Why Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?

from the seems-odd dept

Mon, Aug 2nd 2010 8:54am — Mike Masnick

One of the "wakeup calls" for the music industry to recognize new business models were coming was the famous Radiohead "name your own price" experiment for the album In Rainbows. Frankly, I still think that particular experiment gets too much attention, as it wasn't well thought out or organized and was mostly done on a whim. I also thought the band made a mistake in ending the download portion even if many people mistakenly claimed that this was an admission that the project was a failure (the band said from the very beginning this was their plan). And, when the numbers came out, it became clear that the experiment was a huge success.

Since then, the band has also come out as very pro-file sharing and anti-RIAA. For example, the band's manager has said that file sharing should be legal and that it is "a great thing for culture and music." In the meantime, Radiohead's Thom Yorke has pointed out that the record labels have been unable to innovate and has predicted the imminent demise of the major labels. Oh, and most importantly for those who claimed the "free" part of their release was a failure, last summer the band officially released a track for free and distributed it via BitTorrent themselves.

So, all of that should make you wonder why the RIAA and the IFPI are issuing DMCA takedown notices for blogs that have hosted In Rainbows. Why indeed? TorrentFreak notes, accurately, that Radiohead did do deals with major labels for distribution of the physical album of In Rainbows, but I was pretty sure they kept the copyrights themselves. Perhaps that's not the case? However, it does seem strange to see songs from In Rainbows included in takedown requests from the RIAA and the IFPI.

We keep hearing from the RIAA and the IFPI that all they want is for consumers to "respect the artists' wishes" when it comes to how their music gets distributed. So, we have to ask, since Radiohead has made it pretty clear they're perfectly happy with their digital copies being distributed this way, why won't the RIAA and IFPI "respects the artists' wishes" on Radiohead's In Rainbows?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, radiohead, takedowns
Companies: ifpi, riaa

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 8:57am

Simple answer
because RIAA and the IFPI aren't there to represent the artists, but the industry. And the industry is harmed by actions like Radiohead's... at least that's the perception in the crumbling ivory towers of RIAA and IFPI. They are losing control very fast, control they have grown used to in a very short time. and now they are grasping at straws to keep that control, through bullying tactics, and they don't care about whether it's truthful or respects the artists' wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:01am
  
  Re: Simple answer
  They probably don't even realise which band it is or whether they have the correct set of rights. Their legal department is on autopilot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:17am
  
  Re: Simple answer
  The recording industry is like an abusive spouse. They use you when it's convenient for them and when you try to do something that violates their control of the relationship, they get nasty. They call you names, they break your things, and they try to reassert their dominance over the relationship. They've become so comfortable with using artists and beating up on consumers that they think they have the right to do so. There's only one thing you can do. You need to end the relationship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ac, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re: Simple answer
    so...
    
    RIAA and IFPI = Mel Gibson?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- seizure507, 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: Simple answer
  Nine inch nails did this with a few of there albums and never got issued a takedown, and they did the same thing radiohead is doing.....hmmmm wonder were they got there idea.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:01am

Like you said, it depends on if they (radiohead) actually kept the copyrights themselves. Or maybe they're under contract with a major label, that covers everything they release for a certain length of time.
You know the RIAA won't say one way or the other, especially if they're at fault, and who would believe anything they say anyway. The only way to know is if we hear it straight from Radiohead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:05am

There fixed for ya.
because RIAA and the IFPI aren't there to represent the artists, but the industry. And the industry is harmed by actions like Radiohead's... at least that's the perception in the crumbling ivory towers of RIAA and IFPI. They lost control very fast, control they have grown used to in a very short time. and now they are grasping at straws to regain that control, through bullying tactics, and they don't care about whether it's truthful or respects the artists' wishes.

They are not loosing, they lost complete control over it, which I don't even think they had before, what they did had before was the illusion of control, because they were able to dictate the terms to other business and still do, but when it comes to the general public they never had any control, that is just ridiculous, people shared and copied by the bucked, is just now they have an idea of the real size of that behaviour now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:08am

Maybe Radiohead signed a 360° deal.

If so what a shmoo they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:16am

"Since then, the band has also come out as very pro-file sharing and anti-RIAA"

-to-

"TorrentFreak notes, accurately, that Radiohead did do deals with major labels for distribution of the physical album of In Rainbows, but I was pretty sure they kept the copyrights themselves."

Does not compute. They hated the RIAA so much that they crawled back to them a few months later?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  The ddal with the labels was for shiny discs only.
  
  For the rest we'll have to wait for Radiohead to comment which they haven't till now. (They could be WTFing along with a lot of other people and calling in lawyers and such.)
  
  There's quite the debate going on at TorrentFreak about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  The record labels suck at a lot (*a lot*!) of things, but moving shiny plastic discs all over the globe is something they are good at.
  
  I don't know who the hell is still buying CDs, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Kohne, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:31am
    
    Who buys CDs?
    I do - I then proceed to rip them to my computer, drop the tracks onto my player and stuff the CD into the box in the basement.
    
