FTFA: ...only 38% of downloaders willingly paid, while the others who accessed Radiohead's website gave nothing.

The album went straight to number one in the UK and US when it became available on CD in January.

Appropriate use of the Dumbass tag. This guy is really getting great press for U2 this week...

Yes... I mean despite the fact that a big chunkof people didn't pay for "in rainbows", and the ones that did averaged... what was it? something like 3 dollars something? well, it was already several more dollars than musician get as royalties, so I dont know what he's talking about

"Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

Yeah, I'd like my failures to net me 3 mill in a week.

Suicidal Writer: "Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

gilgigamesh: Suicidal Writer: "Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

Only 38% of the people who downloaded it from Radiohead paid any money at all. They didn't mention torrent sites or other illegal means.

*whack*

gilgigamesh: Suicidal Writer: "Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

I read the site was difficult, and probably you also most likely had to register, which people just went..."fark that" and openened their bittorent

HappyHarryHardOn: gilgigamesh: Suicidal Writer: "Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

I read the site was difficult, and probably you also most likely had to register, which people just went..."fark that" and openened their bittorent

Honestly, the d/l from the Radiohead site was not that big of a deal. The most trouble I had was with that stupid "enter the 5 characters you see above" thing, but that's me.

And, as Suicidal Writer correctly says, you can't steal something being offered for free!

I'm a huge Radiohead fan so I got the deluxe set which comes with 2 CDs, and the album on vinyl. The packaging is really great. Bands make most of their money on tour anyway, so they are not really missing out on too much.

gilgigamesh: Suicidal Writer: "Sixty to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

In comparison, Nine Inch Nails went ahead and threw Ghosts onto Pirate Bay themselves.

HappyHarryHardOn: Yes... I mean despite the fact that a big chunkof people didn't pay for "in rainbows", and the ones that did averaged... what was it? something like 3 dollars something? well, it was already several more dollars than musician get as royalties, so I dont know what he's talking about


Average price paid was $6 ((source (p)).

Which means less than 2% of people who downloaded the album had to pay for it in order for the band them to break even with what royalties would have been if they sold it in stores; ASSUMING sales totals matched download totals (capitalized to underscore the absurdity of the assumption).

Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

coma: Music shouldn't be a farking business.


When you say that, to exactly what extent do you mean it? Is that in general and across-the-board, or strictly as it applies to Metallica and U2, but no-one else in particular? Or do you mean it can be a business, but not a "big" business?

I'm always fascinated when I see someone say that, but I'm rarely sure about what, precisely, they mean by it.

I doubt that at this point in their career Radiohead is hurting for money.

coma: HappyHarryHardOn: Yes... I mean despite the fact that a big chunkof people didn't pay for "in rainbows", and the ones that did averaged... what was it? something like 3 dollars something? well, it was already several more dollars than musician get as royalties, so I dont know what he's talking about


Average price paid was $6 ((source (p)).

Which means less than 2% of people who downloaded the album had to pay for it in order for the band them to break even with what royalties would have been if they sold it in stores; ASSUMING sales totals matched download totals (capitalized to underscore the absurdity of the assumption).

Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

it is a business, albums are a product. You can try to justify stealing music, but it is still stealing.
/maybe not in this case because it was free, the general point still applies
//it is stealing even if the band is a bunch of douche bags

The quality of the mp3s released by Radiohead for In Rainbows completely sucked. The fact anyone paid for 160kb bitrate crap at all is amazing. Any band talking about Radiohead right now is just jealous they didn't think of it first and just looking to compare themselves to now living legends. When was the last time U2 made any news on their own?

I used to like U2, and I can easily download for free whatever new shiat they'll be offering....but here's the thing:

I can't be farking bothered. Bono and co ceased to be relevant many many years ago.

gilgigamesh: Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

I just wanted a higher quality rip (I waited till the CD came out). I hate to say it, but this time I did not follow up by buying the thing and don't plan to in the future. It wasn't that it was bad really, it was just kind of...nothing. Where the hell did the drama and energy go? They're too damn young to be sounding so tired and old.

