ridiculous. rIdiculous. Like rire, which is French for to laugh, or laughter, or something like that. Which is why we have the English ridiculous. Not rEdiculous, which means zilch. So you all know. Because I know lots of people that make that mistake and I feel the need to help you all learn to spell it right and maintain the integrity of the language + not let you make Americans look like goofballs.
Thank you. and Good Night.

As for this "topic". Hey. What happened to stealing music? Pay for the album if you think the artist deserves a notch towards "platinum". But remember, all the real money comes from those god awfully expensive tours.

As stated above, I do think 10US$ would be ideal, realistically, $12-$15US$ is reasonable.

Why do you feel the need to correct typos in a forum?

I'd say around $10-13 for a full length CD with roughly an hour of music is fair. I try not to pay more than $12.99 for new CD's and not more than $9 for used.

I'd say $10 is good, $15 at the maximum. I rarely buy an in print CD for over fifteen, usually I can find it for cheaper. What do you guys think the price for a double CD should be? I'm thinking $15-$20, but I'm not really sure. You'd think it'd just be double what a regular CD is, but paying $30 (at maximum) for a double-disc seems a bit high, to me.

i'd say 16-18 US is good enough for a double because in some instances the '2nd' disc is a either a live disc or a remix disc, and I don't see the use in paying 'full price' for that.

I've purchased quite a few double discs for around $22-24, which isn't too bad, when the music's good.

Man I got it good in Nebraska. I never have to pay more then 6USD per used CD. That's probably why I buy about 15 CDs a month, on a shitty budget.

A manufactured CD (packaged for shipping with booklet, etc) is about $0.35. Dirt cheap. I understand that record labels need to recoup their recording costs and most albums aren't even profitable, but less than 10% of albums actually make money for the record label. They would be better off making music available online for downloading. Charge $5 dollars and save manufacturing, shipping, and distribution costs as well as eliminate all the markups that happen along the way. That is cheaper than $1 per song that many legal sites charge. They could also include jpegs or bmps of the CD cover as well as the booklet. Until something like this happens, people will just continue to download music illegally. Many people would probably be more than happy to pay $5 per album for a legit copy with good bit rate and what not and not have to worry about "The Man" coming after them for illegal p2p sharing. Think of all the money the record labels could save in lawyer fees alone! My wife is an attorney and her firm bills her out at a ridiculous rate (somewhere near $400/hour) and she doesn't have that many years under her belt yet. A typical settlement is around $3000. That is roughly 8 hours of billing. I'm sure that the time it takes to investigate an individual and put together a case against them takes more than 8 hours so the record labels are losing money even by prosecuting people for illegal sharing.

I used to work at Best Buy many moons ago and we had a discount where we paid 10% over cost. New albums cost us maybe $9 so you figure that cost to Best Buy was about $8. This was when CDs were selling there for about $14 and they aren't much more than that nowadays there. That is a 75% markup just at Best Buy! The distributors mark up everything as well. Let's say that the record label sells it to the distributor for $6 (probably a reasonable number). They could sell it for that price direct and just charge shipping to the consumer and still be making the same amount of money. There are a lot of CDs that I would pay $8 for but not $15+.

Fuck downloading, I like going to the store and actually buying the CD, or ordering online. I like my stuff to be and look official, and it'd probably look like shit if I just downloaded a jpeg of it and cut the album cover out (not an opinion on the idea, more on my my artistic skillz, or lack thereof ). Seriously, though, even if they did that I doubt it'd work. The majority of kids downloading is for two reasons, I believe: a. Lots of bands are incapable of creating a full album of good music, and just end up with a hit single that everyone wants, so they just download it. I'm not sure if printing singles again, like back in the day, would work. b. Why pay any money, no matter how cheap, when you can get if for free at minimum risk?