Radiohead to Testify Against the RIAA
 

Radiohead, the band that made millions of dollars by giving away their music for free, has very little to complain about when it comes to piracy. On the contrary, in a landmark file-sharing case, Radiohead has responded positively to a request to testify against the RIAA.

http://torrentfreak.com/raiohead-to-...e-riaa-090404/

Wot? No really. What?

Radiohead made money how now?

Radiohead is in favour of what now?

That article really doesn't say much.


Didn't Radiohead just piss off a lot of it's fans with a "Pay what you want" record that ended up being low quality and missing tracks from the REAL album they released?

How did they make millions giving their music for free?
WG

Seeing them in August.

touring...

Noo.. That's how they made money while their "fans" stole their music.

Meanwhile the REAL fans go to great lengths to track down Radiohead cds from all over the world.

Again I will ask a question that went unanswered.

Well before radiohead did a pay what you want album. Stephen King did the same with a book. Nobody can really question if he does or does not sell copies. Also just like the music business the quality authors end up paying for all the failures, they also primary live off of whatever advances they get and if lucky a small percentage after a large benchmark number. Unlike music stores, book companies buy back unsold shit.

It did not work for him, so why?
Can not say there was not any buyers who would buy his stuff. Can not say he could not get the press. Perhaps he did not do enough book signing tours to um well...

Fuck Radiohead!!

They used the record companies promotions and money to get off the ground. THEN THEY went all "pay what you want" once they were already a household name.

Before they gave away their latest album, who paid for all their touring on credit? Who paid for reps to get their songs played on the radio? Who organized all their promotional stops at TV shows and MTV and radio shows around the world? The record companies did all that and then Radiohead goes and stabs them in the back.

Fuck those guys, they act like they became famous all by themselves.

Another band did that too, and my mind is slipping.. they have that song about "they cut off my damn leg god damnit." Bah... I have their albums too... gonna go look.

they let people name their own price
but instead of giving 90% of the money to the record company, and paying for the production out of their 10% (standard deal) they kept all the money


even though 62 percent did not pay anything.

The record industry likes to spin that number to argue that most people are cheap and this marketing doesn't work

however if everyone had paid full price

1. radio head would have averaged 1.20 per album
2. most of the free loaders were new fans who were just giving them a try

so radio head not only expanded their fan base but actually made more money doing it.

Oh come on. The record companies fuck over artists and most of the time artists come out of a contract in the negative if they don't become a huge hit. You basically go on a draw as an artist. Don't act like the record companies are the white knights of the music world. lol

:1orglaugh




The band was Harvey Danger btw couldn't think of it. Flag Pole Sitta was their big hit.

1.20 per album sounds high actually. If it is that high its only because they had all songwriting credits as well as artist credits. Songwriters make .07 to .09 per cut they have on each CD. Radio plays are another revenue source for royalty.

The artists typically only keep 10% of gross sales? wow.
WG

yeah it not like the record company took 90% of the sales revenue and charge radio head for every penny of that promotion to their 10%. (at insanely inflated prices btw).

now that they paid to make themselves famous they should bend over and take it up the ass forever. How dare they look out for themselves.

And how many albums did Radiohead sell this way? Not copies. But actual Albums.

And how many years had they been extremely popular and famous before this marketing tactic?

It's no secret that the records companies have always taken the biggest chunk of money from the artists.

and production and promotion is charge back out of their end.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...-contract2.htm

Still unanswered and authors get less than musicians do for sales.

I don't think GideonGallery knows much about Radiohead.

GideonGallery are you anything more than a pir8?

Record companies put up the money and do everything from booking the hotels night after night to making sure the bands get the food they want. The organize the logistics of the tour, the flights, the buses, every single thing. If I have a great idea and someone comes in and finances the whole thing and takes all the risk, how much of a percentage can I honestly expect? That's business and music is a business.

The guy who puts up the money always gets the biggest cut. Since when is that not the norm?

1.2 million people downloaded the album thru the promo
they still sold the album in hard format after that
so a lot more than that ultimately.

so what they should keep taking up the ass, now that they are famous. They paid for every penny of the promotion out of their 10%.

and you don't see how patently unfair it is to use that ill gotten gains to destroy a distribution method that is more effective and pays the artist more money.

