RIAA Says CDs Should Cost More


Recommended Posts

The Recording Industry Association of America hasn't been making too many friends these days. I guess I should say that the organization does have many friends inside the music industry, because that's who makes up the the RIAA.

I'm not here to argue whether it's right or wrong to download free music where it's available, or whether it's OK to listen to your friend's "Beach Boys Greatest Hits Album." I'm just here to point out what the RIAA wants you to believe about the cost of music and CDs.

If you visit the Key Stats/Facts page on the RIAA website, you'll notice a justification for pricing CDs. The biggest argument appears to be the fact that the Consumer Price Index rose nearly 60 percent between 1983 and 1996, even though the price of a CD actually went down. While this might be a true statement, this is virtually worthless in determining how much a CD should cost.

Let's examine this statement, directly from the website:If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.

I know that the CPI has risen, but these numbers don't seem to translate properly. So I visited the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data site u>, which contains a CPI Inflation Calculator. Unfortunately, I needed the initial value (of a CD in 1983), instead of the theoretical value in 1996. Since I didn't have that, I just guessed until I came up with $33.86 in 1996. I finally found that value: $21.50.

This means that the RIAA is claiming that the average cost of a CD in 1983 was $21.50. How many CDs have you purchased for more than $20?

True, the CD was new technology at the time, and it's quite possible that the price, in some places, was more than $20. Where the RIAA deviates from basic technology knowledge, however, is that more often than not, the cost of producing something like a CD almost always goes down over time.

What better example of electronics getting cheaper than taking a look at the history of the calculator. From the website listed above, Texas Instruments came out with a calculator in 1972 (TI-2500) that cost $119.95 (actually, the suggested retail price was $149.99). If we take a look at the CPI inflation calculator, using the calculator cost and a 13-year span, from 1972 to 1985 (the same time length the RIAA used), we see that the calculator should have cost about $308.77 in 1985.

Maybe this isn't fair, considering the time periods are different. So I'll try $119.95 in 1983, and the value in 1996 is $188.96.

How much do you think a calculator that could do only basic math functions (add, subtract, divide, multiply) was worth in 1996? By 1981, Texas Instruments had already developed a model that included more functionality for $19.99. Granted, the technology involving calculators and CDs are vastly different. My point is that when you are in the technology world, most of your products, with the same level of functionality, do not get more expensive.

The CPI is useful for looking at the prices of raw material, grocery items, etc. Sorry RIAA, but buying a CD isn't like buying a bushel of Korn.

http://www.whas11.com/news/woods/stories/W...b.44a095ba.html

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/536859-riaa-says-cds-should-cost-more/
Share on other sites

RIAA = bull**** artists

When CDs first came out there was the usual "oh, they'll come down in price" burble. Irrespective of inflation (to hell with Consumer Price Indices, they mean nothing to the actual consumer) they haven't. An example is Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds double CD. When it came out it was about ?25 (80s). Until recently it wasstill> ?25. I only got one because there was a sale at ?15 which is the only true reduction in price. For those who think "lamer buying WotW", the same applies to Pink Floyd's The Wall, Ummagumma, etc. Whilst ?25 today is less than it was 20 years ago the reduction in manufacturing costs far outweighs the depreciation of currency, meaning they get more profit now than they did on the item. And they wantincrease the price? Watch everybody not buying.

Naturally they want it to cost more, otherwise how else will they make so much profit. I'm glad they can't do **** in Canada.

We have the CRIA, which is like the RIAA, so it could happen.

Plus were affiliated with the WTO (World Trade Organization).

Buying CD's are stupid nowadays, iTunes and other sorts are better.

Besides on the average CD there's only a few good songs usually.

RIAA says that I should pirate more...

Seriously, how I can buy music legally if I don't have the money to buy them because it cost too much?

