xeps
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Posts
- 29
- Likes
- 0
I gladly paid $0.
This is how the situation applies to me, personally - I will be the first to admit it likely is not the case for the majority of users.
I am approaching this much the same way I approach other digital content made available online. I consider these files, which I had read about elsewhere prior to downloading, to be equivalent of a demo. By radiohead providing me with the means to download them for free, they are essentially blessing that usage.
I don't feel radiohead is ripping anyone off, or intentionally decieving them. The bitrate was not mentioned, but I am willing to believe it was likely overlooked rather than intentionally omitted. It is good publicity for them, and something big name artists were bound to embrace eventually.
I also do not feel anyone is hurting their future chances at digital distribution by paying nothing - if radiohead had wanted to, they quite easily could have made them available with a minimal price. They were obviously aware that some users would not pay for them. If bandwidth were a large concern, they could have set up a torrent for non-paying users.
By downloading them at all, users are expressing to Radiohead, record labels, the RIAA, etc.. That they are interested in DRM free downloads as a distribution method.
Ultimately, I paid what I feel the files were worth to me, compared with other digitally distributed goods.
They will not be a permanent addition to my collection. They were merely a quality limited demo, to me, personally. I wouldn't expect to pay to play a demo version of a video game, or to use a demo version of software - why should this be treated differently? Just because it is music?
Is lining radioheads pockets over something I wouldn't have paid for otherwise going to make a statement to the RIAA? Will the RIAA be concerned about the number of people paying, or the number of people participating?
For the record, if I was a casual user who was only intending to listen to these on my iPod in mp3 format, I would have paid for them. I would not, however, have paid the cost of a CD - Digital distribution is much cheaper than traditional distribution, and it is widely accepted the artist sees much more of the money - so why should I pay the same?
This is how the situation applies to me, personally - I will be the first to admit it likely is not the case for the majority of users.
I am approaching this much the same way I approach other digital content made available online. I consider these files, which I had read about elsewhere prior to downloading, to be equivalent of a demo. By radiohead providing me with the means to download them for free, they are essentially blessing that usage.
I don't feel radiohead is ripping anyone off, or intentionally decieving them. The bitrate was not mentioned, but I am willing to believe it was likely overlooked rather than intentionally omitted. It is good publicity for them, and something big name artists were bound to embrace eventually.
I also do not feel anyone is hurting their future chances at digital distribution by paying nothing - if radiohead had wanted to, they quite easily could have made them available with a minimal price. They were obviously aware that some users would not pay for them. If bandwidth were a large concern, they could have set up a torrent for non-paying users.
By downloading them at all, users are expressing to Radiohead, record labels, the RIAA, etc.. That they are interested in DRM free downloads as a distribution method.
Ultimately, I paid what I feel the files were worth to me, compared with other digitally distributed goods.
They will not be a permanent addition to my collection. They were merely a quality limited demo, to me, personally. I wouldn't expect to pay to play a demo version of a video game, or to use a demo version of software - why should this be treated differently? Just because it is music?
Is lining radioheads pockets over something I wouldn't have paid for otherwise going to make a statement to the RIAA? Will the RIAA be concerned about the number of people paying, or the number of people participating?
For the record, if I was a casual user who was only intending to listen to these on my iPod in mp3 format, I would have paid for them. I would not, however, have paid the cost of a CD - Digital distribution is much cheaper than traditional distribution, and it is widely accepted the artist sees much more of the money - so why should I pay the same?
