digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Trent Reznor favors an ISP 'tax on music'

news.com — Very early in a discussion with Trent Reznor, the front man for the band Nine Inch Nails, it's obvious how highly he prizes his collaboration with musician Saul Williams on the album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust. Saul Williams and Trent Reznor(Credit: Atticus Ross) Reznor produced and helped bankroll

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fusen, on 01/10/2008, -9/+119I think the problem Reznor has is how highly he seems to praise Saul's music when clearly not many others feel the same way. Reading the majority of comments from those who downloaded his album, they simply didn't like the songs and so didn't pay. I was just like the rest where I downloaded the album without paying and listened to it once then left it sit in my library ever since unplayed.
    • bffoley, on 01/10/2008, -6/+32Exactly. I love Nine Inch Nails but I haven't been impressed with anything of Saul's I've heard. Therefore I didn't do the $5 or even the free download. I think Trent just assumed people would take his word for it and try out the album.
      • brendonsmall, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0Agreed. I downloaded it and got about half way through then shut it off. But, if NiggyTardust was half the album that In Rainbows was, I probably would have paid $10. Trent definitely created a lot of buzz with this, and did a good job getting a lot of his fans to grab it and take a listen.
      • Cerebral, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Obviously TRY the album is what they did. I honestly think a "donate to artist" or "pay what you think it's worth" option would have maybe done better in this case.
    • fkr3, on 01/10/2008, -27/+9No, I think the problem Reznor has is he looked at all the arguments people use for piracy..... and believed them. That is the mistake he made. Flac, DRM, low price and everything else are just attempts to justify taking someone else's product for nothing while blaming them for your actions.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 01/10/2008, -3/+13You want me to spend money of something I've never heard??? Not ***** likely. However, if I heard it first, got the feel of it, and it was good, then I might consider kicking over a few dollars for it. But not before that...
        • spyrochaete, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6Amen. Pirate all digital data first and buy it second if it meets your needs.
          • BoneheadFarker, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5I'm Canadian. I don't pirate music, since we're now charged a music tax on every MP3 player sold. I've already bought the music...
          • Korlithiel, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1What if you never heard even one song and were buying it because the artist is said to be good?

            You basically saying that even if an artist puts out horrid music they deserve to be paid, and that isn't how its worked in the past and without changes it isn't likely to happen like that in the future either.
      • norman619, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5He obviously thinks the music is better than what it actually is. It's to be expected but he should learn to accept crits. I'm a CG artist and often ask for crits from people. What I think is a good piece and others think is a good piece doesn't always line up. That is life. Since I sell my art I put more weight in their opinions.
    • Nerfdude, on 01/10/2008, -1/+22right on the money. i downloaded the album not because i'd ever heard of saul williams, but because i was curious of what trent reznor was backing. i didn't pay for it because i didn't know what i was getting. if there was a Nine Inch Nails album released independently on the internet, i'd pay five bucks for it (provided it was at least 320kbps if not FLAC), because i'd know i'd be getting something i like.
    • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -5/+16Seriously that album sucks. But I'm not going to buy music just because it's dirt cheap. I even commented to this effect on nin.com. $5 is insultingly cheap, but I'm going to listen to the album for free given the chance and only if I find the music to be awesome will I want it to be in high quality, which I would gladly pay $10-$20 for depending on the length and quality.
    • juicebag, on 01/10/2008, -2/+11I liked the album.
      • norman619, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5Did you pay?
        • clari0n, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5I liked it and I bought it. I was already a fan of Saul Williams, though.
      • twiggytwig, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1I liked it too. I downloaded it for free, liked it and then paid for it... but i am obviously one of few...
        • Korlithiel, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Maybe your one of the few who liked it enough to keep it, I know that I didn't like it and deleted it since it is a waste of my hard drive space.
        • JickBahTech, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Right there with you. It's totally not mainstream, and can be a little tiring with all the mashups of genres, but I just really like Reznor's producing. Tracks 4 and 12 are totally radio worthy imo.
          Now I have both an MP3 and FLAC version of an album I really dug for $5. This experiment is doing just fine by me...
    • Otto, on 01/10/2008, -1/+28I think he's looking at this wrong.

      Let's say that nobody's going to buy an album unless:
      1. They know the artist and like their previous work.
      2. They know the album and like it.

      For this case, you have a nobody (I've never heard of the guy), so #1 doesn't help any. For the second case, you're giving them the album for free. So the only reason for them to pay for it is their own generosity, to come back and get it again, to support the artist (or to support the idea, if you prefer to think of it that way).

      He says that 5 people downloaded it for every 1 who bought it. That's not bad, actually. That means that 1 in 5 liked it enough to come back and buy it. That's 20%, not bad for an unknown artist. Certainly better than should be expected.

      But here's the thing, those other 4 people who didn't buy it might still have the album. They might play it. Their friends might hear it or get a copy from him. If they like it, they may buy his next album without listening to it, or their friends might do the same. And this feeds back to #1, people knowing the artist.

      A known artist is going to sell more on the first try than an unknown artist is. But the more music the unknown artist gets out there, the more known he becomes. You cannot become a superstar overnight.
      • Cerebral, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1One of the things that you actually touched on is the fact that the people that were purchasing the album are those that downloaded and then returned to purchase. If you look at that then technically you are really looking at 1 in 4 which would also show Trent's numbers a little skewed. Obviously not everyone who paid had already downloaded it before downloading the free version but still something to think about.
    • floatingpoints, on 01/10/2008, -1/+16You're kinda off with your assessment.

      Considering this 2 month old digital release sold ALMOST as much as Saul's last album that's been out for almost 4 years now, that's a pretty ***** amazing thing and says a lot.

      I believe Trent is viewing the data from a different perspective in not accounting for return visitors (or maybe he is, I dunno, I don't have the data), but the numbers in visitor traffic directly correlating to downloads/sales aren't always black and white. Especially when it comes to music. There are so many variables to consider when looking at visitor traffic on a site.

      The type of scenario where someone bought it, later went to a friend's house and for whatever reason downloaded it again (this time without paying) isn't too far fetched in this situation.

      Guarantee you in 4 years AFTER all the touring, this digital release will most definitely have sold and made more than the previous one.
      • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -10/+3"Almost as much." So you're saying Saul Williams sold MORE albums when they were $20 -- yet, when he had much greater exposure through open downloading -- and only asked $5 -- he sold less. Your logic doesn't work. He should have sold at least as many as his previous album to his core audiences, then even more based on the fact that -- by shear odds -- some of those other 120,000 new listeners would like what they heard. You could put ***** in a cup and find at least two girls out of 120,000 who would eat it.
        • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4His album has only been out for a little bit. Give it time.
        • negrojim, on 01/10/2008, -1/+72 months /=/ 48 months (4 years)

          it isn't quite case closed yet smart guy
        • floatingpoints, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5What? Since when did CDs jump to $20?

