iLounge

21

If they do that I would honestly never purchase music online again. Ever.
Charging anymore then $0.99 is completely ridiculous. I didn’t mind paying $0.99 a song, I thought that seemed fair. If they increase the price or do any of the fore mentioned things I’ll go back to download my music for free.

Posted by Cyantre on April 8, 2004 at 4:25 PM (PST)

22

It says:
“All five of the major music companies are discussing ways to boost the price of single-song downloads on hot releases - to anywhere from $1.25 to as much as $2.49.”

Isn’t this what they got in trouble for before - price collusion and fixing the prices of CD’s?  I thought this was illegal, yet the RIAA can sue us????

Posted by Pete on April 8, 2004 at 4:39 PM (PST)

23

ok, as if the RIAA isnt already ###### enough, something this stupid is just the extra nail in their coffin. that’s about as bright as throwing a tank of gasoline in the inferno…...with people burning inside.

Music piracy is only going to get worse if they take this into effect, and its already bad enough. Music RIGHT NOW is STILL overpriced, why the hell would you just make it worse? common sense people please.

i wouldn’t pay more than 49 cents a song, if they make that move, then maybe they’ll actually save themselves from their own stupidity and greed.

Posted by Peter on April 8, 2004 at 4:44 PM (PST)

24

just when I start buying music legally, they try to **** with the system. What is wrong with them… Hope Steve has something smart to say to the so called major labels.

Posted by speedybluedragon on April 8, 2004 at 4:57 PM (PST)

25

I kinda feel bad for apple with this too. They have made a great product here that has turned the record companies around from losing money from piracy to now making (not sure if that is fact) money if not at least losing less). This will screw them over with all the money they have dumped into promotion. It is also sad for people like me who are willing to turn my ways around and go completely legit. I even deleted all my illegal MP3’s and trashed the CD’s. But it would only take one slip up like this to turn me back. Even though I mainly buy older music, the concept of them raising prices for higher margin would turn me off. I really hope Apple fights this (even though they really have no control) I could go on forever but I will sum it up like this: RIAA and major record labels need to realize that their main audiance are people who have been d/ling music for free for years and are skeptical already. $.99 is just the right price to snag maybe 1/4 of these type, yet they are willing to cut that number in half for higher profit. It doesn’t make sense. I can only hope a label or 2 realizes the mistake being made here and fight it.

Posted by M3_DeL on April 8, 2004 at 5:00 PM (PST)

26

and this is why we download music for free.
the large record labels are become more like a “mob” corporation

Posted by Chris on April 8, 2004 at 5:36 PM (PST)

27

man,

And if it wasn’t a bad joke.  This sucks.  First is the Apple Ipod battery issue, which we have to spend 100 bucks for replacement.  And then they got greedy for the downloads. 

So much for walking the line, this is why people get off the dark side .

Posted by Bluejay on April 8, 2004 at 6:11 PM (PST)

28

Wow…that will cut into my music buying budget….oh wait I don’t pay for music anyways!  FU RIAA

Posted by kyle on April 8, 2004 at 6:40 PM (PST)

29

Just when I started paying for music again the RIAA tries to pull this s*** on us! From now on I will only support independent artists with my hard earned money.

Posted by Tripledeuce on April 8, 2004 at 8:10 PM (PST)

30

Im excited to see the big changes that will be taking place in music in the next few years. For better or worse, the RIAA are only speeding up this process.
I also cant wait (hopefully) till some artists who own studios realize they could make their own music put it online for $.99 and make much much more than they ever were on a moajor label.

Maybe record companies realise their days are numbered and this is just a desparate attempt to make a quick buck.

Posted by an0therdumbsn on April 8, 2004 at 8:34 PM (PST)

31

Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Guess I should start packing for Canada, huh.

Posted by tear on April 8, 2004 at 11:30 PM (PST)

32

TOLD YOU SO!

That’s to all the people out there who praise Apple and ITMS.

