APPLE Earns Record Companies' Scorn

[liberalpragmatist]

Apple, Digital Music's Angel, Earns Record Industry's Scorn
By JEFF LEEDS

Published: August 27, 2005
New York Times

Two and a half years after the music business lined up behind the chief executive of Apple, Steven P. Jobs, and hailed him and his iTunes music service for breathing life into music sales, the industry's allegiance to Mr. Jobs has eroded sharply.

Mr. Jobs is now girding for a showdown with at least two of the four major record companies over the price of songs on the iTunes service.

If he loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted - 99 cents to download any song - could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.

<snip>

Apple has long allowed different prices for full albums sold on the service, though it believes that maintaining the 99-cent price for each song on an album acts as a natural cap. The service, which is available to consumers who download iTunes software to their computers, allows users to choose from roughly 1.5 million songs from major and independent labels. The songs, once paid for and downloaded, can be transferred to an iPod device, burned to blank discs, or played on the computer. At the price of 99 cents a song, the share of the major labels is about 70 cents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/technology/27apple.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=284500847939066b&hp&ex=1125201600&partner=homepage

:grr: Note to record companies - if you price your records reasonably, people WILL buy them. And stop telling us that the artist suffers - they got squat from record deals anyway unless they're firmly established. I'm not even asking for it to be free - but sorry, I'm not going to fork over nearly $20 for a CD, and I sure as hell am not going to spend $2 for ONE song (although I have to admit, an oldie tune being priced low doesn't sound like a bad deal).

[SemperEadem]

1. exactly

if they want to be really fair to the artist, then eliminate the 'recoupable' clause in their contracts... and let them own their own masters.

I doubt if they're that 'pro artist'.

[Simeon Salus]

2. How does this argument square with the new Napster flat rate model?

Unlimited downloads for $9.95? Underpricing Apple by $3 on album transfers?

Seems like the record companies are losing more way money to the Napster pricing model.

With Apple, they get 70¢ for every download, and if the files are lost due to later hardware or software malfunction, the customer loses the value completely.

Yeah, Apple's sooo ripping off the record companies.

IMHO what record companies are really nervous about are the free podcast downloads. Somebody with talent, style and some skill in audio productions could find themselves enormously influential. It's like public access broadcasting, but for the planet.

People listing to audiobooks from Audible and free podcasts from Apple are less likely to buy cds.

[Occulus]

3. It was always only about the money for the RIAA and

THIS PROVES IT. They don't want anything like a pricing scheme the public can embrace; no, they want something that intentionally makes them more money due to the frequency of some of the songs are played on the playlists they themselves control!!!

Oh, yeah, that's right, it's the Program Director or some such who makes the playlists. Uh-huh. And who again was it that ultimately signs the paychecks? Oh, the station. Or the parent company. Or whomever... *sigh* There's still payola there. Lots and lots of it. And I'd bet Clear Channel is one of the worst culprits...

This board has more than one apologist claiming to be "in the industry" who regularly bashes fileshring users as "thieves" and tells us we should be buying in to a legitimate system. To them, I say boo!

Are you reading? Are you paying attention? I'd say this very well proves a big part of the case that has been made thus far- the RIAA is like a bunch of Borg or Cylons or something, some big, automated, unstoppable machine: not because it doesn't want to stop but because by this point it simply can't, on its own.

First they sue us to set an example and tell the rest of us that it's wrong to "steal" (which I still do not agree that it is) music of the filesharing networks, and then, when a noncompeting company introduces a player for existing digital formats not owned by either party, the RIAA decides it wants control over the pricing- and for songs they would have already sold a license to Apple to sell to their customers?

How often is this going to happen, and for how long will I continue to see the aforementioned, ah, misguided parties continue to defend it?

I think we need to start seriously working to bring the RIAA down- in any way we can- before we lose even the concept of 'free' music in this country. They want to slap a licensed price tag on anything and everything associated with the industry that they can, even after it's already been licensed for sale.

A couple years back, there was an article somewhere- I think it may have been Rolling Stone- that talked about filesharing and, as an aside, secondhand record stores. As it happens, the article I read back then also mentioned the RIAA was looking into forcing a licensing and royalty structure on those outlets (yes, we are talking about used music CDs here). It sank like a rock because, at the time, there was an big outcry, if I recall correctly.

At any rate, if they win a decision allowing them to set the pricing of music already licensed for sale, rest assured it will affect the secondhand stores as well. They'll find a way. They are one.

edited because this just makes me burn and I had more to say.

[alfredo]

4. Yeah, they want iTunes to be a failure just like their

businesses.

[tinrobot]

5. Making recordings is expensive!

You gotta buy all those fast cars for the record company executives, pay off the radio station managers, buy advertising, make really expensive effects laden music videos.

Oh yeah, and the artist gets some money... well, sometimes.