Comments on: Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5?

In an exclusive interview, the Nine Inch Nails front man said his realization that fans think "music should be looked at as free" was a bitter pill to gulp down.

[sismoc]

Even Trade - Copyright Reform == ISP Tax

If Copyright was reformed to reduce the current "life plus 70 years" to a more reasonable 7 or 14 year period then a tax on ISPs would be palatable.

As long as Copyright is forever, then to h*ll with the Copyright holders.

[volterwd]

Eff that

Copyright should be reduced as you said but I sure as hell will not pay for something I don't use to prop up failing business models.

[Drpixelphd2]

Pro Copyrights Here

What a F'd Up Way to look at that! You create something from your mind and then others steal it and give it away! Or sell it and take money from your pocket. You must be a total idiot. These musicians work very hard to make music for all of us to enjoy. Support them, buy their music or go make your own. Everything on my comp is PAID for! Thousands of songs in Super High bit rip, Not junk MP3's! To be exact, I have 2147 songs that were PAID FOR! Nearly a full 250 gig drive. Get a job and buy your music like most honest people do!!!

[Leria]

Copyright reform would be a good tradeoff

for an ISP tax. Really, I don't understand why copyright for movies and music (not on games, games are only 15 years still) were so damn high, considering that most movies are watched once and never turn into 'classics'.

Now, if a movie becomes a classic and is recognized as such, THEN the copyright should be extended to 25-50 years and only in that case.

[c|net Reader]

Why Should I Pay the Tax?

The problem with an ISP tax is that it should apply per song, not a flat rate. Otherwise, a person that -- gasp! -- doesn't download music will subsidize those who do. That system will benefit the artists, but not those who don't download. The problem with a per-song tax is that the ISPs must add functionality to track song downloads, identify the song and the user downloading it, and then add the tax to the user's bill. They won't like having to do that.

How do you make the tax fair?

[Chaku01]

Fine tuning

I think Trent's comments make sense, as nothing can replace physical ownership of the music, with less probability of failure than a hard drive on a device. You can "feel" you bought and own it, put it away in a safe place, and if properly treated, should last your lifetime. An Ipod or computer will not last that long.

With regard to the sales numbers, I wouldn't be so negative. It was a first try, and lessons can be learned. Offering the music for free download is a necessity in my view, besides food (even then, sometimes you can...), what can't you try before buying? Offering a very low quality free download (64, not 128) should be offered another high quality one (192 - 250) for 10$ and maybe the 3rd option being the Quality download and a CD shipped (15$?). In any case, the high quality downloads should be under CD quality (under 320) to keep the CD appeal higher.

Another reason not to be so negative, is that this experience has probably brought the music to an audience not acquainted with the artist's music. People not used to illegaly download music by any way, might have been tempted (by all the media buzz)to download and listen to the album for free, potentially broadening Saul's fan base.

But I'm not a fool, I know most people will tend to download without paying, the reason being the kind of society we live in and human nature. Eventually, only a few songs would be offered for free (64) and the album for a very competitive price. Personally, if my favorite artists released an album in this way, I would pay 15$ without hesitating.

[PortVista-19095313035016904102]

So do I get $5 for putting up my music?

I still don't want my copyrighted stuff available for free -- am I going to get a piece of this $5? Riiight. There are plenty of services out there if you want to pay for music. If not, download it for free.

[sadchild]

not the answer trenty

what you're basically proposing trent is communism/socialism.

if i make a jigsaw puzzle with my own hands and it costs me $5 in supplies and 2 hours of my time, and i turn around and sell it for $50, that's how i recoup and profit, therefore being able to feed my family. i don't expect a "puzzle tax" to take its place.

it costs money to make this music. my album cost $1400 in the studio. now it's up to me to recoup that based on the idea that i have confidence in the music.

better artists deserve better profits and the ability to continue to make music. poor artists will invest $1400 and not get it back. that's the sign to stop doing it.

[billmosby]

One who gets it

Thanks, sadchild. The idea of an ISP tax seems ok until you think it
through. Then, as you imply, you realize that it could lead to our
being swamped by a tide of mediocre musicians. There is one
example of someone making money on a concept involving
mediocre musicians- American Idol. How'd we like it if their
"feedstock" were all treated equally by some government-financed
distribution system?

[gsekse]

One mistake

The mistake was the free download, instead, offer the album for download at $3-4. if you get the same download amount, that is about half a million dollars. I don't know what costs are for an Internet distributed album, but it can't be too bad. The next thing is purely subjective. What is the artist worth? Some painters get a million dollars for one painting. Other sell their work for $100 one.

