Reviews before release date...

... should not be allowed.  It's so easy to say "I base my review on a promo copy", but who really knows if that is the truth ?

As I posted in the other thread....Progarchives gets sent advanced copies to review already - they dont tend to be the biggest bands so nobody notices or is bothered.

It's frustrating to see, but I try not to let it bother me.  I'm still buying Systematic Chaos when it's released. 

Plus those reviews shouldn't influence your opinion on the music when you haven't even heard it yet. 


Edited by darkmatter - May 11 2007 at 18:21

tuxon wrote: If the bands don't want leaked coppy's let them securte their material better, else it's safe to asume they leaked the album themselves.

Eminem deliberatly released their album on P2P, U2 deliberatly leaked How To dismantle An Atomic Bomb. In both cases they claimed it was because of theft, but it's just a great marketing ploy, and it workes, for they have bypassed the radio and touring part of promoting the album, instead without any costs the internet did their campaign for them.

Although I don't download leaks and don't condone doing so, I actually could see the logic of a band purposely leaking an album. Ilegal downloading has probably both helped and hurt CD sales almost equally (my guess, anyway, although I don't know the statistics) ... because getting the album out there and listened-to could be a good form of promotion and leads to word-of-mouth. If an album is good and well-received, such a tactic could actually lead to increased sales, at least theoretically.

EDIT: Drew's post above mine supports this theory.

As far as reviewing before the release date, I say keep the same system that we have now. It's flawed, but I sympathize with the Admins ... plus, honestly, as long as a review of a leak shows that the person put at least some thought into it & listened to the whole album, then it's no worse than any other kind of review. Sure, the person may have not properly digested the album and thus may write a foolishly hasty review (e.g. "Sucks, 1 star!" or "Masterpiece, 5 stars!"), but is that really any different from a person buying an album, listening to it once, and immediately giving it a 1 or 5 star review without properly examining it?



Edited by enteredwinter - May 12 2007 at 13:31

The T wrote: tuxon wrote: Eminem deliberatly released their album on P2P, U2 deliberatly leaked How To dismantle An Atomic Bomb. In both cases they claimed it was because of theft, but it's just a great marketing ploy, and it workes, for they have bypassed the radio and touring part of promoting the album, instead without any costs the internet did their campaign for them.   Most leaks i know of are deliberate leaks by the bands, Nine Inch Nails turned the leaking in an art-form when they slowly leaked their Year Zero Album one song at a time.   look at the timing of the leaks, watch the bands reaction and see how it affects the sales. it's just a marketing tool, and it works.      Yes, you're right... Specially when comparing the commercial viability (and also approach) of Eminem and U2 with DT or Marillion...Yes, what a better example to show us that prog bands are leaking because they want to than Eminem??   While an illegal copy made of a leak off an Eminem album would hurt Mr. Matters' pocket not that much, it really hurts the full-of-holes-wallets of most of our prog bands....   But hey! Let's accept leaks! We're actually helping the bands achieve commercial success by doing so!!!!   Or maybe not???? If there are 1000 DT fans (let's say a number), and there were no leaks, probably 1000 of them would buy the new album, and thus helping the band (maybe DT is not the best example as they're not struggling as much as other bands, but it's THEIR leak we're talking about so...).... But if those same 1000 download "leaks" (an euphemism for INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS THEFT) , maybe only 700 will buy the cd....   Guess who suffers.... The labels? No, they have plenty of more successful artists... the fans? No, some of those cheap fans actually save huge 18 dollars!!!!....The only ones who are being ROBBED are the band members... you know? Those that play the music that you're supposed to like.

Wait, wait. What we are talking about? I suppose the topic is about leaks BEFORE release date, and not leaks in general. As long as we live in the 21st century and we have p2p network, EVERY album can and eventually sooner or later WILL leak to the net. What you are discussing isn't the problem of the leakage before release date, but leakage in general. Do you really think that 1000 of 1000 fans of some band would buy the album it it wouldn't leaked before release date? No way! Because some of them will download it from the net AFTER release date. Simple case and theme for a completely different topic...

I suppose that the simpliest way to avoid reviews before release date would be adding the newly released albums to the site on the day of release and not earlier. Therefore it would be impossible to review an unreleased album...

I wonder if the site has reviews of an album that was not released yet, it can be accused of admiting that people here illegally download albums and the site accepts this behaviour (which can easily become "supports this behaviour" in the hands of a good lawyer, since if it let people review before it is because they want people to review before).

The fact that some people receive legal advanced copies is not a problem. The reviews from these copies may have the identification of the reviewer and the copy making it easy to prove that the person in fact has a promo copy and not an illegal download. So when someone that receives one of these copies want to review, he enters in contact with some admin, send the review and the admins post the review in the right place, while the other users are forbidden to post reviews until the official release date.

Tony R wrote: akin wrote: I wonder if the site has reviews of an album that was not released yet, it can be accused of admiting that people here illegally download albums and the site accepts this behaviour (which can easily become "supports this behaviour" in the hands of a good lawyer, since if it let people review before it is because they want people to review before). The fact that some people receive legal advanced copies is not a problem. The reviews from these copies may have the identification of the reviewer and the copy making it easy to prove that the person in fact has a promo copy and not an illegal download. So when someone that receives one of these copies want to review, he enters in contact with some admin, send the review and the admins post the review in the right place, while the other users are forbidden to post reviews until the official release date.   sounds like a good idea to me...however its not up to me, or any of the Admins..

Yes, I know how hard it can be to change a thing in the site, but the ideas are there to be used or not.

"I wonder if the site has reviews of an album that was not released yet, it can be accused of admiting that people here illegally download albums and the site accepts this behaviour (which can easily become "supports this behaviour" in the hands of a good lawyer, since if it let people review before it is because they want people to review before)."