What is Digg?155 Comments
- omarciddo, on 11/02/2007, -1/+59Mark, I can see you just joined Digg within the last week or so, so fair warning, signatures are kinda frowned upon here.
- jmark13, on 11/02/2007, -2/+41Thanks for the heads up.
- opethlike, on 11/05/2007, -6/+34We really dont give a rats ass about your myspace page.
- richmessenger, on 10/26/2007, -3/+29- Since the disk hasn't came out yet, the 160kbps is the only quality available.
-There was quite a bit of time after the first couple days for you to successfully pre-order.
-Those that cared, knew.
- There was no personal information required if you bought it for nothing. - metapop, on 10/26/2007, -2/+26because it's easier than giving radiohead your email, waiting for the email confirmation, clicking on their link, downloading it, opening up the zip drive, and dragging it to itunes (or whatever player you use). i downloaded it from their website, but that would be my thought why someone would torrent it.
- krets, on 10/27/2007, -1/+20It's going to be very interesting in the next few years to see how many artists follow suit. As young musicians become more tech savvy and older musicians see the success of artists like Radiohead, NIN, and Madonna. The music industry is digging itself a gigantic grave here and I can't wait until they are pushed into it.
- vault, on 10/28/2007, -3/+21I paid for it too, great album...more like OK Computer than the recent stuff.
- minorthreat, on 10/26/2007, -4/+22your statement doesnt make sense.. Why do you assume that if something is downloaded using BitTorrent that you are pirating??
- drakethegreat, on 10/27/2007, -1/+18The only people who I ever heard bad mouthing this idea was some idiots on the radio. So if the queermos who are owned by the labels are the only ones bitching then it has to be the perfect idea.
- simondotcalvin, on 10/27/2007, -0/+15I know it's a tired point, but if they made anything at all, it's probably more than they would've made if they'd have released on a major label. Plus they got the music out to the fans - all of them who wanted the album, not just those that could afford it - and that increases their revenue from concert tickets and merchandise.
Also, I'd just like to point out that as long as we insist on measuring success in music in sales figures, we're not going to get very far in fixing what's broken in the industry. - aywwts4, on 10/26/2007, -1/+13Mark, read this in full. http://www.chandlerkent.com/stories/2007/1/06.php
Its the story of the most dugg down digg user, he was harrassed and people were calling his phone; this is his comment
"I'm digging this because that site is pretty sweet. Never heard of it before. Thanks for that!
-Chandler Kent
http://www.chandlerkent.com" - inactive, on 11/05/2007, -0/+10And a Dog to protect himself from the Internet Hate Machine.
- neodorian, on 10/26/2007, -0/+10Sorry you didn't dig it. I've been listening to it for the past couple of weeks. Great album IMO.
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/29/2007, -0/+10Their web site got completely CRUSHED for the first few days. I downloaded the album from an "unauthorized source" then gave them my donation a few days later when the site had calmed down. Who's to say how many of those BitTorrent downloads were not done with the same auspices?
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/27/2007, -0/+10Honestly, I didn't know what to expect. I personally do not like this album. But I'm still very please to have contributed £15 just to be able to tell the RIAA to go and f**k themselves.
Off to Magnatune to buy a few more RIAA-free albums! - DancingPaul, on 10/26/2007, -0/+8Forbes.com has reported that though the album could be legitimately purchased for free, it was still downloaded over 240,000 times from peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks on the first day of release. Such downloads have totaled more than 500,000.
Those are startling numbers that suggest regardless of what bands or record labels do, great numbers of people are still going to pirate music. It's part of the culture now — even Radiohead's radical experiment didn't change that.
So it was Free? and people dirtibuted it over Bittorent?
So anything that is ditributed over Bittorrent is Pirated? Even if it was originally free?
I'm confused. - bdbr, on 11/02/2007, -0/+8This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.
$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
A couple of items of note:
1. The label costs are broken out, whereas the artist's costs aren't even mentioned.
2. Most of the cost is marketing, production, and retailing - costs that diggers think are free
Quoted from:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/wal ... - astrotrain, on 10/27/2007, -3/+10I'm glad to see Radiohead going on the same path as Jamendo and letting the fans decide what to pay for the album. (btw, http://ogg.jamendo.com/en/ for Jamendo).
This keeps the filthy hands of the RIAA and their DRM virus out of my music listening pleasure and devices.
Now if we can get more limelight groups to go this route, it will be the death of the RIAA and DRM as we known it for several years now.
As for MSNBC (Microsoft), they must have been living under a rock to think this is breaking news. - Pimptastic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7Honestly I probably would not have even thought of getting this album, But I figured, its the artist releasing it, why the hell not. Its better than spending $15 on the current crap cd's that are out.
- catalysis, on 10/27/2007, -2/+9Goes to show you can still make money by releasing your album on the internet, as long as you are already very popular.
- jmark13, on 11/04/2007, -0/+6Thanks for the article. I am new here and didn't know the proper etiquette. I wasn't thinking of it as spam because it was a signature and I left what I thought was an insightful comment. But now I know not to do this again.
- leek, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7Did you all listen to the same album ? How can one compare it to OK computer and another compare it to their more recent work ? These are undeniably two different styles...
- Aslander, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7I downloaded it from Usenet because the site was hammered and not working. I see that as a valid reason. Maybe we would rather not contribute to crashing the site and costing them even more money?
