Limits on vilifying titles? Spam releases?

[mmirG]

@outsidecontext

I think the way we work together is completely separate from what music we accept. Having ethics guide our community and the way we interact is absolutely desirable. But excluding music, music that exists and has been recorded and released, is a dangerous path to go. I am not sure where one would draw the line.

@reosarevok

I strongly dislike that, say, nazi bands exist, but that doesn’t mean I think we should forbid people from adding them to the database. If someone makes cover art using child porn or revenge porn or any other actually illegal content, I’d expect that to be removed, since it’s actually illegal. But I would obviously not expect us to remove, say, Scorpions’ Virgin Killer nor its cover.

The line drawn by “actual illegal content” seems about right to me.
If something is judged by a society as so negative that it’s worth making laws to prevent or punish then using those laws as the line seems well founded.

[outsidecontext]

@mmirG

The line drawn by “actual illegal content” seems about right to me.If something is judged by a society as so negative that it’s worth making laws to prevent or punish then using those laws as the line seems well founded.

Agreed on that (although it leads to the question on which jurisdiction this should be based).

There is also one major distinction to be made: MusicBrainz for the most part deals about the metadata and not the content, with the exception of the cover art. So while the content of a release might be illegal, purely stating the fact that a release exists in most cases should be not. Cover art, or lyrics, are a completely different story, and you can more easily convince me to remove a certain piece of content information. But I am very opposed to removing the metadata, although I realize there might be cases where e.g. the track titles are to be considered illegal. But even in this case MB should remove as little information as possible.

[sparkinson]

Discogs 卐 Fascists

also looks like a fun(??) example. Complete with imagery that is harmless and touchy in some jurisdictions.

[sparkinson]

@CallerNo6

IMO this is a great place to use tags

Agreed. On the other hand, the downside of folksonomy is that I don’t know what to expect from „explicit“. Someone interjecting „fuck“ into the lyrics? Dirty words in the tracklist? Goatse man on the cover art?

[Freso]

@mmirG

“Ethics” has far broader meanings, especially in relation to organisations. Organizational ethics is a real thing.There is at least one other major online project which is slowly coming unstuck due to ethics being ignored as an important element of how humans work together.

MusicBrainz’ (and by extension MetaBrainz’) “organisational ethics” are described in this document:
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Social_Contract

Note this part:

MusicBrainz is interested in all types of music: MusicBrainz aims to collect information about all types of music. Published/unpublished, popular/fringe, western/non-western and human/non-human music should all be entered into MusicBrainz. MusicBrainz does not discriminate on sex, religion, race or controversial viewpoints. MusicBrainz does not prefer one type of music over another, which also means that MusicBrainz does not condemn or condone any of the music catalogued in the database. Editors and voters are expected to tolerate viewpoints that may differ from their own.

(Emphasis mine)

But also note that that is only one part of the document. Our organisational ethics are further explored in:
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Code_of_Conduct
and
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/About/Privacy_Policy

I’m personally against any editor’s judgement based removal of valid data. If a court (under US/Californian jurisdiction) finds that we should remove a given piece of data, then that’s how it is, but until a judge has decreed this, we should not omit facts based on what might or might not be legal or not. We want to be able to “talk about” all music, not just the nice kind that everybody can agree with. I guess our Data Removal Policy doesn’t talk about this specific case, but it should still be pretty clear that we don’t remove data on a whim.

[mmirG]

@Freso

I’m personally against any editor’s judgement based removal of valid data. If a court (under US/Californian jurisdiction) finds that we should remove a given piece of data, then that’s how it is, but until a judge has decreed this, we should not omit facts based on what might or might not be legal or not.

This would seem to imply that you are think revenge porn and child porn should stay until a legal judgement is obtained.

This would seem to conflict with what reosarevok wrote earlier in this thread.

@reosarevok

If someone makes cover art using child porn or revenge porn or any other actually illegal content, I’d expect that to be removed, since it’s actually illegal.

Waiting for a legal judgement might well also conflict with MusicBrainz commerical partner’s ethics policies. And produce negative public perceptions of MB.

[aerozol]

[quote=“mmirG, post:26, topic:63060”]
This would seem to imply that you are think revenge porn and child porn should stay until a legal judgement is obtained.
[/quote]Data about such releases should stay until a legal judgement is obtained.
Which is notably different to hosting/providing the actual content (cover art is the exception unfortunately, but I think takedown requests would have to go to the Internet Archive because they host it?)

[Zas]

@mfmeulenbelt

MusicBrainz has 30 commercial customers.

@mmirG

Waiting for a legal judgement might well also conflict with MusicBrainz commerical partner’s ethics policies.

MusicBrainz has no commercial customers or commercial partners, only supporters or donors.
If their interests conflict with MusicBrainz’s ones, they can just stop to support the project.

[mmirG]

@Zas

MusicBrainz has no commercial customers or commercial partners, only supporters or donors.If their interests conflict with MusicBrainz’s ones, they can just stop to support the project.

Thanks for clarifying - incorrect terms can get in the way of understanding.

@Zas

If their interests conflict with MusicBrainz’s ones, they can just stop to support the project.

I am puzzled by the word “just”.
Are you saying it would be even easier for supporters and donors to with-hold money from MB? (Than if they were legal partners.)

[mfmeulenbelt]

@Zas

MusicBrainz has no commercial customers or commercial partners, only supporters or donors.If their interests conflict with MusicBrainz’s ones, they can just stop to support the project.

The page with supporters shows 30 commercial companies that pay (ok, “support”) MusicBrainz in exchange for its data. If it looks like a duck…

Not that I mind, of course.