ISRC Vs Tunecore ID
rikkpalmer
Thread Starter
#31
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #31
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
FWIW. TC is the country code for TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS. ISO - Maintenance Agency for ISO 3166 country codes - Country names and code elements

.
Does iTunes not thoroughly check who is uploading music to there service? If they require ISRC codes and Tuncore is putting in there own id starting with TC and that is the Turks and Caicos. Is iTunes simply unaware? or can i just start putting in PR codes for (palmer,rikk ) and say screw puerto rico?

-rikk
taturana
Verified Member
#32
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikkpalmer View Post
Does iTunes not thoroughly check who is uploading music to there service? If they require ISRC codes and Tuncore is putting in there own id starting with TC and that is the Turks and Caicos. Is iTunes simply unaware? or can i just start putting in PR codes for (palmer,rikk ) and say screw puerto rico?

-rikk
and what good would that do to you?
rikkpalmer
Thread Starter
#33
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #33
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana View Post
and what good would that do to you?
My point is more from the standpoint "is that possible", b/c if it is there seams to be a flaw in the way we work with digital distribution. If you don't have a standard that everyone abides by and is enforced that would be chaos in my mind.

-rikk
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#34
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikkpalmer View Post
Does iTunes not thoroughly check who is uploading music to there service?
It would be hard for them to know if it's legitimate or not since they get sources from everywhere. I'm in the US but work with people from other countries so I occasionally encode non-US country codes. It's not iTunes' job to check your spelling, etc. At some point they have to assume you're doing your homework.

Sending an incorrect or made-up code would eventually give someone else credit for your airplay and downloads.

GR
rikkpalmer
Thread Starter
#35
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #35
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a company uploaded a song and typed in a code, whether it’s incorrect or not, that is the code in the database. When the song is downloaded/played that code shows up and is traced as being the code that the company uploaded and they are paid.

Let say two years later a person who actually went through the right channels to get their code wants to upload. Their code, which is correct, would be invalid because it is already in the database and is being used by the company that put in the wrong code??

So in my mind it is iTunes job to make sure that those who upload music to be sold are playing by the right rules. Isn’t that why you have to fill out all the forms and it takes at least 3 months to be approved?

-rikk
taturana
Verified Member
#36
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #36
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikkpalmer View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a company uploaded a song and typed in a code, whether it’s incorrect or not, that is the code in the database. When the song is downloaded/played that code shows up and is traced as being the code that the company uploaded and they are paid.

Let say two years later a person who actually went through the right channels to get their code wants to upload. Their code, which is correct, would be invalid because it is already in the database and is being used by the company that put in the wrong code??

So in my mind it is iTunes job to make sure that those who upload music to be sold are playing by the right rules. Isn’t that why you have to fill out all the forms and it takes at least 3 months to be approved?

-rikk
you most likely have to also register the phonogram in whichever perfoming rights society you are part.. they give that 3 letter code. it's worthless unless registered into the system. at least that's what happens here... nowadays the songs also get given a ISWC code after they are registered... it's quite cool as it also has the credits and % of rights earned by the musicians, arrangers, producers, etc... for that you need the software which they supply.
#37
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #37
Gear addict
 

When Tunecore is a member of IFPI, then they can get the ISRC code allocated by IFPI.

That would mean Tunecore is a label or record company. When this is the case, then check the contract you have with Tunecore, because that could also mean that the royalties go to Tunecore first, and Tunecore has a publishing share in your royalties.

Usually labels and record companies get the ISRC code allocated, or in other words, not the composer/songwriter is a member of IFPI.

Even thus many Licencee (emaster) worldwide require ISRC code when you licence them the music as label, that doesn't mean that the local national authors society makes the radio play accounting based on reading in ISRC codes in the radio studios.


So far only Germany requires 100% that all radio airing and other type of broadcasting can only be done when the ISRC code is in the sub-code. This is a huge advantage to the authors, because the German author society can make accurate royalty payment to their members, as well to members of sister companies worldwide, such as ASCAP, BMI and so on.

In the USA however, the author societies make "spot check" controlling every now and then what some radio station play, and make their royalty statements on the base of the results, in other words, when Michael Jackson and Kate Perry are played very often during this spot check, then the songwriter of this songs get the most of the total royalties collected in the USA.


Don't forget, your music is played worldwide, and when you miss to add the proper data on you physical carrier as well on the digital emasters, then you never see a cent of your royalties.
#38
8th December 2011
Old 8th December 2011
  #38
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rikkpalmer View Post
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a company uploaded a song and typed in a code, whether it’s incorrect or not, that is the code in the database. When the song is downloaded/played that code shows up and is traced as being the code that the company uploaded and they are paid.

Let say two years later a person who actually went through the right channels to get their code wants to upload. Their code, which is correct, would be invalid because it is already in the database and is being used by the company that put in the wrong code??

