How many CDs can I rip & sell to be OK here?

Just a little concerned that FZ vinyl boots are finding their way onto CDrs in the marketplace...

Example;
http://discogs.programascracks.com/sell/list?release_id=4521334&ev=rb
Frank Zappa - Brest (19-03-1979)
See also http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4521334#latest
----
The Zappa subs - Today and back to 2 days ago = http://discogs.programascracks.com//Mongorat

All very sad as far as I'm concerned

http://discogs.programascracks.com/seller/Mongorat?format=CDr

Not just FZ ... :(

consort
http://discogs.programascracks.com/seller/Mongorat?format=CDr

Not just FZ ... :(

I know, but damn Oasis, or similar minions lacking FZs talent & Co :)
It would help if the FZ facts were right http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4522263#latest

Now CDs are sold without cases http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/367721#3409860
Maybe time for; Comes to you in an authentic lilac jewel case I made myself - accept no substitutes for this bootleg

Hundreds,

http://discogs.programascracks.com/releases_contributed?=musica66

just don't sell them through the marketplace but put your email address in the release notes:

A Flock Of Seagulls - The Original 80's Mixes
....

still going
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Frank-Zappa-Poughkeepsie-21-09-1978/release/4528582
brand new

and on and on
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Frank-Zappa-Dream-Machine/release/4528643

Jeez, that's tacky behaviour.

psy-mark
just don't sell them through the marketplace but put your email address in the release notes:

Now that is obviously someone making their own CDr 'mixtapes'. I thought this had come up on the radar last week in another post and had been reported?

Amsreddevil
I thought this had come up on the radar last week in another post and had been reported?

They did come up in a post the other week which drew my attention to them but I didn't see any indication of an SR being filed.

However one has been now:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/368091

psy-mark
They did come up in a post the other week

See, I am not quite senile yet! ;-) Knew it rang a bell.

Well, I just sent an SR, and seeing that Consort stated they also sent an SR last week, this should maybe get some attention?

Is it the same case for Mongorat here? Shouldn't they be reported?

You can see they don't respond to any query http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4525632#latest
and carry on subbing 6 hours ago what appear to be home-baked CDrs of FZ Boots.
(Anyone wishing to acquire that FZ stuff can a site I won't mention and it, or mail-swap it, for free btw)
---
This one looks like a CDr that has been burned from a reissue clear vinyl bootleg - which is the supplied image http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4528643#latest
(It was previously a Kornyphone)

I just found an example of the clear vinyl boot
It just never happened on CD as a quantity boot
Here are a few more of the reissue clear vinyl boot
(There were 3 versions of the live concert prior to this reissue)

psy-mark
http://discogs.programascracks.com/releases_contributed?=musica66

just don't sell them through the marketplace but put your email address in the release notes:

A Flock Of Seagulls - The Original 80's Mixes

I just find that astounding - and one of the reasons that I am anti any external web links in Notes.
A great way to rip off artist's work and even avoid paying dues to this site :)

swagski
I am anti any external web links in Notes.

AFAIK, they still aren't permitted, not that any of these sellers will care if they get an NMiC vote.

swagski
You can see they don't respond to any query http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4525632#latest

Why would they? It isn't in their interest to say anything. Also, since bootlegs aren't legal to begin with I really don't see how this is somehow more illegal. The only question is why these are eligible for Discogs.

Amsreddevil
Shouldn't they be reported?

In theory, yes, of course. In practice I am really not expecting anything to be done about it. Maybe management will pleasantly surprise me.

Here's one he just subbed, that I've added to the vinyl boots
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4528582#latest
I am amused by the comment in the likely source of such CDrs, like this one
http://www.zappateers.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2753
And I quote;
-----------
"^^ DO NOT Rip this into MP3!! ^^
^^ DO NOT SELL THIS SHOW!! ^^
^^ IF I SEE IT ON as MP3 or on eBay... ^^
^^ I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND PEE IN YOUR AFRO!!
-----------
These guys also punt artwork to each other

timetogo
I am really not expecting anything to be done about it.

The one I reported a few weeks back was handled (though we had to put them all up for removal ourselves), the seller was put on CIP. I would personally ban them fully as they knowingly broke the website's rules. It would work as a better deterrent imo if there was a rule like "Any found to be submitting and/or selling self-made CDr releases will be banned outright, permanently".

IMO all these releases should be removed. The only way these releases are available is via Discogs, so you can;t say they're released (IMO, it's the same as numerous bedroom mixes and/or homemade personal compilations).

Any update from the management yet?

Both those s have been banned from the site. All suspect homemade CDr bootlegs should be removed from the database.

