digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

**DIGG THIS** Radiohead's In Rainbows Just got bought for over $1,000 (PICS

purebuttons.com — Purebuttons.com, LLC has purchased the new Radiohead album, In Rainbows, for $1,000.00 in support of Radiohead's "silent" effort to revolutionize the music industry. (continues) If you support the entertainment and the music industry, check it out and digg it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tmh27, on 10/23/2007, -21/+68Powerful statement, you guys rock, read their press release it is good
    • deviouskoopa, on 10/16/2007, -5/+142they paid $1000 for 10 discboxes and 1 download... not as crazy as $1000 for 1 download like expected... still $200 for the download is crazy
      • takeda, on 10/15/2007, -2/+98If you ask me, that's a pretty sweet deal for advertising on digg and other places.
        • nhsba, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2I am totaly SICK of people not reading before they post........ YES purebuttons only spent $200 on the DIGITAL DOWNLOAD if you would read then maybe you would understand that in order for purebuttons to MAXIMIZE the amount of money they could contribute they had to also purchase box sets the MAXIMUM ALLOWED PURCHASE FOR THE DIGITAL DOWNLOAD IS $200.00 so in order to get to $1000 they had to buy additional items........ EVEN THOUGH THEY BOUGHT THE BOX SETS THEY STILL PAID $1000 in TOTAL TOWARDS THAT ALBUM, they paid $1000 TOTAL ..... TOTAL... they didnt buy 2 DIFFERENT albums they bought all the same album look at other posts

          EX: "Actually an employee from Limewire tried to buy radiohead's digital album for $500, but apparently the max you can only pay for the album is £99.99, or $205.81 to be exact" from quasimot0......

          Is it that hard for people to understand the concept of this article..... Everyone has a way negative attitued IMO and you should take a few steps back and "Look outside the box" which is what purebuttons is doing. They are supporting a good cause. Please tell me do you not support entertainment? Everyone is so focused on dissing the title or dissing the amount they paid or dissing them for buying box sets WHICH IS ALL BESIDES THE POINT...... Let me ask you something, if you went to a lets say a cancer benefit and you spent $1000 on 1 ribbon and 10 boxes of ribbons that came with some extra "Help Cure Cancer" items would you have not spent $1000 on cure cancer ribbons and got some extra things.... O WAIT...... IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!! You still contributed to a good cause and that is what EVERYONE missed... and it's sad. There are a few people who actualy READ before they post and I commend them for doing so, these are the people who actualy have a chance at changing something in this world, so thank you to thoes who "Want" to make a difference.
          • music1234, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0everyone should read this, they got written up in the newspaper, awesome
            http://digg.com/music/Company_supports_the_new_mus ...
          • takeda, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Your cap (or whatever you're wearing) must be pressing to much on your brain, try to loose it up. It might help a bit.

            $1,000 for a company is nothing, I bet they pay way more monthly for advertising.
            I said what I said, because it looked pretty funny that the link was posting to their PR website.
            It's almost like Microsoft would post their PR that they offered free copy of windows (with computers) to some school or something.
      • heypetray, on 10/14/2007, -5/+45Exactly. $1000 for the publicity is nothing... I'm sure it had nothing to do with how awesome the band is.

        Anonymous Philanthropy is the way to go. I'm not telling how much I paid :)
        • Jebral, on 10/13/2007, -3/+29...because I want you all to think I paid a lot. :)
    • tyboulder, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9Lamest public relations stunt I've seen on the internet to date. Special Ed: Yeeeeaaaaa!!! Buttons!!!
      • afidler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you're just mad cause you didn't think of it first.
    • argeaux, on 10/14/2007, -8/+37I second this. Totally lame. It would have been impressive if they paid $1000 for just the digital download, but they bought a bunch of the box sets.

      Stay tuned, I'm going to put up a web site showing that I bought something at a charity-owned thrift store. Where's my 15 minutes?
      • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1There is no way to just order the digital download for $1000. They only let you order 1 digital download per cart. In order reach a goal of $1000 they had to order the items that way.
      • persept, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2plus why would you want to pay 1000 dollars for 10 160 kbps mp3's? Wouldn't you want it in lossless quality? (CD's and vinyl)
        • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nobody complains about high-quality jpegs when you could get lossless TIFFs instead. And nobody of any intelligence really complains about high-quality lossy audio codecs either. It's just the trendy thing for some.
      • EbilPhish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think if you paid $100+ you have an ethical right to grab the full 320kbps rip off bit torrent.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/15/2007, -19/+3Too bad radiohead has the worst website EVER made, I think it rivals that johnswebsiteanddesign.com link that was up here for nomination. Music for free is excellent but not if the website is so unusable that it makes me revert back to itunes.
      • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15the website is actually very nice.
      • afidler, on 10/14/2007, -5/+2god the website sucks so that means the music sucks too!!!!
        • jj9000, on 10/14/2007, -7/+3Welcome to my block list - I don't need to hear your comments anymore if you think Radiohead's music sucks.
          • persept, on 10/25/2007, -1/+9afidler was using a literary device commonly known as sarcasm. just thought you should know
          • ayeroxor, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3As a followup to persept's post, dear jj9000: you're a tool.
          • afidler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you're lack of sarcasm disturbs me jj9000
    • DIAF, on 10/14/2007, -9/+8What crap. One thousand dollars? Thats it? And they get a front page on Digg?

