Personally I wouldn't download a Radiohead album if you paid me...

Clive, Key West, FL

Just look at the numbers... 1.2 million people paid an average of $6.00, thats $7.2 million for this album; ANY artist would kill for that kind of money off an album, especially since the only expense that has to come out of that total is studio time fees (I assume... I'm not their accountant, who knows what they need for expenses). Most artists make their money touring, not from album sales. 7.2 mil is a huge success by any standard, and think about how many "new" fans got into radiohead for free: what % of them will go shell out for some of the older albums? I think this will, in the long run, be a huge success for the band.

Matt, NY, USA

The point is that Radiohead weren't trying to make a 'Brave New World' for music. They knew full well that the moment they put their album out there for review, etc. it would be leaked and those who wanted to hear it would get hold of a copy.

All they did was provide a method to get back some money for that download. As an experiment it proved that people will pay for something they could get for free. The real trick will be to see how many copies of the physical album sell. Certainly comments on a lot of internet message boards and the like make it clear there are people out there who grabbed it for nothing because they want a proper CD copy of the album, which they'll buy when it becomes available.

Theo Graham-Brown, London, UK

Totally bizarre conclusions thought up be record execs desperately trying to save their failing business model.

Of course people are going to download albums without paying for it if they can.

What they're missing here is, everyone could have downloaded it for nothing, but they didn't. People were willing to shell out money for something they can get for nothing.

The average price of a physical CD here is $9.99CAD to $14CAD (~5£ to ~7£) so let's get some perspective here.

Don, Edmont, Canada

Welcome to the Internet, Radiohead!

Craig, Ajax, Canada

It's bizarre that the tone of the overall article is so negative on the experiment. Radiohead themselves netted over $4million in a few weeks. This is far more than their share would have been through the traditional label channel, where they get less than 10% of the proceeds.

It is natural that the labels will spin this as negative, since they are being cut out of the loop: their business model is obseleted by this approach.

However, it would be surprising if the band themselves viewed a quick $4million as a bad thing.

One flawed assumption that always surrounds music downloads is that every free copy is a "stolen" copy representing lost revenues. In reality, many people who "steal" music would have forgone the music if they had to pay for it.

BTW, I paid 2 pounds sterling. More than Radiohead would have gotten via traditional chanels, but less than I would have had to pay any other way. This is a win-win solution.

Brent, Ottawa,

Maybe if Radiohead released their album at a bitrate slightly higher than that of an AM broadcast, they might have statistics to be a little more proud of. I think it's all a publicity stunt at the expense of the last few honest music consumers.

Strike, Winnipeg, Canada

There appears to be a hole in this story. How does (check my math here) $7.2 million compare with what the album might have generated through more traditional marketing?

Gord Smedley, Vancouver, Canada

It works out 2.8 Million, if I'm not mistake.
38% percent of 1.2 million; 456,000 times $6 US. $ 2,736.000.
Not a lot for a major band considering the costs of making an album.

TC, Toronto,

Why does your article insist on referring to this marketing ploy as an 'honesty box'? An honesty box is something that people are trusted to use by paying a previously agreed amount , for a product or service. The Radiohead deal asked people to pay 'what they thought it was worth' , quite a different thing entirely, and clearly a lot of people didn't think the CD was worth anything whatsoever. LOL.

Tony Pritchard, Cancun, Mexico

I don't know if you can truly rely on those figures thought because certainly I downloaded it once at work and paid then when I got home I downloaded it again and didn't feel that I needed to pay a second time. I just entered a price of zero and away I went but I will show up as a non-payer.

Ben, Nottingham, UK

I agree with Karl. I paid 4 pounds sterling for it because I thought the idea so commendable. It's the only Radiohead album I've ever bought. I decided at the time that if I liked it, I would purchase the CD (mp3s are still way behind separate hi-fi components in terms of sound quality). I don't know if I'll go as far as to purchase a box set. I think you have to be a die hard fan to shell out for that. But if they release the album on an individual CD, I'll buy it.

Paul, Tokyo,

Ha Ha Ha. Is this just one of those paid for pieces by the music industry? It may be that this is true, but have you thought how much the artists themselves have earned with this strategy? I'd bet that it it a los more than what they've gotten through more traditional means...

Alejandro Dagnino, Woking, Surrey

"The quality of cd's" carl.

Don't make me laugh.

