Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the more-room-for-indies dept.

Media 817

Bruha writes "It appears the RIAA is being very low key about the fact that the five major labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap, and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song. I was a huge fan of the 99c per song, but if they think that they can raise the price on me just because I don't buy full CDs anymore, they've got another thing coming. Suggestion: make good CDs, and maybe I'll buy the whole thing."

cancel ×

817 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (4, Insightful)

Novanix (656269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832679)

That would put an eleven track cd at $33 depending on exactly how high they get the rate to be per song. As the article points out no online store is really make a profit as it is, if you increase the price of songs some stores will simply have to shutdown. By driving the price up I would bet they will make less money, as it will just make it more worthwhile for piracy. Someone might not mind paying $0.99 a song and have it instantly, but if you make it three times that many people will find other ways to get their music.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (5, Interesting)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832701)

well, the worst deal i've found on itunes has been .99 for a 4 second interlude track (janet jackson, i think). the RIAA needs to either make better music, save money by stop paying off radio stations, or die. well, it doesn't need to, but it would be nice.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832790)

the worst deal i've found on itunes has been .99 for a 4 second interlude track (janet jackson, i think

Thanks God, It could be much worse: imagine 3 minutes of Janet Jackson ... Brrr!

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (4, Funny)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832803)

I havent used iTunes myself, but I would have expected then to make allowances for track length....

Mind you, that leaves Meatloaf fans open to having to pay $10 per track since his songs are so long...

Do you get to see the track length before downloading the file?

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (2, Interesting)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832843)

Not that i've seen. all songs are 99 cents, but verious audio books and transcripts have varying costs. i don't really use the itunes music store, i just wanted my free pepsi songs.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832819)

Many CD versions albums that were originally released in the record-and-tape days have silent tracks that represent a gap of time on the original albums. iTunes will gladly sell those tracks one-by-one for 99 cents as well. It's just a matter of the database building happening on autopilot... if you want it, you get what you paid for.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (1)

crackshoe (751995) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832863)

In this case, its the fact that there is a titled track between real tracks. the standard silence isn't a part of the track itself - its how the disk is burned, tape made, etc. As far as i can see, she has at least 10 tracks under 15 seconds, and twenty that are under half a minute. She's a particularly good example because she tends to have these short tracks scattered across all her albums, probably from using the same production team over and over again.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (2, Insightful)

DaLiNKz (557579) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832703)

maybe this is an attempt to increase piracy thus they can sue more people?

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (4, Interesting)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832858)

Or a trick to increase perceived damages?

SAVE MERCATUR.NET (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832711)

Rumor has it that Alice [mercatur.net] wants to shut down her website. Please help to convince her not to by writing something in her guestbook [mercatur.net] !

She's a nice chick, so show some manners, ok?

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832749)

I use itunes because my apartment blocks p2p traffic. However, I don't mind the price as I have purchased some songs that I have been wanting for a while, plus I never have to wait or search around for that song. I can deal with the limitations of itunes on what I can do with the purchased music. The only problem right now is selection. However, if at any time the price of a song goes higher than $.99, you can kiss my ass goodbye.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (4, Interesting)

Naffer (720686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832795)

$.50 a track, 192kbit stereo is what it'll take to get me to buy my music. Until then I'll just drive around and listen to the dozen used CDs I bought five years ago. $1 a track is already too expensive for most of the music out there. In a perfect world we'd be able to pay a small subscription fee for access to all the music we want via audio on demand.
Can you imagine how popular XM radio would be if you could go online and set up a playlist of ANY music you want (and none that you dont) and listen to it from you car?

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832866)

"Can you imagine how popular XM radio would be if you could go online and set up a playlist of ANY music you want (and none that you dont) and listen to it from you car?"

that cannot happen, the way they have XM radio set up currently. all listeners get all feeds, and if you had an amount of feeds equal to the amount of listeners, their allready not-very-large-bandwidth would have to be split more-or-less equally amongst all of them, which means shit-audio quality for everyone. Course in a perfect world, you could stack infinite many symbols (and therefor have infinite many different listeners interpreting specific symbols) in one Hz(or less) of frequency worth of bandwidth, so mabye i shouln't be pointing this out. And in a perfect world XM wouldn't exist(because it is heavily underfunded by the RIAA, who wouldn't be around ina perfect world either)

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (5, Interesting)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832846)

if you increase the price of songs some stores will simply have to shutdown
There's the finest point you make. The RIAA would like it if they could prove that online distribution "doesn't work" and could somehow move back to being the ones in charge of everything. They would like these companies to fail.

