Right, this is the second time I've grumbled about this in these forums, but I don't care - it really gets my goat!

Basically, I just went to Beatport to buy GRUM - Turn It Up after hearing it on Kardonomy's latest set, which is stunning I might add.

I couldn't buy it, so I went to Audiojelly, same thing again. Searched UK sites and all I could find was 256kbps at best.

Searched the dodgy sites and managed to get a full fat version of it. It pisses me off, I want to buy music legitimately but this seemed to be the only way I was going to get the copy I wanted.

Jarv

They normally do that when another label has the rights to that track in your country... which often means it's coming out soon in your country, so the 'right' thing to do is wait until it comes out.

The same sort of thing used to happen with vinyl - it would come out in one country on one date and could be months before it's released in another, depending on a label's priorities, schedule, competition etc

Of course in the vinyl days, the way around it was an import copy - which was restrictive enough that labels didn't have to worry about it eating too much of their profits. But in the digital world an import is so much easier that they have to impose territory restrictions to make signing a track from another company worthwhile.

Why not just let one label distribute worldwide? Well some labels might not thing they've got the promotional power to give it the push it needs in other countries.

If you signed a track from another label in order to promote it in another country for them, you'd be pretty pissed off if that label mopped up all of the sales for that track in your country after you've put in time and money to promote it.


Of course if these idiots could at least synchronise their release dates... the film industry managed it!

___________________
Stu Cox |

I don't care to much for the territorial restriction policy either. The thing that gets about this rule is, if I'm looking for a certain track. I sign on to Audiojelly, Beatport, Juno it tells me it's a restricted track. But then I sign on to iTunes and it's available. What gives? I don't quite understand the logic behind this. Considering that particular track could be priced at .99 cents USD, but on Beatport it could cost $2.99 USD. DJ's are gonna know most of these tracks before majority, so wouldn't it make sense to release it on the more expensive download sites first?

if you can't get it then its ok, just get it illegally and don't complain. Wow i have no idea wuts the big deal here lol

quote:

Originally posted by orTofønChiLd if you can't get it then its ok, just get it illegally and don't complain. Wow i have no idea wuts the big deal here lol

We don't engage in such activities around here. lol.

quote:

Originally posted by djkatmaus We don't engage in such activities around here. lol.

very true

quote:

Originally posted by djkatmaus on Beatport it could cost $2.99 USD.

The most expensive tracks (exclusive releases), cost $2.49.

And threads like these pop up once a month, ffs.

___________________

My Set Archive - MY BLOG

quote:

Originally posted by woscar The most expensive tracks (exclusive releases), cost $2.49. And threads like these pop up once a month, ffs.

Well, if one person posted their annoyance at the whole situation, and then everyone else shut up about it, just because it had been raised before, nothing would ever get done would it Mr Grumpy Pants?!

If it bothers you that much why not just visit beatport through a proxy and buy the damn track?

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Promo If it bothers you that much why not just visit beatport through a proxy and buy the damn track?

What? Apart from the associated security risks with using a proxy and handing over credit card information? That track might end up costing more than the advertised price.

Also it's a fucking arse ache to set up, there used to be a guide on here but seriously you had to jump through hoops to do it.

And I believe that in this day and age, when MP3 sharing has become such a destructive means against the music industry, especially the likes of the electronic producer, if I want to hand my money over to them it should be made easy.

I've done this once before, and I ended up paying for the track when it became available in this country. I'll do it again when this one does too.

But I was trying to put across the point that it's not the right way for the music industry to encourage people to legitimately buy tracks rather than illegally downloading them.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarvmeister What? Apart from the associated security risks with using a proxy and handing over credit card information? That track might end up costing more than the advertised price. Also it's a fucking arse ache to set up, there used to be a guide on here but seriously you had to jump through hoops to do it. And I believe that in this day and age, when MP3 sharing has become such a destructive means against the music industry, especially the likes of the electronic producer, if I want to hand my money over to them it should be made easy. I've done this once before, and I ended up paying for the track when it became available in this country. I'll do it again when this one does too. But I was trying to put across the point that it's not the right way for the music industry to encourage people to legitimately buy tracks rather than illegally downloading them.

I completely agree with you. 100%..

But honestly. If they don't make it easy for me. I'll download it illegal, simple as. If they want to make it difficult for me. Fine, i'll do it my own way.

It's up to the artist and the label they get on board to sort themselves out and provide a service. If they don't provide that service i'll go to their competitor in this case illegally shared versions.

Simple.

Anyone know where i can find these tunes illegally? or is that asking to much?