What is Digg?273 Comments
- Room101, on 11/04/2007, -31/+135160 KBPS? What happened to the band that was upset that Hail to the Thief was leaked in poor quality?
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/22/2007, -1/+95What a brilliant move by Radiohead. Hopefully their model will become a trend.
- digginestdog, on 10/13/2007, -4/+72...but at least it isn't 128kbps DRM-ed AAC
- DigitalN, on 10/11/2007, -8/+72seriously, have you guys nothing better to bitch about? first you bitch about the RIAA cutting into bands profits, and then when you get a chance to download a 100% legal copy of their album for however much you want to pay for it, you start bitching that it isn't high enough quality? get a ***** life people.
- SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+51Instead of a trend.. why not the standard?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+46I bet they are thinking about bandwidth more than anything.
- SteveCUBE, on 10/11/2007, -12/+56Yeah I'm a little disappointed in the 160kbps, but whatever December I'll have my discbox.
- MattB123, on 10/22/2007, -3/+47160 kpbs is ok, but I'd really prefer 192, 320 or best of all, flac. That said this is a great step in the right direction. I gave them about $8 for the download. I really want this to work and catch on for other bands. Then we can talk about better codecs and such.
- culturalsub, on 11/08/2007, -1/+42An appeal to all Diggers: here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. For years we have been complaining about the unfairness of the RIAA model; time and again we have exercised our outrage at the slow erosion of civil liberties caused by the "War on Piracy"; countless times we have prognosticated a future where bands would be free from the subjugation of their recording industry overlords. Guess what? Now is the time when YOU can actually make a difference and make the revolution happen. And it's so easy that even the laziest of "armchair activists" can finally prove the world they really want to change the status quo. And if proving to the world is not enough, then you can prove to YOURSELF that you are not an inconsequential, spineless amoeba. Come on, give these guys $5 or $10, or whatever you feel is just. If this initiative makes enough money to bring in headlines for Radiohead, I tell you one thing: the end will be nigh for the RIAA.
One last note: enough with the bitrate excuses. Pay for the 160kbps version NOW, and once the CD and high-quality versions come out, then you can bittorrent it and share it all you want. The band surely won't mind. - iheartjebus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34emphasis on polite, since they are being pretty ***** awesome.
- traceelemental, on 10/13/2007, -2/+35They are gonna make a TON of cash.. no fat man in the middle!
I love this new music industry model...
My only question is... how are the new bands going to get the attention they deserve? It's great that NIN and Radiohead can do this, but what if they had just formed in 2006? Without the mass media push, no one would know how great they are! - Gerz1219, on 10/22/2007, -2/+28Radiohead was upset about the Hail to the Thief leak because those were in-progress mixes that were pretty far from complete, a claim which was borne out by the retail version. I doubt it had much to do with the bitrate of the leaked MP3's. For most people with an iPod and $30 headphones, it will be difficult to tell much difference between 160k and 192k files, while the higher bandwidth costs associated with 192k files would probably be considerable. That's to say nothing of FLAC files, which would make this distribution model impractical.
- reed311, on 11/11/2007, -3/+27Good thing the average listener does not have high-end hardware or adequate ear training.
- jperdomo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23I gladly paid for this album having all Radiohead's albums. Despite not being that impressed by their last album, I had to support this movement without even listening to a preview of any of these songs. Please buy this album and support true artists. Hopefully a movement like this can shake us free from the current state of terrible commercial music. Just listen to the radio, its terrible.
- phanfave, on 10/11/2007, -8/+31XXXkbps is ok, but I really wanted XXX+1kbps
Geesh, do we only harp on the bad and never the good? They're selling their new album without a label and DRM free. Nevermind you can name your own price. - sishgupta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21It would be nice if they later released the download in more formats like flac, ogg and MP3@V0...
I'd gladly put down a $20 if I could get it in a lossless...not because I am an audiophile but just because I'd like to be able to convert it freely w/o degradation. - Nerfdude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23no kidding, it's being distributed for free, and i'm still going to have to steal it to listen to it.
- jockser, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17This will be the first album I'm buying in four years. bought it for £8.
- Synthesize, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20Really excited for this. I went as far as buying the discbox even though I'm not a huge fan. They deserve it. You guys also need to chill on the 160 kbps DRM free because if you think about it, imagine all the bandwidth they would need if it was 256 or 320kbps. Just wait it out and a better quality will come out soon for all the audiophiles out there.
