Slashdot Mirror
Record Labels Push for iTunes Price Hike
csteinle writes "Looks like the major labels are getting their own way again. The New York Post reports that the price per track may be going up to $1.25, while the per album price for some albums could go as high as $16.99. The Register has its own take on this, too. Aren't you glad you starting paying for downloaded music?" Update: 05/07 19:15 GMT by M : Apple says their prices won't increase.
Ok... I understand why the RIAA wants to make more money off each track. There are only two or three good tracks on each CD. But to jack some prices up over what most new CDs are sold for in stores? How does that make any sense at all?
It's so fucking stupid that I want to rip my nuts off, cook them, and then eat them. Note to RIAA: YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING IDIOTS. God... I just can't stand it. They're begging for us to pay for music. Some people do. Now they want more money from those people while giving them less than they would by buying the CD in the store.
Casual Games/Downloads
Apple's willingness to allow some singles to be priced higher than 99 cents indicates the company feels empowered by its current success in the download market and sees a chance to boost profits from the sales of digital music.
This does NOT mean anything of the sort. It means that if Apple wants to sell these songs on its online store it has to bow to the wishes of the music cartels. It's their music afterall.
You know, I have downloaded less than 10 songs since the height of the Napster/Kazaa days (2000/2001?) and the rest have been songs that are legally available for free. Why the hell are we bothering to support the cartel's music? You realize that they are going to keep pushing and pushing (with bait-and-switch if necessary) to keep online downloads out so that they can reign supreme in the sales of music.
Support only the artists that allow the free taping and distribution of their music! Do NOT let the cartels continue to dictate to you and your favorite artists how the music you love will be distributed and at what cost.
Every time I hear about record labels these days I'm forced to think about the indies, who create the best music and get paid the least. My only hope is that a site like mp3.com will learn from the mistakes of mp3.com and come up with a solution for indies to profit and truly compete against big labels with more even footing. Nobody likes a grudge match like I do. :-)
Bait and switch concepts always fail business, and it looks like Apple will have to cave to the pressure from groups like the RIAA (who happen to be in love with shady business practices). Drug dealers do the same thing; $0.99 for the first hit and then you get gouged when you're hooked! Maybe taco was right after all?!?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
With the service agreement that they have for the iTMS, it seems already they can change the rules for the DRM (number of burns per playlist, number of computers, kinds of applications that will be allowed depending on available quicktime APIs, etc.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they start charging you to "upgrade" the privileges you have for the music you've already bought.... perhaps even charging you just to continue your rental - even though it was never part of the original deal, it seems the contract allows them to change whatever they want at any time, and their copy protection, backed by law, gives them the tools to do it. Retroactive price hikes... now possible under the DMCA!
For that price I'd rather go and buy the album and rip it myself. At least then I can choose the format I want. If an Audio CD is marked with a label that it might not play on anything else than my stereo, I won't buy it either. If this means I can't buy music anymore, well, fine with me, I'll keep listening to the CD's I already have.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Amy
Despite the hype, Apple's still hardly selling any iTunes, and this ratio is really the thing to watch: itunesperipod.com. iTunes Music Store is just a cover for Apple to sell the greatest major-record-label-circumvention device ever constructed. The record companies have got to be insane if they think they can survive the push onto the internet with higher prices. Now that every hip, album art fetishist has an iPod to fetishize instead, they don't care about owning a physical CD. And when you stop buying physical CDs, you usually don't start buying iTunes-- and don't give me some anecdotal evidence of people who do. The sense of scale is everything; billions of songs are fileshared every day and Apple didn't even sell 100 million iTunes in a year.
This was inevitable i suppose. I'm sure people will still continue buying, and slashdot will continue bitch. Life goes on...
The Digital Couture Collection
If i *knew* that money was going to the artists, i'd be okay with it. Since i know it's not, fuck 'em; i won't buy. Free streams are doing just fine for me.
Fine -- they can have it their way. The $.99 model was working fairly well, and a decent number of people were actually entertaining the notion of paying for music. This development will prove, yet again, that greed is running this show -- not fairness.
Until there is a "fair" alternative, meaning it's accepted as fair to the majority of open-minded and reasonable people, we will continue to see a well-defined, concerted effort to make music available for free.
iTunes was a step forward, and this represents 3 steps backward. It's a slap in the face to those who were actually paying for what was available for free. Expect them to be punished severely, in the form of greatly increased P2P activity.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
I thought there was a bad word to describe when a parent company forces a price that a retailer has to sell a product for....
Oh...wasn't that practice illegal as well?
Cheers
J
Time to threaten, noisily, a boycott?
Am all for Apple but the record labels need to know who's boss. Namely the customers.
When are the record labels going to understand that their product isn't worth what they want to charge?
It's like the NBA - a big marketing scheme where the underlying product does not have the appeal nor the value their pushers would like us to assign...
It's a pretty cheap service, but some doubts were brought up whether Americans could legally use the service.
It charges 1 cent per MB of downloading, and it works out to about 5-8 cents per song. You can choose your encoding (mp3, ogg etc.) and bitrate. Allofmp3.com
The good 'ole Walton family stands to make a pretty petty (and a good bit of market share) if they can use their clout to keep the prices at their music service at $.99
Sorry Charlie........
It was always a boggle as to why the Post Office didn't just go right up to 20 cents a stamp instead of the weird 19 cents. It would have increased revenues and forestalled, at a very small price to the consumer, the next price hike to 22 cents (22???).
Same thing here. Instead of going up to a nice round number like 1.50, they choose a number right smack dab in the middle. While the price may be temporarily lower now, we can expect that the next price increase will happen faster than if they just brought the cost up to a nice round number.
Something tells me that the marketing department is at work here. Nothing else could be so evil.
I have been pwned because my
I'd recommend reading the Register's take on the story rather than the Post's: it has more facts right and doesn't have a flashing Howard Stern advert. Anyway, Steve Jobs also mentioned the issue in a recent iTunes conference call- here's what he said (credit goes to www.macrumors.com):
"But in any event, most of the albums on iTunes are priced at $9.99 and below and, no, they're not creeping up. There's always a few that are a little higher than you can go in and pull out, but they're very, very competitive and we see in the future the prices of the albums coming down, not going up, because that's what it's going to take to sell more albums and it's in everybody's best interest to do so."
So, it's definitely a label vs apple thing. Anyone know who would get the extra money from the price hike, and in what proportions?
p.s. The journalism in the Washington Post is just "great". I quote,
"Apple's willingness to allow some singles to be priced higher than 99 cents indicates the company feels empowered by its current success in the download market and sees a chance to boost profits from the sales of digital music."
Where'd they get this information, you may ask? Did they perhaps pull it out of thin air? Immediately preceeding this, "Spokespersons for the major record companies declined to comment. A spokesperson for iTunes was not available for comment."
Nice.
"The Wall Street Journal carries a story today on the higher prices customers are starting to face from online music stores. Apple, for example, is charging $17 for N.E.R.D.'s new 12-track Fly or Die album, while Napster charges $14--both higher than the $13.50 Amazon is selling the physical CD for. All five major record labels are also reportedly discussing ways to raise the price of single downloads, from increasing the price anywhere from $1.25 to $2.50, to bundling hot singles with less desirable tracks or charging more for singles of tracks that have not yet been released in stores."
From what I've read Apple only gets 10 cents from each track sold and RIAA get 70 cents.
Just as this starts to take off, seems like the RIAA is content to kill it again. Brilliant.
Apple created a service where people that people would be happy to pay for because it finally offered music at a decent price.
So what does the RIAA do? They try to kill it by forcing Apple to increase the price until it is as expensive as a CD.
Basically destroys the whole purpose of the service, doesn't it?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Again, only reacting and attempting to stuff the genie back into the bottle. I don't download illegal music -- but I sure as hell do rip CDs that don't belong to me.
If the labels want to survive, they have to recognize the new reality of music consumption and distribution. Consumers will embrace the most efficient systems that provide what they want, and right now iTMS and its competitors are the best solution.
Oh, and support local artists -- go see them live.
-p
Why are there even music companies involved at all?
I understand there are older titles, but shouldn't artists negotiate terms with Apple directly?
Am I missing something or has the "record label" gone the way of the record and the label?
As more people realize that iTunes is a viable option to the $18 cd, it will push the RIAA and its demon member companies to lower it's prices.
Now if they raise the price, the RIAA can hold onto its CD monopoly for a little while longer.
Fuck it. Whatever. I'll support my favorite artists by seeing them live.
While my initial assumption is that Apple is probably happy to make a tiny profit on the iTMS in order to drive sales of its cash cow iPod, my guess is that a price hike might have been on their sales roadmap.
Sorry to use a cliche, but...
1. Offer songs for $.99 to get people hooked on buying online
2. Increase price of song by $.26
3. Wait until people get used to that, then increase price of song to $2.00
4. Profit!
My gut tells me that this is not going to happen, as Apple has plenty of money in the bank to run the store at its current price point. Speaking as someone who works in an establishment that has priced itself out of interest for almost all of our local demographic, I sure hope that if they raise the prices, they know what they're doing.
MG
However, I doubt that's the case, as I think in general Apple wants to try to keep a "standard" price across the board.
Why yes I am!
I have been buying and have pretty much substituted physical CD purchases for iTunes Music Store purchases.
Watch me *stop* any and all purchases if prices do increase.
The next pasture is always greener
On a somewhat related side note, I am running for Congress in Nebraska. Conservative? Yes, I am. But, pro-technology, anti-RIAA/MPAA/DMCA? Darn right! Want real change? Vote Ringsmuth for Congress May 11 in Nebraska. That is the only way things will happen. If elected, I will do everything in my power to bring down these cartels.
The article seems to imply that the record labels were the ones who were asking for the higher prices, but it doesn't offer any particular evidence for that inference. In fact, the whole article seems very short on evidence, even in the form of quotes from their unnamed sources.
I suspect that the reporters found out that the price is going up, but have no real clue what happened in the negotiations.
Isn't it possible that Apple wanted to increase their profit margins just as much as the record labels did?
So now, as retailers drive up the price, it's now going to be cheaper to by your non-DRM CD from Target or Wal*Mart or wherever than to get a DRM restricted album from iTunes et al? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
/. all the time.
Cheaper promotion + Cheaper distribution + Cheaper Capital costs is supposed to equal Lower Prices (tm).
In order for online distribution to succeed, there has to be some sort of critical mass of consumers -- without them, the business won't be profitable, and it's locked in a death spiral of having to raise prices and losing more customers.
At some point, the music industry just might have to accept that its no longer profitable to run business in this way. Music has been around a lot longer than the recording industry, and will be around a lot longer than when the industry disappears. The sooner they get that lesson through their heads, the sooner we can stop having the exact same discussions on
The download biz is finally taking off after eyars of trying and you want to raise prices? This strikes me as profoundly stupid but then again the RIAA isn't exactly a brain trust.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
How do they justify this? This method (online) of distribution is cheaper than normal methods. Distributing music online removes the necessity of pressing the CDs which although cheap, must add up.
How do they justify a rate hike that in some cases make online albums more expensive than normal albums?
How do they justify that the quality of music downloaded from iTunes is not as high as that ripped from a CD? We would be paying more money for less quality. (iTunes is selling songs at 128kbps, correct?) If they started selling them in Apple's lossless format - well that would be a step in the right direction.
I have a feeling they aren't even footing the bill on the bandwidth. I bet Apple is paying for all the hosting and bandwidth. Does anyone know for sure?
So instead of whining about how some big major-label Universal album (where the artist hardly gets paid anyway) is DRM'd or expensive, be an independent thinker and go try some of the smaller services.
Emusic
Website for Mac, Windows, Linux where members can download up to 40 tracks per month of high-quality MP3 files. Has been around for YEARS doing both 99-cent downloads, and all-you-can-eat downloads for paid members. Has great catalog of indie label music - company is currently reforming.
AudioLunchbox
One of the first all-independent music download sites. Tracks retail for 99 and albums retail for $9.99. ALB pays out 59 per song and $5.90 per album.
NetMusic
Digital download and streaming service. We get 65 cents per downloaded song. Entire-album downloads usually retail at $9.99.
Emepe3.com
Website that primarily targets Latin America, USA and Spain. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
Etherstream
Website that offers a la carte downloads. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
Music4Cents
Retails independent music at very reasonable prices. Pays 55 cents per download. Sells independent music - they will sell CD Baby songs at $.69.
QTRnote
Artist gets about $.64.
TriaSite
TriaSite retails independent music downloads. Pays $.65 per download
Puretracks
Canada-only service that offers $.99 downloads. Website is currently available to Candian residents only. Puretracks is acting both as an online download retailer and a back-end service provider for other retailers. Downloads cost $.99 per track - artist gets about $.59 per track.
CatchMusic
Download site focusing on independent music. CatchMusic sells a la carte downloads at $1 each. Songs retail at $1 - artist gets about $.55 per song.
Viztas Digital Marketplace
Viztas Digital Marketplace will sell all kinds of digital media - not just music. Tracks retail for 99 and albums retail for $9.99. Vistaz pays out 60 per song and $6.10 per album. Viztas has not yet launched.
DiscLogic
A la carte downloads. Tracks sell for 99 cents. We get 65 cents. Entire-album downloads are usually $9.99.
"Support only the artists that allow the free taping and distribution of their music!"
Should how do I stop liking good music? It's not all crap in the industry, and the independents have a long way to go (even those with talent usually don't have decent production). Should I boycott Led Zeppelin now? I only buy used CDs, but since I actually like good music I can't just pretend that everything I own is "bad" because the execs are greedy.
G
What the hell does this mean? Prices fluctuate all the time. Supply and Demand and all that. Is this statment supposed to be some sort of justification for stealing?
it's the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
They can get iTunes to do whatever, I'm sick of dealing with them and I won't do it anymore.
So what can I do? Well, I could pirate, or I could not use iTunes and use Allofmp3.com instead. Quite simply, it's better than iTunes. Now the interface might not be as nice, but what other music store let's you select any codec you want at the bitrate you want? Or why don't you just download the CD without using a lossless compression and use FLAC instead? You can have them encode it pretty much any way you want.
Even if they didn't have that feature, the price alone is worth it. I've downloaded albums at 85 cents (192kbs vbr MP3s). It's only $5 for 500MB of download.
The best part? It's all completely legal (endorsed by the Russian government and Russian equivalent of the RIAA).
How will this impact iTunes sales? the 99c song pricepoint was PERFECT, people seeing that $$$ by $1.26 = D: face ... for an mp3 they could download from the local USENET server..
but at 99c, it's like.. "Hey, I don't have to go to the trouble of finding it for under a buck" doesn't work too well after, i am thinking
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Cost of uploading new content to music stores is going up all the time - 25% just this year!
I mean, killing legal online music distribution would be that easy. You find a pricepoint people like (such at . 99 a track), then get people used to it. Then, the second the service starts to take off, you jack it up.
.99 again. Nope...you'll have to go much lower; we'll want blood.
You don't even need to jack it up much. That quarter will do. You then manage to instantly alienate customers like me, who had finally come out of the illegal p2p services to pay for music because they realized it wasn't that bad.
And the thing to remember is that if you piss off customers like me, who were just getting used to the model in the first place, we are hard to get back. Don't expect us to come running back just because you lower it back down to
And more than 15 bucks for albums? In a lossy compressed format with DRM? Yeah. Sure.
The labels see the handwriting on the wall since no one wants to buy "filler crap" online.
I've been really pissed off at the recording industry - it came to a boil point when I had all of the albums enigma produced - so I was going to forgo the "Greatest Hits" cd.
To my rage they had a song on the greatist hits album that wasn't freaking released on any other cd.
I've never heard the song - nor will I purchase another cd for the low underhanded method of trying to get me to rebuy songs I already purchased for the new song.
the industry knows that the writing is on the wall - they are desperately trying to force the the old ways of raping the customers to make a profit on us.
Unfortunately - we're all going to suffer since Piracy will continue, and the legislation to "protect" the industry will likely force major changes on the way the web works.
lose lose.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Changing the price from $0.99 to $1.25 would be like when Arby's changed their "5 for $5 Time" Deal, to "5 for $5.55" Deal. . . . (which was terrible!) It just doesn't have the same ring to it.
hmm... four thousand songs at $1.25? Not going to happen. People are just going to resort to piracy.
On the other hand, lots of people would shell out hundreds to load up the ipod...
The key to selling something that is nearly free to reproduce isn't margin, it's VOLUME. They could be generating a ton more revenue if lowered the prices.
The industry has been fighting the online revolution in music from the beginning. Perhaps this is just a way of killing off net distribution?
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
This affects me not in the littlest way because, as a filthy Canadian, I am not allowed to download anything from the iTunes store. We'll just have to keep getting our music the old fashioned way...
planet texture maps and more
Yes I am, you smug little turd. I pay for my music, my videos, my software, my books, whathave you. I know that the artists involved are often getting ripped off by their record labels. But that doesn't mean I am going to screw them even furter.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Sony owns Columbia don't they? I'm sure they could at least license their OWN music at 99 cents. I wonder how fair that is.
