Digital Music Downloads Too Expensive?

threeofnine writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has an article written by a copyright and technology lawyer asking if we are paying too much for digital downloads. From the article: 'Parallel imports are unavailable in the Australian digital market, however. Australian consumers cannot purchase downloads from iTunes or Wal-Mart in the US, which are often cheaper than downloads available here, without a US-issued credit card. And restrictive licensing conditions imposed by copyright owners also limit the sale of digital downloads across international borders. For both reasons Australian consumers miss out. And retailers cannot buy downloads from overseas and resell them here, even if it is worthwhile for them to do so. In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300 per cent more expensive.'"

Comments

both sides of their mouths.

[yagu]

Interesting key (and somewhat conflicting) points from the article:

This is not the fault of retailers. Prices for digital downloads are based on wholesale prices, and are determined on a territorial basis by record companies based on their perception of what each market can bear

and:

As a border-free environment, the internet was supposed to bring down market barriers. But record companies use the internet to create boundaries and increase protectionism in the market for sound recordings, to the detriment of consumers

So, in addition to lobbying in the United States to encumber music and entertainment beyond any previous restrictions (to the point of unusability if they get their way), the music industry tries to layer artificial geographical artifacts over the internet to further increase their (already obscene) profits. I find it interesting the entertainment wonks get away with this under the "protection of artists and intellectual property" canards juxtaposed next to the argument that many people lose their jobs to outsourcing as a result of the "global economy" and the breaking down of these alleged geographic boundaries.

Seems like those in power define by expedience.

(As an aside, another tasty tidbit in the article:

When will parallel-import laws be extended to the digital market, so that Australian consumers are finally charged a fair price for downloads?

I find this an interesting question -- maybe when Americans are also charged a fair price for music (they aren't today). Sigh.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[TubeSteak]

Those two points aren't contradictory at all.

Both support the assertion that the recording industry is still artificially keeping prices up.

Maybe someone will start up a business to issue low value American credit cards to foreigners so they can buy from iTunes. Even if it makes digital downloads 200% more expensive, there's still a savings.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[aristotle-dude]

I had hoped that you would have a better grasp of economics when I saw you quote the the first part but alas, it was not so. The wholesale prices and retail prices of goods and services are usually determined not only on what the market can bear but also on the cost of doing business in each country. Do you honestly think the companies have no brick and mortar operations in each country for logistical purposes? They need to have a head office in each market they are dealing in and people on the ground scouting for new talent. All of this costs money and the amount varies from market to market based on the cost of living and government imposed payroll taxes.

I have a few questions for you. How would they determine how much of the sales to provide for each sales region if there was only one store? Which region would be used to determine the price? How would you handle currency fluctuations? Why should some regions suffer with lower margins in times of currency market instability while others profit more? If prices fluctuated with the currency markets, should wages do the same?

I really don't think the slashdot community understands some of the basic tenents of local economics and how the internet plays into it. If you can a company without a presence in other countries, then you can ship anywhere and charge the same price+shipping to everyone but if you have a presence in each market, you have to be able to cover your margins in those regions with slightly differing prices. Also, if you are going to have universal pricing of physical goods, chances are that your customers will have to foot the bill for import duties.

In closing, I really don't blame the slashdotters themselves but rather the clueless media which have led people to believe things which are not true like that the internet will bring down all barriers to trade. Such notions are naive and simplistic because they cannot apply to every business model out there. The only way you could have a single market is if you had a single currency and a single set of labour practices/taxes.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[yagu]

Good points. I am not an economics expert and your point about that is well taken. I do understand at an elementary level some of the tenets you describe, and would have factored that into a longer post, i.e., IANAEE (economics expert), but the entertainment industry is playing loose with the rules here.

So, my post was thinner than it could have been but I still think underpinning the industry around downloads and digital media is a sinister and conniving Star Chamber, and they're not there for their industry, they're not there for their artists, nor are they for the customer.

You're also right the media short shrift the principles in this (and almost everything else they "report") and lead too many to misguided inferences, that's a shame. I do wish they were more thorough.

I acceed your points there is a lot more to the skin thin article referenced, but I also cry "foul" with the entertainment industry. Perhaps more active resistance and investigation into the industry would reveal their evil plans (or not), and allow for appropriate corrective forces. I don't see that happening because of the highly technical nature of the argument, and the paying public's indifference (at least until it's too late).

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[Anonymous Coward]

people lose their jobs to outsourcing as a result of the "global economy" and the breaking down of these alleged geographic boundaries.

Not to attack you, but it's also funny to bring up immigration when people talk about a global economy and breaking geographic boundaries.

It seems jobs are outsourced to countries that have a lower cost of living, how can anyone living in the US compete with that? So if it's going to be so easy to move the jobs somewhere else, why can't it be easy to move the workers somewhere else?

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[Maximilio]

the assertion that the recording industry is still artificially keeping prices up.

I can confirm for a solid fact that this is extremely true. I can have on-demand CD's printed off Lulu for $5.75 a pop. On-demand printing is proportionally 150% or more expensive than mass-produced printing, which I also know by comparing what it costs to print off my book versus what a trade paperback goes for in the store. So imagine what the real per-unit cost of a CD is, factoring in just about everything else (and the fact that the record companies' "advance" to the band usually deducts all of the costs of recording the actual music), it is probably below $3.00, and very likely below $2.00. We're talking a ballpark markup of about 1,000%

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this kind of logic.

I can have on-demand CD's printed off Lulu for $5.75 a pop. On-demand printing is proportionally 150% or more expensive than mass-produced printing, which I also know by comparing what it costs to print off my book versus what a trade paperback goes for in the store.

All right. I can buy that the actual manufacturing costs for a CD when mass-produced are 2/3 of what you pay for small numbers.

So imagine what the real per-unit cost of a CD is, factoring in just about everything else (and the fact that the record companies' "advance" to the band usually deducts all of the costs of recording the actual music), it is probably below $3.00

$3.00, last I checked, is significantly less than 2/3 of 5.75. (It's $3.83.) And you just hand-waved over the fact that your starting point was just for manufacturing costs.

...and very likely below $2.00.

...And here you drop an extra dollar, just because you feel like it, apparently.

We're talking a ballpark markup of about 1,000%

And now you decide that the retail price of a CD is around $20. In reality, it's more like $15-$18 at the most expensive stores, and more commonly in the $12-$13 range.

It's difficult to find actual data about what the real breakdown of the cost of a CD is, since anything on the internet is either written by rabidly pro- or anti-RIAA people, but one list I found says:

• Profit to label - $0.59
• Pressing album and printing booklet - $0.75
• Co-op advertising and discounts to retailers - $0.85
• Signing act and producing record - $1.08
• Royalties to artist and songwriter - $1.99
• Marketing and promotion - $2.15
• Company overhead, distribution, and shipping - $3.34
• Retail markup - $6.23

Other sources say that the label gets more -- depending on the source, somewhere up to about 25% of the total price. But it certainly is not the 90% that you seem to think it is.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[gurps_npc]

You are misunderstanding certain things yourself.

In a truly free economy, the seller does NOT have total pricing control. Instead it is supposed to be set by TWO values, A) The Supply and B) The Demand.

The concept of regional pricing is not designed to deal with supply issues such as the cost of maintaining offices in an area. Those costs are so minimal that they don't really affect the price.

Instead, the concept of regional pricing is designed to artifically manipulate Demand. Supposing the idea is that you set different prices based on demand. Where Demand is high the people are willing to pay more, so you set a higher price. Where demand is low, the peopel are not willing to pay more, so you set a lower price in order to get some sales. Historically you usually throw in a time delay so as nto to totally screw/piss off the high demand people (I.E. Americans pay more for first run Hollywood movies but get them faster than say Australians).

However, that does not appear to be what is going on here. If it were, then prices would be higher in Australia only for music that is in MORE demand in Australlia, and it should be CHEAPER for music that is less demand in Australia.

Instead, prices are higher across the board. That means that the music industry is using regional pricing to gouge Australians, which it is NOT supposed to do.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[Znork]

"But it certainly is not the 90% that you seem to think it is."

Considering that the propaganda claims that copyright is necessary to encourage the creative arts, I can see only $1.99 that can arguably cover that claim. We're definitely paying about five times what we should be paying, and more than five times what we would be paying if we just abolished copyright and collectively financed the artists and writers outright.

Re:both sides of their mouths.

[Maximilio]

All right. I can buy that the actual manufacturing costs for a CD when mass-produced are 2/3 of what you pay for small numbers.

I was giving ballpark figures. And you weren't paying attention because you're being a pedantic asshole. Presuming you know jack shit about any of this process why don't you give me your rundown, Mr. I Fucking Know Everything? Oh, wait, I think you did, and you ignored about 90% of what I said because it was convenient for you. I wasn't talking about the marketing costs, or the cost to record the CD, which if you were paying any attention at all you would have noted are commonly stated to have been charged back to the band out of their own advance.

Furthermore here is a real quote from a manufacturing outfit in regards to how much it costs to have 1,000 CD's pressed. Guess what, shit-for-brains?

1,000 CDs
3-color CD printing
Jewel Cases with gray tray
Standard Color 4-Panel Inserts
Traycard
$1,099.29 Delivered

So that's $1.09 unit cost. Including the traycard and label printed on the CD. Booyah, motherfucker!

Why not...

[Anonymous Coward]

... AllOfMp3.com?

Re:Why not...

[stew77]

http://www.emusic.com/ has a pretty sweet deal on non-DRM mp3s as well, using a subscription model. They have a focus on minor labels.

Re:Why not...

[johnfink]

The availability over the Internet of the ALLOFMP3.com materials is authorized by the license # LS-3-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia...

... The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.

In other words, this Russian outfit can't guarantee that you won't be sued by a certain US entity for buying and downloading their fancy-shmancy mp3's. No thanks.

Re:Why not...

[pNutz]

And emusic is actually has contracts with labels and artists and compensates them for what you get unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money).

also, audiolunchbox.com, bleep.com, and calabashmusic.com have good, compensated indie and world music. They're more expensive than emusic, more in iTunes range.

Re:Why not...

[B1ackDragon]

Speaking of which, I just this morning got their old AllofMp3 Explorer client (not yet alltunes unfortunately) working in linux using crossover office.

To go further off topic, 40 bucks (the cost of ~four cd's) for crossover office (which rocks, by the way) is a liscence cost I will totally be willing to pay for in 30 days when my trial runs out. Makes me feel good that some companies actually price IP products sanely.

Re:Why not...

[PhoenixPath]

"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."

It's legal, high-quality, and cheap. What the artists and labels do behind the scenes doesn't mean squat to the consumer. Of course, your opinion means just as much since it affects you not at all.

Now, were The Donna's, The D4's, or American Hi-Fi commenting on this, I'd probably take it into consideration. Seeing as how many Artists are now expressing thewir displeasure with RIAA's tactics, I really don't see many of them having an issue with AllofMP3, seeing as how simply signing up with ROMS would get them the royalties they are, according to you, so desperately missing.

Until they outlaw importing music into the US, or find some way to shut them down, AllofMP3 will continue to be my choice for online music purchases.

Re:Why not...

[Arker]

Unfortunately, no one can guarantee you won't be sued by anyone in the US, for anything.

It would be seem to be nearly impossible to be sued succesfully for this in the US, however. It's not illegal to import music from abroad, yet at least.

Re:Why not...

[pNutz]

The Donna's are on eMusic. Just in case you care about paying musicians for their music instead of the Russian Mafia. Sucker.

Funny postscript: I accidently pasted "In case you care about paying musicians instead of the Russian Mafia," into the address bar ("I-feel-lucky-ing" it to the first google page) and this site came up.

Re:Why not...

[PhoenixPath]

Russian Mafia?

LMAO...

Nice.

eMusic isn't letting me browse without registering. How would I have known? Is there selection really *that* bad they that if they show you before you sign up you probably won't?

Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anita Coney]

I find Allofmp3 to be quite reasonable! About 10 cents per song with no DRM. You can't beat that.

selling music by the meg?

[joeldg]

There are websites like allofmp3.com that sell mp3's in bulk with a set amount per meg.. seems pretty cheap to me, set the bitrate, if you want higher quality music than you can get on limewire or soulseek..

iTunes is too expensive .. but, there are alternatives.

Re:selling music by the meg?

[goldspider]

None of that money is going to the artists either. I thought a goal of the crusade against the RIAA was to get more $$ into artists' hands.

Re:selling music by the meg?

[MrHeartbreak]

Selling music by the meg sounds to me a lot like selling paintings by the yard. I thought it was supposed to be about quality, not quantity. But what do I know?

Re:selling music by the meg?

[B_Realll]

The goal of going against the RIAA is far from unified. Some people are against them because they want fair use of the music they have purchased. Others are against them because they are ripping off the artists. Others, like myself, believe that they are going against the free market and are using the courts to back up their manipulations. I don't think there is really anything wrong with any of the positions.

Re:selling music by the meg?

[LunaticTippy]

You're close.

Selling copies of music by the meg is a lot like selling copies of paintings by the yard. Which they do. The cost of production is bandwidth & servers for copies of music, paper & ink & presses for posters. Tack on a bit for creators and there you go. (not getting into whether allofmp3 does it properly)

Torrents have no Borders

[digitaldc]

And restrictive licensing conditions imposed by copyright owners also limit the sale of digital downloads across international borders.

Is it any surprise that the Australians are abandoning the commercial ship and are now sailing from the Pirate Bay?

Re:Torrents have no Borders

[geminidomino]

WMVs off the port bow!

Yarr, these be treacherous waters...

Re:Torrents have no Borders

[watterman]

Right on. As an Australian, I didn't realise how over-charged we were for CD's (before downloadable digital music)...

Until I travelled to SE Asia.. I saw copious amounts of cheap pirated music and software at every turn, And the stuff in the shops was cheaper also (probably to compete with piracy).

I haven't bought a CD in Australia since, now 9 years and counting...

My thoughts are: Piracy Pays

Music has no absolute value

[koweja]

So it is "worth" what people are willing to pay, no more no less. Buyers are willing to pay $1 for a song, so songs are worth $1. Besides, if the music industry had it's way songs would be selling for a whole lot more. Besides Australia, and Europe for that matter, get screwed over why it comes to buying computer hardware and videogames compared to US prices. So in the end we (Americans) get the better deal when it comes to entertainment.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[Anita Coney]

While that is normally true, music is not a free market. The music industry has both a macro and micro monopolies over music. By that I mean only a few music companies control the vast majority of music and set prices accordingly. And then each individual music company has exclusive monopolies over particular artists. So if you want to buy Rage Against the Machine, you have to buy it from Sony.

