January 4, 2006 4:00 AM PST

Probe may delay change in digital-music prices

(continued from previous page)

executives had agreed to offer similar terms or wholesale prices to companies like Apple and Napster could trigger an antitrust lawsuit against the companies.

Just a warning?
Spitzer's investigation marks the second time in recent years that the big labels have been under a legal microscope specifically for their digital-music dealings. (They've also settled CD price-fixing charges with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, and two labels have settled with Spitzer's office over payola charges.)

In 2001, following the creation of two separate label-backed digital-music services, federal antitrust investigators launched an investigation into whether labels were working together against competing online services. That inquiry closed two years later with a statement from the Department of Justice saying investigators had found no evidence of pricing collusion.

Much has changed in the past four years, however. Record labels have seen their CD sales fall substantially, despite a slight uptick in 2004. Apple's iTunes has meanwhile sold hundreds of millions of songs, while capturing and retaining a more than 70 percent share of the market for digital-song sales.

Perhaps significantly, there have been few recent calls from online-music companies for this kind of antitrust inquiry, compared with a full-fledged lobbying effort in the early part of the decade. Many in the industry said Spitzer's action had come as a surprise, compared with the Justice Department's previous investigation.

Attorneys speculated that Spitzer could be issuing a warning to labels--several of which have made it clear they want wholesale pricing changes--that they can't pursue these changes together in any way.

"This may simply be a shot across the bow," said Michael Graham, an attorney with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun in Chicago. "Spitzer may be saying, 'Guys, we've caught you twice before, and we know you would never try it a third time, but we're going to make sure.'"

Even in the absence of illegal cooperation among the labels, the investigation could dampen the labels' enthusiasm for industrywide pricing changes in the near future, some legal experts said.

"We don't have any evidence that they were planning to collude," said attorney Christopher Norgaard, of Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley in Los Angeles. "But now they have to realize that what they do is going to be under the potential spotlight of Spitzer's office and anyone else who might be watching."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

57 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
The classic tale...
...of the one with power wanting more power. That's what RIAA is. They want to extort consumers out of every penny they can. If iTunes moves away from their 99-cent model, I am never buying another of their DRM protected songs again!
Posted by Sentinel (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
obvious greed.
"Currently, labels charge a variety of wholesale prices that can range upward of 75 cents per track, industry sources have said. However, it's the retailer, such as Apple, Walmart.com, or RealNetworks, that decides what price individual consumers will pay."

So if I understand this correctly the labels can already vary the price of tracks and all they really want to do is raise the price above 99 cents.
It used to be that when I bought a CD single for a few dollars I got the single and some other songs or remixes which added value. Now it seems the labels want a few dollars for the single alone.
This on top of the fact that 99 cents is already over priced in comparison to buying the entire CD...

Somehow i have a very hard time seeing how the industry could be having financial trouble. I hate the argument in justification of P2P, but in this case it seems that if the labels would put out albums with more than one decent song, people would buy more than 99 cents worth from an artists latest offering.
But then maybe I'm old and the idea of buying an album is passe. Perhaps the future is artists releasing singles only. In which case the cost of producing an "album" should drop dramatically. Promotion costs probably wouldn't, but if the labels want to spend the same $$$ promoting a single as an album, that's their look out, and we shouldn't be expected to pay for it.
We the consumers all need to wake up and stop supporting the labels and their current market model. For real. The artist get screwed, the consumers get screwed (and infested with malware!) and the only people who benefit are a few execs.
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What Labels Can Do (Legally)
regarding this comment: "So if I understand this correctly the labels can already vary the price of tracks and all they really want to do is raise the price above 99 cents."

each label can individually set their own price. they're not allowed to work together to set the price (that's price fixing, it's what they've been found guilty of doing in the past, and it's what Spitzer is investigating now).

in addition, they're also not allowed to force the reseller to charge a certain amount, though they can suggest a recommended price (Apple, not the music houses sets that price in the case of itunes). mfg's can also use "incentives" to encourage a reseller to set a certain price. for example, a music house might pay to advertise a new album with a mention to buy it a specific store down the street. those stores that don't follow the supplier's recommended pricing guidelines may not receive the same advertising promotions. this practice can be done legally.

of course, if music house x sells its music for .94/new song and .54/old song, and music house y sells its music for .89/any song and so on, there would appear to be no price fixing, and it's likely that apple will be forced to adjust their prices in order to avoid losing too much/song. that's the way the market is supposed to work, except you have apple working hard to maintain their business model at .99/song on itunes.

and that has the music houses frustrated: they'd like the power to adjust their "wholesale" prices, which they can do, if they don't mind the potential of being dropped from itunes. if they all make a move at the same time to the same prices, this would appear to be, again, illegal collusion to set prices. and yet more fodder for the Spitzer investigation.

mark d.
Posted by markdoiron (1138 comments )
Link Flag
price structure?? lol
so the labels want to charge more for a popular song and less for a "less" popular one?

