digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

RIAA: CDs Don't Cost Nearly Enough

whas11.com — The cost of a CD should be exponentially higher, according to the RIAA.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ldavid, on 10/12/2007, -12/+392Just another reason for people to start downloading more music for free rather than purchasing it...
    • swiftekho, on 10/12/2007, -6/+277PLEASE RIAA! Please seal your own coffin!
    • Shizlanski, on 10/12/2007, -32/+208Although I dont like the RIAA's practices, you SHOULD pay for your music. Even if you buy it cds or itunes, etc you should pay. what you shouldnt need to pay for is DRM infested crap that you arent legally allowed to backup etc.
    • an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -7/+77Ken Kutagari:
      "It's probably too cheap."

      Hmm..
    • biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -22/+85Shizlanski: Such as the iTunes DRM infested crap?
    • squirrelza, on 10/12/2007, -7/+83RIAA are so ridiculous it almost seems as if they are just kidding. "Sir, lets tell teh internetz we think CD prices should be higher, that will piss them off!"
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4Why? So the RIAA actually has a valid reason for persecuting real consumers and coming up with more and more heavy-handed DRM? I don't think so.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -11/+162I think Bit Torrent is just the right price
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+182I stopped buying music because the RIAA gets its share. The message to the artists is: Boycott the RIAA or I boycott you.
    • bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+168They should just cut out the middleman and teach their lawyers to sing.
    • Shizlanski, on 10/12/2007, -45/+22biohzrd:
      I didnt say itunes didnt have DRM. It does, and so do CDs. What I'm saying is you should have to buy music with that DRM.
    • Shizlanski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+54Obviously i meant shouldn't in the above comment, lol.
    • weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+68Other important things to remember:

      1) Price of physically manufacturing CDs has dropped massively (now pennies on the dollar)

      2) When introduced, labels insisted that though CD prices were high, they would drop as the technology became cheaper. This did not happen to any great extent until a lawsuit accusing the major labels of price collusion was won.
    • armyturtle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30I do pay for my music - at allofmp3.com where it isn't diluted with DRM to the point that I can't move it around or use it how I see fit. The RIAA can raise CD prices all they want; they can also kiss my ass because like so many millions of people they've pissed off I'll never buy another one.
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+47Well, there are other avenues like this site:

      http://cdbaby.com/about
      "Cool thing: in a regular record deal or distribution deal, musicians only make $1-$2 per CD, if they ever get paid by their label. When selling through CD Baby, musicians make $6-$12 per CD, and get paid weekly."

      I have nothing to do with them other than being a happy customer....

      -you can listen to generous portions of most of the songs on a cd.
      -pay musicians.
      -have great selection.
      -they run open source
    • TheTap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Download music? How can we? Napster was shut down and the RIAA claims big victory after big victory.

      Ha! All those asses did was make it easier since newer and better P2P technologies filed the gap.

      The best part of all - I know that they seeth every night when they go to bed because there is nothing they can do to stop it.

      Makes my smile a little bit bigger with each new tune I snag off of a Torrent.
    • blake213, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Not defending the RIAA here, but there's much more costs behind making a record than just the cost to manufacture the CD's. A LOT of money goes into it.
    • Revan01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19This makes no sense... i thought it was common knowlege that they priced themselves right out of the cd market....

      i mean hell, even movies are cheaper than CD's. is it any wonder that we download?
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30"Not defending the RIAA here, but there's much more costs behind making a record than just the cost to manufacture the CD's. A LOT of money goes into it."

      Yeah, you have to illegally pay off the radio stations, buy up failed albums to make the sales numbers look higher, pay yor accountants to cook the books so you don't have to pay the actual performers, and those poor, hard working RIAA execs need their huge salaries. And don't forget the lawyers!
    • nzknzknzk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+162ATTN: RIAA

      ....................../´¯/)
      ....................,/¯../
      .................../..../
      ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
      ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯
      ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
      ..........................'...../
      ..........''............. _.·´
      ..........................(
      ..............................
    • Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Unless a significantly higher percentage goes to the artists, I'll be buying my music through other means.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Shizlanski - Not quite there bucko. CDs do NOT have DRM. That was the reason the Sony discs that had the root kit drm on them didn't have the CD logo on them anywhere. They couldn't use the licensed logo unless it followed the standard format, which means no DRM.
    • Mausen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's entirely possible to download music for free and for the downloading to still be legal and not come bundled with malware or DRM. One site that does is this www.jamendo.com I'm sure there are others, though I don't know where they are. The great thing, aside from the music being free, is that you're no longer having to deal with the hit-machine anymore; there's no more pandering to the lowest common denominator.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp
      >A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD, – or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends, and keep that CD for many years.

