MP3 Download Prices to Rise? 831
OBeardedOne writes "The major music labels are in talks with music download services attempting to get them to increase the price of music downloads. " Sounds like there is division in the ranks of the music companies, but something to watch.
www.allofmp3.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
It's legal in russia. You do the transaction in russia, in rubles. They've paid a license... the RIAA has absolutely *nothing* to say about this as they aren't involved.
When will americans learn that their own screwed up system does not apply in the rest of the world?
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
You transferred it to the US and copied it there.
Whether or not that second copying is illegal depends on whether or not copying for personal use is permitted under your laws - some places it is some it isn't.
If it would be legal for you to buy a cd in russia, bring it back to the US and then copy it to your HDD, then allofmp3 should be legal too, since it is the same thing. Alternatively both actions could be illegal - depends on yo
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from that such an argument is nonsense -- you say there are cases. Cite them.
I can cite mine:
MAI v. Peak, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)
Marobie-FL v. NAFED, 983 F. Supp. 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
So, they make a copy and send it over the wire to me.
Which is impossible.
A copy is defined by the law, at 17 USC 101, as being a tangible object. If you've figured out how to send tangible objects via wire, then please demonstrate this absolutely stunning new technology, by, e.g. emailing me a glass of water.
Of course, that's not what's going on here. What's actually
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Not in the long run. Paul Goldstein, a noted professor of copyright law from Stanford, pointed out something very interesting in a lecture I attended around 10 years ago. When music (or other copyrighted material, for that matter) is sold electronically (he was envisioning some kind of satellite on-demand streaming service, but the idea still applies), in a way that allows the sellers to keep track of the purchase history of individual buyers, then they could go to variable pricing that is variable per person, rather than just per song like you are imagining.
That is, they could figure out that you like that "fucked-up indie" stuff, and so charge you $4 for it, whereas if I think it is merely OK they might only ask $0.50 from me.
Note: Goldstein didn't say this would be a good thing. He was just pointing out the possibility that it might happen.
There was also some speculation as to how consumers could deal with this. I don't remember if Goldstein suggested this, or if it was something that me and my friends came up with while discussing the lecture later. Consumers could purposefully purchase stuff they don't like, in order to try to screw up the profile data, to keep the music companies from knowing what their favorites are. If buying a couple $0.50 songs from a genre you hate will keep them from raising one of your favorites from $2 to $4, it would be worth it. The music companies would probably tie in the purchase prices to the data from streaming services, so heavy music buyers could subscribe to streaming services, and have their computers listen to crappy music all day to skew the data.
Or maybe people could group together. Find someone who gets a low price on what you like, and for whom you have a low price on what he likes, and purchase for each other.
Robinson-Patman Act (Score:4, Informative)
Mainly, they can sue. It's called price-discrimination, and it's illegal.
Now, proving it using the Robinson-Patman Act (1936) is not the easiest thing in the world to do. There's loads of exceptions, sort of thing. But nevertheless, public outcry and a highly public case against the first person who tried this sort of thing would likely be enough to put a stop to it.
Amazon.com tried something like this several years back, didn't they? Different customers got different prices. They dumped it, I think, because of all the attention it got when people noticed it happening.
New to the world? (Score:5, Funny)
So, you think that the record companies, who are already in a frothy panic because they think they're losing all their profits to those "p2p pirates" are going to suddenly become magnanimous and cut you a break by lowering their profit margin?
*chuckle*
Let me guess: you also swallowed that line about how the government will restore those pesky civil liberties you used to have once the War on Terrah is won.
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially copyright, as stated in numerous places, simply gives those who control the copyright the "right to copy," or produce those works in question. It started with books and, surprisingly, US booksellers reprinting British books without permission, meaning that british authors received no money from their work while the US booksellers
Moral questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a commodity: sugar, say. If I sell sugar, I can do so for any price I wish. I can also sell sugar of any type or condition, provided that a) it's safe for human consumption, and b) I'm honest about what's in it. I can choose to sell for a ludicrously high price, but that's okay because someone else down the road can sell for a lower price, and unless I can provide people with a genuine reason for preferring mine, they'll buy his. So it's a free market; it tends to regulate itself.
Music isn't like that, though. If I want to buy a track from an RIAA artist (legally, in my country), then I have to buy from an RIAA-approved source. I can't go and get the same track from another source. So it's not a free market in the same sense; it's more like a cartel. Under those conditions, maybe it's not quite so just for the cartel to choose whatever price it likes?
