RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg 817
Bruha writes "It appears the RIAA is being very low key about the fact that the five major labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap, and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song. I was a huge fan of the 99c per song, but if they think that they can raise the price on me just because I don't buy full CDs anymore, they've got another thing coming. Suggestion: make good CDs, and maybe I'll buy the whole thing."
agreement (Score:0, Interesting)
The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:4, Interesting)
Just let them kill themselves. Something else fill in the vacuum created by their departure.
Exactly how will this work, anyways? (Score:4, Interesting)
And second, how can they compete with free? The threat of a lawsuit is almost insignificant compared to the ease with which one can grab pretty much anything they like.
So how is this going to play out?
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists: This is your cue: (Score:5, Interesting)
Get together, purchase the tools or access to the tools to create music directly, make CDs, and together, negotiate to sell them to stores.
You don't need any RIAA "representation" - your music is yours to do what you want with. This is your life, and the lives of countless other artists - so work with other artists to cut these brain-dead suits out of the picture finally!
Ryan Fenton
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you imagine how popular XM radio would be if you could go online and set up a playlist of ANY music you want (and none that you dont) and listen to it from you car?
Price fixing (Score:5, Interesting)
"Suggestion: Buy a clue" (Score:2, Interesting)
The music industry may have just decided that there is more profit to be made at $2.99 rather than
See, one thing I've noticed is that whenever
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
On another tangent, they may be shooting for the first reverse discount I've ever heard of: Since online distribution is competition to CD sales (their traditional business), they need to make CDs appear to be a better bargain. By increasing the price per song online, they have given CDs a discounted rate without ever really discounting them.
screw studio albums.... (Score:2, Interesting)
if they allow recording at the concert, do it.
get into bands that have an open taping policy....get involved in trading shows/live concert downloads and whatnot...
been doing this for years now and have some really really kick ass music, from a lot of kick ass bands....and all it cost me was either a ticket to a concert (which was worth it for the memories alone) and the cost of a blank cd (or 2 or 3)
And if they band sucks live - do you really want to listen to them anyway?
Short-term pain (Score:3, Interesting)
Market Pricing Mechanism (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you really want to use a market mechanism, then let people put in bids. When the price of the song drops to the bid price, the bidder gets the song. If the bidder wants the song sooner, then they will have to up their bid.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
I think maybe they've been milking so much money for so long that they don't realize how expensive their music is. How else could they not reason that if I'm not willing to pay $14-$20 for a CD, why would I be willing to pay something like $15-$40+ for electronic copies of the music where I have to worry about keeping it backed up incase of hard drive crashes and I don't get to have a copy of the jewel case, liner notes, etc.?
At this point in time, I only have legal music on my computer. I've been trying to take the moral high ground and stick with golden ethics even if it means giving money to these shitheads. Granted, they're still shitheads so I try to stick to (truly) indie labels, used CD's, and $10 albums bands sell at their concerts. If they go through with this plan, though, I think I'll change my operating mantra from "turn the other cheek" to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and download a copy of every single filesharing program I can get my hands on.
You mean they can't buy their audience? (Score:2, Interesting)
Quality products create a pull marketplace where people actually want to buy the product without the mounds of marketing budgets. Maybe if they cut down on the Make-the-band, pop-stars, american-idol manufactured stars and put talented folk on open stages in central park, they could get the industry back in the positive spotlight.
Just my .02
Re:Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll never understand this. Why do people listen to songs from a band that can only turn out "3 or 4 good tracks", when you could buy an alblum from a good band and get an entire CDs worth of good music? Is it really that important to you that you get those three tracks, or can you live without those few songs that will end up never being listened to after year? Must you stay current with whatever's popular?
I really am tired of hearing about how a CD will only contain a single good song or two. Bands that are creative and sound good through an entire alblum do exist, people. Maybe you should try looking at sources other than MTV for what you want to listen to.
Re:What's the big problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the EFF doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the EFF even asking a question like that? That's economics....that's business....that's marketing. That has nothing to do with My Rights Online.
(Yes, I'm an EFF contributor, but they shouldn't be worrying about how much a music track should cost...)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
An alternative is that perhaps the RIAA has seen that online music stores can work and they want to kill the opposition by raising prices before introducing their own service.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately for the RIAA, economic theory takes into account theft. If they refuse to sell at a reasonable price, it is my duty to steal from them if I desire their product and there is no other source.
I'm just doing my part, as part of the Invisible Hand.
Conspiracy time (Score:1, Interesting)
RIAA's members' primary business is distribution. If they don't control distribution they have nowhere to cast nets for profits.