      A typical music fan might, but the RIAA wants everyone to believe that "make a tape of that CD, – or using it as part of a compilation, play that CD with friends and for friends" are all illegal. They also don't doo much in the department of ensuring that CD's are made well enough to be kept for many years.

      >That’s probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value.
      Now that's just made up inside the RIAA's head.
      >At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction?
      Because the first statement is made up inside the RIAA's head?
    • chazcross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+241. Raise the price of a CD
      2. The number of people downloading illegally goes up
      3. Got an even bigger pool of potential people to sue
      4. Profit

      Looks like they are adjusting their biz model well.
    • snakesonasam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD"
      Then on what basis are they saying that a CD should cost more
    • Akiha_Tohno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Shizlanski, I would pay for the music I like except... it's not available on iTunes or any other pay to listen service. The only ways for me to obtain what I like are: a) Look through ebay hoping someone has a CD that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars or b) I can get them from downloading, and at better than CD quality. Which do you think I choose?
    • 8177, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Popularm

      You made my computer cry.
    • gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@blake213
      (Not defending the RIAA here, but there's much more costs behind making a record than just the cost to manufacture the CD's. A LOT of money goes into it.)

      Like suing people for "pirating music" that don't even have a computer?
    • diggamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the RIAA paper justifying higher prices for CDs.
      http://digg.com/tech_news/The_RIAA_thinks_CDs_should_cost_33_86

      It's *****. The RIAA is completely out of touch of reality.
    • KendraLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I also am not a fan of RIAA, however I do think CDs are worth more and that we should be paying for music...being a musician is a job and they deserve to be paid...the art, musical value, sound quality and emotional value of a CD makes it worth more than a $0.99 mp3 download from itunes...music is valuable and I think our culture has minimized that...these artists are working their asses off constantly getting ripped off by terrible contracts, free downloading and the RIAA etc, and we complain about the $14.99 sticker at HMV (a record store...I'm in Canada and also happen to run one)...you wanna be paid for your job, so do they...buy music, punks!
  • coinman987, on 10/12/2007, -4/+76That make sense, raise the price of Cd's which already cost way to much for 1 or 2 good songs, sue the customers, and short change the artists by lowering royalties they receive. well it looks like its a win win situation to me. everybody looses except for the RIAA.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -38/+2Looses? RIAA != McDonalds.
    • sinisterhand, on 10/12/2007, -22/+34It is spelled LOSE not loose. Did you read the top 10 misspelled words on the internet that was on digg last week? Guess not.
    • squirrelza, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Guess he lost his dictionary or just losing his mind.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Thanks, sinister. People on Digg don't understand my sarcasm. The other day I got buried like a hundred times for sarcastically saying all electronics with wires and batteries are bombs in a thread about ATHF.
    • Cglass, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony..."

      I think you missed the part about irony, because you're little McDonald's equation wasn't sarcastic, or funny?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
    • I_Soar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"I think you missed the part about irony, because you're little McDonald's equation wasn't sarcastic, or funny?"

      Was "you're"/"your" on that list of misspelled words?

      And maybe we need a list of commonly misused punctuation -- such as question marks at the end of declarative statements.
    • Volatile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Why do people give a damn about spelling mistakes and bad grammar? You KNOW that he meant "lose" instead of "loose." I swear, every single ***** person on digg is a grammar nazi. Spelling is not directly proportional to the legitimacy of a person's comment. Get the ***** over it.
    • gurp13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's possible that people care about grammar because it is the generally accepted rule for communication in the given language you are using. Spelling werdz corectlee iz immpourtent sew ewe dont hav 2 stoppe and figgurre owt wtf sum1 wuz trieing 2 say 2 u. Ensted ewe ken jest reed it. Yew donnt hav to efffing translaat! Bet you still understood me even though it was a pain to read. Right? Take some pride in what you say being important enough to spell and say correctly.
    • Cglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In my defense I was up for 30 hours when I wrote that, stupid ass woot
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13now where did i leave that p2p app...

    ah, yeah, downloading now for free...

    lots of room in my mp3 player...

    the more they squeeze the more it slips thru their fingers...
    • biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47What are all of these for...? Do you have a termination phobia.....?
    • ExtremeRyno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28That's an Internetz Poem...
      Live teh future...
      Be the ellipsis...
      Be teh win...
    • lifewithout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It's how you write the way Jeff Goldblum talks.
  • macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Didn't Sony say that about the PS3?

