[ ] Changing title for digital release.

They're still in my sandbox but another band could pull the same trick: Tesseract released a video of a re-recorded version of their song "Eden" (their first recording with a new singer). When they released the video about 7 months ago on YouTube, the song title was "Eden". They released a new EP last week which also contains the same re-recording of "Eden". Apparently, they labeled the song "Eden 2.0" on that EP to distinguish it from the original recording.
I just checked that YouTube page again and it seems they changed the title on YouTube to "Eden 2.0" as well.

How should we handle this? I entered this video in the queue as "Eden" when it was released in 2011. Clicking on the url I put in the comments back then now shows us the very same video but titled "Eden 2.0". Should I update the title or do we retain the original title?

I hate that we have youtube videos in our database.

Why is that? They re-recorded a song, made a video for it and they officially released the video. They just happened to use YouTube as the platform to release it. And now seven months later the same recording (but a different mix apparently) ends up on an EP. The video was definitely the first official release of that particular recording so I don't see what the problem might be.

I'm with scott. I hate the ephemeral nature of such releases. Unless you can LEGITIMATELY own it, have it, retain it and replay it at your own whim for as long as you like, it's not a release.

I hate the fact that some releases aren't physically released anymore but I'm afraid we're gonna have to get used to it. More and more music is released that way.

They even list the video in the 'releases' section on their website: [tesseractband.co.uk] http://tesseractband.co.uk/releases/

Anyway, let's assume that Tesseract's a band that sells millions of records and has their videos on MTV during prime time along with Lady Gaga and whoever is popular these days. For argument's sake, let's say that they released the video and it aired on MTV 10 times a day. Would you still argue that it wasn't a legitimate release?

Well, yes. But I also don't like having DVDs in the database. When I think of a band's discography, I don't think of videos.

Yeah, but the purpose of this site is to document lineups that appear on officially released recordings. We're not a discography site.

Anyway, does anybody have an opinion on the actual subject of this thread? :)

I don't mind recognizing digital releases that can be downloaded and kept by the user because those at least retain their original name once they're captured by the user. To me this scenario you describe is a prime reason not to recognize "on demand" releases because effectively the band hasn't really released its hold on the music if it retains the right at any time to change the title. How can we document a moving target?

I think the fact that in this particular case you can't (legally) download the video is irrelevant. They could have made the video available for download and still change the title.

--

Also, according to the rules, this is eligible:

"An official recording is defined as a studio production or an official live audience recording of an artistic performance released publicly under the band's name or featured on a compilation."

It's an official recording and it's released publicly under the band's name; see [www.youtube.com] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4h0rlWX5lM The description says: "TESSERACT - Eden 2.0 (OFFICIAL VIDEO). Taken from the album "One", Century Media Records, 2011.Featuring new vocalist Elliot Coleman in this completely new version of "Eden". Video by Escape Plan Productions."

--

Going back to the subject of legally downloading a video...
Technically, in some countries you can legally download this video by using 3rd party tools. I guess everyone knows there are tools that enable you to download YouTube videos to your computer. In most countries this would be illegal but in e.g. The Netherlands it's perfectly legal. You are legally allowed to download music for personal use, even if you don't own the original and even if the the source of the music was uploaded illegally. So in this case, it's legal in The Netherlands to download this video meaning that everybody in Holland can legally own a copy of this video on his or her computer.

Sorry Python. I found the last argument so twisted I'm not minded to discuss the other points. Just because some country has 1) access to the intenet and 2) no copyright laws (or in the case of the Netherlands some very confused and contradictory laws) doesn't mean we can imply it's legitimacy. That would mean every bootleg recording is ok for B2B bcause it can be downloaded or copied somewhere with no IPR laws.

Hehe, that was a bit over the top, wasn't it? I was merely trying to make a case for this particular video. It was officially released so I think it should be included. Your argument against including it, is the "ephemeral nature" of the YouTube platform. If you can legally download it in The Netherlands, your "ephemeral nature" argument doesn't work anymore. And it's not a bootleg recording either, it's officially released through the record label's YouTube channel.

But apart from the fact whether or not it's illegal to actually download it, it doesn't violate any of the current b2b rules so I think it should be included solely based on that fact.

I don't think we can rule on this without resolving the 2011 parts of this conversation: [www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5473

Sorry. By 'ephemeral' I mean:
a) You can't retain a copy without either breaking a law or transgressing our reasonable interpretation of the artist's intent
AND
b) There is no reasonable guarantee of the longevity of its availability on a streaming platform; that platform having been the artist's intended mode of supplying the work on an ongoing basis

OK, I'm with you that "transgressing our reasonable interpretation of the artist's intent" should have priority over not breaking the law in Holland.
But I'm afraid we won't be able to add any more music in ten years if we're going to exclude streaming music.

Also, the fact that a video is available on YouTube and therefore not downloadable, doesn't necessarily represent the artist's intent. YouTube is just a platform that allows you to distribute videos and they used it because it's free. Why spend a huge amount of money on a video clip if you don't want your (potential) fans to be able to watch it into eternity?

Sorry Python - my bad. I should have said "OR" not "AND". That would leave the way open for streaming media with some substance in terms of ongoing availability to be included. I think eventually the b2b concept will fail because the concept of 'release' will become so fragmented that it will stop having validity - at least for most music. There may be some mass market music where albums are still formally released but it's falling to pieces - I agree with you.

I've always been on the side of a person being able to have their own copy in order for it to be a release. I don't think that's too high a bar - you can sell or give away your songs and videos online, and it's still a release to me. Putting it up on YouTube is a conscious choice to not give it away for free, and therefore is not a release.