Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Businesses The Almighty Buck

Radiohead's Thom Yorke Pulls Albums From Spotify In Protest of Low Royalties 301

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the world-not-missing-much dept.
First time accepted submitter rpopescu writes "Thom Yorke of Radiohead fame has pulled his solo album 'Eraser' (as well as music made as Atoms for Peace) from the music streaming service Spotify, as a protest at how much it pays the artists. Quote: '"Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Radiohead's Thom Yorke Pulls Albums From Spotify In Protest of Low Royalties

Comments Filter:
  • by hawkinspeter (831501) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:47AM (#44307249)
    So, it has come to this.
    • Fight the man, man.
    • by lxs (131946)

      According to every other news outlet it came to this two days ago and was reported back then as well, but better late than never I guess.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jools33 (252092)

      No surprises, Before our very eyes Spotify are destroying the music industry. I Reckoner lot of what Thom says here is like all I need to hear on the music industry. I mean anyone can play Guitar, but what gives Spotify the rights to Creep around grabbing all the Dollars and Cents. Hail to the thief is what they say, call the Karma police and arrest Spotify I say! Spotify and their ilk are a bunch of High and Dry Thiefs. We should Stop Whispering and Start Shouting from the hilltops. Just the Million Dollar

  • Reward the artist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:47AM (#44307253) Journal

    Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

    • Atoms for Peace self publish - I recommend AMOK.
      • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:45AM (#44307757) Homepage Journal

        From memory Radiohead and NIN have both offered albums, available online where you can pay what you want for them, and both walked away with over $1million.

        Unless there's some crazy contract shenanigans going on, I really don't see why some of the bigger artists don't pull a Valve and create their own content delivery platform that is fair for the artist, fair for the consumer and criticism free.

        • by jasenj1 (575309) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:30AM (#44308181)
          You mean like Bandcamp [bandcamp.com]? - Jasen.
        • by dcollins (135727) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:35AM (#44308243) Homepage

          Like United Artists Corporation [wikipedia.org], now part of MGM.

          By which I mean to say that endeavors that start like this wind up being "captured" over time by industry managers anyway. To keep that from happening you'd need some kind of clever artist-ownership arrangement, maybe a bit like the Vanguard Group or TIAA-CREF.

        • by brit74 (831798)
          Keep in mind the fact that Radiohead said that they won't repeat that, which makes me wonder how successful it really was.

          Radiohead won't repeat 'In Rainbows' giveaway

          "I think it was a one-off response to a particular situation," the band's lead singer Thom Yorke told The Hollywood Reporter. "It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do. I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:09AM (#44307401)

      There is more there then just money, the recording industry wants to keeps it monopoly on music. They are branching out into other countries to rob those artists of there copyrights. If you sign a deal you lose the right to control your own music, companies can re-release songs, or do whatever they want with the music. Obviously this has been talked about already, but they do not want artists to create and actually own there own music, they continue to go after artists with the DMCA take down. Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

      The merch, profits I believe still go to record companies, but your right, money artists make from concerts is there source of revenue. Some bands are not very ggod and because they had a couple of hits (at least in the states) they act as if they reinvented music and are god.

      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:37AM (#44308263)

        Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

        They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.

        • by asliarun (636603) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @11:28AM (#44308751)

          Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

          They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.

          And there's a huge problem with precisely this type of thinking. Bands like Radiohead are trying extremely hard to "do the right thing" - i.e. what they consider fair to themselves and to their audience. We, the listeners, should be trying to prop them up instead of calling sour grapes on them because they happen to be millionaires or whatever. If you like Joe No-Name band that has sold all of 50 albums so far, good for you.

          Do remember though that your (and my) media consumption largely consists of authors, bands, movie directors, and artists that have attained some level of commercial success. It is really sad to see initiatives like Radiohead's honor based payment scheme - not be wildly successful. I would actually have loved to see Radiohead make 10 times the money from this experiment than they would have from the record label. Just imagine the message that would have sent - not just to Radiohead but to every other artist and even to us.

