i really wonder if that'll combat piracy; people get pirated copies because they're cheap -- $9 may be a lot cheaper than the "luxury" version but it won't beat the pirated copies. and if the "no-frills" version looks and feels like the pirated version, at $9, i wonder what's there to compel people to choose that over the $2 version that looks the same.

at least having liner notes makes all the difference.

What a tremendous stocking nightmare this will be for retailers. My guess is that retailers won't even respond to the budget and deluxe discs and will continue to stock just the "regular" (their proposed $12) edition of the album. Really, how many of the "plain brown wrapper" discs do they think will actually sell? Paying $9 for next to nothing isn't really going to go over real well. Isn't this what we're complaining about with regards to music prices in the first place? Don't we want more value for the money we're spending? Bring those prices of regular CDs down to $10! THAT will work. This is just a ploy to make it look like the industry is actually doing something to combat piracy - without actually doing much of anything at all.

so, 3 bucks for the cover and liner notes. what a friggin' joke.

wouldn't ya just love to be a fly on the wall at the meetings where they come up with this stuff?

As someone who has experienced all three in one way or another the price isn't the point for true fans. I believe it's about quality of that artist to that consumer.

For artists like Jay-Z, Outkast or Nina Simone (RIP) I would pay the luxury price. For new artists or experiments as I call them I would not pay for them at all. I mean I would use Rhapsody to preview the album then and only then if I was taken by at least 6 of the tracks would I buy the 12.00 version. I can burn my own 9.00 version for free, why would anyone pay for that. Especially since bootlegs are only 5.00 anyway. I'm not condoning bootlegging, I'm only stating the facts.

Mark, many hip people would opt for a MP3 download if they don't want the full, 'frills' hard copy. I find it hard to believe that did not enter into the discussion. Maybe it did. Can't tell from the equally short entry at the other blog this entry was lifted wholesale from, though.

MD, i guess i never thought of the downloading issue because i'm not a downloader. to me, it's an inferior product & i'm just not interested.

I know you collect, Mark. But, for the average listener music is ephemeral. We sell our 'soul' (or grunge) at the used CD store for chump change eventually. (Parted with Everclear last week.) I keep a core group of about 300 CDs. The rest are expendable. And, at least 50 percent of my music listening is done on my iPod while the CDs gather dust. So, I think that the industry should factor in MP3 downloads when making decisions about hard copies. Ideally, MP3 downloads could supplant no frills CDs -- if the idea of no frills CDs even gets off the ground.