Assumed Response: In a way, it seems so. Here are 5 (at least there were 5 at the time of Napster and its shutdown) major companies that collect millions and millions of dollars in revenue per year and have to worry about very little but producing bad music. It is unfortunate that people are finally realizing their potentiality for getting their way when grouping in numbers (that they can accomplish a lot), but too bad it was to pirate music and not for a better cause. However, when a neighbor asks for an egg are they robbing poultry companies of business because they aren’t buying their eggs? Should they be sued for it? Obviously there are intellectual property rights and if an artist composed a song, they should expect to receive compensation if people desire to possess a particular song of theirs’. Generally, however, music labels need to focus on producing “worthwhile� music. If they cease bundling, allocate “appropriate� and “fair� costs to MP3 files, and produce desirable music, record labels may be able to maintain profits and make some money (even though they are already making millions). It is only fair to recognize record labels as legitimate businesses, just like any other business that deserves your money.

Assumed Response: It is wise for Apple to offer incentives, such as giving an iPod away at a reduced cost with the purchase of a computer to college students, because it is a way to hook customers at a young age. It seems that the iPod, at least when it was first introduced, was marketed mainly to a young audience. So it makes sense that when an eighteen year-old is getting ready to head of to college, that Apple would like to target them. I was a victim of Apple’s this past summer. When I bought my laptop G4 from Apple this past August, I was offered to receive a free mini-iPod and naturally I accepted; now I am completely dedicated to Apple. If Apple is able to capture the attention of other computer buying students, they will likely be able to maintain them as customers, because once you’re used to Apple’s products, you may never want to switch again. The iPod works best with iTunes, which can be found on all Apple computers. Hopefully as people witness the growth of iPods (which has already taken place) and new incentives are put in place, more people will desire to buy an iPod themselves.

Assumed Author's Response: In a sense, first-degree price discrimination would negate mass communication (when referring solely to the economic aspects of mass communications). Sellers could essentially replace advertising, in that they would be responsible for bringing "products" to the attention of potential buyers; products that coincide with the buyers likes. Potentially there could be no reason to "mass communicate" a particular product to a particular audience simply because that product will catch the attention of a prospective buyer through "personalization" from a seller. Eventually, we may be able to have our movies, television (TiVo already exists), books, music, etc. personalized. Mass Communications could end up assuming a more passive role, one that isn’t responsible for perpetuating mass messages, but rather focusing more on the specific tastes of every individual consumer. Tailoring a product to the customer’s desire seems to be the future, however, mass communication companies shouldn’t face much of a loss in profits if they are able to utilize price discrimination. If first-degree doesn’t work, there is second-degree, and even further, third-degree price discrimination. At this point it is all about making the right decisions (economically speaking) for the future.

Author's Assumed Response: Simply because they don't have access to every song in existence. Why would a consumer want to subscribe to or purchase songs from a specific label when they could subscribe to or purchase songs from every label when using a service such as Rhapsody? The only way that a label could truly be successful in selling their own songs is if all the major labels joined together to sell their songs through one service. However, this would never happen because it would be too complicated. How would the labels split up the profits? Based on the amount of songs their specific label sold? In addition, record labels are not directly connected to their consumers, hence it would be hard for them to up-and-start their own online music distribution service.
Instead of worrying about selling their own songs, record labels need to allow already established online music distribution services, such as Rhapsody, to have access to their extended music libraries. The more songs that the labels allow services to sell or stream, the bigger the market for online music distribution will get. People want variety and at a good cost. If record labels focus on the business aspects of online music distribution services and leave the actual distributing to outside companies, they will be able to remain successful (maybe not in terms of what the music industry used to be like, but they will still be able to gain profit).

Question: Why wouldn't a record label want to release the “yet-to-be-released� albums to music retailers for a price instead of for free?

Assumed Author's response: It would be unwise for the record labels to sell shelved albums that were once “unmarketable" and "undesirable" because it could end up having a negative effect on the artist's future (e.g. future record sales or concert ticket sales). It could possibly upset a particular artist's fan base because the shelved tracks will most likely not live up to their current reputation (there was a reason the songs weren't released in the first place). If a record label creates or sparks a temporary "bad" name for an artist by releasing their less than stellar songs, the artist may in turn decide to leave the record label. We are now in what’s considered the "new media" age or in other words: the convergence of all mass media communication onto one platform: the Internet, and its the artist that now has more control than ever before, so it would be wise for the record labels to keep their artists happy-otherwise they may decide to become their own distributors; hence the record labels will have less of a shot at making a profit in the music industry.