    What, exactly, happened to the world? Did everyone take stupid pills or something, and why was I not informed?
    • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23They are two different things. Sony was saying that the console was being sold at a lower cost then it was manufactured for.

      The RIAA is saying "Hay everybody! Watch us as we ***** our fanbase over and make us look like greedy *****!"
    • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Hey now, although the cost of manufacturing a CD has certainly gone down, the RIAA has had to spend much more money in manufacturing its pop artists--I'm sorry, I mean 'content providers.'
    • logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"What, exactly, happened to the world? Did everyone take stupid pills or something, and why was I not informed?"

      Actually, macweirdo, they all went to business school...
    • bestadvocate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Actually, macweirdo, they all went to business school..."

      and they slept through business ethics classes.
    • Matri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*gasp* You mean there's actually a business ethics class? I thought that was a myth!
  • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Exponentially LOWER.
  • pizpot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2then sell singles
    • DatoeDakari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yea, they call those digital downloads, maybe you've heard of them?
    • regedit2D, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13so pay $5 for 3 versions of the same song, and have to keep up with over 300 CD's in my truck? When I could just download and burn my favorites on 1 CD and spend a lot less money by downloading through an online music store.
  • mooooooooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38You can tell the music industry knows NOTHING about economics. If they lowered the price of all music CDs to $5 they would sell so fast they wouldn't be able to make enough of them...

    Raise the price...You sell LESS
    Lower the price...You sell MORE

    DOH!
    • JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Thats not entirely true. Demand is just as important as supply.

      Demand + = Price + and #units sold +
      Demand - = Price - and #units sold -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
    • aychamo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Supply and demand doesn't really apply here.. There's no "demand" or shortage of CDs. If a CD was considered "rare" and sold for $100 everyone would just p2p it. No one's going to be lining up buying artificially limited CDs.
    • podwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is demand. Supply is pretty much limitless, hence the arbitrary pricing supposedly based on production and marketing costs.
    • Nerevar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9JasonPrini: you clearly never took an economics class worth its salt. When you decrease the price of a good like this, the demand almost always increases.

      I do agree that if they priced CDs at $5 a piece I would buy a lot more of them.
    • Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Comment abuse, yes, but I was just reminded of the lessons learned from The Dilbert Principle:

      "To an outsider, the entire discipline of marketing might seem like it could be summarized by the following concept:

      * If you lower the price you can sell more units.

      But this is a gross oversimplification that insults marketing professionals and ignores hundreds of years of cumulative understanding about the subtle intricacies of the marketing arts. Those subtle intricacies are:

      * If you raise the price you will sell fewer units.
      * How do I look in this outfit?"
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ Nerevar

      Theories are great in the classroom to explain economics. But, theories are not the real world. If I drop the price of the new KFed album to a dollar, the sales will not jump to huge numbers. Demand is dependent on more than price. Demand depends partially on the perception of value, and value is not absolute. The things that you value are not the things that I value in all cases. The idea that there is a direct relationship between demand and price is reliant on assumptions that may or may not be true in a given situation (see KFed example above).

      The world is complex. And, simple relationships can describe the world within certain error. But, it rarely describes the world perfectly. The demand/price relationship holds some truth, but it is not infallible.
    • JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have taken many economics classes.. but alas years ago.

      Goods like CDs are not like iron or oranges. There is no limit to the supply. In fact, moving to a digital distribution method makes the incremental cost of delivering the audio of a CD almost zero.

      The problem is the industry picks 100+ artists, and gets the one hit to pay for the 99+ bombs.

      Seats at a venue are limited, supply and demand works there, and that's why the Rolling Stones can charge a lot for tickets.
    • vmquan500, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lowering prices wouldn't increase demand anyway. All it would actually increase is the quantity demanded, not demand itself. Your logic is very flawed.
    • Decimit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@satanatnmtedu

      You are actually overlooking two things here.

      1) The kfed album isn't even worth the $1.00 and huge numbers couldn't be produced even if it was handed out free to every unwanting member of the planet.

