Slashdot Mirror
iTMS Sells 100,000,000th Song
Macslacker writes "At 10:26 PM PDT on Sunday, July 11, Apple apparently sold its 100 millionth song at the iTunes Music Store. While the contest may now be over, congrats to Apple for a job well done."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
And, in other news, Kazaa serves its 100-billionth song. And the RIAA serves its 1-billionth lawsuit. And the Slashborg respond with another 100 comments. Here, let me outline the next 99 for you:
1. "Apple rocks!"
2. "Apple fanboys suck!"
3. Late GNAA post.
4. "This proves the music industry isn't doing badly!"
5. Something about fruity names, dumb music players, and profit.
6. iPod raves.
7. Repeat comments 1-2.
8. OSX raves.
9. Inane remarks about a certain ex-Soviet country.
10. Repeat comments 1-2.
11. "RealPlayer sucks!"
12. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of iPods!
13. Repeat comments 1-2.
14. Something about how Bush is responsible for all of this.
15-99. Repeat comments 1-14.
But what was the track?
At least the 200 Prince songs I downloaded in vain trying to get the 100,000,000th download weren't in vain... I think...
the contest was annouced, Apple is the real winner here, i bought 20 songs I would never of bought. I've had itunes for ages and never used it.
The counter is still running for those who didn't download the 3rd party counters, even after the comp, they are still selling song by the thousands. its already very nearly gone over another 100,000 songs already, it just doesn't stop!
Jonathanjk.com
.. to Apple! It's good to see that some are able to look new ways when it comes to distributing music, perhaps other contents, like movies, can be distributed in the same manner in the near future.
4. I for one welcome our iPod overlords.
Unfortunately, the 100,000,000th song sold was Hanson's "Mmm Bop", causing embarassment for everyone involved...
In all seriousness though, I really like ITunes...even though it costs $0.99 per song, I can put if up with it because i'm guaranteed a near album quality version of the song each time i download...there were always quality issues with Kazaa or Naptster or Lime Wire...plus, the transfer is much faster then those ever were...
I look at it this way...i can download 20 songs for $20, and burn my own CD...sure, now the CD costs me approximately what it would in the store, but it's garaunteed to have 20 songs on it that i like...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers. Apple says many users are buying whole "albums" for $8-$12 each. That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5, and those come with liner notes. If you don't care about liner notes, you can burn the CD from a friend for 25 cents and send the musician a buck. In both cases, you end up with a real CD, and you can always use iTunes to rip it onto your computer or mp3 player. And you don't have to deal with restrictions on how you use it.
Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.
So why does iTunes give artists such a raw deal? Because it's the exact same deal that artists have always gotten from the big five record companies. Despite huge new efficiencies created by internet distribution --no CDs to make, no distributors to store and ship them, no CD stores to build and run-- artists receive the same pathetic cut. That is the disaster of iTunes. Instead of using this new medium to empower musicians and their fans, it helps the record industry cartel perpetuate the exploitation. Apple might say it's not their fault: after all, they didn't write the unfair record contracts. But when Apple supports and profits from an obviously unfair system, while telling customers that it's "fair to the artists", they are just as guilty. For years, Apple Computer has built a reputation for straightforward business. So if Apple honestly believes that the iTunes system is fair for artists, we challenge them to display the artist's cut next to each song and let their customers decide.
iTunes is just a shiny new facade for the ugly, exploitative system that has managed music for the past 50 years. Thanks to peer to peer filesharing, we finally have a chance to break the major record label system-- but every iTunes user who pays 90 cents on the dollar to middlemen props up the old regime and delays the day when corporations finally lose their stranglehold on music. Now that's something to feel guilty about.
Now, I don't claim to agree with all of these criticisms, but it does bug me how fawning and sycophantic many /. editors and posters are towards
Apple.
After selling 100 million songs, now welcome 100 million hits within 1 hour...
The story is just in and now allready i'm getting just 1KB/s from that site. Looks like they can't handle the load at the moment. Suprising, because, AFAIK, Akamai is hosting Apple.com.
Unfortunately Steve Jobs doesn't see that vision - he has repeatedly denounced portable video players. This may turn out to be some of the first shortsightedness coming from Apple in years.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
What are the record companies going to do with their $75 million cut?
5. AAC sucks. Apple's DRM sucks. Everything should be free. That's why I live in my mom's basement.
Well, I didn't say Apple would do it, but they do have the advantage now. Some other company may very well pick up the trail and develop iMovies or whatever, I hope Jobs comes to his senses and that Apple at least considers such a solution.
Fscking hypocrites the lot of you.
did they indeed? but what was the music track?
I'm just amazed at how they get the vinyl singles down the phone lines like that, and for 99c too, my word isn't this interweb wonderful?
Good luck waiting for that track you want to appear at the quality you want from P2P.
Maybe someday you'll have a job and responsibilities and realize that time and convenience are worth something.
I still haven't bought even one song. Primarily because Apple will not extend this 1/10th Billion dollar business to my country, but also due to the fact that I get great soundtracks by ripping the music from video games.
:E
Why don't apple make video game soundtracks. If the soundtrack to one of your favourite games was available for $9.99 would you get it. I would but then I'm a bit of a freak. Still game soundtracks, film soundtracks, TV show soundtracks. Maybe Apple could offer ambience tracks as well. $0.99 for a dawn corus track, or the sound of New York at rush hour. Whatever tickles your fancy, and your wallet.
I hearby copyright and patent all these ideas. Anyone using, disseminating, talking or even thinking about them will be sued. Have a musical day!
May the Maths Be with you!
Just to pick one nit.
By definition, something that you've sold 100,000,000 of is not "too expensive". It might be too expensive for YOU (as indeed it's too expensive for me), it's obviously found a market and services that market satisfactorily.
Re: your other points, Apple couldn't very well change all the musicians' contracts with a wave of their hand. Now that they're players in the market, we'll see what happens.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
...when DRM was generally considered a bad thing here (remember "fair use"?). Now people get blasted for being "ungrateful" if they criticise Apple's use of DRM (just read some of the comments to this story).
Why, do you have ownership in Apple? What difference does this make to me?
And I want a pony. Can I have a pony?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Geez, you're right! I'm going to copy my friend's CDs and send a buck directly to the artists!
Do you have David Byrne's address?
Personally I think the most valid criticism is that Apple describe iTunes as being fair to artists whereas in most cases the artist only makes a tiny fraction of each sale. Yes, this might be due to the artist signing a dumb contract with their label, but its Apple's choice to describe this as "fair".
Downhill Battle have a nice suggestion on that page I linked to, iTunes should clearly indicate the amount of each sale that goes to the artists. That way consumers can choose to support record labels that give artists a fair deal over those that don't.
For us europeans. ;)
Well, will be purchasing my 1st iTunes song for the billionth-song competition then.
It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction. By having a legal way to download music it makes the majority of people see that there is nothing wrong with downloading music. Also with more sites like itunes it would start to break the hold that the curent industry has on artists so that a new net-based music industry could be started that would pay the artists directly.
According to some automated logs I've been keeping of the contest the winning person won between Mon, 12 Jul 2004 05:19:29 GMT and 05:24:53 GMT.
The number of songs sold at the first time was 99992422.
The number of songs sold at the second time was 100014607.
Apple sold a total of 22185 songs in that five minute 24 second period. For those wondering that's roughly 68.5 songs per second.
Congrats to whoever it was.
Really, downloading DVD quality movies is not something I ever see commercially happening until there are major infastructure upgrades in the internet. Pirates do it using lower quality rips, but if I am paying money for a movie then artifacts are just not an option. I am going to want DVD quality, if I don't get it I will just wait a month until the DVD goes on sale used at the local blockbuster.
Downloading a 2 GB DVD over a 1.5Mbit line, assuming *maximum* bandwidth (yeah right) is still going to take you over 3 hours. Why would I pay money to download a DVD, when it is faster for me to just go down to the local store and buy it?
The only way this will ever work is if
Damn I thought i was filled with miss information.
Apple get's $.10 from each sale. That's 11% for you math wiz's.
Record labels get the bulk of the rest, but that's what they do anyway. It's the Record labels that rip off the artists. independant artists, get the same rate as labels , but take home larger percentage due to the fact they don't pay labels.
Also modern Computers can duplicate recording studios for independant artists. I know of several that use a G4 tower to record and clean up their music, burn the original CD, and then use a cd duplicator to make their own CD's. They then due all the shipping themselves. Distribution via iTunes saves them time, as they don't have to duplicate the music.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Most of all, I would like to congratulate Apple on their fantastic use of the DMCA to crush free software developer writing applications (PlayFair) that can handle the formats in which they sell music. We like to commend such positive use of the DMCA here on Slashdot, so that perhaps more companies will start using the DMCA and attacking small developers!
It is very important that companies like Apple help show the world that is completely possible to shove DRM down consumers throwts, and that we will smile, swallow, and ask for more. And then compliment them on a job well done sticking it to us! Perhaps if we do this loudly enough, more and more companies will realize that closed, proprietary, DRMed systems is the way they should be heading, and give them the knowledge and comfort of knowing that we will support them when they attempt to send anybody who reverse engineer these systems to jail!
Thank you Apple, thank you Jobs, and thank you iTMS for a job well done teaching us to be a soulless, consume-on-command suckers that we are supposed to be. You are helping us realize that how stupid all this talk of a Free Internet intended for open communication between people rather than a closed delivery mechanism for big media really is. The congratulations know no end!
