Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
instantfruit
70 Followers
kaczoanoker
31 Followers
Vps Malhotra
873 Followers
Herbert R. Ubaldo
165 Followers
instantfruitFeb 13, 2012Submitter
Plenty of artists make more money once they have died than when they are alive, but they usually wait until they are buried before hiking the prices and dragging out the back catalogue
jivatmanxFeb 13, 2012
With copyright now lasting 120 years, how is this surprising?
futfanaticoFeb 13, 2012
US copyright law is the worst (corporate driven and anti-public domain) in the world, and our nation is sadly lobbying to include these dumb rules in international trade agreements. Ugggh.
jacobdisFeb 14, 2012
You failed to address the question. This article is about the price of Whitney's music rising after death, which appropriately has nothing to do with you're opposition of ACTA.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 14, 2012
But it has. If copyright law only extended 20 years; which is MORE than enough to milk a song; this issue would not have arisen.
dandoniaFeb 14, 2012
Copyright is one of those really weird laws.
Why does a creator have a limited time to own their creation?
I fully expect that in 100 years people will enjoy listening to the Elvis back catalogue, why do they get it free while we have to pay?
Why does the money stop trickling towards the creator/publisher?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sndsFeb 14, 2012
@dandonia, I'll posit the opposite, how long can we be presumed to pay for something that has been in the public view for more than 120 years? The reason public domain and a limit on copyright exists is to allow media, writings, inventions, etc. be enjoyed by the public that in some arenas has been listening to it on the radio for free for much of their lives anyway. A limit to around 40-50 years is a bit more palatable as it milks as much of the medium as the owner of the copyright can get (and keep in mind the owner is rarely the originating artist) without limiting the public domain access. Believe me if all songs that have been copywritten didn't somehow or someway go to a third party and went directly to the creator of the song(s) or their families post-mortem I would not mind as much for the longer period of copyright protections. And then there's the issue that copyright puts artificial limits on human thought by setting the idea that one person owns an idea or set of words in a certain sequence but that's a debate for another day.
jivatmanxFeb 14, 2012
@dandonia
Should people have to pay royalties in order to perform Mozart or Bach?
Because they would, if copyright were unlimited.
inetroadkillFeb 13, 2012
AND IIIIIIIII_EEEEEEE_IIIIIIII Will always gouge you.....
crispa1970Feb 13, 2012
omg this gave me quite the chuckle on this dreary monday morning. ty.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
You can't steal music or money from dead artists... To the torrents! f**k Ye Sony!
innerspikeFeb 13, 2012
My thoughts exactly. Sony is only giving more incentive to pirate right now.
dividebyoFeb 13, 2012
Though to be fair, most dead artists have family that you would then be stealing from, since the profits would usually go to them, but I honestly don't care that much.
breadfredFeb 14, 2012
To be honest, why should ANYONE benefit from her songs after her death?
dandoniaFeb 14, 2012
That's like saying, why should you get to keep your parents house or business when they die?
breadfredFeb 14, 2012
Indeed. And yes, I WOULD say that.
camochrisFeb 13, 2012
She didn't make her records alone though. The vast majority of her songs were written by other people, other people played the music, other people produced them, and most of these other people are still alive. Don't they deserve some money for their work?
futfanaticoFeb 13, 2012
Fair points, but most of those people got paid a one time fee and don't ever sniff royalties.
camochrisFeb 14, 2012
I thought of that a little while after I posted this. From a quick bit of googling, as I understand it, session musicians are almost always paid a one-off fee, but producers may get royalties, and songwriters always get royalties. So I stand by what I said.
I've just seen this article too: "Whitney Houston's Death Could Earn Dolly Parton a Bundle" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/idUS8803327920120214
dandoniaFeb 14, 2012
And who is it that paid that one off fee so they could earn a living, creating music for us to listen to? Oh yeah, it's the dirty publishers who invested that money upfront and now you're damn right they are looking to make as much of a return on their investment as they possibly can.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
omgscienceFeb 13, 2012
YYYYAAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!
wkrausmannFeb 14, 2012
I'm not going to waste the bandwidth. I didn't like her s**t then, I won't like it now.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
So does that mean we can steal iPods since Steve Jobs is dead?
