Previous Next Latest

Alternate Takes: Just $9,250 a Song!

10/25/07, 2:02 pm EST

On October 1st, Radiohead announced that fans could pay a price of their choosing for the new In Rainbows. Three days later, the verdict in the first RIAA suit against an illegal downloader to actually go to trial came in, and Jammie Thomas, a thirty-year-old single mom of two, was socked with a $220,000 judgment for sharing twenty-four tracks. Early estimates had Radiohead buyers paying an average of $10 for the album, or $1 per song. Thomas will have to pay $9,250 per song.

Radiohead and Jammie Thomas are symbols of the same thing: how directionless the industry as a whole has become. Whatever it turns out to be, Radiohead’s move played in the media as a death knell for the major labels, as Trent Reznor and Madonna immediately announced they would follow suit and find new ways to release their music. It’s unclear how many other bands could dump their labels, and it’s worth noting that all three of these artists are bigger touring than album acts these days, and they got to that level with years of record-company support. It’s also interesting that the best business mind in the bunch — that would be Madonna — simply switched conglomerates, from no-longer-a-superpower Warner Bros. to no-longer-called-Clear Channel Live Nation.

What is a label for? The old answer — manufacturing and distributing CDs and promoting them to radio — no longer holds much sway now that music has digitally dematerialized and radio has been deregulated into one vast strip mall. Everyone acknowledges that the labels as we know them are done. So it’s hard to see what the RIAA suits against file-traders accomplish, except further alienating the kids who already regard the majors with greater contempt than they do Big Oil or Halliburton. (It’s more personal — Halliburton doesn’t sue their friends.) The RIAA maintains the suits educate the public that trading is illegal, though it would be better advised to try educating the public that prices for new CDs have dropped pretty much across the board (most can be had for $10, yet the $18.98 list price is what sticks in people’s minds).

Radiohead’s masterstroke was putting their audience in control. Control is something that music fans — many of them believers in the specious conspiracy theory that the record industry force-feeds its consumers garbage (how else to explain Britney in 1999, or Hannah Montana today?) — haven’t felt enough of since the industry became locked in a struggle to take power back from filetraders. No one really knows how long it will take the endgame to play out, but in another decade or so the major labels will likely look more like cable companies, piggybacking on someone else’s fiberoptic bandwidth and occasionally rolling out some original content that’s Sopranos-level but most of which is simply diverting. We’ll rely on them to deliver big hits and classics we’ve already come to know, and maybe we’ll pay on-demand prices for early access to a release by an artist we’re passionate about. Meanwhile, the record industry looks afraid of the future. And Radiohead get to play the prophets of tomorrow.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

SoundPuke | 4/16/2008, 3:04 pm EST

OK, so a word from someone who actually does this for a business?

The majors slit their throats. Yup, they WERE worth keeping around for their promo power, hell even for their ability to distribute. The fact of life today is that all those great and talented PEOPLE they fired? They are around and doing the solo thing. I can hire some of the best in the biz to promote my album to radio, record stores (what few are left) and get my stuff on CMT, MTV, FUSE and all the rest. Question is” How much MONEY you got? THAT is the $64,000 question. NOW we get to the core of this issue. The majors had deep pockets. They could SPEND money to MAKE money. Only problem, from an artist perspective is that they made money on the money! LOT’S of money….SHYLOCK money! Give me a cool $million and I can get any talented band broken to the public! This is NOT rocket science folks….just money…and power. Money IS power…and influence.

So, got a $million or two? There are ways around THIS too…..hold on to your hats folks….it’s goin to get interesting REAL SOON…..

Torontonian | 1/30/2008, 2:56 pm EST

We don’t have to get rid of “big brother” record companies. All that needs to happen is current “old boys clubs” need to tap out or alter the way they operate. They’re will always be demand for CD’s but what music lover has a craving to line corporate pigs pockets. When the big four lose this battle more streamlined versions will appear who will continue and improve artist development and promotion alongside their primary role of manufacturer and distributor.

