Please DO NOT Recompress Free Downloads!

- rigel7music said...
- User
- 23 Nov 2009, 02:06
Please DO NOT Recompress Free Downloads!

An increasing number of "free" MP3 audio files are licensed to the public under a Creative Commons license and follow strict technical standards recommended by creativecommons.org. These files contain critical ID3 tag frames that identify the ownership and rights associated with the file. Furthermore, a base32 SHA1 hash (or universal resource indicator, or "URI") of these "official" MP3 files is cataloged by their owners and published on their web pages, serving to identify the files to the public when downloaded from peer-to-peer networks and other sources.

When Last.fm recompresses an MP3 audio file, all of the critical ID3 tags are removed, including TCOP (Copyright text), WCOP (URL to Copyright/Legal information) and WOAF (URL to official audio file download page), not to mention album artwork, lyrics and the artist's original comments. What's more, these audio files have an undocumented SHA1 hash. They become illegitimate orphans without any copyright information and without a breadcrumb trail to their owners. This does little to discourage illegal use of the files.

When Google starts to index Creative Commons-licensed MP3s that follow this standard - and they most certainly will - artists will likely rush to adopt it. I strongly recommend that Last.fm encourage and support this strategy for safely sharing an artist's free MP3 audio files on the Internet.

Although all of my music is free to download and share (in accordance with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license), I sadly cannot enable the free download option on Last.fm because it generates alternate MP3 audio files not in compliance with the strategy. This is unfortunate, being that I would much prefer to allow all of Last.fm's listeners to download all of my music and share it with friends. Instead, I can only tell them to "visit my website." Kludgy.

For an example of how Rigel 7 has employed Creative Commons licensing, please visit the official download page and official file history page for my latest single, "Your Dilated Eyes."

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I hope my feedback is helpful.

[quote][b][user]rigel7music[/user][/b] said: An increasing number of "free" MP3 audio files are licensed to the public under a Creative Commons license and follow strict technical standards recommended by [url=http://creativecommons.org]creativecommons.org[/url]. These files contain critical ID3 tag frames that identify the ownership and rights associated with the file. Furthermore, a base32 SHA1 hash (or universal resource indicator, or "URI") of these "official" MP3 files is cataloged by their owners and published on their web pages, serving to identify the files to the public when downloaded from peer-to-peer networks and other sources. [b]When Last.fm recompresses an MP3 audio file, all of the critical ID3 tags are removed[/b], including TCOP (Copyright text), WCOP (URL to Copyright/Legal information) and WOAF (URL to official audio file download page), not to mention album artwork, lyrics and the artist's original comments. What's more, these audio files have an undocumented SHA1 hash. They become illegitimate orphans without any copyright information and without a breadcrumb trail to their owners. This does little to discourage illegal use of the files. When Google starts to index Creative Commons-licensed MP3s that follow this standard - and they most certainly will - artists will likely rush to adopt it. I strongly recommend that Last.fm encourage and support this strategy for safely sharing an artist's free MP3 audio files on the Internet. Although all of my music is free to download and share (in accordance with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license), I sadly cannot enable the free download option on Last.fm because it generates alternate MP3 audio files not in compliance with the strategy. This is unfortunate, being that I would much prefer to allow all of Last.fm's listeners to download all of my music and share it with friends. Instead, I can only tell them to "visit my website." Kludgy. For an example of how Rigel 7 has employed Creative Commons licensing, please visit the [url=http://rigel7.com/track/yourdilatedeyes/download/]official download page[/url] and [url=http://rigel7.com/track/yourdilatedeyes/history/]official file history page[/url] for my latest single, "Your Dilated Eyes." Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I hope my feedback is helpful.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- dianashamilton said...
- User
- 23 Nov 2009, 16:23
This is bad news. Also, in the cases where the CC license states "no derivatives," would last.fm's "new" mp3s count as derivatives that contravene the license conditions?

LMA -- IA Audio -- bt.etree.org -- The Library of Babel -- Spy Music -- Fred Astaire -- Surf Punk -- 1920s and 1930s Jazz -- Pre-War Blues

[quote][b][user]dianashamilton[/user][/b] said: This is bad news. Also, in the cases where the CC license states "no derivatives," would last.fm's "new" mp3s count as derivatives that contravene the license conditions?[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- DFA1979 said...
- Subscriber
- 23 Nov 2009, 17:12
Personally I agree that it would be nice for artists to have the ability of making their files downloadable (i.e. no re-encoding, ID3 tags preserved, etc). I still don't really see why you can't make them available through Last.fm anyway - people might be getting a file with an unrecorded hash, but I struggle to imagine many people caring (I've never heard of the practice before). It's surely better for them to have a file without the extra stuff than to not have one at all.

