• rassel over 15 years ago

    Recently I ran across several updates of existing relases, where the country was changed as e.g.

    On the release: B.I.E.M. / STEMRA
    Used to be: Country = Netherlands
    Now: Country = Europe

    On the release: B.I.E.M. / S.I.A.E.
    Used to be: Country = Italy
    Now: Country = Europe

    Until today I thought, that BIEM is the International Mechanical Rights Society and this is why we usually don't consider it for the country of origin.

    To be honest, I didn't pay too much attention to this in the past and if there was a country specific code, listed here, http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html I just added the corresponding country.

    Too simplified?
  • Mop66 over 15 years ago

    By adding BIEM to the release the local mechanical rights organization opens the door for them to collect royalties in other areas. If this actually happens is depending on a "Standard Agreement with representatives of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) fixing the conditions for the use of the repertoire of the societies by record producers. The Standard Agreement is applied by the member societies to the extent that there is no compulsory licence or statutory licence in their territory.

    To me that means if BIEM is mentioned it is more or less automatically an international release as the door is open to market it in the BIEM area and receive the royalties. How will we be able to know if this actually happens or not? It's quite standard to buy a STEMRA or MCPS release in Germany as well.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    In my collection, where most of the records are bought in Norway, there's quite a few marked either BIEM/STEMRA or BIEM/GEMA. When I enter one of these, I choose Country=Europe rather than Netherlands or Germany, simply because I then *know* they were distributed for ordinary sale outside Netherlands/German.

    So, I would guess, more often than not, BIEM/STEMRA or BIEM/GEMA should *not* have Netherlands/Germany as Country. The problem seems rather to be to limit the area where a release is/were distributed.

    Of course, we could make it easier by a) adding a "country code"-field in the submission form, and b) changing the submission guide on Country so that it only deals with "origin" and not "market".
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    The problem seems rather to be to limit the area where a release is/were distributed.

    If we take the RSG literally: the country should always be the place the release was sold and distributed in we may add "Europe" to every European relase, as I'm pretty sure, that they were also sold and distributed in Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino.
  • mawiles over 15 years ago

    BIEM itself means just "anywhere in Europe", but NOT "in whole Europe". It's necessary due to the open EU market, which allows any EU product to be sold anywhere in Europe.

    The country codes used to specify the country in the 70s & 80s, when records were manufactured in the country they were released. Due to the open EU market, many pressing plants were closed in the 90s, so there are only a few plants for whole Europe:
    EMI - Netherlands (hence STEMRA)
    Sony - Austria (hence SACEM/SDRM/SACD/SGDL)
    Warner - Germany (hence GEMA)
    Universal - Germany, UK (hence GEMA, MCPS)
  • paris75 over 15 years ago

    rassel
    If we take the RSG literally: the country should always be the place the release was sold and distributed in we may add "Europe" to every European relase


    Right now we have UK & Europe as a country choice, maybe we need Netherlands & Europe and Germany & Europe etc. as a possibility for the country field.

    Nik should do something about it.

    rassel
    we may add "Europe" to every European relase, as I'm pretty sure, that they were also sold and distributed in Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino.


    why you didn't mention switzerland!

    ;-)

    mawiles
    Sony - Austria (hence SACEM/SDRM/SACD/SGDL)

    ? ? ?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    mawiles
    BIEM itself means just "anywhere in Europe", but NOT "in whole Europe".

    Hmm, buit BIEM itself operates in
    Albania
    Argentina
    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Brazil
    Bulgaria
    Canada
    Chile
    China
    Colombia
    Croatia
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Egypt
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Hongkong
    Hungary
    Iceland
    Indonesia
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Korea
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Mauritius
    Mexico
    Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Nigeria
    Norway
    Poland
    Portugal
    Romania
    Serbia Montenegro
    Singapore
    Slovak Republic
    Slovenia
    South Africa
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Turkey
    United Kingdom
    United States
    Uruguay

    54 countries, so why just Europe?
    And what has a cash collection to do with the country of a release? Doesn't BIEM just mean, that they care for the airplay fees and public performance fees in these countries?
  • marcelrecords over 15 years ago


    rassel
    Doesn't BIEM just mean, that they care for the airplay fees and public performance fees in these countries?

    That seems doubtful to me. I have a contract with STEMRA and that is also the company that handles and pays me my airplay fees. If I receive airplay from Germany the company mentioned on my receipt is GEMA. I have no idea what BIEM does for me (if anything), this name is not mentioned anywhere neither on my contract, nor on any receipt. I am a resident of The Netherlands.
  • Kepe over 15 years ago

    mawiles

    The country codes used to specify the country in the 70s & 80s, when records were manufactured in the country they were released.


    This is not true. I'm into used 70's & 80's vinyl and lots of biem/stemra, biem/gema from my collection were sold in Sweden & Finland (+ lots of other European countries) too. I know because many of them have original price stickers or lp-seals that reveal where they were originally bought.

    Also many Finnish lp's were manufactured/pressed in Germany and say Printed in Germany (maybe due to lack of vinyl prints in Finland). Even printed in US records were massively imported to Europe and you could buy original US pressings on local record stores in Finland.
  • mawiles over 15 years ago

    You're talking about imports. Selling German releases in Scandinavia doesn't make them Scandinavian releases!
  • mawiles over 15 years ago

    dupe
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Interesting:
    BIEM

    Members of [url=BIEM enter into agreements to allow each of them to represent the others' repertoire. In this way, a BIEM society is able to license users for the vast majority of protected works in the world.

    BIEM negotiates a standard agreement with representatives of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) fixing the conditions for the use of the repertoire of the societies. The standard agreement is applied by the member societies to the extent that there is no compulsory licence or statutory licence in their territory. BIEM's role is also to assist in technical collaboration between its member societies and to help in solving problems that arise between individual members.

    BIEM was formed in 1929. Originally it exercised the licensing function on behalf of its European members but in 1968 those responsibilities reverted to the individual societies.


    If I read this correct, since 1968 BIEM just helps to negotiate the contracts between the individual and country specific members, they don't do any licensing no more.

    If so, then BIEM means NOTHING regarding the country of a release. It's just here to mention, that the local mechanical rights society (which is usually printed on the record) is also a member/partner of BIEM.

  • Mop66 over 15 years ago

    ^^But that also means that a local mechanical rights society mentioned on a release does not at all mean the the release was just meant for marketing in that specific country as there might licensing agreements exist between two meber organizations that allow the collection of royalties in the other member area. Or do I oversee something here?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Mop66
    But that also means that a local mechanical rights society mentioned on a release does not at all mean the the release was just meant for marketing in that specific country as there might licensing agreements exist between two meber organizations that allow the collection of royalties in the other member area

    Yes, I think your thoughts are correct.

    And by the way, the longer I think about this "Country" issue, the more I have the feeling, that we run in some kind of catch 22.

