[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Apple never thought that on the several occasions they rejected it before. So they just randomly did a 180, and the fact that it was around the same time the other retailers went to that pricing structure was a total coincidence?

Or it was that Apple and the RIAA worked things out, after which the RIAA went to the other music stores and told them that the wholesale price of the tracks was going up.

I don't think Apple is innocent here. They have just about as much influence on the digital music industry as the RIAA, purely because the iTMS is so massive. It would not at all surprise me if Apple and the RIAA came together to cut a deal where track prices would go up, allowing profits to go up for both Apple and the RIAA. That's how businesses do things...Apple is not immune to acting like an evil corporation, since they are an evil corporation, just like everyone else.

There's no justifiable reason for the price of popular tracks to go up. Apple makes plenty of money as it is. It costs next to nothing (or nothing at all) for the RIAA to provide the tracks, since it's just data that's copied from one server to another. It's just a matter of both organizations realizing that they could be making more money on tracks and albums from popular groups by artificially inflating the prices. When your album has gone triple platinum, it doesn't matter how much the tracks cost - people are going to buy it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Apple never thought that on the several occasions they rejected it before. So they just randomly did a 180, and the fact that it was around the same time the other retailers went to that pricing structure was a total coincidence?

I think it was a business decision that made sense to Apple in light of the global economic situation. They have not been selling as many computers for the last several months, and finally "giving in" to record labels in raising prices a little on certain tracks is (at least to me) not really "giving in" to pressure from the music companies as much as simply finding a way to increase overall revenue.

I don't think Apple is in a position right now to tell all the record companies to take a hike, but they could be if they positioned themselves appropriately, which would mean a few months lead time and some interesting marketing. Nothing they couldn't do pretty easily.

[Dakar V]

What you forget is the music industry much prefers you buy your music on physical media.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

There's no justifiable reason for the price of popular tracks to go up. Apple makes plenty of money as it is. It costs next to nothing (or nothing at all) for the RIAA to provide the tracks, since it's just data that's copied from one server to another. It's just a matter of both organizations realizing that they could be making more money on tracks and albums from popular groups by artificially inflating the prices.

1. There is an EXCELLENT justifiable reason for the price of popular products to be set higher: It's called capitalism. I hear it's all the rage, some places.

2. It's very likely that Apple doesn't make much more on the $1.29 tracks than they do on the $0.99 ones. It's the labels, not Apple, that's driving the tiered pricing model.

3. What do you mean it doesn't cost the RIAA anything to provide the tracks??? Licensing deals differ for every album. The labels passes on different amounts of money PER TRACK, depending upon what the track is, and how the profits are split. Older tracks generally cost labels very little money, as any licensing and distribution deals have long since been renegotiated. A U2 track is going to cost a label a lot, since U2 probably negotiated a cut far larger than most other productions would be able to grab.

I'm not defending what appears to be mostly greed, here, but I do wish people would stop making this stuff out to be stupid simple.

[SpaceMonkey]

(Just because I'm nitpicky: the RIAA is a trade association. It doesn't license the tracks.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

2. It's very likely that Apple doesn't make much more on the $1.29 tracks than they do on the $0.99 ones. It's the labels, not Apple, that's driving the tiered pricing model.

Pretty sure it's Apple doing it. My label has no say whatsoever on what price we get for a sale. None. Neither do we have any say in what a track is sold for - could be 5 cents, could be $50 - this has been the contract all along, nothing has changed from our perspective.
We need iTMS more than they need us, which puts Apple in the driving seat.

[ghporter]

I just saw an article by AP tech correspondent Rachel Metz that said two interesting things: the recording companies were behind ALL three major digital music sources' price changes, and that Apple had done away with "the copy-protection technology that limited users' abilities to copy and play songs on devices other than Apple's own iPods."

First off, I am unsurprised that the writer's take was that the record companies were behind the pricing change. Second, what's this about "doing away with copy protection" on iTunes? Should all songs there now show as "iTunes +"?

[Dakar V]

Obvously this is just a rumor but...

Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

1. There is an EXCELLENT justifiable reason for the price of popular products to be set higher: It's called capitalism. I hear it's all the rage, some places.

That's not what I meant. Of course it's capitalism - I'm talking about the tendency of Apple apologists to try and give excuses for why there would be a price hike on something like this. It's not because Apple had to - it's because of capitalism. I like capitalism. It drives competition and keeps prices from being artificially high (usually). In fact, it's because of capitalism that Amazon was able to start their own digital download service, which was a big catalyst for the move away from DRM-infected music downloads.