Music is also different in another major way, as discussed in other comments: if I steal some sugar, then not only do I get to have it, I'm depriving the original owner. But if I copy music, although I get the benefit, the original owner doesn't lose anything. So copying music is only like theft of physical objects in some ways; in others, it's different.
These two reasons make me think that although music copying is wrong according to the law, it's not a wrong of the same type as physical theft. And maybe it's a wrong we need to reconsider.
Re:Moral questions (Score:3, Interesting)
So don't buy it. There is plenty of good music from independant labels, and many smaller bands give their stuff away for free on the internet. You have no right to, say, a Metalica song no matter how unfairly they price their songs. If you want it, you pay their price. That's the law. Your argument is flawed. There are other producers of music.
But if I copy music, although I get the benefit, the
Re:Moral questions (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a great idea generally, but it's not a solution. Sugar is sugar; whether it's granulated or caster or whatever, and whoever supplied it, it has pretty much the same effect. You wouldn't complain because someone put the wrong sort of sugar in your tea, would you?
Music's different. People don't want some music, they want some specific music. Okay, much of the time their decisions are driven by marketing, familiarity, and comfort more than by quality, originality and skill, but either way music is not a commodity in that sense.
Erm, I never mentioned drugs! I just mentioned sugar. (Though I'd be prepared to argue that processed sugar has drug-like qualities for many people living in the Western world...)
And I'm not advocating stealing. I just think that we might want to reconsider what we define as 'stealing' in this context. Until then, the law is the the law and breaking it is by definition illegal. But laws are not immutable...
Re:Moral questions (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about everyone else, but I went YEARS without buying any music because I never heard anything I liked ANYWHERE. I started buying CDs after I started downloading music. Quite a few of them actually.
Without file sharing, that's hundreds of dollars the recording industry wouldn't have seen.
Re:www.allofmp3.com (Score:4, Interesting)
here in the UK we are charged $20-$25 for a new album, $30 or more if the album is older.
You yanks get everything cheap but still its too expensive for you...
True Colors? (Score:2)
Re:True Colors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, you'll probably be long dead before the copyright on any high-quality digital recordings runs out, so it doesn't help you much.
Re:True Colors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless, of course, it is protected with a copy protection mechanism. Then copying per se wouldn't be illegal, but breaking the copy protection (which is necessary in order to copy it) AFAIK still is (IANAL).
Re:True Colors? (Score:3, Insightful)
After the copyright expires? Of course you are.
Grandparent poster was advocating a limit to how long a company is allowed to sell music at a given price, after which it would be free, or cheaper.
No such limit exists, nor should it.
I don't see what "misconception" you're driving at
The misconception is that the price of a given work on the open market is related to whether that work is still protected by copyright or not. When the copyri
Re:True Colors? (Score:3, Insightful)
There already is. In the States, it's called the Copyright Act. It expires 95 or so years after the death of the artist, at which point the content becomes free for everyone (public domain).
However, since that time is totally arbitrary and determined by the U.S. Congress, whenever it's about to expire, various Vested Intrests will simply lobby their CongressCritter to have the Act extended.
prices? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:prices? (Score:3)
Re:Stealing MP3's? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens in that case is, someone illegally 'accesses' a computer system, illegally 'copies' sensitive data, and then illegally 'steals' money using that data.
Saying that the data was stolen is convenient, but you're right when you point out that stealing isn't really the appropriate concept in that case.
I don't believe it (Score:2)
Regardless, all this ruckus about music download prices increasing stinks of FUD from the non #1 music download stores who want to push their music subscriptio
Re:I don't believe it (Score:3, Informative)
working link (Score:3, Informative)
New record label? (Score:5, Funny)
Adding to the fire... (Score:5, Insightful)
illegal trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Link to CNN article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link to CNN article (Score:5, Interesting)
lol!. I guess for them it costs more than 65 cents to make a copy of a 4MB file and upload it to servers? This is utter crap. They actually expect us to believe that a digital version of a song is more expensive than it's CD version? Not that it is for us now, but if they raise prices...
Re:Link to CNN article (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I never said that tracks could be made for 65 cents. Of course an original track costs more than that to make. But since th
Bunch o' Rocket Scientists on Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Sing, fuckers, sing! (Score:4, Funny)
> The requested URL (%3CA%20HREF=) was not found.
> > Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Percent three, with a Cee-Ayy percent,
Nothin' for you to see here.
Percent twenty, Aitch-Arr-Eee-Eff,
URL wasn't found.