    Example: I live in Switzerland and I bought most of my records here in local stores. As we don't have no huge pressing plants, 95% of all the records I bought came from other countries, mostly Germany, France, UK or Netherlands.
    But- and that's one of the main points- they were available here on the local record store as regular releases, not as imports or something extraordinary.
    But there was no pattern at all behind the origin of these records, sometimes there was a German version and we got the U.K. version here, sometimes a French one when there was also a U.K. version around, sometimes even both versions.
    We also got Canadian releases (NOT pressings) here, who knows why?
    So IMHO assuming that all these versions are also Swiss versions is just wrong, it was more some kind of coincidence and probably a question of stock availability, what was sold here.
    And by the way, if we got a German version and want to submit it, how should I know, if this record was also sold in Austria?

    And if I read, that there were many records produced in Portugal and sold as a Portuguese product, due to the high custom fees for imports, I can hardly submit a record with the country = Europe, when there was also a Portuguese copy (probably).

    It would really be easier, to select the country it was released, instead of trying to figure out for which market it could be intended for.
    If a GEMA record was sold in Stockholm and has German text on it, I don't think this release was intended to be sold in Sweden too.
    It's just a German record, sold in Sweden.
  • hafler3o over 15 years ago

    bel/BIEM anyone? when I see that I choose Europe.
  • UriahCego over 15 years ago

    UriahCego edited over 15 years ago
    hafler3o
    bel/BIEM anyone? when I see that I choose Europe.


    Maybe an answer here?
    Cheers.

    EDIT: But, there are things sometimes in the small print that made "UK & Europe" IMO.
    i.e. bel/BIEM + UK cat.#
  • Kepe over 15 years ago

    rassel
    If so, then BIEM means NOTHING regarding the country of a release. It's just here to mention, that the local mechanical rights society (which is usually printed on the record) is also a member/partner of BIEM.


    It must mean something. For example here:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1564782
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1596720

    Only difference on those is that 1st has only NCB and the 2nd BIEM/NCB. I can only think that NCB version was meant to Swedish/Scandinavian markets and the 2nd to bigger European markets.

    rassel

    It would really be easier, to select the country it was released, instead of trying to figure out for which market it could be intended for.


    This I gotta agree.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    rassel
    It would really be easier, to select the country it was released, instead of trying to figure out for which market it could be intended for.

    Agree, but let's not forget what we're trying to achieve here: We are not trying to document how the record industry makes and distributes records, we are simply trying to separate different releases from each other. So, the "GEMA" mark's importance is as a feature on the actual release - separating it from a different version of the same record - not as clue to where the release originated from.

    What we need then, is a field for adding the country code, along with the country field (which could be used when there is no country code).
  • _jules over 15 years ago


    mawiles
    Sony - Austria (hence SACEM/SDRM/SACD/SGDL)


    again, you may want to double check your "facts" before spreading such nonsense

    SACEM = Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique
    SDRM = Société pour l'administration du Droit de Reproduction Mécanique
    SACD = Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques
    SGDL = Société des Gens De Lettres

    how austrian does that sound to you?!?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Kepe
    It must mean something. For example here:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1564782
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1596720

    I sent a mail to BIEM about what's exactly the difference between a "BIEM" marked release and one without is. Hope to get an answer soon from them.
    DS_Helder
    We are not trying to document how the record industry makes and distributes records, we are simply trying to separate different releases from each other

    Yes, that was also one of my first thougths, but if so, why is it so important then, if the release was intended for the German market only or for Germany/Switzerland and Austria, what's the point? I really can't see the importance of this pseudo-accuracy for this database.
    DS_Helder
    What we need then, is a field for adding the country code, along with the country field (which could be used when there is no country code).

    I don't think that another field for the mechanical rights would solve many problems here as we have already the possibility to add it to the release notes.
    Probably it would be better, to

    1. Think about, what's the use of the country field exactly
    2. Define, what we mean with country, the country the release was relased in or the "market" it was released for
    3. Solve the "problem" with the netlabels
    4. Define some kind of manual to determinate the correct country
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    It's more than a week now since I asked BIEM about the meaning of the imprint BIEM, but there's no respose so far and I don't expect any answer from them now.
    So, as nobody is able to answer the question, what exactly BIEM means on a release, I propopse to "ignore" this for the country field.
    There's no reason why this should mean "Europe" as market, so it would be reasonable to stick to what we know, and these are the country specific mechanical rights organizations.
  • Kepe over 15 years ago

    rassel

    So, as nobody is able to answer the question, what exactly BIEM means on a release, I propopse to "ignore" this for the country field.
    There's no reason why this should mean "Europe" as market, so it would be reasonable to stick to what we know, and these are the country specific mechanical rights organizations.


    Agree with this totally. Let's use the country that's mentioned on the release. Printed/Made in Netherlands/Germany/United Kingdom/U.S.A./ and soforth. We can still add BIEM/GEMA whatever on notes and easily change it to Europe later if there will be more info available about BIEM in the future.
  • jweijde over 15 years ago


    Kepe
    Printed/Made in Netherlands/Germany/United Kingdom/U.S.A./ and soforth

    Not the best way to go either.
    For example, many European Sony releases are made in Austria. It would be wrong to put 'Austria' as country for these releases.
  • hafler3o over 15 years ago

    jweijde
    Not the best way to go either.

    Agree with jweidje. Don't implement a 'new' method just because a week has passed and BIEM have not replied, a non reply does not prove anything I'm afraid other than they are not interested in replying!
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    jweijde
    For example, many European Sony releases are made in Austria. It would be wrong to put 'Austria' as country for these releases.

    Example: http://www.discogs.com/Oasis-DYou-Know-What-I-Mean/release/396542
    This is a Sony release, made in Austria.
    Imprints SACEM/BIEM
    If we ignore "BIEM", there's just SACEM, and that's why I would tag this CD as a French release.

    For me there's a decision tree to decide the country:
    1. Local Labels or local subsudiaries of international Labels
    2. Country specific mechanical rights organisations
    3. Manufacturer
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    hafler3o
    Agree with jweidje. Don't implement a 'new' method just because a week has passed and BIEM have not replied

    Emm, what new method exactly?
    We never had a method for BIEM, sometimes we added "Europe" as country, sometimes it was ignored, it was just inconsistent.
  • hafler3o over 15 years ago

    hafler3o edited over 15 years ago
    Kepe
    Printed/Made in Netherlands/Germany/United Kingdom/U.S.A./ and soforth.