    I have bought a few things digitally, but there's just something I like about having a physical copy of my purchase.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:55am
      
      Re: Who buys CDs?
      > I have bought a few things digitally, but
      > there's just something I like about having a
      > physical copy of my purchase.
      
      Same here. I look at the CDs as basically a back-up system for my hard drive, should it ever shit the bed.
      
      My taste in music also runs to some rather obscure classical and soundtrack recordings which are often not available in the online music stores. It's CD or nothing for those.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Who buys CDs?
        I look at the CDs as basically a back-up system for my hard drive, should it ever shit the bed.
        
        Funny, I look at the internet as a backup system for my hard drive. (when it comes to music, anyway)
        
        It just so happened that I ran into this last month, when I had a (admittedly very old) hard drive fail on me. Luckily, the only thing on it I cared about were a few hundred mp3s. So, instead of heading to the basement to dig around for the CDs, I headed to a popular torrent site and took care of it. Did I do something illegal? Probably. Should it be illegal? I obviously don't think so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Known from Experience, 3 Aug 2010 @ 3:53pm
      
      Re: Who buys CDs?
      "stuff the CD into the box in the basement.
      
      I have bought a few things digitally, but there's just something I like about having a physical copy of my purchase."
      
      Make darn sure your basement isn't damp or humid.
      
      The aluminum layer on cds is *not* sealed or protected from the elements (so much for the myth of a cd "lasting forever") and the aluminum will ROT if exposed to moisture, destroying the cd. It only takes one tiny dot of decay on a cd to wreck it!
      
      Known from Experience
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd bet the proportion of CDs given as gifts is rising, and will continue to rise. "Merry Christmas, I emailed you some MP3s" is just not the same.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Merry Christmas, I emailed you some MP3s" is just not the same.
      
      Ignoring the fact that I've never been called by someone so they could tell me what gift they just mailed me ( :P ) I believe it would now be amazon mp3/itunes gift cards, yes?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was referring to an in-person gift exchange. You can see how much nicer it is to hand someone something than to tell them you have sent or will send some electronic files.
        
        As for the gift card, that is also not the same as picking out particular music to give. I think Amazon will eventually have something where you order a gift card that allows the recipient to download a specific set of songs, whether it's an "album" or a "mix tape" put together by the gift giver. Unless they already have and that's what you're talking about, in which case I'll shut up now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Does not compute. They hated the RIAA so much that they crawled back to them a few months later?
  
  It's not quite crawling back. It was a distribution deal only. The one thing that the record labels actually do know ow to do is distribute plastic discs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:34am

"Perhaps that's not the case?"
Great. Let's all speculate around this key lack. -- But the first three posters have covered all substantive points, so ingenuity is a must. Brownie points for anyone who helps sustain this possibly useless controversy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:48am

I just realised something.

If my company can't compete with children I should not be in the market at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:05am

If this was ASCAP I would be saying that they were trying to protect "THEIR" copyright from the EFF. Even if they don't have the right to file a DMCA take down I am guessing they would do this just to be anti-competative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:16am

"respect the [scam] artists" seems to be more applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corey Crossfield, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:19am

RIAA Is The Devil
A bit dramatic of a move but I would make an educated guess (hypothesis) that the copyright holder is not, Radiohead. If it isn't them I would venture even further to say that part of their strategy for giving their music out for free was because they didn't own it. But then again it could all be a conspiracy so who really knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:25am

Even though I'm pretty sure Radiohead has retained copyright ownership, they put Warner/Chappell in charge of administering the rights. And there's where it gets complicated. Even though Warner/Chappell is owned by Warner Music Group, they're a separate company which, as far as I can tell, isn't a RIAA or IFPI member. And since they're purely a publishing rights company you wouldn't expect them to be. That would seem to indicate neither organization has standing to file a takedown claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  You are getting publishing and recording copyrights confused.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich Fiscus (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:02am
    
    No I'm not
    Warner/Chappell administers all digital rights for In Rainbows.
    
    From the Warner/Chappell website:
    Warner/Chappell announced a partnership with rock band Radiohead to create a first-of-its-kind rights clearance strategy for the digital release of the album, In Rainbows.
    
    http://www.warnerchappell.com/ourhistory.jsp?currenttab=about_us
    
    From Billboard:
    Radiohead and its long-time publisher Warner/Chappell Music have launched a unique "all rights" digital licensing service for the alternative rock band's new album "In Rainbows," Billboard.biz can reveal.
    
    The music publishing giant has created a global "one stop shop" solution for the critically-acclaimed set, which will enable potential rights users worldwide to secure licenses from a single destination, effectively side-stepping the label and traditional collecting societies networks.
    
    For the new album, Warner/Chappell will administer all digital rights, including mechanical, performing, synchronisation, lyrics, master recordings, image and likeness, and will license synch rights for both publishing and master rights for TV and film synch uses in the offline world.
    
