This question has been up many times. I’m talking about the following:
- A bootleg compilation, often a V/A compilation, of digital files.
- Circulated on the internet, often originating from a pirate blog where they link to file hosting sites or torrent for download.
- They often have a specific name, a front artwork, and are often part of long numbered series of releases.
I thought the issue was, if not settled, at least strongly leaning towards yes they can be added as releases, since this thread: Inappropriate releases in the database
where style leader reosarevok and auto-editor aerozol, as I understood, stood on the yes side. However, everyone did not agree on where to draw the line and I guess there was no “official” answer or 100% consensus.
Anyway, since that thread I have since let such releases be, and instead fixed them of issues like I would any other release for e.g. my subscribed artists.
But just recently I spent quite some time fixing a large, and somewhat poorly entered, such release, only to find it was then deleted, by three other auto-editors. This was a V/A compilation of mp3s, originating from a pirate blog, it had a name and artwork and was possible to find in other places too.
Now, to be clear. I don’t mind that those editors deleted it. I don’t need to have those releases on MB. I think they are not that useful, are often added with low quality of data, and would be happy with a guideline that restricted their existence on MB.
What I’m saying is can we please have a guideline, so it’s clear that one should not waste a long time fixing releases which are then deleted.
My rough proposal to start out would be that maybe we could make some more additions to the paragraph about bootlegs in Beginners Guide - MusicBrainz
Proposal 1:
While we welcome bootlegs, we discourage adding home-made compilations or mixtapes that are not widely available. Information about them is typically only useful to the individual who created them and any information about them is only useful to the individual who created them.
We also discourage bootleg compilations or mixtapes that are only available online and only consist of already existing and available recordings. These kinds of releases are often shared via torrent, file hosting sites, or other file sharing services. However, if such a release contains recordings not available elsewhere, it is allowed.
A direct digital rip of an official CD should not be added, but a pirate release with tracklist not previously existing (e.g. including demos or remixes in addition to the content of the official CD release) can be.
In all cases, if you do add pirate releases, please do not add any download / purchase links to them; we want to document them, but not actively promote piracy.
Or, proposal 2, the opposite guideline:
While we welcome bootlegs, we discourage adding home-made compilations or mixtapes that are not widely available, only shared with a small group of individuals. However, bootleg compilations that have been shared openly, for example on a public blog or forum, are allowed.
Information about pirate releases is allowed if they are not equivalent to an official release: a direct digital rip of an official CD should not be added, but a pirate release including demos or remixes in addition to the content of the official CD release can be.
In all cases, if you do add pirate releases, please do not add any download / purchase links to them; we want to document them, but not actively promote piracy.
I would personally prefer proposal 1.
But much more than that, I would prefer there to be some guideline than none so we know whether to fix or delete these releases.