    This one to determine 'Market' (I realise it wasn't you who said that ;)
    rassel
    Example: http://www.discogs.com/Oasis-D...-Mean/release/396542
    This is a Sony release, made in Austria.
    Imprints SACEM/BIEM
    If we ignore "BIEM", there's just SACEM, and that's why I would tag this CD as a French release.

    well the 1st 5 owners i clicked on were from Netherlands , Estonia, USA, Germany and Denmark, so 'France' seems a little restrictive non ;)
    EDIT: full breakdown
    UK 1, USA 1, Germany 2, ??? 6, Norway 1, France 1, NL 2, Finland 1, Estonia 1, Belgium 1, Denmark 1.

    so maybe Europe is best tag if we keep country as 'intended market'.
  • mawiles over 15 years ago

    For me there's a decision tree to decide the country:
    rassel
    1. Local Labels or local subsudiaries of international Labels
    2. Country specific mechanical rights organisations
    3. Manufacturer


    You're missing the distribution info:
    "Distributed in Country by Company"
    This should be at least on position 2. in your list.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    mawiles
    You're missing the distribution info:
    "Distributed in Country by Company"
    This should be at least on position 2. in your list.

    Oh, thanks :)
    1. Local Labels or local subsudiaries of international Labels
    2. Distribution Company
    3. Country specific mechanical rights organisations
    4. Manufacturer

    hafler3o
    UK 1, USA 1, Germany 2, ??? 6, Norway 1, France 1, NL 2, Finland 1, Estonia 1, Belgium 1, Denmark 1.
    so maybe Europe is best tag if we keep country as 'intended market'.


    Hmm, UK has usually a distributor of it's own, but ok.
    But USA is not part of Europe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Estiona wasn't part of Europe in 1997.

    But, what I really dislike (as mentioned in the early postings here) I think we sould move away from this "market" view.

    For me it's a French copy, maybe distributed and sold in the whole world, but it's still a French copy.
    If we really go for the market, then we should update all copies from European countries to EUROPE, because they were always sold in different countries here.

    Again, we could buy German, French, Italian, Dutch, U.K and US releases here in Switzerland.
  • Kergillian over 15 years ago


    jweijde
    For example, many European Sony releases are made in Austria. It would be wrong to put 'Austria' as country for these releases.


    Agreed. And often released have multiple manufacturing locations - I just subbed a Beatles release the other day where the label said 'Made in France' and the jacket said "Made in Great Britain' (and no, it's not in the wrong jacket, it is a an actual UK pressing...)

    Also, there are a variety of non-import releases that are manufactured in other countries.

    The country of release (ie: the intended market) has nothing to do with the manufacturing location or the pressing plant :)

    rassel
    For me there's a decision tree to decide the country:
    1. Local Labels or local subsudiaries of international Labels
    2. Country specific mechanical rights organisations
    3. Manufacturer


    mawiles
    You're missing the distribution info:
    "Distributed in Country by Company"
    This should be at least on position 2. in your list.


    Agreed 100%! Especially for North American releases, which usually have no mechanical rights organization ;)

    hafler3o
    so maybe Europe is best tag if we keep country as 'intended market'.


    Ownership should have no bearing. They could have purchased imports, they could have bought them online, they could have added the wrong version into their collection...while most of my records are indeed Canadian pressings, I still have hundreds upon hundreds of pressing from anywhere from Argentina to the UK to Germany to France to Australia (and quite a lot from the US, natch).

    I highly recommend avoiding the use of location of the owners as a guideline.

  • hafler3o over 15 years ago

    Kergillian
    I highly recommend avoiding the use of location of the owners as a guideline.

    on that sample size the results can be dubious but changing country from 'Europe' to 'France' because BIEM haven't replied to an e-mail is even more dubious.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I do not ascribe to Europe -> France on the 'evidence' so far reported. What data we do have says otherwise.
  • nik over 15 years ago

    paris75
    Right now we have UK & Europe as a country choice, maybe we need Netherlands & Europe and Germany & Europe etc. as a possibility for the country field.

    Nik should do something about it.


    The possibility to add more than one country would solve that, but we have done without it for 8/9 years...

    rassel
    BIEM means NOTHING regarding the country of a release. It's just here to mention, that the local mechanical rights society (which is usually printed on the record) is also a member/partner of BIEM.


    rassel
    the longer I think about this "Country" issue, the more I have the feeling, that we run in some kind of catch 22.


    I don't think the country field is as 'solid' as most of the other fields (apart from style!). A lot of releases have vague country information on them, and as this thread shows, trying to 'translate' exactly what is the intended market can be hard.

    rassel
    It would really be easier, to select the country it was released, instead of trying to figure out for which market it could be intended for.
    If a GEMA record was sold in Stockholm and has German text on it, I don't think this release was intended to be sold in Sweden too.
    It's just a German record, sold in Sweden.


    I don't see the differentiation between "country of release" and "intended market"?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    nik
    I don't see the differentiation between "country of release" and "intended market"?

    Maybe I'm very wrong now, but for me there's a quite huge difference.
    If a German record has a GEMA imprint, then this record was registrated at the German mechanical rights organisation.
    But the market, in the meaning, where was the intention to sell / distribute this record, could be Germany, Austria, Belgium and Sweden.
    So, for me, even if this record was sold elsewere, it's not a German/Austrian/Blegium/Swedish, hence Europe, record, but it's a German record, sold and distributed in several countries.
    But sorry, usually we really don't have this information when we submit a record, do I know if this French record I have in my hands was also intented for the Finnish market?

    And, as a side effect, I seriously doubt, that there's ONE European record in the database, that has an intended market for just ONE Country, keep in mind Europe has many many small countries without labels or subsidiaries of big labels of their own.
    nik
    A lot of releases have vague country information on them, and as this thread shows, trying to 'translate' exactly what is the intended market can be hard.

    Yep, and that's why I think it would be clever to switch to the country of release.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    Why don't we just go for what we know - the country code, in stead of guessing the country (whatever it is country where it's made or where it's sold)? Let's not lose our focus here: We are not trying to figure out the mysterious ways of the record industry, we are simply trying to document different versions of a release.
  • strummin over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    Why don't we just go for what we know - the country code, in stead of guessing the country (whatever it is country where it's made or where it's sold)? Let's not lose our focus here: We are not trying to figure out the mysterious ways of the record industry, we are simply trying to document different versions of a release.


    I second that. IMO the usual guesswork about the "country of release" aka "intended market" should be abandoned in favor of keeping to factual info about the release. After all we only need to distinguish the different releases, we don't have to guess what they have been made for. So the country field should really denote "country of manufacture". Several such fields should be allowed, specifying different parts of the release whenever necessary (sleeve, vinyl, cd, booklet, ...). Rights associations should be recorded in a separate field (or several of them). If someone likes to do the guesswork about the "intended market", it still can be done based on the given info.

  • rassel over 15 years ago

    strummin
    I second that. IMO the usual guesswork about the "country of release" aka "intended market" should be abandoned in favor of keeping to factual info about the release.

    strummin
    So the country field should really denote "country of manufacture".

