Record labels: iTunes should cost more, US$ 2.49 per song



I just posted the article Record labels: iTunes should cost more, US$ 2.49 per song.

Macworld reports us that according to the major record labels, Apple’s
iTunes music download service is too cheap. Currently you can download songs for
US$ 0.99 per song but the top…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.


They just want their rightful share…which is of course, more that anybody else make.:r:r:r:r:r


I don’t think I’d be alone in calling for a total boycott of buying CDs, or paid for music downloads…I certainly couldn’t tell you when I last bought any music…I still regularly buy DVDs, but then the MPAA and the like haven’t quite gone down the same path of destruction as the monkey spankers in the recording industry. Those record co.s certainly need to improve their PR, they’re making themselves even less popular than politicians…I heard the CEO of EMI exclaim “…what’s that strange flap of skin growing from my forehead?” - I have the answers it’s a prize 10lb willy!


2,50$ for a 128 kbps lossy-compression, low-compatible and DRM-protected song ? :r For that price, those greedy bastards (a.k.a. the Top5 in the record industry) should offer lossless compression without DRM at least … These morons simply don’t understand the way of modern e-business and prefer to continue their ongoing winter’s sleep.


Awww, It’s all gonna be ok. All those honest people that have been paying the RIAA thru Itunes can just go back to downloading them via P2P again :wink: And the RIAA tightens it’s own noose…


Once again, the inestimable greed of the record companies is showing. There is only one way to show them that they are wrong: Reject paid downloaded music - period. It’s a ripoff at 1.00 a song - it’s lossy, for heaven’s sake! - and the LOSSLESS CD that you buy in the store costs about the same. Until downloaded music costs 1.00 a song for LOSSLESS content, I will never touch commercial downloaded music. I also seriously question the intelligence of someone who DOES for that very reason - only a fool pays more for less.


I don’t know about anybody else but i’m beyond PAY/P2P MP3’s now. Now i find 300GB Holgraphic porn more interesting. :d
[edited by jef195 on 27.04.2004 12:59]


LOL @ Holographic porn!


Yep, being part of the HMTA is a nice thing if you can get it - that is. the ‘Holographic Media Testing Authority’ - everyone must respect their authooorityyyyy :slight_smile: In tests, the ability to store huge amounts of porn on a single 12cm disc is a wonder to behold. The media stored all 280GB’s of test material even under various stress tests. However, to this date, we have not checked any of the RW capabilities - none of the testers could bring themselves to delete near 300GB’s of porn !


This is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you didn’t hate the record companies before you probably do now. :frowning: “The record industry doesn’t understand that the reason people flocked to free downloading services is because music simply costs too much.” Like hell they don’t. They just think they have the law on their side and have intimidated the masses. The real thing they want is total control back. They don’t like folks cherry picking and burning their own SUPERIOR products. Damn this pisses me!
[edited by Crabbyappleton on 27.04.2004 16:45]


Are you trying to corner the world market in Kleenex jef195? :+


““the top five record labels (Universal Music Group, EMI, BMG, Sony and Warner Music) would prefer a price ranging from US$ 1.25 up to US$ 2.49 per song”” Isnt this price fixing??? since UMG, EMI etc are suppose to be competition…


Anyone who pays for music is a retard anyway. But this is why DRM is part of all the new CPUs from AMD/Intel. If you buy anything with DRM you are supporting DRM.


[edited by sorti on 27.04.2004 19:50]


You don’t have to worry about price fixing…they’ve already been found guilty of it and were forced to payout for said practice. Basically I agree with the above boycott - money talks, so just refuse to let your money speak to any CD from the big boys. If enough people join in on this maybe the RIAA will decide to sue everyone who has ever heard a song. Maybe they’ll try to turn public radio into a pay service for the priviledge to hear their wares. Or just maybe they might go away…


They are idiots. 2.50 for a lossy compressed DRM song? That will kill iTunes. Is that their goal? Drive the online download services out of business in an effort to prop up the brick and mortar record retail stores? By raising the consumer price in such a manner, they are simply driving everyone back to the p2p networks. :r
[edited by Tremo on 27.04.2004 20:27]
[edited by Tremo on 27.04.2004 20:29]


As long as people pay these rediculous prices it is like putting a stamp of approval on the behaviour of the RIAA. Its like the guy who complaines abot the mob and then visits his bookie every week. Who the hell is going to stop the RIAA if the people don’t? The friggen govenments are spending out tax dollars to protect the poor RIAA members. The congress isn’t going to pass any legislation aimed at balancing fair use. Hell half of them are in the RIAA’s pocket. So either the public gets some balls or the game is over.


“The more you tighten your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” Evil Empire indeed:)


I think Apple should cut the DRM on iTunes in spite of the fact that the RIAA continues to want more. They would save money by not having to set up servers for DRM issues, etc. Well, if this does happen, they will loose MORE money, because people who didn’t pirate before, and went straight from retail CD buying to iTunes, will go to pirating thier stuff.


I’ve purchased a few iTunes (after receiving several free from Pepsi) and it works for .99c but ONLY for .99c I’ll pay a .01c increase to make it an even $1.00… that’s the only increase I see myself paying for.