The Music Industry just flinched

in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href=""; target="_blank">Changes in progress. </a>

[quote] Acknowledging that online piracy is forcing dramatic changes in the music industry, the world's two largest record companies are poised to make it easy and cheap for fans to buy—rather than steal—songs off the Internet.

The moves by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment accelerate the industry's transition to an era in which music is distributed electronically. Other major labels are likely to follow as the record business grapples with the rise of online music copying through unauthorized services such as Napster, Kazaa and Morpheus and potentially billions of dollars in lost sales.

Rather than trying to force consumers to buy music on the labels' terms, the services signal that record companies are slowly adapting to Internet-fueled changes in the marketplace.

This summer, Universal plans to sell tens of thousands of high-quality digital singles for 99 cents or less and albums for $9.99 through online retailers such as Amazon, Best Buy and Sam Goody, according to sources and company executives. Universal plans to make new releases available for downloading as well as older ones, and possibly offer downloads before the music is available on CD.

Significantly, the company plans to let consumers download songs and record them freely onto CDs —a major shift from the company's practice of limiting what users could do with downloaded music.

The question is whether consumers accustomed to getting music for free will pay even 99 cents. Executives hope that, at some point, consumers will elect to pay a modest fee rather than steal.

"Forty-nine cents seems like the appropriate amount," said Ron Stone, president of Gold Mountain Entertainment, an artist management firm. "If you can get kids to spend 49 cents, consider it a gift. Make it 99 cents, you won't sell any, particularly if the singles market is a kids market&lt;snip&gt;&lt;more on page&gt;<hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />


  • Reply 1 of 8
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    That's really cool news. It's never been so much about the money thing to me, because I'll buy something if I want to, or like it.

    But it upsets me that the extravagant, out-of-whack pricing. $16?!?

    The record industry HAS to somehow get a clue and realize that the Internet and downloading is here to stay. They can fight it and continue to pretend like it's 1983 and all is well. OR they can adapt and embrace this new, cool way of getting music out there.

    If I could go online today, and pay $4 - give or take - and legally download "Nashville Skyline" or whatever (OR, better yet, pay .50 and simply pick and choose individual songs...kinda like a Limewire that actually works!) and download them and make my OWN custom CDs, I'd be happy to.

    But I simply get no thrill in trudging to some loud record store, staffed by snotty, attitude-heavy twenty-somethings, shell out $18 for a bunch of cardboard and packaging, etc.

    I don't mind paying. I DO mind paying when it's completely over-the-top and unnecessary. I don't like being gouged and screwed.

    If the companies will realize that, perhaps, there IS indeed a better way (or simply, an alternative for those, like me, who prefer doing it online), why not?

    It's encouraging that these two companies seem to be getting a clue.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    The only thing that has kept me from downloading music at home online is bandwidth. I hope Cable or DSL go down in pricing someday...NOT.

    Until those services are down to $19,95 a month then I'm out.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Nashville Skyline is a killer record.

    [ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 8
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,358member
    They can make it even easer. Charge my Credit Card $11.99 and let me download say 11 high quality downloads. I'd eat it up.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    The way i see it this is just another half assed attempt by the record companies. I think 9.99 is still a lot to pay for a product with less sound quality than a cd and no art work or physical packaging. I would not pay 9.99 when i could get the real thing from best buy for 11.98. This will fail just like the other major label digital distro schemes(pressplay).

    I think that a fair price would be $5 for a download of a complete album, perhaps they could work something out so that you could buy the actual physical product at a later date for $5 less.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    Why haven't a bunch of mega rich artist that hate the music industry started their own label?
  • Reply 7 of 8
    [quote]Why haven't a bunch of mega rich artist that hate the music industry started their own label? <hr></blockquote>

    Many have tried, and very few have succeeded. Most mega-rich artists don't hate the music industry because it has done them get that status, they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, connected to the right people, and politically in favor with their label, and promoted according to the terms of their contract (an extremely rare thing with a major label). Artists, being largely sensitive characters tend to make lousy businesspeople! The Beatles tried it with Apple Records (!!!!!!!!!!!!), which was a financial disaster. ( Madonna's Maverick label though is an exception to that rule.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    The Grateful Dead had their own label,the only problem was that one of the band's drummers' father took off with all the money.
Sign In or Register to comment.