Why is downloadable music so expensive?

[Sumisu_919]

iTunes charges .99 or something to that effect for a single musical cut presumably from a CD but the resulting file is no where near CD quality. Why do they do this and why do people pay more for less? Is it just convenience?

[I'm Ron Burgundy?]

Has music pricing ever made any degree of sense? Why does 30 minutes of the Beatles cost the same as 80 minutes of Tool? The store charges what folks are willing to pay.

[Wallenstein]

Agreed. You're not paying for the physical object, you're paying for the effort and creativity that went into making the music.

You may not agree that it's worth the price, but then you can exercise your right not to purchase the music.

[Sumisu_919]

Agreed. You're not paying for the physical object, you're paying for the effort and creativity that went into making the music.

You may not agree that it's worth the price, but then you can exercise your right not to purchase the music.

Are you making this up or do you know this to be true? Does anyone know where there is a breakdown i.e. like a pie chart that illustrates how the $.99 is distributed or how the price of a CD is distrubuted amongst all involved?

[I'm Ron Burgundy?]

Whatever it is, it's going to be grossly generalized, as it all depends on the contracts between the artist and the label, the label and the publisher, label and the merchant, between the merchant and the credit card companies, and hell, who else is there? Lawyers? I'm pretty sure those lawyers don't want us seeing all those contracts.

This article contains an optimistic pie chart on CD costs from Billboard http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8189/Is+2007+the+year+the+CD+died%3F

It's about halfway down, ctrl+F for 'billboard.' It's in pounds sterling, but the image is pretty.

[Cheesesteak]

Why do they do this and why do people pay more for less?Feel free to explain to us how else you would pay $0.99 and actually get music in return. I don't ever recall seeing a CD that price.

For your $0.99, you get the music immediately, you get it loaded onto iTunes immediately, no trip to the store, no searching the racks for the CD, no issues with it being out of stock, no hassles. You also get the ability to buy the one song from an album you like and only spend one dollar, rather than buying a CD full of songs you hate for $16.

I believe you also can buy many full albums for $10 on iTunes, which is generally less than a CD from the store, so that would be paying less for less.

[Smitty]

You're not paying for the physical object, you're paying for the effort and creativity that went into making the music.


No, that's not quite how capitalism works. You're paying the price that the seller thinks will maximize his profits. That's all there is to it. A product or service is worth what people will pay for it, no more, no less.

[RickJay]

Are you making this up or do you know this to be true? Does anyone know where there is a breakdown i.e. like a pie chart that illustrates how the $.99 is distributed or how the price of a CD is distrubuted amongst all involved?
That's irrelevant.

They charge $0.99 because that's the market-clearing price. No other reason. If they could make more money charging 50 cents, they would charge 50 cents. If they made more money charging $5 a song, that's what they would charge.

The price of downloadable music has nothing to do with any cost, because there's no marginal costs involved (nothing significant for the purpose of this discussion, anyway.) They charge whatever price will bring in the largest total amount of bucks, and apparently that price is 99 cents.

Whether you personally think it's a good deal or not is interesting, but it's apparent that enough people think it is a good deal to make it the ideal price.

[garygnu]

...the resulting file is no where near CD quality...
I would dispute this. I've never had a problem with sound quality from iTunes. The only bad mp3's I have are ones from a CD I compressed too much myself.

[Hodge]

iTunes charges .99 or something to that effect for a single musical cut presumably from a CD but the resulting file is no where near CD quality.I would dispute this. I've never had a problem with sound quality from iTunes. The only bad mp3's I have are ones from a CD I compressed too much myself.The issue isn't whether a lossy compressed track is CD quality, because it obviously isn't. Only lossless compression or uncompressed audio can provide actual CD quality.

The real issue is transparency. At what bitrate does the loss of information become transparent to the listener? Many people can tell the difference between a CD and a 128 kbps MP3 but very, very few can hear a difference between a CD and 192 kbps MP3. And AAC is an even better performer than MP3 at lower bitrates. See the Hydrogen Audio Forums (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php) for exhaustive technical discussion of audio formats, including several double-blind listening tests.

Given the above, the iTunes AAC format and default bitrate are perfectly adequate for most people. The only real audible loss in quality comes when people transcode lossy formats, i.e., when they burn to CD then re-rip to MP3.

