Thanks Coldplay for destroying SPotify.

Agreed

Thanks guys for standing up. Artists are getting screwed in this new model and the public is clueless. The average music buyer has no idea what it takes to make a decent record and how little the payback is.

the average music buyer doesn't care, and there's a large portion of "fans" that will never buy your album, but will stream it - so take what you can get.  

the strategy here is to stagger the streaming release so that they can cash in on half hearted fans, who would just stream it if they could, but will buy the album when that option isn't available.

streaming is the future. no way around it.  also if you didn't notice torrent is still around - I'd rather get pennies than nothing.

and btw if you're smart/savvy you can make a great album on the cheap, the most expensive piece being mics. studio sessions are expensive too, so why not invest, and make buddies with a good sound engineer who can clean up your mediocre recording.

I agree on your reply to the post. 

Thanks for saying whats up, cause this is whats up.  

"the average music buyer doesn't care, and there's a large portion of "fans" that will never buy your album, but will stream it - so take what you can get."

@rootfiremgmt 

The streamers should take what they can get (legally).

Was this your idea Drew?

Thanks, Spotify, for not paying your artists!

I guess self-produced artists don't matte in the equation . . . .

Spotify has all non-disclosure agreements with the publishers. That's why many smaller labels have pulled out - the financial distribution is not equal to all those involved.

Personally, I think there should be some kind of fee added to internet services to account for streaming and music downloads. It used to be, an album came out, and you either had to buy it, or borrow it. This model is extremely unfair to artists, and you're absolutely right: no one cares. Where the f*ck would Spotify and other streaming services be WITHOUT the artists to provide them with the content?? It's like walking into Wawa to buy a cheap refill mug, but then getting all the coffee you want for free.

The only streaming service I'll use is Pandora, because at least they still give the same 9 cents for every play... Same as any normal licensing agreement.

Quentin Burgess 

Fair enough and their choice.

 brian virtue

If true, they're only adding fuel for those who illegally download.

but people who 'illegally download' go on to buy more music, apparently. so this is a good thing for the band, no?

LOL - nice response!

Sound Business Mgmt 

Delay release to streaming = new trend.

jan kooi 

'Developing story'

Net echt.

Brendan Moore 

Lame.

Sy 

More problems for Spotify.  They really need to drive more revenue from both ads and users or it will be goodbye.

Not putting your stuff on Spotify + Rdio is not keepign it off streaming services, its giving it as an exclusive to Pirate Bay and Grooveshark.

but people who 'illegally download' go on to buy more music, apparently. so this is a good thing for the band, no?

Peple that use Rdio and Spotify were either ex-illegally downloading people or people that no longer buy music.  and some even pay for the subscription who go own to buy also andm ost probably own half of the music the stream.

So stupid these bands.

I give up.... I had successfully transition my friends to use spotify and other streaming services instead of illegally downloading them.. so much for that... No Coldplay no problem, he downloaded it from a torrent.... looks like the same thing will happen with the Black Keys... 

Yet Lil Wayne and Drake CD's leak 3 weeks early and still sell over 500k.. somebody is lying... either about sales or about their stategy 

From what I can tell, the issue mainly seems to be from 'smaller' bands fighting for survival.  Super-popular, mainstream acts seem to make money no matter what they do.

The whole 'cold play strategy' seems like another loser - they sold something like 500K digital albums in the US and UK.  And netted what ? the equivalent of one of their concert gigs ?

Even for huge acts, Internet revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to their other revenue streams.  For smaller acts, its probably more like some free advertising, or gas money to get to gigs.

Whatever musicians did for money before the internet is probably what they should be doing now.  Anything internet based measures 'volume' or 'popularity' in multiples of 500,000.  A million streams, 2 million views, etc etc.  If you can't get those kinds of numbers - it probably doesn't pay.

(and yes, some bands do very well self-marketing and self-promoting on the internet.  Some people also hit the lottery - that doesn't mean playing the lottery is a viable business model.)

but people who 'illegally download' go on to buy more music, apparently. so this is a good thing for the band, no?

The album is on MOG. And btw, I'd rather stream all the albums I want for $10/month in 320bit audio then have to pay $10 for each album. Now that BLOWS.

Is it still available on MOG; I don't see it.  Perhaps it got pulled...?

It was. I see that it's not on there anymore. Luckily, I downloaded it before they took it down!  :-)

Word on the street is that it was pulled by the Black Keys label and management.