GungFu: Bono and co ceased to be relevant many many years ago.

I have to ask, why is being relevant important? Is it anything to do with making good music?

Can't stand U2 for sure, but I don't understand why "relevant" is used so often in terms of quality of music. Sorry, just bugs me, a guitarist in my old band would snipe at my bass playing style for being "irrelevant" until Primus got popular and suddenly he was 100% for it. Seems "relevant" is code for "what everyone else likes" which is a shiate way to judge music.

Zem: I have to ask, why is being relevant important? Is it anything to do with making good music?


Nothing too elaborate, just personal taste, I suppose. There are bands that are of their time. If I can use a Rolling Stones example - great band, they still rock etc - but they've ceased to be relevant musically a very very long time ago. Like U2.

U2's next album - due this year - would not follow the same approach, he added.
Instead it will be available for stealing long before its release date.

BobXXL: U2's next album - due this year - would not follow the same approach, he added.
Instead it will be available for stealing long before its release date.

Exactly. Every Radiohead album for the last decade has been leaked minutes after it was finished. So Radiohead leaks it themselves and actually makes enough to produce the physical copies. Brilliant.

Bono was probably having lunch with Mandela or some crap when he heard and spewed his finger sandwich.

gilgigamesh: A lot of people literally stole it - by getting it off pirate bay and other torrent sites.

Actually, by getting the album from a torrent site, people actually saved Radiohead money by not using their bandwidth.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: it is a business, albums are a product. You can try to justify stealing music, but it is still stealing.
/maybe not in this case because it was free, the general point still applies
//it is stealing even if the band is a bunch of douche bags

No, it is copyright infringement. I am removing nothing from their ownership.

/Pedantic as it is, that still annoys me.

Because I'm really interested in what some guy I've never heard of has to say about stuff I don't care about.

coma: Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

This.

IF they're in music just to make money, they shouldn't be in music.

In a perfect free-market economy, a good or service is only worth what another is willing to pay for it.

Most music (specifically, the music being shoved down our throats by large corporations), is worthless.

Consumers now have the tools to accurately set the market price, instead of having it artificially inflated, a la DeBeers.

When (insert fav artist here) comes to town, I make damn sure I'm there, and (insert fav artist here) seems to be doing just fine.

It's the manager's opinion, not the band's. But who really cares? They make most of their money on tour, and U2 has been good enough the last 2 outings to keep GA under $70.

PYROY: Because I'm really interested in what some guy I've never heard of has to say about stuff I don't care about.

Yet you still posted in the thread. OK Computer.


IIRC, Thom said they made more money off In Rainbows than all their other albums combined. Backfired my ass.

I don't know if I'd call a number 1 album when it released in stores and a sold out North American tour "backfiring" but what do I know?

I don't manage one of the most pretentious and pompous bands in existence after all.

Face it Bono, your just a big number 2.

flecsrogar: coma: Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

This.

IF they're in music just to make money, they shouldn't be in music.

so a painter should just give away all of his work, rather then trying to make some kind of profit off of his hard work and unique skills. Like it or not it is a business and an industry, while they are providing entertainment, services are not free. By you logic we shouldn't have to pay to watch movies, or go into museums, but since they are forms of art it should be free.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: flecsrogar: coma: Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

This.

IF they're in music just to make money, they shouldn't be in music.

so a painter should just give away all of his work, rather then trying to make some kind of profit off of his hard work and unique skills. Like it or not it is a business and an industry, while they are providing entertainment, services are not free. By you logic we shouldn't have to pay to watch movies, or go into museums, but since they are forms of art it should be free.

You missed the word JUST if they are making music and enjoying themselves, delighting fans, and making money, thats fine. But if they're going into music just to get sex or money, then they are in music for the wrong reason.

When was the music industry ever about anything other then making money. Yes music can be created for artistic reasons, but any band signing a record deal is looking to make money. Those that want to make music for music sake do it, but they generally dont have a record deal, and they play in the street. And even street performers do it as a means of making money.

/delighting fans... thats adorable
//as if that ever mattered

The industry is a business and bands should get paid for their work. I have no issue with that anymore than I have actors, plumbers or electricians getting paid for their services.

