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

[Anonymous Coward]

I put -1 in the box and they sent me a dollar.

Re:Embarrassment

[dnormant]

They robbed you. It should have been $65,534!

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

[canajin56]

Or $100,000 is you are using Excel 2007 ;)

Re:Embarrassment

[PrinceOfStorms]

I see you're using the new grammar checker in Word 2007 :-).

Re:Embarrassment

[salec]

I think you mean $65,535 (2^8-1).

$64K should be enough for anyone...

Re:Embarrassment

[GPL Apostate]

Savings??

My DEBT is in dollars, and with inflation, I owe less every day!

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

[swillden]

Bands/artists rarely, if ever, make money on album sales... Artists make their millions by touring, not by selling albums.

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

[swillden]

a six-month stint designing a royalty-calculation engine for Universal Music.

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.

I Bought the DiscBox

[eldavojohn]

I bought the disc box for ~$80 USD. Not because I thought it was a great album but because I wanted to support this model. The album is ok from what I've heard on MPR but it's growing on me.

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

[rkanodia]

inrainbows.com was more or less useless for 2-3 days after the release. I did end up buying a copy for a few dollars, but it was much, much faster to just download the damn thing off of BitTorrent.

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.

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

[knarf]

I actually tried to buy the album. I entered all the sensitive data the site told me to, only to be presented with an empty order. It is still unclear to me whether my card will be charged or not as I clicked the OK (or whatever it was called) button to proceed with the transaction, but I have not received any details about how and where to download the album. Needless to say I did not try again as I do not want to be charged several times for something I might not even get. Yes, charged - I told them I'd pay 5 UKP for the album. Not a lot but a lot more than they'd get through the label...

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.

EMI Chairman says...

[croddy]

'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.'"

Translation:

Please, pretty please, please come back. EMI loves you. EMI is your friend. We miss you guys! Just another little contract, one short one! Please? Just sign it? Please? Pretty please?

Convenience is key

[RalphBNumbers]

Radiohead refused to release their music anywhere but their own web site. None of the major stores, physical or digital have access to it yet. And the 800lb gorilla of digital sales, iTunes, will never have access to it as long as Apple demands customers be allowed to download at least some tracks ala carte while Radiohead demands their music be sold only in full albums.

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?

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.

500k1200k?

[carbon16]

The /. headline is bogus. From TFA:

Over the following days, the file was downloaded about 100,000 more times each day--adding up to more than 500,000 total illegal downloads.

and

That's less than the 1.2 million legitimate online sales of the album reported by the British Web site Gigwise.com.

I can understand the "rushing-to-post-firsters" not R'ing TFA, but the editors? Come on guys, help us help you.

Factually incorrect headline

[cascino]

Headline: "Name-Your-Cost Radiohead Album Pirated More Than Purchased."

Quote from article:

On the first day that Radiohead's latest became available, around 240,000 users downloaded the album from copyright-infringing peer-to-peer BitTorrent sources, according to Big Champagne, a Los-Angeles-based company that tracks illegal downloading on the Internet. Over the following days, the file was downloaded about 100,000 more times each day--adding up to more than 500,000 total illegal downloads.

That's less than the 1.2 million legitimate online sales of the album reported by the British Web site Gigwise.com. But Eric Garland, Big Champagne's chief executive, says illegal file-sharing is likely to overtake legal downloads in the coming weeks...

So where are the stats...

[is as us Infinite]

... about piracy of albums that weren't released with a user-pricing model? I want to know how many times other albums are downloaded comapared to purchased.

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 the total amount of money made may be lower...

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[Fred_A]

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 wish this silly argument was buried once for all. The Tax on blank CDs is to compensate for the electrons that get stuck on those CDs and can't be reused. Then fresh ones have to be shipped from China at outrageous rates. Especially given the current price of a barrel of oil.

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

[zerocool^]

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

[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.

-

huh? fair use vs. stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I'm a strong proponent of fair use, meaning I fight against any attempt to eliminate the user's right to make a backup copy or do time-shifting of broadcast content. I donate to EFF and write my congresscritters.

But having your friend copy his paid-for album onto your USB stick isn't fair use in any sense that I understand (legal or ethical).

For $0 cheaper for Radiohead to go elsewhere, too.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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?

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

[Romancer]

I just want to know who the dumbass is who seeded the torrent of the album.

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

[Scrameustache]

a band i've never heared of That's a shame. If you had, you'd be thinner, happier, more productive...