New Radiohead album - Pay what you think is fair??

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but the tip is an implied part of the service and is paid based on the expectancy that you will get good service in the future. You are held accountable for not tipping.

There is no accountability here.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is accountability, b/c "pay whatever you feel like" is different than "free".

as gus said, sidewalk entertainers wouldn't be there if people didn't throw quarters in occasionally. just b/c you're not obligated to pay doesn't mean it's irrational to do so.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
People who pay for this are really dumb.
A) You can get it for free, so it is irrational.
B) If you felt like giving the money giving it to charity or something would make a lot more sense than giving it to Radiohead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think Radiohead would be more or less likely to make another album if they earn $10mm from this one? What about if they earn $10k? If you like Radiohead, you have reason to pay.

[LotsOfOuts69]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who pay for this are really dumb.
A) You can get it for free, so it is irrational.
B) If you felt like giving the money giving it to charity or something would make a lot more sense than giving it to Radiohead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think Radiohead would be more or less likely to make another album if they earn $10mm from this one? What about if they earn $10k? If you like Radiohead, you have reason to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

seriously wtf, if you want them to keep making music then you should pay them so they do.

I feel like I have been stealing by paying $15 every few years to hear these guys keep making music.

[kipin]

Not to bash this idea (I really like it)

But music was made, played, and performed for free for a LONG time before a pricing model came into play.

Humans love to create, even if there is no monetary reward involved so saying that there will be no more music produced in the future because you don't pay is kind of a silly argument.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to bash this idea (I really like it)

But music was made, played, and performed for free for a LONG time before a pricing model came into play.

Humans love to create, even if there is no monetary reward involved so saying that there will be no more music produced in the future because you don't pay is kind of a silly argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how I look at it: would Thom Yorke still be making music if he didn't make a ton of money doing it? Probably yes. But he'd also be doing it in between working other jobs.

There's an analogous thing happening in the world of photography. Just this week, I've been reading articles by pro photographers decrying the advent of digital SLRs that are taking their income. The articles came about it from two different perspectives: 1) people who used to take photos of e.g., HS football games and sell them to parents. Now, many people have their own DSLRs and take their own photos, leaving the pro wanting for business; 2) stock photographers used to be able to sell their photos for a couple hundred dollars or more for each use. Now, microstock agencies sell photos for a couple of dollars, paying the photographer 20 cents for the photo. Obviously people would rather pay $2 for a photo than $200, so the stock photographers are losing business.

But I come at photography from the end they are decrying: I am a hobbyist. I know that I'll never be able to make as much money taking photos as working my current job. So why try. I'll take my photos and put them on the web for free, or sell them for pennies on the dollar. Just the idea of having my photo picked up for national publication would be cool, so I don't really care about the money.

But where does that attitude leave the pro photographer? If enough people think the same way, there'll be no place for the pro photographer. So even really talented photographers will end up doing other things for a living and only taking pictures as a hobby. That will result in a lesser amount of photographs out there.

Same thing for music. There'll always be hobbyists who are willing to distribute music for free or low cost. But that may mean that the Thom Yorke's of the world will be teaching music for a living instead of making music for a living.

[kipin]

Ya, I see where you are coming from, it must have really sucked for all the monks who used to copy books by hand for a living when the movable type printing press was invented.

It's called economic progress, the world is not flat, and it is ever changing. Evolve or die.

[gumpzilla]

kipin,

Are you planning on paying for this? Or listening to it at all? I would love to see stats regarding correlations among how much people pay for this album, how frequently people go for illegal downloads, and what their stances are on DRM and record companies and all of that. I suspect that a lot of the people who talk a big game about the latter will just download this for free (or like .50 cents) anyway, but that data is hard to gather.

[kipin]

I wanted to look at the site but it is either going very slow, or my internet wasn't working.

I dunno if I will pay for it. Will probably listen to it.

I support bands I like by going to shows.

Let's not turn this thread into my beliefs on piracy please!

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to look at the site but it is either going very slow, or my internet wasn't working.

I dunno if I will pay for it. Will probably listen to it.

I support bands I like by going to shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least you're honest. It's pretty much what I expected, which is that DRM is something that many people who want to download music for free throw up as a smokescreen to give them a principled reason to do so. To be fair, I guess the following excerpt from this post does leave some weasel room:
[ QUOTE ]
I refuse to purchase any media put out by the large music cartels. My reasons are numerous, but they all point back to the RIAA and the media companies trying to restrict my ability to listen to stuff I have purchased. DRM is a useless technology that only hurts the people who pay for the media. And each day, more and more consumers who see the flaws in DRM are getting more and more frustrated with the "technology" and are looking to piracy to get around the restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's not turn this thread into my beliefs on piracy please!

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not think that coming into this thread with statements like "Evolve or die," or talking about how music was distributed for free back in the Good Old Days would get this started? Especially since this whole experiment by Radiohead seems designed to provoke exactly this kind of discussion? This seems like a tremendously appropriate thread to have such a discussion; I'm sure another thread will crop up when the album actually comes out to allow for reckless fanboyism.

[kipin]

OK, if you want a probability percentage of if I will pay for the album or not I'd say it is around 50%.

I am not a huge radiohead fan, but I do like their stuff. If it was a band I was a bigger fan of paying for the album probably goes up to 80-90% probability.

This is a good step by Radiohead, if I were to pay, I think I would spend like $5. That is at least TWICE what they would be getting from a major record company for each album sold.

I'd still like to hear the album before I pay for it.

If you want to turn this thread into a piracy discussion thread feel free, but most of my feelings regarding the matter have already been hashed out in the thread you referenced.