RE: @Andrew O
He probably locked it because he forgot to do that when publishing. I tend to skip over his articles now because there is never a chance of rebuttal except by sending him an email. He may post whatever he wants in public, but feels he should never be corrected in public.
So, to completely refute most of his claims, we have to come here to do it.
1) As someone managed to slip into the comments there, the entire album is released under a CC license. It says so right on the FAQ page for ghosts.nin.com. This means you are entirely free to share the work, provided it's non-commercial and you include attribution. Nobody has done anything wrong in uploading the work.
2) Andrew O seems confused in his headline. The headline asks why we would prefer to leech if the music costs nothing, while the article asks if $5 is too much for the "freetards" to pay. Either it costs nothing, in which case torrents are a much more effecient method of distribution than a hammered website, or it costs $5, in which case the "freetards" are not leeching free content.
Given that the music is free, the answer lies in effeciency.
3) Andrew assumes that NIN are burning through $2M a week to do this. He really must have attended the RIAA school of accountancy. Potential earnings not received are not the same as losses. You cannot lose what you do not have. As a web coder, I have the potential to create the next myspace. Does that mean I have lost $580M? Only if you live in la la land. Andrew has the theoretical potential to earn Dan Brown size royalties on everything he writes, but he hasn't lost a penny.
4) Andrew associates the entire "anti-copyright crowd" with plague infested zombies who will not pay to support an artist. Maybe he missed the part where the NIN site failed due to so many "zombies" trying to get content they paid for.
Picking just one of the full I-IV torrents on a private site, at least 50% of the comments were about the site being down so the users could not pay their $5 at the moment. The "at the moment" is important in this sentence, as it shows there is a will to pay if not the means.
The idea of supporting the artist directly through donations is not a new one, and has been used in open source for quite a while. It can and often does work.
5) He goes on to call the economics of digital distribution a "busted flush" without any financial data to back it up. As he barely comprehends even the basics of this story, I think he should reserve judgement.
This is not Trent Reznors first ride on the digital distribution merry go round, if it wasn't working would he not simply climb off?