Good to see the Reg keeping up with the rigourous reporting standards of Radio 1's Newsbeat by suggesting that nasty old Apple are the ones being mean with the pricing, and that the selling price of a particular track is somehow nothing to do with the fuckwit-infested record companies.

If you actually wanted to do some journalism worthy of the name, you might want to look at why the record companies are giving Amazon et al. a lower wholesale price than iTunes and (up until now) preferential access to DRM-free tracks. You might also want to examine why the record labels would want to behave this way towards the company that created the mass-market *LEGAL* download industry single-handed. They may not have been the first, but they were the first one that the average person bothered with (and paid for).

Apple are far from perfect, but I'll be fucked if this is anything other than dick-brained record execs doing their level best to fuck up their own industry. Again.

How can Amazon sell every track for less? Do they pay the RIAA less per track?

How much is that in real, Royal money?

Hey wow, awesome! I still won't be using iTunes.

Now, with all the new sales they'll make, can they pay someone to fix iTunes so it doesn't break Windows and try to install "Safari"? Ta!

99c per track, yet still way more expensive than buying a full album or physical copies. Esp as over here it'd be 99p/track.

On the other hand, fuck the pop tunes - people listening to that deserve all they get :)

I liked your top-ten listing. It's really going to help me.

Those are now the "ten tracks most unlikely to be downloaded by DutchOven".

Can you do another one next week, just so I'm safe from the over-produced, manufactured swill that seems to pass for chart music.

they still delete every review I post saying that an album is cheaper on Amazon. Weak...

That is all.

Wrote about this on my blog. http://digg.com/u11G9j