This just ain't Apples week.

[paul_pci]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

[Groundbeef]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

These record compaines are not a non-profit charity. Like it or not, this seems to be the system that music listener's have been asking for. I can't count how many times I have bought a CD, only to find out I got 13 tracks of filler, and 1 hit. At least now I can spend the money for what I want, not what the record company puts out.

And the best part is, if I like to music, I can ALWAYS buy a hard copy (CD) if I want the full sound.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

[Mike Anderson]

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format.

I agree with this, and it's the primary reason I don't by music from the iTunes store (in addition to the DRM, which isn't a problem for me yet).

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them).

This I doubt. In time, market forces and technological influences will drive the prices down and the quality up. You can already by better quality music for the same price at other sites.

[Mike Anderson]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

Nope, not with MP3s or any other lossless format. Once it's compressed, the extra information is lost forever, and no amount of burning to a CD will get it back.

There is lossless compression however (e.g. FLAC), but you can only compress so much. A typical CD can be compressed by about 50%.

With FLAC you can always burn back to a CD, but there's no reason to (other than actually having to use a CD player) because FLAC is indistinguishable quality-wise from a CD.

[emorphien]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

While that's true, that's no justification for charging $1 for a compressed track.

Allofmp3.com has the best price/quality structure I've seen. Unfortunately there's the questionable legality of "purchasing" your music there. To me it seems more like you're paying for the bandwidth, but the songs are free.

[teledynepost]

Well new stuff is still released on vinyl so I don't think CD's are going to disappear entirely...

[noddin0ff]

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

Just curious where you saw this? Are you referring to the iTunes Store? I don't see that indicated anywhere on the site. The iTunes Store support page reads.

"Purchased songs are encoded using MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format, a high-quality format that rivals CD quality. Songs purchased and downloaded from the Music Store are AAC Protected files and have a bitrate of 128 kilobits per second (kbit/s). The file extension is .m4p."

You can set iTunes to rip from CD at many bitrates but this, to my knowledge doesn't effect downloads from the store.

...and that bit about "rivals CD quality" may be true...if you compare it to wax cylinders...

[Groundbeef]

I many have gotten ahead of myself. After checking into it a bit more you are probably correct. Itunes can RIP a CD at 320kbs. Sorry about that. I was equating "Import" with "Itunes". I need more sleep. Anyway procedure is listed below for anyone interested.

In your Itunes Interface, click on "Edit" on your upper left corner. Then select "preferences". Click on the "advanced" tab. Click on "importing" tab.
On setting click on "Custom" and scroll on down to 320kbs.

Also, it is interesting to note that in that same menu you can select the encoder you want to use. It is default to ACC Encoder, but there is a selection for MP3 and WAV encoders. Not sure if that is the actual file type or just how it comes into the computer. I may fool around with some of the weekly "free" files to see if it affects the file type that I receive.

[noddin0ff]

I don't think it will effect the files you download (not the same as import). The iTunes Store determines that. It will effect the file created when you rip from a CD.

WAV or AIFF are non-compressed lossless. If you directly copy a file from an audio CD to your hard drive it becomes one of these formats. Essentially identical to the CD. PC's use WAV, Mac traditionally used AIFF. Now iTunes supports both on a Mac.

[nightflier]

Beef,

As Mike pointed out, that does not justify the high price. I just checked out the allofmp3.com site, and I have to say that's a much better deal. 10-20 cents per song, download into any format or compression ratio, and own it. If more people knew about this, it would put iTunes out of business.

It's about time there was some real competition in this industry to bring prices back down to market-driven levels. And if this competition comes from abroad, then it's about time the US RIAA learns that they don't run the world. It's only a matter of time before China & India put up their own allofmp3 sites....

[Groundbeef]

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.

[emorphien]

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.

How much of that $0.99 you spend at the iTunes store makes it to the artist? Allofmp3 may not give much if any to the artist, but iTunes is giving a small portion to the artist as well.

Somewhere I've seen the breakdown of the iTunes money distribution, Apple gets a chunk, the record companies get a huge chunk and finally down to the artists with just a wee bit.

