Is it allowed to point to MP3 URLs?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fd2a5023580> #<Tag:0x00007fd2a50234b8>

Hi all.
In this edit


there’s a link to a private webserver, where you can download the music in MP3 format. Isn’t this breaking some copyright rules and thus shouldn’t this be removed from MB’s database?
2 Likes

I always prefer the most honest edit notes possible - edit notes are not public unless someone is logged in. I’ve always assumed this means google etc also doesn’t scrape them. If that’s the case I don’t think it really matters (nobody’s going to see it apart from hardcore MB editors). Someone correct me if I’m wrong?

Putting the link in as a relationship is a different matter.

1 Like

Yeah well… what are you gonna do when the link will not work anymore (which might be even tomorrow)? It’s nothing “official”, it’s like someone’s private NAS or similar…
And even if the edit notes are not public unless logged in (which I understand), there might be some “infiltrated” users, which might parse edit notes in search for something illegal and then report users?!
I might as well only be fantasizing… :slight_smile:

Leaving details like that in the edit notes is good. It is a reference to show that the item can be cross checked and confirmed. And reference material can then disappear at short notice - it is the way of the Internet.

That seems a nice “legal” sounding reason? :wink:

Personally I do like to see legal links appearing. Especially to concert bootlegs. I have found some interesting new sources of old and legal bootlegs this way.

What would be wrong to see is an illegal link to a dodgy download of copyright material. A dodgy Warez site holding copyright music, or even a dodgy torrent of copyright music would be bad and should be reported.

But a torrent of a hard to find bootleg boxset in an edit note - that is helping fans keep touch with the real music. I have actually joined a few forums specifically to access links I found in MB notes to find fans sharing legal bootlegs.

This is similar to the question about the Internet Archive links in another forum post.

Or, that’s how I read it. If it is legal, it is fine.

-=-=

Edited to add… and that isn’t a legal link. So should not be there.

Agreed on the “dodgy” part… But nevertheless: usually (at least where I live) you’re allowed to make one digital copy of a release you physically own (when talking about CDs, MCs, vinyls)… and you’re not allowed to share it. This is what that guy is doing, because even though the link is in MB’s edit notes, the site is reachable without any sort of login procedure (it’s not even SSL-secured!)…

YMMV though :wink:

1 Like

You are correct. I just looked at the link and it looks like a personal shared music server as there are playlists on there and multiple users. You should report the edit really.

.CH puts it into Switzerland. Not sure what their laws are with sharing music, but as MB is based in California I don’t think they like links like that.

Edit notes didn’t use to be visible. But they are now… at least partially.
Sometimes I click them and they aren’t there. Sometimes I click them and I see them, but not who said them.

I’m in Switzerland too, don’t actually know the law regarding sharing… I think it’s not allowed…

In fact it is forbidden to upload some copyright protected content to a public reachable/available internet resource.

Anyway: how/where to report that edit?

1 Like

Looking closer and the website owner is actually in Hungary. It ends up with an IT Company. They are probably using the Swiss hosting over the border as more reliable.

If you want to “report” someone there is the button in their profile. Though a few friendly comments in that edit is probably a better start. Add some comments to the image and see if they respond.

I added a few notes to other parts of that edit as they have uploaded a iTunes release, named it a CD due to the dodgy site they picked it up from, and then created a new Release Group for it. You’ll see my comments if you look at the Release.

1 Like

Then I know where the information originally came from (e.g. x filesharing site) which is awesome. I don’t necessarily need access to the files.

To combat people taking money from musicians, better to focus on the big problems. Like Soulseek… and Spotify, Apple, et al :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

It is indeed of no useful indication on a cover art edit.
Nothing tells the cover art is correct for this edition.

4 Likes

If anything it tells us the coverart is guessed. The same link was pasted onto all of the edits for that release, and it is clearly just a copy of the details found in that folder. And that folder is incorrectly labelled.

1 Like