Slashdot Mirror
38% of Downloaders Paid For Radiohead Album
brajesh sends us to Comscore for a followup on the earlier discussion of Radiohead making $6-$10 million on their name-your-own-cost album "In Rainbows" — with the average price paid being between $5 and $8. Comscore analyzes the numbers: "During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the 'In Rainbows' site, with a significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album. The study showed that 38 percent of global downloaders of the album willingly paid to do so, with the remaining 62 percent choosing to pay nothing... Of those who were willing to pay, the largest percentage (17 percent) paid less than $4. However, a significant percentage (12 percent) were willing to pay between $8-$12, or approximately the cost to download a typical album via iTunes, and these consumers accounted for more than half (52 percent) of all sales in dollars."
How many of those were people who downloaded it, gave it a listen and then went back and paid for it after they decided it was worth some cash.
What is google? What is the slashdot search box, even? If you expect each story summary to give you a background on every term or group it includes, slashdot would be a pile of shit.
I would imagine they only get 1-2 dollars per CD from a label so probably a lot more.
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
For example, if I divide it in to two groups: those who paid less than $4 and those that paid more than $4, you could say that the largest percentage (83 percent) paid MORE than $4.
Lies, damn lies.... and terrible journalism.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The varying statistics of user behavior (from the degrees of payment to none at all) make a strong point Against RIAA's studies, which are used to determine the size of the damages they wish to seek from defendants of illegal downloads.
Actually you raise a good point on the advertising costs. If they did not spend much in terms of advertising, then their costs would be lower and it's possible that they ended up with similar or even more profits. Having an already established name would help, of course, along with the free publicity, but hey, that's savvy too. But yeah, no idea how that actually played out.
The enemies of Democracy are
Either that or many people wanted to use this opportunity to make a point against the recording labels, and the results would be different if this became a standard practice.
For some reason, I'm inclined towards the latter.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Hmmmm.
Three cheers for Radiohead, at any rate.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Of those who did not pay anything, how many would have purchased the album if it had not been available for free download? Between that, and the minimal compensation from a standard record contract I'd call this endeavor a success. I also think that if this model took off there might be more of a social push to encourge cheapskates to support the bands they listen to.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
I think the point is they get 100% of the money from any sales and control over their work, rather than the few cents/yen/whatever they'd get from a record company... I paid a couple of quid for it because a) I don't know much Radiohead stuff but b) want more acts to release music this way... Sure you can only do this if you have a decent fan base, perhaps the next act will put a minimum £/$2 price on it to discourage the freeloaders/guarantee some income but its got to be better than rushing a record for release and for the label to screw you over and having to do all the marketing crap they demand... "Yeah I'm real excited to be here at Radio Alaska/Guam/Telford/Dresden..." When that time could be spent making more/better music.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
Either that, or many people wanted to use this opportunity to make a point against the recording labels, and the results would be different if this became a standard practice.
For some reason, I'm inclined towards the latter.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
You can spin the numbers any way you want...
17% paid less than $4? Well, that means that of the 38% that paid, 21% paid more than $4. What does $4 have to do with anything at all? It is a completely arbitrary number.
The numbers that would be important are:
Of the 62% who paid nothing, how many of them would have bought the disc at retail at launch?
Of the 38% who paid something, how many of them would have bought the disc at retail at launch? How much more / less did they pay than if they bought it at retail?
Not to mention that they will still sell physical CDs, which they stand to make more money off of.
Or was the website strange enough that I was inherently unwilling to give them ANY of my personal info, let alone my CC number?
I like the band, and I am willing to wade through any number of website disasters that reflect a given bands 'taste'. But when it comes to giving my money to someone I'd like something nice, normal and boring.
But that's just me.
A lucky band might get a deal whereby they are paid 15% of revenues *after the record label recoups it investment*. Costs to be recouped can include nearly anything: secretaries, fat cat lunches, photography and printing costs, air conditioning, parking, coffee. You name it. Perhaps most importantly, the label has to shell out a pretty hefty percentage of revenues to the distributors and manufacturers whether they be a disc manufacturer or iTunes.