Also, the iTunes default $0.99 per track price is hardly universal. I belong to emusic, which provides unencrypted 192 kbps MP3 files for download. It's a subscription-based service so, depending on your monthly plan, you could end up paying as little as $0.27 per track. The only caveat is that there are no major label artists available. However, if you're into jazz, classical, or indie music, you'll love it (I know I do).

[pulykamell]

No, that's not quite how capitalism works. You're paying the price that the seller thinks will maximize his profits. That's all there is to it. A product or service is worth what people will pay for it, no more, no less.

Pretty much. Frankly, I, too, don't get it. I'd say a downloaded song is only worth about $0.50 given the fact you get a lossy format, limited use restrictions, no packaging, etc. I suppose people are just willing to pay for the convenience. Me, I'd rather go out and buy a CD. But apparently not enough people think my way, since the market can bear a buck a song.

[Campo]

The issue isn't whether a lossy compressed track is CD quality, because it obviously isn't. Only lossless compression or uncompressed audio can provide actual CD quality.
Do any of the formats iTunes uses give quality that matches CD quality?



From a Wikipedia article:
iTunes 7 can currently read, write, and convert between MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, and Apple Lossless.

very few can hear a difference between a CD and 192 kbps MP3. And AAC is an even better performer than MP3 at lower bitrates.
Is this taking in account the equipment most people use? In other words, if the average person were to listen to a commercially produced CD on a very high end stereo and then one downloaded from itunes using a 192 kbps MP3, would he be able to tell the difference?

If so, how about using one of the better formats I quoted above?

[Wee Bairn]

Which is why the dearly departed (almost) allofmp3 (I know, I know) was more sensible- you paid based on the size of the song. Its silly for itunes to charge the same 0.99 for the album version of "Autobahn" as they do the Beatles "Yesterday".

But I still wouldn't call itunes overpriced necessarily, as the last time I bought 45's on a regular basis was the early 80's and they were 1.99 or so for one song (or two, if the artist cared about B sides).

[susan_foster]

Pretty much. Frankly, I, too, don't get it. I'd say a downloaded song is only worth about $0.50 given the fact you get a lossy format, limited use restrictions, no packaging, etc. I suppose people are just willing to pay for the convenience. Me, I'd rather go out and buy a CD. But apparently not enough people think my way, since the market can bear a buck a song.


Well, there are also a lot of people out there who hear one song by an artist - just one - and like it. They just don't like it well enough to pay for the entire CD to get that one song in the most perfect format.

Susan

[Chronos]

An iTunes song is 99 cents. A typical CD is about 15 bucks, and has about 15 songs on it (checking my collection, I have CDs ranging from 11 to 23 songs). Then you consider that with iTunes, you can pick and choose the songs you want, so you don't have to buy a bad song just because it's on the same album as a good song. That sounds fair to me (at least by comparison).
Is this taking in account the equipment most people use? In other words, if the average person were to listen to a commercially produced CD on a very high end stereo and then one downloaded from itunes using a 192 kbps MP3, would he be able to tell the difference?A typical listener couldn't even tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 on a mid-quality sound system and a CD on a really good one. Most of what audiophiles pay for is just bragging rights, not actual difference in the experience.

[ticker]

A typical listener couldn't even tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 on a mid-quality sound system and a CD on a really good one. Most of what audiophiles pay for is just bragging rights, not actual difference in the experience.

I disagree. A typical listener could easily tell the difference between a CD on a mid-quality system and a CD on a really good one - an experiment I have performed on several occasions. Many typical listeners claim they couldn't mainly because they have never tried. The only real issue is whether the typical listener could hear a difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and a CD on whatever quality system the typical listener is likely to use. Sadly this typical system will be rather poor and in that context the MP3 makes perfect sense.

[DSYoungEsq]

I should note that the assertion that 99 cents is the reasonable value for a song on iTunes based upon free-market principles is only correct if there is a competitive market for what Apple is selling. Apple may, in fact, be under- or over-pricing the songs, and would never know without conducting some price-variation experiment (for example, putting them on sale for a lower price and seeing if the profits are higher). But for any individual sale, it is true that the true value of the service or good sold is the value paid. Based upon this fact alone, one would have to say that Apple has made a good "guesstimate" of the price many are willing to pay (iTunes has had pretty good sales, you have to admit).

