Name-Your-Cost Radiohead Album Pirated More Than Purchased

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.'"

Comments

Embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they let you get it for free by putting a 0 in the price box, it's embarrassing to do so. They're only talking to a computer but even so, it's somewhat less shameful if you're not virtually confronted by the people you're ripping off.

Re:Embarrassment

[antek9]

And it's a real no-brainer to put any number but zero in there, because you know that it all goes directly to the artists.

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

[RaceCarDriver]

You're ignoring that they started from 0 and not from 1, thus 0 through 65534 equals 65535. No..?

Or maybe

[dedazo]

Instead of sugared-up theories about why this happened, it's possible that the model simply won't work.

Re:Or maybe

[darkmayo]

Radiohead themselves will define whether or not it was a success.

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

[DustyShadow]

Bands/artists rarely, if ever, make money on album sales. Don't let the RIAA fool you. If Radiohead was making a significant amount of money on album sales with their old label, do you think they would have changed to this new method? Most likely not. Radiohead has already succeeded on this album simply by the new found hype surrounding their music. Now when they go on tour they'll have even more sold venues and more merch sales. Artists make their millions by touring, not by selling albums.

Re:Or maybe

[paeanblack]

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.

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

[shmlco]

"If anybody pays (or rather, if enough people pay to cover hosting costs) it's a win for the band."

By that logic if your boss pays you anything at all for your work, say $5 for the entire week, then it's a "win".

Just because you make a few breadcrumbs doesn't make it worth doing fulltime.

Re:Middle

[Kandenshi]

A middle ground such as ... I don't know, paying zero dollars?
I know it's not losslessly encoded ogg vorbis or flac files delivered to your door with a complimentary pie and a pretty pony, but it's a good middle ground.

Re:It wasn't pirated ever

[Svartalf]

Uh... You're still conflating things that aren't supposed to be.

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:It wasn't pirated ever

[noidentity]

"There was a minimum 0.45 fee applied to cover credit card cost, so if people went to bittorrent, etc., it could be pirated."

Or since the 0.45 fee would entirely cover the credit card processing to recover the fee, people eliminated the credit card processing and thus the 0.45 minimum fee.

It doesn't matter...

[Jafafa Hots]

...if a lot of people "pirated" it, as long as enough people pay for it. Since they are selling direct, one person who coughs up $5.00 is akin to probably 100 people buying an RIAA CD, as far as money in Radiohead's pocket goes. They could have TONS of unpaid for copies circulating, and still make more than selling CDs through the media cartel.

Re:It doesn't matter...

[Jafafa Hots]

Yes. I could argue the wrongness of practically perpetual copyright and how accepting THAT is immoral, etc... but I don't have to.

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.

Pre-Order

[Pallazzio]

The moment I heard about this, I gave them 5 pounds and got myself on the pre-order list. Then when the 10th rolled around, I got an email with a link to my copy and it worked painlessly. I applaud Radiohead for this bold move, I've been saying for years that this is how it should be done. This was the first album I've paid for in years. Thank you Radiohead for ushering in the beginning of the end for the big record labels and all of their douchebaggery.

Re:Tried to 'buy', did not work... still waiting..

[multisync]

I actually tried to buy the album. I entered all the sensitive data

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.

It's too bad, my girlfriend is a big radiohead fan and wanted it for her birthday. She got the new Feist album instead. I'll wait for the plastic disc to turn up in the stores.

I think it's habit - AND convenience

[raehl]

The problem was caused by the record labels themselves.

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?

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[Oligonicella]

Oh, puhlease. "legitmate market to get it" These people won't pay a friggin' dime. There's no "black market" as that assumes payment. Hint: even black marketeers demand money. These people simply engage in wholesale rip-off.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[Cassius Corodes]

You cant pretend like you need massive infrastructure to get a legit music market to develop - this band did exactly what the computer community wanted and unfortunately the doubters where right - more people downloaded it from illegal sources then pay the measly minimum of $1 (or pound I forget which) to get it legally.

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

[Curtman]

Hint: even black marketeers demand money. These people simply engage in wholesale rip-off.

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

[timeOday]

Oh, puhlease. "legitmate market to get it" These people won't pay a friggin' dime. There's no "black market" as that assumes payment.

allofmp3.com was making money, wasn't it?

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

[Curtman]

more people downloaded it from illegal sources then pay the measly minimum of $1 (or pound I forget which) to get it legally

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

[timeOday]

the doubters where right - more people downloaded it from illegal sources then pay the measly minimum of $1 to get it legally.