On another tangent, they may be shooting for the first reverse discount I've ever heard of: Since online distribution is competition to CD sales (their traditional business), they need to make CDs appear to be a better bargain. By increasing the price per song online, they have given CDs a discounted rate without ever really discounting them.

Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (5, Interesting)

Bastian (66383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832865)

Well, considering that the RIAA still hasn't figured out that the ridiculous prices CDs sell for is one of the major reasons why illegal filesharing became so popular in the first place, I'm somehow not surprised that they don't realize this point, either.

I think maybe they've been milking so much money for so long that they don't realize how expensive their music is. How else could they not reason that if I'm not willing to pay $14-$20 for a CD, why would I be willing to pay something like $15-$40+ for electronic copies of the music where I have to worry about keeping it backed up incase of hard drive crashes and I don't get to have a copy of the jewel case, liner notes, etc.?

At this point in time, I only have legal music on my computer. I've been trying to take the moral high ground and stick with golden ethics even if it means giving money to these shitheads. Granted, they're still shitheads so I try to stick to (truly) indie labels, used CD's, and $10 albums bands sell at their concerts. If they go through with this plan, though, I think I'll change my operating mantra from "turn the other cheek" to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and download a copy of every single filesharing program I can get my hands on.

Oil Industry Links (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832682)

Sounds Like an OPEC move.

Re:Oil Industry Links (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832817)

It's worth mentioning that at Oil is to at least some degree a limited resource.

This is more like merging with other large companies, and buying small companies and shutting down their refineries so there is less refining capacity, particularly for the multiple number of blends of gasoline in use in the US.

I'd like to blame the current Bush administration. But it's really more the inevitable result of the Republican legislators "contract with america" you can thank them for Worldcom, Enron, Citigroup, and the widespread adoption of shifty accounting esentially invented by the Regean administrations junk bean counters. I guess that's the price you pay when you're more concerned with who's putting what in another who's rectum, and where one can legally view the movie they made, than you are with why some politicians with government funded zoology degrees (WTF?) what to make it more legal for rich people to steal from groups of not rich people.

But it must be good right, after all that's been how business has worked in the rest of the world since time immemorial. Diffusion of responsability is the new integrity.

agreement (0, Interesting)

bevisthegod (568636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832683)

I kinda agree, there really haven't been any really origional bands in the past several years worth putting $13 down for a couple songs.

Re:agreement (2, Insightful)

Interruach (680347) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832836)

There are, and people will always make music, (Whether they're paid to or not. It's art, remember) but they've got harder to find under wave after wave of re-released pop-idol cover moany dross.

The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (4, Interesting)

eaglebtc (303754) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832685)

This is ridiculous. At some point the RIAA's proverbial bubble is going to burst and the fat cow will collapse under its own weight.

Just let them kill themselves. Something else fill in the vacuum created by their departure.

Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (1)

Phoenixhunter (588958) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832757)

Didn't someone say the same thing about Microsoft the other day?

$3? (5, Insightful)

eliza_effect (715148) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832686)

Are there only four songs on the album? I'll pay $.99. I won't pay $3. Listen up, RIAA.

Re:$3? (2, Insightful)

bstone (145356) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832767)

Are there only four songs on the album?

No, only four good songs per album.

old news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832687)

old news

Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832688)

If the market will bear $2.99 CD's then they have the right to sell at that price. Don't like it? Don't buy. Unfortunately for you, there are millions of people who WILL pay the price.

Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832732)

Capitalism doesn't take away our right to whine and bitch. And this move, if true, deserves some whining and bitching.

Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832752)

Don't like it, don't buy. Or move to cuba, you liberal shitfuck.

Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832778)

Fuck you man!

Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (3, Insightful)

Interruach (680347) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832810)

you can't apply commodity logic to art.
There is no way to get the music of signed artists except through the companies they have signed for. If it's just about lifestyle, and not the music, then fair enough. You can choose a different brand. But if it's about the music, then tough. They have a monopoly on that person's / group's music.

Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832821)

No, capitalism would not allow the RIAA to have a partly-government helped strangehold over the music market and the right to keep draggin people through court without any real evidence of charges

Surprised? (4, Insightful)

Vargasan (610063) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832689)

Of course this was going to happen.
If you thought it would last, you're either really stupid, really naive, or really really optomistic.
RIAA was fined for price fixing to make more money. They are all about money, not music or entertainment.

