• indarkdreams666 6 months ago

    i dont care anymore what they block, going on like this their gain on discogs sales fees will decrease dramatically , especially when i look on some inofficial metal releases/labels they've already blocked hmm why not start blocking the official labels too then we can soon go back 15 years when it all started with just the database ;) and soon all will be back a the bay. :(
  • hatfulofelt 6 months ago

    HM-2
    https://www.discogs.com/sell/item/220508540

    Thanks, I figured that was a seller ID thing.
  • Jarren 6 months ago

    indarkdreams666
    i dont care anymore what they block, going on like this their gain on discogs sales fees will decrease dramatically


    By "dramatically" do you mean by 0.02% of sales?

    Or do you think that bootlegs make up a larger proportion of sales here?
  • indarkdreams666 6 months ago

    i dont care anymore what they block, going on like this their gain on discogs sales fees will decrease dramatically , especially when i look on some inofficial metal releases/labels they've already blocked hmm why not start blocking the official labels too then we can soon go back 15 years when it all started with just the database ;) and soon all will be back a the bay. :(
    [quote=Jarren][/quote]

    yeah not that, but if they delete more!anyway a loss for them at least.
  • indarkdreams666 6 months ago

    Jarren
    indarkdreams666i dont care anymore what they block, going on like this their gain on discogs sales fees will decrease dramatically

    By "dramatically" do you mean by 0.02% of sales?

    Or do you think that bootlegs make up a larger proportion of sales here?


    yeah not that, but if they delete more!anyway a loss for them at least.
  • Jarren 6 months ago

    indarkdreams666
    anyway a loss for them at least.


    It's a loss that I am certain they are willing to take.
  • indarkdreams666 6 months ago

    [quote=Jarren][/quote]

    they are "forced" or whatever, btw. i'm not surprised they kept quiet bout this thread.. but i'm impressed in a slight negative way. good night.
  • Jarren 6 months ago

    indarkdreams666
    i'm not surprised they kept quiet bout this thread


    They've been quiet overall, recently. Don't worry about it man.

    Good night.
  • Lektronikumuz 6 months ago

    "The items you are referring to have been blocked from sale in the Discogs Marketplace because either of the following apply:
    - The release has been entered under a label denoting items that are not authorized for sale in the Marketplace (for example: bootleg, pirate, or counterfeit).
    - Or the artist or artist's representative has identified the release as an unauthorized reproduction. Therefore, it is not available for sale."
  • SchusterBach 6 months ago

    Are there a thread, where items there should not have been remove can be listed !
    Or is the only way to open a support request.....
  • hatfulofelt 6 months ago

    You could start a thread... and an SR. Good luck.
  • HandsomeZacksRecords 6 months ago

    I only hope they block and delete the erroneous "colored vinyl" scam thats been plaguing this sight for years. Exhibit A:

    https://www.discogs.com/Joy-Division-Unknown-Pleasures/release/9528705
  • more_music 6 months ago

    Not On Label (The Rolling Stones) has just been purged, got a message because of a house mashup I sold over a year ago checked and everything else on this label including promos has been removed from sale.

    This is a new direction, if everything of this nature is also stripped from sale it will indeed be a thinner markeplace
  • jweijde 6 months ago

    more_music
    Not On Label (The Rolling Stones) has just been purged,


    Is it just me or are the "Have" and "Wants" hidden too ?
  • HandsomeZacksRecords 6 months ago

    more_music
    Not On Label (The Rolling Stones) has just been purged, got a message because of a house mashup I sold over a year ago checked and everything else on this label including promos has been removed from sale.


    Just got that message myself. I don't mind that much, I just wish Discogs would tell me where the records they are removing are located in my inventory so I can remove them and resell them elsewhere. As it stands, Ive got about 20 records in my inventory that I couldn't tell you where they are.
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    jweijde
    Is it just me or are the "Have" and "Wants" hidden too ?


    Haves and Wants are now "hidden" on marketplace blocked items, but there is a way to still view them :)
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    HandsomeZacksRecords
    I only hope they block and delete the erroneous "colored vinyl" scam thats been plaguing this sight for years. Exhibit A:


    They don't need blocking and certainly don't need deleting.

    Possibly only need "editing"..
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    HandsomeZacksRecords
    Ive got about 20 records in my inventory that I couldn't tell you where they are.


    Export to CSV... "location" and "private comments" will be there
  • more_music 6 months ago

    dansauk
    jweijdeIs it just me or are the "Have" and "Wants" hidden too ?

    Haves and Wants are now "hidden" on marketplace blocked items, but there is a way to still view them :)


    Go to the wants on a release where sales are allowed, take the release number of the blocked release and substitute it in the address bar, you can then see wants and who has it, there is no way to see the sales history anymore
  • Escapist 6 months ago

    more_music
    there is no way to see the sales history anymore


    Why did they decide to omit that information?
  • more_music 6 months ago

    Escapist


    Why did they decide to omit that information?


    I wish I knew
  • HandsomeZacksRecords 6 months ago

    dansauk
    They don't need blocking and certainly don't need deleting.


    Considering that they are not legitimate colored vinyl I'd say they should be deleted. They're simply black vinyl with someone placing a high wattage bulb behind them making them appear to be any color (red, brown, green) other than black. I'd call that fraud personally especially if I paid $300 for it only to find that when I remove it from the sleeve it's black.
  • MissingPlanet 6 months ago

    HandsomeZacksRecords
    I only hope they block and delete the erroneous "colored vinyl" scam thats been plaguing this sight for years. Exhibit A:

    https://www.discogs.com/Joy-Division-Unknown-Pleasures/release/9528705


    dansauk
    They don't need blocking and certainly don't need deleting.

    Possibly only need "editing"..