As for the question about derivative works: I doubt anybody would consider a re-encoded version of the same audio a derivative work, however tracks aren't technically uploaded to Last.fm under a CC license anyway (you agree to these terms in uploading - artists can still make their tracks available under CC licenses, but Last.fm require extra rights which aren't given by [some] CC licenses), so it's a moot point.

[quote][b][user]DFA1979[/user][/b] said: Personally I agree that it would be nice for artists to have the ability of making [i]their[/i] files downloadable (i.e. no re-encoding, ID3 tags preserved, etc). I still don't really see why you can't make them available through Last.fm anyway - people might be getting a file with an unrecorded hash, but I struggle to imagine many people caring (I've never heard of the practice before). It's surely better for them to have a file without the extra stuff than to not have one at all. As for the question about derivative works: I doubt anybody would consider a re-encoded version of the same audio a derivative work, however tracks aren't technically uploaded to Last.fm under a CC license anyway (you agree to [url=http://musicmanager.last.fm/terms/view]these terms[/url] in uploading - artists can still make their tracks available under CC licenses, but Last.fm require extra rights which aren't given by [some] CC licenses), so it's a moot point. [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- rigel7music said...
- User
- 24 Nov 2009, 09:09
Good points re Creative Commons. And, no doubt, some will want their files downloaded in any form.

To clarify, the ID3 tag frames and hash serve two separate functions. First, the ID3 tag frames exist within the file to identify copyright (or copyleft) information to users and serve not only to tell them what they cannot do, but what they can do. When you eliminate those tag frames, users presume that they cannot reshare the file or incorporate it into derivative works (e.g., podcasts) - not without contacting the artist. Needless to say, if your free song catches a DJ's ear, you want him to know right away that he can spin it, remix it, or whatever.

Second, the hash, or URI, serves only to identify a file by its unique content. While the scheme is mostly used on P2P networks to locate files and certainly could be used by casual users to communicate P2P download links in an e-mail or IM, that's not the point in this context. In the absence of all other information, one can locate related file info by its hash. So, for example, if the aforementioned DJ found your MP3 file on Gnutella and wants to verify permissions, he might Google the URI and find your audio file history and permissions web page (if you've gone to the trouble).

And speaking of trouble, if you've gone to all this effort, you know what a chore it is to create quality MP3s and to generate and catalog the URIs. Any additional complications aren't welcome, especially when the resulting files are only watering down your PR efforts; the whole reason you opted to give away free music in the first place.

So, in the end, it's not about the casual listener at all; it's about PR - making it easy for others to share and incorporate your music. Of course, removing album artwork, comments and tempo info won't make casual listeners happy either, but it's a lesser bone to pick at this point.

Again, I hope this information is helpful.

[quote][b][user]rigel7music[/user][/b] said: Good points re Creative Commons. And, no doubt, some will want their files downloaded in any form. To clarify, the ID3 tag frames and hash serve two separate functions. First, the ID3 tag frames exist within the file to identify copyright (or copyleft) information to users and serve not only to tell them what they cannot do, but [b]what they [i]can[/i] do[/b]. When you eliminate those tag frames, users presume that they cannot reshare the file or incorporate it into derivative works (e.g., podcasts) - not without contacting the artist. Needless to say, if your free song catches a DJ's ear, you want him to know right away that he can spin it, remix it, or whatever. Second, the hash, or URI, serves only to identify a file by its unique content. While the scheme is mostly used on P2P networks to locate files and certainly could be used by casual users to communicate P2P download links in an e-mail or IM, that's not the point in this context. In the absence of all other information, one can locate related file info by its hash. So, for example, if the aforementioned DJ found your MP3 file on Gnutella and wants to verify permissions, he might Google the URI and find your audio file history and permissions web page (if you've gone to the trouble). And speaking of trouble, if you've gone to all this effort, you know what a chore it is to create quality MP3s and to generate and catalog the URIs. Any additional complications aren't welcome, especially when the resulting files are only watering down your PR efforts; the whole reason you opted to give away free music in the first place. So, in the end, it's not about the casual listener at all; it's about PR - making it easy for others to share and incorporate your music. Of course, removing album artwork, comments and tempo info won't make casual listeners happy either, but it's a lesser bone to pick at this point. Again, I hope this information is helpful.[/quote]

Permalink Quote

Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.