RIAA think CDs should be far more expensive

[IBBoard]

Yet another article I've found via slashdot.org: RIAA Key Facts: Cost of a CD

Apparently they think CDs should have risen to over $33 each by 1996, not taking into account that newer CDs are better quality and contain more music and data than older CDs.

I wonder whether they're using that as an argument for fining people tens of dollars or more per pirated MP3?!

[TGSC]

But cassettes have fallen in price too. As has VHS, and numerous other things. There's a reason why these things aren't used for the CPI, because the price of some things falls compared to inflation, some increase, and some provide a nice guide of "living costs" which are used for CPI.

And I bet they don't cost $33 to make, no matter what effect inflation has had.

[IBBoard]

The RIAA article throws all sorts of numbers around for cover art, promotion (fat-cat producer's cut, corporate thieving slice etc...). They don't say it costs $33, but they do try to claim that it costs just about all of the sale price and that most CDs (90% IIRC) make a loss!

[TGSC]

Bah. Best get buying all my CDs before they get more expensive then

[IBBoard]

It could be worse - it could be the British equivalent who are saying it.

I can't see most CDs becoming too expensive. As it is people think chart albums are too expensive (well, most people do, some people think it's quite reasonable to have ~£10-£12 for the latest Greenday album and ~£16+ for the latest main stream pop album!