    HandsomeZacksRecords
    Considering that they are not legitimate colored vinyl I'd say they should be deleted. They're simply black vinyl with someone placing a high wattage bulb behind them making them appear to be any color (red, brown, green) other than black. I'd call that fraud personally especially if I paid $300 for it only to find that when I remove it from the sleeve it's black.


    Merge with the appropriate black entry. RSG §1.4.4 - Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. Unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.
  • HandsomeZacksRecords 6 months ago

    MissingPlanet
    Merge with the appropriate black entry. RSG §1.4.4 - Manufacturing variations should not be counted as a unique release. Unintended vinyl coloration caused by variation in vinyl stock, etc.


    My point exactly. These are not unique in any way and to sell them as such is, I believe, fraud.
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    HandsomeZacksRecords
    My point exactly. These are not unique in any way and to sell them as such is, I believe, fraud.


    Then you can request a merge with the original black vinyl entry, has has been suggested.
  • MissingPlanet 6 months ago

    HandsomeZacksRecords
    My point exactly. These are not unique in any way and to sell them as such is, I believe, fraud.


    dansauk
    Then you can request a merge with the original black vinyl entry, has has been suggested.


    Apologies for our off topic-ness, but are there any known Joy Division experts active in the forums? I've had a quick look at the MR and it needs a forum dicussion to get the merge(s) and edits right.
  • SchusterBach 6 months ago

    hatfulofelt
    and an SR. Good luck

    I have created a SR, about the item there was remove, because of a incorrect link to one of the block labels. 18 hours later, is it possible to sell the item again. :-)
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    MissingPlanet
    but are there any known Joy Division experts active in the forums


    You might be better off starting a new thread in the "Database" section of the forum for this :)
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    SchusterBach
    I have created a SR, about the item there was remove, because of a incorrect link to one of the block labels. 18 hours later, is it possible to sell the item again. :-)


    Would be good if blocked releases had a link to submit "incorrect block", so that staff can specifically look at items that have been blocked in error.
  • SchusterBach 6 months ago

    dansauk
    Would be good if blocked releases had a link to submit "incorrect block", so that staff can specifically look at items that have been blocked in error.


    Agree 100 %. One central place to report them good, but i will not hold my breath to that will happen :-)

    Here is one more https://www.discogs.com/Blacknuss-Allstars/release/1567279 there should not have been remove.
    I will now create a new support case and hope on a quick turnaround again from Discogs
  • GruveRecords 6 months ago

    Received a message about the Metallica - Garage Days GEMA version Metallica - The $5.98 E.P. - Garage Days Re-Revisited ...And More ...I know the original $5.98 Garage Days EP had a lot of different releases..But, from what I understand a lot of these were legit. Don't think the GEMA was a boot. But, I could be wrong.
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    GruveRecords
    .But, from what I understand a lot of these were legit. Don't think the GEMA was a boot. But, I could be wrong.


    It's tagged "Unofficial" and on "Not On Label (Metallica) "

    Prime "block" material... unless it can be proved to be official, and perhaps on an official label? Then a support request is in order ;)
  • Woi 6 months ago

    Just some statistics to put perspective on things and does it really matter from Discogs point of view: They have over 34,5 million items for sale. After reading this forum thread I started to look on 12th July the amount of "unofficial" lp's and cd's: 309.961 and 206.303 respectively. For few days the amount of unofficial lp's actually increased by few thousand per day and cd's started to decrease couple a thousand each day. Now we are at 303094 LP's and 180162 cd's. That's 2% decrease on vinyl and 13% decrease on cd. But still only like 1,5% of total amount of unofficial stuff for sale vs other has decreased to 1,4%. Blocking all unofficial most likely does not hurt their provision that much if compared to potential lawsuits etc. And still there are two totally separate things: making a discography of all released stuff ever and possibility to sell records. We should not mess up these two things even if it would hurt us as individual sellers. To be able to do the first thing, there is a need to finance it and then it's about second thing.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    I was notified on a few items that I have for sale have been removed from the marketplace today.

    These latest label casualties are:
    Phoenix Records: Phoenix Records (2)
    Bamboo: Bamboo (2)

    Linking from those pages I see Radioactive (2) is also now blocked:
    Whereas Fallout (exactly the same label as Radioactive) is still on sale

    Seems very haphazard way of proceeding though, when totally obvious bootleg labels like Super Golden Radio Shows (SGRS) are still live and on sale, and so is the Tachika Records label of self-made unofficial CDRs
  • dj_dmdn 6 months ago

    Can't wait for Bootcogs to pop up on the darknet .....
  • gypsytrypz 6 months ago

    Just Think if major labels wanted their promos back, after all it says, Not For Sale
    on those copies....who knows how far this could go....
    diseone
    Personally I'm not a fan of Bootleg's but due to necessity I do have some in my collection, and who's to blame for this? mostly the record companies themselves.

    Think about it!
    Bootleggers generally make them for two reasons 1) to make money 2) because the item is not available or no longer available.

    If a bootlegger is making it to make money, then that says, the record company are charging too much (if it's a current release) or they haven't released it on a certain format, if either of those were the case then instead of going through the legal process of banning them, try reducing their prices or if there is a demand for a certain type of format, release it on that format for the fans, bootlegs clearly show there is a demand.

    secondly if the bootlegger is releaseing a record that is not available or no longer available, then again the record companies should see that there is a demand for this release and release it or reissue it, instead of denying fans the chance of owning this record.