Re:Surprised? (1, Troll)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832762)

This is probably just so that they can increase the amount of money they try to sue people for.

Instead of valuing a track at 99c for piracy values, they value them at $2.99.

Re:Surprised? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832822)

Instead of valuing a track at 99c for piracy values, they value them at $2.99.

Don't you mean instead of valuing it at $10,000 they can value it at $30,000?

Re:Surprised? (1)

Naffer (720686) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832823)

They don't calculate values like that. Remember those college sudents caught sharing a few thousand tracks? The RIAA threatened to sue each one for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. They valued each track at something like $1000 in copyright violations. They didn't even have to offer proof that the music was actually distributed, just made available.

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832781)

Of course this was going to happen.
If you thought it would last, you're either really stupid, really naive, or really really optomistic.


The only optimism would be in thinking that they're not utterly incompetent at business. They are competing with their own music distributed for free. They have some advantages; a sense of legitimacy for example, but if they charge too much then they'll just destroy the businesses that make them money in favor of the piracy networks.

Pushing up the price like this at present would be extremely stupid of them.

Re:Surprised? (5, Insightful)

eaglebtc (303754) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832794)

Here's the fundamental problem, IMHO: Music has become a utility.

The art of music is not a leisurely pastime nor an avid pursuit. The common folk just want some nice sounds to "fill the void." Hence Top-40 bubble gum was born. As for it being a utility, the people think they need music to carry on with their lives. Truth is, we don't "need" music to survive. On the day the music dies, our brains will still be churning away and the heart will still pump blood to our vital organs.

When something becomes a utility, it means that both the rich and the poor can have access to it. The poor can afford a little bit, the rich can afford a lot. But everyone needs it. The price for the utility must also be justified; if it is too high the people will complain, but because they "need" it they will continue to pay the money and hope that the government will control its price.

Remember the difference between a want and a need: you NEED food, clothing, and shelter. You want electricity, phone service and music because they are convenient, entertaining, or whatever. But you can still survive without these things. True, your life will be drastically different, but your basic functions are still operating.

George Orwell was not too far off in his predictions for our society.

how nice of them. (1, Funny)

ReeferCpe (613569) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832693)

Nice.. /me opens kazaa

Mixing the good and the bad. (5, Insightful)

MrIrwin (761231) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832694)

When you buy a CD you get perhaps 3 or 4 good tracks and perhaps some not so good ones.

When you download you just get the tracks you like.

I think the music industry is afraid thier "bundling" days are over!

who cares, I never buy them anyway. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832695)

Mod me a troll, but I don't care. I haven't purchased music in years, and I don't plan to. I pick and choose what I want, and when I want it. Not anyone can stop me. If mp3's werent available, I would record off the radio, just the songs that I wanted. Just like back in the old days.

Re:who cares, I never buy them anyway. (1)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832806)

Only problem is nothing on the radio is worth recording.

cds are just single with a bunch of crappy songs (2, Insightful)

jeoin (668566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832696)

Thats why i don't buy them. You should be able to buy just the song you want, and you should be able to buy it direct from the artist. That way they could set their own prices.
Labels are like Microsoft, all about getting some more money...

Re:cds are just single with a bunch of crappy song (2, Insightful)

ThreeToe (411692) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832848)

Seriously, what CDs are we listening to here? Sure, the top-40 CDs are single + filler... and it's our buying habits that have justified these economics.

Step a tiny bit off the beaten path and you'll find all sorts of well-known-but-not-huge-commercial-success artists with great albums, not tracks.

Definitions from the future: (4, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832697)

Record company execs: A bunch of greedy fucking bastards who were among the first against the wall when the revolution came.

Re:Definitions from the future: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832788)

That's right, buddy! When the revolution comes, we're gonna put a bullet in the head of the fascist recording industry pigs!

All throughout the "download an MP3" era, I've been one of those "download it, and if I like it, I'll buy the disk" types. I've bought a LOT of disks that I probably would never have thought of buying just because I got to sample it.

I currently download music from www.emusic.com and www.puretracks.ca. However, that's going to end, as the selection has pretty much sucked.

$3 per song? Heh, screw that.

Quite honestly, I am so depressed by the current music scene that I think I'm going to stop both downloading and buying altogether. There are a few local bands whose CDs I'll buy off of them when they play at bars, but other than that, I'm not gonna suckle the Recording Industry teat anymore.

