|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Submissions - Release Type (Publisher Type)
Current Guidelines
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I don't have anything, except for the removal of "Independent", which I thought had already been decided anyway.
Aside from that, let's open up for any changes that you have to propose. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I think commercial, doujin/indie, and bootleg covers everything pretty well, so I don't have too much to add.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I am also for the removal of Independent.
Everything else looks abslolutely fine at the moment. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'd rather appreciate that we offer a solid definition of what "doujin" and "indies" are, as I've felt the albums we intend to cover with those types on VGMdb are not exactly the same as we do in Eastern.
With "doujin", I think this borrowed word is designed to cover the albums that have copyright-infringing materials on this database, but in Eastern it means pretty much anything published from doujin circles or through the doujin activity so even if it only contains so called Original Works or they pay a licensing fee to JASRAC or to respective copyright-holders, it's still seen as doujin. For instance, now doujin turns into the publisher type, we can see this album as doujin because it's published by a doujin circle, despite no association with specific products. With "indies", I think in the broadest terms it means any publisher that isn't a large but still professional enough not to be seen as doujin such as SuperSweep, Basiscape Record, Cave, lots of Hentai labels but I think we normally consider those labels mentioned as "Commercial". The reason why I'm not so sure about merging "Independent" and "Doujin/Fanmade" publisher types back into "Doujin/Indie" is not only because what "Indie" represents isn't so clear but also because all of what little we've classified as "Independent" so far are something we previously considered as "Official" (now "Commercial"), and if the abolishment of "Independent" means we have to set them back to Official, I don't think we need to create "Doujin/Indie" to cover them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This is all stuff I've said before but...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The main point is that doujin music is a type of independently published music, it's redundant (and confusing) to treat it as a separate publisher type. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
That was my original complaint but I don't have a good solution to it either.
__________________
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
For reference, here are all of the Independent albums currently in the database:
http://vgmdb.net/search?do=results&id=60344 |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In any case, what makes it a bit confusing to me is that "Commercial" sounds like it should only be sold. A free "commercial" album is odd to me (for example http://vgmdb.net/album/9343 ). Also would say, my soundtrack for Kaleidoscope (theoretically professional as I got paid) be considered Doujin/fanmade even though I'm not part of a doujin group nor acted as a "fan". I'm actually the official rights holder too but OCR is acting publisher AND it's for free. It's a bit tricky. Similar issue with this: http://vgmdb.net/album/11721 , what would the publisher be? It's just me but I'm the official rights holder and a professional composer in theory and practice even though ties to OCR are clear. Once again, it's free. As a publisher I'm not at all professional nor am I getting paid but it IS the official source for the official soundtrack by the rights holder. Quote:
Also, if it isn't set in stone yet, Doujin/Fanmade should be Doujin/Indie to work better imo.
__________________
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Also with regards to the use of 'Commercial' I'll add that I suggested it over Official because there are official releases that are doujin/indie (such as soundtracks for doujin games.) The term [official] doesn't mean much as a publisher type. Exactly. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just saying that my counter-argument is that Commercial implies money but official can easily be both free and not. I agree that "official" makes no sense as a publisher type though. I really hope someone comes up with the ultimate option here because both are problematic and a bit confusing imo.
__________________
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
One thing to keep in mind is that not every album is currently categorized correctly or consistently. Once we've got this figured out, we can fix all the irregularities.
Also, this field is the publisher type, not the publication type. A commercial publisher could still give something away for free without harming his status as a commercial publisher. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Well that made things a lot easier in my mind. And it's their status as a PUBLISHER and not artist (in the case of artist = publisher) that sets the type? i.e. Nobuo Uematsu posting an MP3 album on his personal website for free. Doujin/Indie?
__________________
Last edited by Another Soundscape; Apr 11, 2010 at 02:21 PM. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
So what is the fundamental difference between a professional publisher and an amateur publisher (including doujin and independent)?
