Downloaded Music Gets More Expensive 748
Reverberant writes "Just as the online music market is starting to gain traction, what to music execs want to do? Why, raise prices, of course! Under consideration is raising the price of online singles up to $1.25 to $2.49, or bundling less desirable tracks with hot singles."
They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
(and maybe also first post?)
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
$16 for an album though... well, I'm right there with you.
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
If you only shop at the mall you'll think the only stuff you can own is the stuff they have at the Gap and Lechters, no matter where in the world you go.
Get out. Poke around. There's lots of indie/alternative stuff out there if you don't just pay attention to the obvious stuff that gets shoved down your throat.
Clear Channel and Sony don't own everything. .
KFG
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Interesting)
When all the testing is done, songs that consistently score 1's don't get radio time (this is obvious). Songs that consistently score 5's also do not get played (this is not obvious). Songs that get scored 5 by some people are bound to have the opposite effect on others, so actually songs that score 3's the most often are
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:4, Funny)
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to name a few more expenses:
--Advertising (this includes print adds, video ads you see on TV, those nice displays you see in stores for some albums, etc)
--Food (the record company usually pays for the food the band eats in the studio)
--Room and Board (record compnaies usually pay for the artist to live in a hotel while the album is being recorded)
--Payola (assuming the record company participates in this practice, believe it or not some don't)
--Photographers (gotta put photos on that album and adds right?)
--Music Video for the first single (this isn't always done, but with a lot of artists it is)
--Producer, Engineers, co-writers, etc (all these people have to be paid for their work, most producers get what's called "points" of each album sold)
--Travel Expenses (the record company pays to get the band to and from the studio, the tour bus, flights to interviews, etc)
So yea, theres a lot more that goes into making an album then what most people think. However there are ways the companies could circumvent such costs. Like for instance, pick a studio in the band's hometown (or close to it) and fly the producer down and just pay for ONE persons expenses rather then 3-6 peoples. That's just one example.
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
So, after paying royalties and payola etc, that leaves about $4 for the cost of the blockbuster movie series that helped to redefine US action movies?
Maybe it's because the expected value of the CD is $15+, and without competition, the monopoly that owns redistribution rights can set the price.
Please, learn something about DVDs and CDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. A movie will have made money at the box office; DVD sales are just gravy on top of that. Music isn't sold to you twice this way, you buy it on CD and that's it.
2. You'll get far more use out of a CD than you will a DVD. Think how many times you've listened to your favourite albums. Now think how many times you've watched your favourite films. Unless you're the sort of fool who wastes half his/her life watching Star Wars, Titanic or Grease every week then there's no comparision. With music, you get far more bang for your buck.
Please, stop trying to compare two totally different forms of entertainment in such a crude way. Just because they both come on a shiny 5.25 in. disc and they're sold in the same stores that doesn't mean they are equal.
By your rationale, all PC and console software should cost $10-20 too, but I think you're going to be seriously disappointed if you expect the price of new games to come down to that level just so that all the similar-looking shiny round things cost the same at your local mall.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
The record labels were nailed for price fixing a few years back. Universal and a few others were giving co-op money to TWE and Tower Records as part of a MAP (minimum advertised pricing) program. In short, if the stores ran print ads with CDs at a certain minimum price, the record companies would help pay for those ads. MAPs and co-op advertising funding are a common practice in lots of industries, including the computer industry.
By the way, this came about because the big box retailers like Wal-Mart a
Additional facts you might consider (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples: If you paid admission to a nightclub, some of that money goes to satisfy ASCAP / BMI. That money goes to all the members, even the musicians you hate. Hate rap? Well, too bad, you just kissed their ass. Hate Barbra Streisand? Tough. Buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, you are kissing their ass whether you like the music or not.
Bought stuff at a store that plays piped-in music? You guessed it! Some of your cash is going to gold-plated Escalades and coke, which I am sure these bastards find ways to deduct anyway at taxtime.
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
No, no no, that stat said they weren't making as much money on CDs this year as they were last year, NOT that the industry was spending more than it's taking in.
No, no, NO, that stat says that lots of bands lose money and only a few make mega-millions, NOT that the losing dollars outnumber the winning dollars.
So what if it cost something to make an album? We're LOWERING their costs by buying it online. We're RAISING their profit making potential becase that AAC is lower quality than CD so we're going to want to buy a better version later on.
