• chrisbaerchen over 7 years ago

    There are different opinions about the use of Rights Society for BIEM

    http://www.biem.org/

    What do you think?
  • stassen over 7 years ago

    I think it is clearly to be named as what it is: a Rights Society. What else should it be?
  • chrisbaerchen over 7 years ago

    The international organisation representing mechanical rights societies of different countries, ´not a Rights Society on its own
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I've yet to see BIEM on a release without a rights society listed with it.
  • mirva over 7 years ago

    But I've seen some users separating them, i.e.
    Other (Rights Society): GEMA
    Other (Rights Society): BIEM

    Not sure if this correct, or needed, either.
  • blunted1995 over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    I've yet to see BIEM on a release without a rights society listed with it.


    There's plenty of them, for instance
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2722920
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Cool Blunt.

    From BIEM:
    "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."

    So it seems they acted as a rights society until 1968.

    http://www.biem.org/content.aspx?MenuItemId=33
  • loukash over 7 years ago

    mirva
    But I've seen some users separating them, i.e.
    Other (Rights Society): GEMA
    Other (Rights Society): BIEM
    Not sure if this correct, or needed, either.

    Correct is it by any means.

    Sometimes, otherwise nearly identical releases may differ in:
    [BIEM/GEMA]
    [BIEM / GEMA]
    [BIEM/
    GEMA]
    [BIEM] [GEMA]
    BIEM GEMA
    [BIEM]
    [GEMA]
    (where [ ] is the "box")

    By separating them, or adding corresponding punctuation, you're displaying how they are printed. (In other words: the way I do it, for instance, it's never just arbitrary.)
    Eviltoastman
    I've yet to see BIEM on a release without a rights society listed with it.

    --> http://www.discogs.com/search?q=supraphon+biem+NOT+osa&btn=&type=all
    From what I've observed so far on Supraphon - but it's just my guess, not a proven fact: when all composers were OSA members, OSA was listed. When some weren't, BIEM was listed instead, because OSA is a BIEM member anyway.
  • mirva over 7 years ago

    loukash
    By separating them, or adding corresponding punctuation, you're displaying how they are printed.

    I understand the corresponding punctuation, or entering them separately when they are actually printed separately on the release (like on different sides), but otherwise I don't see the point. But I was earlier referring to cases like this: Japan - Adolescent Sex - Personally, I don't think it's useful or necessary to separate them in four different lines, especially since they are in one "box". I know it's not really incorrect either - just the information displayed in a different way, but I just can't see the usefulness of it.
    chrisbaerchen
    The international organisation representing mechanical rights societies of different countries

    You can try entering that as a description. :)

    IMVHO I don't really see the harm using Rights Society for BIEM. Even if it isn't a rights society anymore, it's still very closely related to them.
  • loukash over 7 years ago

    mirva
    But I was earlier referring to cases like this: Japan - Adolescent Sex - Personally, I don't think it's useful or necessary to separate them in four different lines, especially since they are in one "box".

    This particular "problem" (it's not really a Big One, of course :) with SACEM & co. as I see it, is this:
    If you enter them into one field, which is the correct sequence?
    There's no obvious "order" in a "SACEM" box. This example seems to be entered in this order (separately): "SDRM SGDL SACEM SACD".
    But I for one read them in the box from top to bottom, left to right: "SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL"
    Keep in mind that in a database, a string matters.
    That's why it's truly kosher to enter them in individual fields, because then the sequence of the individual BOI fields doesn't matter at all. Each society is then listed as a unit on its own.

    That said, I wouldn't vote a string like "SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL" incorrect, or request a contributor to list each one separately (although I did that a few times in the beginning of BOI, but eventually I gave up). But when it comes to my submissions/edits, I reserve the right to list them separately if I choose so. What's not strictly forbidden by the Hallowed Canons Of Nik's Guidelines™, that's allowed. And there's no reason to disallow it. You can add as many valid identifiers as necessary.

    Besides, we're not listing all distribution codes in one field either, although they may often appear as printed in one line.
  • stassen over 7 years ago

    There was a voter looking at a submission by chrisbaerchen and asked him to change:
    (Rights Societies) GEMA/BIEM to
    (Rights Society) GEMA/BIEM with the comment that BIEM isn't a RS.
    I always enter Rights Societies in such case and still think that it is ok.
    Isn't it, after discussion in this thread? Do I have to proof if it is pre- or post-1968?