The question is WHO DECIDES WHAT IS POPULAR OR NOT?

This topic has been previously covered and I hate it that I cannot provide a link sorry.

The Labels will AUTOMATICALLY determine that ALL NEW RELEASES are POPULAR whether they are or not.

OH.. ColdPlay's new song...POPULAR...$1.45 or maybe even $2.99.
Yanni's Goat Flute of love....POPULAR...$1.36 or maybe even $2.23.

While in a supply and demand based environment as less people paid these prices for this music the music cost would presumably DROP but this is not guaranteed since the MUSIC COMPANIES would be able to set the prices. CD's cost WAY LESS than LP's but are NEW CD's ANY CHEAPER THAN AN LP was???? NO!

Also, this allows the Recording Industry to hold an anvil over a musicians head....since the PRICE of a song would equate to the VALUE of a song a lesser priced song would be deemed as not worth much and thereby also influence demand especially in the market that retailers aim for Teens and their demands of being cool.... "OOOH I saw that song for 25 cents on iTunes and YOU bought it? You must not know what's hip!" for example.

This would give even MORE LEVERAGE to the music industry over the artists. Play by our rules or we'll set a starting price of only $.69 cents which as you kinow will make your music APPEAR TO BE unpopular thus making it harder for you to gain a foothold since price = popular = good = sales

Also there is a problem with Apple being so market share prolific because they too can swing the way they want to. If they refuse to pay a price for a song then where else can the music industry sell it online for?? The other music store that only get 20% of market share and thus less sales??

In an Ideal world there would be many online retailers selling many different songs and all recieving a similiar market share just like the battles between Coke and Pepsi... McDonalds and Burger King... then MARKET FORCES would set the price of music AND determine what was popular. But as long as a few companies control the music and a few companies control the distribution of said music then we are all screwed!

and by the way... allofmp3.com is a good solution for the time being. NO DRM, 10 cent songs (variable depending on size and bitrate) A great way to explore different music.

I bought two Shakira albums for like $5... and discoverd that I LIKE SHAKIRA... I wouldnt have known this had it not been available for the price it was... So now the label and Shakira are making money off me when before they didnt because I wasnt going to spend like $15 to find out IF I liked her.

And the above point also should shut up those who say having their music listened to widespread (even through p2p) harms them. It didnt and it doesnt...
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
Also, consider this......
If the labels were to mark what individual songs at varied prices wouldn't this be censorship to a degree? Who is to say which song is good or which is not? Just because a song starts out as a "slow mover" may only mean it has not had as much coverage as others and not as big an audience yet.
Posted by pjdw (33 comments )
Link Flag
There is no reason to raise prices of high demand music
There is no physical restraints or limitations. Selling downloaded music is not like selling Xboxes where demand can easily outstrip supply. The music industry is trying to simply raise their prices.
Posted by bobby_brady (765 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not only that.....
but volume usually drives prices, high volume reduces price, low volume raises price. Look at the cost of computer hardware and how it continues to fall after the introduction and acceptance of new technology. Of course, the price of street drugs probably keeps going up, hence taking a bigger bite out of the entertainment industries profits.
Posted by kenny-J (53 comments )
Link Flag
DO the math!
There's no need to raise the $0.99 cent per track model becuase if say over 1 billion users worldwide who sub to rhapsody or iTunes at $9.95 per month and at that price $0.99 per track mutiplied by the total number of users worldwide.

And the record lables are saying that they are losing millions???!!!
Hey record comps do the math please!
Posted by msims (66 comments )
Link Flag
Actually theyre not trying to raise prices
theyre ARE trying to raise PROFITS.

While the two things may be tied together as long as demand for the products remained the same REALITY would probably show that some demand would decrease for some songs if they were higher and increase for others if they were lower....

but what they are REALLY counting on is that a price structure would become equated with quality thereby INCREASING demand for higher priced songs due to a PERCIEVED higher quality.