      I had to read the number twice, thinking it was at least 10,000. I didnt know Digg was so cheap.
      • chrisbarr, on 10/14/2007, -6/+3right, so you payed around this amount for a 10 track album? FYI, most CD's cost less than $20 on the average, so this is above the average and also why it's on Digg.
    • jacobsor, on 10/14/2007, -2/+8A cheap public relations stunt. $1000 gets you on the front page of Digg?
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3for 24 or less hours.
      • Seph7, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Exactly, hands up who heard about Pure Buttons before today....
        ... thought not

        The story should be buried not dugg up, their just leeching fame off Radioheads album
      • vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Front page of Digg is worth $1000? How many digg users are ever going to visit Pure Buttons again, or ever use their service?
      • vemerge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1digg down... double comment somehow
    • arjie, on 10/14/2007, -0/+6Read just the URL stub for this story. Makes it funny. :)
    • chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When I looked at the site the most I could enter was £100 ($200)
    • svivian, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2So who's guilty now for paying "0.00" ?
  • music1234, on 11/02/2007, -9/+114Defintly showing support for the new era of the music industry.
    • Lancer383, on 10/20/2007, -3/+44Are they? Or are they paying $200 for the Download and then $800 for the Discbox's which will someday be worth much more than what they paid for them? Oh, and don't forget all the publicity that is coming their way because of this, all submitted by someone who just joined Digg today.

      I call shenanigans. But still, at least Radiohead is getting paid for it.

      P.S. Reckoner rocks.
      • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2If people would do a little more research about this matter you would see that you can not pay $1000 for just the digital download. In order to reach a goal of $1000 for an order which you can have only 1 digital download you would have to purchase the boxes. The order system will not let you put an amount larger than 99.99 equiv. to around $200 USD.
    • djbelieve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe...this makes me wonder:
      http://digg.com/music/Radiohead_In_Rainbows_on_CD_ ...
      I'm not much of a Radiohead fan, but I purchased their downloads to show support for this new concept. And now this? What do you make of it?
      • djbelieve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oops...I wasn't questioning purebuttons motives. I was questioning what exactly this new era in the music industry will look like. I didn't submit the Digg article I referenced, I just thought that people should read it.
    • FullBleed, on 10/15/2007, -3/+27http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/
      • moskaudancer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What if I choose to be definite and purposely spell it incorrectly?
        • GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Mind asplode.
        • JacksonBlack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Then you would have defiantly spelled it incorrectly.
    • krisjanis, on 10/15/2007, -1/+0http://digg.com/music/Radiohead_scam
      its a scam
  • blgdinger, on 10/16/2007, -10/+130Man someone likes radiohead. If I had the 5$ I would have paid it. The whole movement is pretty righteous, and make sense. Radiohead isn't my favorite but it sure as hell seems logical to pay what you think something is worth. I suppose 1000$ is worth paying just to have this type of thing enabled when buying other cds.