If you want evidence that the music industry ignores supply and demand, look no further than CD prices. Despite the enormous drop in CD sales the prices have not dropped. In fact, the music industry has raised prices over the same time period.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[B_Realll]

Buyers are willing to pay $1 for a song, so songs are worth $1.

Wrong! Some buyers are willing to pay $1 a song. The fact that people are still pirating and using grey-market sites like allofmp3.com shows this. Anyone that has taken Econ 101 knows that the supply and demand are not matching up here. The songs are worth whatever price point the market determines. The fact that all songs are priced the same regardless of consumer demand shows that the music industry is a cartel and is fixing prices. You can argue that people will always take free over pirating, but that is misleading too. There is a "value" to not running the risk of being sued. If the price matches the market demand, there will be fewer pirates. Fewer pirates means that the few left will be much easier to catch. Besides, if enough people quit sharing because they are now buying, the piracy market will become much less appealing because of fewer seeds/sources.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[the_masked_mallard]

i dont get what you mean by pirated ? isnt pirated stuff, the stuff which you buy from someone who has illegally duplicated it ?

in a p2p network, nobody demands money from you to get what they have on offer.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'd pay something like $0.1-$0.2 per song.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[B_Realll]

I don't necessarily agree with the term "pirated" either. "obtained from an unauthorized source" is probably more accurate. Every industry loses some profit to "theft". If the "piracy" problem is as bad as the music industry is saying, it tells me that they are determining the price for the market instead of the other way around, which is how it is supposed to work.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[MrHeartbreak]

...and chart music has absolutely no value.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[nelsonal]

Go smack your economics teacher in the head and demand a refund. Tell them to make you listen next time. Demand is measured along a curve, in any market (diamonds, water, there is a maximum that Bill Gates would pay for a single produced item, then as the price declines more and more people are willing to purchase the item, continuing until the last person is so overly satisfied that even they would not pay a fraction penny for an additional unit. Supply and demand are matching in that market place as long as there is even a single transaction.

Now you bring up a second market that sells at a lower price but carries additional risk. Which some users percieve as having less cost than $1. This is the same as saying that because I can buy a DVD player from a crackhead for $20 there is not a market in legitimately traded DVD players. It's still the same market there's just a discount associated with the risk bundled in the grey (or black) market transactions. People can evaluate the risk and potential cost and choose to pay more with no risk or less with an element of risk bundled in. The risk isn't entirely being sued, its also the risk of poor data quality (think if the whole file was just goatse images), which is non-zero.

I think what you meant was that a large portion of music customers price those risks at well below a dollar, but no one really knows what the volume is on pirated sites (I'd be nothing more than guessing that P2P distributes far more songs than iTunes).
Even if the grey market were larger, it seems likely that a very large portion of sub $1 demand is less elastic than you appear to be projecting. The credit card companies probably take at least a dime, and if 90% of the grey market values their downloads at less than a dime (in percieved risk reduction), lowering prices to 11 cents would greatly reduce total revenues due to the price reductions more than offseting the increasing volume.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[B_Realll]

I realize that supply and demand are based on a curve. Digital distribution changes the way the curves are set though. The music industry wants to set the supply curve as if the costs of distribution are the same digitally as they have been traditionally. The demand curve flattens drastically because of the same reason. This is what scares them because they make their money from the distribution system currently in use.

The rest of your argument is crap. Your DVD player analogy is backwards. The files you buy from allofmp3(crackhead) are of better quality than you get from legit retailers like iTunes. You set your bitrate and format (no DRM). If a site sells files that are all goatse images, then that site will not be able to continue to stay in business. People will notice the scam and another site will get their business. This is not the fault of iTMS either. Do you think they would still be selling at $1 each if they hadn't been strongarmed by the big labels?

The credit card companies don't figure into this either. Any site that would allow a credit card transaction for a single download would be shooting itself in the foot. The solution would be a subscription/user account setup with defined amounts ($10,$20 purchases) in order to minimize the impact of the cost of using their services.

The music industry is pure and simply using monopolistic practices to fight off alternative distributions of the same product. There are very few valid reasons to ever fight against a free market on any good, digital or otherwise.

IANAE but I'm not an idiot either

Re:Music has no absolute value

[Mad Dog Manley]

People can evaluate the risk and potential cost and choose to pay more with no risk or less with an element of risk bundled in.

So, I can pay less and download my music off P2P networks. The cost of getting a bad quality song? I delete it and download a higher quality song. So far, in 99.5% of the cases where I have downloaded, the quality has been excellent. In those 0.5% cases where it has not, it took a matter of 5 minutes and no additional money to find a suitable quality version.

Or I can choose "less risk" by buying a CD in a store? Such as, a CD from Sony with malicious software that installs without my knowledge, causing all sorts of harm and may require a total system reinstall to remove it?

Which is the greater risk again?

Re:Music has no absolute value

[shark72]

"Wrong! Some buyers are willing to pay $1 a song. The fact that people are still pirating and using grey-market sites like allofmp3.com shows this. Anyone that has taken Econ 101 knows that the supply and demand are not matching up here. "

That's a good basic fundamental for Econ 101, but in the real world, the supplier gets to pick the point on the curve that's optimum for them. That point may not be the point of highest volume, or -- and this is the tough one -- the point of highest profit.

The iTMS is a runaway success by any means. My guess is that Apple is perfectly happy with the volume and growth. Plenty of Slashdotters say things like "If only songs were $0.80 or $0.50, then I'd go legit, but in the meantime I have no choice but to pirate" (you may laugh, but that's a common attitude around here). Frankly, I don't think there's a lot of elasticity between a buck and $0.80, but even if Apple's research shows otherwise, it may not be worth their while in the long term to take pricing to $0.80 at this point.

Music is somewhat of a commodity item (which is why, believe it or not, it's a low-margin industry), but this point can be explained better by looking at luxury goods. Most people would say that Ferarris are too expensive. Ferarri might have higher sales and even higher profitability if they lowered their price points. Yet their prices are only going up, and Ferarri sells every last car it can build.

Re:Music has no absolute value

[B_Realll]

I am a hardcore free-market advocate so I have no problem with any supplier setting their prices however they want. The problem with the RIAA is that they use lawsuits and strong arm tactics to shut down cheaper means of distribution for the sole purpose of fleecing their customers. They are the middlemen in the chain and will do absolutely anything to keep it that way. They have a built in conflict of interest by being the producers (own the rights anyway) and distributors. ANY other business that is a producer would kill for a virtually free means of distribution.

You discredited your own example of Ferarri. If they are already selling every car they can build, then they wouldn't gain anything by lowering their prices. They would only lose money (and cause a shortage of Ferarris) by doing so. Oh well, just another bad car analogy I guess.

No connection

[suv4x4]

Did anyone notice the article summary has no connection with the title whatsoever...?

Re:No connection

[Anita Coney]

Oh god, that means Slashdot is turning into digg!!! The horror!

Re:No connection

[OctoberSky]

It does make sense... if you live in Australlia, where the prices are apparently "too expensive" I think the submitter is from there.

It's sometimes easy to forget that the internets is a global community.

Re:No connection

[suv4x4]

It does make sense... if you live in Australlia, where the prices are apparently "too expensive" I think the submitter is from there.
It's sometimes easy to forget that the internets is a global community.

I live in Bulgaria, where the prices are:

NaN

Error Line 5 column 42: what the heck is a digital download.

Re:No connection

[Zoxed]

The only thing missing might be to append "in Australia" to the title. Then, IMHO, the title matches both the summary and TFA (yes: it must have slipped though!).

There are alternative stores for them.

[gasmonso]

They can shop at eMule, Bittorrent, and Gnutella. They have very reasonable prices and the largest selection available anywhere!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Stop the RIAA

[zufar]

EFF is collecting signatures to stop RIAA

To The United States Congress: We are the customers and former customers of the member labels of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing....

Let's slashdot the Senate and House Commerce!

Re: Stop the RIAA

[goldspider]

To The United States Congress: We are the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love selling music and will gladly sell it for a fair price, but we are outraged by filesharers' tactics in acquiring our product without paying for it...

Spin works both ways.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[Have Blue]

Back when the RIAA was going after entire file-sharing programs, weren't we complaining that going after individual users is what they should be doing?

Re: Stop the RIAA

[jZnat]

Yes, but they're going after random people in the hopes they strike gold because everybody obviously pirates music. They're suing innocent people, and that's just sick.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[SatanicPuppy]

Hard to feel pain for a rapacious monopoly who sues 12 year olds and grandmothers.

I don't have any problem with buying music. I still buy CDs, even. But the instant some inane, pathetic copy protection pops up when I stick it into my computer, I go nuts. I'm too lazy to burn my junk to MP3. I just want to listen to it while I work, but this isn't allowed in RIAA world, because I might possibly allow other people to infringe on copyright with my legitmate copy.

Screw them. They cross the line all the time, from inflated prices, to screwing the artists, to taking away my fair use rights on something I had the stupidity to buy from them. I support legislation that would make it impossible for the corporations to hold copyrights on music that they didn't create, and I don't take "create" to mean "throw money at".

They don't even deserve to be part of the process anymore.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

We love selling music and will gladly sell it for a fair price...

Well? What's stopping you? The Station's two CDs are each ten bucks, each a full 70 minutes of music that is head and shoulders above any of the shite your so-called "artists" put out, with full art and a ten page lyric sheet enclosed. You can get lossless compression files of a dozen or more of their live CDs for FREE.

Meanwhile you worthless dickweeds want thirty bucks for a forty year old Beatles album.

You and your labels are pathetic. Die already, and get the hell out of the way of the artists and listeners. Neither of us need you any more.

(BTW, Posamist's first CD is killer, and also only ten bucks, but there's only 50 minutes or so and no lyric sheet, although lyrics are at their web site. Still better than anything YOUR label produces, at a half the price or better! AND they give MP3s away on their site.)

It's pathetic when someone lies in such a baldface manner. When (if ever, unlikely imo) you really ARE willing to sell at a fair price your labels might stop dying.

-mcgrew

Re: Stop the RIAA

[Cal Paterson]

"Spin works both ways."

It's only "spin" if you're portraying a fact inncorrectly. These are both opinions on the situation, thus, neither can be spin. They _can_ be lies though.

You had a point in my eyes, but you were so eager to fight those damn groupthinkers with the latest Times coloumnist dictionary that you really lost it.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[goldspider]

The problem lies in determining who gets to define a "fair" price. Obviously, what the RIAA has decided is fair for said Beattles album ($30; I'll take your word for it) is much different from what many here have decided ($0).

So who is right? If we still have a capitalist economy (and last I checked, we do), both seller and buyer set the final price. If the price is too high, the buyer will not purchase the good, and the seller won't make money. This is especially true with such a non-essential good.

Oddly enough, nowhere in the whole market price equation is the assumption that the buyer is entitled to the good for free if he/she decides the price is too high.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[MBGMorden]

The thing though, is that MP3's are not goods. They are an electronic pattern that I decided to apply to a physical item that I paid really money for. That hard drive was goods. The source CD was goods. An MP3 is abstract.

To some degree, it's like seeing a $500 rocking chair at a store, thinking "They're crazy.", and going home a building one for $30 in materials. I got the idea from them, I might have built it just like the one I saw, but I didn't take a damn thing from them.

Same thing with a song. I saw the copy you were selling, decided I didn't want it, so I used the internet to push a bit pattern onto my own proptery which performs the same function as the copy you were selling.

I simply don't accept that they can own anything abstract. Musicians should be like everyone else and make money from services or physical goods. Getting laws passed to take ownership of something non-tangible is skirting the laws of economics, and of human nature. Don't be surprised when people call BS and revert to what is natural (ie, I'll give money for an actual service or an actual product).

And "But no new music or movies would be made!!!" isn't a valid response. First off, yes they would, and second off, it doesn't really matter. We could make much, much more movies, with wonderful special effects if we passed laws requiring all citizens to server 3 years in the "Film Army" and work on movie sets and design. That doesn't justify such a stupid or unjust law though.

Re: Stop the RIAA

[Zordak]

We love music and will gladly pay a fair price for it, but we are outraged by the RIAA's tactics in suing ordinary Americans for filesharing....

Is it possible that the irony in this statement escapes you? In short, "We will gladly pay for music, but we consider it abusive when we don't and are held accountable."

I'm no fan of the RIAA, but "sharing" music (as the term is used in the mainstream) is copyright violation and is illegal. I seem to remember a few years ago, when Lars was trying to crush Napster, the cry on Slashdot was, "Don't try to legislate our rights. If your copyright has been violated, enforce your rights against the violators." I'm still okay with that tactic. What I am not okay with is filing "intimidation" suits in bad faith to try to force a settlement. But your petition does not mention that. It merely complains that the RIAA has sued people who have used "file sharing" technology to "share" music illegally (with vague references to privacy, due process and fair application of the law).

To me, that just sounds like people who want to get stuff for free, and then complain when they can't. People like that bother me, because they lend credibility to those who want to pass revenue-protection laws at the expense of fair use in copyright.

Prices never go down, only up

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did? The production costs for (digital) CDs are several of orders of magnitude less than they were for (analog) LPs, yet the price-point never moved.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[NickFitz]

Actually, when CDs first appeared in the 80s they were a fair bit more expensive than LPs, and only moved back to more normal levels as production capacity was ramped up. The cost of the medium was never a major part of the overall cost of producing either an LP or a CD; the real question is why CDs are two to three times the price that an LP was in the mid-80s, given that the price of cocaine (which is where the majority of the recording industry's costs lie) has remained virtually static.

Off topic, but true story: at the Stonehenge Free Festival in 1984 a friend of mine, feeling thirsty, approached an ice cream van which had cans of soft drinks on display. He asked "How much is the Coke?" to which the vendor replied "£50 a gram".

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[pandrijeczko]

Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did?

Probably because about the same time CDs came out, music videos also took off. I think it's fairly safe to assume that a big wedge of the CD "production costs" go into the outfits, sets & makeup for all the pretty boys and girls to mime to their songs in front of a camera.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[hackstraw]

Some prices do go down, even more so when compared to inflation.

How much did a car cost in 1920? How much did a color TV with a remote cost in 1965? How much did a computer cost in 1984 or a VCR? How much did a DVD player cost in 1997?

The difference in those markets is that there is competition and supply and demand.