/paul

They've got some nerve I tell ya. 

I say we go burn 50,000 CD's of the new record and hand them out in front of the Washington Monument. 

This is seriously anti american guys. 

#OCCUPYBLACKKEYS

are you serious? please tell me you're being facetious...

completely.

Though, this is how ridiculous it is getting. 

We're closely approaching the bullshit singularity. 

Wait what?  Coldplay put out an album this year?  Oh yeah, it must have completely fallen off my radar.  I guess I just moved on and forgot about them.

Exactly! 

Streaming is good for some and not for others. I personally like streaming because I don't want to own a song after I get tired of listening to it... or if radio has played it out.

I would pay twice as much for Spotify or Mog, just because streaming works better for the way I listen to music.

The bands need to talk to there labels to get what they need.

I guess streaming services are going to be like Netflix and DVD rentals. If you want it fast, you should buy it, but if you can wait stream it.

I don't like it, but I guess I need to get used to it.

Sorry Black Keys. I was looking forward to listening to your new album, but I guess I have to wait.

I too feel $10 is a bargain for unlimited music, i'd pay double that and still be happy.

um... except that new black keys record...

"unlimited music" means nothing if 99% of it is not music one is interested in hearing.  It's not like unlimited corn, or wheat or something.  Music is failing to be a commodity.

 BigChampagne.com

People breathe through it. Windowing is here to stay.

As a streaming consumer, I can live with windowing.  I already do with movies.  No biggie.

 Nicole Mucci 

Not allowing your music to be streamed online?  Stupid idea.

 completely agree, i'd rather have my album downloaded free, then be streamed on these services, because these services are generating $$$ for the companies not the artists, unless your kanye west and your generating millions in a thousand different ways, cause remember it doesnt cost money to download, but it costs money to subscribe to these services, where do  you think this money is going?       www.firentheft.com

Mike 

Dear The Black Keys (and others): refusing to put your new albums on streaming services is dumb and guarantees piracy.

well that's good, because studies show that people who pirate also buy more music. and the bands get more music from sales than streaming, so keeping it off these services are good.

Looks like denying streaming is a new (if short lived) way of getting some attention around your release. How lame.

Sam Wick 

This is really bumming me out.

Mister Resnikoff , where did you learn that The  Black Keys are refusing to release their new album on streaming services? Just because it isn't available yet doesn't mean they  are boycotting streaming?

For the record, their previous album also appeared on the Spotify a few months after the official release. This happens often and doesn't mean that all these artists boycott streaming. You as a professional reporter should know this.

Hate to say this but I am starting to believe that Jeff Price is right

Blogger Criticizes Artists for Making Money; TuneCore CEO Jeff Price Responds

BTW: You can legally stream the full album here: http://3voor12.vpro.nl/luisterpaal/

Windowing could very well be a part of this.  At this point I'm not certain, though it's a very real possibility.  As the article mentions.

"According to one source tied into the discussions, yes, though it's unclear if the Black Keys are planning a delayed release on streaming services.  In other words, the 'digital windowing' strategy often discussed (and feared)."

There's also a lot more information that could not be shared in the article related to negotiations involving the band, management, and label, for fear of creating a confidentiality problem for the sources involved.  

Thanks!

/paul

"There's also a lot more information that could not be shared in the article related to negotiations involving the band, management, and label, for fear of creating a confidentiality problem for the sources involved" 

Sure? ;)

If the majority of artists that have a following/sales profile adopt "windowing" ie. delaying release to streaming services for 2-3 months, then Spotify's megalomaniac business plan will collapse.

People will not pay subscriptions for what will be a decidedly second tier service.

Ek does not further his cause by treating the now large number of artists who are alarmed by the tiny income from Spotify as idiots.

why not?  who cares when it's available for streaming as long as it is. if you want it sooner, go get it.. buy it of course ;)

Of course the new Cold Play album can't be downloaded!  

Come on, I mean, it's impossible to include a pair off earplugs and a specially designed disc-smashing hammer with a digital download; it had to be a physical release!

markvdrheijden 

Nieuwe trend? Schreeuw om aandacht?

 Dan Cohen 

protest or staggered release?

 mothlab

Do release delays through Spotify defeat the purpose by bumping up illegal downloads?

statistics show that people who illegally download buy more music, it looks like a non-issue . . . .

 cristina sucks 

The Black Keys have pulled a Coldplay...