You'll have to get by without music. Sheesh, people go on like music is water. You don't need it, you just want it. And last time I checked, if you want something, you usually have to pay for it or steal it. And therein lies your choice. Boycotting these bastards is the only way forward, because then they will take note and behave like good crocodiles (maybe).

im still convinced there's a deeper agenda to the MPAA and RIAA, but i cant pinpoint it yet. they spend more money on lawsuits than they would get from stopping piracy... it doesnt make sense... and scare tactics only work on some. millions of people have downloaded a song illegally... idk, just doesnt add up to me. and now they seem to want to raise prices? how is that justified? that, again, makes no sense.

I think the keyword here is should. This is an obvious attempt by the RIAA to justify today's CD prices by saying if inflation was added to the cost, it should be costing much more than $15 for a CD so people can think they are getting a good deal with today's prices.

Their reasoning is faulty, because as one of the poster's noted, the cost of producing compact discs has gone down considerably from when they first came out. When CD players were introduced (which were not nearly as good as they are now), they were over $1000! Now, you can get DVD players that play CDs and everything else for $60. It's true, artists are getting more money and inflation being what it is, but that doesn't justify the still-high prices of CDs. They don't seem to have a real grasp on reality.

BRILLIANT! So even thought its been completely exposed that they take the BIGGEST chunk out of CD sales they feel inclined to say "Hey guys we want even a BIGGER chunk" what a bunch of dumbasses. They really want to raise the number of non-drm mp3 downloaders, they're really pushing it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I like the show more options. The only problem with it is that it's not always in a consistent spot in the menu. If the copy/paste/cut, happens to show on top, then more option is the last in the menu. But if copy/paste/cut happens to show on the bottom, then more options is before the copy/paste/cut. But I do like the more options because it hides the stuff that I rarely use. But I would like to choose what it is or isn't hiding. That would make it better.
    • I wonder if "put it back the way it was for decades" ever crossed their minds? 🤣
    • Rescind the stupid "Show more options" in context menus and just give us the full menu instead of adding more steps to get to what we want. The "simpler by default" makes me think they'll go in the opposite direction. Every context menu should have a configure button so you can pick and choose what options should be shown, I know you can do that with some registry fu but that shouldn't be required.
    • This is why competition must exist. Finally, pressure is mounting on Microsoft to move in the right direction.
    • Microsoft is making Windows 11's context menus faster, simpler, and configurable by Taras Buria Five years ago, Windows 11 introduced redesigned context menus, offering users a simpler, more modern design. However, customers quickly discovered that the new menus leave a lot to be desired. Many are unhappy with performance (they are really slow), while others dislike the double-layed design, where many options are hidden behind the "Show more options" button. In addition, over the years, menus became cluttered and overloaded. While Microsoft has already fixed plenty of pain points across Windows 11, context menus remain mostly unchanged. Fortunately, Microsoft is finally listening. Marcus Ash, Design and Research Lead for Windows at Microsoft, responded to a tweet on X, confirming that the company is working on fixing Windows 11's context menus. Reworked context menus are supposed to be faster, simpler by default, and "configurable to what you use most." What the latter means is unknown, just like whether Microsoft plans to keep the classic menu alongside the modern one, but according to Marcus, the wait should finally be over soon, as he promised to "share our approach soon." Improved context menus will most likely appear first in Windows 11 preview builds in the Experimental Channel. While we wait for Microsoft to release them, you can try fixing context menus on your PC with a simple tool called Windows 11 Context Menu Manager. It lets you disable entries you do not need, not only cleaning up context menus, but also making them significantly faster. Microsoft has already improved Windows 11's Start menu and taskbar, so hopefully it will address user criticism of the context menu as well. Stay tuned for new Windows 11 preview builds, which usually arrive every Friday.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      I2D earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Dr Jared Dental Studio earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      RG INVESTMENT GROUP earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Very Popular
      The Norwegian Drone Pilot earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Very Popular
      s0nic69 earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      469
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      248
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      64
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!