 
Doctor Dan
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Papiopolis | Clueless... ... and the music industry wonders why people pilfer tunes via P2P.
- Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." | |
|
 | 
Curious
Thanks
Premium
join:2001-10-07
Quincy, MA | Re: Clueless... It's amazing how much greed they have. Just when it's starting to look better, more and more are beginning to use it, they decide for a price increase. | |
|
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Clueless... said by Curious  :It's amazing how much greed they have. Just when it's starting to look better, more and more are beginning to use it, they decide for a price increase. The guys who run those companies are incapable of strategic thought. Variable pricing should wait a long time until the customer base is much much larger. I guess they are thinking more about their bonuses and stock options for delivering short term higher profits than they are about long term success for the music companies. And that is the major weakness in most of todays corporate execs.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
some guy
@milwwi.ameritech | Re: Clueless... at least you sell undrmed ogg files
good for you for giving a crap about the consumers | |
|
| | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| The bands won't be setting their own prices until they get out from under record label contracts.
With online digital music becoming more popular, I hope that more GOOD bands will dump their labels and produce their own stuff and make more profit for themselves. The record industry can however keep the Brittany's and the Mariah's. Please. | |
|
| | gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| Most of today's music is crap.
I don't care for the music industry but during the early-mid 60's when a single (two songs) cost $1.00, buying them was a stretch for most people. That same dollar today would be $10.
So inflation adjustment means the cost of music has gone down along with its quality. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Clueless... I agree that it might be cheaper today but don't forget the distribution costs. The 1960's price was for a piece of vinyl that you had to buy at a store.
From a cost perspective, I would give the edge to the on-line music stores. They have the cost of their computing infrastructure and bandwidth but I'll bet this is still less than a physical store's brick and mortar for the equivalent quantity of customers and there's no production costs associated with each sale. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
| Re: Clueless... That is BS. They disregard laws when they don't benefit them, but use the law to sue us when it does benefit them. "Payola, the music business likes to claim, is deplorable; it's just that everyone does it. "
You could say:
Pirating music off the internet, internet users like to claim, is deplorable; it's just that everyone does it. | |
|
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Clueless... It is BS. BUT, like some people like to point out, they can buy the government and not follow the laws.
The big offender was Sony Records. They aren't liked by some artists either. Mariah Carey got out of her contract (even though she still sucks) and The Dixie Chicks sued to "renogotiate" their contract.
As you can see, even the courts can be bought. | |
|
| | | | | 
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| Re: Clueless... said by moonpuppy :Mariah Carey got out of her contract (even though she still sucks) She is the highest selling female artist in History and she sucks?? Ummm..yeah.. right. You might want to put an "IMO" after your statement. | |
|
| | | | | | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Clueless... said by biggbrother :said by moonpuppy :Mariah Carey got out of her contract (even though she still sucks) She is the highest selling female artist in History and she sucks?? Britney Spears is also among the highest selling artists in history. What do you think of her? Keep in mind these artists high sellers because of exactly what we're talking about here. The record labels push promotion of these artists. They are the only ones you hear on the radio and MTV. Of course they are going to sell more records. BTW Mariah doesn't write her own music. That's one of the reasons she is on top.
You see... the label owns the music. She's just the voice behind it. In other words music for hire. Because of this the labels get just about all the profits from album sales. This is why they promote artists like Mariah Carey more heavily than real talent. Sure she can sing, but I can name at least a dozen more female artists that sing as good or better than her. | |
|
| | | | | | |
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| Re: Clueless... said by SRFireside :Britney Spears is also among the highest selling artists in history. What do you think of her? Keep in mind these artists high sellers because of exactly what we're talking about here. The record labels push promotion of these artists. They are the only ones you hear on the radio and MTV. Of course they are going to sell more records. BTW Mariah doesn't write her own music. That's one of the reasons she is on top. You see... the label owns the music. She's just the voice behind it. In other words music for hire. Because of this the labels get just about all the profits from album sales. This is why they promote artists like Mariah Carey more heavily than real talent. Sure she can sing, but I can name at least a dozen more female artists that sing as good or better than her. I think you just have old and outdated measuring stick. The criteria for a great artist nowadays doesn't require that the artist "write" their own music. She has written some of her music, but she also sings music written by talented writers. What's wrong with that. Should we now require that great actors write their own scripts in order to be considered "great"?