          Did you miss class or something on the day we learned that if a CD sells for $12, the artist doesn't get $12?

          $5 is 41% of the average CD cost. An artist making 41% per album sale is probably unheard of in today's industry.

          Yeah, exposure is massive when dealing with online releases, music, games, or otherwise. It doesn't correlate into downloads or sales. The point I made is pretty clear - with the exposure they did in terms of marketing, which cost them nothing (or next to it), it has almost made as much as the 4 year old album.
        • IADTatami, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2How many girls? Say, 1 in 5?

          You aren't examining the data, actorboy. You don't need to- you've already got a conclusion, one that you cooked up before the experiment even began.
    • dafragsta, on 01/10/2008, -2/+11Agreed. I seriously hope Trent reads Digg and knows how to filter unconstructive comments from constructive ones enough to see the forest for the trees. I know he's a bit peeved at Radiohead for giving fans a substandard product (160kbps instead of 320kbps) in the form of their digital download, but they DID make a killing and have repeatedly said that they made more money off of In Rainbows than they have any other Radiohead album.

      I bought the Saul Williams album and I think it was worth $5, but I can be honest enough with myself to admit that I've listened to it like 3 times and it's just not sticking. Trent is pissed because he spent a ***** producing the album which is clouding his judgement. He should look at it from another standpoint. Niggy Tardust DID sell like 30K copies (I could be off) and it was a decent amount for an artist that probably never really got a lot of exposure. If Trent hadn't spent so much money on it, I think he'd see things more optimistically. If he releases the next NIN album the same way Niggy Tardust was released, I think he'll change his mind about this new method of digital distribution.

      Saul's stuff was good but it doesn't bear repeated listening. You can't sing along to it and It doesn't speak to me as personally as NIN does. Trent should be wary of saying things like this, lest he piss off his fans who are very much against this sort of thing.
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1What is the point of spending so much on the production of a new artist? At least if the production was ***** it would have more of that non-commercial edge that he is supposedly going for.
        • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -0/+37 years of making albums = new artist?
          • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3Has anyone heard of this guy? No.
        • dafragsta, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3There really isn't one. I suspect Trent thought it'd be a fun project. Who knows really.
      • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3Radiohead did well because downloaders created a false market. Look back on the digg stories: "I'm paying for it to support the new model!" "Every buy it so we can send a message to the RIAA!" I highly doubt their next album will do as well. Honestly, it was obvious a false market would be created for this model at first. But even I am surprised at how quickly that false market collapsed. If the second venture of this nature headed by the pirate's hero can't succeed, do you really believe that it's sustainable with newer, unknown groups?
        • dafragsta, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6I don't see how that detracts at all. There will be a new onus upon music fans to pay for their music. There will no longer be the overarching excuse that the record company gets most of the money anyway. I don't buy music now, but I did buy both In Rainbows and Niggy Tardust, and if music became a "pay for what you like" structure, I'd feel very dishonest if I didn't kick my favorite bands a few bucks every once and a while. It's still cheaper. Artificially inflated record prices have been the biggest turnoff to music fans among all issues, I'd bet.
      • fribhey, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2"but they DID make a killing and have repeatedly said that they made more money off of In Rainbows than they have any other Radiohead album."

        you are wrong. Radiohead NEVER said they made more money off of In Rainbows then any other radiohead album.... what they have said is that they've made more money on DIGITAL sales of In Rainbow then the digital sales of all their albums combined. but even that number is skewed since none of their previous albums are available through itunes which is the leading digital music store.
    • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -8/+3What it all boils down to is that Trent was your hero when he was spitting on the man, but when he became the man, and realized the realities therein, you dropped him like a hot potato. "Trent said steal music! Yay!.....Trent said free music doesn't work! Boo!"
      • spectre_25gt, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Oh, that's a crock and you know it. No-one in their right mind wants free music (unless there was some magic way to let the artists live on it), we want DRM-Free music at a reasonable price. What's annoying is that he's trying this out on a fairly unknown artist and expecting everything to go perfectly well. He set himself up for disappointment.

        Had Trent put a NIN album out this way, I think he would have done a lot better. Also, there was no real marketing done for this. Telling the Digg crowd that the album is for sale isn't enough.
        • s810, on 01/11/2008, -0/+3Noone wants free music? Really? Wow.. I'll be sure and tell the majority, the hundreds of millions of torrent music pirates in the world.

          You be sure tell the small minority that actually pay for music online!
    • justinjstark, on 01/10/2008, -4/+8Welcome to the new model, Trent. In the old model your cd could go platinum even if it sucked as long as you had a popular name or one good song on the album. Before somebody realized your music sucked, too late, they would have already bought the album. But in the new model, you actually have to put out decent music in order to make money. Quite a concept, huh?
    • ohgr, on 01/10/2008, -1/+8Actually I enjoyed Saul's album. It was different, but I liked it. Now I'm not going to jump up and say I'm better than anyone because I paid $5's for it. I think the things Trent might have missed is that, there are younger people on the internet. Maybe they don't have a credit card, or maybe mommy & daddy told them to go get a job. :shrugs: I mean it could be anything. Hell maybe it's the fact that we are accustomed to music being easily free and available on the internet now. Tell me, if I put a bucket full of CDs in my front yard and a sign that read "Free Music!", you'd take it right?

      On the other hand, maybe it's like a lot of you have already said. Maybe the album sucked. I mean you put it out there for people: "Hey you could download for free! or you could pay what you think it deserves for a better quality version". I think maybe the majority have spoken here.
      • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+4There were a lot of factors in this to be considered, and Trent not being realistic about the number of people who would pay for an unknown artist's music is a large one of them.

        Also being stuck at paying $5 only instead of volunteering to pay $5 and up would have been a far better test.

