Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model? [Archive] - Page 2

pounce

Nov 17, 2005, 03:50 PM

well, there are lots of things wrong with the music industry. but it's also clear that not many people here have any understanding of the economics of the industry. and while it's true that artists often have contracts which economically favor the record company, and there is much that can and should be improved in the music industry, this thread isn't about that.

nor does it seem to be about the idea that catalog material may become cheaper to buy. that could be a great benefit to consumers. tiered pricing means some stuff is cheaper. nobody is focusing on that.

however, i can't help but to comment on some of the ignorant comments i've seen posted in this thread. things like how the cost of manufacturing cd's has gone down in the past twenty years. that is true in and of itself, but manufacturing costs have never been the most significant factor in the cost of cd's anyway. moreover, the cost of recording cd's and promoting an artist has went way the **** up in the past twenty years. especially because of things like mtv. so the point is, and always has been, that folks are paying for that stuff on the cd and the delivery medium is not the most important thing. it would be great if it were cheap and easy to produce music, but it isn't. and as an aside, high quality audio production gear is as expensive as ever. bands are nowhere near able to make their own cd's and promote themselves beyond their own towns. it take time and energy and money that most bands don't have, especially if they are spending their time on their music like they should be.

i do think competition in music pricing would be good. ****, the average retail store makes more of a cd sale than an artist does. some dumbass posted something about labels having a 90% profit on cd's!! hilarious. the artist and label doesn't make nearly that much. that is back to some misguided notion that the cost of making a cd is the cost of manufacturing, which is a dangerously incorrect notion. however, stealing music isn't the same thing as healthy capitalistic competition. it's just stealing. while i don't prefer the term pirating, i liken it to looting. it is stealing, but it is happening around you enough that you somehow think you can get away with it even though you ought to know better. if you think the price is too high don't buy it. but stealing? give me a ****ing break.

and that boo hoo stuff about the big bad old riaa going against music thieves? cry me a river. and if you are letting kids steal stuff via p2p, then it's theirs/parents fault. if the kids stole something from a department store and the departments store pressed charges who is the bad guy? surely not the department store who did nothing other than get something stolen from them. i can't stop people from stealing music, but don't be coy about it. it is theft, period. and if you do it, then be perfectly honest about it. that way there is no confusion, no kid thinking that stealing music is safe and legal. it isn't and shouldn't be. i am not losing any sleep over folks who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. especially when there are so many legal ways to get music. ****, get a used cd it that floats your boat. or just by a legal song on itunes instead of the album if you only want to hear a song. that will save money. but stealing? i would hate to be a thief over something like this.

hulugu

Nov 17, 2005, 04:06 PM

Even with a potentially infinite supply, the priciples of price elasticity still apply. The fact that supply is infinite has no relevance. Or.... not as much relevance as you think anyway.

Here's an example: A kid who sells lemonade on the street. Is he limited by his supply of lemonade, or by the speed which he can vend the beverage to customers? Well... perhaps if the day was particularly hot and the street was particularly busy with pedestrians, but lets just assume he has an infinite supply of lemonade (which he gets for free from his parents) and he can service however many people want to buy from him. The main factors a kid selling lemonade considers are 1) how many people want lemonade, and 2) how much they are willing to pay. With uniform unit elasticity of demand, those questions wouldn't matter since the kid could theoretically sell twice as much lemonade by cutting the price in half (thus yielding the same revenue). Doubling the price also has no effect on revenue since he just sells half as many glasses. In this scenario, the best thing for the public is for the kid to keep slashing his price for lemonade until it approaches zero. That way everyone in the world can have cheap lemonade and the kid still makes his $50 or whatever.

You example is very flawed because lemonade takes specific amounts of sugar, water, and lemons. These things have costs that scale with the amounts your are making. Essentially, the first glass is very costly, but the rest of the pitcher becomes more cost effective. However, the next pitcher has the same costs. With digital music the first track is very expensive, but the next million become cheaper until you've paid all your initial costs and everything else is just gravy. Unlike with CDs in which their is a physical costs with each and every sale, digital music can be scaled to rediculous levels without costing anymore.
Digital music can have the same associated of supply and demand, but we must understand that the supply equation is completely different from something that is readily tangible and therefore has specific costs.

hulugu

Nov 17, 2005, 04:22 PM

Sorry to be the one to say it but you're wrong.

A finite number of artists decide to put in the serious, serious work and sacrifice it takes to be any good. And like any commodity, artistic ideas get used up and played out. Go listen to unlimited copies of public domain Mozart if you want free and cheap culture.

Otherwise, whether you like it or not, the market mechanism is a fantastic way to generate new forms and new ideas.

Air is made by god--or whatever--music is made by people. Which means it takes work. And if you've ever written a song you'd play for someone that's decent, you know it takes a significant amount of guts to do it. If you want it state supported or price-fixed, go enjoy the lovely culture of socialist countries. There's plenty around and it's cheap as all get out.

Or just prove your true mettle and buy bootlegs.

Air is made by trees and other plants, it is a byproduct of photosynthesis. However, the laws of supply and demand do not work. Here's why. We assume that there are a finite amount of artists and that these artists can only produce say one album per year. So, yes there's a limit there. But, we can sell 1,000 or 1 Billion copies of that particular album. There's no limit to this supply. There is a limit to the number of CDs you can make, only so many trees can be cut down for inserts, only so much petroleum to be made into plastic, only so much ink for the CD and the inserts. There are only so many stores, trucks, clerks. However, digital music is only limited by the servers and more so by the amount of money consumers are able or willing to spend. The ceiling is not in supply, but in demand.

You, Mr. Freemarket, doesn't even understand how supply-and-demand works. If the world worked in your model a car would be rediculously expensive because there are only so many engineers to go around. Magazines would be expensive because there are only so many graphic designers. That's not how it works. Supply-and-demand assumes that the first object is expensive and hard, but that later iterations become easier and therefore cheaper. It also assumes that people pay more for what's rare and pay less when they can find it anywhere.
Furthermore, the RIAA/MPAA are cartels that operate in collusion in a closed-economic environment, so economic ideals don't operate in the same way. As for the crack about state-supported or price-fixed culture from socialist countries, have you heard of French hip-hop, or German speed-metal? Economics have only a peripherial effect on art.

emw

Nov 17, 2005, 04:38 PM

Get A Mac

Nov 17, 2005, 04:45 PM

Supply-and-demand assumes that the first object is expensive and hard, but that later iterations become easier and therefore cheaper. It also assumes that people pay more for what's rare and pay less when they can find it anywhere.
Furthermore, the RIAA/MPAA are cartels that operate in collusion in a closed-economic environment, so economic ideals don't operate in the same way. As for the crack about state-supported or price-fixed culture from socialist countries, have you heard of French hip-hop, or German speed-metal? Economics have only a peripherial effect on art.

