Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Album From Leaking

from the for-how-much-benefit? dept

One of our usual critics pointed us to a recent article at Billboard about the insane lengths that Jay-Z, Kanye West and the producers of their joint album went through to keep the album from leaking early. The whole thing sounds pretty extreme. They recorded in "pop up" studios they set up in hotel rooms, rather than at real recording studios. Then there were three key engineers who turned off all computer WiFi in the rooms. Collaborators were not allowed to hear tracks outside of the room (so no emailing around tracks for ideas). Everything had to happen in person. Meanwhile, all the work was saved on hard drives locked up in a briefcase. The drives apparently had biometric security, in that you could only access them with a fingerswipe matching fingerprints.

And, amazingly, all of this "worked." The album apparently was released on time without any leaks. Our critic said this proves that I'm a liar when I say "musicians don't care about piracy." Of course, I've never said nor implied any such thing. I know that plenty of musicians "care" about piracy. But this story first of all wasn't about "piracy" so much as it was about leaks. It's clear from the article that it wasn't about the economic threat of a pre-release, but how it fit into the marketing strategy. Jay-Z wanted to try to get people to listen to the whole album.

On top of that, all the crazy "CIA" stuff isn't what stopped the album from leaking. For all the talk of "hackers" breaking into computers and grabbing copies of tracks early, most tracks leak because of one thing: someone in the final processing chain gets the master early and leaks the tracks. The reason this album didn't leak early was because they delivered the masters as close to the release as possible. Any artist who wants to avoid leaks really just needs to do something like that, and ignore the Mission Impossible crap.

But the larger point is... is something like this even worth it? The article also notes that others may follow suit. But I'm curious if the "cost" really is worth it. It limits the creative freedom (such as emailing back and forth tracks). It does little to nothing to stop actual infringement. All it does is make sure the marketing plan goes down without anyone being able to listen to it early or help promote it on blogs and such when it comes out. If anything it seems to ignore the modern marketing strategy, where new tracks are purposely leaked to get the buzz going. I'm sure the album will do fine, given the two names attached to it. But I don't' see how this has anything to do with "piracy," and I can't see how any "benefit" outweighs the cost. I have to imagine that if other artists go down this same path, they're going to discover it's a waste of time and money for almost no benefit.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:23am

    What's funny is that this has been available on Usenet for the last 9-10 days... so all that to stop it leaking early may have prevented the initial leak but did nothing to stop it being ripped once it became available. I'd imagine it is available on p2p networks as well so would be interesting to see how many it sells given the availability from "illegal" sources.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:31am

    The real rason for all the shenanigans

    Is part of the actual marketing stratefy. They wanted the album to be a talking point - and look - it worked - we're talking about it now (even though I have not the slightest interest in their music!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:36am

    I didn't even know this album was coming out until I saw it pop up on Spotify today. I might give it a listen.

    "Jay-Z wanted to try to get people to listen to the whole album."

    I'll do what I've always done - I'll listen to the whole album once in the "correct" order then if I think it's worth buying I'll only buy the ones I actually want if the price/# of wanted tracks doesn't make it worth buying the full thing. Even if I do, I'll order the tracks in the way I please, as I have done ever since cassette made it possible to record vinyl & radio to skip the crap. Some people won't do that, and will wait for a free pirated or streamed version before they make that decision anyway.

    In trying to "protect" his art, all Jay-Z's really doing is stopping people from doing what they want. It will ultimately fail - even those people buying CDs will just rip them and play the tracks they want as they want, and there's nothing he can do to stop them. As for "piracy", well this won't stop a single download. Delay them, maybe, but not one person is going to part with money they wouldn't have spent just because the leak was delayed.

    All that effort for literally nothing. Sad, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:36am

    Breaking news: two douchebags make a record

    Result: nobody cares.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:37am

    Number 1 album in 25 countries. Including the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:47am

    Re:

    Interesting.