I've done the Ebay route and had to wait weeks for lazy sellers to send me a CD, which most of the time amounts to a promo version (they have the barcode punched out). The artists certianly didn't get a cut of that sale!
On price, iTunes is cheaper for instant gratification. Find me a local corporatized record store that will sell you the latest album releases for less than $17. I can't.. Sure, you can run into walmart and pick up a compilation disc for less than $.99 cents a track, but you're often buying $8 worth of CD for the one or two songs you're after (which can be purcyhased for less than 2 bucks on iTunes). Ebay and the like are great, but as noted above it can sometimes take a week or more to get the music. Not fast enough for me.
I could care less about liner notes.. I'm such a disorganized mess that they get lost in a week anyhow :).
www.lonseidman.com
Just 'cause it's Apple doesn't make it as big a rip-off as Micro$oft.
yeah yeah, if you want to bring down a system there's no point targeting the new online equivalent of the CD store. You think HMV has any say in how artists get remunerated? That's right, and neither does Apple (though I'd love to see them set up a direct agreement with a few big artists - no record company at all).
Anyway, you have your grievances, fair enough. Mine is quality. I want lossless, not some shitty lossy encoded MP3/AAC/OGG, etc.
It's the first time in music production history where the quality of what's on offer (as in, technical sound quality) has gone backwards. I'd pay up to double if I could get lossless files.
-- james
Actually, I can see exactly where Jobs is coming from WRT portable video.
With music, you are more likely to "play" it in a variety of contexts that are already well-established. I used my iPod a great deal this past week, both on a family vacation to Niagara Falls (about 10 hours each way) and on several short trips. The passengers in the back might have been interested in watching video, but those of us in the driver's seat aren't (or shouldn't be). For the backseat crowd, there are already solutions for playing DVDs that way.
WRT downloading movies, there's a different issue. Of all the movies that I really love, only a handful have been worth re-watching enough for me to buy the DVD. (This excludes my purchases of movies for the kids when they were younger, and would watch "The Lion King" or "Alladin" several times each week.) If push came to shove, and I had to rebuild my video collection from scratch, I'd probably only repurchase 5-10 movies. The rest are just not that important to me.
Now... why would I bother downloading/storing that number of videos to an iPod-like device? There are other products in the portable DVD space that accomplish the same basic functionality, and the times that I would actually watch a movie away from my home system (vacation or a REALLY long trip where I'm the passenger) are few and far between. Again, that need is quite nicely satisfied by a portable DVD & screen.
Demographically, I'm pretty much Joe-average (in consumer terms), so I think Jobs has hit the mark when he thinks that iPod video is a non-issue.
Tim
All that for just 99 cents? I wish they would bring iTunes to Canada!! Even with the exchange rate, that's a deal!
Read my sig mods, i was trying to be funny.
Jonathanjk.com
This isn't a flame on Sanity, but just some thoughts on the points that were made.
I agree that the iTMS doesn't change the situation for artists, but given the resistance from the overall recording industry to the model that iTMS has been so successful with I still think it was a big step.
In terms of the used CD thing. Hey, nobody is forcing you to buy from iTMS. I still think it's a good deal once you factor in shipping costs (or local sales tax). Plus there's the instance gratification thing. Apparently others agree or they wouldn't have just sold their 100,000,000th song.
Anyway, Apple isn't the bad guy here. The RIAA and recording industry are! Apple's just trying to make a buck by selling iPods (after operating costs they really aren't making anything off of the songs).
Finally, I don't feel the least bit guilty about buying from iTMS anymore than I'd feel guilty buying a CD. In fact those buying CD's are doing more to prop up the "old regime" IMHO. Short of a full boycott of buying music, I don't see how any purchases under the current model wouldn't "prop up the old regime."
Once you lick the lollipop of mediocrity, you'll suck forever!
Artists don't automatically get a bad deal; Some artists sell their songs only on iTunes, cutting out the whole record-industry middleman.
Not that this is a good strategy for everyone, but I do know that the recently-reunited Pixies recently recorded a song for the heck of it, and released it uniquely on iTunes, since they currently have no label.
Shouldn't that be:
"congrats to Jobs for an Apple well done"?
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
File this under "Too little, too late" but FWIW like most contests of these types there was "no purchase neccessary". With a careful reading of the official rules you would have discovered that sending an email message to itunes100@apple.com counted as an entry. Oh well...I wish I saw that before I bought all those Clay Aiken tracks...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
As usual, most /. ers here are using this announcement to a) complain about how Apple is being unfair to artists and b) complain about how the iTMS is too expensive.
When the store originally debuted, Jobs spoke on his justification for spending $1 on a song, which was, in fact, that it was marginally more convenient and valuable for a user to DL a song from the store than to spend time hunting on p2p sites for music and runing into cancelled downloads, poor quality music, mixtapes with DJs shouting over it, or viruses in some newer cases. In his words, to download off a p2p site and deal with the hassles is like working for under minimum wage. While we can all agree that there are some holes in Jobs' argument, especiually for those whose sharing avenues are quite advanced, what seems apparent is that with the sale of 100,000,000 songs, many users do find that convenience of the iTUMS to be valuable. Obviously, the store is far from perfect, but content like the motown collection and iTunes exclusives is exciting for users both young and old, and can persuade users from hardcore music fans to those who are discovering new music to broaden their horizons.
In fact, you yourself can have a free copy of that 100,000,000th song here.
So if Apple is selling free music, do they get to pocket that money, with no music labels to pay off? Or was the song free to download, in which case why didn't anyone just sit there downloading free tracks all day trying to hit that 100,000,000th download?
It boils down even simpler for me. I'm a CONSUMER. I like, sometimes, to buy stuff that I want. I'm surfing the net and an old Genesis song comes on the Classic Rock station, and I think, "Hey, I love that song! I wish I had it." I CAN have it. Here are my choices: 1. Go to the store and buy the whole album. Too time consuming and pricey. 2. Go to the used CD place and buy the album used. IF they have it. Time consuming, costs maybe 5 or 6 bucks. Quality unknown until I play it the whole way through. 3. Buy it new or used online. Then I pay 5 to 15 bucks, and I have to WAIT for it to be delivered. This is an impulse buy situation, so that won't work. 4. Download it illegally. That's assuming I can FIND it. This is Genesis we're talking about, not Maroon 5. And if I do find it, odds are it's gonna be a 128 kbps mp3 file, and that file format is NOT high enough quality for me. It may be fine for the kiddies who listen to music over their $49 Dell plastic speakers, but I've got an actual real stereo. 5. Download it legally from an online music service for a buck. The easiest to use service being Apple's. I don't give a RAT'S ASS about big business, fair to artists, whatever. I just want the song. And #5 is the most logical solution here. I think people who are stealing music online because they want to "fight the power" should examine everything ELSE they purchase. Like their sneakers. Some poor 6 year old in China or Korea went home last night with bloody fingers so you could have those $90 sneakers. (cue violins.) Seriously, people shouldn't get all high and mighty about one issue and then conveniently ignore analyzing every other product they buy that might exploit someone. The whole argument is just to justify stealing music online. If you're going to steal music, be honest about it at least.
Music - www.richardmac.com
That's like saying, "Boy, I love these new TV's, but several thousand dollars is just too much. I'll go steal mine from the storage truck behind the store. Maybe if they lower the price to a few hundred I'll actually buy one."
The options shouldn't be 'buy at a low price' or 'steal'. They should be 'buy at a low price' or 'don't buy at all'.
For a musician to be successful to the RIAA, they need to sell albums as well as touring. Brand new ones. If everybody did this, yes, the artist could dump the label, somehow breaking the contract, and live on to make great music. But we don't live in an ideal world. If enough people don't agree to do this, the label dumps them for being unsuccessful and has pocket change.
The RIAA gets most of the money. Apple, according to a few people, make almost no money on this. Not even making a profit. They supposedly make less than a dime, which is a lot less than %35 if a song costs a buck.
Wrong, they worked with the labels. Mostly. The indie groups are different. Some proxy through a label like cdbaby. You know how difficult it'd be to contract every single artist they had on there... individually?
Have you/him thought about it the other way around? Apple just made music more popular during a decline of cd sales. Yes, the RIAA is getting helped, but the arists are getting helped too. Being an artist is tough work. If artists could sell themselves due to easier money rolling in, I'm sure they wouldn't need the RIAA, but because they get trapped in their deals, they need a good way out. Not a bunch of people making life harder when the artists haven't even asked for a rebelion of this kind.
When the artists come forth, ala They Might Be Giants, and sell directly, sure. I'd rip a used copy and send them most of the cost. It'll prolly save them more money not dealing with me in the first place.
And mr poster, yes. Sometimes slashdot doesn't post all of the facts, and sometimes it posts crappy stories. But what you just posted is just plain wrong.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
p.s. Apple is the first largely successful online retailer of music. Napster came up shortly after iTMS. Many have folded. Some are just crap. Is it wrong to acknowledge what others have yet to achieve? They give a way a great player. Not the best 100% of the time, but a damned great one. Can you easily do the same?
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
1. When the record companies sold their 100-billionth CD, they probably celebrated by jacking up the prices - not by giving stuff away.
2. If You'll look at the prize - it's no biggie in terms of money (it's not even a car). It's all worth less than 15K, yet it's something that most people lust for - the coolest laptop, 10,000 songs, and the best MP3 player...
