Hey-- I paid 5 pounds for the album, which, in addition to the 45 pence credit charge, comes out to 11 bucks. I'm totally cool with dropping 11 bucks, even on a pick-your-own charge, for my favorite band. I hope this shakes things up (and I hope the album is as good as every other they've released).

Farhad writes: "For every $1 song sold on iTunes, according to reports, Apple keeps about 30 cents, giving about 70 to the record label. But activists say artists typically get just 8 to 14 cents per song from the deal -- or about $0.80 to $1.40 per album sold digitally."

Why don't you write an article about this? Is it true? Are the record labels really taking 6/7 of the profits and only giving 1/7 to the artist? This would be worth looking into. I would certainly like to know if it is true.

As for the new Radiohead album, one question has not been answered yet: Is it any good? Anybody have any idea? Also, besides the ridiculous $81 super-package, how can a guy who likes physical CDs obtain one? I am old-fashioned -- I like having a THING and not just some computer files. Why doesn't Radiohead allow for people like me to get their new album? Thanks for flipping me the bird, Radiohead!

"Why doesn't Radiohead allow for people like me to get their new album?"

Just wait until January. You can buy it then, you miserable crank.

"Thanks for flipping me the bird, Radiohead!"

I would think you'd be used to people flipping you off by now, Hutman. Why not take a break from all this perceived antagonism and give someone else in the library a chance to use the computer.

I for one applaud radiohead.

I am going to buy the vinyl set. I have personally been waiting SO LONG for a band to offer the digital file along with the vinyl. I am not even a Radiohead fan, I am a DJ and vinyl collector.

I would have paid 5-10 bucks for the album.

I purchased the download for $9 or 4.45 Pounds. I believe that's what music should cost, or no more than, anyway. I suppose, since it is a download only, I could have paid less, but I'm not trying to chisel anyone, especially a group whose music I really, really like consistently.

So that's the main test here; in order for the band to come out ahead, Radiohead needs to clear only more than a buck-50 per sale. Easy.

They only need to clear more than 1.50 per sale if they sell the same amount. That's the gamble, that they can sell enough without the label machinery, and possibly with the active opposition of the entire industry.

I have no idea what the prospects are, but >$1.50 per sale, on its own, isn't the break-even point.

2 pounds too little? Nah. At some point I'll either breakdown and buy the discbox or just spring for the physical CD so why should I pay for the same album twice? I probably should've paid less than a pound now that I think of it.

And, dang, their store site certainly is clunky. The download process better be a lot less frustrating then the buying process.

Big middle finger to the industry. Bravo. They're going to get 5 pounds of my dough, whatever that works out to in dollars.

$10 for the full "CD". I think that's a reasonable price for a new release. Hopefully the band will think that's fair...

A number of commenters are taking the $1.50 / album figure as something it isn't, probably because the article wasn't very clear about it. The purchase price has to be more than $1.50 for Radiohead to get the take they usually would. The record company covers all sorts of cost that now have to come out of the band's take, so the purchase price has to be more than $1.50 for the band to actually get that amount after paying expenses. How much more? I've no idea.

(1) RadioHead's web site implies that there are tracks available in the box that aren't available for download. Does anyone know if this is so? If it is, will these tracks be on the CD, when it becomes available in stores?

(2) What format will the downloaded tracks be in -- MP3, ogg/vorbis, FLAC, whatever? Will there be restrictions like Apple's iTunes?

It would be nice if the sound quality in the download were better than the sound quality on CDs (16 bits/sample * 44,000 samples/sec), which is entirely possible.

Releasing the tracks in FLAC, as Smithsonian Folkways and Magnatunes do, makes it possible to burn a CD of exactly the same kind as one bought in a store.

(BTW) People (in particular Swilldog) who want to see a possible new direction in music distribution should look at the Magnatune site: http://magnatune.com

My first instinct was to just give them the $.08 a song. But, I got lazy on the calculation and decided they deserved a tip (plus, that rate hasn't changed since the 60's, I believe... I guess inflation doesn't apply to musicians?), so I just made it a flat out 3 pounds ($6ish).

Record companies are not doing much to catch up with the new paradigm of digital music. In fact, they are doing everything they can to keep the shift from happening. They are profit driven, notoriously corrupt corporate entities that should not be allowed within 100 miles of a creative artist. If they had it their way, we'd all be listening to nothing more than focus grouped commercial jingles worldwide. They are the evil middlemen that are no longer necessary in the digital age, and, hopefully, this is one of the first of a tidlewave of blows that will lead to their ultimate destruction. Free the music!

HTTT ruled, btw. Zoos have animals, not guitars.

What I did pay for the (eagerly anticipated) download.

Very cool.

I entered in 0 (zero), just to see if I could. I could, and I suppose I'll get my email to download the thing.

I don't worship Radiohead, though I really do love Kid A, so I'm not at the point that I'll give them my money, uh, "music unheard." In general, I'll pay money for lossless downloads, but I don't like paying for lossy files. If I like the record when I download it, and they put out a hard copy I can pay for that ISN'T 80 bucks, I'll buy it.

I like that a band in their position is trying this, though.