Music Prices Going Up?

[MacRumors]

The New York Post claims (http://www.nypost.com/business/20309.htm) that the five major record labels have been in negotiations with Apple over pricing as well as other issues surrounding Apple's onling music store (iTunes).

Under the new contracts, the most popular singles could rise to $1.25 according to the Post's sources.

During the iTunes conference call (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/05/20040504072403.shtml), Steve Jobs addressed the question of album pricing:

But in any event, most of the albums on iTunes are priced at $9.99 and below and, no, they're not creeping up. There's always a few that are a little higher than you can go in and pull out, but they're very, very competitive and we see in the future the prices of the albums coming down, not going up, because that's what it's going to take to sell more albums and it's in everybody's best interest to do so.

[page3]

And they call the consumers Pirates...?

[joemama]

This must be a joke....I guarantee you will see a decrease in downloads on iTMS and a HUGE jump on LimeWire activity.

This would be the WORST thing the music industry can do. As is, Apple only gets what, 20 cents on the dollar..and they do most of the work. Jobs needs to make a stand.

[agentmouthwash]

why does Apple have to sell them for more, yet Walmart gets away with selling songs at 88 cents each.

Well if it goes to $1.25, I'm not going to be using the service anymore.

[Lord Bodak]

Just goes to show how out of touch the industry is with its customers. They have FINALLY found a way to get a large number of people to quit using P2P and buy their music legally-- and so they decide to kill it by raising prices.

[joeconvert]

And the RIAA wonders why sales are off. No such thing as market price in the entertainment industry it seems.

[Coleco]

This is the same NY Post that said Avie Tevanian was on the verge of bolting. Last I checked he was still with Apple.

Still, you gotta hope the record labels aren't that dumb. Album prices are already going too high for online distribution on iTunes.

It will only hurt Apple if it's selling singles for $1.25 while Wal-Mart, Napster, Sony and others are under the magic $1 mark.

[Lord Bodak]

Because Wal-Mart, in typical fashion, probably made threats to the labels. "If you don't let us sell songs for 88 cents, we won't stock your label's CDs in our stores."

why does Apple have to sell them for more, yet Walmart gets away with selling songs at 88 cents each.

Well if it goes to $1.25, I'm not going to be using the service anymore.

[Mr. Anderson]

you know its just a matter of time before it will happen - although I have to say its way too soon - the whole industry is just getting up and running and a price hike, no matter how small, will shoot it in it's foot....

D :(

[MattG]

So if the price of single songs goes up, will the price of albums go up? Songs going up to $1.25 doesn't bother me that much since most of the time, I buy whole albums. However, if the price of an album goes up, buying music on the iTMS will definitely be less advantageous. I won't pay $12 for downloading an album when I could buy it online or in some music stores for not much more.

[Lord Bodak]

Good point. There's a magic price point, where people are willing to give up features (liner notes, a physical CD) for price. The closer a download price gets to the physical CD's price, the fewer online sales they'll get.

So if the price of single songs goes up, will the price of albums go up? Songs going up to $1.25 doesn't bother me that much since most of the time, I buy whole albums. However, if the price of an album goes up, buying music on the iTMS will definitely be less advantageous. I won't pay $12 for downloading an album when I could buy it online or in some music stores for not much more.

[arqsagi]

Apple has done a great effort for downloading legal music from the internet, rising the prices of singles and more on albums will made legally less atractive, and in fact their music is available just as albums, well It will be really hard to buy online, what will be the advantage if you can go to any store and buy it at less price or even worse to lables use peer to peer networks.

If in fact true just shows how la labels dont understand the consumers and really doesnt whant to look to the future of digital media.

I WONT BUY ANY SONG OVER 1 DOLLAR,
repeat
I WONT BUY ANY SONG OVER 1 DOLLAR

And to sony, you should support Apple in this, because in few months when your "music store" will have to go down Apple will still the only succesfull online music store, a real music store with apealing portable devices, because who uses sonys?

[Dippo]

Do the labels WANT iTunes to fail???

I still think 99 cents is kinda expensive for a DRMed download.
I certainly won't pay $1.25 or more!!! :mad:

[harmless]

They did not even open a store in Europe and are already killing it by charging too much.

Even 0.99 is a price that a lot of people are not willing to pay. Now it will be 25% more? No way.

I guess, I'll make a deal with the russians: www.allofmp3.com


Andreas

[ifjake]

yeah this would be a bad move by the record companies. it's only going to encourage more people to crack it. fight it Jobs, fight it!!

[Dippo]

They did not even open a store in Europe and are already killing it by charging too much.

Even 0.99 is a price that a lot of people are not willing to pay. Now it will be 25% more? No way.

I guess, I'll make a deal with the russians: www.allofmp3.com


Andreas

The price of the 1 Megabyte of the traffic for the media-materials marked as VIP or Online Encoding is 0.01 USD.

All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3?-03-79 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.

Users are held liable for the use and distribution of the MediaServices site information materials according to local legislation.

Yea they are cheap, but somehow I just don't think they are legal...

[autrefois]

According to the transcript of the conference call (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/04/29.9.shtml)

Steve Jobs: Great. Let me answer those two things. First one is the price for songs in the iTunes store is remaining 99 cents per song, and we think that's what customers want and that's what we're delivering. So the prices will remain 99 cents per song and any rumors to the contrary are simply not true.

Thus I don't put much credence in the Post's report. Why would Jobs say the rumors aren't true if it had already been decided to raise the prices and the news could come out any day?? He would have been much more vague in his answer. There's not too many ways his answer can be interpreted, so as far as he is concerned, the price isn't going to change for now.

Maybe his decision to say that was a way to stop the labels from pressuring Apple for a price hike, and this leak is the labels' retaliation? Who knows.

[rufwork]

Why are we introducing album pricing into the mix about $1.25 single tracks? These seem two different issues, and the Jobs quote if very much out of context.

For starters, Jobs was replying to someone asking why there were so many albums for more than $9.99. Jobs was saying that there really weren't, but that if that was the price that music labels felt like charging for premium content (paraphrase, iirc, etc), they could. The issue of partial albums, which are all over the freakin' place, didn't even come up. That was a gross oversight by the apparently mostly Jobs-adoring reporters.

With respect to the $1.25 -- apparently someone thinks the market will handle it. Do I really care if I have to pay and extra 26¢ to get Hey Ya! without buying the whole dual disc? Hrm. That's a tough one. And that means the price is getting closer to the max I would pay, which is exactly where the record companies are shooting. If sales drop by 15% on those tracks, the gross still increases.

My only concern is that Apple's shooting for more pie if they allow a price increase. Apple making money is good, I guess, but as people have pointed out, a higher price makes [even legal] alternatives look nicer in a market that's skirting too expensive already.

How long can the iPod really dominate the market so much that iTunes can charge an extra premium for its services? And what about people like me, who don't own an iPod, yet have purchased several albums? Looks like we'd be awfully easy to lose. I've already not purchased a number of albums b/c of the 99¢ per track (not $9.99 bundle) cost -- and even more b/c of the partial album label.

[pennymonger]

The 'Big 5' - Universal, Sony, BMG, EMI and Warner Music - cooking the goose before it gets a chance to lay its golden eggs.

[jeffbistrong]

Services like ITUNES and downloading music legally were created to diminish the use of P2P networks, rising the price? I think I would have to go back to Kazaa (on my PC), or LimeWire (on my mac), rather than pay 1 buck 25 for a song. Id take the risk of the RIAA ********** me over, rather than pay a buck 25 for a song.

[martijnvandijk]

and remember that we're already paying more then 1 dollar, when including vat.
1.25 incl vat will almost be 1.50. crazy! :mad:

[ifjake]

maybe this would be a kind of way to encourage people to actually buy the CD. but that's dumb. this is a lossy compressed format of their songs. say, an apple lossless version would definitely justify the extra 26¢, but not for the stupid little pop songs that they'd jack the price on. i recently just bought my first couple of songs off of iTunes and i can tell you i wouldn't have if they were any more than a dollar. if they're trying to get people to buy CDs they should try to push SACDs. you wouldn't want to compress a SACD for your little player, and trading it around is kinda out of the question. but let the online music distribution be. don't mess with a good thing. someone important read this!

[SiliconAddict]

If so I'm done with iTMS then. **** them if they think I'm paying any more then .99 for a song. This is called gutting the consumer. See just what level they can take and raise it a notch.

**shrugs** I can get any non .99 cent music off of shareaza in a matter of minutes at 192kb/s+. Smart move RIAA. Real smart. :mad: :mad:
I'm more pissed that this is going to hurt Apple in the long run. Watch music downloads drop because of this.

[SiliconAddict]

maybe this would be a kind of way to encourage people to actually buy the CD. but that's dumb. this is a lossy compressed format of their songs. say, an apple lossless version


Not even that. The average person couldn't give a crap about lossy music. 128kb/s is good enough for the average listener. 192 would probably be better but 128 is good.

[jayscheuerle]

How often have you bought a CD just for one or two songs that you liked?

Why not make the "best" songs, or at least the best selling ones, more expensive? Make the Billboard top 100 $1.25 and drop whole Albums down to $8. If a song drops out of the top 100, it goes back down to $.99.

Seems fair to me.

Of course, on the flip side, maybe any song 10 years or older should go for 25¢ or so...

Why should all songs be the same price? They're not all the same quality.

This is just an avenue that needs to be explored... - j

[Photorun]

What about Sony's craptacular service or Napster's poo? Someone mentioned Wallyworld but what about the others, if it's just Apple's service being forced to raise prices then it's obviously a music industry conspiracy to which I saw Macheads need to steal MORE music from these fat, rich, white, clueless ****s!

[soosy]

if no one buys a $1.25 single they'll have to bring the prices back down...

[SiliconAddict]

Oh and before someone comes on the scene saying its ONLY .25 cents more. I download, typically, 25 tracks in any given day. That's 6.26 more a day. $43.75 more a week. $175 more a month. You can do the math from there. .25 cents more a track IS expensive.

[jaw04005]

If so I'm done with iTMS then. **** them if they think I'm paying any more then .99 for a song. This is called gutting the consumer. See just what level they can take and raise it a notch.

**shrugs** I can get any non .99 cent music off of shareaza in a matter of minutes at 192kb/s+. Smart move RIAA. Real smart. :mad: :mad:
I'm more pissed that this is going to hurt Apple in the long run. Watch music downloads drop because of this.

I agree. I'm not going to pay $1.25 per song. If anything the price should be going down, not going up.

[SiliconAddict]

if no one buys a $1.25 single they'll have to bring the prices back down...


Yah right. Just like the price of CD's has fallen because of the loss of sales. Never underestimate the greed of the RIAA.

[1macker1]

The music companies are very smart. When the P2P boom was going on, the RIAA wasn't much involved, esp. when napster first took off. Now the RIAA has struck fear in the hearts of many P2P users, so the music companies are going to take advantage. You can either pay the extra .26 cents, or risk being sued. I tip my hat to the music compaines for being such evil genius.

[prutz11]

Because Wal-Mart, in typical fashion, probably made threats to the labels. "If you don't let us sell songs for 88 cents, we won't stock your label's CDs in our stores."

Walmart actually sells music and movies at a loss. They found that it was a good way to get new demographics shopping at Walmart. I for example often go to pick up a dvd and leave with a dvd... some toilet paper and a gun... ok not a gun... but I could if I wanted to.

They are using the same strategy for their online music service... you go for the music, but stay for the floor mats.

This all comes from CNBC... I have no first hand knowledge of walmart's business.

[FriarTuck]

Thought process for the casual, occasional music buyer like me:

$9.99 album = hey, less than ten bucks what the heck. Instant purchase.

$13.99 = gee, at that price, I might as well go to the store and buy the CD.

and then I don't ever find the time or inclination to make that trip to the store, so the record companies get nothing from me

jerks

[Spagolli94]

If they do this, I, as well as millions of others will just go back to the way things were before. I can't believe the record companies are even considering this!!! They finally get people to start paying for online music and now are going to do their best to kill it.

[hunt]

If this increase is for Apple only, it not only hurts itunes but the ipod as well.

I will not pay $1.25 for songs when I can go to Walmart.com and pay 88 cents.

I will strip out the DRAM and load back to itunes. I will deal with the hassle and extra lossy to save 37 cents per song.

Also, who will want the ipod when it only plays legal download songs from the most expensive store? I would be ok with it if the itunes songs were better than a Walmart, Napster, Real, etc. but they are not.

[Windowlicker]

i really really hope this isn't gonna happen! if it does, good bye itms europe. the prices are now just at the point where I still would buy them. just a little bit over that (1.25) and I'll stop the game.

[HiRez]

Not even that. The average person couldn't give a crap about lossy music. 128kb/s is good enough for the average listener. 192 would probably be better but 128 is good.I'm hesitatnt to pay .99 for a 128 kbps song, but I'd actually buy a lot more online music at $1.25 per song if it were uncompressed. I also think Apple should allow unlimited conversions from Apple Lossless to any AAC (or other DRM) format, so you could use the lossless file as the archive and keep up with the latest codec advances. The trick would be in still limiting any copies made of the archive file to be treated as the same song, DRM-wise. So IOW you could still only have five machines registered to play any version of the original archived file at any time.

Until this is an option, I'm simply not going to empty my wallet into iTMS. When it is, I will. It still looks very very risky to me as a long-term investement. The technology is changing so fast that I'm afraid any "investment" in 128 kbps DRM files is too risky long-term. I don't want to be left out in the cold at some future date.

[Le Big Mac]

The 'Big 5' - Universal, Sony, BMG, EMI and Warner Music - cooking the goose before it gets a chance to lay its golden eggs.

Well, Sony has a reason to do it.

I can sort of understand why the record labels would do it. Not that I like it, but since you can hardly buy singles in stores any more, people either bought the album or nothing at all if only for a couple of songs. So obviously some songs are more valuable than others. Why shouldn't you pay a bit more for the songs everyone wants?

I do think they're shooting themselves in the foot. People will just stop buying again.

[gemio17]

Anything that begins with "the New York Post claims" is for me, already marked as a probable fabrication- that paper sucks and I would take anything they "claim" with a grain of salt....

and btw I'm not paying more than 99¢ for a song. no how no way.

[iggyb]

So, to give my knee-jerk reaction...

If they decide to raise prices to $1.25, then give me my skull and crossbones as I sail the seas of Limewire.

Ridiculous. I for one have bought around 40 songs off of iTunes. Songs that I could've pirated, but wanted to "do the right thing". If the thanks is jacking up the price for a lossy compression that limits where I can play the song, then I feel I should just repay in kind.

It almost seems that they are pushing for legal online distribution to fail.

Again, this is a knee-jerk reaction...

[ts1973]

I think this is the beginning of the end of the i-Tunes music store.

Indeed, I believe that the "big 5" are really getting scared of Apple and their apparant succes in the store, and are especially afraid that Apple will be the dominant factor in establishing the pricing of their future products (forcing the store prices to go down in the future). I believe that Music Companies underestimated Apple and are trying to regain their lost revenues in the local stores.

[jpk]

This is just another example of the music industry's greed. If this keeps happening, they will tighten the noose on themselves and us, and they will have dug themselves into a hold that not even the combined efforts of them and Steve can market out.

However, this is just a rumour. I question weather or not it will come to fruition.

All my best,
JPGK

[denm316]

Well I guess it is back to Limewire once this happens

[whooleytoo]

Maybe the labels are just trying hobble iTMS a little.

iTMS proved legal, paid music download services can be practical and profitable. The only problem for the RIAA is, Apple has in just one year built up a monopoly in that emerging market though a combination of best store/best music device, and by 'not playing nice' (no WMA on iPod, no AAC/Fairplay on other devices). And if any consumer has a large library of iTMS songs on my iPod - they're not switching to another store/device any time soon.

It's much better for the RIAA not to have one big dominant online store, which would let Apple virtually dictate terms to them. By charging Apple too much for the content, the RIAA can squeeze them as much or as little as they like.

[3-22]

This would be very disappointing. It would also show RIAA is nothing but greedy SOB's who are never happy and want to destory legal alternatives to P2P.

The really bad thing is it will probably blow up on Apple as many customers will blame Apple thinking they are just raising the prices because of it's popularity.

[fishtank22]

Are they high. we're paying too much now. they should be lowering the prices. When will these ********** figure out that if they lower the prices they will sell more, hence increasing their profit margin. I learned this crap in 11th grade Economics.

I will NOT buy 1 song for over 99cents. P2P, I'm coming home!

The way overcome feeling guilty for stealing music is by paying $10 a month on EasyNews!

[hkhaskell]

...when Steve explicitly stated that the prices would not be increasing. Sheesh!

What I thought was extremely interesting was this statement by SJ:

"...and we see in the future the prices of the albums coming down, not going up, because that's what it's going to take to sell more albums and it's in everybody's best interest to do so."

Maybe that's what it takes to sell more Macs too. Just a thought. ;)

[sfhc21]

Just tried allofmp3.com

What a great service! You can pick your compression and with a paypal transfer of $10.00, I am able to download about 15 to 20 albums. I now think $.99 is way to much for a single song. I am done with the Music Store.

[JtheLemur]

Like others before in this post, I jumped on the Russian bandwagon.

http://www.allofmp3.com
(Online Encoding codes albums in almost any format and bitrate for you, includes ID3 tags and such)

http://club.mp3search.ru
(no tags or online encoding, but a ton more bootleg, underground, and rare albums than AllOfmp3.com)

Every album I looked for, I found on one or both of those sites. Prices around 1 penny per MB. I got a Junkie XL double CD album, 30 songs, for $1. 192kbps AAC files, too! In fact, if I wanted to pay a little more I could've gotten the albums at CD-quality, thanks to AllOfMP3's Online Encoding feature. Using a $20 account with Club, I was able to download 12 albums, all above 192-bit (MP3s)... and I still have $13 left. w00t!

I suggest everyone give them a look. Take your business elsewhere - I sure as hell am not going to pay $1.25 for a single song if it comes to that!

[toontra]

This is as predictable as it is pathetic. $.99 is already too high.

Let's get real - how in the hell can anyone justify charging as much, if not more, for a download of lower quality, with none of the manufacturing, carriage and retail display costs, as a traditional CD? IT'S ALREADY ROBBERY.

People should boycott the ITMS and maybe, just maybe, they'll come to their senses. Otherwise this will set a precedent for music download shopping for years to come, at least until there is proper, healthy competition.

[BornAgainMac]

Our boy Steve has a lot of influence. He can figure out a way to talk them out of the price hike.

[FlamDrag]

Everyone needs to hop onto the feedback portion of the iTMS and promptly notify Apple that you will stop purchasing songs if the price increases to $1.25 which is actually 26c for those concerned about details.

I could envision a "four / $1.00 or 1.25 each" scenario...

[Wonder Boy]

let'm jack up the prices. ill keep using poisoned, and they can all go broke.