Now to make sure which are official boots and which are not. We should also check those already voted correct.

http://discogs.programascracks.com/Beatles-The-Mark-Jones-Beatles-Video-Collection-Vol-1/release/4210050
is an example of one of hundreds of similar titles submitted by the same . claims all 'CD' or 'DVD' are indeed just that, and not CD-R or DVD-R, but...?

baytree37
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Beatles-The-Mark-Jones-Beatles-Video-Collection-Vol-1/release/4210050
is an example of one of hundreds of similar titles submitted by the same . claims all 'CD' or 'DVD' are indeed just that, and not CD-R or DVD-R, but...?

These items look suspicious too, though I can't tell if it's an (maybe websubmitted/incorrect submitted) official bootleg or homemade stuff. My gut feeling says the first one. (check e.g. http://beatlegmania.com/ )

baytree37
is an example of one of hundreds of similar titles submitted by the same

He was just going through bootleg listings sites and adding all the items on those pages to Discogs. I reported him a couple of weeks back

When I went through some of the listings a couple of months ago, at least some of the 'DVDs' submitted were identified as DVD-Rs on the boot***zone.com site by the very self-same Mark Jones of the 'label':
"As with most of my DVDs this was transfered onto DVD using a standalone DVD recorder from my VHS tapes."

nik
Both those s have been banned from the site. All suspect homemade CDr bootlegs should be removed from the database.

Good news! i say it for months Mongorat selling homemade CDr copies

Thank you, nik.

I've put a bunch of musica66's CDr submissions up for removal. Please vote on them. I'll do some more later on today.

nik
Both those s have been banned from the site. All suspect homemade CDr bootlegs should be removed from the database.

Thanks for your time and attention on this nik - much appreciated.
I shall have a good check of that FZ stuff.
This may sound a bit 'cheeky', but if I find any that resemble reasonable subs of real / acknowledged FZ boots, is it ok to tweak them into that boot, rather than remove the item altogether? Some of his posts actually use the real vinyl boot sleeves, etc
Or just purge the FZ lot without thought?

swagski
Or just purge the FZ lot without thought?

nik said "All suspect homemade CDr bootlegs should be removed"
Diognes said "Everything should be put up for removal."

I'm a little confused now.

I happen to have this boot:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3178548#latest

I'm not a big Springsteen fan (hushed silence), so I cannot say much about whether or not it is a vinyl rip, but this sure looks like every other CD bootleg I've ever seen. It's definitely not a CDr.

If I'd gotten a chance to, I'd have voted against removal for this particular release. I would like to see it reinstated so that I can provide scans - again, "no big deal" as far as my interests go, but for general consistency.

Where are we drawing the line here?

Hi,

it seems some people here decided to remove this 2CD set of The Divine Comedy (http://discogs.programascracks.com/Divine-Comedy-Live-At-Somerset-House/release/3230193) although it is a legitimate and genuine release! It is not a bootleg.

I don't understand how you can so quickly remove a release...This Divine Comedy 2CD-set :
- was d on The Divine Comedy website by the s themselves (http://forums.thedivinecomedy.com/viewtopic.php?t=15713&sid=143a9246b5e398d83ac3a42e02ba8d4a)
- is still available on the reliable site (http://www.concertlive.co.uk/product.php?id=104) sanctioned by the artists which releases this live recordings. You can also check what artists they are offering CDs of (http://www.concertlive.co.uk/livecds.php?id=all), if they sold bootlegs, I'm sure the big names here would sue them asap !
- is also available on online shops : http://www.amazon.co.uk/At-Somerset-House-Divine-Comedy/dp/B003ZZEILE/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1367521008&sr=8-13&keywords=the+divine+comedy+cd

I understand your concern in removing releases that don't fit the Discogs.com policy but you should be more careful before doing so. At least let people who bought these releases the time to check and see if it might be or not a bootleg.

And finally, even though you think a release is a bootleg, you don't have to completly delete it. You could just move it to the "unofficial" releases space of each respective artist on their discogs.programascracks.com page.

I hope someone will be able to reverse the move. Thanks!
Cyrille

Unfortunately, the pitchforks are out and the mob's gone wild. Undoubtedly, that's not the only removed sub that has not been checked.

Edit: That particular sub cannot be reversed. It's not in the draft folder of a banned . You can copy it to your drafts though and resub it. I see it had 14 s.

soulchap
I happen to have this boot:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3178548#latest

I suggest, if you think it is valid then add your bit and punt the Draft link here for an ok

I didn't have time to check those FZs either - they just went ;)

U2 - The Complete Boston '83 Tapes

Yes, I see people are just removing everything. Please stop removing them without the proper checks. Check for owners and official labels etc. Whilst we can re-add them via draft, the owners and wantlists are screwed. Absolutely shocking lack of consideration and more harmful than the releases being kept in the first place.

this ( http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3216361 ) is NOT a "homemade bootleg CDr - please revert to inofficial bootleg!

