TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

RIAA ‘Protects’ Radiohead’s In Rainbows

In 2007 Radiohead sent a shockwave through the music industry by allowing fans to download their new ‘self-released’ album ‘In Rainbows’ for whatever price they wanted to pay, including nothing. Fast-forward three years and the RIAA and IFPI are sending takedown notices to people who share that album online. What happened?

After sitting out their contact with EMI, Radiohead self-released their latest album ‘In Rainbows’ and gave fans the option to download it for the price they felt comfortable paying. Not only was this one of the best promotional campaigns of the last decade, it also brought in serious money.

Radiohead said that the scheme made more money online than all of their other albums combined. The band was obviously proud that they had bypassed the major labels successfully. In the years that followed the band members lobbied for more rights for artists, and less power for the labels.

Last year, Radiohead and several other well known artists formed a lobby group with the aim of ending the extortion-like practices of record labels and allowing artists to gain more control over their own work. The artists were unhappy with the fact that the labels, represented by lobby groups such as the RIAA and IFPI, push their anti-piracy agenda without consulting the artists they claim to represent.

Going after fans is not the solution to the problems the industry is facing, they argued.

Considering the above, it came as a surprise to us when we found out that the RIAA and IFPI are still taking anti-piracy measures on behalf of Radiohead. Both the RIAA and IFPI have been sending out takedown notices to Google (RIAA, IFPI), urging it to disable blogger accounts and filter search results where Radiohead’s ‘In Rainbows’ is offered for free. What went wrong here?

Although some people think that the ‘In Rainbows’ album is still available for free, the free offer really only lasted a few months. After that, the revolutionary ‘pay-what-you-want’ model was traded in for traditional licensing schemes with major labels.

In Rainbows was once ‘free’

in rainbows

The download versions of the album are still self-released, but for the physical copies Radiohead teamed up with record labels such as Warner and Sony. Because of these deals, major record labels now have the ‘rights’ to a piece of ‘In Rainbows’ and they are using this power to take down copies that are distributed online without their authorization.

It is of course ironic that an album that was once seen as the next step towards a new business model in the music industry, is now heavily protected by industry anti-piracy bodies. On the other hand, it is doubtful if the takedown requests are actually legitimate because the labels have the rights to physical distribution, not digital.

TorrentFreak contacted a Radiohead representative to discuss RIAA and IFPI practices but they declined to comment. Still, with all the sensible comments the band’s members have made about sharing in the past, we assume that they don’t approve of the tactics employed by the RIAA and IFPI. Or do they?

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • A. Robert Pisano

    It is RIAA’s law!

  • thinksA

    Artist Lobby groups?
    Sounds awesome!

  • anon878

    “declined to comment”

    i wonder why

  • autumn

    perhaps having made a nice load of cash from doing things the right way for their fans, Radiohead have decided that a more hassel-free option is to now trade those fans back to the copyright industries ideas. maybe they were threatened with ‘you’ll never work in this town again’ or similar comment. or maybe they have just substituted ‘Radio’ for another prefix to ‘head’ and are giving fans ‘the finger’? shame! had hoped for a permanent change of ideas

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention RIAA ‘Protects’ Radiohead’s In Rainbows | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • so

    I think I’ve just puked a little in my mouth…

  • duane

    “it is doubtful if the takedown requests are actually legitimate because the labels have the rights to physical distribution, not digital”

    That hits the nail on the head. Every time there is a discussion about piracy, a publisher representative will chime in and say “hey, download/stream/ebook is a different product from physical/CD/book”. They are clearly selling the same product as different products so we have to buy it more than once.

    Well, in this case that should come back to bite them in the arse. Unless Radiohead aren’t telling us the whole story, the RIAA are enforcing rights they don’t own, and their DMCA requests were bogus.

    Unfortunately, with stupid and unbalanced laws like the DMCA, while they have draconian anti-circumvention clauses for the consumers, they have no punishment for sending fake takedown notices for rights holders…

  • jovialau

    Money money money…Must be funny…….In a rich man`s world

  • Chance

    Radiohead is a joke. The whole thing was a buzz generator for the traditional sales model anyway. They never meant for the pay-what-you-want model to be the future of all their sales. And people forget that their experiment quickly gave way to pre-designed traditional sales of the same album, a deal that was IN PLACE during the experiment as well. Radiohead essentially proved that the traditional model remains the strongest, especially for greedy bands like themselves.

  • klitoratii

    the RIAA can suck my cock as far as im concerned.

  • Aidan

    Well Nine Inch Nails released the album The Slip online 100% free, and then released a physical version using their own label for people that like “stuff”, like me. The download is still available for free online on nin.com.

    They did the same/similar thing as Radiohead for the album Ghosts I-IV and made a fuck-ton of money. At least NIN sticks to their guns.