My band had a record distributed through V2 records and I believe our tiny label was *supposed* to get paid about $2 per record. Despite selling a few thousand records, we never got paid a dime because they claimed they didn't recoup the cost of their sales department selling our record to Target, Best Buy, etc.
I'll admit my band isn't as popular as radiohead, but let's do a little arithmetic. Suppose radiohead sells 1 million copies of their record at $20 a pop. That's $20 million dollars. Let's further suppose they get an extremely generous (nay unheard-of!) deal whereby they're paid 20% of gross after the label recoups their 'investments'. Let's suppose they get an amazing distribution deal that only siphons off 10% of gross revenues. Hell let's go crazy and assume that the record label doesn't expect to recoup anything and pays radiohead their percentage from the first record sold.
20% of $20 million is $4 million
take 10% of that and give it to iTunes and that leaves $3.6 million dollars
I'd bet my right arm that radiohead have made out like bandits on this.
For some interesting reading on the crooked record business, I would suggest Donald Passman's book All You Need to Know About the Music Business
Site Usability The website where you buy/download the albums is REALLY hard to navigate and understand. They don't even make clear that you set your own price. Had I not known beforehand that you could set the price, I would've abandoned the site because it looked broken.
Can't Purchase After Download If you download the album for free (like I did), but then decide you like it and want to pay for it, YOU CAN'T! Basically they let you have one download per email address. So unless you have another address handy to use the second time, you can't retroactively pay for your first download. That's just silly. Of course some of us want to decide whether we like it or not before handing over some cash, so this is a significant feature flaw.
So given these two significant things were hampering sales of the album, I'm actually pretty optimistic about the model. The next artist that does this and gets the site experience right and supports a "delayed" purchase, will make even more.
It's easy to sell things when you're already famous. That's what the record labels do: they make you famous. They put you in record stores and on the radio.
So I don't really care who downloads the albums of famous people. There are plenty of brilliant bands out there who you've never heard of and won't download their albums even when they give them away (and they often do).
Yeah, a bunch of famous people got in the newspaper and made a bunch of money off of it. Big deal.
I mean, it might be the best way for RADIOHEAD to distribute their album, since they're already rich and can front the capital to self-distribute. They also got a ton of free publicity due to the novel business model. They also had a ton of existing fans who were waiting for this.
But if you're the next great band, and no one knows who you are, you might want the label to push your product for you, while you focus on just making the music and touring.
If it were really that simple, everyone would be doing it.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
10% is a freaking lot. If everybody I know paid for Total Commander, the guy that made it would probably be a space tourist by now. Twice.
So promotion is a bad thing? Oh wait, it's only bad when it's music -you- don't like.
The reality of music in the Internet age will be that hardly any bands "make it big", but lots of bands make a living.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's not the per-gb cost so much as the size of the pipe. I'll wager to distribute an album you're going to want a big pipe to handle a good many simultaneous connections of files that probably average 10-15mb each (I haven't gone there so I don't know precisely how it's distributed; one big MP3 or as individual songs). That's going to cost a lot more than $70 per month.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem is that most small bands don't have the exposure that Radiohead does. "During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the 'In Rainbows' site."
Small bands sign with a label not just to get a loan, but also to get promotion services. Aside from giving you a loan and pressing your CD's, the company might:
- contact all the radio stations where your music would fit and try to hype you up to get airplay
- arrange for you to open for bigger touring bands also on the label
- send out your CD to get reviewed by various magazines etc
- use their network and connections to spread your name around
You could do this all by yourself, but it's actually a lot of work, and many bands prefer to "focus on the music" (meaning they're not interested in the business aspects, just the music aspects of being a band... sadly it's the business aspects that make money - playing beautiful music on the street won't make money without the business aspect of putting down a hat for donations).
Radiohead did this all themselves - the did the record company's job. They hired their own publicists directly, contracted with distributors (the website storefront developers, and whoever is manufacturing their box sets). They still had to promote their music using their own network of contacts, though their own name is already very popular. They're big enough that industry eyes were already on them, so they don't really need a record label to lend a hand by begging for magazines to review their new album.