John-Paul, mondeville, france

I agree with KesMonkey. Furthermore, they will make a killing on the £40 boxset which they cleverly are releasing just in time for Christmas.

Abdi, London, UK

Radiohead made over $2.7M -- hardly the failure the terrified media is making it out to be. (38% of 1.2M people is 456,000 people. Each of those 456,000 people averaged $6. $6 times 456,000 is... more than $2.7M. How would YOU like to put up some music files on the Internet and make $2.7M? Thought so.)

Note, however, how this simple fact is never cited. ANY band should be thrilled to be making $2.7M -- and you know the media conglomerates are terrified of other bands realizing that the record companies are useless and unnecessary overhead, so we get slanted articles like this.

John Cullison, Kirkland, WA

My sister's boyfriend called me with the same 'I paid for it and I'm having problems downloading it' story.

Based on just the few people here reporting that, it sounds like a sizable percentage may have experienced the same thing which is going to throw off the stats.

Sounds like the MSM readers will read this news and say 'see! cheap pirates ruining the whole industry for everyone' unlike critical thinkers who spend five minutes reading the issues and actually thinking about it.

Based on even the most conservative estimates they made a good chunk of change -- and faster than waiting for all those residuals, Muzak royalties, advertising-theme-music royalites, etc.

How long has it been available on the internet? About a month? That's money in the bank without having to have waited on The Label to try to rip them off by overstating costs.

Joe Chapman, Chicago, IL

Personally, I believe the music industry is facing the age old business problem of finding new ways to make revenue. Who wants to pay money for something that is so readily available for free? Instead of trying to combat this, the music industry needs to understand the changing demographiuc that has ensued as a result of the .com age. Unfortnuately, the music industry is facing users who know the internet well enough to download music easily. This is no longer "stealing" music in my opinion, nothing so easily accessible and generally used can be considered stealing. More than half of modern music listnerers have "illegally" downloaded music at least once.

True supporters of band should see their shows, thereby increasing revenue from concerts. They should also donate money for the band's profits, if they feel the band deserves more revenue. Bands may want to think about increasing their lines and levels of merchandise. Bands are not going to see millions in revenue anymore.

Julie, boston,

I downloaded the album for free. Why? Because I wanted to hear the album first before I bought it. I only have a handful of Radioheads' songs because that's the beauty of digital music...you can pick and choose what songs you want and do away with you don't want on an album. Plus, I wanted to experience the site and process for qualitative research. I think the majority of people who didn't pay for the album aren't really Radiohead fans. They might like a song or two by them, and they've heard all the fuss so they went to their website. I think the ploy was brilliant and a great way to create new fans. I still feel the same way about them. I only liked a handful of the songs. But hey, that's my opinion.

Joseph, Memphis, TN, USA

Don't you mean that they 'did not pay a penny for it'? Americans DID pay a cent, or more, for it.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

"any profits (from this type of venture) would be impractical for making a living out of music"......What a load of tripe, 1.2m downloads at $6 is $7.2m. The majority of which is profit as there are no marginal costs.

Digital downloads should be free. Any idiot can record a song and post it on the internet and with a bit of luck their profile can be raised. Do they deserve to be millionaires, no. Why? because the real money should be earned from performing live, touring, playing concerts. This is where the hard graft and 'work' comes in and ultimately this is where the good acts are seperated from the crap ones who are just trying to make a fast buck by floging us overpriced music with digitally adjusted vocals because the lead singer cant sing to save their life. I would happily pay £50 to see a good band play live, but a digital download is only worth as much as the paper its printed on........................

Grant, London,

It's just record industry spin. The industry hasn't caught up with the technology, music is more portable and available today than it has ever been and artists are using the communication systems to get thier music out. Well done to Radiohead. I bought the album out of interest, I'm not a Radiohead fan, and don't think the album is particularly noteworthy. I only paid £1, but then I wouldn't have bought the album in a shop anyway. Don't forget it was delivered in a lossy mp3 format and still had to be burned to a CD. I listened to the CD once and it's now gone into my archive - maybe it will resurface from time to time. Off to get the new Cliff Richard album, I understand he is using the honesty system too!

Ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks

For anyone who doesn't realize this, an artist is extremely lucky to get $.10 per cd sold. That's TEN CENTS. These guys just made bank, and the propagandist media that is owned by these record companies(Just look at who owns who, you can see this for yourself) is trying to make it sound like they've gone bust doing this. THEY MADE A TON OF MONEY. Far more than...Lloyd Banks, MC Hammer, the guy from CCR when he first made his music, or any number of other artists the music industry destroys and rips off. This was a HUGE success

Shawn Smith, Las Vegas, Nevada

DOWNLOAD ISSUES! I had to "purchase" the CD 3 times before it worked under different accounts. I paid $10 the first time, nothing the next two times of course. This means that they counted that as 1 person who paid and 2 who did not... 66%. Surely others had download issues as well. The site even says if you have problems to try a different browser and try another email account. Also, you've got to consider that some people might not have ever "bought" the CD in the first place if they weren't able to get it for free, so no real loss for the band. The statistics are worthless if not used properly.

TK, Singapore,

"Radiohead tried to spin this is offering a service for fans, but it was nothing more than a marketing ploy to make themselves relevant again and prepare for their next release. The reality is music has real value, and there has to be a way of capitalising on that"

A nice spin from the corporate side. Music has real value. And that value is $$ in the pockets of suits who had little to to with the production of what we love so much.

I applaud Radiohead and NIN for this bold move. And I was glad to pay, because I knew what I paid would go to the people who actually made the music. Furthermore, I can't think of music that is more relevant.

For the start-ups: Why not set a minimum? An honesty box doesn't have to start at zero, does it?

Jeff, Edmonton, Canada

I paid £5 but it didn't work the first time I downloaded it, so I downloaded it again without paying anything. Perhaps I screwed up their statistics:o

Daniel Riley, Benxi, China,

This is a typical spin story by an increasingly scared and desperate music industry. Of all those who didn't pay anything, how many might not even have heard the new album but for the way in which it was distributed?

The reason the record labels can't understand why ideas like this might actually be the saviour of the industry is that they also can't understand why people would pay £40 for a boxset. They are not music fans and don't understand such a mentality.

Considering how they've picked on companies like CD-WOW who were providing legally cheap music, at no cost to the artists, they have been exposed once more as the pathetic, short-term, money grabbing people they are.

Gordon Mackay, Bath, UK

The radiohead album download figures is a more realistic figure of the number of people who listened to the album compared to CD sales. The old system doesn’t include the number of copies for mates. The figures also ignore that using the old system, RadioHead would have earnt less money – even if all 1.2 million had bought a copy.

I think the record companies are trying to scare new bands into thinking that it wouldn’t work for them – after all these new sign ups are still too naive to know they are the ones keeping the record company in money – and not the other way around!!

F0ul, Deeside,

Interesting article from Ed Felton, exploring the reasons why so many people downloaded the music via P2P (for free) rather than downloading from the web site (for free).

Radiohead Album Available for Free, But Fileshared Anyway
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1215

Another obvious explanation for why the experiment may not be considered entirely successful: a lot of people will download media in the window allowed, simply to retain the option to get it. We may listen to it eventually. We may not. We may like it and decide to pay for it . We may get fed up with the payment process half way through.

BTW, I didn't download the album. I *did* however, download a Gilbert & George artwork made available for 48 hours by the BBC. It's stored as a zip file somewhere, waiting for the fateful day when I decide I might want go to the trouble of printing it out.

I'm astounded nearly 40% paid! Imagine if record companies got 40% of file sharers to pay them. Well done RH!

Brad, London, UK

Looking at the original source, 1.2m is actually the number of site visits, NOT downloads. Also, $6 is the average price paid by the 38% who paid anything. The average for all downloaders is only $2.26. ComScore go on to estimate the revenue from downloads as about $360k.

Martin, London, UK

I think saying the majority of music consumers feel digital music isn't worth paying for is total rubbish. Offer something for free to people and they will take it. My guess is the 40% who paid are Radiohead fans who felt obliged, whereas the 60% who didn't counted it a bonus that they got a free album. Music has value, and yes labels have been totally greedy in the past but that doesn't mean a new generation of artists should suffer now.

toby, London,

I do agree with Carl Munich that it's too premature to say this hasn't worked, since many download only to buy the album later on.

KesMonkey, I'm thinking this doesn't mean $7.2 million - because $6 was the average price paid and not everyone paid. This means that even if one person paid $6 and all the rest took for free, the average paid price would still be $6 - and the band made $6 for example.

Kyle Racki, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

I wouldn't be suprised if a lot of people who downloaded the album wouldn't have otherwise purchased it anyway. Also, as already pointed out, the overheads are lower, so it would be interesting to see its profitability compared to other albums for Radiohead.