    Sorry, no, I really disagree. The country should be the country, where this release has been released (=country of release), not the intended market (=guesswork) nor the country where this release has been manufactured.
    And by the way, if we go on with the "intended market", we must add to each and every file based release "World", because the whole world is able to buy at a web shop, as long as you have a valid credit card.
  • strummin over 15 years ago

    rassel
    The country should be the country, where this release has been released (=country of release),


    That also amounts to guesswork in most cases. I have yet to come across a release that has "This item has been released on the ... in the following countries ..." written on it. In order to get correct entries in the db one has to keep things simple. Not everyone here is a 'record-scientist'. And this site shouldn't be a research platform for the weird ways of the music industry (it could be used as such, but that's another story). Country of manufacture is clearly stated on the release in most cases (if it isn't the field can just be left empty), so it should be the information that's recorded in the db.
  • ahlbomper over 15 years ago

    strummin
    Country of manufacture is clearly stated on the release in most cases

    and it's wrong in many cases.
    MANY releases still say "printed in usa", or so, at bottom back-sleeve, when they are clearly not not released there.
    often not even manufactured there.

    and cases where 2 (or more) manufacturing countries are stated.

    strummin
    "This item has been released on the ... in the following countries ..." written on it.

    we should fight to get a worldwide law on that.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    strummin
    That also amounts to guesswork in most cases. I have yet to come across a release that has "This item has been released on the ... in the following countries ..." written on it.

    Fine, and what's the problem exactly in adding these countries to the country field?
    strummin
    Country of manufacture is clearly stated on the release in most cases (if it isn't the field can just be left empty), so it should be the information that's recorded in the db.

    This issue has been discussed to death, country of manufacture is the last decision point in the sequence of:
    1. Local Labels or local subsudiaries of international Labels
    2. Distribution Company
    3. Country specific mechanical rights organisations
    4. Manufacturer
    strummin
    In order to get correct entries in the db one has to keep things simple.

    Exactly, and that's why I dislike the "intended market" approach which is in many cases pure guesswork. If we would use the "country of release" instead, there would be less guesswork already.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    nik

    I don't think the country field is as 'solid' as most of the other fields (apart from style!).

    I think nik concluded this discussion. What is in the "country" field is not very important - it tends to be subjective, just like what different users choose for "style" of a release.

    It would help, of course, if submitters at least choosed country in relevance to other releases of a record. If you got a GEMA/BIEM and there's already a different release with "Europe" as country (but with notes that says it's STEMRA/BIEM), you could pick "Germany" as country for your submission.

    But even this isn't critical. Björk's "Debut" lists four releases with label=Mother, year=1993 and country=Europe (or UK&Europe), and three of them have the same catalog#. You will have to study each of them to find which one your copy is, and it wouldn't help if one of them had "Germany" in stead of "Europe" in this list.
  • ahlbomper over 15 years ago

    rassel
    If we would use the "country of release" instead, there would be less guesswork already.

    i'm not sure it would be less guesswork or more simple.

    either way, a link to the relevant guidelines (country-codes and other ?) placed next to the country-field on submitting-pages, would be helpfull for some.

    and why not such links as many places as possible on submitting-pages ?
    not just when an error is detected after preview.
    i think it would catch some errors, and lead more submitters to learn.
    some don't know/think about clicking random link to check other information while submitting.
    some are just to lazy.
    making checking things while submitting easier would be good ?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    ahlbomper
    i'm not sure it would be less guesswork or more simple.

    My initial question was: What's the impact of BIEM to the country?
    So far, nobody could answer this question. But as BIEM is an international organisation, the equation BIEM = EUROPE seems wrong. And that's why I suggest in cases like B.I.E.M. / STEMRA to enter Country = Netherlands instead of EUROPE.
  • ahlbomper over 15 years ago

    i don't know if this has been covered, but do they get a lot of releases that is marked BIEM outside europe ?
    my impression is no, but i have never lived outside europe.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    ahlbomper
    i don't know if this has been covered, but do they get a lot of releases that is marked BIEM outside europe ?
    my impression is no, but i have never lived outside europe.

    *Sigh*
    That's exactly the reason I propose to simply ignore BIEM for the determination of the correct country.
    We don't know what's the impact of BIEM and we start guessing about the potential/possible/intended MARKET of this release.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago

    The problem is that these are the names of recording rights societies, NOT country codes. Assessing a releases release country is now incredibly hard as all of the EU rights societies can and do operate in all EU countries.

    Just because a release only has GEMA on it doesn't necessarily mean it is just a German release.

    At best, these initials are a guide that should be used along with other evidence. Nowadays MOST major releases are just released Europe wide, whatever the rights society.
  • nik over 15 years ago

    ForkMe
    At best, these initials are a guide that should be used along with other evidence.


    Indeed, and the guidelines do say "at best, the info is only a clue, a piece in the puzzle -- not the final word."

    http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html

    nik

    I don't see the differentiation between "country of release" and "intended market"?


    rassel
    Maybe I'm very wrong now, but for me there's a quite huge difference.
    If a German record has a GEMA imprint, then this record was registrated at the German mechanical rights organisation.
    But the market, in the meaning, where was the intention to sell / distribute this record, could be Germany, Austria, Belgium and Sweden.
    So, for me, even if this record was sold elsewere, it's not a German/Austrian/Blegium/Swedish, hence Europe, record, but it's a German record, sold and distributed in several countries.
    But sorry, usually we really don't have this information when we submit a record, do I know if this French record I have in my hands was also intented for the Finnish market?


    I still don't see the distinction?

    I don't think either "country of release" or "intended market" have direct correlation to specific mechanical rights organisation marks.

    Surely the country/ies of release = the intended market?

    ahlbomper
    a link to the relevant guidelines (country-codes and other ?) placed next to the country-field on submitting-pages, would be helpfull for some.


    That's already there - click the 'Country' form title and the guideline will pop up.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago


    strummin
    So the country field should really denote "country of manufacture".


    Ouch! No, definately not! The country of manufacture can be TOTALLY different to the country of release.

    For example, in the 80s, some UK indie labels, that ONLY released in the UK, used French pressing plants, so they say Made In France, even though they weren't released there at all.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago


    mawiles
    You're missing the distribution info:
    "Distributed in Country by Company"
    This should be at least on position 2. in your list.


    ...as well as the existence of different National catalogue numbers etc.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago


    rassel
    For me it's a French copy, maybe distributed and sold in the whole world, but it's still a French copy.
    If we really go for the market, then we should update all copies from European countries to EUROPE, because they were always sold in different countries here.


    Again, they weren't always. In the 60s, 70s, 80s therev were usually different releases in different territories (less so by the late 80s). Later mainland Europe and the UK tended to have different markets, nowadays most major label releases have the same issue all over Europe, usually made in one place, so having the manufacturing country only doesn;t distinguish between these different scenarios.

    That's also why "Europe" and "UK and Europe" are in there seperately and should be.
  • strummin over 15 years ago

    ForkMe
    Ouch! No, definately not! The country of manufacture can be TOTALLY different to the country of release.

    For example, in the 80s, some UK indie labels, that ONLY released in the UK, used French pressing plants, so they say Made In France, even though they weren't released there at all.