Radiohead made millions of dollars touring and selling records for MANY years.

They sold 1 album with this new marketing tactic and it failed hard once fans realized they got duped.

Interesting...

but once the band is established and met all the conditions of their contract, why the fuck should they be expected to continue to take it up the ass.

Radio head is testifying against the RIAA because they are actually using that 90% to try and destroy a distribution method that does a better job of promoting them and pays artist more even if a majority (60%) freeload

What is worse is they are pretending they are doing for the artist benefit.

wow failed hard, 6 million dollars from the promo plus the album sales to the hardcore fans
even with the people who charged back they made like 5 times what they would have made using a standard record deal.

I wish i could fail that hard.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157...adiohead.jhtml

btw if you bought the downloaded version and then bought the full album radio head had a refund program (to deal with the pissed off fans).

Cutting the record company out made them way more money.

So 40% actually purchase.

and because Radiohead cut out the Record Label they get ALL of the profits.

Funny Radiohead isn't trying to fight piracy to get more people to buy their music. :1orglaugh

Nobody seems to get it.. More sales = more profits.

It is a well known FACT that Artists make less money today because of Piracy.

This is talked about by EVERYONE in the industry.

They may have grabbed 6 million but they pissed off A LOT of their fans while doing it.

Thank you captain obvious.. YES cutting out the record company netted them more money.. But it didn't help the fact that 60% of their "fans" steal their music.

Imagine how much they would profit if they cut out the record company AND 80% of their fans paid for the albums?

If they are no longer under contract, they can do whatever they want.

But to testify against the people that made you a multimillionaire is a little low class. They got rich and never risked a penny of their own money. That's a pretty sweet deal and one you will not find anywhere else except the music business. Go to Wall Street and try to find a deal like that. You may not know this but the record companies finance many artists who never make any money and they take a loss on those. It was not written in stone that Radiohead would be a success when the record companies dumped money into them.

Radiohead WAS ALREADY FAMOUS when they did this marketing tactic.

Why did they do this? Record Sales have been plummeting.

So they said.. "OK GUYS YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY WHAT WE WANT SO YOU TELL US WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PAY"

It's that simple.

Keep in mind that most hard goods have to discount 60% off gross retail price to get wholesale distribution. Then, for the big chains, there may be deeper discounts or costs like buying rack space for featured acts like Radiohead. When you see a big display near a checkout stand, the company paid for that. And, of course, there are manufacturing costs.

That is all before thing one has been done for the promotional push that all bands want from their label.

Basically, it is not like the record companies keep 90% of the dough. Most bands can't break themselves big on their own, any more than most super hot girls can build their own massively successful web sites and DVD lines on their own.

What really gets me mad is that what Radiohead is doing is pandering and it's so transparent.

They didn't seem to be complaining when they were making millions on the old system.

But they see the winds of change blowing and they want to end up on the winning side. So they turn their backs on the same people who backed them and supported them when they were nobodys and now choose to pander to the file sharing set.

Radiohead doesn't give a shit about other artists.

actually they do

Authors can't exactly tour the same way that Music groups do, other than maybe book tours, or speaking engagements. So the comparison really doesn't work imo.

first of all it not 60% of their fans didn't pay, was 60% of the downloaders didn't pay.
Survey after the fact determined that most of those people were new radio head listeners who gave them a try because the it was free.

second, everyone who downloaded gave their email address, so radio head was able promote their tours, send people people thru ticket master and collect affiliate commision on their own ticket sales.

Given the fact that such a promotion done by the record company would have been a charged expense+ their paid commision they made more money off the freeloaders then they would have gotten due to a standard record deal.

[sarcasm] Ya cause most artists are discovered on their first night playing out. [/sarcasm] lol The record companies take advantage of the current system as most artists know they only way they will get famous is by allowing the record companies to take their cut. Most groups or artists spend years trying to get the attention of someone to get them there, and its not cheap or easy to do that.

I doubt each member of Radio head are multi millionares. I think you have a quirked view of what artists actually make. I know way too many artists that were hugely famous and now barely getting by. My vocal / performance coach won the Academy of country music award in 1985 for best new female artist, and now is giving vocal lessons. She is far from poor, but thats just an example.

