August 27, 2005 10:17 AM PDT

Digital music's angel gets record industry scorn

Apple's Steven Jobs is girding for a showdown with at least two of the four major record companies over the price of iTunes songs.
The New York Times

The story "Digital music's angel gets record industry scorn" published August 27, 2005 at 10:17 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

28 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Corporate greed....
Its a shame that these companies think that the public is a bunch of mindless zombies.
Just like a bunch a drug dealers, get them hooked and then jack up the price.
The fat cats get fatter as the poor people keep getting poorer.
Posted by Draxknar (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Corporate greed....
Its a shame that these companies think that the public is a bunch of mindless zombies.
Just like a bunch a drug dealers, get them hooked and then jack up the price.
The fat cats get fatter as the poor people keep getting poorer.
Posted by Draxknar (26 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Feh...
Music sucks anyway...
Posted by (64 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Feh...
Music sucks anyway...
Posted by (64 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Amazing....
..."At the price of 99 cents a song, the share of the major labels is
about 70 cents".....

And these jerks make more money per song from CD sales?????

In a pig's eye. They've got a golden goose that they now want to
gut to try to get more money. People will just go back to file
swapping, and the jerks won't get a cent. Would serve them right.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Amazing....
..."At the price of 99 cents a song, the share of the major labels is
about 70 cents".....

And these jerks make more money per song from CD sales?????

In a pig's eye. They've got a golden goose that they now want to
gut to try to get more money. People will just go back to file
swapping, and the jerks won't get a cent. Would serve them right.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Greedy corps
Jobs had the right idea with the uniform and reasonable pricing structure. The record companies have no right to complain. If a song is more popular, more people will download it, increasing their profits. They do not even need to pay for CD pressing or transport for chrissakes!

This is not like loafs of bread. Supply and demand do not apply here because the product has an inexaustible supply. The natural price of a digital song copy is essentially zero. Only the initial performance has value. The only reason they get paid for selling copies of songs is because there are laws in place to enforce it. They should be glad they are getting 99 cents per song, which is more than what they get from a new CD release. For example:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/******/****/B0009X7768/ref=amb_right-3_46673401_2/103-5913227-4079045" target="_newWindow">http://www.amazon.com/exec/******/****/B0009X7768/ref=amb_right-3_46673401_2/103-5913227-4079045</a>

costs $13.29 and has 15 songs. That makes it less than 89 cents per song. But some greedy sobs think 99 cents is not enough. This will only empower the black market more (Adam Smith's invisible hand in action). In the black market, the product has the natural price. Which is zero.

On another matter, it should be possible to use players from more than one manufacturer, and I suspect if Apple does not do it, someone else will eventually (Microsoft? Google?).
Posted by quasarstrider (439 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Greedy corps
Jobs had the right idea with the uniform and reasonable pricing structure. The record companies have no right to complain. If a song is more popular, more people will download it, increasing their profits. They do not even need to pay for CD pressing or transport for chrissakes!

This is not like loafs of bread. Supply and demand do not apply here because the product has an inexaustible supply. The natural price of a digital song copy is essentially zero. Only the initial performance has value. The only reason they get paid for selling copies of songs is because there are laws in place to enforce it. They should be glad they are getting 99 cents per song, which is more than what they get from a new CD release. For example:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/******/****/B0009X7768/ref=amb_right-3_46673401_2/103-5913227-4079045" target="_newWindow">http://www.amazon.com/exec/******/****/B0009X7768/ref=amb_right-3_46673401_2/103-5913227-4079045</a>

costs $13.29 and has 15 songs. That makes it less than 89 cents per song. But some greedy sobs think 99 cents is not enough. This will only empower the black market more (Adam Smith's invisible hand in action). In the black market, the product has the natural price. Which is zero.

