Ill pay 5¢ for Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Though the Tulips". Ill pay $1.00 for Gwen Stefani's "Harajuku Girls"

The market demand should automatically and dynamically decide pricing. This could be designed into the system.

If a product isn't selling (the tune), then the prices should be adjusted until it does.

Do you get my point? This paradigm is played out every day in our retail stores. Just recently I picked up a $500 sports jacket for $80. Why? Last years style.

The record companies are brain dead idiots. They missed the boat with digital music sales and Apple had to show them how to do it. Maybe they should fire the young snots that run the companies and get some real business people in there.

"I don't buy much music, but all my purchases are either CD or DVD. There's no way I would pay 95% of the price of a CD for 25% sound quality. I'm not paying 0.99 per song for 128kbit, it's that simple."

Okay, Carp.

Okay, Carp.

No no, I buy CDs over music downloads too.

Big customer of both local and online used CD stores.

Sosa, the people who still buy CDs are the ones who want good sound quality (not compressed), cover art and liner notes, and a whole lot of music that isn't available at the iTunes store. The tactile experience of browsing through a stack of CDs (or--heaven forbid--vinyl LPs) is much more rewarding than scrolling through the iTunes window.

TheTSArt, you're just full of sh*t. All of the CD stores in your area have gone out of business? Only if you live in podunkville. And that means there's no way for you to buy CDs? Yeah, right.

The record companies want us to pay more for a product that it costs them less to produce and sell? I see. for every AAC file downloaded from iTunes, none of the record labels needed to press a CD or pay anyone to ship to a store or what have you, but they want MORE money from the product.

ok.

Well, most people can't tell (or don't care) about the degradation of sound quality (and, as I try to say time and again, unless you have both, you can't do a comparison and tell, so if you buy a song on iTMS, how do you know it sounds bad? Maybe its supposed to sound that way.)

Also, most people don't have an o***** browsing through a stack of CDs. Usually its more of a "Where the h*** is my damned "Starland Vocal Band's Greatest Hits" CD! Freakin' A!. Nor do they bother reading the liner notes (if the CD has liner notes - no, not all of them do) or even bothering noticing the cover art (which was more of an art when the covers were for LPs, not those tiny CDs). I only listen to my music on my iPod, so I'd have to compress it anyway.

As for TSArt, since you don't know where he lives (the beauty of the internet), don't be dissing (dissing, like it, its "street"!) him as he may be living in podunkville (h***, with the internet, he might actually live outside the big city, you can't tell). And many of the music stores are going out of business. Only few can survive, with the large box stores like BestBuy and Borders and all selling music as well as other stuff, along with mail order stuff from Amazon.

The "DRM" On japanese CDs doesn't affect mac users. The CDs just as easily rip in iTunes.

While not wrong, Nikkei's writing comes with a strong vested interest to play down overseas firms and play up Japanese ones. In the same article, Nikkei compares Apple as Gulliver to the poor, little Lillipudlian Sony -- one of the newspaper's most ridiculous comments to date, but not out of character. It also completely fails to point out that even at these higher-than-US prices, Apple is still undercutting Sony's own online Music store AND allows far more flexibility in saving purchased music -- buy from Sony and there are a number of ways you can simply lose your purchase due to excessive (IMO) DRM. That aside, if there are contracts to be renegotiated next year, expect not only price increases, but also more and tougher DRM to be demanded by the music industry.

One thing people are missing with this discussion of compressed vs non-compressed talk (and trolling): DRM means someone else has control over how/where you play the music you've purchased.

So not only are you paying for a most likely degraded version of the song, you're also limited in how you can play it, with no guarantee the you won't be further limited in the future.

This alone convinces me that DRM stuff is not worth the price. At any cost.

Raise the prices and piracy will increase once again. I think Steve Jobs will raise this as an issue. The reason he liked the price point where it is now is it was affordable and reasonable. Raising the prices will just make people go back to piracy once again. They are making profits hand over fist and then there greed is going to blow it once again.

"Well, most people can't tell (or don't care) about the degradation... Also, most people don't have an o***** browsing through a stack of CDs. ...Nor do they bother reading the liner notes..."

Of course. I was responding to someone sarcastically asking who is still buying CD's, implying that *no one* does anymore. I was just answering the question. I'm not telling anyone else what to do.

It's annoying to see comments about how "no one" buys CDs anymore, "no one" has dialup internet, and "no one" uses OS 9.

"As for TSArt, since you don't know where he lives (the beauty of the internet)..."

I would bet money that his claim is false. "All the CD stores" implies that there once were multiple CD stores where he lives, and that now they have all gone out of business. I say BS. And "the beauty of the interent" is part of my point. He obviously can still buy CDs online even if his premise is true.