    This is all very interesting and probably true, but what's the point? In order to tell release A from release B it is totally irrelevant were it had been sold at a certain point in time. With the current guidelines people have to try guessing the country of release, instead of simply entering information that is written on the release. As it stands, properly entered release notes are more useful in identifying a release than the country field.
  • Kergillian over 15 years ago


    ahlbomper
    MANY releases still say "printed in usa", or so, at bottom back-sleeve, when they are clearly not not released there.
    often not even manufactured there.


    Printing has nothing to do with the manufacture of the record. Something that is 'printed in country X' denotes that the JACKETS and/or SLEEVE were printed there. The record itself was not necessarily manufactured there. I have dozens of US releases that were 'Printed in Canada' even though the record was manufactured in the States. This is because of the proximity of the countries, the major printing facilities in Canada, and the cheaper cost of printing here.

    DS_Helder
    What is in the "country" field is not very important


    Of course it is! It can help to determine uniqueness, and it can also help to find the version you have - or whether it is in the db - far faster.

    There will always be difficult scenarios to map out, especially for Europe, but that doesn't mean the field is not important!
  • Kergillian over 15 years ago


    strummin
    With the current guidelines people have to try guessing the country of release, instead of simply entering information that is written on the release.


    Again, this depends on the situation. More often than not, the country of release is clear.

    strummin
    As it stands, properly entered release notes are more useful in identifying a release than the country field.


    Again, this depends on the situation (deja-vu! ;)

    When I skim through a master release to find whether my version is in the db, the first thing I look for is the cat#, followed by the country. For releases with a LOT of versions, to have to open every one up and skim the release notes would be a far slower process.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    nik

    I still don't see the distinction?

    I don't think either "country of release" or "intended market" have direct correlation to specific mechanical rights organisation marks.

    Ok, let me try to exlain my thoughts:
    If we read in the RSG intended market, I, and probably most users, think of this as "where was this release sold" or "where was the intention to sell this record". Sold in the meaning if being available in the local stores.
    Problem Nr 1: I don't know in which countries, besides the country I bought the record, it was available too.
    Problem Nr 2: I don't have the faintest idea, where the label had in mind to ship this record to.
    And that's why people start telling: I bought this record in Uganda, so we should add Uganda as country too.

    What's the country of release?
    For me, that's the country where
    A) The local label is located
    B) The local subusidiary of a multinational label is located or there's a national code system in the cat#
    C) The Distributor is located
    D) The national mechanical right organisation where this release has been registrated
    E) The release was manufactured

    The only problem with this system is:
    - In absence of A), B) and C) we have to go by the mechanical rights organisation, and I didn't know if/why BIEM should mean EUROPE. I still don't know it, and if there's another national rights organisation beseides BIEM, I prefer this. BIEM = Europe is speculating.

    For me, the country of release is the country, of
    A) if none then -> B)
    B) if none then -> C)
    C) if none then -> D)
    D) if none then -> E)
  • marcelrecords over 15 years ago

    nik
    Surely the country/ies of release = the intended market?

    Of course, but the point I believe rassel is trying to make is that the country of manufacturing should be the criterium for the country field.
    An example: in the 60's some Beatles albums were manufactured completely in the UK, but solely for export use (Scandinavia, Switzerland, etc.). They received different catalogue numbers from the regular UK pressings. These are the most coveted UK pressings for every Beatles collector. They fetch much higher prices than any Beatles album pressed abroad, because of that fact and they are listed in every single discography as ''UK''. As of now, we should try to determine for which market these were intended. Scandinavia? Switzerland? It would be easier for the submitter if he could just add ''UK'' as country, since the record originates from that country.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    marcelrecords
    Of course, but the point I believe Rassel is trying to make is that the country of manufacturing should be the criterium for the country field.

    Ehem, no, sorry
    Again

    Country of release is where the label is located / the distributor is located / the mechanical rights organisation is located / and at the very last the release was manufactured

    Intended market is the country(ies) where this release was intended to be sold

    marcelrecords
    As of now, we should try to determine for which market these were intended. Scandinavia? Switzerland? It would be easier for the submitter if he could just add ''UK'' as country, since the record originates from that country.

    Yep, exactly, thank you!
  • ahlbomper over 15 years ago

    rassel
    why BIEM should mean EUROPE

    my impression is that (almost) no purely national release is marked BIEM.

    i think there's a good chance that in most cases BIEM releases is intended for (part of) the european market.
    (i think BIEM is often printed on releases intended for export)

    i would like to here more from people outside europe about how many BIEM releases they get.
    and what impression they have about releases with BIEM.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    ahlbomper
    my impression is that (almost) no purely national release is marked BIEM.

    I've got an example for a national BIEM record:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1828743
    The only mechanical right organisation on the center label is BIEM, but, it's a comedy record in Swiss German, a dialect noone in no country besides Switzerland is able to understand! And it's quite hard to laugh at jokes you don't understand.
    So I'm 100% convinced, that this record was intended and also sold in Switzerland only, nevertheless it has the BIEM sign on it.
  • hafler3o over 15 years ago

    rassel
    nevertheless it has the BIEM sign on it.


    Yes what you say is correct there but the release is over 40 years old? We need to know what this marking means then AND now before applying assumptions across the board. The 'flowchart' for country designation is looking good, if we REALLY want to get the data right we should just record what we find on the release, don't 'transmute' it into country/territory and move on.. but in most cases our 'hunches' are right. Maybe 'upgrade' the value of Countrycodes and 'downgrade' the 'Country' field importance somewhat so they are level, at the moment Country has a dedicated field and Countrycodes go in notes if we are lucky!?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    I agree with you, hafler30, sound advices.
    My initial question about the meaning of BIEM in the past and now seems hard to answer, but I'd propose the following flowchart for BIEM stamped releases:
    - BIEM means, that this release is registrated at the international organisation representing mechanical rights societies.
    - There's no evidence, that a BIEM stamped release was intended to sell in different countries or that it is released by a multinational cooperation.
    - If, and only if, there's no other sign of any country on a release, we might presume, that the country of this release is 'Europe'.

    So, this would mean: Choose the correct country along this flowchart:
    A) Where the local label is located
    B) Where the local subusidiary of a multinational label is located or there's a national code system in the cat#
    C) Where the Distributor is located
    D) Where the national mechanical right organisation is located this release has been registrated
    E) Where the release was manufactured
    F) Europe, for the international mechanical right organisation BIEM
    Please note: 'Country' for file based releases means the country where the download server is operated.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago


    strummin
    This is all very interesting and probably true, but what's the point? In order to tell release A from release B it is totally irrelevant were it had been sold at a certain point in time. With the current guidelines people have to try guessing the country of release, instead of simply entering information that is written on the release. As it stands, properly entered release notes are more useful in identifying a release than the country field.


    The point is that this is a database, the main purpose of the country code is not just to dinstiguish between unique copies, it is meant to be a useful piece of information, ie where the record was released.
  • strummin over 15 years ago

    ForkMe
    The point is that this is a database, the main purpose of the country code is not just to dinstiguish between unique copies, it is meant to be a useful piece of information, ie where the record was released.