        Personally, I failed to download once and when I did finish the second try I found the music un-enjoyable for me so I didn't bother paying just to download again. Though after I had downloaded I would have been willing to donate a bit for the cause, but that just wasn't an option either.
    • McKay, on 01/10/2008, -0/+8I didn't download the music before paying for it. I figured it was just $5 and I really liked the idea behind it and wanted to try and help in whatever way I could (that being pay the $5). I understand that you didn't have to pay for the music if you didn't want to, but in order for this idea to really catch on with others it needed to make a decent amount in my opinion (what that amount is, who knows). Everyone bitches about the music industry/RIAA and this was a way to really show that a model like this works and there is no need for the RIAA, etc. anymore. Again...just in my opinion it was worth a measly $5 even though I didn't care for the music much.
      • Refrag, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I bought NIN's "Year Zero" album on CD despite the fact that I had already downloaded the entire album from the streaming version that Trent put online (and various "leaks") and had it sitting in iTunes and on my iPhone.

        The difference between Year Zero and Niggy Tardust is that I loved Year Zero and wanted to support the artist. I didn't like the Niggy Tardust album so I deleted it and never paid for it. Yet, I downloaded both of them from the artist on the artist's (or maybe Trent's) bandwidth dime.
    • Refrag, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6I downloaded it. Didn't like it. Didn't pay. And deleted it.
    • WindReaver, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2The problem is that he thinks these people that downloaded the samples without paying are stealing the music. Does he also think that all of the people that hear his music on the radio and not pay are also stealing his music? What is the difference? He has numbers for one but not the other.
    • surian, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I downloaded the album for free. Listened to it, liked it, and then paid for it and redownloaded the lossless version of it.

      In the figures that Trent posted he shows how many people downloaded for free and how many paid... well, I'm in there two times. Once for free and once as paying and I have a feeling that I'm not the only one who did that.
  • joeflynn, on 01/10/2008, -3/+31maybe the flaw in the plan was a lack of good product. I wonder what a Rolling Stones or Springsteen would do with this business plan. I see a up and coming group making it big with this kind of plan. Many groups make money from touring and i see this as a way of promoting a tour by: Splashing the free album web site a week or two before you hit town on the local media.
    • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -10/+6The flaw in the plan was a complete lack of understand why people pirate music.
      • IADTatami, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4There are different types of pirates.

        Some won't ever pay for anything, no matter what. They'll even say as much.

        Some don't want to buy something without knowing what they're buying. They'll say as much.

        I've seen you around. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of group two.

        You aren't listening.
      • centerblack, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3I'm not going to buy music without listening to it and liking it.
        I'm not going to buy music from labels affiliated with the RIAA.

        That's why about $30 in gift certificates are sitting in my iTunes account- it's rare that I find a band on an indie label that I like. 10ft ganja plant, dropkick murphys, and jahstix have been my latest purchases.

        And let me tell you, I'd really like to buy Zeppelin's Mothership. I'm just not going to do it while the label is part of the RIAA, or while the RIAA is suing people and making general asses of themselves. So I'll either skip it, get it from a friend, or get it offline. When/if page/plant/bonham jr tour the USA, I'll go and buy a t-shirt though :D
    • Pr0phet, on 01/10/2008, -4/+10Ding, ding, ding!

      I paid the $5 and listened to the album with sheer regret that I had wasted the money.
    • WebWorker, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3I think we are just experiencing the 80/20 rule... 18% pay monies, 82% DO NOT WANT
    • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -7/+3The flaw in the plan was trusting that people have personal integrity.
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Someone who grew to love an artist is going to pay for their art.
    • DJafrodijiak, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2i think the problem here is.. that much of the digg audience isn't the type that would be into think genre of music.. especially us NINers, though, as a musician, i specifically have a need to be open to everything, and i am. i do like this album, much more than kanye west's latest.. and i applaud trent for doing such an awesome job with it. on the other hand, i do truly understand that it was a turd to many people here, which leads me to believe that the audience was simply not marketed to, and we know it wasn't.

      i have to say though, trent is learning the hard way about the business side of things, and i think it will definitely change his opinion on certain aspects. i strongly believe the future is still music for free, but things like ads and donations will need to be applied in place of buying product. music no longer needs to be tangible.. bands should be able to be discovered by people first.. for free, and then get popular on their own merit. fans click the ads and give donations, band makes money.. rinse, recycle, repeat. how does that sound?

      trent shouldn't fear ads, embrace them. this is my business model, layed out in a damn comment on digg. it's ludicrous. i don't tell anyone about it, but well, what the hell. i'm crazy, and completely daunted by the idea of starting the website that changes it all. it all comes down to one thing.

      $
      • forgiste, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2check out purevolume.com
        • DJafrodijiak, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2been there.. done that. where's the revolution?
    • JQP123, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1" I wonder what a Rolling Stones or Springsteen would do with this business plan."

      Regardless of what they would do with it, it's not a valid comparison for one obvious reason --- these artists are superstars built by the old promotional system --- you know, the one that everyone wants to do away with and replace with the internet.

      What we may be witnessing is nothing less than the death of the musical profession. The trend is toward people doing music strictly as a hobby and releasing on the internet (the cyber equivalent of the street corner) or eeeking out a meager living playing live in bars. Either way, thanks to widespread piracy, it's not a good time to be an aspiring musician.
      • Cerebral, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I think you're wrong. Sure we are in a paradigm shift right now with the music industry but that is only because people have new ways to discover music other than the radio(which is BS BTW). I think that Piracy is the best thing to happen to music. I think it allows more and more musicians to be on a more level playing field.
        IMO music should be free. It should be the thing that drags you in. Touring and merchandise is where you should be making money. It's like the music industry is turning into 'the scene' with the way things are working.
        • JQP123, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1"Touring and merchandise is where you should be making money."

          Chicken and egg problem --- In order to tour and merchandise with any degree of success, you need to be moderately famous. In order to become famous, you need promotion. Successful promotion requires money. Where does the money come from?

          The idea that artists can successfully promote themselves on the internet is largely untested and unproven.

          "It's like the music industry is turning into 'the scene' with the way things are working."

          The only problem is that this "scene" is the cyber equivalent of a street corner where artists are playing for donations.
  • wolvyne, on 01/10/2008, -21/+1Problem is this is too good of an idea. That means we won't ever see it happen.
    • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -2/+8The problem is, you are a ***** idiot if you think that everybody should subsidize YOUR music collection.
    • aliengoods, on 01/10/2008, -0/+7I downloaded one album online in the last year: In Rainbows. And I paid for it afterwards because I liked it. There is no way in hell my internet bill should jump because others want to download music for free. Why don't we tax batteries that can be used in MP3 players too! Or how about adding a $50 surcharge to all MP3 players. And computers.