    Now, explain which part of that has to do with the extraordinary lengths gone to stop the album "leaking", and how much has to do with the large fanbases both rapper already had before recording the album. I think one greatly outweighs the other somehow...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Todd (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:56am

    Great Idea

    This does seem like an idea that could get some uptake. It probably doesn't have much to do with financial results or stopping piracy. It strikes me as the new version of "no brown m&m's in our dressing room". Artists LOVE to think that every single word that slips from their lips is complete gold - lightning in a bottle. If it requires a triple-secret handshake and a press pass just to hear me fart, well, I must be really important.

    Expect more of the same. You can't make much better of a bet than to guess that famous people will spend money on anything that boosts their ego.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:00am

    "Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Album From Leaking"

    Better title:

    "Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Fans From Hearing New Album"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    kb, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:07am

    Really?

    Does anyone really want to listen to them that badly? Wouldn't it just be easier to set your hair on fire? The end results are much the same and you cut out wasting the bandwidth to download their "music" from the Internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:09am

    Re:

    Even though it has been downloaded thousands of times from numerous p2p networks, Usenet, File lockers etc... interesting that in this case "piracy" doesn't seem to have made much difference to the overall sales...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Griffalo (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:11am

    To be fair...

    They leaked several songs from these sessions ahead of time but then didn't put them on the album (though they are on the 'deluxe edition').

    Both artists make extensive use of free mixtapes, both to leak parts of this album and their own work more widely - this was really just a fun little exercise from two of the richest people in hip-hop (numbers 1 and 3 according to Forbes) to make something feel 'special'.

    Whether it's a success or not is another discussion but I don't think this provides any evidence that artists hate piracy or anything - they just tried to keep this as secret as they could, mainly to see if they could.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:23am

    ??

    White is the New Black
    Analogue is the New Digital

    and...

    Secrecy is the New Publicity

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:40am

    Re:

    So you're saying people take albums off the internet for free instead of paying them?

    Haha

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:41am

    All that planning...

    and he still can't figure out fish sticks.

    I think everyone else already voiced the thoughts going through my head from how this is useless and pointless to "who gives a damn". I'm sure the fans will like the new album... I'm sure there'll be some of those fans who think the M:I shtick is a neat addition; maybe to the point of humming the theme music while inserting the discs and making jokes about how they hope it doesn't self-destruct after playing. Oh man... I hope Kanye and Jay-Z don't read this and get more ideas.

    Wait... no, I hope they do. That would be entertaining to watch! Old & Busted: Accusing your fans of piracy and treating them all like criminals… New Hotness: blowing their sh*t up!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:42am

    Re: Re:

    And... this is news? Where have you been for the last decade?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:43am

    the artist is a traitor to other artists as he signed with the RIAA.
    Any artist who signs with the devil can go to hell !!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Otakusensei, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 5:54am

    You'll never get an album like the Postal Service's Give Up this way. Hell, you couldn't even have a band like them this way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    ExceptionHanderl, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:11am

    I disagree with many thing you say Mike, but this is one of those times I do agree: this had nothing to do with piracy.

    And to be honest it is a waste of money... it just goes to show you they trust the people they work with very little. At the heart of security is trust... do you trust the systems and people to keep your data secure? Apparently there is very little trust and friendship at the top...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Loki, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:14am

    This sounds far more like a Kanye brainchild than a Jay-Z idea. The man's already proven he on an ultra extreme power trip (and while his music is half decent, I personally don't think it's that good to justify such a massive ego).

    I seriously doubt this has anywhere as much to do with fighting "piracy" as it does some bizarre marketing strategy (at least that's the vibe I get from having read several sources). And, personally, I don't see why this is really an issue for anyone. If they want to hold their music until its release date (as opposed to having it forced on them by an outside entity) they have just as much right as an artist who wants to "leak" their music early (as opposed to being prevented from doing so by an outside entity). Just like it's Prince's right to have like a dozen fully recorded albums and several dozen fully shot music videos sitting locked in a vault.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:15am

    In other news...