    btw i love you
    • bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I'm happy with my 25 pents.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24You don't have $5? This is a CD everyone should pay for. It is a way to show the record industry that this is how music should be.
    • Dhalgren, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I paid $.20 per song. I'd say that's what a song is worth... I do applaud Radiohead for doing this, though. BTW, the album is awesome...
      • dragon76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd say 50¢ but to each his own. The music I like is not played ad nauseum on the radio so it's worth more for me to get to hear it. That said, I'm not a Radiohead fan but I have always liked their message. Kinda like I think Jim Morrison was a great poet but I don't like The Doors.
    • elipabst, on 10/13/2007, -0/+44Meh. I paid $15 to make up for some of you cheap asses.
    • Cenobite, on 10/15/2007, -1/+19I love you too.
    • Rowan187, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3i dugg your comment for the love
  • PSand181, on 11/04/2007, -34/+3HELL YA GUYS!!! I totally agree with what you are doing music and entertainment are WAY TOO important! If you love music read there press release!
  • mylkhead, on 10/23/2007, -4/+79Wow, yeah I think $1000 goes a long way with something like this. Maybe it will encourage other artists to put their records up and let the listeners determine what their value is to them.
  • imexcitebike, on 10/23/2007, -8/+172Dugg. This is exactly what the music industry needs right now!
    • jaytea90, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It's not what Britney Spears will need
      • ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Can we have day on here, without the mentioning of her name please... please.
      • RedS0x, on 10/17/2007, -4/+17LEAVE...BRITNEY...ALONE!!!
    • trofeo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A $1,000?
  • friskybinx, on 10/16/2007, -8/+11Damn, that's AWESOME. I totally support you guys for doing something like that. You really show your devotion for supporting the music industry. It shows how great of a company you guys are becomming. Keep up the great work!
    • hhuesd59, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I completely agree. This is fantastic! Keep up the great work.
  • friskybinx, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Here's my digs!
  • allfails, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3dugged
  • xela321, on 10/23/2007, -18/+236Should make up for all the jerks who paid a dollar for it.
    • kitchensj, on 10/12/2007, -24/+15Well they ARE just 160kbps.
    • Nerfdude, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6i paid nothing for it. and this is just a way to get traffic rolling to a button making site.
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -27/+8what about those of us that paid $0 and were still disappointed?
    • Parkinsons, on 11/02/2007, -8/+189$1 per cd much more then they would make with a regular RIAA sale
      • juicebag, on 10/13/2007, -5/+52This.
        • Matt174e, on 10/13/2007, -1/+51Is.
          • gmoney1, on 10/15/2007, -5/+65the end of this train.
          • Taedirk, on 10/23/2007, -3/+114I'm sorry. The answer we were looking for was "Sparta." "Sparta." But there are some lovely parting gifts!
          • Laterali, on 10/12/2007, -23/+7DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGG!!!
          • Zephik, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Perfect setup, total letdown. =(
          • Zephik, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1Perfect setup, total letdown. =(
      • appleswitch, on 10/13/2007, -2/+34$1 per cd is much more than they would make with everyone torrenting it.
      • ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sadly, this is true. Most artists make only $.50 per disk AT MOST sold. Not per song, but per disk.

        Disc + packaging materials comes out to maybe another $.50. For a $20 retail CD, the recording company makes (on average) $15.
        • Zephik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well if thats true, then thats awesome! It will mean that the artists will be making more money than when they were with a record label, right?
    • wutitang, on 10/14/2007, -1/+8I think you are missing the point.
    • centran, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Depends if you mean a dollar for the whole thing or a dollar a song. A dollar a song is about right However if you are buying a whole album then I say some discount is in order so .50-.75 a song would be good.
      • goosepillows, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8because you feel qualified to quantify what a song is worth?
        • centran, on 10/14/2007, -2/+1No but apparently Apple is qualified.... so yeah a buck is about right.
          Jack ass.
    • darkane, on 10/14/2007, -0/+9The whole point of this is to get the millions upon millions of people who are only willing to spend a buck, to spend that buck. That's income they wouldn't have otherwise.
    • ApolloXLII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5it's actually not mean to only pay a dollar for it. here are a few good reasons why.
      1. CD sales are the main profit point of record labels. bands get a very small cut of that money. they usually only see about 3%. the bigger the band is, the bigger the cut. the smaller the band is, more likely they'll get worse than 3%. so lets say i went out and bought a CD at my local music store, and after their cut of the money, the rest goes to the record label. they'll probably make anywhere around 10 dollars a CD sold. that's less than a quarter earned for the band. and since Radiohead is now completely independent, every penny they make is theirs! so basically, if you give them a dollar, they're making apx. 5 times what they normally would.

      2. it's better than paying them nothing and going and torrenting it. this shows them exactly how many people are getting it.

      3. it's legal.

      4. yeah i know that was more than a couple.