Fuck 'em.

Re:Definitions from the future: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832789)

Record company execs: A bunch of greedy fucking bastards who were among the first against the wall when the revolution came.

"I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter." - Homer

September 11th was a faith-based initiative.

Fucking great post and a clever sig. You've been add to my friends list.

Re:Definitions from the future: (1)

oolon (43347) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832818)

But when is the revolution going to happen, I want it now!

James

They admit it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832699)

Here comes the backlash...

This is an admission of guilt in my opinion. The RIAA is openly admitting they have been shoving crap CDs down our throats for years under the banner of one or two decent songs.

Exactly how will this work, anyways? (3, Interesting)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832700)

Trying to generate an unbiased opinion : without name-calling, there are a couple of huge issues here. It only costs a tiny fraction of the money record companies receive to make good music (even with groupies and band buses and the works it is still a pitiful few million compared to the billions groups that get all this take in).

And second, how can they compete with free? The threat of a lawsuit is almost insignificant compared to the ease with which one can grab pretty much anything they like.

So how is this going to play out?

test the market, then raise the prices (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832702)

Well, the RIAA, like every other cartel, just wants to charge what they think the market will bear. People don't pay $20 odd per CD anymore, or at least, they perceive the price to be too high.

So, after the initial offering, they'll try to gouge more money out from the consumers of online stores. Why don't you think that for some, $1.25 is still going to be worth the price ? If you don't like it, vote with your wallets and don't buy it.

What, you don't think CDs started at $20 a pop, did you ?

Re:test the market, then raise the prices (1)

guiscard (712813) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832826)


Here in Europe they often still are $20, or more.

These guys... (2, Insightful)

SuperMo0 (730560) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832704)

don't know when a good thing is staring them in the face. Why not force their artists to sell ALL their songs ONLY for 99 cents a song? (Won't happen, but still.) Raising the prices of these songs will simply provide a similar reason to the original exodus to Kazaa/Napster. They're winning people away from filesharing, and if they go through with this they're sending them back.

hmm (0, Flamebait)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832710)

i wonder if the jackass who broke itunes has any part in influencing this decision.

Artists: This is your cue: (4, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832713)


Get together, purchase the tools or access to the tools to create music directly, make CDs, and together, negotiate to sell them to stores.

You don't need any RIAA "representation" - your music is yours to do what you want with. This is your life, and the lives of countless other artists - so work with other artists to cut these brain-dead suits out of the picture finally!

Ryan Fenton

Re:Artists: This is your cue: (1)

eaglebtc (303754) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832838)

Excellent idea! Except....

Don't music stores have some kind of deal with the record companies or their distributors that they are only allowed to sell for the 'Big 5' labels? I could be wrong...

Short-term pain (2, Interesting)

No Such Agency (136681) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832850)

Sadly, this is hard because the RIAA was designed to crush people who try to sell their own music. They can wait out the independents forever, they have vast resources, and the indies have bills to pay, a van to gas up and another grungy bar to play while they try to get Sunrise Records to stock their CD... Thank god enough people demand records by non-RIAA bands (and the retailers are themselves large enough corps) that the RIAA can't intimidate retailers into complete lock-in...

And if it's 10 bucks a song - so what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832718)

I'm not poor, are you?

Re:And if it's 10 bucks a song - so what? (2, Funny)

SuperMo0 (730560) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832755)

I'm not poor, but I have much better things to spend 10 dollars on than whatever Britney Spears has moaned out recently.

Duplicate (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832719)

Isn't this a duplicate of this? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/08/215825 0&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=141&tid=188&tid=95&tid=9 8&tid=99

up to 2.99 a song? (1)

necrosaro (748416) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832720)

that's such a rip off...aren't they making enough already? go ahead and do that and lose all the support you've already gotten for downloading music legally. it's like they're too stupid to see that it's working very well how it is now for .99 cents and they're going to ruin it by themselves by having a price hike. i hope they do it and lose all the support they once had. then they can start pointing fingers at everyone but themselves

Interesting, yes; but... (2, Informative)

Osiris Ani (230116) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832721)

Re:Interesting, yes; but... (1)

Aoverify (566411) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832775)

Don't the mods read slashdot anymore?

This is the 2nd time this week Cowboyneal and timothy have posted dupes of each other's articles this week.

Re:Interesting, yes; but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832805)

Don't the mods read slashdot anymore?