Now that's what I call a cool company.
I'm sorry but I must interject. Grammar Man is here to save you from Gramacide. Note the bolded portion in the above statement. My message to you is:
Should you find yourself in another situation like the above, remember what Grammar Man said: would've!*This message was furnished by Grammar Man. He approves this message*
Funny, I remember hearing those opinions on Slashdot before. Of course I still think of them as uninformed and removed from the community they supposedly support. If you really want to help artist forget Downhill Battle, look at the Future of Music http://www.futureofmusic.org/. Its a coalition run by independent artists for all recording artist. With goals of supporting artists, not "sticking it to the man".
Apple makes almost NO money on their cut, they may make a little on volume but they aren't rolling in the dough by any stretch. Out of their $.35 they have to pay for bandwidth, servers, admins, advertising, and most importantly credit card transaction fees. In fact that is the reason that the iTMS was able to exist at all, they hammered out a deal with the CC companies to get lower rates on the credit card processing because typically a CC transaction cost ~$.25 plus 3% of the transaction, that rate would have eliminated any chance at break even let alone a profit. Btw indie artists who have a more fair revenue distribution agreement with their label may well earn significantly more through iTMS since the costs are so much lower the label is free to give an artist a fairly large cut of their 65%, remember Apple opened up the iTMS to more than just the big labels.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
You're a cheap bastard.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
These complaints all fail for obvious, factual reasons.
"It's too expensive"
Well, I don't have a PhD in Economics, but I'm pretty sure that when you're selling your product in a non-monopoly situation, and your sales are huge, that's a good indicator that your prices are not too expensive. If it's too expensive for you, then Apple simply has to decide if they can live without you as a customer. I think they've made that decision, and it's worked out pretty well for them.
"First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale."
In other news, gravity still pulls things down. There isn't another way to do it; this is how the world works right now. If Apple wants to sell the latest Britney Spears song, they can't just call Britney and say "Hey Brit, how does 20 cents per song sound? Does that work for you?" She doesn't have the power to sell them her songs; she gave that right away when she signed her record contract. If you think that's evil, then your beef is with the record companies, not Apple. Apple buys from the labels because they're the ones holding the songs. If they could pay artists 40 cents per song instead of paying the labels 65, they'd do so in a heartbeat. As for the "35 cents is a ripoff", ITMS is not a large profit source for Apple: that 35 cents barely exceeds their costs (servers, bandwidth, processing media, design, management overhead, etc...). They've said that the major thrust of ITMS is to sell iPods, not to generate vast profits from song sales.
"But when Apple supports and profits from an obviously unfair system, while telling customers that it's 'fair to the artists', they are just as guilty."
Bullshit. And you're going to tell me that by using your computer to access the Internet and post on slashdot, you're supporting the agenda of the sweatshop owners who built your PC components, all of the communications companies who own circuits between you and the servers you visit, and the admins who run slashdot? Sorry, but I don't accept that philosophy. It's a big, complicated world, and everyone has to live in it. Apple looked at the world as it was, saw a way to make it a little bit better, and seems to have done a good job. You presume to blame them for the sorry state that existed before they got there, saying that they should have fixed everything or done nothing. Let me know how that works out for you.
And we do hear these complaints on slashdot, all the time. This isn't a haven for Apple fanboys, it's a haven for Linux fanboys. These complaints are neither original, nor well reasoned.
My point is that /.'s coverage of Apple is one-sided (both in the stories the editors select, and in the general trend of moderation). This doesn't imply that I necessarily advocate the other side, just that I would prefer a more balanced debate.
I love iTunes. I've sold many, many more songs on iTunes than I ever did on CD (over the 'net).
On the other hand, when I try to describe DRM to people, they kind of blank out and say "uh...ok", and move on.
DRM hurts small artists because it confuses people. Small artists desperately need the impulse buying that online distribution allows, and confusion or second thoughts destroy this impulse buying.
So....
Apple: Thank you!
But:
Apple:
* Make the DRM optional...I don't care about it and it hurts sales.
* Let me pick a price. I'd love to lower my lesser-sold songs to say, 60 cents to try to get them out there.
* Improve the 'community' aspect so more people have exposure to different music
* 128 bits? Yeah that's why I spent my kids college money on production.
Fix this stuff,t hen we'll really love you....Heck we might even have some loyalty when those sub $100, 40 gig competitor devices come out.
Yes. A quick lesson in rhetoric is in order. This isn't an opinion site. It's a news site. If there was a sound story of how Apple is screwing and its not getting posted, post it. Otherwise, don't waste the bandwidth.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
I met two of the downhillbattle founders at a Lawrence Lessig talk. Lessig was awesome, looking for legal ways to fix the problems with copyright. The DHB guys are extremist nutjobs - they think that you should steal music, even if you think that's wrong and illegal, just to stick it to the record companies.
I think Apple is moving in the right direction. The change is slow, because the opposition is entrenched. It is far better to pursue this through legal channels, and market pressures, then to create a mentality in which it is okay to steal content on a whim.
2) a free alternative means of sending an email to Apple at itunes100@apple.com ....
One Entry will be automatically submitted for each song downloaded or Tell a Friend email sent.
I knew those 100,000,000 Windows zombie spams would payoff someday!
allofmp3.com - lets you encode music at whatever quality/format you want. Selection's a little lackluster though. Oh yeah - and the downloads are coming from Russia, so it's slow. But they only charge $0.01 per Meg, so at 192 kbps, the most a CD will cost you is abou $1.05. If they've got what you want it's a kick ass deal
I was hoping no one would comment about where they have recently placed their greased up yoda doll. I'm glad that won't get mentio.... oh...
No matter how many songs Apple sells, the music industry still holds the strings. At any time when Apple starts to gain too much power, those strings will be pulled. Apple will always be at the mercy of the industry, and that will never change.
The music industry is paranoid about services such as Apple's. If iTunes became dominate, Apple could sign artists directly. Those artists would make more money, Apple would make more money, and the music industry would be gone.
The music industry will ensure that will never happen. They will play the various internet music services against each other. Once Apple gets too big, they'll force price hikes on it.
The only service that could possibly stand up to the music industry is Wal-Mart. As I've written here before, because the music industry NEEDS Wal-Mart to sell its CDs, Wal-Mart currently holds the cards. I don't think the music industry has the guts to stand up to Wal-Mart.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
You mean iTunes music files have DRM? I haven't noticed. I've been able to do everything I've wanted to with the music I've gotten from iTunes. I guess there is no pleasing some people.
The RIAA gets most of the money.
Wow - you're dumb. The RIAA doesn't get hardly ANY money from artist sales. The RIAA is a relatively small trade group that the labels hired to protect their interests. The labels are the ones that get the money, not the RIAA. Congratulations - you've been completely brainwashed by /.. How does it feel? Idoit.
Peace
Too expensive? In America? Uh, right. Here where I live, CD's have the normal price of about 20 euros, which is about 24 US dollars. Discount price is about 16 euros (20 dollars). Considering the average income rate in the US compared to the ones in Europe, I really don't see any reason for you to complain.
To be honest, I think the prices iTunes Music Store has are the most fair for everyone. You can't expect to get everything for free in your life.
I demand the Cone of Silence!
" You mean iTunes music files have DRM? I haven't noticed. "
Now I've seen it all. People parading stupidity proudly.
No, its not like that at all.$1 for a tune is a rip off. In the uk it is cheaper to buy albums in ASDA (Wal mart) than it is to download from ITMS. And I dont get the physical media from ITMS. Im afraid that as it stands the price is simply too high. I listen to my music on an Ipod, and yet any music from BMG cannot be put on an ipod without breaking the law. So I am being forced to break the law if I choose to listen to my music on an Ipod. I have always bought and paid for my music, and now I have to pay more. (Cost of downloading stuff with no DRM.).
I think its therefore fair that I now just download one BMG CD for every 2 I buy.
Your "Buy at a low price or dont buy at all" amounts to lying down and doing nothing while the music companies raid your bank account.
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers.
.. Velvet Revolver, chart topper with DRM. Hmm. Sounds like restrictions to me. What, more to come .. how interesting! You keep buying those CDs .. I'm sure those "experiments" won't make your ripping difficult at all.
.. until now there has been NO alternative. Its not a great deal for artists by and means, but at least they get something. Before people who wanted internet delivered music, had no choice but to turn to Kazza and others of the same ilk.
Right. So do tell me what is the best 'value for money' solution that allows you to from your armchair instantly download songs from a range of bands and burn your own custom CD. Or put it seamelessly on a superb digital device.
That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5
You complain about artists not getting any money then advocate buying used CDs. WTF? Buying a used CD means the artist gets no extra money. At least with iTMS they are getting something.
And you don't have to deal with restrictions on how you use it.
Sorry what was that
Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do.
Clearly your not a developer as I am sure most people would appreciate there is some cost in delivering a high quality, high availability, high traffic web infrastructure. Costs that come to mind include salaries, importing of CDs/cover art, creation of 30-second previews, big iron servers, networking. Oh and the odd 400 TB of traffic (100 mil songs x approx 4 MB each)
Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.
And this is Apple's fault why ? It is the fault of the musician if they signed a contract with a music label and didn't like the terms. That was their choice.
In Australia right now we have a great band, John Butler Trio who has the number one CD released under their own, independant label. They get to keep the full 65%. Remember being with a label doesn't guarentee success and vice versa.
Because it's the exact same deal that artists have always gotten from the big five record companies.
