What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
126 Comments
- pierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52record execs are still greedy, regardless of what they end up charging. it disgusting how much they make off record sales compared to what the actual artist makes.
- rauz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38@jasqwerty: take the top selling 5.000 or so signed recording artists in the world. That comment applies to them. The other 95% of us need regular jobs...I'm really not complaining but your prejudice is just that, a prejudice. I still say ***** the RIAA though :)
Oh yeah, and iTunes suck for smaller indie artists. We haven't gotten a penny from them even though we've sold songs. So screw 'em both! - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32It would be nice if we could get everyone to send a letter to the RIAA, Imagine millions of these streaming in from all over the USA and elsewhere(even though they have no teeth outside the USA)
Dear RIAA,
Your failed business model, is not my problem.
Thank you,
The Consumer. - Annon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2199c flat per song is great, I'm glad Steve is holding his ground on this one.
- computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21No, Chuck Norris wins. Don't you read the interweb?
- Misos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Steve Jobs is a marketing genious, plain and simple. He knows that mixed pricing for songs based on popularity will not draw customers in. The record industry, on the other hand, is only good at selling an artist's image. When it comes to selling an actual product or service, they're left with their thumbs in their rectums.
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Of course there are poor artists! What crack have you been smoking? We're not just taking about the J. Lo's and Puff Daddy's and Garth Brooks of the world, we're also talking about bands and artists who sign to a major and their record isn't a #1 hit. If you think everyone is as rich as J. Lo then you can easily say every programmer is rich like Bill Gates. Does every programmer who fails to start a multibillion dollar company deserve pennies or do they not deserve to make a modest living off of the fruits of their labor as well?
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20This type of stuff is why people become KoolAid drinking members of the Mac cult. You gotta respect a filthy rich white guy fighting to keep something cheap. I mean seriously, when does that ever happen?
- siestaguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16One high-level music industry executive, who believes the record industry will ultimately abandon its push for variable pricing, blamed the labels for not standing up to Jobs. "Where in life does the retailer set the price of the content?"
Answer: WAMART has been doing this for years. - xoineg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14i hope they don't raise the prices ....if they do.... then there are many ways to find songs and they are not going to like losing money.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12 cloroxia What is your deal? Ive seen you like 3 times today going to every post about apple and just condescendingly dissing the whole thread? Are you that Angery at Apple that you would go to every Story about them just to be an ass? Move on dude, be constructive and contribute something instead of villifying one company over and over for whatever motive that drives you.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Steve Jovs vs. The Record Industry.
Steve Jobs wins. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9He deserves props for breaking through the reality distortion field of the RIAA with his much stronger RDF.
Steve Jobs is an evil genius.
Granted, he's not practicing the same kind as evil as Billy Gates, but.... I'm just sayin. - dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The point is the RIAA is already upset because in their very skewed opinion they *are* already losing money. Their assumption was that raising the cost on iTunes would fix that. This article is saying that the RIAA may have finally given up the fight to force Apple to raise the cost.
- kabewm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7jasqwerty, that seems a bit presumptuous. Not all artists are millionaires (TLC had a #1 album and filed for bankrupcty during the same time period) and not everyone who doesn't like the current system is a pirate. That is a horrible strawman argument. You don't know the parent poster, and you attack him as a pirate, for all we know he could very well be an artist who has been screwed of money he deserved and is speaking from experience.
I'm not trying to draw a strawman of my own, I'm just saying that you jumped the gun with your comment. For the record I hate DRM, not because I'm a pirate, but because I'm not! If I had pirated the stuff I bought from iTunes it would be at a higher bitrate and I would be able to stream it ot my TiVo via TiVo Desktop. Yet people draw the strawman that people who are anti-drm are also pirates. - SledgY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'd be very weary of any record contract, I don't want to hand over all the hard work and time put into my music to some record company to make money off.
If you want to see how artists are really treated, this is a transcript of Courtney Loves speech on the music industry. http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html - tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Zybch, due to their legal agreement with Apple Records they cant become a music label. They are already getting sued for even selling music in the first place by the stupid greedy Beatles.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8When prices are set artificially high for something digital, people will get it through other means.