  • loukash over 7 years ago

    stassen
    I always enter Rights Societies in such case and still think that it is ok.
    Isn't it, after discussion in this thread?

    Of course it's OK.
  • mirva over 7 years ago

    stassen
    I always enter Rights Societies in such case and still think that it is ok.

    It is ok, IMO. Asking to change that is just unnecessary nitpicking, especially since one day hopefully the description will be added to the list. :)
    loukash
    ...there's no reason to disallow it.

    I know, and I was just stating my opinion, nothing else. Since the whole issue is off-topic, I will just go and BBQ with my family.
  • sebfact over 7 years ago

    stassen
    There was a voter looking at a submission by chrisbaerchen and asked him to change:
    (Rights Societies) GEMA/BIEM to
    (Rights Society) GEMA/BIEM with the comment that BIEM isn't a RS.

    That was most likely me :-)

    stassen
    I think it is clearly to be named as what it is: a Rights Society. What else should it be?

    An international/supranational holding organisation. Not a rights society (anymore).

    Like it isn't possible to allocate a country with BIEM, it isn't a rights society either. So why should it become one here for releases after 1968??? That totally escapes me - especially with some anoraks around - telling people that artwork in the Notes has to follow English grammar rules.... ts ts ts! Looks like another rule-bending for personal preference here.

    Another quote: "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." (emphasis by me).
    So, BIEM is not a Rights Society - it has umbrella tasks and responsibilities.
    If a rights society is mentioned along with BIEM it has the right to collect royalties in all other member countries, too (so BIEM/GEMA simply means that GEMA collects payments in Sweden, Albania, Nigeria, Uruguay and 50 other member countries). BIEM itself isn't collecting royalties at all.

    mirva
    But I've seen some users separating them, i.e.
    Other (Rights Society): GEMA
    Other (Rights Society): BIEM
    Not sure if this correct, or needed, either.

    This cannot be correct.
    Firstly - as pointed out - because BIEM isn't a rights society anymore (which by itself is reason enough for post '68 releases) and secondly, it has been discussed in another thread NOT to separate the two - even when written underneath echother.
    So:
    loukash
    Correct is it by any means.
    and
    loukash
    Of course it's OK.

    Nope! Of course it's not OK.

    If you have
    BIEM/STEMRA or
    BIEM STEMRA or
    BIEM | STEMRA or
    BIEM
    STEMRA
    there is only one Rights Society = STEMRA.
    If you have GEMA/MCPS then and only then you have two. And then you may put into the description Rights Societies, if you feel like it.
    mirva
    especially since one day hopefully the description will be added to the list. :)

    The tag name and description will be out of sync then but who cares, it's free text only.
  • mirva over 7 years ago

    sebfact
    it has been discussed in another thread NOT to separate the two - even when written underneath each other.

    Can you link to the thread? (Just so I can refer to it when people separate them)
    sebfact
    Not a rights society (anymore) [...] So why should it become one here for releases after 1968?

    Because:
    1) it's still a parent organization of rights societies, thus very very closely related;
    2) it's listed as a rights society @ http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html ;
    3) you really expect everyone to know (or care) that BIEM stopped being a 'rights society' in 1968, or know anything about the history of BIEM, including what their current role is? Having it listed as rights society on one release and then not allow it on another release without clear explanation anywhere will cause confusion;
    4) eventually the free text description will get removed and everything will be tagged as 'Rights Society', even when there are actually multiple societies. Until then, whatever is in the free text is a temporary solution, and IMO it's not that big of a deal whether it is:
    Other (Rights Society): GEMA/BIEM
    Other (Rights Societies): GEMA/BIEM
    5) it's intuitive.

    I don't really see the harm, especially when I know it's temporary. Since there's no way of informing every newb about the history of BIEM, I'm sure most of them will enter "Rights Societies" when more than one entity is listed, especially if they see the plural used on other submissions. Of course we could already set the rule to use only "Rights Society" despite the actual amount of societies listed, which might be a reasonable solution. But I'm sure some users won't like that either. And just my opinion. :)
  • loukash over 7 years ago

    sebfact
    An international/supranational holding organisation. Not a rights society (anymore).

