Talk:TuneCore
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
I added Izzy Stradlin
[edit]Former rythum guitarest and lead songwriter of Guns 'N Roses, former frontman of the Ju Ju Hounds, famous enoghf for a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.113.60 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a controversy surrounding Tunecore? Are they allegedly being investigated by the FBI? Are they a scam?
[edit]I found this while researching Tunecore. I can't tell if it's either an angered former customer blogging as several people, but there are legitimate people who are also posting warnings, and it seems that they're willing to put their faces (and reputations) on the line about this (if indeed they actually exist).
http://instylerecords.blogspot.com/2010/02/tunecore-biggest-scam-in-music-industry.html
Of course, keep in mind that this isn't a whole lot of bad feedback, (for instance, put "paypal" and "scam" into Google and you'll see a lot more come up than this blog) and it doesn't seem to make sense that the people at Tunecore would take such a risk considering how many other high profile bands that are connected with them, but it would be nice if this comment were at least addressed by someone rather than just a blogger. According to the Better Business Bureau they've had a total number of 5 complaints within the last 3 years -- 2 of which have been resolved and 3 of which have been resolved by the administration. They have an overall rating of "A". This does not strike me as a scam. If there were hundreds (or thousands) of complaints then I would be more prone to lend an ear to anti Tunecore blogging. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
- Do you seriously believe a blog that's so poorly written?! I can only comment on my experience with TuneCore, which has been first class. Their support isn't great, but they seem to do a good job. Rolypole (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you considered some of the poorly written Wikipedia articles that are still factually correct? (Like this one in particular?) As I stated earlier, it seems more legitimate than not, but it was the well written responses by some people on said blog that have me at least curious about it. My own experiences with TuneCore have been too few and far between to personally make a judgment call, but they do seem to make money using back end sales techniques with affiliate sites (Jango, etc...) and equipment "deals" and sales, which would explain the willingness not to ask a percentage of record sales. Also, according to the anti-TuneCore blogs I've seen, we're talking about amounts equal to or roughly over a grand, but not HUGE, as in millions. In your personal dealings with them have you made that amount, or more, or less? (I'll just assume you're a Grammy winning artist who is rushing to TuneCore's defense and you've only dealt with millions ;D) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.223.49 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Response from TuneCore's Peter Wells
[edit]We've written a response to this article. It's obviously absurd, but we want folks to know that people who steal music get no help from TuneCore:
http://blog.tunecore.com/2011/02/the-new-music-thieves-stealing-from-artists.html
Anyone has any questions about TuneCore, they're welcome to contact us. We'll be happy to set the record straight.
--Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.235.150 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you've responded to this, Mr. Wells. (Or do you prefer Peter?) I actually think that a light dose of skepticism isn't that absurd, especially when dealing with anything involving the Music and Entertainment Industry. The statement in the article you directed us to -- "If It’s Too Good to be True, It Is!" is exactly how I first felt about TuneCore. I've been involved with Industry people for nearly twenty years, and sure there are some nice people in it, but there seem to be quite a few sharks swimming in the pool. Internet technology and the "new business models" that are popping up can be bewildering, confusing, and overwhelming for people who really only want to make music and make a decent living doing so. There are other sites out there that aren't nearly as altruistic as TuneCore. Though you've confronted these accusations using your own blog and articles, it is probably also effective to have such questions (and answers) posted on open blogs like Wikipedia, where it can be more of an unbiased source of information that is (relatively) moderated, and where IP addresses or usernames are logged. (Sure, people can fake both, but it's a lot of trouble just to defame TuneCore's reputation.) I myself have had relatively good experiences with TuneCore, and I'm under the impression that things such as delays, or CD packages that aren't printed correctly, or unanswered e-mails have less to do with TuneCore being a bad company and more to do with TuneCore having to be "the person(s) in the middle". Amazon and Apple (and the rest) can be tough to deal with for individuals, so I couldn't imagine having to deal with BOTH a huge number of artists AND those companies. As a minor example: if an artist decides that they want to withdraw their album from either company, said companies will charge a fee, and if Tunecore were to try and cover that fee for every artist who wants to take an album down then TuneCore wouldn't last very long, therefore TuneCore has to charge an early take down fee. This makes complete sense to me.