Supply and demand makes no such assumption; you're talking about decreasing marginal cost.

But you are right: the music companies only care about maximizing profits. They don't care if they lose some business to Kazaa. If 10,000 people would buy a song at $1 = $10,000 in revenues, and 6,000 people would buy the same song for $2 = $12,000 in revenues, the record companies would still be happy. This is perverse, but their job is to maximize profits and the current system is not achieving that.

-hh

Nov 17, 2005, 04:51 PM

Sorry to be the one to say it but you're wrong.

Let's test this claim...

A finite number of artists decide to put in the serious, serious work and sacrifice it takes to be any good. And like any commodity, artistic ideas get used up and played out.

Okay, let's assume that the sum of all of this is true, and that one one (1) worthy musical work gets created per month.

We have our one recording of that performance and we've digitized it and put it on iTunes ... how many copies can we now make and sell from it?

If the desired product is a seat at a live performance, then the answer's a pretty small number - - perhaps a couple thousand seats, and its a perishable product (like airline seats).

However, if the desired product is a copy of a recording of the performance, then the answer today is that digital technology allow an "infinite" number of perfect copies to be made at extremely low production and distribution costs. For practical purposes, an essentially infinite number of copies of that 1/month "high quality" work can be made and distributed at virtually no cost.

Bzzt. Thank you for playing.

Go listen to unlimited copies of public domain Mozart if you want free and cheap culture.

Um, *what* copies of public domain Mozart?

True, the written scores are public domain, but not most recordings of performances of it are not, unless they were explicitly placed in the public domain by their owner.

As per US copyright law, a work by a known artist is proteced for life+70 years, which would mean for a performance group who's sharing the ownership of their work would mean that all bandmembers would have had to have died before 1935 for a recording of their music to be public domain in 2005.

Similarly, if it was a work for hire, it is protected for publication + 95 years, which would mean all such musical recordings created back to 1910.

And a work for hire that was not published gets 120 years from its creation date, which would be back to 1885. However, since Thomas Edison didn't invent the record player until 1903, and Valdemar Poulsen patented the telegraphone in 1898 (magnetic wire), its hard for a music recording to exist a decade before the very first sound recording devices!

All in all, we have a pretty darn narrow window for when anything could have been created and passed into the public domain, and none of the dates are recent enough for a reasonably good, "Hi Fidelity" recording: stereo wasn't invented until 1941.

...music is made by people. Which means it takes work.

Inventions are made by people too - - and they have two higher hurdles to pass: the application fee to the Patent Office, and then actual approval by the Patent Office. And yes, despite these higher hurdles, an approved Patent then only receives 14 years of legal protection...a gross discontinuity that can only be considered a social injustice by comparison.

And if you've ever written a song you'd play for someone that's decent, you know it takes a significant amount of guts to do it.

This applies to all creative works...music isn't somehow special or unique in this regards.

BTW, you might also want to read up on the issue within the Industries who use Copyrighted works where permission to use a work cannot be legally obtained because its owners cannot be found ("lost owners").

-hh

Photorun

Nov 17, 2005, 04:55 PM

it's also clear that not many people here have any understanding of the economics of the industry

I've read your posts here with some interest, it's actually good, in the scheme of things, to have a counterpoint, or at least in your case, a counter view for people to read in this forum. So thank you. Seriously.

However I feel you're quite misguided, if you work for the record companies you are under some delusions to how they operate, towing the company line counter to logic, feeding the talking points but distilling them in your own unique way, or something else.

I was in a band in the late 80s, I'm still a musician but it's not my career, I know other musicians. You sir, you are definitely not a struggling musician and/or you're on record company payroll, that would explain your position. That is, people who are fed up, from musicians who are ruined in some cases by the labels to the consumer who, quite frankly I'm amazed by your impression that a CD should really cost $20, are incensed, and that you don't see this is just, wow... really.

My story isn't unusual, record company says "you guys are great!" signs you to a deal that even Satan would be green with envy in how much of the soul they own, record company then backs out of their end, you're stuck with legal ramifications, careers ruined. And your take would probably a smug "that's business." Um, no, that's corruption, that's evil, and that's how the lables now operate, if you're a musician, or an artist (take that saying for what you will) for many they're the gatekeeper, and they stiffle creativity, they champion mediocrity, they're the example of capitalism and oligopolies gone horribly, horribly wrong.

I think of bands/artists like the Goo Goo Dolls who sell four million records but owe the label half a million, the label cites "we'll we helped promote you" ************!!! And you're full of something when you talk about the cost of promotion as labels put that money only into the big acts, ironically the ones WITHOUT talent, disposable artists. They're the ones I guess you expect us, the consumer, to pay for. Huh? Aimee Mann perhaps did it right to start her own label, of course she didn't have any distributorship. That's the problem with many an artist who gets sick of the BS contracts of the labels face, getting their CD out there. The labels are like the mafia, you pay them "protection" money (though really that's BMI, who are as soulless as the RIAA) they go nothing for this.

I could list dozens of examples of record companies screwing over artists, it's probably in the 98% category, the 2% saved for the REMs of the world (who they too, early on, got hosed) or large, vacuous, wastes of audio bands out there that you wont know of tomorrow. And this makes sense? No, it doesn't. Well it does if you work for the record labels, but it's a b**** if you are anyone outside of it.

Good read is Commodify Your Dissent (book, available on Amazon) about exactly how unscrupulous, how selfish, how anti-consumer/music as a creative endeavor and pro-greed the lables REALLY are. It has a chapter that breaks down why TLC, that three girl group, actually did sell the most albums of a female trio, almost 10 million copies, and each took home $35,000 a year, and had to file for bankruptcy. What's disheartening is their story is not unusual. In the book they investigated three of the big labels, the REAL break down of costs (including CDs), the REAL costs of marketing, where the money REALLY goes (A&R man, execs, NOT so much marketing, certainly not manufacturing, and definitely not the artists who do the work) and basically this book, sorry Pounce, but proves you to be incredibly wrong.

Maybe you need to go back and find the Macrumors article about the record exec saying that "he [they] should get a cut of iPod sales." Yes, a record guy said this. It's showing the true color or record companies. Many here pointed out "how come record companies didn't want a cut of boombox sales? Walkman sales? Record (vinyl) player sales?