So what worked for Radiohead doesn't necessarily translate to smaller bands trying to break out onto the scene.
Personally, I still think what new bands sacrifice for their record deals is by far not worth it, compared to just doing all that stuff themselves, especially early on in a band's career.
In the end it's really all about the music. If the songs you write are really good, then even recording them by yourself will still produce desirable music. Then once you're making some money touring and selling your semi-pro quality CD after shows, you'll have more clout when arranging terms for your second album's national distribution with a major label. That's because now they need you more than you need them, and because you bring your own fan base you pose much less risk to the company than the average band.
The mistake that many bands make is if you write really good music but let a label handle all the business starting early on - it's like selling your company's stock the day you open your doors, then watching the other investors get rich as your company gets popular and successful.
But if the songs you write suck so much that no one goes to your concerts and no one buys your CDs after the show, then, when you sign a record deal, don't be surprised that the record company thinks it deserves a huge share, because after all you were bombing before they got involved, and you're more like a studio musician to them than a gotta-sign breakthrough band.
$8.95/mo web hosting
There's a big difference psychologically between:
Putting up a free download link, and having a donate button
OR
Having an order form that explicitly lets you type in $0 for the purchase price.
Your method will not work because the audience at large feels no obligation to to "donate". Radioheads makes you feel like you ought to pay something, even if it's minimal. Those 62% must feel really bad about now, unless they didn't like the music, in which case they probably appreciate Radiohead for not charging them.
How many people paid THIS TIME to prove a point to the RIAA...and will pay little or nothing next time, or the time after, or the time after that?
Do you really think people will continue to pay $10 for something they can get for nothing? Neither do I. In the end, this incident is a gimmick with no sustainability.
Traditionally, a record label's value-add was as a gatekeeper with access to the cartel-like retail channels. Those channels are rapidly diminishing in importance as the world moves towards downloaded music. Artists won't have nearly as much reason to sign away all of their control just to be able to access the market.
In this scenario, they're responsible for all the marketing, recording, and distribution costs. In the scenario where they're getting $2/album they don't have to foot any of those bills.
I think marketing/distribution was quite cheap for this one...
No sig today...
If you want to look at the numbers without spin, it's simple: Radiohead pulled in 6-10 million bucks.
That's the bottom line, that's the number that matters, and without any spin it's clear that this is a good, positive number.
The enemies of Democracy are
Its not just retail channels. Its MONEY. Producing an Album Costs MONEY. Lots of it. Record companies give the band access to studios and time with industry professionals who add polish and shine to the music.
Record companies often PAY the band up front, so they can enjoy a comfortable standard of living while making an album. The record company amortizes income for the band instead of having them starve until they're uber-famous.
Record companies have huge marketing efforts. They can make posters, promote with other cross channel media in order to educate the public about the product. This is the kind of stuff that's too expensive for a small band. You might argue that the internet is a great promo tool, but I'd argue that the internet is a self-reinforcing marketing tool... people who already know about the band use it more than people who don't... educating people who AREN'T fans is where traditional marketing excels. they tie the music and band to existing brands, events or items (like the super bowl halftime show, etc), so that people learn about the band.
Record Companies provide big tour buses and relationships with web site designers and access to top-of-the-line instruments and equipment and get the band onto tours with bigger acts. This is all bigger than a promoter.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Back in the days of monster sound boards, specialized recording equipment, a special sound-tight room and all that crap, sure.
Nowadays a somewhat-pro sound guy with a used Macintosh, the right software, and a small sound board, could do the whole shebang in a room lined with the appropriate sound-deadening material. Like a spare bedroom rigged for just that purpose.
It's not too hard to rig up, and the biggest expenses would be the Mac and the software that runs on it. An enterprising guy could set aside some dough and time to set up his own in-home shop, producing a very decent product in the meanwhile.
Or you could just check into a local studio, where the prices would be hella reasonable compared to some Sony/EMI/Whoever-owned studio.