      It only makes sense if you use the internet to pirate music. And to top it off, how would you feel if the bandwidth (and resulting money from the tax) you used browsing Digg went to the music industry instead of to Digg, a great site that is free? Are the Digg admins going to have to pay extra for their bandwidth, or are servers going to be exempt. And what qualifies a server? This is far from a good idea. Free beer and plentiful sex, now that's a good idea.
  • paulg2000, on 01/10/2008, -1/+24I still think the $5 or $0 option wasn't open ended enough. I think there would be people that would easily pay $10 or more once (but wouldn't if they have to jump through two $5 hoops just to have the same effect).

    On the other hand, would there be people that choose $2 or $3 instead of $5? Maybe. But I think there would also be as many people (or more) choosing to pay $2 or $3 instead of $0.
    • paulg2000, on 01/10/2008, -0/+8Also, an "ISP tax" at least the way I'm thinking about it, doesn't seem like it would work at all. And you think the artist doesn't make much off a sale now?... talk about having too many people's hands in the money pot.
    • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3The problem is that it is still easier to pay $0. That si what he, and obviously you and other Diggers don't care. People priate becuase it is free and relatively risk free. They are not trying to "stick it to the man". Therefore, when an opportunity to get something free with ZERO risk, they will take it.
      • paulg2000, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Well, you're wrong on one point: I was more than happy I gave my cheeseburger to Trent and Saul.
        • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3Good for you but perhaps you've never heard of the term "starving artist" That's what real hardcore non-sellout artists are like. If you can make money doing what you love creatively then fan-*****-tastic. Me, I work for a living, which means I'm guaranteed money for the time I work, which I hate. If Trent is so disappointed in the money made here, maybe he should change careers.
          • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2What? So you think artists should starve so you don't have to pay for music? I'm more a fan of the starving, cheap ***** model.
          • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2maybe if you rub your two brain cells together you can make a fire. making money with art is not guaranteed.
        • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1Gee..one person. I guess I was wrong. I guess everybody DOES pirate just to stick it to the man.
    • diggumjonez, on 01/10/2008, -0/+11I've liked Saul William's stuff for a long time. This album was a pretty big departure from his previous albums, but it was still very good. Trent got a lot of things right with the marketing on this, but missed the boat on a few crucial aspects. Instead of, or in addition to, the downloadable free version, stream the songs through the website. Let users listen to them in any order, jumping around the songs any way they like. If the goal was to expose people to the music, this method gives immediate feedback and significantly better marketing results. (Instead of having 1,000 people who downloaded the whole album without paying, you'd find maybe 900 who listened to one or two songs and left, and only 100 people who listened to the entire thing.) Maybe after listening to the whole album, offer them a chance to download it for free.

      The artwork/documents included with the pay version was excellent, and a great example to other bands - we love additional material with our media, whether it's deleted scenes, well-written liner notes, comic books, or just good artwork. Perhaps offering a means of acquiring professional hard copies of the artwork would help to sell more. $5 for the download only, or $8 to receive a mailing that is a CD envelope with a copy of the poster.

      Anyways, I paid my $5. Listened to the release a few times at work and on the bus ride home. Haven't dug it out since about a week after the release.

      sincerely,
      diggum
    • Matt2k, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. A donation system carries a different connotation of value than a purchase system, and the average donation amount is lower. At least in other fields I have seen, this holds true: such as converting a for-donation site to a for-pay site with the same end benefits, a for-pay site will probably net more income. I think simply setting an amount and sticking by it is probably an OK idea.
  • Fatcheeseguy, on 01/10/2008, -4/+23In the morbid future, I might be taxed for saying a company's name or logo.
    • Klowner, on 01/10/2008, -3/+9Or it'll be a great way to make money... Carl's Junior
      • Sevzi, on 01/10/2008, -5/+0OK, I googled for awhile and didn't find anything. What's up?
        • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2It's from the movie idiocracy
        • bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Idiocracy joke.

          "Why do you keep saying Carls Jr?" "Well, they pay me!"
    • ethon, on 01/10/2008, -2/+9Or get paid every time you do...

      Brought to you by Carls Jr.
      • DephexTwin, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1Did you and Klowner seriously independently come up with the same joke and then both use "Carl's jr" for your example advertisement?? That is bizarre.
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1And heeeeere comes the obligatory on-topic dystopian science-fiction story:
      http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/stories/Two_Moments_o ...
  • SuperCow1127, on 01/10/2008, -5/+47Why don't submitters describe the article in the description? Copying the first paragraph isn't all that helpful.
  • pwnerofnoobs, on 01/10/2008, -28/+15***** Trent Reznor and his stupid ideas. I pay enough taxes as it is.
    • domokunt, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2If you read the article the title misrepresents what he was really trying to say,
  • 0xbaadf00d, on 01/10/2008, -21/+32Can I opt out of this tax? If not, ***** you Trent Reznor.
    • gizmo12688, on 01/10/2008, -2/+12If you read the article, he was just spouting suggestions to please the free-music downloaders. The ISP music tax is optional, and if you do decide to pay the $5 tax, then you get an unlimited amount of free legal songs with great quality. He isn't really serious though, just an idea.
      • Marc39, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5Fees or charges can be optional while TAXES are not. Maybe Trent misspoke but as it is, he said TAX.
    • BoneheadFarker, on 01/10/2008, -0/+8In Canada, we don't have the option to opt out of the CD tax, and now we have an MP3 player tax introduce on Jan. 1. I take both as an open invitation to download every song and album I can, seeing as I've already paid for the music...
      • SPLASTiK, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2I went to university in Canada a couple years ago and I remember the first time buying CD-R's. I was already thinking, "Damn, these are way more expensive than in the states." as I grabbed my 100-pk spindle. Then I get to the counter and all of a sudden the price is $30 more than the sticker price and I'm thinking, I didn't think GST/PST was that high! and asked the lady... She explained the levy and I asked for a ***** of CD-R's for Christmas from family in the USA.
        21 cents per CD-R is ridiculous. I remember hearing how they wanted want to put a levy on iPods back in 2004 in Canada at $21/GB! Insane!
        http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#are_they_insane
  • Dipster, on 01/10/2008, -15/+9Let's just tax Trent Reznor's music.
  • slicenglide, on 01/10/2008, -5/+59I downloaded the album, and it honestly wasn't that great. That's why I didn't pay for it. Don't count it as a loss Trent when the album doesn't sell well but is downloaded a lot. I honestly tried to listen to every track and like it, but when the only song that barely caught the ear was a cover of sunday bloody sunday by U2, not worth a dollar.
    • omelette, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7Agreed. And this is why the "tax" in the article is a bad idea. It doesn't reward the good artist or punish the bad. I don't want to contribute to a musician I don't like. I like the tip jar idea that Radiohead used (and they got as much out of my wallet as they would have at the record shop). But please, some scrub not getting paid is not a sign that the system doesn't work. It is in fact, the opposite. Its working like a charm. Its weeding out folks who SHOULDN'T be getting paid. The old, failing system just wants us to have to pay up front - before we know if its something we WANT to pay for.
  • Trav3133, on 01/10/2008, -28/+9Who really cares what Trent Reznor thinks?
    • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -6/+11A couple weeks ago, pretty much everybody on Digg. that's who.
    • signal15, on 01/10/2008, -0/+9Because he generally has some great ideas, and is one of the only people with any pull trying to come up with alternatives to evil record companies. Eventually he, or others building on his work, will find a business model that works without screwing the artists or fans.