If a legit system structured like allofmp3 came up without the questionable legality and was offering a flat amount to the artists per song it'd kill. Lets say allofmp3.com inreases all their track prices by $0.10 it'd still be much less than iTunes and if you paid $0.99 for a track the quality would be far better than what iTunes offers and that $0.10 would go directly to the artist and recording company for instance. As it is right now I don't know how much of allofmp3s sales goes to them.

The point is a system could work which provided the user with more options and was priced better. Want to download a lossless format? Then you pay more for it, otherwise it should be less than $1 a track.

[nightflier]

It's not that $1 is too much, but rather that it's always $1!

I don't know how allofmp3.com compensates the artists, but I can guarantee that the industry is a lot more upset about the $.20 price than the artists. With music downloads, the artists have the opportunity to sign a contract directly with the downloading company and skip all the distribution expense and inflated advertising costs (and big CEO bonuses) that go along with the old way of distributing music. This is why it was the industry and not the artists who were most upset with Napster. Granted there were a few ludites like Metallica & Dre who just didn't get it, but most artists, especially those who were not getting much play on the top-40 radio stations, embraced the MP3 format.

My point is that if iTunes had some real competition, then we would probably be somewhere around $.20 a song, and much less for older music. Allofmp3.com charges around that for a 192kbs track and more for a less compressed version; it's based on bandwidth. Apple charges $1 for most everything, and I would venture to guess that the artists still only get a penny or less because the industry is heaping on their middle-man fees. Right now, Apple is a virtual monopoly with the other guys coming in distant seconds, but they all charge around $1 per track, regardless of quality, compression, or age. Why is that? Because the industry is fixing the price to satisfy their stockholders. Last I remember that was still a crime (although laws are changing). There is no market competition inside our borders and it's about time there was.

I know quite a few independant artists, and I can tell you they all hate the RIAA. The only ones who don't are the dozen or so top artists who are in the limelight and the CEO's hibnubbing with them at those exclusive Hollywood parties. I don't know about everyone else, but I really don't care to continue to subsidize David Geffen's sports-car hobby.

[noddin0ff]

I don't think allofmp3 compensates artists at all. If it ran in the states it would be illegal. It's probably not completely legal in Russia either but I doubt there's any chance of it being shut down. And, you are subject to the laws of the nation you live in, not the nation you shop in. Just because you can buy a joint in Holland, doesn't mean you can bring it back an smoke it in New York. Does buying that Rolex watch from the street guy with the briefcase full of them turn a profit for Rolex?

Why be surprised that downloads are uniformly priced? CD's are generally similar in price, DVD's are generally similar in price...heck, microwave oven are generally similar in price and no one suspects a microwave oven mafia fixing prices... it's the market. Stockholders like money. If you can't give them a profit they won't give you money to build a business. AND...there's plenty of market competition in our borders. How many online music sites do you need for competition????

The price is what the market will bear. The market bears a buck a song.

But I don't see a problem with artists getting a small percentage of the fee you pay for music relative to the take of 'The Man' in the middle. Isn't that all determined by the contract that the artist signs with their label? They sign because lots of little cuts still adds up to more than they'd see with out a label, or they wouldn't sign. Free choice. If artists want more they have to take their chances and hold out for more. They might not get it though.

Buying legit music in any form still supports artists. If you think allofmp3 is supporting artists, I've got some real estate I'd like to sell you.

[nightflier]

nod, I think you're noddin' off thinking about that joint from The Netherlands (Holland is just a province, btw). The international laws that apply here are not necessarily invalid. There is no reason to make a blanket statement that outside US law, this site is not paying royalties to artists.

In any case, they are pricing their downloads according to popularity and bandwidth use. To me that sounds a lot fairer that paying a flat, inflated uniform price across the whole industry. CD's are generally the same price but they shouldn't be. Just because they re-re-released AC/DC's Back-in-Black does not mean it's worth as much as Madona's Confessions. Microwaves, on the other hand, vary in price from $25 to $400, so that's actually not supporting your argument.

And I'm not an economist, but stockholders don't start businesses, they buy in when the companies go public. Hence the reason that privately held companies tend to play fairer (Edward Jones & Kingston come to mind).

