[Ti] [OT] Applemusic.com - is the price right?

[b]

Steve Wozniak paused, thought it over, and spoke thusly:

>At 9:37 PM -0400 2003.04.29, b wrote:
>>>>  Heh, ok mailing list, let's start a poll.  What is everyone here
>>>>  willing to pay per song?
>>>
>>>35¢
>>
>>$22.95 per 16 gigabytes
>
>At first it would appear that music is not worth a lot to Flipper. 
>Actually, the answer is not so simple. There are different people 
>with different music values, and each person values different songs 
>differently, and different people have different entertainment 
>budgets and income levels.
>
>In answer to the question, there are some songs that I would pay $10 
>for (with no alternative) and some that I would not pay $.01 for. 
>There's no single answer. I could listen and price a current mix, 
>and a certain number would be worth $.99 or more to me. So I can 
>only guess 'how many' I would buy at $.99, not IF I would pay that 
>much.

Actually, it was a reference to my Giganews account, one of the ones 
that I use to access the Usenet. Should have read 18 GB, due to my 
using a special server through them that comes with a 50% bonus in 
terms of bandwidth [or volume, i suppose].

A friend and I once bought 1,000,000 singles [including about 75,000 
picture sleeves], in one fell swoop as they say. I also was a regular 
at the swap meet in the parking lot of Capitol Records, once a month, 
in Hollywood, where i did, in fact pay what can only be described as 
prices-driven-by-fanaticism for everything from obscure 'one-offs' 
done by backwoods Virginia hillbillies, to an autographed Gold record 
for the Beatles "White" album.

I traded with hardcore Japanese Elvis-collectors, deposed VPs from 
the 'great purge' in late 70s Columbia Records days, etc. But after 
losing around 50,000 very rare/autographed records in a burglary in 
San Diego, I went 'on the cheap' for a while. When i was a silent 
partner in a righteous indie used record shop I was on a 'budget' of 
450 LPs/week, in lieu of cash...so, it's all relative. I've paid my 
dues. I never use peer-to-peer, but I do use the Usenet. And studies 
show that a huge number of music downloaders go on to purchase the 
actual 'corporate' product, and those that don't, weren't really 
'buyers', anyway.

The Big 6 or 5 have seen an 11% drop in sales since the height of the 
Napster boom, yet their actual investment has also dropped over that 
period, and the gross number of titles released has also dropped...by 
30%.... Simple math or book keeping tells me that a 30% drop in 
investment and a concurrent 10% drop in revenue yields a gain in 
Return on Investment of nearly 25%....

So, my question is, who is being hurt by downloaders? 
Mega-millionaires in Metallica, or Bruce Springsteen? Or, independent 
artists who are either locked out of mainstream distribution, or 
signed to usurious contracts as loss leaders to help the record Cos 
avoid taxes on the hits?

the defense rests.

~flipper