Rich, London,

The line in the article above saying:
"This shows pretty conclusively that the majority of music consumers feel that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for."

That is soooo stupid, everybody wants everything for free. If a person opened a store selling jeans and says "pay what you want or nothing at all", nobody would pay and the jeans would disappear. Would that mean that jeans should be for free cause nobody wants to pay?! Wow, what reasoning.
You think if they gave away Mustangs for free people will pay with their honesty?

The result of this experiment doesn't mean music should be for free. Nobody should expect or think they deserve music for free. I'm a musician and also consider myself a businessman, like anybody else selling any product. The music industry should learn how to lock up the store at night and if anybody wants to make price deals fine but not "expect" it should be for free. The value of music has lowered.

Gerry Alvarez, Toronto, Canada

The media execs just don't get it: this was a amazing success! They got $4 to $6 on average per album which people could get for free! Many more people got hold of the album than would bought it from a brick and mortar store, the distribution costs per album was almost zero and the ARTISTS got almost all the money! The latter is the only real problem for the media execs.

$5 is an entirely reasonable price for a CD especially if it was distributed over the internet (so not other costs)

Isn't it perfect model that a really big fan would pay $20, a so-so fan that only listens to it once in a while pays $4 and all the non-fans that just wants to listen to it once pays nothing?

Andrew Louw, Vancouver, Canada

So, what is the significance of this? A really great band opted to share its music with the world - seemingly pushing away profit as priority. I personally paid for it, out of support for the band and love of the music. Record companies and economist-minded folk can have their say about it ---------- money is temporary, let the music live on...

Amelia, Fargo,

i know a few people who downloaded the IN RAINBOWS for free initially - then went back online and went thru the order process again just to hand some money over... try before you buy... i wonder if they have stats on returners

ed, wellington, nz

I paid $15.00 dollars for this album, which at the time was 7 pounds 15 pence. I have been a longtime Radiohead fan... especially in regards to Kid A and Amnesiac. Heck, I really enjoyed The Eraser by Thom.... good stuff that. I am surprised to find that I paid significantly more than the average. In fact, I'm disappointed.

I looked at this a a chance to really change the way we, as listeners, we compensate the artists that we enjoy and respect.

Oh well, these are just the ramblings of a dis-associated American.

Jordan, Somewhere in the, Not quite so United States.

Considering the fact that bands usually only get one dollar for each cd sold, this is great news for Radiohead. Even accounting for those that did not pay at all, they averaged $4 for each download. So they made four times as much as they would have with a label!!! Of course the labels are owned by the media companies, hence the negative spin in this article. Add to that the fact that many who downloaded had never heard Radiohead before, including me, and you have a great outcome. I'll be buying the cd when it comes out, based on what I heard. I can't stand compressed music, and certainly would not pay for it.

Walt, Tampa Bay, USA / Florida

Okay, wait a minute. The article said 1.2 million people visited the site but they don't know how many downloaded the album. Let's be generous and say a million. Of that million, 36% paid SOMETHING for it, which averaged out to $6 a copy.

6 times 360,000 comes out to $2,160,000.00.

That's how I read it anyway.

gb, Austin, USA

Radiohead should have an option for fans to pay *after* buying the album, as a sort of evaluation of the music, a post-listening gratitude.

Angelo, Cambridge,

As I've discovered it turns out not everyone believes comScore. For example how many of the computers carrying their monitoring software are actually in university halls, libraries and internet cafes? ie are these really 2 million consumers, or 2 million instances of people passing the time at a public terminal? It'd be nice to know.

philip, cambridge,

They also have 1.2 MILLION people's addresses . That's a pretty massive customer list to market to :)

They are going to make a fortune!

Cliff, Marseille, France

love the tune "House of cards" in fact there are some real beauties on the album. To be honest I've never bought anything on the net and never will and as a fan I feel a little bit guilty not paying.

But then they are rich already and they dont seem to make music for any other reason than they love music so...

If its any consolation to the band it is one of their best albums to date and i will definitely buy the box set at christmas.

Adam, Valencia, spain

I'm desperately trying to get my head around their figures. Am I right in thinking these are pure guestimates?

And how did they factor out those who will buy the CD version when it comes out? i.e. many probably downloaded the album for free but will buy the album.

