Log in

View Full Version : Online music: subsidizing the RIAA


Doobie
22nd November 2003, 01:32
I think on-line music sales can at least break even, even without a royalty drop. At about a dollar per song, there seems to be enough money left after startup costs are wrickles are put behind. And, even without a big profit, being a big player in one field will carry over to everything else a business does. Apple won't just sell more iPods, but they'll sell more of those ripoff Macs. Joe Music Consumer will be more familiar with the Apple name and thus more likely to buy any Apple product.

But, what annoys me is that this ammounts to a subsidy of the music business. Instead of the music industry being forced to reduce royalties to reasonable levels, other big businesses chip in.

This sort of thing happens sometimes. One of the most highly subsidized companies is Microsoft. Retailers sell over-priced Microsoft products near cost, sometimes below cost (especially the Windows OS).

Neither the RIAA or Microsoft need the charity. They're just greedy and the corrupt politicians in Congress help them get away with it.

r6d2
22nd November 2003, 02:58
Originally posted by Doobie
I think on-line music sales can at least break even, even without a royalty drop. At about a dollar per song, there seems to be enough money left after startup costs are wrickles are put behind.
Coming from a guy who used to think musicians don't have any natural right to get paid for their job, it's quite a paradigm shift happening here! ;)

Congratulations!

From a guy who intends to make a living from his art, :thanks:

Mug Funky
23rd November 2003, 15:04
hmm. i don't dig online music. mp3 (and it's newer alternatives) are just too lo-fi for me to consider paying for them.

USD $1 is way too high - you could just buy the album, get better quality and nice cover art.

and besides that, i get LPs and 45s for less (we're talking old stuff here). i much rather that kind of lo-fi.

i think there needs to be a lot of rethinking done in the music industry.

Kedirekin
23rd November 2003, 15:23
Amen to that.

Perhaps $1 per hit single might be justifiable, as it is cheaper to buy the 3 singles off an album than it is to buy the whole CD (if you like to buy just the hits - which I don't). But the majority of songs need to be much lower, like 10 or 20¢, and buying the entire album of songs should warrant a discount. And like the rest of you I have serious issues with DRM.

We need to keep repeating this message to pound it in to everyone's heads - do not support these current online services that offer crippled songs at lower quality, but at the same price as a CD. The only way we're going to see change is if we don't give these services our money. iTunes needs to go out of business.