A booming online music industry is not in the best interests of RIAA member corporations' bottom line because it eliminates the essential profit funnels. A worldwide legit online music industry would completely obsolete every member of the RIAA. The music industry has spent literally the last few decades homogenizing the retail music industry to stabilize a chokepoint infrastructure. They got a few good years of use out of it, gouging consumers everywhere through virtue of blanket cartel control, before the bottom fell completely out and mp3s took off.
Every other sign from RIAA members indicates they're desperate to turn back the hands of time and stuff the mp3 genie back in the bottle. The brick-and-mortar infrastructure cost billions to establish. A revolutionary method of distribution is a nightmare to these people, not a dream.
This might not be simple greed at work. RIAA(/CRIA, etc) members still do have contracts and IP storehouses on their side. Price raising could be intended as a way to stop the hemmorhaging CD market, or at least slow the flow of blood. Or it could be a sinister attempt to derail the burgeoning legit online music market and drive people towards piracy. RIAA members have Congress' ears and the ability to legislate-by-proxy with the aid of oodles of cash; a successful legit online music industry is a roadblock if "music downloads" need to be demonized for harsh new laws to get passed.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:5, Interesting)
A guy in the May Esquire suggested this (Score:3, Interesting)
He sees it (charging over 20 bucks a cd) as a litmis test for finding the artists who are making music worth while to buy at a higher price. A "tax on shitty taste" he calls it. Not only would it weed out the weak but force artists to give you more bang for your buck (instead of DMX squozing out an album every 8 months like he did).
Besides, if you are only interested in one song from an album, isn't a buck in change better than 13+ dollars for the same fitness?
Of course there are other options. Say secondspin.com [secondspin.com] which is an online used cd/dvd store. Just bought a disc there for a 1.99 that is out of print. Even counting in S&H I got music for half the price of iTunes.
Guess they want me to only listen to radio or XM? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they want 2-3 dollars per song I suggest they mail it to me on CD in CD quality format.
I am pretty sure the 99 cent model does crimp their profits, but honestly most music sucks today. Rarely have I heard an album with more than 2 tracks that were worth a damn, it is rare to have 3 or 4. Most CDs out today seem to be the standard one hit wonder type. One good song from a new band and the rest just suck. Granted radio stations will play it OVER AND OVER again (can you say Hero?)
Curious how they will fare against Wal-Mart. Doubt that Wal-Mart would be too keen on running up the price.
Re:Artists: This is your cue: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes they do, but occasionally they don't. This can be advantageous, though, I got Pharaoh's Dance, Bitches' Brew, and Spanish Key off Miles Davis' Bitches Brew album for
I think it's time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I'm gonna get me a good-sized USB hard drive and rip all my CDs. Then I'll add all my dad's MP3s (he went Napster-crazy back in the good old days). And then I'll ship them to my brother.
He's already ripped all his CDs, and a bunch of his buddies are doing theirs. We're talking about folks with good taste in music and larger collections than mine, and I have somewhere around 500 albums. Even with dupes, there's gotta be a lot of good material in there. Varied, too; I'm into folk, my brother's heavily into blues, another guy has a huge classical collection...
Then we put them all together on a server and point our Audiotrons at the server. Bingo, instant online music library. I'm really looking forward to this.
It's a good thing these people are all friends, 'cause here in Canada, we can share music with our friends. As my GF would say, "That's... just... great." Anyone else thinking of setting up something similar?
Cheers!
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
Another alternative - http://last.fm (Score:5, Interesting)
No downloads though - and right now I expect that there are few people in a position to receive a "broadband" stream in their car, so it won't solve that problem immediately.
Still, assuming you're not in your car you get your taste in music but with no "entertaining" DJ spiel and no adverts. Can't be bad.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Will music downloads kill what little art remains? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes the "other songs" on an "album" are not just filler, but actually good songs that are more artistic and show a little more of the muscian's talent.
Often these songs don't have a "pop enough sound" to make it onto the radio and sell themselves.
What happens to these songs or other "less then pop" songs that people may learn to being bundled together on CD's if the download model replaces buying full CD's?
Will the record companies only shell out to produce the most popish, top 40 friendly songs?
Ick.
Steve
Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were impossible to do this stuff without the RIAA, there wouldn't be lots of "independent" deals where there is no RIAA to be found. Somehow artists and independent record companies found some way to accomplish all this stuff on their own.
