Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Invests In Dynamic Pricing Model For MP3s
NittanyTuring writes "Amazon recently closed a Series A financing deal with Amiestreet.com, a startup selling DRM-free MP3s with a demand-based pricing model. All music starts out free, and prices increase for popular tracks. Jeff Blackburn, Senior Vice President for Business Development, Amazon.com: 'The idea of having customers directly influence the price of songs is an interesting and novel approach to selling digital music.' What does this mean for Amazon's own intentions to sell music?"
You know there will be much whining about people that bought $Song for $PriceA only to find that it fell to $PriceB.
And those that complain that $Friend bought $Song for $PriceA but now its up to $PriceC and its not fair that they have to pay more than $Friend for the exact same item
Won't higher prices mean more piracy? Or is that exactly what this system is avoiding?
By nobody buying a track (which *could* mean piracy) the track's price would come down and then people would buy it?
Wow, I think I answered my own question! This sounds pretty cool - less known music gets more exposure and more popular music gets set at a price people are willing to pay. Now, will they actually have a supply of music?
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Who wants to start this? I'm selling options for indie band A at 35 cents a song.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
For the most part all of this bitching and moaning has nothing to do about a fair price. Lets face it, people want music, they want it for free and they want to do it legally. But like the old axiom of "fast, good, cheap. Choose 2", these three elements can never come together in a situation where it is win-win for both the listener and the musician.
Most of the time when I see people on Slashdot talk about how things are "working out" with new music distribution models they normally forget to include the musician in the equation.
I don't care what anyone thinks about this. An artist shouldn't be forced to tour to pay the rent. Is it hard to accept making a lifetime's wage for a few years of work? Sure. But on the other hand it shouldn't be asking too much for the artist to cover the cost of overhead for putting out music, keep food on his plate and make a bit extra without having to live in the back of an Econoline van.
So most of the DRM/Copyright arguments has nothing to do with creativity or a society bolstered by its art. It mostly has to deal with people being greedy and not wanting to shell out for what they've taken.
Blame the RIAA all you want, but people deserve to make a buck when they've produced something that you're willing to listen to more then once or twice.
/rant
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I'm already working on my script to download all new music the minute it hits the service -- before it becomes popular.
I can't wait for the madness that will hit once my script becomes popular in usage.
(Note, I'm not actually writing such a script, but someone will.)
The more people who buy your song, the cheaper it should be.
It's more or less supply and demand, but with MP3s the supply basically unlimited and almost free beyond the first copy, so cost can only fluctuate based on the demand. As demand rises so does the price. In durable goods you get a price reduction with a popular product because mass production will raise the supply and lower the manufacturing cost per unit. The amount and cost of supply and distribution can be a major factor in the consumer price of physical objects like furniture or automobiles. Supply is sort of a non-factor with digital media and so there are no production advantages to large number of units sold..
We are all just people.
By which you mean that your musical tastes are superior to that of the vast majority of other people.
I don't like any Brittney Spears music, I like a handful of Metallica tunes. Nonetheless I am willing to admit that if they have a million people who want to listen to their albums and Obscure Artist G has five--regardless of whether I like his music or I feel he is the modern equivalent of Mozart--they should be making more money for it. Demand isn't a perfect metric for everything, but it seems wholly appropriate here, particularly when it is each individual's decision whether or not to give a particular artist their money.
Because they have produced a good that you want. While I'm not going to go so far as the RIAA does and call it stealing, I don't see how people justify taking something without compensating the creator with specious arguments like "somebody else already paid them 10 years ago."
If it isn't worth the price according to whatever criteria you choose to apply, don't buy it. If it is, buy it. Not only does that compensate artists whose music you like, it will work to drive down music prices or eliminate poor artists if enough people agree with you.
Yeah. A bit off base. First of all, demand by itself does *NOT* determine price. There's a huge demand for water, and yet it's not very expensive. In an ideal free market price is determined by the equilibrium between supply and demand.
Having said that, now I'm going to explain why normal supply and demand applies very, very poorly to the music industry:
Maybe not