilliant!!
RIAA Exec #1: Well, I've devised a new way to get even more money from them.
RIAA Exec #2: More you say? But how?
RIAA Exec #1: We'll charge them more and take it all anyway!
RIAA Exec #2: Brilliant!!
RIAA Exec #1: And you know how we can't seem to sell all this other crap?
(Points to rotting pile of Shakira singles)
RIAA Exec #1: Well I thought of a way to get rid of that too.
(Staples a worthless single to a Top-40 single and doubles the price)
RIAA Exec #2: Brilliant!!
(Both strip off their clothes and have sex with pigs on a huge pile of cash.)
--FIN--
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I buy CDs because I like to get whole albums, rather than picking individual singles. Why is that? I really enjoy albums that are a complete whole - concept albums, themed albums, whatever you care to call it. That is, I don't suffer from the "Buy a CD to get 1 or 2 popular songs, and get a whole bunch of crap" problem because I just don't buy those albums. My problem is thus: The amount of stuff out there is getting thinner and thinner.
In days gone by you could get Animals, or The Wall, and even albums that weren't that tightly bound often tended to be designed to at least have the tracks sit together as a collective whle - to have some sort of theme and order to the m aterial presented on an album. In the last 10 years or so we've The Downward Spiral, another fine concept album, and the likes of Aphex Twin, and Autechre still put together albums as if all the tracks were designed to sit next to one another, plus myriads more doing similar things. But mainstream? Anything even approaching mainstream? It's harder and harder to find anything but a random collection of singles that bear no relation to one another, that fail to hang together in any way shape or form. I have an attention span that runs longer than 5 minutes. I'd like to listen to music that is more thna just a single. I'd like to listen to an hour or so of music that has theme and progression. Why is that getting so increasingly hard to find?
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Soon, we'll be seeing stories in the media bout how p2p is hurting downloaded album sales!
If this is not price fixing, then I don't know what is... FTC, where are you ?
The Raven
Whats up with "less desirable tracks" in the first place? Why release them if you know people won't like them?
This is like raising the price of a pizza and then adding a side order of maggots.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
It's this kind of attitude that causes businesses to lose market share. If they raise their price a couple bucks but lose a quarter of their market, they break even, but leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth. Then, rather than having them look around for more stuff to buy, they just avoid buying things.
I really think the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by charging so much money and taking legal action against file swappers. The majority of my friends still bought CD's after Napster came into use, but now they've started boycotting the RIAA because they are leading an assault against our personal freedom. Personally, I buy used, and don't hesitate to get anything off the Internet that I wouldn't ask a friend to let me borrow and make a copy of. I don't think it's right to get new music for free if you like the band, but I don't think it's right to feed the RIAA at this point, hence the used CDs.
And once I get some free time, I'll look into the indie bands. There are a few I like now, but I haven't been able to afford tickets or CDs for quite some time now.
The music companies are reluctant to talk openly about their wholesale-pricing strategies, but they are quick to blame the retailers for higher prices. A spokeswoman for EMI, for instance, stresses that the retailers, not record companies, ultimately set the prices consumers pay.
I call bullshit. Retail price is directly related to inventory cost. Any retail outlet must meet operating costs by marking prices up. While I do feel some retailers are enjoying rather healthy margins, I know what it takes to run a brick-and-morter shop in direct competition with an online market. Which brings up another point- in the article it's mentioned many albums are now more expensive when downloaded online than actually paying for the physical CD.
Looks to me like record companies are starting to recognize that the problem is not piracy, but a crappy product. Even in legit download sites like iTunes, people are going right for the songs they like, and ignoring the crap they don't. What does the recording industry do? Raise prices on good songs, and bundle crap via the label "Also included!"
It's all about control- they want you to hear only what they feed you. They want you to pay for what they produce, whether or not you like it. Instead of buying the 3 or 4 songs off an album you like, they make it cheaper to buy the CD in a store, or if you still download- you get the other 4 or 5 crappy tracks along with it, "as an added bonus" (paid for by the price increase).
It's complete crap. What will it take for these overpaid execs to see what their market wants?
Really... The music industry (specifically the RIAA) still does not get it! They're obviously still working under the old school sales book of "find something consumers want, and as soon as they show they're willing to pay for it, raise the price".