Anyway, somehow I think the term "Vaporware" now applies to music too. I mean, you've got idiots like Britney Spears all over everything and she's basically "vapor-ware"... prototyped, mocked up boobs, artifical, pre-recorded singing voice, and clearly just a glamorized screenshot- she's not even a functioning prototype. I think somehow the need for the RIAA has to do with having this Britney Vaporware in our faces 24x7 and in our ears at least once an hour on every radio station.
Copyright on silence (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Suggestion: Buy a clue" (Score:2, Interesting)
Says you (and indirectly, I agree). But, have you listened to Metallica's early (and current) lyrics? Here we go:
No life till leather
We are gonna kick some ass tonight
We got the metal madness
When our fans start screaming
It's right well alright
When we start to rock
We never want to stop again
Now, you bring up how Metallica is one of those bands that "toured clubs" and built their fanbase one by one (until they smelled the money and shit on that same fanbase years later). Now, just how socially redeemable is that song compared to anything Britney has "performed"? Other than the fact that Britney has songwriters and Metallica writes their own stuff (or did, anyway), there's really none.
If you took away the video clips and the posters and the magazines and the _idolism_, how long do you think Britney would last? My guess is, she would never have had any attention in the first place.
My guess is, who fucking cares? You don't like her music. Do like I do. Don't buy it. Change the channel if you see her on TV. Whatever. The fact is, the modern music "industry" doesn't give a shit about things such as "musicianship" or "songwriting". It's concerned with IMAGE. Again, face the fucking facts. You're in the minority.
You've lumped in RATM with those other two bands.
Yes, I have. I've lumped them into the "I don't like them" category. I made no other insinuation other than the fact 1) I find the "music" of all of those bands to be completely.. boring. 2) They are all on major labels and are "pushed" as being the cool/hip bands. and 3) I don't like them. Dig?
But RATM is different. They had a huge fanbase well before they ever got their first MTV music clip. People turned up to their gigs because of their lyrics, their stage presence, and to hear the music. Because let's face it, not even a mother could love those faces. They're ugly bastards.
Irrelevant. They sucked before their major label debut. They still suck now. I don't say that just because they "sold out" and went to a major, but because, frankly, angry rap-rock sucks. Millions of records sold states that I, too, am in a minority. The point is, for every person complaining about a "crappy band" putting out "crappy music", there's another person happy that that "great band" is putting out a "great album" (same band we're talking about). I find RATM's lyrics to be trite, pretentious, and pretty fucking stupid, in that order.
Riddle me this. How many pubs, clubs or dance halls did Britney play in before she became an overnight sensation? My measure of a band is, if they had a paying audience before they were famous then they're probably worth hearing. If the band members never met each other until the marketting machine began then I smell a rat.
Well, she spent a lot of time on the Disney channel as a Mouseketeer. She sang quite a few auditoriums and what not developing her "talent". Are you going to say that unless you're poor and destitute or face daily living struggles you can't be an artist? If you want to argue that Britney isn't an artist or a musician, that's fine, I don't disagree. But obviously, the music buying PUBLIC doesn't care what you want out of music.
To quickly finish this off, I get mightily tired of the "music is all subjective" argument. I know you weaseled out of that with "tastes in music" but I'm going to rant towards empty space. Music is both subjective and objective. An untalented person who sings off-key is objectively a poor singer. It doesn't matter if you like or dislike the genre or the song or the person's face; you can still measure the quality of their singing.
A
How does $0.01 per MB grab you? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why it's never discussed when this topic comes up, but there are a couple of on-line music sites that sell for approximately 6-8 cents per song, high bit rates, no DRM. What's really amazing is that it's legal, at least until the RIAA finds a way to buy some Russian legislators.
allofmp3.com [allofmp3.com] has a large selection of music, lets you pick your own encoding (mp3, ogg, wmv, etc.) and your own bitrate (up to 320kbps) and then sells you the files at $0.01 per MB.
As I understand it, the whole thing works like this, legally: Under current Russian law there is no difference between a radio station playing music over the air and a web site downloading music over the Internet. All broadcasters have to pay some small royalties for the right to play the music, and allofmp3.com and mp3search.com pay their royalties and have the legal right to sell you music over the Internet.
So grab your favorite songs at 10 cents each for 320 kbps encodings. And then send a couple of bucks directly to the artist. They'll make more than they would from your purchase of a CD, you'll get the tunes the way you want, no DRM, for less money, and the RIAA will get next to nothing.
RIAA trying to keep dying business model alive... (Score:3, Interesting)
...and for the self-congratulatory... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only can you buy silence, you can buy applause -- like this [apple.com], for instance. Do a search on "applause"
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Interesting)
How does the 30-second sample of that work?
