Comments on: NY digital music probe widens

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:49:29 +0000

Show me the law that is preventing the record companies now from selling songs for under 99 cents. If they want to charge more than 99 cents let them, Jobs is not obligated to sell them on itunes, nor is anyone else under any compulsion to buy them. It will just cause more people to go p2p.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:18:48 +0000

The big 4 also want to lower the prices for back catalog below the 99c price point one aspect of this that has not been noticed by most of the media and especially p2pnet who has stated that 99c is way to much for digital downloads .

There only 1000 hits on the shelves of most retail music stores but there are literally millions of songs sitting in back catalog\niche music and digital distribution makes that back catalog and niche market more available to the consumer .

Steve Jobs from Apple originally pushed for the 99c price point because IPods are what makes profit for Apple not iTunes .

Itunes is a instrument to keep the copyright owners off his back while selling a product that can infringe copyright easily .

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:01:41 +0000

“Big Four apparently want to introduce variable pricing with something in the region of $1.50 for ‘premium’ product at the top end.”

There is a certain logic that products of highert quality or that require more cost to produce or where demand exceeds availability, are worth more or can be sold for more.

But this logic cannot be applied to song tracks. Traditionally the records that generate more profits do so by because more records are sold, not because of the quality of the music is higher or the prices are higher. For this reason artists and composers are usually paid based on licenses issued or contracts signed before the record is released.

Attemps by artists and songwriters (or music publishers) to get better per-record payments are usully rejected by record producers with a somewhat logical explanation: You will make more money if more records are sold, not because you make more on each record sold.

I wonder, will the artists and songwriters of “premium” tracks be paid more than those of non premium tracks? I doubt it. Also, at what point in the sales curve is the price changed up or down?

Likely the “premium” track pricing will only lead to lower sales and hurt those that get a per record royalty (artists and songwriters).

What a bad idea for the artists and the songwriters, the creators.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:01:27 +0000

“Big Four apparently want to introduce variable pricing with something in the region of $1.50 for ‘premium’ product at the top end.”

There is a certain logic that products of highert quality or that require more cost to produce or where demand exceeds availability, are worth more or can be sold for more.

I wonder, will the artists and songwriters of “premium” tracks be paid more than those of non premium tracks? I doubt it. Also, at what point in the sales curve is the price changed up or down?

Likely the “premium” track pricing will only lead to lower sales and hurt those that get a per record royalty (artists and songwriters).

What a bad idea for the artists and the songwriters, the creators.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com