I also know that fraud is fraud, whether by a big company, a small company, or an individual, and that it would be criminal court where things like this would be decided, not just civil. I really doubt that TuneCore would risk everything by "cooking the books" when there are already so many Music Industry Associations already in place that exist solely for the artist to receive due earnings -- some of which are funded by the government.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the slandering of TuneCore wasn't the result of some recording company insiders who may be out of a job ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.223.49 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Jeff Price
[edit]Surely Jeff Price is no longer CEO of Tunecore? Wasn't he rather publicly fired earlier this year?109.158.131.148 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Updating TuneCore's Page: How Can I Help?
[edit]Hi there,
My name is Alex, and I work for TuneCore. As some of you have pointed out, the TuneCore page is pretty out of date at this point. While I'd love to help keep the page up to date, nobody here at TuneCore wants our bias to mess with the accuracy or usefulness of the page, so editing it ourselves seems like a bad idea.
The good news is, we have a ton of factual information (and sources for citation) ready to share for anyone that is interested in updating the page. Just let me know what format would be useful and I'll be happy to send it to you.
Hope this is helpful!
Rock on,
TuneCore Alex (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuneCore Alex (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi TuneCore Alex.
- The best thing to do would be to post the changes you want made below my comment here. Start off with {{requestededit}} (including the {{}}). Then make provide the updates/changes in a change X to Y format. Make sure you include links to reliable sources to back up the statements, you can see how to include references as evidence by following this link. Amortias (T)(C) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Amortias,
- Thanks for your help! Here are some updates I would like to recommend, feel free to use them as you think is best. Apologies if I messed up the syntax at all, this is my first attempt at using it. Here goes:
- ::Change this ::{{Genre: Publishing}} ::To This: ::{{Digital Distribution, Music Publishing Administration <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tunecore.com/press/documents/201103_Purpora.pdf}}</ref>}} ::Change this ::{{Key people Jeff Price Peter Wells Gary Burke}} ::To this ::{{Key people Scott Ackerman <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tunecore-promotes-scott-ackerman-to-ceo-260908091.html}}</ref> Joe Cuello <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-mtv-svp-joe-cuello-joins-tunecore-as-chief-creative-officer-279414182.html}}</ref> Shelby Kennedy <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/ny-tunecore-nashville-idUSnPn50F926+88+PRN20140910}}</ref> Andreea Gleeson <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/148683/andreea-gleeson-named-vp-marketing-at-tunecore}}</ref>}} ::Change this ::{{Products Online Delivery (Music)}} ::To this ::{{Products Online Delivery, Music Publishing Administration <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tunecore.com/press/documents/201103_Purpora.pdf}}</ref> (Music)}} ::Change this ::{{Number of employees 40}} ::To this ::{{Number of employees 64}} ::Change this ::{{TuneCore is an online music distribution/record label service founded in 2005. TuneCore principally offers musicians and other rights-holders the opportunity to place their music into online retailers such as iTunes, AmazonMP3, Google Play Music, Xbox Music, Rhapsody, eMusic, and others for sale.}} ::to this ::{{TuneCore is an independent digital music distribution service founded in 2005. TuneCore principally offers musicians and other rights-holders the opportunity to get their music sold and streamed into online retailers and services like iTunes, Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer, Google Play, Xbox, TIDAL and others. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://help.tunecore.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/48}}</ref> TuneCore also offers music publishing administration services, helping songwriters register their compositions and collect royalties internationally. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.musicconnection.com/songwriters-collect-royalties-digital-stores-societies-worldwide/}}</ref> TuneCore pitches compositions for placement in television, film, video games and more. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/04/tunecore-paid-36-million-to-indie-musicians-in-first-3-months-of-2015.html}}</ref>}} ::Change this ::{{Tunecore was acquired by Believe Digital in April 2015.}} ::To this ::{{In 2015, TuneCore was acquired by Believe Digital <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/04/16/believe-digital-acquires-tunecore/}}</ref>; giving artists access to Believe Digital’s wider distribution network and label services, with offices in 29 countries and a staff of 250. This acquisition also led to the expansion of TuneCore’s presence into the UK <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/09/tunecore-expands-to-uk.html}}</ref> and Australia <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/11/tunecore-launches-in-australia.html}}</ref> the same year.}} ::
- Thanks again Amortias for all your help.