      so yeah... dont feel too guilty if your bank account is whithering away and all you got to spare is a few bucks. again, it's better than nothing.
  • captainjerk, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4awesome
  • ninjakyle, on 10/13/2007, -5/+22That is great! Thanks for supporting people that think outside the box. Hopefully more musicians will try stuff like this.
  • edwardmbender, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2you guys are a class act. ever since i used you for a rush job on 10,000 buttons for CMJ last year (or however many it was... CMJ makes my head hurt!) i have appreciated your dedication towards quality work. This is just another example!
    • Sublimin4L, on 10/14/2007, -0/+6-1 for not even being on the right site.
  • sxh188, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13While I think Radiohead's idea to revolutionize the way we buy our music is admirably innovative and certainly risky, I fear its secondary repercussions. I think this idea will work for bands that are already strongly established, but it may hinder other bands from breaking into the business. It may also cause some types of music that don't carry enough mainstream popularity to afford to sell their music for any price to become obsolete. I've seen a news report stating that the average buyer of Radiohead's CD is about $8.00. This is a much lower price than what most CDs are listed at. Of course this may cause the quality of music to increase, never a bad thing, but it may limit the breadth of music genres and stifle creativity. I think there needs to be a balance between the big name artists and the ones just getting into the business.
    • Schmapdi, on 10/22/2007, -0/+31Yes - but I bet Radiohead (or whoever) gets a much larger share of that 8 dollars than they would get from the $13 or whatever they would have sold it at from their record label deal.
      • bassman730, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16And by larger share you mean all of it
        • Schmapdi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm sure they still have some management/producers/overhead that need to be paid.
        • AddMan3001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Plus the web-hosting for millions of people to download the album would run a decent bill. But still, much more of it than ever before is ending up in the artists pockets.
          • jj9000, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1But about the number of buyers? I really think they will get more album sales this way.. Think of how many people usually would have torrented this album, but instead paid for it.
      • omelette, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4they would if the band was actually releasing this independently... but this is just an attention-grabber before the CD comes out on traditional means. By no means is this the revolutionary move its being chalked up to be.
    • BadseedJR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Perhaps this will not eliminate record labels, but force them to stop raping the artist for all their money and actually charge maybe only 10% for something they had no part in making. It may also for artists to promote themselves to radio stations and other forms of advertising to get noticed. Either way, the RIAA's days are hopefully numbered.
    • thepxc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's more likely, I think, that those outside-of-the-mainstream artists would get more exposure with this model: when you name the price, it's easier to justify spending the money to purchase an album of an artist you've never heard of.
    • ancillarydrone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7All I've ever heard from artists is how horrible the record industry is and how much it rips them off. You talk about the effect this has on new artists? Most artists end up OWING their record company, the lucky few see a few crumbs of profit and the .001% like radiohead might get six figures out of a record. At least radiohead realizes that it's selling your soul to the most disgusting people you can imagine. Being a part of a record label RARELY financially benefits the artist and when it does you are tainted by their stink of filth, you lose no matter what.
      • wutitang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Reminds me of the song "Hooker With a Penis" we all whore out eventually...
    • MarkDTS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4First, let me say that I applaud your wide angled view of this (r)evolutionary movement made by Radiohead. Truly, we are in a daunting time for artists of all genres, not just musicians in particular. Your secondary concerns are defiantly that, something to be considered with, but as a musician/ artist myself who has worked in the industry, I'm willing to take these risks. The facts are this, we've become overly saturated by industry assembled bands, formulated standards in songs(Nickleback as an example, I shouldn't have to say more than that), and fashion statements sounding off louder than the musically driven ones. It honestly comes down to this, music will always be around, people will always make music, as they have for millions of years. People will continue to come out and enjoy/ support the artists that they like/ love and more, not less, bands will be able to support themselves as independent artists. They won't have "industry people" saying that they can't be marketed in the rap market because they're not "ethnic" enough (Tech N9ne). We wouldn't be forced to pay $30-$100 to watch our favorite artists lip sync to our favorite songs, only because they can't reproduce the track live. People may consider looking outside the borders of America for influence in their music, and performance, styles. In an age where we can produce high quality recordings on our laptops, and distribute that same music through that same laptop, Record labels have become this giant purple elephant without a home. I personally can't wait for them to topple. I have seen many of my friends become bitter to music by the way they, and their music, was treated by the industry. Careers killing all because record execs couldn't find a genre to squeeze their music into. I believe that we have nothing but positive things to look forward too, but as we know, it can only get worse before it can get better.

      Help support Radiohead, if for no other reason than to give other artists the courage to try the same.
      I'm sorry if this ends up sounding disjointed. I'm sorry to say that I'm not able to spend the time that I want to on this topic.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Am I the only one that paid nothing, listened to it, then paid when "buying" it again? It makes the average payment half of what I paid.
      • xtc46, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, thats what I did too. It says pay what you think its worth. how do I know what its worth unless i hear it first.
    • ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As a failed musician myself, I would love to see the demise of record labels. Even the indies can be blood suckers these days. I think artists need to go back to the root of music... before there were clueless old men in suits waving money in our faces, and promises of fame & fortune.

      I'm sorry... I'm not worried at all whether Sony, BMI, Geffen, even Subpop (yeah I said it, Subpop!) are going to bed hungry tonight or not.
    • fodi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey Man, I have a theory on how it'll work for the upstart-bands. People will download their music for free, or just a couple of cents. This will help those bands get listeners. As time goes by, if the band is any good, people will go to download their back-catalogue. At this point they'll probably pay a lot more for the early stuff.... it'll all be balanced-out in the end.