      I wish Radiohead would release their numbers, or at least collaborate with Trent privately to compare results and use that to do some tweaking.
    • gharding, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6He's an incredibly popular artist and actually looking for new ways to revive the music industry. If someone has a powerful voice about this stuff and CAN impact the industry, I say let him talk. Obviously the labels aren't doing much.
  • borez, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5Why the hell didn't he keep stum about the figures and basically say the album sold magnificantly to boost his artists profile??
    • gharding, on 01/10/2008, -2/+3He's Trent Reznor. I don't think he has to.
    • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3Because he decided to take the other route: Tell the truth and see if guilt and personal responsibility would kick in. Apparently, it has not. Pirates feel no guilt.
  • catalysis, on 01/10/2008, -2/+28Regardless of how diggers have presented and even twisted Trent's views to match their own, he still thinks people should pay for music. He has stated it many times so this should not surprise anyone. You can't just take a musician's (and many others') life work, then turn around and tell them to ***** off when they need money to get by.
    • gizmo12688, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5exactly, he just wants you to pay more fairly for music and more the artist to get what he/she deserves in profits.
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -4/+5He's way off the line though if he thinks I should pay for crap just because his name is next to it. Niggy Tardust? wtf even his stage name isn't original. Favorite albulm of the year my ass. Trent is putting to much stock in rap music.
    • ninsei, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Exactly, he just supports finding a reasonable and progressive price model that removes unnecessary middle men (Record Labels) and media (plastics for cds etc.)
    • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I can't blame him for thinking people need to pay for the music, but his interpretation of those who downloaded it and didn't pay isn't accurate.

      Many are likely to do what I did, download it the first chance they got just to try it (since there was no option to stream it I used the forced option) so there was no way for many of us to hear this music before buying. And it seems many are like me, either they couldn't pay because they didn't like it or they flat couldn't pay; doesn't really matter which.

      Maybe you can see this as many people listening to an artist's works and then telling them to **** off but maybe you should see this as them realizing his music isn't worth anything to them. Then again, maybe not. Sounds like you honestly believe people should pay to listen to an artist they have never heard of and then decide if it was a worthwhile purchase rather then letting them listen first and pay what it is worth second.
  • SzaszMan, on 01/10/2008, -24/+3Trent Reznor's music sucks. That's his problem.
    • Bodhidharmazen, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3There you go, now you can decide what is good and what is not for everybody else. Oh wait, you can't!
      • RepublicansSuck, on 01/10/2008, -2/+0Yeah, I guess going platinum a few times must mean your work sucks and nobody likes it.
    • s1mph0ny, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2It's certainly not for everyone. I wouldn't say it sucks, but it doesn't have a major appeal.
  • getatmedigg, on 01/10/2008, -8/+3What the MPAA and RIAA should do is demand a licensing fee to all torrent trackers/indexers. The tracker sites don't own the content but they are "broadcasting" the whereabouts of content. Almost like those sites are radio stations. This way, some money is distributed to the content owners and the MPAA/RIAA wont feel like ppl are getting free content.
    • illegalcortex, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Your analogy works against you. Would I be taxed for publishing a list of music stores around town? What if I ran a shuttle bus giving rides to concerts?
    • bbqsalad, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1comment removed
  • bingobongony, on 01/10/2008, -6/+28Where the ***** is this guy going where his quarter pounder is $5? You can get the whole Value Meal for that.
    • DreKor, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Mc Donald's in the airport.
    • Seph7, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Seriously though $5 isn't a lot I mean over here in the UK thats about £2.50. I can only just about buy a beer for that. Do I think the album is worth buying the guy a beer... YEA!

      It's not the best album I've ever heard but a lot of the songs are really good and I've had my fair share of listens 8 being the highest play count on any of the tracks, and I'm not even into rap much.The album seems to have a lot more soul (no pun intended) than most of the hip-hop/rap songs you here today and its lyrically very clever.

      Anyway I urge anyone who hasn't already to download it and have a listen, or anyone else who already has it to have a re-listen "skin of a drum" and "No one ever does" are my favorite tracks on the album... and you know if you like it you could buy the guy a UK priced beer.
      • revglenn, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1I think the way you put it, buying the guy a beer, is the best way I've ever heard it put! I got a beer once for doing a good karaoke rendition of White Wedding. I definitely think TR and SW should get at least that much from everyone who got the album.
        • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Since I only downloaded it to give it a listen should I pay? If I should then I know that this business model won't work in the future since many will simply turn back to piracy and find new friends there since you really have to know something is worth any money before you can drop a can of beer.
    • FecalHurler, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1It's about that at some places in NY, where the air you breathe has a price on it.
    • sp00kysu, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's true. A McDonald's Big Mac in NYC is $4 something.... so Reznor is right on that one.
  • Scheissen, on 01/10/2008, -7/+2Pathetic that some people think these morbid taxes are what makes the world go 'round. I only really support the sales tax.
    • s1mph0ny, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Yes, because sales tax makes so much sense.
  • IpsoPhatso87, on 01/10/2008, -4/+16Hmm, it's weird how he is into "forcing" a tax on people now. I still think he is missing the bigger reason for lackluster "sales" of Saul's music. He thinks that the 150K people downloaded it for free and are listening to it on their computer/burned Cd'/MP3 player still. What he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge, is that maybe a lot of people simply didn't LIKE the music, and decided against purchasing a FLAC copy. I don't see why he would want to force people to go back and pay for something that they tried, but legitimately didn't enjoy... If so, he's just as bad as the big record labels.
    • ricree, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2He isn't suggesting forcing anything on anybody. What he suggested is more like an optional fee that would allow you access to a huge amount of legal DRM free music. In practice, I suppose that it would likely take the form of a legitimate private tracker and torrent site that allowed everyone who paid the fee to access pretty a large amount of DRM free music.
      • corranhorn85, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2No, he's talking about a tax. What you're talking about is a service which allows people DRM free music for $5 a month. He's talking about forcing everyone to pay $5 a month extra for their internet connection. If this isn't what he wants then please explain how he can call it a tax?
        • Arawyn, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0Because Trent started the sentence wrong. He used the word tax, it is wrong since he is talking about a flatrate music sharing service charge.
          Lets subtract the mistake in the quote and leave the rest untouched from the article.

