or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes price increases mean slower sales for music labels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iTunes price increases mean slower sales for music labels - Page 3

post #81 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM. Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.

Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.

I sense a little bit of the usual Apple Marketing in the air. Blame the guy the public don't deal with and they'll all be on your side.

Amazon took a slight loss on some song to get people in their music store. Sometimes they even sell a whole new album for 2.99. That's just the way they operate.

Apple on the other hand is not really in the music selling business. Selling songs is just a way to support the iPod ecosystem. They are not planning to lose money on selling songs. Profit generated from both the music store and the app store makes up to about 10% of their total revenue.

And yes Apple does want to remove DRM, not necessarily because they are the white knight of anti-DRM movement, but because it's something really annoying to support. Specially at the time other MP3 players manufacturers wanted to be able to license Apple's DRM as well. If you want to know how annoying DRM is, just look at Microsoft's playsforsure. Zune got it's very own DRM scheme for a reason.
post #82 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. reportedly said the pricing change has been a "net positive" for Warner, but conceded that a 30 percent price increase during a recession was not the best move.

Yes, he's a music exec. Also, he's a moron. But I repeat myself.
post #83 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Stealing????? Heavens no.
Free promotion for the artist... yes.
I don't charge them for my time or technology to distribute their music. That's what has the RIAA scrambling.

You have to be a complete brain dead retard to buy into RIAA propaganda.
.

You're a thief.

Promotion/Giving away an artists music is stealing from the artist. Do the people you "distribute" the music to go out and buy it? If they do, they're honest. You're still a thief.
post #84 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Love it, people actually believe it was Apple that wanted to remove DRM.

See JeffDM's reply.

You apparently regard Steve Jobs open letter, Feb. 6 2007, as a ruse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple

Are you talking about Amazon or another store? Amazon didn't begin selling MP3 downloads until Sept. 2007.

iTunes Plus was available May 30, 2007.

Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Irrespective of the fact other MP3 stores were selling DRM free MP3s before Apple, and EMI said at the time it was them that requested Apple get rid of the DRM.

This is from a Q/A with EMI head Eric Nicoli, after the EMI / Apple / iTunes Plus announcement.

“Wall Street Journal. What was the moment you decided to [sell non-DRM'd music]? Steve’s letter?...”
Eric: “We knew Steve’s views before the letter.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Is it also really the music labels setting the prices for each track and not Apple. Kinda weird don't you think? Most shops set their own prices to ya know complete! And if its the music labels choosing that higher price, why is Amazon 20p cheaper on every track? They have an even more varied pricing but are always cheaper.

Read this NYTimes article from a few years ago, particularly the music industry insider quotes. That should give you a better idea of the reasons.
post #85 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

See JeffDM's reply.

You apparently regard Steve Jobs open letter, Feb. 6 2007 as a ruse.

Don't forget that this ruse got the Warner CEO to call Jobs proposal illogical.

Quote:
We advocate the continued use of DRM," said Bronfman. "The notion that music does not deserve the same protection as software, film, video games or other intellectual property, simply because there is an unprotected legacy product in the physical world, is completely without logic or merit.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #86 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

You're a thief.

Promotion/Giving away an artists music is stealing from the artist. Do the people you "distribute" the music to go out and buy it? If they do, they're honest. You're still a thief.

How exactly am I a thief? Please explain?
I don't give away any artists music, just RIAA's music. The artists don't own the music they make. What don't you understand about that?

I spend over $3000 a year on independent artists music. I don't support organized crime like you.

If I'm a thief... then your a criminal.
Geez... you just made me sound like Robin Hood.

Let me guess, in movies where the evil king sends out his ravaging army to rape, murder, pillage and burn the village... your cheering for them Why? Cuz the king said so?

When the laws of the land become unbearable, it's the people that change the laws. Thats what democracy is, that is what is happening in the music industry.

I suggest you move to Iran or North Korea. Your views tend to be in sync with the government there.
post #87 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Other stores sold drm free music before Apple because the labels were trying to break down the dominance of the iTunes store and only allowed Apple to sell DRM free music if they could control the price of the music through variable pricing. This letter proceeded all of that though.

