Lets see... 1.5 million downloads (estimate based on a couple articles)
x .39% paying for it
___________
741,000 paying customers
x $6 per
___________

$4,446,000 approximately...

with not much costs to recoup such as recording, no label costs, no distribution costs other than the website and some PR that they may have paid for

So each band member takes home about $1,000,000 before taxes...
not bad at all...and surely their next tour will rake in money and new fans due to the publicity generated by this whole thing.

So it works for Radiohead...

On a smaller scale, I was reading an article by Janis Ian, a veteran folk artist...she supports the free downloading and file exchanges because it has brought more paying customers to her own website for downloads...she said in the article that she makes an extra few $thousand per month on this additional exposure / downloads.

So the new model is working for some artists...
Maybe I have to change my tune regarding giving stuff away

Matt if you find download in either .shn or .flac format, the quality is pretty good. Those are both lossless formats. They result in huge files that you can then convert into .mp3. Thanks to this thread I bought a converting program tonight and have spent the last three hours downloading 4 more old OAR concerts.

Check out their new live album Live At Madison Square Garden... its awesome. They also have a new studio album coming out sometime early next year I believe.

I do free downloads all the time. If I see a concert and like the material I find it, get to know it, and buy the CD that I like if not all of them. I also search out obscure material that I can't readily find. In most cases, if one were to peruse my downloads, they would see I also have store bought CDs from the same artists. I do feel I should pay for the talent, but after reading Gogar's post, I may have to rethink that seeing as evryone BUT the artist gets the money. That said, free downloading has payed dividends for recording labels as far as I'm concerned.