Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure

Drew writes "Steve Jobs is opposed to raising the price of online music sales, calling the music industry greedy, and implying that price increases will bring about more piracy." From the article: "It may not seem like it, but it has been more than two years since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and that alone has the music industry brimming with hopes for price-adjustments. They also don't buy Jobs' argument that a price increase will result in more piracy, but probably not for the reasons we might assume. I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be." Also covered at Macworld.

Comments

What?

[trevordactyl]

Am I missing something? They're going increase the price of songs so you're paying pretty much the same price as a cd to have it in a proprietary, non-portable format with no artwork and nothing tangible? What benefit would people be getting from the iTunes music store at that point, exactly?

Re:What?

[RoadDoggFL]

No, they're not going to raise prices so you're not "paying pretty much the same price as a cd to have it in a proprietary, non-portable format with no artwork and nothing tangible."

Re:What?

[trevordactyl]

Yes, I realized that I put in "going to" instead of "want to" when I saw the post confirmation, but alas Slashdot doesn't have an edit post function, so now it looks like I didn't read the article.

Re:What?

[ericdano]

You can just get the song you want rather than the whole album. It's rare today to actually like all the songs on an album.

Proprietary/Non-Portable format? What, you plan on running it on what? iTunes plays on Windows and Mac. What more do you want? Linux? There are plenty of ways to get a purchased song to work on Linux. Oh, and you do get album artwork.

Go back to drinking whatever flavor of Kool-Aid you have been drinking (me thinks it's Linux/Microsoft blend).

Re:What?

[RoadDoggFL]

Yea, I figured that much. Anyway it's nice to know that somebody out there isn't trying to increase revenue by charging more rather than providing a better product...

Re:What?

[CrazyTalk]

Well for one thing convenience - I don't have to leave my house to find a CD store (which don't really exist any more anyway, at least around here) and can shop for music at 2 am in my underwear.

Re:What?

[Chmarr]

You're forgetting the portable music players.

If you get a CD, you can rip it to whatever format you like - MP3, AAC or OGG - all unprotected, and play it on just about anything you damn well please.

Buy (or rent) a track from a store (okay, the 'big name' stores), you're stuck to playing it on a iPod, OR a WMV-based player, but not both.

So... what flavour Kool-Aid are YOU drinking?

Re:What?

[tpgp]

You can just get the song you want rather than the whole album. It's rare today to actually like all the songs on an album.

Good point - this is true.

Proprietary/Non-Portable format? What, you plan on running it on what? iTunes plays on Windows and Mac. What more do you want? Linux? There are plenty of ways to get a purchased song to work on Linux. Oh, and you do get album artwork.

You have no idea what proprietary means do you?

And nope, its not portable either. If you want to play it on linux, you have to convert it to the non-propiertary mp4.

Oh, and album artwork included with itunes is vastly inferior to what you get in a physical CD (which itself was vastly inferior to what you got with a typical LP)

Go back to drinking whatever flavor of Kool-Aid you have been drinking (me thinks it's Linux/Microsoft blend).

Blah blah blah, go back to accepting the DRM walls slowly arising around you, blinded by the Shiny Apple Goodness (tm).

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

essentially you get two things:

1) With the reduction of produced "albums", I the consumer, get the option of purchasing only the songs you wish to hear. This is ridiculous if you grew up in a time where artists created albums, but today artists make 3 songs, and 10 - 12 fillers. Obviously this is not true for everyone, there are some bands that are still worth listening to.

2) Immediate gratification. I know this may not seem like a big deal, but I can hear a song on the radio on my way home from work, and have it on my iPOD 30 seconds later. I don't have to drive out to the local music store\mall I can get what I want instantly.

Re:What?

[American AC in Paris]

Yes, you are missing something. Several somethings, in fact.

Many people see a benefit in being able to just push a button and have their music right freakin' now. They don't particularly relish the idea of getting up, driving down to the mega mart or strip mall, digging through the racks in the hopes that the album they want is there, waiting in line to pay, and driving back home just to get a stupid song. Why jump through hoops when you can get it now for the same price?

What if all you want is one song? Heck, what if all you want is five songs off a single ten-track CD? Is it still of great value to you if you're spending twice as much for something you're only half interested in?

Many people don't give a rat's ass about album art, four-color glossy lyrics inserts, a video of the band brushing their teeth before bed, special offers from RecordClubInternational and all that. Many people don't even care about having the physical CD; in fact, many people would rather just not have another piece of plastic cluttering up their space. If all you want is music, there isn't much value in yet another jewelcase loaded with features you'll never use.

Finally, CDs aren't exactly portable formats anymore--go take a look at some of the caveats listed along the bottom of the CDs at the store, especially pertaining to playing audio CDs on a computer, especially pertaining to non-Windows computers. At least with iTMS, you can burn your music onto a completely unprotected audio CD. Yes, this is suboptimal for the gold-plated audiojack crowd, but it works just fine for those of us who are listening on car stereos, $30 earbuds and computer speakers.

iTMS ain't perfect, but to be perfectly frank, it's miles ahead of pretty much any other mass distribution model out there today, CDs included. For the typical music listener, there's little reason to get a CD instead of getting a song off iTMS.

Re:What?

[nine-times]

For one thing, as good a deal as iTMS is for the big record companies (supposedly, despite having fewer costs and charging nearly the same prices, they give the artists an even smaller cut), it's also a big threat. They record companies have long justified their large piece of the pie by the fact that the cost of distribution was too high for an individual to fund.

Online distribution changes that; distribution costs are rock-bottom. Many of those in the record industry probably felt bullied into the iTMS-- it was obvious where things were going, and whether they liked it or not, they had to get involved in the future.

However, bumping up prices becomes a win/win situation for the record companies. Either consumers pay the high prices, which represents amazing profit margins, or consumers refuse to pay, which means they stick with physical media.

You just have to remember that the RIAA selling music through iTMS is, at best, an uneasy alliance. If the RIAA wants to keep their strangle-hold on music distribution, they really have to sabotage online distribution sufficiently to keep it a niche market.

Re:What?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You gain granularity in that you can buy only the songs you want. You gain instant gratification in that you can get the song immediately without going to a store. You gain selection since many songs available in the iTunes store are not available in most record stores. Also, your comment about album art is no longer correct. Most albums sold there come with the artwork, and some with music videos. I'm also not sure about price. In some cases the iTunes store costs more and in some less than buying the physical album.

Personally, I only buy music from there if I really want it and can't find it anywhere else. Used CD's are my normal purchase, as well as small indy CD's from band performances.

Anyway, there are advantages to the iTunes store as well as disadvantages. Most of the disadvantages you mention are meaningless gibberish to the average consumer. Price, however, is not.

Re:What?

[drsquare]

The convenience of downloading it rather than going to the shop.

Aren't people on here always going on about the music industry living in the past, and not recognising the new distribution medium? And now they have recognised the new distribution medium, you're whining that the price isn't low enough.

I suppose you and others like you will just use this as excuse to justify piracy, trying to disguise the fact you just want things for free.

Re:What?

[ericdano]

I'm drinking Apple Kool-aid.

I own over a thousand CDs. I ripped them into AAC format for a couple of reasons, mainly because they are smaller and sound better than 192 VBR MP3s. That is what I was ripping my stuff until AAC came out.

As for players, I've tried a bunch. I owned one of those Creative MP3 players back in 2000. The one that is shaped like a CD player. Crap. iPod still is the best player. I have students who have Dells, and Rios, and whatever else. They are not as good as the iPod in my opinion.

I still buy CDs. I have only bought 20 or 30 songs off iTunes. Yet I seriously doubt I will be playing it on anything other than an iPod in the next couple of years....

Re:What?

[UncleGizmo]

Ummm...

1. iTunes supports portable music players. Proprietary, granted, but still portable.

2. If you get an iTunes song, you can burn to a [redbook] cd [up to 7 different times], and then rip to whatever you like [MP3, AAC, OGG]. An additional step, but still possible. You can also import 'standard' MP3s into iTunes and play them on your iPod, no problem. I don't believe it converts them to a proprietary format.

3. I've had iTunes before I had an iPod - I bought tunes and burned them to a CD to listen in my car. I also re-ripped it to my MP3 player. So I wasn't stuck playing it on an iPod.

I understand your point [I think] ... proprietary formats suck from a standpoint that you are forced to use their hardware and they could control its usage long-term. But Jobs has always seemed to build technology to enable cool stuff - the fact that it is proprietary was to protect the user experience, not control content.

The above story is case in point...he sees the fact that creating artificially expensive music [simply "because it's been 2 years"] is the wrong way to go about things.

I think most people agree that artists should be compensated for their creating art, and that it's the business side that we don't want to feed. I also I believe that most people don't believe the RIAA BS about MP3 downloading causing a negative effect on sales. So in light of the current environment, I see the iTunes model [and perhaps that of it's competitors, I'm not as familiar with them] as a pragmatic way of distributing music inexpensively, while compensating artists.

my $0.02 (per download). YMMV.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get an iTunes song, you can burn to a [redbook] cd [up to 7 different times], and then rip to whatever you like [MP3, AAC, OGG]. An additional step, but still possible.

Yeah, but you will have a redbook version of a lossy track. What if MP5 comes out next year that offers the equivalent sound at half the AAC bitrate? Well, you can save some additional space, but you won't be able to make the choice of having take up the same space but sound significantly better.

Re:What?

[gstoddart]

You can just get the song you want rather than the whole album. It's rare today to actually like all the songs on an album.

I'm sure I'll not be the only one to point this out ...

All of the albums I've bought over the last several years have been from niche groups, none of whom will ever receive any airplay on any commercial radio (except college radio maybe).

I like all of the songs on the albums I buy. I find the "only one listenable song" group of artists to be the ones most heavily hyped and promoted by the music industry.

Proprietary/Non-Portable format? What, you plan on running it on what?

Burned to CD for my home and car, on my ipod shuffle, uploaded in MP3 format to my office machine so I can have music there. Pretty much where I so choose when and how I listen to it.

Go back to drinking whatever flavor of Kool-Aid you have been drinking.

Hmmm ... so the mere act of wanting my music in a format that is convenient to me places me firmly in the camp of crazy people who (by thin analogy) are being strongly compared to a bunch of raving cultists who all killed themselves?

I've never bought anything from iTunes, nor am I likely to. I buy all of my own CDs and rip 'em my own damned self. The collection is created on/resides on a FreeBSD file server, and served up to the devices I want to attach to it.

That's what I expect to be able to do with my music.

Re:What?

[lphuberdeau]

I don't need to walk anywhere. I just visit the record label's website (which usually sell the CDs for 10-15 bucks) and I have it delivered a few days later. Ok, I don't have it in my iPod 30 seconds later (I don't have an iPod anyway), but at least I have a CD without the quality loss in compression, and I can rip it to my favorite format (OGG) for day-to-day use.

Some of the smaller record labels often send out posters, demo CDs and stickers. I think it's a great way to promote other artists and get me to spend even more money later.

When I can't find the record label, I just go for Amazon. I just hate going to a music store and searching manually. Seriously, why would I have to search whole piles of CD when I can simply enter a few keywords?

Re:What?

[MouseR]

Actually, iTunes "album art" is a sore excuse compared to what you get from the booklets that some "tangible" albums offer.

Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness from Smashing Pumpkins come to mind.

That particular album is worth every song, so getting it though iTunes ratter than in store actually makes it a loss.

For other albums, though, I wouldn't see it any other way. I hate cardboard-cover albums: they get messed up quite quickly (SOD's Memorize come to mind) while others are worth just for a few titles off entire albums (I'd never have purchased a ZZ-Top album, but they do have a few very good songs).

So, I'm taking this on a per-case basis.

I have about 140 iTunes-purchased songs while I hold more than 2400 "real" CDs (admittedly, most where bought before iTunes even existed).

Re:What?

[MyDixieWrecked]

You can just get the song you want rather than the whole album. It's rare today to actually like all the songs on an album

although that's true, I have frequently bought CDs (the physical kind) because I liked one song by the band and wound up liking the entire CD. I've also purchased CDs and wound up only liking one song and not picking the CD up again for an extended period of time.

The one great thing about the massive CD collection I've amassed (450 or so, at last count) is that since I've got them all MP3'd, when I put large sections into a playlist, I hear a lot of songs that I've never heard/never listened to/don't recognize.

Sometimes you rediscover a band years after you bought the CD because at that moment, a song sounded really good to you.

I kinda see that not happening as often in the future as the industry pushes singles more and more (and the quality of the bands goes down the drain). Most mainstream bands nowadays seem to have 2 or 3 songs that are well produced and well written and another 8 tracks that are either filler, crap, skits, or a combination of the above.

Re:What?

[deaddrunk]

Does it support all music players like the mp3 format? Then it's crippled. I don't give a crap about how good the iPod is. Will the iPod still exist in 20 years? Dunno. Will I still want to listen to some of these songs in 20 years? Undoubtedly. Therefore the best format I can have is one that doesn't have any restrictions on it and doesn't tie me to the fortunes of one particular corporation.
That format isn't AAC, irrespective of me having to waste time and a blank cd just to get music that I don't have to have an overpriced player or the permission of Apple to do with what I wish which is listen to it wherever and whenever I choose on whatever system I wish. I can do this with CDs, I can do this with MP3, I cannot do this with AAC.

Re:What?

[jwin1020]

You cannot do that with AAC with DRM. AAC itself is nothing more than the audio layer of the mpeg-4 codec. It is entirely free and open... other players are free to support it without paying any royalties to Apple. AAC is not a bad format, in fact it is significantly better than MP3 from a quality at bitrate perspective.

Re:What?

[doublem]

Raising prices is a no lose situation for the RIAA members. Either they make more money from iTunes, or they hurt iTunes sales, which will reduce it's popularity and thus open things up a little more for other networks.

The goal of course, is to force users to purchase their entire music library again with every change. Switching form iPod to MD? Great, you gotta buy all those albums again if you want to listen to them on the new hardware. Switching computers? Same deal.

iTunes is a threat to that model.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you and others like you will just continue to defend inflated prices, trying to disguise the fact you have a 'content' addiction.

Re:What?

[mmkkbb]

Convenience?

Some places, it's still possible to find a store that will have friendly, knowledgeable staff. Staff that will recommend other music you might like. Sadly, the ever increasing downward pressure on prices will bring ALL personal niceties to an end.

Re:What?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Proprietary/Non-Portable format? What, you plan on running it on what?

A player other than an iPod, without breaking the DMCA?

Re:What?

[noewun]

You seem to be suffering a bad case of reductio ad absurdum.

Will the iPod still exist in 20 years? Dunno. Will I still want to listen to some of these songs in 20 years? Undoubtedly. Therefore the best format I can have is one that doesn't have any restrictions on it and doesn't tie me to the fortunes of one particular corporation.

This can be said for almost any format. Good luck listening to those songs you bought on CD, cassette, 8 track or, possibly, record, in twenty years. All recording media eventually become obsolete, as evidence by the fact we're not all listening to 78 rpm records any more. Your CDs will one day be as useful as reel-to-reel.

Therefore the best format I can have is one that doesn't have any restrictions on it and doesn't tie me to the fortunes of one particular corporation.

No such technology exists, nor has it ever, and there are always restrictions.

Re:What?

[SuperDuG]

You forget one particular thing. When you buy a CD, you're not only paying for the music on it, but the cost of that shiney jewel case, the insert, and the actual cost to ship it to the location where you bought it.

Therefore getting a copy digitally that does not require somoene to insert, package, wrap, and deliver. Take into account that and the actual cost of the material that is printed, wrapped, burned, and glued, and you'll realize that you're argument is flawed.

The cost of the music isn't all that goes into the cost of a CD.

Furthermore, find me a record label that doesn't turn a profit? This shit certainly isn't sold at cost.

Do I care that you feel comfortable paying the prices they charge? nope. But don't blow smoke up everyone's ass to justify your reasoning for paying for something everyone else is getting for free.

Music used to be about ... music.

Re:What?

[macdaddy357]

The labels think the kids are too dumb to ask thoughtful questions like that, and are complete suckers. Steve Jobs says that they are not that dumb. If the prices are a rip-off, even "stupid" teens with disposable income are not going to pay. Who is right? That remains to be seen. As for CDs, when the ones at the mall crippled by DRM are $21.99, and the bootlegs and pirates at the flea market are $4.50, and DRM free. I'll bet the kids will go to the flea market. Greed can be self-destructive, and the recording industry just doesn't get that. Don't buy CDs

Re:What?

[UncleGizmo]

While I understand your objections to a proprietary format, my point to parent poster was that it is a) not a brick-wall proprietary format [you can burn iTunes songs to a redbook CD that you can rip to whatever format/player your heart desires], and b) a fairly pragmatic means of distributing music for a reasonable cost, given the current industry environment.

Whether you consider the extra steps to do this to be a valuable use of your time and a blank CD are obviously your choices, and I don't presume that everyone will find Apple's solution suitable [free market, and all]. I'm sure we could also re-visit some of the myriad discussions/arguments about open/proprietary formats of IP, but we've all been there before. Again, for now, Apple's solution IMO is the best out there right now. You disagree.

To your point about whether the iPod will exist in 20 years, well, I don't know if you've kept your 78/45/33-rpm turntable, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette recorders in working condition to listen to your old music, but it's too much work for me. I still have my cds around as backup, though [which should last me only about 50 years, given proper handling].

Consider this: before computers enabled ripping and burning, no one even grumbled too much when we moved from one format standard to the next. We just replaced as we went. Now that it's possible, we're claiming that we want unfettered access via any means that we determine. That's like demanding your CDs can be played on an analog turntable as well as in your cassette machine.

As to whether the iPod is an overpriced player, again, it's what the market [and individual] will bear. But when single-cd players hit the market in the '80s, what do you think the answer would be if you had asked anyone if they would rather have a device that fit in their pocket that held their entire record collection, in digital format?

Re:What?

[Dominatus]

This isn't a valid arguement. Decoding and reencoding in a different format can only lower quality. Furthermore, its an extra step that should NOT have to be taken.

Imagine this world.

Sony releases a CD Player. There are other CD players out there, but Sony's is the most popular. Sony then puts out a CD selling store that also becomes the most popular. If you buy a CD in the Sony store it will only play on a Sony player. The other CD players won't play Sony CDs. Furthermore, Sony doesn't allow any company (read: DRM since it would be required in this country) to make CDs that work for the player.

Do you not see this as a problem. If my suggested solution to it was to record the CDs to cassette, then reburn the CD, would that be feasible? Do 99% of people even know how to do that?

Forcing an iPod to play iTunes songs, and not allowing the competition to sell (i.e. DRM) music that works on an iPod is anti-competitive. The iPod is at this point a monopoly, and Slashdot is hypocritical for not condemning Apple for these practices.

Hell, its not like Microsoft disabled the ability to install Netscape...

Re:What?

[jcr]

Online distribution changes that; distribution costs are rock-bottom

um... The incremental cost of distributing a particular song are pretty low. The distribution costs overall are immense.

I agree with you though, that the RIAA are scared to death of the day that Apple deals with musicians directly. That could be why they seem so eager to screw the pooch but good before they lose the ability to derail the iTMS.

-jcr

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

wavs are pretty good. Indeed, mp3's seem to have a good bit of software reading them, although theres probably a bit of patent pickiness about that format. Indeed, I've had this file around for over a decade called "my386.tar.gz" which was my first 40mb hard disk zipped up that gets copied to a new harddisk from time to time.

Good formats have staying power.

Re:What?

[kc0re]

In fact, with newer albums, you get the whole book!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time music is about music is when you're singing it for yourself or the people around you. Once you decide you want to distribute it, it's no longer about music, it's about compensation.

Re:What?

[ericdano]

Wait, you CAN play non-protected stuff on the iPod. I don't get why people insist on using this argument. It doesn't hold up.

I suppose you'd drive your Model T around instead of the latest sports car or Hybrid. Whatever.

Re:What?

[deaddrunk]

I can still play records now. I have no doubt I will still be able to buy a CD player in 20 years even if no-one makes them anymore. I will be able to play MP3s in 20 years because the source code exists for any number of mp3 players which just requires me to compile it. Do you know why? Because they are not dependent on the existence and willingness of a corporation to provide a network connection allowing me to ask permission to use what I've paid for. If Apple go out of business or get bought by a corp who have no interest in providing an ability to let me authorise my songs what do I do? Explain to me again why I should have to waste several blank CDs for the purpose? iOpener is my best option, it strips the unnecessary and insulting copy protection but I'm not sure if it's legal or not and Apple can no doubt keep moving the goalposts to limit its effectiveness.
I don't care if the iPod is way cool (I do like it) and I'm not bashing an innovative and original company like Apple (because the world needs more of them), this is a rant against the media providers who insist on treating me like a criminal before I've even committed a crime and Apple's collusion with them.
I want to buy their stuff but I'm not prepared to be told how I can use it. Only the IT industry have anything as ridiculous. I don't have Fiat telling me what I can do with my car, why do Apple as the agent of the recording industry have the right to tell me where and when I can listen to my music?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget one particular thing. When you buy a CD, you're not only paying for the music on it, but the cost of that shiney jewel case, the insert, and the actual cost to ship it to the location where you bought it.

Don't forget labor costs at the retailer.
Basic capitalist theory will tell you that the price of an item has very little to do with the cost of the item. The song should be priced at what people will pay for it. The fact that the pressing, printing, and distribution cost far more than electronic distribution has nothing to do with it. It's your choice of whether to pay for the physical extras or for the convenience of home download.

Furthermore, find me a record label that doesn't turn a profit? This shit certainly isn't sold at cost.

There's a long list of failed record companies out there. They put money into bands who never became popular enough. Regardless, what's wrong with turning a profit? That's what good businesses do.

Do I care that you feel comfortable paying the prices they charge? nope. But don't blow smoke up everyone's ass to justify your reasoning for paying for something everyone else is getting for free.

His reasons are perfectly reasonable. Yours don't appear to hold any water. Basically, what you're saying is that you're an unabashed pirate, and you deserve to be one of the RIAA lawsuits. I have no sympathy for you, because you are breaking the law, and I have never heard any reasonable justification for how you should be allowed to get something for free that somebody else worked hard to produce, unless they did so with the intention of giving it away for free.

Okay, I just thought of one justification. If you lived in a socialist society, sure. We don't. If I write a BSD licensed program, or if I record a song and put it on my website, then have at it. If my program is GPL, then you have to follow my conditions (although money is not one of them). If I write a program or record a song that I want to make money on, as the system we have provides for, that is my right (by the laws of this country), and you still have to follow my conditions. If you don't want to pay for it, then you don't fucking get it. Make your own. Your life will not be ruined by being denied my music any more than it will be ruined by not being able to afford a new Hummer.

Whether illegal downloads are okay or not is not interesting, because they aren't. How the system should be changed to deal with artificial scarcity issues related to digital content is a different discussion, and is quite interesting. You want to pay people for doing valuable work, but not for doing crap. You want to pay people who do better work more than the people doing lower quality work. The system we have doesn't have a way of doing so reliably without artificial scarcity, which is a terrible system.

I tend to think that the RIAA is right, that raising prices won't contribute to piracy much. Free will always be cheaper than any pay service. People like you won't be willing to pay $.01 per song, because they can get it cheaper. Those who are paying for songs now aren't likely to become criminals just because the cost of music went up. Probably they'll just buy less music (and the RIAA will claim that the lower sales figures indicate more piracy).

Re:What?

[ericdano]

And this is EXACTLY what you CAN do with iTunes. I too have a server, FreeBSD, that holds all my iTunes (RAID 5) songs. It took months to get all of them ripped. I can connect to it, fill up my iPod, etc.

I think a lot of people assume that using iTunes/iPod you are stuck with DRM software. You aren't people. You only get that with PURCHASED music from iTunes Music Store.

Re:What?

[xero314]

I'm not sure that the original commentor was meaning to get into the difference between download vs in store purchase. This is simply a mater of preference. I happen to prefere having tangible material in my hands before I let go of my well earned cash. My wife purchase alot of her music on iTunes music store. There are other big trade offs between online purchase and physical media purchase. As far as I know you can not get enhanced media from an online download, such as interviews, history and music videos. I rarely ever look at those on the media I do buy but it is a nice to have and many people like it. There is also the benifit to the artist, who would receive more royalties from an entire album pruchase (this is why I rarely buy used CDs and probably should stop doing that). If you actually like the music you listen to you should wnat to artist to be succesful and able to produce more (only the few super stars live like pro sports stars, most actually have to work for a living)

I personally don't buy into the purchasing of just one song and can't imagine listening to a band who's not worth an entire album.

In the end it's like gasoline. If the people are willing to pay for the convenience of being able to download music even without the additions you get with physical media, then companies will charge. Apple is a company like any other and they are not keeping prices low out of any sort of fairness but because they beleive it is the optimal price point (99 cents a song appears to be significantly less than say $1.19).

Re:What?

[nine-times]

um... The incremental cost of distributing a particular song are pretty low. The distribution costs overall are immense.

Relative to physical media distribution? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find it hard to believe that, with all the parts of the supply chain that Apple is replacing, that the total cost of distribution wouldn't be pretty darn small in comparison to traditional methods.

Besides bandwidth, Apple has to pay to have the CD ripped once, cover art scanned. Let's even throw in the cost of software design, which, admittedly, isn't $0 and website design. On the other side, think about the cost of the CD itself, Cutting it, packaging and jewel cases, shipping costs, the cost of the record store to stock the music, etc.

Let's talk more about the record store itself. I'd bet if you compared Apple's iTMS with Tower Records (nation-wide), Apple probably pays less per CD for their support personnel than Tower pays in their in-store employees. Likewise, I bet it's cheaper per CD for Apple to host their store than the combination of real-estate costs, store furnishings, listening posts, in-store displays, etc., for all the Tower Records across the country.

Are you telling me that, considering all that, the cost to distribute a significant volume of music isn't small in comparison to media distribution? Maybe you're right, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.

Re:What?

[mbbac]

You can just get the song you want rather than the whole album. It's rare today to actually like all the songs on an album.

Not if you're getting the right albums.

Re:What?

[lowrydr310]

Buy your CDs from one of those stores that uses CDs as a loss leader to try to get you inside to buy overpriced electronics.

Just make sure you decline when they offer their extended service plan or the magazine subscriptions.

Re:What?

[feijai]

Also, your comment about album art is no longer correct. Most albums sold there come with the artwork, and some with music videos.

How many iTunes albums come with full album art? Inside, back cover, the works? I'm asking because I've not bought an iTunes album before.

Re:What?

[American AC in Paris]

You forget one particular thing. When you buy a CD, you're not only paying for the music on it, but the cost of that shiney jewel case, the insert, and the actual cost to ship it to the location where you bought it.

Therefore getting a copy digitally that does not require somoene to insert, package, wrap, and deliver. Take into account that and the actual cost of the material that is printed, wrapped, burned, and glued, and you'll realize that you're argument is flawed.

How is my argument flawed? I haven't argued for one second about what a downloaded song should cost. All I've done is list some very good reasons it's better to buy music from iTMS than it is to buy a CD in a store.

Or, to put it this way:

I want a copy of SuperWidget.

Option A, "SuperWidget Professional Suite And Tools CD", has fixed production/distribution costs of $27.50, costs me $30, gets me SuperWidget and a bunch of stuff I don't particularly need, comes in an embossed commemorative-edition cardboard box, and requires that I drive down to the store to get it.
Option B, "SuperWidget Download", has fixed production/distribution costs of $1.50, costs me $10, gets me SuperWidget and SuperWidget only, and is something I can acquire in three minutes by way of an online shop.

By your logic, I'm a fool to get the $10 downloadable version, since WidgetCo is making a substantially higher profit off the download version with no additional costs. I'd be better off paying extra money and spending more time and energy to get a bunch of stuff I don't want, because WidgetCo makes a much more reasonable profit if I buy the CD version.

Like I said in my OP, I don't want the shiny jewel case, CD, glossy booklet, plastic wrap, and Fancy Unopenable Security Casing Of Painful Finger Slicing. Why should I care what they cost?

Music used to be about ... music.

Music still is about music. Nobody is stopping you from sitting down at a piano and creating as much music as your fingers can handle. There's no law against singing in the shower, and there are any number of musical groups for you to join or listen to in any given community. Music is still perfectly free, and will continue to be perfectly free so long as people can sing and play instruments. Now, the recording industry is and has always been about making money off the consumer; if you're looking to get your hands on a commercial recording, you can expect a hearty reaming from the record labels. Don't conflate the two, though. Just because water is free doesn't mean you shouldn't be expected to pay for it if you want it filtered and sealed in a plastic bottle...

Re:What?

[Nik13]

As if DRM'ed AAC is an open format. You have to use the APPLE iPod (no thanks!) or the APPLE iTunes (not in a lifetime!). How about my car mp3 player? nope. How about on my linux box (as is)? nope. How about my iRiver (and nice grado headphones)? nope. How about in winamp/foobar/etc? nope. How about streaming it over my LAN or the internet with whatever app? nope. How about editing it with any software? nope. Using it as background music in homemade movies? nope. Playing with the music player built in some of my PC's biose's? nope. How about on my cell phone? still no...

It's very open - as long as you buy either apple stuff, other apple stuff, or perhaps apple stuff. I don't want anything to do with iTunes (worst player EVER) and don't want to buy an iPod.

The burn to CD and re-rip or analog hole are poor options that will degrade quality of the already lossy file. And the un-DRM tools are not exactly a perfect solution either (against EULA? illegal? even if not, it's not exactly a great solution).

So I'll stick to covnerting my music in TRUE open non-DRM'ed format (and at the bitrate I decide) that will play with EVERY company's player, software or hardware.

Or perhaps because this is apple, DRM is non-evil and non-restrictive? It's "Digital Rights Restriction" no matter what, and it DOES get in the way, enough to make these files useless/worthless to me. Not that I'm against alternative transmission methods (far from it). I can't wait for a better way to buy music than buying CDs, but iTMS isn't the solution (DRM will most likely always be in the way unfortunately).

I wonder who's drowning in kool-aid without even noticing... How ironic!

(Bashing apple on slashdot? wow, this'll get modded -500 Troll)

Re:What?

[American AC in Paris]

pssst, some people just download them off this thing called P2P. It is free, no copy protection and near universal mp3 format. shhhhhhh

Heck, if you're gonna break the law to get your music, why not just steal a copy of the CD from the record store? You get a top-quality version with all the trimmings, and you'll face a much gentler punishment if you're caught doing it.

Re:What?

[UncleGizmo]

I'm not trying to be an Apple apologist [an Apple-ogist?], but do you have an iPod or have you ever checked out how one works?

You can import all your old ripped MP3s as easy as clicking 'Import File'. And the old MP3 is still there on your HD if you want to send it to your Rio or whatever. Got a CD? Hit 'import' and it's on your iPod. And guess what? It's still there as a CD, to play in your car or home stereo.

Your premise is not entirely right.
1. 'decoding and reencoding ... can only lower quality' - you mean like ripping to an MP3? Most out there are 128k sample rate which is lossy compared to cd. You can actually hear the difference. Unless you are ripping your music in a completely uncompressed format, you've lost quality [digital !=lossless].

2. You're assuming that 'digital' equals 'format neutral'. Would you assume that 'analog' would mean the same? Cassette tapes can't be played on turntables. There's no need to do any D/A->A/D conversion to circumvent an iTunes file [your cassette example].

As to whether 99% of people can do that, I'd wager that a vast majority of iPod owners can, since there's a nice little 'burn' button to click once you've created a playlist.

3. iTunes DOES allow other formats to work in its player, SPECIFICALLY, MP3 [and OGG, IIRC]. Therefore, it doesn't 'force' an iPod to play iTunes songs only...it will play other [and 'open'] formats [your Sony CD example].

4. While iPod is the largest, it's definitely not a monopoly [can't be, b/c not all songs are even available there] - there's the new Napster, and other song services, plus the myriad legal mp3 sites out there [although you won't find Kanye or Jessica]. Apple is clearly offering a compelling service for many people, but they aren't using their size to force the market to do things to their competitive advantage [which is what monopolistic behavior is, see: MS]

Again, to my original point...it is the most pragmatic combination of serving the artists need to get paid and the users desire for quick, reasonably priced, mobile content.

Re:What?

[aichpvee]

You forgot inferior sounding!

Re:What?

[badasscat]

AAC is not a bad format, in fact it is significantly better than MP3 from a quality at bitrate perspective.

Not according to this test. There is a slight difference, but not enough to be noticeable in most cases, and nothing just a few more kbps wouldn't cure.

That test (which I took part in) pretty much convinced me to just stick with mp3 using the latest LAME. All this junk about mp3 being "obsolete" is just marketing hooey - it sounds better than WMA at the same bit rate, it sounds about the same as AAC at the same bit rate, and the only codecs that are significantly better are MPC and Vorbis, and good luck finding a portable player that supports either of those. Again though, nothing a few extra kbps in an mp3 encode couldn't overcome. (It should also be noted that both MPC and Vorbis sound better than AAC too.)

mp3 is still the best codec to use because while technically proprietary, it's basically universal. Even Sony, which was the lone real holdout, is now on board with mp3. Given that it's really no worse than AAC and is actually better than WMA, I really don't see why you'd want to use either alternative given that they both only work with a subset of portable players. If I decide to sell my iPod and buy a Sony player one day (not likely, but you never know), all my music will still work fine and I will not have to re-rip (or re-purchase!) any of it.

btw, I actually gave up about halfway through that listening test because on many of the songs I couldn't tell the difference between *any* of the codecs. (Results were accepted on a per-song basis, so you didn't need to submit results for everything to be counted.) I felt like I probably was usually able to pick out the ATRAC track because there was always one that was noticeably worse than the others, but otherwise all of the tracks of a given song sounded pretty much the same to me. And I'm a pretty critical listener.

