bootleg remixes on Soundcloud

http://discogs.versitio.com/submissions?=AnnaTraXa

Pfff, I dunno: home-made unofficial remixes made vanity-available on Soundcloud... really?

Could be guidelines have changed since, but:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/52150101946973361119e6ac#52150101946973361119e67b
... in which Nik seems to say 'no'.

Anyway: me, I'm only interested in vinyl. I guess I shouldn't even think about it, I know...

There is nothing in the guidelines forbidding them and there are thousands of them in the database.

unofficial mp3 releases are not eligible

I've put up some for removal as has J5. but I'm afraid that will be one hell of a task

syke
unofficial mp3 releases are not eligible

Not true. Illegaly shared content is forbidden (CD/vinyl rips via file sharing sites), but there is nothing forbidding an unauhorized remix the artist himself is sharing on his own site.

StaticGuru
Not true. Illegaly shared content is forbidden (CD/vinyl rips via file sharing sites), but there is nothing forbidding an unauhorized remix the artist himself is sharing on his own site.

yes, very true indeed. Something unofficial requires that you have no rights for the file. For a remix you have rights. Partly unofficial would be something different, but something which is unofficial all the way is not eligible in the file format.

Also, these are basically nothing else as homepressed CD-Rs which are not eligible, meaning these files aren't eligible either

I have filed a request for this. I'm tired of arguing.

StaticGuru
I have filed a request for this. I'm tired of arguing.

no need for that- there you go:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/52150101946973361119e6ac#52150101946973361119e696

that rules those out

and also here:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/52150101946973361119e6ac#52150101946973361119e6a5

"over 3 years ago"

Edit:
Those comments mainly concern DJ mixes anyway.

StaticGuru
"over 3 years ago"

show me a newer statement where he allows it. until then this is the valid ruling and that means those are not eligible

syke
show me a newer statement where he allows it.

Why do you think I filed the request?

StaticGuru
Those comments mainly concern DJ mixes anyway.

which is exactly what we're talking about here.

StaticGuru
Why do you think I filed the request?

dunno, as I see no purpose in it. If sanity prevails those crap homemade mixes won't be allowed anytime soon. And as soon as they are allowed the floodgates for every bullshit homemade CD-R/Cassette will be opened.

And the second those files are eligible, I'll a file with toasty (audio only) having sex onto soundcloud and add it to the db! Also I'll use a nude of ChampionJames as cover ;P And trust me, you don't want neither to happen :D

edit: and then there are of course those weird sounds I posess of another discogs member which then would also be eligible lol

If I'm wrong about this, we have one hell of a removal spree coming up:
http://discogs.versitio.com/explore?fmt=MP3&fmt=Unofficial+Release

syke
which is exactly what we're talking about here.

So is there a communication breakdown here? I'm talking about taking a track and remixing it to a completely new track, not DJ mixes, which is a completely different thing.

syke
And the second those files are eligible, I'll a file with toasty (audio only) having sex onto soundcloud and add it to the db! Also I'll use a nude of ChampionJames as cover ;P And trust me, you don't want neither to happen :D

I already have those..

As I understand it.

Unofficial remix + digital + soundcloud = inelgibile

Original self-released track + digital + soundcloud = eligible

I would get on the horn to nik for specifically clarification if need be.

Also go further back through this s subs, there are more soundcloud remix things:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4988683#latest
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4987462#latest
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4987447#latest
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4987415#latest
etc etc etc

StaticGuru
If I'm wrong about this, we have one hell of a removal spree coming up:

Thats because these things go under the radar. Also a lot of them are incorrectly listed as unofficial such as the podcast (which are perfectly fine AFAIK).

Jayfive
Also go further back through this s sub

At least he's adding a source now :P

StaticGuru
So is there a communication breakdown here? I'm talking about taking a track and remixing it to a completely new track, not DJ mixes, which is a completely different thing.

oh, you meant a DJ set. Sorry, got you wrong there. No I wasn't talking about those. I was talking about people taking track A from Artist A and adding some basslines and creating a "new" track with it.

And honestly, I don't see how we ever will be able to rate these if we include them. If that happens, where is the line drawn? Is a track that essentially gets only a new drum added at the end for 10 seconds a valid remix? Or does it need to be a more complex remix-process? And if the later, how could we ever police that?

Also, if we allow that, how can we justify disallowing all homemade CD-R releases with these "one-off" remixes and DJ mixes? Just because it gets put on soundcloud? If we allow the files, we'd essentially have to allow every homemade CD-R as well. The same goes for "DJ Mixes/DJ sets". If you create a cassette with recordings from the radio, cut out a little here and add a little there, how is that ineligible if we allow these files?

The only real problem with J5's argument "Unofficial remix + digital + soundcloud = inelgibile" is where to draw the line. If I make a one-off remix of the latest Lady Gaga track and put it on soundcloud, no one will give it a listen and no one will ever care. But if David Guetta makes a remix of the same song and puts it in soundcloud, millions will care. Also in case of David Guetta you basically wouldn't know if he actually has the rights to do the mix, so there would be some guessing involved. There may be a problem of interest with there as it would be a double standard. Give the big guy a right the new face doesn't have. And quite honestly, I wouldn't call a remix done by a major artist ineligible, while I'd call a remix by the kid next door who has yet to grow pubic hair ineligible. It is a double standard...

http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/222192#521505a394697336111aed0c
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/521511729469733cfcfa4ca2#521511729469733cfcfa4ca0

nik
'Bootleg' remixes at have been ed to some file sharing site and d for at some undisclosed forum / webpage / blog / MySpace are borderline for inclusion, tending to the side of inclusion.

Well apparently these release are staying, thats not to say the submitter doesnt need an attitude adjustment:
"dear syke, do not stupit man,this is also an release that is missing in database on Discogs !!! Mind your own business !!! Oké ???"
"There is nothing wrong with this release !"
Pm sent to me - "Stay from my releases !!"

100s of digital submissions, links barely ever provided, horrible release notes with '!!' at the end of every sentence.

the full quote from nik is as follows:

"Bootleg" is likely not to be used in the correct, defined manner as outlined in the guidelines.

Home made mixes that are not licensed, official releases, or otherwise notable are not eligible for Discogs.

'Bootleg' remixes at have been ed to some file sharing site and d for at some undisclosed forum / webpage / blog / MySpace are borderline for inclusion, tending to the side of inclusion.

the second sentence clearly state that these kind of mixes the in this case has added are not eligible. I don't see anything that makes them anything but homemade, non licensed, unofficial crap mixes. Per this ruling those are still not eligible. How he can contradict this statement in the same post is beyond me.

also I got a PM. I'd suggest the to read the code of conduct and take some english lessons. Also he basically threatened me in his PM. if this happens again, a SR will be filed.

I had exchange of PMs:
"Look, you are gabber , also hardcore, i see, you don't know anything if this releases of mine !
So, do not stupit with merged my releases, there more people that give me right about my releases!
...
I will do everything to hold this releases here on discogs, there is nothing wrong with it, hold you busy with your hardcore releases, ok ? "

NOTHING annoys me more than the whole 'you cant be involved in any music you arent interested in' or "you cant edit stuff because you like a non-trendy style of music) thing. You dont even have to be interested in music at all to submit and edit in discogs - you just need to understand the guidelines and do the necessary research.

