Hello, On 14/07/11 11:39, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Johannes Weißl<jar...@molb.org> wrote: >> it seems agreement that we don't allow iTunes as label, because it is a >> store that *real* labels can use to sell the music of artists (also >> exclusively). >> >> I wonder why we allow Bandcamp as a label then? As far as I know, it >> is even less a label than iTunes, it is just a technical help for >> independent artists or *real* labels to sell their music... much like a >> online shop software that happens to be also hosted by the software >> company. >> There is even a question in the FAQ "Do you offer label accounts?" [1]. > > As far as I know, we *don't* allow it. (There should be an annotation > saying "This is not a real label" in there if there is not one > already). The problem is, like with iTunes, people will keep adding > it, so it's easier to find out when they do it if we keep the > "Bandcamp label" around. That way we can subscribe to it and downvote > its use! :)
Considering people keep adding stuff like this, it seems that it would be useful to keep track of digital retailers in some fashion. As I mentioned in the thread about formats digital download retailers are to some extent involved in "manufacturing". You give .flac to Bandcamp and they generate all the lossy formats they sell. I assume iTunes, Amazon, 7digital and Bleep all produce the encoded files themselves. Does anyone have any ideas on what do with this? Should we track this stuff? If so, how? (add extra fields in the server, do something with the "can be purchased for download" relationship, just use the label field, any other options?) -- kuno / warp. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