$1 a song is what the US record industry arbitrarily decided on w/o letting the US market decide this. There was never any competition or fair market valuation here. No one was allowed to make a better mouse trap. Apple ran with the price the record industry imposed and somehow it became the standard. I don't know what kinds of back-door deals were made, but I know that anyone offering a lower priced option (Napster, MP3.com) was snuffed out.

This is why we have to look abroad for fair competition in the marketplace. It seems that the country that invented the market-driven system is now trying its darndest to kill it. Go figure. I believe that any artist should be able to sign a deal directly with an online provider like allofmp3.com and come out making far more than with all the middle-men who control the industry here in the US. Many artists have (Prince, Annie DiFranco, etc.). I also think it is outrageous that I should have to pay the same price for a Mozart Minuet recorded in the 50's as I would have to pay for a brand new pop hit.

So no, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should pay $1 per song across the board. Maybe some should be more, but most, if not all, should be less. A fair market means different prices, no?

[noddin0ff]

There is no reason to make a blanket statement that outside US law, this site is not paying royalties to artists.

I'm not sure what you're saying there but I think it's pretty clear it's not legal to download from allofmp3 in the US and probably not legal in Russia either.

You could read this.
http://www.slate.com/id/2115868/

a small portion of which reads...
"2. Is Allofmp3.com actually legal?

Probably not. The discussion above about what Allofmp3.com is allowed to do with international distribution rights assumes the site actually owns those rights. It doesn't—at least not according to the recording industry. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry is the worldwide organization of recording companies, and it claims that Allofmp3.com has not been licensed to distribute its members' "repertoire" in Russia or anywhere else. While Allofmp3.com claims it owns distribution rights from the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society, the record companies say, "Nyet."

or this
http://news.com.com/MP3s+for+pennies...3-5586034.html
"The Russian site claimed it had licenses to do so from a local clearing house, but record labels have maintained that the licenses weren't valid. After long-standing complaints, the Moscow City Police Computer Crimes division completed an investigation earlier this month and recommended that prosecutors charge the site's operators with criminal copyright infringement.

"We have consistently said that AllofMP3.com is not licensed to distribute our members' repertoire in Russia or anywhere else," Igor Pozhitkov, regional director of IFPI Moscow--part of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry--said in a statement. "We are pleased that the police are bringing this important case to the attention of the prosecutor."

In any case, they are pricing their downloads according to popularity and bandwidth use. To me that sounds a lot fairer that paying a flat, inflated uniform price across the whole industry. CD's are generally the same price but they shouldn't be. Just because they re-re-released AC/DC's Back-in-Black does not mean it's worth as much as Madona's Confessions. Microwaves, on the other hand, vary in price from $25 to $400, so that's actually not supporting your argument.

Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. It's that simple. If people stopped buying them at that price, they'd be worth less. I like the bandwidth model though. I'd pay more for better quality. But then you might have artists making shorter songs so they could sell more...that'd suck.

And I'm not an economist, but stockholders don't start businesses, they buy in when the companies go public.

...and the money raised from selling shares of your company to stockholders raises capitol that can be used to develop new products or capabilities that your company wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to do, thus fostering further growth and innovation.

$1 a song is what the US record industry arbitrarily decided on w/o letting the US market decide this. There was never any competition or fair market valuation here. No one was allowed to make a better mouse trap. Apple ran with the price the record industry imposed and somehow it became the standard. I don't know what kinds of back-door deals were made, but I know that anyone offering a lower priced option (Napster, MP3.com) was snuffed out.

Whoa, there's a lot of paranoia here. No body got snuffed. They lost out in the market. The fact that other companies Napster, MP3.com existed indicate there was nothing preventing people from trying to make a better mousetrap. But you have to be legal and people have to be willing to pay enough to keep them in business. They lost.

The price per download isn't the price for music only. Its the price you pay for the whole experience. iPod owners found the whole ease and compatibility a plus and that adds value, making $1 seem like a good price. AND it should be clear that the iTunes music store was initially targeted at iPod owners, not the general music buying public. iTunes had a clear business model with very acceptable DRM restrictions that people were comfortable with. I highly doubt that $1 a song was arbitrary. They made a guess as to what people would pay for their service and the music it offered. Turns out it was a good guess.

So no, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should pay $1 per song across the board. Maybe some should be more, but most, if not all, should be less. A fair market means different prices, no?

