"Mastered for iTunes" is an invalid disambiguation

[phonebox]

@thwaller

There is a difference between a store display and data that is actually on, or contained in, a release.

I don’t think that a digital release is only the data that you can download. I think that a digital release consists more or less of the data that has been provided to a digital store. UPC and ISRC codes have been provided to iTunes by the music providers/submitters (iTunes FAQ).

@thwaller

The only issue with your IRL example is that no one is stripping anything from the iTunes release. The fact is simply that the iTunes release never actually contains the barcode.

From my viewpoint, iTunes barcodes are part of a release even though they are not included in the downloadable files. iTunes is not letting us download all the data that was provided to them so in that sense they are stripping some information from the end product.

@thwaller

My point here is that the barcode is not disclosed to the iTunes release owner, at all. You can try and decipher it from web elements, but even at that, a reverse reference, or cross reference, does not actually mean the barcode is assigned to the release, but only that the said barcode is referenced to the release.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. iTunes barcodes are provided by the submitters so the barcodes are always assigned to the releases. Even if the submitters use the same barcodes on digital releases as on their CDs, that’s their decision to make.

@thwaller

Yes, you are correct that in some cases the barcode is hidden within image links and such. But first, you do not know if it is correct

You’re right that it’s good to keep in mind that these kind of questionable sources can’t be trusted alone. In those cases we can and should verify the barcodes with the UPC lookup to be sure. (Relevant comment from an old thread.)