[mb-style] RFC-331: Add CD Baby Relationship Type

Aurélien Mino a.mino at free.fr
Mon Jul 18 06:54:20 UTC 2011


On 07/18/2011 08:44 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Aurélien Mino<a.mino at free.fr>  wrote:
>> I'm against any new relationship type that move away MusicBrainz from a
>> neutral position regarding music sellers.
>>
>> 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
>> ones).
> Well, CD Baby is an affiliate that allows cover usage. I don't think a
> CD Baby relationship is worse than a "has cover at CD Baby" + a "can
> be purchased for mail order at [CDBaby URL]", as it turns two
> relationships into one. Half of the spam, I'd say!
>
Why do you need the "can be purchased for mail order at [CDBaby URL]" 
relationship?
The "has cover at " is enough.

Furthermore you're forgetting that this proposal is more than just a 
release-url relationship.
What the point of linking to an artist page on a shop?

"Affiliates" - as you call them - are just a way to get cover art.
1. They're not bringing much money to MetaBrainz anyway
2. And once Rob's project of cover art archive will get out, we won't 
really need such partnership anymore

- Aurélien



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list