So this thread that makes you mad isn't a symptom of consumer gone mad or group think, it's consumers fed up with the system that is about control and greed. Nothing more, nothing less. You're right, stealing is wrong, but sometimes two wrongs may hopefully make a right.

lord patton

Nov 17, 2005, 05:30 PM

It does not matter how many times Atlas Shrugges.... people won't get it.

I agree, and I don't think Atlas is going to shrug anytime soon. When the U.S. and Western Europeans go belly up paying for retiring baby boomer's "rights" to, well, everything, we'll get more government control, not less. And those "greedy" corporations (including the music industry) will be scapegoated (as if they weren't already).

<sarcasm>I will go to Limewire if iTMS doesn't lower their price to $.09 right now. Waa Waa Waa</sarcasm>

pounce

Nov 17, 2005, 05:46 PM

photorun

i don't disagree with your post at all. if there were a thread about things wrong within the industry written by folks in the industry (i think our posts count) than it gets more interesting. the folks totally outside of this business who decide that it's ok to just steal music aren't in any way helping anything though. i moderate a few pro audio forums and actually recently started a thread asking other audio engineers what they thought could/should change in the business. no doubt, we all think the business is totally screwed up.

i don't want to have my posts seem like i'm some record company shill. i have no love for them either. but i suppose on a really simple basic logical level it doesn't validate theft. two wrongs don't make a right. even though many many bands have crappy contracts, having music fans steal the end product too isn't gonna help. i'd love to see more quality bands get signed and supported and compensated. i'd love to see the video's go away. more indie labels and indie bands in general. -maybe- the internet can eventually help with that. the majors have all the disposable music locked up pretty well, but they can have it as far as i'm concerned. they are a pain to deal with anyway, but they do have more capital than the indies by a long long stretch.

so yes, i also got signed to a record deal here that was one nobody should accept. while i'm no longer a struggling musician, i am a regular middle class guy who does live and studio sound for a living. and like most folks in the industry in any level, i'm just a regular middle class guy who loves music. the catch is my living depends on it as well. but despite the way mtv cribs paints it, i ain't driving my lamborgheni to my mansion to make love to my supermodel wife. no, i'm just another guy who stays in this vocation out of the love of music. in hoping to keep it that way, one thing i do is actually buy the music. as screwed up as the major labels are, at least i have a chance of getting some money to the bands who i want to support. and if i buy a cd or music from itunes, i'll probably be listening to it a lot. if i buy a meal, i can only enjoy it once. but music is something that is still relatively cheap that i can enjoy over and over. i do buy used cd's a lot, no reason to not find the bargins.

so i'll never pretend that record execs are anything other than clueless idiots. there was a time earlier on when record labels were run by folks who loved the music. now it's all bean counters, and that's where the problem begins. so i'll yell hell yes to every critisism you have of the music industry. i agree. and i know those issues all too well. but i will also say that stealing music isn't helping anything either. frankly, i make more money if you buy my stuff from itunes than i do if you get the cd from a store. i love the idea of legal downloads. i think it's one thing that we should encourage. if the industry ever did downloads right - high quality, cheap, no or limited drm - i'd be very happy. i want the same stuff as everybody else really. i just want to listen to good music, bring it around on my ipod, etc. but i'm unwilling to steal it. no complaints about the industry make me change my mind about the problems involved with stealing music, and worse yet the idea that in forums all over in threads like this folks seem to condone the stealing as if it's their right. and it is not. if you want to hear the music buy it.

Detlev

Nov 17, 2005, 06:02 PM

A somewhat related link (http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1895,1888557,00.asp) on DRM and the music industry that I just received via e-mail.

I had not heard of the issue with Sony installing copy protection mechanisms on their CDs before...
Old news. CNET was all over this for days.

As for the price increases: I hate to say I told you so but, I told you so. Expect it to be somewhere in the vicinity of the price for cassingles, $1.49. Some special singles (with B-sides or videos) will follow the pricing for maxi-singles or CD5's.

Apple had the opportunity to change things and in the end might have been the catalyst for something in the future. Often is the case that the revolutionists die before the war is won. The music industry is too big for a little computer company to take on single handedly. A positioning mistake by Apple IMO. Had they built a market and support of other distributors they might have been able to resist. Presently resistance is futile. There is a lot more behind the music industry than most think.

271

Nov 17, 2005, 06:55 PM

pounce

Nov 17, 2005, 08:04 PM

this just in: RIAA still blows.

Apple should make deals individually w/indy labels and artists... famous and unkown for songs/LP's that are not owned by the majors. I would actively find ways to get around RIAA if i was apple.

this just in - apple already has deals with indie labels. expanding on this would be good. but the majors do have back catalogs of artists i am more interested in than most of the current pop music fare. and with tiered pricing this music may well be cheaper. not a bad deal at all.

so what the beef with the riaa other than that they don't like having people steal something that artists are trying to sell. the p2p stealing isn't something that people are universally in favor of. while some bands give away their music for free, the ones that don't shouldn't get stolen from. the riaa has to be the "bad guy" by taking action against those folks who are stealing music. i still think the music stealers are the bad guy, not the enforcement agency (riaa) acting on behalf of the artists.

cgratti

Nov 17, 2005, 08:13 PM

After they raise the price, people will stop paying and start stealing again.

Can't wait to hear them whine and cry.

pounce

Nov 17, 2005, 08:17 PM

After they raise the price, people will stop paying and start stealing again.

Can't wait to hear them whine and cry.

why are people so happy to go the stealing route? should i say i can't wait to hear people caught stealing by the riaa whine and cry? seems like the same thing.

Fukui

Nov 17, 2005, 08:51 PM

There is a limited amout of popular music.
Every cd a record company produces does not go gold.
...and is the higher price for the most popular songs supposed to help those that didn't go gold?

Choppaface

Nov 17, 2005, 09:15 PM

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

To point to business practices in the CD/DVD market is a fallacy;online music services are a vastly different entity. The issue is that the iTunes platform has been the most successful solution in the market and the record companies are introducing a change that will negatively impact adoption rate. Considering iTunes only accounts for on the order of 5% of record company's sales, it's pretty ballzy move, though they probably have the iTunes niche figured out by now. At any rate, the record companies will do their customers (and probably themselves) the most good by developing iTunes into something that serves the interests of every customer. Until they focus more on this sort of progress and less on pricing and alienating IP protection systems, they will never control the online market. Evolve or die.

lolex

Nov 17, 2005, 09:36 PM

why are people so happy to go the stealing route? should i say i can't wait to hear people caught stealing by the riaa whine and cry? seems like the same thing.