    Take this record Nas - Life's A Bitch for example, originally it was only released as a Promo, and since it's release, there has been a huge demand for this record, but instead of the record company listening to it's fans it choose to ignore them and has never reissued or fully released this record. So along comes Mr. bootlegger who does a fairly good job in releasing a version Nas - Life's A Bitch, this version has now been removed from the database for sale, why? probably because Discogs was getting pressure from Columbia about counterfeit releases of their records, so again if this was the case, why don't they counter this problem by releasing it? every person I know who owns this boot wants an OG or even a reissue, by the original record company, but instead it seems like the record company wants to actually deny it's fans from ever owning a copy, and what's even madder, Columbia aren't making any money from this record at all, presently all the promo copies would have left them a long time ago, so Columbia won't be selling them, instead it's all second hand vendors, this could also be seen the same way with the bootlegs.

    What really irks me is that a record company will go after bootleggers on music they have no intention of ever releasing, therefore purposely denying fans the opportunity of hearing these tracks.
  • DarreLP 6 months ago

    A promo is an official release *by the label*.
  • Earjerk 6 months ago

    gypsytrypz
    Just Think if major labels wanted their promos back, after all it says, Not For Sale
    on those copies....who knows how far this could go....


    Read the whole thread. It won't happen.
  • joesrecordexchange 6 months ago

    Yeah, just noticed a few RSD items on Bamboo records are "violations" in my inventory now. Interesting, I purchased those directly from URP, Alliance, or AMS -- they were listed as official RSD releases. Don't get why these are being deleted.
  • InDustWeTrust 6 months ago

    ...wait for it...
  • InDustWeTrust 6 months ago

    InDustWeTrust edited 6 months ago
    ultimathulerecords
    Seems very haphazard way of proceeding though, when totally obvious bootleg labels like Super Golden Radio Shows (SGRS) are still live and on sale, and so is the Tachika Records label of self-made unofficial CDRs

    joesrecordexchange
    I purchased those directly from URP, Alliance, or AMS -- they were listed as official RSD releases. Don't get why these are being deleted.

    I don't get why people keep repeating these complaints, like hundreds of times over.

    There's no reason to think Discogs is systematically trying to block the sale of all boots. They're almost certainly responding to targeted legal pressure. Some lawyer sends them a cease-and-desist letter about some supposed bootleg(s) or bootleg label(s), so they block as a defensive measure. That's probably all there is to it.

    And just because something is an "official" RSD release doesn't mean it's been officially licensed from everyone who claims to be a rights holder.
  • Earjerk 6 months ago

    Earjerk
    It won't happen.


    Basically, what the legal cases boil down to is that, just writing "Not for Sale" or "We retain ownership of this" or whatever on a release is not a binding contract... not unless you write back or sign something saying, "I agree to your terms".

    If they send you something in the mail or release it to you... it's yours to do with what you please.
  • nppyl 6 months ago

    discogs is an internet entity so maybe they should think about going "offshore" where the legal threats mean nothing and everyone can get on with doing what they want.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    InDustWeTrust
    I don't get why people keep repeating these complaints, like hundreds of times over.


    It was in the revised marketplace terms revisions we all should have received in early June, and is in the revised marketplace guidelines on this site.
    On the basis of that, all Unofficial releases on Discogs will eventually be blocked from sale.
    So, I was just commenting on the haphazard way they are going about it.
  • hatfulofelt 6 months ago

    Seller's Agreement
    Modified on: Fri, 23 Jun, 2017 at 4:00 AM
    4. Privacy and Responsibility
    c. Items you list for sale must not violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. For example, you are prohibited from selling unauthorized reproductions of items, such as bootlegs, counterfeit, pirate copies, etc.
  • InDustWeTrust 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    It was in the revised marketplace terms revisions we all should have received in early June, and is in the revised marketplace guidelines on this site.
    On the basis of that, all Unofficial releases on Discogs will eventually be blocked from sale.

    It's in the guidelines, sure, but that's just self-protection boilerplate. I don't imagine it means they intend to block the sale of everything unauthorized (or arguably unauthorized or whatever). Instead, they seem to be blocking the sale of unauthorized items about which they receive complaints. Not that I know for certain...
  • Marks_Music 6 months ago

    InDustWeTrust
    they seem to be blocking the sale of unauthorized items about which they receive complaints. Not that I know for certain...

    NOBODY knows for certain. And after 346 entries in this topic and more in other threads it's time Discogs did the honourable thing and told us just what the hell is going on.
  • tricky23 6 months ago

    tricky23 edited 5 months ago
    edit: it's ok.

    thank you
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    InDustWeTrust
    Instead, they seem to be blocking the sale of unauthorized items about which they receive complaints.


    That doesn't seem so. Although it's impossible to know without any official communication from Discogs themselves.

    =============================================

    AFAIK this was not in the seller's agreement when I joined Discogs and read it, nor when I'd looked at it last year...

    https://support.discogs.com/en/support/solutions/articles/13000015000-seller-s-agreement

    4. Privacy and Responsibility
    ....
    c. Items you list for sale must not violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. For example, you are prohibited from selling unauthorized reproductions of items, such as bootlegs, counterfeit, pirate copies, etc.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately, it's impossible to check when that was added as the guideline pages at some time over the past year or so moved to this new base of: https:/ /support.discogs.com/... and is not stored on Wayback Machine.

    Did anyone out there keep a copy of the last two "revised Marketplace terms and conditions" emails?

    It is only after this last "revised Marketplace terms and conditions" notice that Discogs has been removing unofficial items from the marketplace en-mass.
  • el_duro 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    Unfortunately, it's impossible to check when that was added as the guideline pages at some time over the past year or so moved to this new base of: https:/ /support.discogs.com/... and is not stored on Wayback Machine.


    hatfulofelt
    Seller's Agreement
    Modified on: Fri, 23 Jun, 2017 at 4:00 AM


    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/745775?page=4#7407643

    The date is mentioned on the Seller's Agreement page.
  • Jarren 6 months ago

    4.c. Items you list for sale must not violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. For example, you are prohibited from selling unauthorized reproductions of items, such as bootlegs, counterfeit, pirate copies, etc.

    https://www.discogs.com/sell/list?format_desc=Unofficial+Release
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    el_duro
    The date is mentioned on the Seller's Agreement page


    That's the date of the latest update
    4c was on the previous update too, but not earlier this year
  • Helmut_Chacho 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    AFAIK this was not in the seller's agreement when I joined Discogs and read it, nor when I'd looked at it last year...