They are MONEY-GRUBBING MONOPOLISTS who want to charge us more money to buy an inferior product online. And they wonder why people want to steal from them?
They will get what they deserve when the independants win. They will get what they deserve because they don't understand supply and demand. They have all the supply now, and all the demand, but when those good just-starting-out bands figure out they can get more money selling more cheaply through an independant online label then the slide will start. I will not pitty these people when they start whining about losing their shirt to Magnatunes et al. I will dance on the grave that they dug for themselves.
Rant over. Whew. These guys tick me off.
TW
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Interesting)
So I know... let's say that all these people downloading mp3s are stealing
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not. It's up to the seller, dude. It's the package they want to sell you. If their package is a CD with 12 songs on it, then you have no "right" to demand you only get one song.
If the concept you listed above was in fact true, I would be able to buy 20 seconds of a song because it's my "right" (it's the only 20 seconds of that milkshake song that i like anyway)!
A good analogy is telling picasso that you only want the top half of his painting for half the price.
To many people, the entire album is the art they want to share. If you don't want the entire album, you don't have the right to demand a portion of it!
Also, is it pretentious of me to claim that usually the rest of the album doesn't suck, but in fact people don't listen to it enough for them to appreciate it?
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Informative)
"That's exactly the problem with CD distribution in the first place! They still want me to believe I need to spend over $ 16 bucks on a disc that I know damn well cost them only $ 0.40 to manufacture and distro. Even with a couple bucks to the artist and the studio, it's overpriced."
To clarify, CDs are sold to distributors for about $8. Anything beyond that goes to the distributor and the retailer. I know, I know -- thus they are surely evil greedy fucktards, etc. -- but many if not most products we b
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if you want to say that the record company deserves that extraordinarily disproportionate level of recompensation for taking the risk on the artist, that's at least a somewhat legitimate argument. But you d
Re:They Just Don't Get It (Score:4, Funny)
And this surprises someone? (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Simple Solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
The price isn't going up. (Score:5, Funny)
*WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE* (Score:3, Interesting)
As it is, everyone thinks they're fighting for artists when they don't know any and have never asked them if they wanted the "help."
Re:*WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE* (Score:4, Informative)
Have you talked to artists? I have. A friend of mine got a record contract a few months ago. She's highly in favor of people swapping her music around. It gets her heard. She signed with an indie label, and they too are in favour of that.
If you're a small, independant musician, then the 'net is great, it gets your music out to people who would never hear about it otherwise. If you're a small record label, the same applies. You know who p2p sharing of copyrighted stuff hurts? The ones who don't benefit from the advertising -- the ones who are so heavily advertised that you already know about them. But guess what, These are the monstrously huge acts. These 'artists', including the pop band du jour, the current cute boy band, the mass-produced "edgy" rocker, etc. are not ones I have much sympathy for.
So yes, I've talked to an artist. A non-big-name, just-getting-started-in-the-bizz artist. She, and her company, are in favour of their songs getting out over the Internet, even if they don't make money from it.
Odd (Score:4, Interesting)
Now notice that these ARE the starving artists that those that want to crush P2P talk about. Almost all of them have other jobs to support their art. The engineers tend to be full time, but none of them are rich by any means. It pays ok for a job that requires quite a bit of skill, but not a ton. These are the ones that need money, these are the poor and struggling.
They do not benefit from the music industry as it is now. It is designed to lock people like them out from major distribution, unless the labels decide they want to sign them on, which means reliquinshing creative and monetary control, as well as being unlikely. Even if they get signed, unless they become huge, it's highly unlikely they'll profit. The record labels, not the artists, are the ones making all the money under the current system.
Well the Internet is their weapon, and they can use it to fight back. With it their music can be distributed to the world, it can get some publicity, and people can discover them. It doesn't make them money directly, but it can lead to things that can. More importantly, it lets the world hear and appreciate their work. I don't know any musicians that are in it for the money, it's just not that kind of field. They are in it because it is what they love. Part of that love (I'm a musician too) is wanting others to share it. Playing a live concert for a crowd is a powerful feeling, when the audience shares your emotion through the music you create.
So please get off your high horse about the poor, starving artists. P2P is not what is keeping them from making money (or are you so quick to forget receant emperical studies by non-biased parties [slashdot.org]), it's the record labels.
Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an easy example to use to anyone who argues that there's no collusion in the music industry. HMV is the same retail channel for both products -- its not the retailers marking up product, the problem lies at the source.
