RIAA says music CDs should cost more... Options

[Dr Strum]

... Because consumers can now pay more.
From Slashdot:

"The folks over at Techdirt just put up a great story today, with the RIAA claiming the cost of a CD has gone down significantly relative to the consumer price index. The RIAA 'Key Facts' page claims that based on the 1983 price of CDs, the 1996 price should have been $33.86. So naturally, you should feel like you're getting a bargain. Sounds an awful lot like the cable companies saying cable prices are really going down even though they're going up."

I don't really see any discussion beyond "RIAA SUX" spawning from this, but I thought it was interesting and worth a post. Especially since I live in America (the RIAA's jurisdiction) and buy a lot of music CDs.

[Marionette]

Sure, if they were to raise the price to cds that high, they would totally see an increase in sales, right?

I just don't see what's the point of buying a cd of songs you don't care about when you really only just like one. Which is my case half the time. So, I just buy that one particular song off itunes and that's it.

[Dr Strum]

I just don't see what's the point of buying a cd of songs you don't care about when you really only just like one.

Well, for me, there have been only about two instances in which - after listening to the whole CD at least a few times through - I only liked the song I bought it for, but there is further point to buying the albums: better sound quality (CHOICE in sound quality), the booklet that comes with it (liner notes, lyrics, photos and art), and, for materialists like me, the feeling of owning a physical copy of it.

[Irysa]

It would hardly help considering the amount of people who download today anyway, illegal or not.


Something not exactly on the same note, but meh.

From anus.com

Metal is a community unified by the sharing of ideas/experience through art. For this reason, keeping the metal available is more important than commerce.

In cases where an album is out of print, and cannot be purchased anywhere except sporadically at high prices through ebay or trades, we reserve the ability to make it available in lossless (exact same quality as on original CD) format to those who would otherwise find it inaccessible. Music is more important than commerce, and a band that is not selling its music cannot lose money on the digital duplication of that music.

We recommend using FLAC format and codec. These plug into your CD burner and allow you to create audio CDs that are byte-exact copies of the original.

Much as it is our belief that people who download albums here assess them and later buy the ones they feel will be enduring musical assets, and that this process weeds out the weaker music and prevents more landfill from being pressed onto CD, it is our belief that making available out of print classics will enhance the listener base for the art these musicians would like to have find an audience.

[Dr Strum]

It would hardly help considering the amount of people who download today anyway, illegal or not.

I'm thinking it would push more people towards illegal downloads.


Although, that reminds me; also not on the same note: Jobs (Apple CEO) is pushing the big four of the recording industry again. He wants them to stop with DRMs and allow the provision of music without usage strangleholds.

[Raijinili]

That's old news, Sturm. THURSDAY news.

[Nanashi]

It's hard to justify what CDs should cost nowadays relative to what they cost in 1986. CDs are hella cheap to mass produce nowadays. Also, electronic mastering and recording equipment has gone down signifigantly in price since 1986. It's also hard to justify this, based on the fact that record companies make a nice profit on each CD sold.