      2) You are using your example as lowering the price of the above named title but neglecting the others. If prices where lowered across the board on CDs, sales out in fact increase. The people buying music now would probably keep their same music budget and actually obtain more music. People not buying CDs now would start because purchasing it would actually be a better value than obtaining it by other means. Now you have to look at the most important part. By lowering the CDs just enough, they can now become impulse buys. This is a market they do not quite have yet. Sure, CDs are bought all the time just because of one song, but that doesn't count. I'm talking about people buying it "just because" without even knowing anything about it. A small amount of money is easily parted with when the possibility of receiving something worth the investment is viable. The current price of $15 (give or take) does not qualify for the vast majority as an impulse buy on something that can be retrieved from cheaper means by more convenient means as a better product. Most people do not consider downloading music a problem and this will not change. Being given a better alternative is the only way these people will actually buy a CD.
    • cembo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ok, from Economics - Supply curve is always upwards shifting and Demand curve is always downwards shifting (unless we're talking about perfect competition where d-curve is horizontal or complete monopoly where it is vertical). How much the demand will change for cds depends on PED - price elasticity of demand. There are many factors that affect PED - tastes, preferences, income etc. Oh yeah, PED = %change in quantity demanded / % change in price, which is the slope of the demand curve.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Supply and demand curves only operate properly in a theoretical free market. The music industry is not a free market for several reasons --

      1) The RIAA colludes to control prices. One label is not free to drop the price of all their CD's and undercut the competition. There is no competition in the music industry, because the RIAA is an anti-competitive, monopolistic organization.

      2) Digital content is rendering the very concept of "supply" in a market obsolete. The supply of digital content is, for all practical purposes, infinite. In theory, if supply goes up infinitely, price should become asymptotic to zero. The problem, of course, is that the creation of digital content requires an initial investment. Without a reasonable promise of return on that investment, the content providers would have no incentive to create new content.

      3) In order to counter (2), the RIAA has pressured the federal government to produce a much more regulated, protected market -- by eliminating traditional fair use rights, by pushing for higher criminal charges for piracy, by clogging the legal system with frivolous lawsuits, and so on. In the RIAA's ideal unfree market, the RIAA would artificially control supply of an infinite resource and fix the price accordingly.

      Now I'm not sure what the answer is; the infinite nature of the supply of digital music destroys the RIAA's business model. But since simple supply-and-demand Econ 101 models don't apply to this market -- and, in fact, will never apply to any intellectual property market again -- it's impossible to make hypothetical assertions about the effects of price and consumer attitudes on record sales.
    • cembo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Gerz1219, the point you make does not make sense what so ever, and it is funny how you and some other people try to prove something without understanding the general principles of economics. The principle of supply and demand applies to every single market in the world. It simply does. The point you stated are merely barriers to entry that make the competition imperfect, but no matter what the structure of the market is - perfect competition, oligopoly, monopolistic competition or monopoly, the principle of supply and demand applies. Since there are barriers to entry, less firms will enter the market, thus making the demand less elastic, which means that a large increase in supply will result in a relatively small decrease in demand. But there still will be a decrease. If the demand is perfectly inelastic, i.e. PED=0, there will be no change in demand. The attractive substitutes to buying cds - using p2p or itunes, result in a more elastic PED. So you need to sum up all the factors affecting PED to find out the actual elasticity. Also someone said that supply is infinite and demand also, I guess I might remind you the definition of supply: supply is the quantities of a good or service that producers are willing and able to supply at a given price, over a given period of time. And at a give price, supply is NEVER infinite. Same applies for demand. Wants are unlimited, but not the demand.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But supply is infinite! One can copy an MP3 from one hard drive to another at a negligible cost -- the only costs associated with this are minimal electricity costs, and the cost of the physical drive. I suppose that in terms of raw materials, there is a finite number of hard drives which could theoretically be manufactured, but since we are nowhere near exhausting our production capacity for hard drives, there are billions and billions of gigabytes of storage which could hold every song ever recorded many times over.

      There is probably not enough steel in the world for everyone in the world to own two cars.

      There are enough hard drives in the world to hold every song every person in the world wants, and at such a low price as to be irrelevant. Nearly everyone in the would have their lifetime demand for music satisfied with a 320 gig hard drive full of MP3's, currently selling for $100.

      Therefore the supply of digital music is infinite. Since there is no virtually no production cost associated with copying files, there is no practical limit to the number of files which could be duplicated.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Demand is clearly higher than the number of units being sold or there wouldn't be such a "problem" with piracy. The trick is finding the price point that maximizes profit. There's even a very simple Calculus method, the integral, which does just this. For some CDs, the stuff that is currently on the Billboard top 50 or whatever that number is probably around $12-18, the RIAA may even be right that prices should be higher for some of that music.

      That's one of the troubles with the current music industry one-price-fits all model, (I know there is some variation to CD prices, but they fall into a pretty small range) including iTunes. For some very popular music/artists $20+ may be the price that generates maximum income. For most of the stuff out there, though, it's probably a $4-7 range, if I had to guess. What REALLY bugs me how this pricing scheme effects indie music. Some bands are smart - that is they will sell their stuff for $10 on their website and at shows and that's generally a pretty fair value. Some bands, though, for some reason feel that since Brittany Spears is "worth" $15-18 their CD must be too. And, on that scale (comparing their stuff to Spears) it most likely is. But in the real world, people don't WANT to pay that for a CD of a smaller band and so they won't.