But then I'd expect that from a with a big list of music he 'hates' on his profile.

I dont think theres any getting through between the stubbornness and the ropey english. I could cope with the borderline releases, its the constant "!!" on the release notes that bugging me :P

why do you even reply to people like that? I wouldn't waste my time on individuals like that

syke
why do you even reply to people like that?

Believe me I ask myself that regularly.

Thats ridiculous.
Of course they should be allowed.

What about artists like Late Nite Tuff Guy who have had loads of official and unofficial edits released, but also regularly put free s of unreleased tracks on Soundcloud.
Are people saying those Soundcloud only edits aren't eligible?
Load of people their high quality Soundcloud only WAVs and play them out as they would any "official" release.

disruptive-influence
What about artists like Greg Wilson or Late Nite Tuff Guy who have had loads of official and unofficial edits released, but also regularly put free s of unreleased tracks on Soundcloud.
Are people saying those Soundcloud only edits aren't eligible?
Load of people their high quality Soundcloud only WAVs and play them out as they would any "official" release.

well, so any CD-R with a remix on it that was made in a bedroom should be eligible too? because, that in an essence is what you are demanding for files. and there is absolutely no reason to disallow CD-Rs when we allow files with the same content

syke
the second sentence clearly state that these kind of mixes the in this case has added are not eligible.

You are still confusing mixes with remixes.
You asked for a quote from nik that would prove your old quote wrong. I provided it, and you still won't accept it. I'm pretty stumped here.

Jayfive
thats not to say the submitter doesnt need an attitude adjustment

Oh, believe me, that hasn't been questioned by anyone.

disruptive-influence
What about artists like Greg Wilson or Late Nite Tuff Guy who have had loads of official and unofficial edits released,

we're talking artists here, but an individual (DJ) made his own homemade mix (unlicensed) and ed to Soundcloud on the subs in question? Have I got something distorted? I was wondering about unlicensed material on Discogs being a liability when I ran across this controversy

I might add, the er of that material stated HE made the mix

StaticGuru
You are still confusing mixes with remixes.
You asked for a quote from nik that would prove your old quote wrong. I provided it, and you still won't accept it. I'm pretty stumped here.

and you still fail to see the bigger point. If these mixes/remixes/whatever are acceptable from a source like soundcloud, why aren't they acceptable if they are pressed on a CD-R? Both are essentially the same thing, homemade media with no manufacturing process involved. If you allow those files, you have to allow anything and everything that gets pressed on a CD-R and/or soundcloud. If this is really the way we move forward we will end up with people including audio tracks of pretty much everything that gets added to soundcloud. Imagine a company having a presentation and wanting it to be distributed through all their offices worldwide and they simply put it onto soundcloud for /listening purposes. That would be eligible to discogs (and yes I am aware that if this would be pressed onto a factory made CD or Vinyl it would be eligible, but that is only because of the manufacturing process involved).
Also, we have seen some idiots in the past releasing stuff that hates on discogs and nik in particular, now with this you will give everyone the option to add everything onto discogs. really everything. I could put a mic around my neck and record me 24/7, split it up into 5000 parts, add some standard drum tracks to them, add those to a service like soundcloud and then add 5000 releases to the db under my name (that would be a GREAT way to catch up with Diognes though :D )

Again, there is basically nothing that differentiates soundcloud from CD-Rs and I tend to think only original music from soundcloud should be eligible, not some illegal BS no one really cares about anyway. I really have no problem with documenting bootlegs, but I have a very serious problem with providing people doing illegal stuff a platform to their stuff (also this could have some serious consequences for discogs down the road, as discogs is essentially advertising illegal content through the link that has to be provided for file based releases)

It just occurred to me, is anyone for sure the image used on this material is licensed to be used on this material (or sub)? http://discogs.versitio.com/Ellie-Goulding-Lights-Nikos-Kalogerias-Remix/release/5054786

syke
also this could have some serious consequences for discogs down the road, as discogs is essentially advertising illegal content through the link that has to be provided for file based releases

That is correct. This is how I stumbled across this issue, as I had serious legal questions. This is my background, and I can a huge liability on behalf of Discogs.

mossinterest
It just occurred to me, is anyone for sure the image used on this material is licensed to be used on this material (or sub)? http://discogs.versitio.com/Ellie-Goulding-Lights-Nikos-Kalogerias-Remix/release/5054786

lol nah, it's stolen like the vocals and some (probably most) elements of the beat. I'd seriously love to hear what the lawyers discogs uses say about these releases. Pretty much nothing about these is legal and linking to them might even be close to promoting illegal content. With these releases we are way off from just documenting them as we are now actively linking to them and by linking them we are promoting them.

and btw: is it still an eligible remix if a DJ (or heck, if I'd do it) mixes an existing beat with a vocal track from a different track? Mr. Mystery? And also, is it an eligible remix if the "remixer" just alters the sound volumes a bit? Is it an eligible remix if someone just cuts out the second verse and exchanges it with the fourth verse of the track? Or are we now talking ineligible? Because right now, as Mr.Mystery explains it, all these things would be eligible...

mossinterest
This is my background, and I can a huge liability on behalf of Discogs.

same here

mossinterest
It just occurred to me, is anyone for sure the image used on this material is licensed to be used on this material (or sub)? http://discogs.versitio.com/Ellie-Goulding-Lights-Nikos-Kalogerias-Remix/release/5054786

Don't know, but I dó know that a lot of images that this added to his 'unofficial file releases' are incorrect.
A lot of the times they are not the images provided with the soundcloud-file, but random generic images, especially when they are images of for example white label centres etc.

I have run into this about a month ago because he added some unofficial Queen remixes, and since I am a Queen fan I stumbled upon them.
They were free soundcloud-s, so I ed them (and thus added them to my collection now), but most of them indeed lacked the direct link to the soundcloud-page and had an incorrect image added to it (which I have corrected on the Queen files that I now own)

I think we need to try to get this nailed down better, and in the guidelines.

* Unofficial Remixes available anywhere on any format are eligible.
* Unofficial DJ / Segued Mixes from an Artists own website, Soundcloud (or other such sites), are not eligible.
* Unofficial DJ / Segued Mixes on physical replicated media (vinyl, CD) are eligible.
* Counterfeit on Soundcloud (or other such sites) or on physical duplicated media (cassette, Cdr) are not eligible.
* Counterfeit on physical replicated media (vinyl, CD) are eligible.

Does that make sense to everyone? Are there any problem areas there?

nik
Are there any problem areas there?

Aside from the obvious fact that there will always be borderline cases that we will have to judge on their own merits, theres none that I can see.

nik
* Bootlegs on Soundcloud (or other such sites) or on physical duplicated media (cassette, Cdr) are not eligible.