That test convinced me that there are just a whole lot of myths about audio codecs floating around out there.

Re:What?

[ericdano]

Lets see, you can stream iTunes over a LAN. You can use music in a movie (if you use a Mac you can. DRMed music, I'm not sure). There are ways to strip out the DRM. Then you can edit it, or whatever you want to do to it.

You said nice and iRiver in the same sentance? Wow. Grado headphones are overrated. Sennheiser 580s all the way man.

How can you say iTunes is the worst player ever? What do you use? WinAmp? Yikes...

Re:What?

[paulpas]

just to get a stupid song

That's why I haven't bought a CD in over 5 years. Music commercialized sucks.

Re:What?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't know, I've only purchased one album and a few misc. songs there myself. I use it only for items I can't find anywhere else. The songs I've purchased show only the front cover album art.

Re:What?

[Bake]

And don't forget, it'll probably take you less time to physically steal the CD from the store and go home and rip it than it'll take for you to download the same full CD off P2P in good quality (or at least, the same quality throughout the CD).

Re:What?

[damiam]

The point of "decoding and reencoding ... can only lower quality" was that when you buy a song from iTMS, it has artifacts from being compressed with 128kbps AAC. If you burn that to a CD and rerip to MP3, AAC, or any other lossy format, you're adding a new set of compression artifacts to the already lossy file. So there's no (legal) way to convert songs from the iTMS into non-DRMed formats without losing quality.

Re:What?

[jabuzz]

What's all this about going to a store to buy a CD? There is this thing called internet shopping you know. A few clicks of the mouse, enter your credit card details, and the CD arrives in the post shortly there afterwards.

Re:What?

[gstoddart]

Wait, you CAN play non-protected stuff on the iPod. I don't get why people insist on using this argument. It doesn't hold up.

I'm pretty sure he's specifically referring to songs bought from the iTunes Music Store -- that's what the OP (FP?) was referring to -- what is the value to the consumer of paying more for a proprietary, non-portable DRM'd format just because the music industry thinks the cost of tracks need to be increased. (You can't play songs bought from iTunes on a vanilla MP3 player.)

Nobody is claiming you can't play non-DRM'd stuff on an iPod.

Cheers

Re:What?

[cosmic_0x526179]

You gain granularity in that you can buy only the songs you want. You gain instant gratification in that you can get the song immediately without going to a store. You gain selection since many songs available in the iTunes store are not available in most record stores. Also, your comment about album art is no longer correct. Most albums sold there come with the artwork, and some with music videos. I'm also not sure about price. In some cases the iTunes store costs more and in some less than buying the physical album.

Right. I think granularity is part of whats eating at the record companies. In the past, you had to buy the whole CD to get one or two tracks. Now you can just buy the two tracks that interest you. Nevermind that the online overhead is so much less than physical retail, the record company didn't sell the whole CD now. So I think that is throwing a bit of a monkey wrench in their marketing plans.

I see this as a "good cop (Steve), bad cop (record companies)" kinda play. The record companies are having to deal with market motions they never envisioned, so they are reacting like.. "we need to get out revenue stream back up". Maybe yes, maybe no. At the end of the day, they would be doing much better if they issued records that had a full set of desireable tracks. Likewise, I think they should crank down the price of older stuff ($7.99/album ?). This is the same stuff that is being compilation'ed at the dollar store for $3 or $4.

Re:What?

[E8086]

"Good luck listening to those songs you bought on CD, cassette, 8 track or, possibly, record, in twenty years"

The CD's been around since 1979 and MP3 since 1993.
The CD will be usable until the 5.25" drive bay stops being 5.25" Backwards compatibility isn't going to go away. When 200GB quad layer DVDRW drives are available with the cheapest Dell PC they will still be able read&write CDs. I don't know about 20yrs, but I see the CD being around for at least 10or15yrs. I don't plan on getting rid of this PC anytime soon, I'll probably upgrade to a dual layer/format DVD recorder and maybe up the RAM to 1GB. When I build an AMD64 based replacement I'll keep it around. I'm sure enough of you have a C64 or Apple II still sitting around in working condition, no reason why you can't keep the PC you have today for another 20yrs.

Re:What?

[American AC in Paris]

Heh.

I take it you'd rather get sued by an industry juggernaut for 6 figures per infraction than be tackled by a security guard...

Re:What?

[E8086]

The iPod as we know it today won't exist in 20yrs, but the few GB multimedia device that's going to replace it will. The wav format has existed since I don't remember when and wiki doesn't have a date and it's still supported, not used much but still supported. What's another few hundred KB for the mp3 codex in a media player with the TB drives of 20yrs from now? not much. Records and cassettes died off because they can't be used with a PC, without a $150 cassette drive. The CD and PC were made for eachother.

Re:What?

[Nasarius]

That's why I haven't bought a CD in over 5 years. Music commercialized sucks.

So look backwards. I promise you there are plenty of great artists in the 60s-90s that you don't know of. Some are still active today, but you'll never hear them on the radio. For the past year or so I've been building my Bruce Cockburn collection.

Re:What?

[sh00z]

So I'll stick to covnerting my music in TRUE open non-DRM'ed format (and at the bitrate I decide) that will play with EVERY company's player, software or hardware.

so you're simulatneously touting the fact that you don't have to deal with any restrictions AND complaining about the restrictions that come with buying music from Apple. Remind me again who it is who's threatening that Apple will be the only available music store in the future?

Re:What?

[sh00z]

...and for another, my eyesight. I don't have to SEE CrazyTalk in a music store at 2 am in his underwear. (Sorry, nothing personal. I couldn't resist.)

Re:What?

[MBGMorden]

Proprietary/Non-Portable format? What, you plan on running it on what? iTunes plays on Windows and Mac. What more do you want? Linux?

I want it to work on my MP3-compatible car cd player (without having to re-encode it and decrease the quality). Being able to listing to over 6 hours of music and never changing the disk is a wonderful feature, and I refuse to be denied it because of some jackass putting usage barriers in place for PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Re:What?

[LMariachi]

Formats don't support players, players support formats.

Furthermore, not all AACs are DRMed, only the ".m4p" type purchased from the iTunes Music Store. When you rip your own CDs to AAC you can do whatever you want with them, forever. AAC isn't owned by Apple, it's an open format. True, AAC support is not nearly as widespread as MP3 support, but you could say the same for Ogg Vorbis, or VBR MP3 five years ago.

Eschew AAC all you want, but the format isn't "crippled" just because Rio and Sony choose not to support it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still buy CDs. I have only bought 20 or 30 songs off iTunes. Yet I seriously doubt I will be playing it on anything other than an iPod in the next couple of years....

Of course you'll be playing them on an iPod: it's impossible to play them on anything else because of DRM.

(Unless you strip the DRM of course.)

Re:What?

[Snocone]

Free will always be cheaper than any pay service.

As long as

A) your time is valueless, or

B) your tastes are so mainstream that the exact music you want in high quality rips and a fast download pipe is always immediately available over p2p networks.

Neither are exactly givens, for anyone with a worthwhile life, methinks.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I ripped them into AAC format for a couple of reasons, mainly because they are smaller and sound better than 192 VBR MP3s. That is what I was ripping my stuff until AAC came out.

iTunes's default MP3 encoder is awful at VBR and makes its good AAC encoder sound better in comparison. I suggest changing iTunes's MP3 encoder to LAME, then comparing the results with AAC.

If you compare LAME VBR MP3 and iTunes AAC, you won't hear a difference (especially on an iPod) and MP3 is the accepted de facto standard. Of course, you might think AAC sounds better if you've drunk the Kool-aid and have been exposed to the Reality Distortion Field.

I'm hoping all devices play AAC eventually, but if you are encoding now, wouldn't it be better to encode in the format that plays in all devices and software?

Re:What?

[jZnat]

For someone like you who is willing to shell out twice the worth of a product because it's made by Apple, sure, I don't see any problem with settling with AAC, but for those of us who like to be able to use any hardware we decide to use at that time, we don't want to have a vendor lock-in with proprietary music formats and subpar MP3 players.

Ogg Vorbis will get a much better quality ripped at the equivalent 192 kbps of either AAC or MP3, and generally with around the same size (or smaller) as well. Don't forget that Vorbis is complete open (public domain) and supported by any operating system you want to use.

And saying the iPod is the best audio player to an audiophile would be analogous to screaming racist remarks to those walking down Martin Luther King Drive in Chicago...

Re:What?

[Fussen]

Whats the bitrate of an itunes song?

Re:What?

[arminw]

....And saying the iPod is the best audio player to an audiophile would be analogous to.....

So then in your opinion, who makes the best sounding portable player that can play most downloadable formats? I suspect that most people's ears are not golden enough to tell the difference between the ipod and most others. Real audiophiles would not spend serious listening time to any of the lossy compressed recordings. They'll tell you that direct to disk vinyl is the best and a good CD can be pretty close.

Re:What?

[CrazyTalk]

don't worry - posessing a typical geek physique, I don't much like seeing myself in my underwear either!

Re:What?

[Ledgem]

You may be interested to know that CD isos, along with scans of inserts and any booklets that may come with them, are available on P2P networks. Most of these are made with EAC (Exact Audio Copy). Not only do you get the benefit of having the CD image - meaning that you can rip to any format you want to, at any bitrate - but because it's a CD image, you can also mount it and take it online for use with online CD databases (Gracenote and such) so have all of the songs tagged right away. Admittedly, I have not seen this on American P2P networks, only Japanese networks. The fact that you need to do a few extra steps before you can hear the music (namely mounting the image to a virtual drive) is probably what keeps it from becoming overly popular, particularly since most people don't mind having a 128 kbps-encoded song.

Re:What?

[bladesjester]

If you want all of the good songs from ZZ Top without much (if any - there are only a few songs on it that I don't care for) filler, their greatest hits album is actually really good. It's the only one I wanted to buy because it's got all of the songs I liked.

Being a relatively recent college grad (2004), I only have about 300-350 physical albums. I drool at your collection =]

Re:What?

[homesteader]

There's that sticky bit called guilt, that for me personally comes from taking something from another individual that I can see, hear, possibly smell.

Yeah Yeah Yeah, copyright infringement steals money from the shop owners and distributors and RIAA and the starving artist. Right. So the cassette I purchase 3 times(1 broken, 1 loaned, 1 lost), admittedly only once for full retail and the rest used, I should feel guilty for downloading? The albums I have on vinyl, but haven't unpacked my record player in 4 years since moving? Guilty? The mix tapes that friends made with partials of albums mixed with partials of other albums?

I've bought some music off of the iTunes store. There are albums that if they would put them up(Half Japanese - The Band That Would Be King), I would buy them in a second. If albums were $5 and iTunes had nearly everything, I would likely stop pirating. As far as I'm concerned most of the crap that the music industry, and it IS an industry, churns out isn't even worth $5.

Re:What?

[Dave2 Wickham]

It is entirely free and open...

Wrong.

Re:What?

[reso]

"Does it support all music players like the mp3 format? Then it's crippled." where will your CD collection be in 20 years? probably where most of my vinyl and tapes went...in the trash

Re:What?

[MonkeyBoy]

While I agree with you in principle about multiple-compression artifacts building up, in my real world experimentation if you select a high enough bitrate the MP3 doesn't actually introduce any artifacts that you can hear.

The downside is you end up effectively doubling the size of the file in order to future-proof it.

Personally, I would go about future-proofing through the myriad of other means that are available, but... to each his own...

Re:What?

[daviddennis]

Okay, I enjoyed your example.

That being said, it would be nice if the music industry charged less for the download version because they are giving you less. In your example, this is the case. SuperWidget is $10 direct and $30 at the store.

Right now, with Steve Jobs' $0.99 pricing, an album costs about a third less for download than it does at retail. Of course the retail markup is about that third, so minus the fairly trivial physical costs, the price you're paying Steve is about the same price you'd be paying the label.

Regardless of whether you really, really, really want the CD case etc, or whether you don't care, it's a nice gesture to pay less to get less.

I know I would buy many fewer songs on iTunes without the uniform pricing, so I think in the end the labels' desire for higher prices is highly self-destructive.

D

Re:What?

[MCSEBear]

I just wanted to point out that a track you purchase from the iTunes music store can be burned any number of times. What you can not do is burn a playlist more than seven times without changing the order of the tracks. You must make some change to the playlist before you can burn it seven more times.

Re:What?

[Knivesreturns]

Do not resist. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Paradigm Shift

[ballsmccoy]

There needs to be a shift in paradigm. The simple fact of the matter is that older people have paid time and time again for the same music. They bought it on LP, Cassette, CD, DTS Disc, DVD Audio etc.

Sure, something fundamentally needs to change with the record companies and their formulaic approach to building bands, instead of finding real talent out there, but that is a different argument.

The fact of the matter is, I should be able to rip my CDs, and purchase music online for whatever price, then I am on record as purchaseing/owning the right to listen to those songs. If 5 years from now songs that I have purchased already have been re-mastered from studio recordings and are now available in lossless, DTS 5-channel, MPEG-2 10 channel, whatever... I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear. The money I paid was for the recording the artist laid down in the studio. If there is a new means of transmission that more faithfully reproduces the listening experience of that recording, great, give it to me. If not, when I purchase that song, give me the reel-to-reel, or DAT tape, or whatever.

How come no one has ever brought this up?

Re:Paradigm Shift

[jagilbertvt]

And exactly what would be the incentive for them to release newly remastered recordings if they can't recoup the costs (let alone make any profit).

Re:Paradigm Shift

[soft_guy]

I remember reading an interview with one of my very favorite artists where she said something along the lines that digital music is theft.

And I thought to myself, that if she saw me listening to her music on my iPod she's probably be angry with me, but how many times did I buy the same album by her? I could actually count 4 times: LP, Cassette, CD, remastered "special edition" CD. The only records of hers I haven't bought more than once are out of print.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[ericdano]

You could always buy into the subscription model of music. That is what it sounds like you want.

I find I like the original recordings better mostly. It's like Black and White movies. The artists work with whatever medium they had at the time, and got it to sound (or in the case of B&W movies, look) the way they wanted, and that was that.

I'm sure that the Beatles could have done some funky ass stuff with Dolby Surround. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds could have been tripped out big time. But they didn't have access to it. So....why would I want a DTS5 channel version of it? Did John help remix it? No.

I do like my classic jazz remastered. But anything past like 1965 or so should be left alone.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you paid for the content you received. Re-mixes, etc are new works. The same content distributed on a different medium is, however, the same work.

(You wouldn't want to listen to what most artists lay down in the studio, anyway)

Re:Paradigm Shift

[brainee28]

View it the same way with software. If you buy a version of software, and there are upgraded improvements to the original software you purchased, then they normally offer upgrade pricing. The music industry should do that as well; offer an upgrade price to people who have a copy of the LP, CD, or Tape or "Licensed Digital Audio" file purchased.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[ericdano]

Why do I need new remastered versions all the time. I can't keep track of how many different Coltrane remasters there are out there......

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Zemplar]

"I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear."

Just like you should have the rights to download OS or applicaiton updates forever? If you weren't happy with your music choice at the time you should not have purchased it, simply because it's improved later does NOT give you the right to receive a free upgrade.

"How come no one has ever brought this up?"
Because it is a stupid idea.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[ThaFooz]

I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear. The money I paid was for the recording the artist laid down in the studio.

Not really. You bought two things - the right to the intellectual property, and the media it was recorded on or transmitted over (and the retail mark up, storage/transportation costs, ect).

I agree that you shouldn't have to pay for the former a second time (but how that could be enforced, particularly without slashdotters complaing about privacy is beyond me), implying that you should not have to pay for the later means that people should work for free, just for you.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[vertinox]

And exactly what would be the incentive for them to release newly remastered recordings if they can't recoup the costs (let alone make any profit).

The kids who haven't bought it yet... Seriously, most people who own the original aren't likely going to buy the new ones anyways. Especially those who perfer Vinyl over digital.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[pilgrim23]

You are right. there is no good incentive for them to release a new master remix. There is none for the artist: he was paid a bottle of Ripple and a cheap hooker. None for the original engineer; He was fortunate he kept his day job down at the auto plant. None for the original promoters, album artists, or any of the original creative people; they have all gone on to other things and like the artist, retain no rights to their own work. Who is left? The suit with the cigar of course. That feller sure doesn't want this system to change.
then again, What is the incentive to issue a new version, patch, fix or re-write of ANY "software"?

Re:Paradigm Shift

[unapersson]

Well I read this journal entry by one of my favourite artists a few days ago and couldn't agree with her more.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[OS24Ever]

I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear.

yes because we all know bandwidth costs are free, and no one would try to download their same song every morning because they want to make sure they have the latest 'version'

Re:Paradigm Shift

[leather_helmet]

Illogical - why would they want to remaster something if it does not produce additional revenue? Tracking that you have bought a previous version of the recording would also create another layer of complexity... Methinks you just wanted to use the phrase 'paradigm shift'? Do you work in the marketing department? ;) j/k

Re:Paradigm Shift

[pinkocommie]

I haven't used ITunes so not sure if they do this but in general how about the right to get the same track without having to pay for it again (same format / download quality perhaps?).

Re:Paradigm Shift

[line.at.infinity]

They can make profit. For one, a higher quality version would increase the number of people interested in buying rights to the song. Costs are minimal, since the cost of electronic distribution is next to nothing these days.

Or they can give discounts to customers who have already purchased rights. The initial price of a song then would actually include soemthing like rights + distribution cost. Pay rights once, and after that pay only the distribution cost for each download or something.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Zemplar]

iTunes is great.

Just as an FYI, once you download an iTunes track, or 1,000, you can burn to CD or DVD as you see fit. Of course, the quality is not as good as uncompressed audio, but it's considerably better than MP3.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Blakey Rat]

iTunes keeps track of every song you buy in their database, so in theory they can provide this service, but as of right now they don't. (They do heavily hint to people that they should be backing-up their purchased music.)

Anyway, their download system is already pretty smart. If you have a song to be downloaded, the download is half-completed, then you lose your internet connection... then say you delete the half-file, iTunes will still be smart enough to automatically download it next time you connect to the music store. So while they won't provide free backups for your music, they will ensure that no matter what happens, you get the copy you purchased.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[jagilbertvt]

The software analogy is a bit off. You don't go buying copies of Windows 3.1 on cd (nor do you get free copies if you bought a floppy version).

Most people don't want old software in new distribution formats.

New software versions usually come with new features.

I don't really consider DTS to be a feature of a song, more a feature of the distribution method. The artist hasn't rerecorded it for the new format (and if they have, would you really want it? The original is what you are use to, any changes to that will probably ruin the song in your view).

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Surt]

There shouldn't ever need to be a recording remastering again.

If you record in digital, remastering is meaningless.

If you remaster once in 24bit 96khz, you'll have more quality than anyone is likely to ever be able to hear, and you have surely captured over 99.9% of the quality on the analog recording.

If you remix, on the other hand, you could sell that as a different song.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[jagilbertvt]

I think this is a great idea. I'd happily pay 2 fees. One for the rights, and one for the distribution media.

You want a new copy of The Matrix on Blu-Ray in HDTV? Just pay the cost for that distribution method, assuming you already purchased the movie previously.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[neoform]

i don't know.. why not ask valve why they continue to update Counter-Strike: Source every week..

maybe they do so to entice new customers to buy their wares? maybe because it forms bran loyalty? maybe just becuase they like delivering a quality product that people will enjoy.

business doesn't ALWAYS have to be about dollar signs you know. some people go into business to put out a good product.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[DCstewieG]

No, you shouldn't be able to freely download it. IMO, the perfect-world solution is you present proof you owned it before and you are charged a nominal fee for the work that engineers/mixers put into the new version. Will this ever happen? Ha.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[jagilbertvt]

Don't kid yourself. Any business who can't pay their bills or employees will go out of business very quickly.

Again with the poor software analogy.. try something that actually fits the model.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[poot_rootbeer]

I am on record as purchaseing/owning the right to listen to those songs

Actually, you are on record as having the right to listen to That Particular Recording of those songs.

The question is, if they take the same performance of a song and re-master it, does that qualify as The Same Recording, or a different one? My personal opinion is "I'll know it if I hear it", but I'm not sure what kind of legal standard could be applied to the distinction.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[poot_rootbeer]

Just like you should have the rights to download OS or applicaiton updates forever? If you weren't happy with your music choice at the time you should not have purchased it, simply because it's improved later does NOT give you the right to receive a free upgrade.

Um, this is Slashdot. OF COURSE we think that buying a software product entitles us to free upgrades and candy forever!

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Anonymous Coward]

"forms bran loyalty?"

Who is this Bran fellow? And why should I be loyal to him?

Re:Paradigm Shift

[gl4ss]

here's something the riaa doesn't want you to have:

the right to copy it over to the new format by _yourself-.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[apt142]

You aren't a regular slashdotter are you?

Loyalty to bran keeps you going.

You should worship it with every fiber in your body.

Re:Paradigm Shift

[Makarakalax]

Yeah I know this. In an interview with Mike Oldfield, when asked something like "Does it concern you that Tubular Bells 2003 has copy-protection and some of your fans may not be able to listen to your music on their computers", said something along the lines of "Fuck them! They are stealing money from my pocket, I hate them!"

Which really offended me as I love his music, discovered his music thanks to Kazaa, and have since bought almost all his albums. It's a shame as before that moment I thought he was great and had loads of respect for him. Now I think he's a dumb shit. But I still like his music ;-)

Re:Paradigm Shift

[LPetrazickis]

Just like you should have the rights to download OS or applicaiton updates forever?

As a Debian user, I have to agree with this. I have the right to download OS and application updates forever. Easiest OS ever.:)

Instead of raising rates..

[squison]

Maybe they could cut costs..but, oh, I don't know.. hiring less lawyers to sue their customers.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[ericdano]

What Apple should do is start it's own label. They should buy Apple (the Beatles UK company), or partner with them, and have artists who would produce music on CD through Apple (UK) and via iTunes (Apple).

I think the whole music industry needs a shaking up, and a Apple + Apple thing could be the key. Music, done right. Supporting the artists who make the music.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[Smidge204]

Don't be silly! Their legal department probably has a better cost/earning ratio than the rest of their operation!

=Smidge=

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[ackthpt]

Maybe they could cut costs..but, oh, I don't know.. hiring less lawyers to sue their customers.

You have to reconsider why they often refer to lawyers as 'Counselors'

"What do you think we should do, Bob."
"Sue them, sue the living daylights out of them!"
"Gee, Bob, I was asking about where we should get lunch, that's kinda harsh isn't it?"
"You pay me for advice, I give advice."

Primarily I think piracy may be because of price, but I think there's something to be said for availability. What I can't find at the music or video store, where am I going to find it? Oh, yeah, some guy on the internet recorded it, put together a professional little package, decent editting and all and made it available for just over media cost. Man, they call this guy a thief.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[erroneus]

They have already considered that but their lawyers have advised against it for some reason. The reason is as of yet, undisclosed.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[MemeRot]

That's pushing it. Apple computer is on extremely shaky ground as it is. When sued by Apple music they promised to stay out of the music biz, so the trademarks wouldn't conflict. And now they're hugely into music.

ITunes offers new distribution models. Apple records is a traditional record label. They got the Beatles to sign the same old "you don't own your own music" agreements as all the other labels, and now Michael Jackson owns a large chunk of the Beatles repetoire.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[javaxman]

They should buy Apple (the Beatles UK company), or partner with them, and have artists who would produce music on CD through Apple (UK) and via iTunes (Apple).

That's a cute idea, but you have to think that, especially given all of the times the companies have met in court over the Apple name, that this has maybe been discussed before?

I have to guess that Yoko Ono ( the director of Apple Corps Ltd. ) might just have both an ego and personal attachment to that company to match Jobs' own attachment to his Apple company... I don't think either is willing to sell to the other. Take one of those two out of the picture, maybe, but then, that would make them different companies.

No. If Apple wants to get into the music business *proper* ( something Apple Corps prevents it from doing ), it'll have to to change it's name, form a different company, or otherwise pay off Yoko and company in a big, big way that probably doesn't make business sense... or beat them down in this good-god-could-it-take-longer legal dispute. Apple Computer would buy a movie production company first ( not saying they're going to, it's not their business ) ... more likely they'll work out some sort of extensive partnership deal with a suitably receptive record company.

I know that if I had a record company, I'd be trying to work out something where anyone looking to get their work promoted on iTMS would want to sign with me rather than the other guys... I believe the guy at CDBaby is having some success with that model in terms of smaller indie bands, though I doubt he'd be able to appropriately handle a larger act requiring more mainstream concert promotion... not that it couldn't be done... but it might take someone with a slightly different business model and/or more capital. Apple Corp. Ltd, though? Maybe some day that set of legal problems for Apple Computer will actualy be resolved...

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[elbenito69]

I think the whole music industry needs a shaking up, and a Apple + Apple thing could be the key.

They could call it the Apple ][ !

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[hackstraw]

What Apple should do is start it's own label. They should buy Apple (the Beatles UK company)...

Hmm, being that the Apple label and Apple computers have been in court for about 30 years, I don't see this happening. Just recently, the Apple label again sued Apple computers because of iTunes and iPods (maybe another iSomething, does anybody know where the little 'i' comes from?).

Apple computers have explicitly agreed to not enter the music business under the Apple name. Its a trademark violation.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[sapped]

I think the whole music industry needs a shaking up, and a Apple + Apple thing could be the key.

OK. So then we have Apples on the one side. What do we compare it with on the other side hmmm?

Comparing Apples and ...? Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[KingEomer]

I think the first place it appeared was the iMac. Other than that, though, I have no idea who thought it up. Maybe it's supposed to sound personal, like "I".

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[SmittyTheBold]

Apple computer is on extremely shaky ground as it is. When sued by Apple music they promised to stay out of the music biz,

The first thing your parent comment suggested was BUYING Apple Records. That would pretty well eliminate any conflict.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[10Ghz]

That's pushing it. Apple computer is on extremely shaky ground as it is. When sued by Apple music they promised to stay out of the music biz, so the trademarks wouldn't conflict. And now they're hugely into music.

Just because they happen to sell music and devices that can play music, does not mean that they are "in music-business". I would say that with ITMS Apple is in the retail-business. They are selling music. They do not have a record-label of their own, they do not publish music, they do not produce music, they merely re-sell music. So they are not in the music-business.

Re:Instead of raising rates..

[MemeRot]

What about independent artists that sell directly on ITMS? They don't get a record contract, but they get money for selling music directly on ITMS. If they were a traditional retail music selling store, they would carry cd's from like 5 local bands with no contract. That's small potatos. They have thousands of artists selling directly through them. They're either in the music business or setting them selves up as an alternative to the music business. Either one I think violates their court agreement by creating confusion about the Apple trademark. If instead of Apple stores selling computers, they were selling cd's - don't you think a reasonable person might be confused about the trademark differences between Apple (who sells cds) and Apple (who makes cds)?

Apple team w/ Google

[Ingolfke]

Apple should partner w/ Google and the recently announced Google Wi-Fi service. Two power houses, major distribution and mind share, not to mention the pile of cash they're both sitting on. Oh and they'd be getting free advertisements w/ 2-3 combined posts per day here on /.

Re:Apple team w/ Google

[Anonymous Coward]

But that would violate the computational separation of Jobs & Schmidt.

Re:Apple team w/ Google

[The Lynxpro]

"Apple should partner w/ Google and the recently announced Google Wi-Fi service. Two power houses, major distribution and mind share, not to mention the pile of cash they're both sitting on. Oh and they'd be getting free advertisements w/ 2-3 combined posts per day here on /."

More likely Google will buy AOL from Time Warner.

As theorized here:

http://news.com.com/Google+to+bid+on+AOL/2100-1038 _3-5873485.html?tag=nefd.top

And Dugg here:

http://www.digg.com/technology/Google_to_bid_on_AO L_

I'm with you, Steve

[bgfay]

In fact, let's really show those greedy bastards and set the per song price of an iTunes download to twenty-five cents! That way, downloading an album would actually be cheaper than buying the jewel box.

You go, Steve!

Um, he is talking about lowering the prices, isn't he?

Oh.

Never mind.

Re:I'm with you, Steve

[superpulpsicle]

The music industry can save millions by not marketing any artist mainstream. Let's just put every artist's name out there in plain ascii. Not even album covers. And let the world decide what's good music.

Re:I'm with you, Steve

[LordNimon]

Better yet, let only the retailers do any marketing. Then music consumers would go to the retailers to learn about new music. This would then allow the retailers to provide a service and a product, which strengthens their economic foundation. Retailers could differentiate themselves by the quality of music recommendations they give. This would encourage them to hire more knowledgeable employees, and it would also result in more retailers. It's a win-win situation all around.

Re:I'm with you, Steve

[porcupine8]

Uh, last I checked, Apple wasn't registered as a 501c non-profit. He pays most of the 99c right back to the record companies - he could only lower the price a few cents before Apple was taking a direct loss on every song (even without figuring in development costs, etc). Unless, of course, the record companies agreed to reduce the price they charge Apple.

It's not about the price, it's the power

[Anonymous Coward]

Music industry was not happy with Music Television back days of 1980's and 1990's, because MTV had the power to make or not make new hits. Since then music industry have pushed MTV not to show music videos, rather than crappy shows.

But now music labels are getting to piss of by iTMS, not because of the price, but the power of Apple making the decission what's going to sell...

SONY Walkman

[2.7182]

There actually was an issue that wasn't totally different with the SONY walkman. Back then the record industry was concerned about people taping albums and there is a story about it in the NY TIMES magazine around 1981, but it never mattered.

God bless Jobs...

[NIN1385]

I couldn't agree more, and I'm sure most of the /. users agree as well. They are just plain greedy and there is nothing that will ever change that. Money makes every person on the planet greedy, it can make anyone evil. I hope Jobs succeeds at rejecting their pressure.

Re:God bless Jobs...

[Doc Ri]

Money makes every person on the planet greedy

Mr. Jobs, certainly, is immune.

Re:God bless Jobs...

[NIN1385]

He's not immune, but at least he knows he makes enough money.

Re:God bless Jobs...

[Alioth]

On human nature - you have it the wrong way around. Money doesn't make people greedy - people are greedy to start with (it's a survival instinct) and money is just a means to satisfy greed.

Re:God bless Jobs...

[Doc Ri]

Maybe so. I do not know him too well.

Then again he represents a company that has an interest in increasing profit and market share.

A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

The idea that the prices of music should go up is ludicrous. There is a site out there called AllOfMP3 that charges a nominal fee based on the file size, and it allows you to change the format and bitrate of files you download. It is, quite possibly, the most sophisticated online music store out there. I can get a full album for 1.10$. Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies.

It's revolutionary, and it's a model that iTunes could stand to look at. Never will I pay 99 cents a song again.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Rude Turnip]

Allofmp3 is *legal* in Russia, but if you look above the law, are the right people getting their due compensation? And no, I don't mean the "right people" in the legal sense.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[squiggleslash]

Well, yeah. The Russian Mafia certainly have fewer start-up costs involved in the production of music, and they can always supplement their income from protection rackets, "borrowing" the appropriate equipment, etc. Essentially, for them, it's a matter of buying (or borrowing) a $10 CD, and ripping it, and then running the web servers.

iTunes on the other hand has to pay record producers rather than buy a one-off $10 CD. Those record producers have to spend large amounts of money on studios, recording equipment, engineers, and, well, artists too. And Steve Jobs can't just "borrow" money from the local convenience store if he runs into problems.

I'm sure there's stuff to learn from AllOfMP3 as there is any music service. Sources of funding, and hence pricing decisions, however, are not one of them.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[SteveXE]

Its legal but its still P2P which means fake files can be injected into the network, so what happens when you start paying for fake files?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

Try again. http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3info.htm

From that article:
Allofmp3.com is an on-line music service based in Moscow, Russia. The service started in 2001.

When we first discovered this site we were convinced that Allofmp3 is some kind of illegal operation. But by investigating this service further we came to a surprising conclusion.

Allofmp3 has signed agreements with Russian copyrights holders. They can legally offer music by all artists and from all labels.

In the past few months Allofmp3 has finally been discovered by the media. Smh.com, The Register and G4Techtv and the Wall Street Journal have published articles covering Allofmp3.

Allofmp3 is (or should we say was?) one of the best kept secrets of the internet. A music service with unique features. It sets an example for every other music service.

Awarded in Europe as the best Music Service

No wonder it has been awarded as the best Music Service by the leading German computer magazine C't. Even the official Consumers' Organization in The Netherlands has chosen Allofmp3 as the best place to download music. "The best service by far" was their surprising conclusion after testing seven services available in The Netherlands.

Heres another link. Read this too, and then try again.
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[wvitXpert]

Why don't you just pirate the music? The artists would get the same amount of money that way, and you wouldn't have to worry about who in Russia is getting your money.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

It's not P2P at all. In fact, when I select a song, it encodes it on the fly. I want a 128kbps MP3? I got it. I was a ginormous lossless file? I got it.

This is why so few people use it, because so few people really know what it is.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[hudsonhawk]

No, people don't use it because it's a sketchy Russian site of dubious legality. Why pay someone money for music when the artist isn't getting compensated anyway?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[lidocaineus]

No, people don't use it because it's on *extremely* shakey legal grounds that are only mitigated by the fact that Russia's legal system with regards to copyright is all over the map. In addition, lossless files (up until recently) were transcoded out of 320 kbps MP3 files. Not very honest of them.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

Russian-to-English of "Just because you have bought this music, does NOT mean you can freely share it. Please follow copyright laws."