Their business model is probably a slight variation of the typical "Underwear Gnomes" theory, and goes something like this...
1. Introduce new music/artists which sound and look very similar to other acts you've succesfully promoted
2. Drop newly signed artists if their debut record sales don't top the sales of existing signed acts
3. As soon as the listening audience shows interest in anything being promoted, immediately mass-market it to the point where they're all sick of it (Thus insuring that 90% of the signed acts out there never release a succesfull sophmore album due to the over-saturation of their 1st)
4. As people begin to get sick of the oversaturation, begin to crank up prices to try and suck as much as possible from the remaining buyers
5. As sales continue to dwindle off, spend enormous amounts of money tying to find a scape goat to point the finger at, rather than
a. spend that money on R&D to improve the company's operations
b. spend it on signing better, more original acts.
c. Trying to figure out what consumers really want
6. Sue, and threaten to sue anyone who markets or trades music in any way outside of the usual channels established by said music industry. Above all, DO NOT let the established monopoly change
7. Continue to charge more to those who are honest and continue to pay for their music. Blame the increase on the scape goats established in step 5
8. Repeat
As the saying goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
There were practical reasons to justify the existence of b-sides, the most prominent one being that vinyl in fact had a b-side, something might as well by pressed there, and the person buying the single mostly just wanted the single.
And people bought singles. IIRC, singles were of a higher quality than LPs. Also, people often wanted, and only had enough money, for the single. Many were willing to wait for the LP to go on the used rack
The interesting thing is that in the pre p2p days, there was much talk that singles were the cause of the declining record sales. The labels claimed that people were buying singles instead of albums, which was likely true, but in that case we were actually paying money for music. The labels did not like that money and began to try to limit the availability of singles.
Which bring us to today and the current evil of p2p. One reason we do not legally license music(as we no longer are allowed to purchase it) is that the music is just not there. There are many tunes for which I have to download album for 10 bucks. I often buy the used cd for 7 or 8 bucks. Often the desired track is widely available. Just as often I can run off a copy from a friend. The labels need to just let Apple sell tracks for a buck. People are buying them. It solves a bunch of problems. All this other crap is just unneccesary jacking with market.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The idea that a copyright owner can charge what ever they want for the use of their property is lost on some people.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point a little. I do not think most people here saying free as free beer, but free as liberty.
For some reason, big business is dirty for wanting to profit on their IP
There is no problem that big companies make big money if they do it on the field of fair competition. However, what constitudes property ?
Property is either a constitutional or natural right, or it is granted by society for the benefit of society. In case of IP, there is no natural right for IP. Until the Gutenberg press nobody ever calim copyright on anything. And because of the Gutenberg press the English crown first introduced a copyright law. Interestingly not to protect the IP of somebody, but to protect the crown from libale as they saw it.
Therefore why is IP protected and how should it be ?
In the US contitution Congress is authorized to make law to protect inventions and writings if it help for progress of sciences and useful arts. This is the only reason to grant such monopolies as copyrights and patents.
Most IP today would never mustard that test. However, what does this test mean. It asks the question if innovation is raised or society benefits in other ways by the grant of such a monopoly. While one can probably discuss forever if strict IP control is good or bad, or free IP is better or worse, nobody has a natural right to IP. If somebody has this right than it was granted by society in the form of laws, and it should be to the benefit of society and not only to a few like in a feudal system in the medieval ages...
The interesting question starts now, how can this be achieved. And btw. it has nothing to do with socialism v. capitalism. Both models fight who serves the people in a better way. At the end the question for me is over control v. freedom
Well, capitalism ( not competition ) is intrinsically designed to drive prices down, simply because of economies of scale ( ie. costs less per widget when a million widgets are made as opposed to when a hundred are made )
Competition can drive prices up or down -eg. In his classic book, Professor & psychologist Robert Cialdini talks about one common tactic to get customers to buy your product - RAISE prices!
Customers have this mistaken perception that price equals value, so higher price translates in their mind to valuable, lower prices to inferior/cheap goods ( this actually goes waaaay back, to Karl Marx's Labor Theory of Value )
The masses might actually buy a $5 song in the mistaken assumption that it is somehow more valuable than a song for $0.99.
