Radiohead to Recording Industry: we have fucked you

[Sriad]

OCTOBER 1, 2007

RADIOHEAD: THE ALBUM IN RAINBOWS

AVAILABLE EXCLUSIVELY AT RADIOHEAD.COM

PRE-ORDERS NOW UNDERWAY FOR THE SPECIAL EDITION BOX-SET AND FOR OCTOBER 10 ALBUM DIGITAL DOWNLOAD.

Radiohead.com is open for business with pre-orders having begun today for their 7th studio album In Rainbows, which will be available from October 10 as a DRM-free MP3 download. Also available to pre-order from now is the Discbox, a special edition box set, details of which are below.

Radiohead's fan service, WASTE, is currently taking advance orders for two formats: the album MP3 and the Discbox, which includes double vinyl and CD versions of the record and a second, enhanced CD with additional new songs, artwork, and photographs of the band, all exclusive to the box. Anyone purchasing this deluxe edition will automatically receive the bundled MP3 album on October 10.

Radiohead are currently planning a traditional CD release of In Rainbows for early 2008.

The album was produced by Nigel Godrich. The complete track listing is:

15 STEP
BODYSNATCHERS
NUDE
WEIRD FISHES/ARPEGGI
ALL I NEED
FAUST ARP
RECKONER
HOUSE OF CARDS
JIGSAW FALLING INTO PLACE
VIDEOTAPE

The extra songs on the second CD of the Discbox are:

MK1
DOWN IS THE NEW UP
GO SLOWLY
MK2
LAST FLOWERS
UP ON THE LADDER
BANGERS AND MASH
4 MINUTE WARNING

What's so fuck-y about that, you may ask?

Radiohead released the album with no label, and when you order the MP3 album, it costs whatever you want to pay. If you put in $0 you're e-mailed a confirmation code and receipt just like a money-giving person.

Other bands have released their music freely, but Radiohead's last 3 albums have all reached Billboard's top 3. This is a major shot over the recording industry's bows. If they show major bands can make more money releasing their music directly to fans... Well, I honestly don't feel I'm overshooting in thinking Radiohead might go down in history for this.

I don't mean music history. The real thing.

Google News Link because I don't know what response to post.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

I'm completely impressed and surprised by this.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Why oh why do they require you to purchase a set of vinyl records along with the CD? I don't wanna pay $80US for all that! Just let me get the CD, I'd be willing to drop up to $30 for it.

[LadyTevar]

They have VINYL RECORDING with that??!?!
Holy Hell!

[Straha]

They have VINYL RECORDING with that??!?!
Holy Hell!

I'm thinking I may buy the expensive version just for the Vinyl recording...

[aerius]

Why oh why do they require you to purchase a set of vinyl records along with the CD? I don't wanna pay $80US for all that! Just let me get the CD, I'd be willing to drop up to $30 for it.

Very easy solution. Buy the full set and sell off the LPs on ebay, audiogon, audiocircle, or any one of the other audiophile message boards.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Hooboy, things will get interesting if more follow Radiohead's lead in this. The idea of making money from gigs and leaving out record labels has been gaining momentum for a while now. If we're seeing the digital world fully embraced, you can say goodbye to the RIAA lawsuits. They won't be able to sue anyone for getting FREE music downloaded.

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if a million record managers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

[Temjin]

Hooboy, things will get interesting if more follow Radiohead's lead in this. The idea of making money from gigs and leaving out record labels has been gaining momentum for a while now. If we're seeing the digital world fully embraced, you can say goodbye to the RIAA lawsuits. They won't be able to sue anyone for getting FREE music downloaded.

I sense a great disturbance in the Force, as if a million record managers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

I'm looking forward to the day where the RIAA starts a campaign to make it illegal to release music without being affiliated with them.

C'mon, you know it's coming!

[Darth Fanboy]

Whats the realistic chance of a group of music lovers or major artisits, such as Radiohead, Prince, etc... forming a group called the "Free Music Association of America" (or something similar name is unimportant) and forming an organization to support this change for artists who want to bypass the industry and go straight to a digital format. How many artists would skip the industry and go right to a digital format if it were that easily avaliable.

[Stark]

Does it need support beyond capital to do the studio time in the first place? I mean, online sales are hardly the purview of elite special forces...

[Adrian Laguna]

If we're seeing the digital world fully embraced, you can say goodbye to the RIAA lawsuits. They won't be able to sue anyone for getting FREE music downloaded.

