Free Downloads hosted on Hypeddit

[JÃ_germaestro]

Hello everyone, I wanted to make a topic here for discussion first before submitting a ticket on this.

Hypeddit is a platform that artists use to trade free downloads or other perks for exposure and engagement. It works by putting up an intermediate webpage requiring the user to jump through hoops such as liking the song or following the artist on various platforms before delivering the perk. Hypeddit is a common way for EDM artists to release free music, especially things like unofficial remixes that would have licensing issues if they tried to sell them, so instead they “trade” them for engagement. They pop up all the time on Soundcloud.

There are 2 main options provided through Hypeddit: Link Gates, and Download Gates. Link Gates send the user to a different webpage away from Hypeddit, while Download Gates serve the user a direct download to a file hosted by Hypeddit (usually an mp3, flac, or wav, sometimes a zip with multiple versions)

At the moment, MusicBrainz does not allow Hypeddit links to be entered as external URLs, with the notice “Please don’t enter bundled/shortened URLs, enter the destination URL(s) instead.”

This notice is correct when it comes to Link Gates: we should indeed be entering the URL of the destination page that the user is brought to. However I don’t think this is correct when it comes to Download Gates. In those cases the link IS the location of the direct download. The file is hosted on Hypeddit, and the download sits at this URL with the button exposed through javascript/serverside OAuth.

For songs in which the only release is through this Hypeddit platform, this restriction makes it impossible to enter the correct free download link. In these cases I have been marking the Soundcloud URLs as “download for free”, which is not really correct. Also I think it is worth noting that I have personally found several cases of SoundCloud streams being taken down, but the free download still being active on Hypeddit when you search for it directly. In those cases it would be VERY useful for MB to catalogue the download URL.

I don’t know if it is possible for MB to detect if the URL is a Link Gate or a Download Gate and only restrict the former, but if it isn’t then I think all Hypeddit links should be unrestricted and rely on editors to know the difference. In my corner of interest I find the Download Gates to be vastly more common than Link Gates so I wouldn’t see this as opening the floodgates on bad URLs.

Interested in other’s thoughts on this. Maybe this is not an oversight and there is a good reason for Download Gates to be restricted.

[afrocat]

I agree, hypeddit links should be whitelisted. They were blocked in 2022 without any discussion AFAICT

MBS-12401

And there’s another thread from earlier this year about the exact same thing

Hypeddit isn't always used as link shortener

MusicBrainz classifies Hypeddit as a URL shortener, but some artists also use it to let users download their tracks for “free” in exchange for a repost or follow on some other platform. For example, this SoundCloud track (added to MusicBrainz here) links to Hypeddit and requires users to repost the track before allowing them to download it. Hypeddit’s website advertises this feature as a “download gate”. I think these types of “download for free” links should be allowed in MusicBrainz, but perha…

If we can’t whitelist hypeddit for the free download relationship, maybe a custom relationship is needed, like we have for Allmusic for example, or maybe a new “download gate” rel type

All that being said, personal opinion warning ahead(!!)

I don't like download gates >:(

I’ve always thought download gates to be awful, sites like theartistunion, Hive, Toneden, Hypeddit, and click.dj are terrible because they can make you follow a bunch of accounts, like, repost and leave comments on soundcloud just to download a file that’s not even guaranteed to be lossless / high quality, just whatever the artist feels like sharing.
I’ve had a second soundcloud account for years just to use with download gates, so my soundcloud feed doesn’t get completely infested with stuff I don’t want to see.
I honestly can’t believe artists willingly pay for services like these, it feels like they’re squeezing their fanbase for likes / reposts etc.
Download gates have always been disliked in general, see these reddit threads - 1 2 3 4

[jesus2099]

If it works as you describe, if you need to subscribe to lots of “social” networks and republish a lot of posts and everything, in order to download a “free” file, then I would rather keep on blocking these download gate URL in MB.
Such a gate is then like a (pay) wall.

[JÃ_germaestro]

I don’t like download gates either, but they are not dissimilar to some free downloads on Bandcamp which require the user to enter their email address and postal code which subscribes them to an artist updates via email.

[calculator.ftvb]

@jesus2099

rather keep on blocking these download gate URL in MB.
Such a gate is then like a (pay) wall.

We don’t block links to paid stores, though.

Calling these “free” does seem to be a stretch, though.

@JÃ_germaestro

free downloads on Bandcamp which require the user to enter their email address and postal code

Agreed - maybe we shouldn’t mark those as “free”, since it’s kind of misleading. Though to be fair nearly all “free” for-profit services you’re paying for, by letting them market to you or use your data.