The greedmonsters are at it again

Post by **BlueChair** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:54 pm

Apparently the iTunes rate of 99 cents per song download hasn't satisfied record labels, who are trying to raise the price to as much as $2.99 per song! That's like $45 for a 15-track album!!!

Labels seek end to 99c music per song download
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Friday 9th April 2004 02:32 GMT
Remember how online music stores were going to route around the music industry? The pigopolists have barely got their feet under the table and already demanding more. The Wall Street Journal reports that the major five labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap, and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song.

The current tariff is too much for most people, as saggy sales indicate. "99 cents a song is a pricing model designed to protect CD sales, and not one designed to move people into a new digital music marketplace," senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Fred Lohmann told us recently. "If an iPod has room for 4,000, does Apple think people are getting to spend $4,000 filling it with music?"

As it is, online music stores are a loss leader, or barely cover operating expenses. Apple alone can consider its online store a success: it has driven demand for its iPod and given itself a toe-hold in a valuable new consumer market. Some analysts reckon Apple's cut is as high as 33 cents, but once the bandwidth, manpower and marketing are counted - and let's not forget that Apple pays Thomson an MP3 licensing fee on the iTunes software it gives away - there's very little to the bottom line. What it does do is indirectly help the iPod.

The iPod's success wasn't always assured. Almost exactly two years ago, we reported that Apple had seen a 50 per cent drop in demand for the iPod, launched to great fanfare, and an apologetic CFO Fred Anderson "defended the figures, and said other MP3 manufacturers had seen steeper declines". In the last quarter Apple generated $256 million worth of income from iPod sales and admitted it could have been higher if it had made more.

It's not a pretty picture for the other download services, all of which take the distribution costs onboard. What does the customer get for this? A very low bit rate file encumbered with DRM. Now the major labels want to make online music downloads even more expensive than conventional CDs, so customers are invited to pay more for less.

The major labels want us to view the DRM-encumbered download services as the carrot to the legal stick. But paying more for less is a business proposition that has only worked for the record industry when it has been able to make the previous generation of technology, such as vinyl, obsolete. It doesn't have that option anymore. CD sales and "pirate" downloads dwarf DRM online downloads.

Von Lohmann thinks the online services may yet be a success, although they need to offer much more for less. "Maybe. With no DRM, and by bringing the price way down and by having much more music - at 25 cents a song or with a flat rate pricing. That could be compelling." ®

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:42 pm

Not to soil the pride party, but music can be free.

*waits for the onesided debate in favor of musicians who are not losing money over the situation*

Post by **BlueChair** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm

lol

anything can be free

I can walk into a convenience store and pocket a package of beef jerky.

But I'm more of a walk into the convenience store, taste the beef jerky, and decide if it's worth buying kind of guy

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:54 pm

That's exactly what filesharing provides.

There are thousands of musicians FOR it, because it gets their music out. Filesharing has not effected the sales of music in any proven way, I can only see how it helps the situation. It can turn a listener on to new music and genres... and if they like it, they will buy it. It provides a sense of honesty to a corrupt business that is entirely overpayed in all areas.

The only artists that are against it are the major label millionaires who won't even look into the situation.

A nice debate I was reading about the situation had this quote---

" I believe that music is important, more important than corporate intent, shareholder meetings, or 3rd quarter profits. Music is not a commodity, it is the soundtrack to our lives, and as such it should be our decision to listen to what we want to when we want to, as opposed to turning on the radio and having the same 40 songs shoved down our throats because some corporate suit paid the price to have a "pop hit" put into major rotation. "

That doesnt really go along with my beliefs and arguments for the situation, but it nevertheless it makes a point.

I honestly believe that if somebody likes what they hear, they will go out and purchase the album in support of it. There is no need to pay fees to hear a preview of an album you have yet to make judgement on. The consumer should know what they're purchasing.