Personally, I don't pay for recorded music. I'm not much into charity.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[aristotle-dude]

Because music videos cost more money and the signing bonuses are larger. In fact, the general cost of doing business is higher today that it was back then. You see, there is a thing called inflation, perhaps you've heard of it? If you had a job, you would see that this inflation causes not only the price of goods to go up but wages as well. It is a vicious circle where higher wages causes prices to go up which in turn cause wages to go up.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[Anonymous Coward]

Because government is entangled in the market. Eliminate government from the picture (except to simply enforce the principle of voluntary association), and the market will return to being consumer-driven, rather than crony-driven. As long as government is involved (and this goes for any market), the winners will be those who know how to exploit the existing powers of government, and the losers will be those who only want to please their customers and compete fairly.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[joabj]

Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did? The production costs for (digital) CDs are several of orders of magnitude less than they were for (analog) LPs, yet the price-point never moved.

Simple supply and demand. Vendors don't charge you what it costs to make a product, they charge what you are willing to pay for that product.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[gfody]

How much did a car cost in 1920?
In 1924 a Model-T cost about $265
source

How much did a color TV with a remote cost in 1965?
around $400 for a good one
source

How much did a computer cost in 1984 or a VCR?
in 1984 you could get a commodore 16 for about $100
source

How much did a DVD player cost in 1997?
in 1999 it was just below $300
source

Today a nice car is around $30,000. A good tv about $1000. 2006's equivalent to 1984's commodore 16 I guess would be a couple hundred bucks. You can get an okay progressive scan dvd player for about $100 today.

The relative prices of things change dramatically over the years due to tons of economic and social variables. Inflation hides this fact a little bit.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[Buran]

My car cost $17,000 and that's for a nicely equipped VW Golf fuel-efficient five-door. It's a little more than basic transportation (mods not counted) and is perfectly adequate. No SUV or luxuries required.

My flat-screen CRT TV cost about $300. I do have an HDTV flatscreen now in an effort to save space (I live in a small house; it's all I need) that did cost $1400 on sale, but just like the car you can get a perfectly adequate TV for less than what you list.

My DVD player cost $50, and it's a nice Pioneer -- not high-end, not low-end, but it does the job just fine.

Acquisition dates: car, May 2000; CRT TV, fall 2001 or early 2002 or so; DVD player, mid-2002 or so.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[Ciggy]

Vendors...charge what you are willing to pay for that product.

If that is true, why is there so much complaint (by the vendors) about "piracy" whereby you get the product for what you are willing to pay - nothing or a fraction of their "official" price?

Or to put it another way: vendors are not charging what people are willing to pay, they are charging much more - whatever they [think they] can get away with charging; thus people will look to getting their product for cheaper from whereever they can.

It's turning into a bit of a spiral: because the price is too high, people go for pirated copies meaning that there is less return for the vendors, thus the vendors have to charge even more to stay where they were financially, leading to more people turing to pirated copies...

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[gfody]

Proclaiming that your things are nice doesn't change the fact that they are low-end. As adequate as a Golf may be, it is the cheapest model available. I was trying to cite prices that were comparable to what you would be purchasing back in the day.

For instance, $400 got you a high-end model color tv in 1965. Today I would not be calling anything with a CRT in it a high-end model.

Anyways I think the GP's point was that prices are actually falling and not going up. My dissenting point is that prices have gone up and down and stayed the same. Perhaps you and I are not in disagreement, besides the fact that even the cheapest car by today's standards would be better than a 1920's model T.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[Buran]

The Golf is hardly the cheapest car out there and is in fact quite nice -- poke your nose into a Golf or GTI (it's the same thing) or Jetta (same thing with a trunk). But you'd be surprised at how decent 1920s cars are -- a while back I rode around in a restored Model A and it was pretty nice. No radio or anything of course (but you can add one these days) but it was impressive, especially for the time it was made.

Anyway, I don't think we're disagreeing on the overall point either; I'm trying to point out that you can get stuff that is more than adequate for less than the prices you cited, and it's quality stuff that doesn't break. Overall the prices on all of those things have stayed the same or gone down ... but music hasn't gotten cheaper.

Re:Prices never go down, only up

[shark72]

"Why do CDs cost as much as vinyl LP albums did? The production costs for (digital) CDs are several of orders of magnitude less than they were for (analog) LPs, yet the price-point never moved."

I'm not sure I follow. Are you of the belief that manufacturing cost is a significant portion of the cost of sale? It sure isn't in most industries I can think of (the manufacturing cost is a small portion of what it cost Apple to sell you your iPod, or for some other vendor to sell you your mouse and your keyboard). From what I've seen, that's the case with CD production as well -- heck, royalties alone usually cost the record company more than the piece of plastic does.

I'm also not sure about your assertation that price points haven't moved. I'm guessing you're not using constant dollars. When CD players started getting affordable around 1985, CDs were $18. If prices hadn't moved, they'd be $32 today. CD prices have been in free fall lately, with new CDs hovering at around $13. That's a 60% drop.

Why is this even news?

[DaHat]

Companies have been practicing price fixing for years based on location.

Don't believe me? Compare your cost of cable TV to people in other local cities.

This has also been the case for years with things like software, movies and textbooks where the producer will likely lower the price in some areas and raise it on others.

This is simple economics of pricing an item at what the market will bare. Don't like spending so much on a ____? Don't buy it then!

Re:Why is this even news?

[aristotle-dude]

OMG! You are right. Rent is different in different cities too and the same thing with wages. Thanks for stating the obvious, Captain Obvious. It's not price fixing.

Re:Why is this even news?

[geekoid]

WHy can't we buy it where it is cheaper?

Re:Why is this even news?

[DaHat]

Not price fixing eh? What do you call it then when bulk goods are priced differently in different markets and where the end price has no relation to the cost of production, transportation or sale?

Re:Why is this even news?

[aristotle-dude]

Cost of production? What about cost of promotion, logistics and the signing amount given to the artist? Those do not disappear with electronic distribution. You are thinking solely on the fixed cost directly related to providing you with the song. There are many other costs which must be recouped from the profit margin on the sales. From the time a contract is signed with a label, the label is in the hole until the profit from sales of the record reach the break even point. Do you think all of the people involved creating music work for free?

Re:Why is this even news?

[DaHat]

You have completely missed my quite clear point and as a result I am not going to continue this debate.

You aussies ain't missing a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

These digital music stores suck. Paying more for not getting media, cases and artwork is nothing to be missed. Buy your cds in the store or download the mp3s from p2p and usenet. This iTunes and whatever is a big media and Slashdot hypefest. The music distribution monopoly has yet respond to the internet in a meaningful way for consumers. Until they do, you aren't missing out on anything.

Re:You aussies ain't missing a thing

[pandrijeczko]

Buy your cds in the store or download the mp3s from p2p and usenet.

Sssshhhhhh! You KNOW we're not supposed to tell them about Usenet.

Re:You aussies ain't missing a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. You can buy a cd in the store for around $20-$25 if you look around, and you get the advantages of being actually able to do anything you want with the music, and have a nice case with lyrics or whatever. The $17 it is to buy a cd from itunes isn't cheap enough for me to warrant no cd/case etc. i have had a $20 iTunes gift card for 6 months now, still haven't used it, and in that time i have probably bought 10 cd's from stores.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Jordan Catalano]

AllOfMP3? Good call. So, instead of illegally downloading a song, you can illegally download it AND pay a fee that never gets anywhere near artists' hands.

Why they pay more

[supabeast!]

Want to know why Australians pay so much more for imported goods? It's because Australians are willing to pay more. If Australians just stopped buying overpriced foreign goods, the manufacturers would start lowering prices. But whinging about the problem is never going to fix it.

Re:Why they pay more

[The_Mr_Flibble]

No they wouldn't the riaa (or aus equiv) would start blaming piracy (yhar jimlad) and launch a round of lawsuits.

Re:Why they pay more

[pandrijeczko]

So don't pirate the music then...

People that believe they're Robin Hood-type outlaws because they steal from the rich copyright holders to make duplicated pirate (or illegal free) copies are as bad as the RIAA/MPAA/etc. & give them the justification they need to push through DMCA/copy protection that affects the rest of us.

If it's too expensive, demonstrate some self-control & will power and just DON'T BUY IT or COPY IT!!!

Re:Why they pay more

[CastrTroy]

Music is one thing that you can definitely live without. You can definitely live with RIAA controlled music. It would be different if the cartel was on bread, or water, but it isn't. I really get annoyed by people who say something costs too much, and then go out and steal it (download illegally) because they "have to have it". If you have to have it, then it's probably worth the price they are charging.

Re:Why they pay more

[LunaticTippy]

When I grew up everybody who couldn't afford records made tapes off the radio.

That was legal.

Now that technology has improved we have less rights. I think that's wrong.

Re:Why they pay more

[BalanceOfJudgement]

MOD PARENT UP please.

I agree completely. In fact, one of the current EFF Action items is preventing the RIAA/MPAA from forcing a bill through Congress that would require all digital radio and TV receivers to have built in DRM that would prohibit recording - in other words, the universally-loved American pasttime of recording your favorite show to watch later would be come illegal.

How's that for land of the free.

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&p age=UserAction&id=216
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&p age=UserAction&id=205

Re:Why they pay more

[colin_young]

That may or may not be true for goods other than CDs, which typically cost (even for local artists on major labels) around AUD28.99 (at least from online sites). Sometimes you'll find independant labels at AUD20-25, but those are few and far between. In the US we typically do not pay over USD20 for a CD.

That has been my experience in purchasing music from online retailers in Australia. Australian consumers really do seem to be getting screwed when it comes to buying music.

On the other hand, just try finding downloads of smaller Australian artists that aren't geographically restricted to Australia (and forget about non-legitimate downloads -- they just don't exist). Really, what's the point in saying that you're only going to sell downloads in a very specific region, and then not even attempting to overcharge outside that region? Isn't that the whole point of the geographic restrictions in the first place?

Colin

Re:Why they pay more

[Anonymous Coward]

You think we (Australians) pay more for just music? After spending some time living in the USA, I was continually amazed by the lower prices on a whole range of goods. The price difference was far more than what could be due to currency and shipping alone (China is closer to Australia than the US anyway).

The problem is that the Australian market is so small it can only support a small number of players in any one sector. These players then form a cartel where they can fix prices at any level they see fit. Clear examples of this exist in our supermarket sector, banking, telcos.

I often wish that big foreign players would come in and offer some real competition. This could only lead to a better deal for the Australian consumer.

Re:Why they pay more

[supabeast!]

I don't think that it's entirely due to a lack of competition. There's plenty of competition in Europe, but even discounting VAT, Europeans pay more for goods than Americans. The big difference is that Europeans just accept the higher prices, whereas in America, we just stop buying overpriced goods.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[goldspider]

You're under some illusion that mp3 downloading is about helping artists or "sticking it to the man"? How naive.

hm

[argStyopa]

...and live at 10, the sun comes up in the east!

Seriously, though - they're 'diiscovering' that record companies are using predatory pricing, collusive behavior, and generally refusing to recognize that the 'costs of distribution' in the digital age doesn't really explain their bajillion-percent markup?

Teh?

Cross Border downloading

[ComradeSnarky]

The difference between digital media and other goods is that, for the latter, the price is determined by the cost of production and distribution plus extra which is kept as a profit. Digital media however, has zero production and distribution cost (for each individual download i mean), hence the price is entirely determined by what the record companies think is the optimum price, cheap enough for people to buy, expensive as possible to earn as much money. This means that in a third world country, the optimum price might be 10 times lower than the optimum price in a first world country. In order to make as much money as possible they have to price their downloads differently in different countries - selling it at first world prices everywhere would mean they lose out on profits in less well-off countries, selling it as third world prices mean they don't earn enough in first world countries. That's why they are so intent on limiting downloads accross digital borders. And hence, measures such as region encoding.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Znork]

"The difference between digital media and other goods..."

Actually, that's not the difference between digital media and other goods, it's the difference between free market pricing and monopoly pricing.

Copyright and other forms of so called intellectual 'property' are monopoly rights, which, like you say, means that the producer can set the price the market can bear. Incidentally, that also means that if consumers get more disposable capital, if, for example, the price of food goes down, the price of the monopoly products will go up.

As the only 'competition' that the owners of the monopoly have are illicit copying, this further means two things;

A) you're creating a strong foundation for a highly profitable black market (with associated consequences, see drugs, prohibition, etc)

B) if, for any reason, there were to be less illicit copying (drm, etc), prices would go _up_.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Red Flayer]

"The difference between digital media and other goods is that, for the latter, the price is determined by the cost of production and distribution plus extra which is kept as a profit. "

Not at all. Price is determined by how much people are willing to pay.

In a truly competitive commodity market, price will approach the cost of goods sold, but that is not a result of determining price by tacking on some profit to the COGS -- it is a result of needing to underprice your competition while maintaining profitability.

Note, however, that music is not a commodity good -- and therefore price will not necessarily approach the COGS even if the market were competitive. The determinant of price for music is not-so-simply a maximization of (copies sold)*(price), especially since the COGS of digital music is near zero. In other words, whatever the market will bear.

If five suckers pay $30 for an album, the label profits more than if twenty reasonable people pay $5 for that same album. The real problem, then, is the stupidity of people who willingly pay too much and screw it up for the rest of us.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Red Flayer]

*Just wanted to note that this is true of any good, not just digital media. Non-digital goods obey the same economic laws as digital goods, it's just that the COGS is higher. It breaks down to competitive commodity market vs. nocompetitive non-commodity market.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Maximum Prophet]

the price is determined by the cost of production and distribution plus extra which is kept as a profit.

That's fine for Econonmics 101, but it's not really the world we live in.

The price for any item is set mostly by trial and error and modulated by what the customer will pay for it. Usually, items might start at what they cost to produce and distribute + n% profit, but they generally float to what people are willing to pay. If things are prices too high, the company selling it can lower the price or go out of business. As long as enough people are buying, the company will never lower the price. If they think that they could sell more, sometimes they lower the cost, other times they increase advertizing or buy out a competitor so that the people who aren't buying will decide it's worth their money.
What happends if the company sets it's initial price too low? For tangible items, they will sell out and have unhappy potential customers that couldn't get the widget they wanted at all. For software, the danger to the company is that everyone who wants the tune will buy it at the low price, and sales will drop to zero.

Think about the airlines. No-one seems to question why a place ticket from A->B will sell for more than a ticket from B->A, or even more than A->C->B where C is way out of the way.

If the record companies followed the airline model, they would set individual prices for everyone. When you went to the site, a whole lot of voodoo mathematics would look at how well the song was selling *right now*, how many songs you buy, how much you've paid in the past and other historical data to predict how much you might pay for the song. (You could probably modify poker playing algorithms to do this) If you didn't buy, they might, might offer you the song at a lower price next time you checked, but in most cases the price would go up later in order to punish you for not buying *right now*
Like the airline, the record companies should reward people for buying early, gouge people who are buying at the height of popularity, and discount the songs that aren't selling well. This would have the side effect of getting the non longer popular songs out where they might be heard. If they employed a disney style "vaulting" of songs, they could avoid saturating the market.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Anonymous Coward]

Price is determined by how much people are willing to pay.

