Apple vs Music Industry on Song Pricing

[Sdashiki]

IMO if you stil spend $1 at the ITMS to get a song, instead of what you used to do, dling it for free. You must be rich.

I dled songs "illegally" because I didnt want to pay $13 for an album that I only want 2 songs from. But I still am not comfortable paying $1 for 3 minutes of music. I must listen to 60min of songs driving everyday alone and I dont feel like I should have to spend $20 to do that.

The internet is free, music is on the internet, how did it get there? Who cares, its free.

yet some people do spend $1 per song, IMO they must be rich or scared.

 

[MCCFR]

Simple maths…

Let's take 100 tracks downloaded…

Let's say 25% of all tracks downloaded in a single week are new material @ $1.29: that 25 x 1.29 which is $32.25

Now let's say that 40% of all tracks downloaded are from a mid-range 99¢ catalog - none of them hit the charts because the average downloads/track is much lower and the back catalog is so wide: that's $39.60

And the remaining 35% are from the bargain bin @ 79¢/download - that's $27.65.

That's $99.50 for 100 tracks. Or for the congenitally stupid - you know who you are Bronfman - $0.995/track.

So rather than have confusion which promotes piracy, you get 99¢/track.

Seriously, there are days when I question whether my fellow Jews are capable of operating a pocket calculator.

 

[~Shard~]

yet some people do spend $1 per song, IMO they must be rich or scared.

Either that, or they actually find value in something.

 

[Sdashiki]

Value in something? What do you mean?

Buying music/albums supports the record labels, NOT the band. SO who are we helping here?

Listen to music, go see the show and enjoy yourself.

Spending money on music, today, is ludicrous.

I dont care how you phrase it, word it or add it up, paying for music is silly.

 

[Eluon]

IMO if you stil spend $1 at the ITMS to get a song, instead of what you used to do, dling it for free. You must be rich.

I dled songs "illegally" because I didnt want to pay $13 for an album that I only want 2 songs from. But I still am not comfortable paying $1 for 3 minutes of music. I must listen to 60min of songs driving everyday alone and I dont feel like I should have to spend $20 to do that.

The internet is free, music is on the internet, how did it get there? Who cares, its free.

yet some people do spend $1 per song, IMO they must be rich or scared.

I spend 1 dollar a song and I am a college student. I don't really think it is bad to pay that much for a song. I have spent more money this year on music since I got involved with the ITMS than I have my entire life. I hate buying CD's for a couple tracks hoping the rest are fine.

I don't agree with downloading songs illegally, regardless of what someone may think. Stealing is stealing.

 

[Sdashiki]

How is this stealing?

Someone had a tape in the 80s you liked, you dubbed it to another one. You made your own mix tapes, FOR FREE, no one cared. No one said "YOU ARE STEALING GIMME $10!!!!".

So today before Napster we had frends with a CD we liked, we burned a copy. Did you feel bad when you did that? NO!

Until the RIAA came out with "you are stealing" no one thought that, and for good reason. Mp3s, is just 0s and 1s in a specific order, that when read make music. So WHAT are you stealing? Numbers? Data? Who cares.

Who are you "stealing" from?

Who cares when you are stealing from greedy record execs?

Stop spending your hard earned dollars, that you need for college pizza and beer, on music and use the T3 in your dorm room to DL songs.

No one will come beat on your door, no one will care, only you can, and I guess you do. Fine by me, spend all your money. NO BEER FOR YOU!

 

[Xaimous]

iTMS is not like other mediums of content. Edgar Bronfan gave the example of magazines and how some cost $3 and other $7. Could it possibly be some other factor than the articles for the price difference? Books. Again could it be something other than the story?

The way the content is delivered is a major factor in the cost. Hardback books cost more than paperback even if it's the same story.

Also isn't his idea of popular and new releases reverse of any other industry? DVDs the most popular and new releases cost less because of the economics of volume. Same goes for books and hey cds too!