      As an example, I have very little qualms pirating a CD of a major artist. I'll also spring a buck on iTunes almost as readily for bands who are producing and distributing their own music (or with the help of a small, non-RIAA studio). But, there was one CD that isn't on iTunes and the artists wants nearly $19 for it shipped. No f-n way. If I won't spend that for a Dave Matthews CD< I'm not going to for your no-name ass either.
    • logic11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is the thing: I was in the record store around a month and a half ago, and I picked up a CD from the bargain bin. The CD was a dollar or two. I bought it because the name was Zombie Station and it had a picture of a train with a skull on the front. I got into the car, flipped the CD into the stereo and listened to it. It was absolute crap. I will probably never listen to it again, but every time I look at that stupid train, I laugh my ass off. I think I got my monies worth. If I had gone into the store and that CD had been even five bucks, it would still be in the bargain bin (I really doubt anyone else would have bought it).

      ***** the economic theory, and the economic terminology. Simple common sense tells you that if a CD costs less than a latte, people might buy it just for the ***** of it.
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"JasonPrini: you clearly never took an economics class worth its salt. When you decrease the price of a good like this, the demand almost always increases."

      Come on... you learned about elasticity in Econ 1A just like the rest of us did, and you understand why it's called a supply/demand CURVE.
  • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11the recording industry is just scared as they are not necessary any more, at least in the current incarnation. A musician can now afford a reasonable recoding studio in their home. they can afford their own digital distribution.

    the last thing would be for an independent itunes style marketing platform.

    the RIAA is the manifestation of the collective fear in the recording industry
    they only thing you have to fear is fear itself.... well we have a physical manifestation of an entire industries fear terrorizing the customers which they hope to extract funds from. I for one spend money on music, but would spend more if i knew it was making it to the artists.
    • logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"the last thing would be for an independent itunes style marketing platform."

      You mean, like Magnatune?
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering that their entire business model is based upon the $30M per year donated to politicians, they've got a lot of nerve regarding their lack of innovation. http://opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=B02
      They want you to consider the price of a CD over time vs inflation.
      Why not compare against the price of a CD player over time vs inflation?
  • zebbie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1another great idea from the RIAA , they can do whatever they want - we can watch the industry die on the vine as we listen to podsafe music and local bands.
  • JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If your business is to lose money on 99 attempts to get one hit CD, and it's probably way higher than that in reality, you'd think they're too cheap as well.

    If the industry changed their business model away from the shotgun approach they could... oh wait... digg is the choir.
  • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28That's an easy theory to test. Raise the price. See how many CDs you move at $33.
    • Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17But before they raise the price they need to raise the talent.
    • JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3They cost even more than that in England and Poland. A CD in England can easily cost $50CDN {20pounds is $46CDN}. Poles pay the equivalent of $40-$50CDN for North American CDs... as if they buy them.
    • drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Nobody pays 20 pounds for a CD in the UK.
    • SteelFrog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They cost even more than that in England and Poland. A CD in England can easily cost $50CDN {20pounds is $46CDN}. Poles pay the equivalent of $40-$50CDN for North American CDs... as if they buy them."

      What the hell are you buying? Last time I bought a CD, the most expensive one was 24$ CDN out of the dozen. Sure, I could see 50$ or more on discographies but not single album discs.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Actually, ironically, they really CAN'T raise the price because of everyone's OTHER favorite business whipping-post, Wal-Mart. They sold the CDs at a loss and put the small record store out of business, and now the music industry CAN'T afford NOT to sell to Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart demands lower prices on CDs.
  • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Am I the only one who thought "Uhh... It's 'KoЯn'"?
  • Jeuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13What I want to know is where are all the artists who are against "advantage taking corporations"?
    Hiding in your closet and counting your bills?

    There should be a "***** THE RIAA" massive festival and every decent group of musicians should play it. Free entrance. Free booze. (okay, maybe not)
    • HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They'd sell a hell of a lot of merchandise....I know I wouldn't be able to leave until I had a ***** THE RIAA Festival shirt.
  • Kamisado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12While its hardly $33, most CDs in the UK cost 12 pounds, which is about $23.

    I usually just buy the vinyl version and download the digital version illegally. That way I get a better product with more artwork and a more tactile feel at the same price, but I'm still able to shove it on my iPod.
  • ryanissuper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11A 2 liter bottle of Coke has been 99 cents for as long as I can remember. This has always bothered me.
    • optigon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If the consumer price Index is increasing, well you shouldn't be worried because you're getting a better deal now than ever!
    • gregv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"A 2 liter bottle of Coke has been 99 cents for as long as I can remember. This has always bothered me."