Actually, I think you're still very off the mark. Your analysis seems to be ignoring the phenomenon of differential pricing. Just because the music industry hasn't (or doesn't care to) figure it out doesn't mean it's impossible.

Think airline tickets- I'll pay drastically less on my vacation airfare than my coworker on business travel, for a variety of reasons, from timing of purchase, restriction acceptability, and even level of service. It should be obvious that any single-price system leaves some utility uncaptured by the producer, and this seems particularly relevant in the world of copyright, even more so in terms of near-zero-cost additional digital copy via download production. Besides, we're talking theory here, and in practice what people are willing to pay is absolutely NOT relevant to this pricing. Why would people still be _paying_ the Russians for grey market downloads? Why would prices at the major download sites be static even though there's more competition? Because someone wearing a suit set the price, that's why.

Anyway, maybe I'm getting too long-winded here, but the way you ignore the supply end of pricing models by simply stating "what people are willing to pay is the price" is your error, and it's a clear one.

Re:Cross Border downloading

[Red Flayer]

"Anyway, maybe I'm getting too long-winded here, but the way you ignore the supply end of pricing models by simply stating "what people are willing to pay is the price" is your error, and it's a clear one"

Due to logistical issues, prices are not fluid. And due to the limited number of major sellers, oligopoly (even if there is no collusion) suuplier theory applies, which is why prices are static despite competition. And, as I clearly point out, digital media is neither a commodity, nor is its market a competitive one as currently structured.

Plus, with regard to digital media, supply must be removed from the equation, since supply is infinite. What is instead limited, via copyright, is the number of suppliers, which is quite different -- it's legal monopolization of a non-commodity good.

Are there constraints on how sellers set prices based upon their costs? Sure. But that is not a supply limitation.

Speaking of long-winded, one other note -- there is indeed competition among different suppliers of downloadable media. It's not necessarily reflected in pricing, though, as service, variety of media available, etc, are valid ways to compete.

Finally, you misqouted me -- "what people are willing to pay is the price" is not what I said. I said that "what people are willing to pay determines the price" -- two very different statements, and the difference is extremely important.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anita Coney]

Actually, in the US it is not illegal. Actually, there is a little known loophole in US law that allows you to import music from outside the US without any copyright violation.

17 USC 602(a)(2) says that "importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time" is NOT infringement.

Thus, if you "import" one song from say, allofmp3.com, or from some other foreign server, for personal use, and do not distribute it to anyone else, the RIAA could not legally come after you.

El Reg....

[spammeister]

Why is nothing there only considered news here when some fancy schmany outfit says the same thing many months later?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/16/parallel_i mports_australia/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/09/oz_legit_d ownloads_fail_two/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/08/oz_legit_d ownloads_fail/

El Reg users have known it sucks to be an Aussie if you want online tunes for a long damn time.

My Unpopular Opinion

[devphaeton]

It seems that everybody wants everything, and think it should be free.

Are record companies greedy and evil? You betcha.
Are they gouging customers and musicians both? Right-o.

Has everyone's perception of value been altered by p2p downloads, cracked software and other Internet-rendered amenities?

Without a doubt.

-1 Flamebait.

Re:My Unpopular Opinion

[kebes]

-1 Flamebait.

Why do you think your comment is flamebait? Do you think that this statement is controversial:

Has everyone's perception of value been altered by p2p downloads, cracked software and other Internet-rendered amenities? Without a doubt.

I think that statement is true, and I don't think we should attribute to it any negative connotation. I believe that the perceived value of information and creative expression was over-inflated before the digital age. Now we are seeing such things drop to their actual value, which is quite low.

I'm not saying that information is worthless. Far from it: knowledge is power certainly. What I'm saying is that previously there were boundaries on information exchange (some very real, like the difficulty of printing books, and some artificial, like copyright). Now that the boundaries have been lifted, our "perception of value" has indeed been altered. We now understand what a low cost there is on information exchange, and how much we can all benefit from the free exchange of information (examples: Linux, wikipedia, etc.).

I think p2p downloads and software cracks point to the fact that information CAN be exchanged with very little effort. I know many people hate the "information wants to be free" tagline, but ultimately it appears that since information CAN be exchanged freely, why should we artificially limit it?

I think it is a good thing that we are starting to realize that freeing information is easy and useful.

Re:My Unpopular Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be from Minnesota or Wisconsin, right-o? You betcha.

Re:My Unpopular Opinion

[israel_zayas]

I do realize musicians; record companies and record stores should make money... But, it should just be a small additional fee to convert a PAID copy of a song or movie to another medium or format. I have for some time converted all my original records to CD quality discs and then to mp3... And it should be a fee based service to help listeners/owners to convert their PAID for songs to another format.

Re:My Unpopular Opinion

[Cal Paterson]

Has everyone's perception of value been altered by p2p downloads, cracked software and other Internet-rendered amenities?

Value is in the eye of the beholder. It's probably been more affected by record companies jacking up cd prices.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[goldspider]

And yet here you (and your ilk) are, pissing and moaning about how the RIAA is unreasonable and unwilling to persue a mutually-beneficial compromise. Shame on you for ruining it for the rest of us.

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would be so kind, draw me a picture of the Internet globe, so I can better understand how your argument applies to the article.

Re:What do you expect from down under?

[NickFitz]

And the mention of "artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams" is surely an opening for some joke about criminal records...

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Jordan Catalano]

It's not copyright violation -- it's a customs violation.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[interiot]

In the long run, it's simply not going to work for companies to try to prevent parallel imports of digital media over the internet. That's the real issue discussed in this article, and piracy has little/nothing to do with that.

Aussies are being stuffed

[Anonymous Coward]

These big companies write the rules as they see fit. Whilst they're busy globablising everything including giving our jobs to Indians and importing Africans and Poles into jobs that can't be offshored, they then place unfair national restrictions on music downloads.

I say buy ALL of your music in ogg format from http://www.allofmp3.com/ in Russia and stuff everybody else. Buy it from where you choose and play it how you choose.

Regards,
David Bowie.

Re:Aussies are being stuffed

[pieinthesky]

You don't seem to mind taking advantage of offshoring (allofmp3.com) as long as it benefits you...

my own study

[neonprimetime]

i recently did a study...
- I pay too much for gas
- I pay too much for cheeseburger
- I pay too much for clothes

What's the news here?

Re:my own study

[bitt3n]

maybe if you walked places instead buying gas, and ate fewer cheeseburgers, you wouldn't need to pay so much for those reinforced spandex overalls.

Re:my own study

[aristotle-dude]

...and you were paid too much wages compared with people in india.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[AndersOSU]

I both buy albums, and download music (illegally), and to tell you the truth, from a moral standpoint I feel worse about paying for it.

By paying for music I am propping up an anachronistic distributing chain whose business practices I take issue with. Which, for me, is more of an issue than violating a business friendly law, or depriving the artist of the miniscule cut of the sale he'd be receiving.

For me something that is mutually beneficial would support both the artists and the consumer; paying for music ain't. I'd rather see no one pay for music and watch the record labels go down in flames (artists can still make money touring), so that when I do want to buy an album I can know that the artist is getting a reasonable cut of the sale.

HK imports

[paulberezansky]

It is really worth my while to buy the cheap releases in Hong Kong and resell them here, but the man wants to keep me down.

Stop the Australian RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Sydney is in Australia, right?

Anyway, setting aside the pricing issue. There's also the differing consumer laws governing purchases that might explain why one can't purchase from another country.

--
The "are you a script" text WAS "resents" until Taco changed it between previews to "faints".

Seek out quality music.

[quag7]

Well the only possible sympathy I have in the examples given are for fans buying REM. Nothing could make me care about what people pay for Bon Jovi or Robbie Williams.

Maybe the way to really fight back against the music industry is to stop buying crappy music, and patronize your local used CD store. The big profits, I would imagine, come from the big multiplatinum albums, of which - maybe - one out of every 20 or 30 represents quality music?

Completely subjective, I know. Smaller labels that have not slashed prices really should, and people should make the effort to seek out independent music from these labels. People should explore new genres. I have a smattering of CDs I bought right from the small labels' websites themselves, for $10.00 for a new album, which isn't bad considering what new big-name artists' CDs sell for.

As for the issue of international markets and price gouging, nothing new here, either. In any case, when it comes to music, you don't necessarily get what you pay for either in Australia or anywhere else.

When you buy a top 40 album, you buy an image created by advertisers for the most part. There are probably half a million unsigned artists the world over who make music as good as or better than what you hear on your local top 40 station. Maybe they're not good looking, or don't know how to stand like a bunch of idiots with their hair hanging down in their eyes, or don't have the bodies to slut it up real good for MTV.

There are alternatives. Someone mentioned emusic.com - that's a good place to start.

But if you're really angry because the last Madonna CD is out of your price range, well...I'm trying real hard to care, but...

I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

Can someone please explain to me what the attraction is of music downloads anyway?

Yes, I'm middle-aged & I tend to listen mainly to classic rock albums with a little blues & soul thrown in. Most of the stuff I listen to, I can get fairly cheaply either second-hand or on eBay/Amazon marketplace - generally, I'll pick up a brand new CD for around £6 ($10). For that money, I get a nice uncompressed shiny CD with some liner notes and a hard case that I can rip at whatever bit rates I want to (I do listen to a lot of MP3-based music when I'm travelling or in the gym).

I don't go near Virgin or HMV record stores in the UK because I simply cannot justify paying anything up to £17 ($28) for a new CD but the prices that I do get my CDs at seem to be as cheap as paying to download each track individually - plus I get something tangible in the process.

I know a lot of people don't want to buy "filler" tracks on CDs and prefer downloading the tracks they want but I still don't get it - I've a collection of about 800 CDs at home and I'd say at least half of those are recordings I consider as "classics" that I can happily listen to from start to finish as completely good albums.

I'm certainly not trying to provoke a "the music of today is rubbish compared to the music of yesterday" argument because I just don't listen to enough modern music to have a valid opinion of it - but I've more than enough great music in CD album format to last me a lifetime now & if the younger generation of today has difficulty finding modern albums that are themselves "classics" in their entirety, then doesn't the "pick and mix music tracks" attitude perhaps make more of a statement about the quality of modern music than music downloads as being "the modern way" of distributing music?

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[BenjyD]

For me, I buy almost all my music on iTunes because:

- For most music, iTunes is significantly cheaper. Even for older music, often the classic albums from a band on CD are quite expensive
- It's instant. I used to buy a lot of CDs at a cheap chain called Fopp, on iTunes I get generally lower prices without the hassle of searching the racks and fighting through the rows of students
- It's easy to search and browse
- I only listen to the music played from iPod or computer anyway
- I don't have to store redundant plastic disks
- I don't have to bother ripping the music
- In extensive personal testing, I can't tell the difference between 128kpbs AAC and a CD

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Secrity]

The music that you are buying is older and you are buying second-hand CDs. Of course second-hand CDs cost less than new CDs and older CDs are much less likely to contain DRM. Not everybody likes the older music, which is a good thing because it keeps second-hand prices lower. Bad car analogy: Why do people buy new cars? Older second-hand cars cost less and have less intrusive computers in them than newer cars.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Otto]

Yes, I'm middle-aged & I tend to listen mainly to classic rock albums with a little blues & soul thrown in. Most of the stuff I listen to, I can get fairly cheaply either second-hand or on eBay/Amazon marketplace - generally, I'll pick up a brand new CD for around £6 ($10). For that money, I get a nice uncompressed shiny CD with some liner notes and a hard case that I can rip at whatever bit rates I want to (I do listen to a lot of MP3-based music when I'm travelling or in the gym).

Okay, but a lot of people don't like physical media. That shiny CD you like, with it's hard care and liner notes and such, it's completely worthless to me. Liner notes? Direct to the trash can. Hard case? Ditto. CD? Ripped to the PC before I even listen to the thing. And after it's ripped, it'll be shoved into a large CD collection case and probably never see daylight ever again. Because its only value to me now is as an absolute last resort backup, in case my digitized collection happens to take a dive despite the daily second hard drive backup and the DVDR archives.

What I'm saying is that your preferred media has absolutely no value to me other than as a carrier of the information contained upon it. As such, I consider $10 to be way overpriced. I listen exclusively to compressed music, although I use better quality compression than your average person does, being a geek in the know and all.

Hell, I don't even *own* a CD player anymore. What would be the point?

I don't go near Virgin or HMV record stores in the UK because I simply cannot justify paying anything up to £17 ($28) for a new CD but the prices that I do get my CDs at seem to be as cheap as paying to download each track individually - plus I get something tangible in the process.

Obviously you're assuming that it's $10 an album, which is more or less true on iTunes. Although there are other places where the data can be bought much cheaper than that. But more to the point, you're getting this whole album. Assuming I've listened to the album enough to form an opinion on it, then I probably only want 1 or 2 songs off the album. $2 vs. $10? Pretty straightforward logic there. The other $8 of songs are not worth $8 to me. And the "something tangible" we've already covered above.

I know a lot of people don't want to buy "filler" tracks on CDs and prefer downloading the tracks they want but I still don't get it - I've a collection of about 800 CDs at home and I'd say at least half of those are recordings I consider as "classics" that I can happily listen to from start to finish as completely good albums.

Good for you. Myself, I'd be hard pressed to name more than 40 albums that I could listen to the whole way through without hearing something that sucks. But then again, I don't like most "classic rock with a little blues & soul thrown in" either. It's all about taste, and I was born too late to really share your tastes. ...I've more than enough great music in CD album format to last me a lifetime now & if the younger generation of today has difficulty finding modern albums that are themselves "classics" in their entirety, then doesn't the "pick and mix music tracks" attitude perhaps make more of a statement about the quality of modern music than music downloads as being "the modern way" of distributing music?

No doubt at all. Quite a lot of modern music sucks. What you're failing to see here is that quite a lot of older music sucks too. It's easy to look back on a 20-30 year period of musical history, pick the best albums and then say "look, I've got 800 albums here that don't suck", but you're really not taking into consideration the other 100 million albums made in that time period that did suck.

There are some gems out there, depending on your tastes. Finding them now is just as difficult or easy as finding them was back then. Singles tend to be more the style nowadays because finding individual songs that don't suck is a lot easier than finding whole albums. As true today as it was then; my parents have a fairly large collection of old 45's.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

For most music, iTunes is significantly cheaper. Even for older music, often the classic albums from a band on CD are quite expensive

I guess it depends on what you define as "older" - I myself recently bought "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Peppers" by the Beatles and was amazed that some music stores were charging up to £17 for these two albums from the 1960s. (I did get them online for unde £10 each in the end & they were worth every penny!) But a lot of the other stuff I listen to, from the 70s and early 80s, I can usually find for about £6 if I do some searching for it.

used to buy a lot of CDs at a cheap chain called Fopp

We had a Fopp store in my old home town - used to go there a lot & find some good bargains but now I've moved house, I just don't get there much.