Is there a Darwin Award for business and companies?
If not - Why not?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
If ignorance is bliss, Slashdot must be nirvana.
So CmdrTaco really is Kurt Cobain!
"While that's still a fair price,"
8 2/ qid=1081463479/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-4414021-79838 27
No, not really. Look here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002U
(the lameness filter will kill this, so I'll save you the trouble)
The NEW version of DSOTM is $14, you can buy it used from Amazon for $7.25
And you get the full version, not a compressed version.
So tell me again how $17 is a good price? Maybe for the record company, but certainly not for the consumer!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This proves that P2P isnt a problem and all the RIAA is doing is trying to keep it self around. I mean if piracy isnt a problem why do we need the RIAA wouldnt the member companies stop tithing money to them and they would dry up? If p2p file shareing or other forms of so called 'piracy' was a real problem how could the music industry afford to raise prices or pull other marketing tricks to screw consumers? If p2p was a real choice and real competition then the labels would be cutting prices and trying to do everything they could to stop it via market forces. Instead we have the situtation where they are trying to milk extra fees.
"considering they have to pay for advertising, marketing, distribution, renting the studios, etc."
How much marketing do the record companies do for Elvis, The Eagles, Frank Sinatra, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles these days?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If you buy a couple of singles off an album, you might as well buy the whole damned thing.
Its just a marketing ploy to get people to buy albums again.. to get them away from the attitude of just getting mp3's...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Agreed. Radio kills otherwise good albums. Several years ago (1998), there was a song called "Ava Adore" by the Smashing Pumpkins being overplayed on the radio. I didn't care for the song, and after hearing it far too many times, I began to despise it. I never bothered checking out the album (known as "Adore") that the song was from, because nothing else from it was played. About a year and a half ago I finally downloaded the album, and it's become one of my favorites. Every track is good except for the one that was played on the radio.
AEIOU: open-source anonymous internet currency
Pirate his stuff. He doesn't need the money anymore.
(The technicians have long since been paid, and you're not taking any physical product from the record companies, so why not??)
Hands in my pocket
According to the AZ Central: "Some executives, for example, believe they should be charging a premium for the online versions of older tracks because consumers may be willing to pay more for harder-to-find material."
Hmm. Material out of print makes the record companies zero income. Selling it online therefore represents a significant new source of revenue with none of the marketing and physical distribution costs that accompany new releases. Profits therefore are considerably enhanced for these products. Traditionally new markets are developed initially at a loss to build volume and recognition. Therefore price the product at a loss leader to build sales^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h higher then new downloadable releases or scarce physical media to grub the most money possible.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
They didn't release single songs because there was no competition - because the record companies colluded to raise prices and control their supply chain. The only reason they started releasing single songs is because if they didn't, their market would download what they wanted for free. Most people would rather get their music legitimately than not, but they aren't willing to swallow crap to do so. So now, the music industry has a model that allows customers to get what they want legally, thus negating many of the reasons why people use P2P to get music.
The problem is that the music industry got rich by giving people what the music industry wanted them to have, charging what they could for it, and colluding to prevent others from undercutting them. The music industry didn't have to listen to its customers because they had nowhere else to go. Now, customers want music how they want it, because if they don't get it, they can go online and copy it for free - a few would have done this anyway, but now the widespread frustration with the music industry and their pricing drove many more to do so. If the music industry moves to restore the album model to online music, they will simply succeed at driving people back to copying music via Kazaa, etc.., with the consequent improvement in technology making infringers harder to catch.
You're correct - they don't get it, because they colluded, and so never had to listen to the people to whom they sold music. Now they have no choice but to listen to their market, otherwise they'll get robbed blind. The music industry wants to go back to the days of blissful ignorance when they could do what they want and their customers would buy whatever they sold; they're hoping that "trusted computing" and upload restrictions by Internet providers will bring it back for them. The problem is, people are angry, and now they know it, and they know that they can do something about it. The music industry can't unring the bell, no matter how hard they try. Once people know that they have power, they won't go back to being consumers without a fight. The record companies are closing their eyes and hoping that their problems go away, when all that's going to go away is their market.
and it costs 79 cents for a single song.