          "we can say to the consumer, 'All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want and it's $5 on your cable bill.'"
  • bffoley, on 01/10/2008, -7/+42Wow, nice to see nobody's actually reading the article before posting.

    The TLDR version is: Trent thinks that paying $5 a month for access to ALL music is a good idea. I dont think people who use a music subscription or regularly buy off iTunes disagree with that.
    • gizmo12688, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7wow, somebody who can actually read. yay!
    • Marc39, on 01/10/2008, -3/+9The tax assumes EVERYONE downloads music and taxes everyone. I can guarantee my parents, like many others, have never downloaded any music. Taking $5 from every household that's connected to the net is BS.

      Radiohead did it right. Pay a lil' , none, or full-price. If you put out quality music, the revenue from the downloads, T-shirts, concert tickets, etc WILL pay your bills.
      • bffoley, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1I don't think he's suggesting its a mandatory tax though.
        • sgtpppr, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Then you're just back in the same boat...you'll still have crazy amounts of piracy from people that just don't want to pay at all. Political downloaders and those who want to see 'change' in the industry are by no means the majority of pirates.
        • secrity, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2The article didn't specifically say one way or the other, I got the impression that he wanted it to be mandatory.
        • Arawyn, on 01/11/2008, -2/+0"if you want" == mandatory ???
  • secrity, on 01/10/2008, -2/+8I am not sure what he meant about the ISP "tax". If it is indeed a "tax", that would be a Bad Thing. If the ISP had a contract with the artist or record company to collect payment for the music downloads, that would be fine.
    • ricree, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2Did you actually read the article? What he is proposing would be completely optional.
    • edicius, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2If you read the article it describes it pretty well.
    • sgtpppr, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the ISPs would LOVE to keep up with all the individual contracts from the bazillion artists who want a monthly payment for their work. Bands can make their money touring and such, but still are obsessed with making their money off 'renting' sounds to people.
  • Davolo, on 01/10/2008, -0/+8Didn't like what I heard so I didn't buy it.
    While I partially agree on a tax, instead of record labels we would face greedy ISP's as they find ways to siphon the revenue / get in on the action and again the money would not be going anywhere near the people who created the music.
  • member57, on 01/10/2008, -5/+7Sure tax even those who don't DL music or listen to much of it, what a cool wat to earn money. Let's just take it. Hey, hey I got a greeat idea, I want a tax for porn if I owned a porn site, I wouldn't even need to make good pron, just sit back and count the tax dollars rolling in. Taxing ISPs is not a good idea.
  • dogstar0125, on 01/10/2008, -1/+9Adding a surcharge to your ISP bill for music is an idiotic idea. Then you'll need a surcharge for movies, television shows, and every other form of copyrighted content. I agree that the music and film industries need to figure out how to distribute content in the digital age, but this isn't it.
  • BillDoE, on 01/10/2008, -5/+8I haven't downloaded any music in a few years. Take your ISP music TAX and stuff it where the sun don't shine!
    • gizmo12688, on 01/10/2008, -4/+4He said it was optional you dumbass. RTFA.
    • fugazied, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1So either you have been dolefully shilling out $30AUD a pop for CDs all of these years and are quite a fool for doing so imho, OR you don't understand the internets and related tubes OR you just don't like music.
  • dext3r, on 01/10/2008, -2/+4I like Trent as much as the next guy, but is there anyone else out there that has ideas? I mean, its Trent thinks this, Trent says that.
  • spyrochaete, on 01/10/2008, -3/+3I'm torn on an ISP tax. On one hand it's a blank cheque for piracy. On the other hand it presumes every internet user is guilty. The tax had better be trivial (no more than $2/month) or I'll be completely against it.
    • Pr0phet, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1The way I read it was that if you wanted to download music, pay an extra $5 to the ISP and you're in the clear for all fair use activities. Not that it was a mandatory "tax". Although "tax" certainly implies that.
  • widgetmaker, on 01/10/2008, -1/+5Regardless of the situation with Trent and Sean. The idea of a tax is so so stupid and would give record companies zero incentive to invest in new artists and take risks.
  • offspring06, on 01/10/2008, -1/+14I think Trent overestimated the star power of a relatively unknown muscian. I never even heard of Saul Williams so why would I pay $5 for an album that I may not even like. I think the fact that more people are listening to this album than his last one is a victory in itself. Rome wasn't built in a day so he can't expect Saul to have a massive fanbase yet. Maybe the next album he releases will sell better. I think if Nine Inch Nails releases their next album in a similar fashion than they can expect a far better outcome than what Saul has experienced.
  • plizard, on 01/10/2008, -6/+1this isn't built to last, this is for right now
  • naonao, on 01/10/2008, -0/+15Deep down, it isn't about a cause, it's just about good music, which Trent's little side project lacked. Why would we pay $5 for something that we don't like?
    • jjmckay, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Because apparently musicians can put out anything and we should pay for it. If we don't buy it, they publicly denounce our buying habits and call for us to be taxed by the state, and the state holds the guns to lock us up and/or penalize us. I feel bullied.
  • skullfckr, on 01/10/2008, -1/+10I think Trent's idea is great. And I'm glad he's acknowledging that SauI's work is not as 'popular' as Radiohead - that's a key point. The better, unspoken truth is that Saul's music is just not as good. I downloaded the music with the mind set that I'd be happy to pay $5 for a higher quality if I liked the music. I don't like it. Just not my cup o' tea. So, no $ - it's simple really. Better music, better artists will help this system to work.
    • donte, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Also Radiohead let people pay what they thought the album was worth to them. In the end, they ended up with an average of $6 per album download. I know for me, personally, I don't mind dropping $1 or $2 on something I haven't heard if there's a strong chance I'll like it. But if you gave me a $0 or $5 choice, I'll take the $0 because I'm not going to pay $5 for an artist I haven't heard. And then only if I *really* like it would I have gone back to pay for it. At least for the artist, if I'd hated the album, they would still have gotten my buck or two. It's just that Radiohead got the essence of "pay what it's worth to you" correct. Trent didn't (though I applaud the effort).
  • vvortex3, on 01/10/2008, -4/+3I fully support legalizing and charging additional fees for permission to download copyrighted content. ***** the writer/submitter of this article, you ***** spin artist.
    • jjmckay, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2How can you be sure the taxed dollars are distributed appropriately, openly and fairly? How is that political struggle solved? My bet is any music tax is distributed based on politics and not the quality or popularity of music.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 01/10/2008, -2/+7I love NIN, but Trent Reznor just has to come to terms with reality. Saul Williams sucks and the album sucks. Normally I don't just flat out say music sucks, but I don't think I've heard anyone say they liked the album. Maybe Saul doesn't always suck, I don't know, but that album is no good for sure, I don't care who worked on it. You can't release a bad album with very, very little appeal (or fanbase) and expect people to pay for it. It doesn't matter what business model you are using.