[sethwerkheiser]

I'll say this - for the big popular songs out there - I think $1.25 is kinda fair. For instance, my parents just bought me Incubus - A Crow Left of the Murder or whatever. It was marked $19.99 ( :eek: ), then reduced to $15.99. I've listend to the CD casually about 5 times and I gotta tell you, I think spending the $1.25 Meglomaniac woulda saved me a bundle!

I would NOT pay $1.25 for any of the other songs on this album (yet), as I really haven't given the CD a chance, but yea... I think $1.25 would kinda be okay for like a month or two. Then bring it back down to .99.

Just my two cents :)

[Sonofhaig]

I'll say this - for the big popular songs out there - I think $1.25 is kinda fair. For instance, my parents just bought me Incubus - A Crow Left of the Murder or whatever. It was marked $19.99 ( :eek: ), then reduced to $15.99. I've listend to the CD casually about 5 times and I gotta tell you, I think spending the $1.25 Meglomaniac woulda saved me a bundle!

I would NOT pay $1.25 for any of the other songs on this album (yet), as I really haven't given the CD a chance, but yea... I think $1.25 would kinda be okay for like a month or two. Then bring it back down to .99.

Just my two cents :)


Once a price goes up..... it stays up! You really think they'll drop the price once its up? No way! Don't blow this Apple!!!!

[Mantat]

Like others before in this post, I jumped on the Russian bandwagon.

http://www.allofmp3.com
(Online Encoding codes albums in almost any format and bitrate for you, includes ID3 tags and such)

http://club.mp3search.ru
(no tags or online encoding, but a ton more bootleg, underground, and rare albums than AllOfmp3.com)

Every album I looked for, I found on one or both of those sites. Prices around 1 penny per MB. I got a Junkie XL double CD album, 30 songs, for $1. 192kbps AAC files, too! In fact, if I wanted to pay a little more I could've gotten the albums at CD-quality, thanks to AllOfMP3's Online Encoding feature. Using a $20 account with Club, I was able to download 12 albums, all above 192-bit (MP3s)... and I still have $13 left. w00t!

I suggest everyone give them a look. Take your business elsewhere - I sure as hell am not going to pay $1.25 for a single song if it comes to that!


I hope that you know that these services are ILLEGAL? Actually, they are legal in russia because the law there allow a company to not pay any copyright fees as long as they pay for a license from the governement. So of all the music sold on these sites, not a single $ goes back to the artists. So its worst than P2P because artists dont get paid and you get screwed by giving the $ to the russian governement.

[idkew]

www.allofmp3.com


RIAA, you force me to use it.

[jbembe]

For me,

iTMS = free, convenient 30 second preview of the largest database of songs to help me decide what CD to buy. 128kbps is not good enough for me to get anything other than random singles.

If the price goes to 1.25, I'll definitely purchase even less.

[3-22]

www.allofmp3.com


RIAA, you force me to use it.

No, but RIAA will sue you for using it. It's illegal, read the disclaimer. (Unless you live in some unknown russian state) Your probably better off with a regular P2P app. less easy to track you. Your just giving your money to some scammer...

[Trekkie]

The really bad thing is it will probably blow up on Apple as many customers will blame Apple thinking they are just raising the prices because of it's popularity.

Apple should put in really big letter on the front page of iTMS on how the RIAA is raising the prices, and all $0.26 in the increase is going to the RIAA.

They should change their iPod ads to include how the RIAA is raising prices.

There is just too big of a marketshare to waste. The only way to do this is to get the non-macrumors crowds that are buying the iPods and iTunes stuff hand over fist aware. Meanwhile, the 0.05% of the 3% of the market that Apple has in systems that search this site will know what is really going on.

[SiliconAddict]

The music companies are very smart. When the P2P boom was going on, the RIAA wasn't much involved, esp. when napster first took off. Now the RIAA has struck fear in the hearts of many P2P users, so the music companies are going to take advantage. You can either pay the extra .26 cents, or risk being sued. I tip my hat to the music compaines for being such evil genius.

They haven't scared anyone. Well maybe a few. Statistically do you know the likelihood of getting hit by a lawsuit from the RIAA? Even more so if you are outside the US. I'd probably stand a better chance winning the lotto. But last time I was on some of the more popular P2P services the nodes were still well into the millions.

I think the drop-off is due to legit music stores. People want to use music stores like iTMS but if the RIAA is going to continue to bend the consumers over then what's the point of apple even trying?!?! :mad:

[MrTrout]

I was eagerly awaiting iTMS in Europe, but if the price is going up I will simply not use the service when it arrives.

I fear most people will feel the same.

[idkew]

No, but RIAA will sue you for using it. It's illegal, read the disclaimer. (Unless you live in some unknown russian state) Your probably better off with a regular P2P app. less easy to track you. Your just giving your money to some scammer...


i highly doubt a russian website would give it's user info to a us company. besides, the RIAA sues music SHARERS, not downloaders.

think, then post.

edit - i would rather pay a penny per MB to download a good quality product with thee the id3 tags. p2p is way too hit and miss. i have gotten rid of nearly all p2p downloads, simply b/c i want full albums in good quality with id3 tags. not because the RIAA scares me.

it is easier to track use of a p2p service than logging onto a website you do not own. when i get on a p2p service, i broadcast my ip, and anything i d/l is immediately shared. i have to quickly move the d/led files if i don't want them to share. all a hassle for low quality, non-id3, non album music.


basically, what this proves is that I am willing to purchase music online, but not at the crazy prices the RIAA wants me to pay NOW, not to mention what it will cost if they raise prices.

[DGFan]

They did not even open a store in Europe and are already killing it by charging too much.

Even 0.99 is a price that a lot of people are not willing to pay. Now it will be 25% more? No way.

I guess, I'll make a deal with the russians: www.allofmp3.com

Andreas

Agreed. I already don't buy albums on iTMS because they are overpriced. If it's a 2 CD set $16.99 might be warranted. But for a normal album? No way. Isn't collusion great?

I am very happy with allofmp3. Several people have questioned the legality of it. There was already a long conversation in another thread so I won't get into that again here other than to say, I'll let the Russians sort that out.

[jcshas]

Record execs are stupid, dumb, & ignorant. :mad:

A.) They don’t seem to give a s@&%! about what their listeners want/don’t want.
B.) They're distribution and promotion methods are completely ineffective and useless
C.) They're contributing to their own demise - sadly, they don't even have the intelligence to figure it out.

[wrldwzrd89]

Urgh! Stupid RIAA - why do you have to increase the prices for downloaded music???? If anything, the price should be going DOWN, not up, in order to lure more sales. I never collected "mainstream" music anyway (the kind the RIAA has jurisdiction over); these actions only serve to further discourage me from starting a collection.

[cxny]

I don't think it's such a bad idea to let the marketplace set the price for single song but, only if it works the other way too. If less popular songs could be priced as low as $0.25 and others falling somewhere in the range of $1.50 max, iTMS could become a very useful resource. Personally I would be willing to pay a small "ISP Tax" to cover "losses" to the entertainment industry caused by P2P, but it would be a nightmare to implement.

[3-22]

i highly doubt a russian website would give it's user info to a us company. besides, the RIAA sues music SHARERS, not downloaders.

think, then post.


So far they haven't... Just seems a bit too sketchy for me... But that's just me...

[DGFan]

I hope that you know that these services are ILLEGAL? Actually, they are legal in russia because the law there allow a company to not pay any copyright fees as long as they pay for a license from the governement. So of all the music sold on these sites, not a single $ goes back to the artists. So its worst than P2P because artists dont get paid and you get screwed by giving the $ to the russian governement.

Oh Geez. This has already been discussed to death in another thread. What's funny is that you say the services are illegal here but legal in Russia. The copyright laws of the US are irrelevant to that service. Only the Russian copyright laws matter. So if the service is legal in Russia it's legal here. The only US laws that could matter would be import laws. But to my knowledge)there aren't any laws against bring music into the country.

And, pray tell, how is giving money to the Russian government worse than giving money to the music cartel in the US? In both cases the artists don't see any money. Don't try and take the moral high ground on this one. You're going to lose.

No, but RIAA will sue you for using it. It's illegal, read the disclaimer. (Unless you live in some unknown russian state) Your probably better off with a regular P2P app. less easy to track you. Your just giving your money to some scammer...

The disclaimer says nothing except to follow your local laws. Since you're not breaking local laws by using it, how is it illegal?

The RIAA cannot sue you for downloading from a store. Russia currently has compulsory licensing (although they are attempting legislation to change this). Just because the RIAA doesn't get money from it does not mean it is illegal.

If anyone wants to read the rest of the discussion I suggest they visit this thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70693

[jelloshotsrule]

why has no one taken notice of the couple posts from some new yorkers (and other folks) who pointed out that the new york post sucks and it is hard to believe anything they say, especially when it's directly contradicted by the ceo of the company...

people are paying too much attention to this in my opinion...

ps. can't wait to see the russian mob hit those folks using allofmp3. hah

[estevan2737]

I don't believe it for a second. The record labels are making some serious dough from iTunes and I don't see them changing this. Yes, iTunes can make it easier for an independent distribute music but that is still just theory since last time I checked the Top 10 downloads...the same big label packaged crap is still the main diet of iTunes customers. This is probably just a speculative piece based on the same rumors from weeks ago. If anything it taints the validity of the Post.

Besides...Jobs is the most influential guy in Hollywood. :)

[DGFan]

basically, what this proves is that I am willing to purchase music online, but not at the crazy prices the RIAA wants me to pay NOW, not to mention what it will cost if they raise prices.

I actually buy more songs on allofmp3 than I do on iTMS. If I want half the songs on an album at iTMS I buy just those songs. Why? Because it costs a lot of money ($4 - $5) to buy the rest of the album. If I want half an album on allofmp3 I buy the whole album. Why? Because it only costs a little bit more ($0.50 - $1) and it's nice to have the whole album.

If they can find a way to work licensing fees back to the artists (maybe using prices a little higher - even 2-3 cents a MB) I think a pricing model like that could really help the music business take off.

[MikeH]

The music industry really don't have a clue do they. For an industry that sells a product that's supposed be cutting edge and in touch with youth of today, they're about as 'with it' as your Dad dancing like a lunatic at a wedding disco.

Here they are given a golden opportunity to sell their wares to a public willing to spend money, they don't have to store the product, package it, deal with IT or the customers. But all those savings aren't enough - so they go hike the prices up to approaching store costs.

Greedy, thieving b******s. The music industry deserves to collapse under it's gluttonous weight. Unfortunately it probably won't.

On top of which music sales aren't down because of piracy, it's because todays youth market have so much more to spend their money on - mobile phone, game consoles to name but two. Putting prices up is hardly going to encourage them to part with their cash in already fierce market.

[The Red Wolf]

First of 128Kbps in AAC format is twice the quality of an MP3 making it near CD quality. It would be perfect if it were lossless. Oh, wait, Apple is venturing into a compressed losses format.

Second, when everyone stops complaining about the New York Posts idea of where the price of online music is going vs. what Jobs stated... Does anyone out there think that the Success of the ITMS is what is making record companies salivate? What if that $0.25 increase (a 25% increase) didn't go to Apple at all, but to the coffers of the people who made trading music online for free illegal? Just a thought.

[SiliconAddict]

I hope that you know that these services are ILLEGAL?

So is some of the practices of the RIAA but in a gov that panders to big business who ya gonna call?

I love the latest BS from them. It apears that they haven't been paying their slaves...er...sorry artists their fair share.

RIAA tracks down major reason for decrease in artist royalties (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1083860552.html)

Royalties paid out to recording artists have supposedly been at risk lately for a number of reasons, including reduced CD sales. Yesterday, the Office of the New York State Attorney General announced another cause: RIAA member companies not making payments required under terms of their contracts.

IMHO 2 wrongs may not make a right but they do stick it to a corrupt industry.

Again SCREW THE RIAA. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/twak.gif

[hunt]

From the Apple PC:
"But in any event, most of the ALBUMS on iTunes are priced at $9.99 and below and, no, they're not creeping up. There's always a few that are a little higher than you can go in and pull out, but they're very, very competitive and we see in the future the prices of the ALBUMS coming down, not going up, because that's what it's going to take to sell more ALBUMS and it's in everybody's best interest to do so."

No mention of the price of individual songs. Sounds like the album price is unchanged but the price for popular individual songs is going up.

[joemama]

this news more than anything shows how Apple needs to make iTMS its own record label. Find and sign their own artists, promote and sell them on iTMS. Apple gets a larger piece of the pie, as does the artist. Videos, songs, you name it....Apple can do it all, especially becuase most people and more and more create content on the Mac!

Eventually cut out the middle man, ie greedy big record companies.. buh-bye execsm buh-bye MTV (well thats a far stretch, but you get the point)

Think about it, the ONLY thing Apple needs the BIG 5 for (right now) is the music itself...

[macdong]

there is an online music store from Russia that sells an album for 50 cents!
and it's legal! (apparently the RIAA in Russia is either very generous, or very lazy).
and those record **** heads in US want to raise prices?

[macdong]

How often have you bought a CD just for one or two songs that you liked?

Why not make the "best" songs, or at least the best selling ones, more expensive? Make the Billboard top 100 $1.25 and drop whole Albums down to $8. If a song drops out of the top 100, it goes back down to $.99.

Seems fair to me.

Of course, on the flip side, maybe any song 10 years or older should go for 25¢ or so...

Why should all songs be the same price? They're not all the same quality.

This is just an avenue that needs to be explored... - j

we have been down that road before, before iTMS showed up.
the result is, people exchanging music on P2P network instead of buying the whole aldum for one song.

[Lord Bodak]

Wal-Mart may sell them at a loss, but the label still gets the same amount it gets from anyone else-- and I'd bet that Wal-Mart sells a heck of a lot more CDs than most anyone else.

Walmart actually sells music and movies at a loss. They found that it was a good way to get new demographics shopping at Walmart. I for example often go to pick up a dvd and leave with a dvd... some toilet paper and a gun... ok not a gun... but I could if I wanted to.

They are using the same strategy for their online music service... you go for the music, but stay for the floor mats.

This all comes from CNBC... I have no first hand knowledge of walmart's business.

[Hattig]

The New York Post claims (http://www.nypost.com/business/20309.htm) that the five major record labels have been in negotiations with Apple over pricing as well as other issues surrounding Apple's onling music store (iTunes).

Wait ... so all 5 music companies suddenly go to Apple to increase the prices? What a coincidence ... not.

Sorry, that is price fixing, and that is illegal. Well, in civilised countries it is illegal.

[DGFan]

this news more than anything shows how Apple needs to make iTMS its own record label. Find and sign their own artists, promote and sell them on iTMS. Apple gets a larger piece of the pie, as does the artist. Videos, songs, you name it....Apple can do it all, especially becuase most people and more and more create content on the Mac!

Apple Computer's argument in the trademark lawsuit filed by Apple Music is going to be that Apple Computer is filling the role of Wal-mart or Tower Records. If they did as you suggested they would be filling the role of BMG. That would clearly be within the same business as Apple Music and would almost certainly violate their trademark.

[GeeYouEye]

The NY Post has a worse track record than any rumor site, except for when they correctly predicted the existence of the iTMS itself... but that was after the rest of the net new about it. I wouldn't have even given this a Page 2 placement.

[azdude]

From the Apple PC:
"But in any event, most of the ALBUMS on iTunes are priced at $9.99 and below and, no, they're not creeping up. There's always a few that are a little higher than you can go in and pull out, but they're very, very competitive and we see in the future the prices of the ALBUMS coming down, not going up, because that's what it's going to take to sell more ALBUMS and it's in everybody's best interest to do so."

No mention of the price of individual songs. Sounds like the album price is unchanged but the price for popular individual songs is going up.

As someone stated before, "Think. Read the thread. Then Post."

This was already posted in this thread... it is another quote from the conference call:

Steve Jobs: Great. Let me answer those two things. First one is the price for SONGS in the iTunes store is remaining 99 cents per SONG, and we think that's what customers want and that's what we're delivering. So the prices will remain 99 cents per SONG and any rumors to the contrary are simply not true.

[jayscheuerle]

we have been down that road before, before iTMS showed up.
the result is, people exchanging music on P2P network instead of buying the whole aldum for one song.

You're missing the point. There are people in this very thread that say that they buy whole albums online.

What I'm asking is why, if I wanted to buy 2 songs off of Queen's Greatest hits, should the extended & classic "Bohemian Rhapsody" not cost me more than let's say... "Flash Gordon"? Why does every song have to be the same price? I'd pay more for a better song as long as it evened out with paying less for obscure titles.

Sure, everybody wants to screw the big, bad record companies. But if you were a musician/songwriter/artist, wouldn't you want people to pay SOMETHING for all your work? It seems like everybody is focusing on the record companies and not the people creating the work. If you could send an artist money directly for the rights to play a song that took them months to create and speaks to you in a direct profound way, what would you send them? 25¢? A dollar? $5? If you give the musician on the street a dollar in his hat for playing a cover, surely you can pay more than that to someone who lets you take that song with you.

This business model isn't finished yet. The way it was before and the way it is now makes no sense.

[billyboy]

Any other company going this route would die, but remember the influence and brand awareness that Apple has built up, and thinking different could work out very well.

Basically, Apple dutifully price individual tracks at whatever price the big 5 think is best - ie they roll over, ha ha. Behind the scenes, Apple go all out to build up the biggest collection of decent indie music on the planet, (not as a record label, but as the store) and when the total collection of indie music stored on their servers is at say 500000 plus tracks, then it would be time to screw the big 5 totally ie relegate the big 5 collection to page 2.
sell the independents' singles at 80 cents, albums at $8 and market the indie music offerings like crazy.

It would be a backward step in some ways in the short term, ie the bubblegum crowd would be a bit disappointed that mainstream stuff was harder to find and a bit pricey, and maybe even the big 5 would pull their collections, but with Jobs and co on the marketing job, eventually consumers would come round to the fact that there is a reason that the hippest brand in digital music is predominantly offering access to very good quality indie music that is basically little known in the market place because the big 5 has been swamping choice with their inflated advertising budgets. And the indie music would at least be sold on terms that are good for APPLE, and the artists.

In the long term there will be many artists currently tied to the big 5 who will eventually be out of contract and those mainstream artists I am sure would be very interested in going the iTMS route. So the big names would eventually be represented on itunes again in another incarnation.

[~Shard~]

This rumored price hike raises all sorts of intriguing concepts. First of all, to those of you saying “I’d pay $1 but not $1.25 for songs – NO WAY MAN”, all I can say is yah, I’m sure that extra 25 cents is really going to kill you. :rolleyes: ;) That being said, I agree in principle though – but it shouldn’t just be about the cost increase, it should be about the fact the record industry is once again getting greedy. They lose heaps of money due to P2P networks and illegal downloads, then they finally start making money again off services such as iTMS, and then what do they do? Try and make even MORE money off online music service, because of course what they’re currently making isn’t good enough. They should be thanking Jobs for being their savior, and they should be grateful that they’re actually making money, but no, they want more now.