I didn't mean to spark a big thing, just had some thoughts at the moment.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:07 pm

I'll respectfully disagree with you WHAR, because I teach high school and the students at my school own an average of 200-300 CDs by the time they are seniors and the majority have paid for only about 45 of them. That means most have downloaded between 150 and 250 ALBUMS for free. (My AP Civics class did a class project on this very issue). Now, its true this is just one school, but my school is a pretty good cross section of races and income backgrounds. The main crux of the matter is this: if an artist wants to put their music out for free, they are 100% entitled to do so. If I do NOT choose to put my music out for free, no one has the right to take it, just because the technology enables them to do so. I am not a corporate label millionaire, I just dont choose to give my music away (not that anyone is particularly interested in it!!)

In the old days before file sharing, we had to rely on word of mouth and recommendations from underground 'zines and college radio. And most of all, true music lovers took a lot of chances on albums. I remember buying my first Camper Van Beethoven and Pixies albums stritctly off of reviews I'd read in the CMJ. Band also used to tour a lot more to promote themselves and I bought countless CDs because of the live exposure. I believe in the rights of an artist to control the distribution of their art.

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:18 pm

I concur 100% with the opinions expressed by pophead2k and bluechair. When I was young, I made both good and bad buying decisions based on word of mouth, reviews, and even the albums featuring cool covers. In the olden days, you either made an educated choice of you took a stab at it, and sometime you win, sometimes you lose.

But each and every recording had implicit VALUE, because I laid down hard-earned money to have the right to listen to it. If it sucked, I told everyone NOT to buy it. In turn, they did the same, and long term friendships were forged that last to this day, with the only bond being our mutual love of music.

Because even the bad recordings had implicit value, I really gave them a chance, I listened hard. I opened my mind to the possibility that maybe there was something here that I was missing. Sometimes, with time, it worked. Richard Thompson. Early Talking Heads. Early Genesis. Other times it did not. But my musical taste and genome was formed from bith the good and the bad...because I had invested equally in both.

I still follow the same practice (although I don't purchase records for their covers anymore..) because there is a type of excitement with the investment that you do not get, cannot feel unless you have something invested, and the recording has some value to you. Some of the brightest memories of my youth is picking up the new Yes, or the new Led Zepellin, or the new Deep Purple albums and rushing home to slam them n the turntable and sit back and literally digest the recording...literally digest it.

Many of my peers download music for free. They have no idea of what the artist is about, who is playing on the record, what the songs are titled or what the lyrics mean. They don't care. The downloads have no implicit value.

I support the artists who take the chance. If they want their music distributed for free, then it is their prerogative. But otherwise, it is criminal, dishonest, and leads, I believe, to a stunted appreciation for music.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:22 pm

A much more eloquont reply than mine, but that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for the better words Mr. A.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:09 am

I think it comes down to the fact that times changed. You aren't young anymore. There is a generation gap here. When you were young, the generation of music-listeners before you had quibbles towards your methods as well.

A friend and I were actually discussing this, and we began to compare it to a public library. It is almost a legal precedent. Just go to any public library. Just like Soulseek or Kazaa, they are fully searchable, and they've been "sharing" copyrighted material since their inception. Ever use a photocopier at a library? How is this different from the programs? It is really the same situation.

If the music is illegally sold or falsely claimed, then that makes it entirely different.

Mr. A, find some new peers... they sound cruel.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:46 am

I think it's a generation gap to a certain degree. I know a lot of people my age and your age, wehitandrun, who still buy a lot of albums and take chances. Mr. A sounds like he has great friends, and similar ones to the sorts I have. I have a friend who I exchange e-mails with on nearly a daily basis with each of us suggesting good new music to each other.

Of course, albums aren't as cheap as they used to be... but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. And anyway, there are plenty of Internet radio stations for exposure.

And I *totally* agree with music becoming a much more passive activity as a result of mp3's. I'm a big fan of the nature of an album. The cover art, the track sequencing, the liner notes, the whole experience, and that is totally taken away with mp3's.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:45 am

BlueChair wrote:The cover art, the track sequencing, the liner notes, the whole experience, and that is totally taken away with mp3's.

