iTunes price increases mean slower sales for music labels

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 139
    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?
  • Reply 102 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 103 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 104 of 139
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    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.
  • Reply 105 of 139
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    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.
  • Reply 106 of 139
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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!)
  • Reply 107 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 108 of 139
    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?!
  • Reply 109 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 110 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 111 of 139
    doroteadorotea Posts: 323member
    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.
  • Reply 112 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 113 of 139
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    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.
  • Reply 114 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 115 of 139
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    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.
  • Reply 116 of 139
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    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?
  • Reply 117 of 139
    successsuccess Posts: 1,040member
    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.
  • Reply 118 of 139
    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.
  • Reply 119 of 139
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    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.
  • Reply 120 of 139
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.



    I'm not sure we should be using "layman" terms when it comes to such things. Copyright infringement can be civil or legal depending on the item.



    For instance, illegally obtaining a song would be a civil case. Not illegal, but it doesn't mean you won't b found guilty of the act and fined. Illegally downloading a movie could be considered a reproduction of that film, therefore a federal crime with up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Sign In or Register to comment.