There were quite a few I saw before the removals that were genuine bootlegs. A bit of over-zealous putting-up-for-removals maybe? Now I cannot find them back as they have been removed.

Thanks Eviltoastman for the tips!

I just did what you suggested. I added some more information and I'll scan my copy in the next few days. here it is :
http://discogs.programascracks.com/release/4530961

May people hear our plea to be more careful before removing releases !
Cyrille

Why bother having an Unofficial tag then, and losing the things that were in my Wantlist that I hoped to buy one day! :

- http://discogs.programascracks.com/Kate-Bush-This-Womans-Work-III/release/3092027 / http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3092027#latest
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/Kate-Bush-This-Womans-Work-Vol2/release/3091999 / http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3091999#latest
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/Kate-Bush-This-Womans-Work-Vol1/release/3091946 / http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3091946#latest
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/Kate-Bush-The-Demos/release/3065187 / http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3065187#latest
- http://discogs.programascracks.com/Kate-Bush-Mixes/release/3065205 / http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3065205#latest

Amsreddevil
Now to make sure which are official boots and which are not.

Exactly how do we qualify this? And what is an "official" bootleg?

swagski
It just never happened on CD as a quantity boot

Is this a guide as to what is a "home=made-mixed-tape CD" in regards to my query above, "Exactly how do we qualify this?"
?
That a sizeable quantity has been made by an actual factory somewhere as opposed to someone ripping discs at home?
And how do we distinguish this from larger-scale illegal "home" ripping services, as is common throughout Asia?

If it were up to me we wouldn't have any CDr boots at all. Of course, it isn't up to me. We do know that this particular submitter was rolling his own, so to speak. CDr, Unofficial, from musica66 or mongorat is sufficient justification for removal as far as I am concerned. Now, if someone else submitted it then whether or not it's eligible is an open question.

Amsreddevil
Now to make sure which are official boots and which are not.

1skinnylad
And what is an "official" bootleg?

There is no such thing of course; it is an absurd oxymoron.

1skinnylad
Exactly how do we qualify this?

The guidelines already tell us that recordable media should be held to a higher standard in of database eligibility. From RSG §1.1.3: "Items that are duplicated on recordable or readily reproducible media (for example CDr, MP3, or Cassette) will be held under closer scrutiny than items that are replicated on non-recordable media (for example vinyl records and 'pressed' CD's)."

All pressed bootlegs are eligible as far as I know. CDrs, cassetttes, VHS copies, etc. that are unofficial will have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. How many copies appear to be available? Is it a unique recording, or simply a rip of an otherwise available release? Do the bootlegs appear to have been made by a Discogs seller? Etc.

seller musica66: 143 ratings, sells 143 home made CDr's. probably that's the reason for, 2 or more have this in collectie.

timetogo
CDr, Unofficial, from musica66 or mongorat is sufficient justification for removal [...] if someone else submitted it then whether or not it's eligible is an open question

+

ChampionJames
All pressed bootlegs are eligible as far as I know.

As are CDrs. Nik only wanted the homemade CDrs purged. When multiple sellers wer selling the same thing, with veteran and well regarded subbers also selling them on the DB, at that point the notion of bedroom cdr is probably not applicable, and also the swathe of CDs that were also removed because he subbed them. This is and has been a major fuck up.

please vote no on this one, it exists & I own it:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3016703#latest

more removals to vote on (definitely homemade cdrs):
http://discogs.programascracks.com/REM-Adhesion/release/4493290
http://discogs.programascracks.com/REM-KCRW-03-04-1991/release/4500789
http://discogs.programascracks.com/REM-Concert-DUn-Soir-08-03-1999/release/4500915
http://discogs.programascracks.com/REM-At-The-Beeb-25th-Oct-98/release/4501020
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Achtung-Bootleg/release/4405748
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Pop-Mart-Tour-97/release/4405569
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Rattle-And-Hum-Digitally-Remastered-Outtakes/release/4407870
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Zooropa-Wembley-12893/release/4401741
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Elevation-At-The-Target-Center/release/4409283
http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-Pop-Goes-Dutch/release/4409118

Amsreddevil
Now to make sure which are official boots and which are not.

I meant to say which are acceptable bootlegs for discogs norms.

Eviltoastman
Nik only wanted the homemade CDrs purged

which is why I made a point of saying this as I had seen 'proper' bootlegs submitted.

