Slashdot Log In
Name-Your-Cost Radiohead Album Pirated More Than Purchased
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Oct 17, 2007 05:15 PM
from the perhaps-you-don't-understand-the-concept-of-free dept.
from the perhaps-you-don't-understand-the-concept-of-free dept.
phantomfive writes "Forbes is reporting that despite Radiohead giving their latest album away 'for free', more copies of the album were pirated than downloaded from their site. Commentators offered up the opinion that this was probably more out of habit than malice. People download from regular BitTorrent sources, and may not have fully understood the band's very new approach to the subject. Regardless, Readiohead's efforts are having some measurable effect, as noted by the chairman of EMI: 'The industry, rather than embracing digitalization and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, has stuck its head in the sand. Radiohead's actions are a wake-up call which we should all welcome and respond to with creativity and energy.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: EMI Says ITMS DRM-Free Music Selling Well 239 comments
An anonymous reader writes "'The initial results of DRM-free music are good' says Lauren Berkowitz, a senior vice president of EMI, at a music industry conference in New York. Berkowitz went on to say that the early results from iTunes indicate that DRM-free offerings may boost revenue from digital albums as well as individual songs."
[+]
Radiohead Says Name Your Own Price for New Album 498 comments
TechDirt is reporting that the band Radiohead has apparently chosen the path less traveled when it comes to the release of their new album. They are offering two very unique methods of purchase for their new music, the ability to name your own price for a digital download or the ability to purchase a special "discbox" which will contain the album on CD and vinyl in addition to a horde of goodies. Will be interesting to see how this new model works out for them and what it might do to more traditional methods.
[+]
Your Rights Online: New Head of EMI Says 'Embrace Digital Music or Die' 176 comments
no0b writes "Guy Hands is the new head of EMI, Britain's largest music publisher. Hands has come out publicly with a statement warning the industry against something music listeners have probably understood for some time. In the words of the Telegraph article, 'the industry will not survive if it continues to rely on CD sales alone.' More from the piece: 'With both new and established acts now capable of making money without the backing of a big company, McGee says record labels are being left out of the loop. He scoffs at their efforts to make up lost ground by developing into "multimedia entertainment companies that can manage bands and share in live income". But try they must. Revenues from record sales in Britain have dropped by more than £130m since 2004. The true cost to the industry could be far greater. TNS, the market researcher, looked at the spending habits of file-sharers between 2003 and 2005 and estimated a £1bn loss to the country in retail spend.'"
[+]
Radiohead May Have Made $6-$10 Million on Name-Your Cost Album 539 comments
mytrip passed us a link to a Wired article indcating that if music industry estimates are correct Radiohead has made as much as $10 million on the 'In Rainbows' album so far. This despite the estimates of widespread piracy of the album as well. "[The estimate assumes] that approximately 1.2 million people downloaded the album from the site, and that the average price paid per album was $8 (we heard that number too, but also heard that a later, more accurate average was $5, which would result in $6 million in revenue instead).
[+]
Gene Simmons Blames College Kids For Music Industry Woes 860 comments
drcagn writes "Gene Simmons has blasted 'college' kids and claims that they have destroyed the music industry, with the labels also to blame for not properly suing them out of existence when they had the chance. When asked about Radiohead and Trent Reznor's recent support of a different direction in music distribution, he says "that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say 'Come on in and pay whatever you want.' Are you on f---ing crack?" When asked about music being free and making money off of merchandise, he says, "The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care?" even though earlier in the interview he brags that he believes that KISS's merchandise is more profitable than Elvis's or the Beatles.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Embarrassment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:4, Funny)
Or $100,000 if you use Excel 2007.
Re:Embarrassment (Score:4, Funny)
You are entering a dimension not of sight, or sound, but of mind.
Who knows what the fuck the base of the numbers we're talking about is?
Look! There's a signpost up ahead!
Welcome to, the Slashdot zone...
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Funny)
My DEBT is in dollars, and with inflation, I owe less every day!
