Although the figures are a little disapointing, it's worth noting that a lot of people may have downloaded the songs while intending to purchase the higher quality CD-version in the future. The numbers on that release will be far more relevant.

A Radiohead album isn't worth much? I can't say I'm surprised.

But, I think it's disrespectful of "fans" to pay between 0 and 6 dollars.

Is there that stupid DRM crap on these downloads? If so the figures up to date are understandable, seeing as they would be virtually useless.

However if that is not the case then I agree with Garet, that's pretty disrespectful to pay so little.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they did this CD on their own without the help of a label, no?

If so, that means 100% of the 'sale', as little as it is, would go to the band. Under the traditional label model, how much does the band actually get for the sale of a $20 CD...not much after the label takes its cut.

My point is that they've created tons of publicity and make most of their revenue off of touring. Keeping that in mind, what would be most interesting to learn is how much this tactic exposed Radiohead's music to new listeners...potential people who may then want to attend the live show.

Don't forget that a lot of those 'free' downloads were probably people who otherwise would never have bought a Radiohead album anyway - in which case, Radiohead hasn't lost anything at all since they were never going to get that money from those people. On the other hand, now there is the potential of gaining new fans, many of which will likely go on to buy concert tickets, merchandise and future albums - not to mention influence friends and family to do the same.

The album is DRM free, though the files are of a lower quality than on a CD.

I applaud Radiohead for what they have done. "Pay what you like" may be a little much but releasing an album direct to fans without any middlemen taking a cut is a step forward.

Ian, I think you forget that a label pays a band to stay with them. The band is well compensated. That, and it's not free to record an album anyways.

Why would $6 be "disrespectful"? How much should 42 minutes of music be worth anyway? Life, the universe and everything?

Even if only 8% of those 1.2M people contributed the average $6 payment, the publisher (ie. Radiohead) has already made a half-million dollars by writing, recording, producing and (cheaply) distributing a few songs. Not such a bad return for a band that most people (as opposed to music critics and music download watchers) have barely heard anything by and don't particularly like when they do. Even if I was a band of which I was a "fan", I wouldn't expect any digital album to be worth more than a couple of bucks, and that's all I'd pay. If they can't interest enough listeners to make a living at that rate, well shucks.

There are a lot of other people out there waiting to make music, and it's getting easier and easier for them to do so. Don't assume that a history of monopoly and artificial scarcity has given us a good idea of what an album ought to cost, or will cost in music.

It's disrespectful because people have essentially devalued the price of Radioheads music (which I think is worthless, but that's irrelevant). These "fans" think that since Radiohead is essentially turning into a myspace band, they can pay whatever pocket change they want for something they would have paid 20 bucks for anyways.

I would submit that it has long been disrespectful of labels - and by extension bands - to charge people $15-$20 for an album on CD. What you're seeing is the welcome effect of competition in delivery and pricing methods. The outcome of that after the eventual shakeout will be fairer pricing and better accessibility to the market. It's difficult to see what's wrong with that - unless you're a beneficiary of the old guard.

To Monkey: no, there is no DRM on the files.

I downloaded the album for $0. I had intended to pay for it, but the website had no reputable company managing the credit card info (as far as I could discern). Security is important online, and I would have paid as much as $6 for the album if the exchange were mediated by PayPal or some equivalent system.

Incidentally, $6 for an album is reasonable, in my opinion. Keep in mind the data is compressed MP3 format (which is not the original audio quality) and that with a downloaded album the purchaser does not get a case, artwork, or a physical disk.

Why anyone would pay anything to download music is beyond me. After all they are not getting anything of substance. If you watched an hour of TV would you send the television network a cheque? If you spent an hour listening to the radio would you feel guilty that you should have paid for it? Beside that, there are lots of other places to download music for free. I think it is amazing that anyone sent them anything.

I don't think the mp3 quality is a valid complaint. They're not much off from cds. It's not even a noticable difference. Listen to a record on an expensive tube amp if you're an audiophile, not complin about the difference between a cd and mp3.

Great comment, Garet! I say let's all go back to listening to music on AM radio!

A tube amp will always produce better sound than a solid state one. A record will always be able to accurately reproduce s woder spectrum of sound as opposed to a cd. What was wrong with the comment?

I've a box of albums from my mothesr storage and some of them were my brothers. The Beatles, Joni Mitchell, The doors ect. To whom do I talk to to find out if any are worth money?