Is there a way to find out what has been removed from these 2 s in some kind of list form?

If it helps any, I know who musica66 is, and every one of his submissions is a homemade CDR, 100% every one.

hatfulofelt
and every one of his submissions is a homemade CDR, 100% every one.

what about this one?
Black Crowes, The - Black 'n' Blue, 5 owners, proper bootleg label, and there are quite a few others like this example. So what you are saying is not correct.

Thanks hatfulofelt clear.

seller musica66: 143 ratings, sells 143 home made CDr's. probably that's the reason for, 2 or more have this in collectie.

Darn, I knew a few legit ones would be present but I didn't check. Post-punk/indie/New Wave CDRs then... they have a certain "look" and no true label, ever. I hope this helps.

hatfulofelt
If it helps any, I know who musica66 is, and every one of his submissions is a homemade CDR, 100% every one

Well, a few that weren't (vinyl, for example) were not touched. In general I expect you're right.

Huge thanks to brianvy for spotting a few that aren't CDrs and need to be kept.

Removal request for this cd-r is a fake item ,http://discogs.programascracks.com/Future-Sound-Of-London-Isdn-Show/release/4253462 please vote to removal

It looks like many (all?) of musica66's CDr entries are "homemade". However, I went through the whole list and can attest that these below are all legit (and yet have been selected for removal):
The Who - My Generation

These things need to be checked before wholesale purging.

Excellent work. There's much more to his entries than I ever realized. None of those are from the list I own.

brianvy
However, I went through the whole list and can attest that these below are all legit

...and I gave "No" votes based on your comments on the submissions. I'm taking your word for it, of course, as all but one have no links or anything else that would confirm your list.

brianvy
It looks like many (all?) of musica66's CDr entries are "homemade".

As notes before, those should go. Sure, some will have a few owners. I'm assuming musica66 had some success selling these.

I added links to a few, but really, going around the web collecting links for these is hardly my job and is certainly a less than optimal use of my time. I'm just trying to help based on MY knowledge.

Many of those I listed above are on the On Stage label. A budget/rehash EU label which anyone who collects bootlegs despises for poor quality, chopped-up, recycled recordings with crap artwork. However they are factory pressed bootlegs and fully legit for the database.

As stated by others just prior, the effort is much appreciated.

xrtdistor
or
29 minutes ago
Removal request for this cd-r is a fake item ,http://discogs.programascracks.com/Future-Sound-Of-London-Isdn-Show/release/4253462 please vote to removal

This is another that has been closed. It's a LightScribe CDr and the print quality is poor. I have no doubt you're right: it's a bedroom CDr. I've put it up for removal.

timetogo
Huge thanks to

Although at least one of those you thanked had quite a few were removed that should not have? Hmm... One of them actually did a lot of damage, I would not be thanking them at all for what they did. Removing legit entries is just very wrong. How many more examples must be given of releases put up for removal that have already been incorrectly removed or are still pending? Seriously, thanking someone for doing this?

brianvy
I added links to a few,

Glad somebody was paying attention, you may have saved quite few that would otherwise have been incorrectly removed, thanks!

Amsreddevil
Although at least one of those you thanked had quite a few were removed that should not have?

Quite a few? I really doubt that. Based on the comments by hautofelt and brianvy I doubt it was very many at all.

Amsreddevil
Removing legit entries is just very wrong.

I have a hard time believing any of these CDrs can be called "legit".

timetogo
Quite a few?

what do you call this?:

brianvy
Bob Dylan - In "Melbourne, Australia"
Bob Marley - Exodus
Bob Marley - I Shot The Sheriff
David Bowie - Wild Mutation
Doors, The - When The Music's Over
Eagles - Hotel California
George Harrison - Live | Washington '74
Jam, The - The Night At The Theatre
John Lennon - Give Peace A Chance
Neil Young - Mirror Man
Neil Young - Powder Finger (Part 2)
Nirvana - In Memoriam Kurt Kobain
Police, The - Every Breath You Take
R.E.M. - The Green World Tour
Woodstock* - Freedom
Who, The - My Generation

That is more than quite a few.

timetogo
I have a hard time believing any of these CDr

Was not talking about the CDrs that were home-made but the many other correctly submitted releases that have already been removed or are pending.

I count 16 pressed CDs above that were incorrectly selected for removal (+ that Black Crowes release which was actually incorrectly removed). Amsreddevil is just saying (and I agree) that some harm could have been done to the database had these been removed.