      ...and this model kinda makes sense to me... a first-year professional gets paid a lot less than someone with years of experience, due to their reputation. I can't see why it shouldn't work for music too.
  • muiro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I'm not a really huge fan of Radiohead, but I think this is a genius idea. Its reprocutions on the short term will probably be forgetable, but it's definately a note belonging to the right chord of how the music industry should be running: differently. Hopefully more bands start doing things their own way and getting away from the old draconian record label system.
  • ccra300, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17It's not everyday that bands will let you pay literally nothing for a cd. It takes a lot from a band to be able to step up and offer this to the public, but it takes even more from the public to step up further and pay more than $1.00 for and artists work or even download it for free. Making a statement like Purebuttons did being the consumer in the situation says a lot, we support the entertainment business. Without it the world would be bland.
    • tyboulder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Purebuttons? That sounds like the name of a retarded cat. Look at how many morons dugg this. Like you wouldn't pay $1,000 to promote your company this heavily? Nevermind, forget I said that. Note to self...
    • Sublimin4L, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like the random Ohio residents (http://www.purebuttons.com/contact.php) signing up just to say how great the company is. Something smells fishy...
  • justwan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Christ way to raise the bar. Hope this does not get twisted into being how much we ALL should pay :p
  • bendersama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17"I'll buy that for a dollar!"
  • Jsmakr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Great idea for cheap marketing by them and even better it's great for Radiohead.
    • ElectroOverlord, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1Agreed....I have no need for buttons but for some odd reason I just bookmarked them. Maybe some ***** the RIAA buttons....
  • imightbewrong, on 10/17/2007, -8/+5i cant stop listening its sooo good
    ..i don't wanna be your friend....i just wanna be your lover....
    • Mononuclear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8isn't that a spice girl song?
      • tyboulder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe that's exactly his point...
      • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1you guys are ***** stupid
        its a line from house of cards of of In rainbows
        • ApolloXLII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hey, guess what. jokes are funny.
  • xpose, on 10/17/2007, -5/+130Incredible PR stunt. Very very smart.
  • Annon, on 10/17/2007, -14/+43While I'm all for radiohead getting props for their record, why the need to put out a press release and everything?
    You paid the $1000 for all the publicity you are going to get and spammed your site here.
    Buried as spam.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4Who cares why they did it? They did it, and it's a good thing. Just because they can also get some good PR out of it doesn't mean a damn thing. It's like saying that companies or individuals should not be commended for donating to charities just because it also happens to give them a good public image. There's nothing wrong with a win-win situation, it's a good thing.
  • bouche, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29This doesn't prove anything. They just paid $1000 for 160 Kbps mp3's and some promo on digg and other blogs. No Digg. If you're of rational mind, you would at most pay the 80 USD for the box set. $1000 is clearly a cry for promotion of a website/company I've never heard of.
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They paid $200 for the 160kbps MP3s and bought ten box sets at $80 each. Look at the receipt.

      Yes, it's quite clearly a PR stunt (and it worked!), but there's still a valid point behind it. They just decided that they could take advantage of someone else's good idea - in a way that's good for that party (Radiohead) - for a bit of self-promotion. That's no different than all of the big stores selling productRED crap, or pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness or whatever. They give back to the cause, and get some PR out of it. That's how PR works.
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except things like productRED spent many times more on advertising their generosity than actually brought in by the percentages they donate of the products value.
  • zpelleti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3great movement they initiated, i hope it lives long.
    all it needed was a powerful album, and indeed it is.
  • dustblaaze, on 11/05/2007, -33/+195dugg down for **DIGG THIS**

    Thats pretty douchey. Go ahead and bury me. =)
    • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1buried =(
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20oh the irony
      • ApolloXLII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i sir, would debate that this is truly ironic!
    • kuyman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No thanks :)
    • stu42j, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I agree. Putting **DIGG THIS** in the title is redundant. Why would you post on Digg if you didn't want people to digg it?
    • carbog, on 10/13/2007, -2/+14what's even more douchey is asking to be buried just to get dugg up.
    • ancillarydrone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4DIGG THIS is lame-ass ebay stuff. But what radiohead's doing does deserve the kickback.
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this was for any other cause, I would agree... but this is a move that deserves the attention that it is getting. Tagging a post with DIG THIS is fine when everyone on Digg really should be digging it.
  • dojonz, on 10/18/2007, -7/+162$1000 for the front page of Digg is a cheap price to pay.
    • N256, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1You don't go to Digg much if you think $1000 is a low standard for the front page.
      • tyboulder, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3You have no idea. How often does a purely promotional act for an irrelevant (button making) site get this type of publicity? I've never seen it. Yeah, there's stupid ***** on the front page every day, but they're not all heavily hawking their wares like this Co.
    • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It'd be worth the price at a website where people who were actually interested in their product saw it. Digg is just a bunch of cynical nutters who hate people doing anything that benefits themselves while they whine about stuff that didn't work in their favor. Myself included, for the record.
      • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAHA, Firehed, bravo my friend... bravo.
  • secretmode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5another awsome frontpage story
  • zachberry, on 10/17/2007, -2/+37Technical detail - They payed 100 pounds for the digital download, the rest was applied towards the physical discbox which had a set price.
    • nonokiaboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2EH?
      • Firehed, on 10/14/2007, -0/+310 £40 boxsets, 1 £99 download. £499 ~ $1000US.
    • TFDog, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4But paying $100 for the download sounds a lot less impressive than paying $1000 for the download. Would take the teeth out of the press release wouldn't it! Good of them to support the idea though...
      • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1Again in order for purbuttons to reach a goal of $1000 they had to order that way, you can only order 1 digital download at a max of £99.99 aprox. $200. So to reach that goal to show their support they had to also buy the sets. If the website would allow you to pay $1000 USD it would have been done.
  • stark23x, on 10/16/2007, -31/+28Radiohead lied to EVERYONE:

