Tech: iTMS; viruses; indie labels unite...

Personally, I think the Record companies is still screwing the artists. They just split the savings of digital distribution over traditional distribution with Apple. Artists still get the screw job.
It's not Apple's fault, they are just working within the busniess model setup by the Record companies.
Oh, and the consumer gets lousy compressed files which they pay top dollar for (in my opinion). It'd be one thing if we paid 50 cents for a second rate copy of a song, but when we're paying essentally the same cost as a CD (12 songs = $12 = about the same as a CD) I expect TRUE CD quality.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

P2P gives the artists a much better deal.

If artists get nothing out of nothing then they get all of the nothing! P2P gives artists 100% back!

posted by MacNN.com Reader

how much were these artists 'underpaid' when people didn't pay them SHIT when their music was downloaded illegally? Just asking a question, I mean, didn't Apple at least try to appease the artists, labels and consumer? granted, 100% of the people won't think this product is 100% good, but it's better than anything else on the market, and that's the stone truth.
Someone show me something better; I don't think anyone can.
And a note about compression, which is really a compromise. For better sounding files, you would theoretically need larger files to hold the information, which leads to higher storage rates which would equal Apple paying more to just host all of these now-larger files. I'm just curious, again; the compromise in size/quality had to be drawn somewhere, so what do you suggest?

-D.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

I never said anything about P2P.
P2P is stealing. I'm talking about record companies being greedy.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

It's not the fault of iTunes that the artists are getting screwed by the record company, and while Apple may be grossing more than the artist, it is the label's deceptive practicies that cause most of that. Frankly, Apple wanted to sell music via iTunes, and to do that they had to go to the rights holders. The rights holders determine how much they will charge Apple. Apple probably went in with a fair idea of how much they wanted/needed to make per-song and then looked at what the Big 5 wanted for their cut. Apple doesn't dictate what the cut is for the artist, so they can't really change that either. Such is life. Now, if your not with the Big 5 and are on iTunes, you are probably making more than the 11¢ average that Downhill states. But that isn't due to Apple giving them a better deal or dictating to them that they have to pay their artists more - it's because those labels are paying more. In the end the record companies needs to have their deceptive and unfair policies neutered, and the artists need to carefully read those contracts and say no when there is something they don't like. If your a good act, you'll get a record deal from someone, you don't have to put up with the crap the Big 5 wants to give you.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

CD's are still the BEST price vs. quality value in music today. I'd much rather buy a CD over buying a Download. Obviously larger sizes aren't practial with downloads, so lower the price. Why am I going to pay the same price for a crappy knock off of the high quality version, when I can just RIP the original CD and have both.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

It always seems that the people who complain about compression are those 1% who have highly trained ears or a super stereo setup and can hear the line noise in the middle of a party. These aren't the people that AAC (or any other lossy audio compression scheme) are targetting. So please, if your not satisfied with the compression rate then don't complain about it here - it won't change unless some large fraction of the other 99% of us start bitching with you to Apple about the compression. And thus far, I don't see the vast majority of us bitching.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

I suggest eliminating the middle man (the record company's). Band's can cut tunes for minimal amounts and apple can distribute. Charge 75 cents and both apple and the artists make more money.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

It gets really annoying when people try to find any angle to use Apple as a scapegoat because they are being successful at something. Musicians get paid ZERO dollars from P2P services. Artists get paid from services such as ITMS, Rhapsody, BuyMusic.com. If an artist wants a bigger piece of the pie they can renegotiate their contract.The band Incubus is signed to Sony/Epic and they sued to get out of their crappy old contract and renegotiated a new one. People seem to forget that it takes the marketing muscle and $$ of the big record companies to get a band out there on the radio and their name known. Yes, there are the rare cases of an independent artist making it big on their own. But generally, lesser known or up and coming bands pay a price for fame. Until there's a better system in place you have to deal with what life hands you. BTW, lets not forget that the independent labels are signing up for the ITMS, too.

posted by MacNN.com Reader

[QUOTE] People seem to forget that it takes the marketing muscle and $$ of the big record companies to get a band out there on the radio and their name known. [/QUOTE]

Lets not get into the can of worms called clear channel, big business radio, the new FCC rules that cater to both and how they are destroying music choice and the ability of the little guy to get his music heard just because it's good.

posted by MacNN.com Reader