Why Don’t Labels Make Out of Print Recordings Digitally Available?

Does anyone have any idea why labels don’t digitize more of their back catalog, including stuff out of print, and make it all available for streaming/download services?

They already own the stuff and have it all mastered and ready to go. It seems like an easy way for them to potentially make money off the stuff with very little upfront cost.

I guess this is more of an economics question than a musical one. But as a fan of what I guess is obscure country, Hawaiian and jazz it’s something I often wonder about.

 

It makes no sense. Is not even worth their trouble digitizing the stuff?

 

No, not necessarily.

Copyrights change hands, licenses expire, distribution agreements end, etc. For these reasons and others, tracks/albums come and go from streaming/download services every day.

And to consider a special case regarding availability, if an earlier mastering has gone out of print while a later mastering remains in print, even if the same copyright holder controls both masterings, the copyright holder intentionally may prohibit distribution of the earlier mastering so as not to confuse consumers with too much choice.

AJ

 

Yeah, that's not the way it works.

 

Too much trouble

 

A lot of pre 80s recording contracts did not secure broad enough rights to make this possible without new negotiations with artists.

 

Indeed. A 1980s era contract might use legal language along the lines of "analog or digital cartridge, disc, or tape" that would not necessarily include the rights to non physical medium retail distribution.

AJ

 

I wonder about this too. For the more obscure CDs out there, too bad we can't just download a digital version. It would be a small market, but some of us would pay a pretty penny to get some of this stuff.

 

Increasing the amount of music currently available for streaming does not increase profit one iota; on the contrary ..

 

Don't care about streaming. I'd pay for DL's of this stuff.

 

I am guessing:

Potential licensing issues, mainly that the question of who owns the actual copyright is unknown in some cases.
Demand. For something very few people will stream or buy, likely not worth the time for these companies to do it.

 

So if an artist has nothing at all from their catalog in print and is making zilch, adding their entire catalog to Spotify would result in no increase in profit?

 

What I meant is that it would seem the streaming service had little direct incentive to increase the number of selections offered to customers by adding more music to what is already an obscene volume of songs there are to listen to. Am I correct in guessing the subscription fee does not increase if they add a song or an album here or there, or take songs or albums away (occasionally as I understand happens) for various reasons .. one still pays the fixed monthly or annual fee, correct?
So, there may be the draw of adding new customers by offering some new-to-streaming artists and titles, but that is just sort of hoping that someone might decide to subscribe because of one band or album being added to the million-or-so already on offer.

 

If nobody streams it then they lose money. Someone has to digitize it and while it doesn't cost a lot it does cost something.

 

Paperwork.

 

Sorry, I meant from the artist’s perspective.

 

This does in fact raise some interesting questions. Fellow forum member @melstapler brought up an interesting point in the thread

"Deleted 12,000+ Digital Files" :

Along these lines, it may not be unreasonable to guess that in the not too distant future, A.I.-created music will gradually replace artist recordings on streaming services. It is an inevitability, really, when one takes a moment to think about it. If the streaming service owns the A.I. machine which generates the compositions, then no royalties will ever have to be paid. It will become a direct-profit channel for the subscription provider.

 

Sony’s Legacy Recordings is releasing stuff on a weekly basis. We’ve been getting the weekly rundown over on this thread:

Current Sony remaster campaign digital only releases

 

Downloads aren't making money like they used to. Outside of vinyl, there isn't a thriving marketplace for music that is "purchased". Streaming services were renting music is where the general public is spending their money. You can buy used CDs and rip them yourself cheaply. This is the competition the major labels face in the marketplace.

We are at a weird moment in time for music. You can actually purchase a physical CD including shipping for less money than downloading a files. And if you buy the CD from Amazon, you get the mp3 files ripped for you made available on their servers. Again weird times.

 

Ok, what Sony is doing is pretty much exactly what I had in mind. This is likely stuff that they have the paperwork and rights all in order, so no extra work required there. They’re also apparently not wasting any scratch on promotion and keeping costs low.

Hopefully it works well for them other labels start doing this too.

I’m listening to Waylon Jennings’ Jewels on iTunes now, decent sounding digitization and some nice country fuzz guitar.

 

Well, we can. It just isn't legal. But not listening to a great, obscure album is legal.

 

I'll budget and give massive patience (sometimes it's taken years) for something to show.
Starting from scratch today would be a daunting task. Especially when some of us have been hoarding stuff for decades, I mean c'mon do I really need that odd-ball West German for US Peter Gabriel III with different levels