If every song is delivered the same, why should they not cost the same? it doesn't take any more effort for a new R&B song to be posted to iTMS than a 60s folk song.

 

[WeBleed4Real]

Screw the record companies

If the record companies screw with Apple, then screw them back.

I'm sure they'll find independent artists who wouldn't mind getting pushed to the front page of iTMS and being priced at 99 cents.

They also have podcasts as far as content is concerned to keep people wanting to buy iPods.

Apple has the leverage, and kudos to Steve Jobs for putting his foot down on hiking up prices.

 

[~Shard~]

Value in something? What do you mean?

I mean that if some people truly enjoy something and find value in it, they don't mind paying for it. Another example is software. I find certain pieces of software useless and/or too expensive - I do not pay for them. Other software which I use on a regular basis and find value in, which I think is worth it, I pay for. Pretty simple.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

How is this stealing?

How is it not stealing?

 

[lopresmb]

that sounds fine to me as long as the MAXIMUM price remains at $.99 (which it wouldn't).

This simply means that the "popular" music that people are actually downloading would cost more, therefore putting them back in file-sharing mode.

Bad Idea

 

[Don't panic]

yet some people do spend $1 per song, IMO they must be rich or scared.

or honest?

 

[Sdashiki]

Who are you being honest to?

until the RIAA said dling songs was WRONG, no one gave a crap, now you do only because of what they say.

Guilt might be eating away at you, forcing you to pay $1 but in reality its a choice you make. How to spend your money. I cant say you are wrong for doing it, but IMO its a waste of money.

 

[Eluon]

How is this stealing?

Someone had a tape in the 80s you liked, you dubbed it to another one. You made your own mix tapes, FOR FREE, no one cared. No one said "YOU ARE STEALING GIMME $10!!!!".

So today before Napster we had frends with a CD we liked, we burned a copy. Did you feel bad when you did that? NO!

Until the RIAA came out with "you are stealing" no one thought that, and for good reason. Mp3s, is just 0s and 1s in a specific order, that when read make music. So WHAT are you stealing? Numbers? Data? Who cares.

Who are you "stealing" from?

Who cares when you are stealing from greedy record execs?

Stop spending your hard earned dollars, that you need for college pizza and beer, on music and use the T3 in your dorm room to DL songs.

No one will come beat on your door, no one will care, only you can, and I guess you do. Fine by me, spend all your money. NO BEER FOR YOU!

Thanks for the advice on the "college pizza and beer." I don't drink beer. I do not spend all of my money on music. I do not need it like I do water or other necessities. When I really want a song, I will buy it. Or when I want an album, I'll buy the whole album.

Just because record companies make billions a year combined, does not give me the right to steal from them. Yes, they may be money hoggs. But that still does not remove my job of being an honest person.

Just because someone is an idiot, that does not mean I am called to be an idiot myself. Does this make sense?

 

[~Shard~]

Just because record companies make billions a year combined, does not give me the right to steal from them. Yes, they may be money hoggs. But that still does not remove my job of being an honest person.

Well said. The government makes a ton of cash every year, and takes hard earned money away from the public. Does that then mean that you shouldn't file your taxes because the government doesn't need the money, or beacause you feel they owe you something? Of course not.

It all comes down to issues of integrity and honesty. Some people have these virtues, while it is obvious others do not.

 

[slu]

Who are you being honest to?

until the RIAA said dling songs was WRONG, no one gave a crap, now you do only because of what they say.

Guilt might be eating away at you, forcing you to pay $1 but in reality its a choice you make. How to spend your money. I cant say you are wrong for doing it, but IMO its a waste of money.

I would bet my life that you don't create music yourself.

Downloading music from P2P is stealing. It does not matter that the record lables are greedy bastards.

If the incentive to create music is elminated, then you'd have to learn to play a guitar becuse there'd be no content available.