    Sure, you're likely right factually. And you have now proven that you have thoroughly researched the topic. (No irony intended.)
    But does it make a difference?
    The description "Rights society" is here to roughly cover a group of data which is related together. You can't expect a Joe Doe being able to differentiate; we can be lucky if he actually understands what a "Rights society" is supposed to mean in the first place.
    sebfact
    Nope! Of course it's not OK.

    Yep, of course it's OK.
    In my very humble opinion, this is "peanuts". It's not worth to spend that much time trying to "fix" something that ain't really broken. There are other areas in the database which may need your enthusiasm more desperately (again, no irony intended). E.g. the "Discogs Cleaning Crew": http://www.discogs.com/group/1872 (Anyone who'd like to become a member, please ask 8m2stereo,
    Diognes_The_Fox, Kergillian or rassel for an invitation.)
  • fisonic over 7 years ago

    Whether BIEM is still actually collecting royalties themselves or not, doesn't matter. Unless there's any particular (narrow) definition to be found in the rules, the term "rights societies" can be used in the broadest sense.
    BIEM's subject matter is musical rights, and they're a society. Thus, the term rights society applies.
  • 0frg over 7 years ago


    sebfact
    it has been discussed in another thread NOT to separate the two - even when written underneath echother.


    I'd like to have a link to this thread too - I actually remembered quite the opposite.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    fisonic
    BIEM's subject matter is musical rights, and they're a society. Thus, the term rights society applies.


    They are not a society, they represent the rights societies.

    "International Bureau of Societies Administering the Rights of Mechanical Recording and Reproduction"

    Representing and being are two distinctly separate ideas and things and if they were a rights society, they'd say so, their tag line quoted above is very specific.

    Where BIEM appears on its own, it should be treated as a rights society, because historically they were a rights society. And now where BIEM appears along side a society, both should always be used as seen/on the release.

    Rights society = one BIEM member listed. eg: BIEM/STEMRA or BIEM/MCPS.
    Rights Societies = more than one BIEM member listed. eg: STEMRA/BIEM/MCPS

    This is how I see it.
  • darkwaves over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    "International Bureau of Societies Administering the Rights of Mechanical Recording and Reproduction"


    Following that line of reasoning, we would have to enter:
    Other (Administering Bureau): BIEM
    in order to be semantically pure.

    But really, what is a society? Is it a club? Is it an organization, guild, or league? Maybe they are just a form of business, a company or corporation (for profit? non profit?) Now, once you decide what exactly is a society, what then is a bureau? Does it matter?

    If BIEM were (was?) a rights society at one time, and their function now is to work with rights societies to help them do whatever it is they do, and are accordingly listed on most, if not all, releases in a manner and placement consistent with other RS's, then surely it can't be incorrect to associate them as such in the description field.

    What IS incorrect is to have two or more data values, and then use a singular term as a descriptor. The only way to not refer to BIEM as an RS is to move it to another field and give it another name, if that's really so critical.
  • Dr.SultanAszazin over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    "International Bureau of Societies Administering the Rights of Mechanical Recording and Reproduction"

    It's a "Right societies society"
    lol!
  • sebfact over 7 years ago

    Quote BIEM: "BIEM is the international organisation representing mechanical rights societies. Mechanical rights societies exist in most countries." So if they don't see themselves as a rights society, we shouldn't either.

    loukash
    But does it make a difference?

    IMO, it does. We should keep it factual when we know the facts. Please don't introduce data sloppyness for the sake of convenience or easiness to use. We did so with cat## and still haven't fully recovered from that!

    loukash
    You can't expect a Joe Doe being able to differentiate; we can be lucky if he actually understands what a "Rights society" is supposed to mean in the first place.

    I agree and yet that's what moderators/voters are there for.
    Again, John Doe is not the criterion for false data.
    Honestly, I think the average John Doe (or let's say Seller) couldn't care less about a rights society anyway. He will - most likely - fail trying to understand the label/brand/company concept here anyway. And then trying to understand the country concept (which you seem to be the expert in solving, I understand).