Activists United
If a new CD costs about $15 and has 10-15 tracks on it then that's $1-$1.50 a track. If you buy the same tracks if bought online would cost $1 each (99 cents). That's not much of a savings. That's still about $1 a track and there is a huge savings to them, they don't have to buy, produce or distribute the CDs. That takes time, and time is money. By doing it online they are saving piles of money and not passing the savings along to us. I will not be using the online music stores until they actually start charging proper prices.
I agree that music reviews have their worth, but one mans trash is another mans treasure. I don't want to trust someone else's opinion of a CD and use that opinion to base my purchasing habits. I want to listen to the entire CD, as I do when I buy a new CD, and then decide if I want to pay for it.
Downloading mp3's allows me to do this, and I will most definately purchase a CD that I feel is good enough to buy. If it turns out that I only like 1 song, I'll just keep the copy I downloaded and delete the others.
Hopefully the music industry will realize that putting out 1 good song and 11 other crappy songs just doesn't work. I refuse to buy all that fodder to get one song.
This comes as no huge shock to me. The big label execs have never figured out that this is about how easy to manage and maintain a digital collection of music is, not about it being free, for the vast majority of people. That's why they refuse to make an actually usability equivalent, legal alternative to what's already available. They don't get it, and they won't until it's to late.
Instead, they want to make this market into an exact clone of what they see the cd market being, and continue wading in the money they make, and spread around to all of the middlemen, corp shills and various greedy bastards that line the entire music industry.
However, just because they can, doesn't mean that everyone has to follow suit. They are going to see an increasing number of smaller artists being able to directly market themselves, and completely free of any fair use limiting tech (IE, pure format compressed audio, ala mp3, aac, ogg, whatever). These people will see that, while they get less sales overall (less huge piles of marketing clout, etc etc), if they can market themselves well (or hook up with a good, small, dedicated marketing company), then they get a much larger cut of their smaller sales, and in the end, more profit for their hard work. Less babying, less huge rockstar lifestyle, most likely, though.
Anyway, just this strange monkey's 2c.
Meanwhile, I'm sure the artists who rented the studio and spent a month recording the music don't find the joke so funny. If Slashdot was made up of musicians instead of programmers, the opinion of this whole website would be completely different.
As it is, everyone thinks they're fighting for artists when they don't know any and have never asked them if they wanted the "help."
They're talking about raising the prices, but they don't mention anything about the artists getting a bigger share of the take. Except for a select few, it looks like the majority of the musicians will still get peanuts, whether it's from traditional CD's or online downloads. That's why I have no qualms about downloading massive amounts of music.
I archive it, listen to it at my leisure, and when I find music worth listening to on a regular basis, I might buy it, or better yet, go see the band when it comes to town. I can think of quite a few bands that have made more money from me because of this and I can't think of any bands that have suffered because I download music.
RIAA should catch on that the on-demand world is the way of the future. Software providers realize this, the internet is on-demand, we have movies-on demand over our cable and internet. If they would catch on with the rest of reality perhaps illegal downloads would diminish and they might actually start showing a profit on their product. As consumers, we hold the ultimate power. However, that power is distributed amongst millions of people. If somehow a movement could be coordinated to flat out stop buying music then perhaps our voices would be heard! The music industry is lucky that the 'free music business model (p2p)' hasn't made it's way back into the picture. It seems that if the RIAA have their way there will be two options: Pay an arm and a leg for music and get more stuff you don't want, or download it illegally and gamble with the consequences. Personally, I either listen to the radio or Rhapsody's streaming audio. The world on-demand is the way of the future.
4. Change the laws (of physics)
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I haven't bought a new CD in almost 2 years.
Nothing on the radio is worth spending that much
money on a CD. I bought a satellite radio receiver
over a year ago, and I can't tell you the last time
I even listened to the CD's I have. with over 60 commercial free music channels, talk, news etc, there is always something on to listen to. For me, it is definately worth ten bucks a month. If for anything else, NOT having to listen to those annoying automobile commercials LOL
Why do people try to equate movie DVDs to music CDs this way? It's such a flawed comparison. Here are two big reasons why (and I'm sure there are others):
1. A movie will have made money at the box office; DVD sales are just gravy on top of that. Music isn't sold to you twice this way, you buy it on CD and that's it.