Don't keep saying people are stealing your music, you should accept the truth, you 're not the one invents technology, why you should take adventage of it to
make money, you're stealing the technology, where is the rule in world that you can make living by copying and selling your music ?? I 'll pay only when you play me music in live.

And it 's the technology's nature to help everyone achieve a better day of life,
If there is a copy of your music, I should listen to it for free, since you let it be copy. You don't play your music, no one can copy it.

Go and play good music in Live , I 'll buy a ticket to support!! :)

slimflem

Nov 17, 2005, 09:48 PM

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

you pansy, things won't change with pathetic ones like you agreeing and following like sheep in a flock.

271

Nov 17, 2005, 09:59 PM

this just in - apple already has deals with indie labels. expanding on this would be good. but the majors do have back catalogs of artists i am more interested in than most of the current pop music fare. and with tiered pricing this music may well be cheaper. not a bad deal at all.

so what the beef with the riaa other than that they don't like having people steal something that artists are trying to sell. the p2p stealing isn't something that people are universally in favor of. while some bands give away their music for free, the ones that don't shouldn't get stolen from. the riaa has to be the "bad guy" by taking action against those folks who are stealing music. i still think the music stealers are the bad guy, not the enforcement agency (riaa) acting on behalf of the artists.

i'm not arguing for 'stealing' anything. i'm saying why shouldn't apple go directly to the artist instead of through a label? many artists (not enough) own their masters and can do with them as they please. why does RIAA have to be the rep for everyone?

RIAA has no clue anymore. the majors are mostly run by accountants and not people who actually believe in music. they are all too happy to put out more and more boy bands and britney clones than actually invest in a band and help them grow/mature as artists. the last time the majors made a ton of cash was when the switch to CD's happened. they raked it in and sat on their asses. by not getting in the digital download game they set themselves up for what's going on today. if they concentrated on putting out good music they'd sell more CD's.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

gekko513

Nov 18, 2005, 02:35 AM

why are people so happy to go the stealing route? should i say i can't wait to hear people caught stealing by the riaa whine and cry? seems like the same thing.
I won't be caught stealing. I'm in Norway and I'm allowed to download files, although I can't share them.

I don't care if it's called stealing, pirating, copying or taking advantage of the options available to me.

Apple has a price point that I find reasonable and a great consumer product in the iTMS, and when the music industry wants to force a worse product on me for no other reason than their own flawed logic, then I will rebel against it.

Edit: I'd like to offer another perspective on this whole thing. I don't know a lot of people who buy music online, but some people are starting to. Usually when I told people that I buy music from iTMS, they laugh and ask why I bother to pay for the music. Then they ask how much I pay, when I say it's kr 8 ($1) for a song and kr 80 for an album, they say, hmm, well that's not too expensive. If I were to say kr 16 ($2) for a song they would continue to laugh and call me an idiot. And actually, I would agree, I would be an idiot to pay $2 for a low quality song with copy protection.

pounce

Nov 18, 2005, 08:24 AM

Don't keep saying people are stealing your music, you should accept the truth, you 're not the one invents technology, why you should take adventage of it to
make money, you're stealing the technology, where is the rule in world that you can make living by copying and selling your music ?? I 'll pay only when you play me music in live.

And it 's the technology's nature to help everyone achieve a better day of life,
If there is a copy of your music, I should listen to it for free, since you let it be copy. You don't play your music, no one can copy it.

Go and play good music in Live , I 'll buy a ticket to support!! :)

clearly you are not a native english speaker, i'll try to overlook the awkward language and get to the point you were making and respond. at least having to pay to see live shows hasn't escaped you. but if i create a musical work and record it and sell those recordings, you are welcome to buy it but not welcome to steal it. i don't know what technology i'm taking advantage of that i'm not paying for. when you buy my music from itunes, two companies (apple being one of them) get a cut of the money before i get my percentage. so i pay for the technology i use in that manner. similarly, if you would like my music please buy it from itunes. i've had to buy all my musical gear and recording gear. i didn't invent that stuff, but i did pay for the gear and so forth. when that stuff is free for me i'll give away my musical product, until then i have to charge for it to offset the costs of creating that music.

ps: of course i don't want the itunes pricing to go up. i can't argue with that. older material going down in price will be totally cool. i think apple really hit a great sales model with .99 downloads, and i only hope that labels realize they are at a magic price point that continues to be one of the reasons people are converted to downloading music legally.

pps: i have a different set of complaints about the riaa, but complaints about the monitary distribution within my industry only effect people in my industry. i have a longer and more specific lists of complaints about the industry than an outsider would have. that said, folks aren't turning to illegal downloads to help artists out in some way. they are only doing it for selfish reasons. i agree with the comments about how screwed up the music business is. but i don't think it excuses illegal downloading at all.

thunderclap

Nov 18, 2005, 08:48 AM

I agree with a lot of the comments that with this pricing structure change people will go back to downloading music for free through "questionable" means.

What I don't get is why don't the artists finally step up and complain about what the record companies are trying to do? When it comes right down to it if all the artists that actually disagree with the record companies (and it sounds like there are) they could actually really make things difficult for the record companies. Instead they just roll over and keep quiet.

gekko513

Nov 18, 2005, 08:54 AM

ps: of course i don't want the itunes pricing to go up. i can't argue with that. older material going down in price will be totally cool. i think apple really hit a great sales model with .99 downloads, and i only hope that labels realize they are at a magic price point that continues to be one of the reasons people are converted to downloading music legally.
I'm glad to hear it.

Actually I wouldn't mind paying 50 cents more per song if I knew that all the 50 cents of the price increase went to the artist, but I suspect that the artist would see less than 5 cents.

iDM

Nov 18, 2005, 09:03 AM

I'm not sure what the real consensus is of this thread but heres the thing, if they were to change the pricing of certain songs whether popular or not I think that really shifts from the "it's only .99 cents for any song" thing apple has going for them. I may be wrong but it's alot easier for people to just think hey a song's only .99 if they were to raise the price of a Kanye West song or something or similar popularity to 1.99 or 1.50 then I will be even LESS likely to pay for it then I am already.

xejn

Nov 18, 2005, 09:08 AM

The record companies are still missing the message Jobs is trying to give them.

In Jobs' view, the hot new band is not where the big money is. The big money to be made in digital music is in the out of print back catalogs. There are mountains of music in the back catalogs, stuff people will buy if they could, and they would pay $.99 for it.

