Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Interesting key (and somewhat conflicting) points from the article:
and: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:
I find this an interesting question -- maybe when Americans are also charged a fair price for music (they aren't today). Sigh.Did anyone notice the article summary has no connection with the title whatsoever...?
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
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.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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.
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.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
-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.
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.
now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
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.
"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.