2. You'll get far more use out of a CD than you will a DVD. Think how many times you've listened to your favourite albums. Now think how many times you've watched your favourite films. Unless you're the sort of fool who wastes half his/her life watching Star Wars, Titanic or Grease every week then there's no comparision. With music, you get far more bang for your buck.
Please, stop trying to compare two totally different forms of entertainment in such a crude way. Just because they both come on a shiny 5.25 in. disc and they're sold in the same stores that doesn't mean they are equal.
By your rationale, all PC and console software should cost $10-20 too, but I think you're going to be seriously disappointed if you expect the price of new games to come down to that level just so that all the similar-looking shiny round things cost the same at your local mall.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
But the part that *really* gets me thinking is... How much does it cost to make a movie in comparison to making a CD. That's where things get interesting.
Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions cost approximately 400 million to make (correct me if I'm wrong). It's possible to go out and get both CD's for $30, and possibly less if you shop around.
The most I've heard a CD costing to produce is Korn's Untouchables, running at 1 million (this is still ludicrous to me).
Yes, there are the music videos. Music videos are generally made for the purpose of having people buy that artist's CD. While some bands have creative direction on their music videos, most of them do not. I do NOT see it as creativity. I see it as marketing.
Marketing should *NOT* ultimately factor into how much something *should* cost. Just because a company pours $100 million into a product that costs approximately $1.00 to make, that doesn't mean that item should sell for $17.99. Especially considering that the people who made that product see so little of it coming back to them.
Then there are the bands that still don't get advertised that much. Their albums sell for the same price. WHY? I want more of my money going to the artist, rather than funding Britney Spears' next music video.
In fact, why are there even music videos? I don't care how an artist looks. And I won't buy a CD from an artist just because "they're hot".
Thank you.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I'm afraid the answer was price fixing, but thanks for playing. DVDs have much less stringent price controls, so nothing prevents a retailer from undercutting their competition. The same is unfortunately untrue of music distribution. You're also forgetting that they do sell the same music several times to you. I've seen people with the same album on vinyl, cassette and CD, and they'll probably get whatever next format comes out. There's no excuse for price fixing, and the music industry needs to get bitch-slapped by the FTC in a major way.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
I don't think anyone is missing the point, nor are people claiming it is *immoral* to raise prices on a CD (or music single), people are questioning raising the price at a time when the record companies are struggling as a result of falling demand and higher prices.
Like it or not, free downloads are the real competition to the record companies, and we can wring our hands all day about the morality of it, but the fact is that it is out there and record companies will ignore that outlet at their peril.
I think they'd be better off lowering prices, diversifying their product and offering extras that make people feel happy they bought the CD.
But raising prices seems like folly right now. I thought they might wait until electronic downloads reached a critical mass. Perhaps they want to kill off electronic distribution?
Examples: If you paid admission to a nightclub, some of that money goes to satisfy ASCAP / BMI. That money goes to all the members, even the musicians you hate. Hate rap? Well, too bad, you just kissed their ass. Hate Barbra Streisand? Tough. Buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, you are kissing their ass whether you like the music or not.
Bought stuff at a store that plays piped-in music? You guessed it! Some of your cash is going to gold-plated Escalades and coke, which I am sure these bastards find ways to deduct anyway at taxtime.
Many posts are talking about how the MPAA has it figured out, or at least moreso compared to the RIAA.
As some have noted, this is due to the fact that the theaters are where the money is made.
(PS - an exercise for the reader is to consider how a theater model might work for music)
But, as far as walking into the store and choosing between a DVD and a CD, many things are taken into consideration (esp. if you have piracy as an option)
Music: I could buy this CD, for about $16-20 which is a couple bucks more than this DVD, but instead I could go home and download the one song I really want (legally or otherwise) and take a hit in quality. Given the speed of my net connection and the price differential, it's far better for me to not buy this CD, and use other means.
