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.

Comments

Sony still 99 cents?

[DR SoB]

So will the Sony store still be selling music for 99 cents as reported by slashdot in this article:

http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/04/1710218.sh tm l?tid=126&tid=141&tid=188&tid=95

And if so, hopefully this will start a price war, and reduce the number of those crappy iPods. One can only wish! Or Sony will crank up the prices and prove that the RIAA is as crocked as the OPEC cartel..

No work?

[110010001000]

They are doing plenty of work. Most of the work is in marketing and promotion. Without that you would have no idea what "music" you wanted to download.

Despite what Slashdotters think, the RIAA "deserves" a much greater share of the profits than the artists do, since they are the ones that make the entire system possible. Without such an association the artists wouldn't be making as much as they do.

Re:Please... kill me now

[phats garage]

Not that it matters, but I get corrected on this everytime I post using it and get a cheap laugh out of it. Grammar correction is the closest thing to rhetorical surrender that you can get in online discussion and each time, I reach over to my virtual scoreboard and cut another knotch.

Cheers!

Re:Leave it to RIAA

[prisonernumber7]

I took a look at your site and stumbled about quite a few 'issues' (as you call them) in what should have been your positions paper, such as..:

Marriage
The blessed union of marriage must remain only between a man and a woman. Anything else is contrary to God's purposes for mankind. I support a Constitutional amendment to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

Oh my god. You are calling this a political position? You'd be laughed away in my country. Besides the utter bullshit that is the differing between hetero- and homosexual relationships, you are reasoning with god, a fictional - or at least unproven - entity with no clearly defined properties. Care to elaborate on how you asked god about his purposes for mankind? I do hope he gave it to you in writing, and hopefully he was also musing about why he made people gay in the first place. Would it be okay to kill jews too because god told you to please do that? Again, this is no political position. It is an opinion, as in a comment.

Religion & Christianity
Lower courts and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union continue to push religion, and Christianity specifically, out of our society. Religion should be protected and displays of religion encouraged, even on public property, as upheld by the Supreme Court. The Constitution guarantees freedom to practice religion, and expressly prohibits Congress from restricting that right.

Apart from not being a political position but merely an opinion again, this one is contradicting in itself. Freedom to practice religion includes that displays of religion not be encouraged. Mind numbing.

Tax policy
Americans pay too much tax, supporting a wasteful and bloated government. Lowering taxes generates economic growth, as demonstrated by tax cuts passed by George W. Bush(...). If elected, I pledge to never cast a vote which will result in higher taxes.

You have true insight and I congratulate you, Sir. Of course, taxes are evil, evil, evil. Obviously, if governments lower taxes, the economy will just grow and we will have more money due to economic growth! Boy, were we stupid in the past when we invented taxes (To our defense, we thought that we could use them to do economically stupid things like welfare, which oh, you want to cut too). Mind numbingly stupid. And oh well, not a political position again. You're a very unpolitical politician, you know? You label this page which is the only part offering insight into what you will do - 'Stands on Issues'. What do these stands do? What will you do about your 'stands'? People do not care about how you think about stuff as a public mandatary, but how you will cast your votes or what kind of bills you will propose.


Right. I'll spare myself from more looks at your 'stands' on issues. It is unbelievable that a person with so little knowledge about politics like you can run for Congress in the United States of America. But that brings me to another topic you seem reluctant to talk about (such as your positions): What has been your political way in the past? What functions (in what organizations/referates?), what mandates have you had? Which organizations put you on what positions on the election lists? This might come as a complete surprise to you, but people considering to cast their vote for you just might want to know.

Sir, *your site's content* is a terrible political joke. But on the other hand, I partly had a good laugh and people reading excerpts from your stands might have too. So thank you.

Re:Please... kill me now

[Anonymous Coward]

Nigger is a typical southern word. I am from the south, and find myself saying it frequently. It is just one of those regional things. Yes it is wrong, yes it does drive niggers (see, there I go again) nuts, but it is still in common usage as as synonym for coons.

note: I have heard it in other parts of the US, but not nearly as often.

Also, I'm a fucking retarded idiot, and so are you. Assface.