Do you Itunes?

[Name]

Well, if so, prepare to pay more for those popular songs.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/technology/27apple.html?hp&ex=1125115200&en=54e6c9bea83ad21a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

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.

Pinche labels, they find a winner, and looks like they might screw it up.

Just as a curiosity, what is the maximum price that you would pay for one song from i-tunes? I know for me, the 99 cent model is about the max I would be willing to pay for a song. It has that feeling of being an unsubstantial amount, yet still having some weight to it so it ends up adding up quickly.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Aren't there tons of other services that sell songs for (slightly) less than 99 cents?

I've used iTunes only a few times to purchase music, since I was given a gift cert, so I don't have to much experience in it. But I find it extremely convenient since I have an iPod.

$1.50 per song would definitely make me look elsewhere.

[Not Afraid]

Who cares? I rarely listen to "popular" music anyways and, when I like something, I'm still in the buy the album school.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Who cares? I rarely listen to "popular" music anyways and, when I like something, I'm still in the buy the album school.We only buy full albums as well. When you can buy an entire album of fantastic music for under 9 dollars (like that Nostalgia 77 album GD reviewed here recently) it's a big deal.

[Disneyphile]

I love iTunes - I think it's great, since I usually only like one or two songs from an album anyway. Even if I had to pay $1.50, it's much cheaper than me paying $10+ for an entire album that I'd never listen to completely.

[blueerica]

UGH - I really hope that's not the way things end up. UGH UGH UGH! :(

[Isaac]

I file share ......because I care ;)

[Name]

Then you might find this stuff interesting..

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

A woman is fighting the RIAA that sued her over having files available for download on Kazaa, the memoranda of law by her lawyer are great(available a bit down the page under "Litigation Documents in Elektra v. Santangelo" or available at http://info.riaalawsuits.us/ ), seems the RIAA doesn't have much of a case to sue the woman, as they cannot prove that any files were actually downloaded. It could be an interesting case to watch.

[Kevy Baby]

...seems the RIAA doesn't have much of a case to sue the woman, as they cannot prove that any files were actually downloaded. It could be an interesting case to watch.I hate technicalities. There is only one reason to have files available for download and that is contribution to theft. "Technically" it may not be illegal, but it is still wrong.

If you are going to break the law/rules, you have to be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught! Its about personable responsibility (which is sadly lacking in this world).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I hate technicalities. There is only one reason to have files available for download and that is contribution to theft. "Technically" it may not be illegal, but it is still wrong.

If you are going to break the law/rules, you have to be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught! Its about personable responsibility (which is sadly lacking in this world).Wait, are we SURE this is Kevy Baby posting?? :p

[Name]

I hate technicalities. There is only one reason to have files available for download and that is contribution to theft. "Technically" it may not be illegal, but it is still wrong.

I on the flip side like technicalities, it keeps things in check. Otherwise there could possibly be a far more insane prison population problem. Technicalities ensure that the system is still working, if there is a technicality defense available, then the plaintiff isn't truly following the rules. But I am biased against the coporate machine, and am glad to see that the woman found some competent legal representation. It seems to me the RIAA did not.

Oh, and technically, its copyright infringement not theft. :p

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmmm - I think the whole DMCA and the concept of copyright in genreal needs to be revisited. The current laws make it next to impossible for someone like me to have any secondary use of the music I purchase.

For example, I'd love to add a music componant to this website, but in looking at what I would have to do to accomplish it legally the cost in both time and money made it ridiculously prohibited. Honestly, I don't know how people manage to play music for other people anymore.

I'd like to see the whole price structure changed. I've heard someone talk about building the costs into ISP fees - but I think perhaps the rights to "rebroadcast" in some limited fashion should be granted with purchase for personal use.

I'd like to see copyright protection drasticly reigned in to something like patents - after 7 years the work would become public domain. I think the large corporations are protected from the current laws, but the effect is to casue the smaller players to vanish into obscurity becasue it's so damn difficult to secure the rights of independent works to do much of anything with.

But that's my rant on copyright.

[lizziebith]

I don't consider downloading music theft on my part, because I, at one time, BOUGHT all the albums I get songs from. I just had to spend $50 to get an album re-mastered that had never been put out on CD and I couldn't find it anywhere else. Would I have been happier if that $50 went to the artist? Hell yeah, but I've been to his web site and no one will sign him right now. Probably because he's not a 13-year-old in a short skirt. I TOTALLY BLAME the industry for all this...

[Name]

Hmmmm - I think the whole DMCA and the concept of copyright in genreal needs to be revisited. The current laws make it next to impossible for someone like me to have any secondary use of the music I purchase.

For example, I'd love to add a music componant to this website, but in looking at what I would have to do to accomplish it legally the cost in both time and money made it ridiculously prohibited. Honestly, I don't know how people manage to play music for other people anymore.

I'd like to see the whole price structure changed. I've heard someone talk about building the costs into ISP fees - but I think perhaps the rights to "rebroadcast" in some limited fashion should be granted with purchase for personal use.

I'd like to see copyright protection drasticly reigned in to something like patents - after 7 years the work would become public domain. I think the large corporations are protected from the current laws, but the effect is to casue the smaller players to vanish into obscurity becasue it's so damn difficult to secure the rights of independent works to do much of anything with.

But that's my rant on copyright.
Just a thought, and may require a little leg/phone work, but there are many unsigned, looking for a break, starving, independant musicians out there that don't have a contract with the "major labels" that may be willing to allow you to host their music on a radio station style format(or whatever other type of format you were thinking of) just to get their name and music out there to a few more people. Could be a pain to find and negotiate deals with each artist individually, but could be worth it for all parties involved.

[€uroMeinke]

Just a thought, and may require a little leg/phone work, but there are many unsigned, looking for a break, starving, independant musicians out there that don't have a contract with the "major labels" that may be willing to allow you to host their music on a radio station style format(or whatever other type of format you were thinking of) just to get their name and music out there to a few more people. Could be a pain to find and negotiate deals with each artist individually, but could be worth it for all parties involved.

My emphasis above - yeah, in theory I could chase down any number of artists individulally to secure rights, but I've already got a full time job that pays me -

But that is my complaint, the amount of time it would take to secure 3 minutes of airtime is way out of wack for an individual like me to take on.

[Name]

of course, it was just a thought, you know, in case someone else with spare time on their hands wanted to do something similar. Didn't really expect anything to come of it, it was just an idea.

But if you(or anyone really) ever needs a hobby, could be fun to go from musician hang out to musician hang out to pimp the idea of playing their music radio style on a site and getting their permission to do so(in writing of course). As long as you aren't looking to make money off their music, I don't see why it wouldn't be too hard a sale(especially if you(anyone in particular) have some skillz at sales). Heck, the labels get artists to give them their songs for a pittance per cd sold(maybe a dollar, possibly less(dunno, not in the biz).