    Every service provider include modification.
    So does Discogs
    https://support.discogs.com/en/support/solutions/articles/5000526227-terms-of-service-for-discogs-com
    "MODIFICATIONS TO TERMS OF SERVICE

    Discogs may at any time revise the TOS by updating this posting. By using Discogs, Member agrees to be bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to determine the then-current TOS to which you are bound. Member's continued use of Discogs constitutes an affirmative: (1) acknowledgment by Member of the TOS and TOS modifications; and (2) agreement by Member to abide and be bound by the TOS and TOS modifications."
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    Helmut_Chacho
    Every service provider include modification.


    I know all that. As you would know if you read earlier on in this thread. I was trying to determine exactly when the new terms were changed.
  • byxob 6 months ago

    sht they blocked me. but i have a few thousands items, records, cd, dvd and a huge lot of unoficials and bootlegs for submition. discogs database is so helpfull to sell it via fb twitter instargramm and other sources....fkfkfk
  • surgical_grind87 6 months ago

    Why is the Wax Maniax reissue of Persecution Mania from Sodom banned?
  • blackplastik 6 months ago

    Just had several releases removed, is there an "Official" post regarding this move yet?
  • andygrayrecords 6 months ago

    Helmut_Chacho
    ultimathulerecordsAFAIK this was not in the seller's agreement when I joined Discogs and read it, nor when I'd looked at it last year...
    Every service provider include modification.
    So does Discogs
    https://support.discogs.com/en/support/solutions/articles/5000526227-terms-of-service-for-discogs-com
    "MODIFICATIONS TO TERMS OF SERVICE

    Discogs may at any time revise the TOS by updating this posting. By using Discogs, Member agrees to be bound by any such revisions and should therefore periodically visit this page to determine the then-current TOS to which you are bound. Member's continued use of Discogs constitutes an affirmative: (1) acknowledgment by Member of the TOS and TOS modifications; and (2) agreement by Member to abide and be bound by the TOS and TOS modifications."


    We shouldn't have to periodically review the TOS. Changes to TOS should be communicated either by email, personal message or both.
  • MissingPlanet 6 months ago

    blackplastik
    Just had several releases removed, is there an "Official" post regarding this move yet?


    I SRed this 12 days ago. I got a reply two days later answering a question I did not ask. I restated my question (Is there a mass blocking of items in the marketplace going on?) and made points about why doing this in complete silence is bad for Discogs (and I didn't even mention the fact that the unscrupulous sellers will now sell fakes as originals and so further damage Discogs). 8 days ago it was 'forwarded to our legal compliance team for further review so that we can take measures to better serve our community.'

    6 days ago it closed itself. I just asked why it has been closed. There will be no response to this. A thread should be made of all the items that have been incorrectly blocked. The OP should keep the first post updated as to what is blocked, what has been SRed and what has been unblocked (based on postings in the thread by users). We could even ask for it to be stickied!
  • sevensandtwelves 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    These latest label casualties are:
    Phoenix Records: Phoenix Records (2)
    Bamboo: Bamboo (2)

    Linking from those pages I see Radioactive (2) is also now blocked:
    Whereas Fallout (exactly the same label as Radioactive) is still on sale


    Hope I didnt help them along by posting on page 1 "radioactive will be toast". I know I dont have to tell you those are bootleg labels and I know your point wasnt that they arent, rather that we are trying to find some method to the removals.

    MissingPlanet
    A thread should be made of all the items that have been incorrectly blocked.


    Yes please

    Marks_Music
    NOBODY knows for certain. And after 346 entries in this topic and more in other threads it's time Discogs did the honourable thing and told us just what the hell is going on.


    Yeah nobody knows for certain except Discogs. Most of the items are pretty clear cut and selling bootlegs is illegal, I think most of us are clear on that. But as to "why these and not these?", what are Discogs supposed to tell us? Sorry we missed some? I commented that specific labels or artists were being targeted with threats, and no doubt Discogs has received some legal threats, but I was off base regarding the scope. I dont know. Is it specific label or artist reps, RIAA, who knows? Does it matter?

    Discogs may have a small dedicated staff who actually go out of the way to answer specific concerns. But they are a big company and bootlegs are a nono, they arent flying under the radar anymore. Removing bootlegs is a no-brainer. Determining what is and what isn't, that may be up to us to enlighten them. But this is a major policy shift in spite of the fine print legal disclaimers which were always there and they didnt enforce. So addressing why yours or my odd record that gets axed is probably pretty far down their priority list or even capability right now. Hence the need for a thread for specific items, as mentioned above.

    Someone else commented about being able to know which items are removed from your inventory and a (good) suggestion was made that you need to dl the csv and find your listing number. But this hasnt been foolproof for me, I still havent been able to pinpoint a few when all the info I have is my listing number. If you unlist and relist I wonder if that number changes. Anyway, thankfully we still get removal notices, however unspecific. I havent received any in about a week though, hope those arent slipping through the cracks, Ill continue selling old vinyl concert bootlegs locally, but vital to know which ones are down because Discogs is how we keep track of things now for a lot of us
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    sevensandtwelves
    Does it matter?