In one respect though, it’s rather clever and ingenious of the record companies. CD sales have been hurting, yet guess what – there is a large group of people still willing to pay for music, via these online music services. So, what the record company is possibly thinking is, “let’s raise the price of the online downloads such that people will find them too expensive, not worth it, and more worth their while to simply purchase the entire CD” – for the recording industry, it’s perfect, as in their mind this might encourage (force) people to start buying CDs again, which is what they want! The music industry realizes there will always be those people who download music for free illegally, regardless, so instead of targeting them, they are targeting the ones who are willing to pay, and essentially manipulating them to get back into buying actual CDs at the record stores.

The downside of this for the recording industry however is that many people who were legitimately using iTMS et al will simply revert back to downloading music illegally via P2P networks. A price hike like this will ultimately hurt iTMS, will be sad to see.

But as for the cost increase itself, from a purely monetary point of view, there definitely exists a price point at which consumers will not be willing to pay for online music downloads. In this day and age, it seems that everything is slowly going up in price, whether it be due to inflationary reasons, other economic factors or other reasons, yet due to the nature of this service and technology, I think price hikes will have a definite negative impact on the online music service industry and people will not stand for it. A shame, too, as this industry is still in its infant stages and shows so much promise. A price hike might permanently cripple the service, which would be a sad sight to see, both for the online music service industry and Apple as well.

[Hattig]

Personally, I don't mind paying $1.25 for a single song. The service isn't out in the UK yet anyway, and when it is it will be 99p a song anyway because we always get ripped off. That's $1.76 in US dollars, although it includes 17.5% VAT. A fairer price would be 85p a song.

Things like iTMS will kill off singles. A single can cost between £1.99 and £3.99, sometimes higher. These are bad value, which is why sales of singles have dropped so much. Getting the song for 99p is good. Singles in store should include more value - the music video for a start. Less crap remixes too, heh.

Of course, I'd want discounts for buying multiple songs, as the processing cost to Apple goes down with a larger order. At 5 songs it should be $5 (near enough to 5 for the price of 4). Either that, or 196kbps AAC instead of 128kbps.

I *want* to support the artists. However I don't think that giving money to the RIAA to hand out is the way to do this ... if they deign to give the artists any royalties at all that is. The best way to support the artists appears to be to go to the concerts, and it is a good way to assuage any guilt over downloading the album that they would have got 10c from anyway.

[~Shard~]

Oh, and if they do hike the price up to $1.25 I definitely would download fewer songs from iTMS – if I could actually download any to begin with, since I live in Canada, that is... ;) :cool:

[Peyote]

Obviously the labels got together and decided to up the prices when the contracts ran out (if this $1.25 rumor is true). However what I find interesting is that one of the labels happens to be Sony, who if I recall correctly is about to open doors on it's own music dowload service. Hmmm...just before Sony becomes a competitor, the record labels (one of which is Sony) decide to force Apple to raise it's prices. Wow...what a coincidence!

I certainly hope that if this is true, none of us go to Sony to buy music, I know I won't. I'm gonna keep buying from iTunes, because even at $1.25, it's STILL the best out there. Sony is COUNTING on all of us to start buying from Sony or other sources if the iTMS prices get raised. They want all that business, and I for one will support iTMS just so that they don't get my $.99.

[mrsebastian]

ah the greedy bastards are at it again... it would be quite interesting if we could unite for one month to boycott the entire music industry. no buying cds, itms, listening to the radio, watching vh1 or mtv, buying music related magazines (rolling stone), etc... though it surely wouldn't kill the industry, it would seriously hit them in the pocket book, which seems to be the only place they have any feelings. the loss in advertising dollars alone would surely commit one exec to throw himself out a window :D

[shamino]

I think the Post is lying. Steve Jobs may say and imply many things, but I've never once seen him flat-out lie to the public. He explicitly said that the $0.99 price isn't changing, and until I see otherwise, I'm going to believe him.

That being said, I too think ITMS costs too much.

I just ordered some CDs from the BMG Music Club (http://www.bmgmusic.com/). While their catalogs are full MSRP, they always have special discounts and bonusses. I ordered a 6-disc Chicago box set (105 songs) for $37, a 5-disc 80's compilation (95 tracks) for $25, and two single-disc albums (13 tracks each) for $2 each. Including estimated shipping charges and tax, the total price comes to about $97, or about $7.46 per disc. There are 226 tracks, resulting in an average cost of 43 cents per song including shipping/tax or 29 cents per song without shipping/tax.

You heard it right: 29 cents per song. For CDs, with all the liner material, purchased directly from BMG (an RIAA member.) Which is why 99 cents per song for a download (where shipping and tax isn't charged) is highway robbery. Downloads should cost less not more than CDs.

It also shows you how much you're getting robbed in stores. BMG is selling directly to me for an average price of $5 per disc (not counting shipping/tax, even though a lot of that shipping charge is profit). It costs about $1/disc to manufacture (maybe slightly more for box sets, but not that much more. So they are taking $4/disc profit from me to pay the artists and run their operation.

But when you buy those same albums in stores, you are paying $8-12 for a discount album, and $15-18 per disc for a full-price album. I think we can be certain that BMG isn't charging the stores $5/disc, or we'd see stores charging much less in order to compete with each other. That 60-260% markup (between what I pay a local store vs. what I pay BMG through their music club) is mostly going to the record labels and the RIAA-owned distribution channels.

Maybe the music industry wouldn't be losing all that money if they'd come to grips with the fact that an informed public simply doesn't appreciate paying a 250% profit margin for nothing more than a distribution channel.

[iggyb]

Apple Computer's argument in the trademark lawsuit filed by Apple Music is going to be that Apple Computer is filling the role of Wal-mart or Tower Records. If they did as you suggested they would be filling the role of BMG. That would clearly be within the same business as Apple Music and would almost certainly violate their trademark.

They could purchase Apple Music, and all would be well.

Of course, with that, I would fear that they would become even more neglectful of updating their computers and software.

[shamino]

ah the greedy bastards are at it again... it would be quite interesting if we could unite for one month to boycott the entire music industry. no buying cds, itms, listening to the radio, watching vh1 or mtv, buying music related magazines (rolling stone), etc... though it surely wouldn't kill the industry, it would seriously hit them in the pocket book, which seems to be the only place they have any feelings. the loss in advertising dollars alone would surely commit one exec to throw himself out a window :D
Won't work. They'll just blame their lost profits on piracy and spend another billion dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Then when the boycott ends a month later and sales come back, they'll point to the extra money and say "see, the threat of lawsuits is working."

[idkew]

i think the only thing to do is:

•use allofmp3.com, or P2P... for all RIAA artists
•Purchase non-RIAA artists music at regular price.


maybe we can get the artists to abandon the RIAA

[nuckinfutz]

The Music Industry is right to be afraid. Downloading singles faces them to confront their largest fear which is exposing the multitude of weak albums.

Today you are lucky to get 3 great songs on a CD. If I do find an album with 3 good songs then I buy the CD. If I only like 1 or 2 songs I look for singles.

1.25 for the popular songs is not a good deal. Note they are not offering to lower the price on crappy songs to under .99. Thus this is simply a way for them to defray the cost of losing album sales because their artists and creating "enough" art.

I won't stop using iTMS if some songs go to 1.25 but I will become even pickier about what I choose to spend 1.25 on.

[garybooberry]

This just goes to show you what record labels are all about - $

And that's fine, to an extent.

They bitched and moaned about online pirating, a solution was offered, pirating is down to almost pre-Napster levels and they want more.

One word: Duh.

[Doctor Q]

Because Wal-Mart, in typical fashion, probably made threats to the labels. "If you don't let us sell songs for 88 cents, we won't stock your label's CDs in our stores."I hope Steve Jobs is telling the labels "If you don't let us sell songs for 99 cents, we won't stock your label's CDs in our stores" and hoping they don't call his bluff.

I'm hesitatnt to pay .99 for a 128 kbps song, but I'd actually buy a lot more online music at $1.25 per song if it were uncompressed. I also think Apple should allow unlimited conversions from Apple Lossless to any AAC (or other DRM) format, so you could use the lossless file as the archive and keep up with the latest codec advances. The trick would be in still limiting any copies made of the archive file to be treated as the same song, DRM-wise. So IOW you could still only have five machines registered to play any version of the original archived file at any time.

Until this is an option, I'm simply not going to empty my wallet into iTMS. When it is, I will. It still looks very very risky to me as a long-term investement. The technology is changing so fast that I'm afraid any "investment" in 128 kbps DRM files is too risky long-term. I don't want to be left out in the cold at some future date.Exactly, exactly, exactly. $1.25 isn't so bad for a "master" of a song that I can convert to lossy formats as I see fit.

As far as pricing longer, hotter, or more valuable tunes higher than shorter, older, less valuable tunes, it would be fair, it might make sense businesswise, but it would be really really annoying for me the music shopper.

[benpatient]

pre-napster levels?

there are millions of people on KaZaA right now, sharing tens of millions of files.


yes, most of the files are crap, and don't work, etc, but they are there.

Look, guys, I read a report 3 months ago about how the RIAA-friendly labels were complaining about songs only being 99 cents, and that they had wanted them to be more like 2 dollars a song from the beginning, but that places like apple/napster/walmart/etc agreed to basically give between 60 and 80 cents per song to the RIAA, which then gives 1-2 cents per song to the artists...before contractual obligations.

The RIAA's price model expected apple and the rest to want to make a profit on the songs, which they currently do not. When you factor in bandwidth and programming with the RIAA-specified cost per song and cost per album, you end up at least a little bit in the red. Apple created the iTunes store to sell iPods, and that's the only reason. Why? because it costs them less than 100 dollars to manufacture and distribute that 40GB iPod so many of you are so fond of. There aren't many markets outside of diamonds where there is that sort of mark-up.

[toontra]

The RIAA's price model expected apple and the rest to want to make a profit on the songs, which they currently do not. When you factor in bandwidth and programming with the RIAA-specified cost per song and cost per album, you end up at least a little bit in the red.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[Tommy Wasabi]

If the music industry is going to raise the price of songs, the executives must be smoking the krack that they give to their artists.

Wake up and smell the dollars boys! If you raise rates - you will be placing significant barriers on the only thing that is saving your industry from complete dissolution.

But on the positive side, this act could be another examples of an ethically stupid pet trick! Problem is - we don't need more of those!

[harmless]

I hope that you know that these services are ILLEGAL?

They are not. Not in Germany. Even with the new restrictive copyright legislation it is only illegal to copy songs if the source is clearly unauthorized. This is not the case with allofmp3. As far as I can see it's a commercial site and there is no law that says I'm not allowed to buy there. So it's legal for me to use this service. If allofmp3 is not allowed so sell to me - well, that's not my concern ...


Andreas

[dontmatter]

Yeah, I sure as hell hope this is just a rumor. It's bad enough to have wal-mart selling songs for 88¢.

If it is true, I must say I doubt the labels would sell cheaper to other services. Somebody might decided to sell those songs at a loss to keep the one dollar price point, but the labels would raise prices for everybody, except maybe wal-mart, because of course they can find some way to be evil and make threats and bully their way into whatever the hell they want.

[Tommy Wasabi]

Won't work. They'll just blame their lost profits on piracy and spend another billion dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Then when the boycott ends a month later and sales come back, they'll point to the extra money and say "see, the threat of lawsuits is working."


This is soooooo sad - but sorry to say - sooooooo true. This is another example of why having too many lawyers in the world IS A BAD THING. Maybe we could ask Congress to enforce a ceiling limit on the number of lawyers - that way, there is a fixed amount - this could possible keep the number of frivolous lawsuits to a few billion per year <grin>.

On the other hand, if congress would inact a law that basically says - you can sue whomever you want - but if the judge degrees it as frivolous and you loose - the attorney has to pay all the fees. If it is an attorney that is bring the lawsuit - then the attorney pays all the fees - for both sides!!

Ummmm - ah, wait a second, for a second there I was dreaming. "Yes, your honor. I agree with council on this point - we need more lawyers."

And the nightmare continues...

THE OPPOSITE OF CONGRESS IS PROGRESS

[morespce54]

[QUOTE=benpatient]pre-napster levels?

there are millions of people on KaZaA right now, sharing tens of millions of files.


yes, most of the files are crap, and don't work, etc, but they are there.

QUOTE]


Maybe there is (still), but the one thing they should focus on now is the attitude of peoples. I guess they'll never learn. When your intended customers stop paying for your product, it's usually: (a) because it's crap or (b) because it's too expensive. :D

Bottom line, it's your customers that decide. No matter what they are thinking or saying. wlcome back Napster ;)

[dontmatter]

Any other company going this route would die, but remember the influence and brand awareness that Apple has built up, and thinking different could work out very well.

Basically, Apple dutifully price individual tracks at whatever price the big 5 think is best - ie they roll over, ha ha. Behind the scenes, Apple go all out to build up the biggest collection of decent indie music on the planet, (not as a record label, but as the store) and when the total collection of indie music stored on their servers is at say 500000 plus tracks, then it would be time to screw the big 5 totally ie relegate the big 5 collection to page 2.
sell the independents' singles at 80 cents, albums at $8 and market the indie music offerings like crazy.

It would be a backward step in some ways in the short term, ie the bubblegum crowd would be a bit disappointed that mainstream stuff was harder to find and a bit pricey, and maybe even the big 5 would pull their collections, but with Jobs and co on the marketing job, eventually consumers would come round to the fact that there is a reason that the hippest brand in digital music is predominantly offering access to very good quality indie music that is basically little known in the market place because the big 5 has been swamping choice with their inflated advertising budgets. And the indie music would at least be sold on terms that are good for APPLE, and the artists.

In the long term there will be many artists currently tied to the big 5 who will eventually be out of contract and those mainstream artists I am sure would be very interested in going the iTMS route. So the big names would eventually be represented on itunes again in another incarnation.

Man, I'd like to think that this would work....but I just don't think good music has enough popular appeal.

Still, I would very much like to see apple increase it's indie collection as much as possible, and more than that, market it. One tiny step they could take for indie stuff would be allowing for searching by record label, because it would take up almost no space on itms, but I would totally go, hmm, lets see what they're carrying from sub-pop...oh! heard good things about this, let's preview....OK, I have to buy this.

That, and selling in apple lossless are the two things I want.

[LethalWolfe]

I think the Post is lying. Steve Jobs may say and imply many things, but I've never once seen him flat-out lie to the public. He explicitly said that the $0.99 price isn't changing, and until I see otherwise, I'm going to believe him.

That being said, I too think ITMS costs too much.

I just ordered some CDs from the BMG Music Club (http://www.bmgmusic.com/). While their catalogs are full MSRP, they always have special discounts and bonusses. I ordered a 6-disc Chicago box set (105 songs) for $37, a 5-disc 80's compilation (95 tracks) for $25, and two single-disc albums (13 tracks each) for $2 each. Including estimated shipping charges and tax, the total price comes to about $97, or about $7.46 per disc. There are 226 tracks, resulting in an average cost of 43 cents per song including shipping/tax or 29 cents per song without shipping/tax.

You heard it right: 29 cents per song. For CDs, with all the liner material, purchased directly from BMG (an RIAA member.) Which is why 99 cents per song for a download (where shipping and tax isn't charged) is highway robbery. Downloads should cost less not more than CDs.

It also shows you how much you're getting robbed in stores. BMG is selling directly to me for an average price of $5 per disc (not counting shipping/tax, even though a lot of that shipping charge is profit). It costs about $1/disc to manufacture (maybe slightly more for box sets, but not that much more. So they are taking $4/disc profit from me to pay the artists and run their operation.

But when you buy those same albums in stores, you are paying $8-12 for a discount album, and $15-18 per disc for a full-price album. I think we can be certain that BMG isn't charging the stores $5/disc, or we'd see stores charging much less in order to compete with each other. That 60-260% markup (between what I pay a local store vs. what I pay BMG through their music club) is mostly going to the record labels and the RIAA-owned distribution channels.

Maybe the music industry wouldn't be losing all that money if they'd come to grips with the fact that an informed public simply doesn't appreciate paying a 250% profit margin for nothing more than a distribution channel.


You comparison is way off because of BMG's (and other companies like them) unique business model. BMG loses a ton of money on their loss leaders, but they more than make it up from selling overpriced CDs and by "selling" CDs to people that don't keep up on their account. I did BMG and Columbia house for a few months but I never stayed w/it 'cause staying on top of it was too much of a PITA (plus they rarely, if ever, have bands that I like).

Jomama:
This would be the WORST thing the music industry can do. As is, Apple only gets what, 20 cents on the dollar..and they do most of the work. Jobs needs to make a stand.

The labels spend far more money signing bands (including all associated costs) than Apple does running iTMS.


Lethal

[dontmatter]

ah the greedy bastards are at it again... it would be quite interesting if we could unite for one month to boycott the entire music industry. no buying cds, itms, listening to the radio, watching vh1 or mtv, buying music related magazines (rolling stone), etc... though it surely wouldn't kill the industry, it would seriously hit them in the pocket book, which seems to be the only place they have any feelings. the loss in advertising dollars alone would surely commit one exec to throw himself out a window :D

No, no, my friend. You can always buy music, in CD form, itms, etc, and you can always read music related media and you can always listen to the radio. Just, not anything but indie labels. Listen to kickass radio stations like seattle's kexp (online, of course... www.kexp.org), and all other radio stations with websites of .org.

[iMeowbot]

. . . and failed. Labels do seem to be handing out different deals to each service to see what will work, and the variable prices and rights granted to buymusic.com were unsuccessful enough that it had to be rolled back into the parent company. I'm expecting to see more experiments like that for a while. These companies will want to see for themselves what sells, they're not going to blindly trust the word of one retailer.

[Porchland]

According to the transcript of the conference call (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/04/29.9.shtml)

Thus I don't put much credence in the Post's report. Why would Jobs say the rumors aren't true if it had already been decided to raise the prices and the news could come out any day?? He would have been much more vague in his answer. There's not too many ways his answer can be interpreted, so as far as he is concerned, the price isn't going to change for now.

Maybe his decision to say that was a way to stop the labels from pressuring Apple for a price hike, and this leak is the labels' retaliation? Who knows.

Apple and the labels are doling the giant-sumo-wrestlers-wolly-bully thing in the press. It's happeing in the Europe iTMS digital rights negotiations and it's happening in the domestic pricing negotiations.

My guess: The labels want to negotiate a better deal in Europe and the rest of the world by leaving the domestic pricing model the way it is. Apple has to play along to some extent if they want to distribute iTMS in Europe, but I think the business model is going to be radically different in five years when the big five labels have a smaller share of the total download market than they do today.

And, as I've written here before, I think Apple will own a label before it's all said and done. Time Warner is the model; some content and some distribution helps you have some control over both.

[coolfactor]

Why should all songs be the same price? They're not all the same quality.

