The album is not out next week, but was already out last week. Or was this a real virtual illusion???

...but according to Colin Greenwood on Radio 4 the other week, they as a band still made more money off the "pay as much as you like" release than the sum total of download royalty cheques they've ever received from EMI for the rest of their catalogue. So it can't have gone that badly.

Re: "they as a band still made more money off the "pay as much as you like" release than the sum total of download royalty cheques they've ever received"...

Last time I checked Radiohead's back-catalogue wasn't on iTunes (the most popular of the download sites). I'm not surprised they've made more from this!

than if it had all been p2p which it would have is there someone assuming that those who paid nothing, would have paid under some other circumstance and if so why?

The number of people that downloaded the album 'In Rainbows' for nothing, or the fraction of the total number that were downloaded for nothing are both pretty meaningless statistics in terms of illustrating whether or not this new style of music sale was a success or not.

It was the first of its kind, and an experiment, so it is not surprising that a huge number of people went online to download it for free. As well as the freeloaders, there were many people eager to test for themselves whether it really was true. But forget this fraction, it is the total of the money that was taken, and Radiohead's opinion of this total, that are the important indicators as to whether this novel approach to music sales is a goer or not.

From what Iain says it sounds like a resounding success to me.

Re: "they as a band still made more money off the "pay as much as you like" release than the sum total of download royalty cheques they've ever received"...

At the Grauniad online http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,2222273,00.html we find that at 9 December 2007:

"Thom's reading Q by mysterious Italian anarchist group Luther Blisset. I tried to read that once, I tell him. 'Oh it's fucking ace! But my missus, that's her specialist field, so she's been explaining it to me all the way through. Medieval church carnage. It's mental. I want to get it made into a film. That's my next mission.'

"Using the In Rainbows profits?

"'Mmm-mm,' says Thom Yorke, shaking his head. 'I doubt it. That would cover basically the catering.'"

So as soon as Colin tells Thom, we look forward to hearing from the Incarnate One about making the film of our book.

Allora sbrigati, Thom, non c'e' tempo da perdere - siamo in fretta da incontrarci con un buon lestofante come te! Dannato cazzo di idea hai avuto - "double dipping" non e' vero?. Speriamo che ci sia posto sul tuo server anche per noi.

When you say "the catering" for a feature film, you are maybe talking about feeding a hundred people for 3 months. I would love to make that much money off an album, yes please.

I will - but not until I can pay the US$10 I decided it's worth to me. And I can't do that until the Missus says the budget can spare it (I know bloody well that it can, but until she says so, I'd rather wait than start a row that will see the house leveled and the cats homeless).

I will pay artists. I will *NOT* pay labels. And Metallica, aside from their galactic-black-hole-sized musical talent suckage, decided that they wanted to be a label, not artists, so they can kiss me hairy white arse. They're no different to any other label now.

"I will pay artists. I will *NOT* pay labels. "

Radiohead's In Rainbows CD is being released on an independent label - two, to be precise: TBD and XL. Independent labels work off a 50/50 revenue split with artists. Any money they have left over goes to suing the RIAA for antitrust violations: look at the history of Impala and AIM if you want chapter and verse.

So ... if you don't want Radiohead's In Rainbows on CD, don't buy it.

If you want it, then you have no excuse for not paying the artist.

But it sounds like you just don't want to pay the artists.

Why be such a stingebag, Morely? Who are you trying to kid, here?