You mean the letter Jobs penned when Apple was looking at being investigated by the EU for iTunes DRM? You're going to use that as proof of anything other than Jobs/Apple wanting to deflect blame to the music industry? Yes, you have been drinking the kool-aid...
post #88 of 140
Hey... look at the bottom of your browser window. See the advertising... FREE MUSIC.
Looks like they are stealing from artists.
post #89 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Stealing????? Heavens no.

You're a thief and an idiot. Take your bullshit some place else.
post #90 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Hey... look at the bottom of your browser window. See the advertising... FREE MUSIC.
Looks like they are stealing from artists.

There's a big difference between someone choosing to give away music as part of promotion plans vs. some thief deciding to do it for them.

Selling things at a loss makes sense for a lot of businesses if they understand the long term value of a customer. I don't think those same businesses would like someone deciding to give away the same product.

Rationalize all you want, you're still stealing.
post #91 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Stealing????? Heavens no.
Free promotion for the artist... yes.
I don't charge them for my time or technology to distribute their music.

That's not your choice to make. If an artist decides they want to distribute free copies of their music to promote themselves that's their decision to make, not yours.

Likewise, if you don't like the deal the music publishers and RIAA give content creators, that's not your problem, that's a private matter between the artist and their record label. Nowadays indy artists do have a lot more ways to market at their disposal and are less dependent on the big labels, which is obviously a good thing.

Don't try to justify what you're doing by claiming you only do it out of consideration for the artist though. If you steal music it's because you're selfish, lazy, and a mean cheapskate. You're certainly not helping the artists.
post #92 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Solipsism, still splitting hairs I see ...

No he's not. You are talking about a different product: an album, and not individual songs.

You could as easily claim that you buy cheap popsicles because you buy a case of them at a time.
post #93 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

How exactly am I a thief? Please explain?
I don't give away any artists music, just RIAA's music. The artists don't own the music they make. What don't you understand about that?

I spend over $3000 a year on independent artists music. I don't support organized crime like you.

If I'm a thief... then your a criminal.
Geez... you just made me sound like Robin Hood.

Let me guess, in movies where the evil king sends out his ravaging army to rape, murder, pillage and burn the village... your cheering for them Why? Cuz the king said so?

When the laws of the land become unbearable, it's the people that change the laws. Thats what democracy is, that is what is happening in the music industry.

I suggest you move to Iran or North Korea. Your views tend to be in sync with the government there.

I see, if an artist isn't independent, then it's okay to steal from them. Even if "its the RIAA's music" the artist still gets money each time a copy is sold.

From the way you talk, artists must be happy for your "promotion" efforts.
http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html

It would be interesting to see how you'd react if people stole from your business or employer and you were out of a job.

You'd be better of than most, stealing isn't a stretch for you.
post #94 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You're a thief and an idiot. Take your bullshit some place else.

Nah, i'm pretty sure it's your tired old sack of shit, Stalin worshiping, crap that nobody wants to hear.
This forum is for people who subscribe to a culture of 'Thinking Different'.

Your 'Obedience at all cost', don't think for yourself, how's my stock doing, i'm gunna flame you cuz you made a spelling error, bullshit belongs on a different forum.

I know the future must be terrifying to you... however, some of us wish to embrace it in an open forum.
post #95 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

That's not your choice to make. If an artist decides they want to distribute free copies of their music to promote themselves that's their decision to make, not yours.

Likewise, if you don't like the deal the music publishers and RIAA give content creators, that's not your problem, that's a private matter between the artist and their record label. Nowadays indy artists do have a lot more ways to market at their disposal and are less dependent on the big labels, which is obviously a good thing.

Don't try to justify what you're doing by claiming you only do it out of consideration for the artist though. If you steal music it's because you're selfish, lazy, and a mean cheapskate. You're certainly not helping the artists.

It becomes my problem when a family is destroyed, homeless and owes the RIAA $2,000,000,000 for having 16 music tracks on their computer that was in the wrong folder.

Or are you cool with that?
post #96 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

It becomes my problem when a family is destroyed, homeless and owes the RIAA $2,000,000,000 for having 16 music tracks on their computer that was in the wrong folder.

Or are you cool with that?

I agree the RIAA is out to lunch with what they charge for copyright infringement. I also think it was outrageous that someone I knew had to pay $8000 in damages because they used 1 image on their website that they downloaded from a "public domain" image website.

That still doesn't give you the right to distribute music without authorization.