    It does when I'm re-ordering stocks. I need to know what I can't sell on Discogs, and what other labels will be removed from the marketplace. If it will eventually be all labels that are established here as being Unofficial, then I will know what not to re-order and can plan ahead. There are a whole load of labels handled by Code 7 Distribution and F Minor Distribution here in the UK (like Phoenix Records, Klondike, Particles, Klimt, etc.) that I need to know the status of. No use me stocking up on any titles if I can't sell them here.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    It's about time that someone like Diognes_The_Fox or nik let us all know what is going on.
  • Marks_Music 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    It's about time that someone like Diognes_The_Fox or nik let us all know what is going on.

    Absolutely!
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords edited 6 months ago
    I've sent Discogs a support request asking them to read this thread and respond here.

    edit

    Well, here's what I sent as Support request...

    Could someone from Discogs staff respond in this thread https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/745775 about concerns raised here.

    I'm mostly concerned because some of the labels that I have in stock, which are sold via official major independent UK distributors as legitimate product, have recently been removed from the marketplace: Phoenix Records (2) and Bamboo (2)

    There has been no official statement from anyone at Discogs as yet, and a lot of Discogs sellers would like to know where they stand... (referring to my recent comment in this thread)

    Reply from: DiscogsOps

    Hi and thank you for reaching out,

    Both labels you have mentioned specialize in unlicensed reproductions of releases, which means that they do not adhere to copyright laws and regulations. Per the terms of the Seller's Agreement, items you list for sale must not violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. For example, you are prohibited from selling unauthorized reproductions of items, such as bootlegs, counterfeit, and pirate copies.

    If you are looking to ensure that you are only restocking with items available for sale in the Discogs Marketplace, then we recommend that you only purchase from distributors that hold valid license agreements for the releases they are selling.


    So, not much help there. As to "we recommend that you only purchase from distributors that hold valid license agreements for the releases they are selling" my experience of 28 years as running a record shop and mail-order is that no distributors are willing to share such information, not even major companies like Arvato or Cinram. So, in theory (based on what Discogs say), no one should be selling anything via Discogs that is marked unofficial here (yet there are 537,497 such items currently for sale) and it's our responsibility to check whether items we list for sale are legal product, which is not at all easy, and especially so when the status of many labels is not actually proven.

    As I've previously stated, I would love it if all the dodgy Russian labels and pirate ones like Tachika, Paisley Press and others were all banned from sale on Discogs, giving us all a clear playing field that was obvious as to what can and cannot be sold here.
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    Just had my first "block" on release... Nirvana - Nevermind (Pink vinyl)

    Lol... seems they are going for all "unofficial" labels in one felled swoop....
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    from distributors that hold valid license agreements for the releases they are selling


    that's not a good enough explanation or reason.

    Distributors don't hold "licence agreements"
  • vaughano64 6 months ago

    Just had an interview disc blocked. Discogs obviously don't know that any interview is deemed to be in the public domain and not governed by copyright laws.
  • Miki242 6 months ago

    Discogs is mainly for collectors, not for sellers. So why they have removed lot of unofficial releases from collection/wantlist lists?? This was info for us, collectors. If unofficial release is blocked for sale, why it has been removed from lists? That doesn't make any sense. I would like to add for example unofficial Polish cassette from Depeche Mode. But why do I have to add it to database (this is what is discogs - database for releases) if nobody can add it to collection/wantlist? I don't want to sell this release. Only make new submission to make database bigger.
  • Miki242 6 months ago

    Discogs is mainly for collectors, not for sellers. So why they have removed lot of unofficial releases from collection/wantlist lists?? This was info for us, collectors. If unofficial release is blocked for sale, why it has been removed from lists? That doesn't make any sense. I would like to add for example unofficial Polish cassette from Depeche Mode. But why do I have to add it to database (this is what is discogs - database for releases) if nobody can add it to collection/wantlist? I don't want to sell this release. Only make new submission to make database bigger.
  • SaintJustBowie 6 months ago

    If you have a Bruce Springsteen/Led Zeppelin/any other artist 'unofficial' recording for sale and have been removed from sale, look at the item in your inventory. Near the top of the page, you'll see the message "This item is in violation of one or more Discogs policies. You can still view it because you are the seller, but it has been hidden from the Marketplace and must be correctly relisted."

    Then look at the listing. It will say 'Not On Label (Bruce Springsteen).' The Discogs set up is looking for 'Not On Label' followed by the artist name. BUT....as the message says, to enable it in your listings, it has to be relisted correctly, so you copy it to your drafts, remove the artist name so that it says 'Not On Label' only, then relist it and it's automatically on sale again.

    I found this out last night when I bought two removed albums which I'd had me eye on before they were removed, but had been relisted again. I asked the seller how they did it and that's what they explained to me.

    If it's that easy to circumvent the Discogs guidelines, then it's a bit of a shambles really.
  • zevulon 6 months ago

    MissingPlanet
    Pearl Jam bootlegs are getting blocked from sale now.


    I wish all of Pearl Jams music would be blocked from sale throughout the Universe.
  • hatfulofelt 6 months ago

    I was gonna say: at least, you'd think they'd've been first.
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS edited 6 months ago
    CAN ANYONE PLEASE DECODE THE URL CLUES

    Just had two items removed… interestingly discogs seem to have a name for the removal campaign as can be seen when following the URL that is sent out with the removal notice:

    https://www.discogs.com/Purple-Rage-Purple-Rage/release/1879925?utm_campaign=sell-blocked-release&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=transactional

    https://www.discogs.com/Nirvana-Adam-Freeland-Smells-Like-Freeland/release/159190?utm_campaign=sell-blocked-release&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=transactional

    So what do the following stand for:
    UTM
    utm_medium=pm
    utm_source=transactional

    Has anyone else noticed any other codes that would categorise the degree of importance in removing… i.e. is there a category 'utm_low=pm' or 'utm_high=pm' … and does this imply that 'medium' refers to level of the priority that they are giving each cease and desist letter.

    i.e.
    Low= Low priority but action to be safe
    Medium= Medium priority, globally remove as falls under 'Prince/Nivana/Led Zeppelin' etc
    High= High priority, globally remove to comply with cease and desist.