Done I've largely added what you requested, I don't see a problem with the sources you suggested although I had to replace one which was a dead link and "TuneCore pitches compositions for placement in television, film, video games and more" didn't actually verify that it in the source. They seem to meet reliable sources for the tech/music field. I worded for neutrality in one part though and cut some details on the Believe countries and staff which I don't think is relevant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Controversy or Criticism
[edit]Isn't Tunecore in hot water with some of its current or former music artists for allegedly "stealing" or freezing up royalties and keeping them away from them? 67.43.190.226 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Scam allegations
[edit]TuneCore has reportedly been blocking releases on a consistent basis and without offering any valid reason for it, while not refunding users for the services they paid for but were not provided (i.e. music distribution). Research on the topic had brand new users uploading valid music and following the guidelines to the letter being blocked consistently and repeteadly.[1]
Users are usually surprised by the exact following e-mail:
"Per the TuneCore Terms and Conditions, TuneCore has the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any materials submitted by TuneCore users for distribution. This notice is to inform you that TuneCore has blocked [RELEASE INFORMATION COMES HERE: NAME OF THE RELEASE AND ARTIST NAME] from being downloaded or streamed from the stores you selected.
While we have a no refund policy, a refund for your submissions(s) can be processed under certain circumstances. Please let us know if you have any questions. Please do not attempt to resubmit this content through TuneCore service or it will be blocked without refund." [2] Miguel Chambergo (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- We can't cover this in the article without sourcing that meets Wikipedia's guidelines, which you can find at WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding My Edits
[edit]This message is for MrOllie or anyone else who cares to comment. My recent edits to the page were reverted for "Rv promotional rewrite" which doesn't make sense at all. I cannot understand which parts sound promotional as everything is improvement to the existing article and well sources. Let's recap my edits :
1) I added the recent Key People to the infobox, as the pervious one was outdated. Please explain why this should not be allowed
2) I updated intro to better reflect what they do. In addition, I also added important info about the ownership and their locations: "TuneCore is part of Believe Music and is headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, with offices in Los Angeles and Nashville and operates globally such as in the UK, Germany, France and Australia."
3) Fixed a Typo under History, the first word: "Tunecore" should be "TuneCore"
4) Added info about new CEO and also Social Platforms introduction. This is an important update:
"In 2021, the company appointed Andreea Gleeson to the role of Chief Executive Officer. Later that same year, TuneCore introduced Social Platforms, a service allowing artists to distribute their music to the libraries of social media applications such as TikTok and Instagram for no upfront cost and an artist-friendly 80/20 revenue split."
5) Added:
"Since 2021, TuneCore has sponsored the annual BE THE CHANGE: Gender Equity in Music study which surveys artists and music industry professionals around the world about their experiences with gender-based discrimination."
6) Added:
"As of June 2024, TuneCore had paid more than $4 billion to self releasing artists."
data supported by 2 independent sources.
7) Added:
"In recent years, TuneCore launched operations in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and Benelux. [49][50][51]"
Info supported by 3 sources.
8) Added Accolades section, which covers awards by Crain's NY and Fast Company, both of which are well know an and have presence on Wikipedia. I would understand if there was an objection to add unknown awards but these are well know.
Please let me know if there are any specific issues and rather than doing a blanket reversal, provide your reasons here for discussion, because obviously not every single item above can be considered promotional. Tarkminas (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Text like
TuneCore principally offers musicians and other rights-holders the opportunity to distribute and sell or stream their music through
is plainly the sort of thing you'd find in ad copy. You also added nonnotable awards and information about sponsorships. The changes were indistinguishable from the kind of changes a paid advocate for TuneCore would make. Are you associated with TuneCore in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- @MrOllie: As you noted, some of Tarkminas's additions lean promotional. The quote you picked out is one example. But although this page has a history of promotional edits, I'm going to assume that Tarkminas is editing in good faith. I don't think a blanket reversion is necessary. Looking at it one point at a time, we might be able to pick out the useful from the less useful.
- 1) This would be helpful, but we'll need a source for Lucy Huang. (found one)
- 2) The elaboration of "distributes music through" was unnecessary, but the "TuneCore is part of Believe Music..." paragraph is useful. We should probably note its acquisition by Believe somewhere in the lead.
- 3) This is a simple, helpful fix. I'll go fix the spelling right now.
- 4) I can't find where Tarkminas added this. Regardless, the latter part is too promotional to include. Everything after "such as TikTok..." should not be included in the article.
- 5) This has a source, and it's not overtly promotional. Here's another article about this from Variety, a reliable source per WP:VARIETY. This information could be worth including in the article.
