Universal cuts CD prices

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/04/news/international/universal_cds/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNN) - Hoping to win back customers lost to free music downloads, one record company is slashing prices.

Universal Music Group said Wednesday it is cutting the suggested retail price of its compact discs to $12.98 from current prices ranging from $16.98 to $18.98.

[HarryKeogh]

that's cool.

my thing is to be sure to buy it the first week it's out when it's usually cheapest. (or borrow the CD from a friend, burn it on my computer and transfer it to my iPod and just screw the artist)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
(or borrow the CD from a friend, burn it on my computer and transfer it to my iPod and just screw the artist)

:rolleyes: ...

And we wonder why CD's cost so much?!?

Well, at least your friend bought the CD (I hope)...

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Kodiak


:rolleyes: ...

And we wonder why CD's cost so much?!?

Well, at least your friend bought the CD (I hope)...
The funny thing is that, if people dont do that the price will be higher.:D

[DavidJames]

I agree with the sentiments offered by Kodiak. And for all you who prefer to not pay for the product, may someone show up where you work and offer to do your job for free :)

[Tony]

Im all for mp3 downloads.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Tony
Im all for mp3 downloads.
me too:D

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Kodiak


:rolleyes: ...

And we wonder why CD's cost so much?!?

Well, at least your friend bought the CD (I hope)...

the prices are high because of illegal price gouging, not due to pirates.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
Im all for mp3 downloads.

I'm all for them too, so long as the CD or website you're downloading from didn't provide the music to you free of charge (unless, of course, the artist or label did so purposefully).

Are you in favor of downloading music without paying for it?

And if so, why?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


the prices are high because of illegal price gouging, not due to pirates.

Nice claim...

Evidence please...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak



Are you in favor of downloading music without paying for it?


Yes

And if so, why?

Why not?

[Frostbite]

MP3 downloads are ok to me as long as there will be multi-millionaire pop artists with jewelry, private planes and several houses. Same thing with movies and sport events piracy. Some people in the world make too much money, and piracy is a solution to the problem.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Nice claim...

Evidence please...

The music industry lost a big class action lawsuit. The settlement was something like everyone who has ever bought a CD could get a coupon for $2.00 or something. I forget the details, like how to claim and such. The date to be eligible passed a while ago though. This is just from memory, I didn't look anything up.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony

Why not?

Hmmm...

Answering a question with a question... :(



How dissappointing...Oh, well. :(


To answer your question: it's stealing, it's illegal, it's dishonorable.

Care to answer my question, or is "why not" the answer to all of your ethical dilemmas?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Frostbite
MP3 downloads are ok to me as long as there will be multi-millionaire pop artists with jewelry, private planes and several houses. Same thing with movies and sport events piracy. Some people in the world make too much money, and piracy is a solution to the problem.

Well, we seem to have the communist opinion... :D

[richardm]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Nice claim...

Evidence please...

Well.. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "price gouging", but for several years after CDs came out, they were considerably more expensive than compact cassettes, even though CDs were considerably cheaper to make than cassettes (source is a Q magazine from about ten years ago, so no proper cite is available).

So the record companies were certainly charging whatever the market would bear, taking advantage of the excitement that the new technology caused. They might have argued that they had to pay for all the retooling - perhaps. But that excuse won't fight now. These days, if you can find cassettes anywhere the price differential is not as marked - this is because the cost of cassettes has gone up, not because the price of CDs has come down.

I suppose that in real terms, the cost of a CD has actually come down - but they're still expensive items.

Not that this excuses stealing things, but it might help to explain why it happens. People want the items; they perceive that the items are too expensive; they also perceive that they can get them for free with little or no risk to themselves. It's human nature to do that.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


The music industry lost a big class action lawsuit. The settlement was something like everyone who has ever bought a CD could get a coupon for $2.00 or something. I forget the details, like how to claim and such. The date to be eligible passed a while ago though. This is just from memory, I didn't look anything up.

So if this (supposed) lawsuit already fixed the problem of price gouging, then why are music labels now slashing prices $4.00 to $6.00?

Music industry experts seem to think that "free music downloads" are responsible.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
The music industry lost a big class action lawsuit. The settlement was something like everyone who has ever bought a CD could get a coupon for $2.00 or something. I forget the details, like how to claim and such. The date to be eligible passed a while ago though. This is just from memory, I didn't look anything up. Let's go to Snopes!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/cdrefund.asp

My beef with the RIAA is that they're always arguing for artists to receive their compensation, when in fact, the artist receives one of the smaller slices of the proverbial pie. The record companies are the ones that stand to lose money off of free-trade music, not artists (unless they are independent artists who don't have a major label, in which case, no one trades their music anyway).