Exactly, what do the music labels think they are going to get out of this? How about killing the legal download market? $10.00 is in my opinion too high, because if I really like something, I'll buy the CD rather than a copy of lesser sound quality. Talk about extortion.
Hopefully, Apple will try to essentially become a label in the future, eliminating the trash that markets the likes of Britany. Friends of mine simply buy the CD, burn it in whatever way they choose, and sell it used. I'm going to start doing this, but I mentioned that I would also copy the CD cover with the receipt so that down the road when the likes of Valenti come a knockin' with the FBI, I have proof of my purchase.
Well, a price hike sucks. But stepping back to look at the big picture, I have to say that we are in the middle of a huge step in the right direction. As Apple continues its pursuit of Playfair, I'm sure everyone has noticed a subtle paradigm shift not just in the tone of people here on Slashdot but in the technical community at large.
When the MPAA sued 2600 for linking to some source code, a lot of technical people got very upset. How could source code be banned? It's free speech, isn't it? While many flavors of speech (from fire in a crowded theater to bomb-making instructions) have been illegal for years, this was the first time that dangerous technical speech was being regulated. And for many, this meant the onset of Chicken Little histrionics.
But the digital crowbar that spawned a million T-shirts only hurt the movie industry. Technical people were slow to empathize with the enrichment of Scientologists like Tom Cruise. And the "tyranny of the majority" was definitely hampering the effectiveness of the DMCA, halting the prosection of reverse engineers like Skylarov and spreading decryption software like DeCSS across the globe.
With the advent of PlayFair, however, the shoe is now on the other foot. Geeks are walking a mile in Rosen's shoes, and they are not happy. For the first time, the technical community has something to lose because an encryption scheme is under attack: iTunes may be going away, with geeks standing to lose everything from TMBG to Devo to Whitney Houston (all for 99c+ a song!) just because some software developer decided to piss in the public pool.
And the paradigm shift is now very evident. In place of Slashdot stories decrying the "MPAA witchhunt", we now have highly moderated comments in support of Apple for taking the fight to their attackers using the DMCA. And why not? After all it is much easier to understand the Israeli use of helicopter assassination after you've lived through your first bombing at a West Bank disco.
I think that this paradigm shift represents a crucial "turning of the majority" in favor of accepting the DMCA. Once groups like EFF get on board I think the final stone will be in place for Microsoft to release a cheap "convergence device" that will allow pay-per-use movies, games, music and all other digital media on trusted hardware all across the globe. And the consumer will benefit.
I mean, which of us wouldn't defend Lode Runner for 99c a game?
Well, we tried...wonder what WalMart will do? All I can say is "thank God for Kazaa!"
At this point, a company would be struggling to lower the price to be the cheapest source of music downloads to attract the most users and to reap the benefit from volume.
Once again, we see how RIAA doesn't operate in terms of logic like any other business.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
This is potentially great for independent artists -- offering downloads at $.99 or $.90 per song now will make you seem competetive. And all you have to do is make sure you don't suck (at least, less than stuff on the radio).
Tweet, tweet.
And it's not just dumb because they're making the price higher, but they're making the EASILY COPYABLE audio CD format competetive again!
I mean what the crap? On one hand they're trying to secure their intellectual property, and on the other they're deterring people from a format that secures their intellectual property with out-of-whack pricing?
Dumbasses! This is a strategic blunder, how do they not see it? In a weird turn of the tables, I'm mad about it because they're so obviously proliferating a problem they're trying to solve.
I should be happy, because it means the long life of easily "shareable" audio CDs, but somehow I'm not..
-- The unsig...
Exec 1: (flushes golden toilet) The number of people using illegal P2P has gone down since iTunes was opened.
Exec 2: We can still sue them right?
Exec 1: No, they paid for the music.
Exec 2: WHAT!?!!?!??! Not sue people!!! but how can we offend our customer while alienating them at the same time????
Exec 1: Raise Prices?
Exec 2: You are a genius, CD sales will skyrocket!! We can control what they listen to again!!!! Now if you excuse me I need to use the john
Exec 1: Its out of TP, use this (hand him stack of $100s)
> At the 99-cent price, only about 10 cents from each song sale goes to Apple's bottom line, with about 70 cents going to the record labels and the other 20 cents paying for credit-card fees and distribution costs, sources say.
Anyone care to wager how much of that $.70 goes to the artists? Anyone? How about that price hike? Think royalties are going up for the people who actually do the work? Think again...
I'm tired of waiting for the RIAA to drown in the tarpit. We need to shove it deeper in and put a few bullets in its head while we're at it.
I get the feeling that Apple really didn't want this to happen. Raising the prices reduces the "deal" of downloading the album. As others have pointed out, why pay 16 bucks for an encrypted, DRM'd copy of an album that you have restricted rights to; when for 18 dollars you can have a CD that you can do what ever to. Steve Jobs and Co. probably only agreed to this out of fear of losing the rights to distribute music. While selling music online helps the RIAA, it does not do so enough for Apple to really leverage their position on the pricing. From the vantage point of Apple, they need the RIAA more than the RIAA needs them.
Slashdot...it's like Fox news, but without the biased sl...or maybe not.
As The Register pointed out, and it could well be true, it seems the RIAA is started to fear Steve and his creation. The old men of the RIAA were held over the barrel once before by MTV and now when a new industry starts up that produces them pure profit through every sale, they decide to start restraining it and quite possibly destroying it.
On the flip-side of course we have Steve throwing his weight around with Pixar and Disney. This is almost exactly the same thing the RIAA are doing, albeit Steve and Pixar had a bad contract with the monolithic Disney.
I guess we can only hope the RIAA come to their collective senses and note that they cannot throw their weight around like this anymore, the indies will eventually prevail.
If Sony will sell throught their own channel for $0.99, but requires Apple to go to $1.29, that sound like a FTC investigation waiting to happen.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Remind me never to come to your house for dinner.
I haven't bought anything because I thought 99 was too much! There actually was a couple of songs I would have bought but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the price! I can't believe the price went up instead of down! The RIAA are out of their minds!
Alright here's a conspiracy theory. Sony could be the reason behind the hike. New player enters a market dominated by apple and apple's price per song increases? I bet sony would remain at 99c and isn't sony a major music label? Also Ipods were the main target of apple not pusing songs so i guess they won't care much now.
Nothing kills innovation faster than making it expensive.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
Frankly if I'm going to have to pay as much (or more) than the new physical CD costs, well, f-it. I'll go buy the CD. I'll have the actual media then and also be able to rip it and distribute it to as many computers as I wish.
...and RIAA secretly knows this... might they be simply trying to pressure Apple into raising their prices in order to have them eventually fail the iTunes business?
Either RIAA is absolutely blinded by greed (a distinct possibility) or they might just be blinded by their lust for power/control. Consider this: if people think like I do and don't want to pay as much for the restricted-ethereal-copy as they do for the free-as-a-bird physical media
At that point the RIAA could point to iTunes and say, "Hey, people and Congress, the people don't want legal stuff! Let us make evil non redbook-standard CD's that are laden with DRM! Protect our braindead ancient way of doing business!"
I recently bought two (my first two) songs on iTunes and enjoyed the experience. But it's pushing it to ask me to spend 10-12 right now to get all the files that made up the original CD. If it goes up to $14-17, not a chance. I'll buy a used CD or I'll get it from Gnutella or I'll just listen to the damn radio. $.99/song is the LIMIT, not the start. Otherwise, I want the physical media and the dead tree art.
Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
The good news is that there will always be an iTunes DRM stripper program available. It may be thwarted by the latest version of iTunes, but it will catch up within days or weeks.
So we should always be able to "clean" our music that we've bought.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
I'll be going back to Kazaa. I win again.
Of course these record labels want iTunes to charge $1.25 per song. They have their own online music stores; iTunes is the enemy, not the vanguard savior of online music distribution (according to the labels).
20,30 years ago, artists like the Who, Stevie wonder, even Metallica produced actual albums (compliations of related songs) that people wanted to buy. Now there is one song and a lot of filler.
I'd rather spend 10.99 for a 2 sided 12" vinyl (yes vinyl) dance record than give that money to a major lalbleI wonder if this means that the record labels will have more royalties to keep since they can't locate/contact artists.
1 233&mode=thread&tid=141&tid=188&tid=98&tid=99>/.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/06/121
really, the best route for anyone wanting to listen to music is to stick to more independent material--there's enough good stuff out there to last you several lifetimes.
that way, when you buy a song from Magnatune, Bleep, or Audiolunchbox, you WON'T be:
1.) sending your cash to the RIAA
2.) attributing to the success of a service that fronts the RIAA, supporting the operation of tyrannous record labels with your cash
3.) supporting propietary DRM
4.) locking yourself into using iTunes or an iPod as your portable player
by opting for other services that aren't iTunes/Walmart/Sony/Rhapsody/etc.., you WILL be:
1.) sending more cash to the musicians you like
2.) attributing to the success of a service that better represents and compensates the musicians you like, without restricting how you listen to your music
3.) free to listen to your music however you want, whether it be with winamp or foobar, linux or whatever OS you use, ipod or rio karma
Tell them how you feel.
http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Hey Steve go find some "good" artist and sell there songs only through Itunes. If it is good they will come.
There's no price war - the people pushing for the price increase control prices at all the OTHER online stores, too. Sony may be in a special cirucmstance because they're also a record label, but being too obvious about it would probably bring antitrust claims.
From the Apple iTunes Press Conference, on April 29th: Complete transcript is available over nyah.
My question is, which one of Apple's competitors is propagating this FUD?!
-agent oranje.
That was fun while it lasted.
-Mikey P
Steve jobs said in his conference call transcript that he is keeping the price at 99 cents because that is what the customers want.
oh, and according to the register, the euro labels are to blame because they thing that they can get customers to buy music at 2.99 a song.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
They're digging their own graves. Let them.
sulli
RTFJ.
Isn't this collusion? The suppliers of a good negotiated together to raise the price tot he consumers. That's blatant collusion. That's illegal.
....not paying the artists....
only buy songs from the artists who are selling their songs directly to their fans, like George Michael and... aw shit, forget it.
This is simply amazing...they make money out of online music stores with no extra effort whatsoever.$1.00 per song is good...I don't know how much the RIAA gets out of it but I think it's safe to assume they get more than $.50 out of each song...instead of inovating they just come out with more crap and want more money for it...history dictates that practices like this are a downfall of many seccess stories,they are just cocky and greedy and thats a weakness...they think nothing can stop them but sooner or later people will just stop putting up with this crap.I'm all for independant artists they play better music that comes from the heart and i support them by going to concerts at local clubs and buying there CDS right on the spot if i like what I hear...good stuff spreads and bad stuff gets worse even if it was decent in the past...that statement is true for evrything in my opnion and history proves it.
Don't support itunes, just buy somewhere else, like http://www.allofmp3.com it's cheap and have better collection of music.
Didn't they find that lowering the price in other countries increased sales? I mean for example a dnb 15 track cd...that's $15...if you raise that to 1.25 a track that's $18.75. I have paid less for some dvds before! Ugh $1/track was actually almost fair.
:(){
Isn't Sony in the RIAA too? Isn't that like some sort of conflict of interest?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Bend over and touch your toes. I promise, you'll enjoy it because I'm ribbed for your pleasure.
Hugs and Kisses,
Steve "Hand" Jobs
Earth to slashdot: The record industry model is based on selling albums. Online music kills their revenue model. They own the IP so they dictate the packaging. Game over.
-- $G
One of these days someone in a broadcast industry (TV can be just as guilty) will realize that transmission mediums have changed, and the best way to survive is to adapt. Surely someone in these monolithic corporations realizes that their paradigm has shifted (See? I'm even using buzz words!), and that the best thing to do now is most likely to shift operations as well. Media companies should be more versatile, might improve their image and even their ::gasp:: bottom line!
I have found Magnatune to be very good. Not a massive selection, but at least they are all of good quality. No "dork-in-the-basement-with-a-keyboard" like some other free music sites have. Some of these are really good. "Brad Sucks" is interesting, "Rocket City Riot" and "The Napolean Blown Aparts" are good ol' rock-n-roll. I am sure there is more there, I just haven't gotten through it all yet.
Check it out.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Isnt' this obviously illegal? In America price-setting cartels were outlawed after the era of oil, steel, and railroad monopolies. The i-tunes customers should contact the justice department. What is this russia?
Or not.
This could doom Apple, or at least set them up for yet-another-company-direction-change.
Apple has essentially refocused their company as an entertainment company - iPod + iTunes.
If the record companies have their way, Apple will lose its entertainment momentum and find itself back at square one. Meanwhile it will have lost more desktop marketshare, so it will have an even greater battle.
The solution is clear to me now. Call me a visionary, I just had a vision. Apple needs to become a Record Company. It needs to do better by its customers and artists (not difficult) than the current record companies do.
That would be an interesting battle to watch.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
It's back to p2p. I don't even think I need to explain.
All those people calling the RIAA a bunch of morons, or greedy pigs, or idiot businessmen don't know what the hell they're talking about. The RIAA knows *exactly* what it's doing.
Understand that the RIAA wants all digital download systems to fail. Period. Why? Because digital downloads will make most music labels (in the long run) obsolete. You think it's an accident that legal downloading of music has taken so long to get off the ground? The only reason they're allowing any digital downloads at all is the threat of legislation -- they don't want to fight the government. But they need to slow this iTunes thing down pronto before it gets too far out of hand. And the best way to do this is to raise prices.
Yeah, they're dumb all right. Dumb as a fox.
RIAA wants to hike prices? Fine. Let them.
It's real simple. iTMS just had a record sales week with 3.3M songs sold. They are averaging something like 2.5M songs per week. Let the RIAA hike the price. Let's watch the numbers.
If consumers don't have a problem with the price hike, sales will be unaffected. If consumers don't like it, sales will drop. If sales drop by more than 26%, the RIAA starts loosing money. If that happens, they'll be forced to restore the $0.99 pricing.
You can't blame them for hiking their prices, if the market will yield a profit by doing so. As buyers of music, we all get to vote on whether the price increase is reasonable. If we collectively say we won't pay $1.25/song, they will be forced to either drop prices or lose money.
Obviously the RIAA is feeling optimistic about the future of legally downloaded music, and wants to get the price hike in now while they can. Obviously this does no good other than inflate their pocket books, and many of you (me too) believe this is flat-out wrong. I suggest we all email Bill O'Reilly, who is a guy that gets things done when there is an outrage (this is one).
oreilly@foxnews.com
Perhaps if there is a price hike, we start a BOYCOTT (like the French one...that is hurting them big) for any music priced above $0.99. Please email Bill and let him hear you out. If enough of us do, we can make something happen.
Might want to keep your comments pithy.
Michael Jensen
Columbia, MO
Fucking idiots. They deserve whatever they get,.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Why are they even needed anymore? An artist can get his own studio time, cut his own album, put it online, and enjoy the proceeds, as it should be. There is still a need for marketing; but why not have music marketing firms that handle the promotion without "owning" the artists or their music? This price-raising on online music makes me spitting mad. I'll stop buying music online and I'll stop buying CDs. PERIOD. Way to go, record companies. You are your own worst enemy.
Unsure of how to comment, but knowing only that the inner me is harbouring negative emotions for the RIAA and their ilk, I can only say that I am staggered although, strangely at the same time, not particularly surprised.
:(
As others have I am sure noted, although the bravado (i.e. lawsuits) is well-publicised, this is a front for the reality that they are very scared about the future of their now obsolete business model. This action is either a continuation of this same bravado, or utter greed/stupidity on their part.
I will freely admit that I want to listen to some of the content that their groups produce, howsoever they may have obtained it (heavy-handed contracts, extortion, etc.). I personally believe that a little bit is actually quite good (there is no accounting for taste). However, I am customer and as such, the free market (which true capitalists love so much) should decide. They are asking me to pay $1.25 for 128kbps AAC when I can have 320kbps MP3 for free. The market has decided. My wallet's status - intact.
The consolation is that this utter farce cannot and will not go on. The cartel's attempts to make information a totally pay-per-play-based good will fail in the long run - there is enough historical evidence to suggest that this is inevitable. But, wow, in the meantime, if this kind of thing is their game, I have one recourse to suggest to all those who currently frequent iTMS - c'mon guys, P2P is ready to welcome you back with open arms!
iqu
(In truth, I am British, so I have never actually been able to sample the delights of the iTMS firsthand anyway, but I can tell you, if I could - although one can guarantee that at British prices, I would be reluctant to do so in the first place - I would not continue to do so in light of these actions.)
Sony's (one of the Big 5 record labels) Sony Connect music download service launched 5/5/2004. The price point is $.99 for singles and $9.99 for albums.