    And one question comes to mind. How much money does Jay-Z see from his album versus the money seen from his other endeavors?

    Great, he beat the leakers but does the pre buzz matter to him at all? No, he has star power.

    Same thing with Kanye. So after the first few months of super high Patriot Act security, and the costs of this, I doubt we'll hear about it as much as more people go on with their daily lives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Malak (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:23am

    Radiohead dislike leaks too

    I'm trying to find my source to cite (I'm failing) but Radiohead (who I think we can all agree are relativity enlightened in this area) said in an interview that leaks really were bad, even if you give the album away for free, because they prevent you from creating an event that you can monetise.

    I have to agree. Once it's out there there's no point in trying to control it, but using secrecy to allow you to craft a release event must make sense as a business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:23am

    Listen to the entire album?
    Oh God please take me now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:32am

    Re:

    Gotta give them props for the commitment, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    New Mexico Mark, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:33am

    Re:

    Calling the RIAA the devil is giving them too much cred. They're more like Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light -- a misguided PITA organization more than majestic evil.

    Darn them (and their supporters) to heck!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 6:53am

    I disagree

    Having a briefcase with a pair of hard drives, thumbprint scanners, maybe even a bulky messenger bag filled with sattelite-linked PDA's and one of those roll-up keyboards?

    That's cool as hell. I'd carry that shit around just to look like Jack Bauer, even if I didn't need any of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Clay Stephens (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:03am

    Kanye

    Yo, Kanye, I'm really happy for you, but Beyonce had one of the best albums of all time. Of all time!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Lord binky, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:22am

    They just did it for fun. I'm sure they got a rush from being pointlessly covert like a kid. For all the excuses of why they did it, at best it didn't make the music worse, but it definitely didn't make it better, and it likely made it worse being that limited to work on it. Maybe, just maybe, because they were being so goofy with it, it held their interest better than their usual way of doing things, but that has little to do with the results of the actual actions themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:23am

    "It's clear from the article that it wasn't about the economic threat of a pre-release, but how it fit into the marketing strategy. Jay-Z wanted to try to get people to listen to the whole album."

    And I think it is all just a ploy, that might work on a portion of their fanbase.

    We had to do all of these crazy things so that you can hear our entire vision as we wanted you to hear it.

    All of the cloak, all of the dagger, biometrics, etc.

    In the end they know that it is going to be all over the net, but that have planted the idea that your going to miss out on "something" if you do not buy the entire album and listen to it in order.

    I think this might be more telling about the contracts several of them have in place, and I wonder if the terms really are just that beneficial towards album vs single sales. This would explain the whole "I'm an artiste" and singles ruin my masterwork, I mean really Garth Brooks - iTunes destroys my work.

    Most of these artists are in long term contracts and most of them do not remotely consider the internet, and even if there have been internet updates added to them they still suck.

    The label shows you this handy report from the RIAA about how much money is being "stolen" by people sharing music, and with all of those "losses" we have to recoup the costs... so that is why your digital single is only worth 3 cents a sale to you. But when they buy the whole album, those terms are better because its treated more like a physical plastic disc sale, with more off the top for breakage. Its guessing on my part, but if I wanted to keep my death grip on my horse and buggy I would do something like that.

    Even the most savvy artists are often blind to the tech world, and they have advisers (label approved) and people around them saying how everyone is talking about all the money being stolen from artists by "pirates".

    This was PR to get an outcome, a full album sale.
    Lets see how that works out for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:24am

    Classic FUD piece. I just checked on iTunes and "Watch the Throne" is the No. 1 album, so obviously these guys know what they're doing. Mike queries, "for how much benefit?" Um, No. 1 is No. 1. I'd say they've got the benefits all locked up nicely. But still, since they cared about piracy at all, they must be doing something wrong. You can just see Mike's little brain getting all worked up.

    For try as he might, Mike "can't see how any 'benefit' outweighs the cost." Of course you can't see it when you're willfully blind, Mike. Scoreboard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:32am

    Re:

    "Classic FUD piece"

    Classically followed by an AC comment by someone who doesn't even know what FUD is.