    A database should contain verifiable data in the first place. If this raw data is already based on guessing by the person who entered it, it's essentially useless. That's why I am arguing that it is far better to enter information that's available on the release, such as country of manufacture, rights associations and the like. Apart from typos and formal errors (capitalization etc.) there's not much that can go wrong with this. Afterwards, other useful things (the country of release for example) can be derived from the raw data, using algorithms, other sources of information or whatever other method. With the current guidelines part of the raw data is not entered and it's up to the user to add them to the release notes (where they are buried in randomly formatted text).
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    ^^This is true, but until the new formatted fields for non-human credits and further data are available, we have to live with what we have, and that's one country field and one release notes field.
    strummin
    Afterwards, other useful things (the country of release for example) can be derived from the raw data, using algorithms, other sources of information or whatever other method.

    And because we don't have the new fields yet, we try to define an algorithm on how to derive the country out of the available data.
  • ForkMe over 15 years ago


    strummin
    A database should contain verifiable data in the first place. If this raw data is already based on guessing by the person who entered it, it's essentially useless.


    Who said anything about guessing?

    Country on here has always been country of release, that's the information people would be most interested. Who cares where it was made? To suddenly switched now and make the country mean something totally different to what it has meant in the past (ie country of manufacture rather than country of release) would make a lot of the data in the system totally wrong. Older subs would have it meaning release country, newer ones manufacturing country. We wouldn't have a clue what it meant.

  • sebfact over 15 years ago

    BIEM/STEMRA doesn't say ANYTHING about the country.
    All post 1993 London Records releases by New Order carry BIEM/STEMRA, regardless where available.

    Sometimes (but not often) the only differentiation at least between the UK and Europe (as a whole) is an additional cat# (i.e. NUOX1 = UK and 857121.1 = Europe). But sometimes even that doesn't work because both numbers appear even on UK releases, so country = UK & Europe. Easy bit.
    After 1999/2000 London Records 90 re-released many albums and all carry the same remark (example): LC 02275 EW 835, Gema/BIEM (Europe) Gema/MCPS (UK) and Distributed By Barclay in France and Metronome in Germany. So, country should be UK & Europe, right?
    Wrong! The same release was also obtainable in Malaysia!!!
    But then again, you can always argue, that the little phrase "M & D in Malaysia by Warner Music Malaysia Sdn Bhd." is a strong country indicator and they simply used the same artwork. Thumbs up for the local record label/company and thumbs down for stupid and nonsense following of "What's on the release is what's got to be in Discogs", erm, I meant STEMRA = Malaysia - huh?

    The above mentioned flowchart is the best possible way to zero in on the country but has pitfalls, too. Especially, if there are several distributors mentioned on one release (as in: Barclay = France, Metronome = Germany, Rough Trade = GAS, Dureco = Benelux -- but, aside from that, where's Spain, Italy, Estonia?), found on a - you've guessed it - Malaysian cassette.
  • jweijde over 15 years ago

    Totally agree with sebfact.
    You simply can not say "Release has BIEM/STEMRA, so it's dutch" or "BIEM/GEMA so it's German". In some cases it works but in most cases it won't.

    sebfact
    The above mentioned flowchart

    Which one?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    jweijde
    You simply can not say "Release has BIEM/STEMRA, so it's dutch" or "BIEM/GEMA so it's German". In some cases it works but in most cases it won't.

    I don't think anybody said that?
    jweijde
    Which one?

    This one:
    rassel

    So, this would mean: Choose the correct country along this flowchart:
    A) Where the local label is located
    B) Where the local subusidiary of a multinational label is located or there's a national code system in the cat#
    C) Where the Distributor is located
    D) Where the national mechanical right organisation is located this release has been registrated
    E) Where the release was manufactured
    F) Europe, for the international mechanical right organisation BIEM
    Please note: 'Country' for file based releases means the country where the download server is operated.

    sebfact
    The above mentioned flowchart is the best possible way to zero in on the country but has pitfalls, too.

    Yes, I know, there are releases where this flowchart won't work properly, but I guess that's really just on a very small minority.
  • jweijde over 15 years ago


    rassel
    I don't think anybody said that?

    Maybe not in this topic, but I've seen plenty of submissions where this logic was/is applied.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    jweijde
    Maybe not in this topic, but I've seen plenty of submissions where this logic was/is applied.

    Yes, that's true, and that's why I'd like to see this kind of flowchart published on a more prominent page, e.g. the RSG :)
  • arjen over 15 years ago

    Just a little addition to this:

    As far as I know (and I should know, because I worked for Stemra some 15 years) BIEM is now indeed not much more than an umbrella organization for mechanical rights societies.

    Another thing I have posted many times already:
    Large record companies like to have a one stop shop for licensing their releases - this is called Central Licensing. They pay all mechanical rights for all of their European releases to one mechanical rights org. regardless of where in Europe it was actually released, either pan-European or territory specific (to mechanical rights orgs acquiring a Central Licensing deal is also highly lucrative and a competitive business).
    Universal now pay their mechanical rights to SABAM - check releases from 2006. Before that, to MCPS, and before that (end 80's until halfway 90's) to Stemra.
    Warner has had a long lasting Central Licensing agreement with GEMA.
    Sony now has a deal with GEMA, before that with SACEM/SDRM, and before that Stemra.

    And so on and so forth, in other words, with these releases the so called "country code" does indeed say nothing about the actual country of release.
  • psychonausea over 15 years ago

    ^^ interesting.

    About the Central Licensing: is that exclusively post-1993, or also pre-1993?
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    I've got news from BIEM:
    rassels_questions

    For the moment, we are discussing the influence of the imprint "BIEM" on a record. We are well aware of your organisation, but we are quite unsure, what an imprint "BIEM" on a record means.
    Does it mean, that this record was intended to be sold worldwide and not just locally?
    For example we have two very similar records,
    - http://www.discogs.com/image/R-1564782-1228841091.jpeg
    - http://www.discogs.com/image/R-1596720-1231104236.jpeg

    One of them has the imprint BIEM, the other doesn't have it.
    We would be very happy if you could tell us, what the difference between a record with an imprint or without really means.

    BIEM

    In response to your enclosed message, please note that according to BIEM’s rules when carriers are exported outside the licensing society’s territory of exploitation, they should bear 2 logos: society plus BIEM. But it appears that it became very difficult for international companies to make 2 different labels for the same pressing. It is possible that licensing societies accepted to have the same label with the 2 logos on all carriers.

    Referring to your examples, I investigate a little bit. Although rather old, it could be that the NCB print is the original 1983 version manufactured by the Swedish Sonet Company while the BIEM/NCB label might be a later pressing when Sonet was not independent anymore but bought by Universal. Then the manufacture was made in Holland and Germany and used the BIEM/NCB logo.

    Hoping to have been of help!


    *Sigh*, seems things are getting very very difficult here...
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Ok, maybe I found some kind of solution for this dilemma.