Simple. Apple Simplicity is the reason all songs should be the same price. To me, nobody can judge which songs are actually "better" than others. They only ruler they have is "popularity ratings". The music industry sure has it backwards. The more demand for something should drive the price down, not up.

I am confident Apple will keep the price at 0.99 per song, in the US at least. Now I can see Canada having a $1.25 per song rate because of the exchange rate, even if PureTracks has songs at 0.99.

Anyway, nothing to get all worked up over. Apple is on our side, and they will fight for us. We have the iTMS because they did just that in the first place.

[vitaboy]

Just like it is the labels that are holding back Apple from launching iTMS in Europe.

This is obviously a greedy little pricing test on the part of the labels, to see if consumers will pay $1.25 for a 128 kbps download.

The only logical and correct response is that people continue to buy the $0.99 songs and NEVER buy $1.25 songs. Then Apple can clearly show that raising the price above $0.99 had a detrimental impact to sales.

Let's make this clear - this has the signs of the labels dirty little pawprints all over it. We need to continue to support Apple buy continuing to buy in general, giving Apple more leverage over pricing, but that probably won't happen until Apple hits the billion songs per year threshold.

So just avoid anything that is more than the $0.99 per song or $9.99 per album like the plague and give the labels a whack in the head.

[iMeowbot]

First of 128Kbps in AAC format is twice the quality of an MP3 making it near CD quality. It would be perfect if it were lossless. Oh, wait, Apple is venturing into a compressed losses format.

Yep, and they went with their own AAC derivative rather than the other lossless schemes that have been in development for MPEG. Really now, why would Apple go their own way on this, after crowing for so long about standards, unless they really, really want their lossless format to work with Fair Play?

And you know? 25¢ is just about the premium I'd be willing to pay to get something in that format.

[ALoLA]

I hope this is false as well. I'd be hesitant to spend much more on music if the price were upped to $1.25. I've already bought more music from iTunes than I had the previous 10 years. At 99 cents, I almost bought on impulse. But at $1.25, I'd give it a second thought. I did buy some albums, but a good portion of my recent purchases were individual songs. And even if this were truly false, the RIAA is not helping their cause by coming out and correcting this rumor. Frankly, the damage that is being done (i.e. people going back/continuing to use P2P software) may not be reversible. Whether it's greed, stupidity, being out-of-touch, lacking vision, what have you, the RIAA has proven that history can repeat itself.

[chasingapple]

Boy those record companies are GREEEEADY!!! Screw them, if I see a $1.25 song I wont buy it just because of this, I will instead look for it on Kazaa. No I do not want to, I would much rather just pay a BUCK to get it, but if the record companies can steal more money from me for the same song that was 0.99 yesterday then I say do the same and become a pirate! SCREW YOU SONY and the other 4, you wanna steal from me? FINE, I will steal from you!

I guarentee you one day the record companies will go away, and places like iTMS will be the new portals for bands to get their music out there.

Cheers mates, fight back!

[greg75]

I hope that you know that these services are ILLEGAL? Actually, they are legal in russia because the law there allow a company to not pay any copyright fees as long as they pay for a license from the governement. So of all the music sold on these sites, not a single $ goes back to the artists. So its worst than P2P because artists dont get paid and you get screwed by giving the $ to the russian governement.
Do you get paid by Steve Jobs or the RIAA to lie?

The legal status of Allofmp3 (http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#Is%20Allofmp3%20legal?)
Russian copyright legislation allows phonograms to be performed publicly without the authorization of the copyright owner for broadcasting and cable transmission. (Article 39) The Internet could be deemed to fall under this exemption. The copyright involved have to be paid to a collecting society.

Allofmp3 has signed agreements for this with Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS). According to license № ЛС-ЗМ-02-36 the Internet-project www.allofmp3.com, has the right to use musical compositions by providing downloads. Under the license agreement Allofmp3 pays out fees to ROMS for downloaded materials that are subject to the Russian Federation Copyright And Related Rights Law.

ROMS is a member of CISAC (www.cisac.org) - the International confederation of authors and composers societies. ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign.

We have received this confirmation from ROMS: I can confirm the legality of allofmp3.com
You can legally buy/download mp3-songs from this site if it does not breaks the law the national legislation of the country in which you will be during that moment.
Sorry for my english.

Yours faithfully, the assistant to the lawyer
of the Russian society on multimedia and to digital networks (ROMS) www.roms.ru,

Bahanets Roman Igorevich

Is using Allofmp3 legal in my country? (http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#Is%20using%20Allofmp3%20legal?)
In the User Agreement Allofmp3 states that you may not use the service if it is in conflict with the legislation of your country. Of course Allofmp3 has added this as a kind of disclaimer.

Who can tell if using Allofmp3 is against the law in your country? We doubt if anyone can in the current jungle of legal issues on copyright and internet.

Some thoughts:

Downloading copyrighted material for personal use through filesharing is legal in countries like Canada and The Netherlands even though the downloader knows the uploader is acting against the law. In this perspective it seems highly unlikely that downloading from a licensed supplier like Allofmp3 will be declared illegal.

DJChemistry, a Law student who has written a thesis on the US' efforts to establish a minimum set of international intellectual property standards concludes that:
You are completely home free by downloading from this website right now. In the future, I cannot guarantee so. However, any changes that will affect the legal status of these downloads will be conspicuous and more than likely featured in the NY Times many times over.

Another interesting opinion comes from Neolex, a high school student majoring in law in New York City. He comes from the Ukraine and has researched US law and the role of ROMS in Russia:
Now lets look at the US law. You can legally acquire music from anyone who has a legitimate right to distribute it. You can buy from a iTunes, because it was licensed by RIAA, you can buy it from Canada, if it is licensed by CRIA, you can buy it from Russia, if it was licensed by ROMS. Now the key difference is that RIAA and CRIA need to obtain licenses from songwriters and artists. ROMS owns rights to intellectual property automatically.

[jero]

NOT GOOD.

[PlaceofDis]

lets hope this doesnt happen, then the iTMS wont be able to sell anything, thanks for the update, at least apple are claiming this is untrue....lets hope thats the truth

[faintedlife]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=575&ncid=738&e=6&u=/nm/20040507/wr_nm/tech_apple_music_dc

Apple Denies Report of Hiked Online Music Price
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. on Friday flatly denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store.
*
"These rumors aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track."

Apple's statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple's music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store.

Since the launch of the music store last April, which works with Apple's popular iPod digital music player, the company has sold more than 70 million songs. The store now has more than 700,000 tracks for sale.

[DGFan]

Looks like the NY Post naysayers were spot on

[wdlove]

Just goes to show how out of touch the industry is with its customers. They have FINALLY found a way to get a large number of people to quit using P2P and buy their music legally-- and so they decide to kill it by raising prices.

They just tend to be arrogant and greedy at their peril. Consumers have the power of boycott. Now that the economy is improving it's getting worse. I feel very frustrated.

[VeloDrax]

I've spent hundreds of dollars at the iTunes music store doing my best to support a good service and do the right thing.

However, if the RIAA or whoever raises music prices on iTunes, I swear to God, I will never purchase another digital music file as long as I live. In fact, all the time that I currently spend at the iTunes Music Store will be spent pirating music and allowing others unfettered access to my music library.

I'm not kidding record labels. And I bet there are millions of others just like me.

[Uragon]

I don't think it's true..because the price hike will certainly affect ITMS and Apple. Unless that's what they want. But if you read the article, it makes alot of sense to ask ITMS for a price hike, because it is competing now with their newly opened music store to which they are selling at a lower price instead of 1.25

[mobilebandit]

Soulseek is the best P2P out there... I've downloaded at least 300 albums since I got broadband... they even have the new Morrissey album on there right now. I have never had a problem with their files not being what they should. Build Nicotine and avoid paying for music at all.

[LethalWolfe]

Simple. Apple Simplicity is the reason all songs should be the same price. To me, nobody can judge which songs are actually "better" than others. They only ruler they have is "popularity ratings". The music industry sure has it backwards. The more demand for something should drive the price down, not up.


I agree that all the songs should be the same price, but if something is in demand it drives the price UP not down.


Lethal

[gwangung]

Anyone give a thought that these "leaks" about higher prices have been planted by Real or Microsoft?

[autrefois]

Anyone give a thought that these "leaks" about higher prices have been planted by Real or Microsoft?

A thought? Thinking before posting? Surely you jest! :)

I'm glad Apple has come out to deny the Post story, and some people posting here read Steve's relevant quote from the conference call very explicitly stating the price would still be 99 cents despite any rumors to the contrary.

It was a false alarm--prices are staying at 99 cents per song. I don't know who gave the Post the story, but it's false and thank goodness.

[chasingapple]

Ok. Condition changed back to green status, shutting down kazaa ;)

[Macmaniac]

Glad to see that Apple responded to this article quickly! Thank goodness!

[shamino]

... "selling" CDs to people that don't keep up on their account. I did BMG and Columbia house for a few months but I never stayed w/it 'cause staying on top of it was too much of a PITA
Are you aware of the fact that, with a simple phone call, you can tell them to eliminate automatic shipments? I haven't sent in a "don't send me anything" reply card for over 10 years, and they have never sent me an album I didn't want. I get the monthly mailings, and the reply card says "no automatic shipment", so I can simply throw the mailing in the trash if I don't want to buy anything.
(plus they rarely, if ever, have bands that I like).
That's a completely different matter.

[Sonofhaig]

This news must have brought lots of concern from Share holders...
I wonder if they've monitored the response to this news? I'm glad Apple responded to this with positive news. Wheww.... I for one was really scared for a moment!

[LethalWolfe]

Are you aware of the fact that, with a simple phone call, you can tell them to eliminate automatic shipments? I haven't sent in a "don't send me anything" reply card for over 10 years, and they have never sent me an album I didn't want. I get the monthly mailings, and the reply card says "no automatic shipment", so I can simply throw the mailing in the trash if I don't want to buy anything.


No I was not aware of that. I only did Columbia House for a few months when I was in high school (8 or 9 years ago).


Lethal

[shamino]

I agree that all the songs should be the same price, but if something is in demand it drives the price UP not down.
The usual laws of supply and demand don't count when supply is infinite.

My buying a song from ITMS does not in any way impact your ability to buy the same song. Demand does not have any impact on supply. (Except for the overall CPU/bandwidth requirements of the server, but that is only affected by overall purchases, not by some being more popular than others.)

[itsa]

As an artist on itunes, I think this is an outrage!

The "label" gets $.57 for each song of mine downloaded from them. You can guess how much of that I see. Lets put it this way, NOT MUCH!
But this is how I look at it. Other than sending apple a copy of my songs and info the label does NO work. $.57 per song is not much for some rights to my music, but $.57 for doing nothing is a real good deal for the label.

What do I get out of it as an artist? Sound scans! Everytime you buy a song it gets recorded. I get credit for each song. The more I sell the better "deal" I can get on my next release.

THE BIG 5 ARE KILLING ARTIST!

[dongmin]

What have we learned here?

Never believe anything from the NY Post regarding Apple.

Can we permanently classify NY Post rumors as Page 2 stuff?

[kylos]

The usual laws of supply and demand don't count when supply is infinite.

My buying a song from ITMS does not in any way impact your ability to buy the same song. Demand does not have any impact on supply. (Except for the overall CPU/bandwidth requirements of the server, but that is only affected by overall purchases, not by some being more popular than others.)

Yes they do. Simply, you'll be willing to pay more for something you want more (higher demand). It's one of the best ways to make a profit, being able to meet a higher demand without a significant increase in overall cost. And a more popular song will be downloaded more than the average, so it will contribute to overhead costs. Having too many good songs will cause diminishing returns at some point.



Allofmp3.com is able to obtain legal russian copies of american and other music through the russian laws and then distribute them. This is comparable to what was done in the United States in its early days when very little American literature existed. American printers would print works of british authors and sell them for a much cheaper rate than the imported works. This didn't make the british publishers very happy and as this practice grew among various nations, countries devised agreements amongst themselves about such practices. I researched copyright laws for a paper I wrote when the itms first came out, but I'm not sure of the general format of these agreements anymore. As it is, I wouldn't be surprised if these agreements restrict redistributing a material in the country of original copyright. So likely allofmp3 would be breaching international treaty by distributing to americans, which actually would fall on the russian government to correct in order to keep the peace with other nations. allofmp3 isn't opening new territory in copyright law. This matter has been dealt with 200 years ago.

bibliography. Copyrights and copywrongs. 2001. (I forget the authors name. First starts with an s and last with a v i think. Indian name, i think) :D
ahha, S. Vaidhyanathan

I should add that whether or not allofmp3 is "legitimate" it certainly is not morally sound. And don't tell me that the labels are screwing you so you should be able to screw them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do what's right. Maybe you can eventually convince them that their methods are bad for you and thus not so good for them either.

[captain kirk]

Well I have to say after reading the first couple of pages on this thread I decided to give allofmp3.com a go. After all itms is not yet available here in the UK so why not. Anyway I can categorically say it is the biggest pos I have ever come across. The downloads are less reliable than limewire. The site is slow and unresponsive, an all round pain in the backside. Bring on itms UK.

[LethalWolfe]

The usual laws of supply and demand don't count when supply is infinite.

My buying a song from ITMS does not in any way impact your ability to buy the same song. Demand does not have any impact on supply. (Except for the overall CPU/bandwidth requirements of the server, but that is only affected by overall purchases, not by some being more popular than others.)


I agree that normal supply and demand rules don't apply in this situation, but if there is already enough demand (i.e. you are meeting/exceeding your sales goals) there is no incentive to decrease prices (which usually done to increase demand). If people are more than willing to pay 99 cents a song there is no compelling reason to drop it down to 90 cents a song.


Lethal

[sethypoo]

I think that someday inflation will take effect, and prices will rise, but not any time soon.

And yes, why does Wal*Mart get away with selling songs for .88? Are the record companies going to make their prices go up too?

[bobme]

An outcome consistent with the rumor and the denial would be that a higher quality song would become available for a buck-twenty-five. I would pay this in a heartbeat for lossless compression. AACs are useless to me - they sound like crap on my home system.

[Tulse]

And yes, why does Wal*Mart get away with selling songs for .88? Are the record companies going to make their prices go up too?

I presume that, like a lot of Wal-Mart items, the songs are sold at either break-even or perhaps a loss. The store isn't there for Wal-Mart to actually make money, but so that it is seen as having a play in this market. And I would guess that whatever contract Wal-Mart has with the record labels says nothing about final price, just what the revenue is that the labels get from a sale.

[jelloshotsrule]

As far as pricing longer, hotter, or more valuable tunes higher than shorter, older, less valuable tunes, it would be fair, it might make sense businesswise, but it would be really really annoying for me the music shopper.

why though? i mean, how would it really affect your shopping? sure, it'd affect the price... but with oneclick, it doesn't really mess up the shopping experience per se...

personally, i've only purchased 1 album and maybe 2 or 3 other songs (singles) from itms... mainly because the music i like isn't on there at all. so it's possible that if that's where most of your music comes from, it could be seen as bad. but maybe "annoying" isn't the right word for it?

[ALoLA]

I presume that, like a lot of Wal-Mart items, the songs are sold at either break-even or perhaps a loss. The store isn't there for Wal-Mart to actually make money, but so that it is seen as having a play in this market. And I would guess that whatever contract Wal-Mart has with the record labels says nothing about final price, just what the revenue is that the labels get from a sale.

Anyone get the feeling that WalMart is to the retail sales industry, like Microsoft is to the computer industry? :D

[corey]

As an artist on itunes, I think this is an outrage!

The "label" gets $.57 for each song of mine downloaded from them. You can guess how much of that I see. Lets put it this way, NOT MUCH!
But this is how I look at it. Other than sending apple a copy of my songs and info the label does NO work. $.57 per song is not much for some rights to my music, but $.57 for doing nothing is a real good deal for the label.the label does no work....except for paying for your recording, possibly some promotion, possibly paying for your touring....ya. how exactly do they do much more work for a cd copy? manufacturing and shipping dont cost all that much at their scale.

and if the deal is really THAT bad, you are foolish for signing the contract.

[dontmatter]

As an artist on itunes, I think this is an outrage!

The "label" gets $.57 for each song of mine downloaded from them. You can guess how much of that I see. Lets put it this way, NOT MUCH!
But this is how I look at it. Other than sending apple a copy of my songs and info the label does NO work. $.57 per song is not much for some rights to my music, but $.57 for doing nothing is a real good deal for the label.

What do I get out of it as an artist? Sound scans! Everytime you buy a song it gets recorded. I get credit for each song. The more I sell the better "deal" I can get on my next release.

THE BIG 5 ARE KILLING ARTIST!

two questions...how much do you get per song? And, what artist on ITMS are you?

[Swift]

is a piece of Murdoch... garbage.

Its political coverage is just as factual as its coverage of Apple. :cool:

[dontmatter]

Anyone get the feeling that WalMart is to the retail sales industry, like Microsoft is to the computer industry? :D

dude. walmart is way, way worse than microsoft. microsoft sells crap, so does walmart. But, walmart screws it's employees, local buisnesses, people working in sweat shops in third world countries, manufacturing jobs in the US, etc.

[Freg3000]

I am very happy Apple cleared this up.

And to everyone freaking out about the seemingly complete legality of allofmp3.com, all of you are too smart to know that it is too good to be true. Just because the illegality does not reach your doorstep doesn't mean that the service is completely legal. So many artists on allofmp3.com have decided to not release their music for sale digitally, like the Beatles.

You can try to use compulsory licensing to trick yourself into believing this service is 100% clean, but it is simply not. Somewhere along the lines something is wrong, and that is why I am not going to use the service.

[DGFan]

I am very happy Apple cleared this up.

And to everyone freaking out about the seemingly complete legality of allofmp3.com, all of you are too smart to know that it is too good to be true. Just because the illegality does not reach your doorstep doesn't mean that the service is completely legal. So many artists on allofmp3.com have decided to not release their music for sale digitally, like the Beatles.

You can try to use compulsory licensing to trick yourself into believing this service is 100% clean, but it is simply not. Somewhere along the lines something is wrong, and that is why I am not going to use the service.

LOL
You're so funny. And you can't seem to keep straight the distinction between ethical and legal. We can debate the ethics of using AllOfMP3 all day but the legality is not in question.

[greg75]

Just because the illegality does not reach your doorstep doesn't mean that the service is completely legal.
Have you heard about innocent until proven guilty?

Do you have anything besides FUD to offer?

[SiliconAddict]

Update: Apple has denied that prices will increase.

Then a rescind my previous statement **goes and downloads more songs off of iTMS.** :)

[dontmatter]

Just trying to figure out some things about the RIAA-it is an association of which labels, besides the big five? They list their members at http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Does anybody know if these are all just divisions of the big five, or are any of these recognizable indie labels? It looks like a heck of a lot....

[travishill]

LOL
You're so funny. And you can't seem to keep straight the distinction between ethical and legal. We can debate the ethics of using AllOfMP3 all day but the legality is not in question.