This is WMG's call. Several of their "premiere" artists aren't available for streaming right away. It's been going on for quite some time. DMN needs a lesson in journalism. Get the facts then report, instead of tossing the band in the fire. 

like who before BK?  so this is a label wide policy now?

It's Q Prime.  RHCP and Metallica I believe did the same

It is not WMG's call.

As a former avid illigal downloader I can verify that I will not pay for a second tier service.  It took a perfect service for me to shut off my personal music server and in my mind, Spotify was that service.  If windowing is going to be the trend going forward, the music server gets booted back up.  Either take my $10 a month or take nothing at all.  That simple.

So wait, Does this mean the terrorists won??

«Either take my $10 a month or take nothing at all»

You can't be bothered to buy an amazing album a month but you go to the trouble of maintaning a server? Really?

Seems to me you either:

a) don't know anything about music,

b) don't know anything about servers

does that mean all those studies about pirates actually buying more music than other people were bullshit?

Ana Nodilo 

pogle ovo Oh Kačrina...bastardzzzzz

Regarding MOG pulling El Camino, here's what I heard back from MOG support:

From: lanna
Subject: [catalog] Black Keys - El Camino

Hello Paul,

Unfortunately, the streaming rights for the new Black Keys album, El Camino, was provided to us by mistake, and thus we had to remove it from our catalog. While we’re disappointed to do so, MOG adheres to the requests of our content providers.

Lanna
Mog.com Support

surasshu

Hope this keeps happening until Spotify is killed.

 James Aviaz

Big band wants to make money, so they sell first and allow streaming later. How is this surprising/shocking?

Big Band has to make money, otherwise Big Band is a Big Sharecropper.

You know, like the good ol' days.

There's a realatively simple solution to this.  Where an artist and/or their label want to "window" a release, at least make the content available for download from the streaming service first.  You may be able to convert some users of the service to purchase the download if it's at least available in downloadable form, if not streamed.  Otherwise, you are far more likely to drive them to illegal sources and away from the service in general.  Streaming services are here to stay. 

well, that's good because studies show that people who illegally download tend to buy more music.

Instead of repeating this over and over again like some sort of "if I repeat it often enough it becomes true" mantra, how about you back it up with some evidence. What "studies"?  Who commissioned these studies?  What controls were in place? I am suspect simply because the empirical evidence i.e. the overall decline in music purchases over the past 10 years or so does not support your statement.  But go ahead and wow me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music

I would encourage anyone who visits this page and cares about the future of streaming to contact the Black Keys as I did through the following link. Maybe if we flood their email the point will come across more so than these comments.

http://www.theblackkeys.com/contact/

I entered all anonymous information because I told them I was basically going to download a torrent.

done.

"I entered all anonymous information because I told them I was basically going to download a torrent."

You are a self-entitled piece of shit.

That train has left the station.  You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. If only we could turn back the hands of time. Etc. Etc.  Instead of clinging to an outdated model, why don't we collectively try to embrace a new one?  I know change is hard, but change we must.

The new model is not a logical economic model. Why would a business cap revenues but give unlimited access to a product? Take a class in Economics 101 and how often consumers listen to the same music.

I guess you are part of management that received my email since you are clearly sticking up for this decision, which by the way is the very opposite decision than 99% of record labels/artists. Maybe you should tell them to take Economics 101 instead of the listeners who embrace change. Oh yeah, the main reason for not purchasing the album is because I will more than likely not listen to it more than once or twice. People do not listen to the same music any more because we are introduced to new artists daily. I will gladly support the artist when they perform near my city.

When are you people going to learn that not all change is good. The Soviet Union thought changing the economy to marxism from capitalism was a good idea. Even China with a communist political system recognizes the importance of capitalism.

I don't perform live and don't sell other merchandise but in any case, if you like my music and want it in your library then purchase it.

There is no excuse anymore for buying music without properly sampling before buying. If you are unwilling to sample, then you know the old saying, buyer beware.

If you can't listen to the same music more than twice then you have a problem and are in the slim minority. I have no interest in writing and recording songs for people who listen to the same music a maximum of twice. I'll cater to the majority if I can but knowing full well they have an upper limit to how many times they stream a song in their lifetime.

Damn. Gonna buy vinyl anyway but can't play that at work.

