I don't rant much but Discogs has turned into a Joke

[MannyE]

427 said "The problem I have is Discogs is not blocking these because it's illegal to sell, own or make them. They are blocking them because of their own feelings and a stance as to what they feel is right. In other words they are censoring and forcing their opinion on whoever has been using their site."

I have to say that first, if Discogs was a brick and mortar, this would not be a problem would it? A store owner can sell or not sell whatever he or she wants to sell. I feel that there is little or no difference between the owners of a B&M store and an online store and further, that Discogs can do and sell whatever they want. Consumers will tell them if they are doing the right thing or not when they vote with their dollars.

I personally (and this is a knee-jerk un-researched position) feel that if they don't want to provide a platform for illegal activity they are completely in the right.

I also feel that they are doing the right thing because many people new to vinyl aren't even aware that "bootleg" or illegal copies exist and this move protects noobs from throwing away their money.

NOTE... I am a noob.

Anything non-vinyl is just pirate booty and I'm happy to see it prohibited.

 

[Ken Boyd]

427 said "The problem I have is Discogs is not blocking these because it's illegal to sell, own or make them. They are blocking them because of their own feelings and a stance as to what they feel is right. In other words they are censoring and forcing their opinion on whoever has been using their site."

I have to say that first, if Discogs was a brick and mortar, this would not be a problem would it? A store owner can sell or not sell whatever he or she wants to sell. I feel that there is little or no difference between the owners of a B&M store and an online store and further, that Discogs can do and sell whatever they want. Consumers will tell them if they are doing the right thing or not when they vote with their dollars.

I personally (and this is a knee-jerk un-researched position) feel that if they don't want to provide a platform for illegal activity they are completely in the right.

I also feel that they are doing the right thing because many people new to vinyl aren't even aware that "bootleg" or illegal copies exist and this move protects noobs from throwing away their money.

NOTE... I am a noob.

Anything non-vinyl is just pirate booty and I'm happy to see it prohibited.

First of all, 4-2-7 is incorrect in stating they are not illegal to own or sell, they are. Unless you have written permission from the artist it is against the law to record and then distribute any part of an artist recording or performance. It doesn't matter that many people like them or that it was done a long time ago, as long as the performance is not in the public domain, as in not protected under copy rights you can't own them legally, sell them, or provide a means or platform to sell stolen work. If it was a store front brick and mortar, same laws apply. In fact not only could you not sell them you not even allowed to play them as they were recorded illegally, and distributed illegally. Just because people have done it and not got arrested, doesn't mean that its legal. Years can go by and as long as the artist have a copyright on their works, they can go after anyone who is involved in recording, distributing, possessing, or playing illegal recordings.

 

[MannyE]

First of all, 4-2-7 is incorrect in stating they are not illegal to own or sell, they are. Unless you have written permission from the artist it is against the law to record and then distribute any part of an artist recording or performance. It doesn't matter that many people like them or that it was done a long time ago, as long as the performance is not in the public domain, as in not protected under copy rights you can't own them legally, sell them, or provide a means or platform to sell stolen work. If it was a store front brick and mortar, same laws apply. In fact not only could you not sell them you not even allowed to play them as they were recorded illegally, and distributed illegally. Just because people have done it and not got arrested, doesn't mean that its legal. Years can go by and as long as the artist have a copyright on their works, they can go after anyone who is involved in recording, distributing, possessing, or playing illegal recordings.

Absolutely, but I don't think that's the thing that people are complaining about. I don't think anyone would argue that copyright laws are being broken. That's another argument that I don't really think has much bearing on the focus of this issue, valid though it may be.

Piracy is another issue. I don't really think anyone is advocating the sale of pirated modern music on vinyl and certainly not on CD. That would put Discogs in the position of profiting from crime as a broker for stolen merchandise. I really hope that's not what people are defending, because there's no way anyone would condone that. Right?