Re:Good luck... (Score:3, Informative)
less desirable (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I believe this is called an "album" these days.
Hopeless (Score:5, Interesting)
And now they're going to "bundle" it up again? Force us to get more than what we want with the package, and obviously pay for it?
They'll never learn...
Apple is On The Right Side of This (Score:3, Interesting)
I truly doubt that Apple would just raise prices to $1.25 without a fight, there is nobody who is more pro-music in the technology sector than Steve Jobs himself.
Re:Apple is On The Right Side of This (Score:4, Informative)
So no, iTMS isn't beyond this. Sure, tracks are still 99 cents but full albums are getting higher prices every day.
$2.49? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I sort of consider 10 songs to be a short album (unless its classical, jazz, etc..)
Brilliant ideas abound with music execs. CD's cost too much, so lets offer music online that costs even more! Hahaha, I'll enjoy seeing them squirm even more, harping to the newpapers that their sales are declining due to evil pirates.
Re:$2.49? (Score:3, Insightful)
You laugh, but that's exactly what they'll do - some soulless marketroid will be quoted "Even with the advent of legal downloading, we're still seeing MILLIONS of copies of our property being traded illegaly. These people claim to be motivated by the convenience factor, but this just proves that they're a bunch of freeloaders."
Basically, i can see how this decision was made: "What do you m
Choosing to tip (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit overhyped (Score:3, Insightful)
As for me, I continue to use my Pepsi caps to score free music. Pepsi, not Apple, has gotten my money for music.
The most striking part of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, you read that right - online stores just selling downloads are charging *more* than Amazon does for the CD itself (and Amazon typically has free shipping if you get at least $25 worth of stuff). That's seriously ridiculous: while I'm looking at this new "revolution" of pay-for-download music optimistically, I must admit that having the hard copy is still just better. Much better audio quality if you're an audiophile, ability to rip it and do what you want with it, and while the jewel cases suck the little inserted booklets are often pretty handy. Stick the CD and the booklet into your 288 CD binder and you're good to go. Unless they start packaging downloads with nicely designed info files with picures and lyrics and such, I'm not interested.
Re:The most striking part of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at it this way:
Gun pointed at foot (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
They Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there ANYONE at the top of the music industry who has a clue? Consumers get a chance to get choices and pay half-decent prices. So what does the industry do? Take away the choices (the whole reason why people we're moving to online music) and raise the prices! They want to take away every reason to buy things online. They act like jerks to customers, customers demand something better, something better comes, the industry tries to change it to treat customers like jerks.
What a winning business strategy. QUICK! Call Donald Trump and tell him the great idea!.
Does anyone else get the feeling that music industry execs don't listen to any music? How else could they be so radically out of touch with what they are doing to consumers?
Collusion'll do that to people... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the music industry got rich by giving people what the music industry wanted them to have, charging what they could for it, and colluding to prevent others from undercutting them. The music industry didn't have to listen to its customers because they had nowhere else to go. Now, customers want music how they want it, because if they don't get it, they can go online and copy it for free - a few would have done this anyway, but now the widespread frustration with the music industry and their pricing drove many more to do so. If the music industry moves to restore the album model to online music, they will simply succeed at driving people back to copying music via Kazaa, etc.., with the consequent improvement in technology making infringers harder to catch.
You're correct - they don't get it, because they colluded, and so never had to listen to the people to whom they sold music. Now they have no choice but to listen to their market, otherwise they'll get robbed blind. The music industry wants to go back to the days of blissful ignorance when they could do what they want and their customers would buy whatever they sold; they're hoping that "trusted computing" and upload restrictions by Internet providers will bring it back for them. The problem is, people are angry, and now they know it, and they know that they can do something about it. The music industry can't unring the bell, no matter how hard they try. Once people know that they have power, they won't go back to being consumers without a fight. The record companies are closing their eyes and hoping that their problems go away, when all that's going to go away is their market.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA charges as much for a CD as the MPAA for a movie. I don't feel that this is worthwhile, and thus I don't buy music, while I'll buy a DVD once a month. There's no reason to charge more than $10 for a regular CD. $17.99 is just ridiculous to expect from someone for twelve songs, with only two of those being particularly memorable.
Makes me sick... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a slap in the face to Apple and everyone else who joined the online music store business because they feel they were just trying to make a good fair deal (Napster doesn't count because they are sell-outs and Microsoft just wanted to "enforce a standard" of WMV) to both the consumer and industry.