So the Black Keys are too cool for school now and won't do Spotify. Ya know, I remember when you weren't shit.

Nog een GRRRR.  Lees NOG niet! Artikel is gebaseerd op aannames!

I'm not psyched.

They never had a #1 album, I think it's a bad move

Momentum! Go, bands, go!

This makes sense. Licensing a new release to streaming immediately, removes all incentive to "purchase" the album.

My usual routine is to listen on Spotify then buy if I like it.

Interesting. Many of the bands that refuse to stream (Metallica, Snow Patrol, Black Keys, etc) are all managed by QPrime.

Yep! And Red Hot Chili Peppers. Only a few of their older albums are available for streaming.

you notice Peter Gabriel suddenly isn't available. Tool and Def Leppard aren't available along with the obvious ones, Beatles, Zep.

Wonder why Q Prime or Warner haven't commented on this?

The best thing about this mess is that when Spotify first launched, I remember a lot of pontificating about how this was the "future" of the music industry and it was going to "create a new model" and blah blah from lots of people at labels with big titles.  How soon the winds change.  I just wish people would keep score cause it is amazing how often the experts are wrong.

Now it is too late.  Spotify let the cloud cat out of the bad.  With 4g and tablets, nobody is ever going to want to download a file or buy a cd ever gain.  Why would they?  Spotify was to mp3s what napster was to cds.  Labels should have had the acounting ability or at least the common sense to figure out the deal was lousy before they uploaded music.  Consumers are not going to go back so labels goons should just take what little revenue they can get, it is better than nothing. 

You are missing a very important point.

Spotify is still making a loss and is surviving on a heavy burn of venture capital funding.

The funding is predicated on the megalomaniac Spotify prospectus of being the "future of music distribution". "Future of music distribution" is code for "iTunes killer". This is what the vc investors think they are funding.

To have increasing numbers of high profile artists refusing to put their new releases on Spotify or to apply "windowing" is definitely not in the script for the iTunes killing future of music distribution.

This is a real headache for Spotify, and they are compounding the problem by foolishly insulting the artists and labels that complain about the miserable income they get from Spotify streaming and fear the erosion of their much need income from full sales.

At some point soon one or two of these investors are going to catch a cold - and this could prove disasterous for Spotify. The might survive in their home territory Sweden - but perhaps they might collapse in the major territories, leaving many subscribers with no more playlists and nothing to show for their $10 a month.

Just sayin'.......

All great points.

There are a lot of things to factor in, at this point there are also a few more competitors popping up in the streaming market. Between that market share being split, labels and artists windowing and/or not participating they could hit terminal velocity sooner than most people think. 

I agree that it's foolish to insult artists and labels.  If people truly want to support an artist, and the artist is claiming that this service in particular, they will go elsewhere.  Of course, there's an entire population that doesn't care, I guess we'll see how this plays out in time..

none of what you said matters to actual consumers.  All that matters if they perfer that format to downloading and storing files or owning CDs.  Streaming is the future and the cat is out of the bag.  If labels and artists foolishly try to steer consumer tastes in a direction they don't wanna go, they will lose. Just like Napster. Technological innovation cannot be contained.  

Music does not have to be "new" to be new. It just has to be the first time you hear it. So if the pattern of the last decades holds, consumers will simply consume "new" music that is free or cheap.  

Before I left the biz a year ago, the sober minded folks (all 5 of em) knew that music consumption was inevitably going towards a subscription model, be it streaming or downloading. The goonish executives were dellusional enough to think that Spotify like many other over hyped "solutions" were gonna save the day. Google music was getting hype as well. The list is a mile long of so called "solutions." Nobody keeps score has to how often these overpaid fuckwits who can't do basic accounting are wrong. They haven't been right since Napster and that is why people outside the industry are in reality driving the ship.

Labels and artists cannot steer the ship. The product they sell does not have any percieved value. it is a matter of supply and demand. The party is in reality over. So the best that labels can do is to downsize and focus on getting what meager revenue they can get off their catalogues and figure out a new model for developing artists. In reality, that is not plausible either so odds are in 5 years labels will be gone and larger holding companies will just make what little cash they can off of streaming and publishing. 

Spotify is the end of the road and another example of the thoughtlessness of labels, managers, and artists.

Spotify is not the end of the road because its financial viability is far from proven.

