Money is king. For both the consumer and the business. Cds which are just some bits of plastic shouldn't be costing me more then a lunch time sandwich. I don't know what a standard overhead would look like for these labels, but I know that bits of plastic aren't expensive.

I feel that if prices were lowered that that would encourage listeners and fans to drop the money for it. I just dropped $15 for 3 Skid Row albums off Amazon for $5 each. I have had the files on my computer for a long time, but on a whim I looked 'em up and said "hells yeah what is $15?" It obviously adds up. I'm an impulse buyer and I know I would be more inclined to spend money on Cds. I think they lack confidence in the market otherwise they would be doing this. So the thought is to make up for a lack of buyers by increasing/maintaing the prices, but I really feel they would get more then enough buyers to make up the difference, if the prices are lowered.

What you're describing is called the price elasticity of demand, specifically for CDs. And I think it's a bit hasty to decide that the additional CDs sold by lowering prices would outstrip the loss from garnering less from each sale.

I never really noticed this, but if anyone is losing money now, its the postal service. I really wonder how much longer theyll last.

Why would the postal service be losing?

In a sense I agree that the multi-million dollar record labels can work on their PR as far as promoting themselves better. They invest millions into pursuing the FCC or other legal political bodies that threaten citizens with jail time for illegal downloading and such. They can as equaly to invest millions in making themselves look like "Good Guy Label" that invests money into music schools, do advertising about how transparent they are with the moeny they make and that it isnt all a cash grab. Its not all about lawyers in a room who are ready to nail your ass down for the next 3 second sample that you used.

My assumption on why it isnt like that because there is a lot of politics involved when it comes to record labels and http://www.copyright.gov/. Some one is paying someone to keep them on the job, because if tomorrow all record labels decide that they dont care for illegal piracy and just do good PR work with the public all those judges, lawyers, gov. officials would be out of work. So in a sense its like a mob mentality thing "You need us to keep you in business" kind of thing. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

I bought probably 95% of the cds I had online, thus shipping. Almost every book I had was too(ebooks are WAY cheaper than paperbacks/hardcovers) and I dont even read magazines anymore. I just look online. The only things I get in the mail are spam.
It seems that most metal, mainly underground, can only be bought online, since you cant even find it in stores anymore. Theyve been talking about stopping mail on saturdays to reduce costs.

When's the last time you paid your bills via snail mail?

Yeah, you are right. It wouldn't be so simple as just one solution. It has to be multitude of things happening all at the same time.

I just went to download an album through iTunes as a gift. $14.99! Let my say that again - FOURTEEN FUCKING NINETY NINE. More than you could buy the CD for, from practically anywhere.

So here's another suggestion to combat free downloading: don't fucking price gouge you greedy motherfuckers. There is no conceivable reason to charge more for a download than you would for a physical CD, unless you are exactly the sort of record exec moron who is genuinely confused why people download for free.

I agree. Digital albums cost less to produce, therefore they should cost less to buy.

Make the album worth owning. You can't pirate a collector's item.

Easy, make it accessible to everybody at a good price. I wouldn't mind paying 7-10 JOD (roughly 7 $?) for a CD. Until that's there, I'm gonna download everything >.>"

It looks like amazon has raised some digital albums slightly. Most of them were 7-8, now theyre 9-10.

So I went and got the CD from Amazon for $9.99. Swell gift, I win.
I went back to the iTunes store to figure out what the deal was, thinking maybe iTunes had some kind of exclusive deal running. It's a 14 track album, so at 99 cents each that's $13.86. There was one iTunes exclusive, which could not be purchased individually. If it had been, getting all 15 at 99 cents would add up to $14.85, still less than their asking price, and still more than buying the physical CD.

So clearly someone thought that this one extra song would entice people to buy the entire album at $14.99 instead of individual tracks here and there. I'll just go download the extra fucking extra song, thank you.

This is a tactic that some thickheaded record exec would think has promise, however. Some people don't care about "bonus tracks", or don't think the term has any meaning anymore. So having exclusives that you cannot download except with a full album purchase would not work on these people. BUT - What if they started doing that with regular album tracks? What if tracks 2, 3, and 7 were simply unavailable for purchase unless you purchased the whole album? Purchse it in a store, purchase it in iTunes. Either way, you couldn't get those tracks unless you bought it. That may be coming.

