MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I have been following this one for about two weeks now. It is just sad how greedy those record companies are.

Is it me, or is it coincidental that this is happening around the same time Sony is preparing to launch their "iPod/iTMS Killer"? Makes me go, "Hmmmm?"

This might propel a lot of groups and individual singers to start disassociating themselves from the big 5 (they don't deserve any capital letters). There is no way in Hades that I will buy anything online for even $1.25. This sounds like the big 5 could also get into legal trouble; no one has bothered yet because .99 isn't TOO bad, but setting the price collectively at 2.49 sounds like the feds might get involved. I wonder what Bush and Kerry would have to say about this!?

How many times must it be said that the RIAA (and its members): JUST DON'T GET IT.

$2.49 a song. That'll give new life to illegal file sharing.

what a bunch of idiots! i hope steve stomps on their heads with some sense. i was a former limewire user until itunes/pepsi, now i'm thinking of returning to file sharing cause that's just way to much.

maybe ppl should complain about the "big 5" like ppl complain about gas prices from OPEC!!!

I also hear that (although i'm not sure how new or old this is) the RIAA is working to have a tax on cd-rs or something. Completely unreasonable, eh? I mean, most of us probably don't even use cd-rs for music..

I have gone completely legit as far as obtaining music is concerned. But should there be a price hike, I will tell the RIAA to fuck off and resume my old file sharing ways.

Don't be stupid boys. I want to give you my money. Don't force me to do otherwise.

Who do we write/complain to this possibility? Best to make our voices heard now as to when its too late.

this is about killing the purchase of music and wanting us to rent it. recurring revenue folks, is what they want. they are on the verge of losing control of the production and distribution of music, their only function really and when that ends, then they lose their income.

Its all about GREED & the growth of profits. Never ending cycle. OMG I could go on & on & on.......

screw them. they can burn in hell

At $2.49 a song, I'd have bought only 1/3rd of the iTunes songs that I did.

And England is still waiting for iTMS - they'll probably charge us Brits £2.49 ($4.42).

Damn those greedy fat cats.

Last year it was the poor struggling RIAA companies, about to turn out the lights due to illegal downloading. This year the greedy b*stards want to kill the goose that laid the Golden Egg. Apple should offer artists that control their intellectual property a deal bypassing the RIAA members. The old business model is dead and they are desperately trying to hold on to their Lear Jets.

at $2.49 a song, I would have bought 0 of any

A BIG FAT ZERO

I hope they are listening, damn shame, the iTunes music store is a hit, that is where I will buy my music...ever again

'NoPCzone': I'm with you 100%. That's the right move!!
A prophetic message.

I won't even buy a song at for a dollar. What they need to do is lower the price to 50 cents.

The music industry is terrified because they see an end to their exploitation of artists on the horizon. What you have here is a bunch of people who had neither the drive nor the talent to make it in music themselves parasitically attaching themselves to artists.

I think most of us can live with 99 cents a song, but I myself will not pay any more just so these loser executives can play rock star and do their coke off of $1000/hr call girl's boobs.

$0.99 * (n > 0) = profit
$2.50 * 0 = $0.00

'nuff said

this seems like the RIAA want to send people back to file sharing, so that they can be in the business of law suits.

$2.50? I'm with rageous.

The labels can kiss my hairy butt and I'll go back to file sharing.

99 cents a song is a fair deal IMHO. If the price had started at $1.25, a lot of us would have been willing to buy from iTMS simply to support Apple, but the business wouldn't have taken off as it did. To try to jack the price after a year is a joke. Anything over $1.25 will kill iTMS, perhaps even Steve would kill iTMS over that price hike and allow the iPod to play other stores' formats. Just a possibility, not a proposal or a prophesy.

Well if they do that the party is over, we tried to play fair and compensate the artists by buying their songs at the agreed price of 99¢ a song.

