I also agree with this, at least in cases like the ones we’re discussing here. If we have reliable information about releases occurring in this many countries I would not be opposed to listing them, even if it results in a strange layout (which can be corrected, and IMO is not the main issue here), but not when entering these lists “blindly” (as we end up trusting an API for which we do not have any idea where its data comes from).
A further issue: Say Spotify (or any other streaming platform) expands into a new market. Should we go and update all digital releases that are available on Spotify?
Why don’t we add a choice of “multiple countries” for digital Releases, to be sourced with a link to any of the streaming platforms - to “iTunes-Countries, Spotify-Territories, Deezer-Lands”; leaving it up to these platforms to keep track of changes and variations in the countries lists instead of having to do this – with mitigated success – ourselves?
But if digital release implies always the same value, no need to set it at all, not even [Worldwide].
And I don’t think we should have a new [Fake Country] for each existing now and then online stores if we just don’t need Country for digital releases.
It’s same for Package IMO, for digital release it should always be set as None.
So it would be great if Package and Country (and maybe other stuff) would be disabled / greyed out when only Digital Media mediums.
We already do this kind of enable/disable this/that fields, for instance when there is an atttached Disc ID, etc.
There are legitimate reasons to set a finite list of release countries on a Digital Media release. Some labels only release in certain regions because a substantial amount of their music is narrowly licensed:
Vertigo Berlin primarily releases in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Wrasse Records primarily releases in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but there are spot cases where their license extends to Europe or the Americas.
Maybe what you’re looking for is a limit on the number of release countries that can be attached to a single release. e.g., if someone tries to seed 75+ countries, the release editor would change it to a single country of Worldwide. Is that an acceptable compromise? (That is my current editing approach.)
That would also be a good compromise
is everone ok wirg me just canceling https://musicbrainz.org/edit/63565220 since it seems down voted anyway
unntil we fix this all up?
You know this is probably the 20th+ thread made on this subject? This “great digital dilemma” has been discussed for a couple of years now, I don’t expect there to be a consensus any time soon.
However in all these threads is buried a multitude of good ideas and they all could use some summarizing. Digging through all that now would be a chore though.
Fair enough I just want to know whats expected going forward and also if we can compile a basic list of ideas here then we can take it to management if everyone is willing to support me in this push?
But how do we determine the date of the addition? I don’t see any publicly visible date attached to territories. Unless you have access to DDEX feeds that is. [Deal List] [ern:Deal ] [Worldwide] [Territory Codes]
I’d would be in favor of [worldwide] as long as there are no hints of regional restrictions.
Most self-publishing labels usually default to worldwide. (e.g CDBaby or DistroKid)
Trouble is that [Worldwide] will always be wrong. I still don’t see China in any of these lists.
There needs to be something to point at [Loads of Countries]. Though I’d prefer the GUI to handle that with a “more than five” type state. Even better if the GUI can show “My country” and the popular territories at the top. But that is a distant dream…
-=-=-
I also still not seen anything that shows that these are the original release countries. In the Phyiscal CD world if a CD is produced in Argentina for the Argentine market and the store decides to ship that to a UK customer then that is still a Argentine release.
So why is it that the Swedish Spotify can duplicate a track from their Swedish store and then sell it in the UK store and call it a UK release?
It is that duplication step that gets me. Are all Spotify releases identical? Or are the tags different in different territories?
@IvanDobsky Bless you for all the hard work but this still begs the question how should we handle this? I say keep "world for now while fixing these current list but moving forward lets maybe go by region and then as you said have the Gui some how tell you if its available to you
@MJmusicguy - it is not exactly hard work to look on a dated list on Wikipedia. What was getting me was this total belief in a list that seems to have no connection to reality. I never saw a “when” on that list. Clearly the “when” is actually “Now as the API Runs” and not “Release Date”.
“By Region” would also be incorrect. Region for who? Spotify? Deezer? iTunes? They all work on slightly different regions.
[Worldwide] is closest, but still very wrong. China? They are in the World, but can you buy through the above services in China?
And surely it is important as to which digital service as sometimes tracks are exclusive to one service or the other.
(I have no idea what the end of your post is trying to say as your Speech Detection has gone mad )
Sorry I don’t have an answer. I’m just picking at the details from both sides. Looking for holes.
@IvanDobsky fixed well then i think we can live with world for now because physically in the case of stone cafe it was only ever released physically in Hong Kong and Japan but we can assume the label wanted digital to be every service possible at the time so would should be ok?
Oh that is a funny variation of it. I thought the “available to buy in this store” link was supposed to be limited to the original country? LOL!! Madness.
It makes “available to buy in this store” pointless if that is done. In that case, that also means Amazon should get every store on the planet listed for their CDs? And so should my mate’s record store… Yeah. that one ahs got silly.
-=-=-
Back to Detective Work. Thank you @bflaminio for the Paper Lace example of Release Dates…
So - Paper Lace is a June 2012 release? Back to Wiki and the iTunes version of that “territories by date” list: iTunes Store - Wikipedia
Lets select INDIA again. On that list is say “India from 4th December 2012”. So that says is was not available via iTunes in India in June 2012.
Look at the MB list of daft countries for Paper Lace… err… yeah, there is India. Claiming you could buy this in June 2012 via iTunes India.
I could repeat that with many other countries for on the list.
The API is duff - it is returning TODAY’s territories and not the RELEASE DATE territories.
Okay - so that is a Size 9 Boot into the Spotify and iTunes lists. Any more?
This “great digital dilemma” has been discussed for a couple of years now, I don’t expect there to be a consensus any time soon.
What was getting me was this total belief in a list that seems to have no connection to reality. I never saw a “when” on that list. Clearly the “when” is actually “Now as the API Runs” and not “Release Date”.
)