The music industry doesn't need regulation, the music EXECS need regulation. Who wants to regulate?
Rocket Surgeons (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry! (Score:5, Funny)
... just like CDs did.
They just don't get it, do they (Score:5, Interesting)
Not crap attached to it.
Not stuff that'll cost more than it's worth.
I thought they had got this right, and now they come up with this crap.
If they had half a brain they would've realized by now that songs should be sold like domains are now.
Remember when domains cost $35? Now that they've opened it up, everyone and their grandma is selling domains, most of the time very cheaply. And you're not stuck having to buy hosting or other crap like what the music execs want to do now.
Imagine when (if) this will happen for music! Everyone and their grandma sellings songs, for cheap! And unlike domains, you can sell any song more than once!
But, for now, we're stuck with this BS. Oh well...
Is this on topic? (Score:5, Funny)
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Waitress:
Waitress:
Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
I could swear something happened to apple (Score:3, Insightful)
I now see a lot of albums with only a few songs available for download, and some saying "album only". go look up shakira's new one (if only to see shakira, she's a hottie
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/
RIAA business plan (Score:5, Funny)
2. When just seconds from hitting the rocks, finally open a parachute in desperation
3. As soon as they slow the fall to survivable speed, start thinking about folding the parachute again and toughing it out.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!
Re:RIAA business plan (Score:4, Funny)
Which begs the question... when a music exec explodes, does it rain CDs?
The missing link (Score:3, Funny)
Kjella
Never the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Sheesh, don't they get it? I can't speak for everyone of course, but this is the very reason I have stopped buying CDs by pretty much every artist out there.. There are only a few bands now that I even buy the CD for, because most of it is one or two good songs, and the rest is just filler. Just when I thought they were starting to catch on, they go and do something stupid again.
Well, maybe the MPAA will get it right, and offer paid downloads without commercials and extra crap that a lot of people simply don't want. Once bandwidth and (good) video capture equipment gets cheaper, they may have a chance to do things that are good for the customer and still profitable. I guess I just don't get it, the *AA industries (and most companies) always seem to see customer satisfaction and profitablity as mutually exclusive. What's known about the guy that is taking Valenti's place, Congressman Billy Tauzin?
Segfault
This is already a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing I noticed is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon can only be purchased as an album, and it's around 17 bucks! While that's still a fair price, it defeats the purpose of this.
No, its not a fair price (Score:4, Informative)
No, not really. Look here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002U
(the lameness filter will kill this, so I'll save you the trouble)
The NEW version of DSOTM is $14, you can buy it used from Amazon for $7.25
And you get the full version, not a compressed version.
So tell me again how $17 is a good price? Maybe for the record company, but certainly not for the consumer!
fair market value (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, a lot of CDs are padded with bad songs, but that's not my problem.
I don't buy songs-per-track and won't until it's CD-quality. I might consider what the industry is offering IF the quality were there, but it isn't. It's a joke. Then again, maybe I'm the oddball that hasn't blown his earing by having a pair of bazookas mounted in the back seat?
What's most interesting about the online music sales is that it says a lot about the state of the music industry. We buy SONGS now. We are less interested in artists as we are "hits". The band has taken a back seat to the packaging of individual songs. That probably explains why half the bands these days all sound the same.. they might as well because it's all about the track, not the music, not the message, not the group.
Video killed the radio star. The Internet will kill the concept of a band/album.
illegal downloading (Score:5, Informative)
Virgin Megastores recently offered 6 CD's for 30, basically working out at a fiver a go. I bought my first Cd's for years during this deal, because music once again became affordable for me.
Similarly, a lot of people don't object to legally purchusaing music from iTunes etc. If they're going to push the prices up again, the same thing will happen, more and more people will turn to downloading it for free P2P. Untill the record companies wise up to these simple facts, we're just going to keep going round in circles.
Great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
JtK
AllOfMP3.com (Score:4, Informative)
Like the Guiness commercials... (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA Exec #2: Yes. Brilliant!!
RIAA Exec #1: Well, I've devised a new way to get even more money from them.
RIAA Exec #2: More you say? But how?
RIAA Exec #1: We'll charge them more and take it all anyway!
RIAA Exec #2: Brilliant!!
RIAA Exec #1: And you know how we can't seem to sell all this other crap?