The music industry seems bound and determined to drive itself into bankruptcy by not only alienating their customers, but pissing off Jobs and Apple. Idiots.. Stupid, moronic, can't find their asses with both hands, mirror, flashlight and a GPS ...

Copy protected CD's are a poorly executed idea. The technology doesn't work on Windows (just hold down the shift key) and it doesn't work on Mac (just, well use a Mac and iTunes)! In the US CPCD's started to become more popular after the huge sales of Velvet Revolver (one of the 1st US main stream albums to include copy protection). At the time this CD was described as being "iPod or iTunes incompatible". The fact that any Mac user could simply copy this album straight to their iPod shows the real lack of "protection" CPCD's offer. Record companies keep trying to hinder their customers with DRM as a way to boost their profits. This just shows how much record execs don't know about their customer's needs or wants. The big record companies make more money on the sale of records today than at any other time in the history of music. Yet their profits don't always seem to agree with this statement. Maybe it's because a few greedy execs need to take a pay cut and these companies need to stop spending so much on lawsuites against their loyal music fans for sharing a few songs!!! Maybe it's time the big record companies find a different business model!

They way I look at it, I love my Limewire. Ill keep pirating until the music industry wises up and lets me purchase music WITHOUT the slavery shackles of DRM (fairplay or otherwise).

Whats going to happen 10 years from now with Fairplay? What IF apple dies? Then what happens to my 100CD iTunes collection?

I used to manage several regional artists (with several "signed" acts). The music industry is NOTHING more than the following:

Loan Sharks: they LEND the musician money to produce a set number of albums, which they can reject indefinitely until they get what they want. And all the money Lent to the artist must be paid back, with intererest.

Thieves of Copyright: The music companies actually own the music you listen to, not the artist. Contracturally, its a shell game.

Glorified Promotion Agencies: Record companies are NOTHING MORE than promotion agencies. Anyone can produce an album, especially with the technologies today available in the Mac. If you want Ted Templeman for that "Van Halen" production style, hire him yourself as you would hire any one else to do anything for you. If I were to promote anything, I would hire Apple Chiat Day!!!! instead of Geffen.

Monopoly: the record industry is monopolized by an ethno-religious group: Jews. This is not an anti-semetic remark. Over 80% of all owners, producers in L.A. are jews when only 2% of the over all U.S. Population is. What does this lead to? Well, nepotism, favoritism, discrimination, locking out people of unlike minds, religion, etc. No one would argue that MEN or Whites used to dominate certian industries, so why argue here.

The fact is that the music industry is ripe with corruption, greed, and back stabbing scumbags. Piracy is just-desserts for the motley group. I say bring it on. There are millions of unsigned, unpopular great artists out there that are on the net, that can now use iTunes, that can blossom now that the Goliath has been slain.

hand, there ARE music companies where the artist DOES own their music, the contracts are NOT as antiquated as the above poster suggests and there are actually new methods slowly but surely changing the system. For instance, I know of a company that actually splits the profits right down the middle with the artists and everyone's happy! See the music industry used to be filled with people like those above, but they are being replaced slowly but surely. The music industry in 10 to 15 years will not resemble the industry of old.

As far as the statment "The market demand should automatically and dynamically decide pricing. This could be designed into the system. If a product isn't selling (the tune), then the prices should be adjusted until it does," I'd say, no problem! As long as you agree that whenever you slack off at work or stop to go to the bathroom, we can stop paying you because you are not helping us make a profit either. See while the ideology sounds good in theory, an artist should be able to charge whatever they want for their work. You don't like it, don't buy it. Any deal I make with a label is my business.

iTunes is already way overpriced considering that you get compressed audio and DRM restrictions.

If they raise prices I won't ever use it at all. I already only use it very rarely for a song here and there, but the DRM and sound quality make it not worth the hassle.

emusic.com is the best bet

"This is not an anti-semetic remark. Over 80% of all owners, producers in L.A. are jews when only 2% of the over all U.S. Population is. What does this lead to? Well, nepotism, favoritism, discrimination, locking out people of unlike minds, religion, etc. No one would argue that MEN or Whites used to dominate certian industries, so why argue here"

At least we have our favorite half-arab guy throwing down and winning the online legal music sales. The point I'd argue it that you're equivocating with a red herring. The fact that people are jewish is irrelevant to your point. It's utilized to enforce the idea that nepotism occurs because of the 'ethnicity', yet this is a Non Causa Pro Causa type conclusion. What we really have is an oligopoly where the few control the masses and work in collusion to fix prices and prevent competition. If you say that nobody would argue when MEN and whites (considering the treatment of women) I would just say white men dominated businesses then would you not attribute all the characteristics you believe are caused by 'Jews' controlling the media to those white men, or in fact whoever is in power of the media companies? There just wasn't a reason to go into 'ethnic' groups because a family (LCN 3.0), a normal family, a father, etc...would all commit 'nepotism' as it is looking out for their own offspring. Furthermore, the fact that there are those who would commit nepotism and the fact that it occurs is a correlation equals causation argument. It's just false. A translation w/o fallacies and a few generalizations would read:

The Music industry is an oligopoly within which the corporate structure tends to recruit from within a limited group, thus making it more difficult for others to work for even established companies; however individuals with the correct education and/or skills are still rewarded and able to enter the market on a limited basis.

