New U2 album makes early debut on P2P networks
The album cover for U2's new album, "No Line on the Horizon."
(Credit: U2.com)Updated February 20 at 10 a.m. PST with alleged source of leak.
Despite extreme measures to prevent U2's new album from appearing prematurely on the Internet, copies of the band's "No Line on the Horizon" have begun circulating on file-swapping networks--a full week before its official release.
CD-quality copies of the band's 12th album, which is slated for release in Ireland on February 27 and worldwide on March 3, started appearing Wednesday on BitTorrent and now reportedly number in the hundreds of thousands. Copies were also found circulating on LimeWire.
The tracks began spreading across the Web after Universal Music Australia accidentally put them up for sale on its online music store, according to a report Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald.
After four tracks from the forthcoming album leaked on to the Internet last summer, the band decided not to send review copies of the album to the press, opting instead to have "listening parties" where journalists were prohibited from possessing recording devices--including cell phones.
The leak almost undoubtedly raises the ire of U2 manager Paul McGuinness, who has waged a vocal campaign against file-swapping sites and even blames some tech heavyweights with facilitating piracy. McGuinness wants to fight file sharing by forcing Internet service providers to ban people who pirate music, and suggested last year that Apple and other makers of digital music players were wrongly profiting from their "burglary kits."
At the time, he placed much of the blame on tech companies but also pointed a finger at record labels that "through lack of foresight and planning allowed a range of industries to arise that let people steal music."
However, the band has a poor track record when it comes to guarding unreleased music tracks. The summer leak was reportedly blamed on U2 front man Bono, who was caught playing the songs a bit too loudly on his stereo at his villa in the south of France.
In 2004, just before the release of their last album--"How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb"--the band reported that a CD containing unfinished music from that album had been stolen after a photo shoot in France. The band announced it would release that album immediately if tracks from the CD were leaked online. But when songs from the album began appearing online a few months later, the band said they were finished versions, not songs from the stolen CD.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 
Does the band even care that the album leaked, or is this Mr. McGuiness trying desperately to hold on to every penny of his 10 percentage point share of the millions this album will generate in record sales? This is sad. Let musicians make music, and businessmen make money. Bono's kids aren't starving (nor are any indie bands for that matter) from the lost revenue due to leaks. Proof: anyone remember Radiohead's In Rainbows? The pay what you want scheme ahead of the CD release was alleged to have made the band millions of dollars with no label or CD to sell.
Cry me a river...
The postmortem on Radiohead's 'pay what you want' strategy showed that the results were abysmal from a financial standpoint. When people were given the option of paying next to nothing...guess what...by and large they did exactly that. Moreover, once the DRM-free tracks were out in the wild, they ended up EXACTLY where the masterminds of this marketing scheme probably hope that they wouldn't: on file-sharing sights. If anything, once the buzz got out that you didn't have to pay anything for the album's tracks, people who regularly frequent file sharing sites like BitTorrent wouldn't even bother with the trouble of going to the official site to download; they just go to their regular torrent site and download the album from there.
All Radiohead managed to do was create a lot of buzz around their album. But they didn't make much money if any at all by releasing it in the manner that they did.
As for U2: just because you don't care for their current music doesn't mean that there aren't others who do. They have a right to earn what they can from THEIR OWN WORK. You don't care to listen to them anyways so what's it to you in how they want to control their own property.
Right, that's what the community is saying... by acquiring it on that scale, that quickly. Sounds like they wanted the album, but of course... it's cause they want them to go away. How do they screw there fans and community? They're a great band, with a great fan base and the constantly embark on lengthy tours so they can go to more places where there fans are. They even update their site with new videos and exclusives so that their fans know what's going on. For an older band, that's pretty good.
I got the album, I liked it and I will be buying it when it comes out.
My complaint with the bands who choose to become the posterchildren for the anti-leak campaigns is simple: it always seems to be the bands who have reached corporation status that are so adamently opposed to illegal downloading. Do you ever hear indie bands complaining? In fact, an indie band with a good internet buz z (often the result of the distribution of their MP3's, both legal and illegal) can for the first time in the history of the recording industry sell 50,000-200,000 copies of their debut album without the help of a major label. The internet isn't hurting music: if anything, it's helping.
Finally as to U2, of course they can dictate how they want their music distributed, as futile as these attempts to curb illegal downloads may be, it's still their right as artists and copyright holders to dictate how their work is distributed. But, don't presume that I or anyone else should have to like their choice for the sole purpose that it's theirs. I can disagree with them.
And this is coming from someone who purchases on average of 3-5 CDs a week, only downloads legally through eMusic and Amazon, and is an active musician.
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=5252
P2P is merely a means of sharing/distributing files electronically. P2P can be used to illegally download intellectual property. But that does not make P2P itself illegal. Saying P2P is stealing is like saying roads are stealing just because a bank robber might use them as an escape route.
"I suppose when the band is taking in every last red cent from each sale as opposed to a few cents to a dollar per each CD, you can get away with the majority of people not paying and still turn a profit. "
Bingo. With most CD sales, most artists make penies on the dollar. Radiohead's scheme probably netted them just as much, if not more profit, than equivelant CD sales.
"My complaint with the bands who choose to become the posterchildren for the anti-leak campaigns is simple: it always seems to be the bands who have reached corporation status that are so adamently opposed to illegal downloading. Do you ever hear indie bands complaining? In fact, an indie band with a good internet buz z (often the result of the distribution of their MP3's, both legal and illegal) can for the first time in the history of the recording industry sell 50,000-200,000 copies of their debut album without the help of a major label. The internet isn't hurting music: if anything, it's helping."
That is also 100% correct. It's only the huge mega bands, like U2 and Metallica, who have more money than God, that complain about illegal downloads. Indie artists don't care, because it's the best free marketing they could ever get, and spurs on more sales in the long run. And the big labels mostly ignore the smaller indie artists.
Finally, if the RIAA cared so much about artists being compensated for their work, how come not one red cent obtained from RIAA lawsuits (agains small children, grandmas, dead people, and yes, even occasionally an actual illegal downloader) went to the artists???
The cat's out of the bag. At this point, I just don't see how U2, Paul McGuiness, Metallica, and the RIAA can contain P2P, or illegal downloading. It's a waste of time, money, and reputation to fight it. They should embrace it like the indies do, and use it to their own marketing, distribution, anc cost saving advantage.
But alas, it seems they are all to stupid and greedy to do so.
As far as bands making money from CD sales only huge ones like U2 and Metallica do. So they care alot. But most make money from touring and merchandise. So f you really want to support a band go see they live and buy a shirt.
- by pat_lyons February 23, 2009 4:46 AM PST
- Dunno didn't hear any complaint from U2 themselves, it was McGuineess who made his key note address regarding illegal downloads etc on his own behalf not on behalf of the band. Which was, to be honest funny coming from a man who famously once said that "home taping is spreading music not killing it". Also ironic he maintained that the manufacturers of electronic media players should pay a subsidy to artists as it facilitates illegal usage of music downloads.. funny though some of the manufacturers have major connections to record companies (Sony, for one) the industry should pay itself? Bono publicly disagreed with Paul McGuiness with regard to Radiohead and their methods of distributing their album, he thought it was "courageous and imaginative in trying to figure out some new relationship with their audience" (http://www.nme.com/news/u2/37581) so I don't think U2 are quiet in the same camp as Metallica in that regard, But I do think everyone has the right to do with their work whatever they want after all it is theirs they made it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)Also it may have escaped attention U2 released the single on their website ( well aware it was high quality easy to down load for the tech savy) also they are steaming the entire album on their website (again high quality and easily downloadable to the tech heads) Damage limitation maybe? doubt it as when the album hit the shops next week anyway it would be on the net with in minutes.. Anyone who really wants and likes it will buy it.
Yeah Bono gets up some peoples noses, but never heard him ask an audience for money for his charity? I find it hard to see what?s wrong with getting a change in foreign debt policies for the greater good of poorer people? I suppose when it's a rich guy doing the asking the contradictions are rife, I still think doing something is better than doing nothing at all..