By bootlegs I take it to mean the 'proper' definition of recordings dressed up to look like an official releases yes? I.e. some random person posting up unreleased Moby tracks on soundcloud or something like that?

Bootlegs normally means live unofficial Cds by an artist. Counterfeits are meant to look like the original.

nik
* Unofficial DJ / Segued Mixes from an Artists own website, Soundcloud (or other such sites), are not eligible.

So these mixes are not eligible?

Silent Servant - SS Output NYC June 2013
https://soundcloud.com/silentservant/silent-servant-dj-set-output
Promoted by Resident Advisor

Silent Servant - Songs For Sleep
https://soundcloud.com/silentservant/songs-for-sleep
Promoted by self-titled mag

edit
RA and self-titled mag links

Sorry yes I mean Counterfeit, have updated my post above.

el_duro
So these mixes are not eligible?

Silent Servant - SS Output NYC June 2013
https://soundcloud.com/silentservant/silent-servant-dj-set-output
Promoted by Resident Advisor

This is what we need to discuss then. When is 'some random mix' acceptable to the database, and when is it not? What other requirements can we see? An artist with an established discography over x years on y formats etc..?

nik
* Unofficial Remixes available anywhere on any format are eligible.

nik
Are there any problem areas there?

yes as said above, there are many legal and ethical problems with this stand (for file based releases). You are now off of documenting releases and onto promoting it as these kind of subs require a link to the source, which is now precicely what all these "watch tv series online" websites do. They link to a streaming service that hosts the illegal content. They claim to not be involved with the illegal practice at all, yet courts worldwide shut these sites down for the promotion of illegal content.

The only way to deal with these while adding them would be to purge the "link required" guideline for those

nik
* Bootlegs on Soundcloud (or other such sites) or on physical duplicated media (cassette, Cdr) are not eligible.

ahem, isn't it kinda ridiculous to say stuff recorded by real musicians is not eligible while an (illegal) one-off remix from a backroom producer is eligible? I strongly disagree to disallow those bootlegs if illegal remixes are eligible. There are certainly way more people interested in the bootleg of an Iron Maiden concert than in the remixes this topic concerns

last but not least, I'd suggest to make anything that is illegal and not released on physical replicated media ineligible

nik
This is what we need to discuss then. When is 'some random mix' acceptable to the database, and when is it not? What other requirements can we see? An artist with an established discography over x years on y formats etc..?

also, what is a remix? how do we know? just because someone calls it remix? And as posted above, is a remix that adds a short radio interview at the end of the track really a remix and eligible just because the "artist" calls it remix?

Good questions, and yes, the outcome of this discussion must go in the guidelines.

nik
Does that make sense to everyone?

Makes perfectly sense to me. I'm all for it.

syke
I'd suggest to make anything that is illegal and not released on physical replicated media ineligible

I agree. Other than that the suggestions are fine and will bring some clarity to an otherwise murky situation.

nik
* Counterfeit on Soundcloud (or other such sites) or on physical duplicated media (cassette, Cdr) are not eligible.

There are lots of counterfeit cassette releases that really should remain on Discogs in my opinion. Or is the above referring to self-recorded/homemade tapes. That's unclear. It may also be quite hard to determine whether a Cdr is counterfeit or not. Artwork is easy to copy these days.

syke
I'd suggest to make anything that is illegal and not released on physical replicated media ineligible

Then you need to define what "illegal" is. This may differ per country and usually is up to courts to decide.

jweijde
Then you need to define what "illegal" is. This may differ per country

Discogs is in the United States and subject to U.S. laws.

jweijde
There are lots of counterfeit cassette releases that really should remain on Discogs in my opinion

Why? I'm not sure I understand why counterfeits should remain at all in any format.

jweijde
Then you need to define what "illegal" is. This may differ per country and usually is up to courts to decide.

please show my any country that does not feature basic copyright law. The remixes in the OP are pure and simple theft, nothing else and you can bet your ass that they did not own any rights to the songs they stole and "remixed"

And to be precise, I do hope that some label exec sees these tracks and sues these guys into bankruptcy

syke
please show my any country that does not feature basic copyright law.

Any country that hasnt signed the Berne Convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

Most notably Taiwan, the bane of anyone who buy anime soundtrack albums.

just because a country hasn't signed an international treaty, does not mean that they do not have copyrigt laws

syke
please show my any country that does not feature basic copyright law.

First, allofmp3? It was a pirate site by almost any western label's definition, but it was legal and legit as far as Russians were concerned.

To add to what Jayfive wrote, copyright laws effectively don't exist if they aren't enforced. There are several countries which have signed the Berne Convention, but in practice it means nothing.

as we're on topic, how about these that i recently added:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Billy-Scher-Of-American-Royalty-East-Creep/release/5061270
http://discogs.versitio.com/Billy-Scher-Of-American-Royalty-Bum-Party/release/5063098

they're soundcloud s but theyre d at the official artist webpage as mixes
http://american-royalty.com/mixes

Why s bother to list unofficial releases in the first place is beyond my understanding (especially digital ones, already lame to start with). There is so much "official" that needs to be cataloged. Maybe we should focus on that. Fortunately we have an unofficial section already, so I do not see a big deal if something gets cataloged and placed there, just don't mix it up with the real "official" releases.

brunorepublic
but it was made to look legal and legit

Fixed that for thee :P

brunorepublic
There are several countries which have signed the Berne Convention, but in practice it means nothing.

Indeed. Bootlegging is rife in China, but it's western companies that get damaged. It suits the chinese to have more money in their economy and at the same time damaging the competition.

Flood the market with low price products, eliminate the competition, raise the price - it's a basic tenet of business. It's how, for example, the Japanese beat the americans into submission in the electronics market in the 80s.

cdremixcollector
Why s bother to list unofficial releases in the first place is beyond my understanding (especially digital ones, already lame to start with). There is so much "official" that needs to be cataloged. Maybe we should focus on that. Fortunately we have an unofficial section already, so I do not see a big deal if something gets cataloged and placed there, just don't mix it up with the real "official" releases.

If you don't have anything worthwile to add to a topic, please don't say anything.

cdremixcollector
Why s bother to list unofficial releases in the first place is beyond my understanding (especially digital ones, already lame to start with).

If it exists and is eligible it is to be submitted. No submission is more important than any other. Be it authorised by all copyright owners or otherwise.

Also you assume that all submitters have a big pile of things to submit and are making choices as to what to add first. Not so.

I for one have no backlog and just occasionally happen across something that isnt here already. Which most recently was 5 McDonalds happy meals toys, a cd by a band my ex-gf works for and a casio keyboard demo :P

brunorepublic
First, allofmp3? It was a pirate site by almost any western label's definition, but it was legal and legit as far as Russians were concerned.

To add to what Jayfive wrote, copyright laws effectively don't exist if they aren't enforced. There are several countries which have signed the Berne Convention, but in practice it means nothing.

just because something is not enforced, does not mean it does not exist, and that was jaweidjes point. and that site was certainly anything but legal in Russia, they just didn't care for it. The laws exists, whether or not they are enforced is an entirely diff. discussion. The point here was the basic definition of legal

Jayfive
No submission is more important than any other. Be it authorised by all copyright owners or otherwise.