Doubters of what? This reminds me of Stephen King's "revolutionary" idea of paying to download to a book, which he declared a failure because less than 75% of readers paid. That's an irrelevant benchmark. If radiohead makes more money this way than selling CDs through a label, they win. Whether more copies are pirated than purchased, or even whether online sales increases or decreases piracy compared to CD distribution, is irrelevant.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[Alsee]

The grandparent was 100% right.

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

[sumdumass]

Actually, unless they changed it or your in Canada and not the US, You pay the tax only on blank CDs labeled for music.

But that technicality doesn't really matter because you said "My MP3S" which imply you already own the content or the copy of the content. I don't see why moving that to another or multiple devices still in your control should matter. It shouldn't be pirating when you attempt to do so. Just like when you copy an article from a newspaper or magazine to put in a scrap book. That too shouldn't be pirating or anything considered shady. f you were talking about getting MP3s from someone else or giving them away once you made your copies, then it might be a different story.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[karmatic]

Please explain to me how paying sales tax on a blank cd somehow makes stealing someone else's intellectual property ok.

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, 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:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

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

[JeffElkins]

"That's a good point actually. I bought the Radiohead album on their website, and the site truly sucked. They might have done better with an easier to use interface."

Bingo!

After entering a price into the web form, you're redirected to a page where you waited,waited,waited... w/o a download in sight. I don't understand why they didn't release the album into the bit torrent universe and simply put up a paypal or equiv tip jar on their site. Great album and I'd be glad to leave a reasonable tip, but jeeze, make it easy for me to do so.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Why don't they just put a link to the torrent and a link to the tips-page? Their system is stupid for the same reason DRM is stupid - a superior method is already well established. Trying to compete as a newcomer by offering an inferior service is not at all clever.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[Alsee]

Of course Napster being free helped. But prohibiting any legitimate online supply of music was like gasoline on a fire. Millions of semi-computer illiterate people suddenly wanted music on their computers, and most of them would have found it far easier and preferable to go to a well run digital store to buy MP3s. The legal vs illegal specter would have been far more effective. Most people never wanted to learn how to use computer-geek software to get music. There would have been a far smaller user base, pursuing infringement would have been more effective, file supply would have been smaller, development in software capabilities and software ease of use would have been vastly slower.

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:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[KDR_11k]

We don't have to pay any "theft restitution tax" that goes to victims of actual theft. The music industrty just gets preferential treatment.

Re:I think it's habit - AND convenience

[muuh-gnu]

> don't think that the levy gives you any sort of moral justification to do so

But it does. Actually the sole fact that I'm only making copies of data and not taking anything away suffices as moral justification to do it.

Its the artists job to persuade their fans to give them enough money to being able to keep on working on their music. If they managed to do that, a model like radioheads could easily work, because everbody who wants them to keep on playing, will pay. I know I'd pay, if I would care for their music. If they do not manage to do that, it easily could be that people just dont care about them in the long turn, and that they actually have many consumers, but little fans, and actually mightily failed to build a fanbase and a following.

Its wrong to expect a low downloaders/payers ratio, because usually, every artist has many more consumers and casual listeners than fans. I dont see why this ratio should be different than for street musicians and their listener/payer ratio.

Further, I dont see what they would like to achieve with publishing those numbers. Proving that they actually have just so little real fans? Reasoning why they wont offer such web payment because of the "evil torrenters", who maybe dont even care for the web site at all? Or will they start suing the torrenters but keep the free downloads on the web page? What exactly?

I hope that Rediohead, the band, have realized that in this day and age they just CAN'T force people to pay, and instead of trying this by supporting mass lawsuits and scaring potential fans away, they have to work on building a loyal following by offering their music the way the fans want it, not the way some label manager wants it. They have to make the people WANT to pay. I actually right now WANT to pay, but wont, because I dont like their music at all. If all they count is how many downloaded without paying, instead of how many actually paid, i.e. if they care how many fans they theoretically could have instead of how many they actually have, they easily can stop making music completely. In the end, it will not count how many people downloeded without paying, but if many enough paid, for radiohead to be able to keep working on their music.

> don't believe for a second that the levy goes the bulk of the musicians whose work you
> pirate.

Here in Germany actually a MUCHO greater percentage of the blank media levy goes to artists than they get from their record contracts. They certainly get more from me from the blank media levy, than they would get if i bought the original CDs.

usability issue

[zthompson47]

I tried to download the album for free from their site, but encountered one of the worst user interfaces I've ever seen on a web page. When I finally figured out how to get to the part where I can download, it asked for a credit card (to pay for my $0 album). All in all it would be *WAY* easier to get a pirated copy. I wonder if that's what's going on.