As to why they do it, why else do you expect? First, it allows the tunes to be played on the highest selling MP3 player on the market without doing anything more than plugging in a simple cable and running the iTunes software (convenience). Second, I can purchase from an incredible smorgasbord of tunes, without ever leaving my house (convenience). Third, regardless of the quality issue, I can carry around something in my pocket that plays thousands of tunes at a time, as opposed to carrying around a portable CD player that plays one CD at a time (convenience).

I suspect the OP is a rant in disguise. ;) What upset you, Sumisu_919?

[pulykamell]

An iTunes song is 99 cents. A typical CD is about 15 bucks.

I suppose it depends on where you shop and what you're buying but Amazon.com's general price range hovers from about $8-$12, and a heck of a lot of stuff at Best Buy is in the same range. I can't remember the last time I spent 15 bucks on a CD. Quite often, I can find a CD that I want for less or the same price than a download of the same album through iTunes. And I get a physical product, with all the album artwork, the case, and the ability to play it wherever the hell I want, not just a limited amount of computers. It's that last bit that really irks me. I've been in situations where there's a group of people sharing their playlists, and if you have your audio file from the iTunes store, you get that stupid digital rights management warning and it doesn't let you play the song.

Now, I'm an album buyer. Obviously, it seems that most people aren't, so the same considerations don't apply to them, I suppose.

[lowbrass]

It's that last bit that really irks me. I've been in situations where there's a group of people sharing their playlists, and if you have your audio file from the iTunes store, you get that stupid digital rights management warning and it doesn't let you play the song.

So are you saying there should be no copy protections, and all music should be public-domain and free for everyone? And by extension, that all musicians should be volunteers and not make any money?

[Mathochist]

Has music pricing ever made any degree of sense? Why does 30 minutes of the Beatles cost the same as 80 minutes of Tool? The store charges what folks are willing to pay.

Indeed! How else can you explain the incredibly high price of Tool recordings?

[jackelope]

Its silly for itunes to charge the same 0.99 for the album version of "Autobahn" as they do the Beatles "Yesterday".True, but this can work in your favor at times. I'm an eMusic subscriber as well; I'm grandfathered in on my old plan, which means I get 40 tracks/month for $10/month. (They don't rollover, though.) The great thing about this is that if you're into classical music, as I am, the tracks can be BIG. A symphony will be four or five tracks, which cost the same as four or five songs.

One great feature of eMusic is that you can create playlists that other members can see; I've come across a playlist called "Classical music by the yard," which consisted entirely of tracks that run 25 minutes or longer. It's hard to beat DRM-free music that costs about $0.01 per minute.

[Hodge]

Do any of the formats iTunes uses give quality that matches CD quality?

From a Wikipedia article:iTunes 7 can currently read, write, and convert between MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, and Apple Lossless.First of all, I think we should define "CD quality". Generally, when people use that phrase, they are referring to the Red Book CD Standard which is two channel audio, 16 bits / 44.1 khz. So, 44.1 khz × 16 bits per sample × 2 channels = 1411.2 kbps.

AIFF and WAV are typically uncompressed audio so they would be CD quality and contain all 1411.2 kps. Apple Lossless (along with other lossless formats like WAVPAK, FLAC, APE, etc) average around 2/3's compression and could be anywhere from 900 kbps to 1000 kbps. However, no audio information is thrown away so they, too, could be considered CD quality. Think of them as ZIP files for audio.

MP3, AAC and MPEG-4 (they're essentially the same), OGG, etc. are all lossy formats in that they throw away varying amounts of audio info. Typically, the user specifies the bitrate when they rip a CD. MP3 is the oldest and most common format. AAC and OGG are more recent and have more efficient compression algorithms and, hence, sound better than MP3 at lower bitrates.

This is all academic, however, as the only format available for purchase at the iTunes music store is encrypted AAC at 128 kbps. All of the other listed formats would have to come from other sources, i.e., ripped CDs, file-sharing, etc.