          Honestly, if Radiohead makes a hundred mil instead of ten mil, I wish him all the very best. Thom Yorke's talent, consistency, and hard work deserves all the money he can get. The concept of money is completely nonsensical when it comes to creative works anyway. Heck, even manufactured products nowadays cost what they cost because of factors that have little to do with their manufacturing cost.

          But at the very least, if someone is doing good work in a creative field, they should at least have some level of trust in the fact that they can circumvent the established system with its attendant bloodsucking leeches, and still feel like they are getting the same level of respect, exposure, and money. In fact, it should be a lot more.

          • by OneAhead (1495535)

            If you like Joe No-Name band that has sold all of 50 albums so far, good for you.

            And there's a huge problem with precisely this type of thinking. You have no idea how many extremely talented and extremely good musicians there are out there. Only a few of them achieve celebrity status, and it doesn't necessarily happen because they're better than everyone else - just think of how one would define "better" - but because of arbitrary events, like the agent of a big record company liking you, or your breakthrough hit just coming out at the right time and gathering enough initial attention.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:14AM (#44307433)

      Musicians? That's a hobby, not a profession. If they want to get paid, let them sell t-shirts. Heh heh you'd never catch me dead wearing one of those, but maybe some get-a-lifers would. BTW I downloaded some of their songs and most of them suck. They should THANK ME and PAY ME for listening to that crap they call music. If they recorded something worthwhile I might buy a CD, in fact I did that once seven years ago.

      - typical Slashdot post

      • by omfgnosis (963606)

        I'll have you know that this is so typical I thought you were serious until I got to the end.

    • Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Interesting)

      by alexander_686 (957440) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:24AM (#44307545)

      I will say no to that for 2 reasons.

      First, there is music that I want to listen to that does not travel well. Sometimes the original artist is dead. Sometimes, like “Einstein on the Beach” – is a 5 hour beast which requires symphony, singers, narrator, choir, and dances. It’s done about once every 10 years or so. I worked with the tour manager. Kind of fascinating on how much work it took for a performance.

      Back to the point. Some things travel better than other. It is easier to tour with a girl and a guitar then to tour with a four piece band, which is easier to tour then something that has a brass section.

      Second I live in fly over land so shows are far and few between. And when I want to spend my money I want to spend it on music – not another t-shirt – I have too many already.

      The problem is that the internet has shifted more power to the consumers and away from the producers – be they artists or record companies. Complaining that the record companies are taking a too large slice of the pie does not address the issue of the shrinking pie.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:36AM (#44308249) Homepage Journal

        The problem is that the internet has shifted more power to the consumers and away from the producers

        Problem? In our economic system, fewer and fewer transactions exist where the balance of power favors the consumer. The world has been on a "supply-side" fantasy for thirty years, and it has not gone well for most people.

        But artists have complete control over the pricing and over which distribution channels they choose to use. Once the last nails are in the coffin of the entertainment/industrial complex, you'll see that happen, and it will be better for all artists except the ones without talent at the top of the food chain.

        Thom Yorke has benefited greatly from the mainstream music industry. Now that he's on the downward slope of his career, he decides that he doesn't like how things are done any more. That's fine. I buy a lot of music that I've first heard on Spotify. If Thom doesn't want to be part of that any more, it's his choice.

        • I tend to prefer the consumer over the producer, but I am aware that market structure is important. Starve the producers of all profits and they will collapse.

          So Artist are in complete control? So what? 100% of nothing is still nothing. It’s not that bad but take a look at the industry.

          There are fewer major acts (which I know is subjective, but I go hard numbers) and profits are getting concentrated in fewer, older acts. It is easier to sell a $400 ticket with nostalgia to a middle age affluen

    • by darkitecture (627408) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:29AM (#44307589)

      Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

      Although I agree with you wholeheartedly and try to support my favorite artists as much as I can, this is nowhere near as practical for most of the world as one might first think.