If they are losing money on CD sales, it's time for the recording industry to find a different model for distributing music and collecting money on it; not time to sue everyone in sight that might be to blame. Seriously, suing a kid who trades lots of files on KaZaA is absurd ...don't the courts have enough to do trying murders and other real crime?

[DavidJames]

"Not that this excuses stealing things, but it might help to explain why it happens. People want the items; they perceive that the items are too expensive; they also perceive that they can get them for free with little or no risk to themselves. It's human nature to do that."

You've done a nice job describing stealing of all types. The only variable is the risk. The criminal intent is the same, it's just that different criminals are willing to accept different levels of risk. The Internet is a wonderful place. Now even gutless criminals, too afraid to to commit the crime in public, can steal and create mayhem from the privacy of their homes and offices. :)

Note: By mayhem, I'm mainly refering to various other Internet related crimes, viruses, hacking, that kind of thing.

[Jocko]

If filesharing is to blame for the high cost of CD's (which are pennies to produce and perhaps nickels to package), why have CD's been so outrageously expensive since their introduction over 20 years ago?

I mean, filesharing has only gone big-time in the last 4 to 5 years, tops. So how to explain the 15-16 years previous, and the sudden ease with which prices are being slashed?

Sure sounds like price gouging to me.

I have a limited (200-300) mp3 collection, but most of them are obscure items you CAN'T buy, even if inclined to. Being satisfied with my collection, I never download new ones, either, so I wasn't active when the pay-per-download plans began emerging. And yet, I still can't help NOT feeling bad about it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by richardm
Not that this excuses stealing things, but it might help to explain why it happens. People want the items; they perceive that the items are too expensive; they also perceive that they can get them for free with little or no risk to themselves. It's human nature to do that.

True...at the animal level!

Fortunately, we've all been taught right from wrong.

It reminds me of a hypothetical question my philosophy/logic professor asked my class for a homework assignment:

If you had a ring that not only made the wearer invisible, but also froze time as the wearer saw fit, would you commit rape? Would you murder? Would you rob a bank? Would you steal some rich celebrity's fancy car? Would you run red lights? Yield signs?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jocko
And yet, I still can't help NOT feeling bad about it.

Assuming you are sincere, I couldn't think of a better punishment than guilt... ;)

[Cleon]

CD prices aren't high because of pirating--they were $15-17 or so before Napster, KaZaA, etc., and they haven't gone up since file-sharing's been on the scene. Claiming that they're high because of pirating is disingenuous at best.

If memory serves, the total cost in production and distribution of a CD is about $1. (That seems a tad high to me, but I could be wrong.) The rest of that $15 or so is split between the record company and the store that sells it. Of that, the artist gets a few cents. (Courtney Love laid it all out back in 2000--you can see the article at http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html).

The recording cartel is an incredibly predatory business model. They exploit the artists to hell and back, and they exploit the consumer no end. What they are after by going after filesharing is not so much "protection of intellectual property" as it is protection of their business model.

I am not convinced that the record companies are losing THAT much money due to pirating. I'm really not. Yes, sales have gone down--but is that due to pirating, or due to the economy going down the crapper, or maybe it's because the product is crappy. So far, the cartel has had a pretty good run of it; they can control what's popular by making sure their products are played on MTV, radio stations and the like, and the fans get to buy it. There's really no independent gauge to be able to tell whether it's a higher or lower-quality product, because nothing else is getting played. (If people don't know about an alternative product, they're not going to buy it.) So it becomes one big cycle--the cartel ensures that something's popular by controlling popularity, then they collect pretty damn close to 100% of what the sales bring in.

Filesharing has allowed fans to sidestep this process to an extent. What's popular is no longer decided by what's played on Top-40 radio stations and MTV, it's decided by people going and downloading what they want to hear. (That's not to say radio and TV don't have influence, but it's lessened somewhat.) If you only like one song off a CD, you don't have to pay $15-17 for the whole thing.

This creates a dilemma. The artist deserves to get paid, however small the pittance he/she gets from the recording company. This really is a case of the listeners versus the cartel, with the artists caught in the middle. And the artists ARE split on the issue--it is not as black and white as the cartel would have us believe. Many artists--Public Enemy comes to mind--have embraced filesharing as a way to get their music out.