Is this taking in account the equipment most people use? In other words, if the average person were to listen to a commercially produced CD on a very high end stereo and then one downloaded from itunes using a 192 kbps MP3, would he be able to tell the difference?The tests should take place on identical equipment. The biggest factor in sound quality is always the speakers, so of course a CD will sound much better on high-end Paradigm monitors than they will on cheap plastic computer speakers. However, when testing on the same equipment, generally, few people can distinguish 192 kbps from uncompressed CD audio. If you really wanted to play it safe, you could encode to 250 kbps MP3 and almost nobody could distinguish the difference.

Unfortunately, I can't point to any specific listening tests to back up my claims(I'll keep looking, though). Most of what I've learned above has come from reading the Hydrogen Audio forums over a couple of years. They take a very rigorous, scientific approach to testing and don't buy into any audiophile crap about golden ears and magic cables. Here's a link (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295) to their double-blind test procedures.

[Campo]

This is all academic, however, as the only format available for purchase at the iTunes music store is encrypted AAC at 128 kbps.
So this does that many people will be able to tell the difference between a song downloaded on iTunes and played on a high end stereo, and that same song played from a commercially produced CD played on that same stereo, correct?

How much difference are we talking here?

[ticker]

So this does that many people will be able to tell the difference between a song downloaded on iTunes and played on a high end stereo, and that same song played from a commercially produced CD played on that same stereo, correct?

How much difference are we talking here?

I would hazard guess that it depends on how much you like the music being played. The more you are able to immerse yourself in the music the more the subtleties become apparent.

[ticker]

Also the type of instruments being recorded. Acoustic instruments have a very complex sound which is more likely to be damaged by compression than synthesized electronica.

[Yllaria]

Originally posted by RickJay
If they made more money charging $5 a song, that's what they would charge.

No, but only because the music is priced to sell ipods, not songs. Raise the song price and the ipod sales drop.

[pulykamell]

So are you saying there should be no copy protections, and all music should be public-domain and free for everyone? And by extension, that all musicians should be volunteers and not make any money?

I don't believe I said that anywhere. Are we reading the same thread?

[lowbrass]

I don't believe I said that anywhere. Are we reading the same thread?
You objected to copy protections. What I'm asking is what you would have instead of the system you cited to which you object. Yes, it's the same thread.

[pulykamell]

You objected to copy protections. What I'm asking is what you would have instead of the system you cited to which you object. Yes, it's the same thread.

I object to the fact that my music loses its portability when I download something with DRM. With a CD, I can play it wherever the hell I want. With DRM music, I cannot. I'm not here to offer a suggestion of how to solve this problem. I don't care what the answer is, since I end up buying CDs whenever I can and don't like digital music just for this reason.

This is not the same as saying I don't want musicians to be paid for their music or that music should be public domain and free. That's a hell of a strawman if I've ever seen one and, frankly, I'm insulted, especially given the fact that I have friends who are career musicians and I have recorded and been played on radio stations myself.

[lowbrass]

I object to the fact that my music loses its portability when I download something with DRM. With a CD, I can play it wherever the hell I want. With DRM music, I cannot. I'm not here to offer a suggestion of how to solve this problem. I don't care what the answer is, since I end up buying CDs whenever I can and don't like digital music just for this reason.

This is not the same as saying I don't want musicians to be paid for their music or that music should be public domain and free. That's a hell of a strawman if I've ever seen one and, frankly, I'm insulted, especially given the fact that I have friends who are career musicians and I have recorded and been played on radio stations myself.
Well I apologize for insulting you, but my point was that this is an incidental problem that has developed with advances in technology. It is much easier to control the bootlegging of physical copies of CDs, because they must be physically distributed somehow. So it is still possible to have CDs be "portable" without destroying the music industry. But unless you know of a way to have downloaded sound files to be "portable" in the sense that they can be shared with other users on a network without those users also having the ability to copy them without the artist making any money, then what choice do they have? If all music becomes free for the taking, would it not logically follow that all musicians would have to be volunteers, at least those who record? How can you complain about a situation without offering an alternative to it?

I understand your criticism that I have constructed a strawman, but I didn't mean to imply you said that; I meant that it would be the logical result of getting rid of the copy-protections to which you object.

[panamajack]

This is all academic, however, as the only format available for purchase at the iTunes music store is encrypted AAC at 128 kbps.

Except for the higher quality, DRM-free "iTunes Plus" tracks see link at bottom (http://www.apple.com/itunes/).