On another matter, it should be possible to use players from more than one manufacturer, and I suspect if Apple does not do it, someone else will eventually (Microsoft? Google?).
Posted by quasarstrider (439 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Excluded
Because of their greed and ambition for more and more money, these music labels have been excluded from iTunes' Japan market which according to the story is the world's second biggest. So, instead of 99 cents for every download, they won't make a single cent on this market. Not that people won't use file-sharing to obtain their songs. They'll be loosing more money than if they had paired with Apple and accepted the 99 cent price. It serves them right.
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Excluded
Because of their greed and ambition for more and more money, these music labels have been excluded from iTunes' Japan market which according to the story is the world's second biggest. So, instead of 99 cents for every download, they won't make a single cent on this market. Not that people won't use file-sharing to obtain their songs. They'll be loosing more money than if they had paired with Apple and accepted the 99 cent price. It serves them right.
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The RIAA treats everyone like criminals
In any other business, the business wouldn't survive the way the consumer is treated. But entertainment, we get treated like dirt. They assume everyone is a criminal, so they have to lock down CD's and add DRM. They have a monopoly, so they price gouge (of which they've been found guilty). Then, they wonder why consumer resort to illegal means. And then they wonder why music sales are down. The problem is your doing, not the consumer's.

Napster is the ideal RIAA model. You have to pay every month to listen to music. Then, if you want to own it, thats extra. Napster like services are pure profit for them.
Posted by i_am_still_wade (250 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The RIAA treats everyone like criminals
In any other business, the business wouldn't survive the way the consumer is treated. But entertainment, we get treated like dirt. They assume everyone is a criminal, so they have to lock down CD's and add DRM. They have a monopoly, so they price gouge (of which they've been found guilty). Then, they wonder why consumer resort to illegal means. And then they wonder why music sales are down. The problem is your doing, not the consumer's.

Napster is the ideal RIAA model. You have to pay every month to listen to music. Then, if you want to own it, thats extra. Napster like services are pure profit for them.
Posted by i_am_still_wade (250 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Greed is good!
Greed is good!, so says gordon to his protege! In this industry, first they made a tidy profit on the old LP's, made a better profit on CD's, a greater profit from the transfer of music from the LP's to the new cd format. Then they let Stevie, do all the hard work, to validate the sale of lossy compressed DRM music via the internet(where basic researh shows that user who like what they download usually purchase the equivalent cd, say ain't these profits looking even better). The only downer is a lot of the new music the industry has released in this new century has been so heavilly sanitised for world wide release, that it has become tasteless universal smuck! As for radio stations, they had been so heavilly bribed, their playlists now routinely reflect smuck! Oh well, all things smuck, I guess ,this is what happens when you merge all music labels into a unity corporate conglomerate, you only get the greedy smucks left, who treat all customers as thieves!, and now they want the complete cake, cream and icing inclusive, and no crumbs for either the users or suppliers! Such Is Life!, perhaps one should follow the line from Alice's Restaurant, and cease to purchase this universal smuck that is called new music in any form period, as he said when enough people say it, it is only then the idiots who sell us rubbish, will get the message!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Greed is good!
Greed is good!, so says gordon to his protege! In this industry, first they made a tidy profit on the old LP's, made a better profit on CD's, a greater profit from the transfer of music from the LP's to the new cd format. Then they let Stevie, do all the hard work, to validate the sale of lossy compressed DRM music via the internet(where basic researh shows that user who like what they download usually purchase the equivalent cd, say ain't these profits looking even better). The only downer is a lot of the new music the industry has released in this new century has been so heavilly sanitised for world wide release, that it has become tasteless universal smuck! As for radio stations, they had been so heavilly bribed, their playlists now routinely reflect smuck! Oh well, all things smuck, I guess ,this is what happens when you merge all music labels into a unity corporate conglomerate, you only get the greedy smucks left, who treat all customers as thieves!, and now they want the complete cake, cream and icing inclusive, and no crumbs for either the users or suppliers! Such Is Life!, perhaps one should follow the line from Alice's Restaurant, and cease to purchase this universal smuck that is called new music in any form period, as he said when enough people say it, it is only then the idiots who sell us rubbish, will get the message!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Screw up a good thing!
Steve Jobs has two revenue streams? First of all, he's got
probably 4 or 5 and none of which is any of the music industries
business! So what if the iPod is the stuff, it's good for them that
music is expanding into new hardware in a digital age. I have
always looked at it this way, Apple provides a store or gateway
for music and inturn provides that music for the iPod. Cool! It
just seems to me there is a sh@! load of envy with this being
exclusive to Apple. The thing about the iPod, it's only as good
as the software (iTunes) that complements it. That's where I
think the ball has been dropped with MS and others. All iTunes
is, is an extension to the iPod. Stop the whinning and just
compete!