    Check your removal notice then copy the URL once you've clicked on the link to the offending item.

    In the cases above it would seem that the releases are well known artists [Prince, Nirvana and Led Zepplin] whose copyright is owned by the majors so guessing they are predicting that these releases will be challenged at some point, or maybe they have been asked globally to deal with infringements by the majors.

    I don't buy bootlegs or unofficial releases… they simply turn up in large DJ collections I legitimately buy.

    Every DJ has at sometime bought or been sent an unidentified white label not knowing it's origin.

    Record companies employ experienced promotion companies who are given exclusive mixes with no info on them to distribute to key record stores where they know the underground and regional DJs buy from so the DJ will never know if its a boot or an official release and the records are put out to generate pre-sales interest from an official source.

    The majors have traditionally used white labels as part of their sales and promotion campaigns so over the years DJs have played white labels as pre-release not knowing themselves who the artist is or whether the release or mix is official or unofficial.

    It is only much later when these records are added to discogs that the submitter will guess themselves or try and deduce if a release is official or unofficial.

    Sometimes they are inevitably going to get it wrong.

    Record companies and majors have been known to send out bootlegs or unofficial mixes themselves to generate interest [or disguise white labels as 'unofficial']. These W/Ls are targeted at key influential DJs on mailing lists who are sent special mixes and to help kick start initial club/radio interest at the beginning of promo campaigns.

    Majors also use remixers to do mash-ups as special promos so how on earth does a DJ know if one white label is official or unofficial and who is to say that just because it says it on discogs that a white label is official or unofficial especially when the majors have put them out without any info as part of a larger promotion campaign that was at the time kept hush hush so the DJs would play them.

    We all know that DJs love something exclusive or underground and the majors have often played in to this psychology… They have even reversed this psychology by putting out commercial releases disguised as 'imports' unknown whites or unofficial releases.

    Take Stock Aitken And Waterman's original 'Roadblock' for instance that was disguised to look like a US 'bootleg'/import' … played at 33 and had US style 'bootleg mix' typography with no other info. I for one bought the record from US importers Groove Records as soon as it landed believing it was a hot US import [It cost as much as an import!!!] and I played it on rotation to the hipster dance floor of the Wag for weeks until the reveal who was behind it... and then nobody wanted to know!

    https://www.discogs.com/sell/release/1021600?ev=rb

    I'm pretty sure I've seen promo sheets that accompany white labels from official promo companies acting on behalf of the majors saying 'The original bootleg mix that has been kicking underground dance floors'… I've come across these several times but can't remember any titles so if anyone can cite one that would be great.

    So this debate also begs the question, where a record label has sent out a white label of an unofficial mix endorsed by a major does this then make it 'official' even though it may have originally been unofficial ?
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    dansauk
    Distributors don't hold "licence agreements"


    Quite true in most cases, usually just label or artist contracts. And even the big guys like Arvato and Cinram (subsidiary distribution arms of BMG and Sony) stock labels that I would consider unofficial. Whenever I've enquired about such labels, if distributors do respond, they always insist that all their products are legitimate, often with the clause "but we cannot guarantee product from third party sources" and never with any disclosure more than that.

    Without any clear guidelines, or even some clues as to what will ultimately removed from sale on Discogs, even responsible sellers are going to have a difficult time being lumbered with stock they cannot sell here.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords edited 6 months ago
    HOLYGRAILS
    utm_campaign=sell-blocked-release&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=transactional


    utm_campaign etc. is Google scripting and relationship coding, and is the same sort of thing you will see when you submit or merge with Discogs

    "medium" is not in the sense of average, but facilitator

    read more here if interested:
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&biw=1024&bih=921&q=utm_campaign%3D&oq=utm_campaign%3D&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0.17784.17784.0.19711.1.1.0.0.0.0.88.88.1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.87.Prt1XgZMIRY
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    BTW - either Discogs are reading this thread or it's a coincidence, but Tachika Records are now blocked from the marketplace.
  • Jarren 6 months ago

    Jarren edited 6 months ago
    Seems that eBay still don't mind bootlegs, our old Israeli friend is still flogging his wares.

    Oh, and he profits.

    He's actually selling here on Discogs too.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    Jarren
    Seems that eBay still don't mind bootlegs


    ebay policy on bootlegs and unofficial items:
    http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/bootlegs.html
    http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/replica-counterfeit.html

    When you sign up to sell on ebay the "small print" clearly states that such items are forbidden on ebay, and that those selling on ebay will have their accounts closed.

    Of course, the ebay marketplace is so diverse that it's impossible for them to police it. So, your "old Israeli friend" has just been "lucky" and has not been reported by anyone yet.
  • massenmedium 6 months ago

    ...........
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    ultimathulerecords
    HOLYGRAILSutm_campaign=sell-blocked-release&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=transactional

    utm_campaign etc. is Google scripting and relationship coding, and is the same sort of thing you will see when you submit or merge with Discogs

    "medium" is not in the sense of average, but facilitator

    read more here if interested:
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&biw=1024&bih=921&q=utm_campaign%3D&oq=utm_campaign%3D&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0.17784.17784.0.19711.1.1.0.0.0.0.88.88.1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.87.Prt1XgZMIRY