Interestingly enough, tracks sell for $1.29 and are 256 kbps AAC. This is probably something of a compromise - give more money to the record companies, without necessarily making it seem like DRM-free is something consumers ought to pay for.

personal single point of data:
If you really want to detect the differences in sound quality, you may want to use headphones. I used a piece of software that would run ABX testing, and found that with my hearing (not remarkable, in fact likely slightly damaged from playing brass instruments), I generally couldn't tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and a lossless file.

128 kbps AAC, or most mp3, I can tell apart quite commonly on most equipment (and usually had ~80% on headphone tests), though it's not enough to bother me. I still prefer not to buy at the low quality, but I'm much happier with the new iTunes Plus tracks (not that I've bought anything there yet).

[Hodge]

I've come across a playlist called "Classical music by the yard," which consisted entirely of tracks that run 25 minutes or longer. It's hard to beat DRM-free music that costs about $0.01 per minute.Nifty. Link? I've got 5 downloads left this month and I've been looking to maximize value.

So this does that many people will be able to tell the difference between a song downloaded on iTunes and played on a high end stereo, and that same song played from a commercially produced CD played on that same stereo, correct?Probably. Chances are that a decent percentage could. However, I doubt many of them do such critical listening with digital audio files. Afterall, their appeal is convenience and portability, not fidelity.

The best approach is to determine your own threshold by doing your own tests. The HA forum contains links to ABX testing software. Basically, it all comes down to subjective experience. Maybe you've got highly sensitive hearing and can tell 256 kbps from CD but I certainly can't. My own hit rate is something like 70% for 160 kbps MP3 files (damaged hearing from too many hardcore-punk shows in the '80s).

BTW, my first choice for formats is still CDs because I like owning a physical object c/w artwork, liner notes, etc. They're also a great backup as I found out this past January when my hard drive crashed, forcing me to re-rip my entire CD collection.

[Hodge]

Except for the higher quality, DRM-free "iTunes Plus" tracks see link at bottom (http://www.apple.com/itunes/).Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about that development. It's a step in the right direction, although I don't like the price increase. I'm happy sticking with emusic and used CD stores.

[11811]

No, but only because the music is priced to sell ipods, not songs. Raise the song price and the ipod sales drop.

You're assuming that Apple Music Store is the only way to get tunes onto your iPod. You can rip your own CDs, you know.

[pulykamell]

I meant that it would be the logical result of getting rid of the copy-protections to which you object.

I'm not sure that is the logical result. We're already in a world where the music is out there and shared and free for the taking. I don't think getting rid of DRM will change much. People who want to get music for free already know how and are. People who want to buy music are using services such as iTunes. Other services already offer DRM-free subscription plans, and, as has been mentioned, iTunes Plus will be the same way--you'll pay a premium for the portability. So apparently people are working on the problem.

[Garfield226]

So are you saying there should be no copy protections, and all music should be public-domain and free for everyone? And by extension, that all musicians should be volunteers and not make any money?
How do you explain the success of emusic.com (which legally sells music in plain .mp3 format with no copy-protection) and the movement by Apple to sell DRM-free tracks, albeit at a higher price? THEY want musicians to work for free and all music to be public domain too?

[Yllaria]

You're assuming that Apple Music Store is the only way to get tunes onto your iPod. You can rip your own CDs, you know.
Nope. Just assuming that easily and cheaply downloadable music is a big part of the desirability of the ipod. And that Apple knows this and keeps the price low with that in mind.

[lowbrass]

I'm not sure that is the logical result. We're already in a world where the music is out there and shared and free for the taking. I don't think getting rid of DRM will change much. People who want to get music for free already know how and are. People who want to buy music are using services such as iTunes. Other services already offer DRM-free subscription plans, and, as has been mentioned, iTunes Plus will be the same way--you'll pay a premium for the portability. So apparently people are working on the problem.
Well I asked what the alternative should be - so maybe the alternative is charging more for the music initially and writing off the inevitable bootlegging as an acceptable loss. I know that people are getting music for free, but I don't think everyone knows how to do that. If there were no impediment at all to getting music for free, do you think anyone would willingly pay for it?

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

Also the type of instruments being recorded. Acoustic instruments have a very complex sound which is more likely to be damaged by compression than synthesized electronica.