The same week we get reports that the Big 5 has successfully managed to pressure Apple to raise their prices.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill RIAA
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
... that's what I'd name this article if I knew some label's CEOs read ./
Sometimes I wonder if those guys at the big labels, which MUST be quite clever (after all, they manage multi-billion dollar companies) still believe that they can win over piracy without winning over their costumers first... It all just seems bad PR to me...
I don't know how to create a .sig
I would like to see a business justification for raising the prices 26 per cent, showing increased short-term costs in allowing apple to rip and post these things, or increased costs in referring the appropriate royalties to the artists involved.
I bet I don't see one.
Becaue I bet that this is just another fscking ripoff of the public, and they are trying to take control again by shutting down the economic benefits of online sales.
I do not at this time maintain that they are trying to get some quick cash to pay off a court order that they start paying long-term old back royalties to artists exceeding 50 million dollars, royalty money owed by contract to artists, that was conveniently held back because they "could not find" artists of the demure stature of madonna.
these bastards lie with every breath, have no direct impetus to reward the artist community that makes and fills their rice bowl, and doesn't give one half a shit about the public they sell to.
RIAA, in short, is a band of thugs.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Yes, yes, I am glad I started paying for downloading music. From the Russians....
"I compare [open source vs. non-open source] to science vs. witchcraft." linus
I don't balme Apple as much, they seem to be doing the minimum to deal with them.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Hmm, At $17/cd might as well buy it and rip it yourself. Maybe people are staring to ask why can you sell it only for $10 but it cost $17 at a store. It shouldnt cost $7 to dupe a CD...
they can fight and take people to court all they want but if they continue to rip-off the public, we will continue to download. $17 for a downloaded CD? they better mail me a copy of the disk for that.
I went with the higher priced iTunes over Wal-Mart because iTunes seemed to be a better quality selection. Their interface was better. If Apple goes to 1.25, I'll send them a polite note explaining the concept of supply and demand, and then promptly move to Wal-Mart and their .88 price. If enough people do it, it won't take long for iTunes to return to .99.
They asked us to buy music legally, we did. They have an infinite supply and a small but growing demand. They son't want to fu@k this up.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Artists don't get a dime with itunes too. Okay i stand corrected, they get a dime after riaa take their share.
In this case, I have the gold. I'm the consumer. Which creates resentment in me, that I'm being ripped off by people who make no actual essential product, and as of iTunes and such, sell no physical product.
You mean like this? Here let me cut-n-paste from their website.
We started planning the station in 1999, and officially launched SomaFM.com in February 2000. Drone Zone was our first station, Groove Salad our second, Secret Agent our third. Over time we would add more channels... we were up to 11 channels when the DMCA CARP ruling came down and forced SomaFM to either pay $500 a day in royalties to the record companies or go off the air. We had no choice but to suspend our streams.
Between June 2002 and November 2002, Rusty learned a lot about politics. By enlisting SomaFM listeners to write and fax congress, in November congress finally came through and passed the Small Webcasters Amendment Act. While the SWAA was not ideal and far from perfect, it would allow SomaFM to go back on the air. Instead of $500 a day we would only have to pay $2000-5000 a year from now on, plus $6000 in back fees. On November 19th, 2002, we returned to the air.
We currently have 6 separate channels back on the air (with 6 more ready to resume broadcasting as soon as we pay off our debt to the RIAA). The station is going strong. We get over 1 million "listener hours" a month, which makes us one of the larger internet-only broadcasters. But we're not looking to increase our audience by playing more mainstream music. We look for music and formats that aren't available on commercial radio, or formats that are "not being done right" as Rusty puts it.
Life is not for the lazy.
RIAA is just like every other corperation trying to censor something they can't control. They can't control the flow of data, and if they look through ISP logs to find .mp3's which were traded around, I'll encode/encrypt them in any format/algorithm to get around it. Screw the RIAA. I'd rather pay $.50 for a song and have 45 of that 50 cents go to the artist.
Record labels/enforcers are going to be out of a job when musicians learn how to set up their own, much cheaper, rate of selling their songs to the public.
Record companies will be a thing of the past. And you won't need millions of capital to start up a mainstream band/get signed. You just need access to a web and a method to get the music to the fans. This is why I liked mp3.com. If they could incorperate that into a donation method, or sampleing method then have the artist themselves sell the song on it, while making a small, 1-3% contribution to the site for offering the service, both parties would be inevitably rich and the record companies would be SOL.
The RIAA loves the new Napster, or at least, part of it. For those who aren't quite familiar with how the service works, users pay a monthly fee to subscribe to Napster. Then, based on the preferences of the copyright holder, users can either stream or download tracks for a one-time fee. Once the fee is paid, the user can listen to the song as many times as they want, but only downloaded songs can be loaded onto mp3 players, etc. for use away from the computer.
The rub, of course, is that if a subscriber stop paying Napster a monthly subscription fee, she loses access to the music streams she's already paid for. It's brilliant, because in the end, the consumer gets nothing for their dollar but instant gratification. No file, no archived recording, just the experience of having heard Outkast encouraging them to "shake it like a Polaroid picture" to file away in their memory.
The RIAA adores this. It makes them happy like dogs rolling in some particularly nasty filth. They look out and see the incredible use statistics counting the users of p2p and iTunes, and they start multiplying subscription fees on top of those numbers. It's the best deal possible for them, because they manage to make money by selling us no real assets.
But iTunes style stores, where users are given individual copies of songs to keep and own, and use in perpetuity for a one-time fee? The RIAA hates this. It makes them sad, like a pet owner discovering that his dog has rolled in some particularly nasty filth. Instead of a recurring revenue stream that's locked into continuing to pay for the RIAA's existing products for life, each consumer instead is a fair deal. They get songs for a low one-time fee, they're able to get their music a la carte without having to buy dozens of filler tracks, and they're still offered the instant gratification that is the only real selling point the streaming model has to offer. The RIAA, in turn, is forced to continue producing new product at a high enough quality that they can continue to sell it to customers.
Once you understand this, it's easy to see what the RIAA is doing: They're trying to shut down iTunes.
By raising the cost of songs to $1.25, they're breaking the magic $1 price point. Anything under a buck, well hell, that's just a candy bar. Why not buy it? But $1.25, that's a 20oz. bottle of soda, a purchase that must be considered a little more carefully. They've broken the psychological barrier to impulse purchases that $.99 magically hovers below.
By raising the price of full albums on iTunes to be equivalent to the cost of a physical CD bought in the store, the RIAA looks on the surface like they're creating a financial incentive to go and buy the album at a music store. But we all know that's not how this will work out.
What will happen is that iTunes' sales will drop, but they won't be met with a commeasurate increase in sales at music stores. The RIAA knows that people accustomed to the iTunes Music Store will return to illegal acquisition of music via filesharing before they'll go to the store and buy it.
In fact, they're counting on it, because once the iTunes music store is dead, they can say, "See? We tried, we put our best foot forward, but it just didn't work. These pirates aren't interested in paying." Then the lawyers can go to town, until there is no technological nor legal recourse available to escape their stranglehold on recorded music.
It's not only evil, it's fucking brilliant.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Actually isn't this type of price fixing exactly the thing that should get a close look by the FTC's antitrust investigators? The recording industry should not have this type of leverage over Apple...
Apple can NEVER become a music label, because of their original agreement with Apple Music, company founded by The Beatles.
Well, it seems to be working-- lots of people talking about giving up downloading music and BUYING CDS again, as if this would be something the RIAA wouldn't like. Someone explain to me: how is this in any way a protest against the RIAA?
Four words: Buy used. Rip. Resell.
If the record companies want an increase, why don't they show us where all the money is going? If they're not just lining their own CEO's and VP's pockets with extra cash, maybe the general populace would be a lot more receptive.
I want to see the breakdown of the $0.99 song and of the $1.29 song
$0.05 - Artist
$0.10 - Production
$0.10 - Advertising
$0.05 - Distributor (apple, sony, etc that distribute the actual content to the consumer)
$0.69 - Crappy executives that are earning about 69x more than they are actually worth.
I want to know what the fixed and variable portions of the price breakdown are.
Once industries learn that the consumer is not a babbling idiot I think the world will get a lot nicer. Treat me like a logical person. Look I understand that if I love Artist X, and everyone downloads artist X's music for free, and Artist X doesn't see a profit, Artist X is probably not going to make any more albums for me to enjoy.It *IS* that simple.
The revolution I seek is not for FREE things, but it is to appropriately compensate those doing the work and cut out the fat cats of the RIAA and execs that just live off the fat of the land. I'm not here to shaft the artist at all, I'm here to shaft the leeches that are parasites clinging to and feeding off of the actual artists. The artist deserves money, the producers, the sound workers, all deserve to get compensated for their work, but I'd venture to say that most of the other costs are not really value adding to the product we receive.
Love me, hate me. I want a world when you get what you deserve.
Aren't cartels illegal in the US. Can we ban together and Sue the bastards for being the cartels they are.
Evolution or ID?
Last time I checked (one minute ago) N.E.R.D's Fly or Die album was on sale for $13.99. That's 14 bucks for twelve songs, two whom you can only get by purchasing the entire album. Washington Post are, as Al Franken would say, "LIIIAAAAAARS!"
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
So lemme get this straight... there are two bands pushing to bar individual track sales, and I seem to have two middle fingers to extend their way. Concidence? I think not.
From Mac News Network:
Jobs today said that Apple has the largest online music catalog in the world, touting over 700,000 songs from over 450 independent labels as well as the big Five.
I've also read that Apple offered the SAME EXACT TERMS to indies that the Big Five get.
Full article here:
http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=24469
Life is short: void the warranty.
While admittedly, they are shooting themselves, I hesitate to describe the location as being in the foot. Not unless their feet are all of the way up their own butts in the same place where their empty brain-pans are. Even then, the foot shooting would be secondary.
Exactly! I wonder if this is going to blow up in there face? Haha, RIAA!
And why the hell was my post modded flamebait? It was 100% true! Oh right, I bashed an Apple product... Well no bias here, please move along!!
Mod +5 Drunk
From our coverage at Ars, it's not entirely clear that these reports are true. Just a week ago Jobs said that all of these rumors were false.
Please forgive my ignorance, however isn't telling a store it must sell your products at X price or not at all, price fixing? Isn't that illegal?
I can see them demanding more in royalties, and Apple raising the prices to compensate, but out and out saying "you must raise your prices by X or you won't be allowed to sell" seem.... not kosher.
Wasn't one of the big video game console makers caught and spanked for doing that sort of thing?
The xxAA's will drive up the price of ANYTHING until we start ripping them off again or we move to an alternate model.
Bands who cut their own deals with a downloader distro channel are going to be much cheaper (no xxAAs to pay, no P2P downloading rip-off scam that the xxAAs can claim they're cracking dowm on and no more ripping off the artists.)
Coming to the internet soon: an independent distro channel.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Okay. What was the fundamental increase in the cost of placing these goods on the market? How many time does the price of a good go UP when the costs of production haven't changed (or are decreasing)? Answer, when those charging for the good have monopoly power (i.e. the oligopoly of the labels). These guys are clearly not pricing competitively because if they were the price certainly wouldn't be going up for no other reason than a desire to increase profits.
The government should break out the Sherman Act on these labels.
Let's raise the prices of legal downloadable music so people will stop downloading it illegally.
Brilliant.
"...Aren't you glad you starting paying for downloaded music?"
well, i bought a few tunes at iTMS but i've quit. back to gnutella, etc.
Well, 6 or 7 artists wouldn't. The rest would probably be making more.
I work for a DRM company who talks to some of these giants (and Apple), and TimeWarner execs say that they aren't making any money off of selling songs at 99cents a pop because the credit card transaction fees eat up a lot of this.
What they need to do is sell tokens to make this really work.
I would argue that independents have VASTLY more talent and VASTLY better production. A good majority of production you hear on major labels is auto-tuned to the point that the vocals on the recording don't necessarily represent the musicians actual voice. I don't know how you can argue that production is somehow 'worse' on smaller labels. Equipment and software is cheaper than it's ever been and I think it's leveling the playing field to the point that a good indie album sounds just as good if not better than a higher production major label release. Not to mention, old Zeppelin albums had crap production. But really, why are you still buying their albums? Are they still releasing them?!
not all voters are polite.
I'm temped to vote for him, however, I'm in Colorado. DOWN WITH THE ASS RAPING BLOODSUCKING BASTARDS, SPEWING FRIGGIN' CRAP!
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
As much as we all dislike the RIAA's current crusade, I think a lot of people have lost site of what the RIAA is and who its members are. The RIAA is not some cartel of the big music labels like Sony. The RIAA is simply a lobbying group created to make sure the small labels have as much sway as the big labels by banding together. While it sucks that the music labels are trying to get more money out of iTunes, I do not think the RIAA is to blame here.
This should be prevented by anti-trust laws. The FCC doesn't allow the RIAA to jerk radio stations around with these kind of royalty-pricing shennagins, so why can they do it to Apple?
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
The RIAA can kiss my rosy red ass.
This isn't about freedoms. This isn't about the artists getting their "FAIR SHARE". I'm sorry, but I know personally several music performers who have not sold their soul to the devil (music companies) who get along quite nicely just making music locally. If it's superstardom you want - then either make your own name, or realize that you're going to have your work pirated.
I'm DONE with paying for music - GarageBand.com has some wonderful music on it, and the rest of anything I want I'll find online (they'll NEVER stop freenet or
You think they're stopping ANYONE? Hell no, they're just putting it more underground. And to be underground you have to work a little harder than just installing Napster (in the pre-Napster Sucking days).
I have a LOT more interesting things to do with my money than to piss it away at a $16 piece of PLASTIC.
= Grow a brain...
They are doing plenty of work.
I was referring to the work they do in relation to online stores like iTunes. In terms of iTunes they do (basically) no work.
Most of the work is in marketing and promotion. Without that you would have no idea what "music" you wanted to download
Thank God the RIAA is there then. Otherwise I really wouldn't know what to do! Oddly enough, I buy music almost solely based on suggestions from friends/acquaintances and after I download a sampling of the artists music (oops! I pirate). Most of the rest of my music is from places like the (old) mp3.com and include music that is unfortunately not available for purchase anywhere (live techno/trance sets). I don't own a TV (well.. I do, but it is for DVDs/PS2/XBox only), very rarely listen to music on the radio, and find magazines like Rolling Stone worthless. So I fail to see where the RIAA is "telling" me what to buy.
Casual Games/Downloads
It's one of those sounds-too-good-to-be-true deals:
Pay only for bandwidth (resonable $$ too)
Choose your encoding format
Choose your encoding bitrate
I think the unlisted "feature" here is likely 'Fund the Russian mafia' but it's hard to tell from the site alone how legitimate it is, what their real distribution rights are, and if artists are even recieving money from them.
Any slashdotters have experiences or insight on this service? I know someone must because we /.'d it in about 10 minutes after the article went up.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
This (purported) upcoming price hike might increase the success of subscription based services such as MusicMatch MX, Napster Preminum, and Real Rhapsody. The iTunes price hike might force other services such as MusicMatch, Napster, Real Music Store, Sony Music Store, and Wal-Mart to also increase their prices to match. In the end, I believe that the artists, record labels, and RIAA will lose more money from paying customers than they will gain. It is a sad day.
Boycott the major labels.
Buy indie music, and skip "strictly commercial" till the members of RIAA hire smarter and more ethical execs.
My other machine is a lever.
Because iTunes is starting to feature independent artists(starting with Moby sometime in July I think)
They realize that if you take away all the distribution costs, artists are going to start leaving the RIAA in droves.
They tried this thinking that the artists would just stay with the RIAA(maybe getting them to think that it was hard to negotiate with Apple etc), but now they realize that their cash cow is in danger. They can't just stop the service because that will take emphasis away from their lawsuits against traders(since there will be no legal way to download anymore).
Lesson: Don't listen to RIAA music, and support independent artists!
The prices were decent, still too high on itunes. Now they are going to jack it up!?? Looks like I'll be going back to buying used CD's again. Or how bout the local library!
Just supply and demand, folks. I don't think many people here would be interested in what goes for $1.25, anyway.
If prices across the board get raised to $1.25, on the other hand, you've got reason to cry "bait and switch." But that's not what this article is saying.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Are all of the online songs from WalMart going to be censored like the CDs they sell? I never buy CDs at WalMart becuase they bleep out words like "ass" that flow freely on prime-time TV.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
The daily postings by music pirates on Slashdot upset about having to pay for music really tarnishes the Slashdot image in my opinion. I'm sick of seeing the constant whining like "aren't you glad you started paying for downloaded music?" You don't like the price, don't buy it. That's how the economy works. Besides the daily rantings of "reformed" music pirates on Slashdot and the incredibly retarded Bill Gates as a borg logo on Microsoft articles, Slashdot is near the top of my daily news sources. There are a lot of Linux enthusiasts out there that don't necessarily hate Microsoft. And there are a lot of people out there that actually own CDs.
If an album was actually created to be an album (examples being at least most of what Enigma has produced), where each song flows into the next, then there's some actual justification to wanting to keep sales as album only.