(Points to rotting pile of Shakira singles)
RIAA Exec #1: Well I thought of a way to get rid of that too.
(Staples a worthless single to a Top-40 single and doubles the price)
RIAA Exec #2: Brilliant!!
(Both strip off their clothes and have sex with pigs on a huge pile of cash.)
--FIN--
Whatever happened to albums? (Score:5, Interesting)
In days gone by you could get Animals, or The Wall, and even albums that weren't that tightly bound often tended to be designed to at least have the tracks sit together as a collective whle - to have some sort of theme and order to the m aterial presented on an album. In the last 10 years or so we've The Downward Spiral, another fine concept album, and the likes of Aphex Twin, and Autechre still put together albums as if all the tracks were designed to sit next to one another, plus myriads more doing similar things. But mainstream? Anything even approaching mainstream? It's harder and harder to find anything but a random collection of singles that bear no relation to one another, that fail to hang together in any way shape or form. I have an attention span that runs longer than 5 minutes. I'd like to listen to music that is more thna just a single. I'd like to listen to an hour or so of music that has theme and progression. Why is that getting so increasingly hard to find?
Jedidiah.
Re:Whatever happened to albums? (Score:5, Interesting)
That stopped happening when corporations started using ghost writers for songs and supermodels for "musicians". A band is not a band in pop music these days, it's a corporate project.
Now instead of talented, inspired artists putting an album together that means something to them (Beatles Sgt Pepper, Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon), you get a Stripper singing meaningless lyrics to a computerized drumbeat and bassline, while drinking a Pepsi.
Try classical music? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is thematic unity, progression, variation, and transformation on a theme, different styles (baroque vs a classical symphony), structure, etc. The same piece performed by different artists added additional insights and interpretation as well.
Not to sound snobby or anything but a classical music can be both something to enjoyed simply or an intellectual exercise if you want it to be.
Lastly, I know 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line, I can still listen the the same Mozart, Paganini, Bach pieces I enjoy today. So may my kids. Would I enjoy Coldplay or Coolio 30 years later? Not likely.
Re:Whatever happened to albums? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not knowing what kind of music you'll like, I'll suggest 2 albums to help start you off (don't flame me if you hate/have these already, its just a suggestion).
Miles Davis:
Cartel ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is not price fixing, then I don't know what is... FTC, where are you ?
Less desirable tracks? (Score:5, Funny)
Whats up with "less desirable tracks" in the first place? Why release them if you know people won't like them?
This is like raising the price of a pizza and then adding a side order of maggots.
RIAA Stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
It's this kind of attitude that causes businesses to lose market share. If they raise their price a couple bucks but lose a quarter of their market, they break even, but leave a bad taste in the customer's mouth. Then, rather than having them look around for more stuff to buy, they just avoid buying things.
I really think the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by charging so much money and taking legal action against file swappers. The majority of my friends still bought CD's after Napster came into use, but now they've started boycotting the RIAA because they are leading an assault against our personal freedom. Personally, I buy used, and don't hesitate to get anything off the Internet that I wouldn't ask a friend to let me borrow and make a copy of. I don't think it's right to get new music for free if you like the band, but I don't think it's right to feed the RIAA at this point, hence the used CDs.
And once I get some free time, I'll look into the indie bands. There are a few I like now, but I haven't been able to afford tickets or CDs for quite some time now.
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
I call bullshit. Retail price is directly related to inventory cost. Any retail outlet must meet operating costs by marking prices up. While I do feel some retailers are enjoying rather healthy margins, I know what it takes to run a brick-and-morter shop in direct competition with an online market. Which brings up another point- in the article it's mentioned many albums are now more expensive when downloaded online than actually paying for the physical CD.
Looks to me like record companies are starting to recognize that the problem is not piracy, but a crappy product. Even in legit download sites like iTunes, people are going right for the songs they like, and ignoring the crap they don't. What does the recording industry do? Raise prices on good songs, and bundle crap via the label "Also included!"
It's all about control- they want you to hear only what they feed you. They want you to pay for what they produce, whether or not you like it. Instead of buying the 3 or 4 songs off an album you like, they make it cheaper to buy the CD in a store, or if you still download- you get the other 4 or 5 crappy tracks along with it, "as an added bonus" (paid for by the price increase).
It's complete crap. What will it take for these overpaid execs to see what their market wants?