Question is, should all muscians expect to make millions of dollars a year? Minstrals of bygone years barely kept stayed alive.

Artists can be very arrogant about what they should make in this world. Even after making millions and then blowing it on crap, they whine again and again. I gave up music because of this. I have my vinyl records, I digitized them to mp3. I enjoy my collection.

[blsith]

Take Rate

The question is - how many of those people were in a demographic that would have usually bought the album? I think Trent took the wrong attitude about the whole thing. How many promotional discs would the label send out to radio stations on the rare hope they got any airtime?

I'd guess 50% of the people downloaded it because it was free, and maybe 50% of those (25% total) actually have given it a full listen. 25% of the total probably downloaded it because Trent was involved, and gave it a cursory listen to see what it was like.

His response is similar to saying "100 million people listened to my music on the radio for free, and only 8% bought the album". The $5 price tag for download only I personally think is about the right price for good content, especially if there is no extra media with it. Include a PDF with "liner notes" type of deal, maybe some exclusive wallpapers and a code to get the music videos or whatever when they become available, you have a good price.

Self promotion is just that. If he was at the local flea market trying to peddle the album for $5, bet he wouldn't have gotten the take rate he did.

[boopiejones]

i agree

if you don't like the idea of giving away something for free, put a pricetag on it that you feel is fair for parting with it. a large % of people will not pay for something that they know they can legally get for free. that isn't just the way of the world, but it is downright common sense.

[zyxxy]

ISP tax for music??

I do not download any music from the net.

I still buy my CDs from the local shop. Yes, I rip them for my car and my MP3 player, but I don't share them.

So why should I pay a net tax to support music downloads when I personally derive no benefit from it? Hands off my wallet, okay? Your idea sounds a little bit like social collectivism and feels a bit like a mugging.

By the way, I own a couple of NIN CDs, so Trent buddy, you have already gotten a chunk of my change. Thanks for the music by the way, I am not ungrateful for hearing it.

[Leria]

It is social collectivism

But let's face facts: most people download music off the net illegally. Personally, if a song is available on say, Itunes or Yahoo Music Unlimited (which I have a streaming subscription to), I don't download it.

But I DO download Japanese albums that I cannot find in the United States and that would be too expensive to have shipped over here (I looked, near 40 dollars for one CD with international shipping).

[fuzzikitten]

No option to pay more than $5

One mistake was limiting the donation price to $5. Personally I would have been happy to pay double that for a Saul release (and even more for a NIN release). I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

They should have offered the low-quality download at a 'donation' price, and the higher-quality version at the named $5 price.

Trent's also right about following up with a material CD release - people still want to buy cover art and CDs to put on the shelf. If the album is solid musically, then odds are I'm going to want to buy a 'real' version - especially after I've listened to it a few times.

Use the inexpensive medium of the Internet to get the album out there to as many people as possible while still offering CDs for sale.

Then cash in on concerts. ;)

Best of luck Mr. Reznor; your way up there on my list.

-Alex

[Ushiikun]

Concerts

Correct me if I'm wrong (I have no experience in the music business), but don't most artists make their money from concerts, not CD\Album sales?

If I'm right, the only reason artists have for making albums is to get people to come to their concerts. If they gave the music away, they don't lose much, and they could greatly increase their audience at concerts.

[umbrae]

Glad I don't listen to NiN

This would definitely push me away from the band. Since I do not listen to or download music, I am not willing to pay a music tax on my internet and would fight it harshly.

[thescale]

So am I...

I'm glad you don't listen to NIN either.

If that's the only thing you took away from this interview, you are clearly a moron.

[NProszkow]

You don't...

listen to or download music? I find that VERY hard to believe. You might not live on torrent sites or iTunes, but music is around us EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY. Music is in movies, music is in elevators, music is on the radio.

I have a bias because I am a musician. Can you even try and imagine a day without ANY music? It is virtually impossible to do and really hard to comprehend. So I do not agree with or apparently do not understand your comment.

I think if an artist has a good album it should be posted for people to hear time and again. (for free) If the artist needs money, GO ON TOUR and perform live. I already paid for the computer / MP3 player that plays your 0's and 1's. As an artist, go out and PLAY for people, the one's who support your $200,000 cars... I do agree with fighting against a "community" tax. A complete waste of time and energy. I do agree that record labels are cheats, liars, and overfed executives.

A tax on ISP's for music is almost a communist idea. Does that mean that rock stars, who are used to 20 million dollar homes will go to a "community agreed" salary around 50-80k a year? No chance. There is no way to equally distribute money.