    I would propose to replace the current country field with a combination field, like the format field, where users may enter multiple values, separated by a ",". Instead of "Country" we should name it "Country/Licence".
    There's no need to enter one or several countries no more, when you add one or several mechanical rights organisations. If there's no sign of such an organisation, you will still need to add a country as today.
    If you have a localised copy of a release, stamped with mechanical rights organisation, e.g. "BIEM, distributed in Malaysia by XYZ", you may add BIEM AND Malaysia.
    For file based releases downloaded through the internet, use "Internet" as "Country/Licence".

    + No more guesswork, add what's on the release
    + No more discussion about markets or country of origin
    + Multiple values finally possible
    + Allows to treat special cases in any depth
    + Represents the real world for file based releases
    + No need to change todays releases
    + Covers difficult areas, such as Central Licencing
    + No need for an additional field
    - Needs some scripting work

    Idea?
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    Good research, rassel!

    Re_your proposal: It would be best to have two separate fields. One for "Licensing" (or "Country Code"), where you can choose one or several mechanical rights organizations from a list (in the words of arjen).

    One for "Country", just like the one we have today. "Internet" could be added to that list of countries/regions.

    None of these fields are obligatory.

    Further info about country should be added to the notes.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    Re_your proposal: It would be best to have two separate fields. One for "Licensing" (or "Country Code"), where you can choose one or several mechanical rights organizations from a list (in the words of arjen).

    I thought about this option too, but I see some big disadvantages in adding another field as:
    - If you migrate the form, all "old" releases will have a blank value in the "Licensing" field as you can't set a meaningful default value.
    - If there's no Licensing organisation on the record, the field remains blank, does not look good on the release page
    - You will also have to update the Label- and MR pages including some display logic (no country -> display licensing field, no licensing field -> display country, both, merge them)
    - The empty release form will look even more complicated to new users than today

    And that's why I proposed a combinated field.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder edited over 15 years ago
    rassel
    - If there's no Licensing organisation on the record, the field remains blank, does not look good on the release page

    Display issues should be kept separated from database issues. It would be easy to write a rule saying "if field is not used, don't show".

    rassel
    - You will also have to update the Label- and MR pages including some display logic (no country -> display licensing field, no licensing field -> display country, both, merge them)

    No such logic needed, simply show them both (if they contain data).

    rassel
    - The empty release form will look even more complicated to new users than today

    You're right, but it ain't a dramatic change - and a) that's the price of building a database, and b) the submission form could be altered, in a way that highlighted obligatory fields from non-obligatory fields.

    Main thing here, though, is the fact the list of "mechancial rights org." is limited and authoritative. It would therefore be wise to make this a separate field in the database.

  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Probably the management here will decide on how to implement this "change", we may make suggestions, but the final design will be made by the management, so it's not worth discussing about these details :D (I could live with both)

    Methinks the bigger change would be the possibility to leave the country field empty and to add a/some mechanical rights orgs instead, as this is a conceptual change.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    Sorry to come up with this again, but I really don't know how to go on with this for the time being.
    I see tons of subs with BIEM/STEMRA and country = Europe, and still we have no solution for this now.
    Couldn't we agree for the moment, to put BIEM/STEMRA in the release notes and agree, that BIEM does not automatically mean Europe?
    It really seems that BIEM has no meaning at all for the market, it's just a sign, that the local mechanical rights organisations is a member of BIEM.
    So we have the strange situation, that I submit an Italian release of a record, where we already have another one (e.g. BIEM/GEMA) with country=Europe, simply because it has a BIEM sign.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    I really see no problem with entering "Europe", but I agree that it shouldn't be done on basis of the BIEM-code alone.

    1) The "country code" data is what separates the release from other releases - not what country is picked.
    2) If it says GEMA and I have bought it on regular distribution outside Germany, choosing Germany as "country" is wrong.

  • rassel over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    1) The "country code" data is what separates the release from other releases - not what country is picked.

    Agreed
    DS_Helder
    2) If it says GEMA and I have bought it on regular distribution outside Germany, choosing Germany as "country" is wrong.

    Here I disagree. Out of the thousands of records I bought in the local shops here in Switzerland, maybe 1% had a SUISA sign, but probably 30% had a GEMA sign. If you insist on your viewpoint, that the country of purchase is important for the country code here in Discogs, we should erase all European countries and replace by Europe then, as probably every European release has been sold in more than one country.
    And by the way it would be the same for all US/Canadian releases on regular sales here in Europe.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    I think that this discussion has shown that it's hard to say what function "country" has in Discogs, other than an indication on where the record has been sold. If so, yes, maybe more releases should have "Europe" in stead of "Netherlands", "Germany" etc, especially those released by the large companies (unlike f.ex. this one). As a side point, the US/Canadian releases I have bought in Europe, have been through special import and not regular distribution.

    If I understand you correct, you want to make "country"="country code", in which case we should hurry up and make the "country code" a primary field to "country".
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    If I understand you correct, you want to make "country"="country code", in which case we should hurry up and make the "country code" a primary field to "country".

    Probably we should try to define, what we do now and what we would like to do in the future.
    At present we have just one country field with predefined countries. So there's no way we may enter BIEM or other things there. My question is simpel as that: What do we enter NOW, if you see a BIEM/STEMRA stamped release, do we enter Europe or Netherlands or do we define this on a case-by-case base?
    What seems clear so far is the fact, that BIEM does not mean, that the release was sold in whole Europe. So entering Europe seems wrong to me.
    Entering Netherland is wrong too, because there's a chance of nearly 99% that the release was sold not only in Netherlands.
    Defining the country on a case-by-case selection is asking way too much from the subbers, how should they know where their record was sold too?
    After all, I think entering Netherlands is not correct, but at least there's a high chance there won't be anther Dutch release.

    For the future, I'd like to have a possibility to enter the mechanical rights organisations somewhere/somehow in a formatted field.
  • DS_Helder over 15 years ago

    rassel
    Defining the country on a case-by-case selection is asking way too much from the subbers,

    I don't think it is asking too much, as in fact that's how it works today; When I enter a new submission, I select country on that single case, based on the fact I have (i.e. what's printed on the release, where and how I got it, press releases/internet etc., what other versions are already included (and sometimes facts like cat# and labels and distributors also indicates where it was sold)).

    rassel
    How should they know where their record was sold too?

    Well, most of the time we can't know exactly. It must be stipulated on the basis of the facts we have.

    But, whatever measures we take, the content of "country" will not be precise data in this database, and - as such - whether it is "Germany" or "Europe" is not very important. But if it is concluded that we should prefer "Germany" because of the "country code" printed, we should rather add "country code" than "country".
  • Kepe over 15 years ago

    Kepe edited over 15 years ago
    rassel
    My question is simpel as that: What do we enter NOW, if you see a BIEM/STEMRA stamped release, do we enter Europe or Netherlands or do we define this on a case-by-case base?