I agree with you there. That is why I also buy my albums. But, I am saying that downloading songs for free shouldn't put such a weight on your conscious(to the point of you paying a fee per-song on ITunes). Especially if you are the type of person who is going to purchase what they like.

This issue is hotter than inter-gender marriages.

*EDIT: sadly, liner notes aren't a hot thing these days, I never knew they were. I figured liner notes were only for very special albums(except the "THANKYOU" section which is everywhere). You're lucky to get lyrics these days. The cd package is weakening, which begs the question - "why the fuck is this thing 19 bucks?" You can download full albums in track order on soulseek, and even album art.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:50 am

We have already had this discussion - filesharing is on it's way out. The big boys in the music companies are already suing Joe public in the USA who are using these and the Uk is to follow suit shortly.

George Michael is a huge star and he's all for filesharing. I think he realises that there is no money in singles anymore, and that downloading the odd song will ultimately lead to album sales.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:53 am

Filesharing most definitly is not on its way out. The government cannot attack companies such as Soulseek, they can only attack the users.

And really, I can't wait to get the message on my answering machine that I am amongst the 6,000,000 people being charged for downloading the soulseek client.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:16 am

You're just gloating because as a minor your parents will be held responsible for your actions. So they'll be responsible for paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, not you.

Speaking of which, shouldn't you be at school, young man?

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:19 am

wehitandrun wrote:This issue is hotter than inter-gender marriages.

Do you mean same-sex marriages? Because they are intra-gender. Sorry, couldn't resist.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:51 am

I was trying to be funny. =]

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:52 am

BlueChair wrote:You're just gloating because as a minor your parents will be held responsible for your actions. So they'll be responsible for paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, not you.

Speaking of which, shouldn't you be at school, young man?

Haha, I am in school, no worries. I'm in the library... the ultimate skip-class environment. There are 28 internet-ready high speed computers, and nobody to check on why you're in here.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:03 pm

I'll agree to the generation gap argument- and I'm not saying that people my age wouldn't have illegally downloaded copyrighted materials if we would have had the opportunity at that time. I do have to say that your public library argument doesn't hold up. The library (or some donor) PAID for the privilege of distributing the material in that manner. Libraries don't get books for free. By allowing libraries to carry their books, authors, through their publishers, are granting agreement for end users to read their materials for free. Artists whose music is pirated by soulseek or kazaa users or whatever make no such agreement. If you have no moral issues with filesharing, share away- but don't try to argue that its 'OK' because its not. I don't care how you try to dress it up, its stealing. Like I said, if the artist wants to release music for free, its up to them (just as an author makes the decision to allow libraries and book clubs to carry their work).

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:31 pm

The generation gap is indeed significant. When I was in high school, and visited the library, it was for the primary purpose of discovering literature, researching a topic for a paper, or completing assignments and homework. It a treat only for the more studious, as there was no reserve or tolerance for wasting time.

So todays generation can use the library for purposes that are the antithesis of a real education...penning incendiary comments about cruel peers and criminal justifications while you could be learning.

I suppose there is a form of learning going on via the wasted time on the internet during the hours reserved for academic gain. Learning how to scam the system. That seems to be the American way, so I suspect that you will be very accomplished by the time of graduation (WHAR). You are already off to a great start.

Good luck, and start thinking NOW about the government entitlements that you can stake your claim to so you won't actually need to work. As Amanda Plummer said to Tim Roth in the opening sequnce of Pulp Fiction (since this is a Quentin Terantino week, guest-judging on American Idol tonight, of all things):

"Prettyyy Smaaart" ... just before they terrorized the patrons and employee's of a diner during an armed robbery.

Your generation is too smart for me. With the aid of my walker and my incontinence briefs, I hold to the basic edicts that you should do unto others as you wish they would do unto you. Once your band is wildly successful (and based on the lyrics that you are posting in Tin Pan Alley, success is imminent!), then I wonder how you will feel when you are struggling to make the rent while scads of those damn kids download your material for free, leaving you wanting for nothing more than reasonable compensation for the effort.

