The artist makes less than .20 on a CD sale.

And we should believe anything the record companies say about fair profit -- ??!

Freedom is not too far away - and here is how it will work:

Artists will sell their own music via their own sites (or a co-op, like iTunes). They will begin abandoning the CD/record store model, because CDs are about to go obsolete. Within this same timespan, radio distribution will become internet distribution. Over the air stations will have little impact. A new category of management/bookers will rise up, with no ties to record companies, and who only exist to promote concerts and events.

And a******* like Jean-Bernad Levy will wonder "what happened." And the value of the big media companies will plummet. Except those, of course, who stop being greedy b******* and realize what is going on.

Levy, Bronfman and Rubin...the same ol' greedy executives, demanding the impossible and ripping off customers...incredible.

Someone earlier asked how Apple's "take" from a 99 cent music sale (about 29 cents) compares to how much a retail merchant gets.

I have been out of the music-store biz for a while, so the terms may have changed somewhat, but as I recall big retailers pay the record companies about $4 per disc, meaning the RETAILER keeps about 75% of the money made on a $16 CD sale.

I really just don't see what the record companies are complaining about. This is money they would not otherwise get (due to piracy), they keep a MUCH higher percentage of the money made, and drop their distribution cost to zero. This is why the "record company" as we know it will die a prolonged but certain death, and music lovers and content creators everywhere will rejoice.

Apple does have to cover the cost of running the iTunes Music store and bandwidth for downloads. The record label is making 3/4 of the profits and they are still whining for more! And if Apple lets them they will whine for more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more. I think you should get my point by now. They will keep whining and keep raising the prices as long as companies give in. Before you know it each song will cost as much as a full album. Each album will cost twice what a CD or DVD would cost. And if they could get away with it they would still whine for more!

Why don't bands release digitally directly to iTunes and other digital venders and cut out the labels? I'm sure they would be happy with 70¢ of every dollar spent on their music.

Perhaps that's what all the legal positioning and lawsuits are really about.

Apple does have to cover the cost of running the iTunes Music store and bandwidth for downloads. The record label is making 3/4 of the profits and they are still whining for more! And if Apple lets them they will whine for more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more, and more. I think you should get my point by now. They will keep whining and keep raising the prices as long as companies give in. Before you know it each song will cost as much as a full album. Each album will cost twice what a CD or DVD would cost. And if they could get away with it they would still whine for more! In other words more is never enough for them. And in there words, were all thieves, criminals! If they had it all there way we would have to pay to listen to each song off of the radio at $50 a song and even that wouldn't be enough for them.

I have an idea (although I myself have never done this) but maybe, just maybe, people should go back to the old way of downloading music. If the labels arent happy with what they are getting under the current system maybe they should be reminded of what they were getting under the former system of online music distribution. Apple came up with, or at least popularized a viable and legal system for online music distribution and now its not good enough for the labels and thier bottom lines. And, of course any restructuring of the system wouldnt put more money in the actual artists pocket who created the music in the first place. I say stop buying music from record labels all together, let the artists produce and distribute thier own material; and let the artist recieve the lions share of the profits. When it comes right down to it the record labels are really just talentless leeches trying to make a buck off of the artistic gifts of another. And, if you really want to get angry try and figure out what the CEO of a record company actually does to earn his money (I will give you a hint: It has nothing to do with music)

The days of the iTunes Music Store dominance is numbered. Why else is Apple diversifying the store the way they are? Movies, TV shows, Rentals (near future.) Apple realizes that the music companies are about to shoot their own foot off and begin pulling content unless they can start calling more of the shots. Which will not happen because once Job's caves once...it is over...unless he ties it to some other value add.

Frankly I wouldn't pay more than $.99 no matter how hot the song is. If prices go up they better add some additional value. As they are the prices of downloaded music are already too high.

Subscription, No! More than a buck a song, No! $.49 a song $5.99 for an album that cost very little to store and stream to my CPU...yeah that's about right.

I'd by 3 to 4 albums a month like that (if someone would publish anything decent). As it is now I rarely buy music...there is too much other good content on my TV, DVR, Apple TV and in my Car (XM)...only so much time in the day.

The music companies have this all backward. Prices products go DOWN as time goes on, not UP!.

a method to distribute on iTunes w/out a lable. It's called www.tunecore.com. Good stuff.

so universal seems less greedy, but they only dropped the "Universal" from their name a short time ago, and that --wasn't-- because they were no longer tied to Universal.

While precise figures are difficult, let's say Vivendi's 70 cents is accurate. (What percentage of that goes to the artists? Just asking.) That leaves .29 for Apple. But wait! I understand that the credit cards take .25 per transaction, no matter whether it's for a new Mac or for one song. That would mean that Apple would get .04 a song, and with that they pay for bandwidth and servers and so on. In other words, they don't make much money at all on iTunes. Since it's been a big driver for sales of iPods, so what?

If they want a bigger share, perhaps Apple could start charging them directly for the costs of running the store.