    Thanks for that… I have read the reference link but as I'm not a programmer I only understand it in broad brush stroke terms… does that mean that discogs are using the code to monitor and analyse the specific 'behaviour' of anyone who has been sent one of these links so they can keep track of them and their browsing behaviour on the site or is it just a general scripting term that appears everywhere by default and is not specific to watching related browsing in relation to this topic… the URL of this page as I am reading it now also contains the utm_campaign code:

    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/745775?utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_medium=pm&page=4&utm_source=relationship#7409622
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS
    does that mean that discogs are using the code to monitor and analyse the specific 'behaviour' of anyone


    I don't think so. All the things that Discogs does trace are accessible from your My Submissions and related pages. Your Discogs account is followed by cookies that are initialised after your sign into Discogs. Those are discarded each time you sign out. The only thing that keeps track of your activities is your browser's internal history and form text memory. Google scripts are just some of the free open source software routines that Discogs uses to link up all the different Discogs routines. Google analytics, as far as I understand, are related to Google scripts and are how information is shared with Discogs and other search engines, which ensures that data on Discogs is also promptly updated on Google.
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS edited 6 months ago
    ultimathulerecords
    HOLYGRAILSdoes that mean that discogs are using the code to monitor and analyse the specific 'behaviour' of anyone

    I don't think so…


    thanks for taking time to explain that :-) … with all the algorithms around and tracking of personal data and with the copyright owners on the warpath traders who have acquired 'unofficial' stock legitimately are understandably getting nervous that we'll all get caught in the wider net to catch and crack down on bootleg producers and sellers who trade boots knowingly as a primary income stream.

    As mentioned a few times in this thread it may not be too long if discogs get pressured to supply individual names of traders who have at some time in the past sold an 'unofficial' release and we'll retrospectively get caught in the net.

    For traders and collectors like myself we don't go out to buy bootlegs to sell we sometimes find that we have acquired items classed as unofficial when buying large collections. I buy loads of white labels blind from charity shops and markets and then do the matrix research on them to see what they are.

    Even when flagged 'unofficial' in the database we are never 100% sure of the legitimacy of their origin as many are 'white labels' with no info to identify them as either bootlegs, unofficial remixes/mash-ups or legit promos put out by the record company themselves to generate pre-release buzz for the full release version [As fully explained in my post above].
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS
    traders and collectors like myself we don't go out to buy bootlegs


    Well, we also take second-hand items from customers as part-exchange, and in rare cases some items thought at first to be genuine items turn out to be repro / unofficial ones - something that may not be noticed until entering the data into Discogs.
  • jweijde 6 months ago

    jweijde edited 6 months ago
    ultimathulerecords
    Google analytics, as far as I understand, are related to Google scripts and are how information is shared with Discogs and other search engines, which ensures that data on Discogs is also promptly updated on Google.


    Google Analytics is used by website owners to track user behavior on a website in order to understand, improve and optimize website usage. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTM_parameters . GA doesn't deal with how websites appear in Google search results. Because many websites use GA, it's also helping Google to track who visits which websites, based on IP addresses. Google can use that information to target ads and can link it to your Google account, if you have any.
  • SaintJustBowie 6 months ago

    I collect bootlegs and I sell bootlegs to other collectors. What's the problem with that? Why do so many people here look down their nose at this as if it was something dirty and bad? It's a legitimate market.

    Keef Richards collects Stones bootlegs, Bowie certainly collected bootlegs and I suspect, even released a few of his own and Bruce Springsteen openly advocated bootlegging, even announcing on the radio "Bootleggers! Roll your tapes!"

    It makes no odds to me whether I can sell bootlegs on Discogs or not, I'm more than happy to keep selling legitimate releases here, but two things are certain. 1, There will always be collectors looking for rare bootleg recordings and 2 Discogs days are numbered. The history of the internet shows that everything gets replaced sooner or later by something better.
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    SaintJustBowie
    It's an illegitimate market


    Fixed for you
  • massenmedium 6 months ago

    massenmedium edited 6 months ago
    ......sarcasm.....
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS edited 6 months ago
    SaintJustBowie
    I collect bootlegs and I sell bootlegs to other collectors. What's the problem with that? Why do so many people here look down their nose at this as if it was something dirty and bad? It's a legitimate market.

    Keef Richards collects Stones bootlegs, Bowie certainly collected bootlegs and I suspect, even released a few of his own and Bruce Springsteen openly advocated bootlegging, even announcing on the radio "Bootleggers! Roll your tapes!".


    I think you're completely missing the point here… others are not looking down their noses… most members don't give a damn about you or other sellers who sell boots… it's the corporate copyright holders that have seen a huge opportunity to rake in every penny they can and protect their catalogues as they have the law on their side and can, if they want, come after you and every other person who openly shouts they sell bootlegs… rather than see this thread as other community members seeing this as 'dirty /bad'… which most of us don't by the way… it's highlighting there is a very real threat to guys like you and you perhaps should not advertise and shout you sell bootlegs and don't see a problem with that… if you do there is a good chance you'll be the first they'll delight in making an example of as there is a very real threat that this crack down is a sign of more ominous things to come.

    Discogs are clearly not doing this to alienate the members who have built their success… they are doing it because the whole of the internet landscape is changing with the big boys and corporate giants taking control. They are stretching their tentacles in to every orifice of the net and they'll find your ass too as you are now on record proclaiming you sell boots and you are legitimately doing it… very soon there will be very few places to hide unless you use the dark web and that will eventually get infiltrated by them. Worry less about how other discogs members are viewing bootleggers and just keep quiet :-)

    Just sayin' :-)
  • dansauk 6 months ago

    SaintJustBowie
    I'm more than happy to keep selling legitimate releases here


    You'll have a problem doing that too, if you keep advocating for people to make unwarranted changes to the database
  • 8892sales 6 months ago

    dansauk
    You'll have a problem doing that too, if you keep advocating for people to make unwarranted changes to the database
    Yes. I'd start editing my posts on threads and all if I was the said user. Too late as far as release editing history is concerned though.
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS edited 6 months ago
    SaintJustBowie
    I
    Keef Richards collects Stones bootlegs, Bowie certainly collected bootlegs and I suspect, even released a few of his own and Bruce Springsteen openly advocated bootlegging, even announcing on the radio "Bootleggers! Roll your tapes!"