Marketing isn't this big cloudy mystery that most people peg it as. Get playtime and interviews on the local radio station (in many larger cities, yes they do exist and thrive, and are not owned by ClearChannel). Do charity gigs. Pass word around online through donated royalty-free play on streaming Internet radio*. Pass around (or hire some kids to pass around) some CD's at the local high school. Do free podcasts. Hire a local web marketer and a local promoter to get your name out. Open for semi-bigger acts when they come to town. Play at the local "Big Ass" music festival (Salt Lake City, Utah had one yearly with that name).
I just described what many of the 50's, 60's and 70's bands did to get their names out, before the RIAA put a stranglehold on it all.
If you're good and not too un-lucky, word gets out and you get better recognition. Sure, it takes a bit longer than the synthetic "stars" that an RIAA house will shovel out, but you have more fun in the long-run and you won't end up being sucked dry in the process.
* Streaming radio? Hell yes! I've discovered more good, solid bands that way in the past four years, than through any other means.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If Radiohead did not have record labels such as "XL, ATO, Parlophone and Capitol" marketing them or in essence providing seed funding/capital, would Radiohead have had the ability to make a name for themselves in today's internet era? My band gives away their music for free and do you think KROC in LA would tell the world that my band gives away our music for free? Nope. Radiohead was taking advantage of the marketing that had already been done (and yes they paid for it with the labels taking their cut of Radiohead's work).
So how could you market your music? Mail CDs to the radio stations, doubt it. Battle of the Bands, local gigs, works fine but takes a while to build up a non-regional following, and even that might not lead to radio play. So you're still left with word of mouth.
and this is where Radiohead cheated. Their word of mouth was spread via the mass media. I heard about it on not less than 3 radiostations. Radioheads "Can we get people to download something for free?" is not much different from a local ice cream shop offering a free scoop on their anniversary. Since the ice cream is free, I'll give it a try even if I normally don't eat ice cream in February. Sure I might return one day and purchase some on my own, or maybe i'll never go back there.
While I envy Radiohead's experiment on downloading free music (or name your price), I think it would be far more interesting for a study to be done on the viability of the thousands of bands which do not already have an international following of giving away their music.
Steal? How can it be stealing, given that the author allowed them to download the album for 0.
Stating this, also is a broad generalisation : this proportion could be split up in many categories (thieves, curious about the music which did not like it afterall, curious about the process itself, etc...)
It would indeed, be interesting to see the account per country.
May I use your sig please?
No, you absolutely must look at the total, because that's what ultimately matters: the bottom line.
You can't go by the percentage because you don't know what they would mean in other contexts. All this says is that 12% of the total downloads came with a payment competitive with download services given the option of not paying at all. This says nothing about the number of downloads that would have been made at typical download service prices if there was no choice but to pay that price.
How many fewer downloads would there have been if it was a mandatory payment? How many of these downloads were from people who would have never downloaded the album at typical prices? How many of these downloads were from people who were not willing to pay for an album they had never heard, but after downloading it for free decided it was worth their money and paid for it? How many were people who had already paid but were now downloading a second or third copy for work? How many were from people who would have paid typical prices for the album, but instead happily downloaded it for free?
We don't know, and we can't know, because we have no way of converting the figures about downloads into figures about individuals. So how do you figure out how all these various factors turn out? If we can't put a number on each individual factor, can we at least find out how the add up together to give an overall picture? Yes. Yes we can. With total income.
The most definite fact we have about this is that Radiohead pulled in a high-seven-figure gross in a short period of time.
So however all these factors we're discussing about human behavior shook out, it resulted in a hefty pile of cash for Radiohead.
Hard to say that doesn't look good. It would be nice to compare this to Radiohead's (not the record company's, but the band's) income from previous albums.
The enemies of Democracy are
Don't forget about people who downloaded it for free to check it out then later payed for it. I'm curious how many of the free downloaders did that.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I'm sorry but that's not true any more.
Somehow, you can produce a record for $50k privately but it costs a million for the studio to do it.
Some how you can make and distribute posters for $10k but it costs the studio's $500k to do it.
The fact is that there is too much bloat in the radio industry. There is no real competition.
You have people paying the studios 2 cents per download for vinyl record breakage.
You have 10 people work two months to edit and produce a record from the finished music and it costs a million dollars for some reason.