I don't have to store redundant plastic disks

That's *HALF* the appeal of it, in my view! :-) There's nothing like browsing through your own music CD collection deciding on what album to play next...

I don't have to bother ripping the music

Get a Linux PC installed, my friend! :-) Admittedly you need to do a bit of initial setting up but after that, what's easier than popping a CD in the drive and typing "abcde" on the command line and letting it get on with it.

Incidentally, I accept the other points you've made.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

Just one point...

I buy the occasional second-hand CD but most of what I buy is new - particularly recently where a lot of classic (in my opinion) albums have been remastered & there's no way I'd pay the full price for a CD I've already bought once.

And I do *honestly* find most of the CDs I want as new on eBay or Amazon Marketplace for under £6 a time - otherwise, I just wouldn't buy it.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

Finding them now is just as difficult or easy as finding them was back then.

It's much easier finding them now.

Even to the point where the stuff I tend to like doesn't get much radio play in the UK. But there's always online reviews or the occasional Usenet download to help me decide before I buy.

And not forgetting just reselling a CD on eBay if it turns out to be a turkey of an album...

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[BenjyD]

I paid £15 for Let it Bleed like the muppet I was...

what's easier than popping a CD in the drive and typing "abcde" on the command line and letting it get on with it.
It's even easier on Windows/MacOS: I can just stick the disk in and come back when I hear the "rip completed" sound. I guess that is a fairly minor point, especially given the download time for iTunes.

The problem I found with CDs was that they would gradually spread out around the house until I could never find what I wanted.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[MrHeartbreak]

Did you say 'uncompressed CD'?

Boy, did they see YOU coming.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

The problem I found with CDs was that they would gradually spread out around the house until I could never find what I wanted.

I've got 4 x Ikea CD racks that hold a total of about 800 CDs & whenever I buy a new CD, I *try* to sell an old one (on eBay) to stop the expansion "around the house". It doesn't always work & there's a small surplus pile building up next to the racks now but I take the view that I can always go buy the CD again if I ever want to.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

Well, technically, CDs are "sampled" rather than "compressed" - and having worked in the telecoms industry for 20+ years, I can give you all the info you want on "Pulse Code Modulation" and multiplexing if you want. :-)

But please let's no go into the "vinyl vs CD" argument - if you've got the patience & diligence to treat vinyl with the great care you need to treat it with then good luck to you - me, I'm middle-aged and (according to scientists anyway) having less audio perception by the day as "cones" in my ears disappear so I probably couldn't tell the difference in quality between vinyl & CD.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pieinthesky]

To me the definition of "classic" is old and tired. I listen to music 10 hours a day and I have a hard enough time listening to music that I have had for 6 months never mind 20 years!!!! Needless to say, having the original CD is completely useless to me. My car, my home, my computer, all play mp3s. CDs just take up space and are not easily searchable.

God, I was over my 'the who' and 'rolling stones' phase when I was 16, why would I want to listen to that again?

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pandrijeczko]

To me the definition of "classic" is old and tired.

That's just semantics. You real point is???

God, I was over my 'the who' and 'rolling stones' phase when I was 16, why would I want to listen to that again?

Funnily enough, I'm 44 and just discovering some "old and tired" Who and Rolling Stones albums - just bought "Who's Next" and "Exile On Main Street" a couple of weeks ago and I'm very pleased that I did, quite frankly.

At 16 I was listening to a lot of punk and hard rock - a lot of that has "fallen by the wayside" now so we're no different - except that I'm far too mature to respond to any "my dad's bigger than your dad" goading attempts.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[mikeydb]

All of my CD's are at my mums house, as is my windows PC. I'm borrowing someone elses PC since I'm not at my mums house and don't fancy downloading DRM protected music that won't work when I get it home.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[LunaticTippy]

Cones in your eyes are going. Cilia in your ears are going. And your brain is going, too!

[sorry, I'm feeling old today too]

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[cyborman]

I got to say. Otto answered your post the best. I personally, do a mixture of online purchases, and purchases of CD's, depending on the albumn. If it's a good album, I buy the CD, end up ripping it to the computer, and placing on my mp3 player. normally, I just want a song or 3, I won't buy a whole CD for that. But I think Otto said it best. In the end, my purchased CD's never again see daylight shortly after purchase, almost makes me wonder why I even bother purchasing the CD to start with.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

But please let's no go into the "vinyl vs CD" argument

The trouble with digital samples is only their sample size, far too small. If they'd sample at ten times the present rate you'd be hard pressed telling it from a live performance.

I've never EVER heard a CD I would confuse with a live performance. However, after carrying my guitars and amps into a new home about twenty five years ago, we cranked Van Halen's 1st (vinyl) album to 9 while drinking Tequila (Ralph Blog). The next day the neighbor told me "Wow, man, your band ROCKS!"

The trouble with vinyl is noise, and most of the noise on most albums is actually tape hiss from the master!

A recently recorded, new vinyl record digitally mastered will NOT sound as good as the CD. The digitally REmastered copy of Led Zepplin's Presence does NOT sound as good as the vinyl record played on a good turntable.

Analog and digital each have their drawbacks. If you have an analog master (Let It Be) to your CD, the vinyl will sound better. If you have a digital master (Alice In Chains' Greatest Hits) the CD will sound better, because you will have the worst of both worlds with either.

Personally, I hate paying twice. I've been sampling all my vinyl and cassettes and burning to CD; the resultant CDs are far better than what we used to have (vinyl recorded to tape). Of course, some of the MP3s on my computer have skips, pops, tape tangles, hiss...

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[pieinthesky]

Oh my goad.

Relax, I'm not trying to rob you of the warm fuzzy nostalgia you get every time you hear "Tumbling dice" at the dollar store. Makes MY skin crawl, but it's just an opinion.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[curunir]

Well, I like digital downloads because it enables me to buy music from artists who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to get it to me. The "music today sucks" argument tends to ignore that there is plenty of great music these days which goes un-noticed because the major distribution channels only cover a small portion of the musical landscape. Shutting down P2P apps is mostly about the RIAA shutting down alternate distribution mechanisms so that the public is forced to get their music from established distributors.

To give you an example, My roommate is a musician. When he made his first album, he ripped it himself, added a note in the ID3 tags that pointed to his performance calendar on his website, and put the mp3s on Audiogalaxy himself. This worked out great for him...he developed a small following of fans who started showing up at his shows which enabled him to start performing in slightly larger venues and make more (read: some) money performing and selling CDs at his shows. Fast forward to 2006 and he just finished his second album. Without Audiogalaxy (a P2P solution that actually helped users find music they'd like rather than just returning search results), he's now having to physically go around to small, independent record stores to try to get them to sell his CD. It's a ton more work and it's not really working...he's barely made back his outlay to get the CDs produced.

When digital downloads become common enough that every musician has equal access to that distribution channel, it will enable musicians like my roommate to actually make money from their music. But the RIAA makes digital downloads expensive enough that they won't become the main method for purchasing music. And this makes customers only want to buy stuff they think they'll like rather than experimenting. At $.99 per track, people only buy what the want. But imagine that iTunes sold songs by everyone, RIAA label or not, and allowed artists to set the price for their own music. Musicians like my roommate would be able to sell their tracks for a few cents over Apple's base cost and make far more money than they currently do. And users would download almost anything that looked appealing since each song is only a few cents. The only people who would lose out would be the RIAA artists who want to sell their music for $.99 or more, since more people would choose to spend money downloading random tracks for almost nothing rather than spending almost a buck a track.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Secrity]

I am going to have to start looking for CDs on Amazon Marketplace, I already buy books that way. Om Amazon Marketplace, are the CDs being sold as used, even though they are still in original factory sealed wrappers? I find many good buys on Amazon Marketplace also, mostly books for fraction of list price. Many of the books that I buy are sold as used, in new condition -- they don't appear to have ever been opened.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Neoncow]

My roommate is a musician.

Just curious, has your roommate heard of Last.fm? I'm a fan of the site from a technical and concept perspective, but I'm interested in what artists actually think about it.

Re:I Don't See The Big Deal With Music Downloads

[Saint Fnordius]

Speaking only from personal experience, I suppose the answer boils down to two points:

1: it's good enough

2. it's more convenient

The songs that I buy on iTunes come in a quality that is good enough for my audio equipment. I don't have any high-end equipment, as I don't listen to music that carefully. The songs (or even albums) are ones where I am not interested in the physical media. Mind you, I don't exclusively buy my music online: I'll buy CD's if I like the album enough to want the higher quality and the print extras.

As to my second point, sometimes I'll want a song right away, or I can't find a CD version of it. iTunes has come to my rescue with old songs from Art of Noise and Tangerine Dream that I once owned on cassette. I find it a godsend in rebuilding my lost music files (the fact that I used to buy cassettes instead of LP's should reveal how little I cared about music fidelity as a teen/twen).

iTunes supplements my music purchasing habits, but it doesn't replace them. Television and videorecorders didn't kill off the theaters, and online music purchasing is an alternate, but not a 100% supplement.

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[Detritus]

Can you say "artificial trade barrier"? In an ideal Internet, location would be irrelevant. That concept is unacceptable to the many corporations that have built their business on the model of regional distribution monopolies.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Secrity]

It appears that as long as it is for personal use that importing music from allofmp3.com is not a customs violation. IANAL, etc.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[goldspider]

Don't like the deal the RIAA is offering you? Don't buy it. Neither your opposition to the price, nor your moral objections to their business practice entitles you to their product for free.

Most people around here aren't honest enough with themselves to even consider the possibility that their actions are at least partially responsible for the RIAA's aggressive litigation. Don't expect them to change if you are equally unwilling.

price, quality, backup, DRM

[klang]

I couldn't care less about the price for a song in the iTunes Music Store. I will never buy anything from it anyway.

CD's solve the DRM, quality, backup and price problems in one go.

Re:price, quality, backup, DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, CDs will soon be pulled out of the market. The record industries have understood the advantage there is to work with DRMs...

Re:price, quality, backup, DRM

[Midnight Thunder]

CD's solve the DRM, quality, backup and price problems in one go.

Unless its marked Sony or BMG.

OT: Your sig...

[rainman_bc]

ANYONE who claims more than months or even weeks uptime in XP isn't applying patches!

And anyone who claims the same in Linux is doing the same; not applying kernel updates.

And let's face it, the kernel updates in Linux are a bitch. Every time there's an update, you have to recompile your kernel modules. (ndiswrapper or madwifi, etc)

Re:OT: Your sig...

[TheCarp]

Hmmmm actually I havn't compiled any kernels or kernel modules in a while. Frankly, I gave up on it long ago... though perhaps you have some less well supported hardware or something?

Actually as I remember, madwifi did give me some major headaches when I realised that I needed it on my last laptop and the debian stuff just wasn't quite there.

Tho on the current laptop, I just installed ubuntu and have had no issues... and frankly... kernel updates are only so so important (usually). I mean sure every now and again a really important one comes out but as often as not, I find even the security ones are for situations that don't affect me.

Then when one does come out... eh I upgrade... from the standard package. Though, I also grew out of bragging about uptime a long time ago.

Course now it takes me so long to hit a record uptime that I just stopped looking on any of my systems that are always up. Maybe thats what really killed it. Once you hit the better part of a year once... you start forgetting to check.

(my best current uptime on a system I manage is 125 days though)

-Steve

Re:OT: Your sig...

[rainman_bc]

(my best current uptime on a system I manage is 125 days though)

I had over 400 days of uptime on my FreeBSD 4.9 box and then we had a power outage. Damn thing is unbreakable... It's still running 4.9...

Still, I find it irritating that I need to redeploy kernel modules. IMO that's a failing in Linux.

Imagine if Windows applied a patch, and you had to reinstall drivers. People in /. would scream bloody murder.

Re:OT: Your sig...

[Ucklak]

Put down the kool-aid, run a few laps and clear your mind. Forget what they are telling you. You should probably actually use Linux once in a while.

Kernel updates aren't required unless there is a security issue which is few and far between.
Most of the kernel updates are driver related.

There are plenty of us who run Linux that are using older kernels by choice.

Re:OT: Your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

SP1 and SP2 didn't work well with some of the hardware i had, so i had to reinstall the drivers.

Re:OT: Your sig...

[Scarletdown]

Every time there's an update, you have to recompile your kernel modules.

How many years has it been since you last used Linux?

I've done several kernel updates, and there was no recompiling anything. Just a simple apt-get install linux-image-2.6.whatever does the job, and even updates GRUB by adding the appropriate entries for the new kernel.

Granted, a kernel update does indeed require a reboot to take effect. But that's a good idea anyway, just to make sure nothing went wrong. And if it does break something, then I can always select the previous kernel to boot when the GRUB screen comes up.

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[Detritus]

Did I piss in somebody's Wheaties? Fsckin' mods.

What???

[Anonymous Coward]

Free is too expensive now?

Re:What???

[aristotle-dude]

Yeah, now the want to be paid to illegally download music.

One more thing

[GuloGulo]

Why shouldn't a company (barring certain necessary industries) be allowed to charge what the market will bear?

The reason people in Austrailia pay more is because they choose to pay more.

Outsource your shopping

[Frescard]

Since corporations are allowed to outsource anything they want, I've decided to outsource my shopping as well: http://www.mp3spy.ru/en

Less than $1 for most CDs, nearly every CD you can think of, and they happily accept foreign credit cards (and no funny business happening with the card either).

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unaware that US Customs had any authority whatsoever over and above your First Amendment granted rights to legally posesss any form of legally protected free speech.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[AndersOSU]

Yeah yeah, the thing is I'm not a zealot.

Don't worry I'm not standing on a soap-box, I know that what I do isn't entirely right - but really I don't care. I'm not offering advice or recommendations. Honestly, I feel a little dirty no matter which way I procure my music.

The only thing that I'm trying to say is that I feel just a bit dirtier after paying for it.

