![]() |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
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
so radio head not only expanded their fan base but actually made more money doing it. |
Quote:
:1orglaugh The band was Harvey Danger btw couldn't think of it. Flag Pole Sitta was their big hit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
WG |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
The guy who puts up the money always gets the biggest cut. Since when is that not the norm? |
Quote:
they still sold the album in hard format after that so a lot more than that ultimately. Quote:
Quote:
|
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...
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
actually they do Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
LOL, they want to get paid ... gimme a break. that's so 90's
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123