Why would you think it would be otherwise ? Oh wait you thought just because its Apple, the labels would offer new contracts with bigger cuts to all of their artists. What world are you living in ?
But when Apple supports and profits from an obviously unfair system, while telling customers that it's "fair to the artists", they are just as guilty.
Of course its "fair"
Thanks to peer to peer filesharing, we finally have a chance to break the major record label system
On one hand you talk about the rights of the artists on the other you talk up pirating songs. Which side of the fence ARE you on ? Or at the end of the day do all you really care about is justifying your pirating ways. Now that's something to feel guilty about.
In the end, there's 100 million reasons why you are full of shit and blaming Apple for what is so clearly an issue between the label and the artist is just being disingenious.
Funtage Factor: Purple
But I wanted to last night. Got...distracted. Yada yada, here we are. So I guess I didn't win. But I got as close as you can get making only a half-assed effort.
Who did what now?
What a minute... I thought Apple and Pepsi were going to give away 100 million songs by now! When did give-away become sold... did I miss something.
BTW... Canadians still can not enjoy iTunes. It appears that Apple has decided to chicken out of the "tough" Canadian market... oh well... at least Canadians can still legally (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, known what I mean, known what I mean) download our music from friends and relatives!
God Bless America!
1:download
2:burn
3:rip
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.
Apple has been better than most other online stores to include independent labels. Merge, Sub-pop, Matador, Kill Rock Stars, and Thrill Jockey (to name a few) all have recordings on iTunes. If indepents' contacts for digital music are comparable to their other contracts, then the artists should do considerably better.
However, I think your answer points out a big problem with the major labels - they have a hard time complaining about being ripped off from file trading, when they're actively ripping off artists. The problem with file trading is that it still hurts the musician - they certainly have less of a chance of paying off their advances if people are trading their music. Personally, I would like it if online music sales allowed musicians to bypass the recording industry. I agree that iTunes isn't quite there, but frankly, it's closer than most of the competition.
FWIW, there's always this article on the pitfalls of signing to a major label. Yes, I know, it's 11 years old. Yes, it's been posted to hell. But it's a good reminder.
Most successful artists are producing their own stuff and have to pay the label for distribution and promotion. If they simply hire a promotions guy they have cut the costs and still make tons more money than with the label.
The labels still have their place with up andd coming artists and all the unknowns, unless you have such strong underground roots like Ani DiFranco.
Peace
More recent downloads are limited to 5 machines, up from 3. To compensate for this the number of times you can burn an unmodified playlist containing a DRMed track dropped from 10 to 7. You can, of course, burn the playlist once then copy the CD as many times as you want!
If you aint gettin paid for this, I would suggest a girlfriend or a drug habit. You need a hobby.
Peace
You have no right to free music downloads. The people who own/create the music get to make the rules. If you don't like it I have no sympathy for you. What you THINK something should cost means nothing.
Maybe artists are getting screwed, then they shouldn't have signed on with the big labels.
.plan!! what plan?
Sorry, $1 for a tune that you enjoy enough to listen to repeatedly is not a rip off in my book. That's something that you can use over and over again, unlike the $3-5 starbucks coffee you're just going to piss back out. At least you can now buy on a per track basis, which was previously one of the biggest arguments against high cd prices.
So the option to withdraw your custom just isn't there? You don't vote with your feet - you're just choosing to do something illegal.
But then, there will always be a number of people for whom any cost is too much to pay when they can get it for free. It's not a stand. It's not a statement.
It's just a cowardly gesture by someone who'd rather rip the system off than change it in any way.
It may take hours at T1 speeds, but who's to say it has to be an interactive process?
What if it worked kind of like the old Audiogalaxy, where you went to a web site and picked what movies you wanted to download and a client on your machine downloaded them, with various bandwidth management options (use all, auto throttle, min/max, constant, etc).
I'd guess that within a month's time of asynchronous downloads, you'd never be able to catch up to the amount of movies you'd have on hand. Even at 128kbps we're talking 6 movies per month, and I'd assume that the average throughput would be 2-4 times that amount. Think of it as an electronic version of Netflix with a much shorter waiting list.
What's annoying is that they could do this *now* but for the paranoia of the MPAA.
I bought more tunes than usual in hopes to win an iPod.....another iPod. I just got a new iPod in May and while it is not even close to full, one is just not enough!
Great post about what is currently happening in the music industry. In the mean time I would really suggest buying at www.allofmp3.com. It's the closest thing to honest online shopping you can come. Artists get a share, and the RIAA labels won't get a thing. All for an honest $0.01 per MB. No DRM.
Ok, let's deal with reality. If you want the entire album, it's cheaper to get the real CD. Whether you go through a music club, a used music store, or even WalMart, you can find the entire album cheaper. Shoot, at even money or slightly more, if I want the entire album I go and buy the CD.
The music store is good for 2 things. Buying a couple of songs off the album because the rest of the album sucks, and listening to blurbs of the entire album to see if it sucks. Would you rather spend $13 (or $10, or whatever) for a single song you want, or just to buy that one song and not have to deal with the rest of the crap on there?
Good points, that's why I like Magnatune. Sure they don't have a great variety, but they give half to the artist, the music is almost always good, and you can stream unlimited tracks before you buy the album. You can also get the music in any format you want.
It's important to note the loss in quality that comes with the download->burn->rip process, though. (In case there are any people on Slashdot that suk@music am i rite.)
$1 is a rip off if the tune is from Apple. Unless you want proprietary hardware (the overpriced iPod) you can't play the tune on anything but your computer.
To a degree. The digital cable box I have has all that "On Demand" capability to do PPV movies and such, but it also has 30 channels or so, each devoted to a single network. Think "HBO On Demand" and "Showtime On Demand" and such, but extend it to "NBC On Demand" or "Fox On Demand". Or even to basic cable, what with Discovery, SciFi, and even Cartoon Network and Anime on demand channels.
Anyway, you pick your channel, and pretty much every series episode that channel has shown in the last year shows up. Usually the last 3-4 movies of the week show up on there too. Hit Play, and it begins after about a 15 second delay. It also has FF and RW buttons, which strangely enough seem to send a message back to the head end to do the FF'ing or RW'ing.. Good quality too, but then it is standard NTSC TV, so that's not particurlarly hard to do. There is some minor artifacting, but it's very good compression nonetheless.
There are also HD On Demand channels on there, but I lack HD at the moment.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
DVD rips are typically
1) Resized in resolution
2) Changed pixel shape
3) Transcoded from MPEG2 to MPEG4
Already the first two should tell you that you can never achieve the same quality again, even if you saved it as uncompressed AVI. Remember that a native MPEG4 format would take it directly from source.
You may not think it matters, but take a RAW picture with your favorite digicam. Save lossy once, and you'll see little difference from the original. Try editing both the raw and 1st gen jpg and save again. You'll see a huge difference between the 1st and 2nd gen jpg.
The only real reason we're not seeing HDTV on DVD9 discs, is because they want better copy protection. Your average 2CD rip is usually ~400mb AC3 track and ~900mb video. 1920x1080 is 9 times the pixels of a normal 640 wide DVDrip. So 9x900=8100. Still with more than 400mb to go for the AC3 track.
So, in summary a DVD9 will hold a better-than-2CD dvdrip quality (already at 2CD rip bitrate + no resize/transcode = better compressability), never mind that the artifacts will be 1/3rd as large on the same size screen because of the resolution, with the same original AC3 track.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You know my blood boils each and every fucking time I hear those worthless idiots from DownHill Battle referenced.
Its too expensive? $1 is the perfect price to demo an album and actually get a little sample of the full album. I generally buy one song from the iTMS and then if I like it I buy the full album. I use to download the songs from a P2P and then do the same thing or discard the tune, but I never really liked it. It felt too much stealing a car to see if I liked it or not (fuck off any asshole that references piracy is not theft). Sure, if I liked the car, I'd take it back in the morning and write out a check...if I didn't, well thats the dealers problem and I'll leave it on the side of the road. Oh yeah, fuck off anyone that points out minor flaws in analogies.
Past that, I buy the full album, used or not. If I can find it used, thats what I pick up.
As for artists getting ripped off?
Bull fucking shit. Do you believe everything crackheads like Courtney Love tell you? She is so fucked up that she never read her contracts, spent all the money and then wrote a bunch of articles claiming the industry was ripping her off.
I work in the backline for several major artists as well as quite a few up and coming artists. I get paid for my work. A lot of times, the new guys pay me to come in (well, through their lable) and I'll sit around for 8 hours while they try to write their album in the studio. Thats cool when you are fronting the costs, but when you are on someone elses dime, thats STILL going to come out of your pocket somewhere. Those 8 hours I'm doing nothing is still billable hours. If you showed up to work and your boss didn't have anything to do for you, you'd still get paid...
I'm never amazed by the number of guys that don't have a clue about getting in and getting done. My partner and I have worked development deals in the past where upcoming artists are set here for a few weeks to kinda get a feel of how things are done. The partner is kinda a grey hair in the industry and takes them under his wings and explains how things should be done and all that. Gets them ready to go back to the coast and have shit ready.
Still, these guys don't get the clue that this is costing them money and fuck around and then expect us to do all their work and we won't. I've got friends at the Matrix that can do that for them if they'd like, but quite honestly, they ain't good enough and don't have enough money to pay those guys (girls).
