The goal is not “donations”, it’s to bring people to the tour, and they’ll probably release a NIN|JA live album after that.

> My only criticism is he kind of steered people into paying for his first major digital release, Ghosts I-IV, when it was released under a Creative Commons license (and hence legally obtainable for free).

I don’t get it. He released the whole album under C-C, released the first part on the trackers himself and let people do what they wanted after that. How’s this a problem?

> But whatever, the point is he made serious, serious money (over a million is my understanding) from this model.

That’s a bit of an understatement: Ghosts I-IV grossed $1.6 million *over the first week*, with almost half that being the Ultra Deluxe EP (2500 copies at $300 each, sold out in 3 days).

> I mean normally a band doesn’t own their music but the label and RIAA do…

NiN’s contract with their label ran out after Year Zero, which is something Reznor was waiting for (and he clearly said it). Then he started experimenting. NiN is currently independent and self-produced (and will more than likely stay that way).

> I wonder how they are licensing it

I don’t know for NIN|JA (didn’t find any information), Ghosts I-IV was released under a creative commons license (Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike), and so was The Slip

> Trent understands direct marketing well… if done correctly, this approach offers plenty of scope for future sales (tickets to shows/ t-shirts, autographs and other non-torrent memorabillia). He understands that e-mails are digital currency.

They don’t use them (and it’s specified clearly on the website), the emails are exclusively to send the download links. Ghosts and The Slip worked the same, never got any other mail from NiN until I subscribed to the newsletter, and even the newsletter is *very low* traffic.