2. It's very likely that Apple doesn't make much more on the $1.29 tracks than they do on the $0.99 ones. It's the labels, not Apple, that's driving the tiered pricing model.

I don't know about this one. Apple has sold over two billion songs on iTunes, right? Let's say that just a quarter of those songs are sold at the $1.29 rate, which is an extra thirty cents of pure profit. If Apple keeps all that profit, that's an extra $150,000,000. Even if they keep only 50% of that profit and the rest goes to the RIAA, it's an extra $75mil. This is not chump change we're talking about.

3. What do you mean it doesn't cost the RIAA anything to provide the tracks??? Licensing deals differ for every album. The labels passes on different amounts of money PER TRACK, depending upon what the track is, and how the profits are split. Older tracks generally cost labels very little money, as any licensing and distribution deals have long since been renegotiated. A U2 track is going to cost a label a lot, since U2 probably negotiated a cut far larger than most other productions would be able to grab.

So suddenly, overnight, the contracts with bands who happen to be popular inexplicably changed, forcing the RIAA to hike up the price on digital music downloads? I highly doubt that.

Older tracks do cost labels very little money - especially when it's content that is in public domain. So why do those tracks cost so much? Once the digital music file is created, it costs the RIAA nothing to distribute it, so why aren't those tracks free, or only five cents to download? Is U2 or Metallica demanding such a huge cut that it's necessary for their tracks to suddenly cost more?

What about popular music that isn't created by greedy bastards who just want a few more million so they can buy another gold-plated Ferrari? Do you think that Hilary Duff or Jason Mraz or Maroon 5 or whoever the hell is on Billboard's Top 40 these days have been demanding more and more money from the RIAA? I highly doubt that, especially considering that the musicians are locked into multi-year contracts and can't just randomly change the terms of them (although the RIAA can - funny how that works).

Also, take a look at some of the prices on tracks on iTMS now.

"All Star" by Smash Mouth is undeniably their biggest hit to date. For some reason, that one track is $1.29, while the rest of their tracks are still $0.99. Every song from bigger groups who have avoided the RIAA, like Badly Drawn Boy and The Shins, are still $0.99.

Even U2 only has certain tracks at $1.29 - everything from their newest album and, for some reason, their big radio single from a few years back - "Beautiful Day" from All You Can't Leave Behind.

I would just about bet money that the artists aren't seeing a dime of extra royalties from these latest price increases. It's nothing but capitalization on the popularity of certain artists and, even worse, certain songs. I doubt this is a case of artists demanding more money in their contracts, per track or per album. If that were the case, then prices would fluctuate like stock, depending on when a new contract was signed or a contract was renewed. Unless every artist has coincidentally changed or renewed their contracts all on the same day, this price hike has nothing to do with them.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I just saw an article by AP tech correspondent Rachel Metz that said two interesting things: the recording companies were behind ALL three major digital music sources' price changes, and that Apple had done away with "the copy-protection technology that limited users' abilities to copy and play songs on devices other than Apple's own iPods."

First off, I am unsurprised that the writer's take was that the record companies were behind the pricing change. Second, what's this about "doing away with copy protection" on iTunes? Should all songs there now show as "iTunes +"?

I think so. I recently read on Engadget or Consumerist or something like that about Apple dropping DRM entirely from tracks purchased via iTunes.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Older tracks do cost labels very little money - especially when it's content that is in public domain. So why do those tracks cost so much?

If you think intellectual property is worth paying for, then it doesn't matter how old it is.

[Brien]

Still not seeing many $.69 tracks, but seeing more and more of the $1.29 variety. I wouldn't be surprised if the labels raised all the songs they control up to $1.29, either.

[subego]

Just picked up "London Calling" for $.69.

Ummm... Woo?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Obvously this is just a rumor but...

Yep. If anyone recalls, I predicted this would happen if the Amazon MP3 store turned out to be successful. The record labels didn't like how well Apple was treating their customers, so they set up and favored a competing store that they knew would go along with whatever they wanted — meaning that Apple would have to cave into their demands or find itself four more recording giants.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't know about this one. Apple has sold over two billion songs on iTunes, right? Let's say that just a quarter of those songs are sold at the $1.29 rate, which is an extra thirty cents of pure profit. If Apple keeps all that profit, that's an extra $150,000,000. Even if they keep only 50% of that profit and the rest goes to the RIAA, it's an extra $75mil. This is not chump change we're talking about.

Neither you nor I know whether Apple keeps ANY of that profit.

