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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Listen to a copy your friend has
- Skim through it at a record shop (if they will let you)
- Download it
I personally don't have money to burn (and like to make up my own mind) but I do like to own CDs because they sound better on my equipment than MP3s do. I wish there was a way to not get duped into buying something which wasn't up to scratch without 'being shadey' or having to wait for someone else to make the leap of faith.... 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
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.
Ummm...what sounds fine to you? The article says they may start bundling crappy songs with good songs. So, like buying an entire album, you have to pay for the bad track when all you wanted was the one good track.
$8.95/mo web hosting
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!!!
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
Most albums you listen to have 0-1 decent songs on them. Almost all my CDs are filled with great songs. And I've found that these "hidden songs" could be better than the famous one heard on the radio.
I really think it's time for people to listen to music instead of just buying it...
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.
ITunes let's you listen to 30 seconds of each song. Generally speaking I think that give you enough of the song to get a feeling if you're going to like it.
The other day I was at Barnes & Nobles (Waterfront in Pittsburgh) and they have these neat machines where you can listen to the whole album (no 30 second limit per song) for every single CD in the store. These little machine have a built-in bar code scanner. Scan the barcode, it starts playing! I am sure somewhere in the store there is a big server with lots of MP3s...
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.
"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.
They're just rehashing an old marketing plan. Think CD or cassette 'singles'. They generally had a hit track and a couple fillers.
From my perspective, online prices are still too high. CD prices are much too high, and what do I gain by buying a $17 CD for $10 online and then spend my time and media burning it? A CDR is less durable than a pressed CD, it requires me to supply the jeweled case or sleeve, and includes no liner notes. I'd rather just go buy a used one. To encourage me to buy digitally, they'd need to price to be less than 50 cents a track and $6 for the whole CD.
But then again, it's not price or P2P that is keeping me from buying CDs now. It's the fact that the artists I buy are not putting out new music and they aren't introducing new artists that interest me.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
"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 ----
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.
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.
The in-store listening-posts or whatever they call them are indeed groovy.
The 30 second limit on iTunes sounds a little stupid to me, it would make more sense to let people hear a whole 64bit encoded mp3.
Reasoning? Jump to 30 seconds into:
American Woman - The Guess Who
The End - The Doors
Beyond The Realms Of Death - Judas Priest
Champagne Supernova - Oasis
Here I Go Again - Whitesnake
You Can't Always Get What You Want - The Rolling Stones
Today - Smashing Pumpkins
The first 30 seconds of these isn't really enough to get a good impression of the song, either because the kick-assedness steps up after 30 seconds, or because the lyrics don't start until later or both. Maybe I'm making something out of nothing, bearing in mind that most pop music lasts 2 minutes 30 seconds...
And...if you're a parent who wants to listen to a track before downloading it for your young child, you should be able to hear the lyrics and decide whether they are appropriate...
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
The iTMS doesn't play the first 30 seconds. I believe the authoring tool Apple supplies to the labels lets them choose which 30-second block is excerpted, per track.
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)
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.
Have you talked to artists? I have. A friend of mine got a record contract a few months ago. She's highly in favor of people swapping her music around. It gets her heard. She signed with an indie label, and they too are in favour of that.
If you're a small, independant musician, then the 'net is great, it gets your music out to people who would never hear about it otherwise. If you're a small record label, the same applies. You know who p2p sharing of copyrighted stuff hurts? The ones who don't benefit from the advertising -- the ones who are so heavily advertised that you already know about them. But guess what, These are the monstrously huge acts. These 'artists', including the pop band du jour, the current cute boy band, the mass-produced "edgy" rocker, etc. are not ones I have much sympathy for.
So yes, I've talked to an artist. A non-big-name, just-getting-started-in-the-bizz artist. She, and her company, are in favour of their songs getting out over the Internet, even if they don't make money from it.
...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
Silly wabbit. Those peskie anti-trust laws were secretly repealed back in 1980 when the last bit of civilization in the United States was destroyed.
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
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.
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.