That's not a threat, that's a fact of the internet. - DamianJpy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6On a side note, the iTunes store in Japan already has different charges for different songs. Most are 200 yen ($1.7), though some songs are showing up for 150 yen ($1.28). Expensive, but unfortunately Japan has been indoctrinated into paying a lot for music for a long time...
- tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6geekee, i dont download music for free off the internet, i actually buy it from the iTMS. And like Phyltre says, its not a threat, its a fact of the internet. And this is not anything close to going into a store and pointing a gun to negotiate prices. That involves a violent threat of physical harm, which this is not. This is a greedy industry that is blatently lying and telling us how they are losing money, when things like iTMS are actually boosting their profits.
And lastly, if you have ever downloaded anything off the internet and never paid for it, then you need to STFU - bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16@Mesach
We could, but they might not be convinced, by our liberal use, of the comma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_%28punctuation%29#Grammar - keslacr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree, whether or not Apple has to eat the cost of the variable pricing, I will not pay any more than $.99. I hope though that the RIAA will in fact keep the standard pricing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why don't apple just set themselves up as a music label (keeping the iPod).
They'll make more $$ this way than they ever will/have selling computers.
At the moment 70% of each 99c/song goes to the RIAA, most of the remaining 30% goes to paying the bandwidth costs associated with ITMS, and a tiny little bit (say 5c) is profit. Become their own label and sign up artists, and not only will that lost 70% allow them to pay artists what they're realy worth, it will be a nice little money spinner for apple. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree. There's a real problem with issues these days, and people not holding their ground. More people in power should be more bold.
It's uncertain whether his intentions were to keep control over his baby, or to look out for the little guy, but, in either case, the little guy seems to have gotten the brunt of the good. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yea but black iPods are still the minority.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There is no formula for the value of a song and the idea of charging by song length is kinda ridiculous. Charging a fixed amount per song makes the most sense to me.
- tryferos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This just shows how stupid the industry execs are when one of them says this: "Where in life does the retailer set the price of the content?"
This has to do with the consumers who want the same price for everything. As soon as they start variable pricing, its gonna get way out of control. Go ahead record execs, fight Jobs trying to keep things simple and reasonable, the songs are just waiting to be downloaded for FREE. - mlerner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nice.
Apple - 1
Music Industry - 0 - bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@cloroxia
Then why is it your first comment was modded down so much and your second comment modded up? How we say things is just as imporant as what we say. - aresef, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah, most Japanese CD's cost about $25-30.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Good. The profit margin on downloadable songs is already huge. It's ridiculous to claim that they need more than $0.99 per song.
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I like Godspeed, but if the only fault you can find with this model is them losing some money then I say you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette. They're all ardent anti-capitalists anyway right? Do they even care?
- colonelpanic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ditto. All I have to say is way to go Steve. And no, that is not sarcastic.
- neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Steve Jobs = 1
Recording Giants = owned - thepaul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4seems the recording industry had to give in on this point. the article mentions that Apple sold 8.5 million ipods in the quarter. so, it comes down to this, either those 8.5 million get filled with songs from apple itunes music store, or from limewire. With the former, the industry makes some money; with the latter not one thin dime.
- shank2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@wamzlee
It averages out. You can also find 45 minute tracks on iTunes for 99 cents. Overall it is usually a pretty good deal to buy tracks on iTunes. - truebullfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3variable pricing? yea the popular music should stay at 99c and other stuff should go down in price now thats variable pricing. I would also like to see the sound quailty go up from 128 to 192.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm sure they could work something out regarding apple records. Perhaps buy them or something.
- jollyllama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Geekee - To paraphrase:
"Walmart uses free market principles to lower their prices. This is different from monopolistic principles used by Apple".
Ok, first, if you don't think that Walmart doesn't use it's titanic retail market share as if it was a monopoly, you're either a) ignorent, or...well, there is no b.