The label takes a risk and says for the next 7 years (or until you release the prerequired albums), if you wish to be a major lable musician (always sign your contracts in LA because it will limit the time of your servitude -- and ALWAYS go for a *SINGLE* album deal with opportunity of buyout or renegotiation). For the time of your contract, you know that the money the lable has given you will come out of your pocket. Make the best out of it. Don't be a dumbass. Don't hire limos to take you to and from the studio. Don't waste it on engineers and techs like me while you are wasting our time. We don't do this as a job, but because we like the art...if you aren't producing art, you *ARE* wasting my time. I don't care if its bad art or otherwise, be prepared.
Have a decent lawyer, and don't sign with the first industry lawyer that presents you with a contract. You have the option of bringing your own in from the street. My intellectual property lawyer that I use for patents in my technical life was FAR more informed about the contracts and otherwise than the one they provided me. He charged less, and was on my side. Never trust someone elses lawyer to help you out.
Even if you do, if you follow the contract to its letter, you can make a decent amount of change. The guys I'm working with now aren't living like superstars, but they have been pocketting more that I do at my technical job -- and I can guarentee you haven't heard of them yet.
So, when artists pick up 10% of the gross, th
What's lossless to you though?
CD is a lossy method of recording sound. It's just that for nearly everyone the losses aren't audible.
Maybe we could double the CD quality from 44.1KHz to 88.2KHz and the losses might be inaudible to anyone. But then again, even CDs take a long time to download, eat up more storage space on servers and take up more bandwidth.
Maybe true lossless audio is done through Fourier analysis, recreating the exact waveforms and sending the waveform data as mathematical constructs. Even then, these are approximations.
The only truly lossless audio format is to be there, in person and with good ears. Anything else is losing quality. Don't strive for perfection on this - you cannot win.
It was possible to enter for free by using the "tell a friend" feature to send an email to itunes100@apple.com instead of a friend. This implies that each such email counted as a "purchase". That brings into question the 100 million sold. How many were virtual?
--- What?
Damn I thought i was filled with miss information.
And one time Miss Information was filled by me!
Bada-bing!
I'm out.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Boy did that last sentence make me dizzy or was it just the lack of punctuation btw or perhaps it was, the strange way it was configured I don't know.
.
Got a couple of tracks that I've been trying to make an excuse to download for a while
Got to participate in a real time community experience on the Internet, which, btw I think is rare these days
Apple made a few dollars off me
Oh well, I had fun...:)
--pete
The options shouldn't be 'buy at a low price' or 'steal'. They should be 'buy at a low price' or 'don't buy at all'.
Following your analogy: if I don't buy at all, the record label gets... nothing. If I steal, the record label gets... nothing! So what's the difference?
Your argument is flawed because copyright violation is not analogous to stealing physical property. You're assuming a zero-sum game, but when information can easily be replicated, that no longer holds true. Record labels inflate album prices by attempting to enforce artificial scarcity. This doesn't work. The whole multi-billion dollar entertainment industry is built an a foundation made of thin air.
When a download failed to complete - and then failed to resume properly a la the supposed directions - 2 albums lost into the ether - Of course, I know the policies, so I paid for two downloads that never happened, but I wondered how many others that happened to. I saw quite a few on the discussion forums, and I have wondered what the real count of downloads would be - at least 20 short from my order. It's not a *bad* product, but there are some bugs.
I am not a big fan of the online music stores because of the format wars and the DRM issues. I don't want to use WMV or ATRAK, since they are closed formats and their quality is poor, though I would hesitate on AAC (relatively open), but with the Apple music store DRM I won't touch it. At the moment I am getting the feeling that if I buy any of these solutions it would be akin to buying a Panasonic CD that can only be played on Panasonic players and only in the conditions they wish, with 8-track quality. No, I like to take my music where I want it, listen to how I want it when I want it and have the best fidelity possible.
So the next legal alternative is the traditional CD. Now I walk into the CD store the other day and see a CD I like. Pick it up, check out the music and then look at the back cover, where it states "this CD is copy protected". Ok, maybe its not as bad as everyone says, I'll give it a chance. I walk over to the counter and ask whether I can bring it back if it does not play on my computer. I was told no, so I just told them they lost a sale. Sure, the store has it policies and I have mine. So what is a guy to do to legally get the music. Kazaa is tempting, I want to support my favourite artist, yet I don't want to sponsor copy protection that won't let me get the music onto my iPod.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Later, Rory
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
$1 a song w/ DRM is too much? Perhaps, but for years it's cost $.25 (or more) just to play a song just once from a jukebox; now, for the cost of just three or four jukebox plays, one can have a permanent copy of the song, to play as often as one likes, on one's own gear, wherever one wants, that can be copied to other media, etc. If anything, I'd say the price arguably went down, at least compared to what we've been getting from jukeboxes for decades and what we've been paying for it.
Don't get me wrong; I do think it'd be fantastic if the music could be even cheaper, and if it were unencumbered by DRM (that's why I dig eMusic at least as much as the iTMS), but realistically, there's just no way in hell we'll ever get everything from the major label catalogs released for legal downloads anytime soon without some form of DRM.
Surely the transition from LP to cassette tape was also a step backwards.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
To me, "the old fashioned way" was when you happened to find a good song on an FTP server.. ah, the old days of websites or ratio ftp servers full of mp3s and then later people started making search engines to scour loads of them at a time for something in particular. :)
-Major Kusanagi, Section 9
You need to go back to school and learn what a monopoly is. Last time I checked, there is plenty of competiton to the iTMS.
Karma Schmarma
.. and the model I outline above, is with the above model you are actually buying a copy of the show, you cans ave it for later viewing over and over.
Since a season of a show is 20 some dollars on DVD, it should be more than reasonable to be able to buy a single episode of a show for a dollar.
I would be more than happy to be able to download missed episodes of my favorite show for a dollar to watch at my leisure.
Chances are the people that are bitching about the DRM are the same people that are going to rip to FLAC, so loss of quality isn't an issue for them.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The other poster how you missed the boat about being able to burn a song as much as you liked to a CD that you can play anywhere.
But you also seen to forget that Hymn exists, which lets you remove the DRM and use the file as you like.
Either way, you just come off as terribly uninformed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You must get some cheap CD's in the UK. Where I come from, if I want a song from the CD it's about 1/15th the cost to buy it on iTunes instead of buying the whole CD!
That's why iTunes is cheaper in real terms, because albumbs that only have a few songs I want are WAY cheaper - and albumbs that I want the whole thing (rare but they still exist) are either around the same price or somewhat cheaper.
I agree I wouldn't pay more for non-physical form, but if it's a bit cheaper I'll take that option every time. Unless there's a bonus DVD with the album... bands are starting to get smart about that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You guys do know that the albums are available for 10 bucks no matter how many songs there are, usually? I never get single songs, because yeah, it is a ripoff. But ten dollar albums? Score!
P.S. Please tell me where I can buy new albums for under ten dollars. I looked online at that ASDA store, but last I heard, you needed more dollars to equal a pound. Is Apple overcharging in Britain?
P2P reached a new high with faster speeds, encryption better quality and a cheaper price, why...it doesn't cost anything.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
For years I've been looking the album Terminator X and the Valley of the Jeep Beets. Quite popular in the early 1990's.
All the local Best Buys and the like don't have it. Used CD stores never have it. I'm not paying 30 bucks (or whatever it is this week) for it on ebay.
P2P networks don't even have it.
So I installed the new Napster in the hopes of finally being able to buy it. They didn't have it. So I installed itunes as a last resort. They didn't have it either.
Nobody has it. Until itunes gets it, I won't be using their service.
On a side note, if anybody knows where to get it, please let me know.
yeah, you mean like how all MP3 players are proprietary?
those bastards.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
that's a bad comparisson. i pay $0.25 to use a phone booth, yet have free local calling at home.. a juke box is something you can rent for short periods of time much like a phone booth, you pay $0.25 to use it for a couple of minutes, the sounds equipment, and disks in the machine cost money, so the owner rents it out for $0.25 a pop..
MABASPLOOM!
The correct usage is: would've never bought
I think a proper pedagogue and sesquipedalian would insist upon eschewing the contraction. The real horror was using "of" instead of "have."
so if you like one song on the album it is better to buy the entire thing? your logic is seriously flawed.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
However, having bought several tunes from ITMS just to satisfy the need to hear "that" song, I can tell you that I have never once hit that wall where the DRM stops me from doing something I want to do.
For actual users, as opposed to the ideologues, DRM often just fades away as something irrelevant.
Maybe I have finally achieved middle-class, apathetic bourgeoise-hood, but I am more upset to pay $2.50 for a very unfancy cup of black coffee -- even though I have no ideological objections to marketing pricing.
Because they are a smaller company.
No, really. I'm one of those Mac users that think the Mac platform has continued to exist in spite of Apple, not because of them. Your complaint raises a valid point; Apple's enjoying some political immunity right now as an "underdog," partly because Microsoft wiggled out of the USian Department of Justice's grasp.
That said, I think Apple's able to maintain a low profile over this issue since they have yet to try to leverage the iPod's success into a unrelated market, like Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer. It's this "shoehorning" that's looked upon lowly, not the concept of a monopoly per se.
I do think that Apple needs to make the FairPlay DRM licensable if they want the otherwise more open AAC format to win out over WMA. (AAC itself is part of the MPEG industry standard; the DRM is a separate encoding format not part of AAC proper.)