I think the saying is:

Having their cake and eating it too.
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
99cents?
1 USD may not seem like much, for a song. But when you consider the expasive prices on digital audio players, you really start to wonder. Do the math, how much would it cost to fill up a 20/40GB player with music at 99cents per song? Who has that much to spend on music?
__________________________________
R.K.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com/</a>
Posted by Roman12 (214 comments )
Reply Link Flag
And That Begs the Question ...
i've also considered this idea of yours as to how much it costs to fill some of the large, hard-drive mp3 players. and that begs the question: if you were a fly on the wall in a board meeting at (insert famous mp3 player company name), how do you think that question is answered? "yeah, boss, we know it'll theoreticaly cost the teenager end-user with a minmum wage job 8-grand to fill the hard drive, but we don't really expect him to **buy** all of his music!"

mark d.
Posted by markdoiron (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Why I quit buying CDs
I remember when Tom Petty got into fight with the labels that
prices were too high for albums, that was back around 1980.
This was before the internet etc. Record companies have been
sticking it to consumers for as long as i can remember.

I fully embrace the Apple model, it is a fair value for the product.
The major labels need to understand we won't by their products
if they don't provide value.

$20 for an album as CD vs 11.99 for an iTunes album is no
contest. less trash more portable and hey guys its a LEGAL copy.
I have well over 5000 songs all legally obtained and they take up
FAR less space than the cds. and they cost far less than $20 @
CD
Posted by AFResMedic (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Lose everything
If the price of online music goes up I guarantee that the market will shrink accordingly.

99c is already overpriced for something that can't be copied freely, includes no media, cover art or other packaging and is usually a lower quality copy of the same thing on CD.

Which won't mean CD sales will bounce back, notice they took a hit last year, but will mean more kids will simply turn to piracy for their music.

CDs are also getting overpriced, and if the current trend of CDs infected with DRM continues, these sales will also nose dive.

Personally I hope the music studios get what they deserve after 50 years of ripping off artists and the public.

It amazes me that people still do business with companies that assume their customers are thieves, and actively try to prosecute them in order to squeeze even more money out of them.

I am no different from anyone else that loves music, but after being screwed by online stores and horrified at the price of CDs, I just don't buy music any more.

I don't steal it either, and have intention of doing so. It's just until I see something that's priced fairly, doesn't assume I'm a thief, and doesn't restrict my choice of where and when to play it, I won't buy it.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oh well Strike 3 for Eliot
The music industry mafioso, under investigation yet again!

For how long do we have to endure these criminals masquerading as senior exec's in legitimate business corporations!

In the past five years the scandals within this industry,we have endured:

1/ Major labels deliberately with holding all music royalty payments, so as to allow them to use the funds for many unethical and illegal criminal purposes!

2/ Continuing illegal payola, by the industry majors, despite consumer laws outlawing these practices, and then deducting the costs directly from the artists royalty payments. Also the key figures involved in this particular scandal, have been promoted to senior positions within the organization!

3/ SONY BMG, resorted to pure evil illegal cyber terrorism with hidden rootkit DRM technology, to hijack over 568,200 networks. They are now paying less than one cent in the dollar restitution for that debacle, the problem will remain as as the defective technology remains in the wild worlwide! It would appear the other major labels were experimenting and about to implement this piratical technology until the proverbial hit the fan!

We have seen the industry majors ignore multimillion dollar fines,and proceed as the business of corruption is normal! How long do we have to endure this continuing corruption from within the industry!

One possible cure, is to create a new company law, where by, instead of fining the corporation, is tho bill every indidividual share holder a minimum fine of USD$10,000 per 500 shares held or part there off, for the first offence and for each subsequent offence, the fine doubles from the previous one, for the collective indifference, to condone the illegal activities of corporate exec's, they have hired to run the company!

After two or three such fines, every shareholder on the past and current list in any corporation, will seek to terminate the CEO along with the senior corporate staff responsible with an absolute vengance, and no cushy payouts which is the norm these days, for incompetent senior staff!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Almost....
The fundamentals of the argument are almost there. Quantity demanded is correlated to decreasing prices as the demand curve shifts to the left. As the demand curve shifts to the right prices have a tendancy to increase. While oversimplified to an extent - supply is always at market equilibrium assuming that anyone who demands an song from iTunes will receive it. Theoretically there is no real supply constraint as the supply curve is horizontal. So, if prices of a song increase, the quantity demanded decreases but the quantity supplied always follows.

The problem occurrs if there are not equal fluctuations between low volume songs and high volume songs. When Apple and other music stores use a fixed price which sets an arbitrary ceiling and the record labels use a supply/demand type system, if low volume wholesale pricing does not decrease when high volume song pricing increases, the music stores would see erosion of revenue.