What does a record label have to do to put their song on iTunes? One. Get the artists to record a song. Covert it to an AAC file. Five seconds. Add cover art. Send to iTunes via secure FTP. Collect 70c a track.

I'd be surprised if Apple hasn't negotiated a deal with the credit card companies -- .25 out of .99 is simply way too much to give up.

But, more to the point, Vivendi's whining about Apple's terms is simply ludicrous. You don't like the offer? Don't take the offer. You're entirely free to find some other way to sell your product. Whining about it like that reveals a total lack of class.

I'm telling you people, the music biz is a racket and once you start thinking of it in those terms, it all makes sense why they behave this way. It's no coincidence that organized crime and payola have been involved for so long in the industry.

Any of you ever watch The Sopranos? There was a great storyline where this sporting goods store owner played by Robert Patrick was a buddy of Tony Soprano's. Patrick's character had a bad gambling jones. Tony warned him several times not to get involved with his high-roller poker games. Patrick's character didn't listen and connived his way into a game and lost badly. He ended up in serious debt to Soprano's crew and the mob moved into his story, leeched him dry by taking advantage of his lines of credit with vendors and so on.

That's what the music biz is - it's a parasite. It knows no gratitude for people like Steve Jobs who save it from itself. It sucks artists dry, it wants to suck Apple dry and us consumers dry. And if their crooked business model isn't working, they lobby Congress to fix the copyright laws for them and slap a 'piracy tax' on all media buyers (they succeeded in doing that in Canada, if I recall correctly).

Remember that: RACKET.

Apple gives them the only profitable outlet for digital downloads.. basically doing ALL the work of making this part of the industry work, and they whine like babies. This is really free money for the record companies! The music is already made. They have no other outlet for it.

What's that supposed to mean, 'The music is already made'? Sounds like you think they shouldn't charge at all for the music, since it has no value and the price is all about the cost of producing the CD itself.

Artists will sell their own music via their own sites (or a co-op, like iTunes). They will begin abandoning the CD/record store model, because CDs are about to go obsolete. Within this same timespan, radio distribution will become internet distribution. Over the air stations will have little impact. A new category of management/bookers will rise up, with no ties to record companies, and who only exist to promote concerts and events.

I love these wonderful thoughts of eden or shangri-la, but we all know it won't work like that. The ISPs will garner the power to control the music, demanding extra money for extra bandwidth and serving the public. Apple and others will take more off the top, leaving the same little amount for the artists they get now.

And this new category of 'booker/management'? How will this somehow be different than now? How will this management not be stealing people blind, taking advantage of artists, demanding huge fees, etc? Already, the large stations also run a lot of the concert venues. You can't book a concert without a venue. And they'll be still taking their money.

And you still have the problem that you have today (just not as bad). What of the artists who can't, won't, or prefer not to perform in concert?

But, more to the point, Vivendi's whining about Apple's terms is simply ludicrous. You don't like the offer? Don't take the offer. You're entirely free to find some other way to sell your product. Whining about it like that reveals a total lack of class.

So vivendi gets ripped for saying they don't like the terms. And what happens when they pull thier music, as you suggest? They get ripped again, even though they're doing exactly what you're suggesting.

"I love these wonderful thoughts of eden or shangri-la"

Well, at least you didn't call the poster names as is your want.

And your response? Nothing more substantial than the poster you ridicule, YOUR thoughts on what MIGHT happen.

"We all know it won't work like that." Really? According to...?

"The ISPs will garner the power to control the music, demanding extra money for extra bandwidth and serving the public. Apple and others will take more off the top, leaving the same little amount for the artists they get now."

More fact? Based on what exactly? Can't be just your thoughts on what might happen because, well, then that could be easily ridiculed, as you so well know.

I love these wonderful post of I'm right and you're wrong.

Sell New music for more if you want, but old music should also sell for less than $.99 a track.

How about $.49 or $.29?

> But wait! I understand that the credit cards take .25 > per transaction, no matter whether it's for a new Mac > or for one song

Credit card companies typically take a percentage of each sale. I'm sure Apple pays about 1%. There's no way a credit card company is going to make just 25 cents on a $1,500 computer sale.

One can only hope that they go down the gurgler ASAP!

The point is not that Vivendi is getting 70c out of a 99c sale. The point is that they have no ability to set their own price.

What retailer tells a wholesaler that they can sell their product only at one price? (other than Wal-mart?)

Also, the guy who said that artists get 20c royalty for CDs is just plain wrong. Artist typically get 15-25% of the sale price of the CD.

Artists DO NOT get 15-25% of the price of their CD. I dont know what world you are in. I suppose they have creative control over it's production as well.

And Viv can set their own price. All they have to do is get off iTunes, set up their own system, and do it.

Doofus.

...for the record label execs.

Don't you realize that cocaine is expensive?!

>Credit card companies typically take a percentage of each sale. I'm sure Apple pays about 1%. There's no way a credit card company is going to make just 25 cents on a $1,500 computer sale.