- 6) The claim about the $4 billion is reported in Music Business Worldwide and is reported seemingly independently in a second (though not obviously reliable) source. It could be worth including in the article.
- 7) This information is referenced (exception: I don't see the source for Benelux) and not obviously promotional if it is worded properly. It could be worth including in the article.
- 8) The accolades section doesn't need to exist because these awards don't have articles of their own. There was a recent discussion at the Teahouse about non-notable awards.
- Note @Tarkminas that if you are connected to TuneCore, you must declare a conflict of interest. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mentions of things they've sponsored or routine stats about payout amounts are indeed promotional, and I continue to oppose them. Considering the history of promotional and undisclosed paid editing on this page, I continue to think a blanket revert is appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you continue to oppose these additions, then I'll accept that you have many more years of experience and drop the stick. I do have a question for you though. Currently, the "Acquisition by Believe" section has two sentences of the "TuneCore expanded its presence in [country]" type. Is it alright to add more sentences like that? For the sake of transparency: I just edited the infobox, lead, and copyright fraud section. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 00:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PrinceTortoise Thank you for your feedback. Since we now have agreement from two editors, I believe it’s reasonable to reinstate some of my edits. I’ll proceed with the changes now—please feel free to discuss any concerns here.
- Of course, I will leave out "Mentions of things they've sponsored or routine stats about payout amounts" as it seems these would be considered promotional per MrOllie who as you say has more experience than you, but also myself. Tarkminas (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: I have reverted your edits. Some of them, such as
TuneCore principally offers musicians and other rights-holders the opportunity to distribute and sell or stream their music through
, have already been identified as promotional. Because many of your edits have been promotional, whether or not you regard them as such, I strongly suggest that you propose changes to this article in the future rather than editing the article directly. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 09:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)- @PrinceTortoise You previously agreed that many of these edits were acceptable to post. If you have concerns about specific edits, we can discuss and revert only those. If you believe a particular edit is promotional, I will leave it out for now, but you need to provide specific arguments for each removal and explain your reasoning here. For instance, why would you remove content about the selection of a new CEO? Additionally, you agreed to include several other sections, such as #6 and #7 on your list, so I find your conflicting comments quite puzzling. Tarkminas (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody 'needs' to object in the precise fashion you prefer, see WP:SATISFY. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your edits have support, it is not on others to argue against them. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- @MrOllie do you see an issue with adding this?
- Nobody 'needs' to object in the precise fashion you prefer, see WP:SATISFY. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your edits have support, it is not on others to argue against them. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PrinceTortoise You previously agreed that many of these edits were acceptable to post. If you have concerns about specific edits, we can discuss and revert only those. If you believe a particular edit is promotional, I will leave it out for now, but you need to provide specific arguments for each removal and explain your reasoning here. For instance, why would you remove content about the selection of a new CEO? Additionally, you agreed to include several other sections, such as #6 and #7 on your list, so I find your conflicting comments quite puzzling. Tarkminas (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: I have reverted your edits. Some of them, such as
- If you continue to oppose these additions, then I'll accept that you have many more years of experience and drop the stick. I do have a question for you though. Currently, the "Acquisition by Believe" section has two sentences of the "TuneCore expanded its presence in [country]" type. Is it alright to add more sentences like that? For the sake of transparency: I just edited the infobox, lead, and copyright fraud section. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 00:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mentions of things they've sponsored or routine stats about payout amounts are indeed promotional, and I continue to oppose them. Considering the history of promotional and undisclosed paid editing on this page, I continue to think a blanket revert is appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
In 2021, the company appointed Andreea Gleeson to the role of Chief Executive Officer.[1] Tarkminas (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ "TuneCore, which paid out over $400m to indie artists last year, has a new CEO: Andreea Gleeson". Music Business Worldwide. 2021-08-25. Retrieved 2025-02-03.
- @Tarkminas: This is PrinceTortoise back again. Thank you for proposing an individual edit. It makes it much easier to comment on this particular addition and, ultimately, make the article better.
- I cannot speak for other editors, but I personally believe that this addition maintains a neutral point of view. Furthermore, a new CEO is relatively important, and good articles include this kind of information (Tesla, Inc.#Roadster (2005–2009) is an example). However, in my ongoing quest to be as concise as possible, I suggest this wording:
In 2021, Andreea Gleeson became the company's Chief Executive Officer.