      One of my closest friends is a mad Dave Matthews Band fan and has been fortunate enough to attend at least four DMB gigs over the past twelve months. I'm sure Dave Matthews and my friend are both pleased as punch about this setup. My favorite artists include amongst others David Bowie and Tom Waits. I live in Japan. Go on and have a guess how many gigs either of them have put on in Japan in the past 12 months.

      Now guess how many gigs either of them have put on here in Japan in the past 12 years.

      Hint: you could have a nasty accident with a bandsaw and still count them on one hand. Now I'm not faulting the artists or their manager or anybody. That's life unfortunately. Even if my tastes were more mainstream, I still wouldn't come close to being able to see as many concerts as most Americans. I don't see Rihanna or Jay Z or Radiohead hosting many concerts here either. Radiohead hasn't toured here since 1994!

      I've seen many of my favorite artists both here and overseas and almost without exception I've gone out of my way to get great (read: expensive) seats because I see great value for money in spending hundreds of dollars in seeing my favorite artists perform live. It's unfortunate for both me and the artists I would be willing to support that I don't live in the continental US or mainland Europe where most concerts seem to be held.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Now guess how many gigs either of them have put on here in Japan in the past 12 years.

        David Bowie must not need your money very much then.

        It's unfortunate for both me and the artists I would be willing to support that I don't live in the continental US or mainland Europe where most concerts seem to be held.

        It's not unfortunate for the artists. They are doing well enough that they can leave money on the table by not performing in your country. Good for them, you don't have to feel sorry for them. Save yo

      • by Timothy Hartman (2905293) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:05AM (#44307937)
        I've always heard that Tom Waits was Big in Japan.
        • by Nyder (754090)

          I've always heard that Tom Waits was Big in Japan.

          Weird, i always thought Alphaville was Big in Japan.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285)
      I know many artists and they do pretty well without many rewards. I am not saying that an artist should not make a living, but just like anything else it is a choice. One works to maximize money, like this guy or they guy who set up mortgages the guarantees families lose their life saving, or one works to try to make the world a better place, hoping to make some money along the way. And i do not mean high faluting things. If your music makes a few people feel better, able to deal with life,then that is th
      • by Endo13 (1000782)

        This, exactly. This is precisely what pisses me off about the entertainment industry in general. The vast majority of entertainment "artists" who are primarily in it for money seem to think they are entitled to get paid just because they're entertainment artists, and that they should get a free pass on reality.

    • The market is setting the right price. If Spotify needed to pay more it would simply have to pay more.

      • Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MightyYar (622222) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:50AM (#44307811)

        "The market" - or at least the free market - doesn't really apply to music. First, the government creates a new kind of property and then gives a person (or corporation) monopoly rights to it. If you could still call it a free market at that point, then the government legislates prices for certain kinds of "performances", like radio or internet radio play (which for some reason have different rates). Once that happens, the supplier is totally written out of the equation. Spotify is still a little bit markety, in that they are not a "radio station" and are instead playing stuff on-demand so they still have to negotiate with the rights holders. So your comment has some truth to it, but Spotify has to compete against Pandora (and regular radio, for that matter), who pay the government-mandated rate. That is going to seriously distort Spotify's ability to arrive at a true "market" price for recorded music, which even with government support is very close to zero.

        My artist friend hates Spotify. He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself. It's not like Spotify is terribly profitable, laughing it's way to the bank.

      • Re:Reward the artist (Score:4, Interesting)

        by somersault (912633) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:14AM (#44308025) Homepage Journal

        The record companies are setting the price. They hold an 18% share [guardian.co.uk] in Spotify. Still, Spotify is the only legal way for me to listen to music without buying shitloads of even more expensive albums each month. If artists want money from me directly, they need to skip the middle man.

    • Re:Reward the artist (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:59AM (#44307897)

      Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

      This.