But if the RIAA/labels are getting full of themselves, there's always that Russian site that you can download for a mere 1¢ a MB is ANY format or bit-rate you choose and we can Paypal the artists the difference.

The RIAA has been having fun clogging the P2P networks with viruses and 10 second samples of the whole songs, raiding college campuses based upon what the Napster software has been telling them, suing kids and old ladies, but they are fighting a losing battle. Former jackbooted ATF is now the head of the RIAA, but they are turning off more and more people.

Artists need to publish/sell their own music on the internet. Like the Grateful Dead already does.

I'm all for compensating artists, but a deal is a deal.

F*cking over Apple is going to piss off millions of Mac owners and a lot of PC users who come to like iTunes.

Goes to show where the labels brains are, in their ass.

I will definitely start downloading music illegally if the price raises ANYTHING above 99 cents. I have the FAIRPLAY source code and will happily make sure it gets distributed to everyone I know.

On a related note, I am disappointed in Steve Jobs. Refusing to open up the iTunes DRM to other stores. If this were Microsoft doing this, we would ALL be screaming. Steve Jobs, in addition to making NOISY computers that run HOT, doesn't care. This guy is too stuck on himself to see it.

And I own two Macs. I really like the Macs. But I'm very disappointed.

I fear that Apple will now begin to crumble. I was thinking about getting a Mac notebook (the new ones look pretty nice), but now I will think twice.

Steve Jobs -- WAKE UP MAN. Or you will take Apple with you to your grave.

Apparently letting other people sell air for the RIAA and collecting checks just isn't good enough for them. I say fuck the "musicians" who work for (are enslaved by) any of the big 5 as well as the big 5. Led Zeppelin Rules! Fuck the whole shitty music BIZ. Frankly, they can raise their prices and sue fans, since it doesn't matter to me. All the shit that comes out now is so much crap anyway. I already bought anything worth buying.

Do you mean PlayFair? If so that's not going to help at all, if anything it will make the record companies less likely to support iTMS

Never will I buy a CD at a store nor an itunes for more than 99 cents, what for? So they can have some of these artists display their luxury items on us? Back to Limewire it is!

There's more to life than listening to Titney Spears breath heavy. I say fsck 'em. If they try this garbage, I'll boycott them for good. I won't buy their copy protected CD's or Janus subscriptions. Life goes on.

Good riddance big 5...you're going to lose big time!

IT will be back to trading music with friends again. We'll trade them over the internet encrypted and thumb our noses at the greedy artists.

Does anyone have a link to send email to or an online petition to sign?

Everyone should understand that it is the Record Co Ex's and their ilk who make all of the money for recorded music. What the musicians take home is pennies in comparison.

If all of the artists who record were to leave the big 5 and produce their own music & made it available thru services like the ITMS, the cost to the public could be LOWER than 99¢ AND the musicians would probably make more money since the overhead (obscene Recording industry profits) would be gone.

Besides, live music is best!

… just one more BOLD example how dumb, sick & arrogant they are.

…and this after a SUPERBOLD demonstration of unableness in reinventing their own business…

peep, peeep & peeeeeeeehhhHHHeeep !!!

Can you say "pediatrition"? I thought you could.

Time to grow up boys and girls.

* dedicated to the deceased guy with the red sweater, traffic light,
train set & his own imaginary world --- Fred Rogers

PEACE

CT

A$$ho!es. If they really go through with this, they'll be shooting themselves (and Apple) in the foot. Or would it be in the head?

Illegal file swapping my friends... screw 'em. I buy all my online tunes legally through iTunes, but if this price hike happens, as much as I love Apple and iTunes, I will not be buying anymore. This will only fuel peer to peer software writers to figure out how to swap music and not get caught. And as much as I want music artists to get paid, maybe this will finnally spur change in the way music is produced and how artists get paid. Skip the RIAA altogether adn post your music on iTunes for a buck a song and keep that money for yourself.

And you thought medical school was expensive...back to the books
so you can vie for a full scholarship to the school of your choice.

