Digital releases: Merging? / Long country list? / Just [Worldwide]?

[MJmusicguy]

@jesus2099

@Skeebadoo

when a release is also available on Bandcamp, it essentially trumps all those funny third party e-store licensing games, since Bandcamp is available worldwide without any restrictions.

@IvanDobsky

This is an interesting puzzle

These are slightly unrelated quotes but I agree it’s interesting all this but it is a real puzzle.
Also as digital release online stores usually can change their release dates or print the physical release date, have each different countries, release dates, etc.

For these reasons, maybe we should decide that we should not loose our time with digital details, that are too many, can be changing and have no great value anyway.

Maybe we could:

• keep just [Worldwide] for country,
• keep only the earliest release date,
• ignore barcodes until we can set several bar codes per release, and
• for the rest of data (catalogue numbers, labels, copyrights, cover arts, etc.), combine data found in various stores as they come.

I actually support this whole heartedly

@mfmeulenbelt if you feel the same as me then please vote yes in my edit link above

[outsidecontext]

@mfmeulenbelt

I’d go for using [Worldwide]. With [Worldwide], you know it is fuzzy. A large list of countries looks like it should be exhaustive, that the release isn’t available in countries not on that list. And we know that in a lot of cases this simply isn’t true.

I fully agree with this. This long list really makes me feel uneasy about the data accuracy. It makes it look like the data is more complete and correct then [Worldwide] while in reality it likely is just as fuzzy while pretending to be exact. That’s not really an improvment in data quality IMHO.

[MJmusicguy]

I want to point out the following once and for all Netflix works with content providers, distributors, producers, and creators to acquire licensing for TV shows and movies to stream. Music works the same way so therefore licensing date is not release date and will never be nor would it be considered a release event because it’s simply licensing so content will always be in flux the date will always change the content may even disappear by keeping worldwide we save ourselves the trouble of having to manage all of that data and verifying ist accurately all the time unless the streaming services start developing exclusive music with these artists then the content of the list will never be theirs I however will always on my physical copy with a proper date and always have the accurate information in my hand.

[Fabe56]

Wow looks like I miss a big discussion yesterday and some change already applies. From what I’ve read, the problem is above all aesthetic. And then I don’t understand why those who have an aesthetic preference don’t offer any solution other than to destroy data?

Digital releases: Merging? / Long country list? / Just [Worldwide]?

As I commented on one of these edits: Yes, please. It’s a nuisance – and it’s a false accuracy anyway, since iTunes, Deezer, Spotify, AppleMusic and other linked stores will never share the exact same release country range, which thus will always be either wrong or incomplete

Are there any concrete examples of such significant differences between the different streaming services? Because generally from what I have seen, they share licenses that are often similar. But yes, obviously, the Spotify API is the clearest way to retrieve this information.
And yes, it is difficult to have complete data, we all do our best to collect the data as well as possible. But I repeat, destroy data for aesthetic reasons or to use an approximation such as [Worldwide] is a better solution?

@jesus2099

But for physical I will always prefer a to-be-completed list of confirmed countries rather than replace it by a wrong guess [Europe] or [Worldwide].

Why have a different approach for different types of medium?

@chabreyflint

I wouldn’t mind the aesthetics if the data really were accurate. But we have a (not even sorted) list of countries based on poorly sourced evidence (if we’re lucky, we’ll find somewhere in the edit notes a link to some source – in most cases we’ll not). We can’t see what this list of countries reflects, whether it’s iTunes-Countries, Spotify-Territories, Deezer-Land or maybe some other source: that’s certainly not “exact and accurate” data, that’s just a mess

Not sure if we talk about my edit, but it’s always possible to ask the editor to detail more the source, isn’t it? I remember a recent discussion, about edit note and how note could be obvious for the original editor vs voter editor. My memory is failing me?

And remember as @silentbird explains:

@silentbird

We’re tracking release events of releases, not their geographical or temporal availability. Release dates only indicate when the release is first available for public consumption in a given area. It doesn’t indicate whether it will continue to be available. A physical album may not be printed anymore after its stocks have been exhausted after its first pressing. We don’t track when they get sold out. Similarly, we don’t track when digital releases or tracks stop being available. So I don’t see this as a problem.

[MJmusicguy]

We should handle digital media differently because it is by nature different
see my netflix example

[Fabe56]

I’m not English native and I maybe I don’t understand anything in a sentence without punctuation, sorry! But I think @silentbird explained it very well, I quoted it above already and repeating oneself does not advance.

I just want to make one little remark, don’t take this the wrong way and I don’t want to change the debate. But how can we be so demanding on layout and not apply it to himself?

[jesus2099]

@Fabe56

Why have a different approach for different types of medium?

Because it makes sense to describe and distinguish something physically different and permanent (physical albums), but no sense to put all details try doing so on something variable (download albums) where details are about to change according to online store’s will.

[Fabe56]

@jesus2099

but no sense to put all details try doing so on something variable (download albums) where details are about to change according to online store’s will.

That’s the part I don’t get it! What change? If a DM album is available in a new country, we can add this information… When a store removes it, nothing to do like physical…

[MJmusicguy]

@Fabe56 because I use text to speech which doesn’t always work correctly however I am very good at my Job
Digital music is a form of DRM so if releases are removed they gone forever or until re licensed however with physical releases someone can always use the data to acquire a copy so we would consistently update digital data physical data is content the Jackson 5 will always have been a part pf Motown for example this is no longer just about layout
So is this settled then ? will we have endless rows of country flags and broken pages based on impossible to fully verify digital media data for all releases going forward? gotta say sad to see us go down this path I always preferred MB to every other database to both contribute to and use for tagging but this issue makes me rethink that thank good I mostly only deal in physical media as digital sections will becoming places mom warned you about
@Freso feel like weighing in ?

[elomatreb]

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?

[chabreyflint]

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?

[MJmusicguy]

@chabreyflint

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?

I agree with this approach going forward if everyone else does and if we can actually get staff to recognize it as a issue and agree to implement ?

[jesus2099]

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.

[MJmusicguy]

@jesus2099 we should do that to start yeah

[yindesu]

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:

1. Vertigo Berlin primarily releases in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
2. Wrasse Records primarily releases in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but there are spot cases where their license extends to Europe or the Americas.
3. AVALON primarily releases in Japan.

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.)

[MJmusicguy]

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?

[Skeebadoo]

@MJmusicguy

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.

[MJmusicguy]

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?

[chaban]

@Fabe56

If a DM album is available in a new country, we can add this information

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)

[IvanDobsky]

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?