Okay, so the RIAA has been claiming that Napster hurt CD sales "near college campuses." Then the Register reported (as did everybody else) on the Jupiter Communications study - concluding that Napster users buy more music, not less - and pointed out that the data the RIAA was using to attempt to show the dropoff in CD sales predated the advent of Napster (They've got interesting commentary on the RIAA's methodology too).

And in May the record labels got a bit of egg on their faces because it was revealed - because they settled with the FTC instead of having the whole thing go into court - that they'd been fixing prices. So now? They're getting sued over the price fixing. And they're claiming innocence, of course. From that Post article:

The record companies insist that the pricing regime was put in place to protect retailers from being driven out of business and thus reducing competition. "We continue to believe that Minimum Advertised Pricing served a valid business purpose and benefited consumers by substantially furthering retail competition and that it was an appropriate and lawful practice," Warner Music Group said in a statement. Tower Records and Universal had no comment.

MusicLand issued a prepared statement in response to the lawsuit, saying, "We have not been served with the complaint but management believes that any charges in this matter against MusicLand have no basis." The company promised to present a vigorous legal defense. Representatives of other defendants in the case, including Sony, BMG, EMI and Trans World, were unavailable for comment.

Could it be, perchance, could it be that the drop in sales was a natural reaction of the market to artifically elevated prices?

Now, I'm not a big MP3 user. I've never used Napster or Gnutella or FreeNet. I have a few MP3s of things that my friends have told me I should buy, and of that (short) list I've bought my own copies of the ones I liked and deleted the others, with two exceptions: I have an MP3 of the song I sang at my friend Ben's wedding reception, as he wasn't able to get me a tape of it in time for the rehearsal with the band, and I haven't yet purchased one thing (but it's on my list).

That said, I do think the prices for CDs are too high, especially since the people who actually create the content end up with little more than a buck per CD sold, and don't even own the copyright of their own creations. I think the record companies have made their own bed, and now they're trying to get the gubmint to keep them from having to lie in it.

Oddly, I worked at a Media Play (owned by MusicLand, which wasn't yet InterCapped when I worked for them) back in 1995. I remember the price war that happened that year. It was pretty much the last CD price war, too. At one point, in order to compete with the Circuit City next door, we had to match their "every CD on sale for 9.99" advertised prices. We had to go through and put new price stickers on everything when they dropped the regular prices of most CDs to 10.99 or 11.99 ... and then again when they raised them all to 12.99 later the same year. In 1996, after I'd quit and found a much better job, I went in the store occasionally to discover that the regular prices rose to 13.99. The store closed in January 97, so I don't know what they drove the prices up to after that.

I buy a lot of CDs. I've got more than 400 of them now. I really do buy fewer things because of the raised prices. I used to just buy stuff. "Oh, I think I heard some guy say he liked this band, and I know he likes this other band I own a CD by, so why not?" I don't really do that anymore. Much. (I got tired of having people recommend Belle and Sebastian, so I finally bought some without ever hearing any).

I think the recording industry deserves every bad thing that happens to them at this point. Unless they suddenly give the artists back their copyrights, pay them fairly, and drop the prices of CDs without being forced by law to do so. Somehow I don't expect those things to happen.

link (2000-08-08)