Movies: I could buy this DVD, for about $10-15, or I could go home, get online, and pirate an approximately 700 meg version that will be of crappy quality (far worse of a quality hit compared to CD vs. MP3/Ogg/ACC), which will take me a few hours to download. Or, I could spend the money, get the sucker in a portable format (and off my HD), with immensely superior quality and all the bonuses. Yeah, that's worth the money.
If you consider that time is money, at minimum wage in CA ($6.75 an hour) you could spend 2 hours on DSL (if you're lucky) pirating a movie ($13.50) or buy it for about the same price. Meanwhile, a CD costs about 3 hours ($20.25) and is compared to about 3.5 megs for about 12 tracks, or about 42 megs, which comes in, if you're lucky, in about 30 minutes ($3.37). That includes the tracks you DON'T want. If there's only 3 that are good, it's about comparable to buy those on iTMS legally.
This isn't difficult math. It's just math the RIAA can't do.
I totally agree. In a way nothing has changed. Restricting what other people can copy has nothing to do with property rights, or even creativity rights. Because of copyrights, they were enabled to be abusive and monopolistic to begin with. Then when copyright enforcement became threatened they started to file tons of lawsuits to keep alternatives at bay while offering other download venues for cheap prices. Now that they have a market toehold they are leveraging copyrights to choke off alternetive distribution and raise prices as they do to finance it.
Moral: liberty is an is an end in itself, not pricing, not artificial markets, not unjust property rights, not distribution of profits, not creation of music, or even the artists. There are a lof of good sounding cuases that people can sell their freedoms down the river for, but only one major reason to have liberty - and that is to have more freedom in the future.
Conclusion: Anything less than the outright abolition of copyright monopolies is just going to delay the inevitable and make the situation worse.
ask an mtv "reviewer" (for example,carson daily) what they think of the new joint effort of kid rock and britney spears.
beauty is in the ear of the listener.
I can only imagine what they'd think of Tinpan Alley by Stevie Ray Vaughn.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
They haven't been able to kill downloadable music by direct means, maybe this is their method.
Price it out of the market so their business goes down, whine about "pirates destroying the music industry", and get sympathy for more draconian laws
Steve
they say "the 5 major music companies discussed"
arent they acting like a trust? monopolizing the marketing, then banding together to get the most money for themselves by abusing the consumers...
I thought that was highly illegal according to several anti-trust laws...
...of buying/downloading tracks online to get exactly what you wanted; to purchase ONLY the songs I wanted to listen to and not have to waste my money on "filler" that I don't want? Now we won't even be able do that. We're starting to do exactly what they want us to do, pay for the music we download, and now they want to ruin that too?!
;)
Who the hell is running these music companys? I'm beginning to think it's just a room full of monkeys.
Random brainwashed RIAA marketing employee: (Opens door to boardroom filled with monkeys wearing sport jackets jumping about) Look at these figures! People are finally starting to purchase music they download online instead of stealing it!
Some monkey: oooooo-AAAAAAAAAAAHH!!
Random marketing employee: What? Fix prices on internet music too? Don't you think it's a little early for that?
Same monkey: AAAAAH-AAAHH-OOOO-AAAAAH-EEEEEE!!!
RIAA Employee: And you also think we should start making them download crap with every song just like with CDs?
Some other monkey: Pulls finger from butt and sniffs it.
Marketing Employee: BRILLIANT!
It was hilarious in my head, use your imagination
There is thematic unity, progression, variation, and transformation on a theme, different styles (baroque vs a classical symphony), structure, etc. The same piece performed by different artists added additional insights and interpretation as well.
Not to sound snobby or anything but a classical music can be both something to enjoyed simply or an intellectual exercise if you want it to be.
Lastly, I know 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, I can still listen the the same Mozart, Paganini, Bach pieces I enjoy today. So may my kids. Would I enjoy Coldplay or Coolio 30 years later? Not likely.
We're looking at effect not cause. Look around people. The huge jump in oil prices, the recent jump in interest rates. The sudden surcharges across the board for product because of higher delivery costs. This is just one more example of a new inflationary trend.