Nick | 12/3/2007, 4:13 pm EST

‘Dude’ - Couldn’t have said it better. I don’t think the general public knows how expensive it is to record QUALITY music and tour.

The Thin White Duke | 11/14/2007, 8:26 pm EST

I wonder if anyone realizes that ZERO PERCENT of lawsuit money goes to the artist…

Dude | 11/13/2007, 1:07 am EST

I have a great idea for all you people who think music should be free. How about when you go to work, 50 hours a week, and at the end of the two weeks when your paycheck comes, I’ll take it and give it to me and all of my friends. And when you say,”hey man I worked for that, I need my paycheck to eat!” I’ll just tell you what you all say to musicians (That you claim to love no less) “Hey don’t be a greedy pig man. Money is free and don’t blame me ’cause I got to your check first.It’s a revolution! Your greedy corporate bosses are giving you dirty money, the pleasure of working should be your rewartd!
Downloaders are pathetic thieves!

ivan nieblas | 11/2/2007, 7:17 pm EST

HELP JAMMIE AT

www.freejammie.com

DO NATIONS ARE ‘TIL NOW $16,197.84

LET’S FIGHT BACK! BOYCOTT DE RIAA

Dear chinaski | 10/29/2007, 8:11 pm EST

Thank you for taking the marketing survey.

Me | 10/29/2007, 4:08 am EST

It’s all well and good that these established, super rich artists are positioning themselves as champions of the people, but how do struggling artists get heard on a mass scale without the support and promotion of some large scale entity that can put their music in front of millions of people? I’m seriously just asking? Radio is all payola (fucking Jennifer Lopez has never recorded a decent song)… MTV doesn’t play videos and record companies have committed mass suicide. Outside of Simon Cowell… no one is actively pursuing new bands/artists and trying to help their careers.

chinaski | 10/28/2007, 3:17 am EST

well, they can sue all they want, but if people cant afford to pay, there’s not a whole hell of a lot they can do about it.

I believe that piracy is wrong, but this type of bullying is why people hate corporate big business and greedy celebrities.

The record industry did this to themselves because they decided to do everything on the cheap, and didn’t have a product that people wanted to pay money for.

If they want their industry back, they have to look at themselves in the mirror and solve the problems, instead of suing the people who still fund their multibillion dollar business.

If you give true music fans something worth buying, they’ll buy it!

Well spoken god! | 10/27/2007, 10:14 am EST

Zachra, thank you for that nice dose of scrumptious stupidity. Anyones else know a single mom we can sue?? GOOD CALL RIAA!

I wanna make a donation to! | 10/27/2007, 10:12 am EST

If anyone knows of a Jammie Thomas website that takes donations, please post it here. I would definately like to throw in a bit to help.

research | 10/26/2007, 8:12 pm EST

Music file downloads do not infringe copyright if the “artists” give you permission to download them.

Cheesecrop | 10/26/2007, 4:43 pm EST

In a way I am frightened about the fall of the record companies. I certainly agree that they have messed things up in their dealings w/ the internet, but w/out them the web will hold sway over our purchasing abilites. Who’s to say the web won’t turn into an online version of what the record companies were? Not saying that they’ll charge $10 a song, but you get my drift. So long as the shell of the old companies exist the web based market can’t get out of control. There might be some use for the old boys after all.

Kruzinski | 10/26/2007, 3:49 pm EST

The fact of the matter is, is that the whole issue is very complicated. We could sit here all day and write what we know to be true,or at least what we think we know to be true, but the RIAA suing some single parent is not going to make this issue go away. In fact, its just going to anger people even more. There are no immediate clear cut answers. However, record companies are a thing of the past. They failed to formulate a winning game plan with the advent of the internet, and now they are making complete fools of themsleves with these lawsuits. I wonder if any of the artists will pocket any of the lawsuit revenue. Record companies:once a mobster, always a mobster!

chuck | 10/26/2007, 1:44 pm EST

In this world, if its digital its free …..keep hacking , keep trading, keep warz; Artistry is for the soul not the pocket.