O RLY
Valdemar, as surprised as I'm to say this, you're not jaded enough. The RIAA has tried to collect royalty fees on music it does not own, what makes you think they won't sue people for whatever reason they damn well please? Oh sure, it'll be laughed out of court, and they probably know it will be. The thing is, court costs money, which they have have enough to swim in and Mr. Average doesn't.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

If we're seeing the digital world fully embraced, you can say goodbye to the RIAA lawsuits. They won't be able to sue anyone for getting FREE music downloaded.

O RLY
Valdemar, as surprised as I'm to say this, you're not jaded enough. The RIAA has tried to collect royalty fees on music it does not own, what makes you think they won't sue people for whatever reason they damn well please? Oh sure, it'll be laughed out of court, and they probably know it will be. The thing is, court costs money, which they have have enough to swim in and Mr. Average doesn't.

Exactly. I don't really see how this is about money as much as it is about simple bullying while swinging the legal system around as a blunt weapon.

[Vendetta]

No, it really is about money. It's also about being able to get away with it, because they're the only game in town. Which, again, is about money.

[Eulogy]

No, it really is about money. It's also about being able to get away with it, because they're the only game in town. Which, again, is about money.

Can't there be a class-action lawsuit against them? Or perhaps, a lobby to revent them from making frivolus lawsuits, or a loser-pays system?

[Stark]

a loser-pays system?

Socialist.

[Eulogy]

a loser-pays system?

Socialist.

Yeah, we can't let a little thing like ethics trump the RIAA's power to stand up for their rights to abuse bands, it'd be bad for the economy.

Oh wait.

[Stark]

You're exactly right. No effacious methods to reduce frivolous lawsuits or the burden of justice are to be contemplated.

[Sea Skimmer]

The best thing is most music deals require the artist to pay for the recording time, and the recordings are then the property of the record company! The music industry gained its power not just from tightly controlling distribution, it also screws over artists endlessly. Now that technology is changed they are pretty screwed from both ends.

As for loser pays, at least one good reason exists not to have that, mainly that many cases are not totally clear cut, and such a rule would overwhelmingly favor large corporations. For them legal fees just don’t matter; a big payout might, but they really don’t care about fighting the court battles. Meanwhile Mr. Average might have a pretty sound case, but if he does lose, he could be stuck not only with his own bills but literally ten million or more in bills from a place like Wal-Mart. This huge risk would stop many legitimate lawsuits right along with the frivolous and fraudulent ones.

[Saurencaerthai]

I'm actually rather excited about this trend. On the financial front, they will most likely make more than they would via a label. Also, as one commentator put it, many fans may see it as a goodwill gesture, as the band is not trying to treat them like criminals.

[Admiral Valdemar]

O RLY
Valdemar, as surprised as I'm to say this, you're not jaded enough. The RIAA has tried to collect royalty fees on music it does not own, what makes you think they won't sue people for whatever reason they damn well please? Oh sure, it'll be laughed out of court, and they probably know it will be. The thing is, court costs money, which they have have enough to swim in and Mr. Average doesn't.

And I was feeling so much less cynical this week. Oh well.

I'm still safe in assuming the RIAA ad that uses the nightmare scene from An American Werewolf In London isn't reality (yet), I hope.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I've seen the future of the music industry, and it is beautiful.

Not just Radiohead, but quite a few other labels are doing much of the same thing with a few neat variations.

Twoblossoms, the label set up by the band VAST when they got sick of working under major labels, sells all their music online as cheap, individually purchase-able MP3's with zero copyright protection, as well as the more typically distributed cds. They're making a killing off of it.

OverClocked Remix has a simply awesome system going. At the moment, they're a 'label' dedicated solely to doing covers of video-game soundtracks, but I'd love to see their own business-model extend to other areas of music. Basically, they give out an open-offer, you send us your music, we'll put it on our site for free download and play, all credit will go to you, and contact info will be listed with each file you upload. If we do a compilation cd and want your stuff in it, we'll ask you and if you agree, we'll send you a portion of the profits.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

As for loser pays, at least one good reason exists not to have that, mainly that many cases are not totally clear cut, and such a rule would overwhelmingly favor large corporations. For them legal fees just don’t matter; a big payout might, but they really don’t care about fighting the court battles. Meanwhile Mr. Average might have a pretty sound case, but if he does lose, he could be stuck not only with his own bills but literally ten million or more in bills from a place like Wal-Mart. This huge risk would stop many legitimate lawsuits right along with the frivolous and fraudulent ones.