Whitney Houston was an employee...contracted to made a product. She does not own the product any more than the guy who works at Dominos owns your pizza.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dandoniaFeb 14, 2012
I dare say she had rights on some of the product but your point is good.
(Except for that part about piracy being stealing... but that's a different argument all together.)
PanjeeFeb 17, 2012
A sentiment that is SHARED by many folks :o)
cherwilcoFeb 13, 2012
if this where about physical media that is subject to supply and demand then I could understand a price hike on cds following an artists death. but raising the price on digital downloads where there can be no possible supply issues? that's pretty damn low
sparhaxFeb 13, 2012
The only curve that matters is how many people will buy it at what price with the answer being whatever makes you the most money.
al3efromanFeb 13, 2012
Yes, but as human beings, we can look at things from more than just an bottom-line economic perspective. It is true that they have every right to do this, but was cynical and it is fair to point that out.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Don't want it, don't buy it, but whatever you do, don't feel entitled to listen to it as a birthright. Setting aside who benefits when you buy the album, ask yourself why YOU should get the benefit of listening to the album without paying for it.
If you'd rather give $10 to homeless veterans each time you pirate a CD rather than buy the CD from iTunes, okay fine by me... at least you are experiencing a personal sacrifice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
Did you reply to the wrong person? Who do you see suggesting that they should download it without paying? Who do you see suggesting that they are "entitled" to it? You should probably take a couple of deep breaths and calm down. We'll wait.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Why would I implore someone who's already made up their mind about their entitlement to creative content not to steal that content?
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
@amaoican
"someone who's already made up their mind about their entitlement to creative content"
Who is saying any of that? Why won't you answer that simple question? I see a conversation regarding free markets and cynicism. What on earth are you seeing?
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
I'm saying, I'm talking to YOU because you HAVEN'T expressed the opinion that you have a right to take things simply because the people you're taking them from are 'naughty'. The people who've already decided that they have a right to benefit from someone else's work can't be persuaded otherwise.
If you look around this page I think you'll find many people who think "They want to charge too much for their property..." is a sound defense of theft.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
@amaoican
a brief history of you flipping out:
"... don't feel entitled to listen to it as a birthright."
"...ask yourself why YOU should get the benefit of listening to the album without paying for it."
"If you'd rather give $10 to homeless veterans..."
"If you look around this page I think you'll find many people who think "They want to charge too much for their property..." is a sound defense of theft."
...and I'm saying go yell at them instead, rather than strangely singling me out when I made not one of the bizarre assertions to which you seem to be responding.
Seriously, take a deep breath. You're kinda being a tool. Why should anyone take the time to engage you or even respond to the substance of what you say, when you jump down people's throats like that?
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
I don't feel like I'm 'flipping out'. You've been on the internet for at least 6 years, you should know by now that emotions do not come across clearly through text alone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dandoniaFeb 14, 2012
Well to be fair, it's a company who made an investment in a product. Why is it so bad for them to try and earn as big of a return as possible.
Besides, if it's anything like when Jacko died, her music is going to be on the radio for months. Whip out a cassette tape... I don't know if they even sell those anymore.. (sad times)
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
This is all true. None of this makes it any less cynical.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
"whatever makes you the most money."....Yes of course...whatever makes the most money. Gotta get as much cash as possible by whatever means necessary.
/lots of sarcasm
icwydFeb 13, 2012
See how well the free market system works?
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
it IS still subject to supply and demand, moron. The supply just happens to be constant. Almost (but NOT quite) a straight horizontal line. Therefore, as the demand curve moves to the right, the price will go up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
"Therefore, as the demand curve moves to the right, the price will go up.".........should read....
"Therefore, as the demand curve moves to the right, the greedier we get and price will go up."
cryinlionFeb 14, 2012
Savvy merchants always set their prices by the value of the product to the consumer. Supply and demand dictates price only because a product rises in value when there is less of it and the buyer is competing against other potential buyers. In this case, Sony is rightly guessing that the value of Houston's music to consumers has risen in the wake of her death, and they will set the price wherever the most people will buy it for the most money.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
Savvy (greedy) merchants (BIZZZZZness men) always set (artificially inflate) their prices by choosing the best time to take advantage of the customer...to EXTRACT as much money out of someone else's wallet to put it into theirs.