If you are coming from the U.S., you are violating law by using AllOfMp3.

While it may be legal where they are based (who knows, really?), causing a complete copy of a protected work to be created and sent to you over the wire that you have no license for is illegal.

Trust me, the actual copyright owners (usually the music labels themselves, not some russian organization or what not) have not given any permission to AllOfMP3 to redistribute their material, and since the copyright owner is the only one who matters in the U.S. copyright law sense, you are violating the law by using their service.

[Freg3000]

LOL
You're so funny. And you can't seem to keep straight the distinction between ethical and legal. We can debate the ethics of using AllOfMP3 all day but the legality is not in question.

Perhaps your are right. Maybe I am blurring the lines between ethical and legal. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean it is right. Most people I know who don't use P2P elect not to do so because they know that no money goes to the artists, not because they are worried about the legality or being caught by the RIAA. If you think the artists get anything from allofmp3 you are kidding yourself. And that is what I think most people want to believe. They do have just legal reasoning from their perspective, but that does not mean that this service the a gift from God and totally clean. Maybe those of your downloading are not committing crimes, but someone in Russia surely is...

Have you heard about innocent until proven guilty?

Do you have anything besides FUD to offer?

No FUD, only my opinions.

Surely I know that allofmp3 has not been convicted or anything, but I think it would be hard for anyone to say that they are running an entirely legal enterprise, especially since dozens of artists do not permit their music to be sold online....yet allofmp3 is able to sell it to you.

I fully understand that it is completely legal for end user to download of allofmp3, and it seems that is all some people need to download away. Just know that legal in this case certainly does not mean legal in the way the iTMS is. Something is most definitely wrong, but you can choose to ignore that if all you are concerned about is your legality.

The artists still get nothing. Good luck to you all. :)

[dontmatter]

If you are coming from the U.S., you are violating law by using AllOfMp3.

While it may be legal where they are based (who knows, really?), causing a complete copy of a protected work to be created and sent to you over the wire that you have no license for is illegal.

Trust me, the actual copyright owners (usually the music labels themselves, not some russian organization or what not) have not given any permission to AllOfMP3 to redistribute their material, and since the copyright owner is the only one who matters in the U.S. copyright law sense, you are violating the law by using their service.

I don't get what it is with people and debating the legality of ALLOFMP3. Maybe there's a loophole, and it's legal, maybe there isn't, and it's illegal. Should that make the difference between your using it or not? The only reasons to use or not to use are morals, and, if illegal, are you going to get caught. If you tried to prove to me that legality does matter, the only basis you could fall back on is that obeying the law is moral. Not only is the argument for that quite weak, but in this case it's kind of irrelevant- is it any more moral to exploit a loophole in the law, than it is to do something illegal? No. Further, I really don't think that what has been decided as law or not has any effect on morality. The question at hand is, is geting music from such a site moral, or not? To answer that, I'd first ask how if there's any difference, morally, with this than p2p (yeah, you're spending money, but doesn't look like anybody who's earned it is getting it, least of all the artists). If there isn't a difference, than I refer you to all the p2p debates on this thread.

So now, I think we can all give up debating and talking about copyright law, until somebody can prove that obeying the law is moraly neccessary, and strongly enough that loopholes in the law are unimportant-it's not the spirit, but the letter that counts.

[cspace]

just think...not that long ago, the RIAA would have had to pay for this kind of focus group :rolleyes:

[itsa]

two questions...how much do you get per song? And, what artist on ITMS are you?


Well I have not seen a dime from any sales at this point. I may never.
When you have a "deal" you get a up front "loan" if you will.
Most get whats called a points deal to pay off. MOST never pay it off.
The big 5 set it up that way. With a REAL good deal an artist can get up to a dollor per CD sold. That's a dollor to pay off some of that "loan". I don't have a REAL good deal. :)

Like I said before, My feel good is to get sound scan points.


Will not disclose what artist I am to avoid bad blood with the powers that be. I just dissed them. :)

[greg75]

Surely I know that allofmp3 has not been convicted or anything, but I think it would be hard for anyone to say that they are running an entirely legal enterprise, especially since dozens of artists do not permit their music to be sold online....yet allofmp3 is able to sell it to you.
Compulsory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compulsory&db=*) licensing.

How can Allofmp3 legally offer Beatles and Metallica music? (http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3faq.htm#How%20can%20Allofmp3%20legally%20offer%20Beatles%20and%20Metallica%20music?)
The Beatles and Metallica have not authorized their music to be sold online for anyone. Yet Allofmp3 offers about any Beatles and Metallica album ever released.

There are two reasons:

* Foreign works released before 1973 are not protected in Russia. Russia signed the Berne Convention without the retrospective protection.
* The second reason is that under Russian law a collecting society like ROMS automatically has the right to license ANY intellectual property to Russian distributors, even if the author is not subject to Russian law.

This explains why Allofmp3 can offer music that is not licensed for downloading in the US and Europe, like music by The Beatles or Metallica.
As for morality, when people on these forums claim that iTMS screws the artists as well, the common response is "If the artists didn't like the contract, they didn't have to enter into it". Well, if the artists don't like the royalties they're (not) getting from ROMS, they didn't have to publish their work on this planet.

[jelloshotsrule]

Well, if the artists don't like the royalties they're (not) getting from ROMS, they didn't have to publish their work on this planet.

hahahahah.

so true

:rolleyes:

i just can't tell if you're for real, or if you're pretending to be....

[greg75]

i just can't tell if you're for real, or if you're pretending to be....
Devil's advocate. I was pointing out the stupidity of the "Using iTMS is moral because the artists themselves entered into contracts that allows them to be screwed" argument.

If people want to use iTMS, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you're not screwing artists. You are, just less than others.

[DGFan]

If you are coming from the U.S., you are violating law by using AllOfMp3.

While it may be legal where they are based (who knows, really?), causing a complete copy of a protected work to be created and sent to you over the wire that you have no license for is illegal.

Trust me, the actual copyright owners (usually the music labels themselves, not some russian organization or what not) have not given any permission to AllOfMP3 to redistribute their material, and since the copyright owner is the only one who matters in the U.S. copyright law sense, you are violating the law by using their service.

US copyright law matters not one whit in the case of AllOfMP3.com.

[acidrock]

Well I head some rummor months back that apple was lowering the price to
$.79 per song. That never happened, just goes to show you. I would wait until you hear something direct from apple.

edit: I"m stupid and didn't read the whole post

[dontmatter]

Well I have not seen a dime from any sales at this point. I may never.
When you have a "deal" you get a up front "loan" if you will.
Most get whats called a points deal to pay off. MOST never pay it off.
The big 5 set it up that way. With a REAL good deal an artist can get up to a dollor per CD sold. That's a dollor to pay off some of that "loan". I don't have a REAL good deal. :)

Like I said before, My feal good is to get sound scan points.


Will not disclose what artist I am to avoid bad blood with the powers that be. I just dissed them. :)

heh. rediculous the things one must do not to get in trouble.

[travishill]

US copyright law matters not one whit in the case of AllOfMP3.com.

It matters a lot if you are using it FROM the United States.

In no way does using AllOfMP3.com grant you a license from the copyright owner to their material. Because of this, it is copyright infringement, whereever the source.

[PowerMacMan]

Apple Computer has flatly denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store. "These rumours aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track." Apple's statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple's music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store.

Since the launch of the music store last April, which works with Apple's popular iPod digital music player, the company has sold more than 70 million songs. That figure was less than Apple's goal of 100 million, but more than anyone else. The store now has more than 700,000 tracks for sale. Apple needed to renegotiate the contracts with the five major record labels, because they were initially one-year contracts and were signed ahead of the launch of the online music store last April. Some of the terms of the contracts did change. The number of times an iTunes user can create a CD with the same playlist has been cut to seven from 10, Sequeira said.

Source (http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=19791&category=main)

[greg75]

It matters a lot if you are using it FROM the United States.

In no way does using AllOfMP3.com grant you a license from the copyright owner to their material. Because of this, it is copyright infringement, whereever the source.
Please cite which paragraph of which US law makes it illegal to purchase copyrighted works from a foreign company which is distributing the works legally.

[travishill]

Please cite which paragraph of which US law makes it illegal to purchase copyrighted works from a foreign company which is distributing the works legally.

When you go buy a song or a movie, you aren't just purchasing an instance of that copywritten work. You are purchasing a license to use that work.

You must be granted a license to legally use a given piece of copywritten material. A foreign company that has no such licenses to the work cannot possibly transfer you such a license.

[DGFan]

When you go buy a song or a movie, you aren't just purchasing an instance of that copywritten work. You are purchasing a license to use that work.

You must be granted a license to legally use a given piece of copywritten material. A foreign company that has no such licenses to the work cannot possibly transfer you such a license.

Not true. Pull out a music CD. There is no license agreement in there (at least there aren't in any that I could find). It's true that some music stores are including license agreements. However, there is nothing in US law that requires a license agreement when purchasing music.

What is true is that if I am not the copyright owner of a particular work I cannot distribute it without permission from the copyright owner. I also cannot use it commercially (which would generally entail distribution) without permission from the copyright owner.

However, unless and until the US changes its laws, it is patently false that I must be granted permission from the copyright owner to privately use a piece of copyrighted material.

Please stop spreading FUD about copyrights. It's not helping the discussion.

[greg75]

Not true. Pull out a music CD. There is no license agreement in there (at least there aren't in any that I could find). It's true that some music stores are including license agreements. However, there is nothing in US law that requires a license agreement when purchasing music.

What is true is that if I am not the copyright owner of a particular work I cannot distribute it without permission from the copyright owner. I also cannot use it commercially (which would generally entail distribution) without permission from the copyright owner.

However, unless and until the US changes its laws, it is patently false that I must be granted permission from the copyright owner to privately use a piece of copyrighted material.
Exactly.

[kaneda]

Apple should just shut off music store and protests...Record Companies will panic and die! Itunes is the only weapon that record companies got against p2p...

[Dippo]

Not true. Pull out a music CD. There is no license agreement in there (at least there aren't in any that I could find). It's true that some music stores are including license agreements. However, there is nothing in US law that requires a license agreement when purchasing music.

What is true is that if I am not the copyright owner of a particular work I cannot distribute it without permission from the copyright owner. I also cannot use it commercially (which would generally entail distribution) without permission from the copyright owner.

However, unless and until the US changes its laws, it is patently false that I must be granted permission from the copyright owner to privately use a piece of copyrighted material.

Please stop spreading FUD about copyrights. It's not helping the discussion.

Legalities and Morality Aside!

I think that AllofMP3s.com demostrates what can be done if all of these RIAA imposed restrictions are lifted. (And I am not talking about getting rid of copyrights either)

If Apple was allowed to strike a deal in which song were bought at around 1 cent per Meg, and also allowed custom encoding without DRM. That would be the ultimate in Music Stores. The selection alone at AllofMP3s is enough to make me want to buy something.

Seriously, they have a good model and it's a shame that it can't be followed over here.

[NavyIntel007]

What I find pathetic is that as soon as people hear a RUMOR that songs are going up to $1.25, everyone says "well I'm not going to buy from iTunes anymore." It's still damn $.99, quit complaining. Half of you complain and don't even buy from them because it's not the quality. In reality most of you will complain and still buy from Apple because it's apple.

Gas prices are $1.83 in Florida for regular... $2.03 for premium. Yet I'm sure your parents aren't running out to sell their SUVs or BMWs. Meanwhile profits at MobilExxon are up 30%.

Newsflash: Price gouging is everywhere. You won't get away from it.

[JFreak]

i think the big5 are scared about their business model of selling one good song in an album - which is usually the truth, but luckily not always - and therefore trying to charge 15 dollars for one hit while giving 9 filler songs and artwork for free. that's what they have done with cd sales, as the one hit will effectively cost the price of an album if the other songs are never listened to.

that's why they wish their hit songs would sell for more than the regular **** that just fills cd:s but touches nobody's soul; i'm perfectly ok with it - hell, i'd even pay two dollars for the hit single if i can buy it without the rest of the album i don't listen to anyway - AS LONG AS THE WHOLE ALBUM PRICE DOESN'T RISE OVER TEN DOLLARS. if i can get a cd for 15 dollars, i will simply not pay more than ten dollars for the lossy-compressed files that lack the artwork and have restrictive drm.

in my opinion the 10 dollars per album and 1 dollar per song is magnificent pricing structure, but if the rest of the songs would remain as it is, i'd be willing to pay double for the hit singles. after all, i decide what i buy, and if record labels name a regular song as a hit asking for double price, i will just not buy it.

after all, two dollars for one hit is far less than 15 dollars for the cd. if the rest of the album are filler songs, that two dollar hit is a bargain ;)

---

i wonder what the euro prices will be. currently one euro equals 1.20+ dollars so if i'm right about pricing the album for 15 euros and a song for 1.5 euros, that would mean we are paying the double price (compared to you americans) anyway... so please, don't say 1.25 dollars is too much. try paying 4000 euros (5k us dollars) for a powerbook and complain about that.

[travishill]

Not true. Pull out a music CD. There is no license agreement in there (at least there aren't in any that I could find). It's true that some music stores are including license agreements. However, there is nothing in US law that requires a license agreement when purchasing music.

The license does not have to be explicitly stated. By purchasing the CD, the copyright owner is granting you the right to use that material yourself.

If the copyright owner does not grant you permission, you cannot have someone (from any location) make you a copy and send it to you. You are committing copyright infringement have no rights granted from the copyright owner for that copy whatsoever, and as such it is illegal.

If what you were saying was true, it would legal for anyone to download anything online whether it was a movie, book, song, tv show, video game, etc.- only the people sending it would be liable. This simply isn't the case in the United States. Now Canada, on the other hand.... :rolleyes:

[pioneerMT]

Please cite which paragraph of which US law makes it illegal to purchase copyrighted works from a foreign company which is distributing the works legally.

Here you go. All material in quotes comes directly from the cited portions of the United States Code. The owner of copyright under title 17 has the exclusive right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.” 17 U.S.C. sec. 106(1). “Phonorecords” are “material objects in which sounds...are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. sec. 101. To “reproduce” a phonorecord means “to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated...” 17 U.S.C. sec. 101.

Applying these definitions, it is clear that regardless of any licensing issues, downloading from Allofmp3.com is illegal because an American, who is subject to American law, is creating an unauthorized copy of a “phonorecord” as that term is defined above. When a United States citizen downloads an mp3 file from Russia, he has reproduced a “phonorecord” by causing sounds to be transcribed and fixed in a material object (the hard drive), which sounds can be perceived with the aid of a machine (his computer, iPod, etc).

Notice that the copyright violation comes from the reproduction of the phonorecord, not the lack of any license to listen to or use the work. Think about it: when you purchase a song from the iTunes music store, you are NOT purchasing a license to listen, what you have actually been granted is a license to make a copy of that phonorecord on your hard drive and on the hard drives of any other computers for which the song is “authorized.” It truly does not matter whether the folks in Russia have or even need a license to distribute the music, because U.S. copyright is very clear that YOU need a license to make a copy to your hard drive.

[dcranston]

Here you go. All material in quotes comes directly from the cited portions of the United States Code.

Honestly, and this may be because it's 2:30 AM, I'm impressed. You seriously took the time to look that up.

Although.. that does go against everything else on this message board, you know. You're supposed to argue with "facts" that aren't ever backed up, and in fact are based purely on opinion or overheard ideas from someone else's opinion. For example:

RIAA blows the big one. By not purchasing music, it actually helps all musicians, regardless of whether or not they are signed on a big label!! They make MORE money if we DON'T pay for songs, but download them from Limewire!!

That right there was a big lie that I just made up. Or, we could pull the standard "pissed off at Apple for a weird rumor I just read on this site" line:

Apple hates musicians. Since they're upping the price per track to $5, and keeping the extra $4 as pure profit, they're worse than the RIAA. You guys all think Apple can do no wrong, but you don't see Dell screwing artists. And at least Dell can get a G5 in a laptop. I'm going to go buy a Dell. I swear.

That's a favorite type of thinking. But then there's also the pretty common:

I'm sure Apple loves musicians and fights against the RIAA every day. Honestly, I'd pay upwards of $10 per track on the iTMS. It's just that great.

Well that about sums up our personalities on the board:

1. Whiners Crazy un-proved subjective "facts"
2. Threateners Threaten to switch to PCs (possibly just a subset of whiners)
3. Evangelists Apple can do no wrong (hey, at least they don't whine... ;) )

Then there's the post I quoted. How refreshingly honest. And then there's my post. How... whatever. It's just a post on Macrumors. Rock on.

[thatwendigo]

Applying these definitions, it is clear that regardless of any licensing issues, downloading from Allofmp3.com is illegal because an American, who is subject to American law, is creating an unauthorized copy of a “phonorecord” as that term is defined above. When a United States citizen downloads an mp3 file from Russia, he has reproduced a “phonorecord” by causing sounds to be transcribed and fixed in a material object (the hard drive), which sounds can be perceived with the aid of a machine (his computer, iPod, etc).

By extension, it could be argued that even downloading a song temporarily (say, in your browsercache) is illegal. Even if it's never stored to disk, you've still made a copy that resides in volatile memory and which will be erased when new information replaced it.

A few more points:
US Code, Title 17, Section 501 - Infringement of copyright
Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term ''anyone'' includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

So now we look for Section 602, to see the import regulations:
US Code, Title 17, Section 602 - Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords
Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to -

importation of copies or phonorecords under the authority or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, but not including copies or phonorecords for use in schools, or copies of any audiovisual work imported for purposes other than archival use;
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, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or
importation by or for an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to no more than one copy of an audiovisual work solely for its archival purposes, and no more than five copies or phonorecords of any other work for its library lending or archival purposes, unless the importation of such copies or phonorecords is part of an activity consisting of systematic reproduction or distribution, engaged in by such organization in violation of the provisions of section 108(g)(2).

In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work.

Interestingly, this section gives exemptiong for foreigners carrying physical copies, the importation for personal use, and for scholarly or archoval purposes. I'm digging further into the whole setup, but this is hideously crossreferenced and not entirely clear on the purpose of some of the exemptions. So far, it looks like certain kinds of academic, non-profit, and governmental organizations are exempt from these restrictions, and that fair use is actually pretty poorly defined within the US Code.

[d-fi]

If you are coming from the U.S., you are violating law by using AllOfMp3.

While it may be legal where they are based (who knows, really?), causing a complete copy of a protected work to be created and sent to you over the wire that you have no license for is illegal.

Trust me, the actual copyright owners (usually the music labels themselves, not some russian organization or what not) have not given any permission to AllOfMP3 to redistribute their material, and since the copyright owner is the only one who matters in the U.S. copyright law sense, you are violating the law by using their service.

I had to reply to this because i came across some information that will clear this up

(Note: this post has been copied from slashdot in order to clear things up here apologies to the original poster if this offends him/her)

Those doubts are quickly allayed here http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3info.htm allofmp3.com is perfectly legal under US law. The RIAA doesn't like it, and will tell you otherwise, but they are being no more honest than the MPAA is when it flashes those FBI warnings at the beginning of each DVD telling you you have no right to make a backup copy for personal use ... knowing full well that the law and the courts consistently say otherwise.