Uhhh, cite!? :dubious:

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

An iTunes song is 99 cents. A typical CD is about 15 bucks, and has about 15 songs on it (checking my collection, I have CDs ranging from 11 to 23 songs). Then you consider that with iTunes, you can pick and choose the songs you want, so you don't have to buy a bad song just because it's on the same album as a good song. That sounds fair to me (at least by comparison).


Except for a very large chunk of that $15 for a real CD is made up of the costs of creating an actual physical product and getting it into stores for people to buy. When you cut out that middle man, as you do with digital files, the price should drop significantly - it should be more like $1 or $2 per album.

THEN take into account that you're not actually getting little chunks of the real album (the original wav files directly off of the disc) but compressed, lower-resolution versions and the pricing structure should drop even more.

[Cheesesteak]

Except for a very large chunk of that $15 for a real CD is made up of the costs of creating an actual physical product and getting it into stores for people to buy. See post #39.

In 5 minutes, I found a company called nationwidedisc.com that will produce 10,000 CDs for me, with jewel cases, 10 page full color insert and full color offset printed CD, using a stamped CD with a glass master, no cheapo CDR burning. Total cost, $0.93 per disk.

At that price, they are even making a profit, so the actual cost must be significantly less than that, not even considering that there are probably economies of scale that nationwidedisc isn't even close to getting.

Hell, AOL used to send out millions of CDs to people who never even wanted them. CDs are not expensive to make, music is not expensive to make. You're not paying $15 for production costs.

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

See post #39.

In 5 minutes, I found a company called nationwidedisc.com that will produce 10,000 CDs for me, with jewel cases, 10 page full color insert and full color offset printed CD, using a stamped CD with a glass master, no cheapo CDR burning. Total cost, $0.93 per disk.

At that price, they are even making a profit, so the actual cost must be significantly less than that, not even considering that there are probably economies of scale that nationwidedisc isn't even close to getting.

Hell, AOL used to send out millions of CDs to people who never even wanted them. CDs are not expensive to make, music is not expensive to make. You're not paying $15 for production costs.

Here you go. (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html) You're looking at about $6 after you've knocked out all of the things associated with making a physical CD and getting onto shelves in real stores.

[Don't fight the hypothetical]

No, that's not quite how capitalism works. You're paying the price that the seller thinks will maximize his profits. That's all there is to it. A product or service is worth what people will pay for it, no more, no less.
Doesn't address the OP.
The OP asks, "why do people pay more for less? Is it just convenience?"
My answer is yes.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Nope. Just assuming that easily and cheaply downloadable music is a big part of the desirability of the ipod. And that Apple knows this and keeps the price low with that in mind.Jobs doesn't seem to think so (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/). There have been about 22 iTunes songs per iPod sold. So the average iPod buyer is buying fewer than 2 cds on the iTunes store. A majority of iPod owners probably don't buy any songs at all. Plus, the iPod sold quite well without the iTunes store for quite a while.

iTunes has had moderate success because the iPod is so successful. I'm sure there are people who choose an iPod because the Apple Music Store is nice, but it's a much smaller effect, overall.

[pulykamell]

Well I asked what the alternative should be - so maybe the alternative is charging more for the music initially and writing off the inevitable bootlegging as an acceptable loss. I know that people are getting music for free, but I don't think everyone knows how to do that. If there were no impediment at all to getting music for free, do you think anyone would willingly pay for it?

The impediment is fear of prosecution by the RIAA and people's conscience. There's plenty of folks who won't illegally download music because they know it's wrong. It's no secret how to get music for free--there's plenty of media coverage on the biggest downloading sites. Anybody who wants to do it can figure it out in a minute. I suspect that the biggest consumers of popular music already know where the file sharings sites are.

Personally, I think the entire business of music needs to be rethought, because the genie's out of the bottle and filesharing is not going to go away. But that's a subject for another thread.

[Cheesesteak]

Here you go. (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html) You're looking at about $6 after you've knocked out all of the things associated with making a physical CD and getting onto shelves in real stores.Only if non physical retailers don't expect to mark up the product, and you believe the figure of $3.34 to ship a single CD to a store, which I don't*. Add back a smaller retail markup and whatever portion of the $3.34 is "company overhead" and let's see where we are. You're saving 75 cents on the pressing, whatever is actually shipping and distribution, and some markup on the reasonable assumption that a nonphysical retailer will have lower costs.