Look at the current economics. Tremendous deficits, atronomical wealth leaving our shores, and a dollar which is right on the verge of going kaboom on the international exchange. As the Fed prints more money, the dollar's valuation goes through the floor (have you noticed the value of Bonds lately?) So to save the bonds market, the prime goes up (and believe me you ain't seen nothing yet.) Of course this causes the real estate and building bubble to explode, and put's millions or workers and thousands of contracting firms in bread lines next to the unemployed tech and factory workers. All of a sudden, we begin to see that the phrase Poppa Bush used in 1980, "Voodoo Economics", is not only appropos, but virtually precogniscient. The only thing trickling down in our current economic fiasco, is any hope that this debacle won't end up in a full blown economic global catastrophe.
I'm just as offended by the "kneejerk greedy" as the next person. That, and it's almost certain that the the greediest amongst us, will raise prices first to get while the getting's good. We must however notice the larger economic landscape. The smallest education in ethics, game theory, social morality, or even basic philosophy, would point out the insanity of slash and burn mentality in the arena of economics.
If we've learned anything over the last 20 years, extreme diets lead to disaster. We have a nation of fat, sick people. These rules are just as important for economics. A conservative, stable system is called for. A system that promotes ethical behavior, and punishes the "get rich quick" mentality so prevalent today. The system used to punishes people willing to gut the system to get theirs at expense of all others, we need to return to a economic system with strong and reliable ethical and moral distinctions.
Genda
This happened to me with a double live album I wanted to buy. I checked the price on iTunes and checked the price on Amazon and they were the same. Of course, I would have had to pay shipping from Amazon. I saw that their price was just barely below retail and I decided then that I would buy it at an actual STORE, believe it or not. I hardly ever buy CDs at stores anymore, and I've bought 1.5 GB of music from iTunes.
For this one album, I decided it would be worth the inconvenience and very small additional cost to walk out with the CDs that I could then rip into whatever format I choose, with liner notes and the whole nine yards.
But this was because the online version was just a tad cheaper than the store-bought version. I'll tell you right now. If you make them more expensive, or even the same price, as the CD version, you will absolutely NOT sell albums to me. Maybe individual songs (for not much more than 99 cents, by the way), but definitely not albums. $9.99 is a very good price. Keep it there for a few years and see what happens or you'll die an ugly death.
RP
I remember periodically buying 45RPM singles at Woolco in 1980 for between $1.00 and $1.50. According to the bls.gov calculator that's $2.26 to $3.39 in 2004 dollars. If a single comes without DRM, I don't see what the complaint is about. If it does come with DRM, I don't know why anyone would listen to it unless they were paid a significant amount of money, since a good song with a good hook is like a drug.
Now notice that these ARE the starving artists that those that want to crush P2P talk about. Almost all of them have other jobs to support their art. The engineers tend to be full time, but none of them are rich by any means. It pays ok for a job that requires quite a bit of skill, but not a ton. These are the ones that need money, these are the poor and struggling.
They do not benefit from the music industry as it is now. It is designed to lock people like them out from major distribution, unless the labels decide they want to sign them on, which means reliquinshing creative and monetary control, as well as being unlikely. Even if they get signed, unless they become huge, it's highly unlikely they'll profit. The record labels, not the artists, are the ones making all the money under the current system.
Well the Internet is their weapon, and they can use it to fight back. With it their music can be distributed to the world, it can get some publicity, and people can discover them. It doesn't make them money directly, but it can lead to things that can. More importantly, it lets the world hear and appreciate their work. I don't know any musicians that are in it for the money, it's just not that kind of field. They are in it because it is what they love. Part of that love (I'm a musician too) is wanting others to share it. Playing a live concert for a crowd is a powerful feeling, when the audience shares your emotion through the music you create.
So please get off your high horse about the poor, starving artists. P2P is not what is keeping them from making money (or are you so quick to forget receant emperical studies by non-biased parties), it's the record labels.
I, to date, have not bought an MP3 online. Why not? Because I don't want to pay the same price as I would pay for buying the whole effing album if I'm not getting a damn thing but a 2 meg binary string. An 11 song album would cost around 11.00 to download, and about the same in the store. Some are more some are less, but the fact remains.
So basically, it costs the same for them to print a cd, print the liner notes, buy a jewel case, shrinkwrap it, send it all the way around the country, and let the seller mark it up 20%, as it does for them to let me download a copy in an inferior format onto my own damn media.