So in my mind it is iTunes job to make sure that those who upload music to be sold are playing by the right rules. Isn’t that why you have to fill out all the forms and it takes at least 3 months to be approved?

-rikk

- When you get a sales statement from your licencee, then the ISRC code should be on this accounting statement, song by song, with song title and how many copies it sold.


- iTunes does not controll the codes. iTunes assumes that all label are member of IFPI, and are the rightful owner of all music they licence to iTunes.

I give you an example: one criminal uploaded 18.000 song to iTunes starting in 2003. By 2008 he sold song in the amount of 765.000 € that year 2009. It took another 2 years until the rightful owner found out that his music is sold by that criminal via iTunes..

Then iTunes erased all 18,000 tracks overnight. The money payed to the ganster by iTunes was lost. Later the ganster was sentenced to pay 2.5 € to the rightful owner, but of course he was bankupt.

iTunes was only one of 300 online store the criminal sold the songs. And the day after iTunes erased his uploads, he started to upload gain under new label names.
#39
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #39
Lives for gear
 
ksandvik's Avatar
 

I would hope ISRC would take the next logical steps to become the universal ID for songs, such as:

Embedded and secret ID code inside digital content hard to rip out, if so the audio will become scrambled.

Web site registration with all ISRC songs available for lookup for getting info about the artist/song/songwriter/label and so on and so on.

I got my label ISRC in the early 2000 as at that time any label could ask for one. It's basically a country code + unique label code. And the rest of the id is then reserved for individual songs.
#40
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #40
Gear addict
 

Yes,

every song has a unique ISRC code, also when you make two different versions of the same song, i.e. a studio version and later a live version, then both versions of the same song title have unique ISRC codes
taturana
Verified Member
#41
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 

Verified Member
what i do find annoying, and is against the ISRC rules, is when recording companies, for example try to change the ISRC codes when you sign with them... to their own numbers.. i always check that on any contracts.. the ISRC is supposed to reference that version of the recording, with that timing, so if there's no change in the master there will be no change in the code.

In that case though, I will have to add the recording company as producer with the respective royalties later though...
#42
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #42
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana View Post
what i do find annoying, and is against the ISRC rules, is when recording companies, for example try to change the ISRC codes when you sign with them... to their own numbers.. i always check that on any contracts.. the ISRC is supposed to reference that version of the recording, with that timing, so if there's no change in the master there will be no change in the code.

In that case though, I will have to add the recording company as producer with the respective royalties later though...

This is normal, because you signed the distribution to that particular record company, and the company must be coded in the ISRC code, or your royalties will not find the way to your author society account.
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#43
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
This is normal, because you signed the distribution to that particular record company, and the company must be coded in the ISRC code, or your royalties will not find the way to your author society account.
That's not the way the system is intended to work. From the IFPI site:

-----
Q: Our company has just acquired the rights to a recording that already has an ISRC. Do we have to apply for a new ISRC for this recording?

A: No. The ISRC remains the same, regardless of changed ownership.

The first owner of the rights to a recording normally assigns an ISRC. Once assigned that ISRC identifies the recording throughout its life. Changes in ownership do not affect the ISRC. However if changes are made to the recording that involve new artistic input and these affect the rights associated with that recording, and it is re-issued, the new owner must assign a new ISRC, using their Registrant Code.

-----

So, short of changing the song is some way, it should remain the same. It's probably not a big deal for an indie artist who sells a few thousand copies but anyone selling larger numbers will want their songs counted consistently.


GR
#44
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #44
Gear addict
 

IFPI's ISRC code works the following:


1) IFPI assigns a 12 digit cleint code to its IFPI member.

2) You, the member, add the last digits 1-99999 in an EXCEL table, where the last digits identifies the song you are the IP owner. Per year under one client code maximum 99999 songs can be allocated with one client code. If you have more then 99999 songs per year released, you need a second client code.

3) When a Licencee requests ISRC codes, you forward this EXCEL to the Lincencee.


That's all. Nothing more!
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#45
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
That's all. Nothing more!
Yes, exactly. No need to change the ISRC with transfer of ownership.


GR
#46
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #46
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
Yes, exactly. No need to change the ISRC with transfer of ownership.

GR
Not always.

I sold my record company 7 years ago, and the whole music catalogue where allocated with a new client code.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#47
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #47
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Lots of distributors insist on assigning their own codes. It's really too bad that following the rules isn't legally required. The whole point is to be able to identify and pay royalties to the copyright owner years later. The owner in more cases than not is the artist especially as the reversions in ownership called for by copyright laws take effect.