I think, in the end, this will be the death knell of the recording industry as we know it--and that will not be a bad thing. Right now, with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, anyone can set up their own recording studio, and CD burners are cheap. You can even get tower burners for a couple hundred bucks, which will burn a number of CDs at once. Within a few years, I think you'll see more and more bands and artists recording their own music, promote themselves online (through filesharing, among other methods), and distribute it themselves. The end result of this will be more variety, more talent, cheaper music, and generally happier (not to mention wealthier) fans and artists.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by dwb
Let's go to Snopes!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/cdrefund.asp

Thank god I wasn't actually spreading an urban legend. I worked in a music store '94-97' and CD prices were high then. It had nothing to do with piracy. The prices stores were charged were ludicrous. A store would pay about $13 for a cd from the distributor. Of course they have to mark that up to $17-$20 just to make a profit. The margin is terrible. That's why we had to sell bongs too. They cost about $2.00 and we could name our price and people would pay.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

The margin is terrible. That's why we had to sell bongs too. They cost about $2.00 and we could name our price and people would pay.

No fair!! :eek:

Nearly any product on the market would suffer by that same comparison! ;) :D

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No fair!! :eek:

Nearly any product on the market would suffer by that same comparison! ;) :D
I know. Poor pot-heads. We'd look at all the wacky Graphix pipes with jesters heads or whatever and just make prices up. The tiniest little hash pipe was about US$8 and the big pipes were about $20. We would pay about $1 for the little ones and maybe $3.00 for the big ones. All bets were off on the bongs.

Of course, the store was under police surveillance a lot.

Back to CD's. When we put new stuff on sale we would be making maybe a $1 or $2 profit on each disk. CD's are a way to get people in the door basically. That's why music stores try to get you to buy so much other crap. That's the stuff they make money on.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Nice claim...

Evidence please...

Well, quite simple. The prices were high before it was possible to easily copy CDs or before music was traded over the internet, or did you forget?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So if this (supposed) lawsuit already fixed the problem of price gouging, then why are music labels now slashing prices $4.00 to $6.00?

Here's a reference to the settlement:
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm)

Somehow, I doubt the settlement fixed the pricing problem.


Music industry experts seem to think that "free music downloads" are responsible.

Of course, the industry's own "experts" aren't exactly going to be objective about this. They want to sell you the same music multiple times, after all. Want to put the music you've paid for into a convenient small player for the road? Rip the CDs and copy to your MP3 player. No additional cost. If that pesky MP3 format wasn't around, the industry would probably be selling us the music we've bought yet another time for that purpose.

Personally, I buy less music now than I did ten years ago. Why? (1) I already have my tapes/LPs on CD now, so no incentive to re-buy. (2) I'm now into video games and home theater, and I only make so much money. (3) Wake me when the industry puts out something new that's worth buying (or even downloading) :)

Edited: Accidentally hit send before I finished posting.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, quite simple. The prices were high before it was possible to easily copy CDs or before music was traded over the internet, or did you forget?

oh, YEAH...

That's evidence... :rolleyes:

[jj]

All told, I believe it costs about 4 dollars to get the CD out the door.

A dollar to make, a dollar for rights, a dollar for advertising, and a dollar for handling...

That's not quite right, I've left some stuff out, but the overall estimate isn't far off.

The distribution chain uses up a stunning amount of the money somehow...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

Here's a reference to the settlement:
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-30-cd-settlement_x.htm)

Thanks. :)


Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

Of course, the industry's own "experts" aren't exactly going to be objective about this.

Obviously skepticism is warranted.


Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

They want to sell you the same music multiple times, after all. Want to put the music you've paid for into a convenient small player for the road? Rip the CDs and copy to your MP3 player. No additional cost. If that pesky MP3 format wasn't around, the industry would probably be selling us the music we've bought yet another time for that purpose.

Is this an opinion, or a supportable claim?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Assuming you are sincere, I couldn't think of a better punishment than guilt... ;)

I think you missed one of my double negatives... I sleep well at night, in spite of my hard drive being a filthy nest of criminality. Like I said, though, it's more due to the availability of obscure pieces you can't find elsewhere at any price, and my timing (getting everything I consider worth having before cheap, legal versions became available).

Pretty bad coming from a Republican, I know, but I can only assume I have a recessive socialist gene in my genetic makeup. I'll bet I got it from my mother.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Is this an opinion, or a supportable claim?

An opinion, but hopefully it's a logical one. :)

Look up SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) on Google for some more information about what kind of digital music files the industry would like us to have.

Basically, it seems that if we want a music file for our portable device, the industry will have us buy it instead of just recording the music (legally) onto a portable digital player.