The problem is the system is *already* like that. The RIAA engages in these schoolyard-bully style lawsuits because they have millions to throw at it. It doesn't matter if there's no evidence to support them, they'll just drag it out in court and ensure that anyone who tries to defend themselves from the bullshit allegations goes broke in the process. A vast majority of people simply pay the fine the RIAA levels against them because it's a small fraction of what it would cost to defend themselves in court, even if they do win. That way, the RIAA doesn't lose any cases, and so there is never any precedent set against them to stop such bullshit from continuing.

With a loser-pays system, there are any number of lawyers who would happily jump at the chance to defend someone sued by the RIAA with no expectations of payment until the case is over, simply because if a court-case was actually properly run, the evidence is so horribly stacked against the RIAA they are guaranteed to lose, and then they would have to pay the defendant the court costs. The lawyer gets his share, the defendant is compensated, and everyone (except the RIAA) goes home happy.

The question is: If the loser-pays system leads to the type of abuse you suggest it does, how come the RIAA has had little to no success with their frivolous, baseless lawsuits against people in countries where such a system is in place, as opposed to the US?

[salm]

It´s similar to what Valve is doing with Steam. Unfortunately games on Steam aren´t really that much cheaper.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Apparently it's not profit motive that's driving the lawsuits...

RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony

By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 02, 2007 - 11:40PM CT

Duluth, Minnesota — During an occasionally testy cross examination, a Sony executive said what many observers have suspected for a long time. The RIAA's four-year-old lawsuit campaign is costing the music industry millions of dollars and is a big money-loser for the record labels. The revelation came during the first day of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first file-sharing case to go to trial (it was formerly known as Virgin v. Thomas, but the sole Virgin Records track was stricken from the complaint, making Capitol Records the lead plaintiff).
Related Stories

* First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
* Defendant's counsel hammers away at piracy picture painted by RIAA
* Study: file-sharing leads to "chart churn," helps indie acts
* File-sharing on the docket: groundbreaking RIAA case goes to trial Tuesday

After a relatively calm morning session, proceedings resumed after lunch. After RIAA lead counsel Richard Gabriel finished his direct examination, Thomas' attorney David Toder began his attempts to undermine the labels' case. He focused on apparent inconsistencies from the testimony of Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's the head of litigation. Toder also got Pariser to admit that IP addresses and screenshots "don't identify human beings."

Pariser also said she had no idea why Virgin Records dropped its part of the case. "The RIAA and the plaintiffs have the same lawyer and coordinate the lawsuits," Toder noted. "You don't know why they bailed on the case?" Pariser said she had enough trouble keeping track of Sony's litigation, let alone what the other companies are doing. Perhaps—and this is just a guess—it's the money.


Lawsuits are punitive, not business

One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

The admission came during questioning over the amount of damages the RIAA is seeking in the case. Toder asked Pariser how much Sony was suing the defendant for, and she replied that the amount was for the jury to decide and that the labels weren't suing for actual damages. As is the case with the other file-sharing lawsuits, the record industry is only seeking the punitive damages available via the Copyright Act, which can range from $750 to $150,000 per song. "What are your actual damages?" asked Toder.

"We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," replied Pariser, who was reminded by Judge Michael Davis to answer the questions actually asked by Toder, not hypotheticals.

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works."

Toder then raised the question of the RIAA targeting the wrong people in its lawsuits. "How many dead people have you sued?" he asked, a question that was blocked after Gabriel objected. Toder then took a different tack, asking Pariser if she recognized the names of Gertrude Walton, Sarah Ward, Cindy Chan, and Paul Wilke—all innocent victims of the RIAA's driftnet tactics.

The next line of questioning was how many suits the RIAA has filed so far. Pariser estimated the number at a "few thousand." "More like 20,000," suggested Toder. "That's probably an overstatement," Pariser replied. She then made perhaps the most startling comment of the day. Saying that the record labels have spent "millions" on the lawsuits, she then said that "we've lost money on this program."

The RIAA's settlement amounts are typically in the neighborhood of $3,000-$4,000 for those who settle once they receive a letter from the music industry. On the other side of the balance sheet is the amount of money paid to SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) to conduct its investigations, and the cash spent on the RIAA's legal team and on local counsel to help with the various cases. As Pariser admitted under oath today, the entire campaign is a money pit.