So much for the warm fuzzy's (Score:5, Insightful)
Their business model is probably a slight variation of the typical "Underwear Gnomes" theory, and goes something like this...
1. Introduce new music/artists which sound and look very similar to other acts you've succesfully promoted
2. Drop newly signed artists if their debut record sales don't top the sales of existing signed acts
3. As soon as the listening audience shows interest in anything being promoted, immediately mass-market it to the point where they're all sick of it (Thus insuring that 90% of the signed acts out there never release a succesfull sophmore album due to the over-saturation of their 1st)
4. As people begin to get sick of the oversaturation, begin to crank up prices to try and suck as much as possible from the remaining buyers
5. As sales continue to dwindle off, spend enormous amounts of money tying to find a scape goat to point the finger at, rather than
a. spend that money on R&D to improve the company's operations
b. spend it on signing better, more original acts.
c. Trying to figure out what consumers really want
6. Sue, and threaten to sue anyone who markets or trades music in any way outside of the usual channels established by said music industry. Above all, DO NOT let the established monopoly change
7. Continue to charge more to those who are honest and continue to pay for their music. Blame the increase on the scape goats established in step 5
8. Repeat
As the saying goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
I thought we banished the b-side (Score:5, Insightful)
There were practical reasons to justify the existence of b-sides, the most prominent one being that vinyl in fact had a b-side, something might as well by pressed there, and the person buying the single mostly just wanted the single.
And people bought singles. IIRC, singles were of a higher quality than LPs. Also, people often wanted, and only had enough money, for the single. Many were willing to wait for the LP to go on the used rack
The interesting thing is that in the pre p2p days, there was much talk that singles were the cause of the declining record sales. The labels claimed that people were buying singles instead of albums, which was likely true, but in that case we were actually paying money for music. The labels did not like that money and began to try to limit the availability of singles.
Which bring us to today and the current evil of p2p. One reason we do not legally license music(as we no longer are allowed to purchase it) is that the music is just not there. There are many tunes for which I have to download album for 10 bucks. I often buy the used cd for 7 or 8 bucks. Often the desired track is widely available. Just as often I can run off a copy from a friend. The labels need to just let Apple sell tracks for a buck. People are buying them. It solves a bunch of problems. All this other crap is just unneccesary jacking with market.
proves p2p isnt a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
2.50 is too high (Score:4, Insightful)
Its just a marketing ploy to get people to buy albums again.. to get them away from the attitude of just getting mp3's...
Business model of the future. (Score:3, Funny)
Rip (Score:4, Insightful)
But the part that *really* gets me thinking is... How much does it cost to make a movie in comparison to making a CD. That's where things get interesting.
Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions cost approximately 400 million to make (correct me if I'm wrong). It's possible to go out and get both CD's for $30, and possibly less if you shop around.
The most I've heard a CD costing to produce is Korn's Untouchables, running at 1 million (this is still ludicrous to me).
Yes, there are the music videos. Music videos are generally made for the purpose of having people buy that artist's CD. While some bands have creative direction on their music videos, most of them do not. I do NOT see it as creativity. I see it as marketing.
Marketing should *NOT* ultimately factor into how much something *should* cost. Just because a company pours $100 million into a product that costs approximately $1.00 to make, that doesn't mean that item should sell for $17.99. Especially considering that the people who made that product see so little of it coming back to them.
Then there are the bands that still don't get advertised that much. Their albums sell for the same price. WHY? I want more of my money going to the artist, rather than funding Britney Spears' next music video.
In fact, why are there even music videos? I don't care how an artist looks. And I won't buy a CD from an artist just because "they're hot".
Thank you.
Comparing the MPAA/RIAA at the store. (Score:3, Interesting)
As some have noted, this is due to the fact that the theaters are where the money is made.
(PS - an exercise for the reader is to consider how a theater model might work for music)
But, as far as walking into the store and choosing between a DVD and a CD, many things are taken into consideration (esp. if you have piracy as an option)
Music: I could buy this CD, for about $16-20 which is a couple bucks more than this DVD, but instead I could go home and download the one song I really want (legally or otherwise) and take a hit in quality. Given the speed of my net connection and the price differential, it's far better for me to not buy this CD, and use other means.
Movies: I could buy this DVD, for about $10-15, or I could go home, get online, and pirate an approximately 700 meg version that will be of crappy quality (far worse of a quality hit compared to CD vs. MP3/Ogg/ACC), which will take me a few hours to download. Or, I could spend the money, get the sucker in a portable format (and off my HD), with immensely superior quality and all the bonuses. Yeah, that's worth the money.