All of that out of print and hard to find music is untapped gold according to Jobs. Each day it is not offered for sale is a loss in potiential revenue.

In that model, the hot new songs bring people to the store--sort of like loss leaders (though you still make money off them), and the older songs line your pockets.

On another point, if the record companies are so set on a stepped pricing structure, then they can always leave the top-10 songs at $.99 and offer the less popular songs at a discount.

Truth is, the smart record execs are trying to get out because the exces of the late 80's and 90's screwed up the business model (no singles, overprices CDs, the push for top-10 radio format (now top-5), and the quest to release only what they think will be huge hits), the downward trend started before downloading.

lolex

Nov 18, 2005, 09:51 AM

clearly you are not a native english speaker, i'll try to overlook the awkward language and get to the point you were making and respond. at least having to pay to see live shows hasn't escaped you. but if i create a musical work and record it and sell those recordings, you are welcome to buy it but not welcome to steal it. i don't know what technology i'm taking advantage of that i'm not paying for. when you buy my music from itunes, two companies (apple being one of them) get a cut of the money before i get my percentage. so i pay for the technology i use in that manner. similarly, if you would like my music please buy it from itunes. i've had to buy all my musical gear and recording gear. i didn't invent that stuff, but i did pay for the gear and so forth. when that stuff is free for me i'll give away my musical product, until then i have to charge for it to offset the costs of creating that music.
.

-Copying technology was not yours invention, you buy copying device to copy yours music for sell, I buy copying device to share my personal collection of music, we share the same opportunity to enjoy the benefits of modern technology. Without such technology, how did you could produce music copies massively to the market, ironically now you're accusing people taking adventage of such technology to make you suffering a plummet in incomes, where did we have done wrong ?

- I don't accept that people is obligate to pay for knownledges, we share the same basic right to get educations, it is a deprivation and anti democratic if a talented child lacks of enlightments from musics or textbooks because someone just can't afford to buy. Whoever compose good stuffs should bear full honor of their works, but it's doesn't mean that you could make big money on this, people will pay you if they want to.

- If the free downing model is keep going on without any hope of change insight, what are you going to do ?? Keep yelling on people accussing they ar thieves ? You can if you like to , but does it help you feel any better ?? huh.
If the market model had changed , somebody should prompt quickly to catch up, don't just whinning around. I have friends also make living from music industry, of cause they know how far free downloading has been going on, they just don't bother too much, since they know nothing can do to help, it just another civilization, they get some part time jobs to buy food with, they still enjoy jamming music together. Where did they have money to buy epuipments?

They save up intentively from other thing and share the ownings with eachother, they have a quite decent machine to record their music too.

I respect the way they enjoying their lives ,this is the way to enjoy our lives, you need not to play music for big money, you just need to play music for whoever enjoy listen to your music.

If for whichever reasons you can't understand my post, pls post to let me know, I will explain.:)

Kingsly

Nov 18, 2005, 10:47 AM

My dad and step dad are in the music industry and from personal experience I can safely say that record execs are driven by two things
1) money
2) more money, a house in beverly hills, and a porsche
In order to get this they are concerned with getting artist that have wayyyy more "it" factor than actual siging ability. Turn on the radio and you will be flodded with utter crapola. From being in the studio w/ my dad I see all the time people who sounded good on the CD absoultly CANNOT SING AT ALLL!!! Watch a live show to see what I mean.
It is because of people like my dad who work until 1 or 2 AM doctoring the artists recording and stressing out becaues they dont sound good enough that these people get thier money. If the record companies try to jack up the prices then everyone will go back to limewire and WE will loose money! The record execs dont care about us, besides the fact that they already have more money than the national budget of most small countries.

pounce

Nov 18, 2005, 12:07 PM

-you buy copying device to copy yours music for sell, I buy copying device to share my personal collection of music, we share the same opportunity to enjoy the benefits of modern technology. Without such technology, how did you could produce music copies massively to the market, ironically now you're accusing people taking adventage of such technology to make you suffering a plummet in incomes, where did we have done wrong ?

you are really not understanding my point, and i'm running out of the patience to reiterate. if i create and record music and sell my own original music, that is entirely different than someone using p2p networks to give away what i am selling. it is not your right to take my music and give it away when i am selling it. period. you can think music ought to be free in some perfect or communistic society. in a capitalistic society, where i am creating music and selling it for a living i do not expect to have other people give it away for free. i only chime in on this topic occasionally, and less often on boards like this where ignorance of the industry is so abundant. so while you may or may not have friends that jam or give away music for free, audio engineering and creating music is what i do for a living. i do not want to have my created works taken without my control over them. there are lots of ways to get music both cheaply and easily, or listen to the radio for free. but the idea that any shift in the itunes payment model means a bunch of folks get all whiney and threaten to just steal the music instead isn't cool. you are presenting some utopian hope that all is free and everyone gets everything they want free and so forth. my tack on this is specifically professional and economic. professional audio production, and real releases commercially available take lots of time and money. of course the artist ought to be able to be compensated for that. should you only choose to pay for music at concerts, i'd suggest that concerts and the radio are the times you should be listening to music. if you want to hear new cds, then buy them. otherwise why not just go to the music store and steal them. hardly a difference really.

ioinc

Nov 18, 2005, 12:27 PM

I won't be caught stealing. I'm in Norway and I'm allowed to download files, although I can't share them.

I don't care if it's called stealing, pirating, copying or taking advantage of the options available to me.

Apple has a price point that I find reasonable and a great consumer product in the iTMS, and when the music industry wants to force a worse product on me for no other reason than their own flawed logic, then I will rebel against it.

Very sad that you are actually FORCED to buy music.

Perhaps one day there will be a medical breakthrough that will free you from the affliction.

mediaburn

Nov 18, 2005, 12:33 PM

it is not your right to take my music and give it away when i am selling it. period... i do not want to have my created works taken without my control over them. there are lots of ways to get music both cheaply and easily, or listen to the radio for free... if you want to hear new cds, then buy them. otherwise why not just go to the music store and steal them. hardly a difference really.

According to this logic, the cassette tape recorder should be outlawed, because you can record songs off the radio and make a mix tape and just GIVE that away to your friends for free. In fact, millions of people did this before cds were even invented. I'm sure when this first started happening, many people made the same arguments - why would anyone buy the tape at a store when I can just copy my friends tape, or tape it off the radio, for free. People were doing this already in the 1950s.

gekko513

Nov 18, 2005, 12:46 PM

Very sad that you are actually FORCED to buy music.