I don't know why you include artists in your list of thoughtlessness. It's largely artists that are taken their new releases off the service - it's largely artists that are looking at the miserable Spotify payments on their statements and saying "no way Jose!" There is an expanding groundswell of anti-Spotify sentent largely from artists - and lest we forget these are the people that create the music itself!

You talk about the "consumers" but they are not going to be paying their 10 bucks a month if they can't find the latest releases of their favourite artists on Spotify. Spotify's viabilty is under serious and well deserved threat.

Ok, 

So, please explain to me how realistic, sustainable revenue streams will work when the consumer is "steering the ship"?

No doubt Labels, Radio, and Promoters are most of the problem.  But artists, especially in the last 10 years, have helped drive this into the muck. 

I actually do not see a sustainable revenue stream that will support artist development in the future.  At least related to the actual recordings.  They will be free or mostly free in the future.  Case close.  You can't for people to pay for something they don't feel has ANY value.  That is the issue at hand.  That is the difference between millions of crazy girls buying Elvis singles and now.  Compare the population in 1972 and compare that with the sales figrures that year to the population and sales now.  That is the issue at hand, recordings do not have value.  It lost that certain something that created demand.

Yeah you can blame the music industry but artists have a big role in this mess as well.  Most artists have been more than happy to commodify their art to the point where it devalues it.  They have played a bigger role than many want to believe.  They are greedy and they can be whores.  I am glad the music industry is going away and hope that changes the culture of artists as well.  The culture industry needs to die. 

The party is over.  Maybe music will become something organic again and people will start playing and making it instead of being passive listeners.  It should be a local, community based thing anyway.  Bakesfield had a population of 50k when it produced some of the greatest country singers in history. 

OMG Why do you hate musicans so much?

Surely if people didn't like the music they wouldn't even bother to steal it, would they?

This is the deep philosophical conundrum behand the freetard argument that you are expressing.

Yeah,

I really don't know where to start with this one....

I'm getting the impression that our friend here was never invited to a party, let alone the one that apparently every artist that has ever existed within the industry was at. 

Go and read up on Behavioral/Cognitive Economics. That will rpovide plenty of evidence to my argument. Behavioral Economics has done lots of quantitative research on demand. 

I don't know what "party" you are talking about but I had a successful run at a label and quit on my own terms cause I was so disgusted by all of it. Artists were part of what disgusted me. to give them immunity is dishonest. My experience in the last decade was that artists were driving the ship more than they admit. Most could have said NO. The Black Keys are a perfect example of how careerist artists get greedy. Read up on people who have had dealings with them, including other artists. I know of one band who Dan was friends with and was forced to give him publishing on a song where he contributed exactly 2 words, giving him veto power on licensing. His publisher used it.

Artists get a free pass cause sympathies lie with them even though they are short shighted and greedy like the rest of the industry. They don't have to hire sleezy managers, greedy agents, and sign with shady labels, they do. Nor do they have to whore themselves and music to corporate brands or crappy tv. they do. If artists want a decent culture than they need to stand for something, namely the sacredness of art and music. they don't. 

The industry, all of the actors in it, get insanely greedy and shortsighted in the late 90's/early 00's and did all they could do to cash in, more, more, more. In the process they devalued music and made it akin to free online crap like porn or classified ads. So now nobody wants to pay for it. you live and learn.

You said the party was over. Considering the fact that your run at a label (successful or not) was during the past 10 years, I can understand how your experience was not great, all things considered.  You appear to be very idealistic, I think that's a quality that's in short supply in the music industry overall, but I can see how it could color your experience.  

Not every artist is a fame and money hungry, whatever it takes zealot who hires sleazy managers, gluttonous agents and kowtows to the corporate dollar.  It's just not that black and white. 

The Black Keys are taking it where they can get it, right now, and more power to them. You said it yourself, the statistics are there, their entire career could start trailing off tomorrow...so explain to me why they shouldn't exploit their talent that has brought them this far?? 

Your disdain for the industry and the current state of affairs is understandable, but I have to ask what industry doesn't function within a free market that doesn't incorporate greed in one way or another? This is capitalism, would a utopian existence behoove everyone? maybe, but it might be healthier to temper the idealism with some pragmatism...it will be a while till we get there, if we ever do. 

it is possible to seek profit for your creation and not stoop to the level that the music biz has. Gordon Gecko was a character in a movie. If we are to take your cynical logic to its conclusion than we would have a widespread greed in all corners of our economy resuling in perpetual crisis. Wait, we are in that exact situation!