I disagree here. a one-off remix done by some guy who can't even grow hair yet is not even close to as important as an official release by a well respected artist (who actually created music himself and not just ripped off people who actually have creativity)

syke
I disagree here. a one-off remix done by some guy who can't even grow hair yet is not even close to as important as an official release by a well respected artist (who actually created music himself and not just ripped off people who actually have creativity)

Ok, then we need new sections on the artist pages: "Important" and "Unimportant". :P

syke
I disagree here. a one-off remix done by some guy who can't even grow hair yet is not even close to as important as an official release by a well respected artist (who actually created music himself and not just ripped off people who actually have creativity)

I think you are getting 'importance' mixed up with 'eligibility'. If it is eligible all submissions are equal and should be submitted and voted on with equal care.

CDremix is saying that its not good that submitter are adding unofficial release to the detrimental of official ones and that that is a bad thing. I say that is not the case both in of being true and in of actually happening.

DonHergeFan
Ok, then we need new sections on the artist pages: "Important" and "Unimportant". :P

Oh yeah, I could see the dance music snobs having a field day with that XD

Jayfive
I think you are getting 'importance' mixed up with 'eligibility'. If it is eligible all submissions are equal and should be submitted and voted on with equal care.

no I'm certainly not. I'm saying that these "remixes" are crap and nothing that should be documented at all, because it is just helping these people stealing more intellectual property

syke
just because a country hasn't signed an international treaty, does not mean that they do not have copyright laws

US has very strict copyright laws. I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing in this conversation. Since when is it legal to 'rip-off' any part of an artist's material, pervert it with electronic sounds, call it a remix, and distribute it to the public? In the US there is very strict guidelines on derivative work. The material in question here is not just a sampler, but the entire identifiable work of another artist.

syke
I'm saying that these "remixes" are crap and nothing that should be documented at all, because it is just helping these people stealing more intellectual property

Which is an eligibility issue. Not one of importance. I dont like these things much myself but if they are allowed I'll comment, edit and vote on them as I would anything else.

Copyright owners will not come knocking on discogs door before soundcloud or whatever other site the track is hosted. In of copyright and intellectual property discogs have nothing to fear - do you not think they have lawyers of their own to consult? The absolute worst that will happen is a solicitors letter will plop in the inbox and Discogs will consider what action (if any) to take.

After all you're on a website where T-mobile were eventually told where they could shove their cease-and-desist letter thanks to that promo CD first doctrine ruling.

StaticGuru
If you don't have anything worthwile to add to a topic, please don't say anything.

Who says what's worthwile and what's not? Last time I checked we can give out our opinions on the forums. There is a button "ignore " under every thread response, click on it if my opinions bother you that much.

mossinterest
Since when is it legal to 'rip-off' any part of an artist's material, pervert it with electronic sounds, call it a remix, and distribute it to the public?

It's not, it's just not usually worth pursuing. Artist and labels arent going to spend money employing legal people to take down some no-marks remix that gets 100 views a year on soundcloud

Thats why bootlegs exist from vinyl to files. Its expensive and difficult to do anything about it. At very very most you are just going to get something taken down.

mossinterest
The material in question here is not just a sampler, but the entire identifiable work of another artist.

Issues of intellectual property are no concern of discogs. Only what is and isnt eligible. Let discogs staff and their lawyers worry about that :P

cdremixcollector
Who says what's worthwile and what's not? Last time I checked we can give out our opinions on the forums.

I think he's trying to say that saying that official release should be prioritised over unofficial (but eligible) releases is not really in the spirit of this discussion or discogs in general.

Jayfive
Which is an eligibility issue. Not one of importance. I dont like these things much myself but if they are allowed I'll comment, edit and vote on them as I would anything else.

no it is not. For the last time, even if we consider these valid additions to the database I maintain that releases by real musicians are by far more important than these ripoffs.

Jayfive
Copyright owners will not come knocking on discogs door before soundcloud or whatever other site the track is hosted. In of copyright and intellectual property discogs have nothing to fear - do you not think they have lawyers of their own to consult? The absolute worst that will happen is a solicitors letter will plop in the inbox and Discogs will consider what action (if any) to take.

and that my friend is where you are completely wrong. As explained above, with discogs forcing s to add links to these illegal materials, discogs essentially plays the same role as these "watch tv shows online" websites, which are illegal and get shut down quite often.

Jayfive
After all you're on a website where T-mobile were eventually told where they could shove their cease-and-desist letter thanks to that promo CD first doctrine ruling.

After all documenting something is an entirely different thing than advertising it, which discogs does with them forcing you to link to those tracks

syke
For the last time, even if we consider these valid additions to the database I maintain that releases by real musicians are by far more important than these ripoffs.

Than that is your opinion. As long as it is not reflected in the way you treat them in discogs then thats fine.

syke
As explained above, with discogs forcing s to add links to these illegal materials, discogs essentially plays the same role as these "watch tv shows online" websites, which are illegal and get shut down quite often.

They will go to the soundcloud and ask for the thing to be removed. Rendering the link redundant. The idea that labels and artist will go to the thing linking to the copyright violation when they can just as easily remove the violation itself is a peculiar one.

I would tender the notion only do this with the "watch tv shows online" things because the hosting sites themselves are in a country where they have no jurisdiction or have ignored takedown requests. This is why google/chilling effects have the DCMA blocks on certain searches - because the requesting parties cannot get piratebay et al to remove their content.

Im sure soundcloud fully co-operates with claims of copyright and intellectual property so were anyone to complain to discogs they would simply be directed to the site hosting the track or mix or whatever.

Also, the link is not in public, it is hidden in the submission notes on a page that you need to an with discogs to see that doesnt even show up on google search results. I suspect most interested parties (and more importantly their lawyers) wouldnt even know it was there.

And most importantly this is for discogs and their lawyers to worry about. If from a legal representative necessitates change then they can cross that bridge when they come to it. Discogs will only be asked to remove things and be threatened with action if they do not comply - and is the removal of these thing what you want after all? Either way, you get what you want :P

Jayfive
And besides this is for discogs and their lawyers to worry about. If from a legal representative necessitates change then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Discogs will only be asked to remove things and be threatened with action if they do not comply - and is the removal of these thing what you want after all? Either way, you get what you want :P

last time I checked, it is not possible to remove comments from submission histories

syke
last time I checked, it is not possible to remove comments from submission histories

Im talking about the entry in discogs itself. Im sure the staff at HQ can make something vanish from the database without trace if the threat of legal action deemed it necessary.

Though I very much doubt it would ever come to that. It hasnt happened so far. The nearest we've had that I know of is the '' incident and the ElectronicBeats/TMobile thing. If anyone doesnt know to what I refer let me know and I shall tell you a tale :D

Jayfive
Im talking about the entry in discogs itself. Im sure the staff at HQ can make something vanish from the database without trace if the threat of legal action deemed it necessary.

the entry would stay as a draft and all such questions have so far been answered that it is not possible to remove datasets/histories completely

Jayfive
If anyone doesnt know to what I refer let me know and I shall tell you a tale :D

do tell, I'm curious

syke
just because something is not enforced, does not mean it does not exist, and that was jaweidjes point.