The irony (for me) is that last week I got severely buttslapped for fixing/changing/removing a -handful- of approximate release dates based on probable DADC pressing date sequence (-what I thought was a good faith effort-) while other s are thanked for incorrectly (albiet also in good faith) selecting many legit submissions (certainly more than a handful) for database removal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. Here are 2 more which were incorrectly removed:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Bruce-Springsteen-Sha-La-La/release/3178548
http://discogs.programascracks.com/Divine-Comedy-Live-At-Somerset-House/release/3230193

So there is evidence of selecting at least 19 (probably more) 'legit' bootlegs for removal. Hmmmmm....

I think, but am not sure, that there's a lot of legit silver CD bootlegs going on here versus homemade CDrs (mostly from vinyl and often comps). Unlike the silver CDs, these CDrs have no legit lables to speak of.

Just saw brianvy's note as I entered this.

I just added Black Crowes back The Black Crowes - Black 'N' Blue

I also added the Springsteen title back (along with several fixes on it) Bruce Springsteen - Sha La La...

brianvy
The irony (for me) is that last week I got severely buttslapped for fixing/changing/removing a -handful- of approximate release dates based on probable DADC pressing date sequence (-what I thought was a good faith effort-) while other s are thanked for incorrectly (albiet also in good faith) selecting many legit submissions (certainly more than a handful) for database removal.

That's not irony, but you got your dig in . What you did was try to make up your own rule for dating releases. And here we have the usual "well meaning" zealotry. It's fun watching you wag your fingers at each other.

Amsreddevil
That is more than quite a few.

The items which I voted "No" on and the three which were removed were tagged as CDs, not CDrs. My comment, that none of the CDrs, or certainly almost none, had any sort of legitimacy here stands and is, IMHO, correct. Even counting the CDs the count of incorrectly removed items stands at 3 out of several hundred removals. That is hardly quite a few. Considering that musica66 sometimes tagged CDrs as CDs and only changed them when he was called on it make these relatively few mistakes quite understandable.

brianvy
The irony (for me) is that last week I got severely buttslapped for fixing/changing/removing a -handful- of approximate release dates based on probable DADC pressing date sequence

Actually, the probable in the quote above should be changed to improbable. You got precisely what you deserved. Actually, no, you didn't get the slew of EI votes you deserved so you got off lightly.

AndysWax
What you did was try to make up your own rule for dating releases.

Yep.

timetogo
That is hardly quite a few.

So just ignore the fact of the list of ones put up for vote that should not have been, and if no attention had been drawn to those, they would have probably also all been voted through. You can say it 20 different ways, the fact remains s should not be thanked for incorrectly putting up releases for removal.

timetogo
3 out of several hundred removals

3 that we know of, there could be and probably are more.

Amsreddevil
So just ignore the fact of the list of ones put up for vote that should not have been, and if no attention had been drawn to those, they would have probably also all been voted through.

I said CDrs. Those are CDs. Please read what I said rather than flying off the handle.

Amsreddevil
You can say it 20 different ways, the fact remains s should not be thanked for incorrectly putting up releases for removal.

I thanked them for hundreds of correct removals. I stand by that. I appreciate their hard work. There is no disaster here. This is why it takes five people to remove anything. We all make mistakes and we're supposed to check each other.

Amsreddevil
3 that we know of, there could be and probably are more.

Maybe, maybe not. I still haven't seen even one improperly removed CDr. My comments were about CDrs. I still haven't seen one that's somehow legitimate.

brianvy
I count 16 pressed CDs above that were incorrectly selected for removal (+ that Black Crowes release which was actually incorrectly removed). Amsreddevil is just saying (and I agree) that some harm could have been done to the database had these been removed.

I also agree completely with that and you were criticised by some here for the DSDC move here, none harder than myself. I personally see these hasty and lacsidasical removals as a far greater issue and far more disappointing. WHilst hundreds were removed, it;s impossibly to know just how many legitimate releases slipped through the net. What we do know is that they were not adequately checked for legitimate sellers and owners and of the hundreds removed, only 20 or so have been spotted. Sadly the majority were voted off the db before the problem was realised. Again I repeat that your DADC edit was in no way as bad as these. Whilst it was identified and accepted that wholesale removals were needed, these removals still should have been more carefully considered. It reminds me of the vote bombing we get from the "sellers these days thread" and it's one of the more distasteful aspects of the database, one where the mob prevails.

I personally don't see a problem ...

- the issue was wholesale incorrect submissions, likely 85-90% or more
- all removal requests contained a link to this thread
- any incorrect requests would therefore have been mentioned here and either no-voted or resubmitted
- there was no intent to deliberately remove the few good, rather to remove all the bad
- I don't think it happened all that quickly. I was very busy that day and it took all day to do this.

