CD prices officially dropped. It's about time.

[Natoma]

I also don't pay a dime for the software I get through free trials or the music I listen to on the online services. I'm using those services free of charge, and I haven't paid for that time at all.

As for your comments regarding the music services. Ahh baseless assumptions. How I love reading them. And btw, the "really popular" tracks sell for the same price as other tracks at all the services. Each mp3 costs the same. But yea, assume away.

 

[Silent_One]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/technology/09MUSI.html
New York Times
261 Lawsuits Filed on Internet Music Sharing

The recording industry filed 261 lawsuits yesterday against people who share copyrighted music over the Internet, charging them with copyright infringement in the first broad legal action aimed at ordinary users of file-sharing networks.

The blizzard of lawsuits — which is expected to be followed by thousands more — is a turning point for the music industry, which has sought to avoid direct conflict with its potential consumers as it battles online piracy. But industry officials said they now believe that the only way to stem the widespread file-swapping is to make people realize they will be punished for participating — even in the context of an Internet culture where many forms of information are free.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America. "But when you're being victimized by illegal activity there comes a time when you have to step up and take appropriate action."

In an effort to soften the legal attack, the record industry group is also offering amnesty for file sharers who turn themselves in before legal action is taken against them. Under the "clean slate" program unveiled by the industry yesterday, people seeking amnesty must destroy files that they have downloaded illegally and sign a notarized form pledging never to trade copyrighted works again.

Turn yourself in Natoma, turn yourself in

 

[Natoma]

I don't share music online. Haven't done so in a very long time.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

This entire thread makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I also don't pay a dime for the software I get through free trials or the music I listen to on the online services. I'm using those services free of charge, and I haven't paid for that time at all.

WRONG.

The business models of those services take into account your "free" listening.

And btw, the "really popular" tracks sell for the same price as other tracks at all the services. Each mp3 costs the same. But yea, assume away.

Oh ye of little faith....

The "popular" games cost more than crap ones.
The "popular" DVDs cost more than crap ones.
The "popular" CDs cost more than crap ones.

Trust me. The "popular tracks", when/if electronic distribution becomes a standard, will cost more than unpopular tracks.

Supply and demand, Natoma. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[Humus]

That's far from always the case. I go to the local CD store, what do I find? The CD's on the top-ten list is typically cheaper than those you find in the alphabetically/genre sorted archieve of less-knowns. Top-ten is typically like 159SEK, while the rest is typically 179 or 189SEK.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's far from always the case. I go to the local CD store, what do I find? The CD's on the top-ten list is typically cheaper than those you find in the alphabetically/genre sorted archieve of less-knowns. Top-ten is typically like 159SEK, while the rest is typically 179 or 189SEK.

Humus,

Supply and demand.

It all depends on anticipated demand and available supply of the CDs. If demand outstrips supply, the price will be higher.

If a particular few tracks are saturating bandwidth from the distributor's server, their price will be raised on those tracks.

 

[DemoCoder]

Bargin bin games and DVDs.

 

[Humus]

Supply and demand.

It all depends on anticipated demand and available supply of the CDs. If demand outstrips supply, the price will be higher.

If a particular few tracks are saturating bandwidth from the distributor's server, their price will be raised on those tracks.

It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it? First as an argument for one thing, then to explain the exact opposite. If it was mainly a question about supply and demand, then you'd think that those who estimate the demand would have a fairly good idea and would be able to match the supply accordingly, rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices. If we would be talking about a reasonable amount of titles being misjudged, then fine, but the actual situation is that top-ten CD's are constantly and consistently sold at lower prices. Truth is, the reason why top-ten CD's are cheaper is that they are sold in much higher volume. The overhead / CD is lower and thus they can be sold at a lower price. The same still holds true for online distribution.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it?

Convenient? It's true.

First as an argument for one thing, then to explain the exact opposite. If it was mainly a question about supply and demand, then you'd think that those who estimate the demand would have a fairly good idea and would be able to match the supply accordingly...