Sorry, too busy modding.

Make online sales unviable. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832722)

They live for the physical media, therefore they need to make on-line sales "unviable".

"Look, we tried that, and it failed! Now pay $18 for this piece of plastic we produced at below-dollar-cost. Thank you for being a good little consumer".

Where the profits will come from (1)

osobear (761394) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832724)

I think that we need to accept that although selling songs online will make money, it won't ever be what it was at the high-point of CD sales. Instead, artist revenue should be primarily driven from selling their music to radio stations to play and from concert ticket sales.
Maybe this means that musicians no longer get to make millions of dollars a year, but I'm certain that just concert sales can still put major bands in the very-comfortable-to-lavish lifestyle range.

Of course they do (1)

Stick_Fig (740331) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832725)

L.A. Reid went to the Mercedes dealership a few weeks ago and was only able to afford the mid-range model. He has been a recluse ever since.

Pricing themsleves out of the market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832726)

SO they are pricing themselves out of the market. Stupid, but unless the shareholders can proove that the directors know its stupid there is nothing that can be done to stop them. Luckily I sold all my stock in major record companies a long time ago, and invested in some smaller companies. I suggest you all do the same.

(I suppose I'd better say that this is not financial advice and if you beleive an AC on /. then you deserve to be ripped off)

Deja Vu? (2, Informative)

ikewillis (586793) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832727)

Seems like a dupe [slashdot.org] to me...

Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832734)

Not to mention it's been covered everywhere else since the first time it was posted.

What's the big problem? (4, Funny)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832731)

This is a capitalist country! If you don't like one company's price, go to another company and buy their product instead! So if you don't like the RIAA's prices then go to... uh... hmmm... fuck.

Re:What's the big problem? (1)

AyeFly (242460) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832802)

Hey MongooseCN , the link in your sig is dead

Re:What's the big problem? (5, Insightful)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832834)

Like all the non-RIAA labels on iTunes? Since they're not a part of the recording cartel they don't have to go along with the price fixing.

--

It's crappy music anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832735)

Yes those prices might be high but it's crappy music anyways. There's all kinds of great music that's free or darn close and every bit as good. Just don't worry about it, let them inflate the price and show em by listening to indi bands... or go to a church, live free music every sunday hehe.

Bin Laden determined to strike in US (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832736)

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Easter dupe (1)

janoc (699997) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832738)

Nice job, folks, but the original WSJ story was posted already :-(

Link to the old story [slashdot.org]

Here comes the mighty dupe ...

Rip off merchants (1)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832739)

That is a HUGE increase!!!

I see, they get people signed up, then hike the price. And I thought the RIAA were trying to portray themselves as the good guys!!

Why is the RIAA so stupid? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832744)

Anyone? Anyone?

99c is really too low.. (0, Troll)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832747)

How do you expect those people to support their cocaine-sniffing habbits at 99c per song? It's an outrage!

I solved this problem by (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832750)

stop buying the lastest most popular tunes. Instead I buy compilations of music from a few years back, which sound great now. Stick with going for quality and your wallet will thank you for it.
Music like liquor tastes good after it has matured.

They're only screwing themselves over... (0)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832754)

I haven't payed for downloads yet, and I'll be damned if I start once they increase the prices.

There are other, better ways to get music. We can still download illegally (Kazaa, Overnet, Bittorrent, FTP sites, Usenet groups, etc.). There's still no copy protection on music; we can burn all of the CDs we want. We can physically steal the music from stores. Or, my personal favorite...

Support smaller, independent labels and unsigned groups. There are a lot of labels and musicians that offer their music for a very low cost...or occasionally free.

If the RIAA wants to screw themselves, let them. I'll still have my music, and I won't be the one that suffers. :)

Re:They're only screwing themselves over... (2, Insightful)

Rikus (765448) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832807)

> We con physically steal the music from stores.

Regardless of your opinion on the issue of copyright infringement or increased prices, stealing a piece of property is "wrong" (isn't it?).

When you or someone else voluntarily copies their music and gives it to others, they are not losing anything. If you steal a CD, somebody has lost their physical property, however worthless it may be (20 cent piece of plastic).

It's important to make this distinction, since too many people are trying to link the two together.

Piracy (5, Informative)

LordK2002 (672528) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832758)

And this is going to stop piracy...how?

These labels just don't "get it". Maybe people will abandon pirated downloads if they can get the legitimate version for a reasonable price, but not if the price is just stupid ($2.49 for a 3-minute song?).

