ISRC. Really?

This has become a very touchy subject.

First, it is surely unfair to call the codes "a scam."

But as far as can be determined, there is much truth in the TC statements.

Apparently there is little, if any, actual monetary/payment/piracy-tracking value in having them.

But there is no detriment, except for the small one-time cost in signing up.

At the onset, we were all led to believe in the value, and it became somewhat of a Badge of Mastering Honour to be able to tell clients about them, and pass along the (supposed?) values we had been told about.  Software developers rushed to add text boxes into which to put the numbers.  All easy to buy into.

I used to recommend getting them; now I just leave it up the client, with no instigation from this end.

Some will disagree.

Thanks Terry. That was perfectly written.

Really appreciated.

Hope this doesn't get too intense... however... seems a worthy debate.
I myself am not thinking "scam"... and I'm certain there are RIAA members on this forum...
so... really just looking for clarity.

I decided to submit sans ISRC's... but it took me all night researching the topic to come to that decision... and I'm still not sure if it was the right decision.

But you put me more at ease with that thoughtful and measured response, Terry.

+1

I'm not so sure about the contention that ISRCs are not required to 'be on iTunes'.

See here (which looks current):  http://www.apple.com/itunes/content-providers/music-faq.html

in the section headed 'Do I Need UPCs and ISRCs?"

FWIW, the last time I saw iTunes Producer (admittedly a little while back) I am pretty sure it required the ISRC field to be filled. 

Best regards,

Paul Blakey

I would think that cataloging would be enough of a benefit for indies.
For all registration/submitting of releases I do be it iTunes, ifpi, distributors, etc...
I need the ISRC.
If you think the RIAA is a scam then the ISRC codes are too.
For artists that do their own printruns the need would be minimal and shouldn't be mandatory.

iris, we've run into this issue also.  we try to inform our clients to the best of our ability then let them decide what they want to do.

ISRC used to be free to signup.  in US, RIAA is in charge of distributing the registrant codes.  shortly after iTunes started requiring ISRC to get in the store they were flooded with requests and buried in paperwork (from what i hear), so they had to charge something to help offset the cost of the service they were providing.  a $75 one time fee for up to 10,000 tracks each year seems very reasonable.

i would like to know more about exactly what the code is used to track as far as SoundExchange, Radio, royalties, iTunes, etc. . .

 - nick

I've had clients ask me to help them submit to databases for radio airplay, so it seems that some organizations are keeping their own records.  You had to be in THEIR database, in other words.

I'm not so sure about the contention that ISRCs are not required to 'be on iTunes'.

FWIW, the last time I saw iTunes Producer (admittedly a little while back) I am pretty sure it required the ISRC field to be filled. 

-rat

Exactly. Same experience here... the uploads are not possible without that field being filled.
For the record, in Australia the codes are free & handled by ARIA:
http://www.aria.com.au/pages/isrc.htm

The fact is that they are encoded into CDs, mp3s and I-tunes files and could be the only means of tracking down a copyright owner for the purpose of obtaining a license. I wouldn't want to trust any third party with being the only source of my investment's identification.

Bingo. Even for a very small run, the cost as a portion of the whole is incidental.

Does anyone have their studio registered as a "label" for the purposes of giving ISRC codes to clients that are doing independent/DIY release?

I've been thinking about this lately and could see it being a useful service to have. Registration here in Ireland is free.

the ISRC is meant for publishers...
In case the Copyright buraus knock on your door about all these releases that bear your ISRC kodes that you haven't paid royalties for... you should draw up some sort of paperwork stating that your label isn't publishing the music.
Don't know if that would ever happen, but you never know.

the ISRC is meant for publishers...
In case the Copyright buraus knock on your door about all these releases that bear your ISRC kodes that you haven't paid royalties for... you should draw up some sort of paperwork stating that your label isn't publishing the music.
Don't know if that would ever happen, but you never know.

-roger_emk

Yeah, I've considered some possible legal aspect. But I've flicked though the isrc handbook, and while it says that it's 'normal' for the owner to assign codes, it doesn't seem to state that a 3rd party shouldn't or can't.
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/isrc_handbook.pdf

Will contact them directly to clarify.

the ISRC is meant for publishers...
In case the Copyright buraus knock on your door about all these releases that bear your ISRC kodes that you haven't paid royalties for... you should draw up some sort of paperwork stating that your label isn't publishing the music.
Don't know if that would ever happen, but you never know.

-roger_emk

?????  Are you 100% sure of this?

Publishing is publishing, airplay is airplay - they are different animals.

I've had communications with "them" about unregistered/unpayed releases before... And Labels have different responsibilities than an artist working on their own. Labels pay mechanicals for the print run.
I do publish and distribute records, so I may be in a different boat than sayd artists...

The ISRC is the code used for identifying publishers/owners of the recording. Think of it as cattle branding. These rights can, offcourse, be sold on to seccond or third parties.
Stephens studio/label would be the original owner who then sold the [marked]files on to the artist, it would just be a clause in the recording contract. I would belive specifying the tracks and their codes and signing them off to the artist should do, especially before anything gets printed.

Based on my experince,- I would keep my back clear.
It is simple enough to do.

?????  Are you 100% sure of this?
Publishing is publishing, airplay is airplay - they are different animals.                                             
-wireline

Part of the publishing monies (performance royalties) that are paid out quarterly are based on the amount of airplay and the size of the market that the music gets played in.                                                                                                                                                  

But airplay is not accounted for by ISRC.

Nor do BMI or ASCAP use it.

I think by "publishing" above was meant the publication (making public) of the sound recording, not the song's publishing.

But airplay is not accounted for by ISRC.
Nor do BMI or ASCAP use it.
I think by "publishing" above was meant the publication (making public) of the sound recording, not the song's publishing.

-compasspnt

That was my meaning.

But airplay is not accounted for by ISRC.Nor do BMI or ASCAP use it.I think by "publishing" above was meant the publication (making public) of the sound recording, not the song's publishing.

-compasspnt

I got ya.  I wasn't sure if they were connected but was just going off how the conventional use of publishing paid out.  I've been with ascap for a while and wasn't sure if they were tied into or tracked through isrc's.

    But airplay is not accounted for by ISRC..

-compasspnt

XM required a friend of mine to obtain an ISRC number for anything he played on his show.

I always understood European airplay is logged by ISRC but not in the U.S. because artists and labels receive no royalties (yet) so the song title for BMI, SESAC or ASCAP purposes is the only thing they keep track of. European royalties are also paid to and then by the pressing plant and I understand these are also organized by ISRCs.