The short explaination for those too lazy to follow the above link.

1) Under US law, anyone may import any music so long as they are licensed to do so under the copyright laws of their own country. If you buy a mailorder CD from Canada and the company is licensed by either the artist or the CIAA member company, it is legal to import the CD. If you buy a mailorder CD from the US and the US seller is licensed by the artist (or the RIAA member company), it is legal. Under Russian copyright law, which the US is bound by treaty to respect, allofmp3.com has a license to distribute all copyrighted music from the Russian equivelent of the RIAA, known as ROMS.

The RIAA may hate the fact that you can buy $0.99 iTunes songs in whatever unencumbered format you like for around $0.04 per song, but the law throughout the developed world, including the USA, is quite clear that this is a perfectly legal service to use, yes, even in Once But No Longer Free America.

[spinko]

just goes to show how absolutely greedy these ******** music "majors" actually are. Just like the petroleum companies, banks and all the other greedy multinationals that make huge gains on the back of consumers, artists and society as a whole.


******* them !

[DGFan]

Here you go. All material in quotes comes directly from the cited portions of the United States Code. The owner of copyright under title 17 has the exclusive right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords.” 17 U.S.C. sec. 106(1). “Phonorecords” are “material objects in which sounds...are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. sec. 101. To “reproduce” a phonorecord means “to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated...” 17 U.S.C. sec. 101.

Applying these definitions, it is clear that regardless of any licensing issues, downloading from Allofmp3.com is illegal because an American, who is subject to American law, is creating an unauthorized copy of a “phonorecord” as that term is defined above. When a United States citizen downloads an mp3 file from Russia, he has reproduced a “phonorecord” by causing sounds to be transcribed and fixed in a material object (the hard drive), which sounds can be perceived with the aid of a machine (his computer, iPod, etc).

Notice that the copyright violation comes from the reproduction of the phonorecord, not the lack of any license to listen to or use the work. Think about it: when you purchase a song from the iTunes music store, you are NOT purchasing a license to listen, what you have actually been granted is a license to make a copy of that phonorecord on your hard drive and on the hard drives of any other computers for which the song is “authorized.” It truly does not matter whether the folks in Russia have or even need a license to distribute the music, because U.S. copyright is very clear that YOU need a license to make a copy to your hard drive.

That's not quite true. You have it right, up to the point where you talk about the copying.

iTMS has been granted to make a copy and they deliver that copy to me. They are authorized to do so.

In the case of AllOfMP3.com the copying is done outside the United States. The server that does the encoding and sends the copy to me is in Russia (well, it had better be otherwise they will be in trouble!). That is not subject to United States copyright law.

Why? Because copyright law applies to the person making the copy. When I buy a song I am not making a copy. I am taking a copy, already made for me, and saving it to my hard drive. Once there, since I am in the US it is subject to our copyright laws. I cannot copy it without permission from the copyright holder. The only copies I make from there are for personal use under the fair use provision of US law.

[DGFan]

I, for one, am not going to take the moral high ground on this issue. If Tori Amos loses out on a few cents because I bought my songs at AllOfMP3.com I will simply have to live with that guilt.

But I believe in the international market. I didn't cry when I lost my job to outsourcing. I didn't whine about how unfair it was. I simply understood that the market works that way and companies want to take advantage of it.

So if a situation comes along where the market works a particular way in my favor, I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of it.

Having said that, I would not mind if AllOfMP3.com double its prices and gave the extra money directly to the artists (not the labels). Imagine if the artists got a whopping $0.11 from selling a song. They would probably be thrilled. And I would still be happy with the price
:)

[daven20]

someone actually defending subscription services:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099282/

yes, i know it is on msn.com, but try to read it with an open mind. imagine an ipod equiped with wifi. for the cost of one album, you could have access to hundred's of thousands of songs at home, at school or the local cafe with wireless internet access. i think this could really be the killer app.

you may not like the idea of not owning the music you pay for, but the article makes the point that with DRM, you do not really own the music either. you are purchasing a liscense to listen to that music, and the record labels dictate the terms of where and how you can listen.

[Doctor Q]

you may not like the idea of not owning the music you pay for, but the article makes the point that with DRM, you do not really own the music either. you are purchasing a liscense to listen to that music, and the record labels dictate the terms of where and how you can listen.It's interesting to compare that view with the idea of paying to listen to music on the radio or TV, as you might do with XM Satellite service or the music stations on digital cable TV.

[shamino]

Devil's advocate. I was pointing out the stupidity of the "Using iTMS is moral because the artists themselves entered into contracts that allows them to be screwed" argument.

If people want to use iTMS, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you're not screwing artists. You are, just less than others.
Do you think they're not getting equally screwed when you buy a CD for $18? Do you seriously think that higher price at thstore translates into a higher royalty to the artist?

[LethalWolfe]

The RIAA doesn't like it, and will tell you otherwise, but they are being no more honest than the MPAA is when it flashes those FBI warnings at the beginning of each DVD telling you you have no right to make a backup copy for personal use ... knowing full well that the law and the courts consistently say otherwise.



It's been a while sense I payed attention to the FBI warning but I thought it only warned against public and/or commerical violations. But it very well could have added personal copying as well (like I said, it's been a while sense I've read the warning). But if it does warn against making any copies what so ever it is still correct. Recent court decissions have supported the DMCA and not the precedent set by the "BetaMax case."


I think this overall discussion is a good example of how out-of-date our copyright laws are, but also how tricky the internet,digital media, and globalization has made the situation. Pirating and distribution of movies and music on a grand scale used to require a lot of time, equipment, and money and always resulted in pirated copies that were never as good as the original source. Now one person can buy one CD, rip it, upload it, and instantly give 10's, if not hundreds, of millions of people all over the world access to a perfect copy of that CD in a matter of minutes.


Lethal

[travishill]

Why? Because copyright law applies to the person making the copy. When I buy a song I am not making a copy. I am taking a copy, already made for me, and saving it to my hard drive. Once there, since I am in the US it is subject to our copyright laws. I cannot copy it without permission from the copyright holder. The only copies I make from there are for personal use under the fair use provision of US law.

Yes but, as has been shown time and again in court, downloading itself is creating a copy. Not just the act of copying bytes from one lossless copy to a compressed copy as AllOfMP3 does; the actual download of that newly compressed file is you creating an unauthorized copy in the United States.

Otherwise there would have been no successful prosecutions for anyone downloading any kind of media, ever.

But I do agree with people earlier, it is time to wrap up this part of the thread. Since many people have many different viewpoints on this issue it is clear that the law is vague enough to certainly allow for many interpretations- and that is bad for everyone.

Bottom line: if you want to pay the people who produced the song (including the record label, songwriters, artists, engineers, marketers, etc.) then use something like iTunes. Of course we have no control over who makes how much of that because it is all contractual.

If you don't care, then nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. Because whether or not using a service like AllOfMP3 is totally legal in the U.S., I don't think anyone here is deluded enough to think that anyone is going to go after the end-users in any big sense.

[pioneerMT]

By extension, it could be argued that even downloading a song temporarily (say, in your browsercache) is illegal. Even if it's never stored to disk, you've still made a copy that resides in volatile memory and which will be erased when new information replaced it.

That's exactly right. In fact this has been argued in numerous court cases, the first of which was the 1983 U.S. District Court case of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., where the court held that copying from a disk into RAM is creating a "copy" under title 17, even though that copy is fleeting and disappears when power is cut off. This reasoning has been followed by courts accross the country and it is now well-settled that loading something into volatile memory creates a copy.

[DGFan]

Yes but, as has been shown time and again in court, downloading itself is creating a copy. Not just the act of copying bytes from one lossless copy to a compressed copy as AllOfMP3 does; the actual download of that newly compressed file is you creating an unauthorized copy in the United States.

Otherwise there would have been no successful prosecutions for anyone downloading any kind of media, ever.

But I do agree with people earlier, it is time to wrap up this part of the thread. Since many people have many different viewpoints on this issue it is clear that the law is vague enough to certainly allow for many interpretations- and that is bad for everyone.

Bottom line: if you want to pay the people who produced the song (including the record label, songwriters, artists, engineers, marketers, etc.) then use something like iTunes. Of course we have no control over who makes how much of that because it is all contractual.

If you don't care, then nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise. Because whether or not using a service like AllOfMP3 is totally legal in the U.S., I don't think anyone here is deluded enough to think that anyone is going to go after the end-users in any big sense.

First, I disagree with your definition of copying. I do not see the difference between "downloading and saving a file" and "receiving a file in the mail on floppy disk." For all practical purposes they are the same. So why would the former be copying and the latter not be? However, I do not believe this has been established with an extensive case history.

Downloading a file when you know the source you are getting it from is not authorized by their jurisdiction to create copies is a different matter entirely. But I honestly have never heard of a prosecution for that. If it's been shown time and again in court can you provide a citation?

I'll probably learn a lot more about this when I take my copyrights class next year. It will be interesting to see what additional perspective that adds.

[DGFan]

That's exactly right. In fact this has been argued in numerous court cases, the first of which was the 1983 U.S. District Court case of Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., where the court held that copying from a disk into RAM is creating a "copy" under title 17, even though that copy is fleeting and disappears when power is cut off. This reasoning has been followed by courts accross the country and it is now well-settled that loading something into volatile memory creates a copy.

But this is a different matter entirely because the "copying" involves only one party. The real question is, when a file is downloaded is the copying performed at the server or at the client?

Certainly copying takes place at the client when it moves from RAM to HD. However this would be entirely allowable under fair use.

However this case does nothing to establish who is doing the copying when a file is loaded into memory and then transmitted over a network. Is the receiver of that transmission the one performing the copying? To me it is ludicrous to suggest that is the case.

[rt_brained]

Unfortunately, Apple isn't in the same kind of negotiating position as WalMart, who can use their retail strength or Sony, who provides music. Apple came in with a great solution, but with everyone else jumping into the fray, it would seem Apple is backed up against a wall...either allow the recording industry to continue playing Jabba the Hut or tell the industry where to stick it and drop iTMS alltogether.

Given one or the other extreme, I'd vote the latter and let the industry pick up the pieces.

[itsa]

Imagine if the artists got a whopping $0.11 from selling a song. They would probably be thrilled. And I would still be happy with the price
:)

WOW, WOULD WE EVER! I would be happy with that much per CD!

[Doctor Q]

WOW, WOULD WE EVER! I would be happy with that much per CD!Somebody please send itsa a dollar. That'll feed one more starving artist for the year.

I wonder if shortchanging artists is so common because they love what they do, and, like a lot of teachers, will stay in their profession even if their lousy earnings don't improve.

[LethalWolfe]

Somebody please send itsa a dollar. That'll feed one more starving artist for the year.

I wonder if shortchanging artists is so common because they love what they do, and, like a lot of teachers, will stay in their profession even if their lousy earnings don't improve.

They short change because they can. The supply out weighs the demand by a huge amount. And artists are willing to accept those terms. If unknow artist A doesn't want to sign a crappy deal there are thousands others that will. I'm not that familair w/the music biz as I'm in the film/tv biz but they have a lot of parallels. Getting screwed is part of the game. It's like hazing. And hopefully w/hardwork and luck you get to a point were you aren't getting screwed as much and have a comfortable income.

And yes, part of it is that people love what they do and are willing to work for far less than what they desereve. I'd much rather make a modest income editing than be making bank in some stupid corporate cubicle<sp?> somewhere.


Lethal

[Devilshotrod]

Um, isn't downloading supposed to cut out the middle man and save me money? I think 99 cents is about twice what I should pay for a song, and certainly no more than 9.99 for a whole album. It's insane that downloading a song cost as much as buying it in a store. I've noticed that ITMS charges up to 14 bucks for a brand new album. WTF. If I want a new album and am willing to pay 9.99 for it, and can't because it's overpriced, I'll go right to limewire. There is just no excuse except greed of music biz and I won't stand for it. I am willing to pay, but not be ripped off. I hope the whole music biz burns for all I care, it's ridiculous that there is on demand movies right now but the music biz is STILL scrambling to figure out how to milk the consumer for as much as possible. FU music companies.

[Mr_Ed]

Um, isn't downloading supposed to cut out the middle man and save me money? I think 99 cents is about twice what I should pay for a song, and certainly no more than 9.99 for a whole album. It's insane that downloading a song cost as much as buying it in a store. I've noticed that ITMS charges up to 14 bucks for a brand new album. WTF. If I want a new album and am willing to pay 9.99 for it, and can't because it's overpriced, I'll go right to limewire. There is just no excuse except greed of music biz and I won't stand for it. I am willing to pay, but not be ripped off. I hope the whole music biz burns for all I care, it's ridiculous that there is on demand movies right now but the music biz is STILL scrambling to figure out how to milk the consumer for as much as possible. FU music companies.

Ditto. It amazes me that I can go to a local store and pay $12-15 (plus taxes) for a music CD, yet a top rated movie or concert DVD costs $15-23 (again, plus taxes). The movie industry has slowly figured out that if you make the product price low enough, most people will not think it worthwhile to try to download an illegal copy. Granted, a DVD is much harder to copy due to the complexity of the format than a CD so fewer people would try, but by that very reason, a music CD should cost FAR less than what it does. Making a faithful reproduction of a CD is SO easy, asking people to pay anything more than about $5 (pulled than number out of my butt) for it essentially makes it worthwhile to get a copy. That doesn't even begin to address the fact that there may only be 1 or 2 tracks on the CD you actually think are worth anything. :rolleyes:

What has the music industry done lately to try to bring in consumers and increase sales?
- Litigation to discourage illegal downloads. I guess dropping the price of CD's is just too obvious a solution for these boneheads to figure out.
- Launched various crappy on-line music download services with highly restrictive DRM policies. "You can have this song for $.99 but you can't put it on a CD, you can only play it on this one computer . . . oh yeah, and only on Tuesdays and Thursdays." ;)
- Introduced SACD and DVD-Audio some time ago. "Hey, it's higher quality so we'll charge you even more for the same lousy collection of tracks that include that one song you really like!!"

If it turns out they are indeed trying to milk legal downloaders further by raising on-line prices, I sincerely hope there is enough backlash from the user community to put a serius dent in their revenues. Whether that means illegal downloading and/or just plain not buying jack squat from them, that "gravy train" they've been enjoying for decades now needs to hit a concrete wall and come to a screeching halt.

[LethalWolfe]

Ditto. It amazes me that I can go to a local store and pay $12-15 (plus taxes) for a music CD, yet a top rated movie or concert DVD costs $15-23 (again, plus taxes). The movie industry has slowly figured out that if you make the product price low enough, most people will not think it worthwhile to try to download an illegal copy. Granted, a DVD is much harder to copy due to the complexity of the format than a CD so fewer people would try, but by that very reason, a music CD should cost FAR less than what it does. Making a faithful reproduction of a CD is SO easy, asking people to pay anything more than about $5 (pulled than number out of my butt) for it essentially makes it worthwhile to get a copy. That doesn't even begin to address the fact that there may only be 1 or 2 tracks on the CD you actually think are worth anything. :rolleyes:


First off, if you listen to artists that only offer 1 or 2 good songs per disc you need to find better music to listen to. People often wonder why the label's keep churning out more pop crap, well, the answer is pretty simple. People keep buying it. If Britney wasn't still a cash cow she'd have gone the way of the Spice Girls.

Secondly, the DVD/CD price comparison is so way, way off base it's not even funny. Movies make money at the box office. Movies make money from rentals. Movies make money from cable/TV deals. Movies make money from DVD/VHS sales. If a band records an album basically the only way that album is going to make money is thru CD sales. If films' only means of revenue was from DVD sales alone they would be a ********* more expensive than they are now (the average of a feature is $102million dollars, imagine recouping that cost at $20 a pop). And the price for a movie on DVD is basically the same price as a movie on VHS in the pre-DVD era and it has nothing to do with the studios being afriad of P2P networks. As for concert DVDs I can't imagine the post/production costs being very high (relatively speaking). Probably more than the average cost of professionaly recording a CD, but significantly lower than the cost of your typical low-budget indie feature.

The only thing keeping DVDs from being pirated as much as CDs is the size. Even w/broadband up/down loading 4gigs just not viable right now. If it was people would be "sharing" DVDs as much as they "share" CDs.


Lethal

[itsa]

Somebody please send itsa a dollar. That'll feed one more starving artist for the year.

I wonder if shortchanging artists is so common because they love what they do, and, like a lot of teachers, will stay in their profession even if their lousy earnings don't improve.



:)... yeah I could use buck!

You are right on!
If I did it just for the money I would have been out of the game a long time ago. I LOVE what I do.

[dontmatter]

someone actually defending subscription services:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099282/

yes, i know it is on msn.com, but try to read it with an open mind. imagine an ipod equiped with wifi. for the cost of one album, you could have access to hundred's of thousands of songs at home, at school or the local cafe with wireless internet access. i think this could really be the killer app.

you may not like the idea of not owning the music you pay for, but the article makes the point that with DRM, you do not really own the music either. you are purchasing a liscense to listen to that music, and the record labels dictate the terms of where and how you can listen.

yeah, that could seriously boost sales there. But, I bet you the labels don't allow the artists to get paid by third parties for their music. Of course, cash always works, but c'mon, would anybody believe that the russains were actually making the payments?

[dontmatter]

Um, isn't downloading supposed to cut out the middle man and save me money? I think 99 cents is about twice what I should pay for a song, and certainly no more than 9.99 for a whole album. It's insane that downloading a song cost as much as buying it in a store. I've noticed that ITMS charges up to 14 bucks for a brand new album. WTF. If I want a new album and am willing to pay 9.99 for it, and can't because it's overpriced, I'll go right to limewire. There is just no excuse except greed of music biz and I won't stand for it. I am willing to pay, but not be ripped off. I hope the whole music biz burns for all I care, it's ridiculous that there is on demand movies right now but the music biz is STILL scrambling to figure out how to milk the consumer for as much as possible. FU music companies.

how is it supposed to get rid of the middle man? CD: Artist, label, tower records, you. ITMS: Artist, label, itms, you. just changes the middle man, or men (label is a middle man, of sorts).

And, I don't quite get how you can say, "I should pay this much for a song"?
Why is it yours to decide? it's like anything else out there-you'll pay what your willing to for it, and whoever is selling it sells it at whatever cost gives them the highest yields. You don't get to say, I should only pay 15 grand for a mercedes, I should pay $1000 for a powerbook. No, you say, a benz is 45 grand, a powerbook is $2,500. If you're willing to pay that much to get the product, you get it. If not, you get saturn or a dell. Just beacause you CAN get music without finding sirens and flashing lights in your rear view mirror, doesn't mean that music should cost this ammount. Music is going to cost as much as makes the most money (now, you could argue that labels would make more if it was cheaper, but that's a different argument). you get to buy it, or you don't. There is no should.

