4 Comments

Summary:

This article at CNN Money makes note of unnamed music labels planning to up the cost of digital music from the current 65 cents/song. As the article mentions, The Steve ain’t happy about this. The Record Labels are said to be comparing the higher cost of […]

This article at CNN Money makes note of unnamed music labels planning to up the cost of digital music from the current 65 cents/song. As the article mentions, The Steve ain’t happy about this.

The Record Labels are said to be comparing the higher cost of cellular phone ring-tones to the lower offering of mainstream music. (Can you say apples and oranges…?) The argument is made that 65 cents per song was used as an early price point to help gain adoption of the method of delivery.

There’s no mention of what the hiked-up price would be, or how that would translate to the consumer’s final cost. The obvious is stated at the end of the write-up, that driving prices up may only serve to send many people back to the Kazaa’s of the internet world.

What is it that the Recording industry doesn’t get? In this writer’s opinion, they’re just going to drive their customers away. Apple’s done an incredible job in hyping digital music and bringing tons of paying customers to the new age of music distribution. While still in relative infancy, the Recording Industry seems bent on killing it off – and for what?

I’m just a common consumer with no experience in the recording industry, but doesn’t it seem like Digital Music Distribution would be cheaper? There’s no manufacturing process, no materials – like CD media, paper booklets, plastic jewel cases – and no shipping of the product involved. I realize it’s bulk to the nth degree to drive those costs down, but compare that to putting the songs on a server for a place like iTunes Music Store to sell for you?
I think it’s gotta be much more profitable, and if it puts the idea of buying music at the forefront for more people who may be apt to just download it somewhere else for free, I think it’s something the Recording Industry should think about before they piss off all the wrong people (Steve Jobs/Apple, who are huge supporter’s, and their customers especially).

I guess some could argue that a move like this would make Napster type services more interesting, but I think the well-informed will know better. I personally want to own my music, not rent it – why do so many people illegally download music onto their own computers when they could just listen to it on the radio?

I can’t really say that I’m surprised though. The Recording Industry just doesn’t seem to be capable of changing with the times. They still seem to be about a decade behind where they should be in terms of adaptability. I wonder when the revolution will take hold of artists truly owning their music from end to end. I’d so much rather pay a little higher price if I knew the artist who worked to produce it was the one gaining, not the fat cats making the wrong decisions. So I guess stocking up on your favorite music while it’s still reasonably priced is the tip for the day.

  1. yeah the interesting thing is to figure out at which point in history record labels will become a figment of the past. Right now, they thrive because they’re part of a lucrative ecosystem, which initiatives such as downhillbattle.org consistently fail to acknowledge when directing their attacks at the iTunes Music Store. Instead, downhillbattle should be exhorting people to stop listening to Clear Channel-owned radio stations, and watching mainstream TV, all of which, sadly enough, are today’s de-facto authorities on what is cool and what isn’t.

    The iTunes platform doesn’t preclude independent artists from sharing their work, it simply offers yet another distribution alternative via the likes of CDBaby.com.

    Now, imagine a world where people suddenly start looking for good music online, by reading other people’s opinions, from various web sites, web logs, online music market places, at which point that music is instantly available through a myriad of online distribution channels, none of which are owned and operated by RIAA-member companies. Where the author is the sole owned of the copyrights and makes 90% of the money on each sale.

    If the RIAA lets online distribution become too popular, there is a slim chance talented artists may start taking note, and start distributing music on their own. I would think the RIAA’s main interest in supporting Apple in its efforts, is to curb the trading of illegal music. I’m not sure they want to cannibalize their current distribution channels. Which just might be what this price hike is about.

    The problem is, until the Internet becomes at the center of people’s everyday lives, TV, Radio and Movies are what get artists the fastest, most effective fame, not their talent alone. A few “industry” big wigs are making decisions on who’s worth listening to and who isn’t, sometime they’re right on the money, sometime, they pick no-talent @ssclowns who can’t sing for crap but do look good. The Internet would allow for a more democratic, interactive process to promote artists.

    Extend this entire process to the nomination of presidential candidates. blam.

    Share
  2. Somehow this reminds of the story of the goose that laid golden eggs. I can see RIAA reaching out with a knife toward iTMS’ belly. I hope there’s enough outrage from consumers to stop something that will obviously cripple a business model that has been working better than any other for the RIAA.

    Share
  3. Ha! Looks like it’s back to bitorrent.

    Share
  4. Search Engine

    The Apple Blog »…

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post