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selli ...
    • djctown, on 10/13/2007, -1/+13well in order to get CDs on the shelves you have to distribute them. You obviously don't know a thing about the music industry, you expect Thom Yorke to drive down to Virgin and drop off the CDs himself?
      • abeautifulplace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The interview announcing the CD release dated back well before the actual mp3 release (http://www.ateaseweb.com/2007/10/04/radiohead-to-s ... and was made on the BBC, one of the worlds biggest news outlets (hardly kept quiet then). This article on gizmodo is completely inaccurate.
      • Firehed, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Well I guess we can't just kill off the RIAA after all now, can we?

        Unfortunately, so long as people want to be able to buy music at their local Wal-Mart (and many do), the RIAA will exist. When the CD dies to downloads, so will the RIAA along with it.
    • bangerznmash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That, and the fact that they never said they weren't releasing it to CD. They were enticing everybody, so that they will want to hold the CD in their hands. It's been done before. Your dumbass just jumped to conclusions, and you were wrong.
    • starlitdays, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Er, I was very aware as I was ordering that a physical cd release was coming. So. I reckon those of us who read things weren't lied to at all.
    • terminal157, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3What is it that they said that is untrue? There's nothing. So how can they have lied?
    • xorvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So is there any other source for this or is it just pro-RIAA spam? Its being brought up every 10 posts, and its nothing I didnt know when I bought the download, its great, and if you think you were lied to maybe you didnt know what you were doing. Dont call not knowing what you are doing being lied to, its called being dumb.
    • Attrition, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I fully support an artist trying to get their product out to absolutely every market possible. The download is to show they're not being pussy whipped by the media cartels. It's a good thing.
  • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4IN RAINBOWS IS SOOO GOOD
    .....i dont wanna be your friend i just wanna be your lover....
  • thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1ohhh jeffff
  • grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23that sucks considering:
    "They're releasing In Rainbows on CD in January through one of the Big Four (all of whom they're in negotiations with right now), and it might contain extra material not found in the digital version."
    ( http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selli ... )
    • maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2weak... it would be one thing to hand out the CDs at retailers for nothing, with a note on the packaging pointing to the website where someone could make a payment if they felt it was worth it...
    • ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hmm, seems Gizmodo took that article down quick. the url redirects to the main page.
  • zephead99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's too bad that everyone jumped to call this first coming of a music industry without major labels. Radiohead is going to be releasing the album on one of the 4 majors in January. Just an exercise in boosting future record sales, straight from their management company.
    • BloodyMess, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4You know, I just really am not feeling the backlash that Gizmodo wants me to. I bought it knowing I would get 160kbps DRM-free MP3s. That's what I got. The music itself is great. I paid 4 pounds, have no plans on buying any CD, and am completely satisfied. Why do I care if they're releasing it on a Big Four label again? Everyone is acting like they're suddenly going to be obligated to buy the CD.

      Finally, I say between paying ~$8 (or whatever), all of which goes to the artist, and paying $16, of which $1 goes to the artist, it's pretty clear that the best choice is still the download. The artwork on Radiohead's CDs is nice and all, but frankly, there's enough available online that if I feel like it I'll just throw together my own packaging.
      • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The point is that all of the PR they've gotten out of this deal made it seem like they wanted to kill off the RIAA, only to go talk with them about getting their album distributed in physical form. Of course nobody's obligated to go buy the CD, but the statement they appeared to be making with this move was completely counteracted by this new move.
        • Attrition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The PR is anti-RIAA fanboys (disclaimer: I hate the RIAA) posturing about how this will be the downfall of the Big Four and whatnot. Radiohead wants to publish their music to the largest audience possible, and make money to do it again. If you support the band itself, buy their download copy, or go to their concerts. You are not the CDs target market.
  • mikeeeeeee, on 10/15/2007, -0/+55All I see is an order for 10 box sets at 40 pounds each and one download for 100 pounds. When did they buy the album at $1000? They bought 11 albums...
    • zspeed78, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I agree.. isnt this a lie. They paid a lot of money for the box sets theyre going to hand out to people as gifts.. and only a little for the digital download. Its pretty lame to try and say you paid $1000 just for the download.
      • TheToecutter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think the point is that Radiohead is getting most of the money, not some ***** suit at a record label.
      • Firehed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wouldn't consider $200 a little for a download (all downloads are digital, last I checked), though it's certainly a misleading if not flat-out inaccurate title.
        • zspeed78, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Download:
          1. To unload: download cargo from a transport aircraft.
          2. Computer Science To transfer (data or programs) from a server or host computer to one's own computer or device.