  • Strider

    Interesting, either this was a whole ploy to get popularity and now they got the money from said ploy they are reverting back to their old business model which is with the record companies, and the fact they declined to comment is also strange.

    On a side note thats interesting they are still part of FAC, I wonder if their fellow members will say about this.

  • Anonymous

    RIAA Eat My Poop !!!

  • ninfan3000

    Of course, NIN’s “free” albums will be free forever. :)

  • ninfan3000
  • sss

    Dickhead!

  • Whatever

    “Declined to comment” is even weaker than the extorsion groups answer to their website being stolen by another extorsion group.

    I think assuming they don’t approve is probably totally wrong. Most people would have been furious or angry and would have given some emotional comment. The most passive people would have been stunned and at the very least asked some serious questions about it to the interviewer (what,when,where,who).

    Seems to me that they might have done a publicity stunt, were bribed by the labels to bury it (MAFIAA even bribes Swedish policeman so artists shouldn’t be too difficult), were not all that honest or it was a plan to make filesharers lose some money.

    Anyway, the answers are in the future and i hope i got it wrong.

    @TF: Did you try putting the simple question “Do you approve yes or no” to them after the declined comment. Still refusing to answer is the same as approving. If they didn’t approve they would have wanted to have it cleared up asap.

  • Bunny

    If it is indeed the case that the copyright zealots are abusing rights which aren’t theirs to abuse, I suggest that torrentfreak (or radiohead?) sends an enormous settlement demand ($200k per infringemnt?)on behalf of the bloggers affected.

    But then I’m a poetic bastard. :D

  • e m u l e

    It sounds like they used us when we were giving them money (donations for the albw) then after they made more than they ever did on this one, greed kicked in and they sold out to the mafiaa. I hate sellouts because they are lowlifes (although rich often) who prey on others and hurt people that really care (unlike themselves it seems as they don’t care). Their true face is finally revealed and its a beast.

  • Tomas

    Clearly they released a pay-what-you-wish model at release time to compete with piracy and to get some publicity.

    After the first few weeks/months of release it’s not the avid fans who are pirating, it’s people who probably aren’t that interested in them and wouldn’t pay to listen. So they retract their scheme and go to physical sales. That opens up the gift purchase market and whatever else generates physical sales months after release.

    But that’s only my opinion.

  • Sketch@1337x.org

    Epic FAil

  • …

    Curious, which license was the pay-what-you-wish download distributed with? Creative Commons, the usual copylocked? if the former, there really is no issue with sharing since the CD and the former download are inherently different products.

  • Ninja

    It is true that the labels have the infra-structure to produce and distribute physical copies with ease. Under that optic it’s only natural they’d look for help with the physical sales – fans will want to have the physical goods and will generate fair revenue depending on how famous you are, no discussions here.

    There’s when copyright goes awfully wrong. MAFIAA is pretty possessive and they assumed that since they have the rights to sell physical copies they are now to Radiohead what God is tho the universe. That’s wrong, plain wrong and it’s the reason copyright laws need serious revising.

    In the comments here the abuses with the copyright laws blessings are cited and you can see many other abuses like ACS scheme, teenagers, moms and grandmas being ruined and so on. We need a reform asap. Unfortunately, MAFIAA is run by human beings and the human being is know for having a thing for money. That’s why there’s the need to make copyright more balanced. As it is now it protects neither creativity nor creators in most cases, it protects who owns the copyrights – and the owner isn’t always good enough to give the money to the ones that deserve it.

  • Pirat

    Radiohead = Sellouts.

    They MAFIAA will take cartel-ism to the next level as they work with the globalist for world government.

  • harry krishna

    i see it on btjunkie. fired it up and killed when i got to 59 seeds and d/ling like a sob. alive and well, i’d say.

  • 15 Step

    You used to be alright
    What happened?
    Did the cat get your tongue
    Did your string come undone

  • Ano

    What if the file shared is a “copy” of the free-to-download album?

  • Here we go.

    WOW what f*cking sell outs,

    Fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck your bull shit music.

    We can now see it was all just a ploy to get more money.

    turn your back on the internet, and watch yourself get FUCKED. GET READY. YOU. ARE. FUCKED.

  • Anonymous

    Here we see that everything is illegal no matter what the author says initially.

    We all should just close our Internet accounts.

  • Anonymous

    “Unfortunately, MAFIAA is run by human beings and the human being is know for having a thing for money.”

    I would not call “human being” this news specie of parasites.

    But fortunately they are vulnerable.
    Honey, give me the pest killer spray.

    Thanks.

    Pchit! Pchit! Pchit!

    Ha! That’s better.

  • Anonymous

    Of course Radiohead doesn’t approve of the tactics being used by the RIAA. But, after signing a traditional record deal, they can’t really complain about it.

  • Nine Inch Nails

    NIN did it better then Radiohead,

    and didnt sell out either.