- I cannot speak for other editors, but I personally believe that this addition maintains a neutral point of view. Furthermore, a new CEO is relatively important, and good articles include this kind of information (Tesla, Inc.#Roadster (2005–2009) is an example). However, in my ongoing quest to be as concise as possible, I suggest this wording:
- I did previously agree that some of these edits were acceptable. Some I was (and am) unsure about. And there are some that do not belong in the article. For example, the exact words "an artist-friendly 80/20 revenue split" should not appear in the article. The only edit that is entirely uncontroversial is to state peoples' roles in the infobox. That has precedent in articles like SpaceX and IndiGo.
- I think we should continue to discuss additions on a case-by-case basis so the article can include as much information as possible while still maintaining a neutral point of view. Nobody will be hurt if we spend an few extra days talking things over. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PrinceTortoise "In 2021, Andreea Gleeson became the company's Chief Executive Officer." is fine. You can add it that way. Tarkminas (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PrinceTortoise The last sentence in the article needs a citation, but I am not able to find a reliable source. I only see social media sources. Do you think it should stay?
- "In a third case, TuneCore submitted copyright claims over a streamed performance of public domain classical music by Brett Yang and Eddy Chen of Twoset Violin, collecting revenue from the stream that would otherwise have gone to the performers." Tarkminas (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: The last sentence does need a citation. I was the one who added the [citation needed] tag after removing the original reference that did not actually support the claim. After a second search, I still couldn't find any sources. I'll remove it for the time being. I'll also add the CEO sentence. I have no objection to these edits being reverted.
- Because this is related: The last sentence in the lead (
TuneCore has been sued for copyright infringement
) does not currently have a citation because it's not necessary to have the citation in the lead if it has a citation (to a reliable source) later in the article. However, it may be a good idea to add citations to the lead anyways. Any thoughts on that? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)- Since the article mentions only one lawsuit with an unknown outcome, I don't think it should be included in the introduction. Large companies frequently face lawsuits, but that doesn't mean such information belongs in the lead section. Including it would violate WP:DUE. Tarkminas (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Could we also add back item #6, which you agreed was OK?
- "As of June 2024, TuneCore had paid more than $4 billion to self releasing artists."
- data supported by 2 independent sources.
- One more thing: I think the header "Acquisition by Believe" should be removed, because not everything under is about that. Tarkminas (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the lawsuit sentence in the lead: I've updated Wikipedia's coverage of the lawsuits with more recent information. WP:DUE requires that all significant viewpoints receive coverage in proportion to their prominence. I chose
TuneCore has been sued for copyright infringement
as a way to briefly state a fact without suggesting that the allegations were either true or false. If you want to suggest another way to mention copyright infringement in the lead, I (or another editor) will take it into consideration (but be careful with expressions of doubt). You can also continue to argue for the removal of this text if you so choose. - Regarding item #6: I previously remarked that this
could be worth including in the article
. MrOllie, one of the 250 most active Wikipedia contributors of all time, then responded thatroutine stats about payout amounts are indeed promotional
. In light of this comment, I must reverse course and say that this routine coverage, though true and reported in two sources, is best not included in the article. It's not very useful information because it sounds like a big number, but there's no context. Readers have no idea whether $4 billion is actually a lot of money. The routine nature of the stat is another problem. There will likely be another announcement at $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion, etc. - Regarding the header "Acquisition by Believe": This can and should be improved. Removing the heading entirely is one option. Another option is breaking the history into two sections, such as "Founding – 2014" and "Acquisition by Believe – present". And of course there are many other options as well. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Tarkminas. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the headers based on your suggestion.
- Regarding the introduction, keep in mind that it should serve as a summary of the most important points from the body. Do you really think mentioning the lawsuit is crucial for the intro? Another concern is that we don’t know whether they were found liable or if the case was dismissed. Stating outright that they were sued for copyright could imply guilt, which makes it less neutral. I believe it’s more appropriate to include this in the body rather than the introduction.Tarkminas (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- One more thing the header "Copyright fraud allegations" is misleading, because TuneCore was not the one doing the fraud, but according to the article some users uploaded copyrighted content, without TuneCore detecting it. How about we change it to "Copyright issues" ? Tarkminas (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: It is my responsibility to achieve consensus to include this information in the lead. I've removed
TuneCore has been sued for copyright infringement
from the lead and will wait for your response or for another editor to weigh in. - Per MOS:LEADREL, if information is important to the subject, according to reliable sources, then it should be included in the lead. Music Business Worldwide, billboard are covering this, among others. These articles are my rationale for including something about copyright infringement in the lead.
