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.