Universal to Sell CDs for $10 - Duh.

[admin]

In a remarkable, but delayed, achievement of common sense, Universal Music Group announced plans to drop prices on all of their new CDs to $10 or less. Universal is one of the largest music companies in the world, so this is big news in an industry that changes directions slower than the Titanic. The plan, which goes into effect this summer and will last through the rest of the year, is designed to reclaim consumers who have ditched the overpriced CD in favor of the digital download over the past several years.

Discuss "Universal to Sell CDs for $10 - Duh." here. Read the article.

 

[corey]

I think "Duh" pretty much sums it up.

Now how about $10 movies? $10 for high def, and less for low def.

 

[oscarav098]

Too late

Not gonna work. This is a little too late. Most people are used to the convenience of purchasing and downloading music from the comfort of their own homes by now. Droping prices WILL NOT reverse that trend. They may have to undercut downloading services by big margin to have any signicant effect.

 

[jinjuku]

Hopefully this will drive down the price of a used CD. Sorry record labels, the day you treated me like a criminal is the day you lost me as a customer. The big labels WILL NEVER SEE MY MONEY. There are small labels that aren't part of RIAA that I still do business with.

I will still play by the rules, just not the ones you made up. I love the first sale doctrine.

 

[hodedofome]

I think the only people that still buy cd's are audiophiles who want the highest quality, and people that can't afford a mp3 player/computer to download and burn cd's.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Apple still has one card they have not played yet though. The day they start offering full quality downloads either AIFF, FLAC or Apple Lossless then it game, set, match. That is the only thing that keeps me from buying songs off of itunes.

 

[Serj22]

Even if a CD is still $14.00, it's still cheaper than the hacked up price of $1.50 a song. Plus, the cool thing about a CD is, when you're done copying it to your MP3 files, you can SELL IT to a cd store! AND ITS TOTALLY LEGAL! and make some of the money back, or you can keep it. Try selling an Mp3 when you're done with it.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Even if a CD is still $14.00, it's still cheaper than the hacked up price of $1.50 a song. Plus, the cool thing about a CD is, when you're done copying it to your MP3 files, you can SELL IT to a cd store! AND ITS TOTALLY LEGAL! and make some of the money back, or you can keep it. Try selling an Mp3 when you're done with it.

Not if there is only 3 songs off the CD you want

Most albums on itunes are $9.95 for all the songs, but at 256kbps AAC. I wont pay money for highly compressed music.

 

[jinjuku]

Even if a CD is still $14.00, it's still cheaper than the hacked up price of $1.50 a song. Plus, the cool thing about a CD is, when you're done copying it to your MP3 files, you can SELL IT to a cd store! AND ITS TOTALLY LEGAL! and make some of the money back, or you can keep it. Try selling an Mp3 when you're done with it.

You are a wart on the butt of mankind. You are indeed part of the bottom feeding, entitlement generation that is a HUGE part of the problem.

And by the way: IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. You are why we wrap our software with a very effective protection wrapper

 

[jinjuku]

iTunes for most people is top 40 reinvented for the digital age. I can not tell you how many albums I have where the other songs are much better then what ever received air play.

I also have to assume on the flip side that iTunes has turned a lot of people on to other music.

My problem is I can't do classical music or orchestral music from iTunes because of the compression.

Hip/Hop, Rock, R&B you can get away with. Classical Music is a little more demanding. I will take my full data rate CD for as long as I can get them.

 

[Serj22]

You are a wart on the butt of mankind. You are indeed part of the bottom feeding, entitlement generation that is a HUGE part of the problem.

And by the way: IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. You are why we wrap our software with a very effective protection wrapper

Illegal? Oh, I always wondered why the police break into Rasputin and FYE to reposess all the used sold back Cd's. oh wait, that doesn't happen.

But seriously though, why so angry? I like my mp3's, and I like my Cd's, mp3's to me sound way different, and I can hear the twanging in the background on any kind of compression and it irritates me, so I stick with my Cd's. I personally, have never sold back a CD, except for one, and that was the newest Disturbed album, it was garbage. I got $8 for it two days after I got it for $10. I didn't copy it either. It was pretty bad. Also, Close-out section, $2.00 Cd's and you can usually get 5 or 6 good songs out of it or at least get a chance to listen to the less aired songs.

