Not to worry anyone, I am fine!

[Freedan]

PaGaN3l3m3nts wrote:

I love it when the masses complain, "What?! How DARE these people try to tell me how much they want to sell their OWN products for!" I especially like the, "$2.50 a SONG!?!?! My god!! Musical talent isn't worth anywhere NEAR as much as a bag of chips!!!!!!!!!!" I'm not trying to be mean, but it just pisses me off when people think something is overpriced, so they go get it for free. Especially when they still have the nerve to complain about it.

You're right about one thing.... people who complain about music quality when they get it for free ARE idiots. There's not many of those, they're just the most vocal, so they get noticed.

Like Raini said, if there's only one song I want from a particular group, I'm not about to spend $20 on a CD.

It's not the fact that the stuff is overpriced that bothers me, it's that it's so blatantly overpriced. If CDs cost even half of what they do now, a lot less people would be complaining. They cost next to nothing to mass-produce, so why should customers get a slap in the face in the form of a $20 markup?

These music-folk will not go bankrupt if they charge less. In fact, they'd probably start making money.... lower prices would encourage more sales, instead of driving people to P2P downloads.

[Manibrandr System]

It makes sense, I agree

[PaGaN3l3m3nts]

*shrugs* Seems to me that most CD's are about $15 ofr about 15 tracks, meaning about $1 / song, really. I also stand by my original statement as the strongest: It's their product, so they can choose it's value, and no one has a right to argue with it. But, getting more technical and personal...
Here's my ethics towards music downloading and emulation and all that. I don't go so far as to say you should never download. Hell no. After all, all the mp3 circulation ont he internet is how many people come to learn of various artists and bands. Really, it's just that, if you like something considerably, then buy it instead of jsut being content to dl it.
I know people don't have the money to buy the music they want all the time, or sometimes might want only one song off a CD (if you'd never buy the CD just for that song, then I guess you might as well DL it, since you'd never buy it). Really, it's not file-sharing that really bothers me. I have no problem with it. I do it all the time. It's just the people that NEVER buy music because they can get it for free.
Besides that, like I said, no problem with it. It's really just people complaining about prices that bothers me... Mainly because I knew a guy that stole like mad and always justified it by saying things were overpriced, so his stealing was actually more economically "balanced" or some trash along those lines...
For the record, I am aware of how lame it is to be complaining about file-sharing. So I repeat, I'm not complaining about file-sharing, I'm complaining about complaining about prices...

[inferiare]

I agree. I really do. It's just hard to want to get something, then see it's price (just last night in fact, I was complaining to the people in GameStop about how the old Sims expansions were only $29.99 (ok, $30.00), and now they've gone to $34.99). It's gonna stop me from really wanting it. Some people buy things blindly (especially if they have a credit card).

I dunno...the price for CD's get to me. I can't even think of the last American CD I bought...unless it was Muse, and that was a LONG while ago.

[Freedan]

PaGaN3l3m3nts wrote:

*shrugs* Seems to me that most CD's are about $15 ofr about 15 tracks, meaning about $1 / song, really. I also stand by my original statement as the strongest: It's their product, so they can choose it's value, and no one has a right to argue with it.

It may be their product, but the thing is: they work for the masses. They put out their music for us so we can buy it. Their main responsibility is to satisfy their customers; otherwise, the money they depend on.... our money.... won't be coming in. That's true for any business.

People have started to realize that $20 is too much for a handful of songs, and they're not happy any more. The best way to fix that is to lower the price.

Besides, I don't think the artist actually says how much to sell it for, it varies depending on who's selling it.

[Manibrandr System]

And we can thank the RIAA and their greedy profit for jacking up the prices sky-high.

[blueisalive]

Yes, let's!

I probably mentioned this before, but a good idea of how much the record companies suck out of the artists is Morning Musume.

A Momu single runs about $12 (import I think, I don't know what it is in Japan). But when the money is fully sifted through, each member of Morning Musume (There are 11 members now, soon to be 10) each member only receives around 10 CENTS per single sale. And to top it off, some members get paid more than others so newer girls end up getting paid less than the older girls who get more air time.

Remember - the richer they are, the less they appear publically. It's like this in ranks.

3rd class = It's rare if you see them on TV
2nd class = It's common if you see them on TV
1st class = It's very common if you see them on TV
Super Rich (Movie/Music Stars) = It's hard NOT to see them on TV
Billionaires (Investors, Real Estate people, Internet) = It's rare if you see them on TV (besides Trump and Gates)

See what I mean?