I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
Anytime you have something that people want, and you do not give them a legitimate market to get it, a black market will develop.
Ten years ago, technology advanced to the point that you could distribute music digitally. By denying a legitimate means of digital distribution of music from the market for so long, the music labels essentially ENCOURAGED a black market in digital music to develop. That means that 10 years later, there are mature digital distribution methods and massive amounts of consumers who know how to use them. If, instead, the labels had just charged a reasonable rate 10 years ago, these illegitimate means of distribution would not have developed nearly as much.
So when consumers have the option of a free song from Radiohead's site, and a free song from the same place they're getting all of their other free music, why bother going to the Radiohead site?
For $0 cheaper for Radiohead to go elsewhere, too. (Score:5, Informative)
Also: If you're going to download it for $0, why chew up the bandwidth the band is paying for?
(Unless they ask you to do it that way because the bump in the download stats is worth more to the band than the hosting costs for the download.)
Re:For $0 cheaper for Radiohead to go elsewhere, t (Score:5, Interesting)
It should have been tracks that said "Go to radioheads website to get this for free and show the RIAA you hate them, then download it again from every computer you have access to"
Re:I used a torrent (Score:4, Interesting)
after that I got prompted to enter an email address and password, I then got a "your details are not valid message and thrown back in the queue". Realised i'd gone for the wrong section and I had to click on to another page to create a new account. Lots of personal information requested. then a confirmation page and a capatcha. Finally an "order confirmation" page with the download link.
The download itself was ok, maxed out my (admittedly only 2 megabit) internet connection.
all in all the torrent would probablly have been more conviniant.
Re:I used a torrent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem in my opinion is that people fail to understand there are people who download not because they are unwilling to pay for stuff they want but because they only slightly want what they download - not enough to pay for it if that was the only way to obtain it. Hence if tomorrow all the illegal sources where silenced - what we would see is not so much of a rise in sales as a drop in total consumption of a product (illegal + legal).
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
But how much did the band make from album sales compared to what they would have by releasing through retail distribution channels? That will decide if it was worth it. The fact that millions of people got the album for free is irrelevant if it makes them more money.
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:4, Insightful)
I pay a tax every time I buy a blank CD. If that doesn't that give me the right to "pirate" my MP3's then what is it for? I wouldn't even pirate the new Radiohead album let alone pay for it, but that's another matter.
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Funny)
It's not like they grow on trees. So start memorizing tunes, learn to hum and stop wasting particles !
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't talking about sales tax, so before you go calling someone an idiot (or a drunk), you might want to make sure you're not sounding like a fool.
Under the Audio Home Recording Act [wikipedia.org], a levy (tax) is paid for every "digital audio recording device", and "digital audio recording media". This tax was lobbied for by the RIAA and the like, and the funds are paid into the Musical Works Fund and the Sound Recordings Fund, which are partially distributed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, as well as the Aliance of Artists and Recording Companies.
This fund was intended to compensate musicians, and the (often) parasites who feed on them, for the extra losses that would be incurred due to the added piracy enabled by digital technology. In exchange, said digital technology was given legal protection, with the exemption:
Basically, his point was this - if he's paying royalties on every player, recorder, and blank music cd he buys to compensate for the piracy he is assumed to commit, then shouldn't he have the right to commit said piracy? In other words, if you are going to be punished for a crime whether you commit it or not, then why should you be punished again when you actually do?
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Interesting)
Under the Audio Home Recording Act, a levy (tax) is paid for every "digital audio recording device", and "digital audio recording media". This tax was lobbied for by the RIAA and the like, and the funds are paid into the Musical Works Fund and the Sound Recordings Fund, which are partially distributed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, as well as the Aliance of Artists and Recording Companies.
Few people were affected by this after the first time someone burned an Audio CD with a data CD-R as the medium and discovered it worked.