I wasn't saying it doesn't exist. I'm only saying that there "illegal" does not have the same meaning everywhere. So what may be an illegal release for you, may be a completely legit one for someone else. This means it's basically up to personal preference what goes in, goes out or stays out of the database if we'd have a guideline saying all illegal releases are not allowed.

Jayfive
The nearest we've had that I know of is the '' incident

Wasn't that thing going to be reverted?

Oh and if its copyright claims you're worries about, these will make your hair go white:

http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-1-50/release/3838374
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-50-100/release/3838427
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-100-147/release/4369628
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-147-177/release/4372975
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-206-239/release/4786628

'Nightcore' is a....'thing'...popular with the young 'uns. You see them on youtube, especially if you are looking for anime/manga related thing.

To make a nightcore track you do the following:
1) Get a track
2) Speed it up

Thats it. Theres a whole community build around taking anything from anime theme music to Evanescence tracks and cranking them up 40bpm. The nightcore forums (such as they are) even have guides to 'production' and which labels/artists to avoid as they have auto-takedown bots on youtube.

I just listened to a randomly picked track 33 of The NightcoreZ 1-50 and guess what? It's just 'Miracles' by Insane Clown Posse sped up from about 90 to 135bpm. Everything else is along the same lines. Nothing added nor taken away, nothing changed but the pitch/tempo.

These...releases are on a label that pumps out a lot (and I mean A LOT) of original content. Most of it I suspect not exactly technically proficient or indeed pleasant to listen to.

So whats the opinion on these releases when most if not all of them are simply others people's stuff sped up? Are they any more or less eligible than a 4-track vinyl bootleg or rare tracks or indeed this:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Steve-Smeeth--Ravers-Choice-Techno-Wonderland/release/207317

Which as the notes say is "a white label bootleg of Zoee's "Tekkno Wonderland" pressed at a higher speed."

I have SR'd Discogs about this as I believe this makes an interesting test case for where the line is drawn on file releases and unofficial remixes.

Also if all the little kiddies 'making' Nightcore get wind of discogs...God help us. God help us all.

syke
do tell, I'm curious

*puts on Mr Rogers-style jumper and opens "The Big Book of Discogs Drama"*

And so the year was 2006:
http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/98617
http://discogs.versitio.com/artist/

TL:DR version of the forum thread: The artist at this entry was moved to (4) because the...'people' of some nobody of a rock/metal band steamed in threatening legal action over the use of 'their' name by this artist and their entry in discogs. Never mind there were 2 other ''s, never mind that the electronic artist had the name first, discogs had a legal letter on their hands and sellers of release by the original '' were facing fake-sales and legal threats as you can see in that thread.

And so discogs moved blank with a warning that the artist could not be used. Why? I suspect that it was just easier than trying to get these people to understand. You will notice a mention of a threat by that artist on myspace to eliminate every band of the same name from that site, regardless of style or genre or period in existence.

And there the block stayed until relatively recently when Discogs undid it. It lasted as long as it did because discogs staff had simply forgotten about it :P

The band '' have long since vanished, if they ever actually released anything in the first place - all the links to their online presence in that thread are long dead.

You'll also notice that back in 06 we were all a lot more sweary in the help forums XD

timetogo
I'm not sure I understand why counterfeits should remain at all in any format.

They exist so we catalogue them. I own a couple of counterfeits myself and I'm happy that they are in the database so that I can easily distinguish them from the real thing.

Jayfive
Im talking about the entry in discogs itself. Im sure the staff at HQ can make something vanish from the database without trace if the threat of legal action deemed it necessary.

syke
the entry would stay as a draft and all such questions have so far been answered that it is not possible to remove datasets/histories completely

Jayfive is right, and it is possible - the childish anti-"not-letting-sellers-charge-paypal-fees" release entitled "Stands Up For Sellers Rights" (sic) submitted by one of the more ridiculous naysayers as a protest was thankfully removed after my request, as was any trace of it:

http://discogs.versitio.com/Various-Stands-Up-For-Sellers-Rights/release/4762251
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=4762251#latest

well fine then. lets all promote these "artists" by linking to their stuff. I'm sure it will be a worthwhile duty... for them at least

syke
well fine then. lets all promote these "artists" by linking to their stuff.

How much traffic do you think a unsearchable and non-visible link in the sub notes to an obscure NOL/self-released entry buried deep in the database will actually generate?

If you feel that strongly (and I completely that you respect that you do so) why not soundcloud or whoever directly?

syke
well fine then. lets all promote these "artists" by linking to their stuff. I'm sure it will be a worthwhile duty... for them at least

Just to clarify, my post only concerned management's ability to completely erase a release, I haven't followed the rest of this topic!

Jayfive
How much traffic do you think a unsearchable and non-visible link in the sub notes to an obscure NOL/self-released entry buried deep in the database will actually generate?

imho just one click is one too many... Also, don't you think that if these releases turn up here, submitted by one of the 5 people who isten to it, will motivate those thiefs to create even more of this crap?

Jayfive
If you feel that strongly (and I completely that you respect that you do so) why not soundcloud or whoever directly?

they don't care. they live off of this crap and they know all about it. Also, I don't care for soundcloud, I care for discogs.

jweijde
I wasn't saying it doesn't exist. I'm only saying that there "illegal" does not have the same meaning everywhere. So what may be an illegal release for you, may be a completely legit one for someone else. This means it's basically up to personal preference what goes in, goes out or stays out of the database if we'd have a guideline saying all illegal releases are not allowed.

any country that has even the most basic copyright laws in place will call plagiarism illegal.

Jayfive
I have SR'd Discogs about this as I believe this makes an interesting test case for where the line is drawn on file releases and unofficial remixes.

Also if all the little kiddies 'making' Nightcore get wind of discogs...God help us. God help us all.

but why? why should we need any help? according to many s in this topic, these will be very valuable subs. And thats what I've been saying all along, just because someone alters something a bit and calls it remix (and truth be told, most of the soundcloud files are nothing else) does not make it a worthwhile addition to a database that tries to collect music. The funny thing is, a live recording bootleg on soundloud is ineligible, but that is eligible because it is a "remix" and therefor an original piece of art worth documenting...

Oh and in all seriousness, you simply cannot rule these out if you include the others because you simply cannot draw the line as to what the minimum requirements for a remix might be. There is no way to judge if something is eligible if you first have to listen to it and make a judgement call on it, and that is essentially what you'd have to do as you'd never know what the "remix artist" did on the track. Again, it is entirely possible that the "remix artist" just cuts out a verse or a chorus part and calls that remix, yet that may even be eligible according to niks statement above (and for the fun of it, these are probably way more legal than those other "remixes")

Jayfive
As long as it is not reflected in the way you treat them in discogs then thats fine.

and I can guaren-damn-tee you that it will be reflected in how I treat them:
) I will not add them even if I stumble across them
) I will not vote them c, even if they are c
) I will not fix them if they are incorrect and I stumble on them
) I will not comment on errors on these subs

syke
Also, don't you think that if these releases turn up here, submitted by one of the 5 people who isten to it, will motivate those thiefs to create even more of this crap?