    "I just checked on iTunes and "Watch the Throne" is the No. 1 album"

    ...and this has what to do with the actions taken above?

    "Um, No. 1 is No. 1"

    Thanks to the fame of the 2 artists, it would almost certainly have been #1 regardless of the actions taken. The question is not how successful it was, but whether the above actions made it more (or less) successful. Mike's point, which you typically miss, is that the above strategy probably did nothing significant.

    besides, #1 is only relative. All #1 really means is that it outsold everything else that week. Was it a strong week for sales, or a weak one? A weak one, and anything new moight have reached #1 with the right couple of names on the cover, regardless of anything they did...

    "But still, since they cared about piracy at all, they must be doing something wrong."

    Yep, you still don't understand a signle word being discussed, but try to act smug anyway. No matter how smug you are, you're still ignorant.

    "Of course you can't see it when you're willfully blind, Mike."

    Kettle, stop attacking the pot, please.

    "Scoreboard"

    I have no idea what this means.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re:

    "moight"

    I'm not Irish, but my typing is today apparently...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:41am

    Re: Re:

    Interesting.

    Now, explain which part of that has to do with the extraordinary lengths gone to stop the album "leaking", and how much has to do with the large fanbases both rapper already had before recording the album. I think one greatly outweighs the other somehow...


    It seems to me their victory is some combination of both. You'll never be able to quantify it with any exactitude as you are asking for. We can sit around and make wild ass guesses all we want, but nothing will change the fact that what they did, in combination, got them the No. 1 album.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re:

    Mike's point, which you typically miss, is that the above strategy probably did nothing significant.

    Nonsense. What they did got them the No. 1 album. The reasonable inference is that what they did was beneficial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, who they are got them the #1 album

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:50am

    Re:

    Well, there is this...

    "While the official weekly sales data is still out, one record has been announced.
    Jay-Z and Kanye West set a new iTunes one-week sales record with ‘Watch The Throne’, selling nearly 290,000 downloads through Sunday night (Aug. 14). The previous one-week iTunes record was set in 2008 with Coldplay’s album “Viva La Vida Or Death and All His Friends”."

    So I would say ripped or not, the indication is that Mr. West and Mr. Carter's bank accounts will be fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The reasonable inference is that what they did was beneficial"

    ..or that the album would have been #1 regardless of the above. Or that they could have sold more in the first week had a leak allowed potential listeners to preview it. Or that the whole this was an ego exercised from a could of well known egotists.

    The only nonsense here is insisting that a #1 album means anything concrete, and that your preferred narrative has to be the correct one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    frosty840, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's no more a reasonable inference than saying that their actions halved the sales they would have gotten if the album leaked. Neither statement has any factual basis whatsoever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You'll never be able to quantify it with any exactitude as you are asking for."

    Indeed. Which is why it should stop being claimed that it did have any measurable positive effect.

    "that what they did, in combination, got them the No. 1 album"

    Fair enough. If you don't pretend that one side of the equation is the most important, I won't pretend the reverse. Although, a #1 album from either artist without such secrecy is hardly unprecedented, so I fail to see how such secrecy was necessary for sales here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    dfed (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:00am

    Honestly it appears to me that they're more enamored with their own mission-impossible-type gadgets and protocols than actually protecting anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Culturengine, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:03am

    They dropped the album like Apple drop products

    I heard that they only announced the release to online retailers 24 hours before the album came out.

