Slashdot Mirror


iTunes Might Lose Labels

Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the New York Times, the iTunes music store might have to change its 99 cents per song policy or risk losing a huge amount of songs due to recent disputes with record companies, who demand an increase in the cost. From the article: 'If [Mr. Jobs] loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted 99 cents to download any song could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.'"

5 of 614 comments (clear)

  1. Alright by SpaceCadetTrav · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Queue the endless whining about how songs should cost 10 cents.

  2. Re:AllOfMp3 by jsgates · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Wow, you must have ignored the previous post completely. No where in that article is a definitive "No, it's illegal". Plenty of "Probably not legal", but no definitive "Illegal!". Since that's what he was looking for, your post is nothing but more of your trying to be arrogant, and in the process making yourself look ignorant.

  3. A move away from communism by stoutpuppy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Go capitalism, yay publishers. I'm not buying from iTunes.

  4. Re:great! by daviddennis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What's wrong with artists being paid for their compositions?

    Why should the "public" own something that's the blood, sweat and tears of an individual, and has nothing to do with the "public"?

    Now, I do think that art that is not actively marketed should go into the public domain, because the artist doesn't lose anything by it. But I see no reason why the copyright on American Pie or Mickey Mouse should not be eternal. Someone invented Mickey Mouse; people are still willing to pay for him; why should parasites who put no effort into the character get a free ride?

    D

  5. Re:Damn Right! by Zooka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whether it was sold or traded is not the point here. After you've relinquished ownership of the original CD, you no longer have the right to possess any copies of it. Is it such a difficult concept to understand? That if you traded it, you don't "own" it anymore?

    Even if it was stolen from you or lost in a fire, you no longer have legal possession of it. That's not what backups are for, it's what insurance is for. Time to purchase a new copy.