  • dncholas

    I no longer care. They can sue me for all I care. I think it would be funny to go to court for downloading a movie that sucked, cause they all do. I’ve watched every new movie that’s come out for a long time and 99% I either watch once and delete or can’t even finish the movie and delete. Maybe if they made good movies they’d make more money. I use to buy tons of dvd’s and only a few were keepers. Just a waste of money.

  • Anonymous

    Riaa – This album is protected under copyright laws.

    Me – I got this for free when radio head was giving it away. Im an sharing something i got for free, legally.

    Riaa – This album no longer obtainable for free.

    Me – Grandfather clause.

    The grandfather clause is a clause that states that some items that are illegal to buy and own are legal to buy and own only if you obtained it before it was made illegal. If you obtain the item from another person, it is legal to own only if it was made before it was deemed illegal.

  • X

    Opps. Forgot something.

    Since their is no viable way of tracked what ‘illegal’ copy orginated from a legal cd then their is no way to determine if the download was a download of the free version or of it was a download of the later, ‘protected’ versions.

  • zarathustra

    Don’t leave me high,
    Don’t leave me dry…

    Come on, Radiohead. Sort this inanity out. You made more with the ‘pay-what-you-want, even-nothing’ model of distribution for ‘In Rainbows’ than you did for all of your prior LP releases put together!

    I expect better of you lot…

  • x86

    As a huge Radiohead fan this is a huge disappointment.

  • zenithmaster

    @ The people who cannot read:

    Radiohead said that the scheme made more money online than all of their other albums combined.

    Obviously “online” is the key word here. I am all for sharing and “pay-what-you-can-afford”, but, still, it is ridiculous to think that they would make more money by releasing an album online than all their previous efforts.

  • x86

    @37 – Yes I agree that more than likely they were saying that the total number of units moved of their previous albums in digital sales combined, surpassed that of the total number of units moved in digital sales of previous albums combined.

    That statement seemed overly complicated. I hope that makes sense.

  • Klesus

    “The artists were unhappy with the fact that the labels, represented by lobby groups such as the RIAA and IFPI, push their anti-piracy agenda without consulting the artists they claim to represent…”
    “…Considering the above, it came as a surprise to us when we found out that the RIAA and IFPI are still taking anti-piracy measures on behalf of Radiohead.”
    What’s so surprising about it??

  • glaringradiokid

    It seems here that most people think because they got the album under the ‘pay what you feel’ scheme, they then have the rights to freely distribute the album to anyone on the Internet. Which isn’t the case and you’re a moron if you think that way.

    As to the issue of the RIAA coming back on this and trying to claim rights to these digital copies, well, I’d say Radiohead haven’t a part to play in this, its just the big headed organisation think it knows best as usual.

    Still though, everyone here completely denouncing Radiohead because not only do you want their music for free when they’re asking you what its worth, but you also think everyone else should have it for free, that’s a bit rich.

    If the band wanted their music floating around the Internet for free they would have done what NIN did. I wonder if the people who chucked Radiohead a fiver or a tenner are all up in arms about this and declaring the band sell-outs. I bet they aren’t!

  • Thunder

    Well, that means, I’m going to download this marvel right away this verry evening!

    Thanks for brining it to my attention.

    AND I WILL NEVER EVER BUY THE CD IN THE STORE supporting the f***ing labels with my money. I’ll rather donate to Radiohead for what ever reason.

    Damn you labels, you will not get ONE DIME from me for your f***ing CD printing “rights”.

  • J

    Radiohead what the?

  • Pingback: RIAA ‘Protects’ Radiohead’s In Rainbows | Systema

  • mister_playboy

    Not only are NIN’s free releases still available, but Trent went one step farther. When legal issues with his former labels were preventing him from releasing material (such as the Broken movie DVD), he just posted the stuff on to The Pirate Bay to get around the mess. For him, letting people enjoy his work was the most important thing.

    It’s rather pathetic that more artists haven’t stepped up to do what Trent did back then and toss the labels aside… he was even more ahead of the game than I would have guessed.

  • StevO

    Its probaly because they want Royalties for the next 99 years. What would happen if a car commercial picked up one of their songs for commercial use 20 years from now. Thats probably why they did what they did. Im sure they feel the need to have the RIAA on their side in the LONG run. Plus everytime a radio station plays a their song. Royalties I think they would lose by releasing it ONLY by themselves.

  • scott

    Hi highly doubt Radiohead the band has any idea this was happening. Sounds like over zealous schmuck lawyers overstepping their bounds.