Original vintage bootlegs from the 60's, 70's and 80's have now become a kind of cool (always were?) thing to own. I mean, I remember at least two bands putting out legitmate albums called "Bootleg" just because bootlegs were cool... Aerosmith and Bad News for two... there may be more but those are the only ones I remember. There's even a bootleg signed by two of the Beatles OF the Beatles kicking around. Selling these isn't going to hurt anyone, and never really did even when they were new.

BUT.... if you have to ban all unofficial records to avoid becoming another version of Pirate Bay, then that's the price unfortunately. At least I will know that if I buy a Butcher Cover it will be a real one.

A Beatles Bootleg signed by all 4 Beatles.:

Not selling these things doesn't IMO make Discogs a joke. It makes them cautious. Maybe a better idea would be to have a special "bootleg" area where these things would have provenance and be sold like fine art. Dunno.. that's what I would do.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Remember Discogs is built by the public, it is just a storage site for members to upload info on. All the info is then checked by senior members who vote on the accuracy of the info. All the releases on Discogs is under a constant change as when new info comes out or info that shows that a releases info was incorrect it is revised. Simply have the info about a release, I don't believe would be a violation of any law, but to then allow a platform for members to sell it would be. I think truthfully the artist have been pretty lax on inforcement of their rights, under the law. Personally it would not be unreasonable if the artist requested that any photo shots of their album covers be removed as the even the art work on the album covers is under copyright, and I think illegal to reproduce by law. even for informational databases.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Well I went back and reread the first post. It is the info on values and sales prices. Well the only thing I can take from that is that Discogs is trying to show that they are not going to be in any way a contributing factor in helping illegal activity. Be it by allow the sales, encouraging the sales, and or providing a value, based on past sales.

 

[MannyE]

I think that "is" what they are complaining about.

Well that's just silly.

 

[MRL_Audio]

MannyE - I'll take that illegal non-Discogs friendly LP of the Beatles off yer hands if your looking to move it... :-}

Frankly I think Discogs is making a mistake to remove the history of values etc. This data is valuable and people do move these, buy, sell, trade, etc. based on values from reputable sites. I use Discogs, Popsike and eBay to gauge value. In that order and for a reason. My confidence of real value is higher with Discogs than with eBay. I get it that allowing a forum to buy and sell items that are illegal is the primary issue here but why remove all the existing history. Maybe I am missing the point...? It also SUX that Discogs is so mute on the point. Why not just address the change and move on. Since the primary data comes from the Discogs community and not a handful of "owners" why isn't there a steering committee to address changes? Maybe there is and I am too slow to know that...

 

[MannyE]

MannyE - I'll take that illegal non-Discogs friendly LP of the Beatles off yer hands if your looking to move it... :-}

Frankly I think Discogs is making a mistake to remove the history of values etc. This data is valuable and people do move these, buy, sell, trade, etc. based on values from reputable sites. I use Discogs, Popsike and eBay to gauge value. In that order and for a reason. My confidence of real value is higher with Discogs than with eBay. I get it that allowing a forum to buy and sell items that are illegal is the primary issue here but why remove all the existing history. Maybe I am missing the point...? It also SUX that Discogs is so mute on the point. Why not just address the change and move on. Since the primary data comes from the Discogs community and not a handful of "owners" why isn't there a steering committee to address changes? Maybe there is and I am too slow to know that...

Sure! $7000 and its yours! (according to Discogs... lol)

On the one hand, I agree that removing the historical value database seems like an extreme move taking into account that it's just information, but on the other hand, how long will that list be relevant if they are no longer facilitating the sales? Assuming the information on the list comes from sales on Discogs itself?

Hey best case, I see an opportunity for some enterprising vinyl nut to open up a "BOOTcogs" website that only sells this type of product. Maybe they can buy the Discogs database?