Like the other post said, "they want to gut the golden goose".
After 25 years of buying and enjoying music I'm getting weary of
the music business wrecking bands, sales and consumer
confidence!

Here's a suggestion, you up the price for the album and provide
a better bit rate than 128 for the darn thing. If anyone can do a
better model for porting music and provide a user friendly
experience I'll go that way. I'm always been a Mac user, but if
music can come out of a tub of yougart, I'd buy it!
Posted by (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Screw up a good thing!
Steve Jobs has two revenue streams? First of all, he's got
probably 4 or 5 and none of which is any of the music industries
business! So what if the iPod is the stuff, it's good for them that
music is expanding into new hardware in a digital age. I have
always looked at it this way, Apple provides a store or gateway
for music and inturn provides that music for the iPod. Cool! It
just seems to me there is a sh@! load of envy with this being
exclusive to Apple. The thing about the iPod, it's only as good
as the software (iTunes) that complements it. That's where I
think the ball has been dropped with MS and others. All iTunes
is, is an extension to the iPod. Stop the whinning and just
compete!

Like the other post said, "they want to gut the golden goose".
After 25 years of buying and enjoying music I'm getting weary of
the music business wrecking bands, sales and consumer
confidence!

Here's a suggestion, you up the price for the album and provide
a better bit rate than 128 for the darn thing. If anyone can do a
better model for porting music and provide a user friendly
experience I'll go that way. I'm always been a Mac user, but if
music can come out of a tub of yougart, I'd buy it!
Posted by (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Back to the future
Seems like some of the record company execs have pretty short
memories. The very same labels referenced in the article were
defendants in a antitrust lawsuit bought against them by 40 plus
states for...surprise: price fixing - entering into conspiracies to
artificially raise the price of prerecorded music to consumers.
Now, the labels want to draft Apple as their new co-conspirator
by forcing Jobs to accept the latest artifice to raise prices:
"variable pricing." Price the songs that nobody is buying at a
lower cost in order to disguise raising the price for songs that
consumers actually are buying. Another game from the con-
artists who run the labels these days. And just like the label's
experiment with ever-escalating CD prices in the past 5-10
years, the door to illegal p2p file sharing is going to open up
wide again, just as it was before Apple and iTunes came along
with a sensibly priced alternative

Meet Exhibit A: Mr. Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony
BMG, who says that Mr. Jobs "has got two revenue streams: one
from our music and one from the sale of his iPods." But what
Lack doesn't say is that from the very beginning of the iTunes
music store, the labels took almost all of the 99 cent song
revenue from Apple's music sales. In fact, Apple lost money on
the music store initially, due to the huge percentage of sales
revenue they had to pay the labels from downloaded songs. Only
recently has Apple been able to report a modest profit specific
to the sale of the label's songs at the music store. So where is all
that money from song sales going? Better not ask Mr. Lack. "I've
got one revenue stream," Mr. Lack said, referring to iTunes song
sales and joked that it would require a medical professional to
locate. "It's not pretty." Well, no it isn't pretty and a statement
like that begs for an investigation of Sony BMG's finances. All in
all, I feel sorry for Jobs having to deal with this band of 2-bit
record company executive hooligans who aren't satisfied with
having made more money than they ever dreamed of in legal
downloading. Now it's salivating label execs declaring open
season on everyone. If Jobs doesn't want to go along with the
record company's scheme of screwing customers with ever-
escalating song prices, then perhaps he will pay us a percentage
of his iPod sales. And it doesn't matter if we don't deserve a
single penny of iPod revenue. As blatant, despicable crooks, we
really don't care.
Posted by Terry Murphy (82 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agreed
Yeah, Apple gets something like 10 cents for each 99 cent
download. The vast majority goes to the rights holders: about
70 cents I think. Of that, artists get about 7-10 cents. So the
record companies get the majority of the money from each
download, and they don't have any marginal costs! Just submit
the files and collect the dough! I really feel sorry for them with
their "one revenue stream."