  • StevO

    NIN prabably have figured out that MONEY isnt everything. They are probably as rich as they want to be and make music because they actually enjoy it and also being involved in the scene. Thats something that the RIAA can never be is RICH enough to just simply enjoy their wealth and do things simply because they enjoy it. Its aways a revovling door and someone has to get paid, all the time. Someday I would hope that every artist would simply by-pass the RIAA entirely and take on the thought that a few million bucks in ENOUGH money for anyone. But people just dont think like that. They want to live like theres no tomarrow everyday, for the rest of their lives from a single successful song. And they expect the RIAA to make it happen. The RIAA has figured out that not every band is going to be Paul Mcartney for them, that generates millions of dollars every year, for the next 100 years like the Beatles and Elvis and Jackson. Instead they milk every dollar they can get by signing crap assed artists by the thousands.

  • MishMish

    Funny how some people are jumping to conclusions on this. You can’t expect Radiohead’s management to comment on something like this until they have time to investigate the legality of the RIAA’s claims, and lets face it, the kind of people who work for these lobbyists are the kind that will make non-legitimate claims just cause they can’t be bothered to sort out what music they actually represent. They likelihood is that some labels have a rights over the physical copies of In Rainbows, but not digital and I think this is where the RIAA and IFPI have made a mistake.

    Radiohead have always refused to let companies use their music for commercials, and refuse advertisements at their live shows, therefore those suggesting that Radiohead are trying to make as much money as possible are just crazy cause their love of money isn’t as strong as some others ie. U2, Coldplay. The fact is Radiohead shook up the music industry and it had to be Radiohead, more than perhaps anyone else because of the respect and influence they have on the whole industry, to send a message to the big labels, the music business has changed so get off your fat arses and move with it, and for that Radiohead should be thanked.

  • Pingback: La RIAA y la IFPI no quieren que compartas In Rainbows de Radiohead | ALT1040

  • Pingback: La RIAA y la IFPI no quieren que compartas In Rainbows de Radiohead | Tuiter.com

  • Broke HitMan

    They shut it down because reality set in! Music isn’t free. Who do you think pays for equipment, recording time, mastering, artwork?

    Welcome to reality. I can’t wait for the day when they start knocking on people doors for file sharing.

  • Pingback: Dunedinmusic.com Industry Blog » Blog Archive » In Rainbows: Not free - Musings on the music industry by Dunedinmusic.com's thinkers.

  • Pingback: La RIAA y la IFPI no quieren que compartas In Rainbows de Radiohead | Las mejores web en español

  • Pingback: La RIAA y la IFPI no quieren que compartas In Rainbows de Radiohead | El gato de Schrödinger.com

  • Pingback: Y’a t-il jamais eu une offre légale sur Internet ? « le mot du Cwicket

  • Pingback: Radiohead regaló su disco “In Rainbows”. Ahora no lo puedes compartir | En corto sabe mejor

  • Oh No!

    Search: Radiohead – All Drives

    Found 3 files…

    Delete… Re-Write space 4 times.

    Done… Radiohead eliminated.

    Thanks TF, another sellout eliminated from my HDD’s.

  • Anonymous

    “TorrentFreak contacted a Radiohead representative to discuss RIAA and IFPI practices but they declined to comment.”

    FFFFUUUUUUUU!!!! Radiohead!

  • Pingback: Bloggers ordered to remove Radiohead material | SCOT NETWORK

  • Pingback: Bloggers ordered not to share ‘free’ album | news

  • Pingback: Bloggers ordered not to share ‘free’ album | Scot Network

  • Pingback: Rainbow’s end | The Arts Blogs

  • Pingback: Bloggers ordered not to share ‘free’ album | We-found-it

  • Pingback: In Rainbows now, In Rainbows then… | Continental Cyberlaw

  • RadioHeadjob

    The band sucks, their ploy failed, RIAA takes it in the (!)

  • RadioHeadjob

    The band sucks, their ploy failed, RIAA takes it in the (!)

  • d

    you know what I find funny is that a couple people are calling radiohead sellouts, but I am sure if you were in the same situation to make a ton of money i’m sure all of you would do the same.
    I sure know I would

  • Pingback: RIAA goes after Radiohead MP3’s that were once free | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics

  • EyeSeeSound

    Three points:

    1) It just shows that Major labels still haven’t cottoned on to the reality that a) anyone can download anything when they want and it can’t be stopped and b) getting free mp3s of something good can lead to physical sales (there are studies, don’t ask me where or what, but they exist… though Trent is a sound example and not the only one)

    2) We are nobodies. We know an indie distributor who distributes through Universal. We can get our CDs to the world. We also have an online shop. We are nobody. Radiohead could have chosen any of these options and walked the talk (like Trent), so in some ways yes, they did sell out.

    3) I paid £0 for In Rainbows because I couldn’t charge them the £35 I paid for Thief, Kid Arse and Amnesiac. I listened to it twice then deleted it. It’s quite funny the Majors have paid to manufacture and promote a shit record that anyone who actually wants it has already got it… ha ha, maybe the ‘Head are more subversive than we think… bringing ‘em down from the inside :)

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.