And another note to devilshotrod. You really should make an adjustment or two to your name. did the devil shoot rod, your beloved brother, or do you try and balance your mac nerdlyness that's with something that's more cool and masculine, like hot rods?

[greg75]

There is no should.
Actually, there is when we're talking about an industry that engages in illegal price fixing.

[shamino]

:)... yeah I could use buck!

You are right on!
If I did it just for the money I would have been out of the game a long time ago. I LOVE what I do.
and under those circumstances, i'll bet you could make just as much without a major label.

I'm friends with a few local bands here. They're not signed to any major label. They make their own recordings by renting local studio time (using a basement studio for rehearsals.) They send their DAT masters to a duplicator to have CDs made up. They sell the CDs for $15 at live performances and over the band's web page. One such band sold through mp3.com before they stopped offering that service.

Yeah, they probably will never sell as many albums as an artist signed to a label with nationwide distribution, and they probably won't get radio airplay, but they're keeping almost all of the $15 they charge for the CDs, and they hold their own copyrights. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up netting more than they would by going through a major label.

[shamino]

how is it supposed to get rid of the middle man? CD: Artist, label, tower records, you. ITMS: Artist, label, itms, you. just changes the middle man, or men (label is a middle man, of sorts).
Not quite. For a CD, you have to add in the CD duplicator/manufacturer, and at least one level of distributor.

Note that record clubs like BMG charge much less than retail stores. A lot of that is eliminating a distributor or two, since you're buying from a clearinghouse attached directly to the label.
And, I don't quite get how you can say, "I should pay this much for a song"?
Why is it yours to decide?
When the officially-licensed publisher charges one price to sell to you directly, and orders retail stores to charge a much higher price for the same content, it becomes obvious (and quite illegal as well). If I'm paying $29 cents per song for a physical CD to buy directly from the label, it should nost cost over three times as much to buy from iTunes, where there is no duplication cost to consider.

You say it's not for me to decide. Well, I can't force them to lower their prices, but I sure as hell can point out to the world the exact nature and amount of their market gouging. And I can (and do) make sure that I buy my music from venues that charge reasonable prices.

If you think I don't have a right to complain, I will just say that you are flat out wrong. The right to complain is one of the few rights that I have left, and I'm certainly not going to give it up just becase some stranger on a web forum tells me to.
it's like anything else out there-you'll pay what your willing to for it, and whoever is selling it sells it at whatever cost gives them the highest yields. You don't get to say, I should only pay 15 grand for a mercedes, I should pay $1000 for a powerbook.
It's not the same thing. When you buy a car or a laptop, there are very real (and high) costs to manufacture that item. That cost is reflected in the price. When you buy music, that doesn't hold true. The cost to duplicate CDs is dirt cheap - less than $1 per disc. But you can buy that disc from perfectly legal venues from prices ranging between $5 and $18. And we're not just talking closeouts and surplus stock - the record clubs sell a lot of new releases as well.

If you want to argue "but the label has to make back the production costs for recording the album", fine. But those costs are the same if you buy a CD or a cassette. So why should a CD cost more than a cassette, even though the dupliucation costs for the CD are less than for the cassette?

The production cost for a song/album is the same if you buy a CD, cassette or download. Any difference in price between the formats should reflect the different manufacturing costs. But they don't - which is why cassettes cost less than CDs, and in many cases, the CDs cost less than the downloads as well.

And this is all talking about buying from the licensed publisher, so your arguments about theft and copyright infringement are meaningless here.

[Mr_Ed]

First off, if you listen to artists that only offer 1 or 2 good songs per disc you need to find better music to listen to. People often wonder why the label's keep churning out more pop crap, well, the answer is pretty simple. People keep buying it. If Britney wasn't still a cash cow she'd have gone the way of the Spice Girls.

Secondly, the DVD/CD price comparison is so way, way off base it's not even funny. Movies make money at the box office. Movies make money from rentals. Movies make money from cable/TV deals. Movies make money from DVD/VHS sales. If a band records an album basically the only way that album is going to make money is thru CD sales. If films' only means of revenue was from DVD sales alone they would be a ********* more expensive than they are now (the average of a feature is $102million dollars, imagine recouping that cost at $20 a pop). And the price for a movie on DVD is basically the same price as a movie on VHS in the pre-DVD era and it has nothing to do with the studios being afriad of P2P networks. As for concert DVDs I can't imagine the post/production costs being very high (relatively speaking). Probably more than the average cost of professionaly recording a CD, but significantly lower than the cost of your typical low-budget indie feature.

The only thing keeping DVDs from being pirated as much as CDs is the size. Even w/broadband up/down loading 4gigs just not viable right now. If it was people would be "sharing" DVDs as much as they "share" CDs.


Lethal

Better music to listen to? Like what? Indie music? So if I take a chance on some band that does not get air play and buy a CD and it turns out to have the one song I did hear and enjoyed and nothing else I think is worthwhile its really the same thing, isn't it? "Pop" music has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that you buy an album or CD and you pay (and the record labe gets revenue) for ALL the tracks whether you like them or not. I'd say that has been a pretty sweet deal for them for a long time and the ability do buy a single on-line allows the consumer the choice and ability to pay only for what they deem valuable to them.

As for the CD/DVD comparison you have clearly missed the point about a pricing structure that does not encourage piracy even further. If you price it low enough, most people won't bother to copy it. Your statement about the pricing of movies is plain wrong. When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years. If the movie industry had done the same, they would still charge $40-$50 for the DVD and claim they are justified in doing so because of the higher quality and longer life of the medium.

Your are right about CD sales being the only revenue source for a recorded album. So a blockbuster movie can pull in $800 million - $1 billion in box office and DVD sales and a top selling, chart busting CD will only ring in a fraction of that in sales. As you help to point out, producing that album cost a tiny fraction of what it costs to produce and market a movie. Far less than a low budget "indie" feature, right? So I don't see what is so "off base" about the comparison.

[dontmatter]

When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years.

Remember that inflation figures in here big time, too.

[tj2001]

:mad:
I have loved the iTMS, but if this "rumored" theory of an increase in song prices is put forth they lost me as a customer. Sorry to say it seems they (big corp execs) see a growing opportunity so let's take more $$$ from people to build a monopoly!

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.
:mad:

[~Shard~]

Remember that inflation figures in here big time, too.

Yes, and even moreso, good old supply and demand. I remember when CD-Rs used to be $10 a disc, and not so long ago when DVD-Rs were $15 each - not even worth buying to pirate a DVD movie with, as the actual movie didn't cost much more! Not that I would ever do that... ;) Inflation is a factor, but so is supply and demand and the costs of manufacturing and technological factors as well - they all contribute.

[~Shard~]

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.
:mad:

There aren't many things in this world that are free, so you may need be a little less harsh and a little more realistic. Everything costs money and there will always be price increases in all aspects of life, (gas, clothes, food, vehicles, real estate, ad infinitum), not just online music services.

That being said, I personally don't support a price increase myself - just making the point that realistically these things happen, like it or not.

[tj2001]

That being said, I personally don't support a price increase myself - just making the point that realistically these things happen, like it or not.

Not that they "just" happen and have to happen it is that these corporate big wigs care not for the little consumers and only see the digits growing in their bank accounts. It's greed and it disgusts me! It's one thing to sell at a reasonable rate to where you can make profit for your efforts and also cover expenses, but to see something and know it is well worth more and then try to demand more for it is wrong.

[dontmatter]

:mad:
I have loved the iTMS, but if this "rumored" theory of an increase in song prices is put forth they lost me as a customer. Sorry to say it seems they (big corp execs) see a growing opportunity so let's take more $$$ from people to build a monopoly!

I used to think as America as the land of the FREE, now it seems like America the land of the FEE.
:mad:

Where's your logic? you loved itms, somebody made up a lie about a change in it... now you don't use it? itms is just the same as before the rumor, and never changed in the meantime, I suspect, just that your percepton of it did.

[dontmatter]

Not that they "just" happen and have to happen it is that these corporate big wigs care not for the little consumers and only see the digits growing in their bank accounts. It's greed and it disgusts me! It's one thing to sell at a reasonable rate to where you can make profit for your efforts and also cover expenses, but to see something and know it is well worth more and then try to demand more for it is wrong.

Yup, corporate big wigs care more for their banks than anything else. Common knowledge. But, that has absolutely nothing to do with prices increasing. It isn't like they were generous and now are greedy and so raise prices-prices always have been, and always will be, where they make the most money. The reason you can't buy a loaf of bread for a quarter is inflation. Prices go up because of simple economics, and fortunately, so does your salary. Of course, it doesn't go up quite as fast anymore, b/c of numerous political factors, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing astonishingly fast. But that's a different matter.

you absolutely cannot complain, though, that prices go up, because they do so because either A) the cost of making them goes up (incomes are going up) or B) Demand is rising, which would be a reflection of incomes going up, as more people have the money to buy. Corporate greed's got nothing to do with it. Corporations live by supply and demand, always have, and always will. those laws don't change based on the greed of the execs.

[LethalWolfe]

Better music to listen to? Like what? Indie music? So if I take a chance on some band that does not get air play and buy a CD and it turns out to have the one song I did hear and enjoyed and nothing else I think is worthwhile its really the same thing, isn't it? "Pop" music has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that you buy an album or CD and you pay (and the record labe gets revenue) for ALL the tracks whether you like them or not. I'd say that has been a pretty sweet deal for them for a long time and the ability do buy a single on-line allows the consumer the choice and ability to pay only for what they deem valuable to them.

As for the CD/DVD comparison you have clearly missed the point about a pricing structure that does not encourage piracy even further. If you price it low enough, most people won't bother to copy it. Your statement about the pricing of movies is plain wrong. When movies first became widely available on tape (seems like ages ago), it was not uncommon to see some priced at $50-$80. The prices slowly came down as sales volumes increased. Today we can get a much higher quality copy of a movie on a longer lasting medium (DVD) for a fraction of that. The music industry went from charging $8-$10 for vinyl to charging $15 for CDs and then kept everything as is in spite of lower production costs due to technological advances which means they ate increasingly larger profits for years. If the movie industry had done the same, they would still charge $40-$50 for the DVD and claim they are justified in doing so because of the higher quality and longer life of the medium.

Your are right about CD sales being the only revenue source for a recorded album. So a blockbuster movie can pull in $800 million - $1 billion in box office and DVD sales and a top selling, chart busting CD will only ring in a fraction of that in sales. As you help to point out, producing that album cost a tiny fraction of what it costs to produce and market a movie. Far less than a low budget "indie" feature, right? So I don't see what is so "off base" about the comparison.


When I said listen to better music/bands I meant listen to better music bands. Read reviews on albums. Listen to track samples on Amazon, iTMS, or the bands website. Start a thread saying, "hey is this album any good?" or "hey, I like this genre/band what are some good ablums to buy?" One of my favorites is to go to www.allmusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com), find bands/genres I like and see what other bands are in the same genre. Hell you could even talk to your friends and see if they have the album or have heard if its good or not. Major label, indie label, unsigned it doesn't matter. Good music is everywhere and crappy music is everywhere.

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now? DVD's are more expensive partially because of the extra features and what not that are on them, but mostly because there is more of a demand for DVDs than there is for VHS. The price of CDs has never been "fixed" at $15. When they first came out in the early 80's the dics and the players cost significantly more than they do now.

I thought my point about CDs and DVDs is pretty clear. Movies have multiple revenue streams. Albums have one. I guess I fail to see why people think they should be more comparibly<sp?> priced. Because they are both on optical media? Also, your "estimations" for how how much a blockbuster movie would pull in are way, way high. Most movies, just like most albums, never make a profit (which means most of the time studios and labels never make back the money they invest in a project). You can't price your product so low that you can't cover your expenses (and in this case part of your espenses is invesnting in artists that may or may not ever be profitable). Toss in related costs like marketing, and you are talking a multi-million dollar investment per album for an artist that a label is really trying to push.

There are three baisc things that factor into the these things. The cost of creating the content (the music or the movie), the cost of creating the media (new types of media will always have a premium on them), and the demand for the product. You can't focus on one apsect and pretend the other 2 don't exist. You also have to factor in the retailer. When MegaDeth's new album comes out I could go to FYE (or some other chain in the mall) and buy it for $20 or I can go to Best Buy and get it for $9.99. Is it the labels fault if I'm dumb and shop some place that over prices everything?


Well, I seem to have ranted left and right. Hopefully some of it makes sense.


Lethal

[itsa]

and under those circumstances, i'll bet you could make just as much without a major label.

I'm friends with a few local bands here. They're not signed to any major label. They make their own recordings by renting local studio time (using a basement studio for rehearsals.) They send their DAT masters to a duplicator to have CDs made up. They sell the CDs for $15 at live performances and over the band's web page. One such band sold through mp3.com before they stopped offering that service.

Yeah, they probably will never sell as many albums as an artist signed to a label with nationwide distribution, and they probably won't get radio airplay, but they're keeping almost all of the $15 they charge for the CDs, and they hold their own copyrights. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up netting more than they would by going through a major label.

Don't get me wrong.. Artist under a "deal" are in many ways better off than ones doing the indy thing. I have been down that road many years.

It is nice to pocket that much off of each CD you sell but the truth is it's not at all easy to make a good living as an indy artist. The big 5 make sure of that too.
I had a manger that was doing real well for me in indy land. He also had other artists that did well under his belt. He now works for Sony.
Takled with him about a week ago. This is what he said. "I need to find a way out of this contract. They just brought me here to shut me up."
He is no longer doing what he was good at (promoting new groups). He is now under a 10 year contract that has him calling smaller venues and talking them in to investing into Main stream groups rather indy bands.

A deal is a good thing and a bad thing all wraped up into one!

If you don't have one, you want one. When you have one, you wish there was another way.

[Devilshotrod]

Music is going to cost as much as makes the most money (now, you could argue that labels would make more if it was cheaper, but that's a different argument). you get to buy it, or you don't. There is no should.


Well, when you're talking about a Mercedes that protects your life and really allows you to accomplish more with your life by getting around, or a powerbook that has so much design thought put into it which again allows you to accomplish more with your life, possibly even make a living off of it, it's really a different concept now isn't it than being force-fed a price for a little leisurely pleasure. I find this fleecing no different than gas prices out here in California. Oil companies have an obvious power over thier product, would you pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas right now? I think you would unless you're some tree hugger up there in Seattle. Do you think that would be fair? Because that sounds like your arguement (dontmatter is whom I'm speaking to). And while you're backing these companies getting to "make the most money", think about what you're saying. Might doesn't make right. I just want to hear a justification on why 99 cents or 9.99 is even a fair price. As far as I know the only arguement even worthy is because so many artists fail, and so do thier music. So the ones that do hit, hit big, and need to make money for a label to recover costs on the artists that didn't hit.
But now labels should realize they can minimize costs on new artists by using a means such as ITMS. ITMS has huge possiblities, especially with it's future in being able to have whole sections created just for new artists to get people to start listening, that might never have heard those artists before.
All hail the downfall greed brings. But then again, somehow corporations always seem to get off scot free or come out on top anyway, so don't worry dontmatter, we probably will be paying 1.25 for song soon anyway. Well, you will at least. :o

[duklaprague]

being from the UK 99c seems pretty good - thats about 55p at the moment.

given that albums here generally cost £13-14 ($24) we've generally considered ourselved to be getting ripped off even more than you guys!

so 99p seems about as much as I'd pay, but thats still more than $1.25...

Iain

[shamino]

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now?
So why don't CDs follow this trend? When they were first invented, CDs cost $16 per disc. Today, the list-price stores charge $18 per disc. Yes, I know there are discount stores today, there were then as well. The discount prices today are higher than the discount prices then.

The movie industry did better when they lowered the price of DVDs from $50 to $35 to $20. The music industry would do just as well by following that trend, but they would prefer to believe that all their lost sales are due to piracy and not overpriced product in a weak economy, so they spend billions of dollars on lawsuits instead - which only costs them more, both in terms of money and in lost reputation.

[wdlove]

So why don't CDs follow this trend? When they were first invented, CDs cost $16 per disc. Today, the list-price stores charge $18 per disc. Yes, I know there are discount stores today, there were then as well. The discount prices today are higher than the discount prices then.

The movie industry did better when they lowered the price of DVDs from $50 to $35 to $20. The music industry would do just as well by following that trend, but they would prefer to believe that all their lost sales are due to piracy and not overpriced product in a weak economy, so they spend billions of dollars on lawsuits instead - which only costs them more, both in terms of money and in lost reputation.

For some reason the music industry isn't getting the message, such as decrease sales. Or the reason is that they choose not to listen, those that don't change in the market place tend to fail. The movie industry is very saving in there pricing.

[Mr_Ed]

When I said listen to better music/bands I meant listen to better music bands. Read reviews on albums. Listen to track samples on Amazon, iTMS, or the bands website. Start a thread saying, "hey is this album any good?" or "hey, I like this genre/band what are some good ablums to buy?" One of my favorites is to go to www.allmusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com), find bands/genres I like and see what other bands are in the same genre. Hell you could even talk to your friends and see if they have the album or have heard if its good or not. Major label, indie label, unsigned it doesn't matter. Good music is everywhere and crappy music is everywhere.

When any new tech/product is introduced (be it DVD, videotape, records, CDs, or casette tapes) there is a premium on it. Comparing the cost of tech that is on the bloody edge of cutting technology to a product that has been in the mainstream for a while is stupid. How much for a videotape movie when they first came out? How much for a DVD when they first came out? How much for a VHS movie now? How much for a DVD now? DVD's are more expensive partially because of the extra features and what not that are on them, but mostly because there is more of a demand for DVDs than there is for VHS. The price of CDs has never been "fixed" at $15. When they first came out in the early 80's the dics and the players cost significantly more than they do now.

I thought my point about CDs and DVDs is pretty clear. Movies have multiple revenue streams. Albums have one. I guess I fail to see why people think they should be more comparibly<sp?> priced. Because they are both on optical media? Also, your "estimations" for how how much a blockbuster movie would pull in are way, way high. Most movies, just like most albums, never make a profit (which means most of the time studios and labels never make back the money they invest in a project). You can't price your product so low that you can't cover your expenses (and in this case part of your espenses is invesnting in artists that may or may not ever be profitable). Toss in related costs like marketing, and you are talking a multi-million dollar investment per album for an artist that a label is really trying to push.

There are three baisc things that factor into the these things. The cost of creating the content (the music or the movie), the cost of creating the media (new types of media will always have a premium on them), and the demand for the product. You can't focus on one apsect and pretend the other 2 don't exist. You also have to factor in the retailer. When MegaDeth's new album comes out I could go to FYE (or some other chain in the mall) and buy it for $20 or I can go to Best Buy and get it for $9.99. Is it the labels fault if I'm dumb and shop some place that over prices everything?


Well, I seem to have ranted left and right. Hopefully some of it makes sense.


