This just ain't Apples week.

[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?