Basically saying not to abuse the site, download music, and throw it onto Kazaa.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

From AllOfMp3.com's Legal Section

Is it legal to download music from site AllOFMP3.com?

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Users are responsible for any usage and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility depends on the local legislation of each user's country of residence. AllOFMP3.com's Administration does not keep up with the laws of different countries and is not responsible the actions of non-Russian users.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[drsquare]

Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies.

But if you're in America, then American copyright applies. So if a song is owned by a copyright holder in America, and they don't give permission for Allofmp3 to distribute a song, and you download it in America, then don't complain when a court summons appears through your letterbox.

Is Russia part of the Berne convention?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, yeah. The Russian Mafia certainly have fewer start-up costs involved in the production of music...

Have you got any information to back up that accusation or a are you just making libelous remarks based on some rumor? From the sound of it, you are not particularly well informed so I'm guessing the latter.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[nunchux]

It's revolutionary, and it's a model that iTunes could stand to look at. Never will I pay 99 cents a song again.

While it's legal (or at least allowed to exist) it's ridiculous to suggest Jobs adopt their model and/or pricing structure. It's "revolutionary" in the sense that a Czar was overthrown ninety years ago-- AllofMp3 exists because Russia is a state without a long history of copyright or intellectual property protection... they are not working with the artists or record labels because they don't have to.

Also, the low prices are in no small part due to the fact that the ruble is worthless.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is why so few people use it, because so few people really know what it is."

I know exactly what it is, but don't use it because I believe the artists I like deserve compensation for their work. No way I can feel good about AllOfMP3, they're crooks.

The record labels suck, AllOfMP3 sucks more. At least for those of us with a conscience.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[digidave]

News flash: The record companies do not pay for the studio time, producers, recording equipment or anything else associated with making an album. They charge the artists for that. Record companies pay for marketing and advertising, although even then some of that is billed to the artists.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[digidave]

AllofMP3 may not pay the artists, but the record companies actually take more money out of mosts artists' pockets than they put in.

Record companies definitely suck more.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[The Lynxpro]

"But if you're in America, then American copyright applies. So if a song is owned by a copyright holder in America, and they don't give permission for Allofmp3 to distribute a song, and you download it in America, then don't complain when a court summons appears through your letterbox."

The same goes for importing non-Region1 DVDs. If you import a Region2 DVD to the US, the MPAA considers that a form of piracy called "parallel import".

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[sevinkey]

I didn't dig too deep into this and IANAL, but it looked to me like they paid rights similar to a streaming radio station, meaning you're allowed to listen (legally) to the songs one time each.

Since the user probably doesn't run out of Russia, the user is probably breaking laws, even though the server is not.

Odds of getting caught are infinitesimal unless the US and Russia got together to fight piracy.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[squiggleslash]

Bullshit.

The artists get advances, and then the advance and some costs are charged against future royalties. Some costs are paid by the artists themselves, out of the advance, and this usually means the artists do not end up with much at the end of the process, but that's not the same as suggesting they never receive any money. The advances some from the record companies.

If what you had said was remotely true, the only music groups in existance would be composed of people independently wealthy who can afford the $50,000-$100,000 costs involved in producing a recording.

Artists get maltreated, but the notion that they never receive any money whatsoever from record companies and have to pay for studio time and production costs out of their life savings is so ridiculous I wonder what kind of crack you're on.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Kjella]

Well, yeah. The Russian Mafia [blah blah blah blah]

AllOfMP3 has been operating for quite some time now, and not been shut down. As far as I know, noone has even tried to. You think the RIAA doesn't have the economic muscle to follow through on a legal case, if there was one? At best the copyright laws are more relaxed than in the US, at worst the laws are bought by somebody else. This is the world's smallest violin playing for the RIAA.

Kjella

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, Russian law only applies to their side of the transaction. American law controls for people in the US who download from there, and it's illegal to do so under US law.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[ferat]

Actually, it's more accuratly saying that even though you bought the music doesn't make it legal in your country, so use it at your own risk.

If the RIAA stormed your house, and found your mp3 collection, you'd still be liable for copyright infringement. Paying someone in Russia for unlicensed music doesn't magically make it legal.

You are on no safer legal ground using Allofmp3 than you are just getting the music from kazaa.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Anonymous Coward]

...the fact that Russia's legal system with regards to copyright is all over the map.

Nono, it's still in Russia, with the rest of the Russian legal system.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

Well, seeing as I'm an idiot and linked the wrong site in my OP, if you follow the correct link of www.allofmp3.com and check their legal section, you'll see the accurate copyright and legal information which says that yes, it IS legal to download and possess songs from AllOfMP3.com. The comment that I was replying to was in regards to my first, improperly linked, post.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[DennisZeMenace]

Those record producers have to spend large amounts of money on studios, recording equipment, engineers, and, well, artists too.

I'm appalled there are still people who believe in that myth. I know bands who recorded their albums in near-pro quality for a few thousands dollars. Studios, equipment and engineers are only expensive if you want them to be. For example, if you need to use computers to pitch-correct your vocals because your fake so-called "artist" can't sing (that's 90% of the shit you hear on radio). Record producers and other middlemen get way too much control and too much credit for the work of artists.

DZM

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your link right then. You linked to alloffmp3. If you blather on about a site being so great and all, link to the right one. One look at allOFFmp3 and you come off as whack job trying to justify stealing music.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[screevo]

Yes, yes, I know. I'm an idiot. I even used the Preview button, how sad is that?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[mrtrumbe]

From a seemingly objective source on the subject: http://slate.msn.com/id/2115868/

From everything I've read, it seems illegal. However, it seems extraordinarily unlikely a person would be prosecuted for using this service, despite the likely illegality.

Taft

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Woy]

"This is the world's smallest violin playing for the RIAA."

Don't forget to grab the cover art:

        ,

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[poot_rootbeer]

American copyright allows an individual to import audio recordings from foreign countries for personal use. IIRC you don't even have to prove that the foreign entity had IP rights to the recording in its home country, although AllOfMP3 says that it does. You'll often see obvious bootleg CDs in the "imports" section of music stores due to this clause; they get away with it because it is legal.

Is Russia part of the Berne convention?

Yes, it has been for the past 10 years.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[digidave]

Yes, artists get advances, which are paid back to the record companies at a later date. The record companies also put up the cash for the recording costs, then bill the artists for it.

It's kind of like buying a home. I don't have enough cash for a house, but when I borrow money from the bank it's still me who's paying for it, eventually.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Sax Maniac]

if you need to use computers to pitch-correct your vocals because your fake so-called "artist" can't sing

And that's not a even good reason to spend a lot.

Pitch correction is cheap enough that it doesn't even matter. Our band self-produced a CD, and used pitch correction in plenty of spots. But it wasn't just on a single singer. The band has 15 (yes, fifteen) horn players. Even with good players, when you have that many, the "MTBF" gets low enough that fixes are needed.

I would wager we did a lot more pitch correction than an average band with one bad singer would. And we spent very little on it.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[shark72]

" AllofMP3 may not pay the artists, but the record companies actually take more money out of mosts artists' pockets than they put in."

Recording contracts typically require that the record company gets its costs recouped before the artist makes any profit.

This means that if the record is a success, the record label makes back its investment, and the artist eventually makes some money.

If the record is a failure, the artist doesn't make any money, and the record company is out of the dough. In this case (which happens most of the time), the record company does not ask the artist to help cover the losses. The record company takes all the risk. This is why it's so difficult to get a recording contract.

The exception is smaller labels like Magnatune, which don't front money for production costs and ask artists to provide their own masters. But, Magnatune pays their artists immediately after sale and gives the artists a bigger chunk of the sale price (since Magnatune isn't burdened with all the expenses of the big record labels).

By comparison, AllofMP3 will never pay the artists, no matter how many songs you buy from them.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[ferat]

Yes, it's legal.. IN RUSSIA.

If you are in Russia you are fine. If you are not you are subject to your local laws.

MP3s from allofmp3.com are not legal in the US and are no better than using Kazaa (except, of course, that you get consistant quality). The labels still don't get money. The artists still don't get money. It's not an RIAA licensed download service.

It's basically just financing the Russian Mafia.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[shark72]

"Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies."

It applies if you live in Russia. Otherwise, it's a bit like importing -- the laws of your locality are what count.

To use an unpleasant example, Russian laws regarding pornography are also lax, and there are several Russian "Lolita" sites that effectively sell child pornography -- literally, naked photos of under-age children. They barely skirt the Russian laws, and they are legal to access if you live in Russia.

To be clear, the two issues are worlds apart, so there's no use trying to straw-man me into saying that music piracy is akin to child pornography. But the legal lesson is the same: use AllofMP3 if you like the value, and you don't particularly care if the artists get paid. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it gives you any legal protection beyond that which you get from downloading from a P2P site.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[shark72]

"This is why so few people use it, because so few people really know what it is."

Please don't assume that all geeks share the same moral compass.

I have no interest in using it because if I am going to purchase music, I want the artist to be paid. Even if they get only $0.15 of the buck I spend on iTunes, that's $0.15 more than they'd get from a pirate site. If a hundred people like me do the same, that's the artist's water bill for the month, and if a thousand people do, that's groceries for the month and a tank of gas.

Even if the record company gets $0.50, at least that $0.50 is largely going to pay people's salaries, and covering the expenses the record company incurred to allow the artist to get their music recorded, engineered, produced and promoted so that I'd know about it in the first place. The recording industry is a high-overhead one, but so are the industries that produce 90% of the things I consume. For instance, the folks who designed, engineered and built my car did not see anywhere near 15% of my purchase price.

And, I have no interest in giving money to the Russian mafia, or anybody in Russia who didn't have a hand in making the music a reality. And, no, ripping the file does not count.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[FrkyD]

No, It's not bullshit.
And the digidave shouldn't be modded as a troll.
I had a record contract. We got an advance which had to be paid back by the small percentage we got from sales. Recording costs were partially taken out of our advance, and the rest were meant to be paid back from our same small percentage of sales. Same would have happened with video production. That was around seven years ago. The companies have also started taking money out of the artists share of sales price for various marketing things, graphic design, producers, and so on and so forth. I have never actually seen ANY money from the record contract. It all went into paying for the recording. Since sales were minimal, proceeds went entirely to paying back the advance.

The only money I ever made was from live shows. From what I understand, that's how it goes for most artists on major labels.

Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Steve Albini. He probably knows what he's talking about:
The Problem With Music

And just so you know, you can produce a recording for WELL under $50,000.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[DennisZeMenace]

The problem with pitch correction is: people with good music ears can hear it, and it's very very unpleasant. Basically, nobody can sing perfectly, and the beauty of a voice is in its inperfection. A pitch corrected voice have a completely unnatural and eerie tone to it that's incredbily annoying and unpleasant. I hate it i hate it i hate it :-(

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Agent0013]

I haven't used allofmp3.com yet, but when I want a song or two that is where I plan on going. I find the unreliable quality that comes with p2p apps to be a big disappointment. With the Russian site I can choose the file type and quality that I want for my music.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Anonymous Coward]

Never will I pay 99 cents a song again

Why on earth did you ever? What is it exactly that you get for your money?

I've always thought about 4 cents a song would be reasonable for a good, quality download. That way, I would download it every time I wanted to listen to it and not worry about backup up all the mp3's on my hard drive. Why on earth would you want to maintain a giant filesystem full of music at that price?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Rimbo]

Do "the right people" get their due compensation here in America, with the way the RIAA treats artists?

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?

Because if we all work together, we can make the world a better place!

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[JekPorkins]

While home recording gear is increasingly available at more accessible prices for the hobbyist or amateur band, to say that a band can make a "near-pro quality" recording on their own is a huge stretch. As an illustration of this: 1. Listen to your friends' band's CD for a track or 2. 2. Listen to anything produced by Rick Rubin. That difference costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there's really no way around it. Regardless of equipment, producing and mastering something to sound truly professional requires enormous talent and years of practice (and several million dollars of mics, compressors and preamps doesn't hurt, either). Basically, if you can't hear the difference between home hobbyists' recordings on pro tools and a real professional rock album recorded by a top producer like Bob Ezrin, Bob Rock, Brendan O'Brien or Rick Rubin, you're not qualified to comment on whether or not producers are necessary. If you CAN tell the difference, then your post was a bit disingenuous or, at best, a stretch. All due respect, and all.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Anonymous Coward]

Most studios rent expensive specialist mics and other equipment from hire companies, just like the movie industry does with cameras, lenses, steadycam mounts, etc. Anyone who is willing to pay can do the same, although one needs to know (a) what to rent, and (b) how to use it effectively when it arrives. This is obviously one of the things that separates a good recording engineer from a guy with a digital hard-disk recorder in a basement (that and the fact that studios tend to have carefully designed acoustic environments that are free from extraneous noise).

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[Sax Maniac]

You're right - except the pitch correction wasn't on the voice. It was on a section of horns that functions a unit. In that case the intent is not a soloistic-like quality, but five horns with the exact same sound. If you fix one horn in the middle of a harmonized group of five, you're not likely to detect it.

Pitch correction can work on voice if you're careful. The better ones can preserve vibrato, etc, so that you don't lose expressiveness. The very good ones are programmable so you define what it fixes and what it doesn't.

Re:A different approach to the online music market

[DennisZeMenace]

Thanks for the insight, i can see how it can be useful in certain situations or for instruments. I just wish they'd stop abusing from the technology, even on bands that don't really need it. But i think there's a trend factor going on here...

DZM

Marginal cost is nearly $0

[MarkEst1973]

and if what Jobs says is accurate -- that the record companies make more profit from an iTunes song than physical media -- then yeah, I'd tend to agree that they're being greedy.

As the price of reproduction drops, the price of the item should drop correspondingly. At least that's how the economic theory goes. Profit margins drop but profits are made through bulk sales, much like today's commodity ethernet cards and memory chips. It allows for many companies (or artists) to create a product, spurring competition, providing choice. All of this is good for the consumer.

Yeah, the RIAA is still trying to stick it to us.

Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0

[MrAndrews]

The problem is that you're a few steps behind the logic curve on this issue*. I shall try and illustrate it for you:

In the beginning, music was tied to a chunk of plastic. Then, the plastic was made optional and you could buy it online (with negligible distribution costs)... but to avoid gutting the existing plastic sales, the prices were fixed similarly.

There was an initial resistance to bits vs plastic because everyone thought the real cost was in the pressing and printing and cover art... but that's faded in the past 2 years. Now that the plastic-free version has taken off and people are starting to appreciate that they're paying for the music and not the disc, the question becomes "What is the music worth to you?"

It's not relative to other plastic discs, it's relative to other pursuits of happiness. If you LOVE this song, it's gotta be worth more than $0.99.

In other words, they had trouble getting over the lack of plastic at first, and now they're so excited about "apples vs oranges" economics that they're DYING to try out selling Coldplay for $3/track. And while YOU won't do it, there are a bunch of "I gots me an AOL" folks who WILL, and that's all you need to make it worthwhile.

I agree with Jobs on this, and I agree with you, but I think everyone underestimates how astoundingly greedy the RIAA can be.

* in all fairness, if you weren't behind the curve, you'd likely be a bad person

Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0

[Znork]

"As the price of reproduction drops, the price of the item should drop correspondingly. At least that's how the economic theory goes."

That's how the economic theory goes in a free market. Do not confuse the intellectual monopoly industries with free markets.

For a monopoly market, the price does not drop. It rises to follow slightly below the pricing point at which consumers can no longer afford the product. When production costs fall, great, more profit or money to spend on marketing. When people purchase more, for example, due to marketing or rising disposable incomes, raise prices until sales slow again. Use new money for profit or marketing. Rinse. Repeat.

As long as intellectual monopoly laws interfere in the free market their prices will simply never drop. That's simply an unavoidable economic consequence of these legal constructs.

Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0

[Red Flayer]

"As the price of reproduction drops, the price of the item should drop correspondingly. At least that's how the economic theory goes."

What economic theory is that?

Given infinite supply to a market (which is the case here, unless supply is artificially limited -- i.e., only the first 1000 people can download each day), the only pressure on price is demand. Recording companies spend tons of money on marketing to increase this demand. Cost of goods sold has absolutely nothing to do with price -- only with profit and loss.

In this case, though, we have an artificially fixed price. This does not change demand, but instead changes what proportion of that demand is met through the black market.

"Profit margins drop but profits are made through bulk sales, much like today's commodity ethernet cards and memory chips."

Hogwash. No consumer buys "song downloads" in bulk to resell them. Unless the recording companies are selling rights of transfer for x number of downloads for y dollars to Apple, which I highly doubt.

I think what you mean is that companies will still see increased profits due to larger sales volume, if they lower prices. While this may be true, it may not be the most profitable method of pricing.

If at $1 ea, I sell 100 songs, I realize $100 revenue. If I price the song at $0.50 ea, but sell 180 copies, my revenues are only $90, and my marginal costs will be higher, since I sold more copies. The pricing curve for songs will determine what price I should set to maximize my profits.

Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0

[bjheu]

classic greed example:

Cassette tape: approx 15 mins to record at 4x dubbing, requires hundreds of recorders. retail Cost 10-15$
CD/DVDs: approx 60 can be stamped per minute on ONE machine. Retail Cost $15-20
Full album download: approx 50MB, costs pennies to store and distribute. Cost $10 and rising?
Somebody tell me why my butt feels so sore...

Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0

[cosmic_0x526179]

if what Jobs says is accurate -- that the record companies make more profit from an iTunes song than physical media -- then yeah, I'd tend to agree that they're being greedy.

Oh I agree. What I think isn't being said here (by either side) is that many of the iTMS sales are single-tracks (from a given CD). So instead of the record company getting their share of a $14.99 physical-media transaction, they are getting their share of a $1.98 electronic-media transaction. No matter how you slice the bread, that has to be less revenue in the end. The paradigm has shifted, really shifted. Some folks will continue to buy whole albums, but the concept of the record companies marketing 'singles' has gone completely out the window. They are now potentiallly being held hostage to the success of each and every track (before it was the album/CD). I don't think they saw it coming.

Pressure from Pepsi?

[kosibar]

I never bought a song on iTunes - I've gotten them all for free with Pepsi caps.

I don't usually drink Pepsi, but when I see those yellow caps, I tip the bottles, find a winner, then get a Pepsi (instead of the Coke I would buy otherwise) and get my free song.

So I think this is in response to pressure from Pepsi. If you pay more per song, you'll be more likely to buy a Pepsi for a chance to win a free download.

It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

Re:Pressure from Pepsi?

[The Lynxpro]

"I never bought a song on iTunes - I've gotten them all for free with Pepsi caps. I don't usually drink Pepsi, but when I see those yellow caps, I tip the bottles, find a winner, then get a Pepsi (instead of the Coke I would buy otherwise) and get my free song."

No kidding. I got my 200 song credits in this past Pepsi promo. It helped that there was also the chance to win an iPod with each point as well throughout the duration of the promotion.

However, with these Pepsi promotions, I found myself having to switch to Diet Pepsi for obvious reasons. Of course, now all I buy is Diet Pepsi because I cannot stand the taste of Diet Coke, which is the exact opposite reaction I have to their non-diet counterparts. So unless I'm having a soft drink at a restaurant with my food, Coke has lost me as a loyal customer.

And now, its all about getting those Xbox360 points! :)

Re:Pressure from Pepsi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sculley's Revenge?

Fake Piracy

[fistfullast33l]

Everytime I hear of music piracy, I always think of the quote that I believe Justin Frankel said in relationship between Napster and iTunes. The basic philosophy was that the music industry really screwed up by not catching Napster soon enough. By the time they offered the pay for download services, people already knew they could download free music. This meant that every time someone bought a song from iTunes, in the back of their head they were saying "I can definitely get this song for free somewhere." To this day, that's what really is driving the P2P downloaders, however many of them are left.

The music industry is just greedy and they're completely out of control. Someone needs to shut them down and quick. However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.

Re:Fake Piracy

[soft_guy]

If you are a new artist, you are probably better off without a major record label.

Look at Aimee Mann. Her career has certainly gone better since going independent.

Re:Fake Piracy

[mr_gerbik]

Look at Aimee Mann. Her career has certainly gone better since going independent.

Aimee who?? Yeah, her career is really taking off since going independent.

Re:Fake Piracy

[Ryan Amos]

The music industry is just greedy and they're completely out of control. Someone needs to shut them down and quick. However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.

This is the kind of BS that keeps these guys going. You can record a CD in your bedroom (home recording gear/software has progressed a LOT.) You can burn your own CDs. Record stores are disappearing (noticed how many of them have closed in the last 5 years?) Distribution is going online. Almost anyone can sell CDs on Amazon (their distribution terms are very favorable to smaller labels; look at the revolution in the book publishing industry for precedent.) No longer are the major publishers in control.

Once bands figure this out (and they already are) everyone stands to benefit. No more dealing with DRM on your discs, best yet, you can own your own songs. The big kicker with most record contracts is that you have to sign over your rights to your music to the record company. It's not like you can argue the terms of a record contract if you're an up-and-coming band; if they don't sign you they'll sign the next band that will agree to their terms.

With the RIAA cartel, the artist has no say in HOW their music is published. The RIAA will still pump out CDs, but I already get much of my music from bands who chose not to go with a major label. These guys are dinosaurs, evolution will take its course.

Re:Fake Piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published

Many "talented" artists like Ashlee Simpson, whatever the rapper-of-the-week happens to be, and some generic whiney wannabe-punk band?

I don't know. Personally, I'd like to see how the music scene progresses without the music industry and their marketing machine.

Re:Fake Piracy

[BoydWaters]

Without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.

Well, this is wrong. Some friends of mine had to buy their album back from the record label in order to get it published:They ended up spending lunch money that paid the same marketing people who decided their album would not sell. Sure, they paid for the production costs (studio time, engineer time) too, but they were used to paying quite a bit less for that, and the cost of production goes down all the time. These fellas did not need studio musicians, they could have recorded the thing on a Tascam 10000 in their garage, and sold it at concerts. Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

What record labels and distributors still provide is a form of peer review. But iTunes' album and artist reviews, along with the simple hyperlinking and collaborative-filtering effect you get from published iMixes, makes iTunes a far more effective method of peer review than the record labels.

I don't think record labels help very much anymore. I want to support the production and distribution of music that I enjoy. So I purchase music on iTunes. But I want the record labels to get out of the way.

Re:Fake Piracy

[happyemoticon]

Someone needs to shut them down and quick. However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.

In some places (major cities in the US and France come to mind), when people want to listen to some music, they go to bar and watch a local band, often free, and very rarely for more than five bucks (excuse me if that sounds patronizing, I don't mean it that way).

Despite what the RIAA would like us to believe, music has been an intrinsic part of human culture for a very, very long time, probably as long as cave painting, making beads and ritual burial in my layman's estimation. And for the vast majority of that time, major record labels did not control the production and distribution of music. You had anonymous musicians who sat around the fire and came up with folk songs, and you had bards who were supported by patrons - paid to make a symphony, but not paid for exclusive rights to the symphony.

The RIAA wants to convince us that music as an idea could not exist without their grubby, bean-counting hands, charging murder for CDs and putting on mega-concerts with $5 water bottles that sell out in an hour, forcing anybody who wasn't standing in line overnight to deal with unscrupulous scalpers halfway across the country. That's a damn, dirty lie. And now that you can record a professional-quality album on commodity equipment and a home PC and put it on the internet, God, there's just no reason for the RIAA to exist anymore.

Re:Fake Piracy

[nine-times]

The music industry is just greedy and they're completely out of control. Someone needs to shut them down and quick. However, without their money many artists probably wouldn't get their albums published, so it's kind of a necessary evil that we have to deal with.

Who knows, that might even be better for musicians. If the prominence of the worldwide "major label" music scene slips, it might open the window to lots of smaller and more local scenes, live music might take an up-turn, and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires).

Not that I really know, but I don't think the fall of huge record companies will destroy the human appetite for music, and if enough people want something, if the demand is great enough, there will be money to be made from the supply side.

Re:Fake Piracy

[DeafByBeheading]

You can burn your own CDs.

Sure, you can burn your own CD-Rs, but you can't press your own CDs, unless you've got a few grand burning a hole in your pocket. There is a difference. CD-Rs have a shorter lifespan and won't play in older CD players. If you can do a run of 1000 CDs, you can get them pressed for about a buck a pop, which really is pretty reasonable, hence worth it to a serious musician.

Also, while a modest investment will get you a surprisingly decent home recording setup, it takes skill to use all that well. Unless a musician is seriously interested in becoming an amateur producer, he or she is better off going to a real one.

Other than that, yeah... The whole online distribution thing should make music publishing much more interesting, where the big labels won't have that much more to offer to principled artists.

Re:Fake Piracy

[grumpyman]

Totally agree that music industry is just plain greedy. I bet nobody will give a **** about cutting big-name artists profit 90% or even more. But I do care about the prospect of indie music because if the method in downloading music free is as easy as (or easier than) the legal way, these indie musicians will have to live hand-to-mouth.

Don't tell me about getting a decent living off doing gigs. Indie artists could drive during day, doing show by night, day after day and still only be able to afford to have big mac meals.

Without proper way to protect the artists right, it is destroying creativity because they couldn't afford it.

Re:Fake Piracy

[soft_guy]

No one here can help it if all you can be bothered to listen to is Michael Jackson.

It's about time

[cwalk]

Finally someone in a power position stands up against the RIAA. However, IMHO $1 is still too expensive. Anyone know how much artists get from that $1? "No more record company pimpin'" - Ice Cube

Re:It's about time

[The Lynxpro]

"Finally someone in a power position stands up against the RIAA. However, IMHO $1 is still too expensive. Anyone know how much artists get from that $1? "No more record company pimpin'" - Ice Cube"

Probably around 10 cents. The group that gets the largest cut (supposedly) from each song sold on iTunes at 99 cents is the RIAA. Reportedly, the RIAA gets 30 cents, which is even more than the actual music label.

Re:It's about time

[Rs_Conqueror]

But the real question is: "what does the RIAA do with all this money?" Surely there must be SOME sort of service they provide to us, the customer considering all the cash they're sucking away from us. Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:It's about time

[jubei]

Don't be too proud of Steve for standing up to them. By raising prices, he would reduce sales and eliminate some demand for the iPod, which is where Apple makes its real money.

Re:It's about time

[fooDfighter]

They use the money to patrol international waters, keeping us safe from pirates. (RIAA - Really Inteligent Antipiracy Association)

Re:It's about time

[hackstraw]

Reportedly, the RIAA gets 30 cents

Are you sure about this?

If so, can I collect some money too? The RIAA owns no copyrights, sells no albums, owns no recording studios, producers, they do not play music either.

How do they leverage getting 1/3 of the sales of something that they have nothing to do with?

Now if that 30 cents were going to the label, I would understand (kinda).

Re:It's about time

[brownwhornet]

I use CDBaby http://www.cdbaby.com/ as my "record company" with iTunes. I get 65 cents per song. Screw the RIAA and the major labels. Check it out:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewAlbum?playListId=53814240

Re:It's about time

[The Lynxpro]

"Are you sure about this? If so, can I collect some money too? The RIAA owns no copyrights, sells no albums, owns no recording studios, producers, they do not play music either. How do they leverage getting 1/3 of the sales of something that they have nothing to do with?"

The RIAA bribes - excuse me - lobbies members of Congress. So when you buy music from an RIAA affiliated label, despite your political affiliation, your money is going to some politicians who are not of your political stripe.

Then there's the cost of suing end users supposedly downloading their music.

Then there's the cost of the Grammy's.

Oh, and lobbying foreign governments to crack down on commercial piracy and implement U.S. style copyright laws.

RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

And this come from the man that prevents ITunes music from running on anything other that an IPod and prevents Real from releasing DRMed music for the IPod.

Next he'll be saying that the movie industry is charging too much for all the product placement.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[The Lynxpro]

"And this come from the man that prevents ITunes music from running on anything other that an IPod and prevents Real from releasing DRMed music for the IPod."

The music industry does not pay the bandwidth cost of the iTunes Music Store. Apple pays for that from the profits generated from iPods sold.

Why are you championing Real? Did Real pioneer the concept of buying music online? No, they were the main force behind MusicNet, which was a music rental system. It was totally unsuccessful.

Real also went ahead and broke the Fairplay DRM, which arguably is a violation of the DMCA. So again, how is Real the good guy here?

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

The music industry does not pay the bandwidth cost of the iTunes Music Store. Apple pays for that from the profits generated from iPods sold.

I don't see what that has to do with anything? I pay for the petrol to go to the mall and back again, woopie woo. (and before you call me a car champion I actually walk to the shops, but it was the only car analogy I could think of)

Why are you championing Real.

Personally I'd be very happy if DRM vanished tomorrow (I'm not going to buy anything with DRM unless I have to e.g. to reverse engineered it) and I'm certainly no champion of Real.

Having said that Real didn't brake anything, they 'mealy' reverse engineered Fairplay DRM so that they could release music that was crippled with Fairplay DRM that people could play on an IPod.

I am a champion of choice and a champion of anything that breaks vendor lockins (and that include people buying music from live acts in pubs instead of RIAA junk). Maybe if the RIAA had competition then you'd start to see prices dropping and some 'singer?' dancer moving out of there $Million mansion.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[The Lynxpro]

"I am a champion of choice and a champion of anything that breaks vendor lockins (and that include people buying music from live acts in pubs instead of RIAA junk). Maybe if the RIAA had competition then you'd start to see prices dropping and some 'singer?' dancer moving out of there $Million mansion."

I'd like choice too but I'm not siding with Real on this one. Apple will open iTunes and the iPod within the next two years. Otherwise, there will be monopolistic charges against them. Unfortunately, just like with instant messaging, it will be Microsoft complaining about Apple's stranglehold on the market. Microsoft's complaints about AIM put a bunch of restrictions on the AOL Time Warner merger that doomed it to its current state. Quite frankly, of all parties involved, I'd rather it not be Microsoft claiming to be standing up for me against other monopolists. Especially when AAC sounds better than WMA.

Granted, you do have a sympathetic ear to adding OGG and FLAC support to the iPods. Again, I think that'll be in two years once Apple smartens up and realizes that the majority of iRiver's sales have to do with OGG support. Well, that and Jenna Jameson as their poster girl, but that's a whole different subject. :)

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[bleckywelcky]

Jobs is not greedy. He is just a control freak. Hence his positions with respect to Apple and Pixar, and why many of his product lines take the routes that they do.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

I'd like choice too but I'm not siding with Real on this one., nore am IK, I'm, siding against Apple from more-or-less forcing vendor lockin. (I know that there are OGG and MP3's available from a few vendors, but the ones that advertise: the ones that Joe Sixpack will use all come +DRM)

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

Well, I think preventing Mac clones comes under the flag of 'greedy' and not 'control freak', Jobs is a good business man and like with most good business men it's money that makes the world go around.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[CroPrastinator]

Killing the clones was not about greed -- it was about survival and common business sense (as well as satisfying shareholders). Apple originally hoped the clone business would complement its sales -- instead it cannabalized them.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

Well, it depends on where and how you define 'greed', the RIAA wanting to charge x for songs is also common business sense, now if Britney Spears living in a luxury mansion seems a little excessive for here talent then it's greed, if not then it's not greedy I suppose.

The balance of Apple greed vs RIAA greed lies somewhere between Jobs living in a luxury mansion and Britney living in a luxury mansion.

I would say 'greed' is having more than you require, I would expect that Jobs paypacket is more than anyone could spend (except maybe my girlfriend on shoes) so that makes him greedy in my books, the same goes for Britney.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs' annual salary is $1. Most people can spend that much.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant before all the tax dodging not afterwards.

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[The Lynxpro]

"I'd like choice too but I'm not siding with Real on this one., nore am IK, I'm, siding against Apple from more-or-less forcing vendor lockin. (I know that there are OGG and MP3's available from a few vendors, but the ones that advertise: the ones that Joe Sixpack will use all come +DRM)"

I'll say one thing. If a vendor locks me into something, I'd rather it be Apple than Microsoft. :)

Re:RIAA too greedy?

[oliverthered]

Hmm.. I not so sure, Apple vendor lockings seem to be a lot tighter than Microsofts (Microsoft already has judgements against them because of vendor lockins that require them to release protocol and API details)

Okay! Let's countdown...

[Pig Hogger]

Let's countdown until the day Apple gets legislated out of existence...

Macslash

[Anonymous Coward]

This item belongs to macslash, the source of Zonk news.

what's wrong with you Zonk??? are you in apple payroll?

I remember when...

[viewtouch]

I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to listen to music.

Re:I remember when...

[goldspider]

Oh please! Only on Slashdot is thoughtless hyperbole considered "insightful".

Re:I remember when...

[GungaDan]

best post/sig-line combination EVER. ;-)

Re:I remember when...

[Neil Blender]

I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to listen to music.

Yeah, often referred to as "the time before p2p was invented and you had to buy music from a store."

Re:I remember when...

[Daniel_Staal]

What? It's not a crime now to listen to music...

Hey, wait a minute! That boombox you are playing, do you have broadcast rights to those songs? Remember, the artist[1] has a right to be paid for every ear that can hear their music!

That player also doesn't appear to be officially recognized as a SafePlay(TM) device (probablly why it is letting you broadcast on unlicenced speakers). Which means you must have broken the DRM on that music! That's a DMCA violation!

Do you have a recipt for that boombox even? Well, can you prove you got it before the 'Protect Our Media Act' was passed? If not, you are obviously in violation of that act as well: any device sold or produced must protect the artist's[1] wishes on how their music can be used.

It looks like you'll be going to jail for a looong time.

But remember: It is not a crime to listen to music, at least not when you listen to it legally. And the best way to do that is to get our new MusicInYourHead(TM) audio-brain interface: The way the music was meant to be heard.