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I haven't been following previous discussions on the 'Independent' designation very closely, but if it's removed what happens to releases that fall under: "A non-commercial album by a professional artist. The main distinction between this and Doujin is that doujin albums are published in a non-professional capacity."?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This has all been said before, I'm not even sure why this is still being discussed given it was already polled. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What are some examples of entries that would fall under 'Indie'? Quote:
As far as I can see the only need for an Indie tag is because 'Commercial' infers that money needs to be payed. I think our old system made a better distinction between professional and non-professional artists in this way. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Now individuals can sell music via iTune store or Amazon easily. If a VGM artist who owns the copyright of his music or the permission from the game company sells his soundtrack on iTunes store, isn't it classified as an orange "Doujin/Independent" album? (since aggregators is more like distributors).
Quote:
I think our current classification mixes up a couple different elements (publication, professionalism, legitimacy and whatnot), and that's why I'm not a big fan of it. Below is my quick attempt to classify; Type of Publication: Official, Independent/Indies Legitimacy of Release: Official/Indies, Doujin, Bootleg (this isn't correct, because some doujin artists pay fees to JASRAC). Professionalism: Official/Bootleg, Indies/Doujin (again, this isn't correct as some doujin artists earn their living costs). To put it simply, when Doujin is such an ambiguous concept, I don't think it's fair to bundle it with Indies just because both have self-publication in common. Last edited by Cedille; Apr 21, 2010 at 06:48 AM. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Basically we're just merging the two types back together. There's very few albums that fit the "Independent" type anyway, so not much justification to have it separate.
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with Cedille, Seanne, and Another, particularly after seeing how excited people are about the upcoming content filter, so that they can remove doujins from display. Also, it is clear that we don't know how to tell if a publisher is Commercial, or Doujin, or Independent. Is it some license, or a revenue threshhold, or number of albums produced/artists represented? It's more of "I know it when I see it."
After sleeping on this, I'm beginning to think that Publisher type, as in the Publisher's status as a business, shouldn't be on the album pages. It should be on the publisher page, because it's fixed thing that rarely changes. An alternative is to list Publication type. Some ideas for this: Commercial -- Usually sold; publisher has rights to all content; consumer has no redistribution rights Open -- Usually downloaded; publisher has rights to all content; consumer is granted redistribution rights Fan-Arrange -- May be sold or downloaded; publisher has rights to derived content, but not to the original content Bootleg -- Usually sold; publisher has no rights to distribute content The names certainly aren't set in stone, and there are some permutations that aren't listed. More discussion would be needed. I think this categorizes albums in a way that you can better filter out stuff you don't want to see. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
I am for that solution.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I'm ok with this.
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just an addition, what would a free album where the consumer is not granted redistribution? They are few and far between but I've seen albums, I'll get back to you if I find a good example, I know there are stuff like this on bandcamp. Also is there any idea implementing a "Creative Commons" category where you can actually specify the type of CC license used? CC has been increasingly common when it comes to original music at the very least and if this goes into VGM more it would certainly be nice to have. Another benefit is supporting this publication type and having an accurate database of work that can legally be remixed/re-arranged/altered and how.
__________________
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Playing devils advocate, we might be crossing the line on turning this field into another content one.
It is possible that there could be an album with 1 original track, 1 fan arrange track, 1 track which they previously put up for free distribution, 1 licensed track, and 1 bootleg track they stole from someone else's album, and had no right to redistribute. That would practically be unclassifiable here. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I guess I'm withdrawing my position of 'ok with this.' It still has some problems to be worked out. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Well then, polish up the classification, make the class dictate the color coding, add the possibility of combining classification (original+arrange) (soundtrack+arrange) (fan-arrange+anime) and so on first? Publisher type still seems like it's not as important as content in my opinion but I might be outnumbered.
__________________
Last edited by Another Soundscape; Apr 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The case SS suggests (though if it's not a very likely one) is more complicated since it involves several release types. I think normally it's almost impossible for there to be a conflict between the three we have. It's either going to be one or the other. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Submissions - Release Type (Distribution Type) | Secret Squirrel | Submission Guideline Restructuring | 29 | Jan 18, 2017 07:22 PM |
R-Type Themes EP | The Gambler | Album Discussions | 0 | Nov 25, 2016 11:04 PM |
Submissions - Release Date | Secret Squirrel | Submission Guideline Restructuring | 19 | Nov 21, 2011 04:36 AM |