Kneejerk reactions of “but they’re stealing my stuff” don’t really matter to me, if the end result is that:
1. People are happier.
2. The developer/artist/band/whatever makes more money.

The fact that people freeload is irrelevant in the above. To me, these are new times, new possibilities… so given 10 million customers out of which 10% pay me a dollar or 100,000 customers who each pay me five dollars, I’ll go with the first option.

History repeats itself, but the developments that happen still happen, regardless of how you try to prevent it. That’s why we still have printed books even though there was a strong movement to ban them, that’s why we have rental movies even though there were significant attempts at making them not happen. Trying to prevent file sharing from taking place is more like telling the tide to not come in rather than catching your local shoplifter. You can yell all you want as you stand on the shoreline, but the end result is still that you get wet.

And given that situation, I’d rather be the one selling the towels.

I’ve not anywhere argued that I think that just because NIN got rich by giving away stuff, it’s ok to grab whatever you want… now have I? What I am saying is that as creators of entertainment, this is the direction we should look to maximise our profit.

And in that way, your response clearly indicates my problem: No, you didnt insult me personally, but just because I argue for something that isn’t the traditional “call em all thieves” business model, I’m seen as arguing in favour of piracy.

You are thoroughly and completely confusing the concept of freedom with the concept of free. An artist should be free to create and distribute their work as they see fit, but consumers do not have the automatic right to enjoy an artist’s work for free against that artist’s wishes. That’s why piracy has negative connotations and is illegal, because it is a violation of the artist’s rights.

If Radiohead are happy with their little exercise, then that’s all well and good for them. However to use their exercise and extrapolate those results to imply that it is a “successful model” for others to follow is clearly false.

When – despite so much hype and publicity – over 60% of the people who download your work pay absolutely nothing for it, then you can draw two clear conclusions:

The majority of your audience does not value your work at all.

or

The majority of your audience values your work, but does not want to give you any money for it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but for a commercial venture based on copyrighted works, it is extremely risky to invest thousands or possibly millions of dollars if you know with a reasonable degree of certainty that the majority of your audience won’t pay you one cent for your output.

The Radiohead experiment is a failure when viewed in its entirety. Radiohead are a group which was fostered and gained fame through the old corporate record-label factory – millions of advertising dollars spent to promote them. When a big-name band releases what is widely acknowledged as a great album amidst a huge amount of media hype, and yet over 60% of their fans pay $0 for it, and the rest pay an average ranging from $1.5 – $3.5, that *is* a failure for this model.

If you’re happy to create and release your work on the honor basis, and have the majority of your audience pay you nothing for it, by all means go ahead and do so, that is your right.

What I tend to dislike however is when people use these types of arguments to justify piracy, which is the illegal obtaining of copyrighted works without the creator’s permission. That is a completely different thing, and neither you nor anyone else has the right to do that, or to encourage others to do that.