      That's because they replaced the sugar with high-fructose corn syrup. Here in Switzerland, where they use real sugar, a 2 liter bottle of Coke costs more than $4. But it doesn't have that 'popcorn' taste that I now notice when I have some Coca-cola when I'm in the USA.
    • quanta88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The bottles are also getting slightly smaller. Aren't they like 1.98L now? I know the 600mL are now 550mL or some such thing.
  • flag8, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Weren't CDs like $50+ or something when they first came out?
    • Kahnza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Probably, but its a magical new technology. Anything thats new will cost more.
    • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11no, they were never that much
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1in 1986 they were about $30. I think I paid $27 or $28 for my first batch, which was a lot considering I made like $7 an hour at the time.
    • bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I seem to recall that most were about the same price as they are today (mid-high teens). It caused a huge uproar, because they were nearly twice the price of albums (and probably easier to produce). Most of us owned very few CDs in the mid-80s because they were just so expensive. This was at a time when getting a new car for under $10,000 wasn't difficult.

      As someone mentioned earlier, the labels insisted the price would go down as demand increased. By staying the same price, they did go down...sort of. The problem now is, music is much easier to get and its value isn't the same as it was back then.
  • jonesy827, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, the RIAA who does almost nothing deserves more royalties on CDs...that they don't even help produce....
  • battleroyalex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Neither do bullets
  • hartley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3not all people are pirates. some people feel more "safe" when legally purchasing a product.

    the current riaa mindset explains 2 things:
    explains why itunes is huge.
    explains why theres only 1 music store in the mall now.
    • triont, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3*****, there's no music store in my mall now!
  • gklitt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Considering this is digg.com, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that technically they are not saying prices should be "exponentially" higher. Not that I would mention it.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually they are. Say the CPI said that inflation was 5% every year (a simplification, but it doesn't matter). Then to get the price of a CD in 1990 dollars in 2000 dollars, you would use this formula: (1+.05)^10. That's an exponential function. It may not be what you're used to, but if you graph it out, you'll see that it is definitely exponential...you just have to adjust the scale.
    • randal23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gotamd is right. The RIAA wants CD prices to track the CPI, and the CPI clearly has an exponential behavior:
      http://mathdl.maa.org/images/cms_upload/image00143024.gif
      (CPI from 1913 to present)
  • eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The RIAA and the MPAA are just glorified investment bankers, they dont give a crap about what theyre selling as long as it makes them money, they have no respect for the artists or some of the so called art they peddle, as a musician myself I cannot wait until they and companys like MTV die. They have no taste , they sell to the lowest common denominator , music will always be here and as long as people are in it for the music and not the money there will be a lot more good music too.
  • Mangurian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I know a little about the recording industry and I can tell you that the same mentality that permeates the US auto industry prevails.

    1-They produce, in general, a substandard product and feel that the public is obligated to pay for it.
    2-They want to justify their own bloated salaries and are desperate to maintain funds to do that.
    3-Large recording studios (some owned by labels) have lost much of their value due to tech developments and software like Pro Tools.
    lastly,
    4-These folks (including, in this case, the performers) are so detached from the real world that they have trouble making rational marketing decisions.
    • carpeicthus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't wait until I can download a car.
  • Wedge1212, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0gotta love common sense.
  • Godspeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+313 words


    ***** THAT *****
  • joshf52, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0LOL
  • NiGHTSChao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sounds like they want to stop the flow of new technology
  • triggerfinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8lol
  • mathmanjeffy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Adjusting for CPI changes doesn't use an exponential function...
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, it does. See my post above in response to gklitt. It is definitely an exponential function.
    • troyounces, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think you need to re-examine your grade 7 math textbook
  • lorductape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and they wonder why people download illegally?

    and why did they agree to legal download places like iTunes if they want to drive CD prices up? to KILL cd's?

    (on a happier note, I haven't bought a CD in years.)
    • loup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm guessing there are a couple of reasons they decided to allow legal music downloads through services like itunes.

      The first is that I'd heard a few times in the past that they wanted allow a service to legally sell music via Internet download to prove that such a business model wouldn't work. In their mind they couldn't see anyone actually paying $.99 to download a song when they could just as easily get it for free. They were apparently wrong.

      The second reason is that they probably felt that if they didn't start allowing the music to be sold via a download service, that they would be missing out on a lot of profits.