In most cases, though, it's just as the article says (in so many words)... a small handful of good songs, thrown together with a bunch of crap.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
So you're saying the record cartels want to price the iTunes product in such a way that it is too expensive to be competitive, thereby negating Apple's ability to become a major distribution force in the music industry, in favor of companies like Wal-Mart? If that's true, shouldn't they be investigated for anti-trust practices?
Breakfast served all day!
How about this, why dont we all give a little feedback on this? There is a feedback form for iTunes, and I've used it before to suggest albums, artists, and stuff like that, but why not use it now to say "hey, raise the price, lose my business." I think you get enought people, and I know there are enough /.'ers out there, it could make a decent statement.
Form:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html
MY THROBBING COCK IN YOUR MOUTH
rolloffle rolloffle rolloffle rolloffle rolloffle
Dear Apple,
I am writing you due to the story that I read at the New York Post that you are considering raising the price for songs and albums at the iTunes Music Store (http://www.nypost.com/business/20309.htm). Let me first explain that I am what I would consider your average or target user. I own both a 10 gig and 40 gig iPod, both multiple pcs with iTunes and a G4 running OS/X. I bought my original 10 gig iPod *because* of the music store. I bought my 40 gig iPod yesterday because I ran out of room on the 10 gig and frankly iTunes doesn't make dealing with deselecting large amounts of music to be copied to the iPod easy. I have also purchased somewhere between five and ten albums at the music store, and even purchased an EP today. Granted that's not a huge amount but by my tally, I've spent over $1,000 on your music related offerings all together. I am also an Apple stock holder.
My point in this email is to let you know that I will discontinue use of the Music Store should you raise the rates. The 0.99 price point and the $10 or under album prices is *what is appealing* despite the numerous disadvantages including only being able to download once. If I'm going to pay more than $10 for an album I will go to the store and buy it. That way I get the original artwork, album notes, and something tangible that I don't have to burn to cd to have a backup of. I also expect your sales volume to decrease steadily if you should raise the rates.
From my perspective the music industry wants it both ways, a steady price for the consumption of music, regardless of production costs. Lets just assume that the price of CD's in the market today is not a product of collusion and price fixing. There are tangible costs beyond that of the artists, producers, and engineers. There is the cost to duplicate the media, provide the jewel case, the artwork, inserts, packaging, shipping, and distribution. Ideally iTunes Music Store provides a way for the fans to get what they want cheaper, and for the Music Industry to get more return on their money because of the lack of cost associated with the distribution of the content. Apple conceivably wins in this scenario also because of the overall brand imagine enhancement which entices iTunes Music Store users to buy iPods, macs, and OS/X upgrades.
I hope that my letter is not falling on deaf ears, and Apple doesn't forget what made the iPod and iTunes Music store offering popular in the first place.
Respectfully,
Gavin M. Roy
The only effective strategy is for everyone to boycott RIAA-affiliated music sources for a year or so (without pirating it, switch to non-RIAA music sources instead). Sadly, that will not occur. The great mob of consumers will pay that and more for their daily doses of empty, expensive pop culture.
I am the target market for the RIAA/ITMS. I've been considering the ITMS for quite some time now, my reasoning being that I'm tired of the poor quality and unpredictable downloads using Limewire/Kazaa, etc. I'm not concerned with the laughable DRM placed on AAC files, as I don't mind (or notice) the quailty loss of burning them to CD and then making them mp3s or Oggs. The only thing that has stopped me from using ITMS is the price. 0.99 cents per song is still unreasonably high for me. I've set my own price point of 0.25 cents per song. I told myself when it reached that point, then I'll start using the ITMS.
So instead they RAISE prices. Now I'll never use ITMS and continue downloading songs for free with P2P. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid move, RIAA.
Don't you think it would be moronic to send money to people who don't put out a product I want? That would only encourage them more, and I'm the one who ends up losing.
File trading has been happening before iTunes and online music stores, and file trading will continue to happen after. By forcing people to purchase CD's at stores (through increased online purchases) the RIAA is paying extra for CD's, CD cases, CD covers, shipping, storage, building costs, man power, etc... So they want MORE money for doing LESS work. They are a bunch of jerk offs (as well know). Shouldn't there be a collusion/price fixing/anti trust suit against these guys for their actions?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
maybe they need to raise ITMS rates to come up with the money...
You know, for all the crap you're getting for saying "ass rape", I'd still vote for you were I in Nebraska (state motto: "The only thing flatter than our land is our women"). Why?
You have the potential to let out a scream of Howard Dean-like proportions in public and do it to endorse a political agenda I approve of.
EEEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHH!
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
We already knew the labels were wanting a price increase, because Slashdot already posted this. It was the RIAA's "nasty Easter surprise," which is how Slashdot referred to it last time around Easter weekend.
It was just as silly then.
The Register article links to an April 9th Register article which quotes the Wall Street Journal as their source for saying that the Big Five wanted the higher prices and were trying to force Apple to comply:
t _price_hike/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/09/pigopolis
Life is short: void the warranty.
Anybody know of a band that broke-out with real sales & popularity on the net or via mp3 alone?
A band named Fugazi basically flipped off the whole industry and went completely indy. They didn't get rich, but they are beloved my many GenX like myself.
I know the old mp3.com didn't go anywhere trying to push artists that weren't on a label, but I never thought that model worked very well. The model that was interesting was the band website, with all the songs online and you could donate. Shareware mp3s.
If radio Paradise can pull in about $110k/yr in domations (he'll need more this year) - I wonder if some bands could make it this way.
I download stuff from Finnish techno, stufffrom Japanese speed metal bands, the market for free music that is global, authored and distributed by the bands themselves exist - but it hasn't been a revolution like I thought it would be 5 years ago. There are still corporate conglomerates like the production company that does the American and World Idol gig. They invade the pre-teen mind with that shit, and pre-empt any attempt to look into the independant music scene.
Aren't you glad you starting paying for downloaded music?
When did I do that?
Pardon my ignorance, but why would you want to pay for limited quality, limited-use audio with no backup medium when you can get full CDs for less money at places like cheap-cds?
Solution:
a: Check the local library for your CD. If it's not there...go to step B.
b: Buy used CD's
c: When you are done "listening" to your used CD(s), donate them to their local library.
Pretty soon the Library will have a decent collection for everybody!
And so, laughing maniacally, the music industry snatches the gun from Apple and begins frantically shooting the stumps at the ends of its legs.
You take 0.99 and subtract the line items:
0.99-(0.70 + 0.20 + 0.10) = -0.01
That mean that the artist OWES someone $0.01 for each song sold.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
The small amount of music I've downloaded from Napster has actually GENERATED sales for the music labels from me. When the Napster of old was still alive & kickin', I could actually download & listen to music which wasn't spoonfed to me over the corporate radio waves. I discovered great music that I would never have been given a chance to hear otherwise. I'm not one who wishes to leave the artists high & dry. At the time I downloaded the music for free from Napster, I could not afford to pay for the music. However, when the time came that i COULD afford it, I gladly handed over my cash so I could support the artists of MY choice. It's just too bad that most of the dollar goes to the record label cartels, who get rich by legally robbing the very people who keep them alive. Now those cartels are demanding a minimum 26 cent raise in price for legitimate music downloads?! I've purchased a good deal of music from the ITMS, and plan on purchasing more in the future. However, this will NOT be the case if the price is raised. I will NOT spend more than .99 cents for a single track of music, especially when there is no physical storage supplied (such as a CD, tape, or 8-track). I will not support an industry whose greed is unchecked, leaves skilled and talented people broke & in ruins on a regular basis, and continues to subject people to cheap crap passed off as the best of the best.
It's all about greed. How is it that RIAA wants $1.25 a compressed DRM song in the US but you can legally download an uncompressed no-DRM song from Russian for just $0.01 per MB?!? That means ~$0.35 per song. And if you decide to go for the compressed equivalent of what you find on the iTMS, you're talking about $0.04!! The same thing happens with the movie industry and DVD region codes. A legally purchased DVD that costs $20 in the US typically costs $2 elsewhere.
If markets are going to normalize across borders in this new globalized "Internet age" where big businesses send our jobs overseas, they better accept that we are also going to send our dollars overseas too. That's if their lucky. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people are going to feel cheated by this new development and are going to go right back to the P2Ps that RIAA has worked so hard to get us to stop using.
Wow, Appple is going to start overcharging people. Like that is anything new, but I would think that by now their customers would be use to it.
It's about time to start stalking the execs of the RIAA and take their first born children.
It's a pretty cheap service, but some doubts were brought up whether Americans could legally use the service.
... knowing full well that the law and the courts consistently say otherwise.
Those doubts are quickly allayed here. allofmp3.com is perfectly legal under US law. The RIAA doesn't like it, and will tell you otherwise, but they are being no more honest than the MPAA is when it flashes those FBI warnings at the beginning of each DVD telling you you have no right to make a backup copy for personal use
The short explaination for those too lazy to follow the above link.
1) Under US law, anyone may import any music so long as they are licensed to do so under the copyright laws of their own country. If you buy a mailorder CD from Canada and the company is licensed by either the artist or the CIAA member company, it is legal to import the CD. If you buy a mailorder CD from the US and the US seller is licensed by the artist (or the RIAA member company), it is legal. Under Russian copyright law, which the US is bound by treaty to respect, allofmp3.com has a license to distribute all copyrighted music from the Russian equivelent of the RIAA, known as ROMS.
The RIAA may hate the fact that you can buy $0.99 iTunes songs in whatever unencumbered format you like for around $0.04 per song, but the law throughout the developed world, including the USA, is quite clear that this is a perfectly legal service to use, yes, even in Once But No Longer Free America.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If you need to have a song from the majors, then download it off the net for free. Period. Downhill Battle has some suggestions for staying below the RIAA lawsuit radar when running your P2P client. But better yet, just stop listening to RIAA music and get involved in the indie scene. Make it a change in your mindset, to eschew the marketing hype and think for yourself.
I don't know a whole lot about the apple music store, as I don't download any of my tunes these days... but do they also re-sell independent musicians music?
Basically, If I actually had the skill to write good music, produced my own tracks and wanted to sell them for $0.99 on their site, would there be a way?
If so, maybe apple should consider a way to promote those artists a little more then the well known ones that are $0.26 more expensive.
Anyway...
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
If you read the post, you'll notice the line says:
Artist royalty (0.01)
This is a common way (especially in accounting) of saying -0.01. (It even one of the options for indicating negative numbers in Excel.)
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
...is because non-RIAA bands can get "shelf space" right next to theirs, with previews so you can listen to, not only see an unknown name. I think they've started to see what iTMS would become, should it become successful (i.e. make a dent in physical CD sales, not biggest online shop).
The RIAA is working very hard to keep their customers "in the dark" about other bands. Sure, the odd person may go "indie" but they don't want a mass of people to make something "indie" into "mainstream". I.e. take the "impressionable teenager that listens to what other teenagers listen to" market.
After all, I'm sure there's more than enough music out there for me to listen to it 24/7 for the rest of my life without hearing anything twice, most of them non-RIAA (a lot of crappy ones too, but many good I'm sure). The iTMS could show it all.
It's not the distribution channel they fear. It's the exposure to all sorts of music you can get through the iTMS. Imagine word-of-mouth going around "Check you band X on iTMS, they're really good". With instant previews, instant satisfaction, instant spreading the word, instant fame.
Suddenly a band that never would have reached "critical mass" without the RIAA before, could make it big. Get your music up on iTMS, hit the "hip" people, the trendsetters, and you don't need a huge record contract, retail stores or a media blitz to make people hear and buy your song.
You've got no problem with a million people suddenly wanting your song, no scale-up problems, no production delays, no distribution bottlenecks. Nothing. World-wide (well, not yet but iTMS will get there).
That is why the RIAA will hold the online stores in a chokehold. Killing them would make them seem bad "they won't deliver what the customers want", too loose could shatter their hold on the market. Expect the DRM to become more and more anal.
Then blame the consumer for not wanting it. "We tried to sell it online". It's perfect. They get to keep their profitable CD sales, the consumers look like the bad guys and Apple the "friendly" that really only wants to sell iPods. Which btw is quite happy as long as they're the biggest *online* shop, making most people buy iPods.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Wait a fucking minute here. We've got 5 big media conglomerates coming together to discuss how to artificially increase the cost of their products. Exactly how is this not conspiracy and extortion? How does these actions allow for competitive market forces to drive the cost of their product to the peak price points according to the law of supply and demand? Why the fuck aren't these criminals in fucking jail where they fucking belong? Fucking anti-competitive un-American terrorist bastard dickheads. These scumbag assholes can fucking rot in hell.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
In theory there should be exactly one reason to alter the price of the songs: increasing revenue.
As far as I can figure the variable cost of selling more than one song song is esentially $0.00. That is, all of the cost (programming, encoding...) is in providing the first copy and therefore a sunk cost, additional copies cost bandwidth, and a fraction of a percent of a server. As a result the income for Apple/RIAA (I'm putting them together now for simplicity) is effectively equal to the revenue generated.
Lets say Apple sells 10,000 songs per day. That gives them a revenue of of $9900. If raising the price to $1.25 would reduce then number of songs sold to 7500 then the revenue drops to $9375. however if it only drops to 9000 songs per day then the revenue is $11250.
In the first case the raising the price means that, while they may be (insert expletive here), they bad business people who should be fired for incompetence.
In the second case raising the price is not a symbol of (insert expletive here) but rather that they are doing there job and if they don't raisse the price they should be fired for incompetence.
Of course a third scenario could also present itself: dropping the price to say $.75 could raise sales enough to increase revenue in which case that is the business option that should be taken.
Basically the price should be dictated solely by the elasticity of demand. (IANA Economist, so my terms may not be correct since it's been a decade since I had Econ in college, but I think I got the theory right.)
Now I don't know haw the deal between Apple and the record companies works but if its a percentage deal all of this holds, if not you will have to ask an accountant or economist, not a computer programmer.
Greedy Bastards. No more Itunes for me. 70% of the songs on my IPOD are ripped from my CDs. 10% Itunes, and the rest... the net.
The artists cut come's out of the labels cut...
Please... don't be stupid...
Apple is the most successful of the online retailers. Without Apple, essentially ALL downloading would be free P2P. If Apple says, "We will pay what we choose to pay. If you don't like it, we won't distribute your product.", what can the recording companies do about it? Their only real alternative is to lose even more money. Somehow I doubt the I-Tunes users are going to flock to competitors, certainly not the competitors who pay royalties.
Apple must have known about the sleazy tactics of the recording industry before going into this business, surely they would have had a plan to deal with problems like this.
This is bullshit. F the RIAA.
Most major label music sucks anyhow.
Steve? You read Slashdot, right?
Downloadable music has exactly no appeal to me. If I can't buy the raw bits, there's no point to it. Fifteen years from now, is there going to be a new compression format? Of course. My old CDs can be re-ripped and re-compressed.
My car player only does MP3, but AAC is a way better format. I can create both, and I can create the possible quality of MP3 for that environment.
Raw bits let me create unprotected digital files and use them any way I want, and this is exactly what God intended us to do with information, dammit.
iTunes -- Who Cares.
I have to say I'm the same way. There's a few popular bands I like (or, bands that were once popular -- Pink Floyd, Rush, Cream, etc.), but for the most part I tend to buy obscure progressive rock and classical stuff that you'd never hear on ClearChannel.
And yes, downloading MP3's is pretty much a pre-req to buying a CD. I'm not dropping $10-$20 on an album if I'm not sure I'll like it.
Honestly, before I signed a contract to buy a house, I was spending about $100/month on music for the past year. No way I'd pay for ANY form of lossy-compressed audio, though. I'll buy the CD, rip Oggs, and take it to work so I can listen easilly.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
puh-lease. you must work for sony. that, or you have never read this. there are a ton of artists out there you don't know about. all these unknowns are working their asses off to make albums for the big corporate monsters and being swindled every step of the way. and all of them end up never making any money off of it, probably because they never got any in the first place. and i can't count on my fingers and toes all the bands i've loved that put out a few albums that sold fairly well, then they make a new one that's groundbreakingly different and the record company just doesn't bother to market it. and let's not forget the story seen here a few days ago about artists not being paid royalties. artists put their blood, sweat and tears into music, and the music industry just puts money and marketing into it. they surely don't immerse their lives in music like the artists all do. they don't try to live on nothing for months just to make an album. no, they work 9-5, have big houses and 3 bmw's. and i'm sick of hearing how the music industry is 'necessary' for music distribution, ani difranco has sold her albums _by herself_ for years and has made a huge name for herself. hundreds of independent artists work outside the industry under indie labels. all the music industry is good for is 1) gouging the public 2) ripping off artists 3) turning art into marketing 4) supporting the payola system 5) mtv (which sucks anyway) 6) forcing drm on people. these are not good things. the only artists who are happy with the industry are those who are good enough that they make tons of money off any album they make. these are the same 20 artists you see on mtv every day, and the same 40 you hear on the radio over and over. in their cases, the RIAA may "deserve" what they make, but for the thousands upon thousands of other artists out there, they are simply choking the life out of them.
sorry for the rant, but if you can't tell, this shit really pisses me off.