If they get what they want, I won't be buying. For $1.49 I get a
reduced-quality, DRM-laden file? At that rate, a ten-song album
is getting very pricey, even with a discount for purchasing the
album as a whole. So I would be paying CD prices for reduced-
quality files, and the record company doesn't even have to pay
for pressing the CD, packaging, shipping, etc. They think we are
that stupid?

Recently, Sony BMG added crappy DRM to the latest Foo Fighters
and Dave Matthews discs and blames Apple for refusing to make
iTunes work with their chosen DRM scheme. So they stray from
the accepted CD standard and say its all Apple's fault when the
disc doesn't work with iTunes on Windows (but works fine on the
Mac). It looks like they want war with Apple.

Well, Apple is not loved by everyone, I know, but I don't know
anybody who loves the record companies. If they want war, I am
on Apple's side, and I suspect a lot of people will be.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
Back to the future
Seems like some of the record company execs have pretty short
memories. The very same labels referenced in the article were
defendants in a antitrust lawsuit bought against them by 40 plus
states for...surprise: price fixing - entering into conspiracies to
artificially raise the price of prerecorded music to consumers.
Now, the labels want to draft Apple as their new co-conspirator
by forcing Jobs to accept the latest artifice to raise prices:
"variable pricing." Price the songs that nobody is buying at a
lower cost in order to disguise raising the price for songs that
consumers actually are buying. Another game from the con-
artists who run the labels these days. And just like the label's
experiment with ever-escalating CD prices in the past 5-10
years, the door to illegal p2p file sharing is going to open up
wide again, just as it was before Apple and iTunes came along
with a sensibly priced alternative

Meet Exhibit A: Mr. Andrew Lack, the chief executive of Sony
BMG, who says that Mr. Jobs "has got two revenue streams: one
from our music and one from the sale of his iPods." But what
Lack doesn't say is that from the very beginning of the iTunes
music store, the labels took almost all of the 99 cent song
revenue from Apple's music sales. In fact, Apple lost money on
the music store initially, due to the huge percentage of sales
revenue they had to pay the labels from downloaded songs. Only
recently has Apple been able to report a modest profit specific
to the sale of the label's songs at the music store. So where is all
that money from song sales going? Better not ask Mr. Lack. "I've
got one revenue stream," Mr. Lack said, referring to iTunes song
sales and joked that it would require a medical professional to
locate. "It's not pretty." Well, no it isn't pretty and a statement
like that begs for an investigation of Sony BMG's finances. All in
all, I feel sorry for Jobs having to deal with this band of 2-bit
record company executive hooligans who aren't satisfied with
having made more money than they ever dreamed of in legal
downloading. Now it's salivating label execs declaring open
season on everyone. If Jobs doesn't want to go along with the
record company's scheme of screwing customers with ever-
escalating song prices, then perhaps he will pay us a percentage
of his iPod sales. And it doesn't matter if we don't deserve a
single penny of iPod revenue. As blatant, despicable crooks, we
really don't care.
Posted by Terry Murphy (82 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agreed
Yeah, Apple gets something like 10 cents for each 99 cent
download. The vast majority goes to the rights holders: about
70 cents I think. Of that, artists get about 7-10 cents. So the
record companies get the majority of the money from each
download, and they don't have any marginal costs! Just submit
the files and collect the dough! I really feel sorry for them with
their "one revenue stream."

If they get what they want, I won't be buying. For $1.49 I get a
reduced-quality, DRM-laden file? At that rate, a ten-song album
is getting very pricey, even with a discount for purchasing the
album as a whole. So I would be paying CD prices for reduced-
quality files, and the record company doesn't even have to pay
for pressing the CD, packaging, shipping, etc. They think we are
that stupid?

Recently, Sony BMG added crappy DRM to the latest Foo Fighters
and Dave Matthews discs and blames Apple for refusing to make
iTunes work with their chosen DRM scheme. So they stray from
the accepted CD standard and say its all Apple's fault when the
disc doesn't work with iTunes on Windows (but works fine on the
Mac). It looks like they want war with Apple.

Well, Apple is not loved by everyone, I know, but I don't know
anybody who loves the record companies. If they want war, I am
on Apple's side, and I suspect a lot of people will be.
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Link Flag
KISS
Keep It Simple, Steve.

