Just don't support them TOO much, or they become Top 40 themselves (and therefore expensive)!sonicsessions said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The RIAA sues children and dead grandmothers.. do you really think they're going to care the this will increase "piracy" (fair use)?
The AG wrote an opnion that copyright violations (Civil Offenses) should be punishable by jail time (as in Criminal Offenses). This piddly little increase in fees in one place and lowering in another means nothing. They're paying "officials" to change the rule of law with no basis or precident, shouldn't that be what we're talking about?
The AG wrote an opnion that copyright violations (Civil Offenses) should be punishable by jail time (as in Criminal Offenses). This piddly little increase in fees in one place and lowering in another means nothing. They're paying "officials" to change the rule of law with no basis or precident, shouldn't that be what we're talking about?
Copy it from a friend or by it used; you're within your right to do so (for the time being) regardless of what the RIAA mafia says.
swingerofbirch said:
Fark it, just let 'em BUY Apple Records, Corp. I mean, what've they REALLY done since the Beatles? That's all I know 'em for. And they don't even own the Beatles' catalog anymore. Apple Computer has a crap-ton of money lying arounduse that cash to buy Apple Records, merge 'em into the iTMS division, and start their own label that sends 60 cents straight to the artist for every sale. Dunno how they'd handle CD releases though, I'd still want those for lossless goodness. But as long as the terms were still good for the artist, I'd prefer buying CDs from Apple to buying them from elsewhere.amholl said:
Yah. Right around the time Apple has to renew their license with the various producers. They have Apple by the balls at that point. The RIAA can lick my sweaty. I'm going back to P2P. Bastards.
As I've said countless times on these and other forums, until people steal about all their music and push the big, greedy, scumsucking, soulless, rich, white run, evil record companies out of business into bankrupcy they'll continue to put money over art and put out crappy tunes and stick it to the consumers. If they got driven out of business new distributors would emerge and hopefully a renaissance of musician driven commerce... my "phoenix rising from the ashes" concept.
I, for one, will resume illegal copies of music full on if the tunes aren't what I consider a reasonable price.
This is utter and total b***&&&& by the record labels and anyone that thinks differently clearly isn't looking at the same picture.
I, for one, will resume illegal copies of music full on if the tunes aren't what I consider a reasonable price.
This is utter and total b***&&&& by the record labels and anyone that thinks differently clearly isn't looking at the same picture.
macphisto said:
I've wondered before why Apple doesn't just start its own label. Heck, it could even license the print rights for CDs to someone else.
Apple probably owns parts of the iTunes originals -- the spoken word stuff and maybe the studio performances -- and I'm sure they get a great margin on those things that they own. When there's "iTunes Original Version" of a song, though, it doesn't necessarily mean Apple owns it.
But heck, Apple could pull someone of the street, put them in the studio, market them through iTunes, TV ads or whatever, and Apple own the whole shebang. I certainly trust Apple more than, say, EMI to deliver quality and not try and roast me for an extra 23 cents to download a single because it cracks the top 40.
The most important thing to do is for everyone not to purchase any song on iTunes for more than .99 cents. The only thing the recording industry cares about is $$. Hit 'em in the pocket book and show them their wrong.
Personally I see this as a GOOD and SMART move, and not greed. The greed is really on the part of the consumer who says he's going back to stealing because he can't afford the extra .25. Certainly that extra .25 is worth the convenience of being able to just get the song you want without having to buy the whole CD. And if you want the whole CD what are you doing paying $10 for crappy 128kbps music file anyway. The CD at $12 is a much better deal.
On the filp side there are a lot of new artists that most people neglect because they don't want to waste $1 on something they may not like. At .50 or .75 its worth a gamble though. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to experiment with music that Infinity or one of the other mega radio station owners don't shove down your throat and tell you to like it?
Similarly, there are a lot of backlist "oldies" for the 70s, 80s, and 90s that I'd love to hear again, but for $1 a pop its just not worth it because I know I'll be sick of them in a week. Again, at .50 a pop I wouldn't care as much.
On the filp side there are a lot of new artists that most people neglect because they don't want to waste $1 on something they may not like. At .50 or .75 its worth a gamble though. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to experiment with music that Infinity or one of the other mega radio station owners don't shove down your throat and tell you to like it?
Similarly, there are a lot of backlist "oldies" for the 70s, 80s, and 90s that I'd love to hear again, but for $1 a pop its just not worth it because I know I'll be sick of them in a week. Again, at .50 a pop I wouldn't care as much.
oskar said:
I would love to see this happen, but you're not really making a sensible economic argument. If the market will bear Madonna's new single at $1.49, that's what it should cost.
The risk -- as with the risk in pricing any product -- is that Apple price its products high enough to maximize return but not so high as to lose purchasers because of price.
Porchland said:
I'll just assume you are a newbie to Apple with that comment. There was a trademark infringement lawsuit between Apple Records (The Beatles original lable and also the label that still owns John Lennon's solo stuff) and Apple Computer back in the early 80s. The two sides settled and agreed Apple Computer could use the Apple name as long as they didn't get into the music business. iTMS hovers that line, and Apple Records sued again and settled. However, if Apple started its own label it would be all out war, and I'm sure Apple has better things to focus on.
socamx said:
I can see this being good for me!
I don't like popular music at all.
This would probably be a great advantage for those unknown artists to actually sell something at all; an opportunity for them and therefore an advantage for music production in general.
A while ago on one of these kinds of threads someone posted a link to "RIAA safe" artists whose labels aren't members of the RIAA, and I've really enjoyed it. I've also been pleasantly surprised that some of my favorite musicians' labels AREN'T part of the RIAA.
RIAA radar
Top 100 "RIAA safe" albums
Amazon top 100 with their RIAA status
RIAA radar
Top 100 "RIAA safe" albums
Amazon top 100 with their RIAA status
I disagree in this case. What Apple has done is reduce the cost of distribution of the music, a significant part of the cost associated with music production. As a result, costs should actually go down.ITASOR said:I guess everything has to increase in price.
I agree that resorting to piracy is not the right method here. I hate paying so much for eggs, but I'm not going to try and steal them because I think egg farmers or supermarkets are greedy.
The key here is what will the market bear. If Apple does indeed raise prices, and sales go down, then we'll know it was a bad move. If they raise them and sales (in terms of dollar revenue) remain the same or increase, then it was a good move.
you answered your own question. the music industry doesnt like itms. it doesnt like online shops. i wants the monopoly on music as CDs back so they can continue their price fixing, raping the consumer for all theyre worth. personally i took the stance "If piracy feels less wrong than supporting evil business practices then I'll feel no guilt" a long time ago. CDs have long been out of the equation. iTMS lessened my piracy convincing me to buy some digital music, "variable" pricing (the only way is up, baby!) can only put things back the way there were. it's fun watching the industry kill itself. Im sure they realise that music stopped needing them long agojaviercr said:
What a load of ****. I know someone who won't be using iTunes for much longer. The thing is, the **** you buy from iTunes isn't even in Lossless format, it's in that useless AAC, and that just ain't worth paying. And there's another thing, why the hell doesn't my iPod play Lossless music? Why can it only play ****** quality AAC music? Heck, I'd never have bought me a Bose SoundDock if I'd have known...