    This might not stop downloads later on either, but it does give you a window for pure sales without much p2p competition (win) and it does mean that entire departments at big retailers have to think about nothing other than your release to get it out on time (win).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:22am

    Re:

    @Gorehound

    Please. You'd sell your soul to sign a recording contract with a major label affiliated with the RIAA. However, being a failed wannabe has left you embittered and has you decrying those talented musicians who chose to distribute their works through one of the labels. I don't know why you think talentless musicians are owed solidarity from talented ones.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    Re:

    Your point? Lady Gaga's latest release "Born This Way" was available for download long before its May 23rd release date, and guess what:

    "Upon release, Born This Way sold 1.108 million copies in its first week in the United States, debuting atop the Billboard 200, and topping the charts in more than 10 other countries."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga

    Certified Platinum its first week WITH piracy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re:

    I think they are just reliving that childhood fantasy of wanting to be like James Bond.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Re: I disagree

    That's cool as hell. I'd carry that shit around just to look like Jack Bauer, even if I didn't need any of it.

    Cool sure, but I would be even more impressed if they used all that equipment to download their own songs from the internet without regional restrictions, expiration dates or DRM in a format and quality they desire at a reasonable price.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:29am

    Re:

    As a hip hop producer specifically and just a musician (albeit far far far far less successful than the two named here) in general, I have to say that I completely understand the reason for protecting the product against leaks prior to release date. It has nothing to do with piracy protection and despite what Jay Z says, it also has nothing to do with making you listen to the whole album.

    In actuality, the hip hop scene is notorious for leaks. The mix tape scene and the underground scene are ravenous for new product. So if someone can get their hands on a new Jay Z and Kanye West track (or tracks) before anyone else and leak that to the internet or a radio station or club DJ it is HUGE!!!!!! This is what they wanted to prevent. Alot of artists have fallen victim to the creative theft of their material prior to its release and its not that the music is leaked that hurts but its that as an artist (especially in hip hop) having something new that noone else has heard and being able to control how the public hears it for that first time is artistically and egotistically critical. When a song or two from an album gets leaked, in many cases the artist will remove that song from the album and replace it with something different. Case in point is Dr. Dre - His upcoming album Detox which is the most anticipated and delayed album in hip hop history is expected to be the hottest commodity the genre has seen in its history. Yet, several tracks have been leaked to the internet and the perfectionist that Dre is, he has responded by either scrapping those songs or as in the case of the two latest leaks (Kush and I Need A Doctor) marketing them as pre-Detox releases that may or may not end up on the official album. It is this need to have the new music presented to his fans the way he wants to showcase it that drives the need to go to extreme lengths to prevent it from leaking.

    No artist with half a brain should think that any leak protection they do will prevent piracy. That's just crazy talk. The music business is all about timing and building up hype around a release and when new music is leaked before the release it can (and has) had a detrimental affect on the success of the overall album for many artist. Again, not because of piracy but because that "new" factor is loss. Fans will get the album and depending on when the leak of the song or album occurred, could be already thinking in terms of "Oh that song is old now or I am so sick of hearing yada yada yada.....etc..." That is what the artist is trying to protect against. Having their new product already be dated and old (and copied by other rival artists) before it hits the streets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    Re: Radiohead dislike leaks too

    Mike doesn't like business models that result in the sales of recorded music. That goes against the master plan!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re:

    Perhaps no one told him the punk scene died decades ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    The Incoherent One (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:39am

    Re: They dropped the album like Apple drop products

    For the person who would have downloaded and never paid for the album, there is no harm in waiting 1 hour after its official release to get it from a P2P network. This did nothing. It makes for a good story and gives yourself and some of the AC's something to latch onto, but where in your head could you possible think that this gives them 24 hours on no competition from a P2P network? Do you know how long its takes to download an album and make it available via Bit Torrent? I assure you it is a hell of a lot less than 24 hours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 8:42am

    Re: Re:

    You don't think that had anything to do with the fact that the album was selling for a dollar? Amazon lost 3 million bucks on that one.

    http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/guess_how_much_money_amazon_lo.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 9:11am

    Re: Re:

    Thanks for the insight without insults, very refreshing to hear an insider explain it all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Mark, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 9:19am

    Re:

    Argument from majority means sweet FA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Re:

    Once it has been ripped it will be distributed to anybody who wants a copy. Only one copy will ever sell.