Perhaps one day there will be a medical breakthrough that will free you from the affliction.
OK, sorry, that got out wrong. I'll download the music instead.

pounce

Nov 18, 2005, 01:06 PM

According to this logic, the cassette tape recorder should be outlawed, because you can record songs off the radio and make a mix tape and just GIVE that away to your friends for free. In fact, millions of people did this before cds were even invented. I'm sure when this first started happening, many people made the same arguments - why would anyone buy the tape at a store when I can just copy my friends tape, or tape it off the radio, for free. People were doing this already in the 1950s.

lame. what slowed that down was you still had to buy a cassette, it sounded bad, and it was a pain in the ass. therefore, it wasn't done on a large enough scale to impact the industry. p2p networks provide effortless identical files to go all over, which is a far cry from a cassette for a friend. that said, does your post imply that i should not be compensated for the music i create and then sell? the scale of digital piracy, and the attitudes well represented in p2p thread, indicate that this is an entirely different matter than cassette tapes of the past.

gekko513

Nov 18, 2005, 01:39 PM

OK, sorry, that got out wrong. I'll download the music instead.
I'm not in the mood for sarcasm, hence my unconstructive reaction.

I want to elaborate more about why I will choose to download free copies of the song I want that cost more than $1.

Right now, I'm part of a minority in my age group, at least where I am, because I choose to buy all the music I listen to. I do this because I think the artists deserve to get paid and I also recognise that the people who work to distribute music also needs to get paid.

Given that most of the people I know choose not to pay, I'm actually the one paying for them. Because I choose to do the right thing, I get screwed. I find this unfair, but I see that some others also start paying, so it's getting better. I encourage others to also pay, but it's kind of hard considering there is zero risk involved in downloading music for free from p2p and similar.

So, now we're moving in the right direction. More people are starting to cough up, artists are getting paid and most people are happy. Except the music industry that wants more money, and their solution is, apparently, to increase the price.

What's the result of this? Less people will choose to pay. If I want to continue to do the right thing, I will have to pay more. This means I get screwed even harder for doing the right thing. There's a limit to how hard I accept getting screwed before I choose to join the others and don't care. After all, there's no risk at all involved in downloading for free.

-hh

Nov 18, 2005, 02:29 PM

... if i create and record music and sell my own original music, that is entirely different than someone using p2p networks to give away what i am selling. it is not your right to take my music and give it away when i am selling it. period.

Actually, it depends.

For example, you could have sold your song with commercial redistribution rights (naturally, you would demand a higher price). As such, a third party would have the right to redistribute "your" music and not only do you not receive any further compensation (because you got it upfront), but you have no control over the price that they may ask - - they could then legally distribute it for free if they wanted to.

FWIW, the reason I mention this is because it very strongly parallels many musical groups' dealings with the Industry - - The Beatles are but one group that didn't retain ownership over their own original music.

i do not want to have my created works taken without my control over them.

None of us do, but if we want our work to ever been heard/seen, we have to take some risk somewhere because today's transport mediums allows 'infinite' high quality copies. Technology - - via the quality of duplication - - used to be one of the primary impediments to unauthorized redistribution, but that form of protection has disappeared in the ditigal age. As such, we only have the force of Law (Copyrights) to protect our investment in our creative endeavors.

It was because of the great "strength" of these laws that were abused by LCE's (Large Corporate Entities) into the leveraging of their monopolistic (but legal!) control over their content into a higher price structure than what a large segment of their consumer market was willing to pay for their product that essentially created the music piracy problem...

...afterall, those of us who had a CD burner a decade ago would never have burned a $15 CD-R to make a copy of a music CD ... it simply wasn't economically compelling. Nor would we have bothered to rip the file to disk when you consider that an 850MB hard drive retailed for $470.

click here for historical prices of hard drives (http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/winchest.html)

of course the artist ought to be able to be compensated for that.

Agreed that the artist ought to be compensated. And his wife and children if he were to suddenly die. But should his grandchildren and great-grandchildren also continue to receive commissions too?

How many years worth of exclusive control over the distribution of your creative endeavor do you consider to be fair and reasonable compensation?

if you want to hear new cds, then buy them.

Many of us have been buying our music on physical media for years. And for years, under the Fair Use portion of the Copyright Laws, it was legal for us to transform the work onto different media for our personal use.

But back with the 1998 Digital Millenium Act, the "powers that be" tried to take that provision away. The consumer base probably wouldn't have had a problem with the change, had there been a commensurate reduction in the retail price of the product. Funny, but I recall CD's always being *more* expensive than Albums, not less. When technology finally gave the individual Joe the cheap CD-R burner and cheap mass storage, the rebellion began.

FWIW, if someone were to set up a "Direct to Artist" royalty payment system for piriated music - - an amnesty campaign - - and where the cost per song/album was exactly what the Artist had actually been paid per song (and nothing for any of the middlemen) - - I think it would be really interesting to see how much money it would raise. To a certain degree that's sort of what iTMS is currently doing ... just not without the middleman taking a fat cut.

-hh

-hh

Nov 18, 2005, 02:43 PM

lame.

But individuals still did it.

what slowed that down was you still had to buy a cassette, it sounded bad, and it was a pain in the ass.

Spending $2 for a cassette, versus $17 for an album was a big deal for a teenager in the 1970's...and his touch labor was free. The only thing that's really changed is that the media has gotten cheaper and the labor investment has gotten lower - - both factors have simply increased the price gradiant reward to the individual that makes a DIY.

therefore, it wasn't done on a large enough scale to impact the industry.

This part is true - - but while we're at it, we should also recognize that on many "City Street Corners", all of those CD's and DVD's for sale are high quality counterfits - - - when we look at conventional wisdom for manufacturing, it should theoretically be impossible for a small time operator to product a physical product that's half the price of the guy with the mass production facility, so how can it be that the counterfits can be produced so cheaply?

Answer: because the marketplace contains GROSS inefficiencies because of the anti-competitive aspects of Copyright Law: the owners of the work have monopolistic control, so there's minimal incentive to invest in having efficient operations for creation, distribution, etc.

the scale of digital piracy, and the attitudes well represented in p2p thread, indicate that this is an entirely different matter than cassette tapes of the past.

True, the problem is bigger than it is in the past - - but how much of the problem gets blamed on the "its easier" excuse versus the simple fact that the cost gradiant between a legal vs DIY copy has increased? Alan Greenspan should be lecturing us here on the how's and why's productivity is supposed to always increase in all industries over time, not *decrease*.