Those who complain about affect & effect on
Quite possibly because you're so horribly wrong, and since that seems to be a mark of your level of copetence, it would be useless for anyone to explain it to you.
The points you posted are way out of date and have been refusted time and time again, but I thought I'd do it again...
.11 per dollar. Apple itself has publically said they make very little at all on the store itself, if they made much money on it you can be sure the investors would be the first to know and it would be VERY public.
It's too expensive
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers. Apple says many users are buying whole "albums" for $8-$12 each. That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5, and those come with liner notes. If you don't care about liner notes, you can burn the CD from a friend for 25 cents and send the musician a buck. In both cases, you end up with a real CD, and you can always use iTunes to rip it onto your computer or mp3 player. And you don't have to deal with restrictions on how you use it.
Except that of course singles are NOT too expensive, because how else can you get them reliably?
Used CD's come wiht liner notes - but also sometimes scratches. And again the aviliablity is even worse, whose to say when music you want will come out in your local CD store or on eBay?
And you also have to wait for eBay... surely the immediacy of obtaining music via iTunes is worth something.
Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract. Many of them will never Artists Get Ripped Off. even see this paltry share because they have to pay for producers and recording costs, both of which can be enormous. Until the musician "recoups" these costs, when you buy an iTunes song, the label gives them nothing.
First of all, Apple's share (which is really more like 11%) does not go to them for "just nothing". I can, and sometimes do, sit there all day long previewing songs - an act for which Apple does not receive a dime but has to pay for bandwidth. Then of course they have to house all the servers, pay for electricity, and the heavily redundant storage needed to insure ITMS is NEVER down and they NEVER loose a song. How much would all that cost? Well it turns out about
Secondly - sure the artists are getting screwed by MOST labels. But not all. CDBaby and other independants are on ITMS too, you know. So now as an artist you have a choice of signing with a big label in order to possibly get better distribution, OR you can sign with an indi and get almost as good distribution - just online, through ITMS! It smooths out the disparity of what distribution you can get from independants vs. major labels.
Nothing changed
See above. You can't turn a ship this big on a dime, the setting is in place for artists to jump unfair labels - but now ARTISTS have to make that choice.
Keeping progress at bay
See above, they're just singing the same tune now without realizing what has changed. All they can see is the old, which it does support - but are outright ignoring the new, which provides a better path forward. ITMS has created a great transition path.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"That's like saying, "Boy, I love these new TV's, but several thousand dollars is just too much. I'll go steal mine from the storage truck behind the store."
Except the store doesn't lose a TV, yadda yadda yadda.
I propose an end to all analogies to the real world when discussing the sharing of files. Nobody's gotten it right, and now it's just plain nauseating.
"Derp de derp."
Is there any reason practical reason (bar the one stated below) why Apple can't act as a music label and start offering to distribute music for small bands/artists? Does a label, even if they are indie, need to be invloved when Apple can just cut out the middleman?
There are no distribution costs, bar bandwidth. As long as a band has a decent amount of talent they should be able to get published by ITMS.
But yes, I know all about the Beatles sueing Apple over trademark infringement...
"What can I say? I'm the queen of java."
subduction.net
I agree with you about video game soundtracks, there are a lot of games that I would love to buy the soundtrack for.
However, it's not Apple's place to do so - Apple does not make games, and so they own no rights to any soundtrack music. It's up to the game company to produce the soundtrack, then go to a lable to distribute said soundtrack, which then MAY make its way to ITMS.
So if you want more game soundtracks - send letters to the game makers! It all starts there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sorry, but if any company has the power to "stand up to the music industry," yes, it's Wal-Mart. Does that make it right?
I trust Wal-Mart even less than the RIAA. Sorry, but Ultra-Right-Wing Conservatives are worse than Right-Wing Capitalists.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
While I'm probably in the minority, I won't be buying any 128kbps AAC files because of the quality. However, if they were Apple Lossless format and didn't have DRM I would buy a number of tracks regularly even at double the price. The convenience and control would be worth the money to me. I'm not sure how much of a market people like me represent but it seems purely additive. Just make a "Pro" option available. The extra cost would probably pay for the server space and bandwidth.
I bet Hilary Rosen's mailbox is full of links to this article.
"Derp de derp."
Would you rather spend $13 (or $10, or whatever) for a single song you want, or just to buy that one song and not have to deal with the rest of the crap on there?
I'd rather listen to bands that actually make good albums and not single-of-the-week crap. In fact, for most of my albums, I find I like some of the other songs on the album *better* than the single that gets airplay.
Buying a single is for teenie boppers.
I have a Palm Tungsten T that disagrees with you...quit spreading FUD.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Did you try contacting ITMS support? I've had them reset the DL marker for songs that got messed up - I lost an HD and lost one or two songs that I had bought most recently. It's not impossible, just explain the situation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Kind of defeats the purpose of the MP3 player... no? If I wanted a CD, I'd buy a CD.
...that all the music on the iTunes music store is the 'popular' music that the majority of people listen too Electronic (no, not DANCE, TRANCE, RAVE etc)all the way!
The blurb on Apple's website said they're charging 79p, which is currently about $1.47. How that compares to the price of a CD over there, though, I couldn't say (haven't lived there since '86).
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Read my reply to SuperKendall's post. I wasn't trying to spread FUD, I honestly didn't know about Hymn.
I can burn as many CD's as I like from any ITMS song, and if I get tired of what restrictions there are I can use Hymn to strip away the DRM.
Napster is far more restrictive in terms of use (and not consistnat either with some songs having different restrictions), and what does it matter if I can use it with ten sanctioned devices if they all suck? It's like saying I can have a free breakfast and giving me ten flavors of cement to choose from.
You'll also find out just how "free" Napster is when they go bankrupt and the licencing servers go offline... What is the path to un-DRM Napster songs?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Most of all, I would like to congratulate Apple on their fantastic use of the DMCA to crush free software developer writing applications (PlayFair) that can handle the formats in which they sell music.
You seem to have missed a small point. PlayFair is not crushed, it lives on as Hymn!
Kind of takes the wind out of your sales.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A few nits:
If you buy a used CD, the musicians get no money from the sale. It's better for musicians if you buy music from ITMS than it is if you buy used CDs.
Apple takes about a third of the gross sales. They're paying for all of the storage, bandwidth, development, and support costs with that money. Their profit from ITMS is negligable; they make money by selling iPods.
Do musicians make more money from CD sales than from ITMS? I honestly don't know the answer to that, but if they don't how can you claim that ITMS is bad for the musicians?
There's a huge difference between sold and delivered.
Apple get's $.10 from each sale. That's 11% for you math wiz's.
Seems as if someone at Apple is stealing 0.89 cents from each sale... times 100,000,000 songs... that's quite a few dollars. I wonder if they borrowed that idea from Office Space.
That is not what we call a monopoly :)
:) How come MP3s and WAVs and CDs aren't proprietary? They are you know. When was the last time you wrote your own MP3 player or CD player? MP3s are just as legally bound as AACs.
To be perfectly clear, you are stating that Apple is a monopoly because they are the sole vendor of the hardware, software, and music, right?
Is Ford a monopoly of Tauruses? Yes. Does that make Ford a monopoly? No. There are competitors to iTunes. Music Match and Windows Media Player. There are competitors to iTunes. Walmart, Napster, and Rhapsody. There are competitors to the iPod. Dell Jukebox, iRivers, MuVos, and Nomads. There are even competitors to the Mac. HPs, IBMs, Dells, and Gateways.
You want an explanation for how Apple escapes the critcism Microsoft gets for proprietary and monopoly?
Apple hasn't utilized their sucess in the music field to dictate legal and contract issues with venders, oems, consumers, and suppliers. See Compaq, Netscape, Sun, etc.
Apple hasn't relied on monopoly status to carry them through. Otherwise known as resting on your laurels. Microsoft's biggest competition is older versions of OSes and Office suites. Apple has to contend with Windows and Linux and everything else. Ask everyone who's had a buggy, leaky, exploited OS and browser.
As for proprietary... How exactly do you mean that AAC is proprietary? Just because you can't figure out how to download a third party player that plays DRM AACs? There are at least two I know of
Are you upset because you've bought into the Microsoft scheme and lost big (spyware, viruses, trojans, exploits, and flaky reliability)? Or because you are confused because Apple goods cost more, look better, and are otherwise unattainable in your world?
GPL Deconstructed
"the best MP3 player..."
:P
Actually, I'd have wanted an iPod mini, but Apple probably couldn't spare any of those
If you don't care about liner notes, you can burn the CD from a friend for 25 cents and send the musician a buck.
Right, you do that. As for the CD being cheaper, maybe so, but iTMS is a much better deal for a one-song-off-an-album purchase. You gotta buy the whole CD. Nobody forces you to use iTMS, buy the CD for all I care.
Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do.
And they have to pay for developers, bandwidth, promo, etc. with that $.35/song
So why does iTunes give artists such a raw deal?
Because iTMS deals with labels, not individual artists. It's up the to label to distribute the money. If the artists don't like that, maybe they should change labels. Indies get to play on a playing level on iTMS anyway. iTMS cannot deal directly with artists since: 1. there are way too many contracts to be signed, 2. artists' contract with labels preclude them from doing so.
Thanks to peer to peer filesharing, we finally have a chance to break the major record label system
In another word, I want them free.
Funny you take arguments from Downhill.org since they advocate against iTMS from day one using inaccurate arguments and tell eveyone to use P2P.