And are they including the 500,000 illegal downloads of In Rainbows on pirate sites?

Philk, Dublin,

I bought the box set for about $80 (US dollars). What value did the survey place on that? That deal gave me a free download; I had to pay $80 to get something free!? At least they should omit the box set transactions before averaging if they have not already. FYI, I would have paid $5 for the download if I hadn't gotten the box set.

Zac, Oklahoma City, OK

If the average pay was $6 per download, and they had 1.2 million downloads, then they grossed $7.2 million for the total sales of the downloads (this EXCLUDES revenues for the box set).

If this band had sold 1.2 million albums via traditional record label, what would the band have grossed?

I think this experiment was probably a huge success as far as Radiohead's revenues are concerned.

Ben, Greenville SC, USA

Using the numbers above, Radiohead's gross margin was about 3.5 million pounds. Subtract a generous 1 million for expenses, and they made 2.5 million. Licensing deals can further increase the money that make from the album.

How on Earth could that be disappointing?

It appears that greed overwhelmingly characterises the majority of the record industry.

Vinu, Boston, USA

I downloaded the album for free with the intent to pay later if I really enjoyed the album. I like the album enough that I will still pay for it, I have just procrastinated :S I'll most likely send $10 or so. But I like that I had the option to listen before I bought it, because if it was really bad (however unlikely, hah) I would feel robbed. If this can become a trend, it could mean a whole lot of salvation for music as an industry. Merit will rule, instead of Marketing.

Chris, Winnipe,

It is a fact that the Band, nor the management have released any details of sales, percentages, downloads or in fact any other figures.

There are many music industry insiders that are quoting 'facts' that rather suit their argument that the music industry is better off where it is right now.

"A source at one of the major labels said that allowing fans to pay what they wanted for music would never work" - bing - an interested party who needs this idea to fail.

It seems to me that the labels and the publishers are stating exactly what you would expect them to say with not a shred of evidence behind any of the figures. Do you think for a moment that the music publishers would say it was great ?

Go on then Jonathan Richards, name the source of the information beyond comscore (whoever they are) as comscore for sure won't have any actual facts... maybe you should ask comscore where their infomation comes from and then do a journalists job and try to verify it.

Phil, Manchester, Lancs.

in response to Kevin s from London,

The actual main things missing are any facts with respect to sales figures, downloads and so on as no one has released any.

The figures that appear to be floating arond this and other sites are basically made up, I for one would like to know where these figures actually come from (the actual source, not some thirdhand version)

Phil, Manchester, Lancs.

In response to Christopher rom Baltimore, the reason they ask for your personal information is so that they can verify your Credit Card info, they use your address and phone number to double check with your credit card company, same as any online payment service such as Amazon or iTunes. You think you can just put in your credit card number and that's it? How is that secure at all?
Personally I paid $10 for it, and it was well worth every penny, especially since all that money is going right to Radiohead and not some record label. Way to go Radiohead!!!

Elly P, Edmonton, Ab, Canada

Missing from the above is how much the record companies actually give to the band. Even if they were to give the band 30% of royalties $7 million dollars then translates into $23 million dollars in sales. From my understanding 30% would be considered a very high royalty cheque. Plus the band get to keep the IP something which traditionally the record company would own.

kevin - s, london,

The music industry will spin this as a falure - they have to
I like many others payed for it once and downloaded 3 times to different computers (all my own)
with no production costs , they have made themselves a tidy profit for a poor quality download , the sound quality is terrible
(it would be ok on a phone)
This the way forward for music , - no record label's , but it needs better quality music , and a min price
time the band's took over the music industry

steve, oxford, uk

Judging by some of the comments left above I feel there is still hope out there for people to be honest. It's way too easy to download some file sharing software and take all you want for free without consequence. And there are consequences long term.

I'm glad to see that some folk stick their hand in their pocket when it's their round!

Andy Montgomery, Tore, Sweden

The band has yet to release actual sales figures. Where exactly is this report coming from?

David, Westlake Village, USA, CA

I nearly downloaded the album, but I refuse to give my phone number and other personal information only for it to be potentially sold to telemarketers, if it was truly an honesty box, then I wouldn't have to worry about getting spam and other harrassment for buying music, and I was ready to pay $10 for it.

