Slashdot Mirror
Would You Pay 5 Cents For a Song?
irikar writes "An academic at McGill University has a simple plan to stop the plague of unauthorized music downloads on the Internet. But it entails changing the entire music industry as we know it, and Apple Computers, which may have the power to make the change, is listening."
Yes, I would pay 5 cents a song and I currently do thanks to some kind Russians. =)
When the record companies sell what i want to hear. everything i pulled off of napster back in the day was 80's rock and metal stuff that has been discontinued. For god sake guys, put your back catalogues on line, (or even press a cd or two on demand) and then we'll talk. :(
In addition, a 1 per cent sales tax would be placed on Internet services and new computers -- two industries that many argue have profited enormously from rampant file-sharing, but haven't had to compensate artists.
This is the same scheme that we have today on blank CDs and the like and it is total BS to apply it to computers. I have no idea why anyone outside the entertainment business thinks that it's OK to put a music-stealing tax on every computer, or DRM on every computer when not every computer is even considered for such use. What about the company that buys 10,000 computers per year and because some 12 year old is "stealing" music they have to pay an additional tax and further have to have their computers crippled with DRM?
I'm a big tall mofo.
"Just a FYI Apple, no matter how cheap something is it is NEVER as cheap as free. Free will always win out."
Until there's nothing left to be free. Then free loses badly.
No, no and fucking no! I refuse to finance any industry which I don't have anything to do with.
When I buy computers for my business, I don't buy them for anything music-related, so I see NO reason to pay a tax, or levy or whatever the fuck they want to call it to support any music-related thing.
I'm tired of corporations and government thinking society exists for the sole purpose of ensure their profit.
AC comments get piped to
To a certain extent, he's somewhat right. It would substantially lower the bar and you'd have far more impulse buys (and drunk song-buying binges wouldn't hurt as much. Fear the drunken one-click shopping spree!)
However, I am not such a big fan of his idea of taxing PCs. However, the last line of the article is THE MOST INFORMATIVE OF ALL:
These guys don't even get *OLD ESTABLISHED CONCEPTS* let alone "new fangled concepts." Pearlman's response is that if you double the price, you cut the sales by more than half, so you actually DECREASE your revenue.
They just don't get it. [I'm not saying Pearlman is necessarily right with the
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Their bean-counters decide that well if we can make billions selling songs for .05/download we could make 10x as much if we sell them for .50/download and 20x as much if we sell them for .99/download.
Unless their bean-counters have taken Econ 101 and know the most basic things about supply and demand. As you increase price, you decrease volume. There is always a sweet spot that maximizes profit.
Their bean-counters decide that well if we can make billions selling songs for .05/download we could make 10x as much if we sell them for .50/download and 20x as much if we sell them for .99/download.
Please look up the term "elasticity" in your friendly neighbourhood economics textbook.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While you're completely right that nothing beats free, you can't deny the number downloads iTMS has garnered since its start. While free music will always be available, don't underestimate the 'guilt-free' factor. A clean conscience for 5 cents/song is about as good a deal as you can get.
Much like the scheme presented in the article, please remember that the "free" file sharing networks requires a broad base of participants to make them run. The utility of the "free" networks improves or deteriorates based on the numbers of people engaged in the activity of sharing freely:
even at US$.99, I would bet there has been an affect on the quality/quantity/availability of music on the "free" sharing networks. Presumably, that would deteriorate further if "legitimate" online services appealed to an even broader audience (as some or all of that broader audience would likely participate less in the "free" networks).
They get like maybe 1$ per cd.
If only that were true. Artists generally make $.05-$.12 a CD. If you want more info about the industry and contracts, etc., I highly recommend This Business of Music. It's chock full of interesting details like formulas used to determine artist royalties. For instance, did you know the labels still take money for R&D costs on the "new technology" of the Compact Disc? Or that many still take out $$ to cover "breakage", which is a hold over from distribution of albums on vinyl?
Oy.
Despite conventional wisdom, I've discovered you can blame a guy for trying. It's called "attempted murder".
Well if you would take Pizza Eating 101 you would learn that I can eat many, MANY pizzas.
meep
There are independent studios that you can record at as well. And yes, they CAN come out sounding really damn good when it's all said and done. Would Britney Spears be able to do it, if she had no money and was just starting? No. But someone who relied on instrumentation and vocals from within the band COULD do it, quite easily. I have TONS of music for you to listen to that sounds wonderful (even if it isn't what you particularly like) that is done independent of anyone. I even have some stuff of two guys who did much of it in their LIVING room and it sounds superb (if you're interested in hearing THAT, go try out Pinback - Microtonic Wave or "B"(Offcell EP) on Launch - if you don't like the music itself, that's fine, but focus mostly on the quality of the production).
It can be done. It may be more work on the part of the musicians, but it's also cheaper. The only thing that would be prohibitively difficult would be in the distribution of physical CDs (but I guess that's where Amazon comes in, eh?). And when you get to the internet...shoo. It all comes together there.
The point is that the RIAA aren't a monopoly any more. They are competing with "free" downloads.
The other points are that "free" downloads are not free. You need to spend time searching for songs, wading through the crap, learning new tools as the RIAA fight the old ones, and there is a risk of getting caught, etc.
The final point of the article is that legal music distributors can regain the advantage if they offer a cheap, quality service as a competition to the eDonkeys of the world.
Hence there is competition going on, and as long as the RIAA doesn't understand it at that level, the situation will not improve for them.
cheap goods are made for cheap people
There is a saying that goes something like this:
I'm not rich enough to buy cheap things.
Even though cheap goods are made for cheap people, it's a false sense of cheap, because the cheap good will inevitably break, forcing you to buy another one and another one, when for the same amout of money as 2 or 3 cheap goods, you could have bought a more expensive high quality good that would last you a lot longer than 3x lifetime of cheap good.
I've seen it time and time again, especially with electronics, umbrellas, and of course, digital watches, which, for some reason, seem like a good idea.
So a 5 cent song will break before a 99 cent song?