Good Luck. Keep hitting and Running. Eventually, though, someone catches up. They always do.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:11 pm

There is one solution to this problem....

MAKE ALBUMS CHEAPER, AND SINGLES FREE TO DOWNLOAD

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:52 pm

Artists whose music is pirated by soulseek or kazaa users or whatever make no such agreement.

You are wrong there. There was an entire tour promoting filesharing featuring Saves The Day, Face to Face, New Found Glory, and some other bands. There are thousands of known artists who promote file sharing. Haven't you ever seen this banner?

(check out that website if you have the time)

Well, it's everywhere.

Mr. A, this debate has made me fall in love with you... in a hetero, internet fashion.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:51 am

I would argue that most musicians have faced the inevitability of illegal activities like those practiced by you, WHAR. I know many, many musicians who make their living through music and I don't personally know a single one who supports filing sharing. The fact that I live in one of the most musically active towns in the U.S. and I have never seen your bumper sticker should tell you something.

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:21 am

Filesharing and making music available are two different things.

Wilco has been known to make their music available on their website prior to release, but I doubt they want people sharing everything they've ever recorded on programs like kazaa.

I'm sure it's the same with most musicians. Either way, it isn't an all or nothing. Just because Saves The Day says "Okay, wehitandrun, you can share all our albums", doesn't mean Elvis Costello feels the same way.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:57 am

Well, pophead, don't sit there and tell me that a majority of artists don't support filesharing- all because you know some people who are against it.

Everyone check out The Lido Venice... I really think you guys would dig them. It is really intelligent music with some folk influence. They're all for file sharing. Their entire new ep is currently available for streaming at this link : http://www.ecarecords.com/eca/media/tlv.radio/
They'll have mp3s for sharing soon.

Some musicians care more about their music being heard than their music being purchased, and that's that. Whether or not Elvis does- we don't know. He has never voiced an opinion on widespread filesharing- so don't automatically put him on "your side" of the debate. I would love to hear what he thinks about it though.

I see, Pophead, that you have a strong 'against' position on this. That's good to here. But try to listen to both sides, and understand that the world isn't such a small place.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:03 am

wehitandrun wrote:Whether or not Elvis does- we don't know. He has never voiced an opinion on widespread filesharing- so don't automatically put him on "your side" of the debate. .

Actually that's not true. He's quite vocally against it, and uses the same terms PH2K did-- he says it's theft, end of story. Among other places, I think he addressed this directly in the ASK ELVIS section of our old home, the Island Board.

One thing, too, I would point out in the 'library' comparison, is that when you take a book out of the library, you do not have the ability to easily send exact copies of the entire book to an infitnite number of people.

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:31 am

Here's the exact Elvis quote. See "Ask Elvis" on http://www.elviscostello.com

Question:

In regards to the following comment attributed to you: ''If you're a carpenter and you make a chair, and then somebody comes around your workshop and takes the chair away, you call the police. There isn't any gray area. It's just stealing." When a carpenter makes a chair he sells it ONCE. Then he has to make another one. What gives you the right to create a product once and then sell the same product over, transfer the rights to a corporation or your offspring and let them sell it over and over until 100 years after you are dead? That's fair? Or are songs somehow intrinsically more valuable than chairs? The current business model is broken. CDs and LPs are obsolete. Distributers and other middle-men are no longer necessary. BTW, your songs are already available in mp3 format all over the place. Why not make them available on your own site for a small fee. You might be surprised.
asked by Joe on Tuesday, April 23, 2002

Answer:

If I were polite, I could say both our arguments are flawed but you are talking through your arse. We don't live in a world full of individual hand-crafted objects and we both know it. If you steal a mass produced chair they still call the police. If someone steals my song I suppose I still have the right to call them a thief. In my opinion songs ARE more valuable than chairs but they are much less comfortable to sit on.
answered by E.C. on Friday, May 17 , 2002 3:13 AM