And you fail to recognize that these artists are first and foremost entertainers. And obviously, millions of people are entertained by them if they attend their concerts and buy their albums. I agree that Britney Spears is not strong in the vocal department (she's decent). But she's a helluva entertainer. Mariah Carey is less of an entertainer, but she has a hell of a voice. And that alone has allowed her to become the higest selling female artisist of all time. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Clueless... That being said the point of discussion was moonpuppy's "suck" comment. Since we are talking about entertainment what is considered entertaining is of course subjective. The current influx of pop music has been wearing thin on a lot of people and this is due to there being way too much of it on the airwaves. Mariah Carey fits squarely into this niche, which is probably the source of moonpuppy's disdain. I was merely trying to paint a broader picture.
Sure they are entertainers. So I think just about any "they suck" comment you hear is taken for granted as opinion. You might like Mariah's voice talents, but what about other artists? Maybe The Ramones are considered too pedestrian for your tastes, however punk fans might get what they were doing and love them for it. Maybe Brian Eno is considered to be too ambiguous or boring, however for fans of minimalist and ambient music he's great. BTW I am in no way assuming your tastes. Just giving example on how one man's garbage is another man's gold.
Keep in mind for many just being an entertainer isn't enough to be called a musician or even an artist in the music field. Milli Vanilli was ostracised for just being entertainers. To a lesser extent Mandy Moore came across the same problems. Maybe you can say they didn't sing and Mariah does. However they are still entertainers. So where do you draw the line? I think these lines are drawn by each individual, however most times people are swayed by public opinion. Which brings me back to how the popularity of performers like Mariah and Britney aren't as well earned as one might think.
This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but Mariah Carey is popular because Mariah Carey is popular. She didn't rise to stardom. She was placed there. Does this make her a bad singer? No. Does it aggravate people who are looking for more diverse talent than pop-stars? Definitely. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Clueless... said by SRFireside :This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but Mariah Carey is popular because Mariah Carey is popular. She didn't rise to stardom. She was placed there. Does this make her a bad singer? No. Does it aggravate people who are looking for more diverse talent than pop-stars? Definitely. My point exactly. She was made popular because radio stations played her music. They played her music because her record company paid to have it played. She did not make it on her own merits IMHO (to appease "biggbrother".)
Airplay = record sales.
Payola = airplay bought by record companies = artists not proving themselves. | |
|
| |
| | stnlandr
join:2005-07-11 | Re: Clueless... Crazyjeff that will never happen, unfortunately. Record companies and radio are linked hand in hand. Bands need record co.'s to push there music to the stations. Besides that you need fat wallets to get quality studios and producers. | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: Clueless... said by stnlandr :Record companies and radio are linked hand in hand. Bands need record co.'s to push there music to the stations. People still listen to music on the radio? I haven't done that in almost 5 years; I stopped around the time people thought Creed had more than one song and that Fred Durst was innovative.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! | |
|
| | | | 
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| Re: Clueless... said by Combat Chuck :said by stnlandr :Record companies and radio are linked hand in hand. Bands need record co.'s to push there music to the stations. People still listen to music on the radio? I haven't done that in almost 5 years; I stopped around the time people thought Creed had more than one song and that Fred Durst was innovative. Agreed, it's been years since I've listened to the radio. I literally never would have heard of 95% of the bands I listen to if it weren't for P2P. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL
| Re: Clueless... said by nixen :I stopped listening when the last station that I listened to got converted to a Spanish-language station. Whatever. I don't see myself paying to listen to the radio (i.e., XM or Sirius), either. The only good radio left (music-wise) are the small, privately-owned stations and some college radio stations. -tom WHFS REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Clueless... said by Seaboogers :said by nixen :I stopped listening when the last station that I listened to got converted to a Spanish-language station. -tom WHFS REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!! Guys, WHFS died when Infinity bought it and changed it around. It lost its edge and went corporate. When they converted it, it ranked 23rd. It died a slow death. | |
|
| | | | | 
PliotronX
My Katamari's Bigger Than Your Katamari
join:2000-05-13
Sunland, CA | Same thing happened here in LA. 103.1 was bought out and turned into yet another Spanish station. Now if I forget to bring a good MP3 CD or MD, I just go without music. The radio is useless. | |
|
| | | | | |
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| Re: Clueless... said by PliotronX :Same thing happened here in LA. 103.1 was bought out and turned into yet another Spanish station. Welcome to 2005.  | |
|
| | | Pictor Guy
join:2004-06-21
Sammamish, WA
| Radio? Is that the thing in my car that I plug my iPod into?
