Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?
from the yeah,-that'll-win-fans dept
The band Incubus has decided that a way to attract fans to its new album is to release an 8-bit video game in which the point is to "fight music pirates," by literally punching them as they try to get and leak Incubus' new album.Seriously? How about fighting the record label dorks or manufacturing companies who let the album leak in the first place? Maybe the boss battle should be with the label exec who can't come up with a modern release plan that avoids leaks entirely?Oddly, Mashable claims that attacking fans who are interested in the band's music is part of the band's savvy "social-media flavored album release campaign." Sorry, but calling your fans pirates, and showing how you want to beat them up doesn't seem particularly social. The whole target of the campaign just seems weird and misguided.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fans, incubus, leaks, pirates, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Incu-busting pirates in the face
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing good
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nothing good
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You get to read these stories for free.
You can watch Youtube videos for free.
You have live streaming on Justin.tv for free.
You benefit from Supreme Court decisions for free.
Hell, it's already been documented that most pirates do more to spread the message on good and bad entertainment far quicker than Hollywood can spin it. What exactly is the problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I found it!!!!!
emphasis mine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How is this supposed to be accomplished? Discounting the purposeful leaks, most stem from the manufacturing plants that press CDs (that's how it happened to Kanye, for example) or critics who get advance tracks for review. I'm not sure you can avoid these scenarios without shooting yourself in the foot.
Then again, I heard that Kanye now has closed listening sessions for reviewers, and that he uses couriers to carry hard drives in person to collaborators. His studio is in Hawaii, so I imagine that gets pretty expensive.
But still, there's always going to be some period of time after recording for post-production. Tracks can't be released instantly, especially high quality productions. There's always going to be a potential for leaks.
And economically speaking, the labels are like any other business, they have to show quarterly profits. Some releases are held back for that reason Sometimes high profile artists threaten to do it so they can get better contract terms. The album is always there, but the exec might be gone next quarter if he can't show enough profit. And smaller labels have limited marketing budgets, they can't possibly promote 50 new releases at one time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Advertising just isn't your field.
Only matters whether it works, and as AC already noted, you bit on it and are to some degree promoting this album. SO, you're helping a band with whom you disagree. That's called leveraging the opposition. Judo. -- Or as the commies used to say: you're a useful idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And the major labels will be heroes of the people, they won't try to circumvent democracy at all and won't have sucked the life out of all my favorite musicians.
What else happens in this bazarro world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you watch the video of them from the SF MusicTech Summit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUiBb9ZVCTA), they DO get it. They talk about self promotion and the change in the industry in the past decade.
Specifically about the leak they said, "It was like, for about a day, where it felt like someone had broken into your house and had taken something you were making... kick in the balls a little bit. But a day later I realized that it took away the fear that people don't want music any more. That really reinforces that they really want it - they want to take it before you're even done with it.... we're in this weird middle zone, we don't get paid per record sold, out job is to make music and play concerts... we realized we're not the ones in control of it anymore... I'm just thrilled that people are not only enthusiastic about music, but love our music so much that they want to steal it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
a) Live in a Cave
b) Don't listen to modern music
c) Are lying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They could have at least tried to put some DRM on the game. That would have been awesome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There are a lot more possibilities.
d) don't listen to the radio
e) only listen to non-RIAA bands
f) don't listen to alternative rock
g) et cetera
h) et cetera
i) et cetera
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I always found the plotline ironic. The fans have to save the band from a corrupt corporate government and military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you were paying attention at all, you'd realize Jay is talking about buzz, publicity, and word-of-mouth. But you'd rather try to find a way to score cheap points that you feel wins the argument for you, despite the fact that you are almost always wrong. But please continue, it's funny to watch you struggle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
2001
2004
2006
2008
Saying they are a 90's band makes you look like a retard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
e) lives in mothers basement
f) ok, i'll give you that one :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: publicity stunt
I don't think there is any "promotion" going on here, we're commenting on their incredibly poor attempt at making a statement. Suggesting that they're threatened by piracy and need their fans to help them fight it off is utterly hilarious! I think obscurity is a far bigger problem for them, but I guess that's just my opinion.
Which brings us to the "publicity stunt" angle. If that was their true motive, then they've failed miserably. Yes, their name is back in the headlines, but it just makes me feel a little sad for them. I'm no more interested in their new album now than I was before reading about their little game. Zero is still zero. Oh, it's been "leaked" you say? Yep, still zero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I really don't see what not listening to RIAA bands has to do with living in your mom's basement...? If anything, that would be more applicable to the radio thing, since reception isn't great in some basements...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incubus still exists?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Graphics are not the key to making ENTERTAINING games.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Pirates Aren't Fans"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nothing good
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's never stopped them before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Except the Supreme Court, each and every one of them is "advertising supported". I pay with my attention.
The SC? Taxes my friend, taxes. Nothing is free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Advertising just isn't your field.
It works both ways, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
e) don't listen to this type of rock music
f) don't live in the US. Maybe in Europe, where this type of rock was never as popular (e.g. their highest charted UK single was at #23, although their albums were a little more popular).
Not having heard of a band *you* happen to know does not make one stupid, although asserting that makes you look foolish and arrogant.
As for them being a 90s band, they've been together since 1991 according to Wikipedia, and recording since 1995. Does that not make them a 90s band? Are you saying that, say, Jamiroquai and Foo Fighters don't count as 90s bands because they've had hits since the 90s? What's your criteria.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! I can't even say that, most times!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]