Christopher, Baltimore, MD

I haven't donwloaded this. If I could listen to snippets first, as on Itunes, then I could decide if I want to download it and what I think it is worth. I'm not going to decide how much to pay without hearing it. I suppose I could download it for nothing and if I like it, go back and download again, paying a fair amount, but its a clumsy way of doing it. If they had thought this through more, this could have been more successful.

Duncan, Exeter, UK

I may have distorted the figures myself then - I paid to download it once from my work PC then downloaded it for free a second time from home....

Colin, Portsmouth,

I didn't pay but that's because I decided not to keep any of the songs...

Thomas, London, England

Seems to me the biggest failure here is that the journalists only recognize the traditional model of music distribution an how what Radiohead have done not only increases the value of their other offerings, but also provide a tidy profit directly.

That's 1.2 million fans that are now more likely to go see their live show (where the real money is made by the artists), will likely to pass on the music to their friends, and are more likely to buy their back-catalogue and box sets.

$7.2 million in sales is very respectable when you don't have to print/distribute CDs and have a few web designers to pay instaed of record industry leeches.

bRETT, Vancouver, BC, Canada

I own all their previous CDs and although I didn't pay for this album, having listened to it, I will be buying the box set.

I don't think they do too badly out of their fans and I think this experiment has worked rather well.

Puss, Manchester,

I think the numbers may not be telling the whole truth. I have a mobile player, a work laptop, a personal laptop and a desktop computer at home. That's 4 potential devices. Now I'm not going to pay four times for the same thing. But I may download the music more than once. Not to mention I think the longest I've had a windows install last is probably 24 months before a hardware upgrade forces a reinstall. Some of the DRM's wont run the moment you upgrade a piece of hardware.. Hell I sent a laptop into HP and the motherboard was replaced and Norton expects me to buy a new license? Perhaps this is part of the skew.

Ryan, Calgary, Canada

I downloaded this for nothing (twice, because it didn't work the first time) but, because it's a good record, I will pay for the CD and artwork when it comes out. I expect they'll make even more sales later on. The download was lossy and poor quality so it's worth waiting to pay for the CD.

Furthermore, with an average of £2.90, that's still more than most bands get from each records sold and I will continue to support bands distributing their music in this way.

Jonathan Hobbs, Pease Pottage,

im suprised that they're suprised this happened.

mike, Cwmbran, wales

Why are people surprised? The reason that the music industry is struggling is because people download for free and file share. I haven't downloaded this album because I'm currently skint and so can't afford to pay what I consider a reasonable price. How very naive of me. You're dealing with human nature at its basest here and whole industries will be decimated as a result. Television and movies will be next. Indeed it's already started. The industry will have to come up with a way of making people pay for what they use or it will die. Sad, very sad, and yet inevitable.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

Sounds like a sucess to me. By my calculation the paying people paid 2.7 million dollars over the first month. This does not sound too shabby. Also keep in mind that all the middle parties (record labels, promoters etc) have been cut out. I suspect that the Radiohead have come out on top in this.

henry, London, UK

It is unfair to say this hasn't worked. I did not pay, but for the simple reason that I wanted to listen first. I will then purchase the discbox, since I prefer to have the quality of CDs rather than MP3s. I expect a lot of the people will do the same. Most people are honest and do not "steal". Likewise, they do not like record companies "stealing" from them and also the bands.

Carl, Munich, Germany

1.2 million downloads, with the average price paid $6. Isn't that $7.2 million? With no traditional manufacturing and distribution costs? All in the first month? Sounds like they've made a ton of money to me. Am I missing something?

KesMonkey, Dublin, Ireland

One question though: when calculating that 62 percent didn't pay anything for it, does this take account of people who 'bought' it for free, listened to it, and then went back and paid for it? I only ask because if everyone did that (as many people in online forums have been saying they did) then the stats would say that only 50 percent paid for it, when in reality 100 percent paid for it, but downloaded it once for free.

Robert Thorpe, Reading, UK

This is a fantastic idea for established bands to do; many people cannot afford an awful lot of music and with the availability of music online to illegally download it is all too tempting to break the law. Radiohead are effectively saying 'have this album, leave a tip if you want', playing on the better nature of people; if people can afford it, naturally they should. I feel the experiment can be seen to have worked, as a little under £3.5 million has been brought in through online 'sales' according to the figures above, and all people who have downloaded it will have done it from there, as it makes no sense not to. As I have heard that there are 25 illegal downloads for every legal one, I think that this was a resounding success.

N. English, Birmingham, England