    I would like to know this too. Lots of my vinyls are either biem/gema or biem/stemra. I've used Germany/Netherlands this far, but would be nice to finally get the decision here.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    DS_Helder
    But if it is concluded that we should prefer "Germany" because of the "country code" printed, we should rather add "country code" than "country".

    Good idea!
  • nik over 15 years ago

    rassel
    What do we enter NOW, if you see a BIEM/STEMRA stamped release, do we enter Europe or Netherlands or do we define this on a case-by-case base?


    It has to be on a case by case basis:

    http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html

    "6.2.1. If you are having trouble determining the country in which a release was marketed, the following list of initials for the organizations of composers, songwriters, publishers, and other administrators of copyright, mechanical rights, performance rights, etc. can be of some help. Please note that this information is not definitive; e.g. the initials "BMI" appearing on a release are an indicator that the release is somewhat more likely than not to originate in the USA. However it is still possible that the item was manufactured for release in some other market, or that BMI is administering royalty collection and payment on behalf of affiliated organizations in other countries, etc., so at best, the info is only a clue, a piece in the puzzle -- not the final word."

    I know this is somewhat frustrating, but I am not sure we are going to get much closer to it right now. If you are not sure of the country, leave that field blank is the best bet.
  • rassel over 15 years ago

    nik
    I know this is somewhat frustrating, but I am not sure we are going to get much closer to it right now. If you are not sure of the country, leave that field blank is the best bet.

    I'm just talking about the BIEM sign, not the country in general, so yes, I certainly agree, leave the field blank if you're unsure is the best bet for today.
    But I really would like to have an opinion about BIEM, and that's why I'd suggest:

    GEMA -> Country = Germany
    BIEM/GEMA -> Country = Germany
    BIEM -> Country = Europe

    Why?
    If we chose for the BIEM/GEMA combination Europe as country, there should be no other European release, but that's quite often not true.
    If we chose for the BIEM/GEMA combination Germany as country, it might be not complete, butat least it's not wrong.

    That's everyhting I'd like to propose for now.
    And by the way, the mechanical rights organisations are not the first point in the decision tree for the country and may be overruled by other signs.
  • z-music over 15 years ago

    z-music edited over 15 years ago
    rassel
    seems things are getting very very difficult here...


    Well this topic makes submitting/editing more difficult and brings nothing really good exept ... confusion

    If GEMA means Germany so how do u explain:

    BIEM/SABAM but released in Germany (and maybe in Austria and Switzerland) but for sure not in Belgium where was different release.
    BIEM/SABAM Never released outside Scandinavia and never released in Belgium
    GEMA/BIEM License for Sweden and Finland - In Germany this single released with completly different artwork
    MCPS/BIEM/SDRM Does it looks like UK's or French release?
    SACEM/SDRM Maybe this is French release?
    BIEM/MCPS Polish band singing in German ... do they have any chance to be released in UK?
    BIEM/MCPS Also not a big chance for being released in UK
    S.I.A.E.- BIEM I bought in Poland and it wasn't import...

    In our days most of Universal's labels got printed SABAM, EMI's - STEMRA, 90% Sony's releases got printed SACEM SDRM.
  • pueblofunky over 15 years ago

    In earlier days it was not allowd to import records from outside to Austria. Only records pressed in Austria where allowed to be sold. Some record shops had a license to import records.

    Later, the contracts included "GAS" which means Germany, Austria, Switzerland. Records where pressed in GAS - and maybe outside too.

    For me the country was always the country where the label is/was based.

    Actually I'm looking on the soundtrack "Pretty Woman":
    CDP 79 3492 2
    UK:CDMTL 1052
    LC 7365
    BIEM/STEMRA
    Made in Holland
    STEREO

    Also on the cover only:
    F|PM|520

    The only one label printed on the CD is "EMI, USA" or "EMI-USA" which is listed as copyright owner.

    The CD was bought in an Austria shop.

    If I would say USA as country - it is not correct (as I did earlier with my 12").

    When I've added the release I've choosen Netherlands (Holland) (except I made a mistake before and choosed Germany due a copy error).

    "MUSICLOVER04" commented I should choose "Europe".

    However - for me - I would choose "Netherlands (Holland)".

    Because THIS release was done there.

    Maybe when I buy a re-release - it could be that the same catalog# numbers will be used - but the re-release was pressed in "AUSTRIA".

    I think to use "Europe" for both "releases" is not correct.

    ***** "Manufactured" or "Printed" is maybe the better solution because it is really "THIS ONE RELEASE". *****

    Another pressing in another country or also same country/company - could be different (another pressing because it was sold out) - or not - it depends on to detect that.

    I know I have these kind of 12" vinyls:

    Label is e.g. "EMI Austria" / Made in Holland / Printed in Germany (cover).

    In earlier days we DJ's said the "Austrian" pressing. Not true in this case. The label is Austria. ;-)

    Label: EMI Austria.
    Country: Holland.

    Where the cover has been printed is not important. It might be also wrong because they didn't changed it (forgotten maybe) - should be a part in the notes.

    The same song was released on EMI Holland (pressed also in Holland) - but included another track e.g. the dub or instrumental or a special remix by a dutch remixer - where are no rights to use this remix in Austria.

    Label: EMI Holland
    Country: Holland

    PS: Holland or Netherlands ...
  • pueblofunky over 15 years ago

    Regarding the comment:

    "Country in Discogs, actually refers to the intended market, not where it's manufactured."

    If there was a big hit in e.g. France - the local Austrian company didn't make their own pressing - they have ordered the pressing in France.

    So I have no difference - the intended market is Austria - but you can not see that.

    **** Using the country where it was pressed identifies a release. Pressed in one flow. ****

    Or is it the same release when it has the same catalog numbers but the only difference is "Made in Holland" vs. "Made in Austria"? In this case I would have "Europe" in both releases. All is equal - except the wording "Made in ..." - so these are 2 releases.

    However - a complex story.

    It should be clarified that I should be able to detect a release at the top fields. It shouldn't be that I have to identify a release in the notes (except a few).
  • Northwinds over 14 years ago

    I see this thread is a bit old but I recently purchased a Magical Mystery Tour 7" two ep set w/ red Odeon BIEM labels. However, the jacket info says made in West Germany but the catalog number points to a French release. On the first page of the included book, it says made in England and the company of manufacture is NEMS dated 1967. Very confusing to say the least
  • rassel over 14 years ago

    In what language is the text on the record/sleeve/book?
  • Northwinds over 14 years ago

    English
  • rassel over 14 years ago

    Ok, as Odeon is a German label, I would put Germany as the country, even if there's another German Odeon release here already: Magical Mystery Tour

    Seems to me they took the UK booklet and put them in a West German sleeve with the records also pressed in Germany.
    Maybe this "country bastard" was also exported to other countries as well, but this would be again guessworking.
    Germany is for sure, Europe would be guessed.

    Make your choice :D

Log In You must be logged in to post.