Didn't go to trial, so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Please stop this FUD! (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay. These points have been beaten over and over on Slashdot "I don't buy full CDs anymore" "make good CDs and maybe I'll buy the whole thing". This angers me very much.
THE MUSIC IS THE ARTISTS. It is their's. They, and who they create it for (record companies) and those who represent them (RIAA) have the right to set -any- price even if its $1000 a track. If its a $10,000 album that is the price. Don't try to negotiate, don't try to justify what is "right" and "wrong", what is "too much" because its totally subjective and it is -their- property.
If you don't want to buy a CD then don't. Thats great. Go listen to the music on the radio for free (and legal) like I do. But don't try to somehow justify copyright infringement (I'm civil and won't call it theft cause its not) by saying "too much" or "filler" in your sentences because thats an opinion not a fact.
Music is an art and like all arts there is no "good" or "bad". No "crap" no "great" because it is all opinion. So while you may think 10 out of 12 tracks on a CD are filler, the artist might have spent much more time working on those "fillers" than on the big radio hit that you wanted and downloaded from kazaa.
This "now they are charging too much" is just another excuse in the copyright infringement chest. Before it was "I want a company with a more realistic business model". So they put music online to compete with lost business through Napster et all. Then it became "I don't want to buy a whole album, I want to pick and choose" so after awhile things like iTunes became available where you could be selective. Now it is "oh...well....you can't decide the price for tracks, its uh...not fair!". The tactic is ever-changing and its annoying as hell. At least stand your ground and live up to your word. Artists are going farther and farther out of their way to accept the new technologies and you just keep making more excuses.
Believe it or not the music industry has bent over backwards to consumer demands more than any other industry has in recent decades. Look at the movie industry. No one demands the same crap from them. "I downloaded Matrix Revolutions because...uh well I didn't fully enjoy the filler in Matrix Reloaded so it is owed to me!"
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: YOU AREN'T OWED A GODDAMN THING SO PLEASE STOP THINKING THAT. You have no right to music. You have no right to demand how it exists, the quality, how it is distributed or the costs or means of it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no problem with charging a premium for a hot new CD, in fact, if I were an artist / record company I wouldn't be opposed to charging even more for the first few days or weeks of a really popular release: it's just supply and demand.
But as the weeks go on, and production exceeds demand, the price should go down, and continue to go down as time passes. It simply makes no sense that we should have to pay the same price to within a few dollars for a CD that came out years ago and is not longer anywhere near as popular as it was.
Furthermore, there's no reason why CDs couldn't be produced in "paperback" or low-cost versions later: something like this already happens with the Columbia House and BMG music club discs. But I would make it more extreme: initially sell "collector" or full-price CDs, in nice jewel cases with liner notes, bonus tracks, etc. But after 6 months or a year, distribute it at a vastly reduced price, basically as a bare disc in a cardboard sleeve.
If these "paperback" discs were released in the $10 price range, they would be comparable to MP3s and would provide additional justification for simultaneous digital release with the discount discs.
Does the RIAA even understand economics anymore? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that is permitted in the XM service contract. I don't have the service, but this is not free over the air radio. Recording it might be defined as theft of service. Check your contract. I you have a contract, reply to my post and let us know if recording the program is permitted.
$33 CD = hello increased filesharing! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think sombody should send these greedheads a copy of "The Golden Goose" with explanitory notes in words or two syllables or less, so the record execs will be able to understand it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Price hikes survive when people pay them (Score:3, Interesting)
Supply and demand per track (Score:2, Interesting)
Does a painter price all of their canvases the same? Some are definitely worth more than others and are priced accordingly.
The truth here is that most tracks on a cd are worth much, much less if they were priced this way.
I do buy more cd's now than ever, although almost all are not the major marketed groups.
David Lee Roth disagrees (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Interesting)
The programming he hates (his daytime job) he does for the money.
Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:3, Interesting)
Nor do they care much about the independent artists. Let 'em produce, and let them collectively make 1% of the total money spent on music. If you don't think to look for them on iTunes, you don't buy their music. Simple as that.
An accurate assessment of the music industry, unfortunately.
So, besides the artificial hype of specific bigname artists that comes from radio airplay, can someone recommend:
- good online communities that rate music (I'm looking for an amazon like "other listeners that liked BigName liked LittleName1, LittleName2,
...)?
- good online streams of random music so that you can be introduced to lesser known artists that are just not "lucky" enough to have signed the Big Contract?
[I do hear some nice music (reggae, folk, etc.) on my local college station, but often they don't tell you the name of the artist, etc. until 6 songs later after I've gotten out of my car or forgotten whether the song I liked was 3 from last played or 4 from last played...