And, those that don't think it's OK to illegally distribute music aren't automatically Stalinists or socialists.
post #97 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

I see, if an artist isn't independent, then it's okay to steal from them.

Yes. Because the alternative where people's lives are destroyed with $2,000,000,000 lawsuits is just too scary to comprehend.

If you haven't noticed, there is a revolt going on. Some of the biggest named artists in the world leading the way.
However, there will always be those who put greed above human rights, and you, my friend, will one day have to live with the guilt and consequences of your actions. Or will you turn a blind eye as long as your stock keeps going up?
post #98 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Yes. Because the alternative where people's lives are destroyed with $2,000,000,000 lawsuits is just too scary to comprehend.

If you haven't noticed, there is a revolt going on. Some of the biggest named artists in the world leading the way.

I'm more concerned about the trends of: Sense of entitlement. That it's okay to steal if I think the other party is wrong. That the end justifies the means.

Don't try to say that because the RIAA seeks outrageous damages that it's okay to steal from artists. Those are two separate issues.

Whatever you say, you are a thief.
post #99 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You mean the letter Jobs penned when Apple was looking at being investigated by the EU for iTunes DRM? You're going to use that as proof of anything other than Jobs/Apple wanting to deflect blame to the music industry? Yes, you have been drinking the kool-aid...

I honestly didn't even remember anything about that, but after looking into it, it looks like those accusations came after Steve Job released the letter. The record labels could have made him eat his words if they wanted to and required their music to be DRM free but they didn't want that.

Other people in this thread have discussed the situation in a lot more detail than I have with a lot of relevant links. Either Apple pulled wool over everyones eyes, or you've done it to yourself.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #100 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The music industry is far more price-rigid than publishing and the movie industry. It's easy to find $6 new DVDs of decent back catalog movies, but almost impossible time finding a music CD in that range at retail, unless it's one of those low-rent compilation CDs, and not original albums.

If you mean retail as in a store, then no, you can find places that discount older CDs quite a bit.

An of course via the internet there is a tonne of places that discount CDs
post #101 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

How exactly am I a thief? Please explain?
I don't give away any artists music, just RIAA's music. The artists don't own the music they make. What don't you understand about that?

I spend over $3000 a year on independent artists music. I don't support organized crime like you.

If I'm a thief... then your a criminal.
Geez... you just made me sound like Robin Hood.

Let me guess, in movies where the evil king sends out his ravaging army to rape, murder, pillage and burn the village... your cheering for them Why? Cuz the king said so?

When the laws of the land become unbearable, it's the people that change the laws. Thats what democracy is, that is what is happening in the music industry.

I suggest you move to Iran or North Korea. Your views tend to be in sync with the government there.

The underlined portion is correct you should be working to change the laws, not breaking them. I'm not anti-piracy, and I do feel there is some good that can come out of it, but I can't stand people who feel justified and proud of going against existing laws.

If you don't want to support the RIAA, then don't, but don't take that as a license to distribute their media. The people that come up with self-righteous reasons for file sharing are usually the ones that just want to get around paying for media.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #102 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

It becomes my problem when a family is destroyed, homeless and owes the RIAA $2,000,000,000 for having 16 music tracks on their computer that was in the wrong folder.

Or are you cool with that?

Who owes the RIAA $2,000,000,000? Are you referring to the woman who got a punitive fine of $2m (not $2bn) imposed on her by a jury (not by a judge or the RIAA) because she deliberately lied and perjured herself and behaved like a complete idiot in court, pissing everyone there (including her own defence solicitors) off in the process? And where the amount was reduced to $54,000 on appeal?
post #103 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmcboston View Post

And I've yet to see ANY song at 69 cents. Even stuff from the 70's or 60's is full price. And god forbid some 70's song was just in a movie - price magically jumps to 1.29....

AMEN. The whole 69 cent thing was a ruse to justify the 1.29 tracks. The labels had no intention of selling anyting at 69 cents.
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
post #104 of 140
Hey, TEKSTUD:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/23982/

An anomaly, perhaps? (Answer: Naw)

One more thing: As I understand it, the base price for current best-selling books to Amazon has ALWAYS been in the $14.99 range. The company has "eaten" the $5 difference (from $9.99) in an effort to boost sales of the one-trick-pony Kindle ("Kindling" now?) to its consumers.