I worked at best buy on and off 1999-2001, during the rise of the consumer CD Burner. We, and I'd imagine all the other box retail electronics stores, sold 2 types of CD-R's - CD-R Data, and CD-R Music. The CD-R Data came usually in 50 packs, the Music ones in roughly 30 packs. Sometimes the Music ones were in the same packaging as the Data ones, with a spacer on the spindle. Anyway, a 30 pack of music CD-R's was slightly more expensive (per 30) than a spindle of 50 CD-R Data discs (per 50), which made them WAY more per unit (40% ish).
But, of course, people would ask "What's the difference?" or "I'm trying to burn CD's for my car", or "Will the data CD's not work in my discman?" or other questions. And the truthful answer was that the data and music CD's were identical in manufacture and function - neither was "more compatible" or "better" for any particular use. The music ones cost more because fuck you, that's why. You're a pirate, and you're stealing money from the record labels.
That went over like a ton of bricks. You can't find Music CD-R's anymore, and you haven't been able to for a while. This is a battle that the "information wants to be free" crowd has won, and it doesn't get much press time anymore.
~Wx
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the "problem" with the radiohead site is you have to go through a specific place for that one album and navigate an unfamiliar site. People want one place to get whatever they want. That's a common factor between iTunes, Napster, allofmp3.com, and whatever filesharing network is in vogue currently.
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
About a decade ago the Recording industry cartel abused their monopoly position to prohibit any online distribution at all. When there is a legitimate market demand for a product, and you refuse to serve that market, then yes that is an extremely powerful economic force to create a black market to satisfy that demand.
The Recording Industry created the P2P explosion. Yes P2P technology would still have been invented, but it would not have become anywhere near the Goliath it is today if not for the Recording Industry cartel.
Yes after a couple of years the Recording Industry slowly started to allow some internet music sales, but even then they still refused to supply the product the market demanded. They still refused to permit the public to PAY for the product they wanted to buy. They still refused to allow anyone to buy MP3 music at any price. And they still abused their monopoly control to dictate absolutely INSANE market conditions. They only permitted the sale of deliberately crippled device locked DRM crap. You can very well compete with free+illegal+inconvenient (hell you can sell bottled water), but it is absolutely stupid to attempt to compete with free by offering overpriced+crippled+even_more_inconvenient.
Contrary to the incorrect Slashdot headline and summary, the legitimate band website numbers are bigger than the P2P numbers. That is pretty impressive considering extremely mature nearly-brain-dead-easy vast global P2P free distribution network that the RIAA has spend the last decade creating. Had the RIAA started selling reasonable priced MP3s online a decade ago... or even had they started selling unreasonably priced MP3s a decade ago... underground distribution of this album would be hardly a blip on the radar.
-
Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience (Score:5, Insightful)
Had they introduced MP3 sales immediately after Napster, the P2P spark would have been lit but not grown nearly the way it has and not be nearly the issue it is now. We wouldn't have the gargantuan global point-and-click Bittorrent community and the twelve bazzillion Kazaa-like softwares. And P2P would be challenged by far more pervasive MP3 sales from vastly more advanced MP3 stored with a decade of development and refinement. Compared to what music stores would be like after a decade of mass market MP3 sales, the current iTunes store would look like a gimp taco stand. The music industry touts iTunes as a huge sucess, but only because it's the only one that hasn't died a horrific death. iTunes has only just recently started turning any profit at all, and those profits are thin. Apple's profits are on the iPod, iTunes was created and primarily exists to drive iPod sales. The sales volume at iTunes is absolutely abysmal compared to what the sales market for MP3s would/should have been.
Had they had the good business sense to offer online sales first and beaten Napster to the punch, well that really would have changed things. In that case it's hard to guess if or when P2P would even have popped up as a fizzle in the pan. I bet if/when it *did* eventually show up, it would have centered on porn, not music.
I still think piracy would have ended with a significant lead.