We just don't know.

We *do* know that the record industry was panicking over the power Apple got simply from being the only ones, for years, who had the slightest ****ing clue what was going on on the internet.

The impression I get is that distributors twisted Apple's arm by threatening to pull out of the store (which they could as long as digital downloads are still a mere fraction of the entire market - not for long though), in order to get their demands through.

Doofy appears to paint a different picture, though, so I really don't know.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Older tracks do cost labels very little money - especially when it's content that is in public domain.

There is almost NO recorded music that is in the public domain.

There is not only copyright on the music, but there is copyright on the production, the actual *recording* of the music. There are rights involved for every single session musician who participated on a recording. These often may need to be renegotiated in their entirety for a download-only re-release, *especially* for ancient recordings where artist release agreements did not yet cover additional media.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple is not immune to acting like an evil corporation, since they are an evil corporation, just like everyone else.

I know you'd really badly like to believe that Apple wants to screw consumers even more than the RIAA does, but its history in the music marketplace pretty firmly puts it on the other side. For six years Apple staunchly refuses to mess with iTS prices and even loses some business for its stubbornness, but then when viable competitors appear and Apple is in a more vulnerable position, it stops throwing its weight around so much — and somehow this indicates to you that Apple wanted to do this all along?

Seriously, what is the story you're imagining went on behind the scenes? Do you think Jobs was high for the past half-decade and just forgot to go to the higher pricing until now?

[turtle777]

I also blame inflation.

See, at 3% inflation, $ 0.99 in 2004 would be $ 1.15 today.

Yes, it's not $ 1.29, but we need to remember that things don't get more expensive just because the price goes up.

And (little sidenote), with the way the Fed is printing money, we'll see $ 5.00 for single tracks soon.

-t

[OAW]

Well it's been 7 months since variable pricing was introduced. In my experience, that "variability" seems to be either $.99 or $1.29. And a lot more of the latter. $.69 tracks seem to be practically non-existent despite what the record labels claimed would be the case. Has anyone been able to locate a significant number of $.69 tracks?

OAW

[TETENAL]

Of the iTunes Top 200 singles in the German iTS 76 are 1.29 € and 20 are 0.69 €.

Everything I purchase (ie. nothing from the charts) is always 0.99 €. So for me nothing changed..

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well it's been 7 months since variable pricing was introduced. In my experience, that "variability" seems to be either $.99 or $1.29. And a lot more of the latter. $.69 tracks seem to be practically non-existent despite what the record labels claimed would be the case.

Again, most record labels don't set the iTunes pricing - Apple does. We get £4.70 per album and have no say on what that album sells for... ...Apple can sell it for $0.01 or $100.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, most record labels don't set the iTunes pricing - Apple does. We get £4.70 per album and have no say on what that album sells for... ...Apple can sell it for $0.01 or $100.

Well that's odd considering how much the labels were pressuring Apple to introduce variable pricing. Why would they make such a big issue out of it if they had no control over the final retail price? Your statement above seems to suggest that you are in the music industry so I was wondering if you had any insight into this discrepancy?

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, most record labels don't set the iTunes pricing - Apple does. We get £4.70 per album and have no say on what that album sells for... ...Apple can sell it for $0.01 or $100.

I think it must be different in Britain. It's been pretty widely reported that the American content producers exert more control than that.

BTW, for the record, I still have yet to find a 69¢ track. $1.29 seems to be most common if you're buying stuff that people listen to, with 99¢ for less popular things.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think it must be different in Britain. It's been pretty widely reported that the American content producers exert more control than that.

Our iTMS conduit is in the US - just because I'm currently in the UK it doesn't mean I'm not multi-flag.

In other news, it's also been widely reported that Barry will bring peace to mankind.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, most record labels don't set the iTunes pricing - Apple does. We get £4.70 per album and have no say on what that album sells for... ...Apple can sell it for $0.01 or $100.

"We" - are you (part of) a label dealing directly with Apple?

Or are you a band with a label deal?

[ort888]

Doofy is in an expirimental new wave yodel-core band. It's 7 guys in a row, each with a five-string bass and a microphone. Using complex overlapping bass lines and a 7-part yodeling harmony they make unique versions of 60s pop songs, only with new x-rated lyrics.

[Arty50]

Is anyone really suprised by the lack of 99 cent tracks? Remember, they promised CDs would usher in cheaper pricing too. I, and everyone else who has ever worked around the record industry, knew that the 69 cent promises were total bs.