That is my all my ranting and raving, let me know who agrees and / or disagrees.

[basraw]

Saul Williams album - an acquired taste and NOT mainstream..

probably 4/5ths of the people deleted the music ASAP.

I listened to it for about 3-4 weeks. I had fun listening to the N word a lot.

lyric refrain quote: "The trigger is you, the n* is you"

This album did the same amount of business as previous Saul Williams album released the old way.

[sy85ps]

Out of the entire interview...

full of ideas, THAT was the choice for a headline? It seems like something he just mentioned off the top of his head rather than an actual idea he was promoting.

[arluthier]

Article Title Misleading...!

Sure Trent mentions a tax in a hypothetical statement. But that spot where he mentioned it was only 58 words long... in an article over 1850 long!

This wasn't about taxes. It was about their experience in pushing the envelope and making real information public. Radiohead and the media touts some overly impressive numbers for their experiment. I had questioned how well that had actually worked... how with Trent's information I question it even more.

I would venture to guess that the $5 download would have been more widely taken advantage of it had been a band that someone was aware of. I had never even heard of the artist mentioned until this article, much less heard anything by him. Now if it had been NIN I would have jumped on it.

Wonder why Trent didn't push this out with NIN instead? Maybe NIN is still under a record label's thumb somehow. Even though they are "free agents".

Fan-boy Disclaimer: I have been a NIN fan since '89.

[arluthier]

NIN will release in the same manner...

I should have looked this up before I posted. Trent has said that he would release the next NIN album in this manner as well.

As I said before. I will buy a $5 NIN album in a heartbeat.

[tux_warrior]

We Already Have a Tax to support Artists

Don't we call it Welfare?
9 out of 10 artists never make a dime for their work, sad but true. I'm not talking just musicians either. The artists I know do it because they love it, they don't sit around wondering when their big check will come rolling in. They sit around and wonder how they can improve their craft so their craft will sell itself, or just so others will enjoy it.
Put out something that people will like and your problem will be solved, Radiohead figured it out pretty quickly. The best way to get what you want in what you do is to......NOT SUCK at it.

[cybervigilante]

It's all about ROI

Yeah, but the record labels have to get back the millions they spend "creating" someone like Britney. Hype costs money.

[oxtail01]

Max BS

What a bunch of crock! So called "artists" who only do it for love is because they're not good enough to get enough people to pay for it. People pay "artists" because they realize the "love" that's been put into their craft and is a way of showing appreciation and love. You're NOT addressing the problem of artists putting out something people like but ARE NOT getting paid for it. Do you think people illegally download or ripping something they DON'T like?

[Renegade Knight]

Marketing

I think he's got one thing right. Physical Media is a good thing. Digital is disposale. Physical...lasts a big longer until the technology changes. CD's may be on a downhill slide but they do sell and they sell to people who are not buying digital.

You have to cover all the bases to capatalize on the entire market. One of those bases is physical media. Another is WHERE you distribute. I buy on Amazon. Not on a lone website. Yeah, Amazon will get a cut, but it's also a sale that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

[SynTBC]

Keep your stinking music

Trent,

I own many CD's. I have never downloaded an MP3. Ho about you keep your stinking music and I DONT pay an extra $5 to my ISP for something I will never use and don't want. Do not tell me to pay for some luxury I don't want or need.

Thanks!
Syn

[thescale]

Great post.

You're so clever.

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

Ugh...

This is the sort of insipid stupidity that lead to the current situation with media. "No no, I don't want to have to pay a fixed 'tax' rate on anything; let the companies set their own prices and if I want it, I'll get it!"

Then when you want to get it, you complain about how expensive it is...

[Robbo75]

Why do people steal music?

Trent, you forgot a couple of MAJOR reasons people "steal":

1. They bought the album and it got scratched.
2. It's possibly their third time buying the album due to scratching, breaking, or friends walking away with it.
3. They're tired of having CD's all over their car and living room.
4. Most music offered online has caviets over how many times you can copy it or on how many computers it can be transfered.
5. It's difficult to find sample rates over 128kbps in legit stores, but through other sources one can easily find 320k sample rates.
6. Tired of format wars. Whether I own a Zune or iPod should be irrelevant. I just want to listen to my music.

I could keep going.

[oxtail01]

where's the logic?

None of your "reasons" have anything to do with "stealing". Stealing is a criminal act and the reasons you give is just an excuse for people engaging in an illegal activity. When did the sense of "entitlement" start pervading our society so much?