I refuse to believe you're pro-technology with that webpage. Rainbow divider lines? What is this, 1994. Hire some kid to steal the design from a major candidates website and you'll stand a chance. Nobody's going to vote for the guy who looks like he threw his webpage together with Netscape Composer.
--
RumorsDaily
Thanks, fahrvergnugen -- this is my new all-time favorite /. post. You've concisely stated in one page exactly why I hate the RIAA as much as I do.
I've bookmarked your post, and will refer others often.
Thanks again.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
... does anyone think that this could get to the point where it could be considered price-fixing? we know the record companies have a history of this or is this a completely different situation.
This price hike was expected. In the business world this sort of action is like more "leveling the playing field," than a "bate and switch". Tt is often possible to get coperate subsidies for new technology and such. iTunes has basically been under a year long price subsidy by the record companies. This gave them a selling advantage over CDs. However, it is not in the recordcompanies interests to stomp out its major revenue sources over night. In this case they are only adding a new one.
Now that apple has a customer base they revoked the startup subsidies. This is common business (and political) practices. It may seem evil but it is really cold business sense. They (record companies) are politically spread pretty thin right now. As a result, thet can't afford to appear to "play sides" with any one medium.
Technology is changing so fast that they really don't have a clue what to do to keep their business model. So for a while expect to see them promote nothing that really changes until WE decide that one course or another is required to stay in business. Their coffers are quite large and after all they had their best year ever so They can and will wait this transition out.
*sort of like the race between the turtle and the hair.... I know the race has started but wonder which one I am, it is not at all clear yet.....
Until a method of downloading music that is fair to consumers and most importantly artists comes along, I will never ever buy anything from iTunes or Napster or any of the other ones. I'd feel better buying a CD from a store, because then at least the record company has to pay for a real physical product and printing and distribution and whathaveyou. Paying for downloaded music fattens the record companies' wallets while they do absolutely NO WORK AT ALL.
People, please, help out the artists. Steal recordings all you like, but pay for shows and buy plenty of merch.
"Won't SOMEbody think of he ARTISTS?!"
I don't buy or download any music, I don't listen to music any longer (haven't for about a year now,) I don't watch the TV so I skip most of the mass advertising, I am not interested in any sports enterntainment, I don't care about the superstars or teams. I read what I like, I browse the web and read opposing points of view, I listen to local radio talk-shows. The large corporate media has lost me completely. This article just proves that my choices are correct, not that I needed more reassurance.
You can't handle the truth.
Yes, CDBaby is an a great company. My group, Dancing Baptists, is with them and they've distributed us to Itunes, Napster, Tower Records, and many others. We get a full half of our sales. For every 99 cent song we sell on Itunes, we get about 50 cents. Moreover, we sell 7.99 CDs on CD Baby's store, and we get $4.99 each. A wonderful service. Soundclick.com is also a great neo-MP3 like site, probably the most active, and does not steal the rights to our music.
The reason why iTunes has been so successful is because of Jobs's ability to cajole all of the labels to participate. As soon as he indicated that he wanted to compete with them, this cooperation would instantly disappear, and iTunes would become yet another service with a tiny library. Too tiny to be interesting.
A much better solution would be for Apple to drop the one-price fits all aspect of the store. Simplicity is good, but frankly, some songs are simply worth more than others.
In fact, if he wanted to subtly discourage overcharging by the labels, he could increase his margins on the higher end stuff. In other words: 99 cents a regular song, 4 dollars for a "premium" song. And if Labels found that these "premium" songs tended to get pirated in the P2Ps more, well, they always have the option to price them at the more reasonable lower tier.
The price for albums and songs just doesn't make any sense to me at all. A movie, like LOTR, might cost $100 million to make, and yet the DVD will come out - with TONS of EXTRAS - for about the same or less than the cost of most newly released albums (I saw Return of the King offered for $19.95 at my movie store, while the new Foo Fighters was $18.99 at Borders). Yet, what does it cost to produce an album? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that it isn't anything even close to $100 million. Furthermore, a DVD released today for $20 will cost only about $10 just a few months after the initial release. Meanwhile, the Beatles White Album still costs something like $30 a full 20-some YEARS after it was released. One could argue that most of a movie's revenue is generated in theaters, and that albums don't have that same kind of outlet (concerts are significant added costs to bands & labels, while movie theater distribution probably doesn't cost movie makers much extra). But still, there are thousands of radio stations paying royalties and the cost of making an album is dramatically less than that of making movies.
Rainbow divider lines, but against gay marriage. How confusing.
Dammit, record label execs are not terrorists. Terrorists blow up buildings full of innocent people. Colluding to raise the price of a product or service is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, and it's an insult both to the record label scum and to the memories of victims of terrorism to imply that it is.
[ home ]
This is the New York Post, folks, the same paper (and same reporter) who a couple of months ago claimed that Microsoft was trying to buy AOL from Time Warner -- a story that went nowhere and was picked up by no other major news organization.
I'll believe this when I see it.
http://www.macminute.com/2004/04/28/itunescall
Jobs specifically quotes that songs are staying at the $.99 level... This was addressed last week out of the fact that this story about the RIAA is 2 weeks old...
And BTW, if you complain about the new pricing structure for iTunes... The terrorists will win...
He wrote that:Thanks for stating this in a way that does not make it obvious there are still unlimited burns of any song...and also a big thanks for not mentioning the loosening of the restriction of # of PCs & Macs music can be shared on.
In addition, Timmy shared that:The implication is that iTunes was not something people were interested in.
There are other examples of his FUD statements, such as covering Sony's new service without the mention of their restrictions (if you own a MiniDisc player or MemoryStick music device raise your hand).
And finally, this gem:Got a source for that one Jimmy? Steve Jobs was just quoted refuting such a statment.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I have a friend who suggested that part of the problem is that there is very important relationship between the record stores and the record companies. To what extent this relationship exists I am not sure, but it surely has an impact on what the music companies are trying to do. Instead of trying to lower the price across the board, which would encourage people to buy CDs, they do the opposite. What I have never understood is that CDs are marketed as frequent purchase items, but priced as occasional purchase items!?
Interestingly enough Apple has been given a vote of confidence by the European Union in this regard.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Though we are relatively new we do provide an alternative and the music that we sell can hold it's own against pop music. We did take a different approach to the single sells one step farther because we will make the CD and mail them to you or you can choose to download the tracks. Check it out and get some free music while your there http://www.myglobalsound.com If you check out the site, you can see that we are not just out to make a profit we really are helping artist get on there feet. We're just some linux and php geeks flinging poo at each other.
I for one would love to see a fight between Wal-Mart and the RIAA. The RIAA can force Apple to raise prices because Apple is comparatively small. Wal-Mart, IIRC, is selling for $0.88 / track, and Wal-Mart is the world's biggest corporation. I'd love to see a fight between those two.
Then again, we may wind up with a market flooded with cheap Chinese music.
Ok... I understand why the RIAA wants to make more money off each track. There are only two or three good tracks on each CD. But to jack some prices up over what most new CDs are sold for in stores? How does that make any sense at all?
They're just hunting for the maximum profit price point.
What will get them to LOWER the prices is to show them that the demand is elastic and they'll get MORE money at LOWER price by selling more units. (I think that's the right way for them to go - but the market will determine it.)
So the way to show them that they're going in the wrong direction is to make their sales drop by more than the amount of the raised prices, so their total income drops.
They raised it from $.99 to $1.25? Buy LESS than four songs when you would have bought five. Enough less that the signal isn't obscured by new adopters.
If you still want to buy music online, for each new song you're thinking of buying, flip three coins, and if two come up heads NEVER buy it on line. (If it's something you REALLY WANT, pick the one you like least of your next three that come up "buy" and never buy THAT.) That way you'll drop to 5/8 of your previous purchase level.
And keep it up. A sudden and SUSTAINED drop in sales should get the point across.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think the only reason Sony wants the price on iTMS up, is so that they can be cheaper, then they will go out and advertise they are the cheapest.
We already knew that bonch was going to post this, because it's an easy way to karma whore. It's the same thing he posts *EVERY* damn time and the moderators always seem to fall for it.
He's just as silly now.
"Greed is good."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
So the parent post (mine) was 2 points by default, and then was modded "Overrated", so it was reduced to 1 point.
How is a post overrated when it hasn't been "rated"?
I wish I knew for which moderators I was on "the bad list". I find it particularly interesting that the modder chose to spend their points on my neutral post.
In any event, my point was valid. Apple can change its EULA and associated DRM rules, but fortunately we'll always be able to regain access to our music through tools which DMCA calls illegal.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
An excerpt from the title track:
I guess its time to get out those spoons and dust off my old kazoo...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I'd vote for you but seeing as you're anti-choice (read, pro-life) negates any pro-technology stance you could take. I value women's rights much, much higher than my right to download music off the internet.
They're trying to get people used to paying CD prices for downloaded music so they can phase out CD sales all together, thereby significantly curtailing the trade in mp3s, reducing their distribution costs to nil, and gradually moving people to a pay-per-use model for content consumption. It's the Entertainment Industry's Holy Grail. The IRS taught us long ago you don't hit people up for a ton of money up front, you take it from them bit by bit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Recognize that it's a market.
There are sellers and buyers.
If you don't like the price don't buy (and don't steal, either).
If they can't sell albums at $16.99, they'll eventually drop the price. Ditto for songs at $1.xx.
I decided several years ago that I'm not going to buy CDs at 16.99. I'm definitely not going to pay that to download music.
Vote with your pocket book -- it works, and it's perfectly legal.
joe
You people actually pay for your music? What is wrong with you? :)
Has anyone else noticed that the NY Post article has an element of libel to it? They cleary state that an album by N.E.R.D. costs $16.99 on the iTMS, when it only costs $13.99, last time I checked. It seems that whoever wrote this article didn't take the time to verify simple facts. Can the rest of it be trusted? It seems unlikely to me that 10 after saying that single prices will not rise, Apple would raise them.
Wow! That's incredibly flattering, thank you. You've seriously made my day.
I've gone ahead and used this slashdot post as the basis for a weblog entry, so if you'd like an edited and expanded version of the same text, it's available on my site as well.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
They will end up driving people back to file sharing and then start calling them criminals.
Steve Jobs is a life-long Democrat (and Apple is runned by Democrats. Basically of Apple's board members have donated $2000 to Kerry), Washington Post is a renowned right winged satellite of the GOP smear machine. 'nuff said.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
The only reason I can think that the RIAA is pushing for more money is that they know their time left is very limited. They are therefore bilking as much as possible from the market while they can.
I say we begin to hasten their demise and support projects like MUTE and other secure filesharing methods that are sure to evolve quickly.
For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." - 1 Timothy 6:10
RIAA members make money by casting nets throughout the distribution networks they control utterly through means of their cartel.
New methods of distribution are a grave threat (literally) to their necessity, which in both business and nature is a swift road to extinction - unless those streams either emerge under strict controls, or are addressable through business or legal tactics.
Internet music distribution is a bear of a problem to these people. There is no specific competitor to be bought out or sued, or specific technology to buy into; the fight against Napster underscored this point clearly.
Furthermore, their entire livelihood - marketing and distribution of music - has morphed over the past decade into obsolesence. "Push" marketing - the only kind RIAA members know about - never fails to fail on the net, and "distribution management" is something that software can handle with far less overhead than RIAA is demanding from artists in meatspace.
RIAA supporting music downloads is like Bush campaigning for Kerry. If legal music downloads take off, RIAA dies. It isn't any more complex than that. The net undermines all of their profit schemes.
Notice how popular legal music downloads are getting? If they get too popular, who'll need RIAA? RIAA has been pushing against illegal alternatives, so they can't very well opt out without validating most every argument put against them as to their motive. So what other option do they have to curb the burgeoning frenzy? If legal downloads make overall music sales go up, what reason will they have to petition Congress or judges?
IMO they're trying to make downloads so unattractive an option that most people either go back to illegal downloads or CD buying. In the case that it fails to stop legal downloads or increase CD sales, they still make a lot of money. It's a no-lose plan.
I am buying CDDA media, and I do so from a reseller that treats customers and artists fairly. Go have a look at cdbaby and in particular what they do. This is how I want my music stores.
So if they are an indy music store that treats everyone fairly, they can't have music that's worth listening to, right? Wrong. Well, I do not know what kind of music you like to hear, but I have bought from them afroQben, Zap Master, E.S. Posthumus, Hugo, Ohn, MDM and Random Rab, and I am looking forward for my copy of The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets Spaceship Zero and Cthulhu strikes back.
Just an extremely satisfied customer.
Wouldn't this be considered price fixing. "Any agreement between competitors regarding price is considered price fixing and is illegal in many countries. "
And since the members of RIAA can only be considered competitors to each other, they are demanding, through their industry association, that Apple raise the price of mp3's to a specified rate, I believe that falls under the domain of illegal price fixing.
Any slashdot lawyers out there willing to comment?
Since when did the music industry get the authority to manipulate the market the way it does. They have been found guilty of this before yet they refuse to learn their lesson. I guess the fines were not high enough.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
From the Register article, "Having established the market for legal downloads, Apple now seems to be facing a music industry paranoid about the power that success might bring the Mac maker."
Good Grief!
Any industry that gives the customer what it wants will survive. Any industry that treats its customers like the enemy will not.
There also seems to be a conflict between artists and consumers. Some bands don't want listeners to have the ability to pick and chose their song tracks. This reminds me of the opposition many directors and movie studios have to DVD players that automatically bleep out swear words and other things.
Can a painter tell what you must think about a painting? Can a sculptor decide how you should enjoy a sculpture?
... but it might not be entirely due to ignorance/apathy. Granted, Apple hasn't done a lot to earn its mindshare, other than their continued tradition of making good products that spread via word-of-mouth. And do they still want to sell anything *besides* iPod? But I digress.
The Post reports that only five million songs have been downloaded, in a campaign that was supposed to result in 20 times that many. I can't speak for everyone, but I have a lot of friends who have hoards of the winning Pepsi caps, and the desire to use them.
They're just waiting for music they actually *like*.
Perhaps Apple would be wise to look at the type of people who collect these caps en masse, and try to determine what kind of music they like. It would be a break from the "Apple Knows Best(TM)" philosophy, but it's so crazy that it just might work.
--
Now Lars can afford his new gold plated fish tank bar for by the pool now instead of waiting till next week.
Yeah, actually. It means I can legally purchase music per-cut, rather than spending money on tracks I don't want. It's fun and convenient. I'm filling the holes in my library, and I don't worry about a Dear John from the RIAA.
That doesn't mean I like the idea of a rate hike. But pricing is a separate issue from the bigger question of whether or not labels and artists have the right to expect payment for their work.
I'd possibly pay $1.25 a cut, but it would likely cut down on the number of transactions I make. I buy few albums through iTunes. $16.99 is too much, given that one might find a new CD cheaper than that price. Better to shop around and be able to rip a superior copy if I want the whole album.
It would be great if Apple begins to offer iTunes downloads in their new lossless codec. Would make me feel better about a price increase.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
But you understood what was being said, yes?
This isn't an English forum.
The solution is obvious - do a reverse-Vivendi. Vivendi turned the huge draw power that mp3.com had developed on the backs and sweat of independent artists into a draw for big labels crud. That infuriated the independents that helped build it and many bailed (that was part of the cascade-effect that drove mp3.com into the ground).
Here's what you do:
1) Settle the conflict with Apple records once and for all (buy them?).
2) Scout independent music sites for the best independents out there and sign them. Trust me there are tons of them that are better than any big-label crap. Give the artists a reasonable payback on any sales of their stuff and YOU pocket the rest (no checks turning over the profits to the RIAA labels).
3) Use the traffic you built on major label artists (on which you make squat) to expose your independent artist stable.
4) Watch you independent artist sales grow as people find out that there is lots of good music to be had that doesn't come from the RIAA members Henry Ford factories ("you can have any color car you want as long as it's black").
5) Sign major artists as they see the light and buy, sue, or time their way out of RIAA bondage.
6) Watch RIAA either become contrite and come crawling or perish.
7) What was that last one? Oh yeah - PROFIT.
Go get them, Apple.
Some Ideas:
- Cartman, in an effort to be more hip uses Internet to download iTunes (so he'll look like those people in iPod commercials) but can't afford it due to the increased prices. Sonofabitch!
- Southpark kids all pitch in and use the library computer to download songs, but cannot play them on their computers because of DRM. Sonofabitch!
- Mr. Garrison needs more RAM to watch gay porn on his computer and gets into a fistfight with Mr. Broflovsky at computer store because he's not buying RDRAM. Jesus Christ
- The government tries to block access to a website showing pictures of banned Iraq photos, but discovers that they've been hit by sasser.d and crash continuously. Goddamn Windows98!
Thanks a million!SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned
No-one ever said it better than this.