      I read an interview with Mick Jagger on the BBC website a few years ago and the BBC interviewer asked him about MP3 and digital downloads, figuring that Mick would likely be a stuffy old guy who would rail about how MP3s were killing music and so. Was the interviewer ever mistaken! Mick stated that for the majority of his career the Stones had actually not made all that much money from recordings. He said that there were exceptions in the late 80s into the 90s when labels actually were paying the artists a lot of money, but from his perspective MP3s hadn't changed anything and the Stones made their real money off touring. He said he had no problem with digital downloads. In fact, the Stones long ago got on iTunes and they offer special downloads of selected old concerts on a website they run. Sadly, it's somewhat younger artists like U2 who just do not get it at all and continue to bitch about how things are not what they once were.

  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:52AM (#44307287) Homepage Journal

    Is this guy nuts? Who gets paid for their work? Just steal it from TPB or someplace else.

    Pfft. Getting paid for their work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!

    • Funnily enough, Radiohead/Thom Yorke/Atoms for Peace are artists that I will actually pay for their music as I'm a big fan and they typically self-publish these days. Radiohead were one of the first artists to do a "pay what you want" price for their album.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:00AM (#44307345)

      The lazy fucks can tour if they want to earn some dosh from their music.

      Pfft. Getting paid for life for 2 weeks' work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!

    • Note to musicians. Here is a possible business model.

      1. Set up a retarded hipster startup - something like http://www.hellolamppost.co.uk/ [hellolamppost.co.uk]
      2. Get dumb people to fund you (if you're struggling, maybe you need to dumb down your concept a notch or two)
      3. Pay yourself that money and do what you really want instead
      4. Wait for the world to lose interest in your startup, fold, and GOTO 1

  • by blarkon (1712194) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:55AM (#44307317)
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ [informatio...utiful.net]

    I believe since the graphic was made, there has been extensive lobbying for royalties per play to be reduced from the figures shown in this picture. There's something to the original musician's case if it takes more than 4 million plays per month to get to one individual's *minimum wage* of $1160 per month (and that's with the *generous* current pay per play rate).

    • by BenJury (977929) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:06AM (#44307379)
      What's really impressive is how much more the label takes. For Spotify: 0.16c to the label, 0.029c for the artist. (~85%/15% split) That's a huge chunk for something that someone else is distributing etc.
      • That's not impressive but outrageous.

        I'd be interested to see how much Spotify gets out of all this on average. Are they greedy or are they not charging us enough? If a popular artist's work gets, say, half its plays through Spotify, how much would Spotify have to charge us to provide a decent income to the artist?

        By the way, that graph seems to be comparing CDs against single songs, if I'm reading it right. Also, the retail royalty figure is deceptive, as this is rarely an $x per CD deal. Usually yo
      • by gl4ss (559668)

        don't need a label though..

      • Agreed, the split is completely out of whack. For a retail CD where the label takes $1 and the artist takes $1 (for $10 album) the label is printing, distributing, and marketing. For the same album at the same price on iTunes, the label takes $5.35 with no printing or distributing and probably less marketing and gives the artist $0.94 to add insult to injury. It also suggests that a $10 retail album should sell for $6.70 on iTunes. And as you pointed out the split is even more ridiculous for streaming.
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      I still don't see what the problem is. Spotify (et al) have done their math and decided that's what they will pay. If an author doesn't like it, nobody is forcing him to sell his songs to Spotify.

      Making songs today doesn't pay as much as they expected? Well, that's so bad, they can surely find another job and leave music to people who do it because they love it.

      If a miracle killed every single person involved in the music industry and all existing music records, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing music again b

    • How's that compare to terrestrial radio though? My understanding is that the artists are paid a royalty based upon the number of plays on the radio, but a large station might broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people. If you were to break down to the cost per person listening on the radio to a streaming site the the royalty might actually end up being more in that case.
  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @08:56AM (#44307321) Homepage Journal

    Nearly 90% of the artists who get a cheque for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year

    Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.