It's been almost 10 years since I've listened to the radio for music. I stopped listening when they stopped playing music. It was first replaced by the CD changer then the iPod. $1.50 for top 40 crap is way too much. RIAA (and the MPAA) and the rest of the music industry needs a reality check. | |
|
| | |
| 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Exactly. Say theres an album out that has 12 songs, 3 of which are popular. Thats $13.50 right there. You can just about buy a physical copy of the album for that. So why would you want to buy a download with stupid DRM crap when you can get a physical copy with all the artwork, book, lyrics, etc. for around the same price? The record companies are seriously shooting themselves in the foot with this. Instead of trying to embrace online distibution, it seems like they are trying to hamper it. Damnit, I LIKE my ipod, I like being able to put all of my music on it and bring it in my car without having to lug 20lbs of cd's that I would have to change every so often.
--
"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the Boogeyman or Michael Jackson." - Bart Simpson | |
|
| |
|
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI | It's amazing how we, as average consumers, can all see the stupidity in this proposal, but these companies cannot. Simply amazing.... | |
|
| Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | ... and the music industry wonders why people pilfer tunes via P2P.
- Dan I agree wholeheartedly | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | well noone ever said the music industry was managed by people with college degrees in business.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| 
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Wayland, MA | $.99 should be a ceiling, not a floor.
If a new band want to offer their songs for 50 cents, or less, let them. The way iTunes offers a free song each week, that would let bands get an audience they'd never find on the radio.
JOE | |
|
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| I think the whole idea is to discredit the proliferation of paid music downloads. The major record labels like having you go buy the CD's at the stores where they essentially control what is being promoted in the front racks. With iTunes you are free to check out ANY song in the catalogue. Not just the label's golden boys (i.e. the "for hire" artists that they get a lion's share of the profits from).
Remember to the big five (or four depending on your perspective) anything online is bad. It relinquishes control. That's why they have carried on the P2P witch hunt. That's why they sabotaged their own sales numbers back in 2002 (or some year close to that) in order to make it look like file sharing is destroying them. That's why they take massive percentages in licensing from online retailers (normally about $.16 per song is taken for royalties). Sure greed has a part in it, but think about it. This sort of behavior also makes paid downloads look bad.
The music industry wants to keep everything the way it was before the Internet came along. This is the sort of thinking and actions that will eventually be their downfall. More and more artists WILL leave the major record labels and either move on to more reasonable independent labels or be labels in of themselves. Eventually Clear Channel and all its media outlets will be passed in leu of stations that offer what the public really wants. It will take a while to take the industry to that level, but much of what I'm saying is happening already. | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| difference between a music store and an online music store is one allways has rent and odds are rent will go up, trucking the CDs goes up with the arabs getting more greedy then the RIAA. however for an online store its bandwidth can only cost less per gig and the cost of HDD space and processing power is also allways on a decline.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
pi
Premium
join:2002-01-19
Harwood Heights, IL
·Comcast
| Prices will probably change It will probably change to over $1. And eventually it'll get even higher than that and reach the point where going out a buying a CD is much cheaper. But people will still use iTunes. Why? Because everyone seems to be stuck with the mindset that 'mac/apple=geius+good' and 'my iPod changed my life'.