If you consider that time is money, at minimum wage in CA ($6.75 an hour) you could spend 2 hours on DSL (if you're lucky) pirating a movie ($13.50) or buy it for about the same price. Meanwhile, a CD costs about 3 hours ($20.25) and is compared to about 3.5 megs for about 12 tracks, or about 42 megs, which comes in, if you're lucky, in about 30 minutes ($3.37). That includes the tracks you DON'T want. If there's only 3 that are good, it's about comparable to buy those on iTMS legally.
This isn't difficult math. It's just math the RIAA can't do.
Preferred method of assination? (Score:3, Interesting)
Price it out of the market so their business goes down, whine about "pirates destroying the music industry", and get sympathy for more draconian laws
Steve
I like how... (Score:3, Interesting)
arent they acting like a trust? monopolizing the marketing, then banding together to get the most money for themselves by abusing the consumers...
I thought that was highly illegal according to several anti-trust laws...
Re:I like how... (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't the whole point... (Score:3, Funny)
Who the hell is running these music companys? I'm beginning to think it's just a room full of monkeys.
Random brainwashed RIAA marketing employee: (Opens door to boardroom filled with monkeys wearing sport jackets jumping about) Look at these figures! People are finally starting to purchase music they download online instead of stealing it!
Some monkey: oooooo-AAAAAAAAAAAHH!!
Random marketing employee: What? Fix prices on internet music too? Don't you think it's a little early for that?
Same monkey: AAAAAH-AAAHH-OOOO-AAAAAH-EEEEEE!!!
RIAA Employee: And you also think we should start making them download crap with every song just like with CDs?
Some other monkey: Pulls finger from butt and sniffs it.
Marketing Employee: BRILLIANT!
It was hilarious in my head, use your imagination
Follow the money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the current economics. Tremendous deficits, atronomical wealth leaving our shores, and a dollar which is right on the verge of going kaboom on the international exchange. As the Fed prints more money, the dollar's valuation goes through the floor (have you noticed the value of Bonds lately?) So to save the bonds market, the prime goes up (and believe me you ain't seen nothing yet.) Of course this causes the real estate and building bubble to explode, and put's millions or workers and thousands of contracting firms in bread lines next to the unemployed tech and factory workers. All of a sudden, we begin to see that the phrase Poppa Bush used in 1980, "Voodoo Economics", is not only appropos, but virtually precogniscient. The only thing trickling down in our current economic fiasco, is any hope that this debacle won't end up in a full blown economic global catastrophe.
I'm just as offended by the "kneejerk greedy" as the next person. That, and it's almost certain that the the greediest amongst us, will raise prices first to get while the getting's good. We must however notice the larger economic landscape. The smallest education in ethics, game theory, social morality, or even basic philosophy, would point out the insanity of slash and burn mentality in the arena of economics.
If we've learned anything over the last 20 years, extreme diets lead to disaster. We have a nation of fat, sick people. These rules are just as important for economics. A conservative, stable system is called for. A system that promotes ethical behavior, and punishes the "get rich quick" mentality so prevalent today. The system used to punishes people willing to gut the system to get theirs at expense of all others, we need to return to a economic system with strong and reliable ethical and moral distinctions.
Genda
Re:OMG!1 They want to make money!!!1 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OMG!1 They want to make money!!!1 (Score:5, Informative)
Well, capitalism ( not competition ) is intrinsically designed to drive prices down, simply because of economies of scale ( ie. costs less per widget when a million widgets are made as opposed to when a hundred are made )
Competition can drive prices up or down -eg. In his classic [amazon.com] book, Professor & psychologist Robert Cialdini talks about one common tactic to get customers to buy your product - RAISE prices!
Customers have this mistaken perception that price equals value, so higher price translates in their mind to valuable, lower prices to inferior/cheap goods ( this actually goes waaaay back, to Karl Marx's Labor Theory of Value [slashdot.org] )
The masses might actually buy a $5 song in the mistaken assumption that it is somehow more valuable than a song for $0.99.
Re:OMG!1 They want to make money!!!1 (Score:3, Funny)
So CmdrTaco really is Kurt Cobain!
Marketing and Studio costs? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much marketing do the record companies do for Elvis, The Eagles, Frank Sinatra, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles these days?
