No sooner have digital tunes really started to catch on, we hear that the $0.99-per-song -- or less, if you go toWal-Mart
It's no secret that the recording industry's not adjusting well to change. Illegal downloading -- made notorious by services like Kazaa and the now-legit Napster -- continues, and is still blamed for bleak revenue shortfalls in the industry. But will the legally downloading public pay more than it's already paying per song? What about paying nearly as much for a downloaded album as for a CD? I think not.
While recording industry stalwarts like Sony
Hiking prices to more than just chump change or, in the case of albums, close to levels charged by traditional record stores, Amazon.com
Wooing people to the side of the law by offering downloads for less than a buck has been very successful thus far. However, it's a touchy business. The Internet and music are both perceived as "free" mediums. The terms "ripping" and "burning" -- i.e., recording friends' CDs onto blank discs -- may be new, but it's hardly a new concept, given that people have been copying albums for years.
Though the economics of the situation seem dire, the names behind the RIAA haven't won too much sympathy from music fans recently. And speaking of rock 'n' roll rebellion, if squeezed too tight, renegades -- who all the piracy coverage revealed to be just regular people like you and me -- will probably soon cook up other ways to rock on.
Do you love iTunes? Are you willing to pay up to $2.49 for a single song, or would this limit your downloading? Talk about issues like this on the Apple discussion board.
Alyce Lomax does not own shares of any of the companies mentioned.