The underlying message here is that regardless of right or wrong, it is the very attempt by the RIAA-types to get ever-higher prices/profits that will make the problem worse instead of better.

When you look at all of the efficiencies across the rest of the digital landscape, the physical medium of a music CD, delivered to a store near you, should really cost $1 (for the whole Album!), just like the The Stooges DVD I saw in my local hardware store last week.

People don't do illegal acts just because they think its cool to be a renegade: there's always some motivation for it someplace.

And I'm not defending piracy: I'm examining the motivations for why it exists.

-hh

BlizzardBomb

Nov 18, 2005, 04:09 PM

4. I want lyrics included with each song as well as extra info like label published under etc.. in the tags.

I see your going for the "make Apple work harder" approach. Why waste even more money on putting lyrics on millions of songs when anybody can spend 2 seconds on Google and find lyrics.

VanNess

Nov 18, 2005, 04:47 PM

photorun
no complaints about the industry make me change my mind about the problems involved with stealing music, and worse yet the idea that in forums all over in threads like this folks seem to condone the stealing as if it's their right. and it is not. if you want to hear the music buy it.

I don't think anyone would agree that it's okay (morally or legally) for someone got a hold of Madonna's new album and then post it on the internet saying "come and get it."

That said, it hardly surprising that the record companies recent history of frankly awkward, opportunistic, and devious statements regarding their "variable" pricing scheme would evoke, at a minimum, a visceral response from consumers like you're seeing in this thread. Should the record companies carry through with their threat of raising prices and ultimately set the stage for a consumer backlash re-igniting illegitimate downloading (or "stealing"), you would place the blame on the consumer, whereas I would not. As of today, there are now over a half-billion reasons why I would place the blame squarely on the doorstep of the record companies.

That's not to say that stealing is condonable, or pardonable, but if the record companies are in a clear position to avoid the conditions that lend themselves to theft (and the alleged loss in profits) and further choose to deliberately ignore it (as is the case here), then the record companies are just as much an accomplice in enabling the crime as p2p. As the least the ultimate victims - the artists whom the record companies represent (and supposedly work for) - should recognize the complicity of the record companies actions in contributing to song theft.

All in all, the problem here really isn't the consumer, it's the record companies, and the record companies seem to live in their own world where all that matters is the current quarterly report and not the overall consumer experience. And kind of like Elvis, these guys surround themselves with sycophants who do nothing more than agree with the king of the label. These guys just don't drink their own kool-aid, they gulp it down like it's going out of style. Just recently, when acknowledging reports citing the rapid rise of legal on-line song sales, the record companies never breathed a word about the impact of iTunes, or the ease and simplicity of using it, or the attractiveness of the .99 song price. Instead, they were quick to state what they believed was the real reason for it: lawsuits against consumers have frightened them away from p2p. I guess it's not too surprising they would say that, but there's a problem with it. In the real world, it's pure bs.

The record companies try to back that statement up by citing their own company sponsored reports which sampled computer users who claim to listen to music primarily on the computer and download music. Based on responses to questionnaires, they concluded that consumers are beginning to shy away from p2p because they don't want to risk a lawsuit, thus this must be the reason for the stampede towards legal downloads. If your scratching your head about that, the problem is that they sampled the wrong crowd. The group they should have sampled was iTunes users (since they have the lion's share of the legal download market) and found out what their reasons were for using the service. But, of course, they didn't do that because avoiding a lawsuit is the last thing they would hear as a reason for using iTunes, let alone a primary reason.

ABassCube

Nov 18, 2005, 05:15 PM

Wow. OK, I read the first 7 pages of this thread, and I don't have time to read all 12, but I wanted to post my take:

Although I'm really annoyed about this, and I hate how the record labels have dealt with piracy, but I'm still trying to remain calm about this until we see what exactly happens. I'm guessing that if Steve/Apple is forced to do this, they're not just going to say "charge whatever the hell you want." They're still going to try to control it, and I'm guessing they won't let the price go above $1.25, or maybe $1.49 at the very most. There's no way Apple would let songs be sold for $1.99, because you can get a video for that price, and they're not going to raise those prices.

I think if the less popular content is lowered to say $0.70 and the most popular stuff is no more than $1.29, that wouldn't be that horrible, but it's still annoying because as others have said, part of what's so great about iTunes is its simpliticy, and a big part of that is the same price for every song, even if the albums have different prices.

The thing is, I really don't like pirating. I used to pirate more, although even before the iTMS, usually if I pirated something and really liked it, I bought the CD to support the artists. What iTunes has done is make me much less likely to pirate a few songs, and even if songs are $1.29 or something, it's still a better deal than buying a CD if you only want a few songs. I would probably still buy songs in the iTMS even if they were slightly more expensive, mainly because pirating really is not a good experience. It always takes forever to find and download what you want, and the quality is usually worse than the iTMS. However, I think a lot of people don't really care about that, and that more people will go back to pirating if this happens. The record companies are really stupid for doing this; iTunes was just starting to steal marketshare from the P2Ps, according to some reports. Now the record companies' are just going to ruin any chance they had of people moving en masse from piracy to the iTMS.

One crucial thing here is that albums CANNOT go up in price. Already too many albums are $12.99 or $13.99, even if they have less than 10 tracks with one album only track. However, most albums are still pretty good deals, and if they raise the $9.99 "standard" album price I'm going to be really pissed.

Adam

lolex

Nov 18, 2005, 07:59 PM

you are really not understanding my point, and i'm running out of the patience to reiterate. if i create and record music and sell my own original music, that is entirely different than someone using p2p networks to give away what i am selling. it is not your right to take my music and give it away when i am selling it. period. you can think music ought to be free in some perfect or communistic society. in a capitalistic society, where i am creating music and selling it for a living i do not expect to have other people give it away for free. i only chime in on this topic occasionally, and less often on boards like this where ignorance of the industry is so abundant.

- It is neither communism nor captialism to share music for free, except you give me your music in live form , or I 'll never pay it.
It is my right to share equal opportunities for enlightments in the world.

- You guys named yourself artist, artist should be performing their art in live form only , every artifact should bear only one master piece, other than that, it is fake copy, you should know that!
Did you ever image if Beethoven or Mozart copyrighted their work , and won't let anyone listen to their music until whoever pays, what will happens to the world?
If All the libraries shut down because of copyright reasons, where do we get materials for learnings?
Did you ever image Van Gogh or Picasso would sell their artwork in copies?

Actually the art world is all related to copy and steal, you got a large data base of various artwork in mind , rerearranging them in your own form of art.

" Good artist copies, Great artist Steals !" -Quote by Picasso.

