Now that OCC are censoring free speech you can air your views here. There is not much on there at the moment. I want to get as many people together and get some serious discussions going about what we can do to get OCC to put the full past UK Charts on their website for free.

 

http://www.facebook.com/ukcharts

 

I've liked the page! ^_^

I've liked the page! ^_^

 

Cheers, the more people who sign up the more of an irritation it will be to the OCC and I've deliberately named it Official UK Charts Campaign so as to come up whenever anyone searches for their Facebook page.

 

Here's an idea, if anyone has the export from ChartStats and knows a SAFE filesharing site to upload it to, take out the chart positions to make it just a list of songs against each date and I'm pretty sure the OCC can't do anything about it, because without showing the chart positions it's not a chart. - People will have to number them themselves, but that's fine it's easy to do in Excel by dragging down the numbers from the first entry for each week using fill series and you're doing that for your own personal use on your own computer so not infringing OCC copyright. If anyone has time, highlight the new releases for each week too - this info is still available elsewhere for the moment.

 

I think we've just found a workaround! ;)

Edited November 24, 201212 yr by RED KITE

Yep delete column B, upload again and I don't think OCC can do anything because it's just a list of the songs that came out each week, not their chart positions.

And I just thought of another idea, save another edit copy of the singles charts, put the songs into alphabetical order, delete all but the first line entries for each song - you then have a list of every new entry with the date from the last 60 years that you can use for Spotify etc and believe me there is absolutely NOTHING OCC can do about it!

 

- Only problem is that there are 209370 lines to take out duplicate entries!

 

The quickest way to do this would be to sort the songs into alphabetical order and highlight the first entry for each song in red - then you would see at a glance when the song was first released. This way it is still possible to go through the weekly charts, put the new releases into Spotify etc and listen to the new music each week as it came out. ChartStats lives on!

Edited November 24, 201212 yr by RED KITE

The site has just become entirely unusable - until now you could still search for artists and get their chart histories etc. but now the domain name has expired and only the front page is viewable. Good thing I saved that full archive spreadsheet already.

As of last night, another site called http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/ - which gave access to pretty much all Music Week reports pre-2007, photocopied from the magazine edition - has gone. It comes up with another page which gives links to download charts, but it doesn't look trustworthy at all.

Face facts. If you want something, expect to pay for it.

 

It's quite obvious that most content run by companies in the media, will all start charging to view their online stuff. If rubbish like The Sun can do it, then everyone else will follow.

 

Nobody has any right to reprint charts or any other material. It's copyright protected & anyone copying, must expect a warning.

 

If you want something, then research it yourself. We all had to do it. Go up to London. Visit the British Library. Go to the offices of Music Papers & get stuck in & don't pass stuff around for free or profit. That's when "the establishment" start getting funny.

 

Take ChartStats. Someone (rather sillily) decided to put (what) say 44 years of "almost" accurate charts online for free, together with a load of tosh for 17 years of made up, points based charts before that, & people started to notice it. Then people started mentioning it, on forums & giving links & BANG, 75% of chart followers started using it. Oh it's great & FREE they thought. They could of used it to their advantage & copied it. Some (obviously) did. Some didn't because they became complacent. Nothing is forever. So, take advantage & get it, while you can. All you can do is thank the original guy, for doing ChartStats. Exactly the same thing happened to the Radio Luxembourg charts, recently. And they were all made up! Copyrighted material remains the owner of the person that made it, or sold it to another company, as in Milward Brown/Gallup/BMRB...All now one company, anyway. Supplying info to the overseeing OCC (who leave much to be desired in everything they do). Don't quite no why they exist. Milward Brown are the people compiling the damn charts. Perhaps they should have their own chart page on their website? Put that in writing!

 

That chart company exist for profit alone. Like every other business, in bad financial climates. Whether they decide to put every Top 75/Top 50 on their website is entirely up to them, but anyway the Top 40 is the only bit, that really matters or counts. Exactly why the BBC, will never use more than a Top 40. The lower you get down the more out of sync it becomes, always has & open to hype.

Edited April 2, 201312 yr by davetaylor

Face facts. If you want something, expect to pay for it.

 

It's quite obvious that most content run by companies in the media, will all start charging to view their online stuff. If rubbish like The Sun can do it, then everyone else will follow.

 

Nobody has any right to reprint charts or any other material. It's copyright protected & anyone copying, must expect a warning.

 

That chart company exist for profit alone. Like every other business, in bad financial climates. Whether they decide to put every Top 75/Top 50 on their website is entirely up to them, but anyway the Top 40 is the only bit, that really matters or counts. Exactly why the BBC, will never use more than a Top 40. The lower you get down the more out of sync it becomes, always has & open to hype.

 

It's not so much *that* they charge for it, it's *how much*! :(

 

Look at it this way - at the moment the info is just sitting on the OCC's computers earning nothing. ISTM if they answered sales/charts requests for a token fee, they could make significant money for relatively little effort.

As of last night, another site called http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/ - which gave access to pretty much all Music Week reports pre-2007, photocopied from the magazine edition - has gone. It comes up with another page which gives links to download charts, but it doesn't look trustworthy at all.

 

This is even worse than Chart Stats going. :( I went on that website yesterday morning actually! :snif: RIP.

 

Face facts. If you want something, expect to pay for it.

 

It's quite obvious that most content run by companies in the media, will all start charging to view their online stuff. If rubbish like The Sun can do it, then everyone else will follow.

 

Nobody has any right to reprint charts or any other material. It's copyright protected & anyone copying, must expect a warning.

 

If you want something, then research it yourself. We all had to do it. Go up to London. Visit the British Library. Go to the offices of Music Papers & get stuck in & don't pass stuff around for free or profit. That's when "the establishment" start getting funny.