Slashdot editors makin' no sense,
Nothin' for you to see here.
Least it wasn't a duplicate H-ref,
Time to move along.
(If the article was workin' I'd know how much to charge you for reading this. Sheesh.)
Well they have to raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Er... Because they have to hire more employees to handle the purchasing load...
Er... Because the Britney Spears needs a new swimming pool for her poodle... yeah!
Isn't it time we just declare the RIAA a monopoly and start regulating it because, obviously, there is no competition.
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is not a monopoly. They do not produce anything (although their members do), and so can not be a monopoly. They are a cartel. Not that that's any better...
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple weeks ago, I downloaded an album by California artist Mari Iijima. She's a former J-Pop star who's currently living in the US and putting stuff out on her own tiny label (mostly in English.) IMHO, the music she makes these days are leaps and bounds better than the stuff she used to record as a Japanese teen idol years ago... and almost nobody outside of the SF bay area seems to know about her.
Skim thr
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well they have to raise prices (Score:3)
Honestly, I don't know what Jobs was expecting. Did he think that he was going to get these greedy bastards to heel forever? Even if it was in their best interest? Rather than grow their new market, and est
Re:Monopoly by artist? (Score:3, Informative)
Yep, that's the way the music industry works. You could say that whichever record company owns the rights to sell Beatles songs holds a "monopoly" on Beatles music -- and therefore there cannot be any price-fixing or other collusion, because there is no competition in the market for Beatles music -- there is only one supplier.
It's like Coke. There is only one supplier for Coke, and
price to rise, eh? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm probably not alone in this: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm probably not alone in this: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'm probably not alone in this: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm certain that's what you
Wow that's really gonna hurt (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
" Wasn't the recording industry nailed for trying to force retailers to up the price for CD's."
Kinda. They set up a MAP (minimum advertised price) program with Tower Records and TWE in which they helped pay for advertising if Tower and TWE agreed not to advertise the price of CDs for below a certain point. The MAP program started because Tower Records and TWE complained that Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc. were putting them out of business by selling CDs at or below cost. When Wal-Mart and Best Buy found out about the MAP program, they went to the government.
As another poster put it, "nailed" isn't the best term. The MAP program didn't affect the distributor price of the CDs, so the record labels didn't lose any profits as a result of being ordered to stop MAPping. The big winners here were Wal-Mart and Best Buy. The losers are indie and specialty record stores like Tower (who subsequently filed for bankruptcy), as Wal-Mart and Best Buy will continue to drive them out of business. Also among the list of losers is music fans who might be willing to pay a buck or two extra per CD for the opportunity to shop in a cool indie store with great selection, rather than having to deal with the Wal-Mart or Best Buy shopping experience.
"Wouldn't this be just as illegal for Mp3 downloads?"
It's a different scenario here, as in this case, the record companies are actually trying to raise wholesale prices. An equivalent to the price-fixing case would be if the record companies were now offering to help fund Apple's advertising if they agreed to only advertise tracks that sell for, say, $1.29.
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Contracts... (Score:5, Informative)
Link (Score:5, Insightful)
Labels are like OPEC...there's no competitive pricing among providers, just THE price for the product.
Bad title: does not involve MP3s (Score:3, Informative)
Profit Margins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Profit Margins (Score:3, Insightful)
When you say that "digital downloads are pure profit," you're assuming that the record company has already recovered its costs. This is practically never true. The only reason the record companies are able to stay in business at all is because a smal
Re:Profit Margins (Score:4, Insightful)
And while that's a fair comparison, to the music industry, that just doesn't apply. See, they 'advance' some amount of money to a band wishing to get its music produced. The recording studio then charges the band for use of their studio, which takes a huge chunk of money out of that advanced money. Net effect to the music industry? They paid a band some trivial amount, and got a set of songs recorded. They didn't incur any costs for the band making the recording, they charged them for it.
While you can argue that there is money spent in manufacturing, sales, production, and getting the products on the shelves, often times 'early teasers' for up and coming bands are given for free to radio stations to give away and play on the air. How much does that cost, in terms of materials? Few thousand?
Quite a bit of the money goes to people who don't really deserve it, the recording studio. It would be one thing if it were going to directly support the band, but unless you're a Big Name(tm), you generally don't have the clout or backing to negotiate terms. This hate against the recording studios isn't irrational, it is in some ways very legitimate. Convicted of price fixing, seeking to subsidize their own failures with the success of a few bands rather than simply dump said failed projects, and destroying any kind of copyright that the band holds over the music by getting legislation passed making such things 'works for hire'. Ya. These are really people that we want to do business with.