[inachu]

I agree 100%

I have countless scratched cd's
I would be in the poor house for the homeless if each time I sat on,broke,scratched,dropped,heat warped and went and bought a new CD.

That is pure insanity.
If there is to be truth in honesty in purchasing then I would like for example ITUNES to notice that I already downloaded a song or movie and it will notice that My pc was reimaged.
It appears your itunes music/movie folder is empty even though you had previous purchases.
Would you like to redownload your music/movie library for a nominal one time fee? To get back all my music and movies after a pc crash to me would be worth $20! to redownload them again.

[TREOdeJaneiro]

Why do "I" end up stealing music?

I think he said, "Why do I end up stealing music?" So let's see... Looks like kharma has bit him in the a$$!

[leemazurek]

I previewed then bought the album

I downloaded the free low res version of this album and listened to it with my roommate. I decided that the album was novel, and had enough good tracks to warrant another listen. Then I purchased the album.

What I don't get according to this article is how my stats were counted. I intentionally used the same email address for the free version and the purchase so that they could correctly account for me. Hopefully they were smart enough to put me as one in the paid column (and 0 in the unpaid).

I then played the album for my roommate and my brother because I thought some of the tracks were cool and I am 100% in favor of buying DRM free lossless encoded music directly from the artist. In fact I told my girlfriend not to buy the pre-release In Rainbows album online because the product they were selling was not equivalent to a CD (why should she pay CD prices for something that is not as good as a CD).

[cybervigilante]

netonomics 101

This is something the greedy media corporations just don't get. I see Fox, et al, busy pulling clips from YouTube. They're getting Free advertising for every stupid ten minute clip, but they just don't see it, because they're eaten up with lawyerism. Dinosaurs is right. They deserve to die if they wont' get with the new netonomic model

[wahoospa]

Why should I pay - I don't download music

This is not fare. Millions upon millions don't download music so why should they pay and ISP $5.00 a month. I don't download any music. Sounds like an UNFAIR TAX.

[RacerX7]

Who said the Music/Movie industry was fair?

The most certainly are not! The problem is they've been getting away with it for years. Now technology has changed in such a manner that they can no longer keep their stranglehold on the media.

Case in point: in 1983 a CD cost about $20. At the time the recording industry stated the price, which was about double that of a vinyl LP or plastic cassette tape, would go down as production cost went down.

They never did...today that same CD is still $20, yet cost only pennies to make. Even taking inflation into account, they are still waaay over priced.

The RIAA and its ilk are just evil.

[ibetumiss]

Yes, but like Trent Mentions
I bet you own a cell phone and pay money for the 'service' of that 4-1-1. Your ISP won't tell you, they will just charge you. Point is if all of them charge your going to have to subject to it like the 4-1-1 almost if not every phone charges for it so what are you going to do stop using a cell?. So in fact the tax would be wrong yes but still would be applied if they really wanted to.

As for Trent I think he had good intentions it's just that sometimes you cannot make money from good intentions.
I agree that people will just steal the music. But i don't think the solutions lies in just giving away music and expecting people to be "humble" and pay (although some might). Like he says he thought people where going to say 'it's good, what the heck ill pay the 5 bucks" but he forgets that not everyone is like that. The solutions might just be as previous people have said to make money off of Concerts. Or maybe give the free download with a low low quality so that maybe it might strike an interest in people, therefore leaning them to buy.

[thedreaming]

It's all about money...

The RIAA wants you to pay through the nose for the music you listen to. Whether it's good music or crap, they don't care.

Customers want music, but just don't want to pay.

It's as simple as that.

[the_deanster]

how?

How can an artist survive in a world like that?

[oxtail01]

pay for what you want

You're not entitled to free music!

[jcollett69]

Why don't writers know English?

"All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up you're a** if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."

Mr. Sandoval, do you really have trouble with the difference between your and you're? There is some serious proof-reading issues at C|net. STOP BUTCHERING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! /rant

P.S. Good content though. Too bad poor grammar gets in the way.

[natalieweinstein]

Typo fixed

We fixed the typo.

[fakejason]

you need proof readers

You're the one that has it wrong. Your is a form of possessive case of you and is used correctly in the article. You're is a shortened version of you are.

[the_deanster]

this is sad

We should all want to support the artists. This is sad news to hear. I
always thought that people would support what they liked,
especially if they knew it was going right to them, and not the
record companies. Man.

There's always ypimh.com, but if this story is true, people don't
really care unless there is a chance of public shaming.