why do labels who are afraid of leaks keep sending out advance copies of new albums?

Anyway, what critic would honestly leak one of these records? Why? Why would they give a shit about getting it out on the internet? I'm of the belief that it's someone close to the band/label that typically does the leaking.

josh, I agree that artists are probably to blame for a lot of the leaking. but do you really think that all critics are above leaking albums? not to point fingers, but there are an awful lot of pro critics here on ILM, and a lot of them download freely, and I kind of doubt that none of them have ever gotten a promo in the mail and uploaded it to slsk.

They should all have to sign a master index upon accepting a promotional copy, digitally watermarked with a unique fingerprint linked to a checksum that is their -unique- ID. And they should be sent only digital copy-protected items with computer virus loaders which automatically patch key Internet and operating system drivers on their PCs. Additionally, they should be compelled to install monitoring spyware or a hardware dongle on the modem port so that the promotional CD is properly secured.

And if that doesn't work they should be ordered by a judge, as terms of their employment, not to go near any networked computers as long as they write about pop music.

If you're going to look to controlling leaks, and I'm saying the industry -cannot- do this, the first place it will have to establish stronger data controls is in-house. They will have to stop any sub-contracting work that allows data to flow outside their networks.
And, even if instituted, cannot be made airtight.

Next, they will have to dispense with the practice of using unpaid interns. People who aren't paid to do shit work and who have no formal professional attachment to the company cannot be secured. Simply, they have no reason not to -share-. What's the worst that can happen? "Oh, you're going to fire me? Ha-ha. Go screw yourself."

There are easily a hundred reasons -interior- to the industry, and having nothing to do with promotional copies mailed to critics, why digital music cannot be secured during its development.

The industry would have to destroy itself to stop leaks.

Yes, this appears to be so. However, legally there's no way to make it stick and the unique watermark on a CD cannot be used to implicate a critic. The arguments destroying it are simple.

For instance, how many critics or recipients of watermarked CDs simply often or sometimes toss the things into the trash? Once it's in the trash and the janitor or dumpster diver picks it out, hmmm. How many in a big office simply take a pile of surplus they'll never get to or which has been passed over throw it down in a communal area where anyone in the place is free to take it home?

There are other reasons but watermarking is futility.

The next logical thing, probably in brainstorm or process, is promotional CDs that "expire." Break the seal, and contact with air starts a chemical reaction that allows you to listen to the thing for only 24 or 48 hours, or some time deemed inconvenient to leakers. It won't work the way they want it to, anyway.

Yeah, there are easier ways to get dropped. Write negative reviews regularly.

My guess at an answer is, "Since I download leaked stuff all the time I should share my promos with others." Most people share because other people share with them -- it's what makes the file sharing world go around.

I can't see labels taking time to figure out where leaks originate, anyway. And if you get taken off the promo list -- you can just download it!

This one's not entirely new. I can remember reading stories aboot Geffen doing this for the Use Your Illusions, I guess as a way to fend off pesky cassette bootleggers.

What I said: Computer security measures are anathema to promotion and publicity. There's a way to make use of it hurt, or at least uncomfortable. Write about the computer virus or malicious copy control scheme on the disc, at the expense of the artist. A passive way is to throw the disc away. I do that with some that are obviously labelled "not responsible if unauthorized copying results in damage to your system."

I seem to remember Kid A being out months before it's official release, and this was seen as one of the reasons it went straight to number 1 - people had got used to its "unorthodox" songs.

Josh: "ever want to risk getting knocked off the promo stream by uploading an advance"

Risk? There is no risk.

I used to get all excited about getting promos of stuff a few weeks before it's out, but now everyone can get stuff, often months before it hits the shops, and critics are no longer a special case.
I think that's a good thing, it means less people are relying on other people's opinions.

Ha ha! You funny!

Obviously, at the tippy-top of the iceberg release dates matter a lot. You have a marketing plan that depends on orchestrating massive press (short- and long-lead), TV appearances, a pre-release radio single, a high-profile arena tour, co-op dollars, paid advertising, an iPod commercial, movie soundtrack, video, pre-release leaks (and press about same), and a Superbowl halftime slot, all resulting (hopefully) in a top-five Billboard ranking that gets you more press, etc. You have to worry about what else is competing for all those column inches and TV minutes. Plus, you have the physical problem of getting hundreds of thousands (or millions) of units into the hands of thousands of retailers with different inventory systems on an equitable basis that avoids pissing anyone off. It's impossible to pull off without a definite release date planned months in advance. If you do it right, you get a "perfect storm" effect that probably multiplies sales of all products significantly. Everybody wins -- artist, label, promoters, etc.