If pricing equilibrium does not exist, to maintain control over revenue, music stores would have to counter-price their products - i.e. although record companies will be selling low volume songs at low prices, music stores may have to raise prices on low volume songs (to maintain parity if the margins are not equal) if they are to be able to maintain low prices on high volume songs.
Posted by sumwatt (69 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The above was in response to Bob Bob's earlier post
The above was in response to Bob Bob's earlier post
Posted by sumwatt (69 comments )
Link Flag
RE
Since when are are the prices older/non-popular albus decreased?

I still see CD's sitting on shelves that are at least 10 years old selling for the same price as new CD's...
Posted by TheShane (55 comments )
Link Flag
What if?
What if a song cost 10 cents instead of 99 cents? Would you spend any less on music? Might you even conceivably spend more? At that price point would heavy-handed DRM even be necessary?

In my opinion, the music industry just doesn't get it. A huge black-market was created for online music because they refused to supply it. That black-market continues to exist because they refuse to supply the market at a realistic price point.

As for me, I probably bought about 20 songs last year at the 99 cent price point. At that price, I'm only going to buy a song that I've heard and know I enjoy. If songs cost a dime, I'd definitely spend a good deal more. I'd be willing to take some risks, expose myself to more artists, and dive deeper into the libraries of artists I enjoy. If most other customers are like me, everyone wins.

I applaud Mr. Spitzer for recognizing the flaws in the pricing of online music. Unfortunately, I think he is mistaking stupidity for criminal activity.
Posted by noker1 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
10 cents already
BIG BUSINESS wanted a global economy. BIG BUSINESS wanted to be seen a a global company not an American or French or whatever company... and they got their way!

Now as consumers we can buy a big mac wherever we are.... we can also buy music whereever we are too.... and in cyberspace we are EVERYWHERE.

So buy your music from RUSSIA.... allofmp3.com
it's legal under russian law and it's legal under US copyright law to 'import' this payed for music into the states for your personal use.

At 10 cents per song (some variablility based on file size and bitrate) it's your dream come true Thomas! lol

Oh yeah.... no drm... you can buy at almost ANY bitrate.... and many songs available at the CD-A quality (lossless when compared to a CD)

Global Markets WORK FOR CONSUMERS AS WELL AS BIG BUSINESS! I have filled a pretty big music collection so far at 100 songs for 10 bucks! Actually I buy higher bitrates so its more like 75 songs for 10 bucks! lol And you know what? I can use them in the car, at work, at a friends, anywhere just like the good old days because there is NO DRM.
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
People seem to be forgetting one thing...
Yes we all hate the major labels (because that's what we're really
talking about here.. not the MUSIC INDUSTRY otherwise this
thread wouldn't even be taking place). And they've been sticking
it us AND the artists for years. But in no other time in history
have artists been able to get some of the deals that they're
getting now.

What do you say to the artists who signs with a major label to
have his/her music widely exposed and to make a living off of it.
Do we screw the major labels at the expense of the artists? It
seems some people will say anything to justify their nonsense.

By the same token, when the price of gas rose to over $3.00
should we have destroyed the gas stations to get even? Putting
the people who were simply working there to support their
families out of employment as well?

That seems to be the general sentiment for the people who say
they are just "paying the music industry back"....

********!
Posted by Musica360.com (106 comments )
Reply Link Flag
hmmm
nice comparision except the Gas Station doesnt want me to pay for Gas I dont want. They are happy to sell me 1/10 of a gallon at 1/10th the price as the posted cost of a gallon.

Instead of saying well a gallon of gas ( a CD) costs $3.00 but if you only want 1/10 of a gallon (1 song) you have to pay $2.00 because thats the part of the gallon of gas thats REALLY WORTH IT...

I dont think anyone here is advocating stealing GAS or stealing MUSIC I do think that just like people want a fair price for GAS that they also want a fair price for MUSIC...

and its also a good comparision because just like the music labels make all the money and the rules while often screwing the artists SO DOES THE OIL INDUSTRY to the gas stations.


hmm maybe a good analogy after all....
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
What I Say to the Artists
"What do you say to the artists who signs with a major label to have his/her music widely exposed and to make a living off of it."

here's what i say: i won't buy riaa music. go indy. the internet offers a number of options that don't involve payola, clear channel communications managed playlists, the riaa, or their music publishers.

mark d.
Posted by markdoiron (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Rootkits in their CDs ...
They put rootkits in their CDs, still use 'fillers' and will give you the least possible content and they wonder why people are not buying their products ...