- skyshock1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15If they'd distributed it via biti torrent they wouldn't have to worry about the bandwidth costs. Make it 320 and give us a torrent. I'll happily donate my unused upstream bandwidth to help distribute it via bit torrent.
- ThreeDee912, on 10/22/2007, -5/+18LAME -V 2 --vbr-new FTW!
- mysteryman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15radiohead, drm free. It's all I need to know. I don't like the 160kbps, but damn, this move is going to piss off the fat-greedy labels :D xD new models for the music industry FTW!! let's get rid off the middle man!
- aaryn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22Wow, 160 kbps thats HORRIBLE, when they start releasing free albums at 256 kbps all the audio engineers at Digg will start complaining that they should be releasing the tracks in Lossless formats only because the "*****" bitrate hurts their ears. Seriously.
- BeauKemp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17160 kbps is fine. I would prefer 192, but to be honest it would be very hard to tell the difference. I bet most of you couldn't tell the difference between 128 and 256kbps.
- skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12And just for this, I will make it a POINT to go attend their concert when they come near me, and buy some merchandise. Thank you Radiohead for being the first major band that "gets it".
- mrjit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Everything is being pushed toward a more show-going "scene." Viral marketing, myspace, last.fm, pandora, things such as that nature. There are thousands upon thousands of small bands that are highly sought after that the main-stream audience doesn't know about - and a good portion of them don't care about being known about. They want to make music, be "rockstars," do shows, have fans, etc.
- JEWestbrookJR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You know how I know this is working? Because I NEVER EVER EVER buy music any more unless it is something very rare, I usually just pirate music. But I bought this. And for $15 USD. About what it would cost in the store and the only people profiting are the people who deserve to (The band).
- Kyouto, on 10/22/2007, -7/+19160Kbps.... which is exactly why a lot of us waited to pay.
Oh well, I'll probably still give them 5 bucks (or more, depending on how good the album actually is.) - r2builder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11"why do people put compressed mp3's into zip files"
to collate them into one file for easy distribution. - Teej, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13160kbps? I would have expected 192 or 256. Oh well, at least I've ordered the discbox. Good thing they're not DRMed, great move, however, that was kind of expected :)
- ianbirtwistle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I'm in the UK now. If midnight is in 20 mins then I SERIOUSLY need a new watch..
- 3dom, on 11/11/2007, -9/+18Sure there is. You just wouldnt notice it without high-end hardware and adequate ear training. To an engineer, a mix will sound 'incomplete' and will probably just barely stand 192k on professional standard monitors.
- clothmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10No, you pay for it...
- humperdeath, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Bury BBFD, @3d WWYT? If IRC, MP3 ROK. So, SUF and GAL.
GG, CYa! - unfinity, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11buried for being a music douche.
- Quickdood, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Brilliant, they made it just too low of a bitrate to be put on Oink!
- Shorties, on 11/11/2007, -5/+12Seriously just buy the CD if you are that Anal about the quality, or better yet the Box set that includes the Vinyl.
- madcoweater, on 11/11/2007, -0/+7They would probably thank you for not wasting their bandwidth.
- TheRemoteViewer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Complain here: downloadinrainbows@waste.uk.com Send them a polite letter asking them to release it in a higher bitrate.
- shazzb0t, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7last time i checked 160kbps was less than 192kbps... so quickdood's point still stands.
- Juaquin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6r2builder is correct. You can not download a folder, but you can download a .zip file. It makes it easier to keep them in one place and send them as one contiguous file. If you spend any time on a P2P network besides Kazaa or BitTorrent, you'd see this.
- grouchyman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It already is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ... - 3zero3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So you don't want to pay ONE dollar for this convenience... Are you being cheap? Yes.
- ryan899, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I didn't realize this was posted in the Design section
- Markpdotcom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Its an excellent reminder for those of us who didn't sign up. I just bought my copy now. Its also great to support such an important change in the music industry!
- Jaymoon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Please, do show me how to email a folder.
- cawpin, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11No, it doesn't.
- gnash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I can't wait for the inevitable real-time with pictures unboxing update.
In all seriousness, I gladly paid as well. I am an audiophile as well, and would've likely (ok definitely) have paid more for a little more quality. This said, 160kbps isn't bad. Moreover, I doubt that Radiohead felt that 160kbps compromised sound quality at any substantial level otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it. - CoolJammer00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I just got it.
- Christbait, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Looks like Oasis and Jamiroquai are following this move too... an anti-greedy corporate label revolution beckons....
and 160kbps ain't all that bad, just buy the actual box set instead. -
Show 51 - 100 of 267 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is