But that's not my point. My point is, you really need to do a little bit more of your homework in Econ, specifically on how a monopoly is related to the free market. I think you're a little mixed up... - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think this just prooves the influence Apple now wields with music distribution. I think this is the beginning of the marginalization of the RIAA which is good because we all know that they are greedy bastards that are stuck in the past. I'd like to see more artists completely skip deals with the labels and go straight to iTunes.
- krahzee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Of course the execs gave up. They finally woke up to the fact that should prices have climbed the consumer would be faced with spending the same or MORE to DL an album from itunes vs. buying it in a record store. Talk about incentive to go to P2P or some Russian site!
While the costs of physically producing/ distributing a CD are small, they still are there.
First you have the pressing of the disc, printing the liner notes, and packaging it. Then you add in returns of defective discs, the whole root-kit issue, cost of trucking the Cd's across the country, etc.... and it really starts to add up to a headache they should be glad to reduce by allowing itunes to sell their music at a discount comparable to what the production/ distribution expenses would be.
Take all of that into consideration vs. the itunes model. Upload content to itunes, wait for check. Hard work there.
So why do they fight it? The real reason is they don't want digital music PERIOD. Why? For years the only figures an artist had on how many units they sold was the vague soundscan/billboard point of sale numbers and the internal numbers the record companies showed them. Now with digital retailers keeping exact numbers there is a third party that has the info, and it has no reason to hide it. In fact, itunes celebrates it. That makes it a lot harder for the music companies to screw over the artists the way they did in the past, costing them money they had no right to keep in the first place. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Meh....its allright. I still think its lame that they can still charge 99 cents for like a track that is only 15 seconds long.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4iTunes music store is here to compete with illegal downloads, even Jobs acknowledge that fact, they are not competing with Tower Records, HMV or blockbuster. The further you price your songs from "Free" the less songs you will sell, simple as that.
If you can't even recognize who you are competing against then you might be better off just liquidate your company and give the investors back their money. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5TheReport...DISSING? Have I exited a time warp in 1991? Is Vanilla Ice still popular?
- funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The industry can demand whatever price they want. I'm not paying more than they charge now for songs on iTunes.
- jmichaelg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The " "Where in life does the retailer set the price of the content?" question shows how far out of touch the music exec is. In any other business, if the manufacturer attempts to tell the retailer what price to charge, the manufacturer can find himself in front of a judge on price-fixing charges. It's against the law pure and simple. Moreover, the different music companies are forbidden from collding with each other to set prices. That'll get them in court even faster.
What a manufacturer can do is set the price he's willing to sell to the retailer at. If the music execs really want higher prices, they can charge Apple more. At that point, Apple is free to say, no thanks and not sell the product. - nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
"For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft."
English has changed. The meaning of theft has changed, it's all about perception. It's theft because you have taken (copied) something that was not yours. Copyright infringment comes in when you _copy_ something. Theft is when you take something.
If I say google something, I mean do a search on it. I don't mean drive to Google HQ and do it (like humping a dog). A word can have multiple definitions. RIAA would like to use theft because it sounds more evil than CI. I mean, which would your grandma think is more serious? - Paul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Variable pricing i couldn't care less about... I've only bought 6 songs on itunes and they'd all be cheaper than 99 cents but...
GO STEVE GO!
He may be the first to put these greedy moguls in their place.
"not fair for our artists" BULL CRAP!
They've been ripping off artists for years now their suing grandma and you little kid sister. Steve may win the first victory over the record companies!
Maybe i will by and ipod. - npacheco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Submit to your overlord Mr. Jobs RIAA :P
- dombi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple, or someone from them should found a new record company. This should be figured out, so that they could not get sued by the Beatles. They would be completely separate from Apple itself, and would work as a middle man between the artist and Apple Computer. The artists could sign up with them and sell their songs through them to Apple's iTunes Music Store. They would of course charge less than the current record companies and give back more to the artist.
That way the system would go around the greedy record industry and serve the customers and the artists. -
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is