Record companies are useless. I'd welcome a ssytem where artist could sell their music directly to consumers without feeding 'the fat guy with the Lexus' ...
Posted by My-Self (242 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What's wrong with variable pricing?
What's really so wrong with variable pricing? Not all songs are as good as others and not all songs are 3-4 minutes long.

First, supply and demand still plays a role here. It doesn't matter that is doesn't *cost* any more to copy and distribute a song millions of times (as someone else argued). The DEMAND part of the equation is equally important. The DVD industry prices new releases higher than old. (Or conversely, old movies are cheaper than new ones.) Why shouldn't the record industry do the same?

Second, how do you handle extended works? Should a twelve minute track cost just as much as a three minute one? Should the artist/band/songwriter be penalized because they had the vision to think beyond 3-minute radio friendly songs?
Posted by TotallyMadeUpName (170 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RETAILER Determines PRICE
- Nothing wrong with variable prices, but, that's not the decision
of the RECORD LABELS. That's the RETAILER decision.

If APPLE chooses to LOW-BALL their prices to build IPOD sales
and Build a Download market larger then any other competitor,
than that's APPLE's decision. IF you think prices will fall below
99cents, well, I've got a bridge you may be interested in...

- Secondly, the LABELs don't seem to remember Economics 101.
PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND.

Higher prices WILL result in LOWER SALES.
And I just hope the BANDS these labels represent will be happy
with fewer sales in the Top Ten list. ( I hope contract payments
and bonus's aren't based upon landing in the Top Ten List.
Because higher price is one way to drop those sales. )

But, I'm sure the Labels are run by men of the Highest Ethical
Standards.

Hahahahahahahaha....
Posted by (4 comments )
Link Flag
Is music as an art form dying?
Isn't this mess just a part of the transformation of music from an art form into a commodity? Per-song downloads works against the idea of a CD as a single conceptual work. Even when a CD is not a "concept album", songs are often thematically related. And even without a unifiying theme, track order and pacing are things that can contribute strongly to the artistic sucess of an album. Per-song downloads destroy that and will discourage artists from creating conceptual works rather than just collections of songs.

Granted, when all but two songs on a CD suck, why should you have to buy the whole thing? But isn't that the result of an industry that just wants to get product out the door rather than focus on quality? In my opinion, there are TOO MANY bands selling music now, making it harder for the quality stuff to get to the top. Ironically, the rise of the internet and the new ability of an artist to get along *without* the money-grubbing major label involvement also adds dramatically to the amount of crap that can be created. As well as giving the good bands a chance to be heard, it also gives the lousy bands a chance to muddy the waters.
Posted by TotallyMadeUpName (170 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Albums are just song compilations....
... for the most part. Once in a while, a serious attempt at a
theme may get made. but it's a rare event. And with the advent
of self-promotional video hyping by MTV and others, real music
has ceased to be important. All we get is variations of noise
masquerading as 'music' by so many totally useless 'performers'
claiming to be musicians in some way or another. I am more
than a little tired of hearing the overloaded bass beats powering
the rusting out thud bunny machines around town. Yeah sure,
that's music....

I'll pick what I like, ignore the maybe items, and drop the rest in
the garbage can. I haven't heard a good album in a long long
time and it doesn't look like I will the way things are going.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Hmmm! How many times does one buy the same product?
The recording industry corporate mafia has been stealing from its customers and listed artists for decades with double bookkeeping standards(one real to hide criminal activities, the other for public and artists view!)!

As one man said, we purchased the same music on the old noisy shellac 78's ,then vinyl, and finally on audio cd's when the music was made available on these formats!

SONY BMG,ever more greedy for total control and profits, reverted to type, and introduced cyber terrorism drm methods, to disadvantage the customer , to destroy and hijack his or her computer, and received a slap on the wrist with one strand of limp spaghetti, and able to avoid the full cost of restitution to either the recording artist, and simultaneously the infected computer user! Further, they chose to abuse DMCA laws to silence the AV people, from making public statements!

As the WALL STREET JOURNAL said in '05, commenting on the continuing decline in sales of audio cd's and the rise in sales of other entertainment choices, the major labels appear to have an endless supply, of sound-a-like/look-a-like bands churning out booring uniform clone music, with little or no originality or innovation! I read somewhere, that 68% of EMI's major source of income in this new century, is derived from material first published in the 60's &#38; 70's!

