digital-music services contemplate suicide.

[kirpen]

By ETHAN SMITH
The Associated Press
4/7/04 9:09 AM


The Wall Street Journal

To see the future of online music prices, look no further than "Fly or Die," the new album by rock-meets-hip-hop trio N.E.R.D.

For months, digital-music services have been touting albums for $9.99 to entice more people to buy online. But Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes Music Store has been charging $16.99 for "Fly or Die," while Roxio Inc.'s Napster service sells the 12-song collection for $13.99. Both prices are higher than the $13.49 that Amazon.com charges for the CD itself. The same pricing shifts are showing up on albums by a growing slate of artists, from Shakira to Bob Dylan.

Unburdened by manufacturing and distribution costs, online music was supposed to usher in a new era of inexpensive, easy-to-access music for consumers. In many cases, buying music online is still cheaper than shopping for CDs at retail outlets. But just a year after iTunes debuted with its 99-cent songs and mostly $9.99 albums, that affordable and straightforward pricing structure is already under pressure.

All five of the major music companies are discussing ways to boost the price of single-song downloads on hot releases -- to anywhere from $1.25 to as much as $2.49. It isn't clear how or when such a price hike would take place, and it could still be months away. Sales of such singles -- prices have remained at 99 cents -- still account for the majority of online music sales.

The industry is also mulling other ways to charge more for online singles. One option under consideration is bundling hit songs with less-desirable tracks. Another possibility is charging more for a single track if it is available online before the broader release of the entire album from which it is taken. There is also talk of lowering the price on some individual tracks from older albums.

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0037_BC_WSJ...wnloadingMusic

[Nolonemo]

I guess they're counting on the RIAA's lawsuit strategy to actually work. One can only shake one's head in amazement.

[fritzi93]

It's surreal. They gouge folks for years, erode their customer base, finally they have a chance to get back in the game, and what? Gotta charge more!

Henry Ford was successful by expanding potential customer base to the greatest extent possible. Translation: Lower the friggin' price and you'll more than make it up in volume! But THAT never occurs to those knuckleheads.

[Justin42]

Gee, I can pay $12.99 (or so) at a local Best Buy or maybe an indie store, and have a physical media that lets me do whatever I want with its contents, with artwork, booklet, maybe a few extras....

Or I can pay $16.99 for a lossy-compressed version of the music from the CD, with no art, no booklet, and if my computer crashes and burns I may need to re-buy it (depending on the service, etc).

Decisions, decisions....

(small, edited rant) This is just the latest example of the RIAA perpetuating the "digital=exact copy" myth... I'm sure their argument is you're getting the "same" experience so you should pay the "same" price.... ARGH!!! You're paying for a lower quality, restricted version of the original-- that's fine to pay LESS for a lesser product, but the same or more??

[lordsmurf]

New music sucks anyway. I've got what I want, had it for years.

Talk radio is the only good thing on the air these days ... and my CD player.

I'm out of this game... let them all fight each other for all I care.

[RabidDog]

trouble is, I'm getting into classical music and realising how bad Mp3 can be.. for classical it should be at least 256/320k if not more..
Somebody put up an article on how to mp3 SACD/DVDaudio please, or how to make backup copies.. for when the cat pecks mine to death..
the best Music today is in the oldies section.

[Greg12]

Yeah, i buy music on itunes for .99 cents, i'm gonna go right back to Kazaa if it goes up.

[BobV]

Isn’t “Greed” one of the seven deadly sins

[Gazorgan]

Someone in Hollywood is going to lose their head. I mean ITunes was supposed to be DRM flagship product. Then BAM, a programmer and a few disgruntled users and it's DRM free.

The RIAA has known for years that people bought Albums for 1 or 2 songs only (with very few exceptions). The whole pricing model falls apart with single song downloads. That 80% pure crap most bands put out to fill up the Album won't get d/l and purchased. They don't want to go back to singles, there's more money in Albums.

[tonofsteel]

This is just getting stupid already. However it does not matter what they do since people will go where they find the best deal. Like the point that was already made, since MP3 is a relative lossy format, and you dont get nothing physical, no artwork, or extras, or disc itself, the price per song should be half of what it would cost in the store. 99 cents a song is still way too much.

And the point that they overlook is that most of the songs people download online, they would never buy anyways. So if they charged cut-throat prices they bands would get their music out there, and still be compensated for it.

They think that there few lawsuits and everything will force us into going back to getting ripped of from them, but I dont think thats going to happen, especially when they treat their customers like they are garbage. If you did business with someone and they sued you, would you go back?

[BobV]

If you did business with someone and they sued you, would you go back?

But that girl in the itunes commercial did just that after being sued. So if we all would learn to do just as the good people of the RIAA have told us and pay our fair share the artists will be able to move out of their cardboard houses and feed their starving children.

[Greg12]

Whatever school the RIAA people got there degree's from needs to be stripped of it's acredidation because it ain't teachin economics, maybe greedonomics

[disturbed1]

I'm with Lord Smurf on this. I don't give a rat's ass about any of the new stuff. I have a decent collection of CDs, and I haven't bought but maybe 20 in the last 5 years.

When I do decide to get a new CD, I head over to the local used CD shop. Most titles are $4.99-$6.99, and I can listen to the whole CD before I buy it.

I have 30 channels of commercial free music, I'm sure I can find something "new" to listen on those if need be.

Most online systems require a custom program that installs bloatware, and services that run at startup, and clutter my system tray. No thanks.

As tonofsteel said, if they charged $0.50 a song, I'd be there and spend oodles of money, at $0.99 a song, I'm spending $0.

[iooi]

By ETHAN SMITH
The Associated Press
4/7/04 9:09 AM
The industry is also mulling other ways to charge more for online singles. One option under consideration is bundling hit songs with less-desirable tracks. Another possibility is charging more for a single track if it is available online before the broader release of the entire album from which it is taken. There is also talk of lowering the price on some individual tracks from older albums.

http://www.nj.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0037_BC_WSJ...wnloadingMusic

They are trying to kill the Goose again.......
Was looking at some of the UK based Legal Music Dowload sites Here Which are supposed to be doing well, but again like other posters have said you can buy the full albums cheaper from a shop complete with all covers etc.....
Will the music industry ever learn....
They have got to stop RIPPING joe public off.

[Roundabout]

I'm with Lordsmurf and Disturbed1 on this too. I have every song I ever liked or wanted on CD, bought most of them years ago. I don't think I've bought a CD in years. There's nothing I've heard in years that I would even take for free.

They don't have to worry about me downloading off KaZaA or similar, they couldn't give me this garbage that passes for "music" these days. There hasn't been anything good IMO since the 1980's. Most of what I like is from the 60's and 70's, and I bought everything I could find on CD back 10 years or so ago, and haven't seen the need to listen to the radio since then.

Must be a lot of people that feel like we do, and the confluence of events with Napster arriving on the scene just about the time everyone decided there was nothing left worth purchasing caused the industry to go into a tailspin from which it will not recover. Serves them right for ripping us off for years. I've just about bought the last CD that I will purchase in my lifetime, regardless. Has nothing to do with P2P, and everything to do with nothing worth listening to anymore. It doesn't matter if they give away CD's now, I don't need anything else. I'm happy listening to the music I have. Haven't set foot in a Tower Records in years (are they still even in business anymore? Does anyone care?) :P