A fair market is where all buyers and all sellers can legally conduct transactions. Buyers don't have to buy at the price sellers are willing to sell and conversely. I think all cars should be $10,000. That way I could afford a new hybrid.

[Groundbeef]

I agree with you on this.

Just because someone "thinks" a price is to high, doesn't mean that it is. As you stated, I too would also like to pay $10,000 for a new car. But if I called Honda, and asked if I could buy it, they would hang up after laughing at me.

At some point these companies need to make money. I bet there are more than a few shareholders who are saying " $1.00 per song? We should charge triple that!" And in fact, if you have a Sprint PCS phone, and you want to purchase a song for your phone off the Sprint network, those will set you back $2.50 PER SONG.

Again, you have made the argument that $1.00 per song is to much. But you have no rational arguement as to why other than you "feel" its too much. At $1.00 per song I think the music is arbirtary. You are covering the cost of the network and the like.

Another way to look at it, is the airline, or cruise ship. Many have gotten their pricing structures way out of whack using online "clearinghouses" for selling excess tickets. The thought is, why let a plane fly with an empty seat right? Why not sell it for $1.00 before the plane leaves the ground. Then we have made $1.00 instead of letting an empty seat go. We can never get it back, so buck is better than nothing. Or is it?

I think the $1.00 is fine. If you want higher bitrates or lossless, you should PAY MORE.

Or propose a better mousetrap for us here on the board. I'd love to hear your business model.

[noddin0ff]

Pretty soon we'll have open source digital rights management and then artist can sell direct to buyers and protect their work however they want. THAT'S my preferred model (even if I don't fully understand it!)

http://sourceforge.net/projects/oggs
http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp

[emorphien]

When you compare the cost of that $1 to what you can buy CDs for (I can get a lot of the CDs I want for $8-14 on Amazon.com) that $1 is too high given that you don't get it in a physical medium with the packaging and it's a lower quality audio format.

That's my main reason for disagreeing with the $1 for every song regardless of demand at the current quality offered. $1 should be a high quality compressed file at the very least.

[Groundbeef]

No, I disagree with that.

The $1.00 per song/ $12-16 per cd is about right. Think about it. The whole always costs less than to purchase by piece. Its kinda like a value meal at a fast food restaurant. If you buy a Quarter Pounder Value Meal its like $3.99.

However, if you were to purchase the sandwich (stand alone) Fries (stand alone) and soda (stand alone) it would be like $5.49

Same with a CD. You want all the songs, buy the disc. Its cheaper. If you only want 1 song, you pay more PER SONG, but you only get what you want.
Or cable, if you buy the package, its cheaper than buying each premium channel on its own.

And, if you were not aware, you can purchase FULL albums from ITunes, and they are comparable price wise to the disc at a store. Added bonus, no sales tax!


Things never break down even pricewise if you seperate them from the whole unit.

[emorphien]

What you're talking about is usually true of things which are prepared and packaged individually. Neither of those things are necessary in the traditional sense when talking about intangible IP like downloadable music.

Either way you can defend iTunes' pricing structure all you want, I disagree with it for all the reasons mentioned. Perhaps we'll never agree, aint no skin off my back.

[noddin0ff]

Well, a billion downloads were worth $1 a piece to somebody. However, its not worth it to me. I'm not paying $1 for a 192kbps song. I'd likely pay a buck if it were lossless though, even with DRM...probably only for singles that I wanted. If I want an album I buy it, new or used. CD's are likely to last longer than a hard drive, can be converted into any format you like and really haven't increased much (if at all) in price since they started coming out in the 80's.

And really, used at a local shop is a great way to support small businesses, hear some new stuff, and save some dough.

[nightflier]

"The price per download isn't the price for music only. Its the price you pay for the whole experience. iPod owners found the whole ease and compatibility a plus and that adds value, making $1 seem like a good price. AND it should be clear that the iTunes music store was initially targeted at iPod owners, not the general music buying public. iTunes had a clear business model with very acceptable DRM restrictions that people were comfortable with. I highly doubt that $1 a song was arbitrary. They made a guess as to what people would pay for their service and the music it offered. Turns out it was a good guess."