My run was a success and I left cause I was sick of the culture of the industry. It was built around strong ties and discounted the need for reflexivity. That is why all the technological innovation of the last decade occured outside the industry. 

It is not a matter of mere idealism. it is a matter of sustainability versus nihilism. Lack many other sectors of our economy, music took the greed route. But they were not smart enough to understand creative destruction and their own hubris caught up with them in the end.     

The belief that "greed" drives markets or innovation is a misinterpretation of capitalist theory, a silly reduction akin to something in an Ayn Rand book. But that way of operating has failed anyway, take a look around.

I see your points, and I was by no means championing corporate greed or pure capitalism, what I am pushing is pragmatism. Right now, this is where we are, and I've just never been a fan of fatalism. 

Seeking a reasonable profit for creation alone is great, but where and how do you draw that line? The music industry has never been a pure meritocracy, but if it were should someone be capped if they saw mass success in an organic darwinist fashion?

All ancillary and tertiary industry biz bull aside, Should an artist not step up to a public demand for recorded works or performance? and can that actually be separated from/without the former bullshit?

I've seen it other ways, toured with french bands who got subsidized by the government, I've seen canadian labels who received similar funds from the state. They failed too.  

You see the current bigger picture sustanibilty vs nihilsm, I see it as entropy vs apathy. Things are falling into disorder, people don't care. 

At one point, it wasn't greed. It was the market value of a commodity. Industry by design takes a raw material and puts it through the factory and sells it. Were we screwed from the first assembly line? No. It was only when we saw behind the curtain, and what happened when value was threatened by decommodification and how people reacted. 

Are we seeing entropy across the boards? Sure, but I'm not grabbing my compound bow and heading to the cabin just yet...

I have too much commenting to do on music industry blogs...

Truth be told, their are far more important things to worry about in our economy than music. Long term trends in the overall economy have an impact on music. I remember label goons used to say music is "recession proof." It is not. When you combine middle class squeeze and a decline in disposable income with a lack of percieved value, you have to expect consumers to pay as least as possible for music.  .music sales have in reality been in decline for 40 years if you look at music sales in relation to population.  that pattern lines up perfectly with patterns of economic inequality and rises in household debt.

but all that aside, music sales are in decline because culture is fluid. the music being produced is not as powerful a cultural force as the beatles.  the music industry can't in reality change that. streaming or not streaming won't change that. 

recorded music has been a commodity for less than 100 years. culture is fluid, tastes change. maybe the public has just lost its taste for paying a premium for recorded music making streaming the future either way. 

don't grab your bow but maybe think of something else to do to pay the bills because the party is over.

It's up now...

Anyone hiring?

I don't get it. Don't labels stream albums for free on sites like NPR Music? Don't they stream preview tracks and videos? So when someone wants to pay for the streaming they think it is a bad thing? 

it is kind of counterproductive to stream for free and steer consumers in that direction and them to want to purchase the cd or files for download. if the streaming experience is positive than they will simply want to stream everything.

of course we can't expect label executives to understand that the free streaming benefits their partners and not artists or labels, but it is too late for that now. consumers are not going to go back, labels made it easy for them to enjoy streaming so let them pay you for it.

Not cool, Black Keys, not cool.

yay for the black keys!

Why should any artist license any music content to all these thieves?  Good word Keys!  These streaming services are fronts for illegal downloads and theft.  Does Limewire ring a bell?

That he would read an email if the sender paid him a dollar for his trouble. Maybe that s the final answer here. Paying consumers to listen to your tracks. Then they can decide if they want to go to your show. Artists pay for distribution already. I suggest paying consumers to listen to Spotify. I guess 0.000001 USD per track should do it.

Whoever decides not to release their work on Spotify should type the name of their band, album, and rar into Google and see what they find. Or go to Grooveshark. You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to not pay to listen to this album.

Hell, you could stream the album on Grooveshark while you're downloading it, then import it into Spotify and it is no different. Telling me that all of your other albums are less important than your current one since they're on Spotify already is also kind of stupid. 

Top ten google results for Black Keys are all album torrents, some of them FLAC quality. Good luck to everyone.

google adapts its results to your regular browsing habits, so i think that says more about you than anything else.

This is what I see. No torrents at all.