You can't protect anything in copied format and can't stop from others to recopy it , it is very stupid to think so, Only live form is good enough not to be copied.

- All great artists performing their art in Live, Only live performance bears their passions , they don't afraid you copy their work, since passions and live performance can't be copied.

- Then how did artist make their living? Until you can perform good art in live,
someone will be inspired and admired your job, then you bear the honor, people will start to pay you for performing live art for them, TV and Movies production Firms will hire you producing arts for them , you will also bear titles for your jobs, your portfolios thickens your celebrity will grow as your works become more n more marvelous.

- Go n practice your music , plays it good in live, If you're writers , get your job be Published in major Magazines or newspaper, put aside the "Dollar Sign"
while you 're practicing or performing artwork,focus to your passion, otherwise you'll never be a good artist.

P.S. It is not anyone's fault to bring in the TAPE RECORDING, CD BURNING, INTERNET TECHNOLOGY, the industrial itself force the technology to advance like a super storm, it's a force from nature, no one can stop it, someone should prepare good enough to escape the hurricane,
The storm will attack the economics like crazy, there will be a recession followed by , since assets have been overvalued, aftermaths may be pathetics for a while, then everything will return to normal and economic grows up again.

Detlev

Nov 18, 2005, 10:04 PM

gekko513

Nov 19, 2005, 02:10 AM

lolex

Nov 19, 2005, 02:45 AM

Detlev, I don't agree with you at all. I almost never attend live concerts. It's still fair that I pay for the music that I listen to. Music doesn't magically pop out of the radio or grow naturally on some hard disk somewhere, someone made it and someone owns it.

I realise that it sounds like I'm contradicting myself here since I won't pay for online songs that cost more than $1. Like I said, that's because in the current situation, I'm paying for others as well as myself.

For customer, of cause you can choose to not attending the concert, and you may buy a CD copy of the concert in a very low price, as low as a photo reprint of " Mona Lisa " painting.
1. Because the owner can reproduce unlimited number of copy CDs.
2. You already paid for the machine to play the CD.
the cost should be very close to the cost of a blank CD.:p

chukronos

Nov 19, 2005, 08:54 AM

I think you people crying out about the RIAA's injustices, etc. need to calm down. Lets just wait and see what comes of this before we organize the lynch mob. Maybe prices won't be affected much, maybe they'll back down, maybe people will just stop paying for music again.

The statement is far too general I feel to start blasting off on how disgusting this move is. And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's? Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....

I agree, you can't fault a business for following a simple supply and demand chart. Except, if you follow the simple supply and demand chart, the older songs should be 50% less. Being as the record companies are making a much more money per song off of iTunes than they do off of cd sales, the price point has no reason to increase past $.99. If you were to realistically compare cd sales and download sales based on profit margins, the download price, at $.99, is much higher than it should be.

But the reason for the lynch mob is because everyone on here knows that the record companies have been doing all that they can to try to force Apple's hand to either:
release their drm to all music players, up the price on songs, or both

And that, is just plain not right. Be prepared to see massive illegal download increases, and P2P popularity to skyrocket. The gov may shut down some of the p2p networks, but a new one will pop up in it's place. I agree with others, Apple should open their own record label and woo artists to sign with them by offering higher percentages.

-Chuck

e-coli

Nov 19, 2005, 09:09 AM

Does anybody really still listen to the major label over-hyped, over-produced crap anyways?

Indie label music is far better, and will pbbly remain $0.99

Uragon

Nov 19, 2005, 10:40 AM

pps: i have a different set of complaints about the riaa, but complaints about the monitary distribution within my industry only effect people in my industry. i have a longer and more specific lists of complaints about the industry than an outsider would have. that said, folks aren't turning to illegal downloads to help artists out in some way. they are only doing it for selfish reasons. i agree with the comments about how screwed up the music business is. but i don't think it excuses illegal downloading at all.

I do agree with you about illegal downloading, but I do think that most of the guys here who mentioned they will go back to illegal downloading is more of a rebellious way against the record labels and not entirely against the musician, though indirectly it affects the musician as well.

I agree with Gekko, that if the increase in the pricing will go directly to the musician instead, they will support it. That's a big IF.

There are other variables too in considering the pricing increase, will the general consumers (legal downloaders from ITMS) accept it? Will it be deemed reasonable at 128 or will the Rec labels simply blame Apple for it.

To some extend, I look at it as a form of control and the labels are trying to flex their muscle because of the success brought by ITMS and the massive support given by the legal downloaders....it is ENVY.......

graphiqdezine

Nov 21, 2005, 01:26 AM

Back to Limewire I guess :rolleyes:

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0
*sigh* I am closer to $1,820, not counting songs I've lost. This is no good at all.

The $0.99 pricing model is more successful than I see a variable model being. Who can't justify $0.99 for a song? But when they have to start deciding between $0.25 for one song or $1.50 for another, their sales will drop off. IMO

iMeowbot

Nov 21, 2005, 02:10 AM

Does anybody really still listen to the major label over-hyped, over-produced crap anyways?
Yep. It fluctuates constantly depending on new releases, but market share breaks down pretty much as 35% for UMG, 25% for Sony/BMG, 17% for EMI, 13% for WMG and 10% for the indies combined. At times the indy share jumps as high as 20%, but all the others have their good moments too.

Over the last few years the other majors have been gradually losing share to UMG, quite possibly in part because of their aggressive pricing. Prices for indies are all over the place, from bargain basement to tracking the majors to charging a premium if they fancy themselves "boutique" operations.

Indie label music is far better, and will pbbly remain $0.99
I'd expect the same situation as in real life, where the price points are chosen by the label. None of them act with one mind these days.

lolex

Nov 22, 2005, 04:35 AM

271

Nov 22, 2005, 04:20 PM

-I think the goverment should charge the 'intellactual property' owners a levy on every copy they're reproduced to the market as a fund to fight agaiinst piracy,

Since the more they reproduce, the easier to be pirated, and cause the more trouble. And the enforcement office need more cost to handle.

It'd be fair , since it's their cost to run a business and buy an insurance for every copy of their intellactual property they're reproduced.:)

that's what we need.. a homeland dept of anti-piracy.. piracy level today is sunburst yellow... :rolleyes:

the real piracy hit that the labels take and movie studios take is in the east.. soooo much lost revenue over there due to cheap copies on the street. but that's a state dept etc. game to play and also, the movies etc dont really get distributed there in lots of places so if a kid wants to go see star wars before his 30th b-day he has to go buy a pirated copy in the local market.