... I don't know about the seller thread, but is a mob not handy in this kind of case, if it's to be accomplished at all?

AndysWax
What you did was try to make up your own rule for dating releases.

Not exactly. I questioned dates which seemed impossible based on the DIDX pressing sequence.

timetogo
Actually, the probable in the quote above should be changed to improbable.

Have you actually looked at the DADC DIDX date sequence spanning the timeframe of 1986-1995? It is remarkably linear in the date progression over this period. So no, the dates I changed are actually quite probable. The DIDX evidence speaks for itself regardless of your oft-repeated "claims" otherwise.

Eviltoastman
Again I repeat that your DADC edit was in no way as bad as these.

timetogo
You got precisely what you deserved. Actually, no, you didn't get the slew of EI votes you deserved so you got off lightly.

So if this is worse, where is the mob vitriol here? Where are the EI votes? Where is the mass intimidation towards consort? I have no ill-will towards his/her actions since they were based on a good-faith effort to be constructive.

However, I find the double standard here troubling.

brianvy
Where is the mass intimidation towards consort?

it comes in waves ;-)

brianvy
double standard

I appreciate you highly, if that makes a difference in the weigh.

consort
I appreciate you highly, if that makes a difference in the weigh.

I appreciate most of what brianvy, your case, with the dates wasn't the worst case by far, nor are you in any way the worst offender. However, in your own small way, you contributed to what is, right now, a significant issue.

brianvy
However, I find the double standard here troubling.

I really don't think there is one. I also think you are taking the whole date issue way too personally. It was not and is not an attack on you.

You are a bunch of scarycats but I already said that.
Giving in to censorship is the worst option possible.
I might be a conservative but even Chateaubriand defended freedom of expression!
No regards, J.

Eviltoastman
What we do know is that they were not adequately checked for legitimate sellers and owners and of the hundreds removed, only 20 or so have been spotted.

This was a terrible thing, like a shark feeding frenzy carried out by the masses who were simply wishing to fall in with the current state of affairs just for the heck of it, without rhyme or reason or bothering to look into the facts prior to voting. I can understand the confusion, but not the rushes to judgment. It's unfair, absurd, and doesn't bode well for the state of discogs voting in general, imho. On the other hand, to be fair, we all have our moments, for sure. But this is ugly, unlike anything I've seen here prior. I hate to make it sound bigger or more important or harsher than it is, as it's not the end of the world after all (not even slightly)... but still.

consort
- all removal requests contained a link to this thread

One does all they can, in the hopes people will actually take a moment before acting blindly. The often do not. Such is as it is.

consort
I don't think it happened all that quickly. I was very busy that day and it took all day to do this.

Well, the voting history is erased as soon as a removal is completed, so it's impossible to reconstruct everything, but on the one release for which I was notified via inbox, the removal was shown as having been requested approximately 3 hours prior, and 3 yes votes were already entered about 2 hours prior. Being under the impression that it would only take one or two more votes to complete the removal, and having a concern which I thought might warrant some discussion, I posted twice http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/368091#3413939 and voted no simply to slow down the process until some thought and discussion could take place, which never happened, as shortly thereafter the removal went through apace.

Now, I don't purport to divine individual or mob motives regarding these entries, but I do wonder sometimes what the cotton pickin' hurry is to complete merges and removals, while other, more verifiable requests take weeks to finalize. For all I know, every single removal that was successful was 100% correct; even so, sometimes there may be mitigating factors that introduce a bit of gray area to the decision, and a bit more nuanced consideration may be helpful, and certainly won't be a hindrance, even if the removal is (the horror!) delayed a short while.

consort
I personally don't see a problem ...

You do not see it is a problem you put up legitimate entries for removal? You are basically saying it was up to others not to vote yes on the ones that were legit. Yes, they should not have voted yes, but due to your actions this happened in the first place.

consort
- any incorrect requests would therefore have been mentioned here and either no-voted or resubmitted

In a perfect world, but that is not the case. Many just blind vote as they take it if something is put up for removal with a link to somewhere, it must be ok to vote on. And as for re-submitting them: the s who submitted them were banned, so how could they re-submit? And what kind of attitude is that? The idea that if you made a mistake, it is ok because somebody else will surely re-submit it? Amazing...

consort
- I don't think it happened all that quickly. I was very busy that day and it took all day to do this.

The three I put up for removal were voted on within 2 hours (but I made sure those were indeed all 3 the home-made CDr versions, as I did on the ones I voted on). And the all day bit was maybe for a very few, because when I check their subs just 4 or 5 hours later, most had already been removed.

consort
- there was no intent to deliberately remove the few good, rather to remove all the bad

maybe no intent, but it happened anyway.