I...think we have a different position on these sorts of things. All I care about is their eligibility for discogs. And currently they are eligible.

And until such time as the lawyers letter lands on Discogs' doormat their legality is not discogs concern. We are not the Music Police, we are just concerned citizens :)

syke
they don't care. they live off of this crap and they know all about it.

Do you know that for certain?

syke
but why? why should we need any help? according to many s in this topic, these will be very valuable subs.

I...i'm not even sure we're talking about the same things any more.

syke
The funny thing is, a live recording bootleg on soundloud is ineligible, but that is eligible because it is a "remix" and therefor an original piece of art worth documenting.

The subs im referring to arent remixes. They are the original tracks speeded up a bit. Im actively questioning their eligibility.

syke
Oh and in all seriousness, you simply cannot rule these out if you include the others because you simply cannot draw the line as to what the minimum requirements for a remix might be.

That is precisely why I have SR's discogs directly to get a judgement call.

syke
There is no way to judge if something is eligible if you first have to listen to it and make a judgement call on it,

That is *exactly* what I did. I said thats what I did in my last post. One of these submissions sits in my 's' folder as I type.

syke
Again, it is entirely possible that the "remix artist" just cuts out a verse or a chorus part and calls that remix, yet that may even be eligible according to niks statement above (and for the fun of it, these are probably way more legal than those other "remixes")

And I mentioned these are...wait, are you referring to the subs I linked or the subs in the OPs link?

For clarity:
OP links: tracks that have used elements of other people's music and build a track around them.
My links: The original tracks sped up a bit.

Discogs accepts the former, I have SR'd to determine the fate of the latter.

I do expect nor wish either judgement to be used as any sort of precdent, but for these submissions and future ones to be judged as individual cases. As they should be.

"Where is the line drawn" many ask. I say, there is no line. Only a checkpoint where we are the borderguards. :P

syke
and I can guaren-damn-tee you that it will be reflected in how I treat them:
) I will not add them even if I stumble across them
) I will not vote them c, even if they are c
) I will not fix them if they are incorrect and I stumble on them
) I will not comment on errors on these subs

*shrug* That's your prerogative.

syke
and that my friend is where you are completely wrong. As explained above, with discogs forcing s to add links to these illegal materials, discogs essentially plays the same role as these "watch tv shows online" websites, which are illegal and get shut down quite often

Actually, the guidelines say:
6.5.1. (...) To provide verification of stand-alone file based releases, please provide (in the submission notes) a URL to the purchase or location, or some description of how you obtained the files. In other words, how can someone else get this release?

So you have to provide a URL ... or a description how to obtain those files..... so that means a URL is not necessarily needed if you follow the guidelines strictly....

So this thread has reminded me to submit something I've been meaning to add.

How to p1ss off rock snobs, vinyl snobs and bootleg snobs all in one go:
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/5070840

What can I say, I'm drawn to music that gets up people noses. I like it more when they dont XD

Jayfive
Do you know that for certain?

yes

Jayfive
The subs im referring to arent remixes. They are the original tracks speeded up a bit. Im actively questioning their eligibility.

that essentially is a remix. which according to niks post above is eligible. As it stands right now, anything that is ever so slightly altered (and preferably called remix) is eligible.

If I wanted to piss you off I'd google these sites and post links to discogs all over :P

Jayfive
That is precisely why I have SR's discogs directly to get a judgement call.

And if nik rules they are not eligible, who will make the judgement call on each and every release that gets added with "remix" in the title? Where is the line drawn? how much of the track is allowed to be stolen from source A and how much has to be stolen from somewehre else to count as an "original work" that is eligible?

Jayfive
And I mentioned these are...wait, are you referring to the subs I linked or the subs in the OPs link?

I was referring to countless tracks on soundcloud that are labeled remix and potential additions to discogs down the road.

Jayfive
I do expect nor wish either judgement to be used as any sort of precdent, but for these submissions and future ones to be judged as individual cases. As they should be.

that will be one giant fuck up. And you know it. One might say something that is sped up like your links above is eligible and use his judgement to add them. The second he adds them, the judgement call has been made and then each and every case that is in a gray area will need to be discussed on a case to case basis...

As long as you cannot even formulate a clear guideline and have to revert to judgement calls on case 2 case basis, how can you even be considering to allow something like that?

Also still I fail to see why the Iron Maiden bootlegs on that website recently are not eligible if these tracks are. Those Maiden bootlegs are WAY more legit than these tracks ever will be

JeroenG8
So you have to provide a URL ... or a description how to obtain those files..... so that means a URL is not necessarily needed if you follow the guidelines strictly....

which is actually just another badly worded guideline. Afaics the later part of the guideline is meant to cover your arse if the original dload source is no longer available (which is btw another completely insane thing...)

syke
that essentially is a remix. which according to niks post above is eligible.

I disagree to both parts of that. A remix is just that re-doing the mix. Speeding up is not remixing.

syke
And if nik rules they are not eligible, who will make the judgement call on each and every release that gets added with "remix" in the title?

We wont. We will remove the ones that have been judged and move on.

syke
Where is the line drawn?

There is no line. We judge based on individual cases.

syke
how much of the track is allowed to be stolen from source A and how much has to be stolen from somewehre else to count as an "original work" that is eligible?

We dont quantify such things. See previous answer.

syke
I was referring to countless tracks on soundcloud that are labeled remix and potential additions to discogs down the road.

Then we judge them when we happen upon them. Allowed or not people will still add them. They could easily be in the DB for years before anyone notices them.

syke
that will be one giant fuck up. And you know it. One might say something that is sped up like your links above is eligible and use his judgement to add them. The second he adds them, the judgement call has been made and then each and every case that is in a gray area will need to be discussed on a case to case basis...

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not worrying. The 'nightcore' thing has been around for years and after searching the term off the back of this thread those releases are the ONLY results of that kind in the DB. And they belong to an actual label, not some random youtuber/soundclouder. Trust me the people that make and these things do not move in the same circles as discogs.

Besides, I'm not sure why you think a single management decision over 5 releases will open some sort of floodgates. If it helps you sleep at night I wont broadcast what discogs tell me :P

syke
As long as you cannot even formulate a clear guideline and have to revert to judgement calls on case 2 case basis, how can you even be considering to allow something like that?

Yes I agree. The fact that is no clear guideline is the whole point. Highlight them in these forums and they will have their eligibility considered. I however am not interested in judging the eligibility of hypothetical releases. We have enough problems with actual submissions to be getting along with.

syke
Also still I fail to see why the Iron Maiden bootlegs on that website recently are not eligible if these tracks are. Those Maiden bootlegs are WAY more legit than these tracks ever will be

Because, if this are the ones I think you mean, the submitter was creating these bootlegs to purely to sell on discogs. When a release is only a release once it appears in discogs it is not eligible. Got a few examples of that from the "s adding things to make a point" file as well as bootleggers.