[1] The term 'artist' may refer to the person who wrote the music, who performed the music, their agents and/or their assigns, including the enforcement arm of the RIAA. RIAA: Music coming to YOU!

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

I remember when you didn't have to buy music from a store.

Some of us here are much, much older than the rest of you are. That's kind of a hard concept for some (not you, necessarily) here to get their heads around.

Re:I remember when...

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh...

Who's saying it's a crime to listen to music? How has it become a crime? What mystical era are you referring to that has somehow changed from today with regards to the non-crime of listening to music? What about this article has anything to do with the criminality and non-criminality of listening to music?

Listening to music isn't a crime. Pirating music is, sure, but that's the copyright system, which also protects GPL code. Sorry, but full-on communism/socialism has never worked.

Basically, I'm just confused about what your post is even referring to and why it's "insightful."

Re:I remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when we didn't have to discern whether we were listening to music legally. We would take our records to the school gym and dance for hours. Simple as that. Nobody accused us of stealing or of being pirates.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

I remember when we would make a tape recording of radio broadcasts and pirating wasn't something anybody talked about. Nobody was talking about GPL (which was a few decades in the future, or about copyrights that would last virtually forever. What people talked about was - oh, wait a minute - you are too busy pretending you know what we talked about to actually care. Never mind.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

My thinking fondly, in public, about the way life used to be is a real pain in the ass for you to deal with, isn't it? Gosh, you are one judgemental, condescending asshole, the way I see it. I guess you would understand what is hyperbole and what is thoughtless, though, intellectual giant that you see yourself as.

Re:I remember when...

[Neil Blender]

I remember when you didn't have to buy music from a store.

Well, I'm 34 and have been on the internet in some form or another since the early 80s. Copyright laws aren't new and I assume you are talking about taping to cassette. If, back in the seventies and eighties, you massed copied albums to tape and gave them away for free, you'd be breaking the law just the same. Even taping your friend's copy was copyright issue at the time. Other than that, I am not sure what you are talking about when you say you remember a time when you didn't have to buy music from a store.

Re:I remember when...

[drsquare]

I'm afraid that copyright law precedes the invention of recorded music.

But who am I to get in the way of you playing the victim because you're too poor to pay 99c for a luxury item (music).

A hint for the moderator who made 'viewtouch' +2 insightful: when 'viewtouch' was born, copyright law was in force. If he/she has made a copy of some music without the permission of the copyright holder at any time in his life, it would have been illegal. Therefore, 'viewtouch' is lying, he never remembered such a time because such a time never existed in his lifetime.

But who am I to spoil the party? Mod him up to +5 for playing the 'feel good' card, and mod me down for pointing out reality. We have to maintain the RDF, even at the expense of reason and fact.

Re:I remember when...

[goldspider]

If I want to listen to music, I can:

1. Turn on the radio.
2. Go to a local bar.
3. Go to a concert.
4. Buy a CD, new or used.
5. Buy an individual song from iTunes etc.

None of the above are illegal, so please rationalize your original post. Unless, of course, you meant to say "I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to violate a copyright."

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

Copyright laws are indeed new. There have been numerous extensions to them. Copyrights were originally created to last for 14 years and belonged to individuals. Now they last virtually forever and belong to corporations. That's new. And - News Flash! - that's what this is all about.

Your assumption is wrong. I'm talking about reel to reel tape recorders that were available in the 50's, and about recordings of all kinds of audio arts that were broadcast.

If you're only 34 you have just arrived recently. I am from an era when we would pass around sheet music. That would be a crime today. You should try to imagine how far down the rabbit hole the corporations have taken us and are intent on taking us. You need to consider if you are not already in Wonderland.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

All those strawmen - and I'm supposed to knock them all down for you? I don't think so.

Re:I remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, by all means, please do. I've been waiting all day for someone to shatter my misguided perception of reality.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

As I mentioned above, Copyright law has changed significantly. Copyright law as it was first defined in the US no longer exists. It has been replaced by other laws which little resemble it except in name.

The reason I'm not lying is because the laws used to be different than they are now. The laws of the future are going to be different than they are now, too. You might think about that instead of getting all pissy about a moderator's click or about the fact that laws change and you would like to think of them as never-changing.

I have purchased tens of thousands of tunes over the decades. Why should I have to pay for them again and again every time the media changes?

It's too fucking, bad, really, that you are pissed at the moderator. You need to learn to deal with the fact that life is not fair the way you would like it to be fair. There was life before you and I got here, and there will be after we're gone. I probably have several decades of a head start on you and I'll be damned if I'm going to let you blame me for that.

Re:I remember when...

[Rahga]

" I remember when it didn't used to be a crime to listen to music."

Just because you didn't hear about ASCAP prior to the internet, it doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Re:I remember when...

[spectecjr]

I have purchased tens of thousands of tunes over the decades. Why should I have to pay for them again and again every time the media changes?

That's a completely different argument to the one you've been making so far in this thread. You're wrong on the copyright side of things - you're right on this one.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

You're not the corporate exec who wrote those letters to the girl scouts, boy scouts and camfire organizations telling them that they could legally sing songs like America The Beautiful and Happy Birthday at the campfire if each local council would just send $600 to the corporations holding the copyrights, are you?

If your logic were followed the Funk Brothers (to whom ASCAP paid NOTHING) wouldn't have been able to even go to the Detroit jazz clubs evenings and play together without being guilty of failing to pay ASCAP for the right to play the music that they themselves had created. Honestly, reality is not that neat, tidy box of chocolates that you would have us believe it is.

Re:I remember when...

[CrazyTalk]

There was plenty of p2p back in the 70s and 80s - it was called making tapes of your friends LPs, and taping off of the radio. I did it all the time (and still spent plenty of cash actually purchasing music). Same story, different era.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

The issues and discussions are inseparable. When corporations make the laws under which peoples' rights are taken from them, and prescribe the penalties which apply, then it gets all messy beyond comprehension. That's the first thing that I object to. It isn't even just about music, of course. It's ultimately about the quality of life itself. This is just one of the more illustrative sideshows.

Re:I remember when...

[Rahga]

No... The customer, in this case, the bars bar are the ones that need a license.

You completely missed my point though... I'm certainly not fond of ASCAP, but bars (and hotels and airport terminals and dentist offices) have been paying those fees for year, and yes it was illegal to play music in public without it.

Re:I remember when...

[Locke2005]

Uh, sneaking into a concert without buying a ticket has always been a crime...

Re:I remember when...

[Overly Critical Guy]

What does piracy have to do with listening to music? You said listening to music was a crime. It doesn't matter if you made tape recordings of radio broadcasts way back when. Making a little cassette copy is way, way different from connecting to the millions on the Internet where a single file is instantly distributed to 250,000 people in a matter of hours. But that difference is conveniently ignored by pro-pirate people who just want shit for free without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

Due to your lack of a counterargument, your only resort is to dismiss me as not knowing what I'm talking about, without offering any evidence, proof, or backup. Which means your position is completely lame and weak.

Re:I remember when...

[viewtouch]

Indeed, what does piracy have to do with listening to music? It used to have nothing to do with it. What it has to do with it today is - everything.

I said that I can remember when listening to music was not a crime. We never used to think about whether the concept of criminality applied to listening to music, or playing music, or singing. Today we have to consider whether criminality is a part of these things because the laws have been dramatically extended to encompass this.

If I entertained my friends in 1948 by emulating a Jack Benny Routine that I heard on the radio (without anybody's permission!), was I doing something illegal or something I should have paid somebody in California for? The idea was preposterous. Nobody had a reason to even imagine it. Today, however, it's against all kinds of laws. Something has changed, and it hasn't been for the better. The laws used to allow me to do that. If they don't do that now then who is served by that? It isn't the people, those whom you call freeloaders. People just want to enjoy their heritage of arts without a few corporations constantly collecting admission at the gate over and over again. I'm not dismissing you. I'm dismissing your assertion that there's a difference between an old man making a tape recording in 1955 and a bunch of 8-year-olds singing happy birthday to a playmate in 2005. There's no difference except in the minds of someone who sees corporations and the laws they pay our lawmakers to pass which restrict our rights to make music and arts a part of our daily lives.
What makes me uncomfortable here is the comfort you take in describing pretty much everybody who uses technology to enjoy the arts as a bunch of freeloaders. It's people with such an attitude who write these crazy laws which benefit corporations at the expense of the people of the world.

Re:I remember when...

[Overly Critical Guy]

said that I can remember when listening to music was not a crime. We never used to think about whether the concept of criminality applied to listening to music, or playing music, or singing. Today we have to consider whether criminality is a part of these things because the laws have been dramatically extended to encompass this.


That's because when you were listening to music back then, you weren't connecting to vast P2P networks where files could be transmitted to 250,000 people in one night. Again, you ignore this difference between a cassette mix tape passed to a couple of friends and actively distributing a .RAR file across multiple networks to hundreds of thousands of people instantly.

Your argument appears to be, "I didn't have to think about it back then, so that somehow means something now." Still not gonna fly, kid.

Re:I remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fucking moron that bought a 4 digit Slashdot UID on eBay, it appears... nice.

Re:I remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I should apologize for the 3 digit serial number on my Apple ][, too. The idea that some people were around before it became a party really cranks your wank, doesn't it?

WTF!?!

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Job's original vision of 99 cents a song and $9.99 for an album didn't last long, with the price of albums spreading out to $11.99 and $14.99 in some instances

Ok. First of all, I don't know exactly what they're talking about - online or Pressed CDS. But, selling a song for $.99 or $9.99 an album WITHOUT HAVING TO PRESS A CD, MAKE COVER ART, have a jewel case, and truck it to the stores, is pretty steep. I was part of a survey a couple of years ago asking "how much would you pay to download a song?" I answered, "$.25" Asked why, I answered, "Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties. Excluding the royalties (which are a constant), bandwidth is MUCH cheaper than jewel cases, CD, physical distribution costs (trucking of the CDs, etc...) and the artwork."

In short, I think Jobs is right on the money here.

Re:WTF!?!

[soft_guy]

The music companies aren't even paying for the bandwidth! Or paying to administer ITMS! The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them.

Re:WTF!?!

[spadefoot]

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I use http://emusic.com/. The albums are all indie label, the songs cost a little over $.25 each (if you buy the higher sub)and are in high-bit-rate, non-DRM'd .mp3 format. I've complained to my friends and co-workers for years that $.99 a song is a rip-off, not a "Good Deal". I buy all my music from Emusic now, and couldn't be happier with it.

Re:WTF!?!

[bgfay]

"In short, I think Jobs is right on the money here."

On the money? Oh, how true.

There was a great signature I saw once that went something like this: "Information wants to be $7.99" (or some other figure like that. At least I thought it was funny.

Re:WTF!?!

[shmlco]

Yeah, that half-a-million or so they ponied up to get a hot artist to sign with them probably isn't a cost...

And why a quarter? You can't even use a pay phone for a quarter these days, and their "cost" is just some electricity. (Well, and the phone. And the lines. And the switches. And the towers. And the maintainence. And the...)

Heck, a quarter probably doesn't even pay the credit card transaction fee.

Re:WTF!?!

[drsquare]

So what you're saying is, if you don't like the price of something, it's ok to just break the law and take it for free?

I believe in behaving in a more civilised manner: if you don't like the price of something, take your business elsewhere. I for one am mature enough to respect copyright law, and if the music industry is overpricing its product, I simply don't buy it. I don't pirate it either, because I'm above that, I just go without. It is a luxury after all.

Re:WTF!?!

[bleckywelcky]

Why don't people just stop listening to music sanctioned by the RIAA? There are plenty of music sites out there that offer songs much cheaper. I did a free trial at emusic.com and the selection of Alt/Rock/Indie/Etc is pretty good, but I don't think any of it is under the umbrella of the RIAA. And their normal rate is something like $10 per month with a limit of 40 downloads per month, only $0.25 per song (if you download more, I think they have other pricing tiers that give you an even better deal). I haven't listened to music from RIAA labels in years other than on the radio. And the radio just keeps playing the same shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over again so that you get sick of it extremely fast. In fact, my favorite radio segment is when a local station spends a few hours one night featuring local upcoming bands. I'm guessing most of them haven't signed deals yet. But their music is so refreshing and new. Hopefully they can find a way to publish their music before the RIAA sucks them up and bastardizes them. People just need to cut the RIAA off cold-turkey style.

Re:WTF!?!

[the_rev_matt]

That's all well and good, but the physical media and physical transportation are the smallest part of a cd's price (except for the artist's cut, which is pathetic). The record companies are thinking "Hell, the blank cd, jewel case, 20 page booklet, shrink wrap, shipping and handling all only come to about a buck a unit. We sell CDs new in stores for $17.99, so on iTunes they should be $16.99."

You can't fault their logic. You can argue that their physical cd prices are insane (which they are) but based on the price of them now, it is entirely reasonable for the execs to think that knocking a dollar off is fair.

Re:WTF!?!

[tqbf]

Just like in the movies (read Edward Epstein's excellent Hollywood Economist column in Slate), the expense involved in bringing music to market has almost nothing to do with the physical media; it's marketing and promotion. Complain all you want that the marketing machine we have now produces Britney and boy-bands; the labels spend money like this because it produces a predictable return on their investment. They're going to make business decisions going forward based on that fact, not based on Jobs' iTMS cost structure.

The interesting conversation is how iTMS alters promotion costs. How much of the promotion budget for Universal or Sony goes in to locking up the retail channel (shelf space at Best Buy, etc)? How much does it cost them to promote an album on the high-traffic iTMS front page?

On the other hand, since iTMS represents such a negligable chunk of the revenue of a music label now, it's probably a bit early to have that discussion.

Jobs knows this, which is why he's resorting to the (much less interesting) argument that iTMS reduces piracy. I don't think this is going to do much, because (a) no, it really doesn't --- people pirate music to get it for free, not to get it more conveniently, and (b) piracy doesn't REALLY cost the industry that much money.

Obviously, the song/album price changes under debate right now have everything to do with labels maximizing their returns; they want to jack up prices because they can. So, apropos this Slashdot story, my point is, nobody cares that iTMS lowers costs for the publishers: it's only reducing 2-3% of those costs.

Re:WTF!?!

[mrjatsun]

Or maybe the biggest problem is loosing control of music distribution. If they can't control the music distribution, why wouldn't artist slowly migrate to publishing their own music through itunes and cutting out the record labels?

Re:WTF!?!

[rjstanford]

Jobs knows this, which is why he's resorting to the (much less interesting) argument that iTMS reduces piracy. I don't think this is going to do much, because (a) no, it really doesn't --- people pirate music to get it for free, not to get it more conveniently, and (b) piracy doesn't REALLY cost the industry that much money.

Weeeel, yes and no. People used to pirate for three reasons: its cool, its cheap, and its convenient. iTMS removed the third of those reasons, and significantly lessened the first.

Re:WTF!?!

[harlows_monkeys]

The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them

Someone (I think it was Dvorak) on the "This Week in Tech" podcast a couple weeks or so ago talked about the real problem the music companies have with iTMS. It's that it provides numbers that aren't under their control.

You can look at the charts on iTMS and see what is popular and what s not, and this is independent of the numbers the music companies release--and doesn't always match. The music companies like to fiddle with the numbers, for assorted shady reasons, and iTMS is making that harder. You can't tell a band that their album tanked and didn't even make enough to cover the advance when it has been sitting in the top 5 on iTMS for a month.

Interesting theory.

Re:WTF!?!

[poot_rootbeer]

The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them.

I'm pretty sure they have an autopen machine that does the signing for them.

Re:WTF!?!

[Elshar]

I think someone's already mentioned how much web apps can cost to build, but do you have any idea what it takes to build a storage system to actually HOLD those mp3's?

Companies don't just go out and buy the lastest whiz-bang commodity 500G ultragib storageplus sata drive or something. To hold thousands to hundreds of thousands of mp3's in such a way that there's no single point of failure costs alot of money. You're talking hugeass raid arrays. Redundant power supplies. Power backups. Backup power backups. Backup servers. That costs hugeass amounts of money.

Then you have the expenditure of maintaining it, keeping it up to date, etc. Technology isn't static. Failed hardware doesn't replace itself. Redundancy drives the total price up.

In short: Throwing up some amateur site running on a LAMP setup admin'd by almost clueless people running cheap, 4 year old commodity hardware is fine. When you start charging people for it, you BETTER be able to guarantee it stays up, or be prepared to face the full wrath of scorned customers. (People downloading music AND the artists putting the music up)

That said, I think $0.25 isn't that bad. I think if you modeled it correctly, you could make a ton of money off it. You'd have to crunch the numbers, though. Remember, iTunes actually started out as a way to push iPod and other Apple product sales. So their numbers aren't necessarily for self-sufficiency of the iTMS itself, although its likely they are by now.

Re:WTF!?!

[FreshFunk510]

I'm guessing you don't know much about the music industry. Well, neither do I, but I DO know that a large part of their costs go towards marketing. That's their one major cost: ads, paying radio stations, tv, mtv, events, posters,.. building buzz. Why else do you think bad musical artists are so popular (boy bands, britney spears, etc etc etc) ??

Re:WTF!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I answered, "$.25" Asked why, I answered, "Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties.

That's... great and all, but why do you care how much it costs a company to produce the good you're buying? The only time producers' costs are relevant is as a shorthand means of determining whether the seller is charging "too high" a price, where "too high" means higher than you could get elsewhere. But you CAN'T get the music elsewhere; that's what intellectual property is all about.

The questioners were interested in how much music is worth to you, but instead you gave them some answer involving the costs of producing music -- if they wanted to know that, they could have simply looked it up.

Re:WTF!?!

[rabel]

I can just see Steve Jobs writing checks to the record companies... one check for each iTunes song sold:

Steve: Pay to the order of Mr. Andrew Lack, one dollar and nine cents! Pay to the order of Iron Balls McGinty, one dollar and nine cents!

(Laurene walks in) Why are you crying and why are you wearing that old dress?

Laurene: Because I just heard a song on the radio that reminded me of the way we were.

Steve: What was it?

Laurene: The Way We Were. I get it. We've hit bottom.

Re:WTF!?!

[10Ghz]

$.99 is a good deal if

a) it's the music you actually want to listen
and
b) it's the cheapest price there is

Really, $.99 is not much. It really isn't. You get something that can bring you joy for years to come, works very well and is very convenient. Hell, when I buy a piece of candy, it costs over $.99 and it give me maybe 5 minutes of joy. But still we have people complaining that "$.99 is way too much for years of entertainment!"

no, $.25 is not a "good deal", if the music they offer is something I'm not interested in. It could be $.02, and it would still not be a good deal. If you claim that "$.99 is not a good deal", you are clearly mistaken. It's A LOT lower than it would cost elsewhere, so it IS a "good deal". Yes, $.25 is cheaper, but it's irrelevant if the music is not something they want to listen to. Pet rock is a lot cheaper than cat is, does that mean that it's a "good deal"? Maybe if you want a pet rock instead of a cat. But most people want a cat, so it doesn't matter how cheap the damn rock is.

Re:WTF!?!

[MacGod]

The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them.

Don't feel bad for them, they've got direct-deposit now!

Maybe naive

[1nhuman]

But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?

Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.

The online shop (iTunes for instance) could take care of the marketing as well.

Re:Maybe naive

[Doc Ri]

Maybe naive

Maybe a little. Depending on the style of music and their training, the artists might need some quite expensive equipment and trained personnel to come up with a production that you actually would enjoy listening to.

That does not mean your point is entirely wrong. But you might want to insert a producer in the production chain.

Re:Maybe naive

[Viper Daimao]

I feel compelled to mention Magnatune.

We call it "try before you buy." It's the shareware model applied to music. Listen to 418 complete MP3 albums we've picked (not 30 second snippets). We let the music sell itself, because we think that's the best way to get you excited by it. Our selection is intentionally small: we never waste your time with mediocre music. If you like what you hear, download an album for as little as $5 (you pick the price), or buy a real CD, or license our music for commercial use. Artists keep half of every purchase. And unlike most record labels, our artists keep all the rights to their music. No major label connections and no venture capital. We are not evil.

Re:Maybe naive

[Overly Critical Guy]

Once Apple resolves its issue with the Apple record label, expect to see artists clamoring to sign up. Jobs is already their best friend; he has lunch dates with Yo-Yo Ma, for pete's sake!

Re:Maybe naive

[blackmonday]

You're right on the money. But there's a problem the bands will face, a problem record companies are good at solving - How do you let people know that you exist?

My band has a $3 CD, download only, on our web site. We sell quite a few, but I'm not quitting my day job anytime soon. We're not on a major label, so only a very few people will get to know about us, through lice shows, web site, myspace, etc.

Korn just signed a new agreement with their record label. The label gets a cut of EVERYTHING now, including merchandise and tour proceeds. It seems that nowadays the labels are making their last stand as they wither away.

Eventually all your music will be purchased online, and most likely through Apple. Like today, only a few bands will make money selling their music. The cream of the crop will rake in the dough, and the smaller bands will fight to get noticed by tooth and nail. Guess what? Nothing will change all that much, except the barriers to mass consumption will be lowered to a simple upload.

Re:Maybe naive

[Turd Rippleton]

But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?

Actually both the artist AND the consumer need "the music industry" at this time (until the industry changes). The music industry is arguably the largest marketing and distribution machine in the world. Without that the artist(s) will not have the same exposure as they do today. Yes they have the internet, but many people don't go on the internet to hear music that they have never heard before (some do but many don't). Typically they hear a song on the radio or see it on the TV or steaming video... that's all thanks to the music industry.

As you said, if Apple were to take care of the marketing that might be a step in the right direction. A perfect example of this is Walmart and Starbucks. Walmart signed a contract with Garth Brooks allowing them exclusive rights to sell his latest album (and probably more). Starbucks did the same with Alanis Morrisett. In my opinion, it is a brilliant business decision considering they have arguably as much 'reach' as the music industry. The feel-good result of this is that the music industry are probably shitting their pants (that's a lot of lost revenue for them).

So if the 'middle-man' is to be cut out, international businesses will have to step up and take over the marketing and distribution. I find it very hard to believe that an artist who hasn't had any exposure could do it on their own.

Re:Maybe naive

[Anonymous Coward]

[[How do you let people know that you exist? ]]

If you're good, if you have actual talent, people will find out.

I think what could go away, along with the record companies, is instant stardom. No record companies with manufactured bands and media blitzes means better artists looking to make a name for themselves.

If the record companies go away, everyone from God down to protozoa wins. And win big.

Re:Maybe naive

[TheRaven64]

Integration with iTunes gives Apple a very good mechanism for doing this. You rate your music. These ratings are, if you opt in[1], uploaded to the iTunes server and compared with those of other people. If you like a particular set of music then you are recommended music that other people who have similar tastes to you also like. You are also recommended music by new artists who have similar tastes to your own.

[1] to a system which doesn't yet exist.

Re:Maybe naive

[psylew]

I was also going to point out http://www.magnatune.com/. It's one of the best sites I've seen for music purchase. 50% of the money goes to the artists, they get to keep their rights to their creations, and the music distributed through their site is chosen for its quality. It's everything I could want in a music store.

I think the record company would do well to mimic these guys... but then of course, they'd have to play nice.

Re:Maybe naive

[16K Ram Pack]

I'll partly backup what the AC said. How did I first hear about Nirvana or Joy Division? From a multi-million dollar marketing blitz? No, from friends. Who heard it from friends.

You can see it all the time with movies. Something comes out of nowhere (like The Usual Suspects) and over time builds up a fan base.

Talented bands don't need record companies much, or certainly they don't need giant size media groups. They need a good manager and a good producer (or maybe even do both themselves).

What do I think might be the future? Much more of bands selling directly and being promoted by iTunes.

Re:Maybe naive

[mrgreen4242]

Korn just signed a new agreement with their record label. The label gets a cut of EVERYTHING now, including merchandise and tour proceeds. It seems that nowadays the labels are making their last stand as they wither away. Well, that was stupid of them. A band like Korn is well known enough that they could actually make money selling records direct from the web and touring. Probably as much as they are making with the label or more; plus they get complete control and ownership of EVERYTHING.

Re:Maybe naive

[blackmonday]

Korn is from Bakersfield, CA. They were signed to a major label and became world famous. How would Korn have become world fanous without a record label? Its a legit question, especially considering their hometown, not exactly Hollywood or Austin. It's a very limited audience for live shows.

Re:Maybe naive

[MemeRot]

...through lice shows

Ahem. You may want to change your venues. I'm sure your lice are quite fascinating to you, but I have no interest in them.

Re:Maybe naive

[milimetric]

not only would that cause me and a million other people to buy the music from iTunes and to purchase more iPods but it would bring the cost down causing more people to buy more iPods and music.

That would be awesome, the problem being that the music industry is riding their artist pony to the grave because they all signed contracts for rights on their songs and how they are distributed. The music industry retains control until brave (and popular) artists say FUCK YOU to the music industry and start releasing their stuff solo.

If you're out there, listen to me: I'll buy your songs if you're good and you're releasing them on the internet for around 33 cents a track. Mr. Jobs, if you're reading this, you should change iTunes to have an "indy" section where people can sell their songs online without going through the music industry. Then you can charge whatever the artists want for those songs. Remember what Beethoven said:

"I think there is need for only one large art warehouse where all the artists of the world can drag their art to and leave with what they need."

Re:Maybe naive

[DennisZeMenace]

I completely agree with this, and that's where i hope we're headed.

The problem seems to be the lack of a "market place": how do you connect the "music producers" (the musicians and bands) with the "music consumers" ? There are way too many bands out there to listen to them all and pick the ones you like. Basically, somebody has to do the work for you. In the old days, those people were often radio DJs. You picked a radio station that you liked and would follow the recommendation of that particular DJ (because you were attracted to that radio in the first place and therefore enjoyed that music style). This system no longer works now, because the DJs are controlled by monopolies (ClearChannel, the Big 4, etc...) who have an iron grip over all distribution channels.

We need some sort of system where the DJs of old are replaced by online market places: online shops, online radios. A fan of metal music for example would be attracted to metal-specialized online music shops and use them to discover and buy new music.

$0.05
DZM

Re:Maybe naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, most bands cannot afford decent equipment and don't have the technical ability to master an album well. There's exceptions, but for most artists their job is to write and perform music, not know how to record it. When I was dj at my college radio station we had stacks of cd's recorded in home studios, and the quality was so bad as to make the album unlistenable (which is a shame since the music itself was often good).

So yeah, point well taken, but it's not quite so simple, not if we want decent sound quality on a regular basis (which is important to me, music being sound and all....)

Re:Maybe naive

[Anonymous Coward]

>Maybe a little. Depending on the style of music and their training, the artists might need some quite expensive equipment and trained personnel to come up with a production that you actually would enjoy listening to.

???

Major labels aren't the only option for a production chain. Groups can always build (hire/contract) their own production chains. The costs won't be much different, but burden of payment will be. It simply means groups that are well-run enough to not need babysitting will be the ones to find the capitol and funding needed to exist. Business-like groups will do well in a non-RIAA environment.

Groups will have to act more like contracting businesses--outsourcing the recording/live mix part. There are many mixing artists with studios ready for groups. (These are the same people often used to create demos that are sent to the big labels.)

What do the big labels do (outside of strong marketing)? They do bring together incomplete groups and let them form complete products. (I.e., the labels can bring together the closet lyricist, the basement song writer, and the performers.) Artists who can *gasp* write (or form a group that can write) lyrics, music, and have gone through the training needed to perform--have you ever seen TV specials of recording sessions and noticed how the coaches iron out basic errors in pitch or rhythm during the recording--would benefit from a more direct sales opportunity. (Of course, maybe people want to hear singers and dancers sing before they are ready to perform for the masses. But, quite a few don't flock to some of the most trained and prepared musicians--notably many classical musicians.)

What happened with classical music that the labels don't want to record often? Many chamber groups (the equivalent of a pop group) set themselves up as small businesses--with (usually outsourced) management, outsourcing (of recording, distribution, and marketing), and even trademarks. The shift is simply from giving a label power and responsibility to giving each group power and responsibility. Even larger, signed orchestras in-house, use non-(recording) label marketing departments, management structures (and sometimes, but rarely, sound engineers).

Re:Maybe naive

[kingj02]

I pretty much agree, but I think the marketing would still cause problems. The online shop won't do the marketing for free. So do they set the price low enough that the average person can afford to get there music heard--with the side effect being that the market gets flooded with crap. Or do they make it so high that you end up need someone with money to cherry pick the good stuff--side effect being that the one with the money (record label) will start pumping out flavor-of-the-week's again.

I think a self-adjusting system would be best; something based on votes or downloads. Of course as I write this I see a problem, a great band from Podunk, Mississippi will have a smaller audiance than the mediocre band from L.A., thus less votes and they go unheard.

Re:Maybe naive

[cpeterso]

Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.

1999 called and it wants its business plan back.

Re:Maybe naive

[kingj02]

A fan of metal music for example would be attracted to metal-specialized online music shops and use them to discover and buy new music.

Well, just sorting by genre at least. I already do that on purevolume and myspace. I pick the genre and the state and go. I've ordered CDs from a few 'garage' bands that I just found by chance. What they need next is a way to mod up the good bands.

Re:Maybe naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps 'No Marketing at all'!

Simply tag songs previewed/dl'd/etc music by users, to similar genres/groups/tracks they listen to.

The people USING the service become the marketing machine.

Its the same principle on Amazon w/ books. "Interested in this book, other users also viewed these titles ...."

It is an EXTREMELY simple concept.

BONUS: You don't spend any money on DIRECT MARKETING!!!! IMAGINE THE SAVINGS!!!!!!! ESPECIALLY FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY!!!

Re:Maybe naive

[Barlo_Mung_42]

And its joke format too.

Re:Maybe naive

[Doc Ri]

I could not agree more. The last thing I intended to suggest was that only big labels can do the job.

I merely wanted to point out that there are some important issues some artist are not prepared to cope with themselves. I fully agree with your analysis. Next time I will try to be more clear or include an appropriate disclaimer.

Re:Maybe naive

[Anonymous Coward]

me too!!

Re:Maybe naive

[dave1212]

They just completed their contract that got them to where they are today. That contract is finished. If they had more sense, they would have looked at other options leading to better things (more of a cut, possibly still owning publishing rights, etc.)

I am a fan, but sorely disappointed to see them waste this opportunity. Fear Factory did the smart thing when their contract was up, they signed with an indie, and still have the distribution they did before, since the indie label has distribution deals with BMI. However, they will now own the publishing rights to their music and be able to make a bigger cut. (I can only assume, since Burton Bell always complained about Roadrunner) ..and any band who doesn't leave their hometown to play shows really doesn't deserve to make it.

Re:Maybe naive

[dwightk]

what about marketing... someone has to pay for that... and without marketing we don't know what we are supposed to like.

Monopolistic practices...

[infiniter]

I buy a lot of music from iTunes... I have an iPod, and the price is fair. Raising the price would, in my mind, make it unfairly high.

It seems logical to me to think that if a retailer wishes to sell songs for a dollar, that's their right. What is forcing a retailer to raise prices, if not price fixing?

The music industry needs to be thoroughly investigated. Everything they do lately smacks of anti-trust behavior.

Re:Monopolistic practices...

[General Alcazar]

Yes. I do not understand how it is legal for a trade association to set prices. Isn't this the definition of an illegal trust?

Shouldn't Apple be able to deal directly with individual record labels and get them to compete on prices?

De-legitimization

[rsborg]

It's clear that the RIAA doesn't want Apple/iTMS to be dominant... and to be able to squeeze every last penny from their victims^Wcustomers. How best to get both of these to happen? Glad you asked:

1. Reduce popularity of iTunes w/r/t the othery crufty online music stores
2. Make licensing complex so that profits can be maximized (ie, now you can pay $X for a limited-license piece of music, or $X+Y for the same song, "full rights enabled")... note these are the same tricks used by software industry giants (MSFT, ORCL, etc).

Obviously, the best way to acheive both of these is to apply monopoly/cartel power against Apple, and see if you can topple/suppress the king of the hill. RIAA's wet dream: all your online music licensed like Yahoo's model (bonus: subscription price increases every year, once there are no viable alternatives!)

Mirror with $-sign and quoted punctuation fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs calls music industry greedy

9/20/2005 9:50:50 AM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher

The runaway success of online music ventures such as the iTunes Music Stores have left many wondering how the music industry would react. As I reported back in April of 2004, music executives have seen the success of the stores, and are rubbing their hands together with glee. Job's original vision of 99 cents a song and 9.99$ for an album didn't last long, with the price of albums spreading out to 11.99$ and 14.99$ in some instances. Then, late last month Infinite Loop covered the impending storm: music industry types have started pointing their fingers at Jobs, alleging that he's only in it for himself, and that his expectations are essentially irrational. Jobs has fired back:

        "If they want to raise the prices, it means that they are getting greedy", said Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs. "If the price goes up, they (consumers) will go back to piracy and everybody loses". He added, "Theft is bad", and the Buddhist joked that "You dont want to burn in Hell".

It may not seem like it, but it has been more than two years since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and that alone has the music industry brimming with hopes for price-adjustments. They also don't buy Jobs' argument that a price increase will result in more piracy, but probably not for the reasons we might assume.

I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be. The "losses" tossed about are undeniably trumped up in the service of political aims (P2P war, the DMCA, etc.), and the industry isn't losing money to casual piracy, but organized crime--crime, notably, that generates black market profits off of consumers buying knock-offs. The executives sitting at the big table intimately know their own bottom lines, they know how much they exaggerate their loses, and they know how utterly sweet it is to charge 10$ for music sans physical production costs, only to turn around and expect 2$ for a phone ringtone to boot. I wish the music industry's problems were my problems. That's how good they have it, and almost everyone else knows it, too. This is, after all, the same industry found guilty of price fixing.