The DRM doesn't work for macs or pcs. It won't really ever work. The issue isn't just profit margins. You can't open your own online music store because ITMS owns. This is becoming a virtual monopoly. NOW...that's the argument that will and has been used against Apple. Is it fair? The record companies negotiated the restrictions for distribution. It isn't a completely exclusive deal and if you are opening a store you have to offer something different or cheaper to be successful period.

Apple could agree to the music industry terms of prices and then structure their overall losses (billions in the bank) to compensate for the more expensive tracks and keep everything at 99cents. This would just reinforce their market dominance. Alternately they could raise prices, lose customers, and more piracy would ensue.

License their digital rights management? That's one to hold close to the chest. ipod PLAYS EVERYTHING would be great, but you can expect M$ to start locking everything down as quickly as t

they can the first day cross licensing happens. So I would hold onto their DRM and even take the increase. If ALL online stores under deals w/ Sony et al have to raise prices then we will see if the piracy fact is true. Of course there's that thing about price fixing...

but just like nepotism 'ex: I get to be president because my daddy wuz' we don't exactly see consumer protection as number one in this administration.

Lets face it, if your Italian and in construction, who are you likely to hire? Your local chinese? I have many jewish friends, but let me tell you that they are clannish. And when you get 80% of one group, whether it's ethnicity, religion, etc. you will have this tendency. It's a mob mentality, plain and simple. And piracy is beating them at their own immoral game.

Monopoly: the record industry is monopolized by an ethno-religious group: Jews. This is not an anti-semetic remark. Over 80% of all owners, producers in L.A. are jews when only 2% of the over all U.S. Population is. What does this lead to? Well, nepotism, favoritism, discrimination, locking out people of unlike minds, religion, etc. No one would argue that MEN or Whites used to dominate certian industries, so why argue here.

First, what do you mean MEN or WHITES used to domintate certain industries. In general, they still dominate most industries. Its hard for women or minorities to succeed, mainly because white guys tend to work with other white guys (religion not-withstanding).

Second, what does the fact that their jewish have anything in particular to do with anything. Bringing up religion is pointless. Esp. since, as you say, it locks out people of like minds, why aren't there more jewish musical acts? And forget the whole Jewish thing. Let's say you owned a business, regardless of what it is. Would you hire people who had completely different ideas on how to run the business then you did? (If you answer "Yes", you're lying through your a**). Having someone with some different ideas might be nice, but in general you don't want to be working with a group of people who all have different ideas on how to succeed or make money, as they'll all just end up competing and sabotauging each other. For example, Apple's dark years (early to late 90's) was highlighted by all the different interal groups thinking their projects were the ones that needed attention and funding, trying to push their ideas and denigrating the others.

And what of the other 20%. Are they completely unable to battle the 80%. Can't they come up with the different ideas? Different pricing models. Different distribution methods? And wouldn't their success then force the others into making changes.

Oh, and if record companies are basically PR guys and thieves, how do they get so many people to sign with them? Why aren't everyone dumping the labels, buy a mac, and producing their onw music?

ive never bought anything from itunes and never will. the quality is noticeably worse and the price is higher per song than a physical cd. so the record company saves on the manufacturing and distribution of: a cd, cd case, artwork, shrinkwrap, barcodes and stickers, yet they raise the prices for a crappy lo-fi download? and yes, that is lo-fi and yes i can absolutely tell the difference.

also, i absolutely refuse to buy any cd with copy protection, and you should too. cds do not last long and thus need to be backed up. i wont buy anything who's playability is defined by some idiot trying to make sure i cant copy my cd. one day it wont work in whatever cd player i have, and i wont be able to put it on my computer or mp3 player.

lastly, it is nice that its really easy to boycott, because its still easy to download for free. the music companies have to keep this in mind, increasing prices will increase piracy. i always thought itunes songs were worth no more than 49 cents. when i heard they want to raise the prices above a dollar... what are you kidding me? were making the middle man rich and the artist is still screwed. and now the consumer too. s**** this, not a chance. btw music piracy is only bad for the major labels. for us artists, its free advertising. the labels never gave us a fair cut anyway. boycott them.