Praise the iPod as much as you want—it’s a great device.  But, I knew it was just a matter of time before the labels realized 99 cents a song wasn’t a good deal for them (at least not relative to how much they’ve ripped consumers off in the past).

$2.49 a song.  That #### is not gonna last.  And, don’t blame it all on the labels.  I’m sure Apple is happy about higher prices so they can actually get some money out of the deal.

Apple’s supposed business model of ITMS being there to fuel iPod sales is at its end.  They want to make money off the store.  This is the begining of the end for Apple and the iPod’s domination of the MP3 marketplace.

Stay strong people.  Encode only MP3 and share music amongst yourselves.

Posted by BigSid in Los Angeles on April 9, 2004 at 12:14 AM (PST)

33

Now seriously, is ANYONE in the slightest bit surprised about this? We all know the RIAA is a monopolistic cartel, and we all know how monopolistic cartels behave.

This announcement is like the bit at the end of Planet of the Apes where Charlton Heston sees the head of the Statue of Liberty and realises he is on Earth, when it has already become blatently apparent to the rest of the audience ages ago!

Completely stupid, but not unexpected.

Posted by Fenn on April 9, 2004 at 12:53 AM (PST)

34

What the *&@!#  They just don’t get it do they?

Posted by jcs on April 9, 2004 at 2:38 AM (PST)

35

I completely agree with the user that said that they’re only going to support independant musicians with their hard earned money. 

There are also some good websites to download music from (epitonic) that are free or less cost.  I don’t want to steal music, but I’m not going to “buy in” to these weasel tactics either.

I can only look at it as a way to learn to love a more diverse group of musicians and music…  (trying to be so optimistic here…)

If anyone “important” at iTunes would realize that they’ve really got something with the under $1 price range…

Posted by red on April 9, 2004 at 2:47 AM (PST)

36

What is this?  All these users have willingly agreed to paying 99 cents to download songs instead of getting them illegaly, now they want to jack up the prices?  It looks like a lot of the “loyal” customers will resort back to illegal downloading if they do raise prices.  For the prices they are proposing, you could go to a music store and purchase the single for the same price.  That has got to be the stupidest proposal I have ever seen from the music industry!

Posted by Asian_N02 on April 9, 2004 at 3:05 AM (PST)

37

A big FU to the RIAA. I will now never pay for music again. I will furiously pirate and spread music until the day I die. They won’t win this war those monopolist crackpots.

I say we band together and attack this industry full on. Let’s bring them to their knees then give them no mercy.

Posted by Jack the Ripper on April 9, 2004 at 3:21 AM (PST)

38

Man, the more things change the more they stay the same.

The Labels want their CASH and they’ll take it wherever they can. 

That meant gouging customers for CDs (CDs were introduced at approximately $20USD) just a decade or so ago, despite the fact that CDs cost less overall to produce than the cassettes they replaced.

The Internet took the power away from the labels, but now that the Wild West of illegal downloads are not the only choice, the Labels are setting their sights on iTunes, et al. 

Good luck, major’s.  But I think you’re too late to a party you were invited to only by way of obligation.

http://homepage.mac.com

Posted by matthew on April 9, 2004 at 3:53 AM (PST)

39

They are finally getting bitten in the ###! They have always relied on crappy bands to produce one or two hit singles and use that to move a CD full of other crap songs. Its a trick to get people to spend $10-15 on one or two songs while making it look like you are getting an entire album.

So I can see where the idea of getting 99 cents for a single instead of $10 is not to their liking. If they do raise the cost of a single that much they had better LOWER the cost of buying the entire album. Because we all know those aren’t cost competitive with CDs.

Posted by Biff on April 9, 2004 at 4:15 AM (PST)

40

Check this out: [url=http://www.downhillbattle.org]http://www.downhillbattle.org[/url]

Screw the record companies, when are they going to learnt aht we are only going to leagally download music when it is reasonably priced.  Screwing your customer is not a good way to build cstoemr loyalty, it only invites desention.

Posted by jkcoon on April 9, 2004 at 4:42 AM (PST)