    Eviltoastman
    Where BIEM appears on its own, it should be treated as a rights society, because historically they were a rights society. And now where BIEM appears along side a society, both should always be used as seen/on the release.
    Rights society = one BIEM member listed. eg: BIEM/STEMRA or BIEM/MCPS.
    Rights Societies = more than one BIEM member listed. eg: STEMRA/BIEM/MCPS
    This is how I see it.

    And that's how I see it, too. Thanks.

    Sorry, I can't find the thread anymore re/ not splitting up the BIEM/GEMA bit. But we should stick to what is actually written on the release:
    if it's BIEM GEMA or BIEM/GEMA or BIEM|GEMA or
    BIEM
    GEMA
    it's always the same: GEMA (being a member of BIEM).
    Especially when it's clear that BIEM isn't a rights society ;-)

    And this leads me to dare to think the unthinkable (yes, some of you will whine in agony):
    Scrap BIEM altogether - when in combination with GEMA, MCPS, SABAM, bel, etc. though - and just use the one true mechanical rights society. Than we would even have a closer match with the once to be introduced drop down tag "Rights Society". Now that would simplify things... :-)
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    sebfact
    it's clear that BIEM isn't a rights society


    Eviltoastman
    "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."


    It was a rights society, and now it is:

    the international organisation representing mechanical rights societies.


    I think it is fine to consider it a rights society, I don't see any benefit in not including it.
  • sebfact over 7 years ago

    nik
    I think it is fine to consider it a rights society,...

    Which, for sure, is wrong for post '68 releases.
    Again: If a rights society is mentioned along with BIEM, that rights society has the right to collect royalties in all other member countries, too (so, BIEM/GEMA simply means that GEMA collects payments in the other 54 other member countries). BIEM itself isn't collecting royalties at all.

    But why do I bother? With every CD nowadays being allowed to be stupidly tagged as Reissue, this problem here is indeed fly's poop.

    nik
    I don't see any benefit in not including it.

    Scraping BIEM was irony anyway.
  • fisonic over 7 years ago

    Dr.SultanAszazin
    It's a "Right societies society"

    Exactly. It's that simple.

  • ccj over 7 years ago

    ccj edited over 7 years ago
    To debunk some things mentioned here...

    sebfact, no one is disagreeing with you that BIEM is not directly a rights society. But for the reasons Mirva et al have mentioned, it really doesn't directly matter when simply entering info into a data field in this case. Instead an explanatory can be added here http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html for full "correctness" to explain the pre-1968/post-1968 exact organisation position (see ** below).

    For a database their can only be ONE term used for the field, and traditionally the PLURAL is used if more than one term can be entered into a field. Hence whether there is 1 or 2 or 3 or more to be entered into the field, the PLURAL term should be used as the single field name; here that would be "Rights Societies".
    This then negates the discussion on BIEM/SOMETHING having "Rights Society" or "Rights Societies", because the PLURAL term is used for the field name regardless of what/how many terms appear in it.

    So ALL these should use "Rights Societies" (currently "Other (Rights Societies)") for the field:
    (1) BIEM
    (2) STEMRA
    (3) BIEM/STEMRA
    (4) BIEM/STEMRA/GEMA
    (5) Whatever


    As for the loukash point, on SACEM (pic: http://www.discogs.com/image/R-509228-1200383198.jpeg ) and similar ones, entering as a string in a single box would not negate a search function working for any part of said string or single term within said string. So entering on separate lines is not necessary.
    Thus entering them ANY way in the single field or in individual fields (with/without extra characters between them, eg. | or /) is not important; as an *open* search without speechmarks (provided the search engine is working properly) should return same results, but just in partial different results order:
    SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL: same result count
    SDRM SGDL SACEM SACD: same result count
    SACD SDRM SGDL SACEM: same result count
    SACD SGDL SDRM SACEM: same result count
    SACD SGDL / SDRM SACEM: same result count
    SACD / SGDL / SDRM / SACEM: same result count
    ...or any other way = same result count.
    (same thing happens on partial term searches)

    Hence it is worthless entering into separate field lines for this field. Though for cleanliness of data LAYOUT, entering them in one ORDER would be beneficial (given SACEM is the main one, this order: SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL seems logical).



    **
    Nik, can you at least just change this page to reflect the info discussed, then in future users will understand that what BIEM actually is, and this topic will not have to appear endlessly in the forums:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html

    Idea (bold new bits):
    Rights Societies
    7.2.1. 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.