In fact, for the bands I like I WANT to pay them so they can continue to create art that I enjoy. I don't understand the music thieves who steal music they like and since no one steals music they hate (well I'm sure some nitwit does) it pretty much means I don't get piracy.

Zem: gilgigamesh: Since radiohead was offering it for free off their site, I don't know why. Probably just inertia.

I just wanted a higher quality rip (I waited till the CD came out). I hate to say it, but this time I did not follow up by buying the thing and don't plan to in the future. It wasn't that it was bad really, it was just kind of...nothing. Where the hell did the drama and energy go? They're too damn young to be sounding so tired and old.

Creep came out in 1992, 16 years ago, they are getting old, get used to it.

now get off my lawn and discover some new bands.

Suicidal Writer: Can you steal something if it is being offered for free?

Yes, you can.

I downloaded it for free when it was available on their website. Then it turned out that I really enjoyed the album a lot. So when I could buy it in cd form in January, I did.


I've bought a lot of cd's that I otherwise never would have had I not had the chance to listen to them first. I like have a physical collection of cd's, so long as most of them aren't crap I'll never listen to again.

I downloaded it for free on Soulseek. Liked it and bought it on vinyl the following month at a music store. I couldn't justify paying for a cd and lp of the same material like drevil877 could.

Zem:

GungFu: Bono and co ceased to be relevant many many years ago.

I have to ask, why is being relevant important? Is it anything to do with making good music?


In general, I'm pretty sure that when most people say that, there are a couple of possible reasons:

1) It sounds cool to say about a band you don't like (1-a: they read it in a magazine or online, or heard someone else say it)

2) What they really mean is "[Blank] ceased to be relevant to my own interests many years ago." Since it's U2 we're talking about, it probably just means that they got sick of hearing Bono's opinions about everything and completely tuned him and his band out at some point. Hard to blame anyone for that.

Only rarely does it legitimately mean that, from an objective perspective, [Blank] has ceased to be relevant. And when it's said like that, it's usually specified how it's meant, whether it be creatively (they're doing the same thing over and over again; no-one listens to anything new they've done in X number of years), critically (they used to get good reviews, now writers hate or ignore them), or economically (no-one buys any of their stuff or pays to see them play anymore).

I'd like to pay my accountant what I think he's worth. In fact, I'd really like to only pay the government what I think they're worth. Now that would be economic stimulus...

comaAverage price paid was $6 ((source (p)).Which means less than 2% of people who downloaded the album had to pay for it in order for the band them to break even with what royalties would have been if they sold it in stores; ASSUMING sales totals matched download totals (capitalized to underscore the absurdity of the assumption).

If I'm reading this right, what bugs me about this argument is the underlying implication that anyone who paid for the d/l is a sucker. If 38% d/l'd for free this time, using this argument, next time it's 50%, then 75% until finally nobody pays for it and very few pay for the album/CD, eventually blowing up the whole model, which is really a pretty neat model.

Personally, I'd rather see good bands be able to make a buck on releases while making concert ticket prices more affordable.

The other thing that's bugging me about d/l's from other sites ("stealing") is that in doing so there seems to be a disregard for any quid pro quo (in this case, a site registration). As a wild slippery slope generalization, if the concept of quid pro quo is scoffed at here, what does that mean in general regarding how a society operates beyond just its online behavior?

/yeah, that last part is a reach
//maybe the first part is as well

Music is a business, and Radiohead was tired of not capitalizing on it. Sure, there's the artistic freedom aspect of being your own record company, but now they get SUBSTANTIALLY higher per-album royalties (100% or close to it, I imagine) and also run their own ticket distro and tour.

Radiohead is playing it smart. They didn't want to dissociate from EMI to wither away. If anything, they were being held back. They have probably known how to run their band (read: business) for years now but were still stuck in the contract.

And NOT to mention all the free publicty they got, which was arguably more than the equivalent of a multi-million dolalr campaign. They got the press that they did in the OK Computer days, if not more... which is saying a lot.