 

[its phillip]

He's saying it's illegal to rip the cds then sell them back while keeping the digital copies.

Anyway, this is relatively good news, although I'm not sure how many bands I actually care about are on universal or any of the sublabels. I generally buy my cds from specialized/smaller labels.

I'll never pay for lossy compressed audio...maybe lossless, but that's only if cds or whatever other physical media disappear completely. I'd much rather have the actual cd to rip and then put on a shelf.

 

[3db]

You are a wart on the butt of mankind. You are indeed part of the bottom feeding, entitlement generation that is a HUGE part of the problem.

And by the way: IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL. You are why we wrap our software with a very effective protection wrapper

Thats a littlle harsh.. no wait that's REALY F?CKIN harsh especially from someone that is supposed to be a "moderator" Tone it down some.

As far as legally goes, is it trully illegal to make a copy of the CD for yourself top make the format fit the equipment you own? Have you never copied a CD into another format?

 

[jinjuku]

Illegal? Oh, I always wondered why the police break into Rasputin and FYE to reposess all the used sold back Cd's. oh wait, that doesn't happen.

But seriously though, why so angry? I like my mp3's, and I like my Cd's, mp3's to me sound way different, and I can hear the twanging in the background on any kind of compression and it irritates me, so I stick with my Cd's. I personally, have never sold back a CD, except for one, and that was the newest Disturbed album, it was garbage. I got $8 for it two days after I got it for $10. I didn't copy it either. It was pretty bad. Also, Close-out section, $2.00 Cd's and you can usually get 5 or 6 good songs out of it or at least get a chance to listen to the less aired songs.

It's illegal to RIP then then sell the CD therefore keeping the content. Jesus weeps for your generation.

 

[jinjuku]

Thats a littlle harsh.. no wait that's REALY F?CKIN harsh especially from someone that is supposed to be a "moderator" Tone it down some.

As far as legally goes, is it trully illegal to make a copy of the CD for yourself top make the format fit the equipment you own? Have you never copied a CD into another format?

I am allowed my opinion. I am also allowed to point out where some one is 100% FACTUALLY in the wrong.

It's that sense of 'entitlement' that is a large part of the problem. You wait and see your hard worked for efforts floating out there in cyberspace and realize $60K in lost revenue.

I won't be making any apologies soon.

Do you really think I was saying that it is illegal to transcode music that you own? Did you totally miss the illegal part? HOW, HOW can you miss the illegal part with what he suggests?

 

[jinjuku]

BTW, if I was a site mod, at the very least I would have edited the illegal part of his post.

 

[6L6X4]

Of course I'm glad to see CD prices drop, but I'm puzzled why a record label would prefer the content be purchased via hard-copy rather than download.

Maybe the profit margin is higher for them when a customer buys the CD version?

 

[jinjuku]

Of course I'm glad to see CD prices drop, but I'm puzzled why a record label would prefer the content be purchased via hard-copy rather than download.

Maybe the profit margin is higher for them when a customer buys the CD version?

There are tangible and bit-rate benefits to purchasing a CD. I am not sure why that is always glossed over.

At least with the CD I never have to worry about authentication issues if the issuing server goes down. At least with the CD if I want a full copy, loss-less copy, 384kbps or 128kpbs copy, I have it. With the CD I have a long term, off-line full bit-rate archival. Not to mention SACD and DVD-Audio.

There is no school like old school folks.

 

[6L6X4]

There are tangible and bit-rate benefits to purchasing a CD. I am not sure why that is always glossed over.

At least with the CD I never have to worry about authentication issues if the issuing server goes down. At least with the CD if I want a full copy, loss-less copy, 384kbps or 128kpbs copy, I have it. With the CD I have a long term, off-line full bit-rate archival. Not to mention SACD and DVD-Audio.

There is no school like old school folks.

I'm aware of the benefits of a CD vs. a download, but my question was why the label would care which version was purchased?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'm aware of the benefits of a CD vs. a download, but my question was why the label would care which version was purchased?

One word - piracy