I don't think so. Do bear in mind that the single-centric mainstream music still remains as the major monetary draw in the industry, so I'm sure that even the most stupid of executives could think of a less painful way to sever his foot than restricting certain tracks to be exclusive to an album purchase.

Now, on topic - the only way I see that can help reducing piracy is by partially embracing it, that is, by making full lengths entirely and permanently previewable at good streaming quality (~128KBPS), so everyone can form an opinion of whether to buy the album or not without the hassle of downloading it by themselves. It obviously won't eliminate the instances of these who pirate because they don't have either the means or the will to buy music, but frankly - nothing would.

Isn't that what Youtube is for? I preview stuff on there and see full-lengths up all the time.

Japan recently enacted an extremely draconian anti-piracy law. The music industry in that country thought that by scaring people away from downloading, it would make people buy more physical music. Instead, it's having the opposite effect. Less people are buying physical music than ever before.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/13423720996/draconian-downloading-law-japan-goes-into-effect-music-sales-drop.shtml

As someone who bought way too many CDs and vinyls in the 80s and 90s and early 00s and thus, not part of the younger generation: I fucking hate those things nowadays . I got rid of almost all my collection.

An electronic mp3 copy is worth MORE to me than a shitty physical form. I have instant access to everything, anything in my collection. I can make smart playlists. I can carry an important part of my collection anywhere on my iPod. It's added value to me that it's not stuck in the physical world and adds flexibility and convenience.

Plus, space is at a premium I just like having more room. I don't like clutter. I used to spend a lot of time just managing my collection, organizing it, keeping it in order. It's the same thing for books, which I have also gotten rid of except for those really important to me.

There's also the fact physical copies of stuff can be damaged. Electronic copies can be backed up and are forever yours.

There's no going back, IMO. More and more people are gonna do that. I have a friend who is stuck with two FULL ROOMS of CDs and books. It's not just the cost of the collection that's stressful... it's also the living expenses to make room for all that, whether you rent or are a home owner.

I don't know that piracy is a good or bad thing ultimately for the artists. I know it's certainly a good thing for the consumer. I think the solution is for artists to get noticed thanks to the music and earn money for other services and products. Live performances, clothing, meetups, licensing to other media and the likes.

Not to sound rude, but this just tells me that you are too incompetent to realize that CDs are a digital medium.

Epic fail on that, but at least you're really great at being dense! Nice job chopping two bits of my post and trying to take them out of context too, since I wasn't just talking about CDs!



Yes, I know what CDs are. They happen to be digital data on a physical medium I personally have no use for. I don't feel like buying physical copies, waiting for them or carrying them and then ripping that stuff when it's less hassle to just download them and back them up.

I download for the purpose of being able to explore and enjoy music at my leisure (through my mp3 player which holds 30-something gb and I always have with me), and learn what albums I want to buy. I fully intend to buy physical CD's for the downloaded albums that I end up liking (meaning DL'ed albums I don't delete) as my finances allow. Without my downloading I highly doubt I would have found my way to buying the CD's I have. I probably wouldn't listen to much metal at all, in fact. So treating piracy in a case-by-case manner, my process works very well and only moralizing things and arguing ethics could make someone think otherwise. I prefer a practical perspective.

I love collecting other media that I love, I buy books and DVD's too, but also only after making sure it's money well spent.

But you were talking about them, while the quoted bits only make sense for non-rippable stuff.


Personally I like to have a lossless, physical copy - and to own a token of my dedication to the individual release, though that can be filed under irrational arguments. I didn't mean to offend you but it really sounded like you didn't know that you could rip the stuff. If you think it's a hassle that's your thing. I don't see any kind of hassle in carrying a bit of plastic from the store (also: I do like music stores) and putting it in my computer a single time.

I totally get how the physical object means something to some people. I also used to love music stores (especially small, specialty ones). I totally respect that type of stuff but I just got burned out on all that.

I didn't get offended that you suggested I might not know it's actually a digital medium (although honestly, I kinda wonder who wouldn't know that) but I was taken aback by your way of expressing it. Telling people they're too incompetent to know about something is probably not the best way to got about it if you don't want to offend them.

Anyways, no harm done as far as I am concerned and hope it's the same thing for you.

Yeah, the biggest thing moving me towards 100% digital is the space issue. I don't really want more CDs. I already have thousands, like probably a lot of others. I like the artwork and the linear notes, but when it comes down to it, I just find myself doing iTunes.