I don't expect the RIAA to change even a little. Because even though my apathy might seem disgusting to a slashdotter, I can assure you that the people filling Sony's and BMG's coffers care a whole lot less than I do, and have adjusted their habits accordingly.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[dalerb]

From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allofmp3):
In the United States, many supporters of AllOfMP3 have pointed to limited exceptions in US copyright law, most notably 17 U.S.C. 602(a)(2), which provides a personal use exception to the rule that importation of copyrighted items constitutes infringement. A corresponding exception does not exist in 602(b), however, which governs whether importation is prohibited. Under 603, where importation is prohibited, the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items "in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws." Thus, it appears possible that "importing" digital files from AllOfMP3.com does not constitute copyright infringement but does constitute a violation of customs law. There is no private right of action for violations of customs law, as there is for copyright law.
Whether downloading can be construed as importation is open to question. Importation is defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. 602(a)), which are defined as tangible objects (17 U.S.C. 101), which of course can no more be downloaded than a brick can be. Federal courts in the United States have settled the question of whether unpaid downloading can constitute infringement on the part of the downloader in cases as diverse as Napster, Grokster, Marobie-FL, and Intellectual Reserve: it is infringing on the part of the downloader. However, there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of purchasing music from AllofMP3.com.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[ElleyKitten]

You're under some illusion that mp3 downloading is about helping artists or "sticking it to the man"? How naive.

That's not what the GP post said. He said that downloading from Allofmp3.com doesn't help artists either. I don't know about you, but when I pay for music I want the artist to get the money, not some random other people.

a simple trick to buy from outside US

[dario_moreno]

Just buy an US itunes gift certificate on Ebay ; then (if you have not been ripped off by the seller...) redeem the gift certificate on itunes AND THEN create a new login with a phony US address. Here you go, Desperate Housewives complete season 2 (not to be found anywhere else at the time I tried this...)

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Kpt Kill]

In accordance to the licenses' terms MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights"

http://music.allofmp3.com/help/help.shtml?prm=lega l&rnd=863407

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[CastrTroy]

Exactly. Canadian iTunes cost $CDN 0.99. US iTunes Cost $US 0.99. I'm sure there's a lot of americans who would love to pay $US 0.88 (wow look how the american dollar has dropped). I'm pretty sure the songs are being downloaded from the same servers. Yet the Canadian songs are cheaper.

All music is free, People are lazy....

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I missing, Music has always been free for the recording. In the 70's, 80's and 90's there was this antique called a tape player/recorder. You could record straight from a record album (before CD's) and the radio. You can still do it with recordable MP3 players. There is more free music waiting to be recorded than ever. Free from launch.yahoo.com, music.msn.com, Internet video's, tv (Jay Leno every night to MTV/VH1...), and radio. As long as you have audio out of your source and audio-in on an MP3 player your set. People are just too lazy or don't have time....

*** 5 Step Spoiler ****
1) record it from a source into your MP3 player.
2) transfer it to your computer
3) edit the file if needed through Audacity software (free on the internet.
4) Set the mp3 tags and title.
5) transfer it back to your mp3 player.

Just get off your ass and do it yourself the old-fashion way.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[carleton]

Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time...
Google comstock (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock) wherein hyper-moralists blocked even anatomy textbooks from being delivered by the postal service.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anita Coney]

Very interesting. Thanks! I guess it's not "little known" anymore.

This point should be stressed: "There is no private right of action for violations of customs law." Thus, the RIAA still could not come after an Allofmp3 user directly.

The RIAA is going ballistic over allofmp3. But they are trying to handle it via the governments involved, not directly with the users. Considering that the RIAA has no problem suing customers, I find that very informative.

My guess is that the RIAA does not want to risk an unfavorable ruling regarding 17 U.S.C. 602(a)(2). Can you imagine if that occurred? Suddenly downloaded music from foreign servers, even on P2P, would not be infringement. The shit would really hit the fan.

Thus, the RIAA's first step is to get Russia to shut the site down but pressuring the US government. When and if that fails I'd guess that they'll have Congress amend 17 U.S.C. 602(a)(2) to specify that it does not apply to downloaded music. Heck, their probably already working on that! Once that is amended, then they'll start suing Allofmp3 users.

YRO?

[alex_guy_CA]

I lived in Australia for a while in 1989, 1990. At the time Aussie politicos were investigating price fixing of CD's. It looks like the more things change the more they stay the same, but what do inflated prices have to do with rights? Do people have a right to low prices? What a strange concept. Maybe if it is AIDS drugs, a case could be made, but music downloads?

Re:YRO?

[LunaticTippy]

It'd be one thing if record companies weren't lobbying so hard for draconian laws to fight piracy.

Instead of adjusting pricing to fight piracy, they resort to unfair laws, unfair practices, and lawsuits.

Re:YRO?

[TFloore]

Do people have a right to low prices?

Nope. People have no right to low prices. There is an assumption that a market economy will prevent artificially high prices, however. Competition is supposed to help with that.

But.

Music sales (licensing) is a government-granted monopoly, through copyright law. Competition is not possible. There is, therefore, an interest (in democracies), and perhaps even a right, to not have these government-granted monopolies be abused with artificially high prices.

That's the only place "rights" come into a discussion of prices.

That's where a chunk of the entitlement feeling comes from.

Quality and value for money.

[tHatDudeUK]

What about being able to download lossless if you want for the same price? MP3 128kb/s and 192kb/s is just junk with a decent sound system. FLAC all the way!

Stop the legal system.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, but they're going after random people in the hopes they strike gold because everybody obviously pirates music. They're suing innocent people, and that's just sick."

Yea, it' "sick" using the legal system to determine weither someone is innocent or guilty. Putting it to a Slashdot vote would be much better.

Re:Stop the legal system.

[Cal Paterson]

No, it's just sick when you manipulate the legal system to determine whether someone is innocent or guilty.

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[anonicon]

Can you say "artificial trade barrier"? In an ideal Internet, location would be irrelevant. That concept is unacceptable to the many corporations that have built their business on the model of regional distribution monopolies.

Agreed, and that's why we should visit places where monopolies, market collusion, and DRM are neutralized like emusic.com and allofmp3.com.

Also, realize that major label music isn't better than indie music, it's just much more heavily marketed. If you need a marketing campaign to make you feel good about your CD, OK, but for everyone else, there's a ton of awesome music that can be bought from cdbaby.com, or used from your local store.

Chuck

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[dwandy]

I don't know about you, but when I pay for music I want the artist to get the money, not some random other people.

Am I misreading you, or are you under the delusion that artists get the money when you buy a CD?
Under the current system "some random other people" get 95%-99%* of the money ... it might as well be nothing.

Not that I agree with paying to download from AllOfMP3.com ... if you're going to get a non-licensed version, at least don't pay for it.

*Out of which they must pay for the recording, production, legal and other costs ... bands can easily lose money making a CD, while their record company makes millions off that same CD.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[aristotle-dude]

You are absolutely right. You have legally justified yourself but how does that justify doing it on moral grounds?

Far to expensive

[nurb432]

Aside from the fact that music in general is too costly, consider this:

( only speaknig averages here.. )

A uncompressed CD is 17 bucks..

To buy a CD full of downloads its costs that much or more, and you only get COMPRESSED versions..

Not too equitable sounding to me..

YES!

[Gno]

I'll admit it i steal about 80% using a prefferd p2p prgram and the other 20% I go to the store and buy. Why pay 99c - $1.50 when I can get AC-DC - Family jewls with over 50 songs for $20? If online music purchasing was cheaper and you could find a good selection without using the Apple entity. I'd do it! But it's not 5c to 10c yet so.... Im just not gonna do it. And Artists already complain that the prices arn't High enough. I'm just hoping that this whole thing will die down and the early napsters of the 90's can resume being whom they are before Metallica fucked with them.

Re:YES!

[Silverstrike]

Okay, mod the parent down please. Its a shame too. Because you had such a good start: $0.99 is WAY to high of a price point for me. I'm not willing to pay $15 for the contents of a CD, sorry. Its just not worth that much to me, and I think a lot of other people probably feel the same way. If they started selling at $0.10 or $0.25 -- then they might have a customer.

Where you got yourself in trouble was mentioning Napster and Metalica. Metalica didn't bring about the downfall of easy P2P (and with the current protocols and clients: uTorrent, eMule, etc), its still not that hard to steal music, if you want too.

Metalica sued because there was unfinished studio recordings being swapped around, and to be honest, its not difficult to see where they're coming from in wanting that material yanked.

Think of it like a sex tape or something else similarly embarassing -- you sure as hell wouldn't want something like that viewable to the world.

Re:YES!

[geekoid]

A full CD would cost you 9.99 in itunes.

A full CD with your choice of songs would be 99 cent per song.(a deal for you Zep fans!) But you get all good songs.

"If they started selling at $0.10 or $0.25 -- then they might have a customer. "

you mean besides the billion downloads they already have had? Based on the amount of sales they have, they have hit a good price point. Not to you, but to a great many people.

"...steal music, ..." once again, it is copyright infringment, not stealing. Not that it is better, but it is a different crime.

Re:YES!

[Gno]

Still if a CD on itunes is $9.99 and a CD at walmart is the same price. I would much rather goto wallmart for the following reasons: 1.I rarely buy CDs 2.Itunes then has your credit card infomation 3.I use winamp 4.I would have to install itunes bundled with quicktime 5.I hate apple 6.Why pay for music in the first place when it's so easy to download using a p2p client

Re:YES!

[Silverstrike]

1) 9.99? That implies a want all the same music on a CD, which I, and a lot of other P2P users, have found to be a very outmoded format. Of course, I could be happy with 10 songs on a disc too. Woo.

2) Economics. You sell for less, and you make more sales. In theory, if you decrease your margin X and increase sales Y, guess what? You made Y-X more money on the product you sold. In businesses that sell physical material, this often hits a wall when moving all that product cuts into the margin. However, these are bits flying along fiber with little to no cost of transport. The cost to produce these products largely lie in paying for the greed of record execs and recording artists. But, maybe you're right -- maybe the accounts say they'll lose money. But, I bet its not Apple's accounts that say that -- I bet its the recording industries (and maybe they're just being stubborn.

3) Steal vs. copyright infringment. Ya know what? In this case, it really is the same thing. IANAL. I'm betting neither are you. So, lets just drop the semantics for the sake of argument. In this case, people are getting material that they normally have to pay for without paying for it. That is theft, inspite of all the conscience massaging BS that the P2P proponets shove down our throats about how what they're doing isn't wrong or civil disobediance. That's crap. And I've used P2P many times, but at least I'm honest about what it is.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[mapkinase]

What if you set up a server in Antarctida on the international grounds? National laws won't apply?

I'll tell you why not!

[mrdaveb]

Again this crap is being modded up! AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists. I very much doubt whether music downloaded from their site is appropriately licenced if you are buying it from outside Russia.

Like Stew77 said, emusic is the way to go if you don't want to support the big 'evil' labels. Give your money to independant labels, not dubious "too good to be true" Russian imports!

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[numa23]

What do I care if it's legal or not? The RIAA can goto hell as far as I am concerned, and it's not like allofmp3.com has a reason to give them my info that I downloaded from them. They provide a fantastic service, and great quality. I am thrilled to give them my money and will continue to do so. MOD PARENT DOWN, go buy your silly DRM encumbered crap, it's your money.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[mrdaveb]

Emusic doesn't use DRM - I don't buy "DRM encumbered crap" either. However I buy my music legally whereas you pay a Russian company to steal it for you. How about you just cut out the middle man and use P2P or rip it from a mates CD?

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[PhoenixPath]

"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."

Importing music to the US is legal. Until that changes download from AllofMP3 is entirely legal.

"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists."

If the artist is registered with ROMS, (The Russian equivelant or RIAA), they get royalties. It's up to the artist. If they want to get paid for sales in a certain country, they must actually *do* something about it. Money ain't free....for anyone.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah, why pay anything at all? Why not just warez the music with a p2p program? Why pay AllOfMp3.com anything at all?

The point and the schizm with allofmp3.com and the issue with ROMS is that they basically pay shit. If you haven't seen the big picture yet, it's about selling stuff which is not yours, and without paying royalties.

Also, I don't want my credit card info to go anywhere near Russia.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Arker]

Again this crap is being modded up! AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists.

Umm actually they do. They sell under a license from the Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems, an umbrella organisation tasked with collecting royalties and distributing them to the artists. What they don't do is pay royalties to "other copyright holders" i.e. the RIAA. Frankly sounds perfect to me.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[PhoenixPath]

Why not use P2P? How about legallity for one?

How about crap quality, untrustworthy content, and viruses, for seconds, thirds, and fourths?

Your point isn't valid. ROMS will pay royalties if the artists register with them. Trick is, most US Artists either don't care, or are told not to by their labels/RIAA.

My point is that while illegal methods may be cheaper, Allofmp3 is both legal, and proof that, when given the opportunity to pay for decent content vs. pirating it, we, in fact, will.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[mrdaveb]

I don't have time to read whatever small print is involved. But come - you really think royalties are charged by the Gigabyte? Apparently they will sell me "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley for 6 pence! Last time I looked this was the number 1 single in the UK!

Looking around the site, there are quite a few artists that are with non-RIAA labels. If it was purely the RIAA labels, maybe I could believe that those greedy scumbags would sign anything for a few extra dollars... but I just don't believe these other artists are also signed up to this scheme. Or is it the case that in Russia anyone can sell any music they like without neededing the artists permission? I'm staying well away from it.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[mrdaveb]

And by the way who are you quoting? You are replying to me as if I wronte it but I didn't. Not in these exact words anyway:

"unlike AllofMp3--REAL pirates who infringe on copyrights for commercial gain (from the dupes who actually give them money)."

Some clever trolling tactic perhaps?

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[shark72]

"Your point isn't valid. ROMS will pay royalties if the artists register with them. Trick is, most US Artists either don't care, or are told not to by their labels/RIAA."

Would you register with them?

Let's say you wrote a little software utility that you sell for ten bucks. Maybe you wrote it with five other people, so you make about a buck fifty a sale. Then you discover that your potential customers are downloading it from a Russian site that is utilizing a loophole in Russian law that allows them to sell software for $0.10 per megabyte.

"No problem," the Russians tell you. That outfit sells your software for a buck. Giving you 10% royalties, you'll make ten cents for each copy of your $10 software that they let their customers download. Just register with us, and we'll be nice and legit and send you that ten cents." Ten cents which, of course, you'd have to divide with the other five people, so you'd make two cents per sale.

Would your response likely be something like "sign me up!", or would it more likely be something that rhymes with "duck shoe" ?

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Anonymous Coward]

If a million or so customers purchased my software from the russian site, I'd be happy to claim my extra $20k. It's not like I can shut them down, so, why not gain from it?

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Cyberax]

AOMP3 does pay royalties to ROMS. Madonna and Brittney Spears can come and get their share of royalties from ROMS.

They don't like the price? Well, tough luck...

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Cyberax]

Or is it the case that in Russia anyone can sell any music they like without neededing the artists permission?

