Hacker News Reader

Comment by strictnein | Hacker News Reader

It's strange. There's two version of this story going around. Kind of the mainstream media version, and the version from the "hackers" themselves.

Pitchfork does a good job of following up on the second version, which may be the more accurate of the two:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/radiohead-fans-vs-black-marke...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kA8u6UhjbutZ-b7TXzmX4qkO...

View on HN

It's probably because they announced it like this.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BykT-NOA6_m/?igshid=6nm3aw87qo8d

I am disappointed to learn that Radiohead has an Instagram account.

Most active bands do. It doesn’t say much other than “we’d like to reach our audience.”

Radiohead were pioneers in social media announcements, between the sudden pay-what-you-want digital release of In Rainbows to, as far as I know, inventing social media blackout / cryptic profile picture shenanigans.

My point is only this: If in 1997 you'd told me that the people who wrote OK Computer would later be unashamedly using a world-dominating platform built by fitter happier people whose ambition, I was told, makes them look pretty ugly, I would not have believed you.

Remember you're talking about a very popular band that was making full use of 90s world-dominating mainstream media platforms that were run by douchebags then too.

But now we're in Tool territory instead of Radiohead territory https://genius.com/Tool-hooker-with-a-penis-lyrics

Is your point that I shouldn't be surprised because they've always been hypocrites in this regard?

I’m fully in agreement with you dude. Hypocrisy among artists who take a stand is hella annoying. It’s like the White Stripes swearing they’d never get a bass player, only to get a bass player.

They literally made an album describing in detail how technology was bad for humans and now they are beholden to the same technology they once critiqued.

> a world-dominating platform built by fitter happier people

... I guess I need an Instagram account.

Is that sarcasm or have you just never listened to Fitter Happier?

Angsty young artists either become better adjusted to their environment as they get older, or they die.

It happens all the time as bands age. The inner turmoil makes for great art, but it isn't sustainable.

It doesn't make the art any less real.

Not everyone has Fugazi-esque morals.

Radiohead did when they released hail to the thief.

Fun story: I purchased In Rainbows in order to support this general idea. I think I paid $10.

I never ended up actually listening to it.

I wonder how many other people did the same.

I was a big fan at the time and paid $0, I read later that most people did the same but that a good amount of people did pay money, and the album was more profitable than their previous album. I felt a little bad and later bought the physical copy when it was released. It's either the best, or second best Radiohead album. It's definitely worth listening too.

But it's the best Radiohead album!

I respectfully disagree, OK Computer is the best album!

Ok computer is amazing but I still like kid a the best.

Some people, like GP, or me, might pay for something just to reward a step in the right direction.

Band I don't listen to releasing music I don't listen to in a way I prefer might be a step in the direction towards band-I-listen-to releasing music in a way I prefer.

Basic psychology. Works on pigeons and what not, as proven by B.F. Skinner.

But I am unconvinced when it comes to the content industry, I'm not sure we can repeat the success from the pigeons on them ;-)

They did a garage take/video project called Scotch Mist which is somewhat better.

https://youtu.be/ukythkK4EPQ

This version makes a lot more sense than the "blackmail" story I keep hearing on the news. Thanks for the links.

It seems like hacking and then demanding payment or someone releases the data isn't that uncommon / unlikely.

Is there some reason not to buy into that?

Yes this also fits the note on Basecamp: "as it’s out there it may as well be out there".

I don't think they would say this if a hacker was holding it back for ransom.

So the hacker tried to sell it for $150000 but now everyone can buy it for $18.

In that doc there is a "hidden" (white text on white background) msg about the versions being different still.

https://i.imgur.com/6Jo3Q7h.png

I'm confused, did the band release the material or did the fake Hoserama?

1. The band had a 3rd party digitize some old tapes.

2. Someone at that 3rd party copied and leaked the data.

3. One of the recipients (or the leaker) posed as Hoserama and tried to extort/sell/release them for $$$.

4. The band chose to release them for $, undercutting the fake.

3. is incorrect. the leaker wasn't trying to extort, he was trying to sell individual tracks. He then just released the whole thing online, posing as Hoserama, to try and save face. So we have had the leaks for over a week now.

> Someone at that 3rd party copied and leaked the data.

Or someone broke into the 3rd party infrastructure and made out with the data. Music-related businesses are not exactly renowned for their cybersecurity standards. We'll probably never know.

Number 2 is pure speculation and you should mention that instead of passing it off as fact.

Sorry, too late to edit. You're right, much of this (all three points?) are speculation/hearsay/guesses. I'm just summarizing what's been reported, I don't have any special inside information.

That clarifies it, thanks. I missed a lot, I must have not read the article entirely.

It's wrong to even refer to them as 'hackers'. There's one 'leaker' and the group of people that first found out about this.

How about we refer to them as "thieves"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com