[mb-style] RFC-331: Add CD Baby Relationship Type
jargon at molb.org
Mon Jul 18 06:49:39 UTC 2011
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:35:56AM +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> I'm against any new relationship type that move away MusicBrainz from a
> neutral position regarding music sellers.
What neutral position? Is only accepting Amazon.com "neutral"? You can
argue that it is in the affiliate program, but CD Baby is also somehow
connected to MusicBrainz [1,2,3].
> A project claiming to be the open music encyclopedia can't be a link
> farm for music shops.
> MusicBrainz goal is not to be the universal way to find and buy your music.
> If this relationship type is accepted, then there's no reason to not add
> other relationship types for other music shops (and there are hundreds
> And we will just end up with ton of spam links that will clutter the
> database and web site.
I do not quite agree with that! CD Baby is primarily a shop for
independent artists / small labels, so usually it is the only place (or
the primary place) buy the music. So it is not just a generic online
shop (like iTunes or for that matter Amazon.com).
> When creating a new relationship type we should always ask us: "What
> value does this bring to MusicBrainz?"
> Here I don't see any.
Well, what about the cover art? As I explained in my proposal, currently
we have to use 3 (!) relationships to link to CD Baby:
- "has cover art at"
- "can be purchased for download at"
- "can be purchased for mail-order at"
This new AR would just unify that mess.
More information about the MusicBrainz-style