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.

60% of primate species threatened with extinction

A new study has called for urgent action to protect the world’s rapidly dwindling primate populations after figures revealed that 60% of the world’s primate species are threatened with extinction. There are over 500 currently recognised primate species, with the percentage considered at risk having increased by 20% since 1996.

The study draws attention to the incredible impact that humans have placed on primate environments. Agriculture, logging, construction, resource extraction and other human activities have all placed escalating and unsustainable pressure on the animals’ habitats, and are predicted to only worsen over the next 50 years.

Unless immediate action is taken, the scientists predict numerous extinctions.

“In 1996 around 40% of the then recognised primate taxa were threatened. The increase to 60% at present is extremely worrying and indicates that more conservation efforts are needed to halt this increase,” says Serge Wich, professor by special appointment of Conservation of the Great Apes at the University of Amsterdam.

Interestingly, one of the main suggestions for helping the primates is first helping humans. Most primates live in regions characterised by high levels of poverty and inequality, a fact that the study authors believe leads to greater hunting and habitat loss.

They suggest that immediate actions should be taken to improve health and access to education, develop sustainable land-use initiatives, and preserve traditional livelihoods that can contribute to food security and environmental conservation.

While it may be tragic to some, it could be easy to see the loss of these primates as unimportant to humans. However, it is important to note that the non-human primates’ biological relation to humans offers unique insights into human evolution, biology, behaviour and the threat of emerging diseases.

Additionally, these species serve as key components of tropical biodiversity and contribute to forest regeneration and ecosystem health. If they are struck by mass extinction, it is hard to predict the impact it could have on their ecosystems.

“‘If we are unable to reduce the impact of our activities on primates, it is difficult to foresee how we will maintain this fantastic diversity of our closest relatives in the near future,” added Wich. “That will not only be a great loss from a scientific point of view, but will also have a negative influence on the ecosystems that we all rely so much upon. It is therefore important to drastically change from the business as usual scenarios to more sustainable ones.”

The threat posed to delicate ecosystems by human expansion is nothing new, but it is perhaps shocking to have such a blunt figure out there as to the damage being caused.

More than half of these species – species that are far closer to us than we may be comfortable discussing – could die unless current policy is reversed.

The study’s authors have called on authorities across the world to take action and raise awareness of the issues raised.

The article itself is published in the latest edition of the journal Science Advances.

Mark Zuckerberg: VR goal is still 5-10 years away

Mark Zuzkerberg has said that the true goal of virtual reality could still be a decade away, in a testimony during a high-profile court case against his company.

Facebook, as owner of Oculus, is currently in the middle of being sued by ZeniMax Media for allegedly stealing technology for the virtual reality device. If proved guilty, they will be pursued for the amount of $2bn by ZeniMax.  However, perhaps more pertinent to the actual future of virtual reality are comments arising from Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony.

As it currently stands, virtual reality is still a far cry from being integrated into everyday life on a wide scale. Oculus, HTC Vive and Playstation VR are still largely targeting gamers and the idea of entertainment experiences. While they have found varying levels of success, all three platforms are being held back by the youth of the technology and, in the case of Vive and Oculus, the limited by the need for a high performing computer to plug into.

Image and featured image courtesy of Oculus

“I don’t think that good virtual reality is fully there yet,” said Zuckerberg. “It’s going to take five or 10 more years of development before we get to where we all want to go.”

The revelation isn’t a particularly shocking one; even the most ardent believer in virtual reality has to admit that we’re a fair way off the goal. Indeed, we can be seen as being in the first wave of mainstream virtual reality, with the main players in the tech using gaming as a way to introduce the technology to a group that are most likely to be interested from the off.

Zuckerberg has far grander plans than simply expanding the user base however, as seen with projects such as Facebook Social VR. If games are the entry, the idea is to expand virtual reality to become a whole new computing platform used for a bevy of experiences and containing a whole load of tools. The ambition is high, the reality slightly lagging behind.

Mark Zuckerberg with Priscilla Chan in 2016

When asked about the realisation of VR as this new computing platform, Zuckerberg replied: “These things end up being more complex than you think up front. If anything, we may have to invest even more money to get to the goals we had than we had thought up front.”

He then went on to add that the probable investment for Facebook to reach that goal is likely to top the $3bn mark over the next ten years. Considering the social media giant spent $2bn just to acquire Oculus, this represents a truly colossal investment in something that seemed to be initially set to hit a lot sooner. Admittedly the goal is rather grand: providing hundreds of millions of people with a good virtual reality experience transcending gaming alone.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, it’s very important that you know that Mark Zuckerberg did in fact wear a suit to trial. Whether Palmer Luckey, making his first public appearance since his Gamergate/Trump support scandal last year, will manage to ditch the flip flops when he testifies is yet to be seen.