          If youre into correcting people for the sake of it.. there you go.
    • Optic7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Isn't 100 pounds just about up to $1000 nowadays? :-)
    • TheNewFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm so glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

      "What heroes, 10 radiohead fans chipped in on one online order and all got their 'discboxes' "
  • toppur, on 10/13/2007, -12/+17http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selli ...

    Suckers....
    • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah getting the album months ahead and the money going directly to the band, boo ***** hoo
    • alwilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Radiohead has said from the beginning that they are shopping for a label and plan to release a CD later. That's the big ***** deal? Don't tell me you all really thought they were screwing with the record companies? No, if anything they were just getting a jump on the torrent sites by offering there music for free or pay what you want. It worked. A lot of people who would have stolen it, probably paid a buck or two. So, Radiohead gets money from the people who would have stole it and they get to make money later off the CD. Brilliant.
  • xtr3m, on 10/14/2007, -1/+35I'm sorry, but don't digg this.
    It's a pure marketing move. $1000 is a fair price for the amount of exposure the company is going to get. It's on par with destroying an iPhone and making a video of it.
    • mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How dare you insult Tom Dickson!
  • eville84, on 10/16/2007, -2/+31this post is inacurate. the only gave Radiohead £99 for one album. they spent £400 on 10 boxsets. This is the cost radiohead was charging. (boxsets are a package that contain artwork / cds) Purebuttons.com is nothing but shameless promotors making false claims.
    • tmh27, on 10/14/2007, -6/+2Yeah, if you actually go to their website, that is the most you can possibly order in one shopping cart, It's not about marketing, it's about making a big statement to the music industry! They clearly are doing it, in a big way. They purchased as much as they could for top dollar, im sure if they could have bought one album at $1,000 they would have done it, but if you go to there cart, it is restricted to 99.99GBP. It's not like they bought 11 seperate albums and are claming them to be one, ITS ONE ALBUM!
      • jaredscottm, on 10/14/2007, -3/+3nobody needs 10 box sets. if they were about making a big statement, why wouldn't he pay $1000 for just the album download then place another order for $1,000 worth of box sets?

        CHUMP! you've been had!
        • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Please READ the post above...... "They purchased as much as they could for top dollar, im sure if they could have bought one album at $1,000 they would have done it, but if you go to there cart, it is restricted to 99.99GBP" thanks. Please read and research before you post negative feedback.
    • terminal157, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I can't believe it took that long for someone to point this out.
    • alwilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I saw that right away. They are using the success of what Radiohead did as a way promote their business. Next we will be getting spam from Nigeria with the same deal.
  • dgath, on 11/02/2007, -5/+127Record label exec #1: "Holy Crap, someone just bought In Rainbows for $1,000!"
    Record label exec #2: "Really? We should look into the 'You name the price' method for selling albums"
    Record label exec #1: "Yeah, but we we'll have to set a minimum of say.... $15. We can't have people not paying anything for it, but we'll of course let people pay as much as they want for it"
    Record label exec #2: "Genius!"
    Record label exec #1: "Genius!"
    [and they open bottles of Guiness]
  • Radian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Oh the irony.... they actually have a press release, a digg submission, etc... to talk about how Radiohead is "silently" changing the industry.... I'm sure they have absolutely no hope that this will benefit PureButtons.com :-)

    I applaud PureButtons anyway, heck I plunked down $25 for the album even though I don't like their music, just to contribute a little to the cause.
  • IVIrMP3, on 10/16/2007, -1/+11Disclaimer: Purchased $1000 worth of In Rainbows i.e. 10 Disc Box's were purchased (Digital Download, CD, and LP included) at a combined price of 400GBP and 1 digital download for 100GBP. With exchange rate 500GBP becomes 1000USD
    • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3"They purchased as much as they could for top dollar, im sure if they could have bought one album at $1,000 they would have done it, but if you go to there cart, it is restricted to 99.99GBP"
      From: tmh27

      did any of you even look at radiohead's website ?? or the order system. It will not let you pay more then 99.99GBP so in order to reach a goal of $1000 USD they had to also include the box sets, for the SAME ALBUM not to mention if you go through the order process you can have more then 1 digital download...