I read an article on the New York Times criticizing Apple for not offering lossless songs. The Apple representative said they felt most users would automatically download the lossless songs thinking that they're better, then not understand when the songs took a lot longer to download and you could only fit a couple hundred on the 40 Gb iPod which apple said could hold 10,000.
That said, that fact that iTunes and the iPod now support lossless does indicate the potential intent on Apples part to offer music in that format. They'd just need to figure out a way around that whole user confusion thing.
At least the RIAA doesn't censor it's music selection.
Let's start simple: the iTunes Music Store is not a good value for customers. Apple says many users are buying whole "albums" for $8-$12 each. That's less than the $16 store price, but used CDs at Amazon or ebay cost $5, and those come with liner notes.
Umm...did you say $5 for a cd? What about shipping costs? What about the time it takes for your cd to be shipped? What about wondering what condition the cd is in? What about finding the cd in the first place? oh and if it's ebay, what about bidding on that cd?
Honestly, If you're gonna buy cd's used, your best option is to go to your local record store and buy them there. At least you'll be able to get your cd right away, and you'll be able to see the condition it's in and replace it if it's damage. (Amoeba allows you to do this..)
But Itunes win's hands down when it comes to convenience. In a matter of minutes, you get the song/album you want. No waiting for shipping. No driving out to a record store. Just a few clicks and you get your music.
Apple is a vertical monopoly, meaning that they control all the aspects of the products they sell. Sure, you can play MP3's on the iPod, but you can't play DRM WMAs. This means that you need to buy music for your iPod from Apples store , and you need to play music you purchase on Apple's store on their player.
No, this isn't illegal, and does not necessary imply abuse on Apple's part. The potential for abuse still exists though.
Apple fanboys suck! :-)
Yep, Amazon has it. I had a good experience buying used CD's before on Amazon. I think you're out of luck as far as buying it new - it's probably gone out of print.
There is a huge amount of out of print recordings that aren't carried by online music stores. Most of the orignal tapes are still around. You would think that digitizing those recordings would be an easy way for the labels to make money. According to this article from back in May, Steve Jobs wants iTunes to have access to back-catalog material. However, it seems like he has a hard time getting the major labels to "think different".
I too am a resident of Hays, KS. Kevin is my friend's friend's sister's boyfriend. Maybe I can get him to give a shoutout to slashdotters. And no, I'm not joking. I really do live in Hays Kansas.
Your argument assumes that copyright violation is not analogous to stealing physical property because you aren't depriving the copyright holder of physical property.
This is true. However: your assumption that this makes copyright violation somehow "ok" is just plain wrong. Copyright exists to protect the commercial viability of creative works. Giving away somebody's content for free may not deprive them of physical property but certainly destroys its viability by eliminating a potential demand. Thus, it is illegal. Whether or not you would have bought the album had you not copied it is irrelevant.
It's true that not everybody who downloads a record would have bought it anyway. It's also true that some people will download a record and still buy it. But neither of these facts excuses the downloader. If it did, this assertion would break down to "copying should be free because it's easy and non destructive." I think the majority of Americans would disagree with that, not because we're brainwashed by the RIAA, but because we realize that if WE made something people liked, we'd want to get paid for it. The promise that, "hey, somebody might not download it for free, you can make money off them" is empty, overly optimistic and liable to drive cd prices even higher as it creates a chaotic market in which potential numbers are much harder to predict.
After all, it's not like albums are "scarce," as you're claiming. They're everywhere. Albums are expensive because that's what they cost because that's what companies charge for them. Record labels, as well as the majority of record sales outlets, have decided to opt for high margins over high volume, sensible since volume sales have been steadily decreasing as the numbers of available records increase (more choices in the same market implies that fewer people will select a particular choice, which raises the cost of production and decrease the profits of an individual CD or download). Economics doesn't work like your high school teacher taught you: supply and demand don't push prices, prices and demand push the supply. Call that "artificial scarcity" if you like, but I'd call it "efficient production."
Hey freaks: now you're ju
If you pay for the advertising, it's hardly "free" anymore, now is it? :).
Yaz.
Out of their $.35 they have to pay for bandwidth, servers, admins, advertising, and most importantly credit card transaction fees.
This is how brilliant Apple is. They've convinced you that they're losing money on iTMS.. thus you feel like you're getting a great deal.
The fact is, they're making money on iTMS.. not a lot of money, but none-the-less they're in the black.
Just to compare, look at www.apple.com/trailers
This site is free, and costs Apple much much more than iTMS costs to run.
Which is a good thing. If re-ripping results in a loss of quality, then it isn't the "pure digital copy" that the DMCA was set up to prevent. You get your fair use, man, and it doesn't step on the copyright owner's toes.
It's win-win. And if you're going to whine about the quality of digital music at that point, maybe you should just shut up and go buy a turntable or a nice 200 disk SACD jukebox. For the MOST of us, 128 kbit AAC -> CD -> 320 kbit MP3 is good enough to make complaints trivial.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
re-read my entire comment, I admitted that they may now be making a small profit per transaction and that they probably make something on volume. However I don't think they are making that much and most of the profits are probably going back into the product at this point, whether that is into more servers or bandwidth or advertising. The fact is that Apple's entire portion of the sales was only $35 million for 14 months, for a company with tens of billions in the bank that's chump change. What Apple gets most of all out of iTMS is that their brand is once again in the forefront of peoples minds, and THAT is very valuable to them, so they would run iTMS even if it cost them some money at this point, just like the trailer site (which also goes to promote Quicktime and thus encourage people to buy producer licenses for QT).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"Bullshit. And you're going to tell me that by using your computer to access the Internet and post on slashdot, you're supporting the agenda of the sweatshop owners who built your PC components, all of the communications companies who own circuits between you and the servers you visit, and the admins who run slashdot? Sorry, but I don't accept that philosophy. It's a big, complicated world, and everyone has to live in it. "
So, the world is complecated, so I don't need to be an educated consumer and understand the consequenses of my cunsumption and does not need to take responsibility for it. As you you say it might be hard to avoid to support, and to be educated about all consequenses.
It's more like that the lazy consumer does not want to know about and take responsibility for the consequenses of ones actions.
Apple and the music consumers could hace chosen a different path. Apple does not want to take that kind of risk (maybe likes to transit into a different music consumtion system in the future). The music consumers have to have the music tied up in the "unfair record-company-system". And finally the artist support the system when signing their contracts.
You posted on slashdot, so you to some extent support the swetshops, the slashdot system...
So even if you feel like one powerless lonley consumer, you little money vote in the capitalistic world does count a little. And think - there might be more like you out there, voting in the same way. You could also try get organised to change the system so you can post on slashdot without go via unethical erlictronics (and maybe unethical operating systems).
Btw, this also goes in the area of saving and investing money . Invest you money so you support what you like to support. It's easy to turn the blind eye when investing in funds. Are there any Open Source friendly founds?
First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do.
Which explains why Apple isn't making any money off the iTMS, and is instead using it as a means to sell more iPods where they can make money.
If you go directly to CDBaby, you can hear about a minute of each song instead of 30 seconds. Also, independant artists get a larger cut than those who signed up with the Big Labels, so you don't need to feel guilty about handing money over to the Evil Empire.
Upon some research, it looks like CDbaby inked the deal last year. Wish I'd known!
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
This didn't by chance happen in Soviet Russia, did it?
Your entire post is fuzzy logic at best, but the line above is hysterically moronic.
How is "not buying at all" creating a situation where the music companies are raiding your bank account? If you don't buy, they don't get a penny. Argh ... and to top it all off, you're actually getting an "Insightful" rating. I guess that blows the "group think" label a previous poster accused the /. moderation system of creating.
CT
What on earth are you talking about? That's not a monopoly, that's just restricted use. A monopoly is 'exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service'. And, last time I checked, Apple wasn't the only source out there for legal music downloading - look at Napster, AllofMp3, or eMusic. All are legit, all provide alternatives (albeit poor ones, but that's neither here nor there). Now, if Apple were the only music download retailer around, then yes, that would be a monopoly. But they aren't, so they're not.
To put it another way, say Ford releases a car which only runs on Ford brand gas. Does that make Ford a monopoly all of a sudden? Of course not! So why should iTunes be any different?
no but i think he should now be the powerful master we bow to for doing it
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
"Favorite Rapper"
while sco {
wget -O
}
0.10/0.99 is around 10.1%, not 11%.
If Pepsi can give away 100 million songs for free, why can't Apple? I bet it would have further driven iPod sales, too.
"...CD's have the normal price of about 20 euros, which is about 24 US dollars." At the rate the dollar is going, 20 euros will be about 10 bucks if GB is re-elected.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
OTOH, as more and more non signartistest are making more and more money through iTunes, They will become a force of there own(within the music industry). iTune could become a defacto label. Plus, if your unsigned, but your downloads show a strong demand, the artist will have more negiotable power. Perhaps finally being able to negotiate on a per albuim bases. No more 7 year contracts.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
" iTunes downloads can only be played on software and hardware SUPPLIED BY ONE VENDOR" funny, I downloaded some music from iTunes, and I play it in my car(not an apple product),anything that plays .mp3(whether or not it is an apple product, and my computer(not apple).
It is far less draconion then the MS format. I would go as far to say it's as reasonable as a purchased CD.
yes, quality is less, however I mostly listen to music in my car.