Re:OMG!1 They want to make money!!!1 (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that a copyright owner can charge what ever they want for the use of their property is lost on some people.
With all due respect, I think you miss the point a little. I do not think most people here saying free as free beer, but free as liberty.
For some reason, big business is dirty for wanting to profit on their IP
There is no problem that big companies make big money if they do it on the field of fair competition. However, what constitudes property ?
Property is either a constitutional
Re:Copyright Property (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally agree. In a way nothing has changed. Restricting what other people can copy has nothing to do with property rights, or even creativity rights. Because of copyrights, they were enabled to be abusive and monopolistic to begin with. Then when copyright enforcement became threatened they started to file tons of lawsuits to keep alternatives at bay while offering other download venues for cheap prices. Now that they have a market toehold they are leveraging copyrights to choke off alternetive distribution and raise prices as they do to finance it.
Moral: liberty is an is an end in itself, not pricing, not artificial markets, not unjust property rights, not distribution of profits, not creation of music, or even the artists. There are a lof of good sounding cuases that people can sell their freedoms down the river for, but only one major reason to have liberty - and that is to have more freedom in the future.
Conclusion: Anything less than the outright abolition of copyright monopolies is just going to delay the inevitable and make the situation worse.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Interesting)
- Listen to a copy your friend has
- Skim through it at a record shop (if they will let you)
- Download it
I personally don't have money to burn (and like to make up my own mind) but I do like to own CDs because they sound better on my equipment than MP3s do. I wish there was a way to not get duped into buying something which wasn't up to scratch without 'being shadey' or having to wait for someone else to make the leap of faith.Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Informative)
The other day I was at Barnes & Nobles (Waterfront in Pittsburgh) and they have these neat machines where you can listen to the whole album (no 30 second limit per song) for every single CD in the store. These little machine have a built-in bar code scanner. Scan the barcode, it starts playing! I am sure somewhere in the store there is a big server with lots of MP3s...
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
The 30 second limit on iTunes sounds a little stupid to me, it would make more sense to let people hear a whole 64bit encoded mp3.
Reasoning? Jump to 30 seconds into:
American Woman - The Guess Who
The End - The Doors
Beyond The Realms Of Death - Judas Priest
Champagne Supernova - Oasis
Here I Go Again - Whitesnake
You Can't Always Get What You Want - The Rolling Stones
Today - Smashing Pumpkins
The first 30 seconds of these isn't really enough to get a good impression of the song, either because the kick-assedness steps up after 30 seconds, or because the lyrics don't start until later or both. Maybe I'm making something out of nothing, bearing in mind that most pop music lasts 2 minutes 30 seconds...
And...if you're a parent who wants to listen to a track before downloading it for your young child, you should be able to hear the lyrics and decide whether they are appropriate...
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Interesting)
It all started in the mid-1980s, at the Fraunhofer Institut in Erlangen, Germany, which began work on a high quality, low bit-rate audio coding with the help of Dieter Seitzer, a professor at the University of Erlangen. In 1989, Fraunhofer was granted a patent for MP3 in Germany and a few years later it was submitted to the International Standards Organization (ISO), and
depends on the reviewer (Score:3, Insightful)
beauty is in the ear of the listener.
I can only imagine what they'd think of Tinpan Alley by Stevie Ray Vaughn.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:4, Interesting)
From my perspective, online prices are still too high. CD prices are much too high, and what do I gain by buying a $17 CD for $10 online and then spend my time and media burning it? A CDR is less durable than a pressed CD, it requires me to supply the jeweled case or sleeve, and includes no liner notes. I'd rather just go buy a used one. To encourage me to buy digitally, they'd need to price to be less than 50 cents a track and $6 for the whole CD.
But then again, it's not price or P2P that is keeping me from buying CDs now. It's the fact that the artists I buy are not putting out new music and they aren't introducing new artists that interest me.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm...what sounds fine to you? The article says they may start bundling crappy songs with good songs. So, like buying an entire album, you have to pay for the bad track when all you wanted was the one good track.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
I really think it's time for people to listen to music instead of just buying it...
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
uh, well. I'd find that to be a rip off. well, I'm just silly but I'd like something thats reproducable for much cheaper to be actually cheaper(as whole) than something you need actual physical stuff like plastics and transports for.
that being said, there's already enough of (truly)free music to entertain me for eternity so I don't care that much. there's been
Re:Supply & Demand (Score:3)