The problem for Amazon now is that absorbing that $5 in the face of HAVING to lower the Kindle DX's price is untenable. It is the Kindle (again, "Kindling"?) that is in deep kimchee at this point, not the iPad.
post #105 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

I don't think so, Apple won't allow their DRM to work with other hardware makers like the Kindle,

more like the publishers don't want the DRM to work with other hardware. restricting files to a particular type of hardware/software is a way (they believe) to keep down piracy.
post #106 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You mean the letter Jobs penned when Apple was looking at being investigated by the EU for iTunes DRM? You're going to use that as proof of anything other than Jobs/Apple wanting to deflect blame to the music industry? Yes, you have been drinking the kool-aid...

Didn't it take like ten years for the EU to finally force Microsoft into removing Internet Explorer from Windows in Europe? Well after the demise of Netscape Navigator? I doubt Apple was all that worried about the EU, who in my opinion didn't have a leg to stand on anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post

AMEN. The whole 69 cent thing was a ruse to justify the 1.29 tracks. The labels had no intention of selling anyting at 69 cents.

Yep. Don't you love how the record companies pitched variable pricing to the public as a way to sell songs for less than 99 cents, but the big bad Apple wouldn't let them? Now a year after variable pricing went into affect, the record companies are calling it what it always was: a 30 percent price increase.
post #107 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Didn't it take like ten years for the EU to finally force Microsoft into removing Internet Explorer from Windows in Europe? Well after the demise of Netscape Navigator? I doubt Apple was all that worried about the EU, who in my opinion didn't have a leg to stand on anyway.

I agree. I can't image that would have been a problem for Steve while he's at the helm of Apple.

The EU couldn't force a Frenchman to...

(I was going to go through all the countries of ironic sterotypical things the EU could do but none were politically correct. They were funny, though! So, I'll leave them to you folk to pick up my slack. Here are the 27 members of the European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Enjoy!)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #108 of 140
Iwent to the iTunes store the other day to buy a song and when I saw the $1.29 price tag, I opted not to. The experience made me realize I need to check out the other online music stores that are available.
post #109 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

No he's not. You are talking about a different product: an album, and not individual songs.

You could as easily claim that you buy cheap popsicles because you buy a case of them at a time.

Exactly.

I could buy an album with 20 songs for $9.99. While the 'average' price is, indeed, $0.50, what is the price of the one song that I want to hear from that album?!
post #110 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

If you haven't noticed, there is a revolt going on. Some of the biggest named artists in the world leading the way.

Please name them all.
post #111 of 140
I think that something HUGE was lost when they moved away from 'a buck a song.' No gimmicks, no bs, just a buck a song. Attracted a lot of interest.

On a related point, other than for a few condescending (and way off-base) 'audiophile' geeks, most people didn't give a hoot -- and they still don't -- about DRM. If I recall right, a vast majority of the downloads from the iTunes Store are still DRM-ed.

Bring it all back to $0.99/download and watch the sales soar. Someone should have the gumption to try it out.
post #112 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Either you are too lazy to look or too stupid to read.

The last one (Jazz Masters is downloading as we speak .. I found it while researching for this post ... you could look up "researching, it's in the dictionary)\t.... contains artists like Duke Ellington, Miles Davis etc.\t\t

Your posts would be more meaningful if you would "learn" before you speak.

I think most people are thinking of the price of singles NOT the entire album. Each song on your album is .99 each not .05 or .67.

Calling people lazy and stupid is lazy and stupid.
post #113 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

I honestly didn't even remember anything about that, but after looking into it, it looks like those accusations came after Steve Job released the letter. The record labels could have made him eat his words if they wanted to and required their music to be DRM free but they didn't want that.

Other people in this thread have discussed the situation in a lot more detail than I have with a lot of relevant links. Either Apple pulled wool over everyones eyes, or you've done it to yourself.

Maybe this link will remind you:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2440

Apple and the iTunes Store were under pressure from EU countries before Jobs wrote his letter. Maybe the EU couldn't have done much about it, but you can't deny Jobs letter had the obvious effect of deflecting blame to the record labels. Given its dubious/fortuitous timing, I really can't see how it could be used as any sort of evidence that Apple/Jobs really wanted to remove DRM. I also remember that at the time, certain artists were requesting that their music be sold DRM free but Apple wouldn't allow it.