Re:Profit Margins (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a link in the
Re:Profit Margins (Score:3, Insightful)
Price Elasticity (Score:5, Informative)
It will no doubt change as competition (i.e. Walmart, et. al.) enters the market. It's one of the most common fallacies in business to raise your prices to make more money (or conversely to have a sale). It takes careful research and testing to determine the correct price point to maximize profts. You can't just decide to raise more prices to get more money.
Re:Exactly. And Jobs says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmph (Score:4, Insightful)
I was hoping... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wal-Mart to the rescue! (Score:5, Insightful)
My concern, if the labels get an increase in their fee what is too stop these retailers silently increasing their "costs" behind the scene?
Frankly the labels get too much of a slice of the fee as it is. I would like to see how much is actually given to the artist per sale. I would suspect that a lot of older music gives less than a cent per sold song to the original artist.
Higher than 99 cents? Only if I can get it in the format and quality I want. Only if I have a permanent right to have the song at my disposal. Get near 1.99 and it they can kiss the business model good-bye - which may be what they are after so later down the road the can release their own services.
All this begs the question, if the per song fee increases what happens to the all-you-listen-to sites like Rhaposdy and Napster?
Can't be done (Score:5, Interesting)
Currently on iTunes a whole album costs $9.99, now I can walk into a music store and get the actual CD for $14.99.
Personally, if its only five bucks, I'd much rather have the CD. You get a pernament backup, the song lyrics and all of the other extras.
If you buy it on iTunes, you have to make sure to burn it yourself or lose it forever, and you don't get the liner notes etc.
Now, if the price per song increases, I'm guessing that the price of an album would increase as well. So that brings the price of buying the album online very close to the price of buying it from a brick and mortar store. So the arugment for buying online is even smaller.
It will be interesting to see what happens here.
Re:Can't be done (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting stuff online is easier. It's faster. And, even if it's by a few cents, it's cheaper. I've spent over $300 in the iTMS and my iPod's got plenty of room left (for my "other"
Re:Can't be done (Score:3, Insightful)
comparing to ringtones (Score:5, Interesting)
This of course is insane. 2 or 3 dollars for a ringtone out of my tiny cel phone speaker is barely even something you can call a song.
Anyway, that's the logic behind it. Ringtones don't target people who want music. They target people who need to be hip and with the pop culture, so clearly people behind this are missing things.
I hate to nitpick... (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure this could drastically decrease their count of their catalog, but the labels might get a clue: 20% more of no sales is $0. Then they'd be begging to be added back with the old price.
HIGHER? Wrong sign on that delta, guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
At a buck a track, I *might* consider buying 'em if they were losslessly encoded at at-least CD quality, and included metadata, "liner notes", etc... basically all the goods I can get at roughly the same price in a physical CD.
But in a lossy, DRM-infested mess... why the hell would I pay the same amount?
If they get the price down to 25 cents... or maybe even 50!... then I might consider it. Until then, it's back to the used-CD bins at Amoeba for me.
Re:HIGHER? Wrong sign on that delta, guys... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. IANAB (I am not a businessman), I am just a humble engineer, but I have this crazy idea that an industry that suddenly finds that its cost-of-goods has dropped to essentially zero (or reasonably close) should be dancing about, singing hallelujah. As someone pointed out, the music industry seems to think it's in the business of selling small, round, plastic discs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, piracy and all that. It happens. Deal with it. The software industry has.
quick thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
the article: [theregister.co.uk]
What? Thanks largely to Apple, the "music industry" now actuall has a market. Without iPods and iTunes, and the Apple Music Store, this money -- 65 cents/song wholesale times some HUGE number -- wouldn't be going to the "music industry" at all.higher than 99-cents and i'm out (Score:5, Interesting)
Since iTMS came to Canada I just spend the 99-cents (that's about 82-cents US, by the way) -- it's much quicker, easier and instantly satisfying.
But if they bumped it up to, say $1.20 per song -- I'll probably go find me an eMule client -- not that much more money, but psychologically 99-cents seems negligable. Above a dollar? That's real money.
Sam
Some questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not understand the music industry's complaint here. Someone (Apple) is selling their music online and they are unhappy about this? Were they complaining when Virgin, Best Buy, and Tower Records were gobbling up the physical CD market?
What complaint could the music industry have against Apple? As long as the music is being sold, what does the music industry care? They agreed to Apple's contract.
