"Everything you write makes sense, but only in a world where music prices aren't set by psychotic rights owners" Ouch. That's really unfair. Those sorts of pri

"Everything you write makes sense, but only in a world where music prices aren't set by psychotic rights owners" Ouch. That's really unfair. Those sorts of prices are demanded by independents as well, including unsigned artists — look at indie artists on iTunes for example. The psychotic rights owners you describe are artists themselves and surely they have a right to price works as they choose? Just as punters have a right not to buy if they think it's too expensive. "This is why major label mp3s cost $0.79-$1.29 just about everywhere." Or you could just as easily argue that this is market forces at work. That's the price people are willing to pay, so that's how it's priced. These sorts of prices apply to many different releases, on both major and indie labels. "When you have that baseline which you can't control, profiting from a discounted mp3 album isn't really possible." I don't understand what you mean by baseline. As for the second half of the statement; plenty of digital retailers offer discounted releases and I hardly think they'd be doing that if rights holders weren't making money. Have a look at 7digital for example. Lots of majors, plenty of discounted releases. "Costs of distribution are lower, but they exist. Your profits can quickly become costs unless you stay at the standard pricing levels." To reiterate my basic argument; once production and marketing costs are recouped, margins are much higher, making discounting viable. The costs that you refer to would be a proportion of the sale given to the retailer. So if you want to make money, discount it, but not so far that it kills your profit margin. Imagine a 30/70 split your way. You might decide to discount a release so your split is smaller. _You can still make a profit_.