Jobs is right. They are greedy. But they don't fear casual piracy. Most people don't mind paying for music, and those that pirate it typically aren't buying much music, anyway. If the music industry is getting bullish on pricing, it's all the proof you need to see that they don't fear casual piracy. They've seen the online machine work, they've seen people drop 200$ or more for portable music players, and now they want--nay, expect--more.

Ars server problems

[Anonymous Coward]

They have been having some weird problems all morning. They are aware of the situation and working on it. It happened before this post though, just FYI.

Piracy Is A Big Problem....

[lordsony]

RIAA: Alert! At this time, we have no back-up excuse for the horrible sales rate of CD's... (The Cd's sales rate is of course in no way related to the blown-up wannabe-stars--because-i-got-to-be-in-american-ido l-even-though-i-can't-compose-sing-play-a-instrume nt-or-be-creative)

Re:Piracy Is A Big Problem....

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

A couple of years ago on MSNBC, there was a RIAA spokesman who said that they had numbers that proved that piracy is affecting their members' sales. Where do we get these "numbers" you ask? Got me. But here's a suggestion for a /. interview: An interview with a RIAA spokesperson. Also, have him show us their numbers and their study.

"Hey, what do with this golden goose?"

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

"What does it do?"

"It lays golden eggs."

"Do we own the goose?"

"No, but we get half the eggs as long as the goose uses our nest."

"We ain't got to do nuthin' and we still get half the eggs?"

"Yep."

"But we don't own the goose."

"Nope."

"I say we kill it!"

- Crow T. Trollbot

Re:"Hey, what do with this golden goose?"

[teutonic_leech]

ROTFL - I love that one - thanks :-)

higher price = better quality files?

[Vandil X]

While I disagree with any price-raising for iTunes tracks, if they do proceed to to raise the price, they should at least upgrade the file encoding from 128kbps to 192kbps or more.

There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[teutonic_leech]

Just look at the current spike in oil prices! Yes, I know that we are approaching peak production and such and that the days of cheap oil are over, but the current spike in gasoline prices is just a matter of pure greed...
The seller of a product will usually set the price of a product to a level that he thinks the market is able bear without turning to alternatives (theft, competition, abstinence, etc.). If the good ole' boys over at the RIAA think that $9.99 for a downloadable album is not enough (and trust me - they do!) then they'll explore every nook and cranny if they can get away with charging a few bucks more! Businesses have no sense of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil' - they produce a product and will try to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as possible. If the profits are less than expected than they will try to 'instill demand' (think advertising and other types of brainstorming) to somehow part Joe Shmoe with part of his earnings.

At the end of the day, it's a voting game - they rise the prices, we go back to piracy. Trust me, economic consequence is the only language they understand. Companies are by default pathological entities that have no compassion, vision (in most cases at least), remorse, or concience. It will squeeze you for all you got - that's why it is a commercial entity! The democratic mediator is the consumer and obviously most of the responses on this thread (it just started and I'm an early poster, but let me just guess ;-) will be against a price hike. If nothing else the RIAA is looking in the wrong direction - as competition brews I believe that these prices should come down, not go up. After all, there is no physical media involved and selling bags of bites is a great business to be in...

Re:There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[shmlco]

Sorry, but I consider a buck a song to be a fair price. I thought the $250 I paid for my pod to be a fair price for the value received, otherwise I wouldn't have bought the silly thing.

Too many people think "fair" is somehow either free or at or below cost.

Re:There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[Rahga]

"Just look at the current spike in oil prices! Yes, I know that we are approaching peak production and such and that the days of cheap oil are over, but the current spike in gasoline prices is just a matter of pure greed..."

The problem with that statement is that worldwide oil production continues to grow... Global growth in demand has far outstripped growth in supply, and scarcity leads to higher prices. Oil companies may be greedy, but you don't HAVE to pay $3 / gallon. Just don't drive.

The music companies are NOT SQUEEZING ANYBODY. If they raise their prices to, say, $40 per CD, then (almost) nobody will buy them. They make the product, so they set the price, but there's always a choice. Either you pay that price, or you walk away.

The only ones with no conscience are pirates that illegally download copyrighted music from the web.

Re:There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[bleckywelcky]

The seller of a product will usually set the price of a product to a level that he thinks the market is able bear without turning to alternatives (theft, competition, abstinence, etc.).

Wait a minute. So you are saying that if condoms went up to $100/box, then you would stop having sex? Wow man, that is just crazzzzzy.

Re:There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[aeoo]

Businesses have no sense of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil' - they produce a product and will try to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as possible.

Do not anthropomorphize businesses. Anthropomorphization of businesses really is getting annoying. All business decisions are made by people. It is people who have no concept of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil'.

It is people who make decisions. Not business.

It is people who bear responsibility. Not business.

It is always the people and no one else -- ever.

Re:There is no such thing as a FAIR price...

[JohnsonWax]

Just look at the current spike in oil prices! Yes, I know that we are approaching peak production and such and that the days of cheap oil are over, but the current spike in gasoline prices is just a matter of pure greed...

That's crap. The problem is the weakening dollar combined with constrained supply. The feds are printing money hand over fist to keep this economy afloat and since most of our oil is imported but the money we pay with is declining in value, the amount of money demanded in return is increasing.

As strange as this is to say, we were in MUCH better shape when we had a Dem running the show.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

The problem I have is that all songs are the same price, which is fixed. Why not allow more variable pricing? I'm sure they can hire a few pricing gurus to figure out the price for each song to maximize profits, based upon numbers of units sold -- this will make them happy.

What's the advantage to consumers? Lower prices for less popular tracks -- although legacy or hard-to-find tracks might be more expensive.

If they set the pricing too high, the black market grabs a larger share.

Price-fixing is not the right way to operate this market, IMO.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[RandoFernando]

How is a track defined as "hard to find" if it's in iTMS? Hard to find means you can't find it in iTMS.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

How about a track that is hard to find elsewhere? If iTMS is the only place to find it, or the easiest place, they can charge more for it. iTMS doesn't exist in a vacuum, it still has to compete with outside sources.

Say I want to find a King Crimson B-side from 1976. I really, really want the track. It's on iTMS for $5.00. So I check other sources for a bit -- message boards, a call down to the record shop, a buddy who's into Prog rock. No dice? Then I pay iTMS the $5.00.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[nine-times]

Part of the reason for the simplified pricing scheme was a response to the reality of other music stores at the time iTMS opened. In many of those stores, you had different prices and different licensing schemes for different songs. You'd pay a monthly fee, and some songs were free to play with a subscription to the service, and some you could download. Some songs you could transfer to a portable player, but some you could only listen to while it was streaming (it didn't even allow a download). Some songs you could download, but they cost extra, in addition to the subscription. Keep in mind that all these different schemes would exist in the same store at the same time. Many stores tried to simplify this process, but the different licenses were insisted upon by the various record companies. It was maddening, and contributed to the failure of every online store leading up to iTunes.

So iTunes simplified that, and instituted a rule that all songs (with a few exceptions) would be treated the same. I don't know how Jobs got the various record companies to agree to 99cents a song, but it sure is better than what existed before. Along with everything else, it seems to keep record companies from jacking up the price on random songs. Really, if Apple did allow variable prices, what do you think would happen? 99 cents would become the base *minimum*, and song prices would range up from there.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

"Really, if Apple did allow variable prices, what do you think would happen? 99 cents would become the base *minimum*, and song prices would range up from there."

Only if the consumer was willing to pay that minimum. And if comapnies didn't use iTMS for promotion. What if I wanted to promote a certain artist, because they have a new album coming out? Maybe I'd drop the price. What if sales were really bad for a song, and I wanted to recoup as much as possible? I'd drop the price to wring some extra revenue from the song -- long-tail sales.

I am 100% positive that the minimum price would be below $0.99.

Or, here's an idea: Promote a song by offering the first 10,000 downloads free. Then raise the price to whatever you want.

The only problem, as I see it, is that consumers will b very unhappy if they buy a track for $2.00 one day, and it's listed for $1.00 then next.

"Many stores tried to simplify this process, but the different licenses were insisted upon by the various record companies."

There's the crux of your issue -- not price variability, but licensing difficulties. I'd bet the industry would be willing to adopt a standard format set by iTMS, since they have such a large market share.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Abstract_Me]

"hard to find tracks"

Like... Select * from tracks where title="" ?

they either have the track or they dont... unless your offering to pay a fee every tim they have to take a less purchased track out of the tape storage library.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[nine-times]

There also might be some issue of administrative costs for Apple; if all the songs have weird/variable prices, then someone has to enter that info, check it to make sure it's correct, etc. This also means more constant communication with record labels, which could increase staffing needs.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

I'll just copy my response to the same question asked an hour earlier by someone else (try reading the thread): "How about a track that is hard to find elsewhere? If iTMS is the only place to find it, or the easiest place, they can charge more for it. iTMS doesn't exist in a vacuum, it still has to compete with outside sources.
Say I want to find a King Crimson B-side from 1976. I really, really want the track. It's on iTMS for $5.00. So I check other sources for a bit -- message boards, a call down to the record shop, a buddy who's into Prog rock. No dice? Then I pay iTMS the $5.00. "

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

Apple could easily put the record labels in control of pricing, including implementation. Then they just take some off the top.

Flat fee per song to Apple, the rest to the record company.

Easy for Apple to track number of transactions.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[RandoFernando]

That's a flawed scenario. The fact that any track exists in iTMS suggests it CAN be found elsewhere; unless if it's an iTunes exclusive track, which I haven't seen too many obscure 30 year old B-sides as an iTunes exclusive tracks. iTMS sells what is available.

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a hell of a trick, considering KC was disbanded from part of '75 until the 80s.

King Crimson's 4'33"?

Re:Flat pricing on iTunes

[Red Flayer]

Not sure if any of the tracks are original, but KC (or Epitaph) did release a double-album in 1976: "A Young Person's Guide to King Crimson."

http://www.elephant-talk.com/discog/fripp/indexk.h tml

Prices need to go down not up

[DrXym]

99 cents for a track is hardly a bargain when to purchase a full CD costs you 75% - but without any of the rights that go along with owning a physical CD such as being to sell it on.

And of course for non-chart music, you could probably pick up the actual CD for less just by scouring eBay, zShops or even a sale in a regular bricks & mortar store.

Re:Prices need to go down not up

[Overly Critical Guy]

God, I said this when Apple first came out with the store. People won't be satisfied with 99 cents, they want it lower. Put it at 75 cents, they won't be satisfied and want it lower. 50 cents, still lower! You'll never be happy because you just don't want to have to pay for anything. Human nature.

Apple offers songs for free, and people would find some way to complain. "The bitrates aren't high enough!"

99 cents is plenty. There are albums on iTunes for $7.99, for crying out loud. As for passing on a CD, you can burn CDs from iTunes, you know.

Re:Prices need to go down not up

[ad0gg]

CD is pure uncompressed audio stream. Itunes isn't it. If your car supports mp3 cds, you'll have to burn it to cd then rip it back to mp3. Double encoding songs has a big effect on the quality of sound. If i had choice 9.99 for cd or itunes. I'd pick cd and then rip it to flac encoding thus having a uncompressed backup of my music which i encode into any format.

Re:Prices need to go down not up

[DrXym]

No, it's a case of 99 cents for an track or $9.99 for an album is nearly the same price as to buy a physical CD. I can buy a new CD from Amazon.com for $10.99 so by going iTMS I'm saving a massive .99 for which I sacrifice sound quality, restrict my rights to copy that music and obliterate any chance of legally selling that music on.

Meanwhile, the record company saves on replication, storage, shipping, distribution, returns, copy protection fees and more besides. It would not surprise me at all if they make more money off digital music since all their overheads are slashed.

The fact is that the price is already at the limit. Given the economies of scale and competitive pressure and the aforementioned loss of rights, that price should be a hell of a lot lower. I'm not talking allofmp3 low, but if the retailer, studio and (horror!) the artist can't make money out of 99c or less for a track then there is something horribly wrong with their business.

Maybe because..

[Anonymous Coward]

People are RTFA ?

He left out

[MECC]

"calling the music industry greedy"
Shitheads from the end of that sentence...

Re:Greed.

[sp3tt]

Why wait when there is BitTorrent?

this is bad

[humina]

I am going to argue that this is a bad thing. An industry that is controlled mostly by the RIAA will constantly try to control your music with DRM and increased prices. Apple didn't deal the RIAA a blow here. Apple merely bought some time until the RIAA will put pressure on them again. Since alternative distribution and licensing will only come when the music is priced at the levels that the RIAA likes, I think this is a blow to better music, better licensing, and better distribution systems. I said it and I meant it. I think music should be released under the creative commons. With the itms, all music will be licensed with the most restrictive terms possible.

I'll probably get modded as a troll for not saying "apple R0X0RZ", but whatever.

Re:this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll probably get modded as a troll for not saying "apple R0X0RZ", but whatever.
I'm modding you troll just because you said that.

Re:this is bad

[Widowwolf]

and now you cant mod him troll because you posted in this topic..now i am modding you off topic....doh!

Re:this is bad

[pinkocommie]

Disclaimer: I dont use Itunes But judging from the other comments they already embrace alternative/indie music. someone commenting that they've seen albums for $1. The way I see it if Apple consolidates the market they'll pwn the RIAA. Say 50% of all music distribution is through iTunes. RIAA doesnt wanna play fine? dont somehow doubt they'd be able to part with 50% of their revenue w/o some heartache? and eventually (yes idealistic) it'll give indies et. al more exposure to cut down on RIAA's dominance anyways. One can hope? :)

On a semi-related note...

[MarcoAtWork]

... why is it that so many songs are missing from iTunes? I recently ordered an iPod nano and so installed iTunes to prepare for its arrival: I was browsing the store to buy some songs I've always wanted but for some reason I wasn't able to find basically anything I wanted:

= Nothing by George Harrison
= Nothing by Queen
= Jamiroquai albums are mostly missing as well

what's up with that? yeah, Jamiroquai might be a little niche, but don't tell me that Queen and George Harrison are.

Re:On a semi-related note...

[argent]

Nothing by George Harrison

See "Apple Records vs. Apple Computer".

Re:On a semi-related note...

[timmerk15]

What?! Are you smoking crack? There are 6 or 7 Queen albums there. And they didn't just get there. I bought a few of their albums over a year and half ago. How did I find these Queen songs? Well, I typed in "Queen" into the search field, and there they were!

Re:On a semi-related note...

[MarcoAtWork]

What?! Are you smoking crack? There are 6 or 7 Queen albums there. And they didn't just get there. I bought a few of their albums over a year and half ago. How did I find these Queen songs? Well, I typed in "Queen" into the search field, and there they were!

hmmmmm, I wonder if iTunes Canada (which is what I'm using) has a different availability in this case.

Re:On a semi-related note...

[timmerk15]

Ah, that must be it. I just searched for "Jamiroquai" and found a bunch of albums by that artist.

Re:On a semi-related note...

[Blakey Rat]

The ones that really cheese me off:

1) Metallica isn't there. Weren't they the ones who were begging for a service like iTunes in the first place? And now that it's here, they refuse to put their music up for sale? What hypocrites.

2) Pink Floyd. Last I checked, you couldn't buy Floyd music for The Wall by track, you had to buy the entire album... which wouldn't bother me, except the album was like $25! Ridiculous.

Re:On a semi-related note...

[Macdude]

What?! Are you smoking crack? There are 6 or 7 Queen albums there. And they didn't just get there. I bought a few of their albums over a year and half ago. How did I find these Queen songs? Well, I typed in "Queen" into the search field, and there they were!

hmmmmm, I wonder if iTunes Canada (which is what I'm using) has a different availability in this case.

Well I'm in Canada and I can see 150 Queen songs. Are you sure you know how to spell "Queen"?

Re:On a semi-related note...

[nocaster]

Perhaps the missing albums/artist belong to a label that does not allow it's content on iTMS as of yet.

Re:On a semi-related note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Metallica is available on MSN music and I think Real as well. Although many albums are not avaialable on a per track basis. So they aren't that bad.

http://music.windowsmedia.msn.com/artist/default.a spx?artist=16074359

Re:On a semi-related note...

[MarcoAtWork]

ummmm, I'll retry tonight and repost: I swear I tried both Jamiroquai and Queen and could find only half an album by Jamiroquai and none by Queen.

Good Luck With That

[lasmith05]

I mean does the RIAA really HAVE to allow apple to sell music? What's to really stop them from dictating terms.

Re:Good Luck With That

[Anonymous Coward]

A contract.

Re:Good Luck With That

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, does Apple really HAVE to sell the RIAA's music? What's to really stop THEM from dictating terms?

This is how bargaining works, and why it exists.

Re:Good Luck With That

[lasmith05]

True, but they don't have to renew the current contract right? This is about setting terms for a new contract.

Re:Good Luck With That

[lasmith05]

I believe they do, if they want to sell music the mainstream consumer will want.

allofmp3.com

[kihjin]

No, I'm no advertiser.

http://allofmp3.com/ does it right. Not only can you select what format you want (MP3, OGG, FLAC, many, many, others), the prices are based soley on the size of the resulting file. On average the price is $0.02 USD per megabyte. I purchased 5 songs last night for only $0.54. However, I could have gotten the same 5 songs in FLAC format for only $2.50.

Why couldn't iTunes do the same?

Re:allofmp3.com

[argent]

Why couldn't iTunes do the same?

Because iTunes isn't operating out of the ex-Soviet-Union.

Is it legal to download music from site AllOFMP3.com?

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Users are responsible for any usage and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility depends on the local legislation of each user's country of residence. AllOFMP3.com's Administration does not keep up with the laws of different countries and is not responsible the actions of non-Russian users.

Re:allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's all support the russian mafia. That'll really improve things in the world.

Are you an idiot or did mom just not pack your meds with this mornings lunch?

Re:allofmp3.com

[kihjin]

Excuse me, but how do you infer that MediaServices, Inc. is associated with the Russian mafia?

Actually, a global market does improve the world. More options = more competition = better economy = better living.

I may be an idiot, but least I'm no fool. You can stick with your DRM-laden iTunes-only files. I'd like to be able to play my files in Linux, if you don't mind.

Re:allofmp3.com

[metamatic]

Corporations incorporate overseas and operate over here to avoid paying tax. They do business here while they outsource jobs overseas.

If AllOfMP3 is legal in Russia, and it's legal for me to buy things in Russia and import them to the USA (which as far as I know, it is), why shouldn't I "outsource" my music purchases to my financial advantage?

I've yet to see anyone put together a convincing case that AllOfMP3.com is illegal in Russia, or that it's illegal for me to buy something in Russia and import it.

Why, perchance, they doth protest too much.

[darkonc]

A friend of mine had a book on producing movies from the library. When visiting her place, I cracked the book open and found an eye opening fact.

Industry associations like the MPAA (and, I presume the RIAA), take a cut off the top from producers. About half of that cut goes, supposedly, to anti-piracy efforts.

So, they need to make it look like they're fighting piracy. What better way to get headlines proving you're fighing piracy then to go off suing a bunch of 13 year-olds??/

Then, of course, there's the fact that, if they can legally squash fair use, then they can ultimately charge and track people for each time they listen to a song. More money for less work. It's almost like printing the stuff.

Re:Abroad...

[Anita Coney]

Any one how thinks that "Weird Al" Yankovic is "pretty good" has NO right to judge ANY music. None. Nada. Zip.

No, piracy is a problem.

[dougman]

I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be.

I assume that when you wrote this you were thinking "kids downloading songs" == piracy. I agree that it isn't a huge problem and furthermore believe that it could be proven to increase sales due to the additional exposure to new music, the desire for clean copies and so forth.

However, organized crime (particularly in Asia, former Soviet Union and now offshore on boats in international waters [read: no law], there is a very large problem. Anything that exists on disc (music, games, software, movies) is subject to theft and distribution. Traditional Organized Crime via physical goods is still more profitable than electronic business.

I believe the RIAA could make a great deal of headway in its piracy campaign if they would focus attention on the real problem. They would "pick up" the little guys they claim to be the problem and would sway public opinion (who dispise organized crime other than the Soprano's).

I'm hardly advocating for the RIAA here or suggesting that increasing levels of encryption is the way to go (this will never will work with any media that can be heard or seen imho) but don't ignore the fact that you can find any movie (including ones that have never been released to DVD) on the street in NYC. That guy with the blanket full of discs isn't a small businessman - he's working for organized crime.

Re:No, piracy is a problem.

[localman]

I don't like the organized piracy rings either, but I bet if they totally shut them down it would not make a notable difference to their bottom line. Many of the people buying that stuff would not buy a full priced album. Music is not a necessity. It is purchased with disposable income, and even if the people who purchased bootlegged copies now all switched to buying legit copies they'd only be buying 1/5 of what is being pirated anyways.

It reminds me how I'm fairly well off, and how I've had a couple small items stolen. Yeah, it pisses me off, but the fact is I'm still well off and it goes with the territory. The music industry is a bunch of billionaires. They can whine all they want, but they're living large.

Cheers.

Re:No, piracy is a problem.

[Wah]

That guy with the blanket full of discs isn't a small businessman - he's working for organized crime.

He's also filling a market need/imbalance. See: Movie Industry lowers prices in China to Fight Privacy.

True, they (street dealers) tend to traffic in first-run movies, but the price tends to be the reason that they have a market to work in, at all.

I'm not sure what would be a good way to attack the problem, but certainly agree that this is 'real' piracy, versus the mp3 trading that my group at work recently did via a gig usb stick and some sneakers.

Re:Greed.

[Rude Turnip]

The difference between Steve Jobs' wealth and the RIAA is that Steve grew his own business and continues to do so. The record companies want to raise prices for doing nothing. Being a billionaire is not necessarily a sign of being greedy if you work for it. The RIAA is a bunch of middlemen that lets others work for their wealth, so they are decidedly greedy.

No worries.

[ryantate]

I am sure this is a casual comment by Jobs, because he is in the catbird seat and has no reason to worry. He has the power here.

What are the labels going to do if they don't like the terms of iTunes music store? Go to another store? No.

1. No other store has near the volume or reach of Apple's. No one else has the brand recognition or ease of use.

2. By far the number one music player is the iPod, and only the Apple music store can sell protected music files that work on that player. The labels could try and sell unprotected MP3 files but this seems unlikely.

So going above 99 cents per track means either convinving Jobs (not likely) or moving music off the Apple music store -- which means lost sales and possibly more piracy. Not going to happen. Jobs is in a great position.

Re:No worries.

[Dachannien]

Jobs is in a great position.

Actually, he has the RIAA in a great position. Namely, over a barrel.

Re:No worries.

[ultramk]

So I guess that would make iTMS the Wal-Mart of the online music industry: so far ahead that it not only sets the tends, it makes the rules.

OK, I can live with that.

m-

Re:No worries.

[n8_f]

And this is exactly why Apple can't open up their DRM scheme. As soon as they do, all leverage over rights, pricing, etc. goes to the RIAA. If Apple won't raise prices, then the RIAA can switch to someone who will. The RIAA wants the distributors to be the commodity, racing to the bottom, like it has always been. Apple's system turns that model on its head and even forces the publishers to start to compete. Yes, it isn't an ideal system (competition at both levels would be nice), but at least Apple is a benevolent dictator instead of the "let them eat cake" RIAA.

Re:No worries.

[chumpboy]

I hate to sound like a troll, but you, sir, are trying to apply something here that clearly does not exist in the universe of the labels:

Logic

In every case we have seen recently, the RIAA has shown a reluctance to live according to the laws (again ) of this country (U.S.). Bottom line...due to the money involved, the rules that apply to you and me don't work here. :(

Re:No worries.

[ryantate]

Ya. And if they are going to act irrationally, now is the time to do it. The more iPods and songs Apple sells, the more the labels come to depend on the Apple music store for revenue, the harder it will be for the music industry to jump ship. So, sure, maybe they'll pull something crazy now, when they still make the vast majority of their money on CD sales.

Which actually wouldn't be that crazy, it would be logical in the sense they don't want to give Apple any more lock-in. Hmmm, logic ... So maybe they _won't_ do it? My head hurts.

Re:No worries.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you overestimate Jobs's power in digital music. The alternatives are ready.

1. No other store has near the volume or reach of Apple's. No one else has the brand recognition or ease of use.

If iTMS stops selling popular music, then most customers will use the other stores. It's not difficult to use MSN Music.

2. By far the number one music player is the iPod, and only the Apple music store can sell protected music files that work on that player. The labels could try and sell unprotected MP3 files but this seems unlikely.

If iTMS can no longer sell protected music files that play on the iPod, Apple might be pressured into adding protected WMA support to the iPod's firmware. If not, then iPod owners can do what Apple defenders always suggest to people that don't like DRM: burn to CD and rip to MP3. Or they could buy a Sony player, which will have protected WMA support.

Re:No worries.

[ryantate]

Wrong. If I'm an iPod owner I can't use MSN Music easily at all. That's something like 80% of the MP3 player market.

Why on earth would Apple sell anything other than Apple-protected music on their music store?

If you are suggesting people can switch to another music store and then burn a CD and then rip to MP3, no one is going to do that. It is too much trouble. Might as well just buy the CD!

Re:No worries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. If I'm an iPod owner I can't use MSN Music easily at all. That's something like 80% of the MP3 player market.

Owners of digital music players aren't the only people that buy DRM'd music files. If the iPod couldn't play popular DRM'd music, who would be blamed? Apple (for not adding WMA support) or the music industry (for only using WMA)?

Why on earth would Apple sell anything other than Apple-protected music on their music store?

They wouldn't. They might add WMA support to the iPod, though.

If you are suggesting people can switch to another music store and then burn a CD and then rip to MP3, no one is going to do that.

I know. I was making fun of Apple fanbois who use this suggestion to defend the non-portability of iTMS files.

Re:No worries.

[ryantate]

I think you are correct that it is important not to overestimate Apple. The price of MP3 players will fall tremendously over the next couple of years as RAM gets cheaper and cheaper. This will reduce the value of the iPod lock-in that Apple has and make it easier for, say, Google to launch a successful competing music store with an alternative DRM.

After all, if you can pick up a nice MP3 player for $50 or free on your phone, it is a lot easier to switch to another music store.

But until that happens I think there are too many people with $300 iPods for WMA to be a commercially viable DRM. Yes there are some people like me who do not take their music to go, but this is a small slice of an already relatively small market. The music labels cannot find a meanginful revenue stream there. They still might cut off Apple but only with the understanding they won't be making money selling music online for a couple more years.

Oh, also -- people are compiling libraries of Apple-protected music -- more lock-in, no matter what happens to MP3 prices.

By the way, I don't think the music industry is any more eager to be locked in Microsoft's trunk. As slow as they are, I think they have learned to insist on some kind of open DRM, or at least one they can control.

Prices Should be Lowered Not Raised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the record companies don't produce any physical product iTunes sales are more profitable. If anything all they supply is permission and for it get a buck a song. Drop the price to $0.25 per track and you create a tiered price system, CDs for the big purchase, iTunes singles to supplement, not replace, the music you purchased on CD. In the end they will make more money. The proof is the movie industry, which has a tiered price system between the box office and DVD rentals. DVD rentals are much cheaper, yet DVD rentals generate more revenue and profit than first run theater receipts. Sell cheap downloads and make your money on volume.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for the day that iTunes hosts *FREE* albums.

At first, I laughed out loud at your preposterous comment, but then I remembered that they already already do.

RIAA: Sure! Piracy Is A Problem!

[lordsony]

RIAA: Alert! At this time, we have no back-up excuse for the horrible sales rate of CD's... Of course these are in no way related to our quality "muscians": Seriously, most of today's "Stars", are "Stars" even though: -they can't sing -can't play an instrument -can't compose a single song -can't be creative (you know that funny feeling doing something "original", yeah you heard it "original") -don't even look good Instead they are stars because: -They look good -Have a great pr-manager, hence an "interesting" image (remember tatu, the russian lesbians?) -have a great songwriter -slept with someone important -got a porn video "accidently" floating around -are rich -went to american idol and so on... No wonder I usually only buy cd's of of indie labels, where imho the "real" artists are...(just discovered cocorosie and notwist, great stuff by the way!)

no crap....

[mc900ftjesus]

Of course making legal download more expensive will drive people right back to P2P. iTMS made it easy enough for Joe Idiot to download and pay for music and put it on his mp3 player at a good price point.

Raising the price will show consumers that they've been lured into something that will jack up the price as soon as they get hooked. CD prices haven't gone down, but they don't go up every year.

Actually, now that I think of that, it's kind of pissing me off that the music industry thinks they should get more money. Christ, they don't even make music, the artists do. And I guarantee the artists are going to go striaght to Apple to sell their next release if the industry keeps jacking people around.

Re:Greed.

[squiggleslash]

Hey! None of that! Talk Like A Pirate Day was yesterday!

Okay! Let's countdown...

[Pig Hogger]

Let's count the days until Apple gets illegalized...

Wait a second.

[skyman8081]

You're telling me that Jobs knows what a Demand Curve is?

Holy crap. Somebody who actually understands Basic Economics. Never thought I would see that.

Re:Wait a second.

[MisterPinchy]

I love the sig. Anyways, I have never downloaded a song from Napster, Kazaa, etc. I have never downloaded a song from iTunes either, and I don't intend to start. I don't like DRM and I like the warm fuzzy feeling of having a piece of physical media that I can look at and hold. While I may get laughed out of /. for this, I actually like some of the new music that is coming out of the record industry but I have only bought one or two CDs a year for the last several years (and the last few CDs I bought were second-hand). I don't like the idea of feeding the greedy accountants/lawyers that the RIAA/Recording industry have. I'm sorry for all the artists out there that are not getting their $0.05 from me. I would gladly pay them for their music and I would gladly pay for the engineering costs associated with the production of the music too.

Re:Greed.

[soft_guy]

Jobs works for $1/year at Apple and gets some bonuses from Apple board of directors sometimes.

Most of his wealth is in the form of Pixar stock - and he doesn't give that up because he wants to retain control of the company.

Unlike a lot of rich people (Gates, Ellison, ...) he lives in a normal house and sends his children to public schools. Gates lives in a bizzaro fun house and Ellison lives in a fake Japanese McMansion.

Yes, he is not hurting for money. But he doesn't *live* like a greedy person. He could be getting paid more at Apple than he does if that was what he cared about. I think he cares more about retaining control at Apple than he does about money. He retains control by keeping Apple healthy, and also by keeping his "moral authority" by being the guy who works for $1/year.

Whatever you might say about Jobs, he's a person that I can have some respect for. He lives his life pretty modestly, works very hard, and cares a lot about quality.

Re:Greed.

[clifyt]

"I'm still waiting for the day that iTunes hosts *FREE* albums."

While not free, I've noticed several albums in iTunes that were around under a dollar...which is wierd when you realize that each song bought individually were .99 each.

For instance:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewAlbum?playlistId=18294623

This is $0.49 (I bought it a couple weeks ago thinking it was a mistake). Not a bad deal, considering someone has to pay for the bandwidth and storage fees.

I have a friend that sells exclusively through the iTMS these days (after getting dropped from his lable) and he mentioned that while you *HAVE* to charge $0.99 per song, you can charge what ever you want per the album (i.e., make the album $300 while the individual songs might only come to $9.99 if bought seperately).

Why not encourage people to use this loophole. Put up a lot of album only songs that are within the $1 range for the entire set. I'd be glad to drop that kind of money on unknowns...

Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Anita Coney]

First, iTunes exists purely at the discretion of the music industry. Without "hit" and popular songs from the RIAA dervived companies iTunes would essentially be worthless. The music industry could pull out anytime it wanted and could destroy iTunes.

Second, the music industry does NOT want iTunes to succeed. Let's assume that iTunes took 50% or greater of the total market of music sold. Why would an established artist re-sign to a label when he or she could simply hire a marketer and sell directly via iTunes and keep more of the money?! iTunes would BECOME the new music industry and the RIAA and its bosses would go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.

Jobs and Apple is in a very lopsided relationship with the music industry, and I'm not sure whether either side knows it.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they do now! Thanks a lot, chump.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Thrudheim]

Apple has plenty of power here. The comment by Jobs today marked a willingness to take the argument over pricing to the public. Record labels may own the content, but they aren't likely to want their already terrible public image to be trampled on further. Jobs is a powerful spokesman, and he can hit the recalcitrant labels hard if he wants to. He was careful to warn that people will turn to illegal music downloading if prices are not reasonable, a not very subtle point that happens to be true. I am sure that the labels do not want Jobs reminding everyone about this option.

Besides, as the recent New York Times article noted, two of the four major labels are not in favor of changing the pricing structure at present. EMI said, for example, that they want to encourage the growth of the downloading market. So the alignment of powers is not what you suggest.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Anonymous Coward]

"iTunes would BECOME the new music industry and the RIAA and its bosses would go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers."

It's like that was the plan all along.
Wait a minute...

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Locke2005]

Not as one-sided as you think. What would happen if a record company actually did pull their songs from iTunes? I can imagine a huge backlash of boycott, increased pirating perhaps even a note on iTunes stating "That song is no longer available on iTunes, but you can get it for free from (long list of free mp3 sites)..." No, Apple and the RIAA are currently in a fragile equilibrium; neither one would benefit from disturbing that balance.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The music industry could pull out anytime it wanted and could destroy iTunes.