This can't be a good move for Apple - say for example I buy $10.00 worth of music a week at .99 I'm buying 10 songs and Apple makes a $1.00. Now at the new price of $1.25 I'm only getting 8 songs for that $10.00 which means that Apple now makes 0.80 on the same $ amount spent - people spend the same dollar amount and you make less money - that can't be good.
From what I've heard Apple isn't making much on the Itunes music store (all about selling ipods) this can't be a good thing for them.
A number in brackets indicates negative value.
... surely will improve the iTunes per iPod ratio.
I like the idea of the iTunes Music Store, but I'm not going to pay the price of a CD for the same music downloaded. When I buy a CD, I can rip it myself to whatever format I choose, free of DRM, and I still have the CD as a backup, or to re-rip at higher quality as disk space gets cheaper. If the record companies want the consumer to accept DRM, they need to offer some sort of real financial incentive to the consumer.
Bottom line: DRM-encumbered music is worth less than the same music on a CD.
In this case, it's the other Golden Rule:
If you find a goose laying golden eggs, kill it!
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
Isn't the New York Post not a very reputable newspaper?
mbbac
...of course by that I mean it is not ritating.
bp
Profit is what's left of the selling-price after expenses. Since work (in a retailing context) is an expense, profit always comes for "free".
But it is indeed aggravating that I and every other man, woman, and child in America are forced to patronize these rapacious, money-gouging SOBs.
Wait... we're not?
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
Just remember, the price increase is to cover lost CD sales due to downloading. With success it is no longer a matter of music piracy, now downloads in general are killing CD sales. This must be stopped if the record industry is to survive.
The Washington Post is left wing, democrat pile of fecal matter, unless you are a true wacko far lefty pinko who does not appreciate the benign wisdom of the limo liberals in DC. The Washington Times is the right wing rag run owned by the Moonies. In NYC it is the opposite - Times is a lefty anti Bush billboard, Post is a right wing gossip sheet.
they lost several cases for hiking price already! let's sue them again and again!
This is the NY Post for Chrissakes! When have they ever been right about anything that nobody else knew about? Never! They have had, in regards to Apple, 1, count 'em ONE, correct 'prediction' (namely the beginning of the iTMS), and that was after everyone else on the net knew about it!
They're trying to get people used to paying CD prices for downloaded music so they can phase out CD sales all together, thereby significantly curtailing the trade in mp3s, reducing their distribution costs to nil, and gradually moving people to a pay-per-use model for content consumption. It's the Entertainment Industry's Holy Grail.
And when distribution costs are nil, what incentive will there be for any content producer to go through an XXAA member to get their art on the market?
When distro costs are nil, what's to stop minor-league competitors from jumping in and offering less-restrictive competition that would be more attractive to consumers and therefore producers?
Distribution is RIAA's raison d'être. Monopoly control over it is the only reason any producers put up with the majority fees on sale, the content manipulation and other bullshit. When they lose that, the house of cards comes down, DRM or no DRM.
They want $16.99 for lossy compressed music?
I gladly pay good money for music, when I get a decent portion of what is placed onto a master. I refuse to pay premium prices for an algorithm to arbitrarily throw away 1/16th to 1/25th of the information present in a recording. An MP3 (or whatever) is a copy of the work, and a substandard copy at that.
However, this appears to be where the industry is headed: less royalties for the artists, and a big pocketful of change for the corps that sell name-brand crap at inflated prices.
The RIAA: promoting the Nike of music - crappy sweatshop clothing you can buy at any discount outlet with a stupid logo slapped on it.
-- clvrmnky
I don't know why Applie didn't do something like this sooner, maybe its in the works as I write this, but why hasn't apple created a system simular to MP3.com, where artists and "sign up" to apples record lable, or record distrobution.
.75 cents per song) artist gets .25, apple gets .50 everyone wins, artist gets some cash, apple gets cash, RIAA gets fucked.
Artist sells their songs online (say
Seems better then working with the RIAA.
This would also work out great for Apple if they did become a record label, they could sign up artists that sell well on Itunes, send them on tours, and boom, sell more music, and apple gets great PR.
TruePunk | Games
well of course the RIAA is pushing the prices up. People are actually buying the tracks and dropping off of P2P. Which means the RIAA is 1. losing their argument that online music doesnt work and 2. Getting less IP's to sue.
I mean c'mon which would you rather have 10 bucks here and there from someone or sue em for $15,000 right off the bat?
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Or indies can do it themselves. Magnatune is an indie label set up exclusively for online distribution which lets artists keep the rights to their music and gives them half of the money. You can get albums for 6 dollars or your choice of higher price, with 8 dollars recommended and $8.59 the current average. Most Magnatune music is also available per-song from netmusic, and some albums are available from novatune on physical CD.
What I think would be really interesting would be a cross-site standard and index for this sort of thing, such that you could find a particular song by artist and title regardless of label.
By forcing Apple to raise its prices to be compatible with store bought CDs the RIAA plans to kill its competition and piracy.
If downloading music costs the same as a store bought CD ( or more ) most people will let the record companies do the work and give them a nice
"store bought" package.
End of legal downloadable music.
Additionally, by temporarily allowing legal downloadable music to flourish ( in combination with their lawsuits for illegal downloading ) they have moved many people away and out of the habit of stealing music over the internet.
If more people start stealing music over the internet again the RIAA can play martyr with an improved public image. "Hey, we let legal downloads happen and these people insist on stealing anyway".
Steve
NOTE: I am not a musician so maybe I'm way off on this.
Who distributes the demo CD's to radio stations?
Yes, I'm aware that with the Internet, bands could directly distribute, but not everyone uses the Internet for music (i.e. car, portable radio, etc...).
The industry does advance money to help bands along. Expecting money back from the investment is normal
Obviously the amount of return will always be in question, but bands negotiate this and some do better than others.
Marketing is really a way of ensuring their investments do well.
Personally I wish that more artist would take to distribution over P2P, a band website, or some other online option. Artist would be able to cut out the middle man (or at least get a much cheaper version of the "middle man") if they embrace the ideas of direct distribution. Unfortunately, this seems to be limited at this time. Remember that the artist may not be tech experts and will look to traditional processes to get their music to market. I think if a couple artist can successfully use alternative methods and get media attention, you'll find the alternative becomes the new standard.
...start signing artists away from RIAA members entirely, when their contracts are up.
Can we just send a check to the artists for every song we download off p2p? If sufficient # of people do this, the RIAA would become irrelevant.
Ever since the arrival of Napster everyone has been able to see corporate america's true colors through the actions of the RIAA. Please, if you are able, picture the following events being performed by people, not a thing like a company... because that is who in fact, runs the RIAA.
1. Claiming that illegal music piracy decreases store sales of records. Has anyone seen any proof of this? Sounds to me like big tobacco saying smoking doesn't cause cancer.
2. Suing every single person in America for downloading music, including 12 year olds. Wow, there is a real way to say "I appreciate your business".
3. Finally getting a legit method of selling music, after years of horrible press and screwing every person on the planet, and then wanting MORE out of the deal.
4. Taking a 99% cut of something they don't even produce. This is something that has never changed. The artist has always produced what people wanted, but for some reason with all this talent, they don't see any return. It's sickening.
These people that run the RIAA can, shall, and will burn in hell very soon. They're greedy, shameless, and downright sinful. When the day of each of their deaths arrives, I will be having a fiesta at my house, feel free to stop by.
Thank you, have a nice day.
All I can say is that I've purchased from iTunes since it first came out partially because the price-point was RIGHT. They did what was needed to get me as a customer. Since then, I've purchased over 300 songs -- that's $300 in the past year, which is more than I've EVER, I repeat, EVER spent on CD's in any year in my entire 34 year-old life.
If they raise the price, even only by 25-50 cents per song, not only will I stop buying music from iTunes, I'm not going to go out and buy any music CD's either, regardless of whether it's cheaper or not. They need to get it through their thick heads that we aren't going to buy our music on physical media any more, we want to own that digital music, and we want it at a reasonable price-point.
If they raise the price of downloaded music on iTunes, they'll send a bunch of customers back to Kazaa trading -- but if that happens, maybe it's time for you guys reading this to go to another alternative, AllOfMP3.com. Yes, it's legal, and, yes, they are a Russian website, but they have an English version. I heard about it from a British coworker, and it looks good -- features:
-- Music or Music Video (!) downloads
-- Music codecs offered include MP3, WMA, OGG, MPC & MP4-AAC! The encoding is also on-the-fly and offered encoded from 128 kbps to 384kbps.
-- American and European music, including all the music I've purchased on iTunes.
-- $0.01/megabyte for music files, $0.02/megabyte for AllofMP3.com-exclusive files (this changed recently, but I think it's correct).
-- It's LEGALLY LICENSED and legal to buy from them.
THIS IS FUD. Until I see something to say otherwise, I'll take my news from the horse's mouth.
RIAA are a bunch of morons, if they raise the prices through apple, this will make all of us decide to find a better, more secure, un traceable way to share files and tell the RIAA to screw off. We should all begin thinking of a new way of doing this, just to piss the RIAA off. I do not mind paying .99 for each song, but $1.25? What are they thinking, the overhead cost is roughly %80 cheaper than producing a CD.
somebody says "Goodnight Johnboy"
After looking over 200 different albums, I would say roughly 600 good songs are on the ablums in total.
So, lets do the math...
Average CD has 12 track
Average Cost of CD 14 bucks
Average number of good songs on a CD, 3
All the Top 200 CDs would cost 2800
Downloading the 600 good songs @ $1 each = 600
Money lost by record companys for producing SHIT = 2200 bucks
I wouldnt really complain to much at a 1.25 a song, your paying for the part you really listen to, granted the cost then would be 15 bucks for a CD.
Hopefully we will get better quality of artists and less one hit wonders from American Idol.
And honestly people, do you really feel that bad for the artists, Haven't you seen an episode of Cribs on MTV, they are getting paid plenty of $$$
The best way to combat the RIAA is through iTunes' new iMix feature. Create indie mixes and rate indie mixes so that people will easily be able to identify good music that doesn't benefit the RIAA.
Here are a few:
indie goodies
Another Gallery of Rogues
I'm fairly certain all of the music on these are indie. If not, let me know. But, more importantly, respond to this message with links to other indie-only iMixes!
I have a website. It's about Macs.
PIRATING MUSIC IS WORTH TAKING THE CHANCE.
Yes, most people know the correct word is "dethaw".
And now it's official: Apple has denied the report.
They may be getting 70 cents in revenue for each track, but I sincerely doubt the labels are making 70 cents profit on each track. There is a difference.
Apple denies the price hike:
_ 1. html
According to Reuters. "These rumors aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track."
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040507/tech_apple_music
Oh uhm, I guess I'm out of the loop. I thought this whole RIAA thing was long gone. I stopped buying shit from major record labels a long time ago. The RIAA had their chance, then they had another chance, and another, and they've fucked them all up. I use a new online music store where the tracks are priced most affordably: free. This store is called KaZaa. Yes, I illegally download songs off of the Internet. I'm not putting any money into some shitty set of corporations, and I don't care what you think. Screw all the apologetic cliches, like "Oh, I just use KaZaa to download an album to see if I like it before I buy it". Just download it and save yourself the bloated costsof buying the CD, the artists get jack shit from it anyways. You want to support your favorite artists? Go to one of their shows, afterwards tell them how much you enjoyed them, and then slap a $50 in their hand and tell them this is for all the tracks of theirs you downloaded off of KaZaa. Me? I've got more important things to do than feel like I owe the RIAA something. They're obsolete.
Copyrights are now infinite if the media is encrypted in anyway. I'd say that makes normally illegal things legal. How do things get into the public domain now?
Its not really a record label, rather its the umbrella organisation for both the Beatles non-musical business interests and today it controls their image, name, trademarks etc (if not their songs, which were held by Northern Songs (L&Mc) and Harrisongs (GH)).
I've very much McCartney and Starr would sell control of their image to Apple, nor would Yoko Ono or the estate of George Harrison be willing to part with rights to their portrayl either.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
On May 7, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Jason Sewell wrote:
Steve,
I know you cannot comment on or acknowledge Apple's future plans. However, it appears increasingly evident that the recording industry is going to force Apple to increase the price of songs sold on the iTunes Music Store from $0.99 to $1.25.
I know that you, Steve are taking a hard line on $0.99 pricing, and I appreciate that.
So far, I have spent $225 at the iTunes Music Store, as it has become my sole source of music these days. However, I would sooner go without music altogether than spend $1.25 per song at the iTunes Music Store. I already find it distressing that several albums on the iTMS are more expensive than their physical-CD counterparts from Amazon.
I know that I am not the only one with this sentiment. My friends and I have literally spend thousands of dollars at the iTMS, and I can assure you that this revenue stream will run dry if the prices go up.
Feel free to share this email with the fat cats in the recording industry.
Sincerely,
-Jason Sewell
Steve's Reply:
Actually, this is not true. Our prices remain $0.99 per track!
Steve
Apple on Friday denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store, according to Reuters. "'These rumors aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. 'We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track.' Apple's statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple's music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store.
- MacNN
In the last several years, I've bought 1 CD; in the past several months, I've spend almost $200 in the iTunes store. But, I will not pay more than 99 cents.
Name a popular band and I'll name the one they are trying to rip off...
The Crystal Method (Prodigy? Who was first?)
Underworld
KMFDM (Rammstein? Again, who was first?)
Fluke
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
This is all ok. They are going to make the content 25% more valuble than it was at $.99
I am going to write to my congresswoman on this one. I can't see where commodity prices increased their costs on this operation to justify the price increase. This is monopoly practice.
Is the RIAA going to blame OPEC to justify the cost increase of electronic distribution?
MOD PARENT TROLL
I've spent hundreds of dollars at the iTunes music store doing my best to support a good service and do the right thing.
However, if the RIAA or whoever raises music prices on iTunes, I swear to God, I will never purchase another digital music file as long as I live. In fact, all the time that I currently spend at the iTunes Music Store will be spent pirating music and allowing others unfettered access to my music library.
I'm not kidding record labels. And I bet there are millions of others just like me.
The article was from the NY Post not the Washington Post, and the Washington Post has a left wing slant though it is a really good newspaper. Maybe you are thinking of the Washington Times?
I harness the power of globalisation to buy my music from countries where it's cheaper, like Russia. 6 cents a song for example.
If multinationals can outsource IT to india, then I can buy goods from India. Globalisation is the great leveller.
Dear iT00nes:
::Apple shakes in fear::
While I have n0t b0ught any s0ngs at y0ur $.99 cent rate, I str0ngly pr0test any raising of prices.
If you d0, I swear I will c0ntinue to never buy any songs from y0u.
You're right on except for the part about the high margins for retail CD's. 40% is not even close. In fact, many times, they are loss-leaders to draw in the younger crowd, hoping they'll go home with a new mp3 player to go with that new CD.
Margins are hard to predict and quantify but I'd say it is safe to say that retail CD houses get nowhere near 40% margins. No way...
I hope they realize this may cause a bounce back in music pirating...They are working so hard to destroy these peoples lives so it seems rather pointless to do this. I guess it isnt the record labels who are doing the fining and tracking of piraters, it is the RIAA. I wonder if they are going to say something about this.
So I can buy CD's for $8 (with shipping) from www.bmgmusic.com and get no DRM, full sonic quality CD's.
You pay $17 for DRM laden 128kb AAC.
To paraphrase you apologist...
"The DRM is reasonable..."
"The sound is better than CD because apple goes to the magic master!..."
Please. You're a sucker. If I were you, I'd go to Kazaa. At least you're not taking it up the ass there.
1) take advantage of new^H^H^H mainstream technology to greatly decrease costs.
2) in accordance with true rapacious monopolistic philosophy DO NOT pass any significant fraction of those savings along to your customers.
3) PROFIT!
3A) Jack up the price!
3b) Let your greed go wild as you attempt to squeeze more and more from your customers.
3c) Strangle the goose (I mean the one that lays Golden eggs!) SQUEEZE HARDER!
4a) "The more you tighten your fist, the more systems will slip between your fingers" - HRH L. Organa: Encourage (against your own intent) the rise of "Systems" such as DRM-free P2P, Libre software, OGG, etc.
4b) Joe Sixpack makes a rational assessment of the value vs. the price of your "contibution" to the whole process
5a) lose mindshare
5b) lose marketshare
5c) become irrelevant
6) Dry up and blow away.......
Overall score - 7.
Although enthusiastic and outrageous in composition, the predictability of the troll made it really too easy to identify. These factors would normally have given you a 4 or 5 as an intrinsic score. The energy and word count of those whose feathers you ruffled, as well as not having been identified by the moderators, gave you a 2-3 point bump. After all, the proof is, as always, in the pudding.
-your friendly neighborhood troll critic
In accordance to the iTunes' TOS we are retroactively charging you $.10 per song for all songs you have purchased. Your credit card will be charged $25.30 . Until this payment has been authorized from your credit card company you will not be able to access you music library.