There's gold in simplicity.
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Reply Link Flag
KISS
Keep It Simple, Steve.

There's gold in simplicity.
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is how they killed their CD business...
...raising prices for no other reason than they wanted more money.

Full-album downloads are currently already a rip-off compared to CD prices - I can go buy back catalog CDs for $8.

The majors aren't being cheated, it's just pure greed.
Posted by M C (598 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is how they killed their CD business...
...raising prices for no other reason than they wanted more money.

Full-album downloads are currently already a rip-off compared to CD prices - I can go buy back catalog CDs for $8.

The majors aren't being cheated, it's just pure greed.
Posted by M C (598 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Is the RIAA Really This Stupid?
I've probably bought more music in the last year because of iTunes than I have in the last 5 years. If the record companies for a pricing change you can bet your boots I will be back to downloading for free as will many others.

It's almost like the RIAA lives in a different plane of reality than the rest of us.

MP3s did not lead to the loss of record sales... $20 for a CD that only had 2 good songs had more of an impact than MP3s. The record companies who artificially inflated the price of CDs are the ones to blame. The fact that we had a recession followed by 9/11 had a HUGE impact on music sales as well as entertainment sales across the board.

We live in an era where technology has made it possible for everyone to produce their own CDs. In a time where every year it becomes cheaper and quicker to make CDs... yet the RIAA was raising the prices.

The RIAA also lobbied congress for a recordable media tax. So everytime I buy a CD-R even if I am going to burn strictly data, they get a few pennies from me. Same if for whatever god awful reason I decided to buy a VHS tape, being a recordable media, the RIAA gets a few pennies.

Do they not understand that 99.9% of America are not execs living in million dollar homes? That most of us aren't quiet in the 6 figure salary range... sure it may be easy as pie for them to pay $100 for 5 CDs every Tuesday but that isn't the case for the rest of us.

99 cents is an extremely fair price per song... how much more money do they want from us? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick... it's DIGITAL MUSIC!!! There is no overhead, there's no physical goods to produce, manufacture or ship. They don't have to worry about pressing an addition 1 million CDs for those of us who are buying songs off iTunes, Napster or Rhapsody.

The RIAA are the real crooks and criminals... their business practices are right up there with Mafia extortion.
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Is the RIAA Really This Stupid?
I've probably bought more music in the last year because of iTunes than I have in the last 5 years. If the record companies for a pricing change you can bet your boots I will be back to downloading for free as will many others.

It's almost like the RIAA lives in a different plane of reality than the rest of us.

MP3s did not lead to the loss of record sales... $20 for a CD that only had 2 good songs had more of an impact than MP3s. The record companies who artificially inflated the price of CDs are the ones to blame. The fact that we had a recession followed by 9/11 had a HUGE impact on music sales as well as entertainment sales across the board.

We live in an era where technology has made it possible for everyone to produce their own CDs. In a time where every year it becomes cheaper and quicker to make CDs... yet the RIAA was raising the prices.

The RIAA also lobbied congress for a recordable media tax. So everytime I buy a CD-R even if I am going to burn strictly data, they get a few pennies from me. Same if for whatever god awful reason I decided to buy a VHS tape, being a recordable media, the RIAA gets a few pennies.

Do they not understand that 99.9% of America are not execs living in million dollar homes? That most of us aren't quiet in the 6 figure salary range... sure it may be easy as pie for them to pay $100 for 5 CDs every Tuesday but that isn't the case for the rest of us.

99 cents is an extremely fair price per song... how much more money do they want from us? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick... it's DIGITAL MUSIC!!! There is no overhead, there's no physical goods to produce, manufacture or ship. They don't have to worry about pressing an addition 1 million CDs for those of us who are buying songs off iTunes, Napster or Rhapsody.

The RIAA are the real crooks and criminals... their business practices are right up there with Mafia extortion.
Posted by SeizeCTRL (1333 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Absolutely Amazing
So let me get this straight. A recording company makes 70 cents
per song, and Apple does the marketing and distribution (since the
RIAA is only in the business of filing lawsuits), and the RIAA can sit
on their fat behindz and sue customers into oblivion.

I hope the RIAA and MPAA are ready for a major consumer
backlash, because it is clear they have declared war on their
customers.
Posted by (174 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.