That is really important if you are U2 or Usher, or Universal. It may even be important if you are Bright Eyes.

But that marketing model has nothing to do with the vast majority of releases, where there is not going to be massive press, iPod commercials, TV talk shows, or Superbowl slots, and getting brick and mortar retailers to carry them at all is a struggle. Great first-week sales means nothing -- at most, being on the Billboard chart at all vs. not being there. Success is going to be a function of viral marketing: small-scale touring, street teams, plain old word-of-mouth. In that context, having a "release date" means next to nothing, except you hope the band has copies to sell on tour, and that stores in places where they are touring have them too, and you probably want Pitchfork and the weeklies in tour cities to get copies.

Sub Pop is on a great run with The Postal Service and The Shins, but who the hell remembers what the release dates were for those records? Neither one hit its stride until 6-7 months after release. The Shins had their Garden State soundtrack deal, but it didn't even include the newer stuff, and obviously the release dates were not coordinated. Arcade Fire is experiencing the perfect storm effect right now (I'm trying not to say "tsunami"), and it's five months past the release date (and 7-8 months past the leak date).

An established band like Sleater-Kinney is probably on the bottom-bottom edge of the release date having any possible commercial relevance. They are going to get a fair amount press; they have enough core fans so that indie retailers, at least, care about having the product in their stores if it's available. Someone is going to spend some marketing dollars to hold their base and to expand it. But ultimately the commercial success or failure of the coming S-K record is going to be determined weeks and months after they start selling it, not the month before.

I suspect the obsession with release dates is a function of marketing laziness -- following the same pattern, whether it is meaningful or not. Editors, etc., probably play into it by insisting on "news" value for articles and reviews, but that is laziness, too, and it doesn't stop anyone from circling back when there is actual news value (e.g., Arcade Fire) later.

No, only a month, though live versions had been circulating earlier.

Because the label, as a courtesy to you – a (supposed) professional – has mailed you a copy of one of their product before it's available for purchase to the general public. I would think that – as a professional – you might extend them the courtesy of not sharing with the entire world, especially since they have I'm sure they specifically asked you not to either in the paperwork that came with the disc or on the disc itself.

Jesus, are you people all 15 years old? Christ, if I had this attitude in the video game industry I would have long been fired, in jail, or both.

How so? I mean I understand what you mean in terms of the monetary issues involved and the differences in the product but from a strictly professionalism viewpoint I'd be interested why a music journalist would feel justified in doing this.

; )

PS But still I wasn't suggesting there something as grandiose as a "code of honor" I guess I just feel like if a company gives you something for free as a part of your job and asks you to not give it away, you should - out of courtesy - oblige them....All I'm getting is that you're saying it's different for music journalists because there are no real consequences?

How so? I mean I understand what you mean in terms of the monetary issues involved and the differences in the product but from a strictly professionalism viewpoint I'd be interested why a music journalist would feel justified in doing this.

Well, unless you got a shitload of illegal equipment, it's really hard to get and distribute rom copies of modern console video games (I'm not talking about ROMs for Pac Man or Galaga here). It's just far more difficult to do with today's video games, as the devices that read in video game data (Playstations, Xboxes, Gamecubes, etc.) have to be specially crafted to do the pirating deed.. there's (usually) hardware encryption in the consoles, and the consoles are more powerful in performance than a hacked Mac or PC emulation (which also takes work.)

As far as code leaks, it's totally an apples & oranges thing, because gaming companies never send game reviewers the source code.

Music and video are all data... once you know the code, that's that. The standards are much simpler and more universal with music and video than they are with video game data.

Next, no matter how high speed your network is, it's still easier to open a promotional CD and stick it in a player. For example, at a daily newspaper feature section, where a good pile of promotional items arrive every day, sorting through paperwork and e-mail to find -where- to go for a promotional download and -what- password to use in -which- directory just gets nowhere as a good idea. And we're not even beginning to talk about the reporters and free-lancers who aren't all plainly enamored of everything Internet and don't look forward to spending more of their day sifting through electronic rubbish, URLs, broken links, improperly configured "shares" and filling out more corporate on-line forms...

And then there is the -corporate- aspect. You work for a newspaper or a magazine and music reviewing isn't the pubs only business. And they're not going to want the willy-nilly accumulation of copyrighted music files on their networks and the concomitant regulations, even if ignored, that this process would fix upon them.

This isn't a good application. Might as well just give the promotional songs away for free and clear on a site but not expect it to be the final modus operandi for the entire world, or even a targeted segment of reviewers.