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

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosarevok at gmail.com
Mon Jul 18 07:04:28 UTC 2011


On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino at free.fr> wrote:
> 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.

I don't need any of them, personally. I don't buy CDs anyway. I've
seen people adding both though, because they want to show the album is
for sale there, not that it has the cover there.

> 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?

As I said, I won't be using it, so I don't care. But if even the
fairly restrictive and harsh "What not to link to" gave as only reason
not to link to CD Baby artist pages that "it is hard to find a
permanent link for them" instead of just "they're not useful for MB",
I gather some people do find them useful.

> "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

Even though I am fairly sure we'll be getting the archive at some
point, I'd rather work with what we have now, and not with what we
will have at an indefinite future point (if I'm not mistaken, not only
coding for it hasn't started, but we don't even have the full approval
of the MB Foundation yet).

> - Aurélien
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list