Maybe, maybe not. The RIAA has already been convicted of price fixing. Taking all their songs and going home from the number one online music seller might result in some serious legal problems. Forcing price hikes might result in the same for that matter. You might think, "so what the legal system is corrupt anyway" and you'd be right, up to a point. But unlike operating systems people understand increased music prices and they understand the itunes store having all the music unavailable and I seriously doubt they will be happy about either. Jobs making this all public is step number one. And any politician who is looking for speaking points and free press has a new cause to champion and a new villain to vilify. Aren't you going to vote for the gubernatorial candidate who promises to "stop those fat cat music moguls and make them offer music at a reasonable price again!" The RIAA better think very carefully before they play the bully with this one.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[oscartheduck]

Without wanting to sound too depressing, have you ever seen a huge backlash of boycotting against some company for such a reason? Did most people stop buying Metallica albums when the original Napster was taken out? Answer: no.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[Scudsucker]

Did most people stop buying Metallica albums when the original Napster was taken out? Answer: no.

Because there wasn't a big price increase at the same time, that's why. Joe Smoe non-Internet user probably never heard of Napster at the time and certainaly didn't care. If the price of a new Metallica album had gone up by 50% or more, you can bet a lot more people would have taken notice.

Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on...

[LesPaul75]

Why would an established artist re-sign to a label when he or she could simply hire a marketer and sell directly via iTunes and keep more of the money?!

Because they have no choice. They could do exactly what you suggest right now, but they don't. There is no "marketer" that can get you even 0.1% of the sales that you will get by being played on major radio stations, MTV, etc... Control over the mass media is the power that the major record labels have, not control over iTunes. iTunes has no control over anything, and cannot exist without MTV and Clear Channel playing the exact same songs over and over, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, until teenagers have no choice but to pressure their parents into buying Britney Spears CDs.

Think of it this way. Suppose there was no radio and no MTV, but iTunes was alive and well (somehow). Now, this new artist comes out with an album for sale on iTunes, and her name is Britney Spears. She's kind of cute, has a pouty, teenage voice that is far from spectacular, and a nice ass (which you've never seen, because there's no MTV). And no one has ever heard of her before. How many albums would she sell? Probably about three. With iTunes, people would listen to the short sample of one of her songs and say "What the hell is this crap?" and move on to something else.

iTunes could sell songs for $0.10...

[LunaticTippy]

...but they'd have to move to Soviet Russia in order to have that freedom.

obRussiaJoke

--
What's "O.B." gum or something?

Re:Abroad...

[Ingolfke]

There are a lot of great American musicians putting out music, both past and present. Here's a short list to get you started... hopefully you've heard of one or two of them.

• The Beatles
• Led Zepplin
• Franz Ferdinand
• Can
• Architecture in Helsinki
• Bjork
• Lucciano Pavorati

The list goes on and on dude... all great musicians... all 100% American!

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

We can safelyu assume that he has much more now that Apple is selling music without actually manufacturing it.

So is your local record store. Dumbest objection ever!

but let us not forget that Steve Jobs is a BILLIONAIRE

Well deserved. He help found the computer company that brought PC's to the masses, led the GUI revolution (Sure Xerox created it, Jobs actually took it out of the lab and sold it). He founded a movie studio too. To top it off, he convinced the record companies to accept the iTunes DRM model, which was by far the most liberal ever seen. Jobs is an ass in many ways, but greed doesn't seem to be a driving force.

Dinosaur business model fights to preserve itself

[Starker_Kull]

The music industry, like many long-standing businesses, does not like to change its business model. There is a reason for this; most businesses lose money and vanish in the first year of operation. The rare business that actually survives and makes money is probably quite institutionally keen to keep what works.

Nonetheless, in the long term, their model is doomed. The whole point of digital data is the ability to copy it repeatedly without degradation, and transmit it quickly over great distances without degradation. It is difficult or impossible (cheaply, anyway) to do this with analog data. Thus, this is a fundamental change in kind; it's not just CD's replacing tapes replacing vinyl. This means the VALUE of the replicators (which really is all a music company is) goes down because that's become easy. Ditto for distribution. The hard part, CREATING the good music, and FINDING the music that you like, are going to be where the money is.

Steve Jobs gets this; hence iTunes working on the FINDING part. If the record companies don't get with the program, musicians may start bypassing them and try to market more directly to customers via mechanisms like Podcasting (a cheap universal distribution method, if you can get people interested in downloading your product).

It's hard for a dinosaur to change its stripes. Usually they get replaced rather than evolve, and it looks like that's what's happening.

Simple Economics

[ThePyro]

Playing Devil's advocate...

Profit = Price Per Song * Songs Sold

Obviously, the RIAA wants to maximize their profit. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do just that? What happened to "charge what the market will bear?" Why shouldn't the market be allowed to set the price of music in this case?

It's not like music is a necessity. If music becomes too expensive then people will just stop buying it, and the RIAA will be forced to lower the price. Or, it will encourage more competition as consumers search for cheaper alternatives.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not just S Jobs doing..

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to neglect the fact there is more then iTMS for buying online music. I'm postive none of them would like the price to go up and all have the same negotiation process with the RIAA. I know Yahoo, Napster, Walmart and whoever sells online music is also figting to keep the price down as well but they do not have the rumor sites or the rabid consumer interest groups to maintain sites to discuss their inner business dealings like Apple does. If anyone feels the other music services are not trying to keep the price down as well, I'd like to hear why you would think that. I know Wal-mart does extensive price cutting and negotiations and I doubt the online music service would be any different. Add to the fact that Wal-Mart has like 30-50% of the cd sales in the US and I'd say they would have some serious negotiating power. The spin on this article headline and followup blurb seems to imply Apple is in this alone and I doubt that is the case.

The issue, as always, isn't about money

[Dark Paladin]

Well, it is - but not really. The issue is about control.

Right now, the RIAA can pretty much dictate terms to a new artist. You want to get into Wherehouse Music stores, Borders and the rest? Then you're going to have to sign a label with us. Sure, you won't get much money, but we're providing this big service for you, right? So you have to take the terms we give you!

Now along comes the music stores, and the RIAA is hoping for the same thing. Between Napster and WalMart Music and MSN Music (whenever that opens) and Rhapsody and iTunes, if you want your music on their, you're going to have to go through the RIAA who will do the cheerleading, spend the money on advertising, and make you a star!

Except there's a problem; only iTunes is being used. Oh, sure, there's *some* people using Napster like my Dad (until he got a free Shuffle at a CIO conference and switched to Apple, then all of his music to MP3 format from WMV by reripping the CDs and now he's just buying music from the iTunes store) - but far and away, iTunes is the #1 player, not with monopoly power, but certainly with a huge level of influence.

Which means that, as more people have portable MP3 players and less have CD players, the shift of power goes from "If you want your music in 5000 stores across the United States and worldwide markets, you have to talk to a big record label", to "Want your music on the iTunes store? Sure - it costs this much, and we get X amount of every CD sold". Apple, for example, could charge people $100 - $200 to get a new band onto the iTunes store (currently, I'm not sure how their deals with Indie bands are), and give them 50% of the profit per song sold after that point. A new band could pretty cheaply get their music distributed across the nation without having a single major publisher help them out - and if they get popular, they can, like the Lascivious Biddies, do their own thing and be profitable, and if they get famous, then even better.

Which scares the RIAA major publishers to death. As with any major shift in technology (sheet music to player pianos, player pianos to radio, radio to cassette, cassette to CD), sometimes the old winners vanish and are replaced with the new winners. In this case, the RIAA members are hoping to have the same situation as they have now in the future: several online stores that carry their music, with the RIAA as the gatekeepers for getting new artists in.

But if iTunes is practically the only game in town - a situation that Jobs is helping along with the DRM only working with iPods, and there's nothing on the horizon that's going to replace iPods for the next 2 - 4 years (barring some incredible technological advancement), that puts Apple in a huge position in power. RIAA members can huff and puff about taking their ball and going home and not being on the iTunes store anymore if Jobs doesn't do what they want.

Except they don't dare. Remember when the iTunes Music Store finally opened up in Japan just a few months ago? You had artists who's publishers weren't putting them onto the iTunes store doing an end-around and doing it themselves. Granted, most artists aren't technologically savvy, but how long would it take for Artist X to hear his label is pulling him off the iTunes store (and all of those iPod potential sales) before they get pissed and threaten to change labels or some such? Maybe one or two isn't a problem - but it could add up.

So the RIAA is hoping by jacking up the price they can make online music unpopular enough that CD's will be more popular for awhile, until a good iPod competitor can kick Jobs off the top of the heap and make the market more even and they can keep playing the game.

Granted, this is all my opinion, so I could be wrong. Either way, I'll probably work to listen to Podcasts (which is where I'm hearing new music from thanks to shows like "Coverville" (which got me turned onto a new Tori Amos CD I didn't know I wanted, a Will Shatner singing "Common People" that kicks ass, and a few other tracks), "Insomnia Radio", and a few others), or just support artists directly (like buying songs from thier website instead of a store).

John Hummel

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[ZipR]

You're right -- Shatner's "Common People" does kick ass.

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[klang]

So the RIAA is hoping by jacking up the price they can make online music unpopular enough that CD's will be more popular for awhile, until a good iPod competitor can kick Jobs off the top of the heap and make the market more even and they can keep playing the game.
Hoping for an iPod competitor, when Jobs has the balls to axe his most popular product to replace it with something even more desirable, is hard.
Until I read your coment, I thought that it was only mp3 player producers that shouted F**K when Jobs showed the world the nano... ..and Madonna.. doesn't she own the rights to her own music? It's one of those 'problems that could add up' and she might just add quite a bit.. EVERYTHING by Madonna, EVERYGHING by U2, EVERYGHING Harry Potter .. I see a pattern here: "EVERYTHING"

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[The Lynxpro]

"Right now, the RIAA can pretty much dictate terms to a new artist. You want to get into Wherehouse Music stores, Borders and the rest? Then you're going to have to sign a label with us. Sure, you won't get much money, but we're providing this big service for you, right? So you have to take the terms we give you! Now along comes the music stores, and the RIAA is hoping for the same thing. Between Napster and WalMart Music and MSN Music (whenever that opens) and Rhapsody and iTunes, if you want your music on their, you're going to have to go through the RIAA who will do the cheerleading, spend the money on advertising, and make you a star!"

You don't need the RIAA to get your wares sold on iTunes. You need a CD with a professional looking label applied to it along with $500 given to CD Baby, and you'll be available through iTunes.

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[cosmic_0x526179]

So the RIAA is hoping by jacking up the price they can make online music unpopular enough that CD's will be more popular for awhile, until a good iPod competitor can kick Jobs off the top of the heap and make the market more even and they can keep playing the game.

I think you are right. Why this pig isn't going to fly is.. the iPods will continue to sell. Anyone who bought an iPod 1G, then a 3G, then a nano can still move their music up to the next device even if the record companies try to call Steve's bluff. Likewise the artists would have a tizzy. The iPod is more than a record company distribution vehicle, and they are just now beginning to get the picture. They are just along for the ride. Try to screw the customer, and the customer will say "screw you buddy" and do exactly what Steve predicts. Worse case, the customer will go buy one copy of a new CD, rip it, then pass it around to all the buddies. Lets see the RIAA try to track that down. The existing paradigm is well thought out, and stands an excellent chance of making money for everyone, if they don't get greedy. Apple hold most (if not all) of the cards. The record companies are just groking this.

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[Anonymous Coward]

"Worse case, the customer will go buy one copy of a new CD, rip it, then pass it around to all the buddies"

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
The RIAA might not work this out...

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[milimetric]

Dude, the issue is always about money. What you're explaining is just a more complicated reason as to why it is about money and how it is about money. It's kind of a tautoloty that something is about money. I mean, we all need money to survive in society to buy food. I think if you're trying to say "it's all about money" with a negative conotation you would say "it's all about greed". In this case, it is all about greed, as Mr. Jobs himself points out.

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[tsunamifirestorm]

I am in an independent band. When I had my CDs printed I received a free membership to CDBaby (normally $20). This included having the songs on iTunes. I dont know how much of the $20 went to Apple, but Apple's take per track sold by independents is only 25 cents.

Re:The issue, as always, isn't about money

[Shawn Parr]

You don't need the RIAA to get your wares sold on iTunes. You need a CD with a professional looking label applied to it along with $500 given to CD Baby, and you'll be available through iTunes.

Er, that should be $50, not $500.

experiment

[austad]

Apple should convince the record companies to do a little experiement w/ iTunes. For one or two weeks, drop the price of tracks to 25 cents. Then, for one or two weeks, increase the price from what it currently is. With a little more detailed plan and some creativity, they could probably come up with a pricing scheme that would be both fair to consumers, and would maximize their profits. I know I would buy *MUCH* more music if it was only 25 cents a track. In fact, I know many people that use allofmp3.com to buy all of their music because it is so cheap, and several of them spend hundreds of dollars per year there.

Re:Greed.

[MBraynard]

and sends his children to public schools.

Couple things. This isn't so much an example of modesty as stupidity and makes you wonder where his priorities - until you realize that where he lives the public schools are comparable to the best private schools in areas where public schools are hell holes - NYC/DC/Philly/NO/LA.

His kids attend schools more in common with private colleges rather than Malcolm X. High.

Re:Typical Corporate Thinking

[VidEdit]

Corporations think if a lot of profit is good then way more is better, but they don't always do the regression analysis for the long term. An example is firing employees. Corporations will often do mass layoffs. Short term profits go up, so they have more layoffs since it worked 'so well' the first time. Long term studies have shown that many of these attempts to cut costs have backfired as the companies' productivity--and eventually profitability--goes down. Corporations can't get over the idea that more must be better.

I worked for a finance company that offered on-line banking. The on-line banking saved the company money by getting the customers to enter and process their own transactions an kept them out of expensive to staff branches. So, what did the company do? They **charged** extra!! That is just what the Music Companies are trying to do. They are trying to charge us extra for the privilege of saving them money. Appalling. Simply Appalling.

Web applications don't build themselves

[domefreak]

Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties.

I'm not going to defend high prices, but it's a straw man argument to say that the marginal cost of delivering songs via the web is just bandwidth. I'm not the only one here who knows first hand how much work goes into building and maintaining web applications.

Yes, you can have amateur musicians upload their songs to a volunteer-created site and download them for free. iTunes, ITMS and the iPod are successful because a lot of design time was invested so that everything works smoothly.

The myth that everything on the web should be free because you're not getting any "stuff" from the content provider is hurting the adoption of high-quality pay-for-service sites. Not everything valuable comes wrapped in plastic.

Re:Web applications don't build themselves

[Thrudheim]

The point is that the design work for the iTunes Music Store is done by Apple. Bandwidth costs are paid by Apple. When all is said and done, the labels marginal cost is only the royalty payments.

Now a couple of the record labels are coming along and demanding that Apple raise prices. They are just being greedy, like Jobs says, and he says that knowing what it costs Apple to run the iTMS.

Oh, please shut up

[linguae]

Oh, please! Piracy and the "n word" are two completely different things and topics altogether. The "n word" (I don't feel like typing it here) isn't just a descriptive adjective, it is a racial slur. Piracy is a term used for infringing on the copyrights of software and music by copying it without the owner's permission. Please never compare "piracy" to a racial slur (especially the "n word"); it makes you look immature and ignorant.

And you condone piracy? Hey, I can't stand the RIAA's practices as much as the next Slashdotter, but shouldn't the artists get fair compensation from their works? If we don't buy music from the artists, then the artists won't get compensated for their performances. Piracy, to me, is selfish and doesn't reward the artist at all. Now, do I believe that the RIAA should be suing 13 year olds left and right? No. However, I believe that piracy is wrong and shouldn't be condoned.

Just NEVER compare piracy to the "n word" ever again!

Re:Oh, please shut up

[David Rolfe]

You: Oh, please! Piracy and the "n word" are two completely different things and topics altogether. The "n word" (I don't feel like typing it here) isn't just a descriptive adjective, it is a racial slur. Piracy is a term used for infringing on the copyrights of software and music by copying it without the owner's permission. Please never compare "piracy" to a racial slur (especially the "n word"); it makes you look immature and ignorant.

[...]

Just NEVER compare piracy to the "n word" ever again!

Piracy as a term conflates bootlegging and copyright infringement with the attack and robbery of (originally) ships at sea. Piracy carries a connotation therefore of attack, as well as theft, and additionally, the other baggage of heinous crimes committed by actual pirates like rape, murder, and the occasional arson or bombardment of a port. Just to let that sink in -- pirates attacked, robbed, raped, and murdered their victims. Now why would we want to call kids using Napster pirates again?

Defending the use of the word piracy for the context of copyright infringement ('illegal copying') while denouncing the pejorative uses of "the N-word" is just about retarded. People don't like nigger for the same reasons that [some] people don't like the word 'piracy' (or the term 'music piracy') -- the words encompass more than their denotation (to a significant population of people). It carries a connotation of racial supremacy/dominion AND the baggage of servitude, lynching, and the like. Tangent: The population of people saying "what's up, pirate?" (while I'm sure common in some IRC channels) is probably miniscule compared to the debate about "the N-word".

Piracy was a word chosen just for this effect; In that sense, using it has the same purpose as using nigger. Sorry for not taking your admonition seriously. In a sense, I'm agreeing with the GP (even as it was rated troll), despite the fact that I accept that copyright infringement is illegal (just like actual piracy and its attack, robbery, rape, and murder). Those who conflate copyright infringement with piracy are either lazy or malicious. (Sorry for the either-or fallacy, it's merely rhetorical.)

Now that you're all mad, would it change your opinion if I told you I was black? America is full of racists.

Re:Oh, please shut up

[linguae]

Piracy as a term conflates bootlegging and copyright infringement with the attack and robbery of (originally) ships at sea. Piracy carries a connotation therefore of attack, as well as theft, and additionally, the other baggage of heinous crimes committed by actual pirates like rape, murder, and the occasional arson or bombardment of a port. Just to let that sink in -- pirates attacked, robbed, raped, and murdered their victims. Now why would we want to call kids using Napster pirates again?

Good point. Piracy may be too strong of a word to describe copyright infringement. However, I am still not a fan of comparing the use of the word piracy to the use of the "n word." (Just to clarify things, I am black, too). I still feel that the original poster used much too strong and offensive of a word to compare to "pirate," which deserves being modded down (perhaps "overrated," but not necessarily "troll"). Calling copyright infringers "pirates," even if the use of the word is based on the emotions of the music industry rather than the actual definition of piracy, is much different than calling African-Americans the "n word." The former may get a response like the one above (or sometimes no response, or even a laugh by infringers themselves), while the latter may get the response of a balled-up brown fist....

I still don't promote copyright infringement at all, and I still think that the "n word" is way too strong to compare to "piracy" being applied to copyright infringers, but I agree with your point about the conflation of the term "piracy." Just call them the proper term--copyright infringers. Not "thieves," not "pirates," just copyright infringers. That way the term doesn't reflect the emotions of the corporations, and reflects on the actual acts that the infringers are doing.

Re:Oh, please shut up

[chemacguevara]

Wow! Political correctness come to the internet forum...surely a sign of the apocalypse. Didn't a honkey create the web. Thanks, You Fucking Limey Bastards!

All about the Money

[thebdj]

At $0.99 you might already be paying more then for a CD, if you are interested in the complete CD. Granted I am not in the majority, but I usually like a great many tracks on most the CDs which I enjoy and not just the crap they spew forth on the radio (which I haven't listened to in months).

With CDs averaging in price around $13.98, if I want more then 14 tracks (rare, but I do like having whole CDs) I am over the cost of a CD, without having a "physical" media. Also I am pretty much stuck with non-transferable (without some work) songs.

Presently most the CDs I buy are for things that I have or had in MP3 format. Unlike the evil RIAA would like us to believe, if I here it on MP3 and enjoy it I will buy it on CD since there are still times I do not feel safe carrying my iPod. This means I can easily listen to the songs in CD quality in my car.

Another wonderful scheme I learned a few years ago was to buy USED CDs. Often with a bit of luck you find them in BRAND NEW shape and at half or less the cost of a new CD. In these situations even 4 or 5 songs downloaded might cost more then the CD. Honestly raising the price without benefit does seem like a greed grab by the music industry. Since apple handles all the advertising and distribution (for small fees I am sure) and there is no cost for media or shipping, there is tons of money making going on as it is. I hope that big companies like Apple will begin to stand up to the RIAA and show them that this is the future of the industry if it plans on surviving.

Re:All about the Money

[johnbeat]

If you buy an entire album (at least on iTMS) you don't pay 99 cents per song, generally. For example, Foo Fighters "The Color and the Shape", 13 songs, is $9.99.

I think that most albums on the iTMS are $9.99. While some are less expensive and some are more expensive, it generally isn't going to cost more for the album on iTMS than for a new CD.

I agree that used CDs are usually a great deal; and that often the album that a hit appears on also has great stuff that never made it to radio. (I tend to avoid "best of" albums for this reason also.)

Jerry

Price fixing?

[Hamster Lover]

How can the record companies tell Apple how much to sell their songs for without being guilty of price fixing? The FTC investigated and fined record companies in the past for imposing a minimim pricing system on CDs on such retailers as HMV, I believe.

Am I wrong?

Re:Price fixing?

[klang]

you are not wrong and the industry has paid the settelment by flooding schools and libraries with surplus copies of the soundtrack from the Bodygard, what else do you want?

Re:Abroad...

[Frostalicious]

.... Architecture in Helsinki
Bjork
Lucciano Pavorati
The list goes on and on dude... all great musicians... all 100% American!

Apparently American hegemony and conquest is now complete.

Re:Greed.

[pomo monster]

He's charging you for the development and maintenance of the iTMS interface, as well as for the not insignificant cost of negotiating deals with the labels for distribution and sale. I'll gladly pay him--what is it, 5 cents a song?--to do all that dirty work for me.

They are...

[ciroknight]

..kinda. iTunes lets anyone who makes music submit their music to iTunes database now. This really cuts out any kind of middleman, and the people who want to hear music, get the music they want.

Of course, becoming an actual record label might not be a good idea. First of all you have legal issues with Apple (I doubt Apple could afford to buy Apple Records), then you have the "expected" crap that artists get; the cars and the image and all of that junk. Then you have to fight with MTV and the RIAA to get any playtime. And by the time you've gone through the whole cycle, you're just as bad as the record companies that exist now.

iTunes is allowing the model of music to change. Instead of skimming as much as possible, and giving it back in the way of highly-discounted cars, album deals, etc, Apple can just let the consumers consume. And the artist gets the big part of the money made. Win-Win if you ask me.

Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[MBraynard]

He isn't just resisting higher prices for hot tunes but lower prices for oldies/slow sellers. This is as frustrating to the industry as it his opposition to higher prices.

It also puts Apple/Ipod/Itunes at a disadvantage that can and does* costs them marketshare. Wal-Mart's music store sells songs for .88 each - in the WMA format. In addition to letting you access nearly all songs for $5 a month from your PC and your digital player, Yahoo Unlimited lets you _buy_ the songs for only $0.79 each on average.

Ok - so how DOES this cost Itunes market share? I traded my Mini for a Pocket DJ for this reason. The sooner Apple comes up with an all-you-can-eat offer the better.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[Jerry Rivers]

Interesting take on the issue. It doesn't seem to have hurt Apple's market share however, as reports that I have read seem to indicate that their market share is going up and not down.

I heard a similar argument such as your two years ago. The lowering of Apple's marketshare just hasn't happened.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[MBraynard]

It is a fallacy to suggest that just because the market share has gone up that Apple's strategy has not hurt it's market share. There is a concept in philosophy and economics known as ceteris paribus. Ceteris Paribus is has hurt them - if you count any of Yahoo's, Napsters, or Rhapsody's customers who do not use Itunes for this reason, you have a clear answer. I know they exist because I am one of them.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[Jerry Rivers]

Ok so they have a 80% market share. Sure sounds as if they are hurting. Quote all the latin you like, but it doesn't change that they are the market leader and if it means they refuse to compromise to win the last 20% then good on them for not doing just that.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[argent]

At $200 for the Pocket DJ, and $0.20 cents saved per song, after buying 1000 songs for $800 you'll have saved enough money to justify buying a second music player.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[MBraynard]

Two errors: The pocket DJ is 180, and you can get 1 million songs for $5 a month - with nearly all the new albums out each month along with a HUGE catalog - something you can't do with I-Tunes.

Re:Jobs also opposes _LOWER_ prices for music

[argent]

The pocket DJ is 180

OK, so you need to buy $900 worth of music.

you can get 1 million songs for $5 a month

If you want to rent music, fair enough, but now you're comparing renting to buying and the whole point you were making about the songs being about $0.80 instead of about $1.00 is moot.

dangerous RIAA need new Jobs alright

[harvey the nerd]

Basically any electronic distribution over 14 to 20 years old (original copyright & patent terms, current patent terms) is pure gravy. The labels' outright obstruction of new technology, easy 24x7 use, preservation, transportability and fair use these past 10 yrs seriously abuse the *privileges* (the 'limited' constitutional grant of monopoly) of copyright.

I consider pricing over 200% cost of advertising, normal business expenses and distribution unquestionably extortionate for 'old' music' (all-of-mp3 showed 2-3 cents/mb to be profitable). The RIAA's extortion racket is truly criminal, and should be treated as any violent threat or enterprise. New Jobs indeed.

Re:Abroad...

[Dachannien]

Just what I was thinking! "Pretty good"? Bah. Weird Al rules!

Re:Abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please get a clue and someone mod the parent Funny. As it is right now, it appears to be serious and I know the poster did not mean this as anything but a joke.

Re:Greed.

[ben0207]

Shouldn't that be £9.90? Seeing as 9.99 isn't a multiple of .99

Re:Greed.

[pomo monster]

I don't know about DC, Philly, and LA, but NYC has some of the best public schools in the nation, although admission to these is somewhat selective. Private high schools here are for fuckups who weren't admitted to Stuy, Bronx Science, or Brooklyn Tech who happen to have rich parents.

Re:Greed.

[MBraynard]

Ah - those are not 'public schools' in the traditional sense - those are magnet/charter/elite schools.

Besides, if you've really got the right stuff you are at Regis.

My cousin is starting at Fordham Prep - but his parents live in Westchester so I guess those leet city schools are out of the question anyway, no?

Re:Abroad...

[Einherjer]

don't forget Rammstein! they are teh rulz from AMERICA and the RIAA!

Re:Abroad...

[Anita Coney]

"My Bologna." Surely evidence of true genius.

Seriously though, I was hard on the original poster. He is right about one thing. Generally speaking American music sucks. While the British have the Who, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones, we respectively have Cheap Trick, the Knack, and Aerosmith. Certainly not a trinity to be proud of by any means.

Mod this down - incorrect link

[teamhasnoi]

You describe allofmp3.com, but you're linking to all*off*mp3.com. Totally different. All*off*mp3 is a paid linkfarm to different p2p apps. You use this service and you won't even have a 'grey' market defense.

You'd be downloading from regular sources, using software that's already given away, and findable with google. At least the Russian mob-run allofmp3.com provides a real service.

Don't know if it's a typo or what, but it's very misleading.

Re:Mod this down - incorrect link

[screevo]

Bah! Typo! www.allofmp3.com was the intended link. alloffmp3 appears to be very shady.

Re:Mod this down - incorrect link

[teamhasnoi]

Just wanted to make sure that no /.ers were harmed in the making of your post. :)

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally, he's earned all four-hundred $500,000 homes he could buy at the drop of some whores pants.

The system works!

Don't forget compressed...

[rmdyer]

The real kicker here is to remember that you are getting a degradation from the real thing. What we all really wanted is to have music CDs to be lowered in price so we can try/buy more of a variety in full quality 2x16bit PCM audio. Instead now we seem to have let our values slide so that we are comfortable with compressed music and so it seems the industry is now taking advantage of this comfort level. In the end, we'll now probably start paying more for the real thing. This whole process is ignored partially because this is what the new generation of listeners gets used to.

Music...is simply too expensive for what it is worth. Think about it. When you download compressed music the only cost to the company providing it to you is the electricity (recurring cost), data networking equipment (long term recurring cost), and location/space (investment cost). There are no actual material goods being transfered over the wire. It is almost insane to think about what profits are being generated by this kind of setup. I suppose the only thing worse are ring tones, and wireless text messaging. In the end, all you are paying for is for somebody to arrange 30 million bits (an approximately three minute compressed song) into the correct pattern. To arrange these bits only needs to occur once. Why do so many people need to pay so much money for that to happen?

Re:Greed.

[Scrameustache]

The record companies want prices up because they don't want to die

They won't die with the prices where they are now.
So they want prices up because they like money. Nothing fancier than that: They want to charge more simply to have more.

I'm with you....

[Belial6]

The albums I buy are generally good from beginning to end. It just goes to show the quality of the artists producing the works.

Re:I'm with you....

[lav-chan]

Not to just post 'me too', but... me too.

Out of all the arguements i can make against the music industry today, the 'i only like one song on the whole CD' thing is not one of them. Never applies. Maybe there are occasionally two or three songs on an album that i actually don't like, but i have never bought an album where i only liked one or two songs.

Maybe if you guys didn't listen to such shitty untalented artists you would like more of their songs.

Re:I'm with you....

[MysteriousPreacher]

Take The Downward Spiral by Nine Inch Nails. A friend of mine likes the song called Hurt (a nice slow one) but can't stand the rest of the album. Comparing Hurt to another song, let's say Heresy, I can see where they're coming from.

Maybe if you didn't listen to shitty artists who churn out albums full of identical songs you'd like to buy individual tracks.

Re:I'm with you....

[lav-chan]

Hurt is the only song by NIN that i like (although he ruins it with that retarded loud noise at the end). Most of the rest of his music is just ambient filler. Therefore, i wouldn't say that i 'listen' to NIN, and i wouldn't buy any of his CDs.

Although in this case i wouldn't say Trent Reznor is shitty and untalented, i would say most of his songs convey those things, so it works out the same way.

Re:Abroad...

[Rycross]

Japan? Cheap? Are you talking about popular music? Because last time I went to Japan, a popular new release could run anywhere from $20-30, which is much more expensive here. Most of the cheap CD's I found were used.

Re:Abroad...

[dr_d_19]

The list goes on and on dude... all great musicians... all 100% American!

Uhm, let's break that list down a bit :)

• The Beatles - Liverpool, England
  
• Zed Zeppelin - England
  
• Franz Ferdinand - Glasgow, Scottland
  
• Can - Germany
  
• Architecture in Helsinki - Australia
  
• Bjork - Iceland
  
• Lucciano Pavorati - Italy
  

"current spike in gasoline prices is ... greed"

[jbellis]

you do realize that profits are the market's way of encouraging innovation and competition, right?

higher profits means more innovation, more competition, and ultimately lower profits until the incentive to compete in that market drops to normal rates.

"economic consequence is the only language they understand."

too bad it's not apparently one you speak. :)

Re:Greed.

[jzeejunk]

respect for steve jobs? what are you talking about? ever heard of steve wozniak? http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/hackers/steve-wo zniak/ how jobs "used" him ...

Re:Greed.

[MouseR]

Apple's shipping costs is their bandwidth costs and according to their SEC filings, they are plenty given what they get back from iTMS.

Their cost is also heighten with the hardware required to handle and maintain this data, wich very well does exist.

Re:Abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

ZEPPELIN, you dope!
-jeff

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Greed.

['nother poster]

Remember, only a few pennies per song go to Apple, and only a small percentage of that goes to Steve Jobs. I think that about $.14 or $.15 goes to the artist. The other $.80 or so goes to the record labels. Yes, they still have to pay the recording studios where the music was actually recorded, and mixed, and engineered. They still have to run marketing and payola departments. oops, That's marketing and research, my bad. All that takes lot's of money, so they need more to replace what they are spending. With just a pittance going to the execs and shareholders at the label.

CDBaby.com

[venomkid]

CDBaby

These guys are exactly what you're talking about. They stock your CD, process transactions, and send the CDs out for a small fee per disc. They also sign you up for digital distribution. My band's only sold 20 CDs but we're on iTunes. :D

Re:Greed.

[sammy baby]

So basically, he's locking everyone out and setting Apple up to be the biggest middle man in the history of middle men, with no actual manufacturing costs needed for content distribution. Cha-ching!

Right. When you take into account the miniscule cost of his operation... why, it's like he's positively robbing us blind, right?

It costs Apple real dollars to provide the hosting service that delivers that digital file to you, and to write the sophisticated software that delivers it... "Most of the money goes to the music companies," admitted Jobs. "We would like to break even/make a little bit of money but it's not a money maker," he said, candidly. So now we have it on record: the music store is a loss leader. Jobs said Apple would pay its dues to the RIAA, then seek to make money where it could, from its line of hardware accessories.
- The Register

Rapacious bastard. Making a profit off the iPod - the nerve!

Conveniently enough, he *does* manufacture the iPod you need to listen to stuff which incurs the same kind of costs the record companies have, making a profit here as well.

Yes! One has to wonder what will happen to his "you must buy an iPod to listen to the music we sell!" tactic when people figure out that they can listen to the songs right on their computers, or even burn them to CDs.

For the sake of Apple, and all the poor children in Cupertino, we can only help that the secret never gets out.

Re:sick and tired of the "piracy" word

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't boarding a ship and murdering people pretty much a mutiny? Or pick any other term.. Piracy is where people that are already ON the ship get OFF and murder others. DUUUHH.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The artist loses out

[kangman]

From the last time I've read, an artist signed to a big label makes a couple of pennies per cd sold. That bulk of the money goes to pay for distribution, marketing and legal costs. If these costs have been dramatically reduced then their percentage of an album sold has greatly been reduced. Well I can't really cry a river for the pop megalomanics. But perhaps artists can bargain for more money, instead of relying on publishing to be their main source of income. With digital distribution the notion of a successful album doesn't have to mean platinum or gold level sales but the percentage of profit. Since the costs to sell is so much lower the amount of profit made from digital sales of 150k would be much greater than a album that sold 500k or gold album status.

