[ID3 Dev] Problem with definitions of TPUB and TCOP, and the lack of a separate field for "Record Label"

[Steven Saffer]

Hi,

Please see below e-mail I sent to Dan O'Neill, who has requested I send it
to the list.

There are two issues, namely with the definitions of the TCOP field and the
TPUB field, but the more urgent issue is with the definition of the TPUB
field:

Definition of the TPUB field as "Label or Publisher" is problematic. There
needs to be a specific field for the label ­ see below for explanation.

Thanks,

Steven

Steven Saffer B.E.Sc (EE), MBA
President
Abbeywood Records
t: +1 416 441-9578
f: +1 416 391-2646
c: +1 416 301-0700
steven at abbeywoodrecords.com
http://abbeywoodrecords.com <http://abbeywoodrecords.com/>
________________________

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm pleased to be on the list, especially
since I have been involved in other standards groups, as a developer at
the audio company TC Electronic, and an executive at TC Applied
Technologies (http://tctechnologies.tc <http://tctechnologies.tc/> ). Now
running a record label, we
have noticed that many of our partners are now asking for tagged mp3s of
our catalog. I started digging into the spec as a result of uncovering
differences in how these fields have been interpreted by developers of
tagging apps, specifically MusicBrainz Picard and MP3Tag.

As relates to TPUB, the issues I am seeing seem to be as a result of the
very loose definition of the TPUB field ("either label OR publisher"), and
also as a result of the lack of specifics around the TCOP field. Picard
interprets and displays the TPUB field as the name of the label, whereas
MP3Tag (and other tagging apps) display it as "Publisher".

These differences will have a significant impact on the enforcing of
copyright and the payment of royalties to artists, labels and publishers,
specifically as relates to the reporting of usage to performing rights
(and other) societies. For example, when an MP3 is submitted to an
internet radio station that decides to use the included metadata to report
to Soundexchange (the organization that collects money on behalf of
featured performers), the label information is used. If the name of the
publisher is used, there is a risk that the label will not see these
royalties. There needs to be a separate field for the label name.

A distinction needs to be made between the sound recording copyright owner
(could be the same as the label but in case the content is licensed, that
will not be
the case), and the copyright in the composition (the publisher), and
perhaps an additional field is necessary, as well as a clearer description
of what these fields should contain. Although the description in the spec
as relates to the TCOP field would seem to suggest that the name of the
sound recording copyright owner is included in this field, it is not
clearly defined and may be misunderstood by developers. Another source of
confusion is that it is not clear whether the application should prefix
the copyright field with the (C) symbol when displaying the information,
or the person tagging should include the (C) symbol. It is also unclear
whether the year should be included in the field itself when the recording
is tagged, or this field will be prefixed with the data in the 'year'
field when the metadata is displayed, or it will be displayed in the field
heading in the app.

As relates to the TPUB field, the label may be the same as the publisher,
but typically they are different. As we see broader adoption of the
standard and use of the metadata by the music industry, these are issues
that should be dealt with now.

Let me know if there is anything else you need, and if there are any
upcoming meetings where this issue might be discussed.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Steven

Steven Saffer B.E.Sc (EE), MBA
President
Abbeywood Records
t: +1 416 441-9578
f: +1 416 391-2646
c: +1 416 301-0700
steven at abbeywoodrecords.com
http://abbeywoodrecords.com <http://abbeywoodrecords.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.id3.org/pipermail/id3v2/attachments/20111028/3e7f30ca/attachment.html>