Note that even today, the website selling this album has a large lead. (The Slashdot headline and summary are flat-out false, in case you missed it.) The website sales are 1.2 million+, vs P2P at a half million+. Had MP3 sales started a decade ago, had MP3 sales been growing and improving in ease and experience and becoming the norm, and had P2P not been a gasoline fueled inferno of expansion and development, the sales would not merely have their current lead over piracy, the piracy figure would be absolutely insignificant compared to the sales figure.
Hell, this move to selling MP3s is so new and so poorly developed that it wasn't working at all for many people who resorted using the smooth-as-silk Bittorrent to get the file and going back to the website days later solely to pay.
Even today, even with a largely dysfunctional store, even up against cutting edge technology pleasure-to-use-point-and-click Bittorent, sales are winning once you actually PERMIT people to buy the product they always wanted in the first place.
Seriously, the RIAA created the P2P phenomena as we know it today. The RIAA is the reason Grandma has Bittorrent, the RIAA is the reason Grandma considers it the "normal" way to get stuff.
-
Re:Embarrassment (Score:5, Insightful)
I also got the album via a torrent first, because the day after the launch it was simply impossible to reach the Radiohead server, seeing that it had been slashdotted or something (can't be that much of a failure then, now can it?). Thanks for the follow-up story; I almost forgot that I wanted to return to radiohead.com in order to show my appreciation for this great step forward by paying the band. Those guys have been one of my favourite acts for something like ten years.
Short version: 'Piracy' sure is the wrong word here. That's like saying 'Oh no, the new Mandriva version is being shared on torrents more than it is being downloaded directly from mandriva.com. Damn those pirates!'. Get a life. By seeding, people donate their own bandwidth to prevent the band's server from melting down. Whether or not they come back later to pay for the music is a completely different story, but as for me, I just did.
Re:Embarrassment (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe the guys at Magnatune. [magnatune.com]
They still seem pretty sold on it.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
If they end up making more money off this album than if they had released it through traditional means I would say that would be an attractive means of distrobution.
But it might not just be money they are looking at to determine success.
More exposure and new fans could appear from the multitudes of downloaders.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also another very valuable lesson for the bands and labels to learn:
If an end user would rather get their content at no cost from a piracy website than get the same content at no cost from legitimate channels, then that means:
The label is offering an inferior product to the pirated version.
Whether it is service, selection, convenience, trust, or all of the above, the labels need to wake the fuck up and realize that only one thing will ever beat piracy, and that is quality...delivering a quality product every fucking step of the way. People simply will not shell out cash for anything less. No DRM. No PC-incompatible discs. No opt-out marketing bullshit.
Sell the product people want, how they want it, and when they want it, and you'll make money hand-over-fist. Look at iTunes.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, or at least, not always true.
Historically, some genres have never sold enough CDs to really make much money that way, and those bands have made their money by touring. Other genres reverse this trend -- successful pop music, in particular, rakes in the bucks through CD sales and generally breaks even or even loses money on tour. Metal has always tended to make money on touring.
There's also a size component to this; the bigger the act the more likely they are to view touring as a promotional expense to boost CD sales, where the real money is made. The huge acts often turn their live shows into expensive extravaganzas of lighting, pyrotechnics, sets and costumes that make touring a net negative. The guy that managed U2 for Island records told me that their 1997 "PopMart" tour lost about 50,000 UK pounds per show, but that it was well worth it because of the effect on CD sales. Smaller acts are more careful about what they spend on their shows, and they work harder to push merchandise sales at shows (especially t-shirts, which for metal bands have historically been a major source of income).
It all comes down to questions of CD sales volume, concert attendance and the details of contract negotiations which determine how much of the take from the various enterprises goes to the band. You can't really make any kind of strong statements about how musicians make their money, because it varies too much.
That said, my expectation is that in the future even acts that currently make most of their money from CD sales will have to shift to a performance-driven approach.
My information, BTW, comes from a six-month stint designing a royalty-calculation engine for Universal Music. While there I spent lots of time talking with guys who negotiated and managed band contracts and payments from the label side.
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why, since that actually sounds like a pretty fun gig, but that sentence totally cracked me up.