I'm afraid there's no going back.

I used to really enjoy going to the music store and leafing through huge bins of CDs. It's still fun sometimes.

I was like that too, but now it's impossible. There's only one store around here that would have metal cd's(and last time I checked most of it got shitty and was the same thing for months). I used to be into artwork/lyrics(the only reason I bought the cd version of cannibal corpse- torture), but it's easier to go online and see. I used to have a cd wallet, where Id grab a few cd's before heading out. Now, I just take my mp3 player, which is roughly the size of a cell phone, with shelves full of music. Unfortunately, the best artwork seems to come from a lot of shitty death metal bands.
I never thought I'd be going all digital, but it's way better than physical formats.

I don't understand why people would rather have a shitty MP3 than the real compact disc. The original cd sounds WAY better. Downloading is great for getting out of print albums and long lost demos. Without those options, there's lots of stuff I would have never heard.
I'm a collector by nature. I probably have about 400 cds, 500 comic books, and about 300 diferent GI Joe action figures.
Ask your self this: Would you pay 100 bucks for an alltime favorite album? My answer? Yep. 100 bucks would be a small price to pay for owning, let's say Reign in Blood or Sky Valley. But if it was mediocre/bad I wouldn't even download it. 99% of my downloads are deleted if I don't like 'em.

I'll give you my copy of Reign In Blood for 50 bucks. Deal?

.....?

I would gladly pay $100 for an original release of the Abhoth demos. But Reign in Blood? Seriously? You could probably find that in the used bin at a thrift store for $.50.

Come on, he's talking about the cost according to the quality, not how much it really costs. If it went for a $100, he'd (apparently) be willing to pay for it.

I wouldn't because it's a piece of plastic they can make as much as they want of. Let's not get carried away here. If there was no other way to listen to it maybe... but if CDs would cost that much I would gladly pirate all the time - hell, I'd see it as my moral duty to do so.

quoted for truth

As would I. I didn't say he was sane, y'know? That's no reason to willfully misinterpret him, though.

Here in Chile the key would be reducing the taxes. An original CD costs around 20-24 US dollars. I don't know if in other countries albums are this expensive.

At 320kbps, even studio professionals and audiophiles are hard-pressed to notice a difference in a blind test.

Most people used to be very happy with lower bit rates (where there is a noticeable difference) so I don't think that was ever a big deal but these days, with fast connections and high quality rips, that's not an issue anymore.

Not that I buy that much nowadays, but I've seen stuff in that price range here too.

I often times download albums that are out of print, because shelling out extra monies is silly unless I'm supporting my buddy's record shop.

A large percentage of my music is in flac codec now, 2 main reasons are - FLAC is an open format with royalty-free licensing, and secondly I maintain it does sound better as I hear details and background instruments/effects much clearer (though the small benefit has to be weighed against file sizes).

I started to turn away from mp3 a few years ago when I realised they're legal issues involved, and if I buy a cd I want to be able to transfer the music to multiple players in the same quality and legally - even if the chances of having a problem are slight to none, as it's the principal.

I've stopped buying mp3's, except in a few cases - and then only 320kbps, as I reckon it's a con, often £7.50 for a low quality download when I can buy the cd (and full quality for storing) for a few pounds more or sometimes cheaper

the majority of home users not knowing or not caring about the patents' existence and often not considering such legal issues when choosing their music format for personal use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Licens ... ent_issues

Something tells me if a lawyer really wanted to bust you for file sharing FLACs, he could.

But not for ripping your own CD's that you legitimately bought to FLAC and storing them on your HDD, which was the point of the post you're quoting. If you ripped those same CD's you legitimately bought to mp3, however, you could be in trouble depending on the circumstances (which software you used to rip the CD's, whether any royalties have to be paid because of the mp3 file format being patented and who must pay them (you, the maker of the ripping software, etc.), and so on).

I still can't make myself pay upwards of $10 for an mp3 album, but give me FLAC and I have far less of a problem. The file sizes may be large and it may be more complicated to burn them to cd, but the sound quality is identical to the actual cd. And it's not like I need the physical cd and it's artwork. Sure, if the actual cd is cheaper then I'd go with that but if it's gonna cost double to get the physical cd (and it usually does with many of the lesser known bands I'm into) than it does the digital album, then that's a no brainer. That's why I love sites like bandcamp that give you option of downloading in FLAC.