Today I noticed an editor was adding a large number of new releases with no source information which I thought couldn’t exist. These ere Eurovision Song Contest compilations for early years, one album per year (e.g.: here, here, here). He was also adding every track as a new recording. I assumed he was just making up releases that didn’t exist, all with dozens of dupes, but he explained the releases were downloaded from Soulseek, and that he would identify and merge the tracks.
The discussion I had with him is here.
So that leaves me with a doubt: can any folder shared on Soulseek, which is just a folder on some person’s computer, be a release? We had a discussion release about torrents, but I think it’s different, because:
- Torrents have a fixed list of files, with a fixed file names. Anyone with that torrrent will get the same files. With this kind of P2P sharing, people just share folders on their computer, the folders can change, files can be added and removed, names can be changed, etc.
- The torrent file includes the list of files and trackers show this information publicly, so you have evidence that this content exists. With this kind of P2P programs, it really is just a folder in some guy’s computer, it can change at any time and disappear as soon as he deletes it or goes offline. There is no evidence it ever existed.
I feel we shouldn’t just take a folder in someone’s computer as a release, especially as there is no way to prove it existed and hasn’t changed — even a “digital bootleg” should have a fixed list of files and a way to prove it exists, — but I know many people here have a more permissive view of these things, so I’d like to hear what you think.
5 Likes
I almost always say “keep it” for digital bootlegs, but this is a rare case where I’d say “no”, since it sounds more like a YouTube or SoundCloud playlist made by people other than the artist, which generally don’t get accepted as releases.
It would be cool if there could be a data structure added for playlists that is designed for that and has UX built around it - like extending LB playlists with MB Release-esque features like edit history, relationships, and CAA integration.
In the absence of that, though, I would not call this a release, for more or less the same reasons you noted.
3 Likes
i think a P2P folder can be a release, in certain cases.
i once downloaded an “official” Soulseek version of an album that the artist was sharing themself. to me, that’s obviously a release, and has been added as such (by another editor who beat me to the punch): Release “FR!!ENDLY F!!RE W!!LL NOT BE TOLERATED” by PEROXIIDE - MusicBrainz
if a “compilation” distributed this way is widespread enough (and complete enough, i.e., contains actual designed cover art, very consistent tracklist, etc) to be confused for official, it could also be added, in my opinion. if, for no other reason, so it doesn’t accidentally get added as official later. but i’ll only personally add these in very special circumstances, like if they compile unreleased tracks, or other things like that.
so WRT this eurovision example, i don’t think i would add this, no. there’s no cover art and it doesn’t seem especially well-circulated. especially seeing that there’s already another bootleg for those same years on MB. much like calculator.ftvb i’m also usually in the camp of keeping digital bootlegs as a rule (because i think they’re neat), so i wouldn’t put in an edit to remove it… but i wouldn’t vote “no” to removing it, either.
6 Likes
Is this only for compilations of previously available things? What about a complete live concert recording that’s only circulating on non-“fixed” P2P, for example?
I think it’s fine to delete if it appears to be a lazily added .mp3 dump with no info other than a title and a tracklisting. I would not delete ones that have appear to have significant effort in either making the bootleg (well-curated compilations or a bootleg live concert recording) or something that is very carefully added to the database by the editor adding it.
I would make an exception for digital bootlegs that is just a mirror of a playlist on a streaming platform, i.e. Apple Music Essentials playlists and similar, which don’t really have a purpose in the database and are routinely deleted.
3 Likes
I haven’t thought about this kind of P2P sharing since Kazaa was cool, but thinking about it after seeing these releases, I do think there are exceptions. One is what you said, an official album would always be appropriate to add, no matter how it was released (if the artist is sharing it himself, it’s an official release).
Another would be “new” content, that hasn’t been shared before. E.g. a live bootleg. Maybe it came from a CD that hasn’t been shared widely or maybe was recorded directly from the soundboard by an engineer that shared it on Soulseek. In any case, those are real new recordings that exist, official or not. And in both cases, you should make an effort to document it.
But I don’t really think just sharing a folder of previously released tracks makes it a release.
From what I understand, yes. But the problem with programs like Soulseek is you can’t verify it.
Is this closer to “don’t share your own mix tapes?” Just a tape that was placed on Soulseek instead of a cassette.
On a different side of the argument… is this for real? If someone did manage to collect an example of every single from every Eurovision over a number of years, then that is quite a project as some of those tracks will be really obscure. If the submitter has AcoustIDs for every track then I would be surprised.
1 Like
Yes, but aren’t all unofficial compilations just digital mixtapes? The same goes for torrents which people previously argued should be allowed.
The user who added the releases probably assumed it was, but it’s just something he downloaded on Soulseek, you can’t really unless you reviewed every track. It’s similar to the torrent that was discussed before, an editor really did review every track and it turned out there were lots of mistakes.
On a more general note, I started this topic because I know I’m more conservative about this kind of thing than many people here, but even more permissive editors are arguing against adding “bootleg compilations” that are just folder on someone’s computer, so we do have a clear consensus. I will let the editor know.
Not really. I make a tape for two of my mates. It is distributed, but not really wide enough to say it should be in MB>
I find that people who are anti-torrent are weird. I add plenty of concert bootlegs, or compilations of hard to find tracks that appeared on torrents.
Personally I think - how wide was this distributed? And focus on those Apple playlists that are clearly not allowed as a guide.
This Soulseek Euro collection took effort. And no doubt got a lot of downloaders. I’d include it, but also want to find a way to link it to the other torrent you quote. Especially as I expect they are related in content.
1 Like