*I don't care what Billboard says, a CD does not cost over $3 to ship to a retailer. If it does, the record companies should be put out of business on principle alone, because every other manufacturer in the world manages to ship products bulkier and heavier than CDs to retailers for pennies instead of dollars.

[ticker]

Also the type of instruments being recorded. Acoustic instruments have a very complex sound which is more likely to be damaged by compression than synthesized electronica.


Uhhh, cite!? :dubious:

Oh come on! Do the bloody test yourself. Apart from being blindingly (deafeningly :rolleyes: ) obvious it surely cannot be all that surprising can it?

[lowbrass]

The impediment is fear of prosecution by the RIAA and people's conscience. There's plenty of folks who won't illegally download music because they know it's wrong.

Well that's obviously not enough of an impediment, unless you think the copy protection is just to be mean. I suppose some people do think that.

It's no secret how to get music for free--there's plenty of media coverage on the biggest downloading sites. Anybody who wants to do it can figure it out in a minute. I suspect that the biggest consumers of popular music already know where the file sharings sites are.

No, seriously - Guys like me who aren't in their 20s anymore don't know. I knew about Napster, but they made them go legit. I'm sure I could figure out the new way people are doing it if I wanted to do some research on it, but I honestly don't know at this moment.

Personally, I think the entire business of music needs to be rethought, because the genie's out of the bottle and filesharing is not going to go away. But that's a subject for another thread.
Well they are trying to re-think it, but people gripe about everything they try. That's why I brought this up - I honestly believe that the only thing that would stop people from bitching would be to get all the music they want for free, always.

[pulykamell]

I think there's always going to be a substantial base of consumers that is willing to buy music. Music has always been available for "free." Who didn't borrow cassettes and vinyls from their friends to tape a song? Who didn't wait for the radio to play their favorite single, so they could snatch it on tape? There always have been and always will be sources for free music--it's just now we don't have to work as hard for it.

I guess this is partly why I don't get iTunes and the 99 cents a song bit. For me, the incentive to buy legally is so I could get the artwork, the lyrics, the physical product. I could also carry the song around and play it virtually everywhere (CD players are ubiquitous). There's enough "extras" for me in the physical product.

Personally, I think the industry will have to shift to the idea of viewing filesharing as free promotion. That's how (most) of the bands I've known and played with have seen it. We had a physical product to sell, but we didn't particularly care if our stuff was found online. For a small to medium-sized band, there really isn't a lot of money in music sales. The money is in gigging and selling merchandise. That's one way of handling it. There may be other ways, but to me that seems to be the most sensible.

[Rick]

Only if non physical retailers don't expect to mark up the product, and you believe the figure of $3.34 to ship a single CD to a store, which I don't*. Add back a smaller retail markup and whatever portion of the $3.34 is "company overhead" and let's see where we are. You're saving 75 cents on the pressing, whatever is actually shipping and distribution, and some markup on the reasonable assumption that a nonphysical retailer will have lower costs.



*I don't care what Billboard says, a CD does not cost over $3 to ship to a retailer. If it does, the record companies should be put out of business on principle alone, because every other manufacturer in the world manages to ship products bulkier and heavier than CDs to retailers for pennies instead of dollars.
Better go back and read that chart again. That section is labeled company overhead, distribution, and shipping. Warehouses cost money. Warehouse employees cost money, etc.

[garygnu]

Oh come on! Do the bloody test yourself. Apart from being blindingly (deafeningly :rolleyes: ) obvious it surely cannot be all that surprising can it?
I'll second the call for a cite, because you've basically said "my post is my cite."

[Cheesesteak]

That section is labeled company overhead, distribution, and shipping. Warehouses cost money. Warehouse employees cost money, etc.Warehouses also cost money for other industries.

For instance, you can get a can of soda (heavier and bulkier than a CD) sent from a bottling plant to a regional warehouse, to a local distributor, to a vending company, to a van, to an individual soda machine that sells all of 20 units a day, sell the product for $1 and still make a profit at each step along the way.

$3.34 to manage storing and shipping a single CD from a warehouse to an individual store is completely ridiculous. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least to be told that the record companies actually ship in bulk to a store warehouse instead of to the individual stores, and the stores themselves ship to the various locations within their retail markup.