    This music tax is a stupid idea, no one should have to pay for something they won't be using, and very few people are interested in a music subscription service. That's obvious, because they've all failed and iTunes is #1. People want to own their music, period.
    • paulg2000, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3I actually feel like the first 2, or 2.5 songs suck, but after that it's quite good. It's possible that the start of the album was such a turn-off some people never even made it past that.
      • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1I don't think I made it past the third song before I skipped around a bit and then deleted it.
  • Noods, on 01/10/2008, -2/+16I favor Trent Reznor paying the tax himself.
  • gharding, on 01/10/2008, -2/+13Now, if Trent released some of his own ***** this way, I'd pay for it. But Saul Williams? Sorry, it just wasn't that good. I wouldn't mark that as a failure of the distribution method, I'd say it's a musical failure.
    • Refrag, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Agreed! He should release his next project in this manner, be is Year Zero 2 or whatever else has taken his attention away from that concept.
  • neogayjamesdean, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Everyone is saying the album sucked. Weird, I liked it. And the few reviews that it got were generally quite good.
  • KillSudo, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5I will say it again, your art only has value if people are willing to pay something for it. If no one wants to pay then your art only has value to yourself. Music is art. Everyone has a different opinion about what is or is not "good" music. Another is the fact that he seemed to think people should just pay the $5 when he gave them the option not to. Personally if you where not willing to pay I would have only gave you a torrent file to get the CD. If you paid I would have given you a direct .flac or .mp3 of your choosing. There is still a business to run in regards to releasing music online and I personally don't think of trent as a business man. I eventually expect commercials and other advertisements to feature a well known band telling anyone who wants to checkout their new cd to see their website. I also believe stores will stop carrying cds as more bands move to digital distribution.
  • xsquirrel378x, on 01/10/2008, -3/+6funny how everyone is turning against trent all of a sudden and calling him an ***** because of a tax that will never happen, when last week everyone loved him and his progressive attitude toward P2P
    • ninepointfive, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3yeah, I'm a huge fan of his music, but right here he just doesn't seem to get it. The Album Sucked!

      Add insult to injury, he suggests paying a stupid tax? F that!
    • Tweekster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2well he was progressive in offering his album, now he does suck because he wants a TAX
      I think that is quite reasonable.
  • fromonesource, on 01/10/2008, -4/+6Why the ***** should I be forced to pay a "music tax" to cover something I might not even use? I love Trent but this is just a bad idea. We don't need any more taxation in this slave country.
  • Pr0phet, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3As an aside, what a "tax" would not address, however, is how that money gets divvied up to the various artists and various content creators out there. It'd be begging for a bureaucracy as satanic as what we currently have.
    • ontain, on 01/10/2008, -1/+1there's a tax on blank tapes, cd's and dvds. they seem to divvy that up just fine.
  • imaclatchie, on 01/10/2008, -5/+8So Radiohead asks for anything you wanna give... and Reznor asks for $5 specifically for a 'better' version of the album. Then he gets discouraged when he doesn't rake in the profits.

    1. People like to buy 'songs' not albums.
    2. People don't like being blackmailed to get the 'good' version.
    3. In hours, they'll get thte 'good' version for free anyways.
    4. People in the music 'biz' still think that their product is a CD/Album cover-art, case, lyrics... etc. We want to buy music. Good music.
    ... in fact we want it to be like radio, where we don't pay anything to hear it.

    Sheeesh! When will they get it? Put the ads in the songs - hell, sing songs about products and make the company pay for it... cripes! There's a way... find it.
    • and303, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Blackmailed?
      I hate how the supermarket always blackmails me for money when I want to take some groceries home.
      • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Unlike groceries there was no notable loss incurred, what your suggesting is that everyone takes an actual CD and then chooses not to pay rather then just getting a digital copy.
        • and303, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1It's cool that you somehow get free music lessons, instruments, studio time, mastering, and bandwidth. But most artists don't.
    • shredswithpiks, on 01/10/2008, -1/+13. hours???
  • lazyfisherman, on 01/10/2008, -1/+7Some problems with an ISP tax:
    #1 -- there's no guarantee the label musicians will see a single cent of this money, it will first go to pay the same fat cat label executives that screw up the music industry.
    #2 -- If I'm an independent musician, how am I going to get my share of this tax money? There's so many people making music out there and now way to get everyone paid.
    #3 -- The tax might start out small but the MAFIAA will lobby and work to increase it until it becomes very cumbersome and unfair.
    #4 -- Not everyone gives a damn about music or listening to music and it's not fair for them to have to pay this tax. Some people use the Internet for, you know, business that has nothing to do with music.
    #5 -- Music isn't the only thing digital commodity traded on the internet. If the music industry can basically extract money from everyone, why can't the software companies, the music companies and so on.
    #6 -- For many reasons, the music industry as a whole has failed to adapt to the times, music as a product HAS lost value and the industry should die a horrible death... to be reborn in some other form.
    #7 -- You can't force people to like music and pay for it. Niggy Tardust was interesting but not necessarily something a large number of people are going to like and feel the need to pay for. The release was not a new NIN or eagerly anticipated Radiohead album. People also don't know Saul and don't necessarily feel a connection to him. Some of the most successful independent "Internet" musicians right now work hard to develop their fan base. They don't expect people to just hear their music and give them money for no reason. They develop their own little support systems of fans.
  • descentgr, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1this really isn't a bad idea. think about it, if iTunes just charged you a certain price per month and let you download music to your heart's content, that would be a pretty sweet deal.
    • Lyph5, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4So, you mean the rental services (like Napster) that have failed over and over again?
      • descentgr, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1then they could give you a choice. pay per download, or pay one monthly fee. iTunes has more users than Rhapsody or Napster, so it probably has a better chance of succeeding
        • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3The critical failure of montly fees is that once you stop paying they have to pull your music which means DRM. or if they go out of business there goes your music.
          • descentgr, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2why would it be mandatory that they pull your music? i don't think it has to work that way
          • Lyph5, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3descentgr, look up the Napster model of music 'rental.' Using your broken idea, I could sign up for one month, download EVERYTHING, cancel my subscription, and just keep listening to all the music they had for $9.95. Subscription means "When you stop paying, you can no longer use our music."
    • paulg2000, on 01/10/2008, -1/+4You mean, like Rhapsody or Napster?
    • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1To tell the truth, it doesn't matter the fee it is that everyone would pay and every artist would get an equal share - not needing equal marit would simply mean those with no talent or even those with just a tape recorder could get an even slice of the pie.