Thank You,
Mr. U. Bend Over
iTunes Customer Service
All kidding aside is there anything keeping the RIAA from telling Apple to do something like this? I seriously doubt Apple would do something like this on there own.
Off topic but does the head of the RIAA run around with a bunch of big guys who only respond to the one command: "Jaffa Kree!"?
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Prices are only going up on more popular tracks.
SPAM
Why does the poster ASSUME that anyone who currently buys music will choose to continue to do so if prices are hiked. This is the point of free market. Stupid decisions and bad prices will be refused if no one is willing to buy them. Even if the impulsive buyers remain, the smart people will leave and convince their friends to leave, and suddenly the record companies, and Apple, will be looking at a net loss instead of their current net profit.
.sig error: carrier signal lost.
I have yet to pay for a single song on-line. It's rediculous. Look at the facts: 1) It's limited to the number of times you can copy it (thus breaking the benefit of digital media). I replace my computer once per year, so that means the songs I'd buy have at best a five year experation date. 2) They cost as much as CDs (and with this price hike they cost more). So I get 5 years of a song, no cover art, no good back-up options, and I pay more? The music lables are killing themselves and I sit back and laugh. Issue "remaster" after "remaster" and then flop like dying fish with SACD and DVD-Audio (which would be even more re-issues). THe record labels could make MORE money by using on-line distribution at a lower price point. Make the songs cheap enough (say $0.50 each?) and people will buy them. Remove copy protection and, sure, people will share them with their friends but that is how music has been for decades. Who never dubbed a cassette in the 70's or 80's for a friend? Who never burned off a CD in the 90's? Trading music small-scale allows people to be exposed to music they would not be otherwise, and then those people may buy OTHER tracks. By avoiding the profit-sharing distribution method of shipping CDs to Best Buy, and reducing the cost by not having to press CDs, pay photographers and artists for cover art, etc. the record labels can save butt-loads of cash. Reduce the cost per song, make even more money. But no, they'd rather do stupid crap like this. I'm glad to see their monopolistic tactics are working about as well as shooting themselves in the foot. I, meanwhile, laugh heartily and visit my locally owned used CD store reguarly.
Apple has denied that there will be any price increase, and furthermore, they are in multi-year contracts with the different record labels such that the price is locked at $0.99 for at least a couple more years.
Good News you don't have to die.
riaa members
dont forget we also heard about the McDonalds Billion Song Gveaway from the upstanding NY Post. Not to mention that in the past year we also heard that Apple was about to buy Universal Music. I call BS on this.
e to the pi i plus one equals zero
Apple has released a statment that the price change rumor is not true:
Apple Denies Report of Online Music Price Boost
The expensive part isn't with the bands that we hear about (not specific to a genre fans just everyday music listeners). All of those bands made money. The problem is that currently the record company signs 10-20 bands and one goes on to sell enough records to be profitable. Believe me if someone could figure out a way to pick the one band even from 5 of the 10-20 candidates they could make a pretty penny (and afford to share more with the artists, too). But so far no one has any good methods to tell who is going to sell and who isn't. I realize that production, and looks can impact this which is why good producers are becoming more well known (look at the Netptunes) and lots of new artists can't sing a lick but look good at stage shows.
As a result the one successful act brings in enough revenue to cover say 15 failures and after a few albums they can negotiate a better deal (this says nothing about their ability to extract any leverage, most band members I've met were not terribly good accountants, and having one around sort of ruins the image). Figure the record company front's $275,000 on 20 bands and one goes on to sell 500,000 copies. The rest collectivly sell 100,000. Figure that the record company gets about 70% of sales at an average of $15, and they made $0.5 million on their stable of bands. Considering they invested $6 million for perhaps two years, that's not a terribly great return. If someone knew you were the next hit they would certainly pay you more (or the record company next door would), but up front no one really knows.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Ayup
There are some songs on allofmp3.com that aren't available on iTunes, so it's very tempting... but...
Is there any reason I should think that Museekster.com has any credibility? IP law is a convoluted mess right now, and this guy doesn't exactly sound like a lawyer. I also couldn't help but notice the disclaimer on the site:
Pretty standard fare given our lawsuit-crazed society, I suppose, but still...
That allofmp3.com offers Beatles and Metallica albums seems troublesome, too, and I'm not sure that the explanation put forth by Museekster.com holds water:
Uh... okaaay...
I'd like to believe this is all nice and legal, but the cynic in me can't make the leap. (Damn!)
Hey if Mariah Carey wants to charge $1.25 for her crappy song, and Mr. Scruff wants to charge $0.99, well, I'm gonna go buy that Mr. Scruff track.
I think it's insane to assume that every artist is going to want to slow down the uptake rate of people using this new distribution mechanism by raising the price. Maybe the big 5 will raise their prices, but... I seriously doubt Apple will make everyone else do the same thing.
They'll more likely move to a Cafepress.com model where there's an overhead price, and you can charge whatever above the overhead. If you want to sell stuff cheap, you might sell more. If you're greedy, you might drive away business.
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There's ways to get better than iTMS music from the internet without worry from RIAA.
But you're a person who thrills to give his money to the RIAA mafia, so I won't point those ways out to you.
Sucker.
You seem to really like iTMS and seem to defend it against every imagined hurt.
Unless you're a significant shareholder in Apple, why would you care? Are you afraid that iTMS will go away and that some sort of, er, magic will disappear with it?
Seriously, I don't understand why you're getting emotional about an online store that sells really average stuff for a relatively high price.
From Reuters:
Apple Denies Report of Online Music Price Boost
Fri May 7, 2004 02:59 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) on Friday flatly denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store.
"These rumors aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track."
Apple's statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple's music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store.
Since the launch of the music store last April, which works with Apple's popular iPod digital music player, the company has sold more than 70 million songs. That figure was less than Apple's goal of 100 million, but more than anyone else.
The store now has more than 700,000 tracks for sale.
Apple needed to renegotiate the contracts with the five major record labels, because they were initially one-year contracts and were signed ahead of the launch of the online music store last April.
Some of the terms of the contracts did change. The number of times an iTunes user can create a CD with the same playlist has been cut to seven from 10, Sequeira said.
That change was announced last week when Apple released iTunes 4.5 with new features such as "iMix," which lets customers publish their playlists on the music store for other customers to purchase.
Japan's Sony Corp. (6758.T: Quote, Profile, Research) Tuesday became the latest entry into the increasingly crowded online music market.
The new service, Sony Connect, a unit of Sony Corp. of America, offers more than 500,000 tracks in a pricing arrangement virtually identical to Apple's: 99 cents for each track and $9.95 for most albums.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) sells songs for download on its Web site for 88 cents each.
This is stupid. As it is, it costs the same to buy an entire CD on iTunes as heading over to my local store and buying a copy. Hmm, for the same price as downloading I can get a nice pre-printed CD with case and liner notes. If they raise the price of CDs to more than the stores sell them for, this will kill the sale of CDs on iTunes. Everyone will go back to buying them in the stores, or better yet buying them used. I can understand charging $1.00 for a single track. It's like buying a single in the old days, but they should offer a DISCOUNT to buy the whole CD. After all it's a single transaction so their credit card costs are lower (one charge for the whole CD instead of 10-15 separate charges for each track), their distribution costs are practically non-existent.
These greedy bastards at the RIAA are destroying the music industry.
According to Apple, the price hike rumor isn't true. They've have multiyear agreements with the record companies and have"flatly denied" that prices are changing.
BiggerIsBetter (682164) sez: "Isn't Sony in the RIAA too? Isn't that like some sort of conflict of interest?"
Not the way Sony sees it. Sony sees funny.
Back in the early 80's, Sony was one of the companies that wanted a "tax" on cassette tapes, to make up for the money they "lost" (more accurately, failed to make) due to people taping albums.
They wanted me to pay more for my Sony tape that I used in my Sony tape deck to record my Sony albums by Sony artists. They saw nothing wrong with this. Luckily, others did.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Unfortunately, it's probably more like the labels are going to start selling the music to Apple for $0.26 more than before. If Apple wanted to, they are free to eat that and keep reselling the songs for 99 cents, but that won't happen because that would make the store more unprofitable than it already is.
Not that it isn't also a scummy business practice, but what did we expect from those assholes?
Bend over and smile. Apple's "master" has spoken and you WILL pay them their "just" due! Next up: The RIAA will automatically withdraw money from your bank account everytime you sing a tune in your HEAD! The sub-dermal application will be called "im0WNEDBYTHER1AA".
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Would this track cost:
(a) 99c
(b) $1.25
(c) $1.98
(d) $2.50
(e) your sanity
FYI: This is a L/R channel overlay of two Nickleback "hit" songs from the NIAA. Support Independent music!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2004/05/07/rtr 1364244.html
Once again, journalism is a myth.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
I'm trying to release a 5-song EP, and thanks to iTunes, people are expecting to pay no more than $1 per song for it??? It costs me $4 just to MAKE the damn things, and I've loaded about $6000 of my OWN money in the recordings.
$1.25 per song is completely reasonable. People need to VALUE the work of recording artists and songwriters, and stop treating ART as something CHEAP!
The brackets around $0.01 mean it's negative- which explains why $0.99-$1.00=($0.01). Usually you use angle brackets but that basically means the artists owe $0.01.
Of course if you meant "nice and legal for an American to import", that's another matter. In fact, whether on not downloading from a foreign site actually contsitutes "importing" is a question that I don't believe has been fully addressed. If downloading an MP3 from a Russian site is considered "importing music", for example, then is downloading a shareware program or software update from a foreign mirror importing? Or lifting jpgs from a foreign web site? Basically, if no physical product is shipped across a border (or even state line), then can it really be called "importing?"
Look, CD's are better in every respect. You can rip them, they have better sound, they are physical, you get the artwork and liner notes from the album. I love flipping through the notes of a newly bought album.
Don't "buy" music online! Support independent music stores! They don't price their stock so high as the big chains.
I can't believe anyone pays for music online. I download music illegaly in huge ammounts. What I like, I purchase from my local record store. I am a sonic snob; mp3's just don't do it if you want good sound.
To put it bluntly, stop paying for music online. You really want to buy that Beatles album electronically for an absurd price?
Most artists are dead! You should have no problem illegaly downloading music by an artists who is deceased. Seriously.
Listen to black music
It rolls right off the tongue!
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Great-all the rest of us pay-just like with shoplifting. I'm no fan of current system, but don't forget you're hurting people at the bottom of the economic spectrum-songwriters, new artists, older studio musicians, etc. I go with Emusic because they have a decent Jazz collection, and copyright payments are going to the jazz musicans (and their estate) I like.
Yeah, they've been really good about reporting information correctly lately, now haven't they.
Sounds like TIM ARANGO should be investigated next....
Here's a tip to the unfortunate few dickhead moderators - I have enough karma to last me a long time against bs moderation. Do your worst.
I wonder, sometimes, how powerful negative moderators must feel. Imagine the intense thrill of -1 moderating a post from your mom's basement. Enjoy it, it's likely to be the only position of "authority" you ever enjoy.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
This is typical NY Post "reporting", which is to say, fucking terrible. First of all, there's absolutely nothing substantive in the article -- it's full of conjecture, such as "the prices for some of the most popular singles _could_ rise..." (_emphasis_ mine).
Secondly, some of the basic facts are just plain wrong. Take this choice quote:
"The prices for albums - most of which have been priced at $9.99 - allow for some releases to be priced higher. For example, "Fly or Die," the latest album from rock-rap act N.E.R.D., is currently selling for $16.99 on iTunes."
Which version of iTunes are they using? Because the version on my box at work says $13.99. True, this is more than the more standard $9.99, but it's definitely not $17. This is something that would have taken the fuckers at the post all of about five seconds to verify.
This abominable rag, which Rupert Murdoch's idiotic spawn has somehow managed to make even worse, simply needs to die.
In other words, nothing to see here folks, move along, let me know when there's an actual story.
My other computer is your Windows box
Step 1: find cool cd in record store
Step 2: take CD home and rip losslessly to Hard drive
Step 3: Burn copy of said CD
Step 4: scan cover art
Step 5: sell CD for $5 at used CD store
This means I end up paying $2-8 for each CD and have both a lossless digital copy and a CD copy. Screw a bunch of filesharing, I can get CDs cheap enough thank you.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
The whole 'there isn't any good indy music' is about the lamest thing I've ever heard.
Don't go looking for indie music to avoid the corporate -execs-: go looking for indie music to avoid the corporate -music-.
I've been boycotting the RIAA for years and years now... not because I disagree with their policies or execs but because I don't like the (imo) shitty music (like Led Zeppelin) that that they profit from.
Everyone thinks the RIAA is evil and I do agree they are unfair but the be fair to them, I have learned about music I would otherwise not hae known about without the RIAA
The RIAA markets music like Counting Crows and Rush and Nirvana to raido stations. They get the bands to tour the country so I can see bands from around the country and world in a short 1 hours drive.
I can't stand that the RIAA keeps mroe than their fair share of the artists well earned money and I don't wnat tunes to go to $1.25, but as I look at my music collection, I have had the opportunity to hear of 95% of the music I listen to because the RIAA marketed it to me.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
1. There is already lots of pirating because people think that the store prices for CDs are too high.
2. My guess is that the slope of the demand curve for purchased online music is really high and quite nonlinear; my guess is that any price increase will dramatically lower the demand for purchased music (because it's just as simple to download a clandestine copy) while lowering prices will increase demand at some more measured pace. (This is opposed to gasoline, where huge changes in price have little effect on demand, at least in the current range of prices. In the US.)
These observations lead me to believe that folks need to do some updated thinking about economic theory and products/services which have basically no implementation cost. There has to be a reason for someone to pay for something, and when you have (effectively) instantaneously delivery of digital content at potentially zero price, it's quite difficult to build a business distributing music (I would argue there is still a lot of room to create music - the RIAA has never been in the business of creating music though, which is why they are upset. Their entire business model of music distribution is falling apart).
Anyway, I suppose that if they raised prices they would quickly find out that demand would plummet. In this instance, what would happen is that they would probably kill iTunes rather than rake in more money; my guess is that even if they forced *every* provider to raise prices they'd just lose volume. (This is because if there is any one provider with a lower cost, the lack of barriers on the internet would quickly shift all business to the lowest-cost source. The one hiccup here is, of course, the iPod, which definitely complicates the analysis.)
That's about all for today on this, I think...I'm sure I didn't cover every facet, but we're still in the early stages of the Intellectual Property Revolution.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
It's not a retroactive price hike because no-one is forcing you to upgrade to iTunes 4.5, which has the changes you mention (and allow you to play on more computers, incidentally). The number of times you can burn a playlist is a pretty silly thing to concern yourself with too. Just make another freaking playlist, quitcherbichin and burn some more.
A really really good source for /. headlines, yeah!
I think, therefore I am...I think.
> It is simply indisuputable that life begins at conception.
The dictionary - and common usage - disagree, at least in part.
For the first, just go to dictionary.com, or use google to get the definition-link. Several of the definitions clearly speak of birth starting life, such as: "The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life."
For the second, consider what we mean when we say "I'm 27 years old." We interpret that to mean I have lived for 27 years, that I have experienced 27 years of life. We also count that number starting from birth, not from conception.
In standard usage, "life" is at least partly defined as starting at birth. That's simply a fact. Whether or not you believe that's the _correct_ definition is another matter entirely, but you don't do your argument any favors by showing ignorance of this basic fact.
Either that, or you're a complete troll.
The grandparent post was using "rape" to describe how he thinks it's too expensive to buy a CD.
The parent post (you replied to) expressed dismay at this trivialization of rape.
You went off on some wild tangent about your beliefs regarding abortions. WTF?
I only buy from iTunes because the price is reasonable. Considering the amount of restriction thats put on these purchases.
* I have to own an Branded Itunes player
* I can only play my songs on 3 devices
* I can only burn it 7 times(yea that seems alot but when you have kids, you need a new one every 30 days)!
Sure I can circumvent these restrictions if I'm clever, but not everyone is.
My message to Apple and the RIAA: Jack up the price and we'll all go back to the P2P flavor of the month club and pay zero. Leave the price at 99 cents and you'll get some money out of me. If ain't enough to buy that new 150 foot yacht, well your just gonna have to tighten the belt at home.
Gadget News at Gizmo.com
So why exactly is anyone paying attention to what the New York Post says? Was this next to the latest, "Aliens ate my baby!" article?
--- What?
Buy music pirated in Indonesia and burnt to CD or taped. Not always the greatest quality, but at less than a dollar an album it has made me an outsourcing convert. Move over Benedict Arnold, I gotta dance.
LOOK AT THAT! They are trying it again. This buying of single songs is just killing their business strategy. They can't stand that they are not able to force people to buy the crap along with the songs people want.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
But allofmp3.com still working, and working, and working... Any song for about 5cents, absolutely LEGAL in US.
....isn't it about time we all stopped listening to music altogether?
I have. Man it's great. Never been happier.