Apple is a vertical monopoly. That means they control everything the effects their products.(nutshell)
More importantly, a monopoly in and of itself is not bad. Now, if you would like to point out some way that Apple has ABUSED their monopoly, please feel free to respond.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
This is not easy, simple, or cheap for apple. The storage and bandwidth costs are HUGE. Then there are all the people involved. This is a huge operation, with many steps. Did you know apple supplies software to the record companies to create the AAP files? Did you know those songs when they come back go through 3 levels of QA before being released? (they have funny names too, "scrubbers" and "polishers" I think are two of them).
This is a huge cost to apple. $.10 cents per song barely covers it. This is why so many songs must be sold to make any real money.
Most of the money is made off of Ipods (3million sold) not the content.
Now I do agree that iTunes does't really help the artists a whole lot, as they still get bent over by the record companies. But hopefull more artists will start publishing straight to iTunes and can get a better deal? Well one can hope =)
And lets face it, it's not like Sting is hurting for money
If you insist otherwise you are simply wrong. You can make arguments about stealing being just as morally reprehesible as copyright infrigmanet all day long and I'm willing to listen and would probably agree to a certain extent, but when you state that theft and copyright infringement are one and the same you're simply mistaken.
Technically there have been >100,000,000 songs downloaded and not necessarily bought.
Here:
http://waxploitation.com/dmecard2/
For the MOST of us, 128 kbit AAC -> CD -> 320 kbit MP3 is good enough to make complaints trivial.
For me AAC -> Speakers is just fine. And if the need presents itself, I may AAC->CD->MP3. I haven't burned any yet, but it is good that the DRM allows me to burn it to cd a few times.
If you're going to steal music, be honest about it at least.
heh heh - that made me laugh.
Repeat it along with me, folks, "Apple is dying!" I'm sure netcraft will confirm it any day now....
After all, it's not like albums are "scarce," as you're claiming
Er, I didn't claim that at all. I said that the record labels are attempting to create artificial scarcity. And not doing a very good job of it.
I also wasn't trying to argue that copyright violation isn't wrong; more that the current economic model (of artifical scarcity) isn't really sustainable. It's a classic emperor's new clothes scenario, and some people are beginning to catch on to the fact that some corporations are butt naked.
See, the thing is this: the concept the artists must be paid for everything they do isn't some golden rule - the idea is only about 100 years old. Before then, for the entire history of humanity, artists managed quite well (or quite badly, just as today) without reaping royalties from a million album sales. If, as some people argue, piracy will kill the music industry, how did music ever get written before record labels existed, hmm?
Today's situation is the exception in human history, not the rule. Copyrights only exist because it's so easy to copy things, not because artists have some fundamental entitlement to be paid for each copy of their work that gets sold.
you mean he could have saved himself 99 cents and downloaded the song free? I bet he's kicking himself now, while he loads 10,000 songs into his new ipod from his new powerbook...
You say with confidence that the iPod is overpriced, but in what sense? From the sales figures it would appear that it's priced at a level the market can accomodate. Would you like Apple to reduce the price to parts costs as a charitable gesture?
If you mean that it costs more than other products which fulfill a similar function, then you should understand that design costs money.
Peace
When everything in your story is non-specific, yet unspeakably big (_major_ labels, _major_ release, _highly regarded_ college, your own IP lawyer), it makes the bullshit much easier to step around.
Thank you for being a terrible liar.
-A Real Musician.
If you buy a used CD, the musicians get no money from the sale.
/. these days, but I don't hear anyone whining about Chevy not getting their cut when someone sells a used Blazer.
I keep seeing this posted as an argument. While true on the face of it, it is irrelevant. It is a symbol of money the artist has already earned.
The Artist/Label made and sold his CD to a consumer. The consumer paid the agreed-upon value.
The consumer has the choice to retain the product at it's value, or to make an arrangement with someone who finds it more valuable than the original consumer does.
Because of the fact that the physical CD reatins it's value through the years, the Artist/Label can and does charge an incrementally higher price than if it was non-transferable, or deteriorated after six months.
I know car analogies are out of favor at
Call it indirect support, call it trickle-down economics, call it what you like. Just remember how hard Garth Brooks got laughed out of town when he tried to sue to claim royalties from used CD sales.
And you, madam, are very ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.
If, as some people argue, piracy will kill the music industry, how did music ever get written before record labels existed, hmm
This is a dumb argument. Music didn't exist as a recorded entity until Edison. It only existed as a performed entity. Performance was based off of sheet music, which was in fact copyrighted and usually controlled through a single publisher. People who copied and reproduced other people's sheet music, then tried to sell it or perform it without obtaining the rights, were punished. When recorded music debuted, copyright was extended to include recorded music. The copyright was upheld when tapes came around: you could make copies of your own tapes and any music you heard, but you couldn't sell it and you couldn't give it away. And it'll be upheld again in the digital age.
You seem to think that the fact that copyright is a legislated concept is a sign that those relying on copyright to make a living are living on borrowed time. Does this mean you expect copyright to be overturned? Because I don't see a lick of support for this in congress and I can't imagine anybody who would support dropping all copyrights and return to the patron system. Personally, I like listening to the radio. And I'll fight for the copyrights which make it viable.
I still don't know what you mean by artificial scarcity. Probably because you don't mean anything by it. Artificial scarcity is when a company purposely halts production of a product to raise the price of a commodity, such as OPEC cutting production of oil. But music and art are not commodities. You can not trade one piece of music for another. Therefore, they do not abide by the same economic laws as grain or brass or a cardboard box. In fact, if ten thousand people want a CD, it's quite likely that the music industry will product ten thousand copies. And they will sell them for whatever price those ten thousand people are willing to pay. This is not artificial scarcity. It is efficient production to maximize profits.
Besides, artificial scarcity is an immensely effective way to do business. In fact, I can't think of an industry based on artificial scarcity that isn't doing fairly well. I mean, it's certainly helping the farmers. The bottled water people are doing okay. Producers of collectibles are doing alright. The oil industry is doing great, and energy companys as well. I mean, diamonds? Labor? Come on, man. Stop pretending that we exist in some open market capitalism vacuum where everything has a 30% margin. If somebody charges "too much" for something you need, you're gonna buy it, end of story, and all your bullshit cries of "hey this scarcity is artifically produced and your model is unsustainable" will fall on deaf ears.
Piracy won't kill the music industry, just as piracy didn't kill the shipping industry in the 1600s. That does not make it legal, does not make it moral, and does not mean that the music industry is ripe to fall. Either buy the fucking CD or steal it or sit in silence, I don't care. Stop wasting everybody's time with this "copyrights are artificial, CDs are too expensive, the music industry will fall to the massive power of serfdom" whining.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
'cause Pepsi gambled that most people would not redeem the caps.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
The winners of this contest are all from the USA.
this link might save you some trouble.
> Apple apparently sold its 100 millionth song at the iTunes Music Store.
...netting Apple a grand total of...one million tousandths of a cent.
Dr. Evil:
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The labels get roughly $0.70 of every $0.99 track sold. That leaves Apple $0.29, not $0.10.
I know; I used to work in the online music biz. And it's not exactly a trade secret.
Absolutely right. What's more, the parent +5 post perpetuates the belief that Apple (and other similar services) make only a dime or less on each sale. That's not true; generally, the labels will charge the music service $0.65 to $0.70 per song (depending on the label). That leaves $0.30 to $0.35 per song.
What ISN'T true, though, is the "underground" perception that these services are somehow making a windfall off of these sales. They're not. There's quite a bit of overhead going into the store, and it's going to take a while before they make any substantial profit. And when they make it, I won't fault them; they deserve it for being such a huge success story in this area. Why would anyone fault them?
amm... you haven't used P2P have you?
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
you're a fucking annoying douche. shut up, cocktron
But the USPS charges $0.32 in order to let you send that check. That's almost as much as Apple's cut. You're hardly winning.
Analogies be damned. If an artist writes a song and aasks people (either directly or through an agent) not to obtain a copy without paying them and some person does it anyway then said person is being an asshole.
That's as simple as it gets.
I still don't know what you mean by artificial scarcity. Probably because you don't mean anything by it
What I mean is this: copies of "album X" are not scarce. The digital medium can be copied any number of times, and each copy is just as good as the original. The number of items of this product that can be produced is virtually infinite. This is completely unlike any physical commodity (say, computers, hi-fi equipment) where the quantity is strictly limited by production capacity.
"Artifical scarcity" in this context is the attempt to limit a basically unlimited resource in order to raise the prices (generally via DRM implementations of varying levels of ineptitude). This is what's unworkable. Sure, it's unlikely to kill the music industry, though to listen to the RIAA you wouldn't think so. But it's not really a long-term sustainable business model either.
But music and art are not commodities.
The RIAA treat music as a commodity. Which is exactly the problem.
You can not trade one piece of music for another.
So? You can trade recordings of music, which is what we're talking about here. At least it's what I was talking about, I've no idea where the thread of your argument is going.
If somebody charges "too much" for something you need, you're gonna buy it, end of story, and all your bullshit cries of "hey this scarcity is artifically produced and your model is unsustainable" will fall on deaf ears.
Except that's not the case today, is it? If someone charges "too much" for an album, people just go and pirate it.
By the way, where did you get the impression that I was whining? I'm just expressing my opinions; you're the one who seems to need to resort to swearing. So take your superior attitude and shove it. "Wasting everyone's time", indeed. This is a discussion forum, in case you hadn't noticed. If you don't feel up to "discussing", may I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time?