--
Legalize free-enterprise murder: why should governments have all the fun? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA | Nice move The only way to compete with free alternatives is to increase the price.
 | |
|
| digitel
join:2002-10-02
Aurora, CO
| Re: Nice move said by Anonymous :The only way to compete with free alternatives is to increase the price. nice  | |
|
| |
WALL_E
Premium
join:2003-05-28
USA
| Music Industry - Bite Me If they force Apple to raise the price for songs on iTunes, I'm done with supporting the music industry and encouraging friends to acquire music legally - I'll jump back onto the P2P bandwagon in a second. I suspect others will as well.
The music industry just keeps digging itself into an ever deepening hole.
With the invasive copyright protection included on some audio CDs, such as those by The Dave Matthews Band and Foo Fighters, I am forced to download the songs from online music stores if I wish to obtain the music legally and avoid their buggy copy protection scheme. In doing so, they pay NO costs whatsoever for the music I just downloaded - no production costs for the CD, booklet, etc - and they make nearly 70% of the 99 cents I pay - and now they want to raise the prices? I've been encouraging friends/family to dump illegal P2P music swapping and use an online store such as iTunes, but if this continues, the music industry can just bite my ass. Apple doesn't have to worry about lost revenue - I'm still going to buy an iPod - the only difference is that I'll be filling it with music from a P2P service - free of DRM and absurd restrictions.
HOW CAN ANY ORGANIZATION BE SO IGNORANT?
--
iPodder - Simply the best Windows podcasting client.
this WEEK in TECH - Simply the best podcast.
Digg.com Social networking/news site. | |
|
| 
mrchris
America the pitiful
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: Music Industry - Bite Me Besides that, they NEED to add less popular music from labels from Spinefarm, Nuclear Blast and other European labels, not just the crap we see in America. | |
|
| 
EdibleTarget
Real Gamers Dont Use Consoles
join:2004-12-02
Lowell, MA
| well, if you already own the CDs, i believe it is legal for you to download it off P2P, youre just not allowed to share it.
The funniest part about the Foo Fighters CD in particular, its got all sorts of DRM crap, but it was on the internet 3 weeks before it came out. | |
|
| | |
| 
thisismyname
join:2004-07-26
00000
| Very well said njorge. One person can spread the word of obtaining illegal music to thousands in mere seconds.
In case anybody does not remember pirating music and making copies of CDs back in 2001 was very popular and it will come back.
I remember people in my school that sold copies of CDs for $3.
It will come back. Just because you lower the amount of piracy doesn't mean its gone. It can easily rise again under stupid rules and pricing like these.
--
Freedom of expression should not be hampered by the unwillingness of others to accept things.-NinjaMaster | |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| **AA's are out of touch Even though the world has changed, and the cost of distribution has dropped to near zero, AND.. (this is what terrifies them), the public KNOWS the cost of distribution has dropped to almost zero, they go and pull a dumb*ss move like this.
Do you honestly think that anything is going to be .99 cents? Lets add in the 'customer specific pricing (ala amazon), where the price the customer pays is based on their purchasing habits. You buy the first song for, say, .89 cents, but then the rest of the songs on the album suddenly jump to 1.19 for you. Don't put it past them.
Finally, (and the movie industry needs to learn this too), the customer determines what value a product has, not the manufacturer. If a customer thinks the value of the song is only .15 cents, then the customer will work to get the song for that price. If it's not available at .15 cents, then they will use alternate means (P2P, etc), to get it at their price point. They won't magically start paying 1.99 for a song just because you, the moron executive, think the song is worth 1.99.
