I think including “online bootleg compilations that have been distributed to at least one person” is setting far too low a bar for a valid release. I imagine that trying to come up with some higher bar for distribution or popularity will only complicate things further, and I agree with the opinion already shared that these kinds of compilations introduce a great deal of work for very little value and should probably be excluded from MB.
2 Likes
For me, some kind of distribution is key. And yes torrents and other downloads are distribution. If they are just a track list on a webpage, then no. If they actually exist and the submitter can add AcoustIDs then at least we have some chance to merge them into other tracks.
When something like this hits my subscribed list, I just adjust the search to exclude that username for a few days.
As these are just big long lists of every half decent track released in a year then yes I agree they are annoying to handle. Especially when no AcoustIDs or hints as to which versions of tracks they are. But they can also be ignored.
The reason I say keep them is I have bootlegs like this of rare tracks that are the only way to find a rare track. Trying to write a guideline to ban one but keep the other is going to be confusing. That is creating a guideline on personal taste.
3 Likes
It’s why I said:
To keep rare track compilations.
Real existing releases are verifiable by more people than just the original editor of a home-made mixtape.
2 Likes
Who makes the judgement call as to what is legit?
I have many “fan made compilations” of stuff that has been previously released, but that fan decided there was a common thread worth making a new compilation from.
Yeah, these examples are huge messy heaps of tracks. At least these have real track times on them unlike when someone adds “Now This is What I call Music 1991” from an LP without any lengths. I find that much more annoying as there is no hint as to which recording it is.
You can just ignore them. You don’t have to do anything with them.
Some countries have little concern for copyright. And put compilations together of music that is harder for them to get their hands on. This is another reason why documenting it should be okay.
An example label from Russia
CDs of bootlegged tracks. Put out to make things accessible. These examples are actual CDs, but I bet many copies are traded via torrents. These are legit and allowed. These are just someone making home-made mixtapes on a professional CD pressing machine.
5 Likes
As I replied in one of your edits, I see no point in undoing the work of entering them into the database. I entered what I had in hand. They’re clearly bootlegs but have been in wide circulation. Might help others. What’s the benefit of dropping them even? Just drop the release label.
5 Likes
You don’t realise the burden you add on all serious MB editor shoulders when adding 33 fake releases with 200+ unverifiable tracks, each. No edit notes, no version information, no AcoustID, no disc ID, and probably no existence.
Each time one wants to cleanup, they search and hit a wall and lose time. Same for voters.
We shouldn’t add random CD-R we find at home. Especially when they contain nothing noteworthy but mainstream easy to find songs in mass.
But if they are distributed bootlegs, which they seem to be, how are they fake? I mean, the delivery system of burning your own discs is unbelievably time consuming. But so is adding 33 releases. And who knows, since it appears to have been distributed via files to burn the CDs, maybe some others who actually have it as well might be able to help fill in the missing data. I know chances are realisticly slim, but it could happen.
2 Likes
A google search for “favourite hits” “don music” returns results consistent with the original editor’s statement that this series was “in wide circulation in russia”. I acknowledge all the annoyances that @jesus2099 cites, but I don’t see a clear distinction between these and the many low data quality bootleg (or even licensed) physical releases present in the database.
2 Likes
Maybe requiring AcoustID submission as proof that the release exists (and the exact songs it contains) would help?
1 Like
I didn’t find anything else than 4 or 5 russian bit torrent sites.
Did you?
These do exist in real life.
No, I didn’t. But that’s enough to confirm it’s not just someone’s “home-made mixtape”.
So do torrents.
4 Likes
It could be argued that Torrents exist in a more permanent form than Spotify/iTunes/Deezer. At least you get to keep the files once you click on that link.
4 Likes
It’s nonsense.
I’m a torrent leecher and I need to improve my upload/download quota on 3 or 4 trackers.
So, I put up 200+ random but famous mp3 files together and call it My Favourite Hits of England.
I make the front cover with random background coloured jpg found online and a big crappy font.
And then upload it.
Later on, my quota is still bad because I suck.
But now I have a pattern so I can quickly build My Favourite Hits of America, of Japan, of France, of Jamaica, of Belgium, etc.
Then this crap can be added to MusicBrainz by anyone.
And here you are MB editors and voters! Cope with that! Quite irresponsible.
Do we accept to be an encyclopedia of that?
7 Likes
You have released music for others to download. Just because you have no legal right, why is this not a release? It exists, so it is documented.
Sony releases 50 year old Pink Floyd bootlegs on Spotify\Deezer\iTunes each year so they can claim copyright on someone else’s creation. They have naff looking generic covers and often totally wrong dates. And then they cancel them after three months. MB tracks these even though they are streamed only for a short time.
Torrents exist for as long as someone seeds them. And they are real things you can download unlike those scummy copyright claiming streams from Sony.
I personally hate those Sony streams but accept them are added to MB as they exist. Though ironically they often end up as torrents…
People upload and document these Russian bootlegs as they own them. They spend time adding the track lists. I agree it would help if there was AcoustIDs or something. But just ignore them. No one is saying you must work on them to make the legit.
3 Likes
Too much effort. Just create a YouTube playlist and add it 
Guess how long it took before it was removed.
Why would random torrents be okay but playlists not?
1 Like
I don’t know this stuff but maybe it’s not the same kind.
It sounds like you mean bootlegs in the sense of unofficial live recordings.
These are newly released recordings.
Really something completely different and worthy of interest.
On the other hand, the torrents we have are just mixtapes of known recordings, already released many times.
There is no more reason to add these mixtapes than mine.
As I copied my cassette and CD mixtapes for friends and family, I should add them to MB, introducing difficulties with recording versions in all artists.
But I don’t care, too bad for these artist subscribers.
No AcoustID because it’s on cassette.
And for the CD, well I don’t have them anymore, so no Disc ID.
Apparently it’s the way to go, now.
I don’t think the intent of the torrent uploader was to flood MB, at all.
If they even knew MB, they probably wouldn’t think their mixtapes belongs here.
It doesn’t make sense in MB, it’s just like any other personal mixtapes of widely distributed recordings (like mine).
Exactly, I agree.
We already have enough infinite benevolent “work” to do with real existing stuff to waste time with these.
1 Like
There are bootleg compilations out there with songs that at least by AcoustID would otherwise be missing from MB. How would you distinguish between “important” and “unimportant” mixtapes in a clear rule that is easy to understand and apply?
2 Likes
(This is not me arguing for the inclusion of YouTube playlists)
A similar question: why would bootleg CD compilations be okay and bootleg downloadable compilations not?