:-)
It was a little bit fun and a lot disturbing. What makes artist royalty calculation hard is all of the weird little one-off clauses in contracts -- all of them designed to screw the artist out of their money. Musicians who make money do it in spite of everything the labels can do. From my point of view, though, their sliminess actually simplified my job. Whenever we'd come across some really impossible-to-implement contract term, UMG would just say "Oh, ignore that -- just simplify it in our favor and we'll settle on audit". What that meant was that they just wouldn't pay the artist part of their royalties, and then if the artist bothered paying $100K to a team of auditors to analyze the books and discover the missing money, the label would draw up a settlement and offer to pay a fraction of what they owed. Since the artists' other option was a lengthy and even more expensive court battle, they'd take the settlement and the label would continue ignoring that clause. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It wasn't pirated ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It wasn't pirated ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy, as the term is applied to Protected Works is properly called "Infringement" and should be referred to as such. Theft implies that one is deprived of the item so stolen- there is no such thing going on with Infringement.
Now, having said this, I wish Forbes would fscking QUIT calling things like this "piracy" as you're dead on right
in everything else- if the deal was, you can download it for nada, etc. you aren't actually infringing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or since the 0.45 fee would entirely cover the credit card processing to recover the fee, people eliminated the credit card process
I Bought the DiscBox (Score:5, Interesting)
I was curious so I asked around at work, it sounds like people are pay around four or five pounds ($8-$10). And I'm glad that I haven't had to guilt trip anyone into paying for it. Although, everyone I work with does receive a decent paycheck. I hope that by buying the discbox and encouraging people to buy it, it offsets the poorer people and the college kids. Having been in both those places, I sympathize heavily with them.
But, I hope that with writing, music & software people will realize how easy it is to disseminate the product and more will open up to the model of charging very little to touch millions instead of charging millions to reach very little.
I hope the shipping of the discbox goes better for Radiohead than it did for Prince. I can't wait to get my hands on that vinyl. I don't care what you say, it feels good to 'own' something even though the rights and definitions of that seem to deteriorate daily.
website was melted down (Score:5, Informative)
Tried to 'buy', did not work... still waiting... (Score:5, Informative)
I have not downloaded the album in any other way yet. There might be others with the same experience out there who decided that the hassle of going through the official channel was not worth the effort - a regular P2P download is still a lot easier.
Re:Tried to 'buy', did not work... still waiting.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's where I stopped, at the enter the sensitive data part. Why not use Paypal? Having to register with yet another online entity - secure.xurbiaxendless.com - is a definite turn-off.
EMI Chairman says... (Score:5, Funny)
Convenience is key (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, their music was presumably available as usual at all the normal pirate hang outs.
This isn't rocket science folks.
On another note, I do have to wonder about the context of the sensationalized claim that "more copies of the album were pirated than [legally] downloaded". Isn't that true for practically _every_ album released in the last decade?
It doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hundreds of millions of people have the capability of getting a copy, without taking one from someone else, without spending a cent, without investing any materials, without incurring any risk. With less effort than wiping their ass. Asking them to pay for this nebulous thing they can have without cost to themselves or anyone else is essentially appealing to their sense of charity. Some will give, some won't. It has to be accepted because its inevitable.
You can hate the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. You can refuse to accept it. But its still going to happen without fail and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
You're better off accepting it and enjoy the ride and save your sanity. Which appears to be what Radiohead has done, since they are ACCEPTING people offering NOTHING and still letting them download it.
500k1200k? (Score:5, Informative)
Factually incorrect headline (Score:5, Informative)
Quote from article:
So where are the stats... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that Trent Reznor has publicly stated that he knows his latest album, Nine Inch Nails' 'Year Zero' was pirated a lot, and that he was happy people were listening to it, but unhappy about the albums pricing schemes and that he himself (and the musicians, audio engineers, etc. who made the album) didn't get much money from the album.
I'll bet Radiohead get more money from this than any of their other albums, despite the fact that th