Talk:Sony Music Entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Record Labels (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Korea (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Korean popular culture working group.


Does anybody know where I can find the new SMEI logo or does anyone own one? Even the official website still states the BMG ones. Why do they do so if it's now no longer Sony BMG? --Oli (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone already uploaded the new logo for the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And now they also changed it on their website ehich is now That's a step we were all waiting for. --Oli (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

YouTube campaign[edit]

SME wages a continual campaign against posting of YouTube videos of its artists. E.g. a search on Bob Dylan rarely discovers videos and those which are posted are usually taken down very quickly, with users posting them being suspended. Few other recording labels make so concerted an effort. Ironically, SME loses huge amounts of publicity of its artists in this way, for example through lack of embedding of videos in other web sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC) .EVERYTHING that he did was good.

perhaps naive questions[edit]

So what do we do about SME vs YouTube? Is it true that users are suspended? Their decision smells like a typical idiotic "staffer" one---but burns as much for that. Isn't there some Fair Use clauses that safeguard these postings? What can we do to make them aware? Ye gads; I want to go buy something when I've been listening on the YT, not rip something. So they lose sales this way. Big Brotherism and monopolies. Today, when listening to Cohen, YT at least offered access to another "independent" player (?), with a link on the same page where the SME notice popped up; so I could listen anyway. So what's the point? Idealist707 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1929 as an establishment date[edit]

Several editors have added "Record Companies established in 1929" as a category. I've removed this as this refers to American Record Corporation, a direct predecessor to be sure, but not the original. If you're going to use purchased predecessors, why not use the start date of Cameo, or Pathe, or the Plaza group, which merged to form ARC? Why not use the original 1890s start date of Columbia records, which ARC purchased? I think it's being added as ARC is the earliest company listed in the infobox. Perhaps this should be changed, although if we added every single predecessor it would be ridiculously long. 78.26 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting myself, as I think this over. The above holds true, but given the convoluted history of the subject, perhaps there's no better date to use than 1929. 78.26 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I added the 1929 date for the corporation, but not as a record label. There was never a lable imprint as "American Record Corporation", instead it was the parent corp. of labels such as Perfect, Brunswick, Vocalion, Banner, etc. (Unless you want to count the theatre-use only product the company used for a brief time in the early 1930s, which was never available to the general public.) It would be better to use 1939 date for the re-introduced Columbia label, although that label never entirely disappeared, so perhaps using this logic the 1889 start date of the Columbia Phonograph Company, General. is more accurate78.26 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The Columbia Phonograph Company in the U.S. was acquired by ARC. In the case of record companies or record labels acquired by other record companies, the date of the acquiring record company would be used. Therefore, 1929 is the founding year for Sony Music as it evolved from ARC. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree as far as the company is concerned, but not as a "record label". Following that logic the start date of Okeh records should be 1889, as it was acquired by Columbia in 1926. If not using the Columbia date as a start date for the "record label", perhaps the start date for the American Pathé operation should be used, as it was the earliest start of the "labels" (record production in the US commenced in 1914, although they had been importing pressings before that time) that merged to form the American Record Corporation. Also of note would be the Scranton Button Co, started in 1885, another direct predecessor of ARC. 78.26 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add confusing info. This is about a record company, not a record label. To set things straight, I've already mentioned that this record company, Sony Music, was founded in 1929. As for its rival record companies, Universal Music Group dates back to 1934, the year that the record label it evolved from, the American Decca Records was founded. As for Warner Music Group, its roots go back to the founding of Warner Bros. Records in 1958 by the film company of the same name. EMI was founded in 1931 from the merger of the Columbia Graphophone Company and the Gramophone Company in the UK. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jive Records: Now under Epic Label Group or RCA Music Group?[edit]

This Press Release from Billboard says that Jive Records is under RCA Music Group when it states that Peter Edge is the new CEO of RCA Music group, which includes RCA, J, Arista, Jive:

It is also stated on the official Press Release from Sony Music:

Originally it was announced that some Jive Acts would go over to Epic Label Group (the more "urban" artists) while others would go to RCA Music Group. It looked like non urban acts would move to RCA while urban acts would stay with Jive but Jive would be under Epic Label Group. Has some of this changed?

(Here are some previous articles:

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jive Records is now part of Epic Label Group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now found this article from the NY Times about the changes:

this also suggests that Jive exists under the RCA Music group. As soon as the websites for epic & RCA are updated, we may get more answers. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:SonyMusicLogo 09.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:SonyMusicLogo 09.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


What the hell is this supposed to mean? :-

On July 1, 2009, Sony Music Entertainment and IODA announced their global strategic partnership to leverage combined worldwide online retail distribution networks and complementary technologies to support independent labels and music rightsholders.[22][23]
On December 14, 2011 G1 AD PRESS LLC and G1 Marketing Group based in Australia-America Entertainment partnership and Holdings of company technologies to advance advertising of subsidiary corporations.