 

[4-2-7]

First of all, 4-2-7 is incorrect in stating they are not illegal to own or sell, they are. Unless you have written permission from the artist it is against the law to record and then distribute any part of an artist recording or performance. It doesn't matter that many people like them or that it was done a long time ago, as long as the performance is not in the public domain, as in not protected under copy rights you can't own them legally, sell them, or provide a means or platform to sell stolen work. If it was a store front brick and mortar, same laws apply. In fact not only could you not sell them you not even allowed to play them as they were recorded illegally, and distributed illegally. Just because people have done it and not got arrested, doesn't mean that its legal. Years can go by and as long as the artist have a copyright on their works, they can go after anyone who is involved in recording, distributing, possessing, or playing illegal recordings.

No your wrong, read post 28,
Do you honestly think major record stores BM and online outlets will sell new illegal records?
Do you honestly think major labels and pressing plants would be producing these new records illegally? and then ship all over the world to the same record stores above?

Oh and BTW, Discogs is a worldwide site, not all countries have the same laws as the U.S.
You listen to classical music, is the Bach family getting royalties form the countless use and recorded music that they didn't write, but in fact Johann Sebastian Bach did?

Remember Discogs is built by the public, it is just a storage site for members to upload info on. All the info is then checked by senior members who vote on the accuracy of the info. All the releases on Discogs is under a constant change as when new info comes out or info that shows that a releases info was incorrect it is revised. Simply have the info about a release, I don't believe would be a violation of any law,

Correct

but to then allow a platform for members to sell it would be.

If in fact the record is illegal, but they are going far far far past what's a illegal record.

Well I went back and reread the first post. It is the info on values and sales prices.

Correct, deleting history or just not making it viewable, so collectors have something to go on as value.

MannyE - I'll take that illegal non-Discogs friendly LP of the Beatles off yer hands if your looking to move it... :-}

Frankly I think Discogs is making a mistake to remove the history of values etc. This data is valuable and people do move these, buy, sell, trade, etc. based on values from reputable sites. I use Discogs, Popsike and eBay to gauge value. In that order and for a reason. My confidence of real value is higher with Discogs than with eBay. I get it that allowing a forum to buy and sell items that are illegal is the primary issue here but why remove all the existing history. Maybe I am missing the point...? It also SUX that Discogs is so mute on the point. Why not just address the change and move on. Since the primary data comes from the Discogs community and not a handful of "owners" why isn't there a steering committee to address changes? Maybe there is and I am too slow to know that...

Mike gets it because he's a record collector...

On the one hand, I agree that removing the historical value database seems like an extreme move taking into account that it's just information, but on the other hand, how long will that list be relevant if they are no longer facilitating the sales? Assuming the information on the list comes from sales on Discogs itself?

You get it here, and yes the price info is based on the sales at Discogs. They could have blocked sales and left the past history and given collectors the opportunity to at lest see that. They could have put a frozen date above the price as well as use other sources to keep it current once in a while.

 

[petemcfc]

Heres the thing about modern day digital bootlegs.
Im a member of Dimeadozen,the only files to be uploaded have to be of flac quality.
Dimeadozen goes out of their way to keep their noses clean so any recordings that drift onto official releases are banned.
Some artists one being Pink Floyd have issued a notice that their recordings cannot be shared.
If I remember correctly a legal firm acting out of Europe caused all kinds of s...t regarding U2.
U2 denied their involvement and said it was a third party ambulance chaser.
Bands such as Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails support live recording as did Phish and The Greatful Dead.
Its good advertising.
The downside is that many of these fan recorded shows have been copied to cdrs and sold on Ebay and now that pressing plants are starting up again it only takes one dodgy setup to transfer those files to LP.I can see a flood.
I disagree with Discogs policy but in the bigger picture I think they are trying to protect themselves from being a font of dodgy trading.
Look at what the issues Kodi have gone through.

 

[4-2-7]

Heres the thing about modern day digital bootlegs.

But this is not the topic.

 

[petemcfc]

But it will be.
Fans record the show and share it,the cash in merchants leech off their backs and Ebay it,fact.
As records are now making a comeback the criminals will press those albums,most of the best quality bootlegs from the golden era came from Italy and Japan and its no secret what organisations were behind it.
Discogs is a community site with little funds,and it would only take a minor shakedown from a large record label to flatten it,that why they've run scared,wouldn't you.
Yes its a shame,Im a collector ,but Sony has a very big hammer.
Im on your side by the way but I can see the big picture.