Cheaper iPods will also lead to Apple selling MORE songs. That is the reason that Apple will have more of the market. Yeah, the music industry definitely has a right to complain - one of their resellers will be selling a lot more of their product. Gotta hate it when that happens.
Meanwhile it was confirmed on Friday that the European Commission is investigating allegations that British consumers are being ripped off by Apple's iTunes service because it charges more for downloads from the UK site and does not allow punters to buy tracks from other country's iTunes sites.
I always thought that a Brit's inability to buy from another country's iTunes store is because of licensing restrictions. That is, that Apple is not allowed to sell a song to a Brit that Apple only has the French distribution rights to.
I suppose the EU is supposed to rectify a lot of these problems, but I daresay that the contracts between Apple and the music industry follow the older, country-specific licensing agreements.
How much of this could also be chalked up to England still using the Pound, and not going over to the Euro? Will the EC only be happy when it costs EXACTLY the same in England (with the pound) as it does in France, with the Euro? Would Apple have to change prices daily to keep up with the exchange rate?
(Yes, I realize that English iTunes is still way too expensive in comparison and should be brought down. I am just not so quick to blame Apple. Maybe the contract the music industry came up with in England just charges Apple more per song?)
Re:Some questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all in the wording... (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement right here says it all. One might initially read this as a bit of sane thinking from one of the labels re letting the industry grow, however when you think about what it means you see that the greater plan is more stifling prices.
The only current cost increase that the RIAA could justify is annual inflation. Their distribution costs are taken up by the online reseller (iTunes, etc), their printing costs are essentially zero, just convert a master song copy to digital format and deliver to online distributor once. And their advertising costs remain the same since they are not (to my knowledge) producing any advertisements that forward online music buying specifically.
The only explanation for the price increase is that they simply want more for the same or less service. And the wording of the one abstaining record label here says it all: not yet mature enough. i.e. They planned to milk consumers for all they possibly could once it caught on, but most of them have gotten tired waiting for the plan to come to fruition and have jumped the gun. In other words if they had waiting another X years/Y% user increase/[insert marketing threshold here] then everybody would have been on board for this as they'd planned it all along.
Could someone who is a lawyer or has the time to research the appropriate links please explain how the RIAA in doing this is NOT acting as a monopoly or cartel? As I understood it, price fixing by an industry that is not justified by some external cost increase is explicitly illegal, regardless of whether it's a smokey back-room deal or done in the public eye under the guise of an "association".
Funny, I thought prices should DROP... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that not everyone wants every track, but when you're getting it in a lower quality format and at your own expense/time (bandwidth/time taken to download) $1 is a bit of a rip off.
If anything, the price should be dropping to $0.50 or $0.75. That'd actually encourage people like me to use these online services. And you'd think the music industry would like it because it's less physical content they have to manufacture and ship out to stores.
Hiking the prices just goes to show people that they can't trust the music industry, and that any trust that was fostered was misplaced.
Re:Funny, I thought prices should DROP... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Funny, I thought prices should DROP... (Score:3, Insightful)
BEFORE you shout "FLAME ON", Johnny, I'm not saying I think this is a GOOD THING, just that it may be how the record labels view it. It explains why they are so against music downloading.
Milking the market (Score:3, Insightful)
And then charge the group with the most demand inelasticity the highest price, this is even more than the $15 ammount. The RIAA does not understand that the the music industry is changing; or believes they can still stop the change and it is a matter of time before they change or be changed. They will fight tooth and nail so they can reap their profits.
After all record companies make money from borrowing money from financial institutions. And these institutions charge them interest rates, and these institutions want their money not matter what this includes the 10% interest etc...
Also due to the extreme large spectra of artists the quality of music has gone to the euthanasia clinic. Way too many young inexperinced people playing the tune of the music producer. Most people listen to this stuff because they have no alternative choice; for background music. Let the RIAA milk the market, it is time we put a cieling on the price of music. I say no less than 50cents and no more than 99c. And have certain protections for the consumer. I mean there are two ways to make money, charge a higher price or sell more units. Selling more units that is to create demand is hard when all you have to sell is crap so they do option number 1) ; which is to raise the price.
It is time most consumers got smarter and said hell with the current distribution. The RIAA is nothing but a conglomertation to give people the illusion of happiness, after which they will milk you for your money.
Let them raise prices and let's see what happens... there will be less songs sold.
