Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?

[morespce54]

buggers

back to ole LimeWire... ;-)

 

[morespce54]

For all those people that say they will go back to limewire... why not just pick them up at Wal-Mart for free. All you need is a coat with big pockets and no morals.

For me, that's not the point... I wouldn't risk myself to shoplift a CD for one or two songs that I would possibly stop listening to in a few weeks. Just like I wouldn't pay $9.99 for a complete album on iTunes to listen to those two freaking songs.

But I would most certainly pay $.99 (or $1.98 in this case) for those songs on iTunes. Remeber, "$1.98" not "$2.45" or the price of a promo-cd or whatever...

(Okay, nobody notice I was thinking about Kelly Minogue... feeww...) 😀

 

[pounce]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hulugu]

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

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

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

 

[hulugu]

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

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

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

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

Or just prove your true mettle and buy bootlegs.

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

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

 

[emw]

A somewhat related link on DRM and the music industry that I just received via e-mail.

I had not heard of the issue with Sony installing copy protection mechanisms on their CDs before...

 

[Get A Mac]

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

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

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

 

[-hh]

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

Let's test this claim...

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

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

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

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

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

Bzzt. Thank you for playing.

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

Um, *what* copies of public domain Mozart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


-hh

 

[Photorun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lord patton]

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

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

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

 

[pounce]

photorun

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

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

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

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

 

[Detlev]

A somewhat related link on DRM and the music industry that I just received via e-mail.

I had not heard of the issue with Sony installing copy protection mechanisms on their CDs before...

Old news. CNET was all over this for days.

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

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

 

[271]

this just in: RIAA still blows.

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

 

[pounce]

this just in: RIAA still blows.

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

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

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

 

[cgratti]

Then they will cry they are not making any money

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

Can't wait to hear them whine and cry.

 

[pounce]

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

Can't wait to hear them whine and cry.

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

 

[Fukui]

There is a limited amout of popular music.
Every cd a record company produces does not go gold.

...and is the higher price for the most popular songs supposed to help those that didn't go gold?

 

[Choppaface]

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

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

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

 

[lolex]

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

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

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

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

 

[slimflem]

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[271]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gekko513]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pounce]

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[thunderclap]

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

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

 

[gekko513]

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

I'm glad to hear it.

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