POLL: Should Labels Take Responsibility For Leaks?

TIP-888294.jpgWelcome to the Internet, Music Industry. In recent weeks, T.I. and Chris Brown have cried foul over the leaking of upcoming material. These artists certainly have a right to be irritated, but there's almost never an attempt to hold their labels and producers culpable for these infractions. It's always The Internet's fault, like The Internet snuck its way into someone's studio and walked away with the music like a thief in the night. The Internet doesn't just find things that aren't left sitting out.

My theory is these artists, labels, producers and other personnel on the "industry" side of the fence purposely leak their tracks to the Internet to build buzz. Then after they feel the bloggers have performed their bidding (by posting the tracks and basically providing the kind of viral buzz their lazy, uninspired marketing departments never could) they exert their legal "rights" and contact SoulBounce to have Jazmine Sullivan's tracks removed or else.

So why do you think leaks happen? Should the folks in charge enact some strict checks and balances to protect the product? Or are they purposely contributing to the very thing they claim to despise? Take our quick poll.


TAGS:  , ,

4 Responses

  1. it's the best of both worlds. they get FREE grassroots marketing and publicity from (bloggers) with an incredible fan base; thus reaching the nooks and crannies of their target audience. then they have the luxury of a pre-existing legal system that allows them to cry "FOUL" after the deed is done and appear like the victim.
    they need 2 check whoever's hanging out at the studio, doing street promotions, etc. it's not the internet's fault - but it's a beautiful scapegoat.

  2. i don't think it's the Internet's fault, per se, but the Internet (and other digital technology) is clearly the medium in which leaks travel. let's be honest, there's no way leaks as we know them today could have happened twenty years ago. the Internet is what allows these leaks to spread like wildfire.
    it's funny how the labels and studios don't take greater steps to make sure that leaks don't occur. i think they are turning a blind eye to the majority of it because they do realize that it's good marketing in most cases. everyone seems to prefer this system, except for perhaps in the case of music that is not finished. that's the only time i could foresee anyone being justifiably upset. leaks are going to continue to run rampant. it's really up to everyone involved in making music. it's sort of like the drug war, in a way: if they really feel that leaks are a problem, then they'll do something about it. it's my opinion that they don't.

  3. Avatar

    Its all about chain of custody. The vast majority of music is done in Pro Tools or some other digital audio work station So if the manager is not working with trusted professional audio engineers they leave their work open for theft. The sessions should be recorded on the artists own drives and never copied or backed up to the system drive. All hard disks should be coded to prevent copying and taken home after each session. This all goes along with trust if your working with Joe blow with a $500.00 dollar pro tools set up at his "crib" instead of to reputable professional audio engineer your begging for you stuff to get stolen and posted. Also you can't make CD's for "the homies to bump" after you record a song, your begging for it to be ripped and posted on line. But to be honest most leaks are done by the artist or label (single songs to test the waters)..but then you have other situations such as R-Kelly's new album were a completely mixed and mastered version leaks in its entirety far ahead of schedule.. That's when heads role and people are fired.

  4. Please listen to What a JOb! On WHole Foods mixtape by Dre 3 stacks