Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Question on pricing posted by Charles Hansen on May 18, 2017 at 20:37:43
Charles, the actual price for Sublime+ is 349.99 euro per annum. That has to be paid upfront, there isn't a monthly charge.
Like most streaming services working internationally that means 350 of your currency whatever it is. No converted rate for us Brits.
> > Charles, the actual price for Sublime+ is 349.99 euro per annum. That has to be paid upfront, there isn't a monthly charge.
Like most streaming services working internationally that means 350 of your currency whatever it is. No converted rate for us Brits. < <
Thanks very much for the accurate information. For those of you who don't know, the pricing of downloads is set by the record labels. I assume the same is true for streaming.
MP3 streaming is 10 units per month from many, many services. CD-quality streaming is 20 units per month from several services. MQA streaming is also 20 units per month, with Tidal being the only tangible source. Now we see the first source of true hi-res streaming (from Qobuz) and it is 30 units per month.
It would seem that the record labels place a higher price on a higher quality product. In other words they don't value MQA any more than CD quality, whereas true hi-res files are worth more - even 44/24. Very interesting!
As always my posts here reflect my opinions only and not those of my employer, family, pen-pals, or ex-girlfriends.
Just to add that the price isn't just set in effect by the record companies. The music publishers also have a major role.
> > Just to add that the price isn't just set in effect by the record companies. The music publishers also have a major role. < <
Thanks for the clarification, as I forgot about the publishers. Copyright law comes into play with the publishers, and to complicate things further that varies not only from country to country, but also over time within a single country as legislators change their minds (usually due to bribery from the vested interests). My understanding is that US law states that any *unreleased* music automatically loses copyright protection 50 years after the date of performance.
That is the reason for the recent spate of massive box sets of previously unreleased music - including the recent Sergeant Pepper's remix. We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the performances. My understanding is that all of these additional outtakes would have no copyright protection unless released within the 50-year window. There are many other similar releases being prepared for release for the very same reason, including Dylan, The Doors, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, et cetera, et cetera.
The entire existing system is quite cumbersome. Likely set up by attorneys, as it seems they are the ones that always benefits from copyright disputes.
Strictly my personal opinion and not that of my employer, associates, or poker-buddies.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: