Slashdot Mirror
MP3 Download Prices to Rise?
OBeardedOne writes "The major music labels are in talks with music download services attempting to get them to increase the price of music downloads. " Sounds like there is division in the ranks of the music companies, but something to watch.
Never paid for it in my life, and I'm not about to start. I guess I can be proud of that.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Smooth, editors, very smooth. Somebody had to have submitted an version article that had a working link.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
As of this post, the link points to "http://slashdot.org/%3CA%20HREF=". Does this mean the editors don't even read the submissions or check what they post? A completely broken link on, say, CNN.com would be kind of a big deal and grounds for reprimand to the webmaster.
Except that allofmp3.com is illegal.s sian+cops+ say+no/2100-1027_3-5586034.html?tag=nefd.top
http://news.com.com/MP3s+for+pennies+Ru
Not hard to sell cheap music when you break the law.
they use allofmp3.com
Why can't the record labels get off of their early 1980s business model and provide these products to people at a price?
On a side note, I burned my first MP3 to CD Friday before last, and I question why people are willing to pay for these things. I only got the MP3s because its a new band that I'm going to see in April and they have never toured or recorded together before and the only recordings I could get from them are 4 128bps MP3 tracks off of their website.
If I paid 4 bucks for these MP3s I would be very pissed off. The same goes with an iPod that someone brought over to my house a while back. I plugged it into my stereo, and I guess that bass is something you have to pay extra for.
My point of all this bitching about MP3s is that there apparently is a market for low quality, inexpensive and portable music. No one in their right mind would pay more than 99c for something like this. It would seem to me that the record labels would sell more than one thing to their customers (CDs) when there is a whole market of goods that people want. But I guess if your a rich record exec and have been for the last 20 years, I guess your motivation for change is about zero.
Its theft. Get over it. When I use my printing press to print money, I am guilt of counterfeiting. However, I have stolen a microscopic amount of money from every person with that currency. I may not be charged with "theft", but I am a thief. In the same way, when a portion of folks take someting they are not entitled to, it drives up the cost to those who do so legally.
You are a thief.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I'm not going to skewer you on this point, but you only have the proper use of music you paid for via iTunes or ripped yourself because you own the original CD disks. Your continued use of that music is predicated on your continued ownership of the disks in question. You don't ideally have the right to backups for which you have no originals.
If you are going to drink the corporate kool-aid, play by the corporate rules.
You first.
You poor dear. It must have been pretty scary when those big, bad record companies barged through the door, held a gun to your head, and forced you to buy those CDs.
Same deal for those poor, misguided artists. I mean, the idea of somebody in the music industry driving a faustian bargian is just inconceivable. If some guy in a suit were to offer me a diamond-encrused Hummer full of cocaine and naked women, I wouldn't think he'd expect me to do anything for him at all.
You know, I like the way you think. GM sold me a car that turned out to be a peice of shit. I bet they only paid their workers a few bucks an hour to make it, too. I think I'm gonna swing by the Chevy dealer to help myself to a new set of wheels.
Vive la revolution!
hang brain.