Yes. Digital downloads in Russia are equated in rights with radio broadcasts, so AOMP3 just uses blanket radio broadcast license.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[Cyberax]

You won't believe this, but it is EXACTLY the way computer games are published in Russia.

For example, a _LEGAL_ copy of localized (without English content so it is not playable without the knowledge of Russian) Doom3 costs about $5 here.

Why? Because the other alternative is to "sell" your software for $0.

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[PhoenixPath]

You mean market conditions shouldn't influence pricing?

Really?

You're *that* stupid?

Sorry, gas doesn't cost the same one street to the next, why should anyone expect anything to cost the same one country to the next?

Re:I'll tell you why not!

[PhoenixPath]

Nah. Hit "CTRL-C" on the wrong keyboard. One of the risks of using multiple PCs, and this set-up is pretty odd.

"AllOfMP3.com don't pay the appropriate royalties to their artists. I very much doubt whether music downloaded from their site is appropriately licenced if you are buying it from outside Russia."

This is what I meant to quote.

Licensing your music in that country is voluntary. If they want royalties, they have to register with ROMS. Just like we have our laws, Canada has theirs, and Russia has theirs.

Why expect a company or group to have to obey one set in the US, one set in Canada, but not the set in Russia? How does that make any sense at all to anyone?

Price & Quality

[VincenzoRomano]

What about the comparison of the price against the quality of the sound?
Is it comparable to CD (44.1 KHz, 16 bits samples for 2 channels)?
If a physical CD costs, say, USD 15.- USD with 15 songs, each downloadable song should cost USD 1.
Much less if you think about the money they save by not printing the medium and not shipping the boxes all around the world.
Let's say USD 0.75 could be right. It's right if the song is CD quality, of course.
If it's a compressed format song, it should cost less because quality is worse. Let's say USD 0.50 is a fair price.
Almost all legal downloads are above this price. With no real reason!
So I'd say that prices are too high when compared to quality.
And Maybe they are too high in any case.

You're Being Screwed

[Nom du Keyboard]

You're being screwed - By Your Government! They enforce these rules, so put the blame where it's due.

And you will continue to be screwed until you change your government to be more consumer friendly. And that's also putting the blame where it's due - On The Voters!

Re:You're Being Screwed

[Overzeetop]

Sorry, I missed the part where you got consumer friendly politicians to run. You see, it takes millions of dollars to fund a campaign (and inform enough people you are running, much less what you stand for). Corporations pay those millions. Oh, sure, they come in individual contributions. Guess who funds the information machine that solicits those contributions. Bingo. I'll say it again, corporations pay for electioneering. Without backing you will not get elected, regardless of your views.

As soon as we get candidates that believe in consumers rights, you'll see more consumer friendly laws. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Re:You're Being Screwed

[aristotle-dude]

*sarcasm* Damn straight. Those damn governments enforcing rules like minimum labour standards and wages. How dare they prevent you from being exploited like those people in third world countries.*sarcasm*

I think you should think things through a bit before you go off foaming at the mouth like that.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

I download music from Allofmp3. Not a lot, but I've probably spent about 30 bucks (~500 songs).
I normally don't buy music in CD form, it's just not worth the price to me (student) since I don't have a lot of spare cash to throw around. So my alternatives are:
1. Don't buy music. Artists get nothing, I get nothing, and don't acquire a taste for a lot of music.
2. Download music from AllofMp3. Artists get an insignificant amount or nothing, I get music. I also grow to like a lot of bands, and when I'm out of school and making money, I will financially support these bands.

Option 2 is far better from my point of view.

Re:What do you expect from down under?

[Overzeetop]

Hmmm...looks like online prices just shot up for those deleveries into Georgia.

Filler songs.

[zippthorne]

With iTunes (and I presume the other services) you can preview each song and buy only the ones you intended to. If the whole album is great songs, you don't get much benefit though. Preview definately helped with avoiding remixes (or non remixes if you're looking for the remix) and songs that simply aren't as interesting as you think they might be. I know you can preview at the record store, but it's usually a very limited selection.

Ahh and that brings up the selection issue. itunes vs. record store is a lot like netflix vs. movie store in terms of total volume of titles. Not to mention the instant gratification. Certainly there are drawbacks, but everything has drawbacks & benefits and the point of trade is to decide which is more important to you.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

or coffee grounds, or for that matter indian burial grounds?!?!!

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[saskboy]

Just yesterday, several prominant Canadian musicians formed a new alliance that opposes the RIAA lawsuits and promotes downloading of their music, although for a fee of course. It's becoming possible to buy music again from mainstream artists if you shop around.

I bought The Arrogant Worms latest album Beige online for less than the CD online price, it was $1CAN a song.

Check out http://www.huntershack.org/nucleus/index.php?itemi d=177 and also my blog for a writeup on the new group.

pay too much for clothes? Go naked!

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll save tremendously on your clothing budget!

Microeconomically speaking,

[hummassa]

"perception of value" === "value"

Re:Microeconomically speaking,

[geminidomino]

Err, isn't that EXACTLY what gives something, especially a non-tangible good with a production cost close enough to 0 to be zero, its value?

Go Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

that means Slashdot is turning into digg!!!

You mean we'll get to see news when it's news, not 18-24 hours later? Digg!!

Re:Go Slashdot!

[Anita Coney]

Oh come one. Half the "news" on digg is not really news. It's some dude's blog. If we're lucky those blogs link to real news stories from months ago.

I used to love Digg when it was a tech site. But now that it has been discovered by the ignorant masses and dumbed down with crap, it's essentially worthless.

What someone needs to do is create combination Slashdot/Digg. Where the stories are submitted and posted by users like Digg, but where editors can go through and weed out the asinine crap like on Slashdot.

No, you have no grasp of economics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you honestly think the companies have no brick and mortar operations in each country for logistical purposes?"

yeah, but so what? That's not the consumer's or market's problem that they haven't chosen the most efficient way to do business.

Let's put it another way. Lets say that you sell tennis shoes. And that you sell these shoes in singapore (where they're made), for $1. But in austrailia, you have a sales team of 1000 people, and that costs you a lot of money to maintain.

So you sell shoes for $50.

Well, what do you think the market and consumers are going to do? They're either going to parallel import (so-called "gray market"), or they'll choose to pick another brand.

The only reason this doesn't happen in music is because:
1) The artifical barrier created by overarching copyrights.
2) The artifical barrier that in most countries *prohibits* parallel imports of music.

What you're saying is that the market should reward inefficiencies in "IP" because...well....just because. And think of the artist!

Seriously, you criticize everybody else for not understanding market forces but you're doing far worse; you understand, but choose to ignore fundamental market forces!

Here's the solution:
1) Provide mandatory song licensing for distribution, same as we do for broadcast rights (because there's no difference)
2) Remove regional barriers to CD/Tape/Whatever distribution. If joe's sweatshot can make CD's for $1 and have no sales staff, then that's who will sell it, probably.

Really, I don't know why music is treated differently than cars, food, sneakers, or most of the rest of the universe of goods.

Re:No, you have no grasp of economics

[aristotle-dude]

Ok, many of you seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is only one set of artists which sell across multiple markets. While it may be true that there are some artists that do well, many markets have their own local musicians which usually do not sell in other markets. Many Americans assume that their cultural imperialism is equally accepted everywhere but what you fail to notice that not everyone in non-english speaking countries would be interested in listening to american artists.

Music cannot be compared with physical goods which are easy to produce and to create knock offs of. Music, on the other hand is a service. The musicians provide a service to you which is supposed to entertain. The fact that you can purchase a reproduction of that service for your own use within your home does not change this reality.

You all seem to forget that musicians in the middle ages performed to provide a service (entertainment) for their patrons. With advances in technology, we are now able to capture and reproduce this service for distribution but it does not change the fact that the initial performance itself is not a product but rather a service.

You speak of fundamental market forces but you insist on not having your wages affected by those same forces. Isn't that hypocritical?

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[It'sYerMam]

1-5% * millions = a lot.

The GP is pointing out the difference between buying music, buying illegal music and downloading illegal music for free. In the first, the artist profits but you have to pay. In the second, the artist DOESN'T profit, and you STILL have to pay. In the last, no money changes hands. Sure, there is a middle man in both the first and second scenarios, but in the first, the artist gets a look in - is encouraged to make more music. If you're not going to pay the person that matters, why bother paying anyone, unless you get quality - bitrate, for example.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Tweekster]

So if I travel to Europe and buy a CD I am not allowed to bring it back? Yeah right

Weird

[szembek]

Strange, all the ones I download are completely free... hang on I think I hear somebody knocking on my door...

That's not how I remember it

[PCM2]

Actually, when CDs first appeared in the 80s they were a fair bit more expensive than LPs, and only moved back to more normal levels as production capacity was ramped up.

Seems to me that's what they told you was going to happen. If it did, I must have missed it.

I was buying compact discs in 1987 and the average price was $12.95-13.95. A used CD went for around $9.95. It doesn't seem like much has changed -- except that a vinyl LP now costs $14.95.

I Should be Rich!

[Iamthewalrus]

From TFA:
This issue resonates in Australia, where consumers may be paying almost three times more for digital music downloads than they should be.

In a recent analysis, the prices of Australian-made CDs of artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams were compared to those of legal parallel imports. It was found that the local product was as much as 300 per cent more expensive.

If these savings were available in the digital market, consumers would be paying as little as 67 cents for a digital download, instead of the $1.69 to $1.89 a track they pay at present.

Emphasis mine. Beyond the idiocy of using words like "should" when discussing what things cost in the real world, the comparison made here is completely vacuous. Just because the cost of printed cds in Australia is 3x higher than the imports doesn't mean that the cost of digital music is as well. In fact, it's clearly not.

(AUD) $1.89 to $1.69 is (USD) $1.41 to $1.26. So, at most, Australians are paying 42% more than they "should be." It's obvious that no one is selling digital music for AUD 0.67. Well, except some enterprising Russians.

Re:I Should be Rich!

[Jerry Rivers]

Besides, Australia is a relatively small market of around only 25 million people. I suspect buying power figures in the prices of products there, just like it does everywhere else.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anita Coney]

The moral quandry of "ripping off" the RIAA?! God, you're hilarious! When is your HBO special airing?!

Off topic, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Green Day's "American Idiot" is an album that you can listen to start to finish. If you haven't already, check it out.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Tweekster]

who says you have to? How do you justify speeding, that is immoral because of the danger you are putting others in.

I'll agree..

[Belial6]

I don't know where you live, but here in the U.S. (specifically California)... I'll agree with the price of gas, but clothes don't have to be outragous, and the fact that you can go buy a double cheeseburger for $1 at McDonalds, I have to really disagree on that point.

Re:I'll agree..

[takeya]

I remember when a plain cheeseburger was 40 cents :(

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prez Bush is responsible for more deaths than anyone else in recent memory but I don't see anyone going after him.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[PhoenixPath]

"buying illegal music"

Brilliant!

Please explain how buying from AllofMP3 is illegal.

Then tell me why I should care that an artist doesn't feel royalties from Russia are worth registering with ROMS? If they choose not to, I shouldn't buy their music? BS. They can register any time they want and start getting royalties.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[PhoenixPath]

Because the artists in questionc an register with the russian equivilent of the RIAA (ROMS) any time they wish?

Just because they don't, or choose not to, isn't breaking my heart.

two words: Tough Crap

[maillemaker]

I don't really give two shits about how much it costs a business to do business.

I only care about one thing: How much does the product cost /me/?

It is absurd that if a piece of media on a CD costs $1 in one country that it should cost $2 in another.

This, of course, is why the media cartels love region codes - so they can control how much different parts of the world have to pay for their products. It's all about squeezing each market for as much as it will bear. Sorry, Charlie, for digital data, there is only one market - the world.

This is the other edge of the double-edged sword of globalization. Corporations are reaping the benefits of manufacturing wherever it is cheapest. Consumers deserve to be able to SHOP wherever it is cheapest.

Steve

Ob. SImpson Quote

[geekoid]

Homer: "Free? yeah, I think we can afford it! HAhaha"

Actually, I use iTunes, but couldn't resist the quote.

Not true

[geekoid]

"Digital media however, has zero production and distribution cost (for each individual download i mean),..."

ignore the production cost across when figuring distribution is unwise.

However, Digital music does have the cost of servers, bandwidth, support etc . . .

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[gravy.jones]

I normally buy my own music which is my personal choice. I don't mind it really; I wish a new CD was around $9, but that is ok. Usually I buy because I like the whole experience of going to the record store, thumbing through the music, picking out the one CD out of ten that I really want; not the ones that I had fancied in a fly-by-night moment. Sometimes I copy albums from friends; sometimes they from me. I know that I rarely listen to music that I don't purchase, the exception being when the player is on random. I view the trend of pirating software, downloading music and videos as just another facet of the throw away society. It troubles me that in music and software people don't expect to have to pay for the merchandise. It troubles me that the dogma behind this is strangely a form of communism. Music and software by the people and for the people. It is troubling because someone who truly believes that "free stuff" is the way of the future will be fanatical towards me for believing the opposite. If they were in charge this would make them a music and software dictator. They hope to be charge eventually by sinking the companies who charge for their products. When artists and developers alike lose the incentive for the art that they create the "creative well of inspiration" dries up. People have to earn money to live and the logical conclusion is that eventually you must take sponsorship. The one who pays the bill for product development is the one who guides and controls the development the product. You might as well hope to have a Wal-Mart O/S or a McDonald's O/S, maybe even the Target and GAP bands. The logical conclusion is that trying to cause a society of free music and software will only create a much worse one in which large corporations will swallow up the freeware. That is not the type of society that I want to live in and you shouldn't either. There should be moderation in everything including moderation itself. You should pay for things sometimes and sometimes they are provided to you from the bounty.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[MBGMorden]

The RIAA manages to sue their customer base on legal grounds only forgetting about the moral part. They certainly will get no sympathy when the reverse happens.

US Credit Cards

[Arker]

Maybe someone will start up a business to issue low value American credit cards to foreigners so they can buy from iTunes.

Actually I believe there are several services already doing this generically, ePassporte for example.

Slashdot crowd is not in denial

[PietjeJantje]

You are saying the Slashdot crowd doesn't understand the costs and other factors of local economies.

This same crowd his been discussing to death and is being subject to outsourcing to India and other cheaper local economies.

I think it is you who is in denial. Your textbook economics come from a time when there was no global economy the scale we're now in, and there was no Internet. It is outdated.

Now you can say, hey, play by my rules and textbook, because I have local costs, you dummy, and stick to the old world, and wither and die.
It won't work because consumers will vote with their wallets.
If another economy offers it cheaper, you better addapt instead of turn into a missionary and try to lock local markets in denial of global forces. It doesn't even matter if you're right. It just won't work.