      Would they like it if people had never started sharing music online? Probably, by selling the music on a physical medium it's a lot easier to justify charging more money because you can explain that it costs money to manufacture the CDs and then to ship them out and then the retailer needs to make some money and so on.
  • SoundJudgment, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The RIAA Chairman's mistress needs a new mink-coat. Please help him buy her one. Raise the retail CD prices.
  • kenziesteele, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIAA has got to get with the program. You'd think now that there's data indicating that downloads have grown (not shrunk) the market of purchasing customers, they'd be feeling less threatened.

    Also, jacking up prices doesn't make relative sense in comparison to other media. I can't ever imagine paying as much for a DVD movie as for a CD. More $$$ goes into the making of a movie than into the making of an album (99% of the time).
  • ph1ltr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1On this page - http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp - the RIAA also state that modern CDs are...

    "higher quality in terms of fidelity"

    Is that true? I thought CDs we buy these days are exactly the same audio quality as the ones in the 80s (Stereo, 16-bit, 44100 Hz)?
    • rossinio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It depends entirely on how it is produced, older cds can sound better or worse depending on who was at the wheel during the mastering process. A LOT of modern CDs sound like crap due to the way they are compressed into the top of the CDs dynamic range to make them louder. A good discussion of why it sucks is here - http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm
    • SoundJudgment, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yup. The signal-specs for standard music CDs are the same 44.1K / 16Bit audio files as they were when first introduced to the public back in 1983 But now that there is a generation raised on craptastic 128k **compressed** .MP3 files, they can claim the uncompressed-audio of a standard digital CD is a sonic ''improvement' over todays Internet downloads. Ironic, actually.
    • mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True. I know I've heard audio tapes (casettes) which sound 10x better than 128k mp3s.
    • shark72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Is that true? I thought CDs we buy these days are exactly the same audio quality as the ones in the 80s (Stereo, 16-bit, 44100 Hz)?"

      Ask your parents about how they used to have to check CDs to see if they were "AAD", "ADD" or (ideally) DDD -- full digital. It was many years before the recording, mixing and engineering was digital from start to finish. The industry finally dropped the AAD, etc. nomenclature.

      I bought a Dire Straits CD in 1985 that was one of the first DDD recordings, and it sounded amazing, for the time. But now, they all sound this good. I think I paid around $18 for it... about $32 in today's money.
  • trparky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They have been shooting themselves in the foot for so long that you have to really wonder what they are standing on. Their bloody stumps?
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they forgot ".... to cover our extremely bad business practices"
  • bufmike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0maybe if the content of cd's were better they could charge more. The demand is not there for 1 or 2 songs sold at $12. I believe that is why Itunes is making a killing, you don't have to buy all the filler. When cd's came out they were $15-20 (if my memory serves me correctly) and vinyl could be found for $8.
  • musicbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I remember selling the first CD's in 86 for $30 and remember being told by the labels that soon they would be as cheap as the records they would be replacing - $9. That never happened. They've only stabilized around the $16.99 price point. If they do need to go up in price it's to fund all their lawsuits. If you want people to pick up more music more often - like impulse shopping where you try out many different artists and genre's then you gotta price it right:

    $4.99.

    Keep internet downloads a buck a song. If you actually make the effort to go to a store and purchase music hearing unheard, then it should be cheaper and make you want to purchase more and I think $4.99 would do that.
    • Mo0man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They probably aren't even losing money on the lawsuits. They just shotgun threats and people who can't afford to pay court costs have to settle. In the few cases where people are willing to go to court, they give up.
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@MusicBear:
      Around here (Michigan), Best Buy stores have priced a lot of new CDs (mostly from non-major artists, which seem to be what is actually selling right now) at $6.99, which is certainly approaching that "impulse buy" price.
      Not only are they CDs at an attractive price, it's proving that cheap CDs will work in mass quantities sold in large chain stores. The CD price should have been continuously dropping as the price to manufacture the CDs (and the artists [*rimshot!*]) dropped (which it has, slightly) and instead the RIAA is suggesting the price be raised.
      I want to support the artists and I want them to earn money, but at some point here, the artists are going to have to smarten up. The RIAA is dependent on the artists, and unless someone who has power forces the RIAA to change their business practices, it will never happen. I've refused to buy a CD until the RIAA stops raping the artists up the butt.
    • steal_apps01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they where 4.99 or 5$ i'd buy alot of cd's. When I expect to spend 20$ on one CD (in Canada it's standard) I would end up buying 4 cd's, or more. Everyone whould, they would sell so many cd's it would be amazing.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've already won this class action lawsuit and have $13 to show for it. Considering that TAPES used to cost $5-6 dollars, CDs which are considerably cheaper to manufacture, should cost no more than $4-5.