Credit card companies have both a per transaction charge (generally .15-.20) and a percentage charge. The per transaction charge is why you see Apple "batching" up your iTunes purchases over a day or two, and why they also push the gift cards so aggressively.

"I love these wonderful thoughts of eden or shangri-la"

Well, at least you didn't call the poster names as is your want.

And your response? Nothing more substantial than the poster you ridicule, YOUR thoughts on what MIGHT happen.

"We all know it won't work like that." Really? According to...?

I'm sorry, what world do you live in? Why are the labels a bunch of greedy b******* now? Because they've taken advantage of their situation to become that powerful. Do you really believe in a capitalistic society that, if the all-powerful labels go away, that no one will try to go after the money that's there? You're naive if you think it'll all be pure Its the music industry for goodness sakes!

"The ISPs will garner the power to control the music, demanding extra money for extra bandwidth and serving the public. Apple and others will take more off the top, leaving the same little amount for the artists they get now."

More fact? Based on what exactly? Can't be just your thoughts on what might happen because, well, then that could be easily ridiculed, as you so well know.

The ISPs already are demanding more money from the suppliers like Google, and will demand more from large bandwidth hogs, or just block them up.

Apple is already showing us they like money. From charging people to make ringtones, to locking up their cellphones so they can get their money from AT&T, its obvious they are trying to get their money any way they can. Why do they want fixed and low pricing on music/video? Its not for you! Its for them, for it will help them sell product.

If you really think that, if the labels went away tomorrow, and Apple wouldn't try to use their new to make a bundle of money, or to take control of music distribution (which people already claim they have in the digital realm, its just that its just a small percentage of all music sales at the moment), and use it to their gain.

I love these wonderful post of I'm right and you're wrong.

Well, sure you don't like it. Because I'm right, not you...

You've missed the point yet again. it's not about what YOU "the voice of reason" THINKS might happen, it's simply your total lack of ability to see a possible different future. What are you doing? Simply stating what is, no vision, no alternatives to what might be. You ridiculed a possible future by another poster by stating the status quo.

You may be right, you may be wrong, and unless you have a crystal ball, I rather doubt that your insight is more or less valid than any other speculation posted here. But hey, that wouldn't meet your daily requirements of self promotion would it?

You got an idea or comment? Post and stop bashing others already. Are you slow or what?

What world do I live in? I live in the world where debate is civil, where a point can be made without the childish personal affront (we're not politicians after all). How about yours? Never mind, we have ample evidence of the world you live in. It's all over these boards.

Once a snake, always a snake. These guys are made to profit, no matter how or what it takes to get there. 3 years ago, Apple's little idea was what seemed to sell. Now, they figure they can dictate what sells again.

These guys aren't going to change, and Apple is wise to know this regardless. I don't think anyone should expect less.

Then again, I think these greedy mogels should also understand that piracy is not going to diminish; contrary, these actions will only increase the piracy. But who better to rob from then a robber?!!

You've missed the point yet again. it's not about what YOU "the voice of reason" THINKS might happen, it's simply your total lack of ability to see a possible different future. What are you doing? Simply stating what is, no vision, no alternatives to what might be. You ridiculed a possible future by another poster by stating the status quo.

And what was the poster posting? Just some fanciful idea of what he thinks might happen. But between the two, I've got hundreds of years of history to back up future claims. You got some "Waaa, why can't you see things for what it COULD be." Because, unless there's some major nirvana sweeping the land, greed is greed, and people will try to take advantage of other people.

h***, just look at Apple now. Everyone always proclaims them as being different then other companies, but they're doing nothing different. They're still trying to gouge their customers, making money from wherever its possible. h***, they refuse to open up Fairplay for other devices for only one reason, it would affect iPod sales. They don't care about you. They care that you spend money on their stuff.

What world do I live in? I live in the world where debate is civil, where a point can be made without the childish personal affront (we're not politicians after all).

What world is that? Certainly not in the US.

3% is the usual take for credit cards. Amex even more. 2% if its not a credit, but a debit card.

Plus per transaction fees. These models are old models that don't work for 'micro transactions'....which is a model that would work well on the internet in many cases.

Perhaps iTunes is an example. Its true that Apple could negotiate a better deal with the CC companies, but don't be so sure they did. Companies large and small have tried that for a long time....usually with no success. Some companies do tell the CC companies to go take a hike, and they take cash only. Many of the dollars stores do that. But even they come back...and end up paying the terms...its just not worth the sales loss to not take credit cards.

Now...back to the subject of microtransactions...many of those that would take place, simply don't....its a services market waiting to happen.

Didn't Dave Matthews start up his own record label because of his disgust with the big record labels? Didn't David Gray sign up with him? Anyone remember hearing anything about this or am I just crazy?

Seems like someone out there ought to be giving the artists an alternative, they are probably much like the us & likely don't want to deal with the woes of doing all their own merchandising & PR.

Unfair that apple makes money too? These losers. Get a grip record industry folk!