    What none of these reports seem to show is any perspective on how much the delivery service (Pandora/Spotify) is making. (Raising IPO capital isn't exactly making a profit..)

    If (without creative accounting) they're breaking even, then the artists are getting paid too much.

    If they're running at a loss, then the artists are definitely getting paid too much.

    If they're reaping in huge profits then the artists aren't getting paid enough.

    That kind of transparency isn't available (or I haven't seen it).

    Either way I'd quite like $5000 for work I did last year.

    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:03AM (#44307363) Homepage Journal

      If they're running at a loss, then the artists are definitely getting paid too much.

      Or listeners are paying too little. Or the CEO of ${MUSIC_STREAMING_SERVICE} is overpaid.

      And no, if my paycheck for the last couple of weeks work were to be spread out over the remainder of my employer's lifetime as a few dollars a month, I wouldn't consider it a "good deal". People have to eat now.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      If Spotify was purely supplementary income that'd be accurate, but many people have stopped buying music in favour of buying streaming subscriptions, or simply putting up with adverts; if Spotify is replacing your album and singles income, then depending on how much your label is shafting you it could be quite a pay cut.

      • by C0R1D4N (970153)
        This is different from people buying FM radios how?
        • by Sockatume (732728)

          Playing an album on the Spotify app, and playing an album off my MP3 library, are essentially identical from a user experience (moreso if I have Spotify Premium and have the album cached locally). Leaving the radio on all day and hoping the tracks I want to hear will be played is very different.

          • Well quite honestly nowadays you can leave the radio on and be fairly certain that the song you want to be played will come on within the next 30-40 minutes... as long as what you want to hear is one of the current top 15 songs or so for the genre of the station in question.

            It was bad enough when I was young, but now it's to the point where the same song will be played multiple times per hour, like the stations just have a "greatest hits of summer 2013" cd on repeat.

            • by Sockatume (732728)

              Interesting point. Radio ate into boy band sales more than it ate into indie or obscure records, levelling the playing field. Spotify cuts into both equally.

        • by Sockatume (732728)

          (And to complete the thought, listening to an FM radio is so different that listening to the album that I will buy the album regardless. I might not, however, buy a CD if I can get it on demand from Spotify for free.)

    • by seven of five (578993) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:23AM (#44307527) Homepage
      Either way I'd quite like $5000 for work I did last year.

      By "less than $5000" they don't mean "most make about $5000." A handful make $5000, a bunch make $500, the rest make $5 to $50. So enjoy the juicy hamburger you just bought with your earnings from last year.
    • by Aguazul2 (2591049)

      You're assuming that the artist knocks out a few tunes over the weekend, and have no other costs. Mostly music takes a lot more effort, time and money to produce than that -- the stuff you want to listen to at least.

      • You're assuming that the artist knocks out a few tunes over the weekend, and have no other costs. Mostly music takes a lot more effort, time and money to produce than that -- the stuff you want to listen to at least.

        I think he was imagining that musicians get a good fixed monthly salary that is related to the quality of their work (like I do), and on top of that get thousands and thousands every year after that for doing nothing (unlike me).

        And that's wrong on two accounts: One, they don't get a fixed amount of money for their work. And second, if someone creates music this year and next year so many people buy it that he makes $5,000, then his music must have been bloody good in the first place, so he fully deserve

    • by Rich0 (548339) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:06AM (#44307955) Homepage

      Nearly 90% of the artists who get a cheque for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year

      Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.

      I think there are two issues with this kind of logic.

      The first is counter to your argument - the residual income is essentially a big part of the total compensation. When I get paid at work to do a job, I get paid the full value of the job. I don't really have an expectation of residual income. Now imagine that I'm a software developer and I get paid a share of productivity savings over time - I get paid $10k up-front for six months of work, but then I get 30% of any efficiencies the company that bought the software realizes as a result of using my software. Then the company uses accounting games to undermeasure the savings. In a situation like this the residual income was promised as the major component of the total compensation.