More money per download/cd/vinyl sold + more ticket money before releasing sales to ticketmaster + more tour revenue + no need for advertising budget = failure?

I can understand U2 being scared though. Dumbasses still make their albums multi-platinum, and I doubt they can ever get used to selling 500,000 copies of... well, ANYTHING.

Do the math though.

The LUCKIEST artists get $1 - $2 per album sold. Usually much lower. The last album went Gold in the US, if I recall. Let's say they get $1 an album on their old EMI contract.

In Rainbows sold 120,000 copies it's first week of release. That's NOT counting the online sales. Around $10 a copy was the average price the week of release.

They pay the manufacturing fees, the distro who got lucky enough to get that contract (ATO Records, I believe) and the rest goes to Radiohead's TBD label and subsequently the band as a whole business. It's likely they are getting $6-$7 an album after costs are covered.

So, by selling 4 times LESS records (and remember, In Rainbows is STILL selling, as is the new EMI greatest hits package) they make about 40% more money. And that's with a conservative estimate of $6.50 a copy.

The world would be a better place if U2 went away.

I paid for In Rainbows, and then the download farked up and quit halfway through, so I tried again, and it said I'd already downloaded it. So then I e-mailed them to get a new link and after an hour I got impatient and just opened torrent and got it in about five minutes. Day and a half later I get the e-mail giving me a new link. You can't beat how easy it is to get things illegally. When it's easier to do illegally than legally, your business plan has some problems.

drevil877: I'm a huge Radiohead fan so I got the deluxe set which comes with 2 CDs, and the album on vinyl. The packaging is really great. Bands make most of their money on tour anyway, so they are not really missing out on too much.

I am farking sick and tired of this rationale being constantly used to justify pirating music from artists. You see; a lot of music is not "TOURABLE". What about a lot of small indie guys? Electronic acts? Symphonies? How about old catalog stuff or movie soundtracks?

Not all music lends itself to touring.

InternetLOL: kungfu jesus with a side of lime: it is a business, albums are a product. You can try to justify stealing music, but it is still stealing.
/maybe not in this case because it was free, the general point still applies
//it is stealing even if the band is a bunch of douche bags

No, it is copyright infringement. I am removing nothing from their ownership.

/Pedantic as it is, that still annoys me.

Oh, well that makes it ok then....

Walt_Jizzney: drevil877: I'm a huge Radiohead fan so I got the deluxe set which comes with 2 CDs, and the album on vinyl. The packaging is really great. Bands make most of their money on tour anyway, so they are not really missing out on too much.

I am farking sick and tired of this rationale being constantly used to justify pirating music from artists. You see; a lot of music is not "TOURABLE". What about a lot of small indie guys? Electronic acts? Symphonies? How about old catalog stuff or movie soundtracks?

Not all music lends itself to touring.

Interesting, since I WASN'T justifying pirating music. Thanks though.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: When was the music industry ever about anything other then making money. Yes music can be created for artistic reasons, but any band signing a record deal is looking to make money. Those that want to make music for music sake do it, but they generally dont have a record deal, and they play in the street. And even street performers do it as a means of making money.

/delighting fans... thats adorable
//as if that ever mattered

Was with you right up until the slashies.

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: flecsrogar: coma: Basically U2 can join Metallica in farking themselves. Music shouldn't be a farking business.

This.

IF they're in music just to make money, they shouldn't be in music.

so a painter should just give away all of his work, rather then trying to make some kind of profit off of his hard work and unique skills. Like it or not it is a business and an industry, while they are providing entertainment, services are not free. By you logic we shouldn't have to pay to watch movies, or go into museums, but since they are forms of art it should be free.

It seems you're misconstruing what was said. There's a difference between making a living off of anything and supporting some entity who helps to sell your art, in the process taking the vast majority of the profits on your art.

Using your artist example, there's a difference between an artist selling his stuff at a show or at some other place where artists usually sell their stuff and an artist who uses some parent, *pro-artist* organization to help mass-produce his artwork, sell the art, then give the artist about 1% back. I'd say that's a slightly more accurate analogy, no?