And noone will have any moral problems with it! I can't wait to see all the **AA mouthpieces here come out to defend the pricing scheme as 'fair', and how the record industry 'deserves' to charge whatever they want. The reality, is they can TRY to charge whatever they want, but moves like this show how truly greedy they really are. My big question is why the prices haven't FALLEN as the number of songs and distribution methods become more effective? Hmm.. could it be... greed?
--
Grand Poobah | |
|
AbBaZaBbA
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Long Beach, CA | well you have to be stuipd to spend .99 cents a song... so who exactly are they thinking is gonna pay $1.50?? | |
|
RadicalD
@rr.com
|  Screw the RIAA
I understand their thinking, 15 songs on a cd at around $15 so .99 cents a song is fair. WRONG
When I used to buy albums (around the time napster was big) I got artwork, jewel case, song lyrics and the cd for my $15. Now I pay for the BW, the cd to burn it to (limited amount of times) and my computer to do it on. They basically make $.99 for little more than bandwidth. They arent having to pay for shelf space, shipping, sales person to sell it to me etc etc.
They will either drop the price to something like $.25 a song, or I will just download it for free. Simple as that.
They can either have a little bit of my money or none at all | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Screw the RIAA said by RadicalD :
When I used to buy albums (around the time napster was big) I got artwork, jewel case, song lyrics and the cd for my $15. Now I pay for the BW, the cd to burn it to (limited amount of times) and my computer to do it on. What do you mean by "limited amount of times". Once you burn it to a CD, can't you rip it to an MP3 without DRM? I know that might cost some sound quality but a 99 cent DRM compressed tune is already lossy quality, right? Did I misinterpret your post?
But I agree with you on the price. In fact, I think an on-line compressed DRM purchase should be half the price of buying the full-quality CD -- unless they let you also download the original uncompressed WAV file bits. Then it should be about 75% of the price since there are no almost no reproduction/distribution costs. | |
|
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
edit:
August 28th, @06:07PM
| AHEM! La ti da.... | |
|
|
WALL_E
Premium
join:2003-05-28
USA
| Re: AHEM!  The funniest part of it is that after my brother heard about being able to listen to 30 free songs a month through real - he started doing the same thing with Audacity! Looks like I'll be doing that as well if this price hike comes to fruition.
--
iPodder - Simply the best Windows podcasting client.
this WEEK in TECH - Simply the best podcast.
Digg.com Social networking/news site. | |
|
| |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
edit:
August 28th, @12:40PM
| Re: AHEM! I made a couple of custom radio stations, record a few hours of tunes, do some creative editing...
Library is getting rather large. Best part... both programs are free!
EDIT: No DRM! Transfer to whatever I want, whenever I want. | |
|
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: AHEM! I've just never been able to record a decompressed stream that survived the re-encode very well.
--
Pi Piru Piru Piru PiPiru Pi! | |
|
| 43193594
Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400
| said by dadkins :La ti da.... What the hell? My mom told ME that I was the God of Swedish Guitar!
I knew she was lying; I'm not even Swedish  | |
|
| |
Hi-gh
@Dial1.Los
| Re: AHEM! .99 a song via download is already too much! At .99 you are paying almost exactly what you would per song if you bought the album at a store. I can't imagine the cost to build the infrastructure to deliver the song to you digitally being anywhere near the cost to deliver the song to you physically on a CD. The record companies should be thanking Apple, Real, etc for sparing them the cost of designing, pressing, and delivering albums physically to the masses.
Just my .99¢ | |
|
|
|
RadicalD
@rr.com
| Re: RIAA sympathy waning Why would they care if you bought less? If you are paying $1.50 a song, then they could give you less music and still make the same amount of money. Way to stick it to the man.........
Just dont buy it! Lost prfits.......thats the only way they will understand | |
|
| | primal98
join:2004-08-27 | Re: RIAA sympathy waning WRONG! Lost profits = more blame on p2p networks | |
|
iTunes Pricing Showdown
·
·
·