Nod,

You're proving my case. By your own admission, the $1 price point was never tested in the market place. You say it was a guess, I say it was that Apple's hand was forced. In either case, it was an arbitrary price that was never subject to any competition. Napster (after the free downloads were removed) & mp3.com had a less expensive solution and the industry continued their legal attacks until they could no longer afford to defend themselves in court. Their demise was not the result of the market place as you suggested, but rather financial ruin at the hands of the industry. And the consumers where the big loosers in all this, not the artists, because they were never asked what they wanted.

I have also heard from many musicians that the industry does not want them to deal directly with companies that provide content (i.e. iTunes). As a matter of fact, the industry has a definite interest in not being squeezed out as the high-priced middle-man. Most musicians I have spoken to have been turned down by online content providers specifically because those providers were pressured by the industry. The content providers are threatened with loosing their access to the big-ticket top-40 artists that the industry owns the rights to. Again, no market forces at play here, just an unfair racket.

And while I commend the research on allofmp3.com's legal woes, it still does not make a case for $1 a song. As someone else pointed out, that price is substantially inflated when you consider the price of CD's off the shelf, which includes liner notes, a printed disk, and a CD case. A compressed download is not the same thing as a high-quality track on a CD, no matter how you slice it. Again, there is absolutely no reason it should be $1.

And no one here has yet addressed my other point: there is no justification whatsoever for charging the same for a top-40 pop track as a 5, 10, or 20 year old track. If a used CD on eBay from ten years ago is substantially less than a used CD realeased last year, then why don't downloaded tracks vary the same way? And how many of us are being asked to pay again for music we already own on a cassette, LP, or even an older CD, just because it is now downloaded? Shouldn't one be able to download a copy of an album one already owns? And even if there was a "processing fee" for this service, why should it be the same as brand new track?

All these are reasons why $1 a track is inflated. And when the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans start putting out their own allofmp3.com clone sites, this will become even more apparent. The fixed prices in the protected American market are not the standard by which the rest of the world should be forced to conform to. This fantasy can't continue on forever, folks. So the idea that, just because someone outside the US does not follow American law means that they are criminally involved, is so xenophobic and arrogant, it's easy to see why our economic policies are so hated anywhere outside our borders.

$1 a song is an invention with no basis for existing. And while there are thousands of consumers who have lemming-like accepted it as the market price, this says nothing about its validity as a fair price. The very fact that every industry-sanctioned site charges that very same price regardless of compression, format, bandwidth-use, or age, is a case-in-point that this has never been tested in the market place. It should send chils down everyone's spine that this is accepted so readily by so many.

Heck with such a gullible consuming public, maybe they'll also be willing to pay $500 a month per household for an arbitrary war....

[noddin0ff]

You're proving my case. By your own admission, the $1 price point was never tested in the market place. You say it was a guess, I say it was that Apple's hand was forced. In either case, it was an arbitrary price that was never subject to any competition.

OK, now whose smokin'? One BILLION songs were purchased at $1 a pop. I'd say that's a healthy test of the market. In fact that's the only test of the market. You offer to sell at a price, people decide if they want to pay the price. You make money when they buy. It doesn't matter what the mark up is, it doesn't matter what your profit margin is. It's all about buyers and sellers being happy. If you don't want to pay $1 you do something else.

Napster (after the free downloads were removed) & mp3.com had a less expensive solution and the industry continued their legal attacks until they could no longer afford to defend themselves in court. Their demise was not the result of the market place as you suggested, but rather financial ruin at the hands of the industry. And the consumers where the big loosers in all this, not the artists, because they were never asked what they wanted.

The industry has a right to sue. They did so. The courts don't allow you to file suits with out any merit. I think it's unfortunate that courts can be used to intimidate, BUT, Napster lost at the hands of a free and independant judiciary system that is the foundation of freedom and democracy and open markets in this country. If you want to be the Che Guevara of downloadable music that's one thing, but this paranoia that 'The Industry' is denying you rights that you don't have in the first place is just weird.