Re:The artist loses out

[JhohannaVH]

Unfortunately, the artists still only get 8 cents out of every .99 song they sell. About the same as what they get from the labels. :( Jho

Re:The artist loses out

[kangman]

you say per song I was with the understanding that it was per album or rather cd. So they've made some progress? But if you account for all the figures I bet its actually still better for the labels.

Re:The artist loses out

[JhohannaVH]

Yeah, I was just doing some research on it the other day for something else. Cuz I thought they got like 30%!!! Boy was I wrong. They work so hard, and this is the thanks they get... to be fucked in the butt by the RIAA coming and going. :(

Would the labels do anything that didn't benefit them? Greedy bastardes. :( I guess that's why my mom talked me so hard out of going into the music biz. Most of these music stars are so far in debt, it's ridiculous. They have to start these other companies to actually MAKE money! :P

Jho

Re:Greed.

[porcupine8]

I'm still waiting for the day that iTunes hosts *FREE* albums.

There's almost always some stuff available for free on the iTMS. Go to the bottom of the home page, and theres a little "Free Downloads" section. There's usually a track or two from someone you've never heard of, plus a mix album of various new artists. Sometimes even more.

You can't possibly be expecting them to give ALL the music away for free, right? Considering they have to pay the record companies something like 85-90c per song?

Re:Greed.

[badxmaru]

actually....
Jobs does get paid, don't believe all the apple marketing holy crusader fluff you hear about the guy. He's a smart guy, smart guys know how to play the game, and con the uneducated masses into thinking how charitable and selfless they are:

for example, off the company's 10Q.

" In March 2002, the Company entered into a Reimbursement Agreement with its CEO, Mr. Steven P. Jobs, for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs in the operation of his private plane when used for Apple business. The Reimbursement Agreement became effective for expenses incurred by Mr. Jobs for Apple business purposes since he took delivery of the plane in May 2001. The Company recognized a total of $169,000 and $220,000 in expenses pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement during the third quarters of 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $650,000 and $542,000 in expenses for the first nine months of 2005 and 2004, respectively. All expenses recognized pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement have been included in selling, general, and administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of operations."

Can someone live off of 1.x Million dollars? Even in Silly Valley?

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, his kids don't attend public schools.

Stop them both

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is time to stop it all. Sure the music industry is greedy so what! We have known that for years. However no one seems to mind the monopoly Apple is sitting on. Let's not forget that there used to be alternatives to Apple, machines also running on the Motorola chip and just as good if not better. Sure you can say those alternatives are gone because Apple has a better product, and that might be true. But tell me how come Apple has a monopoly on computers in movies? When is the last time you saw a movie where the computer was a regular pc? Right, never because apparently "Everybody" is using Apple computers in the real world.

So let's stop them both and have a free world without greedy execs or monopolies.

MOD PARENT UP +1 INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I wish I had mod points...

Re:Abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, nothing gets by you.

Spend more money...

[jnadke]

Let's get all the /. members to pool their money and buy an outdated Russian nuclear warhead. Slashdot will become the nineth nuclear-nation.

In fact, we can pay a little extra to have it specially delivered to the RIAA headquarters in a Russian MIG.

Problem solved.

Used Music

[HyoImowano]

CD Warehouse, Bargain Bin, no CD over $3.99, buy three get one free, most CDs are .99 cents.

I can get 10-20 CDs for the price of one at Wal-Mart or any other retailer.

Re:Greed.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Uh huh, I am sure that salary of $1 per year has nothing to do with taxes...

The Music Industry is doomed....

[Lego-Lad]

What Apple has done is great!
 
Name the top 5 songs on the billboard charts. Can you? I can't, and I used to work in the music industry as a buyer. Does Billboard even exist anymore?
 
  The music industry is flailing, and it's easy to point at piracy as the problem. But, it isn't. There are no hits, no real momentum. Concert ticket prices are very expensive, CD Prices are ridiculous and I'd wager most of the industries revenue comes from back catalog. That's where iTunes is raking it in - the back catalog.
 
iTunes just signed up Madonna. They have some two million songs. Of course they want Apple to raise their prices - they see it's the future.
 
The beautiful thing is, new artist's don't need the music industry. You can buy everything you need at Best Buy to start a music career, and you can hire a company to help with marketing.
 
Screw the RIAA and the Music Industry....long live iTunes and digital media.

Re:Greed.

[ndtechnologies]

Check out our music store then. We are an independent music store, where the artist sets the price for their music. We have free downloads, as well as music for sale. We provide free software and codecs for your computer system.

Our files are in the Ogg Vorbis format as well. Check us out.

http://ind-music.com/

How much is an advertising machine?

[jfengel]

Making the music is easy (well, besides hundreds of hours spent playing your guitar until your fingers bleed and singing until they have to remove the nodules from your vocal chords). But getting your album promoted is a huge challenge.

It's not impossible, but it's a huge risk. You travel for many hours to play in half-empty clubs, even more hours on the phone dealing with sleazy club owners who know they have you over a barrel, and put up a lot of money up front to press CDs and create merchandise. I know bands who do this, and most of them will spend all that money and time up front and still never make it. There are an awful lot of independent bands, and each one is fighting to be heard. The one thing you get from the major labels is the massive hype machine.

But they wouldn't deal with the major labels anyway. They'd rather lose on their own terms than win on theirs, because the RIAAs terms (as you point out) are terrible. That hype machine is incredibly expensive, and the artists don't get to use it for free. But don't make it sound like the alternative is as easy as running out to get a CD burner.

Re:Greed.

[ruiner13]

I'm sure the Leer jet they gave him as a bonus cost more than $1... just a hunch.

At $1 per year in salary

[joeflies]

He wouldn't be able to buy an iTunes song on what he makes if the price goes up!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Greed.

[soft_guy]

It is possible for someone to make a mistake and still be a person worthy of respect. Woz is over it.

Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure

[MasterPoof]

Huzzah ! Finally someone with some common sense to tell those fat cats were to stick it. Now that they have seen the iTunes works, its got them ehm.. "shitting bricks" per se.

Jobs at least understands the consumer (somewhat)

[cnerd2025]

Although I am morally opposed to DRM, I have to give Jobs his props. Not only did he pioneer a successful music store, but now he's refusing to bow to the man's demands. The RIAA is a bunch of whiny white-collar assholes who know nothing about music or the consumer. They think that "IP" entitles one to rule the frigging world. Jobs had to put the DRM in there just for them. And now he refuses to raise the price. I'm glad that he is standing up for us (at least somewhat) and I am glad Apple is taking a different stand than Microsoft, who basically jumped unerneath the covers with the RIAA. I think we'd all agree that musicians should be paid for their work. I think we'd all agree that the ideas of "royalties" and "licenses" are out of date. Finally, I think we'd agree that artists aren't getting the fair share of their money. My question is how do we have music that doesn't violate Constitutional rights (DRM, namely), and is fair to artists as well? The last concept is that derivative works MUST be allowed. That restriction is completely biased toward the artist. The Constitution clearly states that copyrights can be levied by congress for the progress of the sciences and useful arts. The RIAA has this attitude that by copying music, "pirates" are taking something from the musicians. The musicians either have talent or they don't. You can't take talent from someone who has it just like you can't give it to someone who doesn't. The RIAA tries, but WYSIWYG...GIGO. I've thought a lot about the "perfect" model for musicians, but I can't seem to determine how to compel people to pay artists for copied music. I figure they can still sell albums and such. Once someone owns the CD (in a personal property sense) then he or she owns the atoms of that CD. Therefore, he or she should be extended the same property rights he or she would be if he or she owned a chair or a desk or any other object. The RIAA has said, however, that music is "licensed" to buyers and therefore they don't own the CD. I never read or signed nor agreed to any license when I bought any CDs. Their rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. I can't tell them what music to make, so they can't tell me how to use my music. Imagine if when you bought a chair, you were required simply by buying the chair to use it only in a specific way, such as a dinner-table chair. What if you needed to use a chair in your living room for some reason? Too bad, a new chair would have to be bought.

Re:Greed.

[jcr]

Steve Jobs is the new middle man but, unlike the record companies, he doesn't manufacture music which costs money to make into CDs and Records, he doesn't have to deal with shipping costs which cost money to move CDs and Records, etc.

The iTMS infrastructure isn't cheap. I've seen that server room.

So basically, he's locking everyone out and setting Apple up to be the biggest middle man in the history of middle men, with no actual manufacturing costs needed for content distribution. Cha-ching!

It's not manufacturing cost, but it sure is distribution cost.

-jcr

Re:Greed.

[sammy baby]

Ever hear of a company called SONY? Did you know they made computers but were also a record label?

I have. Your point? Sony hardware isn't necessary to listen to artists on the Sony label. Apple software is necessary, in theory, to listen to songs purchased via iTMS, but for only as long as it takes to burn it to a CD. So... how is this supposed to lock us out again?

(BTW - name five other record labels besides Sony that manufacture their own hardware.)

Re:Greed.

[saider]

Operating a jet is not cheap. Pilot time and maintenance will eat up most of that money very quickly. I'd bet that he's using that plane a lot these days.

Re:Greed.

[jcr]

Jobs works for $1/year at Apple and gets some bonuses from Apple board of directors sometimes.

Well, he's made quite a bit for his trouble. Of course, with the market capitalization of AAPL over $40 Billion these days, I'd have to say as a shareholder that if Apple paid him a billion a year, I'm cool with that.

-jcr

Not Quite

[Jeff Molby]

The upgrade should not be free, but it should be at a reduced price, similar to the discount you could get by purchasing WinXP Upgrade rather than the full version. The copyright owner should be able to: 1) Recoup the redistribution costs (media/bandwidth) 2) Recoup any remastering costs 3) Earn a reasonable profit to make it worth their while They should not be able to charge the same price as the original copy as you HAVE already compensated them for the artist's work.

Re:Not Quite

[Zemplar]

"They should not be able to charge the same price as the original copy as you HAVE already compensated them for the artist's work."

They should be able to charge whatever they want for their services. If they charge too much, competition should provide an alternate route and also enable innovation. YOU as a consumer dictate how much a company can charge - and still remain profitable.

Besides, who is the "artist?" Is not the work of a skillful remastering artist as valuable as a singer/actor/foo? If you don't think so, go see a live concert without lip-syncing....and I am sure you will change your mind!

Re:Not Quite

[Jeff Molby]

They should be able to charge whatever they want for their services.

I'm a firm believer in a free market economy too, but copyright law sees to it that artistic industries aren't truly free markets. Even if you ignore the possible (MHO=probable) collusion within the RIAA, it isn't possible to choose from 5 similar albums based on The Dark Side of the Moon, so there is significantly less competition than bathroom cleaning sprays.

Besides, who is the "artist?" Is not the work of a skillful remastering artist as valuable as a singer/actor/foo?

I specifically allowed for remastering costs (including salaries, of course) and even a reasonable profit. My point was that I find it very unlikely that it costs them as much for a second run as it does for the first.

Re:Greed.

[Golias]

Seeing as how the labels still own the catalog and can distribute through anybody they please, Apple is no more likely to become a monopoly source of downloads than Wal-Mart is of CD's.

Apple is essentially in the position of being a huge music reseller, like any record store. That's a very different thing from becoming a music label.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to be admitted, it's not what most people mean when they say 'public' school. Otherwise your point is well taken. But you're taking the absolute best, when NYC has a LOT of crappy public schools.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Greed.

[Dobeln]

Well, this is just one of the iron laws of American sociology: White rich cultural liberals / economic conservatives will always insulate themselves as much as they can from the failed ethnic minorities they import/support.

This just in...

[TxdoHawk]

...record companies recognized as greedy scum-sucking bastards. In other news, large sky expanse deemed to blue in color...

Free Market != Commodity Market

[panaceaa]

That's how the economic theory goes in a free market. Do not confuse the intellectual monopoly industries with free markets.

You're both confused about how markets work. What you're talking about being a free market is actually the market for commodities. That is, products that can be produced identically by multiple vendors. But there's lots of products that aren't commodities, and their reason for being so isn't always that they're protected by intellectual property.

Cocacola is one example. Cans these days are going for over 50 cents each, despite the fact that Pepsi is usually cheaper and all colas cost less than 5 cents to produce. One can argue that Coke's formula is protected by "intellectual monopoly laws", as you put it, but it would be rediculous to state that anyone should be able to reproduce Cocacola and sell it as Cocacola. Trademarks make sense here.

There are lots of other examples where the prices don't match production costs. Here's a site with different pricing strategies. What you're arguing is that every product should use "economy pricing". But the real world doesn't work like that -- music uses more of an emotional pricing strategy, fancy cars use a premium pricing strategy, NetFlix appears to be using penetration pricing.

From this perspective, your argument is that the music industry is using an immoral advantage -- a monopoly on popular music -- to adopt a more profitable pricing strategy that they would otherwise not be able to utilize. I don't want to lean either way on whether this is true. But if it were true, that pricing strategy WOULD STILL EXIST for other products that aren't monopolies/oligopolies. (Example again: Coke. Virgin tried to break into the market 8 years ago with a lower priced product and failed (at least in the US).)

In summary, pricing does not match production costs. Pricing has to do with the perceived value of the product in the eye of the consumer. Using "intellectual monopoly laws" can help increase that value, but even without them, pricing would then match the new perceived value and not the cost of production.

Re:Free Market != Commodity Market

[Mr2001]

I have never seen Coke sold by the can for less than Pepsi. There are sales at the grocery store, but half the time Pepsi products are the ones on sale.

Re:Free Market != Commodity Market

[Znork]

"But there's lots of products that aren't commodities, and their reason for being so isn't always that they're protected by intellectual property."

The reason is always some form of competetive failure, either natural or artificial.

In the case of intellectual monopolies there is no natural scarcity, so the only reason for the products not obeying commodity economics is artificial restrictions.

"Trademarks make sense here."

Exactly how do they benefit the economy at large? By creating higher costs? By diverting money into advertizing? Where is the gain in the wealth of nations? Would society be richer if the money spent financing the coke/pepsi wars had been spent elsewhere and 'cola' was standardized and commoditized?

Artificial restrictions in the economy only make 'sense' if they actually lead to a benefit for society as a whole. I'm not saying trademarks are without purpose, but like all IP you need to analyze their purpose and results beyond the surface.

In their economic effects the restrictions are not much different from taxes; they create artificially higher prices, comparable with VAT or product taxes, with the difference that the extra money extracted from the consumer goes to a private interest, theoretically to create a benefit of some form of general economic good. With these market interference laws, focus is often on that theoretical good, rather than the negative aspects that taxes create, like slower economy, higher costs in general, diversion of money from production of desired goods, lower adoption rate of the taxed goods in question, increased legal costs, etc.

"What you're arguing is that every product should use "economy pricing"."

Not quite. They can use any relevant form of pricing, most are compatible with competition (captive and bundling excepted) but they should use it without the support of artificial competetive restrictions. Competition is the fundamental foundation of the growth of wealth since Adam Smith came up with the idea of capitalism. Competition leads to improved and cheaper production, leads to more goods cheaper, leads to higher wealth for society as a whole. That's why we're not all plowing the fields anymore. That's why the western more free economies outperformed the communist countries in the end. And quite likely the increased economic damage caused by the diversion of resources to non-wealth creating by IP restrictions is a significant part of why the western economies have difficulty competing with less IP enforcing economies.

"In summary, pricing does not match production costs."

Oh, I'm not saying it does. I'm saying that in a competetive market prices fall to approach production cost, over time. Like you point out, there are many pricing strategies, but over time they all tend to fall towards production costs.

For example, the actual production costs for a 'luxury hotel room' (including everything from furniture to service is, of course, vastly different from a 'cheap coffin hotel', even tho the actual base product might have similarities. However, in a free market, if the premium pricing luxury hotel generates enough profit, or is inefficient enough to allow the same valued service cheaper, there will be more players entering the market, and the price will fall (still retaining its premium) towards the production costs for upholding such a premium product (thus creating falling prices where more people can afford the premium product, thus creating more wealth)

In the monopoly protected industries there is no such competetive pressure at all. They can charge what the market can bear, as it is illegal to sell equivalent products. Where the free market player has to consider both the consumer and the competition, the monopoly player needs only consider the consumer. Unlike the premium hotel they need not worry about someone else undercutting them by providing the same premium value for lower price and adapt. Thus, instead of falling as efficiency increases and production costs fall, prices for the protected products constantly rise to eat any increase in disposable consumer income.

Thus the monopolies become antithetical to the growth of wealth in their very nature.

Re:Greed.

[poopdeville]

There already is an Apple Records. It's not owned by Apple Computers. Apple Records has already sued Apple Computer for trademark violations. As part of the settlement, Apple Computer cannot enter the music industry as a label.

Re:Greed.

[clifyt]

Any reason you sell in Ogg Vorbis? Seems a good way to shoot yourself in the foot just to appease the geek squad?

To be honest, I felt the same way about Apple's AAC when they first started off. *NOTHING* supported AAC except iTunes and the iPod. Well, if you exclude the wierd stuff that played everything. At least, they had a few billion in the bank to push it to the masses, whilst you have geek angst backing you up.

Personally, I can't stand the tone of Ogg. If you are playing garage metal (or garage anything) you may not notice it. Same with most MP3s...they sound better at higher rates, but I generally go with AAC (unDRM'd) these days as it doesn't sound as shrill at the same bitrate.

If you ever get your store working in a decent file format, send me an email! This is the one and only reason I'm not going to invest more time looking at your site. All in all, finding a way to listen to music shouldn't be about politics...the music should be the message, not the file format you listen to it in.

BTW -- WFT with the java music player for the samples? Are you interested in promoting the music as all or are you just trying to profess your love for the RMS and all things OpenSource? I like what you are trying to do, but I think its failing at the core message. You've got to decide if you are selling music or the OpenSource religion.

Re:Greed.

[snuf23]

Uh huh. Stevie boy is a good old guy with no ego. Just a normal guy you can respect. And Bill Gates he's the devil incarnate. Well, the billionaire philanthropist devil incarnate, who's donated 7 billion dollars to various causes as diverse as AIDs research and the United Negro College Foundation.
Oh but that's just good press for Microsoft you say. So what? Running the largest charitable foundation in the world is an excellent way to get good press, and it benefits people all over the world.
So Jobs gets a $1 salary. Wheee. And a Lear jet, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in reimbursements from Apple.
I'm not trying to say Jobs is the evil one. Hell, both of them are business men, both have used nasty business tactics (if you think Jobs is a saint, read some of what Woz has said happened at Apple), both of them are rich and can afford a fancy house or personal jet plane. There is no reason to deify or demonize either of them. But buying into Apple's PR image of Jobs is just silly.

(Larry Ellison however, IS the devil incarnate)

Re:Greed.

[cpeterso]

Jobs works for $1/year at Apple and gets some bonuses from Apple board of directors sometimes.

When people say Steve Jobs believes iTMS should only charge $1/song, they are misinterpreting Jobs. He actually meant iTMS should actually charge the customer's annual salary/song!

Re:Greed.

[Lew Payne]

Your logic fascinates me... and probably eludes understanding. Let me elaborate...

What is your definition of a "normal" house, or, said differently, what properties qualify a house as "normal?" Is it the purchase price? Must it fall somewhere within the "average" price range for a home within a specific geographic area?

By implying that [what you perceive as] lavish homes make the owner greedy, can't that same standard be used on *any* homeowner? If you (or your parents) own a home, aren't you/they guilty of being greedy for purchasing it as oppsed to a less expensive home in a poorer neighborhood? How dare you/they use money to raise your standard of living!

Should people with wealth be restricted as to what they can spend it on? Just as the average homeowner attempts to get the best value for their money, shouldn't wealthy people be entitle to same? Since when do you dictate how others should spend their money? In short... what you preceive as "lavish" is actually "expected" and "normal" for someone of that wealth class. How Jobs chooses to spend his money, or what lifestyle he chooses to lead, is irrelevant and immaterial to how others (including Gates and Ellison) should lead their lives.

In short, I think your comment is intellectually bankrupt and not thought out at all.

Re:Greed.

[accelleron]

I don't believe parent is talking about the end-user machines the content is delivered to.

If you don't think there are real costs associated with distributing music, you are mistaken. The server space, the CPU, and the bandwidth needed to store, process, and deliver the ~5mb/each songs to the end user, are not free. Apple pays royalties on the songs and pays for the above, so their profit, while significant, is not 100% of the money they get.

I, for one, applaud Jobs - instead of succumbing to pressure and using the price increase to increase his profit margins, he's doing something decent by resisting the record companies' pressure. Granted, his motives may not be entirely altruistic, but nevertheless, Apple is setting a superb example that, no doubt, many companies will follow. If Jobs keeps prices at 99c a song, competing services will hardly be able to raise prices without losing customers to Apple - something they decidedly do not want to do. So in this case, Jobs is keeping the market stable in the face of significant pressure from the record companies.

The age of free legal (or even semi-legal) mainstream music has come and passed. You still have advertisement-supported radio, but to legally get ad-free, high-quality music, you can no longer go to a source like KaZaa and BitTorrent and expect the transaction to be risk-free (although I haven't heard of anyone being nabbed for getting MP3s from newsgroups, IRC, or various FTPs.) Not to say that there is significant risk - about 15 of the ~1200 tracks on my iPod were obtained through "good" sources, and I've yet to hear a word from anyone - but it is no longer as convenient or as safe to download them illegally as it is to buy them. This creates a balancing act between the difficulty of obtaining music freely/morality/risk factor and the price of legal music, and Jobs realizes that disrupting that balancing act by raising prices could create a trend of dissatisfied customers that decide to switch to illegal methods.

What puzzles me, though, is how blindly record companies are pressuring the distribution networks that are, in a way, their safety net for the tech-savvy majority of the highly appealing 18-25 demographic. While I've stopped expecting intelligent decisions from them long ago, the RIAA are now crossing the boundary between pure greed and pure stupidity. I believe that this will, eventually, kill them, and I, for one, have no objections to that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yes. Yes they do.

[NaugaHunter]

There are a lot of iPods out there, and a lot of people using iTunes. There is a lot of music on iTunes that isn't controlled by RIAA members. If RIAA leaves, Apple would put out a press release along the lines of "RIAA pulled their music because they're greedy bastards, but we still have plenty of music." People would go to iTunes and find out they do in fact still have plenty of music, and frown upon the already beleaguered RIAA who are being counter-sued and charged with racketeering for their threats of lawsuits.

Will people slow down on iTunes? Naturally; there are always those that only follow mainstream. But there are quite a few that would not, and even more that would just do both. The RIAA's greatest fear should be people finding independent music, but it doesn't look like they know that yet.

Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[Qwavel]

Yahoo charges $0.80 for a song. This doesn't do you much good if you have an iPod, but it does tell us that iTunes doesn't have to charge a dollar a song.

Also, keep in mind that iTunes makes Apple a huge amount of money. In other words, Apple is clearing a very large margin, so they are not really in a position to act like the friend of the consumer.

Come to think of it, Apple really is a very high margin company in general, aren't they?

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[planetfinder]

How much does Apple make per song ?

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[glenstar]

.99 (retail)
-
.65 to .70 (labels)
-
.25 (CC fee -- variable)
-.01 (bandwidth -- high figure)
---------
anywhere between .03 and .08 /song

It's *not* the retailers that make money.

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[LittleGuernica]

Apple doesnt make a lot of money per song, the largest part goes straight tot the record companies..They hardly make a profit right now with iTMS. Yahoo is undercharging to gain marketshare, and is is expected that they can't do that for too long, because they are losing money on it right now probably..

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[planetfinder]

How does this compare with the other online music vendors ?

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[glenstar]

Everyone is pretty much equal. But don't forget that Apple spends tens of millions of dollars a year on advertising for iTunes/iPod. They barely break even. No one is making a killing in the DMS space.

Re:Other services are much cheaper anyway.

[planetfinder]

"Also, keep in mind that iTunes makes Apple a huge amount of money. In other words, Apple is clearing a very large margin, so they are not really in a position to act like the friend of the consumer."

The responses to your post seem to suggest that you are ill infomred or that you are deliberately distributing misinformation.

Pigs Get Fat...

[Anonymous Coward]

But Hogs Get Slaughtered.

I see why the labels wan tmore money, but Jobs is right, they'll shoot themselves in the foot if the hike the prices up. The many people (like me) who left piracy to but on iTMS, will just go back to P2P.

Re:Abroad...

[gordgekko]

While the British have the Who, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones

I find it funny that the three bands you named as the height of English rock -- all of whom I love by the way -- all got their start singing American blues.

Besides, never heard of Elvis Presley?

Technology is at fault

[Anonymous Coward]

What the RIAA really wants is a system where you pay them every time you listen to a song. Pre-ubiquitous computing, they couldn't get this. They can't track what you listen to on analog radio, and they can't track how many times you listen to a CD. With iTMS, they still don't have this.

But there are ways to track how many times you play a given file if they can build the distribution medium right. Why shouldn't they get a micropayment every time you listen to a song? It might be cheaper!

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about thinking 10 years later when Apple is it's own record company and the competition has been greatly downsized?"

Apple is already a record company... Apple Records. It's the label the Beatles started.

Apple Computer can never be a record company. They have a longstanding contract with Apple Records stating they won't do that. They're already involved in a very costly litigation over the fact that they're distributing music at all. To become an actual record company would threaten Apple Computer's ability to use Apple as a brand for anything, which currently rests on the agreement with Apple Records.

Re: Who owns?

[dantheman82]

Obviously, there is a battle going on for digital content ownership, involving artists and record labels. Some artists (like Switchfoot...as mentioned previously) take the side of consumers while others do not. As some have mentioned, iTunes can allow artists to quite possibly bypass record labels in the long term. For example, on Apple's New Music Tuesday (loads in iTunes), Switchfoot was featured with an exclusive track only to be found in iTunes. If they do it right, this could be used to drive sales for them, possibly even without Sony grabbing a cut. At some point, iTunes will be (or already is) a bigger driver of sales than MTV or other traditional outlets (like stores) for some alternative artists. And this is the point at which artists and consumers will win, and of course Apple will be happy...

People still buy music, just not all the same...

[rinkjustice]

I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be.

Piracy isn't the big problem. Educated music listeners are the problem now. The music industry can no longer sell 10+ million copies of Britney Spears/N'Sync type garbage, because people have access to many more types of music. Music buying appetities are now fragmented and specialized, which means instead of a label selling a gazillion records of one artist, chart topping artists many not even sell a half-million. The labels have to do more research and advertising than ever and as a result, profit margins are smaller.

Besides, albums with only one or two good tracks won't sell like before. The music buying public samples the music beforehand and the RIAA hates that!

Re:Greed.

[plsavaria]

On the Canadian version of iTMS that album is 9.99$. Even more then all bought seperately... (6 songs)

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Steve is the incarnation of greed. His yearly pay for being CEO at Apple is a whooooping 1$.

Being rich and being greedy are different things. You don't have to be greedy to be rich and you don't have to be rich to be greedy.

And WTF should Apple sell "free" music? Yea, they don't make it, they just destribute it, but they damn well need to get it from somewhere(hint, the artists(correction, the bilion dollar industry wraping the artists)).

Jobs the Hero!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Finally Steve Jobs is the hero. Taking time off from flogging high-markup IBM -- soon to be high-markup Intel -- based systems, he's standing against the (evil bit == 1) corrupt record companies and their lacky RIAA hounds on behalf of the little people. Those who just what to have change left from their dollar the next time the legally listen to Britany Spears. I wonder what Steve was thinking?

Steve's thoughts: Wait. Higher prices for iTunes might well impact sales of my very profitable iPod. That can't be good -- for me!

Nevermind.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it was a Gulfstream V - LearJets are for Chapter 11 CEO cheap-ass fuckers. By the way - what the holy hell is a LEERJET? Never heard of THAT one!

How did a new corporate jet manufacturer slip under my radar. Holy shit!

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

their message is pretty clear, it is about independent music. I think the use of a Java player is pretty smart considering that Windows and Mac don't support Ogg natively. This can give people the opportunity to hear the music. All they have to do is download a codec that this site has been generous enough to go and find, for it to work in Windows or Mac, once they have purchased it.

Do you know how much a license for MP3 usage costs? They start at 10,000 dollars. Do you have that kind of money? Who cares what format it is in, as long as there is a way to play it. Since you seem to know everything about online music though...I'm sure none of this matters anyway

Re:Yes. Yes they do.

[lasmith05]

If they don't have RIAA music, what "plenty of music" are they going to find?

Re:Greed.

[Man in Spandex]

You respect a rich and powerful man for living a modest life but don't think for a second how you would live your life if you were that person.

Do you think the average person would live a modest life with a Ford Tempo if they were rich? I know I wouldn't and I doubt you or the average slashdotter would.

I know I'd buy a shitload of crap like an expensive house and car and send my kids to the best school possible. Why not take advantage of the opportunity? It's not like it will turn you into an evil business men. That's a choice.

Now that IS a stretch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs complaining about another company overpricing their product. Talk about the proverbial Powerbook G4 calling the Britney Spears album black.

Steve Jobs and public schools

[aricusmaximus]

Wrong -- at least two of his three children do attend a public elementary school in a SF Bay Area city. Technically it is a public school, but when the average housing price is >$1 million in the school district, you're hardly talking about your average neighborhood elementary school; the parents pay property taxes instead of tuition.

That still does not answer my question!

[kihjin]

Thank you for that wonderful FAQ snippet that I've already read, twice.

It still does not explain how a corporation, MediaServices, Inc., can sell items that are under US copyright cheaper than a US company can sell the items. Is this a good example of how the RIAA's pricing scheme is unbalanced?

Re:That still does not answer my question!

[argent]

It still does not explain how a corporation, MediaServices, Inc., can sell items that are under US copyright cheaper than a US company can sell the items.

Because a Russian corporation operates under Russian copyright law, and a US corporation operates under US copyright law.

Is this a good example of how the RIAA's pricing scheme is unbalanced?

It's a good example of the difference between the Russian economy and law and the US ecconomy and law.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time will tell...

Re:Greed.

[soft_guy]

I don't think you got the point at all.

It's not about the cost of his house. Its respect for his taste.

I don't have a problem with Bill Gates having a mansion - its that I think his mansion is tacky.

I also respect Steve Jobs for being able to save Apple when everyone counted him and Apple as both being irrelevant to our industry. I respect him for the fact that he has great taste and an intolerance for poor quality.

I am not under any illusions that Steve Jobs is a "nice guy", or "morally better" than anyone else. I don't personally know him and I'm not entitled to an opinion about it.

And I'm not saying that I don't also respect Bill Gates for his philanthropy.

Missing the point here...

[digitalamish]

As the price of reproduction drops, the price of the item should drop correspondingly. At least that's how the economic theory goes. Profit margins drop but profits are made through bulk sales, much like today's commodity ethernet cards and memory chips. It allows for many companies (or artists) to create a product, spurring competition, providing choice. All of this is good for the consumer.

Now that many of the record stores are owned by the labels (directly or indirectly), they are coming to realize that the extra zillion copies of the American Idol CDs aren't going to sell, and they will take a loss on them. This is a more premptive move to stop producing physical media for low volume CDs, and force people to go download them. Then they can scale back their facilities and store media online for virtually nothing. Then whenever someone buys Van Halen's 5140, they don't have to go make another one, and it becomes pure profit.

I can forsee a day when getting a physical CD is considered the 'special edition', and the e-copy is the actual release. The only benefit I could see would be letting users customize their own CD's. So if I only want one or two tracks, that's all I pay for. I even think that will make the record companies 'force' people to pay for all of the tracks even if they only want one.

-----
this sig in lower case to save space

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Question. Who misses real albums?

[lightyear4]

Who else misses real honest to god albums? Yes, of the vinyl record variety. You get some incredible artwork (sometimes the best, sometimes the worst), plus a full listing of lyrics, and often a story or two about the meaning of a track or how it was created. Moreover, you got analog sound at its best. Don't get me wrong, digital is fantastic, and I surely cant tell the difference between good analog and good digital any longer. But try this today. Crank up that old turntable, grab a your favorite vinyl out of storage, and remember how music used to be.

Jamiroquai Mostly Missing?

[David Rolfe]

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewArtist?artistId=475902

3 Full albums.
4 Partial albums.

Their biggest hits are there, too. I don't the physical CDs, so I can't say what's missing from the partial album (that is, I'm not willing to do your homework for you and compare the listings to Amazon, haha).

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewArtist?artistId=3296287

Wow. 29 albums for Queen. Well anyhow. Nothing personal, just your comments are pretty highly moderated for being essentially wrong.

Cheers.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Magnet schools are public schools in every sense of the word.

Re:Greed.

[clifyt]

No, the message is muddied by the cobranding of F/OSS software and propoganda throughout the site.

And the idea that Ogg isn't supported natively on either Mac nor the PC is a perfect example of why this is a bad idea.

Do I know how much licensing for MP3 usage is? Sure -- if you are making less than $100k a year, its absolutely free. Its not worth Fraunhofer / Thompson's time for anything less.

If you are making over this amount, then we are talking a royalty rate of 2%. Thats right, if you are bringing in over $100k, you might have to pay a small token amount in royalties. I don't know about you, but I pay a *LOT* more than that for my licensing / taxes / software for my online business (I have worked for the music industry in the past, and still do consulting within this area...$2k ain't much if you want to be taken seriously).