      On the other hand, I think that a statement that 90% of artists make less than $5000/yr is very misleading because of the way the payments tend to be distributed. With digital distribution there really is no barrier to getting your item listed. That means that I can probably play a few bars on a kazoo and put it up for sale, and maybe sell a few copies to relatives if I'm lucky. When the same service sells that alongside of a top-10 hit I don't think you can really talk about averages in any kind of meaningful way.

  • by MrKaos (858439) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:18AM (#44307483) Journal
    They have fucked over Artists and the IT Industry. Copyright laws that are unequitable, extensible, DRM. WTF makes the Music Companies such a protected species in business anyway? Wasn't capitalism designed to cull business models that were no longer viable?

    Seems to me that the existing music business establishment is trying to devise an internet business models that will fuck over music creative types until the end of time.

  • Is there not an online place where artists can just produce and sell music without the MAFIAA being involved? If so, why are not more musicians using it?

    • Do you need a record label to make your music available on Spotify?

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        technically no. but you can't directly commit music to spotify, you need to use a content service.
        http://www.merlinnetwork.org/joining/ [merlinnetwork.org]

        plenty of very indie stuff on spotify.. for shits'n'giggles search c64 and amiga on there.
        anyone can be a "label" nowadays too. doesn't take anything.

  • and get all of it.
  • Spotify's retort (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fatgraham (307614) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @09:26AM (#44307561) Homepage

    http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/spotify-responds-to-thom-yorke-and-nigel-godrich-criticism/055383 [musicweek.com]

    Doesn't seem so bad. I think Thom Yorke is missing a step... spotify pays the LABELS. The LABELS obviously decided the royalties from spotify are enough... Perhaps the labels aren't paying artists enough...

  • Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.
    I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.

    For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.

    Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.

    All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.

    • by isorox (205688)

      Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.

      I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.

      For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.

      Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.

      All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.

      I'm fairly sure Thom Yorke knows all about pay what you want [time.com], and How much he's likely to make [slashdot.org]

      • by advid.net (595837)

        Thanks for the refs, I forgot that...

        So... do you also know why did they not carry on with this model ?

  • by cerberusss (660701) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:18AM (#44308077) Homepage Journal

    The reply from Spotify:

    "Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music," a company spokesperson said today. "We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love. Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music. We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."

    Unbelievable how they respond with corporate drivel. For me, this is the sign that no real human is at the helm and I'd rather keep downloading than give money to this faceless entity.

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @10:33AM (#44308215) Journal

    According to the WSJ:

    "In the United States...radio companies pay only songwriters and music publishers, not record companies. The system, dating back almost a century, is based on the idea that radio play has enough promotional value for performers that they do not also need to be paid royalties."

    Yes, that's right - the actual performance of the song gets them NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, not one thin dime. So if Clear Channel plays a Radiohead song on 200 radio stations 100 times in a month reaching (on average) 40,000 listeners per station, that's 800 Million listener-plays for absolutely $zero.

    Remind me again why RadioHead is getting such a raw deal at $1000/4M plays, but $0 is just fine?

    • A band like Radiohead write their own songs; so according to what you wrote, wouldn't they be getting paid as songwriters?

      • by jsepeta (412566)

        only if your songs are played on the radio, it's tracked, and a group like ASCAP or BMI is actively seeking to enforce payments to you.

  • by bobbutts (927504) <bobbutts@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @11:37AM (#44308833)
    I switched from torrenting to Spotify because it is more convenient. By supplying this service, the industry turned my $0 into $120/yr Perhaps the goal is to eliminate Spotify so everyone will have to buy CD's again? Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, it would be impossible to return to the old ways.
  • by fazey (2806709) on Wednesday July 17, 2013 @12:51PM (#44309571)
    You know, I really love Radiohead. Back when the RIAA started getting all hot in the pants about mp3s, Radiohead release their new album for free on their site. You simply went to the site and downloaded it, with the option of donating. Now this... Thom, and the rest of Radiohead have my respect.

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...