Re:Or maybe the quality

[bramp]

I just brought the album to see how it was encoded. It was in 160kbps CBR, and it appears to have been encoded with LAME 3.93 (which I think was released in 2002). Now I'm sure the pirated copy will be 192kbps VBR encoded with a version of LAME released this year. If I was more of a audiophile I might care more. Maybe the producers should have followed standard scene rules for releasing mp3s.

Re:It wasn't pirated ever

[Anonymous Coward]

if the deal was, you can download it for nada, etc. you aren't actually infringing.

That's nowhere near correct. The deal is that you can download it from Radiohead's site for whatever you want to pay them, which can be nothing. That download does not come with the right to re-distribute the content. It's therefore still infringement to distribute copies of the downloaded material, even if you didn't pay a dime for it.

Samples of songs?

[AgNO3]

I would pay something if I could hear it first but I haven't heard one song on the new album so I am not willing to put in a number. But I am also not downloading the album

Re:Summary Title?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Anyways, I didn't pirate it because my friend put it on my USB stick for me (fair use)."

No it's not "fair use", it's "casual piracy".
People (such as yourself) that claim such activity is "fair use" give "fair use" a bad name.

Re:Or maybe (Econ 101 for Music Artists)

[DerekLyons]

It's the same math it's always been - there is nothing magical about it being on the 'net. If you are unknown, you aren't going to make money. Period.
 
It doesn't matter if the beginning indie artist can make a $1.00/download, rather than $.04/CD - because there aren't going to be twenty five times as much downloads as CD purchases. They'll be lucky as hell if anyone beyond their family, significant others, and a handful of drunks from last nights gig down at the local watering hole ever pay anything. Meanwhile, the beginning indie artist has had to pay cash money for the website (and design), promotion, marketing, etc... Costs paid for the beginning corporate artist by the label.
 
If you haven't got the demand - you aren't going to make any money, regardless of the percentage of sales you take home.

Re:For $0 cheaper for Radiohead to go elsewhere, t

[magarity]

who the dumbass is who seeded the torrent of the album
 
Someone who works for the RIAA trying to prove that downloadable music in a non-DRM format is only going to be pirated. Thanks to all those who are helping prove the point.
 
To try to counter, I've just bought the thing for $5 although I don't think I know any of this band's work but I have heard the name. I'm willing to support this experimental distribution method, though. Anyway, it's downloading at a reasonable clip. Oh, and be warned, they charged me 45 pence for a credit card transaction fee... reasonable I suppose. Now my bank will hit me for a foreign exchange fee too probably. Maybe the band could find someone among their fans who could have set up a better e-commerce site for a discount rate.

Re:I used a torrent

[AsnFkr]

(I'm not paying for stuff from a band i've never heared of)

Have you seriously never even *heard* of Radiohead? Thats a pretty impressive track record of ignoring popular culture. I mean, I may not know anything about DMX, but I sure as hell have heard of his name. I commend your ability to lead such a deeply sheltered lifestyle, for you must be the legendary fabled King Dork.

Re:Middle

[Anonymous Coward]

And, uh, as the album isn't available yet, where do you think your Pirate Bay copy came from?

You are still listening to something derived from the same 160kbps MP3 you found too shitty to pay for or listen to.

Re:For $0 cheaper for Radiohead to go elsewhere, t

[heinousjay]

Do you honestly think the RIAA needs to prove that people will take for free instead of paying? It's not really ever been in doubt. Lots of people are greedy for entertainment. It's only unrealistic places like Slashdot that try to propagate the myth that it's somehow noble.

NOT THINNER

[Anonymous Coward]

It's FITTER, happier, more productive, etc.

I've spend far too much time listening to that record to let it pass. . .

Why do people want this to fail?...

[Boomer_Zz]

When it clearly hasn't.

So what if it has been "pirated more than bought"... at this point every album in the world is probably "pirated more than bought".

The difference is, those bands do not make near the money off of an album sale like radiohead (and a few others). Doing it in this model has FAR less overhead (bandwidth, site creation, music creation (which, I might add in a sub-parentheses, is CHEAPER than ever before) in cost, and the profit is ALL yours!

Radiohead has already made far more money than they would have with 5x (and possibly more) as many album sales with a record company, and people are trying to give the impression that it failed? I don't even listen to Radiohead and I think that is retarded.

In addition to all of that, we are talking about them right now! Free publicity, and if you remotely like what they are doing, you can go download their music for FREE right now! THEN, IF you like it, you can give them some money for it! They are leaving the option open to you... and you don't like it?! What... do you just like to complain?!