The problem I'd imagine the industry is facing is that the "insecure" technology came first (CDs, MP3s), and it's going to be a hard sell to convince consumers that the secure format is somehow better than the one they can freely copy (legally or illegaly).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think you missed one of my double negatives... I sleep well at night, in spite of my hard drive being a filthy nest of criminality. Like I said, though, it's more due to the availability of obscure pieces you can't find elsewhere at any price, and my timing (getting everything I consider worth having before cheap, legal versions became available).

Pretty bad coming from a Republican, I know, but I can only assume I have a recessive socialist gene in my genetic makeup. I'll bet I got it from my mother.

Considering your case, I guess a wet noodle would suffice then!... :p

[HarryKeogh]

remember in high school when you went by your friend's house to make a mix tape and no one considered it stealing.

well of course it technically was and it's also stealing when i borrow a friends CD and burn it onto my computer. i'll admit that (it's hard not to admit, it's a fact, it's stealing). but here's my pitiful little justification, i have about a 1000 cds. i support the music industry. i always buy the albums from my favorite artists. if someone has a CD from a band i'm interested in i'll borrow it and give it a shot. if i like it i'll usually buy it. i like to have the material CD, the lyrics, photos etc. but if it sucks i hate to drop 15 bucks and get screwed.

ex, i borrowed and copied by brother's eminem CD, i liked it and wound up buying it. i also borrowed and copied his godsmack CD, i borrowed it, it sucked, i deleted it.

in my case, i dont think it's a big deal.

if someone else chooses never to buy a CD and illegally copy every CD he wants i think that's a problem.

sure im breaking the law but i dont think most of the music industry would mind since i probably spend over a 1000 bucks a year on music purchases.

[daenku32]

I stopped acquiring music, so I don't really care anymore.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Are you in favor of downloading music without paying for it?

Oh, yes. :D
Here's some MP3's I uploaded last week. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25978)

And if so, why?

It's the way that they sound, if you know what I mean. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26376)

P.S. I have no problem with rewarding the artist for their efforts, hence no piracy on my part. But one has to keep in mind that the musical data has always existed - assuming your willing to search every digit of the number pi to find that set. Me, I'll keep digging through the free stuff, it's an easier search.

[Malachi151]

People used to record songs from the radio all the time. No one cared then. In fact I remember a station that would play an album straight through every sunday so that you could redord the whole thing.

As I kid I had lots of tapes recorded from radio.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Malachi151
People used to record songs from the radio all the time. No one cared then. In fact I remember a station that would play an album straight through every sunday so that you could redord the whole thing.

As I kid I had lots of tapes recorded from radio.

ahhh memories, i used to hold a tape recorder up to the radio to tape songs. you'd hear my mom screaming in the background over dexies midnight runners or flock of seagulls.

margaret cho does a funny bit on that.

[jnelso99]

I remember recording stuff off the radio - mainly off the public radio station that played industrial music and Dr. Demento. I always got ticked off when the dj would play a cool song and NOT TELL US THE ARTIST OR SONG TITLE! We had a station that played entire albums, too.

I think it would be ok to share or download songs, albums, or anything else that is either very rare or out of print. The stuff I download is mostly MST3K and other tv shows that are not on any more, and not commercially available. If I download something that becomes buyable later on, I'll buy the dvd and free up some disk space.

[jj]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


ahhh memories, i used to hold a tape recorder up to the radio to tape songs. you'd hear my mom screaming in the background over dexies midnight runners or flock of seagulls.


Oh, C'mon, Eiliene!

:p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Nice claim...

Evidence please...

The actual artist gets very little of the price of the CD.

[American]

They can cut the price of horses by 90%. I'm still going to drive.

[Samus]

Originally posted by American
They can cut the price of horses by 90%. I'm still going to drive. On the other hand, if the recording industry made a better car, you'd consider their offer, yes? Which is exactly my point, is that the industry needs to refine their revenue approach to compete with the p2p networks. One lawsuit after another, trying to crush any competing method of aquiring music, is only going to drive people to p2p more and more, since they're not actually solving the problem of CDs costing too much.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak

To answer your question: it's stealing, it's illegal, it's dishonorable.


I disagree.

If I buy a CD, I own it. I can do what-ever I want with it. I can use it for target practice, I can play it in my car, I can give it to my dog to use a chew toy and I can copy it.

Care to answer my question, or is "why not" the answer to all of your ethical dilemmas?

To answer your question:

Are you in favor of downloading music without paying for it?

And if so, why?

There is nothing wrong with it.