    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i2b2de0172fdbe913ae4cd239c685e236
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich Fiscus (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:16am
      
      Re: No I'm not
      I will say I may be misunderstanding what Billboard meant by "all digital rights," but they're wording seems to suggest they are also taking over more than songwriting related administration.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nastybutler77 (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:28am
  
  Re:
  Even though Warner/Chappell is owned by Warner Music Group, they're a separate company which, as far as I can tell, isn't a RIAA or IFPI member.
  
  From the Who We Are section of the RIAA's website:
  
  Warner Bros., Warner Bros. Non-Music,
  Warner Bros./Elektra, Warner Bros./Hollywood, Warner Bros./Rhino,
  Warner Classics, Warner Curb Hank, Warner Latina Non Music,
  Warner Music, Warner Music Canada, Warner Music Latina,
  Warner Music Latina/Peerless, Warner Nashville Non-Mus Video, Warner Off Roster,
  Warner P&D, Warner Strategic Marketing, Warner/Reprise Black Adv,
  Warner/Reprise Cntry Adv, Warner/Reprise Video
  
  Most of which would comprise the Warner Music Group I do believe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich Fiscus (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 1:08pm
    
    Not if they're a separate company
    Warner Music's memberships don't automatically extend to the companies they own, and per their website, Warner/Chappell is a separate company.
    
    Warner/Chappell Music is WMG's award-winning global music publishing company.
    http://www.warnerchappell.com/about.jsp?currenttab=about_us
    
    I've also found more evidence that Warner/Chappell administers digital distribution rights. Last.fm lists them as the label for In Rainbows.
    
    http://www.last.fm/music/Radiohead/In+Rainbows
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 10:47am

The RIAA is manned by windigos.
At the same time, Wendigos were embodiments of gluttony, greed, and excess; never satisfied after killing and consuming one person, they were constantly searching for new victims. In some traditions, humans who became overpowered by greed could turn into Wendigos; the Wendigo myth thus served as a method of encouraging cooperation and moderation.

Since ancient times in all cultures people are warned about greed. It does have real repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marcyrw (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:08am

Answer to the question posed by the headline: Same reason that they sent my indie outfit not one, but three, copyright infringement notices for offering for download our wholly-owned master recordings.
Call out the Langoliers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drewmo (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:24am

In Rainbows - Disc 1 or Disc 2?
This may require a just a touch of clarity... Looking at the URLs in the RIAA complaint, it appears the only reference to In Rainbows was probably Disc 2, which was NOT part of the original pay-whatever-you-want deal. Disc 2 was sold with the distributed discbox months later, though Radiohead apparently did make them available for digital download on their W.A.S.T.E. site. I do not know if THAT download had a free option.

The IFPI complaint has URLs referring to In Rainbows, as well as the bonus disc.

That point may be nitpicky, but it may present a wrinkle as far as who owned which copyrights on which songs from In Rainbows? At any rate, the RIAA still clearly is not respecting the artists' wishes in this case, as you note, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jared, 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: In Rainbows - Disc 1 or Disc 2?
  Disc 2 was distributed through waste in a pressing they did themselves... Not through a label.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - drewmo (profile), 2 Aug 2010 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re: In Rainbows - Disc 1 or Disc 2?
    Right, I know, I said that. But that was AFTER disc 2 was distributed as part of the physical discbox (with a fixed price of £40), which is the part that was through a label, no?
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rainbows#Bonus_disc
    
    I agree that this is very stupid of the RIAA, and I adore Radiohead and have been happy to see them promoting free culture, but doesn't the fact that the RIAA's complaint is only over disc 2 (it seems) make it less fair to tie these takedowns to the pay-whatever-you-want-offering on disc 1?
    
    After all, what was the price that Radiohead charged for disc 2 on WASTE? I don't remember. If they distributed for free then my whole point is fairly moot I suppose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jared, 2 Aug 2010 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: In Rainbows - Disc 1 or Disc 2?
      No the Discbox was done through waste. Not through a "proper" label. http://www.discogs.com/Radiohead-In-Rainbows/release/1158751
      
      Disc 2 was never actually distributed by anyone other than Radiohead.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jared, 2 Aug 2010 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: In Rainbows - Disc 1 or Disc 2?
        No the Discbox was done through waste. Not through a "proper" label. http://www.discogs.com/Radiohead-In-Rainbows/release/1158751
        
        Disc 2 was never actually distributed by anyone other than Radiohead.
        
        although I guess discogs says it was "published" by
        Warner Chappell Music Publishing Ltd. Not sure what that really means in this case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 2:20pm

I hope there is no french people trying to listen to Radiohead otherwise they can get their connection terminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2010 @ 9:22pm

Just pointing out that file sharing is already perfectly legal. There's nothing about the process of P2P sharing that is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2010 @ 4:19am

R.I.A.A = Real Ignorant Assholes of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raven, 20 Oct 2010 @ 10:50am

...Because NO artist cares except Metallica, and the RIAA and recording companies are shithead corporates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]