P.S., could we all just ignore this idiot user "rain" and move on? He/she/it is clearly not interested in having an intelligent conversation.
post #114 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Maybe this link will remind you:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2440

Apple and the iTunes Store were under pressure from EU countries before Jobs wrote his letter. Maybe the EU couldn't have done much about it, but you can't deny Jobs letter had the obvious effect of deflecting blame to the record labels. Given its dubious/fortuitous timing, I really can't see how it could be used as any sort of evidence that Apple/Jobs really wanted to remove DRM. I also remember that at the time, certain artists were requesting that their music be sold DRM free but Apple wouldn't allow it.

P.S., could we all just ignore this idiot user "rain" and move on? He/she/it is clearly not interested in having an intelligent conversation.

Actually Apple stance has always been all or nothing. Apple doesn't really have an issue with DRM, but asking Apple to support DRM for other company will be an issue.

They don't want to license their DRM to other Music player manufacturers, because support is going to be an issue.

So to Apple it's either they remove DRM all together, or stick with DRM and everything locked in.

By the end of the day the record labels gave in on DRM, and apple gave in on variable pricing.
post #115 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I think that something HUGE was lost when they moved away from 'a buck a song.' No gimmicks, no bs, just a buck a song. Attracted a lot of interest.

On a related point, other than for a few condescending (and way off-base) 'audiophile' geeks, most people didn't give a hoot -- and they still don't -- about DRM. If I recall right, a vast majority of the downloads from the iTunes Store are still DRM-ed.

Bring it all back to $0.99/download and watch the sales soar. Someone should have the gumption to try it out.

What I find interesting is that Amazon's MP3 store still sells most tracks for 99 cents, yet Apple and Rhapsody seem to have more 1.29 tracks. But then Amazon also is lower on many albums, esp. older stuff. Is Amazon just eating the difference? I don't know, but I buy most of my music from them now.
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
NW '98
"Everything works, in theory..."
Reply
post #116 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

I'm more concerned about the trends of: Sense of entitlement. That it's okay to steal if I think the other party is wrong. That the end justifies the means.

Don't try to say that because the RIAA seeks outrageous damages that it's okay to steal from artists. Those are two separate issues.

Whatever you say, you are a thief.

Downloading a song does NOT equal stealing from artists.

Downloading a song does not equal stealing from anybody. It is copyright infringement, and not theft. They are different things, and that is why different words are used to accurately describe the actions.

By misusing words, you confuse concepts. Likely the concepts are confused in your head, and that is the reason why you think the words are synonyms.
post #117 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

If you mean retail as in a store, then no, you can find places that discount older CDs quite a bit.

An of course via the internet there is a tonne of places that discount CDs

New or used?
post #118 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Downloading a song does NOT equal stealing from artists.

Downloading a song does not equal stealing from anybody. It is copyright infringement, and not theft. They are different things, and that is why different words are used to accurately describe the actions.

By misusing words, you confuse concepts. Likely the concepts are confused in your head, and that is the reason why you think the words are synonyms.

Finally someone with a brain.

And yes if it weren't for "copyright infringement" a lot of artists would not have received the exposure they did. There are a TON of once obscure artists that wouldn't have received the exposure they did if it weren't for the combination of [mp3 downloads + youtube views] going viral.

I would even go so far as to say that MOST of the new artists now became popular due to downloads combined with youtube views. Case closed.
post #119 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Downloading a song does NOT equal stealing from artists.

Downloading a song does not equal stealing from anybody. It is copyright infringement, and not theft. They are different things, and that is why different words are used to accurately describe the actions.

By misusing words, you confuse concepts. Likely the concepts are confused in your head, and that is the reason why you think the words are synonyms.

Legally, you may be right, but the end result is the same: you are acquiring someone's else's merchandise without paying. In layman's terms, they are the same.
post #120 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Legally, you may be right, but the end result is the same: you are acquiring someone's else's merchandise without paying. In layman's terms, they are the same.

Unfortunately, it's even worse legally, at least on the penalty side. Just leaving a file where someone else can get it over the internet, with no proof of anyone actually taking a copy, can net many thousands in fines per file made available.

Really, the RIAA and the anti-RIAA are both extremists, they both want too much for their side, and they both try to frame the debate by too aggressively framing the terminology.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes price increases mean slower sales for music labels