As they DO successfully (and sometimes unsuccessfully) with CDs. Publishers and retailers have an idea ahead of time when a CD is going to be a big seller, (what they've been pimping on the radio, etc.) and they ramp up supply accordingly. Lots of times, they are right...sometimes, they are wrong and you end up with overstock and bargain bins.

Note, Humus, when demand is high, this also makes competitive forces stronger...if two retailiers know there's a high demand for a product, competitive forces also keep prices in check.

If Joe Blogg's latest CD that has 1% of the demand that the popular titles have.....but you can only get it at 1 retailer....the price can be higher.

Supply and demand.

...rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices.

Who said they were constantly overestimating? The are many times estimating about right.

If we would be talking about a reasonable amount of titles being misjudged, then fine, but the actual situation is that top-ten CD's are constantly and consistently sold at lower prices.

My...what is everyone complaining about then?

Truth is, the reason why top-ten CD's are cheaper is that they are sold in much higher volume.

Correct. Produced volume that is dictated by an anticipated higher demand.

The same still holds true for online distribution.

Something has to give, Natoma. Just as there is not infinite CD manufacturing capacity, there is not infinite bandwidth. Companies will either have to decrease demand for the top titles by raising price, or put some limits on access, or lower the bit-rate quality...

Of course, I know what will actually happen in the end:

Pirates will still refuse to pay nominal fees for downloaded tracks, piracy will still run rampant in the future "electronic distribution" age moreso than it is now, fewer and fewer will be able to remain profitable because of it, and the industry will be MORE limited to a few "absusive, monopolistic giants", and the "I want my free MP3" crowed will bitch all over again about how they're charging "unfair" prices for a product, so they decide to pirate....

...and so it continues...

 

[schmuck]

Intelectual property is not an universal right, intelectual property is a right we as a society has given to the artists, inventors etc because we think these rights will benefit society. And in most cases it does.

But when i look at the enterteinment industri today im not so sure. In wich way does it benefit society to have so few providers for news, culture and enterteinment? Do we really want the future ted turners, murdochs to set the global agenda? In the end i see this as a big threat to democrasy.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Intelectual property is not an universal right, intelectual property is a right we as a society has given to the artists, inventors etc because we think these rights will benefit society. And in most cases it does.

It's two fold:

1) Intellectual property for artisits / publishers is recognized because we believe the creator / inventor / distributor of that property has a right to be compensated for the value of that property

2) The "benefit to society" follows, because unless those with the IP are compensated for it, there is less incentive to try and create that IP in the first place.

Without incentive to produce, there is less production / variety / volume and risk taking with the product.

But when i look at the enterteinment industri today im not so sure. In wich way does it benefit society to have so few providers for news, culture and enterteinment?

It's a trade-off.

It costs moneyto provide news and entertainment. (Not sure how you figure culture into this....at best, this is "pop culture".) We reward those who give us a product that we want by paying a certain price for it.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating your song, putting it on your web-site, and trying to sell it. There is in theory an infinite number of providers. Of course, you'll quickly learn that in order for people to know your work is out there...you have to advertise it / publicize it.

Before a retailer will carry it, you have to productize it, and convince them that there is, or will be, a demand for it.

These things take an investment. And the more people there are trying to sell this stuff, the riskier it is. (The harder it is to make "your IP" stand out from everyone else's.)

Do we really want the future ted turners, murdochs to set the global agenda? In the end i see this as a big threat to democrasy.

You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?

 

[RussSchultz]

You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?

Just the Dixie Chicks.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just the Dixie Chicks.

Lol!

 

[Humus]

It's convenient to always use the phrase "Supply and demand" isn't it?

Convenient? It's true.

Supply and demand is not a magical system that automatic adjusts to fit the market. It's just a rule of thumb of how to successfully run a business, and it's just one factor out of many. Ultimate pricing policies are set by humans.

...rather than constantly overestimating the demand for popular artists and thus being forced to lower the prices.

Who said they were constantly overestimating? The are many times estimating about right.

That it's unlikely that they were doing that was my point.

My...what is everyone complaining about then?