    I think you're living on another planet… someone bootlegged my first ever production before it was released on vinyl.

    I bought a copy not because I'm a collector of 2 Dam Funky bootlegs but to have it in my archive should I ever need to refer to it or pass it to a legal team. You are mistakenly confusing archiving and reference copies with records bought by collectors for their collection. Guessing that most artists would buy two copies… one for their personal reference and another to give to their attorney. Bruce Springsteen was probably not 'advocating' bootlegging as you put it… he was probably cynically pointing out that all the bootleggers in the world were out there ready to get a copy of his performance and that he was well aware of it and the ease of simply pressing a button on a tape machine.

    I think you have cited these examples to somehow justify your position that this is a legitimate market… which amongst collectors it may be… but to the guys who have the power to track you down and fine you, it certainly isn't… and they are not messing about… just tightening the handle that will eventually squeeze you out of discogs.
  • ultimathulerecords 6 months ago

    jweijde
    GA doesn't deal with how websites appear in Google search results.


    I see. However, something else does, as Google searches soon come up with Discogs new data results. Maybe they pay a premium for this service? I know that with my own web site that it takes Google 15-30 days to revise any updates.
  • SaintJustBowie 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS
    just tightening the handle that will eventually squeeze you out of discogs.


    I don't see how that's going to happen since I already said that I'm perfectly happy to continue to sell official realease via Discogs. You're making things up to make it sound all so scary. Are the Feds going to turn up at my door? Don't think so.

    You might want to brush up on Operation Moonbeam too. I personally know one of the guys involved and he tells me that in the case of one particularly ultra rare Bowie single, it's the BPI that are releasing it because they seized all his stock.

    https://theamazingkornyfonelabel.wordpress.com/tag/david-bowie-wembley-wizard-bpi-bootleg-sting/
  • OneUkOnly 6 months ago

    A Shame this guideline
    https://support.discogs.com/en/support/solutions/articles/13000015000-seller-s-agreement

    c. Items you list for sale must not violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. For example, you are prohibited from selling unauthorized reproductions of items, such as bootlegs, counterfeit, pirate copies, etc.

    A Seller did not make this item.
    A Seller just notify buyers that he has the item in stock.
    A Seller can not know that there could be violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights for a item when he is listing an item for sale on Discogs.
    A seller just want to sell wax the plastic media where sound is recorded to, because he/she has the item in his/her hands, it is not that the items don't exist.

    A violate copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights can only be heard and can be only be actual when the record plays on a Turntable, It can not be played on the internet, there is just the photo of the record label or/and sleeve and so on, the record it self is not on the internet, it is a informative documentation of it.

    Internet should be Free for adding and selling information.

    Please Discogs keep the internet FREE!

    If Items keep being removed from the Marketplace and it reaches the max of 80 items that i had listed for sale it was a waisted day of hard labour, straight to the dustbin. A shame.
    It is how it is. Did i understand Right.?
  • HOLYGRAILS 6 months ago

    https://www.discogs.com/label/25046-The-Killah-Kuts

    719 more releases have just this moment been removed from market place… another 'unofficial' label bites the dust… had a load of these that have turned up in various DJ collections over the years and assumed they could be sold a collectors items. This must have also been discogs stance until recently so a statement in policy change should be made in respect of all members who have developed the data base for the purpose of selling. No statement is just a slap in face for all the time and effort put in to the platform… the vice is turning and that's a lot of contributor man hours put in adding these to the database.

    This label is a good example of the new discogs policy as it is impossible that every copyright holder on of all 719 releases have coincidentally sent cease and desist letters at the same time within 24 hours.
  • Earjerk 6 months ago

    This just got blocked.

    Taku Iwasaki - Witch Hunter Robin (Original Soundtrack)

    I submitted it. Hadn't realized it was a boot.

    It is not tagged as unofficial either, FWIW.

    EDIT: I see now that the label profile does mention right off that it a boot label.
  • jweijde 6 months ago

    jweijde edited 6 months ago
    ultimathulerecords
    Google searches soon come up with Discogs new data results. Maybe they pay a premium for this service?

    I can imagine the Google spiders index websites based on popularity (traffic/number of clicks). Search engine optimization probably also helps the speed of indexing. I don't know of any paid services for this.

    With regards to the topic at hand, it's no surprise this is happening. Discogs makes it very easy for the copyright police to identify possible counterfeit or otherwise unlicensed releases. Anyone can see the "Unofficial" tag and report those. They can also fiddle with the monthly data dumps. Discogs probably doesn't have the time and money to check the validity of each and every entry in block requests they get and just decides to block all of them. It seems that only having the idea that it possibly could contain unlicensed recordings, is enough to get it banned from the marketplace.
  • jweijde 6 months ago

    Earjerk
    I submitted it. Hadn't realized it was a boot.

    It is not tagged as unofficial either, FWIW.


    Edit: nevermind https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?16863-Pirate-game-soundtracks!-Check-your-discs! seems to identify it as a counterfeit.
  • HandsomeZacksRecords 6 months ago

    I just want to know, who is this bored that they just sit on Discogs flagging "bootleg" records? Get a life already.
  • flipster 6 months ago

    HOLYGRAILS
    719 more releases have just this moment been removed from market place…


    This happening can also bring back old school mail order, might not be as quick but the goods will be available.

Log In You must be logged in to post.