Once you understand this, it's easy to see what the RIAA is doing: They're trying to shut down iTunes.
You're out of your mind. If the RIAA members wanted to shut down iTunes, they would simply withdraw their works from the iTunes catalog.
Instead, the iTunes catalog is growing week by week.
You're completely nuts. You're a paranoid freak with delusions of your own grandeur.
I write in my journal
...
Steve's Reply:
Actually, this is not true. Our prices remain $0.99 per track, sucker!
One question about your stand on the issues:
> Religion should be protected and displays of religion encouraged, even on public property
- Does that mean you wish to encourage people to sacrifice live goats to Baron Samedi on the courthouse steps?
- Does that mean you wish to encourage people to smoke marijuana, as a display of Rastafarianism?
- Does that mean you wish to encourage people to preach in their elementary school that George W. Bush is the literal anti-Christ, as followers of Yahweh ben Yahweh believe?
- Does that mean you wish to encourage people to conduct rituals of the Church of Satan outside your home?
You say you want to encourage displays of religion. Is that what you really want? Do you truly support all these displays of other bone-fide American religions?
Or do you want Christianity to have a greater place in American life? If that's what you want, say it. Otherwise people have their goats and joints ready for your blessing.
Dr. Nick: Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
While thinking philosophically, we see problems in places where there are none. -Wittgenstein
My perception sees this 'story' as follows:
A story to test the watersWhat better way to see if such a possibilty will have a positive or negative response by the consumers than to post it before it happens.
The other side is simply a business tactic the Record Labels want to attempt to do with Apple to drive them OUT OF THE MARKET.
What better way to push Apple aside than to offer the same music at lower prices and only offer Apple prices that are not as competitive?
Sounds great, in theory, but in Reality the iPod is driving the sales of this music along with iTMS which the labels think they can duplicate.
After a few months of backlash the record labels will realize they are nothing more than a WAREHOUSE OF MUSIC who needs a mechanism that distributes its product--Apple--something they can't stand.
Pricing for new music should be high, older stuff could be much lower. If older stuff would be priced less (in any format), I'd buy a ton of music, but right now I don't bother.
This is a great idea. Something that would work great is something I saw in a video arcade once. The games were modified coin-ops so that you swiped a card, which you could put money on at the counter. Each game varied in price, in such a way that the price was based upon the frequency of play. So the older games were cheaper because people didn't play them as often, but if you started playing it a lot, the price might increase 1 or 2 cents per play. It made sure the price was right for every game.
Apple should do something similar. The price of a track would start at a predetermined amount. As more people purchased the track, the price would slowly increase based on some formula. The price would eventually level off at a fair price. The other great thing is that lesser known tracks would drop in price and more people would be willing to buy them. So how about it Steve? Are you going to hire me now?
does anyone have a script for automating the download of the allofmp3.com files, renaming them, etc that i can call using procmail?
-- john
> it forces you to claim that the fetus is not alive before birth
Incorrect. The term under discussion was "life" _not_ "alive".
Under the commonly used definitions and usages, "a life" starts at birth.
Under the commonly used definitions and usages, a fetus is "alive", but _so is the pre-conception egg_!
You are attempting to argue based on confusing "a life" - which common definitions and usage put as starting at birth - and "alive" - which can be applied individually to every cell of your body, even though these are _two completely separate words_.
If you're actually trying to be honest with yourself about this issue, you need to realize that your argument is flawed here. Try again.
Remember: I'm not saying that the common definitions and usages of these words are legally or morally _correct_. I'm not saying that your _position_ is wrong, simply that your _argument_ is deeply flawed.
1. Find album on Bittorrent or p2p.
2. Download, transfer to iPod
3. Take Envelope, enclose $10 bill
4. Attach $.33 stamp
5. Mail to Artist
Screw over the RIAA and help out the artists. Its pretty simple.
Apple gets 30 cents a track, and they end up paying 20 cents to the credit card companies because they can't negotiate any special rates with them. Apple is losing money on iTMS because they suck at business.
30 years ago he would have said "communist". TOday, the boogie man is "terrorist".
That said, "terrorist" is not just a person who blows things up, "terrorist" is a political label, not a descriptive one. I suspect 230 years ago, the guys who dumped tea into the boston harbor were "terrorists" too.
Now is the good time to encourage movements such as FreeCulture.org; check out their manifesto.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Dear Gavin,
Thanks so much for your continued patronage of iTMS. We appreciate your business and will do what is best for you, our customers, our shareholders, and us, although primarily in the reverse order.
$1,000 of your patronage is something we are *very* thankful for, although you understand we only get to keep about $200 of that; the rest goes to record companies, a few cents go the artists. Thanks to your buying direct, those artists are appreciated, and more importantly will get the equivalent of a McDonalds Happy Meal, but in real money, unless they haven't paid back the record companies with profits. But eventually if enough people buy music the way you have, the band may break even. We are all grateful for that. In fact, the president of apple and the RIAA send their personal thanks from their private jets and promise to send the money to the artists, provided we haven't forgotten where they live.
As to iTMS, we're glad you like it. We like it too. In addition to buying music at $1/song, you realize that we still own that song; you can't play it unless we say so. Hopefully we won't shut it down, or you won't change computers too many times, because we might not let you play it any more. It really depends on what our lawyers may think some time in the future. In fact, we're glad you enjoy our EULA which basically lets us remove key abilites or lock down DRM when we feel like it. And we would only feel like it if we changed our minds for whatever reason.
We're glad there are people like you.
.
. Sincerely,
. Apple
. The RIAA
I don't understand this. There have been several times when /. has published stories from misinformed information. Then later, the company the story was about denies the rumor. Instead of just putting a small "update" at the end of the story that says "Oh, this story is false." they should take down the story so people don't scan the headlines and read the incorrect info. If they won't pull the story, they should at least put [FALSE] in the headline to warn people.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
They don't own any distribution on the net. They are in danger of losing revenue to non-RIAA artists and labels.
The pricing increase is a move to push consumers back to the stores and to their monopoly on distribution, and hence regain their control on artists and music.
When Joe Sixpack does the math, he'll find it is cheaper to buy CDs from the store. This is what the RIAA wants to happen. They want to erect a barrier to online music.
Hmmm... lots of parallels with M$ making IE cheaper than NS (bundled with OS so consumers don't have to waste bandwidth $$$ finding and downloading a browser) and controlling the distribution channels through OEM channels by strong arming non-IE exclusion clauses in their license agreements... Anybody smell antitrust? Oh right I forgot, Bush is in office.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
1) Apple has stated that they make a very small profit from the iTMS.
2) Apple only really has the iTMS to sell iPods, which are quite profitable. Fucking Microsoft by taking some marketshare from Windows Media Format is just icing on the cake.
It's owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, famous for it's purpose to spread right winged fascism ideology.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Nearly 700 posts ranting about a story that isn't even true. Beautiful! The slashdot advertisers will be so happy.
In regard to the record companies wanting a price hike, here's my theory. Raise prices, kill all the online stores and hire a few developers to replicate what has been done already. When you're a monopolist, you think like one.
- The record industry already has an antitrust exemption that allows record companies to jointly negotiate royalty rates for digital distribution. Late last year, the music industry convinced Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to insert language into the EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003) that would extend that exemption to "physical product configurations" such as CDs. That bill is still in committee.
That's legalized price fixing, courtesy our good buddy Orin Hatch. With Apple in the middle, they're losing their grip on distribution and they know it. That's why they are asking the industry for a "standard format" of copy restricted music. They want to know what format their portable player should support, and what brand of file to include on their double sided crypto disks.Yes, it's considered importing. That's why it's illegal for someone in Iran to download encryption software from a server in the United States, because then an American would be exporting weapons to a rogue state.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/apple_deni es_itunes_price_hike/
NY Times are wrong apparently
"Thank God the RIAA is there then. Otherwise I really wouldn't know what to do!"
I know you are being sarcastic, but I'll bet if I went through your CD collection I would find mostly RIAA marketed music. I know everyone thinks that their "choice" of music is somehow unique and cool, but it is really colored by the marketing activities of the industry. Just because the moderators don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong. The RIAA provides a valuable service (promotion and marketing). Without this service most musicians wouldn't make a dime. As it is, only a small share of them do.
The RIAA does a LOT of work with iTunes. They negotiated the deal and provide the music in a timely fashion and do cross promotion, etc. Its not as if Apple gets a bunch of MP3's from Kazaa and resells them. There is a ton of work going on behind the scenes, and some of that is done by the RIAA.
"ani difranco has sold her albums _by herself_ for years and has made a huge name for herself. hundreds of independent artists work outside the industry under indie labels."
If this is such a good way to go then why doesn't every "musician" do it? The fact is that MOST of these guys need the RIAA marketing/distribution machine in order to survive at all. Those thousands and thousands of musicians wouldn't make a dime if the RIAA was in the picture or not. Being a so-called musician is risky business if you have suspect or mainstream talent. It is only marketing where these people can even be in the industry.
Okay, so you're concerned about the artist.
And we all know of that $1 you give to apple, the artist gets about 8 cents.
Why don't you copy the disk from the library, and send the artist $1. This is a win-win. You get decent quality (unlike iTMS), and the artist gets twice what they would have via "legal" channels.
I don't see a downside doing things this way.
is a tabloid rag. They publish pure speculation from low level individuals as if it came directly from god himself. I stopped listening to anything from the Post a while ago.
I am a Recording Engineer. And I work on Albums with muscians. A single Album could literally take months if not years of constant work in a Studio. Good studio Equipment is VERY expensive. A Good Microphone for example is atleast 100 Dollars. A Good Mixing Console, that a label will send an act to costs atleast half a million up to 3 million. Then you have out board gear (The best Reverb unit costs somewhere near 20,000 and all it does is reverb), 2" Analog tape machines (good ones like a Studer cost 200,000), The tape for the analog recorder (arround $150 for less then 1hr of recording.), then you need a DAW(Digital Audio Workstation), Pro-Tools (basicly industry standard) can cost you well beyond 50,000. Not to mention all the free stuff Big artists get, Like food, candy, Drinks, yes... even Krystal. After this you have to get it mastered with a bunch of other equipment. And you have to pay the Talented Engineers who run all the equipment. The Producer's who help decide the sound. The Duplication company who makes the CD's, Marketing, License-ing for any samples used. It go's on and on. People do not realise how many people that Stinking 99 cents or 16.99 pay's. Its alot more then just saying "Label" or "Artist".
Damn dude. If you put that much work into a post, don't go all AC on us.
Wish I had a mod point.
Read the Register article that is linked from the musketeer article (it says that it is not legal in western countries), and yes, this is forbiden in the us 17 USC 106 may be an informative read for you.
I've got a simple system.
I buy whenever I can directly from the band.
Albeit most of the music I listen to is Non-RIAA, and that really isn't out of protest or anything. It's just that there are very few "mainstream" bands that interest me. I'll take my Pseudo Heroes, Someday I, and Wretch Like Me, anyday over whatever crap they are playing on the radio.
Wow. There's less than 21 songs on every iPod. That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've heard recently. Thanks!
(Nevermind that iPods don't play only purchased music and iPod owners rip their CDs to their iPods all the time. Just forget that not every iPod owner purchases lossy DRM encumbered tracks for use on their iPods. )
Just when I thought it couldn't get more ridiculous, I read further down the page that the iTunes per iPod ratio page is authored by a group of retards whose agenda it is to promote "all-you-can-eat" cumpulsory licensing so that they may download as much as they can suck through their pipe!
If some musicians want to sign the rights to their art away to corporations which then set policy on pricing and distribution, that's their retarded choice. If it were up to me, art would be free and artists would be supported by their communities, but the system we have enslaved ourselves within doesn't allow us to work that way.
Dude, calm down... I think your parent's theory is that the RIAA's member companies are trying to shut down iTunes while appearing to support it. This lets them say "Look, we did our best, but online music distribution just didn't work." They couldn't claim this if they simply went ahead and pulled their content off the iTMS catalog, as you suggest. As for motive, maybe the RIAA is afraid (rightly) of losing control of distribution, and wants legislation in place to prevent it.
:p
That's the idea, anyway. I'm not convinced myself, but I think you might have misunderstood.
Also, Twirlip, what's the deal with flaming your parent poster? I never knew you had this mean streak in you...
Why don't people buy cds? Simple : they are expensive for what you get.
Honestly, when you buy an album or a compilation, how many tracks do you _really_ like? Maybe 4 or 5, it's very rare to like the whole disc.
Paying $20.00 + for something I don't enjoy that much is stopping me from buying records.
But when I discovered iTunes I love loved it. With iTunes you _know_ what you are buying. You buy songs you like and at $0.99/song it is not that expensive.
Music is nice for personnal pleasure, but you can live without it (or just listen to the radio). And I just can't afford to buy CDs or to buy iTunes tracks if the price is high. So instead of paying more (what majors want), I would have to stop buying.
This is an old debate, but I honestly think that if software was affordable, there will be less piracy. The same thing applies to music.
{{.sig}}
I think your parent's theory is that the RIAA's member companies are trying to shut down iTunes while appearing to support it.
:p
That's the part that's completely fucking insane. Either that, or colossally stupid. Not entirely sure which yet; don't really care.
They couldn't claim this if they simply went ahead and pulled their content off the iTMS catalog, as you suggest.
They don't have to! The RIAA membership doesn't "say" anything to anybody. They just sell their products in whatever ways they see fit.
What, you think they've concocted some kind of massive conspiracy to try to spin their PR to a market segment so insignificant that they have decided not to pursue it? Jesus, that's dumb.
Also, Twirlip, what's the deal with flaming your parent poster? I never knew you had this mean streak in you...
I have no patience for people who think they have some kind of insight but who in fact are just morons.
I write in my journal
I just don't understand how the artists continue to receive the same royalty percentage that they received with CD/Album sales with digital transfer? There is no packaging cost, no distribution, etc. Apple makes a larger percentage than most artists...
"They don't have to! The RIAA membership doesn't 'say' anything to anybody."
Well, that's not entirely true. If you want legislation enacted to preserve your monopoly on distribution, it makes sense that you'd want to have something to point to as evidence that you tried, and failed, to survive on your own in the free market. Sure, it'd be a long shot with the legislation, but better to put up a fight than slip away quietly into the night, yeah?
Incidentally, I never said I believed in this conspiracy. I was just clarifying the argument. You really need to relax.
"All kidding aside is there anything keeping the RIAA from telling Apple to do something like this?"
Yes, the US Constitution. Changing the terms of an agreement retroactively (as in affecting items of business dealt with before the change), is illegal and would never hold up in court even if if written into the EULA. In addition, iTunes doesn't phone home each play, only for the first authorization so they can't really lock you out of your collection of songs you've bought. The iTunes Music Store is a STORE, not a subscription service.
Well, There were a few songs that I had downloaded from the iTunes store. I guess I felt like I would pay for it because it is the right thing to do. But hell with that if I have to pay buck and a quarter for a poorly encoded song that i can get for free elsewhere.
> ...and as I've stated over and over again now, Apple does not pull a profit
/ 29.9.sh tml
> from iTunes so they are not profitting $0.10 a song.
Sadly, your stating it over and over again now doesn't make it any more correct. (And it is probably substantially less correct than it was the first time you said it, actually.)
At least, according to Mr. Jobs, the iTunes Music Store made a small profit last quarter. C.f.:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/04
Or perhaps you'd like to argue with him about what constitutes a profit?
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
To counteract the the plumetting price of Microsoft due to pirates.. I wonder what the CC thinks of this..
Just say no to license servers!!
You've assumed that it is not already in the current contract between Apple and the various RCs (recording companies). What if there's a clause that allows for a retroactive price increase if, say, the original royality fee structure was incorrectly calcutated? You and I know that if the RIAA/RCs used this (posssible) clause it's just to make some more money, not to correct a mistake. IMO it would also piss Jobs off and he is truly one man you don't want to piss off. For Jobs "job one" is protecting the name of Apple. It's his child. A retro price increase would most likely kill off iTunes in a week.
In addition, iTunes doesn't phone home each play, only for the first authorization so they can't really lock you out of your collection of songs you've bought. The iTunes Music Store is a STORE, not a subscription service. Just like Apple killed off streaming out of your subnet (active in iTunes 4.0, dead in 4.1 and they didn't say they were killing it off) so could apple require all music to be reauthorized. Again, Job's loves Apple and I don't see him doing this unless under agreement.
My attitude to iTunes is simple: I continue to buy music and I will continue to burn all my music on music cds and back up my AACs. If (unlikely but possible) they do the above I'll just stop using them, enjoy what I have and continue downloading GD and Phish concerts (which are legal to download and share for noncommercial purposes).
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Your math is wrong: .99 - (.7 + .2 + .1) = -.01
Thus, the artists owe a penny for every song sold.
I am getting sick and tired of the RIAA. If they keep this up, the "good ol' days" of finding your tunes on Undernet will be making a comeback.
Computers are useless. They can only give answers. --Pablo Picasso