I have also heard from many musicians that the industry does not want them to deal directly with companies that provide content (i.e. iTunes). As a matter of fact, the industry has a definite interest in not being squeezed out as the high-priced middle-man. Most musicians I have spoken to have been turned down by online content providers specifically because those providers were pressured by the industry. The content providers are threatened with loosing their access to the big-ticket top-40 artists that the industry owns the rights to. Again, no market forces at play here, just an unfair racket.

Yes, it is kind of a racket. That's the way the world works. It takes a lot of resources for a provider to negotiate separate transactions with a million wanna-be-a-rock-stars. So they negotiate with 'The Industry'. I'm all for open source. I hope it works.

And while I commend the research on allofmp3.com's legal woes, it still does not make a case for $1 a song. As someone else pointed out, that price is substantially inflated when you consider the price of CD's off the shelf, which includes liner notes, a printed disk, and a CD case. A compressed download is not the same thing as a high-quality track on a CD, no matter how you slice it. Again, there is absolutely no reason it should be $1.

I wouldn't call a google search of 'allofmp3 legal' research. Any bonehead could do it. The only justification for $1 a song is that people will pay it and people are willing to sell it to them at that price. I personally don't think it's worth it, but many do. The end result is that I do not own any downloaded music. That's my choice.

And no one here has yet addressed my other point: there is no justification whatsoever for charging the same for a top-40 pop track as a 5, 10, or 20 year old track. If a used CD on eBay from ten years ago is substantially less than a used CD realeased last year, then why don't downloaded tracks vary the same way? And how many of us are being asked to pay again for music we already own on a cassette, LP, or even an older CD, just because it is now downloaded? Shouldn't one be able to download a copy of an album one already owns? And even if there was a "processing fee" for this service, why should it be the same as brand new track?

Well, the way its supposed to work is that after a period of time that allows artists to profit from their efforts, then their exclusive copyright ends and the work becomes public domain and thus FREE. You can thank the RIAA for supporting Clinton which encourage Clinton to sign legislation to extend copyright for a very long time. Until that time, the price is set by the market.

All these are reasons why $1 a track is inflated. And when the Chinese, the Indians, and the Europeans start putting out their own allofmp3.com clone sites, this will become even more apparent. The fixed prices in the protected American market are not the standard by which the rest of the world should be forced to conform to. This fantasy can't continue on forever, folks.

I can already buy DVD's pirated in China and sold on eBay for less than US retail, does that mean the market is fixed by 'The Industry'? No, it means that piracy is cheap, wherease legal production, licensing, and paying the artists costs more so prices need to be higher. Other countries can do what they want with their laws. There's no fantasy. The American market isn't protected. Music is by and large an American product, made in America and sold to relatively weathy Americans.

So the idea that, just because someone outside the US does not follow American law means that they are criminally involved, is so xenophobic and arrogant, it's easy to see why our economic policies are so hated anywhere outside our borders.

PUT DOWN THE DRUGS AND BACK SLOWLY AWAY! Let's suppose that allofmp3 is legal under Russian law (even though it's apparently not legal there either). THEN, if you were RUSSIAN, using their service is legal. Now lets suppose you are not Russian, but rather live here in the US where laws are different. As a US citizen and you are subject to US law. allofmp3 is most certainly illegal under US law. Is that a difficult concept to grasp? It's a very simple concept that doesn't require fear of Russians nor feelings of superiority. And what exactly are these hated policies?

$1 a song is an invention with no basis for existing.

Hostess Twinkies are an invention with no basis for existing but I pay for them.

And while there are thousands of consumers who have lemming-like accepted it as the market price, this says nothing about its validity as a fair price. The very fact that every industry-sanctioned site charges that very same price regardless of compression, format, bandwidth-use, or age, is a case-in-point that this has never been tested in the market place. It should send chils down everyone's spine that this is accepted so readily by so many.

Earth to spaceman Spiff. Every time a song is purchased, the market is tested.

Heck with such a gullible consuming public, maybe they'll also be willing to pay $500 a month per household for an arbitrary war....

There's a sucker born every minute.

[nightflier]

Nod,

We're going around in circles here and I don't think you're addressing the problems inherent in $1 a song. Are you telling me that you stand by these statements?

"One BILLION songs were purchased at $1 a pop. I'd say that's a healthy test of the market. In fact that's the only test of the market....It doesn't matter what the mark up is, it doesn't matter what your profit margin is."
- If the price is $1 everywhere in the US, there is no "market." Where is the competition in this "market"?