"Supply and demand dictates price only because a product rises in value when there is less of it "
There is a infinite supply of music in it's digital form.
Plus Sony's executive is a bunch of assh**es who think it's OK to put rootkits on people's hard drive.
ehulganFeb 13, 2012
MPAA and RIAA know no bounds to their greed. RIP Whitney Houston.
Donuts4UFeb 13, 2012
Then they will wonder why piracy went up and call for a new law. Clippership capitalism backed by gunboat diplomacy.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Piracy exists because (some) people believe they are entitled to receive something without paying anything.
thefirewireFeb 14, 2012
You've just described human nature. Ethical and moral behavior is a key social structure in controlling certain behavior deemed destructive.
People wouldn't pay for anything if they could get it for free. But we are in a bit of a catch 22. This is the first time in history where not only does a corporation put out a product where we are expected to pay for it but they also sell the tools to crack it.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Human nature is an ever-frightening thing. In one of my college courses, our instructor told us the result of a supposed survey of college guys at a unnamed university (named by the instructor, not by me) answering the question, if you knew you could rape a girl and get away with it would you do it?
Well, this story is going nowhere fast... here's a stat from UIC.edu: "35% anonymously admitted that, under certain circumstances, they would commit rape if they believed they could get away with it." - http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
(Perhaps even more shocking, "65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months.")Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thefirewireFeb 14, 2012
More girls are unconventionally raped more so than people actually realize. I've known many friends who've gone on to force their girlfriends to do sexual acts even when the receiving party says no but then unwillingly accepts because of the others persistence.
Society sees that form of force as more reasonable and OK because of the circumstance involving both parties instead of the circumstances betwen two strangers.
but to get back on topic I would agree that human nature is quite a frightening thing.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
Piracy exists because the old geezers who run the labels never got with internet program back 20 years ago.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Careful - the world wide web has barely existed for 20 years (launched 1991) and the MP3 format is even younger (published standard released 1998), and until about 10 years ago there was virtually no demand for digital music because no one had/could afford the technology to use MP3s.
Even in 2001, the first iPod was a measly 5GB and cost $400 ($519 in inflation-adjusted today-dollars).
But in any case, "they didn't sell/give me what I wanted when I wanted it the way I wanted it and the price I was willing to pay" does not justify taking it, any more than "she was wearing a miniskirt and she was playing hard to get" justifies rape.
(And for the slow, no I am not equivocating piracy with rape - I'm dismissing the logic that because someone does not offer to give you something on your terms you're free to take it).
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
Are you kidding me? No demand for MP3's?
And as for the technology....the technology was everyone's computers.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
15 years ago, everyone's computers were not like your computer today. I remember, oh.. hm. 1997-99, somewhere in there, getting a brand-spanking new computer that had, total, something like a gigabyte of HD space. Most of that was used up by system files, and the rest was, well... you know... I was a teenage boy.
It wasn't until Napster that ordinary people got the idea of using their computers to play music. Now, admittedly, 10 years ago was a little off... it was 12-13 years ago now that Napster was launched, and 11-12 years ago that it got big.
But safe to say, 20 years ago we did not have MP3s, we did not have the world wide web, ordinary people did not have computers and had not thought of playing popular music on a computer, and certainly no one had thought of carrying a computer in their pocket to play music on the go.
skinturtleFeb 15, 2012
@amaoican You are actually talking semantics. The years I stated were really not my point (however 12-13 years are a long time in internet years)
My point is...they waited around for someone else to invent a way for convenience. And even after they sued Napster into the ground...they still never did much about distribution on the net....except sue people. Here it is...all these years later and they are still kicking and screaming the whole way there. While there are some services...they have been very reluctant. They fought Apple all the way when iTunes was launched.
You say that there wasn't a demand for digital music? That's bulls**t because CD's are digital music. The demand for music is there regardless of the media used. Why weren't they the first to invent it?
The only reason they do have offering on the net now is because they are forced to....but everyone knows they would rather not.
They'd rather sell a whole CD with one good song..and the rest filler crap...just like they always have.
Wanna know what I think they want? They want the whole internet to themselves. They want it set up for themselves and nobody else which is why they are are trying to get all stupid laws passed.