- natedouglas, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Oh, God, I hope you're not talking about "Creep."
- neodorian, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Because on the release date their site was slowed to a crawl and you couldn't even get to the download.
- actorboy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Clearly, sir, you are an idiot. Please consult your piracy manual for more talking points that do not apply.
- shauncullen, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Yep, unfortunately Thom has said this all along. Online is too limited when compared to traditional record sales. Not everyone has a computer, credit card, or even knows how to buy stuff online. I wish that we were in a world were everybody was completely digital, but the traditional ways of selling stuff is too big to be ignored. It'll happen, but not right now. Luckily, there are some big names with a TON of cash from the traditional way of doing things that are willing to experiment with online distribution because they can afford to play around with it.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/26/2007, -3/+8The jigsaw is falling into place you RIAA bastards!!
- webj, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5I guess their bread is still buttered by touring... hope they still make some $ with the album sales. I'll definitely give it a spin.
- HaywoodGiablomi, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5The two best sentences I've read in a very long time: . "Unlike their previous records, all the revenues this time go to the band. Radiohead's long-term deal with music giant EMI Group has expired, allowing them to release "In Rainbows" themselves."
. Dear "Labels", HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... {Gaaaaaasp!} HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! . Signed, . Everyone - fribhey, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4no they aren't. they are only signing a distribution deal with an indie label to sell it in stores. there's a big difference between signing a record deal with a major label and only signing a distribution deal with any label:
this is from the new york times:
"Under the proposed deal, Radiohead would license the album, “In Rainbows,” for a specified period of time but retain ownership of the recording."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/business/media/2 ... - OnionBaggage, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Pirating? If you can get it for free... with fake information...
I just don't get it.
Washing my hands clean of this comment. - pcp777, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4That is hilarious..poor guy....
- thailand1972, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5500,000 downloads is a lot. Are you suggesting most of these downloads are from users who already downloaded it legitimately from Radiohead's website and they just wanted a copy on some other PC? I highly doubt it.
- ccheath, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4IMHO they should set up a BT tracker and offer a 160 or 192 kbps mp3 for free ... then offer a paid copy that is lossless (on a private bt tracker or some other such delivery mechanism) ...
they do have the right idea with their box set though ... if i was a big fan i'd definitely go for that - gummih, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5I think it's mostly because many kids don't have credit cards. Which suits Radiohead fine, what better way to gain a future audience. Also, their site caused problems on some setups so that might have caused some to torrent instead ( I paid for it )
- timewarp424, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6Um. Guys? You know Radiohead isn't doing this to change the market, right? They're releasing the CD with a major label too.
- tendonut, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Lets not forget that the $1.2M is almost pure profit. How much do you think it cost to actually produce the album? Lets say (and this is probably a gross miscalculation), that it was $100,000. That's still $1.1M of profit. I wonder how much they made when selling through a major label?
- bdbr, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Its not really that confusing. The whole point of copyright law is to allow the OWNER to have the power to decide how something can be copied and/or distributed. If Radiohead had authorized its distribution via bittorrent, it would have been legal. Otherwise its not.
- mushroomsrmagic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3actually, i think they might be embarrased by how much money they've made off the download.
- scorchedearth, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Electronic music needs to be high fidelity to be enjoyed properly as much as jazz or classical do. Those of us who are savvy about music production are aware of this. Its not our fault that the hacks who populate the scene are too ***** up to notice that the music they are listening to sounds like *****.
- Ascus, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Yep, downloaded didn't like it, but no money lost, and I'll still check out thier next album. Unlike If I paid $15 for it, I would likely not buy a another one from them and I'd sell it to a used CD store where someone else would buy it and the band would not make a dime from the sale.
This is the way for bands to take control of thier music. - tendonut, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Is someone intentionally digging down every thing I say? For the past few days, no matter how much I agree with what everyone else is saying and contribute to the comments, I always get dugg down, even when someone repeats what I say one or two comments later. (Obviously, I won't be offended if one were to dig THIS comment down, since it's just an angry rant)
- bdbr, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Radiohead owns the copyright, and unless they authorize its distribution through Bittorrent, it is pirating.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to justify it, like "I was just reducing the load on their server" or "I had problems getting an authorized copy", and certainly as piracy goes its quite mild, but none of that makes it authorized. - aywwts4, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3You probably arent going to feel the pain too badly, your comment was good, and your comment is only about 1/5th spam, which is better than chandler's 1:2 ratio.
- topherbook, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I don't like Radiohead, and I've never paid a dime for their music. But I dropped a couple of bucks in the hat for the new record. I want their idea to succeed and those majors to get what's coming to them. I can shell out a few bucks for a good cause.
- showhe1, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Actually they are looking for an Indie label and not a major label to put this out on CD.
- actorboy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2It's the artists' right to determine if and how they want their art distributed. Look at it this way, if I took a great photo, put it up on my web page, and said feel free to come look at it as much as you want, download it or make it a desktop, that's my choice. That doesn't, however, give other people the right to put my photo up on their own websites and offer it to the world. My content, my distribution choice.
- ronaldinho, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2People are BT-ing because their website cannot handle the traffic? Maybe they should just let people BT it and they set up a donation account? With their big name maybe it's do-able
- nicc, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2you were only charged the $.45 if you put a value of $.01 or more.
if you selected $0, you paid $0 -
Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is