Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?

[iDM]

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

 

[xejn]

back catalogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lolex]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kingsly]

Nobody said record execs were smart.

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

 

[pounce]

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

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

 

[ioinc]

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

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

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

Very sad that you are actually FORCED to buy music.

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

 

[mediaburn]

tapes

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

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

 

[gekko513]

Very sad that you are actually FORCED to buy music.

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

OK, sorry, that got out wrong. I'll download the music instead.

 

[pounce]

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

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

 

[gekko513]

OK, sorry, that got out wrong. I'll download the music instead.

I'm not in the mood for sarcasm, hence my unconstructive reaction.


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

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

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

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

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

 

[-hh]

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

Actually, it depends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

click here for historical prices of hard drives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-hh

 

[-hh]

lame.

But individuals still did it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-hh

 

[BlizzardBomb]

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

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

 

[VanNess]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ABassCube]

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

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

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

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

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

Adam

 

[lolex]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Detlev]

you are really not understanding my point, and i'm running out of the patience to reiterate. if i create and record music and sell my own original music, that is entirely different than someone using p2p networks to give away what i am selling. it is not your right to take my music and give it away when i am selling it. period.

Congratulations, you sound like a capitalist pig. You may not be one but you sure sound like one. I scorn the generation of "musicians" who place album sales above their tallent. These musicians are brain washed by the very industry established to promote them and misguided schools.

I do this because I think the artists deserve to get paid and I also recognise that the people who work to distribute music also needs to get paid.

That is very noble of you. Too bad it promotes poor working conditions for everyone except a few music industry executives.

 

[gekko513]

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

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

 

[lolex]

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

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

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

 

[chukronos]

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

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

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

But the reason for the lynch mob is because everyone on here knows that the record companies have been doing all that they can to try to force Apple's hand to either:

1. release their drm to all music players,
2. up the price on songs,
3. or both

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

-Chuck

 

[e-coli]

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

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

 

[Uragon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[graphiqdezine]

Back to Limewire I guess 🙄

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0

*sigh* I am closer to $1,820, not counting songs I've lost. This is no good at all.

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

 

[iMeowbot]

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

Yep. It fluctuates constantly depending on new releases, but market share breaks down pretty much as 35% for UMG, 25% for Sony/BMG, 17% for EMI, 13% for WMG and 10% for the indies combined. At times the indy share jumps as high as 20%, but all the others have their good moments too.

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

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

I'd expect the same situation as in real life, where the price points are chosen by the label. None of them act with one mind these days.

 

[lolex]

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

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

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