"Ain't no mountain high enough, ain't no river low enough...to take
me away from you"

This gotta be worth somethin'...don't it? Who gets paid?, who sets the
price?, This is HEAVY...don't jump to conclusions on my time.


Goodnight

CT

doodeman: Up here in Canada, we already have a levy on CD-Rs. (As well as other media, such as, more recently, MP3 players, much to my dismay. Makes an iPod that much more expensive.) Of course, it was always recently ruled that file sharing is legal here.

Anyway, this is completely ridiculous. The $0.99 per song price is perfect when buying songs individually, although I probably wouldn't buy an entire album from iTunes with the current pricing. (Only because I can often get the actual CD for only a few dollars more.)

(Of course, this is all hypothetical, since iTMS isn't available here yet, anyhow.)

$2.50 per song is way too much, unless they're trying to push people back to piracy.

How out of touch ARE these people?

Van Morrison got it right in the song "Big Time Operators"

I think we need a better reference point.

That's all...:/

It's all about the aliases baby.

Gut nacht

CT

WHOA....I don't think this is about the money, it may be about the control of distribution. The proliferation of online stores since itunes may be causing the labels to feel threatened. This sounds like a preemptive action to slow the growth of online sales.

The reason that online p2p networks took off so dramatically was because the record industry was too greedy and priced its wares way to expensively. ITMS was an attempt to turn the tide against illegal DLs - and it was a good start. Looks like all that work will be undone.

The easiest way to reign in illegal DLs of music would appear to be to reign in the greedy music industry first.

We'll see if the record labels can pull this off...I'm skeptical. Unless they really fix prices like a cartel (in which case, they can/will be BUSTED), the first company to do this should see a STEEP drop off in online sales--and probably other kinds of sales as well, since folks will be PISSED. I can only see them pulling this off for Top 10 songs, for a short period.

In the 70s & '80s I bought vinyl, then in the 90's I bought CD's (because vinyl was disappearing)
Now they want us to buy online at $2.49? I for one will just borrow CD's from my friends and local libraries and just copy them.
I hope the whole rotten industry goes down the toilet.
Then possibly we might get one or two bands with talent instead of the false marketing "pop idols"

RIAA
Ridiculously Ignorant Amateur Arseholes
Really Idiodic Arrogant Attorneys
Right, I'll Alienate All
... you get the picture (I'm sure you could think of much better ones

Bunch of dickheads really. And what with movies being pirated on DVD as well, these types of people just don't get it do they? I don't steal much music anyways, but they do this, I'll steal heaps just to be spiteful.

So, it's a big F***-you to music execs who came up with this.

The record labels are just stupid. STUPID STUPID, 2.50 is too expensive, 99 cents is really too expensive too, but not to out of line. What do this people think-- that we all make 100k a year or more and spend money like a drunken sailor. I would have to really love a song to pay 2.50 for a song, most "artists" represented by the big labels are'nt worth that much, their not that good.

This is moving right into the M$ world domination plan. The classic model will be:

Renting is cheap

Buying a single (artist) track will be prohibitively expensive

Buying a cluster of (artist) tracks (ie an album) will save you some money per track.

Expect this move to be made as M$ launches its portable player onto which - it has stated - rented music can be loaded. M$ will heavily subsidise its hardware (ie XBox) or subsidise a rental contract for a year - making it ridiculously cheap.

Here we go...