 

[restorer-john]

For people who use the site, I can see it would be extremely frustrating to lose what they regard as valuable information.

That said, it's their site, they can do what they want and present whatever information they want. People can vote with their feet or create their own site or simply suck it up and move on.

I regard the entire internet as transient and treat is as such. If AK deleted all the posts prior to today, would I be upset? Nope.

 

[MRL_Audio]

... If AK deleted all the posts prior to today, would I be upset? Nope.

I would be. I use AK, Discogs, etc. as a reference and like to think if that was going to happen proper notice would be given to folks to archive what they could.

 

[RogerKulp]

Absolutely, but I don't think that's the thing that people are complaining about. I don't think anyone would argue that copyright laws are being broken. That's another argument that I don't really think has much bearing on the focus of this issue, valid though it may be.

Piracy is another issue. I don't really think anyone is advocating the sale of pirated modern music on vinyl and certainly not on CD. That would put Discogs in the position of profiting from crime as a broker for stolen merchandise. I really hope that's not what people are defending, because there's no way anyone would condone that. Right?

Original vintage bootlegs from the 60's, 70's and 80's have now become a kind of cool (always were?) thing to own. I mean, I remember at least two bands putting out legitmate albums called "Bootleg" just because bootlegs were cool... Aerosmith and Bad News for two... there may be more but those are the only ones I remember. There's even a bootleg signed by two of the Beatles OF the Beatles kicking around. Selling these isn't going to hurt anyone, and never really did even when they were new.

BUT.... if you have to ban all unofficial records to avoid becoming another version of Pirate Bay, then that's the price unfortunately. At least I will know that if I buy a Butcher Cover it will be a real one.

A Beatles Bootleg signed by all 4 Beatles.:

Not selling these things doesn't IMO make Discogs a joke. It makes them cautious. Maybe a better idea would be to have a special "bootleg" area where these things would have provenance and be sold like fine art. Dunno.. that's what I would do.

That is amazing.I do think it is going overboard for Discogs not to include classic bootleg records of the 60s-80s,They do need to differentiate between bootlegs and counterfeit/pirate records.

What is the Discogs policy towards radio shows or transcriptions on vinyl or official CDs?

 

[Ken Boyd]

Actually Dan I am pretty sure that in a large portion of the world US laws regarding copyrights are enforced thru international treaties.

As far as Bach, his music is in the free domain, but it would be illegal for someone to bootleg a copy of a specific performance of a symphonic performance and then make copies for sell and then start distributing them for profit. But if you want to have your own performance with a symphony of any of Bach, Beethoven, and make copies for sell that would be perfectly legal because the actual written music is in the free domain, where as the Beatles would not be so if you got a band and recorded the songs and then pressed them and offered them for sale, it would be a violation of the law.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Bootleg

ADJECTIVE

1. 
   
2. (especially of liquor, computer software, or recordings) made, distributed, or sold illegally:
   "bootleg cassettes" ·
   illegal · illicit · unlawful · unauthorized · unlicensed · pirated ·
   [more]

illicit · unlawful · unauthorized · unlicensed · pirated ·
contraband · smuggled · black-market
VERB
bootlegs (third person present) · bootlegged (past tense) · bootlegged (past participle) · bootlegging (present participle)

1. make, distribute, or sell (illicit goods, especially liquor, computer software, or recordings) illegally:
   "domestic bootlegging was almost impossible to control" ·
   illegal · illicit · unlawful · unauthorized · unlicensed · pirated ·
   contraband · smuggled · black-market

NOUN
bootlegs (plural noun)

1. an illegal musical recording, especially one made at a concert.
2. football
   a play in which the quarterback fakes a handoff and runs with the ball hidden next to his hip:
   "he scored on a 29-yard bootleg on fourth down"

I don't know what being from the 1960-80's has to do with it. Notice that the definition of the word Bootleg means "illegal".