 

[notjustjay]

Who are you being honest to?

until the RIAA said dling songs was WRONG, no one gave a crap, now you do only because of what they say.

Guilt might be eating away at you, forcing you to pay $1 but in reality its a choice you make. How to spend your money. I cant say you are wrong for doing it, but IMO its a waste of money.

Who am I being honest to? Myself. Everyone. Nobody. God. Take your pick.

I think I might not be the one with the guilty conscience trying vainly to justify my thievery.

 

[slu]

That's exactly it. It's incrementalism. First they say "we want to charge a little more for only the most popular new releases", then all new releases, then everything. And before you know it, all songs are $1.75, with some as high as $5.

It's already happened in other markets.

Those of you old enough to remember records and cassettes should also remember their prices. New releases were typically $10-12, with older material at $5-7.

Then the CD was invented. Even though the manufacturing cost for a CD was comparable to that of a record, and less than that of a cassette, they were selling CDs for $16 each. At first they said it was because they had to make back the cost of buying all new manufacturing equipment. But that was 20 years ago. Today, CDs are even more expensive than that - $18 each, if you pay MSRP.

Today, when you complain, and point out that the manufacturing cost for a CD is less than $1 (just as it was 20 years ago), they'll say that they need to pay their artists and such, but it's all a crock. All you have to do is look at the wholesale prices and you realize that they cost so much because each stage in the distribution channel is charging a 100% markup to the next stage, which they were never able to get away with for cassettes and records.

20 years of history has taught the music industry that they can charge whatever the heck they want, and people will keep on buying because they have no other choice.

And this is why they're so paranoid about file sharing and iTMS. These technologies are giving customers an "other choice". So they need to eliminate the competition (by suing file sharers and demanding that Apple price itself out of business.) This way, they can once again be the only game in town and have total control. (And then they can start charging $25 for CDs as punishment for our disturbing lack of faith.)

This is the best post on this topic I have ever read.

Sometimes a little history puts things in perspective. There are a lot of people taking advantage of the current system that would literally be out of work if (as it inevitably will) the majority of music was sold via the internet.

This tiered pricing scheme is about the greed of the record companies, but not because of the direct increase in revenue that they will get from iTMS, but because it will keep the rest of the "machine" going for a little longer.

Thanks for making me realize that shamino.

 

[revjay]

Thanks for the advice on the "college pizza and beer." I don't drink beer. I do not spend all of my money on music. I do not need it like I do water or other necessities. When I really want a song, I will buy it. Or when I want an album, I'll buy the whole album.

Just because record companies make billions a year combined, does not give me the right to steal from them. Yes, they may be money hoggs. But that still does not remove my job of being an honest person.

Just because someone is an idiot, that does not mean I am called to be an idiot myself. Does this make sense?

Here,here!

My feelings exactly.

I have a few friends, as well as a brother struggling to "make it" in the music industry...not the easiest industry to make a good solid living at.

Let's say, at my brother's gig tomorrow night, (where his girlfriend and others will be manning a merchandise table, including CD's) - someone is outside the club distributing free, "burnt copies" of his cd to all who want one...is that fair to the hard working musician?

This scenario, though not based on reality, is ultimately no different from P2P networks on the Net.

Sdashiki, sounds like you would take the pirated cd outside the club with a clean conscience...pity your friends.

Pay for your music.

 

[mkaake]

How is this stealing?

you're taking a product that costs money without paying for it?

Someone had a tape in the 80s you liked, you dubbed it to another one. You made your own mix tapes, FOR FREE, no one cared. No one said "YOU ARE STEALING GIMME $10!!!!".

sorry that your friends didn't say that... but their lack of scruples in the 80's doesn't suddenly mean it's legal or legit...

So today before Napster we had frends with a CD we liked, we burned a copy. Did you feel bad when you did that? NO!

you're trying to say that it's not illegal because you don't feel bad about it. guess what - speeding is illegal, but most people don't feel bad about it. that doesn't mean the cop can't write you a ticket anyway.

