Pay what you want for music downloads?

In 2007, Radiohead announced that they were making their album 'In Rainbows' available for download exclusively from their website. Fans could choose how much to pay for the music, or pay nothing at all.

This idea was thought of as revolutionary and controversial at the time, yet little has been done in attempt to expand on the experiment since.

Could this be a possible solution to rampant music downloading/filesharing?
 
80%? Not sure where you got that but most artists get far less than 20% of the profits when you buy an album, to be sure. I'm sure any musician would be extremely lucky to make a dollar off every album sold. And keep in mind that comes after enough albums have been sold to pay off the record companies for whatever you owed them.
 
Most times you can return the food for a refund. Not so with music, unless you go to another place that accepts swaps... which you can't do with food.

Honestly, with the internet and Youtube, it'd be pretty hard to buy an album you didn't know sucked unless you were just being lazy.
 
No, there three types of people.

1. People who would pay a bit higher to support the band. 20%
2. People who would pay the least amount. 30%
3. People who still wouldn't want to pay. 50%

Filesharing will never go away.
 
As well as divided up amongst the band with the largest percentage going to the one who contributes the most in terms of instrumentation and song writing.
 
It was a good idea for a band like Radiohead with such a large profile to do it, but they weren't the first ones to do it. Jonathan Coulton started releasing his music with a "pay if you want to" policy back in 2003 as well as legally making his music public domain, so fans would be encouraged to create their own music videos to advertise for him. His method proved to pretty pretty successful, to the point where he was able to quit his job and focus exclusively on his music. I've donated money to him, bought some of his merchandise for gifts, and have exposed other people to his music, all of whom have loved it, and I think in that regard I've done far more as a fan than someone just going out and buying a CD.
 
Been done before. I buy music that's self-released or on tiny labels and support bigger artists by going to shows and buying their other merchandise, so the only time I'd actually bother is if a self-supporting artist I liked did it.
 
A musician is free to self release his material and keep all the profits himself. But labels are important because of the promotion and managment they offer. Which is the hardest part of establishing yourself as a professional musician.
 
I know of other artists that have done this, maudlin of the Well being one and Omar Rodriguez-Lopez/John Frusciante being another.

But yes, it was a good idea.
 
I'm not talking about spoiled food, I'm talking about eating somewhere and having it taste like garbage, either because you've never eaten there/ordered a food you've never had/miscellaneous situation.


Of course, most of the time I dine on the rats I can kill as they run by my box - by the way, I think Tom is getting suspicious and soon I won't be able to leech off his electricity anymore. If anyone wants to help me fuel a MacBook just drop me a PM.
 
That's really all it is. Do you want to support this arrest by paying what you can. In a way it's a good idea, but you have to realize, that if people like your music, it doesn't mean they'll buy it. It's a donation, and if you want to be nice and give, than give what you can.

But one thing I can guarantee you, not trying to generalize here, but big artists that revolve around the money, no way in hell would they do this.
 
I treat myself like that. I feel like if I abandon all of my rules, I'll become some kind of downloading hick scurabag, but realistically, I'd probably continue to purchase.

Itunes ought to allow everyone a single free listen of an album before they purchase it. Then they can use punkbuster type software to mark their files and prevent users from sharing them if they are so inclined.

Not to mention that the vast majority of profit goes to the retailer first, then the label, so on and so forth down the line.
 
i realize radiohead werent the first to do this, they were just a good recent example that received a fair amount of mainstream media attention. obviously filesharing will never die, and whose to say thats necessarily a bad thing. most of artists revenue comes from gig and merch sales anyway. pirating is a great way for banRAB to get exposure, especially up and coming acts

this idea just poses an interesting legal alternative
 
this way of selling music would decrease artists dependence on record labels, which is a good thing, as the labels can collect up to 80% of the profits of a cd you buy at a store, which is clearly bs

i think a lot of people would be reasonable with their donations if there was a extremely easy and quick way to submit the cash (like a tip jar)
 
Back
Top