Jayfive
Because, if this are the ones I think you mean, the submitter was creating these bootlegs to purely to sell on discogs. When a release is only a release once it appears in discogs it is not eligible. Got a few examples of that from the "s adding things to make a point" file as well as bootleggers.

nope you're not thinking of the ones I am thinking about. I was talking about a Iron Maiden fansite that offered liveshow bootlegs for free . nothing to sell, nothing copied onto physical media. I'm strictly talking about the (free) files. It's essentilly the same as all those Metallica shows they offer on their official website, just not as legal of course :P

I kind of gotten lost in this thread, and don't know if you guys have a agreed on anything yet. But I have a question, What is the criteria to consider an audio recording a "release"? It seems anything people online nowadays (official or not, homemade, etc) becomes a "release"... It think that's the root of the problem here. Defining what's a release and what's not, what's official and what's not, and good examples in the guidelines would be a great help to all.

cdremixcollector
What is the criteria to consider an audio recording a "release"?

I don't know if that's an important question. What is important is: Is the release eligible for inclusion in the Discogs database? I think nik's list in this post covers very well what should be included and not:
http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/5273b7ccea62112f2ed22d50#52790b3bc131f357637a9e66

Jayfive
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-1-50/release/3838374
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-50-100/release/3838427
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-100-147/release/4369628
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-147-177/release/4372975
http://discogs.versitio.com/BillmaZter-The-NightcoreZ-206-239/release/4786628

Jayfive
To make a nightcore track you do the following:
1) Get a track
2) Speed it up

Thats it.

Those should be removed IMHO.

syke
isn't it kinda ridiculous to say stuff recorded by real musicians is not eligible while an (illegal) one-off remix from a backroom producer is eligible? I strongly disagree to disallow those bootlegs if illegal remixes are eligible. There are certainly way more people interested in the bootleg of an Iron Maiden concert than in the remixes this topic concerns

Sorry, I misused the term 'bootleg', I was referring to counterfeit releases.

nik
Sorry, I misused the term 'bootleg', I was referring to counterfeit releases.

ok, so a CD rip on soundcloud is not eligible. But what about a never released live recording that apears on soundcloud, that would be a bootleg, no? would that be eligible? And if not, why?

nik
Those should be removed IMHO.

on what basis will this be decided? strictly case to case? Is there a minimum requirement for changes made to the song to qualify as an eligible release for discogs? If yes, how much has to be changed? If no, why is speeding up something not enough?

also, an aside note, should these releases have the remixer as main artist or the person who released the original song?

syke
should these releases have the remixer as main artist or the person who released the original song?

excellent question

syke
on what basis will this be decided?

Its already been decided. They have been removed. So if you want a line to be drawn, then it is at "youve got to do something more than speed it up to constitute a file-based unofficial remix entry in discogs". Let the posts above be the nearest thing to precedent that we have.

syke
strictly case to case?

When has it ever been anything else? :P

syke
But what about a never released live recording that apears on soundcloud, that would be a bootleg, no? would that be eligible?

Is there one in the DB or a thread indicating someone wants to submit such a thing? If so, link to it. If not, then theres no problem. Theres 5-6 million releases to discuss, im not sure we need to discuss things that arent in the database and may or may not even exist.

syke
If no, why is speeding up something not enough?

Speeding up is not making an original work. It is not remixing. It is speeding up. Nothing has been added or taken away. It is the same original track. It is no more or less than me sticking a 33rpm track at 45rpm and ing it to youtube.

syke
Is there a minimum requirement for changes made to the song to qualify as an eligible release for discogs?

You keep trying to quantify the unquantifiable. There will always be borderline cases, and making a checklist of criteria actually makes things more difficult as submitters will endeavour to fill those criteria to the point that they give misleading information and omit other information. This has happened. Better to say "this is going because management say so" than "you havent included x, y and z" as the submitter will then come back after finding a way to jump through those particular hoops.

syke
should these releases have the remixer as main artist or the person who released the original song?

"as per release" wherever possible in my book.

Jayfive
When has it ever been anything else? :P

actually, yes. as anything that is on vinylis eligible, meaning there is no case to case basis involved.

Jayfive
Is there one in the DB or a thread indicating someone wants to submit such a thing? If so, link to it. If not, then theres no problem. Theres 5-6 million releases to discuss, im not sure we need to discuss things that arent in the database and may or may not exist.

http://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/524faade5e75a73bbacd5ebf#524faade5e75a73bbacd5ebe

there for example. And I am talking strictly about the files the site offers. Not the homemade CD-Rs of the files. Why should they not be eligible if the files from soundcloud are? and there are dozens of websites like this offering live show boots on file these days. I see no reason to exclude those files if anything from soundcloud goes.

Jayfive
You keep trying to quantify the unquantifiable. There will always be borderline cases, making a checklist of criteria actually makes things more difficult as submitters will endeavour to fill those criteria to the point that they give misleading information and omit other information. This has happened. Better to say "this is going because management say so" than "you havent included x, y and z" as the submitter will then come back after finding a way to jump through those particular hoops.

you cannot formulate guidelines or rules by saying "you cannot quantify it". This is bullshit and you know it. What you are suggesting there is that all those files would need to be checked by management, essentially making each and every file with doubts a subject to a SR. So there will have to be at least a rough criteria outlined by management on what is eligible and what not so we can actually decide on the forums if eligible or not.

Jayfive
"as per release" wherever possible in my book.

so, the following has a main artist who is? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clVuVQp6BhY&noredirect=1

that was able some time ago and the file did not include any information. Who is the main artist? Psy? Dream Theater? the remixer? all of them? no one? Unknown artist as the file does not include a main artist? Various?

syke
actually, yes. as anything that is on vinylis eligible, meaning there is no case to case basis involved.

I beg to differ considering private presses, master discs and suchlike are often not eligible.

syke
Why should they not be eligible if the files from soundcloud are?

Because management have said so.

syke
you cannot formulate guidelines or rules by saying "you cannot quantify it".

That is 100% true. And that is what I am saying. I dont *want* to formulate concrete guidelines on this. I want there to be very general outlines of whats eligible and then judge individual cases on their merits ending if need be with the people that run this site making a call on what they want *on* their own website.

syke
This is bullshit and you know it.

Wrong and wrong.

syke
What you are suggesting there is that all those files would need to be checked by management, essentially making each and every file with doubts a subject to a SR.

Yup.

syke
So there will have to be at least a rough criteria outlined by management on what is eligible and what not so we can actually decide on the forums if eligible or not.

Which is what we already have more or less.

syke
that was able some time ago and the file did not include any information. Who is the main artist? Psy? Dream Theater? the remixer? all of them? no one? Unknown artist as the file does not include a main artist? Various?

No-one has submitted this or has shown any indication of doing so. Come back to me when it's in the database or someone has it in their draft asking about it.