'rich b' sez:
"What do this people think-- that we all make 100k a year or more and spend money like a drunken sailor"

Well to put things in perspective, I'm 54 years old and have been buying singles since the dinosaurs ruled the Earth, or about 1958.
Anyway, from the late 50's thru the 60's a single ( a '45 RPM disc in a sleeve usually with a worthless song on the flip side unless it was the Beatles) went for about .79 to .99 cents.
My first jobs paid about $1.25 (minimum wage in those days was around there somewhere in 1966), so I was paying about a buck or a little less for Strawberry Fields Forever.
So. If you adjust for inflation a single should cost about $5, because minimum wage is about $5.15 now. Anway, I wasn't 'rich' in the 60's and I bought singles.
Which does not mean that I advocate paying even $2.50 for a single, BUT what everyone wants is a product untouched by inflation for almost 50 years.
And as Austin Powers said, "and I want a solid gold toilet, but it's not in the cards". And granted the storage and distribution costs of compressed singles is a lot less, but we are ALSO getting a pretty durable product that will sound the same after a MILLION listenings.. Much better than my old '45s. So there is added value there.
(go to next post,please)

from previous post)

Anyway, just trying to put things in perspective that .99 is a DARN good deal, but the producers, creators, copyright owners, publishers, performance rights owners and EVERYONE will charge you what you will PAY.
As business people do in every situation when they decide the price of a product or service. The product is 'worth' what you will pay, and the people selling the product will feel around for the floor and ceiling.
I'm a copyright owner who has an agent who sells my photographs around the world. Sometimes a certain picture will sell (meaning the buyer can use it for a specific time) for $100., depending on the market and the usage.
That SAME picture, a year later CAN sell for $10,000 (of which I keep half). So what is that picture worth? What's the fair price? The fair price is what someone will pay for it.
If I was selling vaccine for sick babies, I would feel guilty, But it's a PICTURE and the buyer could always buy a different picture. I don't decide the price, my agent does.. I don't even know it's being haggled over, I just get a big fat check that month.
BTW , business is terrible, the internet is allowing cheaper photographers all over the world to undercut my prices by a huge amount, and I'm making maybe 25% of what I used to make. In case you think I'm lighting cigars with $100.bills.. And the beat goes on.
For ME anyway. Bob Dylan would probably be bummed if he got a check that impressed the hell out of me. However, since I create all my pictures myself, with my money I own 100% of the copyright. I understand that a lot of recording artists yield their copyright because the label backs them with a LOT of dough that ONLY has to be paid back if the artist makes money.. So the labels gamble all the time. Only about 5% of artists hit it big enough to recoup costs.

(from previous post)

I often see it stated here that few or no artists own their music.. which is not true.. I'm in the middle of a project where i want to use a DEVO tune, and the first people to talk to are the people at Mark Mothersbaugh's company in LA. And he (and probably others) decide whether they even WANT to sell it to me. No doubt there are other 'owners'. The other performers in the band who own their share of the performance rights, and I'm sure that the label nicked them when they fronted the band with dough. If you want to use "Born To Be Wild ' by Steppenwolf you gotta talk to John Kay, but Mars Bonfire wrote the music and lyrics. I think John makes the deals for the rest of the band..
On the other hand LOTS of artists make bad deals when they are young with the label or a manager or whatever and lose millions.
Heck, Billy Joel had a relative handle his money, and one day found himself to be 'poor', like only $350,000. in the bank when it should have been in the tens of millions. Grand Funk Rairoad lost MILLIONS to Terry Knight.
My point is that OFTEN the artists can do quite well, even today, with contracts with record companies, if the record company wants them badly enough.
So when you cough up that .99 cents, heck you could be helping Eminem buy a new speedboat.
There! don't you feel better!!??
And .99 is a deal if you adjust for inflation, and those nasty record companies WILL charge you more if they can.. But remember it's MUSIC, not polio vaccine.
So if the price is too high, just don't buy.. If enough people DON'T buy, the price will drop. Guaranteed.
But in my opinion the ITMS is a GREAT deal. I LOVE paying the same for a single now that I paid over 45 years ago. If it went up to $1.50 I would grumble. At $2 I would only buy in certain cases, I don't believe it will EVER o over $2. But it would still be less than I was paying when I was a stockboy in 1966.

So hey, c'mon. let's all have fun with this.. isn't that the point?

David Vesey

See how vulnerable the iPod and ITMS really is people?

I suppose that those five companies are planning their own music stores.