Liars and thieves. The good news is that the major labels are dying. The bad news is that it's happening way too slowly.

Also, Doofy, it's been well documented that the labels set the retail pricing for the songs they distribute online. Apple doesn't have a say in this when it comes to music from the major labels.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Doofy is in an expirimental new wave yodel-core band. It's 7 guys in a row, each with a five-string bass and a microphone. Using complex overlapping bass lines and a 7-part yodeling harmony they make unique versions of 60s pop songs, only with new x-rated lyrics.

Sounds a bit like Eläkeläiset.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Sounds a bit like Eläkeläiset.

ऒसहुददेरऒ

Edit: That was supposed to say “*shudder*”. Who the hell set my keyboard to Foreign?!

[Arty50]

Just read this...

[Nelson]Hah! Hah![/Nelson]

Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"We" - are you (part of) a label dealing directly with Apple?

Or are you a band with a label deal?

Originally Posted by ort888 

Doofy is in an expirimental new wave yodel-core band. It's 7 guys in a row, each with a five-string bass and a microphone. Using complex overlapping bass lines and a 7-part yodeling harmony they make unique versions of 60s pop songs, only with new x-rated lyrics.

With the exception of the puny five-string basses. 12 string is where it's at, pansies.

(Band(ish) with label deal dealing indirectly with Apple through US conduits. Since we're not Britney Spears or Universal, there's no advantage to dealing direct - iTunes are pretty much going to give you the same deal no matter how you approach them. And Apple sets the sales price, in much the same way that any regular online or brick outlet will set their sales price.)

[TETENAL]

A regular brick outlet will set the price based on its purchase price. I would assume Apple does the same.

[Spheric Harlot]

Yep.

Any regular online or brick outlet gets varying wholesale prices from the distributor, depending on the product, or package deal including combinations of products ("We'll give you x units of a for this price if you shift y units of b at this wholesale price").

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

A regular brick outlet will set the price based on its purchase price.

And their overheads. And what month it is. And whether the owner wants a new BMW. And whether that latest Metallica abortion is selling as well as the latest Hoff masterpiece.

Sale price is the decision of the sales outlet, unless it's a franchise. Business 101, people.

[Arty50]

That's true if you're selling a physical product. Hell, you can sell CDs for a loss if you like. Online music sales are totally different. Apple isn't selling 1,000,000 copies of Bringin' Sexy Back. They're selling the same file 1,000,000 times.

In this case, Apple has been granted the right to sell the record labels' products online. The only thing Apple can negotiate price wise is its cut. Like I said, it's been stated many times before...the labels set the pricing for online music.

Business 101 is for people who sell widgets. The rest of us find much more creative ways to screw others.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

That's true if you're selling a physical product. Hell, you can sell CDs for a loss if you like. Online music sales are totally different. Apple isn't selling 1,000,000 copies of Bringin' Sexy Back. They're selling the same file 1,000,000 times.

In this case, Apple has been granted the right to sell the record labels' products online. The only thing Apple can negotiate price wise is its cut. Like I said, it's been stated many times before...the labels set the pricing for online music.

You keep believing that if you want to.

Tunecore: FAQ

EXCEPTIONS: iTunes (and all other digital retailers, for that matter) reserves the right to sell music and/or music videos any way they want and at any price they want. When your songs or albums or music videos sell, you will always receive the required amount, but iTunes can sell your music or video for a penny, a million dollars or anything in between.

...

Remember, only iTunes can set the sale price, but no matter what they sell that song or album/EP/single or music video for, you always get the current pay rate. Even if iTunes wants to have a discount, say, offering its customers your content for a penny each, you still get the full pay rate every time it sells.

Classic concealment. The only source you've had saying that it's the labels who set the price is Apple itself in its press releases - all other sources simply quote those press releases. The major labels already get plenty of crap from the public so don't mind a little more. Thus, Apple directs the "songs are too expensive on iTunes" rhetoric towards the labels, leaving themselves minty fresh and still marketable. Which benefits all involved.

[Chuckit]

I don't believe Tunecore is a major record label. That's like asking some random schmoe on the street, "Can you get into the VIP room?" and when he answers no, concluding, "See, an eyewitness says it's impossible to get into the VIP room."

[Doofy]

Go read the whole thread again Chuck.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

Just read this...

[Nelson]Hah! Hah![/Nelson]

Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates

That is an interesting story, but remember that in Canada, music downloaders haven't been prosecuted like they have in the States. Wishing for the CRIA to get killed in the courts because of the behaviour of the RIAA is pretty stupid.