The RIAA obviously has a severely inflated view of its own importance. Reality is going to catch up with them, whether they like it or not.

K

too expensive now! (0, Troll)

magellen (770417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832764)

99cents equals 12 dollars for a damn cd as is an that includes NO PACKAGING and NO CD for goodness sake, the RIAA is a cartel...raping and pillaging the listers and musicians...raise the price? how about we STOP BUYING MUSIC. there are lots of great groups for free making money on concerts...ooooh also boycott clear channel...someone start a social movement to take down clear channel

They would have to make a great album now... (2, Insightful)

HDlife (714246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832765)

...not just one MTV hit and a bunch of filler to make their $16. The industry sees that people are just downloading the top 2 songs by an artist and moving on. The biz wants "their" whole $20 for "Hey Ya!" and not just their cut of 99cents! Once people start a-la-carte buying songs off of hit albums and seeing that the rest just sucks...the money will stop flowing in!

It's too much work to get a real band together that can produce 50 great songs in a career.

Many consumers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832769)

think 99 cents is too high. Personally, I think about 50 cents per song would be the fair price for the average track.

Ok (1)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832770)

the five major labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap,

That's nice. Isn't there an agreement in place?

and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song

So a price increase of between 35% and 200%? Sounds great. Interesting how this new business model is suddenly so important, isn't it?

Guilty monopoly.... (5, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832777)

umm....didn't the RIAA just have to fess up a zillion $13 checks because they were found guilty of price fixing?

How is this different? (except that they have the balls to tell beforehand)

Good is relative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832784)

No need for editorial f*cking bait...

While I understand It's unpopular, (4, Insightful)

gartogg (317481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832792)

as well as being a quite possibly miserable business decision, if the alternative for the consumer is piracy. However, looking at any other industry, setting prices per song should be 3 or 4 times as expensive as the individual songs would be on a CD.

It makes no sense to sell a $15 or $20 CD's songs, of which there are between 10 and 20, for 99c each, simply because in that case, there is no incentive to buy the CD. Volume discounting makes perfect sense, andhaving a cheaper alternative if you buy per song is bad business for them, as much as you want to complain about it.

There is altogether too much whining about the RIAA deciding that it has a legitamite, legal rights to profits they generate through their research, promotion, and effort. While they may be robber barons, or jerks, they do have a right to protect themselves from the market that wants to pay nothing.

The Information may want to be free, but it also wants to be expensive, and it is clear that although the paradigm the RIAA works with is unfair, and failing, the fact that they are attempting to re-work it to be usable with technology is not a bad thing.

OK, now that I've said it, you can mod this post to hell. I have the Karma to burn. And no, I don't work for the RIAA, but I decided that I can live without illegal music, rather than steal it, or help out the RIAA.

the easy solution (4, Informative)

iamthelung (762174) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832796)

its called mute [sourceforge.net]

Price fixing (5, Interesting)

eyeball (17206) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832800)

Can someone (that doesn't work for the RIAA) please explain to me how this isn't price fixing and at all legal?

"Suggestion: Buy a clue" (2, Interesting)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832808)

I really hate it when people say "When you start putting out decent stuff, then maybe I'll buy it." Face it, bub. You (and me) are in the minority. See, while *you* may think shit like Britney Spears and Metallica suck ass, the millions of albums they continue to sell firmly says otherwise to the millions of fans they continue to cater to. And think about the classic rock from the 50's and 60's. The Beatles were nothing more than a boy band for their era (ditto for the Monkees), and the more "obscure" Mo-Town stuff was driven by the same profit-chasing motivation that drives the industry today. Tastes in music is subjective, get that through your head. I think bands like Incubus, Limp Bizkit, and Rage Against the Machine are horrible, but I'm willing to to bet they have a sizeable audience here on /. as well. And judging by the fact that the music industry is still continuing to rake in cash hand over fist, obviously the $16.99 isn't a barrier for many, either.

The music industry may have just decided that there is more profit to be made at $2.99 rather than .99.

See, one thing I've noticed is that whenever /. jumps up and down and collectively (mostly) cries about something, it's a sure win for the other side. See iPod-mini, Howard Dean, and PATRIOT act. :P

Gonna Outsource Those Assholes to India (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832809)

I bet there are a bunch of Indian artists who will sell me music tracks for .50 a track. Stick THAT in your crack pipe and smoke it, RIAA!

it's silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832811)

People don't buy singles anymore because they finally figured out something i've known for many years - ITS NOT WORTH IT. Who on earth would buy a single? Get the album, it's more worth it, though I don't buy those either.