- Stating that TuneCore was sued does not imply guilt if we make it longer:
TuneCore has been sued twice for copyright infringement. The first lawsuit was settled out of court, and the second is ongoing.
This does not imply guilt. Is this acceptable? - As for the header "copyright fraud allegations": The plaintiffs in the second lawsuit are alleging that TuneCore's parent company
Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement
(source). The allegations are that the company itself is responsible for this infringement. I'd support a change to "Copyright infringement allegations", but "Copyright issues" seems like an understatement to me. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 00:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)- If we've got a section on it in the body, at least a sentence in the lead is warranted. MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- That was my sense too, but I didn't want to ignore policy just because I thought I was right. I've added the longer (21 word) version for now, but I won't try to stop anyone from shortening it. Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Please note, if the source says " Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement (source)." then this should go on the Believe page not TuneCore. Believe owns other companies, such as Nuclear Blast, Naïve, Groove Attack, Play Two and AllPoints. They seem to imply the parent company is doing that, not TuneCore. Secondly, it is a direct quotation from a lawsuit and cannot be interpreted as a fact. It is a primary source statement. Hence, I believe some kind of clarification must be stated and also think the header "Copyright Issues" is more warranted. Please keep in mind WP:DUE. We should not imply negative outcome, when the lawsuits are still ongoing or outcome unknown. Tarkminas (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: The word "allegations" does not imply guilt. If you don't believe that, simply google "define allegation". There is a guideline that addresses words like "alleged", and it states that
alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial
. Calling allegations "allegations" is neutral in the eyes of Wikipedia. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC) - 'Issues' is vague. Beating around the bush doesn't help the readers. MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- According to WP:NPOV allegations should be presented in a neutral tone, without implying guilt. I feel the word "Fraud" implies guilt and makes this more negative than it really is, specially since the fraud is done by it's users and not the company. Would you agree to drop the word "fraud" and just say "Copyright allegations" or "Copyright Infringement Allegations."
- "Copyright fraud allegations" suggests that the entity is accused of fraudulent activity related to copyright, such as intentionally deceiving others (e.g., fake copyright claims, fraudulent registrations). Tarkminas (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- From UMG's suit, as reported in Variety:
“Believe’s client list is overrun with fraudulent ‘artists’ and pirate record labels who rely on Believe and its distribution network to seed infringing copies of popular sound recordings throughout the digital music ecosystem,” the lawsuit states. “While Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy, it has eschewed basic measures to prevent copyright violations"
I'm comfortable with the article saying they've been accused of copyright fraud. There's also the twosetviolin thing if we can find a cite to put that back. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)- @MrOllie The statement you are referring to is a quotation, which, according to Wikipedia policies, is considered a primary source and cannot be used as a citation. If the publication had stated it without quotation marks, your point would be valid, but as it stands, the source remains primary. Essentially, a publication must explicitly state that they were accused of fraud, and this information cannot come from a quotation. Additionally, the outcome is still uncertain, so it is not yet known whether Believe deliberately "eschewed basic measures to prevent copyright violation." Therefore, the source you mentioned cannot be used to claim that they have been alleged of fraud.
- I propose we change it to: one of these:
- "Copyright Allegations"
- "Copyright Infringement Allegations"
- "Copyright Fraud Allegations by its users" Tarkminas (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
is considered a primary source and cannot be used as a citation
that's not accurate. And in any case this isn't a primary source because they were quoted in Variety.a publication must explicitly state that they were accused of fraud
- that's that the citations doand this information cannot come from a quotation.