LOL, they want to get paid ... gimme a break. that's so 90's

You said 60% are freeloaders.

Still 60% of the people who downloaded that album didn't pay. It shows the thought process of the "fan" Even when they could pay $1 they rather pay nothing.

exactly downloaders not fans. What you have to realize is that we use torrents like our parents used the radio, to sample music we think we might like. The difference is that we get to pick what we want to sample.


nope is shows the though process of the downloader, fans pay the artist, fans donate and buy the music. Downloaders use the torrents to test drive the music.

The point is that torrents can be used the same way as the radio was used back in the day, to turn downloaders into fans.

I paid 8 bucks for the album, even though didn't like it too much. But, I was willing to get behind what they were doing.

Sure, a lot of freeloaders took it for free, but there are also other people out there who love Radiohead, and know that if they want future releases from them, they should give them something for their art.

Even though most people didn't pay, it all evens out, money-wise. The best part of it is, they don't have to give any of the profit to fucking suits that have never created anything. For every creative person, there's someone trying to make money off them. Radiohead's method has cut the record company out of the equation, and they should be very scared about that.

Of course, this model will work best if you're already established, but it'll also work for a new artist as long as one key component is there---you need to have a good product. It's as simple as that. If you have something worth paying for, and people appreciate it, they'll pay for it, unless they are just total scum. I have faith that most people that like to appreciate art in any form are not scum, and will abide by the honor system.

I do hear you that some artists who achieved success are now broke, but members of bands that have been famous for over ten years are set for life unless they wasted all their money. Even artists that have no points on the contract for publishing still get paid pretty well for touring. Even the tour bus driver makes $100k + a year.

I know the drummer for the band Stabbing Westward and he's not rich, but that band was only big for a few months. Same thing if you star on a TV show that runs for one season. Of course, everyone is not rich but if you are successful for several years you are usually set unless you wasted your money.

The point is, a brief encounter with fame or success doesn't mean you are rich and it probably shouldn't. But I never claimed that.

The guys from Radiohead are far from broke, I promise you that. But if the drummer who has no hand in writing the songs is not rich, why is that wrong? Someone who is not in on the songwriting is basically getting a free ride since they could be replaced with just about anybody.

That isn't a fact at all... It's not even a good lie.



And with Radiohead - So you think the talent should be locked away and controlled by someone else, forever? Isn't it the talent that 'really' is doing everything?

Without the talent, what would the studios and labels have? Without some of the most amazing singers/players in the world - these studios wouldn't ever gotten a name, and attracted other amazing people...

What I see is an industry that 'forces' music on us and doesn't allow us to naturally select the the best people, all because of money, looks, etc. So what Radiohead did - was exactly what was done to them.

FACT: Record companies fuck over artists on royalty payments. They often have to audit the books and many artist never see a dime more than their advance no matter how many albums they sell. Why do you not see a ton of artists speaking out against piracy? Because they don't care. They know they aren't going to get paid much if anything for album royalties to begin with so people downloading the record doesn't effect a lot of them.

FACT: These same artist make most of their money off of publishing royalties, radio performance royalties, touring and merchandise sales. It is not uncommon for an act to do $15 per person in merch sales at a concert. So if they sell 1,000 tickets the merch sales just put another 15K in their pockets (less expenses of course)

FACT: I have said before and will say again bands like Radiohead and NIN are terrible examples of the free download working brilliantly. Why? Simple. Record companies have spent years, thousands of hours and millions of dollars marketing these bands. These bands have toured for years while enjoying the support of major labels that can get them on the radio, on MTV and in the best venues in the world. Job Bob's Garage band doesn't get that and even if Joe Bob's garage band is supremely talented it takes a lot of effort to get noticed so until they do they will continue to play for 20 people in a bar. Radiohead has millions of fans that they have built up over many years and while the bands talent and brilliant records are ultimately what keeps the fans coming back, many of those fans first discovered them through MTV or on the radio or in a magazine or some other media device that most likely was paid for by a major record label.

Think of it like this. If you were a bestselling author that had many major big selling books many of which were made into very successful movies then you decided to put up a book for free online the media would jump all over it and you would get a ton of downloads. Why? Because everyone knows you. How? Because when you started out the publishing house put a lot of time and money behind marketing you.