Can anyone translate it into English? Skinsmoke (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


I would like the opinion of some other users on this.

An unregistered user has made a controversy section and used the following link as a source:

I take two issues with this. I'm not sure whether or not this source is a blog. I also looked up this information and found nothing on it on any news sites. This website looks like the only one that has something on this. Secondly, I'm not sure if this is non-bias. Even though I do have knowledge of this subject, I do not have extensive knowledge of the issue in the article.

I would appreciate the opinion of any other users on potentially putting up this section and as to whether or not to do so.

Thanks --MusicGeek101 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

interesting process: everything I added so far has been undone by a single Wikipedia user ... I am completely new to Wikipedia - so I might miss here a few things - and I am happy to learn. Maybe it is simply that fact that I am not registered ... well I might do the few extra clicks if that's reassuring the community (even though : I don't see much of a community here ... more of an individual keeping control).

Now to concerns expressed above : torrentfreak is among the few unbiased sources regarding IP and Copyright issues. As a reference to the fact that they are an actual "blog" with some notoriety I would like to refer to the Wikipedia article about torrent freak. As for the professional news & media dealer - well they are biased by default - in particular if it comes to IP and copyright issues and they usually do not cover those issues. Nevertheless with a bit of an effort you can find other sources that related the fact that Sony was part of the gang using (actually 26 record labels are).

To the fact (as a fact) : there is court order - and I wonder what is biased about this. It is public record ... for those who want be 100% sure : they'll have to get there own copy. Otherwise there is copy available ere : (I just want to mention that the original article refers to this link ... I did not really do much of a research here). Records labels have spend years and an impressive amount of money and time to sue file sharing website over the last decade. The reasons are obvious.

But then again maybe our friends music geek might just be paid by Sony to watch out over there own Wikipedia entry. We've seen this before ... now that's a biased speculation and I have no proof of this at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will let this stay on here, but I will make some adjustments. I'm just making sure these pages are within format and that sources are not speculative. Secondly, since you are new to wikipedia, I would recommend creating an account if you are serious about editing pages and I would recommend creating an account.

With an official copy of a court document, there is no problem with having this information posted since this document is clearly public. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am adding a section regarding IP issue as it has been removed once more (helas!) ... I wonder how long it will last this time (I am currently taking bets :)) Christophe T. = the man with the 85.70.137.XX IP address

I am frankly very surprised that there's no mention at all here of the uproar in fall 2005 about the "tool" Sony BMG required be installed on every computer to do DRM for their discs but looking and acting like a "rootkit" (the very worst kind of virus). That was huge news at the time. Sony BMG was pilloried for among other things i] misleading users so badly they were effectively installing their tool without "informed consent", ii] helping to legitimize the previously 100% bad "rootkit" technology, and iii] opening up security holes that might allow other bits of malware to also install themselves on each user's computer.

It seems to me that if there's going to be a section on "Controversy" at all, it should at minimum confirm that this event happened. (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Spin off Columbia/CBS Records section into CBS Records Inc.?[edit]

Oppose--When CBS acquired American Record Corporation in 1938, they changed the name of the record company to Columbia Recording Corporation with Columbia Records as the flagship label. The "CBS Records" entity did not begin until 1961 when Columbia Records launched its international subsidiary CBS Records International to distribute Columbia label recordings outside North America beginning in 1962. The "CBS Records" name for the record company did not exist until 1966 when the Columbia Records record company changed its name to CBS Records. The copyright notice while CBS owned the company simply read "CBS Inc." It wasn't until Sony bought CBS Records in 1987 that there was a "CBS Records Inc." entity. That entity changed its name to Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

After a week with no further activity, I'm thinking no one is interested so I'll kill the proposal. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Been a long time since I have been here - I see the problem has not been solved as of yet despite all the concerns about this topic. Would be nice if we listened to the concerns (feed back) raised by our readers. Moxy (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Youtube content that is copyrighted by SME is unavailable for viewing on — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd article[edit]

Why is this article full of information long before the music side of Sony was formed. To imply this company was founded in 1929 is so far of the truth that its funny. The article is mostly about companies that had nothing to do with Sony before they were bought out. Would be like having one article for Mercedes-Benz that just talks about Chrysler's history. Came here to read about Sony not about companies before Sony. Very odd article written by someone not sure how to talk about mergers and buyout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Record companies evolved over time. Sony Music was founded as ARC in 1929 which was bought by CBS and later bought by Sony. Universal Music began as Decca Records USA in 1934. Warner Music Group began as Warner Bros. Records in 1958. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sony Music Entertainment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

SME and SMH[edit]

I just did some investigation on Sony Music Holdings (Spelled as "Sony Music Holding" (according to this) and SME wasn't renamed as SMH. I found this. King Shadeed 0:26, September 16, 2016 (UTC)