"If you don't want to pay $1 you do something else."
- There is no other download solution that is legal. That's the problem.

"...a free and independant judiciary system that is the foundation of freedom and democracy and open markets in this country."
- I don't even know where to start. Let see, does Rodney King ring a bell? Speaking of bells, how do you like your cell phone choices? How about what OS you're running on the computer you're reading this on? Oh I don't know, what else we got... How about torturing people to death and getting a 3-month suspended sentence for it? Or how would you like to go find the "real killer" with OJ in tow? Some free and independant judiciary system...

"this paranoia that 'The Industry' is denying you rights that you don't have in the first place is just weird."
- I take it you haven't really spoken to any musicians lately?

"Yes, it is kind of a racket. That's the way the world works."
- Didn't you just say it's a free & fair system? Desliksia?

"It takes a lot of resources for a provider to negotiate separate transactions with a million wanna-be-a-rock-stars. So they negotiate with The Industry."
- That's not accurate. Independant artists are offering much lower prices (as low as .01 cent per download) to compensate providers for their troubles, but the providers aren't biting. I know several musicians who were told specifically that the provider did not want to jeopardize their relationship with the music industry by offering lower prices for competing downloads from unsigned artists. They were told to go put up their own websites. And this is a widespread problem in this industry, not just a rare case.

"the way its supposed to work is that after a period of time that allows artists to profit from their efforts..."
- This does not address my objection to old music costing the same as new. It also does not address why we should pay again for music we already own (at the same rates as what we don't own). Let's stick to the issue at hand.

"You can thank the RIAA for supporting... legislation to extend copyright for a very long time."
- I can see that the "free and independant judiciary system" really helped here. And how does this support innovation and the creative process? How does this benefit the consumer? What am I supposed to be thankful for?

"I can already buy DVD's pirated in China and sold on eBay for less than US retail."
- I'm not talking about pirated music. I'm talking about music that is legal under non-US laws.

"Other countries can do what they want with their laws."
- This is just the kind of arrogance that's going to come bite us Americans in the rear, one day.

"The American market isn't protected."
- Econ 101: ever heard of a tarif? Why do US copyright laws fly in the face of everyone else's?

"Music is by and large an American product, made in America and sold to relatively weathy Americans."
- Ever heard of Classical music? How about Latin music (no, not from the Romans...)? I can't believe I'm reading what you're writing. If you're referring to pop & country music, well that's because it comes primarily from the same top artists with very little variety or innovation in excessive quantity. It's the new economic motto: quantity over quality, because it makes us money. But this glut of mediocrity pales in comparison to the music produced everywhere else in the world.

"As a US citizen you are subject to US law. allofmp3 is most certainly illegal under US law."
- That still does not make it illegal under international law. Last I checked, US law was not the law of the world. To claim that it should be is both xenophobic and arrogant. Since they are hosted inside Russia, how exactly are they criminal? I did a little checking and almost all the legal disputes against allofmp3.com are from US courts. Isn't that trying to impose US law abroad?

"And what exactly are these hated policies?"
- Uh, have you been outside the US lately (that cruise to the Bahamas doesn't really count)? The Europeans are up in arms about the appalling quality of the beef we are importing, Kenyans are livid over the genetically modified foods we are forcing down their throats, we have been accused of having a worse human rights record than the Syrians, and the Indonesians are reeling over the toxic waste we are dumping on their islands. I can go on, but that would fill the limits of what this thread can hold. And just to stay on point, the US RIAA is one of the most hated organizations in this industry around the world.

"Hostess Twinkies are an invention with no basis for existing but I pay for them."
- And they are good for you, they make you smarter, and will provide a convenient defense should you decide to go postal at the office. NOT. You're not making a good case with this analogy.

"Every time a song is purchased, the market is tested"
- There is no market if the price is fixed at $1. The operative term being "fixed." Didn't we cover this already? Oh, that's right you're Nodin0ff, again. I guess you're already coming down from that Twinkie sugar high.

"There's a sucker born every minute."
- Well if you're willing to pay $1 a song or $500 for a war to make someone else rich, who's the sucker?