How much would YOU pay!?

So, OK. I know that Leslie is a big Radiohead fan, and I'd have to say I
like a number of their songs, too, but today's news points out that they don't
really know what they're doing, at least not business-wise.

In short, Radiohead has gotten some positive publicity for trying out a
"name your own price" approach on their last album. But that had been
suggested to the band by the manager just before they put the album up, and
they took the download option away not terribly long afterwards (so guys
like me who would have gladly handed them money for it never even got the
chance). Now it seems like they've made a half-cocked second try by asking
fans to remix a new single they've made -- and by "asking to remix" I mean
"buying the five streams from the band, remixing them, and forfeiting all
rights back to the band without any sort of prize or compensation" and by "a
new single they've made," I mean "a song they've been unable to complete
themselves for a while." So, as the TechDirt article puts it, they're
asking fans to pay Radiohead for the chance to do Radiohead's job.
That kinda leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I like Trent Reznor's idea better.
(And, no offense Leslie, I generally like NIN's music more, anyways.)

(no subject)

For those of us on this side of the pond, the fiasco over in Brittain on the
BT-Phorm "targetted advertising" probably isn't on the radar, but it's an
interesting study in poor public
relations if nothing else.

In short, the major IP in Brittain has apparently made an agreement with the
"targetted advertising" company Phorm. Phorm used to be known by another
name (which escapes me at the moment) and was *widely* known as a malware
and ad-ware distributor. What's worse is that BT has been 'testing' Phorm's
targetting since as early as 2006, without telling their customers.
That's an interesting point because Brittain has a much more defined legal
sense of 'privacy' than we seem to here in the US (though it'd be a lively
debate as to who's "more 1984").

The basic thrust of the article I linked to is that BT has not appologized,
BT has not answered questions regarding who it 'tested' or where it
'tested', and BT is repeating the same tired lines and claiming that answers
everything.