I'm nor complaining over anything, I highlight the reality in the music industry, and I argue that it's unlikely to be changed by online distribution.

The same still holds true for online distribution.

Something has to give, Natoma. Just as there is not infinite CD manufacturing capacity, there is not infinite bandwidth. Companies will either have to decrease demand for the top titles by raising price, or put some limits on access, or lower the bit-rate quality...

Not sure who you're arguing with here ... me or Natoma ... but anyway. I don't think bandwidth is particularly sparse for those in the business. It better not be, since raising your price to compensate doesn't work that well in a competive market. And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.

 

[Humus]

You see the music and entertainment industry as a threat to democracy?

Just the Dixie Chicks.

The Dixie chicks debacle was rather a healthy injection to the debate and brought forth many important issues. The threat to democracy is that a few individuals in high positions in the media has the power to cut off impopular opionions.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Supply and demand is not a magical system that automatic adjusts to fit the market. It's just a rule of thumb of how to successfully run a business, and it's just one factor out of many. Ultimate pricing policies are set by humans.

Key being "successful" business.

[quoite]That it's unlikely that they were doing that was my point.[/quote]

Understood. My point is they don't always guess right...then you end up with bargain bin stuff, or stuff that's "sold out". Same will happen with on-line distribution.

You can't physically "sell out" of the product, but you can run out of bandwidth. So you will end up going to the source that is charging more but has the title "available", or you will wait your turn and comlain about crappy service.

I'm nor complaining over anything, I highlight the reality in the music industry, and I argue that it's unlikely to be changed by online distribution.

I mostly agree with you...and I extend this to mean that when online distribution hits critical mass, prices will stabilize at a point where many people will feel "ripped off" for what they're getting. Pirating will continue...etc.

Mark my words...in 10 years we'll all be saying, "Geeze...I used to pay $18 back then, but I got more than 2 tracks for it...I got an entire CD! That's a dozen tracks, and it included the storage medium and nostalogic box art!"

Not sure who you're arguing with here ... me or Natoma ...

Meh...what's the difference.

but anyway. I don't think bandwidth is particularly sparse for those in the business. It better not be, since raising your price to compensate doesn't work that well in a competive market.

It can work as well or better than not raising your price, and being "sold out" (bandwidth saturated), selling X copies a minute...while your competitor is selling the same X copies a minute for a higher price.

If you can sell X copies a minute at $1/copy, or the same X copies a minute at $1.50/copy, you are a fool for selling it at $1.

And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.

I disagree.

Successful companies don't spend money on bandwidth and servers without an eye on cost.

 

[Humus]

And any such effect will be reduced over time ones the customer base has settled since technology goes forward.

I disagree.

Successful companies don't spend money on bandwidth and servers without an eye on cost.

I didn't say that they shouldn't keep an eye on cost. But it's my belief that spending money on bandwidth and servers are typically better, it's comparably small costs in relations to the gain. Many businesses with much lower returns has comparable levels of bandwidth and server capasity. Free email services living on ad space for instance.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I didn't say that they shouldn't keep an eye on cost. But it's my belief that spending money on bandwidth and servers are typically better, it's comparably small costs in relations to the gain.

All depends on the price of course.

Many businesses with much lower returns has comparable levels of bandwidth and server capasity. Free email services living on ad space for instance.

what about Free ISPs? Don't see them much any more...

We see all kinds of "ad-based" web-sites failing left and right every day. Some just go away...some get gobbled up by bigger corporate entities.

I'm just saying that really, both you and I are not in a position to gauge the cost of bandwidth, the servers, the coding, etc., relative to the revenue that would be generated by downloading tracks.

The market will bear that out.

 

[Chris123234]

I seriously doubt a website specializing in mass downloads of mp3 files is going to run out of bandwidth :?

And if X is selling @ 1.00 and Y is selling @ 1.50 people will go to X and buy it. Just like gas prices. People will go to the guy on the right side of the road intead of the guy on the left if its cheaper. And downloading wouldnt even be "going across the road to the better price" just typing a different address...




If I missed the point of anything it because i skipped pages 3-now.