I agree it is not necessarily a good thing. I live in a country where we have to compete with countries which hardly have any social security and low taxes/loose laws aimed at bringing quick succes at the expensive of the environment or even rights of the people. The consumers vote with their wallets for products produced under the the most poluting, least social local environments.

Re:Slashdot crowd is not in denial

[rtb61]

Customers also need to remember thay are also voting with the lives of people in those most polluting and least social enviroments (as well as setting the stage for those conditions to become locally dominant).

Just who exactly is going to be buying all the crap when we are all (at least the majority legally enforced poor) are getting payed a $1.00 a day, living in tin huts and surviving on minimum rations.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[geekoid]

it is not a loophole. It is there for a very specific reason. Calling it a loophole indicates that it wasbn't intended, and it should be 'fixed'.

I think not

[geekoid]

17 USC 602(a)(2) says that "importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time"

So it is not illegal.

Enough people by music through non standard channels, the more musicians will look to provide it themselves , at a reasonable price.
There is a big opportunity here.
Get me 10 million dollars, and I will change the music industry forever.

Re:Goose, meet Gander

[geekoid]

don't underestimate perception. .99 cent is the magic number because it is less then 1 BUC(Basic Unit of Currency)

With downloaeable music, you need to charge the same everywhere because people will figure out how to buy from the cheapest source

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[saskboy]

We already have Walmart and Target OS, they are called Microsoft Windows and Apple OS. They are large companies that make money not only by creating a product people will buy, but then going steps further to make sure no one can do the same things they did to make money. That's not how capitalism is supposed to work, price is supposed to be the deciding factor, and if you want to sell something that another person can create in their spare time and give away for free, you'll be on hard times. Move to producing something people aren't providing free, and better in another way.

Market forces cut both ways

[Mariner28]

Actually, we /.'rs do understand. You've created a strawman argument. The big music companies are GLOBAL, and sell into many markets - and cater to those markets' tastes when they can (i.e., they can make a profit doing so), or else they try to make their major artists - whether they are American, Canadian, English, Italian, Indian or Japanese - appeal to "minor" markets so they can minimize their overhead selling to those markets.

Let's face it. The bottom line is this is a classic case of an entrenched supplier reacting - in our opinion, futively - to a disrupting technology. Like any "monopoly", they are doing their best to influence the creation of laws that favor their outdated methods of doing business. If market forces were allowed to work their magic, with only enough necessary government oversight to ensure "fair play", then those "monopolies" would have to evolve or die.

We consumers also have to adapt, or continue to pad the pockets of corporations who employ what are essentially indentured servants - the artists. More and more consumers will get smarter about where they make their music and other media purchases. More and more artists will follow the models of the Arctic Monkeys and others, bypassing the record labels, promoting themselves via "viral" and guerilla marketing techniques until they have enough recognition to deal with the labels on their own terms - not the labels' terms.

How are your customers gonna reach that server?

[Mariner28]

Not too many OC-192's or STM-4's reaching down into Antarctica...

Is it safe to pay them, though?

[swb]

Given the U.S. credit card industry's record on theft and security and Russia's general record on corruption, can you actually use your credit card on that site and not end up ripped off?

Re:Is it safe to pay them, though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can. I've bought around $70 worth of stuff from them and haven't ever been ripped off. The credit processing is done by a neutral entity anyway.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[It'sYerMam]

Sorry, from the other posts I was under the impression that downloading from allofmp3 was illegal in the west. Never mind, the point stands. There is no difference, other than giving away money to some russian organisation, between downloading MP3s from allofmp3, and downloading MP3s illegally. In the latter case, there's a (small) chance of getting booked - unless you download them from another country where you're not going to be.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[swillden]

but when I pay for music I want the artist to get the money, not some random other people.

So pay allofmp3.com $1.50 for providing an excellent download service, then find the band's mailing address on their web site and send them $2. The album costs you far less than you'd pay for it in the store, the artist makes significantly more, you get the music now, in your choice of format and DRM-free, and the relevant RIAA member gets *nothing*.

I can't find a downside there. Looking up the band's mailing address, addressing an envelope and sticking $2 in it is a bit of a chore, but less work than going to the mall.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[swillden]

Under 603, where importation is prohibited, the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items "in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws." Thus, it appears possible that "importing" digital files from AllOfMP3.com does not constitute copyright infringement but does constitute a violation of customs law.

OTOH, if you travel to Russia and buy less than $X worth of CDs (IIRC, X is around 500), you can bring them back to the US without paying any import duties. And the limit is based on what you paid for the items, not what their market value in the US is. So it's possible that as long as you spend less than $500 (or whatever X is), you're legal from that perspective as well.

I don't know that, of course, I just know that you can bring small amounts of stuff back when you travel abroad, and speculate that the same rules may apply here.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[shark72]

"For me something that is mutually beneficial would support both the artists and the consumer; paying for music ain't. I'd rather see no one pay for music and watch the record labels go down in flames (artists can still make money touring), so that when I do want to buy an album I can know that the artist is getting a reasonable cut of the sale."

The "they should just be happy with making money touring" line gets thrown around a lot, but a few weeks ago when Slashdot covered news of concert ticket prices going up because of piracy, Slashdotters replied with a collective call of "bullshit."

I think many Slashdotters honestly and truly think that if an artist makes more than, say, $10,000 a year at their craft, then it's simply not fair. It's the "if you're trying to make money, then you're a businessperson, not an artist" mentality. It's sad that many see technology as a way to put others in their place.

The good news is that it's already possible to opt in to the business model of releasing your own stuff without the benefit of a record label (which means that you're on your own for recording, mixing, producing, and promotion -- tough old beans if you're not an expert in all of these disciplines!), and then try to make your money only by touring. I guess this presupposes that you find touring to be fun or glamorous. There are indeed some bands who do pretty well at touring even though they no longer release CDs -- but it was CD sales that got them to that point.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[ElleyKitten]

So pay allofmp3.com $1.50 for providing an excellent download service, then find the band's mailing address on their web site and send them $2.

Or download it with bittorent and send the band $3.50?

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[ElleyKitten]

Am I misreading you, or are you under the delusion that artists get the money when you buy a CD? Under the current system "some random other people" get 95%-99%* of the money ... it might as well be nothing.

That's assuming you get an RIAA CD. There are bands that make their own CDs, ya know.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[pbhj]

>>> "if you "import" one song from say, allofmp3.com, or from some other foreign server, for personal use, and do not distribute it to anyone else, the RIAA could not legally come after you"

Possibly not, it probably hinges around the legal interpretation of the "importation" part. I suspect as you haven't personally carried the recording across the border then you won't be deemed to have imported it?! It's not important to the RIAA (when they sue you) who did import it, they only need to know that when they sue the company that sold you the recording ... even then they can probably just get them for assisting you in copyright infringement.

I think the issue is,

[petermgreen]

that humans (with good hearing) can hear up to 20KHZ. by the niquist sampling theorem that means you need at least a 40KHZ sample rate.

However the niquist sampling theorem assumes perfect filters in both encoder and decoder. Perfect filters cannot exist (they are non-causal) and so you end up trading off sharp response (nessacery to keep noise caused by aliasing down) for phase distortion (which manifests itself in the time domain as different delays at different freuquencies) or other types of distortion caused by digital filtering.

P.S. i can't hear the difference myself.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[jambarama]

Artists usually get about 5%, that means from a $20 CD they get $1. It is amazing the distributors (who create nothing) get the lions share of profit. In this society creativity isn't rewarded - distribution is.

Not to mention the artists would be better off if you download an mp3 from p2p (or allofmp3) and then send them a check for $5. Or a check for $2. Either way.

US & Australian Free Trade agreement

[asamad]

Didn't Australia and the US just recently sign a free trade agreement, that was meant to open up the economic boundaries between the countries. Shouldn't have this also opened up the internet boundaries as well. How can the american companies get away with only selling to american. Typical shelfish greed of the Music industry. Lets hope a lot more artist follow the Canadian group. I might even start buying music again.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[Secrity]

I have a hard time figuring out how the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items when the items are not tangible objects. Also, I wonder if the volume of music purchased from allofmp3,com and then imported into the US is significant enough for it to be a concern. Then there is the matter of whether a Russian web site would comply with an American subpoena. If a federal court decides that music downloads are not tangible objects, I wonder if that could affect the efforts of certain states to collect sales tax on downloads.

My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been waiting for a chance to bitch about this. Here is my experience (as an Aussie) with iTunes.

So I just bought a new ipod and I thought I'd give iTunes a try. Installed it and started browsing. Spotted the new CD from a local artist and decided to buy it. $22 and a bit of downloading I had it on my shiney new iPod. I started it playing and was instantly dissapointed with the quality. Thinking my new ipod might sound even worse than my old one, I started playing the tracks on my desktop computer through its connection with a fancy audiophile setup. Still sounded horrible. So I thought I'd buy the CD for comparison. I jumped on a website for a record store where I buy most of my music and bought the same CD - for $4 less than I paid on iTunes. 2 days later I had the CD in my hands, pretty cover artwork and all and best of all, it sounded like a CD SHOULD sound, not something encoded with some cheap and nasty codec.

iTunes was quickly uninstalled.

Re:I find Bittorrent and Sharaza.......

[jafac]

I both buy albums, and download music (illegally), and to tell you the truth, from a moral standpoint I feel worse about paying for it.

You need to take a step back and re-appraise your ethics, re-align your moral compass.
I mean, paying RIAA companies for music is what scum does. Don't be scum. It's like paying for sex.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[swillden]

Or download it with bittorent and send the band $3.50?

Not worth my time. Finding stuff to download via bittorrent is slightly harder and I can never know that it will be the format I want, with all of the tags properly filled out, etc. Allofmp3.com makes it very easy and fast, and that's worth the buck fifty to me.

No, you're missing the point. Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ok, many of you seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is only one set of artists which sell across multiple markets."

Nobody is talking about appeal across markets. Let the market decide, not the company. Cable TV is proving that old models about mass-entertainment are going away; what you have in any country is not one market, but hundreds of markets that want different things. Record companies hate this because it means you can't record brittany once and sell the crap out of her in 85 countires. It means you need hundreds of artists to support the fragmentation of the market.

Slashdotters are advocating letting the consumers make the decision and make the suppliers try to sell wherever they can make a profit.

How about a more efficient way. Lets say that Weird Al signs with a "media firm". The Media Firm records Al, and then publicizes the heck out of him. Now then, the right to the music would be distinct and separate from the right to distribute. So you could have 100's or even 1000's of distribution companies making CD's, selling online however they could. Al gets his cut because there is a standard fee that applies to every artist. The "media firm" gets paid because they own the right of sale, and the distribution companies get their cut because they sell it. Everybody is better off, with the exception of Sony/BMG et al because the distribution network is made more efficient.

This wouldn't have to be mandated either. Congress would only have to change the laws so that companies that own the rights to a performance must sell them to anybody at a non-discriminatory price.

Bingo, I solved the whole problem. Except that it sweeps away the gluttony and deceit that marks the RIAA.

But I have no doubt that my model will come true in the next 20 years. It's inevitable.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[dwandy]

yup.

there's just so freakin' little that hasn't been corrupted by the *AA it's easier to assume that people are talking top-40/RIAA.... :(

I like alternative music: stuff that'll never make top-40, and still I find the bulk (all???) of it is on an RIAA label. (or so they claim...)

why? what've you got?

epassporte won't work

[grandmofftarkin]

Maybe someone will start up a business to issue low value American credit cards to foreigners so they can buy from iTunes.

Actually I believe there are several services already doing this generically, ePassporte for example.

epassporte is no good because when you sign up you have to give you address that is verified (against another card). So although you have a 'US' card it has a non US billing address and iTunes needs the billing address to match the card. Obviously once you give a non US address your cover is blown.

Try yourself. You'll see what I mean. Nice thought though.

So, are you agreeing with me?

[hummassa]

because that was exactly my point: but it applies to tangible goods, also.

Re:So, are you agreeing with me?

[geminidomino]

Yeah, I was. I misread your operators.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[PhoenixPath]

Yeah, because P2P guarantees such excellent quality. The songs are *never* mislabeled, right?

I'd choose a legal alternative that's cheap, high quality, and fast, however grey, over P2P anyday. I'd hope anyone would. Otherwise, perhaps RIAA does have a case.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[ElleyKitten]

Red Wanting Blue is cool, my friend knows them. I also like Bitch & Animal, they're unique, and there's some also some more well-known artists, like Ani Difranco and MC Lars, that are cool and not RIAA.

You can check at www.riaaradar.com to see if a band you're interesting in is RIAA or not. There's getting to be more and more that aren't, which is really cool.

here is an idea

[wazzles]

If downloads get to expensive perhaps these people should just buy the cd from a local retailer or abroad?

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[PhoenixPath]

Hell, what the RIAA needs to realize, is that it's worth more than that to many of us.

If they came out with a service that allowed downloads in formats from WAV to Flac on down the line with no DRM, properly filled out tags, and guaranteed quality, many of us would quickly, easily, and without hesitation buy tracks at $1 a pop.

10 good tracks for $10 is one hell of a deal compared to 12 or so crap tracks and one decent one for $16.99.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[swillden]

Absolutely. $1 per song is fair, assuming I can do what I want with it when I get it. Just last night I was at my neighbor's house helping him with a music problem. He was making a slideshow and needed a couple of songs. He'd bought them three different times from three different on-line services (one was iTunes Music Store, I don't know what the others were, but they sold him Windows Media files) and had spent two days screwing around with all these files trying to figure out how to get them in a format his slideshow software could read -- in other words, fighting the DRM. He had no problem paying the money for them, but was extremely frustrated at his inability to do what he wanted with the music he bought.

I'm sure I could have figured out how to get his AAC files into MP3 format by first burning them to a CD, then ripping them, but it's too much effort. So I hopped onto allofmp3.com and spent another 15 cents to download them yet again, but this time in the format he wanted and without any DRM to irritate him.

That's what people want -- music that is convenient and that they can do what they want with. iTunes Music Store is successful because it almost gives them that. If the record labels were to wise up and offer DRM-free downloads for a low price, with tools that make it easy to find and get what you want, they'd blow iTMS out of the water (actually, Jobs would immediately renegotiate to remove the DRM, and iTMS would *really* take off).

But they just can't believe it would work.

Re:Too expensive? I don't think so...

[PhoenixPath]

...despite the proof staring them right in the face from across the ocean.

Tells ya something about the size of the blinders these guys wear.

You nailed it, though. A universal format (like MP3, WAV, etc) should be a requirement for any decent download service.