So $10k? Where did you get that number? Obviously not from folks that license the product:

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html

If you are worried about royalities (and want to stay unencumbered by DRM), take a serious look at AAC. The only charge there are for encoders / decoders. It looks as though your site is already encouraging an assbackward software package to encode into OGG on the client side...so why not just use iTunes to do the conversion -- that too is free. I know there are several free encoders on the Linux side as well (because I had to batch transcode several gigs of waves over to this and it was faster to just use a spare linux box and let it do this in the background).

But if you want to see the royalty rates on AAC, take a look at Dolby's site:

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nseFAQ.html

As for being able to play music -- I can't play it without a wierd format that isn't supported by my hardware. At least all my current hardware can play WAV / MP3 / AIF / AAC all without having to transcode it. So, yes, it matters, because I can't hear it. I didn't buy from the iTMS either until it was supported by a large (more than 10%) of the players sold.

But yeah, its part of my job to know this stuff. Again, I agree with your commitment to open source, but don't take it as a religion. Use the best tool for the purpose. Otherwise, it looks at those you are more about promoting F/OSS than you are promoting another means to an end for musicians -- which again is a noble cause. Why don't you do an experiment? Set your store up to sell both Ogg and MP3 (or AAC) and tell the end use they have to pick which format before buying (give them the choice to download all 3 if they want once the experiment is over) and stop the experiment just before $99999 in sales (or whatever you hit for the year) and see what sold the most. You might be surprised...hell, if ya published it, *I* might be surprised.

Sorry if my last post seemed antagonistic in any way -- I didn't mean it that way, but the "Since you seem to know everything about online music though" comment seems as though I was. No, I understand the marketting of musicians and this is one of the reasons the big industry is starting to fail -- they are more about marketting themselves and promoting what is good for the industry but not necessarily what is good for the artist. And this is exactly what I see when I visited the site.

Focus on the musicians and nothing more....

Clarification -- and apologies.

[David Rolfe]

Sorry, the URLs I posted were for the American store. Let me update those:

Queen (only 20 instead of 29): http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewArtist?artistId=3296287

Jamiroquai (painfully, only 2 partial albums, guess their Label Sucks, because those other albums aren't licensed for Canada but are available elsewhere) http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/ viewArtist?artistId=475902

(I think it's already been explained why Harrison doesn't appear.)

Sorry for the earlier response -- I wasn't aware of your circumstances. There surely is a smaller Jamiroquai selection in the Canadian iTMS. I haven't tried ... but how do they prevent you from buying from the U.S. store? (You can change stores with a selection at the very bottom of the main iTMS page.)

Re:Clarification -- and apologies.

[MarcoAtWork]

Regarding Queen, is it 20 out of 29 what available? Queen have officially released 21 albums (including "best of"-s) and I'm _positive_ I searched for a few of my favorite songs ("The prophet's song", "Mustapha" among them) and they were not there. "Under pressure" was available but only in a David Bowie album.

This is the complete Queen discography for reference

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~choh/qdisc.htm

no clue why Jamiroquai is not licensed for Canada.

BTW yes, you can switch the store with a click, but I don't think you're allowed to order from it if your c/c doesn't have a billing address in the relevant country.

Re:Clarification -- and apologies.

[David Rolfe]

Yes. iTMS (at least my version, the U.S. store) carries all of those Records as well as 8 more (including Queen On Fire: Live at the Bowl, Queen at the BBC Live, Greatest Hits III, Platinum Collection, and 46664 1 Year On [a $4 EP] with the Queen and Mandela track).

The Queen page is also much different between the U.S. and Canadian stores -- the U.S. store has pictures, video, biography, etc. that I didn't see when I set iTMS to Canada.

So again, I'm sorry. It seems there really is a significant difference between what you see (well you could see it too if you wanted to, so I should say what you can buy) and what I can see/buy.

I haven't tried buying anything from the "foreign" stores yet. I'm always intrigued by getting stuff from the U.K. or Japanese 'stores' without the 'import' costs -- but I've never tried. It's all just artificial barriers anyhow. Stupid international licensing and import laws. :-D

Maybe Apple should cut their costs

[geekee]

" Maybe they could cut costs..but, oh, I don't know.. hiring less lawyers to sue their customers."

Maybe Apple should cut their costs or profit. All they're doing is providing a server with files to download. The music labels do most of the work.

What does Apple know about msuic production?

[geekee]

" What Apple should do is start it's own label."

What the hell does Apple know about music production? You might as well suggest they design their own processors instead of going to Intel.

Re:What does Apple know about msuic production?

[skingers6894]

Actually Apple have a history of being closely involved in processor design. They were part owners of ARM and had hands-on involvement in design. They were also part of the original PowerPC consortium along with IBM and Motorola.

As for what Apple knows about music production, everyday that passes sees more Apple hardware and software being used in music production. In fact you could create an album entirely on a Mac and distribute it exclusively on iTunes. No traditional record company required.

The world is changing.

Re:What does Apple know about msuic production?

[geekee]

" Actually Apple have a history of being closely involved in processor design. They were part owners of ARM and had hands-on involvement in design. They were also part of the original PowerPC consortium along with IBM and Motorola."

Participating in a architecture discussions doesn't make you capable of designing a processor.

"As for what Apple knows about music production, everyday that passes sees more Apple hardware and software being used in music production. In fact you could create an album entirely on a Mac and distribute it exclusively on iTunes. No traditional record company required."

Understanding how the equipment works doesn't make you capable of producing hit artists.

Re:What does Apple know about msuic production?

[skingers6894]

I didn't say they were capable of designing a processor. However they clearly know something about processors.

I didn't say they would produce hit artists. However they clearly understand the music market quite well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So why does Apple need $1?

[geekee]

If allofmp3.com can make money chargin a dime a song. Apple could give the music lablebs $0.60, keep $0.20, make double what allofmp3.com makes, and be legal. As it stands now Apple gets something like half your $1.

oh no you dont

[argoff]

Calling someone a pirate is worse than the "n-word". The "n-word" is a racial slur, but calling people "pirates" who share information freely is outright slander and deffimation. The "n-word" is rude and hurts peoples feelings, but "piracy" is an outright criminal accusation. And since when did copyrights help artists? And since when did copying their songs freely hurt them?

You're right, I shouldn't have compaired piracy to the "n-word", calling people pirates is far worse!

Re:oh no you dont

[Anonymous Coward]

Deffimation?!

I'd rather be called a pirate than illiterate.

Re:oh no you dont

[linguae]

Calling someone a pirate is worse than the "n-word". The "n-word" is a racial slur, but calling people "pirates" who share information freely is outright slander and deffimation. The "n-word" is rude and hurts peoples feelings, but "piracy" is an outright criminal accusation. And since when did copyrights help artists? And since when did copying their songs freely hurt them?

The emphasis on the first sentence is from me. I would assume that you're not a person affected by the "n word" at all. Copyright infringement is a crime, but I do agree now that the word piracy is a bit too strong to describe copyright infringement. However, let's not say that calling somebody a pirate is worse than calling somebody the "n word" (especially if that person is a person defined by that word). The "n word" has over 300 years of baggage that the word "pirate" can never attain. Pirates may go around and steal treasures, rape innocent people, murder, and do other bad things, but let's not underestimate the power of a word that is associated with hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, discrimination, hatred, disenfranchsizement, inferiority, and other racial feelings over the past 300 years. When you're a member of a group who had had to endure 300+ years of that crap, I would think that you definitely would rather be called a pirate any day. Being called the most evil pirate just can't compete to me.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

White rich cultural liberals / economic conservatives will always insulate themselves as much as they can from the failed ethnic minorities they import/support.

Whereas any other rich faction (minority/cultural conservative/economic liberal lives on the street amid squalor and high crime rates?

How many "compasionate conservatives" are hanging out at the hospital caring for those in persistent vegatative states? How many are adopting the crack babies they are creating by their "pro-life" actions? how many living wage jobs are they offering to inner city moms whose welfare checks they've recinded? And you dad visiting crack whore's on his way home from work doesn't count.

Mod up, actually understands economics

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget, can you remind if Wallmart sells or manufactures the iPod?

Re:Abroad...

[Anita Coney]

That's why I meant by "generally." I think "black" American music is probably better than the rest of the world's music. The various incarnations of jazz, the blues, rap (real rap not the commercial crap), funk, etc. People talk about the Beatles being such a big influence on popular music, but James Brown was integral to Soul, 60s Funk, 70s Funk, Jazz Fusion, Disco, Funk Rock of the 80/90s, and let's not forget Rap. How many white artists can claim to helping to create such a variety of genres!

However, there is something uniquely awful about the taste of white America. I'm not sure what it is. Aerosmith sucks. There's no denying it. But in the US they sold millions of records spanning four decades! God we suck!

Taste is subjective, so I don't mean to flame, but I've never considered Presley to be a talent at anything other than selling records. He couldn't play music. He couldn't write music. He was pure style over substance. The 50s equivalent to a boy band.

Music Publishers go WAA

[quakeroatz]

From reuters On the other hand, Sony BMG CEO Andrew Lack said at a Reuters gathering earlier this year that Apple is benefiting from two revenue streams, sales of both the iPod devices and song downloads, while the music industry has only one.

Translation:
Steves has two lolly pops we only have one, WAAAAAA.

Re:Music Publishers go WAA

[Anonymous Coward]

ony BMG CEO Andrew Lack said at a Reuters gathering earlier this year that Apple is benefiting from two revenue streams, sales of both the iPod devices and song downloads, while the music industry has only one.

Oh, please. Let's count the RIAA's revenue streams:
1) CDs
2) iTunes
3) All the WMA-based online music stores
4) Ringtones
5) The "piracy tax" on blank CDs marked as specifically for music
6) The list goes on...

Re:Music Publishers go WAA

[GaryPatterson]

Of course, the revenue stream enjoyed by the music industry covers both downloads and physical sales.

The download revenue stream is far greater than Apple's as well - in fact they get the lion's share (I think it's around 50 cents) and Apple get something like 10 cents on each song, with which they have to maintain and administer the entire global iTunes Music Store.

The money for the RIAA comes with no investment at all! They just get money to licence their songs. Apple literally does all the work in this arrangement.

And yet they cry "Foul!"

Claims like that one from the RIAA don't even stand up to a brief glance, let alone serious examination.

Re:Greed.

[ndtechnologies]

I noticed the note at the bottom of the link that you provided, and I do appreciate that info. My understanding of it is that you can use the codec for FREE if you are using it for home/non-commercial use. We are a commercial business, so I don't think that applies to us. If I have misunderstood that, please let me know, otherwise it looks to me that you have to pay a minimum of 2k in yearly fees for the MP3 codec, as well as a tribute percentage in royalties for the commercial use of the codec.

I will research it and find out how much it is. Thanks for the info.

Just one "sentence":

[Hurricane78]

"amazon one-click-buy of cds"!

any further questions?

Miss them? Vinyl isn't dead yet!

[Phil Urich]

Why, I bought some the other day! I have a record player right beside my monitor here, and I have records released in the oh-so-distant year of 2005 . . . in other words, don't lament the death of vinyl yet! For exactly some of the same reasons parent notes, vinyl is enjoying a bit of a comeback. Two of my newer ones (Sloan's 2003 "Action Pact" and ...Trail of Dead's 2005 "Worlds Apart" have some nicely on-par-with-oldskool artwork throughout, and at least, they're far beyond what I would have gotten with purchasing the CDs of each.

Okay, admittedly, it depends where you live. I actually spend most of my time in Edmonton, MiddleofnowhereAlberta, and here it's damn impossible to find new vinyl. Most of what I currently have I picked up from Zulu Records last time I was in Vancouver; every record store I went to there, though, had actual records, so I'd go as far as to say that in major cities across North America you'll be able to buy new vinyl with at most a small amount of hassle (the ones I picked up at Zulu Records were little pricier, if at all, than the CD version would be; and to be able to find an unopened copy of "Surfer Rosa" for less than a new CD of the album would be is just wonderous).

On a more topical sidenote; it does get a bit tricky when speaking of modern recordings, as to the sound quality. I was tempted to pick up a copy of "With Teeth" recently, but I resisted; true, the track order is even different and includes a song not on the "normal" version (Trent Reznor notably recently railed against the terrible lack of options for packaging nowadays with CDs, and so like he often does, the vinyl release of his latest album gives a big thumbs-up to vinyl collectors), but I had to admit that I already had the dualdisc version . . .

See, older albums would have been recorded with analog means, but anything relatively recent is going to have been recorded at least in a large part digitally, and mixed thusly and so forth. So often analog won't give you nearly the theoretical audio-quality increase that it used to with older releases. Furthermore, as is the case with the aforementioned dualdisc version of "With Teeth", the album might come in higher-than-CD quality digital, with characteristics that vinyl can't reproduce (in this example, having been recorded and engineered, by someone who really knows how to do this, in 5.1).

So, alas, vinyl has its strong suits and its weaknesses. But it certainly beats iTMS quality, for more than just the cover art question, and I could never give up the ability to flip on Side B of "Surfer Rosa" and here that "whooooooooo-stop" as Where Is My Mind begins with those slight, slight crackles audible clearly at the insane volume I've turned it up to . . .

So, parent, props to you, I mostly agree, but I'm going to paraphrase: Break out the old turntable, grab a favorite vinyl from a store, and remember how music still can be!

Re:Miss them? Vinyl isn't dead yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with vinyl these days is the horrible quality of the pressings. Granted, not all are bad, but most mainstream pressings if vinyl seem to be targeted towards collectors and pressed solely for novelty.

A perfect example of this is NIN's With Teeth. This album sounds awful, it is very sibilant and distorted. I've had this experience with other recent pressings, too, which has led me to abandon vinyl for new music. It is just too risky.

That said, nothing beats a well pressed and engineered album on vinyl.

Re:Miss them? Vinyl isn't dead yet!

[Phil Urich]

Huh, if your experience is anything to speak from, then I'm quite glad I didn't buy that copy of With Teeth when I had the option! Thank you, AC, for making me feel better about my choices!

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they are sloppy, lazy, and, or incompetent.

Apple should just become a label

[Synn]

Sign existing bands with sweet percentage deals on itune sales and outsource the physical media sales and tour management.

isn't the RIAA working more closely with MSFT

[Locutus]

yes, the tin-foil hat has to be on to go down this road but MSFT really needs for the iPod to go away. I would bet that it is one of the things keeping Bill and Steve up at night.

Now, if the industry started a damaging trend for Apple and its iPod, they just might be a more willing "partner" for Microsoft than Apple. After all, Microsoft and the music industry really are of like minds as far as what "rights" their customers have or should have. IMO.

Just a thought.

LoB

you misunderestimate their greed and stupidity

[Scudsucker]

The problem with your reasoning is that it requires rationality on the part of the recording industry, which it's always had in short supply. The iTMS is the proverbial goose that laid the first golden eggs...now the RIAA want to kill the goose to get the eggs that must be inside.

If I weren't broke I'd bet vast sums of money that the industry execs are thinking that if they kill off iTunes, Wal-Mart or Buymusic.com or Napster will step right in and take up the slack.

All of MP3 already paid.

[HornWumpus]

Back when the record companys thought there was little or no market over there they bought the Rusky distribution rights from international record companys.

Everything they do is legal. You MIGHT be breaking the law by reimporting a legal russian product over the internet.

Not AllofMP3's fault the record companys sold their librarys to them for cheap.

Re:Greed.

[dgatwood]

Remember, only a few pennies per song go to Apple, and only a small percentage of that goes to Steve Jobs. I think that about $.14 or $.15 goes to the artist. The other $.80 or so goes to the record labels.

If that were the case, Apple would be losing significant amounts of money on every transaction. A few pennies a song probably doesn't even cover the bandwidth, much less the credit card fees. I think you mean that only a few pennies per song go to Apple after expenses are taken out.

The numbers CDBaby published were that Apple got something like 33 cents a song. If that's correct, and if 15 cents goes to the label, then at most about a half dollar goes to the labels.

Re:Greed.

[clifyt]

"or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00."

They are describing a few types of organizations...

No license is needed for:

  a) private, non-commercial activities OR
  b) not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind OR
  c) for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

The key to these is the OR clause. I've looked into this for other friends companies and this was what their lawyers stated upon reading this. Yeah -- the patent part sucks, but they've sorta ammended their views and only go after companies that are making a BIG profit...and I think anyone making $100k can't claim they are a small player and should have to pay to the development in things like this.

As for the $2k -- that is the 2% of $100k...thus the minimum.

I think you are safe...but go for AAC anyways...I like it more than MP3 (the high end doesn't sound as brittle).

OGG Vorbis supported player here...

[MsGeek]

iRiver 895, plenty on eBay, more functionality than iPod Shuffle for a lower price.

Re:Greed.

[loraksus]

If you believe what this guy is saying. $0.30 a song. Labels take 53 cents and musicians get 11.

Re:Question. Who misses real albums?

[dunng808]

Call me a spoil-sport. I remember dust. I had the best dust sweeper brush I could buy, used it before and after every play, but even so, snap, crackle, dust. Someone walking past the turntable, ski-preeeck!! And warps. Brand new disks, even, and the tone arm bobbing for apples. At the crest of a wave it shimmies, then ski-preeeeck!!

Yeah, those were the good old days.

The biggest obstacle to good sound is good engineering. Good sound is a rare find in the industry, regardless of media. I am pleasently surprised by the clean sound on the Dave Matthews Band Live From Chicago CD. My ears tell me a talented team did a great mix live, went direct to disk bypassing compression and other tricks, and that is what shipped. Raw, clean sound. It can be done.

Re:Greed.

[asckar]

There is one thing different about CDBaby's numbers, and that is the fact that they are considered your "label" according to Apple. Indie artists & major artists are paid differently I believe, seeing as the majors have one set of contracts, and the god-knows-how-many indie labels have theirs. CDBaby made it's own agreement with Apple as to how their artists will be paid & so forth, with CDBaby keeping a MUCH smaller percentage than the majors do. One should also keep in mind that everything a major label artist does that costs his/her/their label money is RECOUPABLE. The recording session, the touring, the crew, sounds guys, equipment, clothes, EVERYTHING. So, in the end, Apple makes 33 cents, and the label makes the rest after recouping what the artist "made." Which makes a great case for CDBaby, who are fantastic to us musicians.

Commander Steve

[measure]

"If the price goes up, they (consumers) will go back to piracy..."

Roger that!

What's your friends band?

[SuperKendall]

Might as well provide a link so we can all try it out. I don't mind, and I'm curious.

Re:Question. Who misses real albums?

[Fussen]

You know what, I just noticed that myself. The Raw clean sound of live-to-disc recordings. I witnessed a "master" of a live event recorded to disc on the fly and realized that since the disc was never authored in the studio, no advanced sound compressions or eq trimming was ever applied. I heard sound pitches so intense that I had to back away from the speakers. And this made me wonder if it's because the audio was never authored for the "safe zone" of equipment. The prime example is a track the other day of Gordon Lightfoot, and I could hear that the way the sound came out of the speakers, the dynamic range was governed to the technical limitations of speakers when that song was released back in the mid 70s.

Look at history

[geekee]

"...and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires)."

Because before the advent of recorded music, it was so much easier to make a career out of music, right? All you had to do was find a wealthy aristocrat or merchant willing to support your career. Or you had the choice of becoming a traveling minstrel.

Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.

Re:Look at history

[nine-times]

Because before the advent of recorded music, it was so much easier to make a career out of music, right? All you had to do was find a wealthy aristocrat or merchant willing to support your career. Or you had the choice of becoming a traveling minstrel.

Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.

I'm sorry, did that appear to be what I was saying? That our options are:

1. Have huge monopolistic record companies
   -or-
   
2. Time travel

Were those the options I set forth? I didn't mean to. I thought, you know, we could keep the whole "recorded music" thing, maybe even the idea of "rock concerts" and "clubs" (you know, establishments wherein music is played, and the owners pay musicians while charging for drinks or something).

I think a lot of people will be disappointed though. Disbanding large record companies *and* creating time travel in a single swoop would be a real winner with the crowd here at Slashdot.

How is this insightful?

[geekee]

" The music companies aren't even paying for the bandwidth! Or paying to administer ITMS! The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them."

In other news, music companies don't pay Tower Record's electric bill.

definitely naive

[geekee]

" But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?

Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.

The online shop (iTunes for instance) could take care of the marketing as well."

So you want Apple to be the sole music producer and distributor in the world? Talk about a monopoly. At least the big 5 need to compete against eachother and the smaller labels. Not to mention Apple has no expertise in either producing or marketing music.

Jobs wants low prices for selfish reasons

[geekee]

The main purpose of iTMS is to get people hooked on iPods. Cheap music via iTMS provides further incentive for people to buy iPods. No surprise, therefore, that Steve Jobs doesn't want the price of online music to grow.

As an aside, it's pathetic that threat of piracy should influence the price of online music. How would you like to be a shop owner who had to keep his prices lower than he'd like to prevent shoplifting.

They are still losing money with itunes

[UnixSphere]

They want to raise the prices because they are losing money when their money comes from sales of entire albums. Where is the money when customers only want to buy specific quality songs on an album?

So they prefer to sell the entire album for 15 bucks or so, the customer gets stuck with buying the album only for a couple of songs they like on the entire album.

Thats why itunes is booming, because it gives customers more control over their purchases, they buy songs they like for 99 cents and not having to gamble their money and see if the other songs on the album is good after they have purchased it.

there is an easy way to kill the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

stop buying kelly clarkson cd's, britney spears, anything mass produced and go listen to some good music.

good on jobs for saying publicly that the record companies are greedy. this is bad publicity for them.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

$0.30 is about right. It costs about $0.15 minimum (even with Apple lumping the songs into one payment) for the credit card...so they end up with $0.15 to split between development of the store, the Akami distribution (which is why they have to send unencrypted files -- and let iTunes do the encryptions upon download -- it can only parse out static content -- and its STILL f'n expensive)...and from what I hear, they end up with about $0.03 for pure profit.

As for Labels and Musicians...depends on your contract. I know a lot of musicians that make a lot more than that. As I said in another post (though this will make no sense now that I decided to hit anonymous), I have a close friend that left the labels and after trying to find a new contract set up shop himself...he makes $0.66 a song. He claims its far more money than if he left a stack of CDs at the local Tower records. Other friends that didn't sign restrictive contracts thinking they were going to be rich overnight (some musicians actually read contracts -- though the guys at Downhill Battle like to pretend we are all a bunch of fucking dumbasses -- its not hard to get a better deal just by asking for specific clauses stricken) -- well, I know others that are making around $0.25 a song...and others that each download is COSTING them a nickle.

But the Downhill Battle site is a bit deceptive...it exposes the worst that can happen (and in some ways, it does a music a favor by getting them to ask questions...but mostly its there to convince people that piracy is good...I've been on one of the DH's blog torrent mailing list since day one -- good guys...but they are VERY full of themselves and don't even realize they are just throwing out just as much propoganda as the industry they oppose).

Not lying...just putting out the worst case scenario.

Re:Abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's Luciano Pavarotti

i cannot understand WHY some people have problems spelling names and words, even words in their own language (this is not the case but...)

Effects of online distribution for the industry

[jesterzog]

Asked why, I answered, "Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties. Excluding the royalties (which are a constant), bandwidth is MUCH cheaper than jewel cases, CD, physical distribution costs (trucking of the CDs, etc...) and the artwork."

On the other hand (and I'm not at all trying to support the music cartel when I say this), consider what might happen if online music was cheap:

1. People would buy music online much more frequently.
2. Less people would buy CD's and other tangible media.
3. Production of CD's would become infeasible (as not enough people buy them).
4. Music stores most go out of business, or switch to some other product.
5. People stop thinking of music as a tangible product.
6. Because tangible media is no longer required to maintain attention and imply added value, the barrier to entry for the industry drops substantially.
7. New, non-cartel music providers are born, licensing music in non-tangible media that appears to have as much value as the status quo. After all, radio plays for some music aside, what's so different about the bulk of popular music except that it can also be bought in stores on CD's?
8. The music industry can no longer be a price-fixing cartel, because it's suddenly undercut by genuine competition.
9. Existing industry members have to radically change their business model to something much less profitable, or go out of business.

What it comes down to is that the existence of online distribution is a serious threat to the status quo of the music industry. The sooner people get used to using it, the sooner people will realise that they don't necessarily need big media companies for "good" music.

It's in the interests of the existing industry to do as much as possible to discourage people from taking advantage of online distribution. They're not just greedy because they want more money -- they're concerned they'll lose people's loyalty of people are allowed to see the alternatives.

Troll? He's right you know.

[3.5 stripes]

Record companies pay for it up front, then recoup their money from the record sales... There's a reason an artist only sees 11 cents from each 99 cent itunes track.

Damn RIAA mods.

Re:Troll? He's right you know.

[digidave]

Not exactly. Record companies recoup their money from the artists' 11 cents per song, they don't take it out of their own portion of the money.

Re:Greed.

[cakesy]

So he is undeniably wealthy, but still continues to be a drain on the public system by sending his kids to a public school? You don't see that as weird. It is similar to the situation were people win the lottery, and continue to work in their old job. Yeah, you don't have to work now, but don't give up that valuable job to someone who might actually need it. Sheesh. I would kill someone if they came back to work after winning the lottery, who wants to hear all their great stories about the holidays they go to on the weekend.

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The labels don't pay for recording. Like almost every other cost, it is paid for by the artist.

Seriously..

[StikyPad]

Hello Pot, I'm Kettle!

music demand

[Stu Charlton]

What I find most interesting about these economic debates about restricting supply vs. demand is that they seem to always stop at the level of distribution -- supply and demand is in terms of # of songs downloaded, # of CD's sold, etc. People then proceed to focus on the costs of distribution, and not looking at the costs/risks associated with financing development.

The upstream supply of developing songs that people want to hear is the real scarcity here, and is really what determines pricing.

The Oracle Example

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to point out Oracle's approach to protecting software. They have no copy protection on their software at all, their products are very expensive, and their revenue is greater than the box office take of ALL movies in the U.S.

Makes one think....

standing on the sun

[spepper]

Jobs' comment about the RIAA being greedy is a classic "firm grasp of the obvious" statements, sort of like saying "Whew, it's hot around here", while standing on the SUN-- they are the Supreme Evil in the galaxy, waving the DMCA around in U.S. courts like a Sith Red Crystal Light Saber-- Beware of the Dark Side!

Re:Greed.

[aug24]

And I'm not saying that I don't also respect Bill Gates for his philanthropy.

I will. I don't respect Bill Gates for his philanthropy.

I appreciate it, but when you're as rich as Bill is, it costs you nothing on the personal scale to give away even those vast amounts.

J.

Isn't this Blatant Anti-Competitive Behavior?

[SoopahMan]

If the RIAA as one body asks Apple to raise their prices, isn't that price-fixing by its very legal definition? Isn't that exactly what Anti-Competitive laws are designed to prevent? Isn't every participating member of the RIAA offering clear evidence of their otherwise circumstancial anti-competitive activity?

I'd expect lawyers to be pouncing on this opportunity... what gives?

Re:Greed.

[macshome]

I used to think this too until I read what Woz has to say about the whole matter himself.

The short version is that he tends to cry easy and over lots of stuff, he dosen't remember being particuarly angry over it, and he's over it now.

Consider that Jobs spoke at Woz's dad's funeral service after the supposed evil Steve Jobs deed was done.

Re:Greed.

[pipingguy]

The RIAA is a bunch of middlemen...

I'm not an RIAA/MPAA apologist, but most of the white-collar workers in these entertainment industries are, in fact, "middle men" (or beneficiaries of the current system).

Think of all the lost, high-paying jobs.

Re:Abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Beatles

Has nobody pointed out to you that the Beatles (all of them) were born in LIVERPOOL, which is in ENGLAND?? that's hardly 100% American...

Re:Greed.

[pomo monster]

Yeah, that's true. The AC pointed out that magnet schools aren't really "public" schools in the same sense that Jobs' kids attend public schools, which is probably more germane to the discussion.

I don't know where you live, but in NYC our mayor (Bloomberg, you know him) has done a lot to improve the quality of education, mostly by ending social promotion and appointing an ed. chancellor who gives a damn: Joel Klein. You probably know him too.

During the Democratic mayoral primaries, someone asked the candidates if they'd send their children to public or private schools. They basically either lied and said they'd send their kids to public school, or weaseled out of the question. If only one of them would have the balls to propose a school voucher system without religious overtones, I think voters here would cream themselves, even if the teacher's union would impale the brains behind the act.

OT: Thanks for responding.

[David Rolfe]

Parent: Just call them the proper term--copyright infringers. Not "thieves," not "pirates," just copyright infringers. That way the term doesn't reflect the emotions of the corporations, and reflects on the actual acts that the infringers are doing.

Yeah this was my point. I'm glad we agree. Words have meaning; words also have the power we attach to them. Using nigger or pirate is a way to change the balance of power -- a rhetorical device that appeals to fear and blinds the true debate/discussion (by triggering feelings associated with prejudice, whether for racial oppression or mortal peril).

There's a great book about this particular debate. Here's a review:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/22/kenn edy/

Either way, calling copyright infringers pirates is a slur, as much as any other. The fact that anyone is desensitized to the point where they throw it around all the time is as much a victory for the copyright cartel as the rampant use of 'nigger' was for the old-south. I know the comparison of the plantation system with the intellectual-monopoly system is a bit unfair, but I think the damage to culture is just as real (possibly with both wider [spatially] and further-reaching [chronologically] effects).

Additionally --
Parent: (Just to clarify things, I am black, too).

Maybe I was unclear. In the interests of being totally honest, I am not. I was only asking if it would alter your perception if I were (and did it?). I stick to the claim that America is still racist because I have an "interracial" marriage (whatever that means) and as a result prejudice crops up now and again in social settings (haha, like in hurricane preparedness and relief). It's only funny because it's real ;). I enjoy the 'net because for the most part it is colorblind (meritocracies usually are, hacker's manifesto and all).

Re:Greed.

[Kaihaku]

Very true. Jobs is an artist interested in perfecting his art. Gates is a businessman interested in obtaining more money. Ellison is an idiot interested in sharing his idiocy.

The Jobs

[fm6]

I respect [Steve Jobs] for the fact that he has great taste and an intolerance for poor quality.

Bear in mind that he's also responsible for Finding Nemo!

Re:Greed.

[tdubya]

I hope you are not implying that Bill Gates is greedy, especially since the man donates over 1 billion a year through the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. No, not in Microsoft software all the time either (such as donated over $100 million to help kids with aids...

Re:Greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

AAAAaaarrGGGhhh ... Me Matey! Talk like a pirate day is every day!

Changing lifestyles because of money...

[dafing]

"It is similar to the situation were people win the lottery, and continue to work in their old job. Yeah, you don't have to work now, but don't give up that valuable job to someone who might actually need it. Sheesh. I would kill someone if they came back to work after winning the lottery..." Thats a TERRIBLE thing to say! Just because you have some(read: a fair bit) financial stablity, doesnt mean you have to change your way of life! I, as a working class New Zealander, know that if I was doing what I loved, I wouldnt want to leave it. My parents both have reasonable jobs, one is an Antique Dealer, the other a Personal Caregiver(looking after the elderly and sick), they wouldnt give up their jobs just because they dont need the extra money. Some times its about doing something because you know you do it well, and it helps the community.

Re:Changing lifestyles because of money...

[cakesy]

Yes, but surely you can see in my example, that someone winning the lottery would do a greater service to the community by giving up their job to someone needy?

It is important to note, that I am not simply suggesting people who are well of need leave their jobs, but if you win the lottery and keep their job, that i going a bit far.

If your parents have as much money as Steve, then they should stop earning a wage. Continuing something just because you enjoy it, when unemployment is so high, sounds a little selfish...

Re:Changing lifestyles because of money...

[dafing]

Some people do a fine job contributing to the society by doing their job well. In my country, perhaps we have more jobs to go around, I assume you will jump on that to say "well obviously you do...", hopefully its now redundent. My parents are both in the red if anything, but by having a job such as a caregiver, and treating people well, looking after them, is surely better than quitting, and ending a sort of relationship with the person, to be replaced with a unexperienced young immigrantw who wont do as good a job. (Dont take that as being racist, New Zealand is really even more of a "Melting Pot" than America, im just suggesting that maybe a person new to the country would "need the job more") Nothing selfish about helping people, Im sure you have more money than I do, so by my interpetation of your ideas, you should cease earning a living, and live off your "savings"!!! Its easy to apply things to other people far way, but they hurt when its closer to home. Have a great day!

Re:Changing lifestyles because of money...

[cakesy]

OK, You assumption is based on the fact that nobody can do a job like your parents. Well, maybe we are discussing a special case here, and maybe what you are saying is true. But please don't lose sight of my point. A caregiver earning a good wage, is not comparable to an ordinary office worker who just won the lottery. So once again, it is important to distinguish someone like your parents, and someone who say, works in a supermarket, earns a tiny wage, and then wins a huge pile of money, more than they would ever learn. If you put my meaning into this context, i am sure you will agree. I really do have nothing against your parents, and I am not suggesting that they stop work. PS. I am from Australia, not the US.

Re:Changing lifestyles because of money...

[dafing]

Hi Cakesy! I assume nothing of the sort! My family is fairly ordinary, perhaps it is YOU that is the special case? Being a caregiver is a very poor paying job, at least in this case, really bad pay. But its about the satisfaction of KNOWING YOU HELPED somebody, another human being. My parents have really ill paying jobs, but its about more than the cash! If your situation happens, then surely the person would WANT to leave their job? Maybe the person enjoys it, for some reason neither of us know. If they find something that makes them want to stay at the job, even with more money than they would ever "learn", then they should be able to stay at it! I'ts great to hear that you are "from" Australia, but that doesnt tell me where you live now. Have a great day! (Im happy knowing that its satisfying working for the people, not from my poor pay, no, im not on drugs)