      Thanks.
  • tpawloski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2At a few dollars a CD, they will still be making more money than the record companies would be paying. The evil record empire is ripping off the artists and the fans are sticking it to record companies.
    • AshtonK, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0no... the record empire is not evil. The Bush Administration is evil. The record 'empire' as you like to call it is like any other industry. Even video games. Since when did you purchase a video game that wasn't produced by some big company only to have them put advertisements all over the place in the game and not give you a discount for those ads? It's hard to be an artist in the music industry because it usually takes more than just being the artist, songwriter, and performer. You have to protect yourself legally. No matter what though, music has it's business and even though this whole concept sounds cool, and awesome for Radiohead to do.... they are only doing it because they have some 11 other albums out, so finically, they are doing alright. I challenge you to find some new act or group to try the same thing and see if they make more than $9.25 for their album.
  • CrazyRedHatter, on 10/14/2007, -16/+27Too bad Radio head is going to offer the C.D. in the 'traditional' ripoff sense now. It totally negates any respect I had gained for them.

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selli ...

    Turns out it was just one huge PR stunt. Thus the crappy format.
    • Chirp08, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1thats ***** up.
    • etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why? I for one want to be able to buy a CD of theirs (and not the big, expensive box set). I still get the option of having the music for free if I want (and in a higher quality than if it had been offered on iTunes for cash).
    • terminal157, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They never said otherwise.
    • xorvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hmmm sounds familiar to the post above, same non working link too.... spam.
    • cypher303, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So it's a problem for you that you can buy this album for a penny right now? You do realize that making great music isn't a simple ordeal, right? It really does take a lot of hard work, speaking as a musician myself. Despite what you might think, these people really should be compensated for their work. Just think, for real Radiohead fans who might actually buy their album, this is a really good deal!
  • pilardi, on 10/16/2007, -6/+31Buried for having **DIGG THIS** in headline.
    • tmh27, on 10/14/2007, -8/+2I think they posted the **DIGG THIS** to get your attention, and to get the point accross that this is important to the entertainment industry, they also left their press release open ended, interesting. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, DONT BURY THEM FOR CHOOSING A PHRASE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE USED.
      • mookiemookie, on 10/14/2007, -2/+4No, I'll bury them for being douches about it and pulling some kind of ***** you'd see on ebay: "NEW UNOPENED LQQK!"
        • jessicass, on 10/16/2007, -4/+3Yeah.. that totally negates the important thing they did.

          It never ceases to amaze me that people cry from the rooftops about how the RIAA sucks and when something GOOD actually happens there are a ton of jaded little brats who suddenly have to talk about how it's really not such a big deal because of "blah blah blah." But your reasoning is probably the most utterly ridiculous that I have seen thus far. You don't like the headline on digg so it stopped being an important, newsworthy story? Give me a break.

          It all just reeks of hating things for the sake of hating them. Being at odds with everything does not make you edgy or cool. No one is impressed.
    • sallos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you. I was just about to say the same.
    • nhsba, on 10/14/2007, -1/+0http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_This:_09-f9-11-02-9 ...

      Interesting how the number one article on digg in a year has Digg This in the title, but this gets buried.....even though it is important if you like music.......interesting....
  • GodIsntReal, on 10/17/2007, -7/+6I think its semi cool they are giving it away even if it pretty much is just a publicity stunt but i really don't like radiohead plus the mp3s are only 160kbs.
  • StoneDead, on 10/15/2007, -2/+9Is it possible to buy this for 0.00?
    • drunkwally, on 10/17/2007, -5/+0Nah they have a handling charge - like 48p or something. I paid 3 pounds, haven't ever purchased radiohead before but it's actually quite good.
    • Devilboy666, on 10/15/2007, -0/+10Yes it is possible - no credit card asked for if you enter $0 as your price.
      • La9os, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, i typed in 0.0 . didnt ask for a credit card and just emailed me the download link.
    • alwilson, on 10/17/2007, -4/+1Yeah, they didn't charge me anything on bittorrent either.
  • markp93, on 10/23/2007, -0/+20Here, I think you dropped this. (hands them a decimal point)
  • gaznet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1great PR stunt guys!
  • fchikhli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1album went for 100 pounds, and he bought 10, 40pound special versions, idiota
  • Typhoon2009, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It would just be so epic on a scale of 10 if tomorrow's headlines read: BREAKING NEWS - RIAA AND MPAA NO LONGER EXIST
    Radiohead, NIN, and hell even Madonna are helping that be a reality.
  • joeycerone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Stop telling me to DIGG anything, I'll digg whatever the hell I want to digg.

    And yes, I dugg it anyways.
    • jessicass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WHATEVA. I'LL DO WHAT I WANT.
      • eatspie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"WHATEVA. I'LL DO WHAT I WANT"
        A bury for you.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.