    BIEM = (formally "Bureau International Des Societies Gerant Les Droits D'Enregistrement Et De Reproduction Mecanique" or "International Bureau Of Societies Administering The Rights Of Mechanical Recording And Reproduction). An organization which has had different roles over the years, but for Discogs use they are essentially a rights society. (more info: http://www.biem.org )

    ACAM = Costa Rica
    ACDAM = Cuba
    ACUM = Israel
    AEPI = Greece
    AGADU = Uruguay
    AKKA/LAA = Latvia
    AKM = Austria
    ALBAUTOR = Albania
    AMCOS = Australia, New Zealand
    APA = Paraguay
    APDASPAC = Peru
    APDAYC = Peru
    APRA = Australia
    ARTISJUS = Hungary
    ASCAP = USA
    ASAMI = South Africa (old)
    AUSTROMECHANA = Austria
    BIEM = international (see above)
    BMI = USA
    BUMA = Netherlands

    (...etc.)


    Short and to the point. Users can use the link for much fuller info, letting the organisations' site define itself rather than anyone here ;-)
  • swagski over 7 years ago

    ccj
    Hence it is worthless entering into separate field lines for this field. Though for cleanliness of data LAYOUT, entering them in one ORDER would be beneficial (given SACEM is the main one, this order: SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL seems logical).

    So, to answer my query here
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/234824#2881776
    Isn't SACEM simply those entire 4 societies by default [by being enclosed by the bounding box]?
    (As per my 'MGM label' example comment in that given thread)
  • ccj over 7 years ago

    (see your thread http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/234824 for my comment.)
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago


    ccj
    APRA = Australia


    As an aside: APRA = Australasian Performing Rights Society = Australia & New Zealand
  • ccj over 7 years ago

    ^true dat!^ http://www.apra-amcos.com.au

    Why not link to each organisation in that 7.2.1 list -- seems a reasonably "useful" idea (...so it probably won't happen then!)?
  • swagski over 7 years ago

  • ccj over 7 years ago

  • ccj over 7 years ago

  • sebfact over 7 years ago

    Thanks for the comfort, ccj. It's much appreciated.
    It was a battle I thought would easily be won. But if the majority considers BIEM a RS, so be it and I'm fine with it, too (moreover, nik has decided on that anyway - see above). Your proposal to add BIEM to 7.2.1 is a good idea, though.

    ccj
    This then negates the discussion on BIEM/SOMETHING having "Rights Society" or "Rights Societies", because the PLURAL term is used for the field name regardless of what/how many terms appear in it.

    I do wonder what the field name will be - once we have the drop down. Plural or Singular? And will there be a Description field, too? Any idea, nik?
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago


    ccj
    Idea (bold new bits):

    BIEM = (formally "Bureau International Des Societies Gerant Les Droits D'Enregistrement Et De Reproduction Mecanique" or "International Bureau Of Societies Administering The Rights Of Mechanical Recording And Reproduction). An organization which has had different roles over the years, but for Discogs use they are essentially a rights society. (more info: http://www.biem.org )

    Short and to the point. Users can use the link for much fuller info, letting the organisations' site define itself rather than anyone here ;-)


    Thanks, I made it shorter and added it http://www.discogs.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html

    sebfact
    I do wonder what the field name will be - once we have the drop down. Plural or Singular? And will there be a Description field, too? Any idea, nik?


    The plan is to use 'Rights Society' and no description field.
  • nordwaves over 7 years ago

    ccj
    SACEM SACD SDRM SGDL: same result count
    SDRM SGDL SACEM SACD: same result count
    SACD SDRM SGDL SACEM: same result count
    SACD SGDL SDRM SACEM: same result count
    SACD SGDL / SDRM SACEM: same result count
    SACD / SGDL / SDRM / SACEM: same result count
    ...or any other way = same result count.


    Don't forget : http://www.discogs.com/search?q=SACEM+SACD+SDRM+SCAM

    SACEM SDRM SACD SCAM
  • sebfact over 7 years ago

    nik
    The plan is to use 'Rights Society' and no description field.

    Thanks, nik. Let's wait and see then...
  • swagski over 7 years ago

Log In You must be logged in to post.