–BigChuckMachine

I wanna make a donation... | 10/26/2007, 10:26 am EST

Sadly, Jammie Thomas is being made an example of…for 24 songs she should have been fined TOPS $500. $220,000 is outrageous!

Does anyone know if there’s a website we can donate money towards the fine…I’d be willing to throw in.

shepula | 10/26/2007, 10:16 am EST

yeah my grand pappy likes the cd as much as you do suvf. it’s over.

SVUF | 10/26/2007, 9:46 am EST

Between Greed and technology is destroying the record industry and I blame both the artist/band and the record industry itself. People of the world: If you want to avoid any copyright infringements, litigation, etc. on downloading music, just go and buy the CD! I feel that the CD will be around for many years to come. As for the future…I have to say: I don’t know. As more and more people depend on the computer and/ or ipod or whatever technology is used to download music will only cause more problems that they really don’t need. That’s why I purchase CDs to avoid the excess stress in life!

Gonzo Serj | 10/26/2007, 2:03 am EST

watch what you wish for…

I think most agree that record companies are greedy to consumers and unfair to artists, but on the other hand, their promoting power is big–especially for new bands. I’m not talking about the next Britney Spears or any of the manufactured garbage, but talented artists who will miss out. How will they get word out? Internet-only? Good luck, but that seems random and hopeless.

I don’t claim to have a solution. I’m just a concerned music lover who hopes we aren’t missing out on incredible talent.

cd | 10/26/2007, 1:21 am EST

artists make enough money off their tours that record sells dont matter, I feel they should just release thier music to the public and companies like Itunes should market new artists and sponser their tours and we can finally say good bye to record companies

free beer and sex | 10/25/2007, 10:44 pm EST

it used to be that record companies rippied off artists - now everyone rips off artists…

Grey Matter | 10/25/2007, 7:09 pm EST

On the topic about file sharing, music downloads and saving “purchased” music files to cd’s for “personal back-up purposes”, shouldn’t the responsibility be placed on large corporations such as iTunes and MP3/MP4/WMA audio player manufacturers? Those companies should be clearly outlining the legal terms for media file useage on products they sell to their customers (specific legal terms outlining allowances and restrictions should also be labelled on all music cd’s - it’s the paying consumer’s right to be informed). Bear in mind also that copyright laws vary and differ from country to country.

cliff hersh | 10/25/2007, 6:24 pm EST

Don’t buy anything from Sony until they stop this. They need the gam console money. Don’t give it to them until they leave Jammie Thomas alone.

JP | 10/25/2007, 5:45 pm EST

I have a problem with cracking down on people who engage in file sharing with no money exchanging hands. There are hardly any differences than making a mix tape and giving that to a friend? The only difference I can see is that your music collection is open to the world to use. The record industry need to do a better job promoting quality artists that people would care enough to actually buy their albums and go to their shows. They are not doing any favors to themselves or the artists they represent when they sue children and single mothers.

Johnny Kickass | 10/25/2007, 3:45 pm EST

The RIAA price-fixes and force-feeds us garbage on one hand.

But morons claiming ‘music should be free’ and that have no respect for others intellectual property on the other hand.

It’s not a black-and-white issue.

god | 10/25/2007, 2:53 pm EST

im glad zachra chose to open their mouth. i hadn’t gotten my fix of stupid today yet. HAIL THE RIAA

Zachra | 10/25/2007, 2:36 pm EST

She illegally downloaded copywritten material. Anyone with a computer knows full well that its considered a crime. You take a risk if you choose to do so. She got busted and stood a fair trial. Too bad, that’s what happens when you gamble with the law.

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement