Let me listen to it: Are music exclusives turning us back to torrenting?

Beyonce’s album is still not available on Spotify. It’s been 6 months. No-one disputes that artists should be allowed to release their music where they want, but they have to realise that if they don’t release music everywhere, then we’ll acquire it via other means. We speak to Spotify users about whether they’ve started torrenting albums yet

The party season is almost upon us, but if you want to elevate your party from ‘just a few family and friends’ to Project X, then you need to start choosing music now. But if you’re going to be DJ-ing a party that closes out 2016, or if you can see a situation arising where your playlists are going to have to go toe to toe with other partygoers, then you might also want to think about getting together an Excel spreadsheet of what music is available on what streaming service.

Image courtesy of Beyonce.com. Above: image courtesy of arvzdix / Shutterstock.com

Image courtesy of Beyonce.com. Above: image courtesy of arvzdix / Shutterstock.com

If you’re planning on playing Beyonce’s Lemonade then you’ll need Tidal; if you want to listen to Taylor Swift then you better have access to Apple Music; but if you’re thinking about listening to anything from Prince’s back catalogue then it’s back to Tidal.

Like many people, I’ve listened to all of these artists, but I’ve not subscribed to separate providers or had to open up separate apps to do it. I’ve taken advantage of alternative resources described by Spotify’s global head of creator services, Troy Carter, who said, in an interview with Billboard, “limiting access to music only incentivises fans to seek it out on pirate sites or YouTube, where it generates less revenue”.

To find out whether exclusive albums offered by Tidal and Apple Music are pushing people back to torrenting, we asked Reddit’s /r/spotify/ group what they think.

The situation was probably best summed up by JeffZorzz, who said: “Every artist knows the cowboy laws of the internet. If you’re going exclusive you know you’re missing out [because people will be] torrenting your shit. Perhaps their exclusive contract offers a great deal, but still it’s ignorant to act otherwise.” Well said, JeffZorzz. Well said.

Are Tidal and Apple right to keep music exclusive?

Since Jay Z purchased Tidal in 2015, I haven’t been the only person to ask: if a record’s only available on Tidal and no-one’s around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Any popularity that Tidal has is pretty much down to exclusive albums. So, what was initially proposed as an artist-owned streaming platform, is essentially maintained by a cabal of some of the music industry’s biggest players.

Tidal has around 4 million subscribers – compared to Spotify’s almost 40 million and Apple Music’s 17 million – and the fact that the service has a mild surge in popularity every time a massive album drops is fooling no-one.

Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal will all be in bidding wars for the best of the best

But some redditors think Tidal’s strategy is justified and here to stay. Alexei_Kovalev_GOAT says: “When TLOP (The Life of Pablo) came out look at how many people signed up for Tidal. Even if most of them quit after the free trial, it was enough to get people to realise that this is a legitimate way to release albums going forward.

“The future of music, at least for the foreseeable future, will be to see which streaming platform big-time artists will use to drop their album ‘exclusively’. Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal will all be in bidding wars for the best of the best. They’re all going to offer exclusives to reel people in.”

There were rumours that Apple Music was considering purchasing Tidal in order to secure the service’s close relationship with a number of high-profile artists. But this would be such a lazy tactic by Apple. Why can’t they improve the service they offer, rather than just putting content behind a paywall? Apple exclusives don’t make up for a shoddy app and the inability to share music with peers.

“I’ve been a Spotify premium user for a few years now,” says kermagod. “When Apple Music had some exclusives I wanted to listen to I signed up for a free trial. I paid for about 3 or 4 months after my trial expired, but the Android app was awful so I cancelled. Plus, I didn’t need to pay for two music subscriptions. Now my stance is if it’s not on Spotify I won’t listen. I haven’t heard the latest Beyonce album.”

Think of the artists

The reason for writing this article isn’t just because I’m a disgruntled fan who can’t get hold of Beyonce’s latest record. Pushing people back to torrenting isn’t good for artists either.

record-ssIn August, Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group, sent out a directive that appeared to order the company’s labels to stop the practice of making “exclusive” distribution deals with streaming services to discourage artists from “enter[ing] the marketplace with one hand tied behind your back”.

According to Bob Lefsetz, author of influential music industry newsletter Lefsetz Letter, Grainge said: “Most people don’t give a crap about the new Frank Ocean album. We’ve got an industry that promotes marginal products that appeal to few and makes them unavailable to most people? That’s hysterical!”

Grainge’s reservations probably have something to do with the fact that music labels could become obsolete if artists like Frank Ocean can engage directly with streaming services. But Reddit’s users agree that as well as not being good for music fans, online exclusivity deals are no good for artists, and lead people to use torrent sites.

We’ve got an industry that promotes marginal products that appeal to few and makes them unavailable to most people? That’s hysterical!

“If artists want to act like hobos and sell their albums out of the trunk of their cars then more power to them. However if they want to give their fans a wide swath of streaming options then it is only going to be beneficial to their exposure,” says Third_Planet.

“Musicians can do as they please as it is their intellectual property. However, as a consumer, I don’t listen to artists not available on Spotify and I go out of my way to avoid listening to, promoting or caring about artists wrapped up in exclusivity deals,” says LifeinParalysis. “If I really love an artist, I will support them by buying an album and merchandise, but I won’t subscribe to multiple streaming services.”

“I agree artists should be able to make their music available wherever they want. I haven’t had an issue in the past with an album not being available except for one time, which was for Frank Ocean’s new album. It was hyped, yet it wasn’t available on Spotify, so I will admit I torrented it,” says BlackSapper.

Buying music

While some people have been pushed back into torrenting thanks to the increasing number of exclusive album deals, other have chosen to go old-school and just buy records that aren’t available to stream. And by ‘buy records’ I mean that they purchase digital tracks rather than actually going to a store and picking up a record. Because, let’s face it, no-one does that anymore.

Most of the time I won’t listen to it if it’s not on Spotify

“Most of the time I won’t listen to it if it’s not on Spotify. That said there’s only ever been one artist’s album not on Spotify that I’ve been bothered about. In that case I actually purchased the album because I’m a big fan of the band,” says Junglebreath.

“When, say one streaming service has one exclusive album you really want, you might as well buy the album rather than spend a single monthly fee for the service. The cost evens out at around $10 anyway,” says LILMACDEMON.

Not everyone is burdened by their own integrity and feels compelled to buy music rather than torrent it. Nielsen revealed in its Mid-Year Music Report that purchasing digital tracks is down 24%, while purchasing digital albums is down 18% compared to 2015.

ftr_1611_feature-footerBut despite the drop in numbers, people aren’t listening to less music, so they will find another way, and if you’re keeping your music off the most popular streaming site then expect it to get stolen. A lot. Beyonce’s Lemonade topped the torrenting charts, as well as the actual charts, when it was released in April. If artists continue to put limits on their music’s availability then don’t expect that to be the last time it happens.

Gecko-inspired robotic gripper to clear up space junk

Researchers have developed a pioneering robotic gripper that uses gecko-inspired sticky pads to clear up space debris.

Developed at Stanford University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and detailed today in the journal Science Robotics, the gripper has been tested both on the ground and on the International Space Station, demonstrating that it can successfully operate in zero-gravity environments.

With around 500,000 pieces of man-made debris littering orbit, there is a growing need to successfully clear much of it so that humanity can safely increase its operations in low-Earth orbit. Each piece of space junk is whizzing around at up to 17,500 miles per hour, meaning a collision with a satellite, spacecraft or even astronaut would be extremely expensive and potentially very dangerous.

However, many conventional junk removal methods don’t work particularly well. Suction cups rely on creating a difference in air pressure, meaning they don’t work in a vacuum; magnets only work on a limited number of materials and debris harpoons risk missing and knocking the objects off in unpredictable directions.

Sticky solutions, then are preferred, however most tape-like solutions fail because the chemicals they rely on to make them sticky can’t cope with the massive temperature changes objects in space are subjected to. Which is where the gecko-inspired gripper comes in.

The robotic gripper being tested on NASA’s low-gravity aircraft the Weightless Wonder. Image, video  and featured image courtesy of Jiang et al., Sci. Robot. 2, eaan4545 (2017)

“What we’ve developed is a gripper that uses gecko-inspired adhesives,” said study senior author Mark Cutkosky, professor of mechanical engineering at Stanford. “It’s an outgrowth of work we started about 10 years ago on climbing robots that used adhesives inspired by how geckos stick to walls.”

Geckos are able to scale vertical surfaces because they have microscopic flaps that create weak intermolecular forces between the feet and the wall’s surface, allowing them to grip on. The researchers have simply replicated these flaps, albeit on a larger scale; while each flap on a gecko’s foot is around 200 nanometers long, on the robotic gripper it is only 40 micrometers across.

However, it works in the same way, allowing an object to be gripped in a zero-g environment without needing to apply force.

“If I came in and tried to push a pressure-sensitive adhesive onto a floating object, it would drift away,” said study co-author Dr Elliot Hawkes, a visiting assistant professor from the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Instead, I can touch the adhesive pads very gently to a floating object, squeeze the pads toward each other so that they’re locked and then I’m able to move the object around.”

A close-up of the prototype gripper. Image courtesy of Kurt Hickman/Stanford News Service

The gripper has already undergone extensive testing, including in JPL’s Robodome, which has a floor like a giant air hockey table that is designed to simulate a 2D zero-G environment.

“We had one robot chase the other, catch it and then pull it back toward where we wanted it to go,” said Hawkes. “I think that was definitely an eye-opener, to see how a relatively small patch of our adhesive could pull around a 300kg robot.”

Now it has been tested on the International Space Station, the next step is to test a version outside the space station, in the radiation-filled reality of space. Cutkosky also plans to commercialise the gecko-inspired adhesive here on Earth.

Human lifespan “could continue to increase far into the foreseeable future”

Scientists researching human lifespan have concluded that it has no detectable limit, and that with advances in technology and medicine it could continue to climb for the foreseeable future.

“We just don’t know what the age limit might be,” said study co-author Siegfried Hekimi, a biologist from McGill University.

“In fact, by extending trend lines, we can show that maximum and average lifespans could continue to increase far into the foreseeable future.”

The study, which is published today in the journal Nature, analysed the lifespan of the longest-surviving people from Japan, France, the UK and the US every year from 1968 to the present day.

The scientists found that there was no evidence that a limit on lifespan exists, and concluded that if it does, we certainly have not yet reached it or even identified what it could be.

The research flies in the face of previous studies that concluded that not only was there a limit of 115 years, but that we were beginning to reach it. However Hekemi and his colleague Bryan G Hughes do not believe this is the case, and are unable to even hazard a guess as to what such a limit could be.

“It’s hard to guess,” Hekimi said. “Three hundred years ago, many people lived only short lives.

“If we would have told them that one day most humans might live up to 100, they would have said we were crazy.”

Images courtesy of Jonathan Kos-Read

Average lifespans have jumped significantly over the past century. In 1920, Canadians had an average expectancy of 60 years, but by 1980 it had climbed to 76 years. Now it is 82 years, and is likely to climb further.

These jumps have been down to the revolution in medical science over the last hundred years, however advances in medical technologies could cause a significant further jump in our lifetimes.

In particular, work by organisations such as the SENS Research Foundation, led by noted gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, is focused on treating ageing as something that can be cured, and has seen growing support from the mainstream scientific community.

However, if such medical treatments do become available, they may only be available to those that can afford them, particularly in countries that do not have a single-payer healthcare system, such as the US. In these instances, there are fears that such treatments could divide humanity, with the rich gaining far longer lifespans than the poor.