They will fail....and I mean FAIL.
amaoicanFeb 15, 2012
If you are saying they moved too slowly, I agree. But to say they've had 20 years is BS. They probably should have had a music store in place in 2000-01 (11-12 years ago). I'm giving them an extra 1-2 year past what Napster had because they would have needed to come up with a payment and distribution model (free p2p sharing wouldn't have worked, obviously). Music stores starting coming along in 2002 and 2003.
justjohn025Feb 13, 2012
Like there's actually going to be a lower supply than demand of Whitney Houston music.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
You misunderstand supply and demand. Regardless of what the supply IS, it has not changed. Meanwhile, the demand has increased, while the supply has not changed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anub1sFeb 14, 2012
We're talking about digital copies of songs, there is damn near infinite supply of this. If we were talking physical media, it would be different.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
An increase in demand or decrease in supply means an increase in price.
A decrease in demand or increase in supply means a decrease in price.
Truth be told, the supply of cheap plastic discs was essentially infinite, so your argument about physical media is a bit moot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Donuts4UFeb 14, 2012
Irrelevant. Supply and demand has nothing to do with this. This is elasticity of demand. She died and people want to listen to her and their increase in willingness to buy has made their demand more elastic allowing a higher price point for maximum profit. This is High School economics too.
amaoicanFeb 14, 2012
Thanks. Dugg.
skinturtleFeb 15, 2012
@ amaoican Are you involved with the RIAA or something? If you are....you know what you can do.
amaoicanFeb 15, 2012
Not at all, but in the interest of disclosure, I do work in software.
mortventFeb 13, 2012
is anyone surprised at sony being less than ethical and doing anything for a buck?
srastewartFeb 13, 2012
No more surprised than when ALL THE OTHER ONES do it as well. Stop singling out Sony for once. All of these companies are douchebags.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
Considering none of the others released root kit cds, ignored security warning from their own people in regards to client data, and closed accounts for letting them know their system had an error (several soe accounts were banned for informing them the billing system had emailed them about accounts being set up... with garbled data on them)
metalliheadFeb 13, 2012
Pretty much no shame at all. Pirate the music.
salbatrossFeb 13, 2012
Breaking: record company does a bad thing. More at six.
anotheredheringFeb 14, 2012
I can understand... digital copies dont grow on trees. they are probably running out of MP3s.
/s
futfanaticoFeb 13, 2012
This is so pathetic. I now feel no guilt at downloading the dead artist's music and sticking my middle finger to big business.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
It's OK... we understand. If it makes you feel better, big business will screw you sometime in the future.
Jaxen55Feb 13, 2012
don't be greedy Sony
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
"Don't be yourself."
rogerevans1Feb 13, 2012
Real classy, Sony. Find any way you can to capitalize on any possible opportunity, even tragedies. "Whitney Houston died? Cha-Ching!" This makes me sick.
parsticesFeb 14, 2012
Stay classy, Sony..
quadeFeb 14, 2012
Stay classy, Sony.
PsychcompFeb 13, 2012
Sony has the right to charge anything they want if they hold the copyright. We have the right to not buy from Sony and instead to go elsewhere for music. I suggest this.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
Yes they do...and it is such a treat to see them lose money every year because of their assh**e ways.
parsticesFeb 14, 2012
This makes me glad that Sony got reamed by hackers months ago...What a d**kh**d move, Sony..I hope the hackers out there have another go at you.
sneedoFeb 14, 2012
dealers immediately jack prices of cocaine following her death.
xtomtomxFeb 13, 2012
I really didn't care for her music so this is a non-issue for me.
zoidberg590Feb 13, 2012
And they wonder why people pirate music. It beggars belief.
crashdown1Feb 13, 2012
Greed.... And they wonder why the keep getting hacked, and people keep file sharing. :-/
ieatskunkFeb 14, 2012
Stop whining bitches. If you liked her music that much you would already have it.
ka5p3rFeb 13, 2012
steve jobs dies and people want to bury the story but this coke snorting bitch is all over the news.hay people jobs deserves far more media coverage.
sorry jobs was white and had no drug addictions.
silentspyderFeb 13, 2012
99 cents is still expensive but I do it, although whenever I see 1.29 I find other ways to get it.