Eviltoastman
Sadly the majority were voted off the db before the problem was realised.

Maybe management could somehow check this after the fact? The s who were banned must have received messages in their inbox of everything put up for removal, would one of the techs not be able to somehow check these? Would an SR be a good idea to ask if there is anything that can be done?

Eviltoastman
Absolutely shocking lack of consideration and more harmful than the releases being kept in the first place.

shocking. ab-so-lute-ly sho-cking.

As previously mentioned, it's surely also worth looking at this 's subs while we're on the subject:
http://discogs.programascracks.com//cedremsoundlabs
An example of a 'label' he's been contributing is:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/label/Mark+Jones
I think they're likely to all be CD-R/DVD-R. I've posted comments on three example subs:
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4210124#latest
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4210138#latest
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=4210178#latest
Also, the fact that there would appear to be not one single item from this label's seemingly extensive catalogue being offered for sale in the Marketplace suggests to me that they are in fact made-to-order one-off 'bedroom' items. Further, the maker of these items has a high-profile internet presence, using his own name and publishing info, which would be wildly unusual for anyone engaged in factory-made bootlegs.

Given that the cedremsoundlabs has already attested in a PM that all Mark Jones releases are not one-off recordables (contrary to what Mark Jones himself says in the links provided in the three 'comments' referenced above), I think it likely that cedremsoundlabs is extensively web-submitting home-made items inappropriate for the DB.

I have already mentioned this to Discogs in a Request and cedremsoundlabs has apparently been CIP'd. However, his subs remain, so maybe some folk fancy casting an eye over them and seeing what they think...?

Also worth looking at are the submissions made by:
http://discogs.programascracks.com//headquatersmusic
For a start, check the subs for these labels:
Private Master
There are no items for sale in the Marketplace from either of these labels, which might suggest that they are made-to-order one-offs and therefore not eligible for the DB. Also, items on these labels appear to have only ever been added by cedremsoundlabs or headquatersmusic. Although cedremsoundlabs is apparently now CIP'd and is therefore unable to make contributions, amazingly headquatersmusic seems to have picked up his baton and is running with it: it's noticeable that subs for the Howling Leg label, previously seemingly solely contributed by cedremsoundlabs (at present CIP'd, ), are now being made by headquatersmusic, using the same phrase "all info from dvd". Could it conceivably be that these two s might be the same chap?

[quote=hatfulofelt][/quote]
thanks for re-submitting the Black Crowes CD!

-tonada-
Also worth looking at are the submissions made by:
http://discogs.programascracks.com//headquatersmusic
For a start, check the subs for these labels:
Howling Leg
Private Master

Pretty sure it's the same guy as cedremsoundlabs. I've filed SRs on both these too but nothing was done.

Don't forget Mongorat not..

Let's wait for a management decision. In the cases of nik to remove the releases. With these additional s we just don't.

Opdiner
Pretty sure it's the same guy as cedremsoundlabs. I've filed SRs on both these too but nothing was done.

Nik has blocked both s from the database

As my thread seems to have resulted in a wave of controversy, I thought I would wade in with a few of my personal thoughts as to bootlegs.
Once upon a time, folks who decided to become bootleggers acquired various recordings from studios by the back door, or taped concerts. They then invested considerable sums in having works pressed on the QT in pressing plants. Just like mini record companies, they had label names, cat# & titles to track their work. Stocks of releases, etc., in their garages, homes & vehicles. The size of these trades in America even had the FBI tracking the culprits, one of whom became paranoid enough to hurl all his metalwork into the Ocean.
By the advent of the CD this form of vinyl bootlegging began to trail off. Artists, like Zappa actually acquired & cut copies of the boots of his works and released them officially as collections - thus reaching the masses & severing viability of underhand sales by also issuing them on CDs.
Today, the mass-production of unofficial vinyl or CD is relatively rare, both requiring an amenable pressing plant (or some equipment in one's garage), whilst online file-sharing has much taken over. This brought about the opportunist, who may sell the odd CDr burned from a copy (of maybe a previous copy) of a work acquired online through file-sharing. Most avid 'fans' of an artist are likely to have a private copy anyway via whatever fan site might provide it (under instruction it is not to be sold, etc). The bedroom CDr out-putter simply relies on sales to the uninitiated and often 'tweaks' a title, edits, or adds hype - or even thinks they have something unique. There's often no cohesion to cat#s or label names. It takes effort to boot a vinyl, but little to burn a one-off CDr, so caution is certainly required when checking out a boot CD. Trust that helps.