If JK Rowling puts a book online there might be so many downloads it could crash the server. If unknown writer #2 puts his new book online tomorrow, nobody would notice.

Radiohead is not the norm. NIN is not the norm.

Yes, the record companies are unfair, but it is a trade off. The successful bands make a lot of money touring and the record industry keeps most of the money for album sales which allows them to sign and market new bands or continue to market existing bands.

You make a really good point here.

The record labels used to be in the art business. They signed acts they believed in and developed them over a number of years. They helped them build up a fan base and because of that we have acts like Neil Young and Bob Dylan and Springsteen. If these guys came out today there is a decent chance they would dropped from the label before ever getting a chance.

The labels then got away from that. They found it "easy" to get a hit record. They could get a good looking singer who could sing just enough so that they could fix it in the studio and match them with some hit songwriters and producers. They produce a song, focus on the singers looks and market the hell out of it. If it hits they get to sell a ton of CDs.

The internet changed that. People got sick of paying $12-$15 for a CD that has one or two good songs on it. Now they can just pay a couple of bucks and get those songs. It is a great deal for the consumer and not a bad deal for the artist who can now sell the song as a ring tone, for commercials and tour like crazy while they are hot, but the record label all of a sudden is in trouble. Almost overnight the music industry went from being an album driven industry to a singles driven industry. They no longer seem to sign acts that they think can put together a great record or will have longevity, they are just chasing the next hit and while in the past a hit song meant a $12-$15 sale it now means a 99cent download. The record labels are shitting their pants.

When the music industry gets back to trying to find the best singers and the best artists and producing art that people will want to buy they will find buyers for it. As long as they insist on shit like American Idol and signing acts that are one hit wonders, they will fail.

I would venture to guess that the members of Radiohead are all millionaires several times over. At least, to say, they have earned that. Nobody knows how they spend their money, but they have made some serious money.

First off they have sold a decent amount of records. So assume they have made nothing or very little from those. Second, they are touring all the time and they sell out everywhere they go. I read that if you want to hire them to play a festival or to do a show it is upwards of 400K for one night. They fill every venue they play and they make a ton off of that. With those ticket sales they most likely sell a decent amount of merchandise. Add in that they own their own publishing so when the songs get played on the radio or TV or in anything they get all the money from that. That alone is probably worth a few million dollars a year if not more.

They aren't making money like U2 or the Rolling Stones or Metallica, but they are making some real money.

agreed but the problem is these establish artist have paid their dues, and can now leverage their fame to make way more money using the new technology.

think of like your sales funnel, you take the losses in the begining (loss leader) or give away most of your profits on the original sales, to build a customer base that you can sell higher profit items too. Or do repeat sales more cost effectively.

That business model would work .... if the RIAA didn't use the money they ass raped you out in the begining to sue the new technology into oblivion.


of course we are starting to see example where unknown artist are making money leveraging the technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Coulton

sites like eventful.com allow you to vote for an artist to show up in your town. Those sites collect your email (so you can be informed about his upcomming appearance) and keep stats (so sponsors know how many potential fans would be comming to see the show)

it starting to get there. You could make a better living, selling less stuff (because of the freebie leachers), for a bigger percentage.

but that the point, if that was what they were doing the bands would have no problem with them. The problem is they are using those profits to KILL the distribution channel that will free the artist from the unfair deal. They are using that money to try and destroy the network which (once famous) can easily make them an order of magnitude more money. And which is evolving to be an alternative marketing vehicle to the unfair record contracts.

i like poo

LOL @ wanna be pornographers telling real artists what to do and how to run their business. YOU guys have it all right and Radiohead has it wrong.

Keep the laughs coming guys.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5LeLAELIxKY :Oh crap

what the fuck is the point of arguing if Radiohead is right or wrong? really? in the year 2009, we still can't let a free market decide? if what they do works... it works. if it fails, it fails. if they've satisfied their contractual obligations to the label, got famous, made both sides money and then decide to give music away... uhm... they have every right to do so. they created it... its theirs. its an argument that Gideongallery just can't accept. that the content creator/owner gets to decide what the terms of use of the content.