fabbriziodFeb 13, 2012
every time an artist dies their artwork becomes more valuable, because there now is the limitation and exclusivity that wasn't there before. Some artists were never famous during their lifetimes and gained popularity right after or a long time after they had died.
casianbdaFeb 13, 2012
Of course Sony raise prices after an artists death, terrible.
thetwintowersFeb 13, 2012
Does this really surprise anyone? Everyone use the Pirate Bay!
e_ramadhanFeb 18, 2012
The Research of Whitney Houston Cause of Death visit here http://healthmad.com/children/the-research-of-whitney-houston-cause-of-death/
tccinternFeb 17, 2012
Are these songs worth buying at such a price? http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/top-ten-whitney-houston-songs-02-14-2012
witney_in_memoryFeb 15, 2012
Sony ... simple sony... not money...simple sony.
all4dataFeb 15, 2012
Greed is considered to be a disease
mosercorinnaFeb 14, 2012
Way to kill your own industry - but hey im saying this since years - the major reason music retailers have to close is not the illegal downloads - its the prices the industry sets - make it half the price and ppl are willing to spend money instead of illegal downloading it - its not like the industry would suffer alot then.
Donuts4UFeb 14, 2012
Sony - Keeping it classy since 1946.
shivabeachFeb 14, 2012
Does anyone wonder why there is illegal pirating of music? Sony Corporation is a big part of it. A long time ago they chose to overprice all of their products
nachocheaseFeb 14, 2012
This is common practice in the music industry. The same thing happened when Michael Jackson died. That's not to say it's right, but if Sony wants to raise the price of a product that's in high demand, they can do so. Needless to day, it's in very bad taste and they're getting a lot of negative publicity as a result.
theyarFeb 14, 2012
Prices adjust based on all sort of factors. OMG evil. Give me a break. Don't buy it if you don't want to pay it.
caffienemanFeb 14, 2012
anything for a buck...
johnathonrossFeb 14, 2012
http://digg.com/news/world_news/whitney_houston_left_hollywood_club_last_thursday_belligerent_cursing_people_out_and_bleeding
rodgere1Feb 14, 2012
Well Duh!
jaysoninbluejeaFeb 14, 2012
SONY MUSIC: Kill all the artist!!! LMAO! peace sony.
FPSmotoFeb 14, 2012
At first you may think, hey it was an overdose, and it's only Whitney Houston. People are quick to look past how many other of their favorite artists are owned by Sony, like the Foo Fighters or Jay Z and I'd bet money they'd the same in the future, maybe to your favorite artist.
A company that has no respect for the dead needs less customers. f**k Sony.
bigduke6ukFeb 14, 2012
And these pirates are moaning about piracy. Hypocrites with double standards.
corak1985Feb 14, 2012
I am not so sure what people find so shocking about this. Would it have been better had they waited a few days?
The price of every artist's stuff goes up after their death, and if Sony owns her music, then its their music not hers anymore. Nothing sick about it, she entered into a legitimate deal that passes some or all of her ownership rights to them.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
New business model...sign artist...make them famous....kill them off...profit!
corak1985Feb 14, 2012
A good business model is whatever is legal and people agree to. Its my right as a free person to sign off my music, inventions, and anything else I create if I so wish.
But I hardly think they killed her off. I am no expert on her life, so please do correct me if I am wrong, but she was in an abusive relationship was she not?
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
No actually I'm not accusing them of killing her off. Or I didn't mean to...I was quipping about it being one of their new business models.
But I know that in the music biz...to keep them going when they are fatigued from touring...their agents will sometimes give them "stuff" to cope.
corak1985Feb 14, 2012
Oh hehe, sorry for the misunderstanding.
The last part sounds terrible. That is definitely not a part of my "legal" business model :)
evandeluxeFeb 14, 2012
****s.
jacobdisFeb 14, 2012
This trend is nothing new in the music industry. Following the news of an artist's death, the consumer demand for their music always jumps up. This is simply a business decision and it's not an illogical one.
skinturtleFeb 14, 2012
Sure is a greedy one.
markwikFeb 14, 2012
haha thats a real dick move by SONY
xeromusFeb 14, 2012
Exploitation at its finest!