- that is not a requirement. MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- From UMG's suit, as reported in Variety:
- @Tarkminas: The word "allegations" does not imply guilt. If you don't believe that, simply google "define allegation". There is a guideline that addresses words like "alleged", and it states that
- Please note, if the source says " Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement (source)." then this should go on the Believe page not TuneCore. Believe owns other companies, such as Nuclear Blast, Naïve, Groove Attack, Play Two and AllPoints. They seem to imply the parent company is doing that, not TuneCore. Secondly, it is a direct quotation from a lawsuit and cannot be interpreted as a fact. It is a primary source statement. Hence, I believe some kind of clarification must be stated and also think the header "Copyright Issues" is more warranted. Please keep in mind WP:DUE. We should not imply negative outcome, when the lawsuits are still ongoing or outcome unknown. Tarkminas (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- That was my sense too, but I didn't want to ignore policy just because I thought I was right. I've added the longer (21 word) version for now, but I won't try to stop anyone from shortening it. Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- If we've got a section on it in the body, at least a sentence in the lead is warranted. MrOllie (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas: It is my responsibility to achieve consensus to include this information in the lead. I've removed
- One more thing the header "Copyright fraud allegations" is misleading, because TuneCore was not the one doing the fraud, but according to the article some users uploaded copyrighted content, without TuneCore detecting it. How about we change it to "Copyright issues" ? Tarkminas (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Tarkminas. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the lawsuit sentence in the lead: I've updated Wikipedia's coverage of the lawsuits with more recent information. WP:DUE requires that all significant viewpoints receive coverage in proportion to their prominence. I chose
- Since the article mentions only one lawsuit with an unknown outcome, I don't think it should be included in the introduction. Large companies frequently face lawsuits, but that doesn't mean such information belongs in the lead section. Including it would violate WP:DUE. Tarkminas (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Copyright fraud redirects to Copyfraud. This is different from copyright infringement. I think "Copyright infringement allegations" is a better section heading because it is more accurate. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 02:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
TuneCore is an Independent company
[edit]Could we add the word "Independent" to the intro?
So it will be like this:
TuneCore is a Brooklyn, New York–based digital independent music distribution, publishing and licensing service founded in 2006. It was acquired by Believe Music in April 2015.
TuneCore is an independent distribution service because it caters specifically to independent artists and does not function as a traditional label that takes a cut of royalties.
There are numerous references that state the word "independent" and also described so by the company itself. https://www.believe.com/tunecore
https://www.tunecore.com/what-is-tunecore
https://www.soundon.global/forum/distribution-for-independent-artists Tarkminas (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed in principle, but this specific wording isn't great because it is ambiguous. Is it the music that is independent, or the service?
- How about 'TuneCore is a Brooklyn, New York–based digital distribution service for independent music, founded in 2006.' - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is an "Independent Music" service, not an "Independent service." This is a common way to say it. Take a look at another similar company called DistroKid, they also say it this way.
- I am also OK the way you say it if you don't remove the "publishing and licensing" part.
- 'TuneCore is a Brooklyn, New York–based digital distribution, publishing and licensing service for independent music, founded in 2006.'
- But I feel the verbiage I proposed is better, since as you can see a competitor is also saying it like that. Tarkminas (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I like MrOllie's suggestion because it clearly states that it is the music that is independent (not the company). The "publishing and licensing" part seems redundant, and at least one reliable source leaves this out as well: The New York Times refers to TuneCore as a "digital distributor". PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Intro Update
[edit]Could we please add this to the end of the intro?
TuneCore is part of Believe Music and is headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, with offices in Los Angeles and Nashville and operates globally such as in the UK, Germany, France and Australia. Tarkminas (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- The 'part of Believe Music' bit is redundant, and the offices and 'operates globally' is promotional. I would oppose this. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, how about we just add:
- TuneCore is headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, with offices in Los Angeles and Nashville and operates globally such as in the UK, Germany, France and Australia. Tarkminas (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like it is based on About TuneCore. It's factual, but there are better ways of writing the lead. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
History Update
[edit]Could we add this to the end of history?
In recent years, TuneCore launched operations in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and Benelux.
Thanks. Tarkminas (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Citations are press release churnalism, not worth covering. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Whether churnliasm or not, Billboard and Music Week are very reliable publications covering the stories. In reality, most news out there is churnalism, because someone will just report on someone else's news story and repurpose it. What I am suggesting to add is important info to have for the page. Let's wait for others to chime in.
- @PrinceTortoise what do you think? Tarkminas (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Tarkminas and MrOllie: I won't support inclusion unless better sources are found. At least two of the sources provided are churnalism:
- MBW is similar to this but with some paragraphs rearranged.
- Here is a comparable PR source for the billboard article. I can't make a good assessment because I don't have a billboard subscription.
- Music Week is very similar to this.
- As little more than press releases, these sources do nothing to prove the importance of this information. The article currently has similar information about TuneCore "expand[ing] its presence" in the UK, Australia, and India. This should be reviewed as well. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 01:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)