      Not to mention those who only listen to the radio like my dad, or those who only listen to others music in passing beyond watching TV like my mom would both have to pay for a service they didn't request or have any use for. Not to mention someone like me who tends to only bother obtaining new music every few months would be paying for more then just a service I wouldn't use often enough to make it worth the money but would also be paying for artists I would normally refuse to support at gun point.
  • alkajazz, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Isnt this kind of how radio works?
  • Lyph5, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4Radiohead did better because people know who the ***** Radiohead is. I think that's the long and short of it.

    An established band would do better than a new band, and that's really all that this experiment has shown us.
    • ninepointfive, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2add to this, that people will only pay for what they like
  • Bodhidharmazen, on 01/10/2008, -0/+6Doing the numbers... they sold 28,322 albums at 5 bucks each. That means they made $141, 610 on it. For a basically unknown artist (meaning, he is not in mainstream) I would say numbers are good. Sure, they are not getting millions, but since when more than $100,000 is not good? Maybe the expectations are the fault here, they EXPECTED to get millions out of it? Maybe he should produce some b. spears crap and they will get millions. Who knows.. Besides, what they are doing is pioneering something new, as the years pass they would be able to tell if it works or not. But not now.
    • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2from here on out an artist should count his blessings if he makes any money at all on his album. People will come up with excuses, even subconsciously, to not pay for something. When you start writing someone else's music, then it becomes work, not art. I don't even think and artist will have to pay for bandwidth in the future, though. If you can make money being an artist, congrats. If not, line up at the soup kitchen like millions of other starving artists, or get a real job.
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2If he/she is a true artist then they will probably go on tour because they enjoy people enjoying their music and they enjoy performing. If you are popular you will make lots of money on tickets, If not, you could be on tour in dank bars for years then one day you could become a rock star. The internet works like that sometimes. or you could die relatively unknown and then your music is worth more then gold. Such is the fate of artists.
    • actorboy, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2You've never had to pay costs associated with a month or so of a sound studio, engineers or session musicians, have you? There is no way that money was all -- or possibly even half -- profit.
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2perhaps he should have spent the money on a 100$ microphone, put up some blankets on the walls to absorb echo and edit it in garage band. *****, that's even too expensive for my artist friends. They use an old mix board and a ***** cassette deck to mix their *****.
        • Korlithiel, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Not to mention that's about the quality this sounded like (to me).
    • revglenn, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2You didn't do the numbers completely by any stretch. Several years ago my band went into a studio to cut a four track demo. We are well rehearsed and did not screw up in the studio. All of our music was written long before we got to the studio. We had planned out all the tracks we'd use, what effects we'd use, what was going to be recorded at the same time and what was going to be recorded separately. We severely limited ourselves on time so we could work with our budget. After recording and doing as much mixing as I could afford I walked out of the studio with 4 rough mixes (aka not yet quality enough to release) and a $2000 bill. This was not working with industry known professionals like Atticus Ross. Since then I've sunk almost $10k into a HOME studio complete with a computer that crashes and can't handle more than a couple tracks at once. I once interned at a recording studio that cost over $500 per hour. The producer (and note Reznor only co-produced) costs money. The engineer costs money. The studio costs a freaking fortune. Mastering costs a fortune (I've been quoted up to $600 per hour). Sampling licenses cost money. Then bandwidth costs money. THEN the artists split the cost. Being a musician costs a lot of money. Most people forget this, or never knew it, and if there is anything TR should have said in the interview that he didn't it was the fact that the album probably cost around $100,000 to make. That 140k is not impressive after the cost of recording and releasing a professional quality album independently.
  • pinion417, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4People, it was just an idea he threw out. It makes sense if you think about it. Anybody that wants to download pays 5 bucks a month, not a big deal. Like mentioned above.. everybody loves him and now they hate him.. ***** narrow minded fools. He is the one with the good ideas. ***** the middle man and give the money to the one that deserves it.
    • Tweekster, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0I always thought he was a tool.
      And Tool sucks too
      • neuroelectron2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I guess that's why they make millions of dollars on CDs, T-shirts and tours. All those stereotypical lesbians making out to tool was kinda getting old too.
    • secrity, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2That assumes that it voluntary, the article was not clear on that, especially when the word "tax" is used. Tax NEVER means voluntary.
  • slunktoday, on 01/10/2008, -2/+2Completely against the tax. It would give too much discretion to record labels and ISPs to control access to music on the net, and would leave out independent and new artists.

    Also, how would artists get paid? Would it just be up to the big labels to decide how to distribute their share of the tax? If I'm paying five bucks a month for new music, I want it to go to the artists that I listen to. Not to the crap artists that dominate the top 40.


  • wilcox1010, on 01/10/2008, -3/+4Who the ***** is Saul Williams? That's the problem.
  • dustinmacdonald, on 01/10/2008, -1/+8The $0 option right next to the $5 option, in my mind, hurt the sale. It degraded the value of the music, effectively saying "this music is free, pay $5 if you want." I think Radiohead's was much more effective- you had to literally put in $0.00 at checkout, which left a bit of moral scarring on your conscience.

    There was also the problem of trial downloads ***** up the statistics. But if there was a streaming option, similar to the one on NIN's site for Year Zero when it came out, in addition to a simple "Pay $5", it would have worked much better.
    • wilcox1010, on 01/10/2008, -1/+3I put $0.00 for the radiohead album and never felt better. Actually it sounded better because it was free!
      • Tweekster, on 01/10/2008, -1/+0I found it easier to download on bittorrent, less effort and it was done
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.