Music editing equipment USED to be expensive. Now, you can mix music on a PC that costs well under $10k.
There is no reason that Radiohead now cannot get smaller bands to pay them to be their warmup band. Hold an audition, take $10k up front for being allowed to have a warmup tour. And you don't have to sell your copyrights and your musical soul. Businesses ruthlessly cut costs related to employees. It's time for musicians to ruthlessly cut costs related to the music industry.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The problem is that an unknown band typically does not have the resources (cash) to hire a promoter or to do any sort of marketing.
Maybe the band could find people to front them money as a loan to be paid back if they do succeed and make money. Maybe these people who invest in the band could maybe get a portion of the band's future earnings. Maybe there are already established businesses who make a habit of investing in unknown bands on the off chance that some of them might succeed and pay back the cash they loan them up-front. Maybe some of these established businesses have expertise in helping the bands record and manufacture and distribute the music.
Why not be smart and increase your sales...
$19.95 is closer to a point that people gladly pay up for than $25.00 $14.95 will get even more people ponying up for it.
I buy lots of shareware, hell I buy the $14.95 stuff after only 5 minutes of playing with it all the time. If your point is to make money then price it so it is an easier sale.
Try a "special xmas sale at that price for 1 week. see how many people jump on it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
These payments are anonymous. Tipping is not. I bet a lot of people wouldn't tip if they could do it without showing their face...and then, of course, restaurants would finally move away from our stupid tipping system itself.
In anonymous situations, many people are jerks. How often does someone cut you off when driving? How often does someone barge in front of you in a line at a store or restaurant. What is the difference? Anonimity.
Bare in mind that the album has only been out for a short-time. I can't imagine that all of those 1.5 million purchases occurred in the same time-frame as we are looking at so far for this release. For example, I will probably go download the album but have not gotten around to doing so. Therefore, the $2.736 number will be increasing. And $2.736 is pretty close to $3.
Why would you? It's in a zip file. Let's stop trying to justify this. Over 60% were given the opportunity to pay for the music, at any price, and didn't. That puts the lie to the "oh, it's overcharged" argument. There's always lots of talk about "greedy corporations" here, but let's face it. Slashdotters are willing to take without compensating their favorite artists without blinking an eye. That's greed.
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. There is a critical difference between staple items like rice and flour, and goods like digital media. A person has no reason to take more than one copy of the digital media, but plenty of reasons to stockpile an exorbitant amount of the staple items (save for later, take more than they would ever use and sell it, etc). It's the same idea behind newspaper and soda vending machines--you can feasibly take as many newspapers out of the machine as you want once its open, but theres no reason to take more than one (unlike the soda, where if the machine just opened up instead of dispensing one it would be empty *real* soon).
I decided to stop stealing cynical quotes to use as a signature line.
I haven't downloaded it yet, but I'm going to, and I don't plan on paying.
Why?
Because I'm gonna buy it on CD next year! I want a lossless copy and their constant-bitrate MP3s just don't cut it. Why should I pay for the album twice?
I own hundreds of CDs, and I'm not going to pay. Do you think i'm especially unique? I think the REAL message will be delivered come 2008, when this free, 6 month old album goes PLATINUM.
Jeremy
I'm a hack musician and I've never understood this. There is no device I've ever seen that requires training to make a decent sound. All you do is fiddle with the thing until it makes a sound you like. That's the whole history of rock/pop music right there. A bunch of guys fiddling with equipment, saying "hey that's cool" and putting it down on tape. Hell, a lot of that fiddling involved guys with no clue wielding soldering irons, or flipping the tape over to run backwards, or kicking the box in just the right spot, or any number of other plain ugly hacks and we applaud a lot of that music today.
Now, if you're trying to make a piece of equipment make *a particular* sound or replicate someone else's work, then yes, that needs training, practice and expertise. But then, that's not really creating, it's reproducing or mimicking and that's a different thing altogether.
Having said all that, one must have a good ear, reasonable taste, and personal honesty (i.e. admit that it sucks) to make it work. If a person doesn't have at least some musical talent and creative drive, then it will just sound like crap. You're probably right, 80-90% of home recording enthusiasts have little to no understanding of compression, but that *doesn't* mean they can't tweak some knobs, listen to the results, and determine whether they like the sound or not.