And now they think they're making too little? They want to bundle songs? I just told my cable provider to shove it for their crappy bundling.
Fuck them. I'll never buy another damn song if they're going to keep acting like morons. I'll feel better about myself if I spend the money on crack and underage prostitutes.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
As someone with more than $400.00 spent in the iTunes store legalizing my collection of MP3s I have two words for ANYONE who thinks I'll pay more for a digital copy than a physical copy.
BLOW ME.
The physical copy doesn't come with restraints. I can play it anywhere, anytime. I can rip it to OGG, MP3, whatever I want, and take the results with me wherever I want, and I'm happy.
I put up with the DRM in iTunes only because it is a convenience that is also *CHEAP*.
You start charging more, the convenience goes away, and I'll either a) steal my music or b) buy the CD.
Either way they fuck themselves.
My reality check bounced.
Can you blame them? Really, can you? Let me give you an example of how they think:
Picture this. You own a company that manufactures shit. No, literally shit. You have a warehouse full of dogs taking a dump, and you collect it and package it. You have a few specials on MTV where you put some shit on the stage, wearing sparkles and exposing its midriff. And maybe have it endorse a few products. And people are breaking your doors down trying to by more shit. You can't keep up with demand. Then, one day, some enterprising young college student looks in the toilet before he flushes it, and figures out "My god, here's some shit for free." Sure, it's not necessarily the same quality you get when you have a whole warehouse to select from, and sometimes it gets, er, damaged in the processing, but darn it, it's free. Now you're the executive of ShitCo. And suddenly, after nearly half a century, people don't seem to want to buy your shit. They'd rather use their own. You're losing money. What do you do? It can't be that your stuff is too expensive, or not good enough - they couldn't get enough of it in the past. So, you do the only thing that makes sense - you raise prices. That'll increase your revenue. It's the only thing that makes sense.
There, now you know how it works.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Raising prices of a product to increase demand only works when the product in question has a quality that is difficult to determine. For instance if a consumer is given the choice between two music players that have the same storage capacity but one costs $50 more than the other they might assume that the one that costs more is better. They do what could be called gambling economics, they know in their minds that better quality materials cost more than lesser quality materials so it's likely that the more expensive product has gold wiring instead of copper.
Of course once you've played around with technology long enough you know that price can be determined in odd ways that subvert the ol' concept of supply and demand.
Music, and perhaps most art, has a value that is rather easy to determine. You listen to the thirty second sample or you hear it on the radio. You know whether you like it or not and chances are you look for either the cheapest, quickest or easiest way to purchase it.
Now I suppose some music stores could start offering different compression techniques that claim higher audiophile quality. There could be some appeal in that some people want to believe they're getting a decent version of their favorite song. Who knows maybe we'll start seeing "iTunes with Techron" or some other appeal to a higher quality compression product. I doubt it though, you're already accepting lossy when you start purchasing online and I think what Apple understands is that people want cheap music that's easy to listen to. Cornering the audiophile market with .aiff downloads wouldn't just lack profit (like iTunes does now) but would be a pit that money would actively be poured down. At least for now.
No, it's not. It's up to the seller, dude. It's the package they want to sell you. If their package is a CD with 12 songs on it, then you have no "right" to demand you only get one song.
you are correct, i as a buyer have no "right" to demand someting from the seller (unless its specifically stated in a contract or something similar).
BUT, they also have no "right" to demand my cash, which they quite obviously do.
the music industry is almost the only which gets away with providing crappy service and complaining about lost revenues (and even receiving government support).
also your analogy sucks. one track is a complete work of art, so staying with your picasso example it would be the same as telling picasso you only want ONE of his paintings instead of 20.
and please dont tell me that an album is a complete work of art, because if it would be so, radio stations would only play whole albums and not just single tracks.
so my point is: if *THEY* want *MY* cash they need to give it to me in a form i like or else i will spend my hard earned cash somewhere else. *THEY* also have no "right" to complain about me not spending my money on their products.
i need to convince my employer that i am worth the bucks he gives me, and the same counts for *EVERYONE* out there.
want my cash?
convince me you have earned it or else buzz off!
(yea its hard but thats just how capitalism works)
-- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political