    This has been proven time and time again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Radiohead dislike leaks too

    I doubt Mike likes people putting words into his mouth, either. Unsanitary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And this album "Watch The Throne" broke the iTunes opening week record with 290,000 digital sales doubling the previous record and is on sale for about $15, so yes selling at a $1 is going to boost sales significantly but even at $15 with large scale infringement artists can still sell large quantities as long as the album is worth the purchase.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Borders Design (profile), Aug 16th, 2011 @ 11:23am

    The Album Was Pirated Anyway...

    It may seem a solution, although for use in a smaller artists budget, it may be more difficult to set up due to high costs. The tracks & albums will be pirated anyway, so it seems like an expensive way to ensure a short release window, to avoid bad reviews, perhaps?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    umm no, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They would have had the Number 1 album anyway. What they did didn't stop it from leaking, and after all the labels try to jump on this model and albums still leak they will quickly realize that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 4:29pm

    Uh... maybe it wasn't leaked because people don't want their crap that bad? Yeah.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 10:59pm

    Re: Re:

    having something new that noone else has heard

    New as in Timbaland's sound effects ripped from C64 games of the 80s or as in the Autotune PITA that everyone and there mother seems to be using?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Re: Radiohead dislike leaks too

    If you're the regular critic Mike has mentioned I really don't see why he bothers at all. Your such a failure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 16th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Since when are shilltards like you reasonable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2011 @ 11:47am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, new as in a song and album that has not been heard by anyone other than those involved in creating it.

    The elements of a song (sounds, effects etc.) are NOT what I was referring to. Or was your comment just your petty attempt at being a dick?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2011 @ 11:56am

    Re:

    Correct Title:

    "Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Fans From Hearing New Album Before its Completed Thus Ensuring the Album Fans Hear is the Album They Intended"

    I mean really nothing they did to protect their music has prevented legal sales, piracy, #1 album and record iTunes sales etc etc etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2011 @ 11:59am

    Re: Really?

    Yes some people actually like a different genre of music than you do. Silly concept, right? (as he detects the generous amount of sarcasm)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Re: To be fair...

    Jay Z is definitely against piracy. In a song entitled The Prelude from his Kingdom Come album he says:

    "On the internet, they like you should spit it
    I'm like you should buy it, n**** that's good business
    "

    referring to how many people think artists should just release their music on the net for free. Jay's response is hey, I make the music so you can buy it, that's good business. Very simple and elegant point. Won't stop piracy but from the artist's perspective it is the right response. Basically saying this is my product and is what I use to feed my family. Would any of you give away your skills and products to the company you work for freely? Before you say yes,try going a few weeks or months without getting paid for your time and efforts - then speak.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 17th, 2011 @ 12:20pm

    Re:

    Exactly - they don't trust the people they work with. Rightfully so. The music business and hip hop especially is filled with cutthroat, sleazy, conniving, backstabbing individuals and I am not even talking about the many who are ex-cons and criminals. Any one of these types of people are just itching to get their hands on one or more of these tracks and post them to the net or exploit them in other ways for various financial and non-financial reasons. I tell you this from 1st hand music business experience. Copyrights, trust and all the lawyers and legal mumbo jumbo in the world can't protect your music better than a biometric lock and a big dude named brutus holding the briefcase with your encrypted hard drives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 17th, 2011 @ 11:53pm

    Re: Re: To be fair...

    Sorry Jay, I'm not buying your album before I listen to it. If I have to pay first, I'm not buying it.

    "Would any of you give away your skills and products to the company you work for freely?"

    You're donating your time here for free, so why not?

    "Before you say yes,try going a few weeks or months without getting paid for your time and efforts - then speak."

    That assumes that you give away everything you get paid for now, and get no new revenue stream in return. That makes you a fool.

    Me, I'll happily give away time and effort in order to promote aspects of my work that make more money. I'll just be selective and intelligent about how I use those free elements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    rae, Aug 20th, 2011 @ 12:29am

    Re: Kanye

    A your funny as hell 4 dat 1.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This