Until the RIAA came out with "you are stealing" no one thought that, and for good reason. Mp3s, is just 0s and 1s in a specific order, that when read make music. So WHAT are you stealing? Numbers? Data? Who cares.

of course, based on that, all software is just ones and zeros. so unless you spend the time making those 1's and 0's yourself, someone else spent time doing that... and when they say that thier work of ones and zeros costs money, and you take it without paying, that would be called....

oh yeah, stealing.

Who are you "stealing" from?

mostly scumbags who don't deserve money. and a few artists who do. but that doesn't make it right.

Who cares when you are stealing from greedy record execs?

Stop spending your hard earned dollars, that you need for college pizza and beer, on music and use the T3 in your dorm room to DL songs.

...

No one will come beat on your door, no one will care, only you can, and I guess you do. Fine by me, spend all your money. NO BEER FOR YOU!

...

yet some people do spend $1 per song, IMO they must be rich or scared.

if you think someone is rich because they can spend $1 on a work that they find enjoyable, you've got a little bit of thinking to do. or get a job, one of the two.

just don't wind up in a job where you're working on or with the computer, or someday, someone will steal the work that you spent time on, and say that it doesn't matter, because it's all just 1's and 0's anyway. but I guess that's okay, because it doesn't feel bad.

 

[revjay]

January 2005 is "recent" enough

Apple's "recent entry into the flash-based MP3 market with the nano?" Huh? Someone didn't do their research...

Their flash deal is recent...the price they obtained for massive amounts of flash is recent, the nano is recent...is January 2005 recent (birth of shuffle) ...sure, when you consider how long flash has been used in the industry.

 

[mkaake]

Well said. The government makes a ton of cash every year, and takes hard earned money away from the public. Does that then mean that you shouldn't file your taxes because the government doesn't need the money, or beacause you feel they owe you something? Of course not.

It all comes down to issues of integrity and honesty. Some people have these virtues, while it is obvious others do not.

exactly.

of course, we've been through this before, and basically, he's going to come back in a little bit and spew on and on about how it doesn't matter, he doesn't care, etc. he's made his choice, and he'll do everything he can to argue that there's nothing wrong with it.

so it goes. but I'm glad that there are honest people left.

on the real topic at hand, 99 cents is the max that I'll pay for a downloaded track. otherwise, I'll go through my cd club, which while I get ripped on shipping, the cd still only costs about 5 bucks. the only songs I've bought so far were ones that the rest of the CD was so crappy, I didn't want to buy it.

*shrugs shoulders*

 

[ibook30]

I hope Jobs stays strong, I have hear the record companies have ways of making people do things....

 

[duhliterate]

not to be a drip, but id like to comment on the 'original' point of the thread...

pay for it or not, 99c is too high for a dload. wired mag did an editorial about the issue arguing that 75c for a song was a more accurate price.

for iTMS:
1) no shipping costs
2) no packaging costs
3) no printing costs
4) no hard copy (cd) printing

TONS of money is being saved by the record companies. the fact that they are complaining for more money simply makes them greedy bastardoes! let 'em have it, jobs

 

[~Shard~]

exactly.

of course, we've been through this before, and basically, he's going to come back in a little bit and spew on and on about how it doesn't matter, he doesn't care, etc. he's made his choice, and he'll do everything he can to argue that there's nothing wrong with it.

so it goes. but I'm glad that there are honest people left.

Yep, me too - thanks for appreciating my post.

Of course there are always going to be people who don't see anything wrong with stealing - that's just the way it is. Just the same as there are people who don't see anything wrong with speeding, with dealing drugs or being racist. What can you do about these kind of people? Can you truly reason with them? Discussions for another thread I suppose...

It is fun to watch them try and justify their position though as a means to supress their own guilt and conscience, whether they like to admit it or not.