 

Take ChartStats. Someone (rather sillily) decided to put (what) say 44 years of "almost" accurate charts online for free, together with a load of tosh for 17 years of made up, points based charts before that, & people started to notice it. Then people started mentioning it, on forums & giving links & BANG, 75% of chart followers started using it. Oh it's great & FREE they thought. They could of used it to their advantage & copied it. Some (obviously) did. Some didn't because they became complacent. Nothing is forever. So, take advantage & get it, while you can. All you can do is thank the original guy, for doing ChartStats. Exactly the same thing happened to the Radio Luxembourg charts, recently. And they were all made up! Copyrighted material remains the owner of the person that made it, or sold it to another company, as in Milward Brown/Gallup/BMRB...All now one company, anyway. Supplying info to the overseeing OCC (who leave much to be desired in everything they do). Don't quite no why they exist. Milward Brown are the people compiling the damn charts. Perhaps they should have their own chart page on their website? Put that in writing!

 

That chart company exist for profit alone. Like every other business, in bad financial climates. Whether they decide to put every Top 75/Top 50 on their website is entirely up to them, but anyway the Top 40 is the only bit, that really matters or counts. Exactly why the BBC, will never use more than a Top 40. The lower you get down the more out of sync it becomes, always has & open to hype.

 

The information shouldn't be secretive though. It's a free country, it's not as if we don't have a right to information. Why can't we see it? It's not as if we should live in a society where everything is a secret.

This is even worse than Chart Stats going. :( I went on that website yesterday morning actually! :snif: RIP.

The information shouldn't be secretive though. It's a free country, it's not as if we don't have a right to information. Why can't we see it? It's not as if we should live in a society where everything is a secret.

I'm sure if you contact them. They'd not decline in giving you any info, that you'd like. Their problem is that they don't want copyrighted info nicked. It is an offence. Although I wouldn't be so sure about their computers. It's Milward Brown that has the computers & just sends their info over.

 

Free Country? I think that ceased to be in about 1997. Have you been on Radio or TV lately? Can't do nothing or say anything, coz it might upset someone or other...

I'm sure if you contact them. They'd not decline in giving you any info, that you'd like. Their problem is that they don't want copyrighted info nicked. It is an offence. Although I wouldn't be so sure about their computers. It's Milward Brown that has the computers & just sends their info over.

 

I thought Milward Brown *was* effectively the OCC? :huh:

No, Milward Brown are an independent company employed by the OCC

 

Their current contract ends in 2014

As of last night, another site called http://scans.chartarchive.org/UK/ - which gave access to pretty much all Music Week reports pre-2007, photocopied from the magazine edition - has gone. It comes up with another page which gives links to download charts, but it doesn't look trustworthy at all.

That site is owned by the same person that owns Charts Stats. The links you see are adverts placed by the hosting company, they just lead to more links.

another sad day for chart fans. Looks like we're returning to the 90s info wise, shame on the OCC, all this will be counter productive in the long run

That site is owned by the same person that owns Charts Stats. The links you see are adverts placed by the hosting company, they just lead to more links.

Yeah, I noticed that when the "catched copy" sent me to the Chart Stats page. How come it wasn't taken down when Chart Stats was? The OCC can't have not known about it if the two are linked together.

Yeah, I noticed that when the "catched copy" sent me to the Chart Stats page. How come it wasn't taken down when Chart Stats was? The OCC can't have not known about it if the two are linked together.

The OCC apparently only object to websites holding copyright data in a searchable database which allows full charts to be displayed. The OCC don't have a problem with websites that just list chart runs or peak positions. The chartarchive.org scan website contained scans of charts taken from Music Week (including Record Mirror, to whom Music Week own the copyright) and Launch so it would have been up to these publications to have made a complaint. I don't think it would have been something that the OCC would have got involved with.

 

The OCC apparently only object to websites holding copyright data in a searchable database which allows full charts to be displayed. The OCC don't have a problem with websites that just list chart runs or peak positions. The chartarchive.org scan website contained scans of charts taken from Music Week (including Record Mirror, to whom Music Week own the copyright) and Launch so it would have been up to these publications to have made a complaint. I don't think it would have been something that the OCC would have got involved with.

Ah I see, cheers. There's one or two sites I know that should be safe as they fit the description of which the OCC don't have a problem with, although there's one site - one I use quite frequently now - that's at risk. I just hope the OCC decide to update their archives to match the qualities Chart Stats gave. but I know many members on Haven have tried tell the them this and no joy as of yet.

No, Milward Brown are an independent company employed by the OCC

 

Their current contract ends in 2014

Arhh, glad someone else understands.

 

Though I doubt they'll lose the contract, as Milward Brown are the biggest research company in the UK. They've swallowed up Gallup, BMRB & MRIB. So, there are not many others left.

 

Next time someone stops you on the street & says "Would you like to do a survey" (before you kick them in the goolies) have a look at their paperwork. The heading will most likely say "Milward Brown Research".

 

OCC (Official Charts Company) was just the new name taken by CIN (Chart Information Network) in the 90s.

Edited April 3, 201312 yr by davetaylor

Very frustrating to find the chart archive site containing scans from Record Mirror and Music Week has gone. Of course there are books that print the weekly top 40 and I have bought copies of these but -

 

1. I rarely used the site for the charts themselves, but mainly for other information the scanned pages contained.

 

2. I used to own copies of many of the issues of Record Mirror and Music Week from which pages were scanned, but had to get rid of many of them for reasons of storage space.

 

3. I've often visited both the British Newspaper Library and The British Library at St Pancras to do research, sometimes looking through issues that I used to own.

 

A useful resource has been lost.