They have resorted to cyber terrorism style DRM, payola and other illegal practices routinely, with impunity! They have come to the point, where all public displays of music is strictly controlled and licensed, yet they still demand evermore compliance, with an endless sea of ever newer draconian control regulations!

They have extended the rigid copyright controls from a realistic 15 years to 70 years, from death of the author!, so that they may evermore profit from any newer technology as it is introduce, to milk the buying public yet again as they convert to the newer formats!

Remember this simple fact, we as a customer, can do without that which they supply, but however , they cannot survive without us, yet they are forever seeking profits first and customer last, and continue to feed us the bland laclustre, uninspired uniform paste they call modern music!

Even now Pirates and Cyber Corporate Terrorrists', like messrs Stringer(his CES keynote '06 speech), Lack and Hesse(Rootkit comment november '05, says it all about his attitude to all computer users!), who believed they have done no wrong and are above the law of the land, are allowed to pillage from all(customer and artist) with total impunity!

As Howard Stringer said "Sony as a company took a bit of a beating for it, which was somewhat unfair,", tell that to the computer techies as they continue to disinfect and charge customers of over 568,200 networked computers of SONY BMG's illegal pirateware! Thomas Hesse artfully summed up Sony's absolute attitude towards invasive DRM, with his rootkit throwaway line "Who Cares!".

Finally,the question, how often do the record companies, wish us to purchase the same music as the technology is updated? The answer of course is infinite!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
About Those Settled Price-Fixing Charges
i like this quote:

"They've also settled CD price-fixing charges with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general"

okay, so what did they do for the people they ripped off? i mean besides complain that they're a bunch of pirates, implement drm on cd's, infect customer's pc's with virus attack vectors, and threaten to raise prices of the music people want most? did anyone who paid an illegally fixed price for a cd ever get a refund?

my put: buy indy music. boycott riaa.

mark d.
Posted by markdoiron (1138 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hey people
<p align="center"><a href="http://www.topmeds10.com/search.php?aid=73059&amp;q=adipex&said=enbro"><img src="http://cisco151.ibelgique.com/pharmacy_banner.jpg" width="558" height="256" border="0"/></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p align="center" class="style2"><a href="http://www.topmeds10.com/search.php?aid=73059&amp;q=adipex&said=enbro" class="style3">Buy Cheap Adipex Online Without Prescription</a></p>
<p align="center" class="style2"><a href="http://www.topmeds10.com/search.php?aid=73059&amp;q=adipex&said=enbro" class="style3">Click Here For Adipex Information</a></p>
<p align="center" class="style2"><a href="http://www.topmeds10.com/search.php?aid=73059&amp;q=adipex&said=enbro" class="style3">ORDER ONLINE ADIPEX OVERNIGHT DELIVERY</a></p>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/2wrqp6" target="_newWindow">[img]http://cisco151.ibelgique.com/pharmacy_banner.jpg[/img]</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/2wrqp6" target="_newWindow">Buy Cheap Adipex Online Without Prescription</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/2wrqp6" target="_newWindow">CLICK HERE TO ENTER THE MAIN PHARMACY</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/2wrqp6" target="_newWindow">Click Here For Adipex Information</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://*******.com/2wrqp6" target="_newWindow">ORDER ONLINE ADIPEX OVERNIGHT DELIVERY</a>
Posted by pharms (1 comment )
Link Flag
hahaha
You are a fool to have ever purchased a DRM infested song anyways.

The RIAA is glad you decided to follow the rest of the flock.
Posted by (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
True - You have the right...
...not to purchase DRM protected music, but realize that people like me (composers) and artist who create music need help in stopping music from just being copied across the board.

I abhor the heavy handed tactics used by the RIAA. They alienate the consumers we need. However, an independent friend of mine lost a year of work when her music made it onto a peer-to-peer service and her sales went from "ok we're on our way" to "damn - what am I gonna do now". And she paid for the project out of pocket. Please understand - I want each consumer to have the right to do the things they did before the advent of CDs. Making back up copies for the car or home. No prob. But you must admit - before the net - it wasn't possible to get thousands of pieces of music, in hours, without paying for them. I hate the RIAA. Restate - I ABHOR THE RIAA. But a few bad actors (ok a few million bad actors) have forced me, ME (A GUY WHO WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE MAJOR LABELS FALL), to stand next to them. Somethings gotta change so I can go back to throwing rocks at the big 5. If you've got a better answer than DRM - I'd love to hear it.

Sincerely,

Bitter (smile)
Posted by Chevaliermusic (72 comments )
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.