Most music nowadays is pretty shit, if you don't want to pay these prices - don't. I don't, I refuse to pay that much for a CD and I'm not going to pay to download them, because that's also not worth it, especially with these new prices.

It's simple, you either pay, break the law by downloading them illegally, or don't bother with the music, make your choice, I've made mine, which is to never buy a CD until they cut atleast 30% off of them.

It's sad that there's so many stupid people around that are willing to waste all their money on music, makes it hard to make a stand.

What idiots (5, Insightful)

Bralkein (685733) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832813)

Ok, I think this story was posted before, but I want my rant so I am posting anyway...

Can anybody tell me exactly how this ISN'T price fixing? Eh? As far as I know, the whole iTunes thing is doing pretty well, and $0.99/song seems like a pretty fair price to me, considering how you just get a DRM'd file, no CD case or nice insert/booklet thing or whatever. This move just looks like the RIAA is some kind of cartel or something, who just try to keep prices as high as they can get away with because they have a stranglehold on the market... oh, oh, hang on, is that EXACTLY WHAT IT FRICKING WELL IS?

I'm truly sorry if there is some reason apart from lust for coinage that means they have to raise the price, like bandwidth has suddenly become more expensive, or the money generated does not leave the artist with enough money to live or something like that, but to this customer, it almost looks criminal.

Bastards, I'll laugh when you're dead, RIAA, and I'll never pay you a penny again.

They Must Feel Awfully Confident in DRM.... (1)

BlueRain (90236) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832814)

They must feel awfully confident that Digital Rights Management [microsoft.com] would work if they will raise the price.

Unfortunately, 98% of the world's computers run a windows OS and make this very easy for microsoft to force on non-technical users.

Eventually, the techies running Linux will be forced to succumb.

Dear god... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8832844)

Everybody download bit torrent before it's too late!

screw studio albums.... (2, Interesting)

caino59 (313096) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832847)

Support artists by going to see them in concert.

if they allow recording at the concert, do it.

get into bands that have an open taping policy....get involved in trading shows/live concert downloads and whatnot...

been doing this for years now and have some really really kick ass music, from a lot of kick ass bands....and all it cost me was either a ticket to a concert (which was worth it for the memories alone) and the cost of a blank cd (or 2 or 3)

And if they band sucks live - do you really want to listen to them anyway?

Why is anyone following this model? (1)

snStarter (212765) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832852)

It's amazing to me that musicians haven't connected all the dots to make something better.

No one MAKES recording artists sign with big labels or even smaller ones. The major labels don't own all the recording studios in the world. They don't even have the lock on distribution.

So what part of the current model is works so well that artists feel obliged to make use of it? And why hasn't someone built a better mousetrap? Why haven't YOU?

I know it's been quite a while since I've played a CD. I RIP to my iPod or my Mac. I listen to audio books when I drive. On the radio I listen to PBS and baseball. I buy most music from the iTunes store or, if they don't have it, I buy the CD.

Yeah, I buy music. I don't like stealing someone's creativity and I won't make up excuses for doing it by whining about the distribution process. BUT...I'd rather see a system that gave more bucks to the artist, it's just that artists don't seem smart enough to find ways to do that.

Market Pricing Mechanism (5, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832854)

Why not make the prices fully variable and a function of the rate of downloading. All music would start at 0.99 per song. If the rate of downloading is high, the price would creep upwards until the rate of downloading slows. If the rate of downloading is low, the price would subside. Maybe the good songs are worth 2.99, maybe the sucky one are worth only 0.25 -- let the rate of downloading set the price.

And if you really want to use a market mechanism, then let people put in bids. When the price of the song drops to the bid price, the bidder gets the song. If the bidder wants the song sooner, then they will have to up their bid.

Maybe this is good (in a specific way...) (3, Insightful)

HDlife (714246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8832860)

The full story is that the industry wants to get away from the flat-rate price. They want, for example, to charge $3 for a new mega-hit (especially from a band who's other songs suck). Perhaps this would encourage people to look at other, non-TRL music?

I was amazed that they ever used the flat-rate-pricing. Who would pay the same price for Picasso as some amatuer work (regardless of merit). Or in young lingo, the same price for a T-shirt by Abercromie or by K-Mart.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>