Opdiner
Pretty sure it's the same guy as cedremsoundlabs.

http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/forums/topic/172073?page=56#3415125

Has just demanded votes on their releases, so not

Opdiner
Nik has blocked both s from the database

it seems. Their last edit was 40 minutes ago.

darkwaves
For all I know, every single removal that was successful was 100% correct

This was already proven to not be true, sadly.

swagski
Today, the mass-production of unofficial vinyl or CD is relatively rare

But, the door has also been opened for tons upon tons of waves is seemingly Unofficial, perhaps Partially Official, vinyl boots... in my music area of interest, the number of Slowdive, Smiths, My Bloody Valentine "reissues" is staggering... stuff in shrinkwrap and professionally made by yet purporting to be legit often enough when the labels being used haven't existed since the late '80s... it's just odd, and it's on the web, Amazon, Amoeba Hollywood, etc., and folks list this stuff as legit releases when they are not. I do live a good proper bootleg of unreleased material, or live shows. The CDRs that were removed, however, were homemade, yet still are a proud part of my collection... where else can loads of Echo and the Bunnymen rare tracks, Modern English vinyl bsides, etc., be found all compiled together, then on a decent, fanmade CDR.

Of course, those fanmade CDRs don't belong here on discogs, and musica66 just added them here to sell them, for better or worse... making everyone else think they were legit boots in the process when they never were. What's frustrating, to me, is that sometimes his entries were very unfront about what they were, but as pointed out prior in this thread, often they were not, and were entered as CDs instead of CDRs. Bringing me to this:

http://discogs.programascracks.com/U2-The-Complete-Boston-83-Tapes/release/3280852

I'm not sure this should've been removed. But it's complicated. My thoughts:

1) The Swingin' Pig was a legit bootleg label.
2) The Swingin' Pig (2) is some sort of very confusing offshoot, perhaps not related at all, but still legit. I'm not sure the origins of the listing there listed as CDRs, however, hence my confusion about the removal of the above U2 title.
3) There's a discogs who's been selling homemade CDR copies of titles on both these labels, and for many years now on discogs. When confronted via PM, he feigned ignorance into what he was selling, telling me they were all bought at an estate sale, or some such silly lie, which is obviously untrue. I placed another order with him just to catch him in his lie, too. I've brought this up both to discogs staff, and in a prior thread, since he has excellent in selling CDR copies of legit silver CD bootlegs. And this is so not right or ethical, to me, regardless of his doing a service in keeping this stuff around at decent prices, and being a decent person in offering refunds when asked for. Instead, I chose to give Negative , for his deceit, only to receive it back, for my having done nothing wrong whatsoever. But can I complain? No, of course not. I just live with it, and it ain't so bad. It's just I cannot stand liars on discogs.

swagski
Today, the mass-production of unofficial vinyl or CD is relatively rare...

Yes and no. As you say, old style unofficial concert recordings or compilations of rare material are pretty thin on the ground these days. But counterfeit releases -- both vinyl and CD -- are growing in numbers and availability. These are often ed off as either originals or legit "represses", which they are not, thus fooling many unsuspecting buyers.

Opdiner
Nik has blocked both s from the database

If you're certain these are homemade CDrs then I see no problem at all with removing them.

Amsreddevil
it seems. Their last edit was 40 minutes ago.

Just repeating what Nik has told me.

Can't believe he's asking for votes!

Opdiner
Can't believe he's asking for votes!

Not exactly asking, more demanding, "Somebody needs to check".

Opdiner
Just repeating what Nik has told me.

He is on CIP, not banned as such I guess, so he can still do edits.

Off topic, but I just saw a there for the 14th time on CIP! How do they do it?

I know one of the expelled dealers; he is a friend of a friend.
I can not vouch for everything this dealer posted but the 3 Haircut 100 inofficial CDs are state of the art, orginating in the now defunct BruisedFruit label, of which the digital corpse is still floating around on the Internet.
However, the whole action of management reeks of.. censorship!!!
Also the is bothering me by flooding my mailbox, by sending eactly the same message over and over again. So I have severed the connection...

swagski
"How many CDs can I rip & sell to be OK here?"

A similar topic has been brought up a few month ago ( rip off some tunes, burn some discs and print some covers, label it unofficial ).
I think it wasn't incorrect to remove some of the CDrs from the database.
I know it's not always easy to say if a release is eligible for inclusion into the database or not and where to draw the line, but I don't want discogs to be clutterd up with these rip-off stuff just for the sake of information.
There are a lot of official CDr promos floating around. But how to distinguish official CDrs from fake, homemade unofficial promo CDrs? Is it ok to include these CDrs to warn other people about these fake promos?
e.g.:
Linkin Park - Castle Of Glass

unintended double post