Even if every person who downloaded the album paid just 10 pence, the band will still rake in a massive £120,000. That figure is likely to be higher, with many speculating the average figure will even out at around the £1 mark.

Hello,

Just to let you know…

Your “In Rainbows” discbox has now left w.a.s.t.e. in the UK

You can expect delivery of your discbox in the following estimated times.

UK 1-8 days

Europe 1-14 days

Rest of World 5-18 days

Wherever possible (especially to customers in the USA), we’ve sent these by road and sea.

December is a busy time of year for postal services globally, so please be patient.

We thank you for your custom and hope you enjoy your discbox when you receive it.

Best wishes.

us @ w.a.s.t.e.

Radiohead and label dispute reasons
Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on December 29, 2007 at 12:15 AM (printer friendly)


Source

Radiohead left original record label EMI because the company would not pay agree to a deal worth £10 million.

According to The Times newspaper the band – who release all their previous albums through EMI imprint Parlophone – were offered £3m to resign with the label which they found unacceptable.

A spokesperson for the label told the paper “Radiohead were demanding an extraordinary amount of money and we did not believe that our other artists should have to subsidise their gains.”

However the band’s management have responded saying that the label did not take their negotiations seriously and it could loose other high profile artists in future.

As part of an agreement, Radiohead asked for the copyright back on part of their back catalogue, which the label would not consider. It is also claimed the group wanted a global marketing budget of £3m, although their management dispute this figure.

One of Radiohead’s managers, Bryce Edge, told the paper: “We couldn’t move ahead with EMI because (label boss) Guy Hands irrevocably refused to discuss the catalogue in any meaningful way. We sold 25 million records and we have the moral rights over those six albums. We wanted a say in how they are exploited in the future. We were not seeking a big advance payment, or a guaranteed marketing spend as discussions never got that far.”

When discussions between and the label and the band stalled, the group decided to release latest album ’In Rainbows’ themselves, initially allowing fans to name their own price for the record, before agreeing a CD release with XL which is due out on Monday (December 31).

Edge added that Radiohead might not be the only big name who will leaving the label, hinting that acts were upset that record companies still deduct “packaging costs” from royalty payments on digital downloads, which require no packaging.

Additionally, Radiohead's original EMI contract also had no facility for digital sales, with Edge explaining, “It’s no surprise that artists are throwing their arms up in the air.”

Record Industry Goes After Personal Use
Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on December 29, 2007 at 1:47 AM (printer friendly)


Source

By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

The story about radiohead being money hungry is just bad PR put out by EMI. Radiohead just wanted control over their music that EMI has. EMI wants to start whoring out radiohead songs to advertisers and Radiohead had a big problem with it.

Where's the evidence for this?

Ive got none. I heard about this on a radiohead forum before this news article.

Where's the evidence for this?

The announcement earlier this week that Parlophone/EMI would be issuing a box set of Radiohead's previously released albums took many fans by surprise. Sure, the set looks purdy, but it doesn't come with any bonus tracks or new artwork or liner notes. And that USB stick sure is clunky. Plus, why would Radiohead want to release this thing on December 10, right when everybody will be getting their pre-ordered discboxes of In Rainbows? Seems a little fishy.

On Monday, Boing Boing posted an item about the box set. Yesterday, it was updated with the following:

"A publicity-shy reader writes, 'I think people need to know that the band isn't some greed machine. I can tell you with 100% certainty that EMI is putting out all those reissues without the band's participation, blessing, permission or involvement at all. They are doing it as retribution for the band's decision not to go with them in releasing the new album. Despite their contract being expired, EMI had been counting on the revenue from the forthcoming album. When the band put out the digital version of the album themselves, EMI threatened them with re-releasing their entire catalog on the same day the discbox of IN RAINBOWS was being sent out, Dec 10, unless the band gave EMI the standard physical release of the album. Of course the band/managers told EMI to piss off and were appalled that at such an important point in the band's career that their former partners would do this to them.'"

We checked in with representatives from both the band and the label. According to the Radiohead camp, the box set was indeed not the band's idea. They did not confirm any in-fighting, though. EMI agreed that the box was a label initiative, and said that the band's management was offered the opportunity to participate in the project, but declined. As for the release date, EMI maintained that no maliciousness was intended. Rather, it's simply box set season--who doesn't want to find a nicely packaged multi-CD bundle under the tree on Christmas morning?

As for that other Radiohead release we're all looking forward to, it's maybe possibly coming out January 1, maybe possibly on ATO/Side One in the U.S., the band is maybe possibly doing a webcast about it on Friday and maybe possibly touring behind it next year.