Lethal

If you are ranting, then I guess I must be too :) "Ranting" sounds unpleasant and I would probably consider it so if you were not engaging in an intelligent exchange.

On the "good music" thing, I understand there are ways that I might increase the odds of enjoying more tracks on an album but after all, we are talking about a highly subjective thing here. How a musical performance affects (or fails to do so) an individual is a very personal thing. I have found that asking the "opinion" of others, even those who know me, does not actually amount to much help in that regard. Besides, if I go and get everyone else's opinion on the music before I get it then by definition, I am only buying it if ispopular. Britney Spears!! Here we come!!! ;)

On the price of "new" technology vs. established technology: You are right about the price of CDs not being "fixed" at $15. I remember paying around $17 for some of the first CDs I ever bought back in 1986 (I believe). I also know Best Buy has lots of them today in the $12 range but a some places do still sell them in the $15 range. You are also right about the fact that all of the items you mentioned cost less now than when they were introduced. My point had more to do with the perceived drop in prices of movies (VHS/DVD) being FAR greater than the drop in music CD prices in spite of the fact that:
a) CDs have been around longer than DVDs.
b) As you point out, DVDs include additional materials and capabilities when compared to VHS.
c) The cost of producing/selling a music CD has dropped significantly over time due to technological advances.

I never said that a DVD and a CD should be priced comparably but in any case, the number of "revenue streams" of DVD vs. CD made no difference in what I wrote. I purposely listed a sales figure of $800 - $1 billion for box office AND DVD sales so we could make a straight out comparison with a chart topping music CD. I did that because of the very reason you stated: Lots of movies (and albums) lose money which the companies will try to recoup with the sales of popular items. Everything else you mention (dealing with artists/content creators, marketing, etc.) constitutes expenses that both industries incur. The only thing that is different is the scale of the amount of revenues brought in by each of their products. That difference in scale also applies to the costs involved in the production of their products. Heck, a movie studio will routinely spend more just on marketing a single movie than a record company will spend producing a CD (how often do you see a prime time TV ad for a new music CD release?). Even if you focus only on DVD sales (no box office receipts), industry estimates I have seen indicate DVD sales can account for as much as 30% of the total revenue for a popular film. Does looking at $200 million (vs. $800 million total) in DVD sales alone change the argument here? I don't think so. Scale aside, the comparison is more than fair and if so, it is difficult to justify a CD costing almost as much as a DVD.

BTW: Look here (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide) for a sampling of the top grossing movies to see that the "$800 mil. to $1 bil. box office and DVD sales" example for a blockbuster was not out of line. These figures are box office only, no DVD sales included.

[Devilshotrod]

being from the UK 99c seems pretty good - thats about 55p at the moment.

given that albums here generally cost £13-14 ($24) we've generally considered ourselved to be getting ripped off even more than you guys!

so 99p seems about as much as I'd pay, but thats still more than $1.25...

Iain

Are American artists songs costing you the same as artists from the UK? Very curious why that would be. Again, with the internet, there really seems to be no reason I can think of why it should cost you more.

[Sun Baked]

Apple says no price hike planned for iTunes (http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0510itunes10-ON.html)

PowerMacMan, posted the link before. Which is to the full article.

Sort of funny that a comment made on Friday is finally hitting the papers today. When most papers are always running the Apple stuff immediately.

---


Wonder what'll be going through the record execs minds when they hear the backlash to a rise in price to 1.25 ... :rolleyes:

[LethalWolfe]

If you are ranting, then I guess I must be too :) "Ranting" sounds unpleasant and I would probably consider it so if you were not engaging in an intelligent exchange.

On the "good music" thing, I understand there are ways that I might increase the odds of enjoying more tracks on an album but after all, we are talking about a highly subjective thing here. How a musical performance affects (or fails to do so) an individual is a very personal thing. I have found that asking the "opinion" of others, even those who know me, does not actually amount to much help in that regard. Besides, if I go and get everyone else's opinion on the music before I get it then by definition, I am only buying it if ispopular. Britney Spears!! Here we come!!! ;)

On the price of "new" technology vs. established technology: You are right about the price of CDs not being "fixed" at $15. I remember paying around $17 for some of the first CDs I ever bought back in 1986 (I believe). I also know Best Buy has lots of them today in the $12 range but a some places do still sell them in the $15 range. You are also right about the fact that all of the items you mentioned cost less now than when they were introduced. My point had more to do with the perceived drop in prices of movies (VHS/DVD) being FAR greater than the drop in music CD prices in spite of the fact that:
a) CDs have been around longer than DVDs.
b) As you point out, DVDs include additional materials and capabilities when compared to VHS.
c) The cost of producing/selling a music CD has dropped significantly over time due to technological advances.

I never said that a DVD and a CD should be priced comparably but in any case, the number of "revenue streams" of DVD vs. CD made no difference in what I wrote. I purposely listed a sales figure of $800 - $1 billion for box office AND DVD sales so we could make a straight out comparison with a chart topping music CD. I did that because of the very reason you stated: Lots of movies (and albums) lose money which the companies will try to recoup with the sales of popular items. Everything else you mention (dealing with artists/content creators, marketing, etc.) constitutes expenses that both industries incur. The only thing that is different is the scale of the amount of revenues brought in by each of their products. That difference in scale also applies to the costs involved in the production of their products. Heck, a movie studio will routinely spend more just on marketing a single movie than a record company will spend producing a CD (how often do you see a prime time TV ad for a new music CD release?). Even if you focus only on DVD sales (no box office receipts), industry estimates I have seen indicate DVD sales can account for as much as 30% of the total revenue for a popular film. Does looking at $200 million (vs. $800 million total) in DVD sales alone change the argument here? I don't think so. Scale aside, the comparison is more than fair and if so, it is difficult to justify a CD costing almost as much as a DVD.

BTW: Look here (http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide) for a sampling of the top grossing movies to see that the "$800 mil. to $1 bil. box office and DVD sales" example for a blockbuster was not out of line. These figures are box office only, no DVD sales included.


If you poll your friends for music suggestions and they all come back w/Britney it's time to get new friends. ;) I understand where you are coming from but there is no way to ensure 100% satisfaction. Like you said, it's completely subjective. And sometimes I like tracks the first time I hear them but 6 months later I hate them and vice-versa. I think we are getting closer to a world where buying one track at a time is the norm. And, IMO, that is kind of sad. There are tons of songs I never would have fallen in love with if I wasn't "forced" to buy the whole album. It's the same reason why I never buy "best of" CDs anymore. 'Cause "best of" really means "most popular" and there are always awesome tracks that never end up on them. When buying albums I'm not too familair w/I've been pleasently surprised more often than disappointed (and I'm fairly picky when it comes to music).

Okay, here are the two points of contention I'm still hung up on. You seem to be discounting the fact that movies have multiple revenue streams while albums only have one. That makes a huge difference.

And two, why are CD's and DVD's even being compared? Why not books and CDs? Better yet, books on CD and CDs? What about video games and CDs? Besides being on round, optical media and being forms of entertainment CD's and DVDs, the music industry and the movie industry, are two completely different beasts when it comes to generating revenue.

And, just a random thing, I mentioned your "blockbuster" numbers being way high, not because they are impossibly high numbers, but because movies that gross that much are flukes. The link to IMDB you have shows 11 movies in the history of filmmaking that have grossed over 800 million and only one, Titanic, that grossed 1 billion.

Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?

I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).

Final thought. Adjusted for inflation, how would a $17 CD from 1986 cost in todays dollars?


Lethal

[AsgardianGod]

LOL... a reson why this site is called MacRumors folks. A lot of tension and anger over something that was eventually proven to be just that.. a rumor.

I like iTMS, and if the market bore a $1.25 increase in the future, I would live with it. Although I might buy 1 or 2 songs less a week (I buy about 5 a week max). ;)

[shamino]

I think we are getting closer to a world where buying one track at a time is the norm. And, IMO, that is kind of sad. There are tons of songs I never would have fallen in love with if I wasn't "forced" to buy the whole album. It's the same reason why I never buy "best of" CDs anymore. 'Cause "best of" really means "most popular" and there are always awesome tracks that never end up on them. When buying albums I'm not too familair w/I've been pleasently surprised more often than disappointed (and I'm fairly picky when it comes to music).
Do the sample tracks on download sites help at all in this regard? I know that sometimes, the 30 seconds Apple chooses for the ITMS sample isn't representative of the song, and for some songs it can't be (just try and find 30 seconds that is representative of Genesis's Supper's Ready :) ) but I've found it useful in most cases.

The interesting thing is that I usually look for "best of" albums. It gives me a good feel for what the artist's style is about. From there, I can decide if I want to buy the remaining albums or not. If I like all the hits, I'll buy the rest of the albums (eventually). If I only like one or two of the hits, I'll buy the one or two albums that contain those songs and stop there. It was Renaissance's compilation (the 2-disc Tales of 1001 nights) that convinced me to buy everything they published.) Ditto for many other bands.
Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?
How many people call in to radio stations to request their favorite songs over and over again? How many people buy albums when they've heard the song dozens of times?

It's the same principle. A song's revenue from radio-play is smaller than a movie's revenue from box-office showings, but the production costs are also much smaller. In the end, I think the same principle applies.
I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).
Which is why (in my posts) I try to distinguish between MSRP and discount prices.

There are plenty of stores (like Tower Records) that charge full MSRP for most CDs. This is typically $15-18 for a single-disc album. Those same CDs at discount stores (like Best Buy) will go for $10-15, with some titles as low as $8. When purchased from distributor-sponsored discount clubs (like BMG), these albums end up costing about $5 (plus shipping charges, resulting in an actual cost of about $6-7) if you buy several albums at once.

Ditto for DVDs. Some stores (like the video stores in shopping malls) do charge full list price, which for movies today is in the ballpark of $20-30. Discount stores usually charge $15-25, with some titles as low as $10. (Unfortunately, I don't belong to any video clubs, so I don't know what those prices end up as. If they're like the music clubs, the catalog prices will be full MSRP, but with steep discounts for buying several titles at once.)

[LethalWolfe]

Do the sample tracks on download sites help at all in this regard? I know that sometimes, the 30 seconds Apple chooses for the ITMS sample isn't representative of the song, and for some songs it can't be (just try and find 30 seconds that is representative of Genesis's Supper's Ready :) ) but I've found it useful in most cases.

The interesting thing is that I usually look for "best of" albums. It gives me a good feel for what the artist's style is about. From there, I can decide if I want to buy the remaining albums or not. If I like all the hits, I'll buy the rest of the albums (eventually). If I only like one or two of the hits, I'll buy the one or two albums that contain those songs and stop there. It was Renaissance's compilation (the 2-disc Tales of 1001 nights) that convinced me to buy everything they published.) Ditto for many other bands.
How many people call in to radio stations to request their favorite songs over and over again? How many people buy albums when they've heard the song dozens of times?

It's the same principle. A song's revenue from radio-play is smaller than a movie's revenue from box-office showings, but the production costs are also much smaller. In the end, I think the same principle applies.
Which is why (in my posts) I try to distinguish between MSRP and discount prices.

There are plenty of stores (like Tower Records) that charge full MSRP for most CDs. This is typically $15-18 for a single-disc album. Those same CDs at discount stores (like Best Buy) will go for $10-15, with some titles as low as $8. When purchased from distributor-sponsored discount clubs (like BMG), these albums end up costing about $5 (plus shipping charges, resulting in an actual cost of about $6-7) if you buy several albums at once.

Ditto for DVDs. Some stores (like the video stores in shopping malls) do charge full list price, which for movies today is in the ballpark of $20-30. Discount stores usually charge $15-25, with some titles as low as $10. (Unfortunately, I don't belong to any video clubs, so I don't know what those prices end up as. If they're like the music clubs, the catalog prices will be full MSRP, but with steep discounts for buying several titles at once.)

In regards to "best of" albums if it's a band I like and I start buying their albums I feel like I wasted money on the "best of" because I never listen to it anymore. I think 30 samples help sometimes (it depends on the band and the genre). More and more bands are starting to put streaming versions of their songs on their websites which is cool. That's basically how I've been shopping for music for the past 6 years. I'll go to message boards of bands I like and start a "who are you 5 favorite bands" threads, or go to allmusic.com and "research" other bands that are in the same genre of bands I like. One time I was at a record store, w/those devices that will scan the barcode of a CD and you can hear samples from the disc, and I picked up an album w/an interesting looking cover, listend to it and was like "man, that's cool." so I bought it. :)


In regards to radio play, artists don't make any money from their song being requested/played on the radio. Just like they don't make any money from their videos being played on TV. In fact, quite the opposite. If a label wants to really push an artist they might pay an "independent promoter" to go out and "convince" radio stations to put a certain artist in heavy rotation. The obvious reason being, the more a song is played, the more people will hear it and hopefully go buy the album. In a business sense air play (be it radio or TV) is just another promotional device for the product (the CD). That's one reason you don't see "new album" commercials as much as you see "new movie" commercials. Why spend a lot of money on TV commercials when air play is your best advertising? Most people won't buy a CD w/o ever hearing a track from it first. Commericals for CD's are more like reminders that the album is out as opposed to most commericals which are trying to convince people to buy this product or see this movie.


Lethal

[Mr_Ed]

...
Okay, here are the two points of contention I'm still hung up on. You seem to be discounting the fact that movies have multiple revenue streams while albums only have one. That makes a huge difference.
I ther last full paragraph of my last reply I explained why I don't see see the multiple revenue streams being a problem in the comparison. There is a HUGE difference between the costs involved in producing a film and a DVD. I also cited numbers that allowed me to ask you if looking at $200 mil. in DVD sales for a top selling movie (instead of $800 mil, thus taking the "box office" revenue stream out of the picture) make a difference in the argument.
...
And two, why are CD's and DVD's even being compared? Why not books and CDs? Better yet, books on CD and CDs? What about video games and CDs? Besides being on round, optical media and being forms of entertainment CD's and DVDs, the music industry and the movie industry, are two completely different beasts when it comes to generating revenue.
I chose CD/DVD because IMO they constitute similar types on content for a similar purpose and they have achieved similar production cost savings from technological advances in a relatively short amount of time. When was the printing press invented? ;)
...
And, just a random thing, I mentioned your "blockbuster" numbers being way high, not because they are impossibly high numbers, but because movies that gross that much are flukes. The link to IMDB you have shows 11 movies in the history of filmmaking that have grossed over 800 million and only one, Titanic, that grossed 1 billion.
Check those numbers again. Two grossing over $1 bil. By the way, these numbers do not include video sales, it was strictly box office take. Would "chart topping CD" not be a "fluke" as well? I purposely compared the top tier on both sides.
...
Speaking of Titanic... Do you know why Titanic did so unexpectidly<sp?> well? Because packs of teenage girls kept going to see Leo again, and again, and again. Which brings up yet advantage movies have over albums. Repeat customers. Blockbusters become blockbusters because people go to see them more than once. How many people buy the same CD over and over again? How many people go to see a movie and then buy it when it comes out on DVD?
Once again, even if you look at the DVD sales only the comparison holds. How many people buy the save DVD over and over again? How many people buy a movie soundtrack CD after seeing the movie? How many people buy the soundtrack BEFORE they even see the movie? And yes, people do see a movie and then often buy the DVD. That's because they have a pretty good idea that they will enjoy what they are buying. That's the part I hate about buying an album and which I say has constituted a "free" ride for the music industry. If I buy a CD with 10 tracks for $10 and after listening to it I feel 8 of those tracks are *crap*, then I feel like I got ripped off. Simple.
...
I've also noticed in these types of discussions that people tend use the lowest DVD price they've seen and compare it against the highest CD price they've seen. I did a 2 minute skim over at Amazon.com and, going by their "top sellers" list the average CD seemed to be $14 or $15 and the average DVD movie seemed to be $19 or $20. This was going by the selling price not the MSRP (which is hardly, if ever, used).

Final thought. Adjusted for inflation, how would a $17 CD from 1986 cost in todays dollars?
Most people who might agree with my point of view on this, would be upset that the prices are that close. And depending on what sources you go to for CD/DVD sales, you sometimes do find CDs priced higher than some DVDs. As for the inflation argument, I don't remember what year movies were first sold on video but it pre-dates CDs. How much would that $50 movie cost in today's dollars?

Anyway, it's safe to say you and I "agree to disagree" :)

[shamino]

In regards to radio play, artists don't make any money from their song being requested/played on the radio.
Then this is just another example of labels pressuring artists into signing away all their rights.

The labels get paid for every play on the radio. That's a huge part of what ASCAP does - collect royalties from radio stations (and Muzak, and dance clubs, and any other public performance of the recording) for distribution to the copyright holders.

Radio play is a revenue stream, whether the artists get a cut or not.

[LethalWolfe]

Then this is just another example of labels pressuring artists into signing away all their rights.

The labels get paid for every play on the radio. That's a huge part of what ASCAP does - collect royalties from radio stations (and Muzak, and dance clubs, and any other public performance of the recording) for distribution to the copyright holders.

Radio play is a revenue stream, whether the artists get a cut or not.

The basic ASCAP/BMI licensing fees are, relaitvey speaking, not very much at all (unless you are a big name band). And most places pay blanket fees (i.e. pay an annual flat fee and not a per use fee). There are different types of licensing each w/their own set of stipulations, but that is a whole other ball of wax. Yes if you are a big name band and your song is used in a movie, big commerical, or TV show you can get a nice chunk of change. But that is a huge, huge exception from the norm. And that is the reason I never brought it up. I was trying to keep the discussion centered around "the average" band and "the average" movie.


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Anyway, it's safe to say you and I "agree to disagree" :)

I agree. :)


Lethal

[duklaprague]

Are American artists songs costing you the same as artists from the UK? Very curious why that would be. Again, with the internet, there really seems to be no reason I can think of why it should cost you more.

yeah - pretty much. the two main record stores here are virgin and hmv who are basically an oligopoly and charge generally £13-14 for a typical album, but some are as much as £16-17 which is just ridiculous. they quite often do things like 2 for £20 or similar, or sell off older stuff cheaper.

you do get smaller independent stores charging £10-£11 - basically there's really no need for cds to cost more than £10. dvds have been mentioned - it does seem ridiculous that an hour of music on a cd can cost the same as a full movie, plus all the extras - whatever the reasons, costs involved, at the end of the day the consumer just sees a totally out of kilter value for money ratio.

the other thing they've done here is come up with a new kind of cd single which is only allowed to have 2 tracks on it, but can't be sold for more than £1.99. previously cd singles were £3.99 ($6.50ish?) - so if you only want the one track it was pretty expensive -which is probably why singles sales here are so low its hard to imagine them surviving much longer, and why i-tunes is so great where you can pick up that single track for 99c - even 99p seems pretty reasonable.

another thing which happened recently was that online mail order companies were selling cds for £8-9 including shipping, and the record co's got their knickers in a twist because they were shipping from HK - so these companies have had to add on a £2 surcharge now.

Iain