Comments on: Radiohead’s ‘In Rainbows’ Paid for by 38% of Site Downloaders

By: Jau_Peacecraft

Jau_Peacecraft — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

this is erroneous; it really shows that around 62% of people who downloaded either:

1.) truly didn’t give two shits about paying for it.

2.) Figured out Radiohead ripped them off with a cheap ass gimmicky .zip file of 160kps copies of the album. I could find better copies *for free* if I waited a mere few weeks until the cd was released. These people then paid accordingly: cheap gimmicky copies of an album leads to cheap gimmicky sales for such copies.

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

@Jay
Good point. Some of the people who downloaded it for free may just wanted to do so for the novelty of it and were never big fans.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

I disagree with the articles stance on the future for new artists. As oink myspace etc.. showed us. Bands can get plenty of free advertising online so long as they are good. If your bands good word of mouth will spread and you will be able to generate the funds necessary to do all the things bands currently do. The only difference is the middle man is removed benefiting the fans and the artists. Also if bands want to try their game at the old way of doing things I’m sure there will be a new group of music investors that will loan you money so you can start a band just like how you get a loan to start a business.

By: iamyour41

iamyour41 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Well there are many factors they must account for. Maybe the people that downloaded just wanted to show support for their album idea. Some people aren’t yet comfortable with spending money over the computer. If it is paypal you have to set up an account… wait for verification.. etc. Too much of a hassle for one music album imo. Maybe some of the people that downloaded the album were kids. You forget that there is a HUGE diff between hey let me get $20 for this CD I want… and hey I need your credit card for this album to download electronically over the internet. lol. Parents haven’t all come around to the idea either. Lastly… I don’t care about an artist being advertised etc etc. ALL of my music is word of mouth… or I will get into a friend’s car or go to their house and hear them listening to a song I like and go… hey who is that? Not… oh I was watching tv and this guy said this band is good so I must go buy their cd at target! YEAH! All in all it’s a very big step in the right direction. Also you forget how many new bands are made famous because of stuff such as Myspace etc. Without Myspace I’d be like who the hell is Tila Tequila? Etc.

By: d__tech

d__tech — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

So many things wrong with this statistic:
* Perhaps some fans are going to download it listen and decide if they like it and then donate if they do but they haven’t had the album long enough yet.
* Maybe some people pay for it at home but then download another copy from their work computer (or vice versa).
* Perhaps the RIAA is downloading free copies like mad to try to make it seem like only a small percent will actually pay (to try to scare other artists away from going independent.)
* Etc etc.

By: Spurge

Spurge — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

* Perhaps the RIAA is downloading free copies like mad to try to make it seem like only a small percent will actually pay (to try to scare other artists away from going independent.)

^^– That would almost be a sure bet i reckon!

By: rfbgb

rfbgb — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

prehaps is true what you say spurge

By: SpocksBrainOnDrugs

SpocksBrainOnDrugs — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

Did RIAA cronies download some albums for free?

You know they did. They would do ANYTHING to make this whole innovative idea seem like a bad business move.

By: iamyour41

iamyour41 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

I would like to know what they made for this album… vs other albums. Also I’d like to know how many albums that got dled off their site vs how many albums were sold through advertising. See that’s what makes a difference. If unloading 100cds people paying $5 is like unloading 500cds with a record label… you are doing good. It’s not like they had to distribute ANYTHING. They didn’t have to pay for people to make the raw cds. If the quality was higher than 160kbps I bet a lot more people woulda bought the album.

By: du2vye

du2vye — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

This article is suspiciously incomplete. What aren’t they saying – like how well in did in $ over how well Radiohead usually gets from their label in $?

Over half of the people downloading for free where sampling whether they wanted to buy it or how much they wanted to spend for it. There were no preview clips offered. The download was the preview.

A sizeable portion of those downloading were probably ‘new’ to the band and came in largely due to publicity. Of course they aren’t going to anti up hard earned $’s before they listened but as a result Radiohead probably converted new fans their way. That also means more concert $’s in addition to Radiohead keeping 90% of the profit they made along with their full music rights. Radiohead is not dumb.

Failing to look at the whole picture is why the music industry has lost it’s grip. Believing the music industry (or any industry) is why Congress seems so gullible and stupid.

The RIAA does not represent 90% of music sold in the U.S. anymore and they know it.

Besides whatever happened to my rights to civil disobedence to never buy RIAA labels again. RIAA would LOVE to deny me of that right.