For the avoidance of doubt: I dont deal in hypotheticals. Never have. I refuse to drawn on whether something is eligible unless firstly it actually exists and secondly someone has added it or intends to do so..

Jayfive
That is 100% true. And that is what I am saying. I dont *want* to formulate concrete guidelines on this. I want there to be very general outlines of whats eligible and then judge individual cases on their merits ending if need be with the people that run this site making a call on what they want *on* their own website.

you will have to formulate a guideline on this, otherwise this will stay in limbo for too long. and these kind of releases will not decrease in quantity.

Jayfive
Which is what we already have more or less.

and which imho is no desireable thing

Jayfive
No-one has submitted this or has shown any indication of doing so. Come back to me when it's in the database or someone has it in their draft asking about it.

I can do that right now, I have the file after all... And quite honetly, that is a question where I don't care at all about your opinion. I wanted managements answer on this, not yours

Jayfive
For the avoidance of doubt: I dont deal in hypotheticals. Never have.

So, you'd say lets wait for someone to be mrudered before we get a law outlawing murder ;) got ya ;)

Folks - rather than going back n forth between yourselves, it is probably more constructive to propose a guideline / change to the guidelines / tweak my proposal I posted above. Otherwise, it will be hard to resolve this in any meaningful way :-/

syke
So, you'd say lets wait for someone to be mrudered before we get a law outlawing murder

Not sure that's a valid comparison.

syke
I can do that right now, I have the file after all...

Then by all means submit it if you think it is eligible as opposed to simply wanting to make a point.

syke
you will have to formulate a guideline on this, otherwise this will stay in limbo for too long. and these kind of releases will not decrease in quantity.

They either stay in the DB or they dont.

syke
and which imho is no desireable thing

I respectfully disagree. The tsunami of sketchy releases that has been predicted since the first announcement of V4 has IMHO not happened.

nik
it is probably more constructive to propose a guideline / change to the guidelines / tweak my proposal I posted above.

All I can suggest if that it is made clear these are not absolutes and any borderline cases should be given greater scrutiny before going one way or t'other.

nik
Folks - rather than going back n forth between yourselves, it is probably more constructive to propose a guideline / change to the guidelines / tweak my proposal I posted above. Otherwise, it will be hard to resolve this in any meaningful way :-/

Well, I'd love to do that if you'd tell me first what the bare minimum requirements are in your opinion. Also for anything to be formulated I'd have to know about those bootlegs mentioned above

nik
it is probably more constructive to propose a guideline / change to the guidelines / tweak my proposal I posted above.

From the top of my head for file based submissions (please don't kill me if I missed anything)

1.1. Official file based releases are eligible if:
a) they are available to the general public
b) they have a source added in the history

1.2. Official file based releases are not eligible if they are not available to the public but only send out via email or file sharing sites for promotion purposes

1.3. Unofficial file based releases are eligible if:
a) they are remixes hosted on sources like soundcloud or on the artists/labels own website
b) they are never before released live recordings
c) they are never before released tracks

1.4. Unofficial file based releases are not eligible if:
a) they are only available through torrent sites
b) they are Unofficial DJ / Segued Mixes from anywhere
c) they are counterfeit
d) they are a remix and do not alter the original track in a significant way
e) they only change small parts of the original track i.e. speed the track up or slow it down.

Now a few commenst on my proposal:
1.1.b: I'd strongly disagree to allow releases without a valid source in the history as this may open the doors for shennigans. Adding a link to a sub history is not that hard and should imho be mandatory
1.2.: I would not count anything that is only available to a few people eligible in the file format (Besides the problem that some labels use one-off links that delete itself after the is finished, so we are talking about possibly dozens different subs and also there would be no way at all to the data.
1.3.b: I don't see why we should exclude unofficial live bootlegs from files. They are out there en masse and are of extreme interest to some collectors. No need to exclude these if we allow any remix
1.3.c: same as in 1.3.b. they are out there. they exist. no need to pretend they don't
1.4.a: torrent sites should be excluded for various reasons like availability, unability to without ing (which will then put the at risk of virus/malware as these sites are infamous for that) probably illegal use of the site in the first place.
1.4.c: that one should be clear as hell
1.4.d: this is where the gray area truly begins. I'd say a track that only cuts out say 10 seconds is not a valid remix for inclusion
1.4.e: this is what nik has already ruled out above.

Also I'd suggest that nik lays out a certain minimum requirement as to what a remix has to be for it to be eligible.

And for the rest of niks proposal:
* Unofficial DJ / Segued Mixes on physical replicated media (vinyl, CD) are eligible.
* Counterfeit on Soundcloud (or other such sites) or on physical duplicated media (cassette, Cdr) are not eligible.
* Counterfeit on physical replicated media (vinyl, CD) are eligible.

I'm fine with that, where I don't agree is this:
* Unofficial Remixes available anywhere on any format are eligible.

I don't agree that a one-off home-made CD-R that a "remixer" gives to two of his friends is eligible. Why would that be eligible if private presses on vinyl are not eligible?

Jayfive
I respectfully disagree. The tsunami of sketchy releases that has been predicted since the first announcement of V4 has IMHO not happened.

Oh yes it has, in spades.

syke
I don't agree that a one-off home-made CD-R that a "remixer" gives to two of his friends is eligible. Why would that be eligible if private presses on vinyl are not eligible?

I agree with syke on this.

syke
I'd say a track that only cuts out say 10 seconds is not a valid remix for inclusion

Do people actually do this? That would be comparable to a counterfeit release. Just because someone calls it a remix doesn't make it one.

syke
I don't agree that a one-off home-made CD-R that a "remixer" gives to two of his friends is eligible. Why would that be eligible if private presses on vinyl are not eligible?

Of course the other guidelines would still apply, as in the track would actually have to be available to the general public.

timetogo
Oh yes it has, in spades.

We all love those hentai lolicore releases contained in an unopenable case limited to 5 copies...

syke
1.3. Unofficial file based releases are eligible if:
b) they are never before released live recordings

syke
1.4. Unofficial file based releases are not eligible if:
a) they are only available through torrent sites

I see a conflict here. Almost all unofficial live recordings that I obtain are from a well known (legal) torrent site. The risk of getting malware from those are very low. Unofficial live recordings that are presented on blogs on the other hand have very little quality control and are mostly hosted on suspicious file sharing sites like mega.

So I don't agree with:

syke
1.4.a: torrent sites should be excluded for various reasons like availability, unability to without ing (which will then put the at risk of virus/malware as these sites are infamous for that) probably illegal use of the site in the first place.

This I agree with:

syke
1.3.b: I don't see why we should exclude unofficial live bootlegs from files. They are out there en masse and are of extreme interest to some collectors. No need to exclude these if we allow any remix

If unofficial remixes are allowed then unofficial live recordings should be allowed as well.
As it is today neither of those are allowed. The question is if Discogs is the right place to catalogue those?

Bong
If unofficial remixes are allowed then unofficial live recordings should be allowed as well.
As it is today neither of those are allowed. The question is if Discogs is the right place to catalogue those?

IMHO, no, and I'd rather see them not eligible.