Pundits can agree about all sorts of things and that doesn't mean jack. That's why they're pundits instead of done-dits, or however you'd make "they actually get it done" rhyme with pundit. Pundits will probably also agree that a microphone in the wrong hands can do more harm than good. It's the same with any piece of equipment. The problem is the definition of "wrong hands". Who determines what "wrong hands" means? The technicians and pundits want to say the wrong hands are anyone else's hands. The reality is the "wrong hands" are hands attached to ears and brains that can't hear what sounds like crap. Often times these wrong hand overlap with the other wrong hands and you get shit like modern hit music.
man, I feel like mold.
* marketing requires a much lower monetary investment these days--time and creativity are more important
Afaict the radio is still where most people hear new music and the radio is dominated by the big labels.
It seems to me that Radiohead has done quite well here, getting revenue into the millions from one album sold on a name-your-price basis.
Radiohead have been through the major label system and come out the other end. Yes they have made a lot of money on this but only because they were already a well known band. When a band who has never had a record contract with a major manages this then I will be impressed. Until then this is just an insignificant stunt by one of the few bands with the staying power to go through the major label system and come out the other end.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
And, hopefully others are like me, having paid 0, now listening to the album, and deciding to go back and pay the guys. Try before you buy is smart, and might not show up in stats before some time has passed.
You register as a customer even if you pay nothing. 1: Why would you register 2 times? 2: If you didn't register two times, I would guess the people running the stats would give numbers based on *users*, not indidividual downloads.
That's a lie that the record companies are very happy to have circulated. They appreciate your efforts.
Lily Allen became popular without the help of her record label. Instead, she used MySpace. Whilst she was signed to a label at the time, it was her own marketing via MySpace that made her successful.
Bands can do their own marketing. The internet has provided them with more than just a distribution medium. Just as Lily Allen used MySpace, other bands can:
- Post their music on social networks.
- Make a website selling merchandise.
- Use a cheap video camera and editing software to make a music video that they can put on YouTube.
- Create a message board to build momentum among their fans.
- Solicit Free Software projects (eg. Frets on Fire, StepMania) and attempt to get their tracks included as part of the standard package.
- Create a mailing list to keep fans informed.
- Buy some Google Ads.
- Solicit donations from fans.
The problem is that most small bands don't do all of this. They will figure it out in time, though.
Solution: copy recorded music to your heart's content. Bleed em dry.
The only problem with that idea is that it won't work. The reason why is people like Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears. Sure, their music sucks, but they're much, much bigger stars than the Trent Reznors and Radioheads of the world, sadly.
People like Britney don't need talent...any at all...to be able to make money for the machine. She didn't contribute anything other than her face and maybe her voice to her music; the rest was produced by other people. She didn't write lyrics, she didn't do any of it.
As long as there are blondes available who, on seeing them, teenagers wish they could fuck, the RIAA and the people they really represent will continue making money...because that is the commodity that really makes them money, not music. It's a flesh trade.
The only thing Radiohead need to know is did they make enough money from the sale?
If yes, it doesn't matter if it was one person paying $5M for one song and sharing it for free to everyone or 6billion freeloaders and 500M paying 1c each. They made enough.
How much would you pay for water? In most of the US, nothing. In Africa, $10. In New Orleans just after the flood? More than you would now in the same place.
How much would you pay for water when drowning? Nothing. If you were in the middle of the sahara, which would you take, a gallon of water or 100 pouds of gold?
How much you pay depends on what you want and that is different for each and every person. For Radiohead, all they care is did it make enough to allow them to be musicians full time. $1M would probably have been enough.
The other big question is what proportion of the 38% paid because they wanted to make a statement (to the labels), paid because it was a unique and untested delivery method, paid more to skew the statistics/subsidise the non-payers, etc.
I don't think too much can be taken from the statistics other than what you've already alluded to - i.e. that given the choice between paying nothing at all and paying *something* - a high percentage value the music and the effort that went into making it at $0.
Kinda depressing really, but not altogether unsurprising.