    Somebody blow up the RIAA already. Osama, did you know that the RIAA pissed on Mohammed's tomb? They also raped your mother and took a hearty ***** on the Kaaba in Mecca.
    • mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all you know, some mentally mutilated extremist might attack YOU for saying what you said :-b
  • andycr512, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21. Charge way too much for music
    2. Increase the cost of music
    3. ...
    4. Profit?!?!?!!!

    How can that actually make sense to them?! What do they expect?
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"1. Charge way too much for music
      2. Increase the cost of music
      3. ...
      4. Profit?!?!?!!!

      How can that actually make sense to them?! What do they expect?"

      Nono, it's more like :
      1 - Sue everyone and their dog for illegally downloading music
      2 - Increase price of CD's, now that everyone is scared of downloading music
      3 - Profit

      ..shame music downloads are so popular, or it may just have worked..
      - Ben
  • HeyBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Using a small cd pressing service here in Toronto, it costs between 50 cents and $1.50 per to make a cd. You can calculate your costs here:
    http://www.musicmanufacturing.com/onlinequotecdn.php

    Large pressings (like from major labels) run probably about 50 cents per cd.

    Add 5 to 10 cents per song for licensing fees (to the artist) and you're up to $2 per cd.

    Cd's go to the wholesalers for around $5 (record companies make the $3 gross profit to cover promotion, studio time, etc)

    Retailers get them for $10 (wholesalers make the $5 gross to cover warehousing, shipping, accounting, loses)

    You buy them at the store for $20 (retailers pay for the store overhead, staff, theft, etc)

    Pretty inefficient! Try supporting artists directly at sites like http://cdbaby.com/

    • gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thanks for the enlightening statistics. This confirms my belief that a company modeled like AllOfMP3 could pay artists at their current pricing structure. If artist licensing is $.10/song. If you eliminate all of the physical media, the rest of the costs disappear. Add a fair cut to the label, and this should work. I do like CD Baby, but also believe we can drive down costs substantially and still let everyone earn a fair living. The problem is that now, no one yet incented to really make it work.
  • disc0x, on 10/12/2007, -7/+210$ for a cd is fine, I don't buy CD's. iTunes and Zune store are all i need
  • habenneas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More power to the Indie labels! http://www.whalesoundrecords.com
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In 1996 I did not pay for the crap that came out my ass, so I'm wondering why the RIAA thinks I should pay for the crap that comes out of their industry.
  • randal2k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Buying music, listening to music, supporting the glue of these bastards, the recording artists, is the Problem.
    If we stop buying, stop listening and stop using there crap, they will have to go away or fall to the demands of the public.
    But, if you spend 99 cents for a song, or by a CD or go to a Concert, then your just as much to blame for RIAA's actions. You have become the enemy and the problem.

    Truth hurts huh?
    • AMSRay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, concert ticket sales and merchandise you buy at the concert are the only money that the artists get a decent percentage of. Don't buy music, go to concerts!
    • randal2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Supporting the artist that has landed the deal with the record company that supports RIAA, that sue you and me....
      The artist is the problem.
      Do you think that your fave band gives a flying F$%^ if you get sued?! No.
      Time for you people to realize that pimp daddy f$%^head diddy fu$% could careless about you or you getting sued.

      No anytime you buy music or go to concerts or buy a ring tone, your advocating RIAA's actions.
  • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heh, Korn. Get it.
  • eswolford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I want the RIAA to explain to me why a direct to DVD movie is under $20, which includes it's own soundtrack (sometimes original) and they want the same for a CD. I am pretty sure it takes more to make a movie then record an album.
  • ORD2FRA, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I stand ready with my Visa card to pay any website that offers real music from groups that I have heard of in MP3 format, 192 kbps minimum. Sell the product and they will come!
    • gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8*cough* www.allofmp3.com *cough*
  • k0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Lol, this is why I don't support the artists, cause their representation sucks.
  • Pifko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1F*cking hell, what are they doing to themselves. I think Sony have more respect at the moment, and that's saying something.
  • DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RIAA Mobsters pushing pablum top 40 crap while signing on good bands and not promoting them just to make sure they never get heard.
    after the lawyers they should be the next ones up against the wall.
  • chili555, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I guess the morons at RIAA didn't bother with Economics 101 at college. As the price goes up, generally the quantity demanded goes down. Distributor and retailer charge too much? Use Walmart tactics on them; tell them they must reduce prices 30% or the new distributor and retailer will.

    Sell CD's for $7 and watch sales jump!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.