You'll notice a lot of tech industry types will never tell artists what their rights are or how to collect royalties. They just whine endlessly about copyright and would have people believe it's only about the "evil" RIAA and major labels. Meanwhile their guns are actually pointed at the artists' heads.
rikkpalmer
Thread Starter
#48
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #48
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Sounds like there really needs to be a better resource for understanding the way digital distribution and coding really needs to work. Globally. Perhaps a completely new forum in gearslutz because this is starting to grow beyond the Mastering forum.

-rikk
#49
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #49
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Lots of distributors insist on assigning their own codes. It's really too bad that following the rules isn't legally required. The whole point is to be able to identify and pay royalties to the copyright owner years later. The owner in more cases than not is the artist especially as the reversions in ownership called for by copyright laws take effect.


You'll notice a lot of tech industry types will never tell artists what their rights are or how to collect royalties. They just whine endlessly about copyright and would have people believe it's only about the "evil" RIAA and major labels. Meanwhile their guns are actually pointed at the artists' heads.

Usually it is the job of the metadata department and mastering department to put ISRC code on emasters, as well Label code (LC), and the pressing plant code on the physical carrier.


We are not the consultants of artists and songwriters, that's the job of their lawyers and managers. Usually there are two parties involved when agreements are signed.
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#50
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
I sold my record company 7 years ago, and the whole music catalogue where allocated with a new client code.
But doesn't that dilute the actual numbers? And I realize we are talking about artists who sold more than a few thousand copies After changing its ISRC, a song now has two identities - two separate lives. Seems like a recipe for a lot of confusion.


GR
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#51
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #51
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
"Not my problem" is the usual excuse given for screwing artists and songwriters.
#52
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #52
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
But doesn't that dilute the actual numbers? And I realize we are talking about clients who sold more than a few thousand copies After changing its ISRC, a song now has two identities - two separate lives. Seems like a recipe for a lot of confusion.


GR
The old, first code is not valid anymore. The new owner of the catalogue is now the sole owner, and therefor has the right that his label or record company is in the ISRC code. All right where sold to the new owner, including publishing and mechanical right. Now the the new owener will pay me royalties and mechanicals.

ISRC codes are only a controlling code. IFPI only allocates codes, but makes no controllong about proper accountings, that's the job of performing rights organisations and author societies.
#53
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #53
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
"Not my problem" is the usual excuse given for screwing artists and songwriters.
I wasn't even ever faced with giving an excuse to artists and songwriters.

If one believes he can manage his rights without consulting an entertainment law office, and simply signes whatever agreement without controlling, I would say he is a fool then.

Apart from that, in the USA all artists, as well me licening music to the USA, need a consulting advocate, or they we don't see one cent from our work.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#54
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #54
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
...If one believes he can manage his rights without consulting an entertainment law office, and simply signes whatever agreement without controlling, I would say he is a fool then...
I think people ought to learn at least enough about their rights that they have a better idea of when they have probably encountered a hustler, when they need a lawyer and so that they can have a basic understanding of what their lawyer is talking about. It really isn't mystical rocket science!
#55
9th December 2011
Old 9th December 2011
  #55
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
I think people ought to learn at least enough about their rights that they have a better idea of when they have probably encountered a hustler, when they need a lawyer and so that they can have a basic understanding of what their lawyer is talking about. It really isn't mystical rocket science!

In case you master for us in the future, we pay you an extra "filling my ear fee" for listening to all the screwed up stories of your clientele.
Greg Reierson
Verified Member
#56
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
The old, first code is not valid anymore.
This is the part I don't understand. ISRC don't expire.


GR
#57
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #57
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Reierson View Post
This is the part I don't understand. ISRC don't expire.

GR
Yes, the per song unique ISRC code never expires.

But you can/could assign as many ISRC code as you like to one and the same song.
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#58
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #58
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
Yes, the per song unique ISRC code never expires.

But you can/could assign as many ISRC code as you like to one and the same song.
You can but you are not supposed to.
#59
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #59
Gear addict
 

From the IFPI handbook, translated into English by me for you.



When a new ISRC must be assigned:

Every lenght change will require a new ISRC. This includes all actions that change the time of the title - even if it is just a cleaner fade-out, the 2 seconds away from the audio material ...

Reworking of historical material, such as a denoising or EQing of old vinyl strip material or require a new ISRC, since it is after editing a new version.

Every type of remix will require a new ISRC code - even if no package, instruments or artist to change fundamentally. This is already enough for a cut radio edit, the omission of a verse or add a shaker in the chorus.

A re-release (or rerelease) of a title, a "back catalog" always requires a new ISRC number


and so on...
Bob Olhsson
Verified Member
#60
10th December 2011
Old 10th December 2011
  #60
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngeloClematide View Post
From the IFPI handbook, translated into English by me for you.
...A re-release (or rerelease) of a title, a "back catalog" always requires a new ISRC number...
Thanks, that never made it into the translation I read.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ThePrez / Music Business
9
A27Hull / Geekslutz forum
11
spoogee / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.