Listen guys, you've gotta stop! (Score:3, Funny)
I dont buy cd's.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, Im gonna pay MORE on a digital download. Where "distribution" can be almost cost-less. Sure. Uh-huh.
I would love variable pricing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it sounds like what the record companies want is to just raise prices on the popular songs and keep the 99c price on the older songs... I don't think that would be a smart move. There are enough people who think 99c is *barely* an acceptable price for a single song, once you go over the dollar barrier I think they might see sales drop enough to balance out the extra few cents. If they lowered prices on older songs (even only ones, say 5 years or older), though, they'd probably make it up through increased sales on that music.
How do they justify it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I get my DVDs through Netflix, and pay about $1 per DVD (the whole thing, with any extras that may be on the disk). Netflix recently lowered their price (so now I pay about $0.90/DVD). Those are regular, effectively unprotected DVDs to watch anyway and on any device I choose (I sometimes rip them and watch them on my PDA).
Blockbuster and Walmart are competing for the same customers, and they charge even less.
CD music costs a lot of money to produce, but it doesn't cost 100th as much as a major movie (probably less than 1000th). Why are people paying so much for so little? Where is the perceived value?
I stopped buying major label CDs a few years ago, but increased my DVD rentals dramatically. There's no value in pirating DVDs at those prices. Studios are even moving the DVD release data closer to theatrical release (to reduce their costs).
While movie industry seems to be adapting, the music industry seems to be engineering their own demise. Not that anyone will miss them. Independent artists seem to be where the good music is these days, and they are much more reasonable in pricing their product.
Major labels dont get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to his album, most of the songs are good. When is the last time you bought a major album with more than one or two good songs? I thought so.
Record labels go for quanity, not quality. If they can get an artist to make an album with a couple hits but mostly filler, they can save other hits for other albums. Then they get consumers to pruchase all albums when they were only going to listen to a couple tracks.
Single downloads kill this model. Because now its possible for consumers to download the hits, and just leave the rest of the tracks be. The idea of raising prices is to get the album revenue out of just the hits.
This may work if they take an adaptive pricing model. They charge alot for the hits, and less for the misses.
The music industry is changing. Label, relying on album sales and licencing revenue, are in a bad postion. Artists dont make much money off of album sales as it is, but it helps promote them and thus increases thier other revenue sources such as concerts and sponsorship.
Label will have to move from an album sales company, to a promotional/financing services company. If they dont, they will become insignificant. But on the other hand, if they still can keep getting musicans to sign stupid contracts and keep funding and create another revenue source by sueing pirates, they might be around longer than they should.
OT, but it's been bugging me for ages.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Supply and Demand? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in this case, there is almost unlimited capacity to scale the operation. Why not take advantage of this new market condition like Vanderbilt did when he revolutionized the steamship industry. [wikipedia.org] He sold tickets for a lower cost and padded his slim margins by adding value and revenue to the trips by selling food and drink. The record labels wouldn't even have to sell other services because they easily cover their operating margins.
The record companies are in the unique position to lower the cost of a song to say, $0.75 and take advantage of almost costless scaling. Why wouldn't they?
The simple answer I can think of is that the quality of the product that they offer is so poor that exposure to this music will lead to less return business. Take a tip from the late, great Sam Walton and discover the power of discounting. [wikipedia.org]
99 cents is already too much (Score:3)
They should sell the stuff they're smoking instead, it's apparently very strong.
What a racket! (Score:4, Insightful)
HERES THE LINK! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice link.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nice link.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to eliminate MP3. (Score:3, Informative)
Napster sells them in DRM protected WMA, so does Walmart (I think).
Apple sells their songs in AAC format, which also has some sort of DRM on it.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Funny)
Whaddya proud of? That you're 12 years old? Sure, great, here's a cookie...
Re:Nope (Score:5, Funny)
We're still talking about MP3s, right?
Re:My download music prices DOUBLED the last month (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, I don't see what's the point of using places like that. You're not actually paying the artist or record lablel. You might as well get your music from usenet and P2P.
follow the bandwagon or miss the concert.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For every artist you represent, there are 1.000 artists you don't. If we are not allowed to sell your music, we will start taking all unknown artists into our store and let word of mouth decide. We will do this after buying Apple Records and make deals with every lable we can get into this. See those white headsets aroud the city? Each one of those are connected to one of our customers.
Yours faithfully,
iTunes Music Store
PS: we are going to sell the music of unsigned and independend artists no matter what you do, so follow the bandwagon or miss the concert.
Re:Sounds like OPEC (Score:5, Funny)