Free music for fre April 10, 2009 5:59 PM   Subscribe

So, you have to be a member to download songs from Mefi Music? IS that really fair?
posted by Citizen Premier to Feature Requests at 5:59 PM (47 comments total)

Well, it does help reduce the number of random entities sucking down the raw files for redistribution without attribution. It's not perfect, but it's simple and helps somewhat, much like how email addresses are only visible (for folks who make them visible) to other members.

You don't have to be a member to listen to the stuff, or to subscribe to the main feed or any of the subfeeds, and if a member really wants to share a file with an enthusiastic non-member, they could always hand it off as a favor.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:02 PM on April 10, 2009 [5 favorites]


Christ...

start your engines.
posted by edgeways at 6:03 PM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is there a more specific reason you're asking this question?

As I see it, 5 bucks for unlimited access to any music collection is a fantastic deal.
posted by rollbiz at 6:03 PM on April 10, 2009


Is it fair that anything costs money, man?
posted by found missing at 6:06 PM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


IS that really fair?

Sure, why not? You're going to have to develop the idea where "not free" automatically equals "not fair" because it's not an automatic given.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:07 PM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Seems pretty fair, yeah.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:08 PM on April 10, 2009


I'm curious to know how you think it's unfair.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:09 PM on April 10, 2009


Maybe the question is whether it is fair that MetaFilter directly (theoretically) makes money off the music? It's plausible a couple people have bought memberships entirely to download music.

BIG DISCLAIMER: I love MuFi, and have absolutely no qualms with how it is run.
posted by Corduroy at 6:11 PM on April 10, 2009


Some music I have posted is also for sale on iTunes. I am cool with every MeFite having it for free. I am also cool with everybody, MeFite or not, listening to it on the site. But I don't love the idea of having a free download alternative that I created for the world, you know? I don't even mind the idea of someone "pirating" it. But I like that I can post a song here and not worry that I'm completely undercutting myself (not that I've actually made any money on it, mind you, but I have this insane dream that maybe someday, etc.).
posted by The World Famous at 6:12 PM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I just didn't want to have drive-by RSS scraper spammer jerks downloading everything all day (and still it happens, from the podcast feed).

Anyone can subscribe to the podcast feed and slurp them down, I just didn't want to bother with someone abusing my bandwidth with an obvious link to download for non-members.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:21 PM on April 10, 2009


If you have a website, and I have an RSS scraper, and my scraper reaches acrooooooooooooss the internet, into your website ...
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:26 PM on April 10, 2009 [2 favorites]


drive-by RSS scraper spammer jerks downloading everything all day

Yeah. I once parked a few MP3s in an unprotected folder on my home web server thinking oh, I'll share these with my internet friends for a few days and then pull them. I've since either removed them or password-protected the relevant directories, but I still get http requests every single day for some of those files.

How anyone querying hotmp3files.ru or whatever these sites are called would satisfy their search with my requiem for the <blink> tag is beyond me, but I'm sure the gods will have an answer.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:50 PM on April 10, 2009 [3 favorites]


Since when is metafilter supposed to be "fair" anyways?
posted by dead cousin ted at 6:51 PM on April 10, 2009


drive-by RSS scraper spammer jerks downloading everything all day

Are those what these things are about? There seem to be a bunch of those semi-blogs grabbing the songs off the site.
posted by micayetoca at 6:54 PM on April 10, 2009


Absolutely it's fair. If we're going to be giving all this stuff away for free, then what was the point of signing up and paying the $5 in the first place? If you think of each song as 99¢ like in iTunes, then Music alone has paid for itself over and over again. It's the closest thing we have to MeFi Platinum.
posted by sambosambo at 6:57 PM on April 10, 2009


Jesus is free, but you have to pay for the good shit.
posted by mds35 at 7:07 PM on April 10, 2009


So, yeah, Citizen Premier, could you elaborate a little on why you think it's unfair?
posted by micayetoca at 7:11 PM on April 10, 2009


I'm surprised goodnews.. I'd have thought that it would only be a problem if you linked to it.

these were free from sxsw or elsewhere
posted by xorry at 7:37 PM on April 10, 2009


Seems perfectly fair to me, by my definition of fair. Your definition may vary the results.
posted by dg at 7:41 PM on April 10, 2009


Is it fair that you had to pay $5 to post this complaint?
posted by klangklangston at 8:00 PM on April 10, 2009


Was this a drive by shitting or what?
posted by dead cousin ted at 8:09 PM on April 10, 2009


has no one ever told you about the analog hole? get your mother. it's time we had a family talk.
posted by the aloha at 8:10 PM on April 10, 2009


Of course it seems fair to members. Just like tax hikes for poor people seems fair to rich people.

We need some non-members to weigh in on this thread.
posted by aubilenon at 1:36 AM on April 11, 2009


So, yeah, Citizen Premier, could you elaborate a little on why you think it's unfair?

No.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:41 AM on April 11, 2009


Oh. Well then the answers are yes, and yes.
posted by ctmf at 2:33 AM on April 11, 2009


I think the OP's gripe is unfounded. Nothing is stopping Metafilter Music posters from including a link in their posts to other sites where members and non-members alike may download that very same track and/or additional tracks free of charge. I'm perfectly OK with the policy that downloading tracks from Metafilter costs $5 for access to the entire music library.
posted by emelenjr at 2:33 AM on April 11, 2009


I didn't say it was unfair. I asked if it was. The verdict seems to be, "yes."
posted by Citizen Premier at 2:50 AM on April 11, 2009


The verdict among whom?
posted by emelenjr at 4:25 AM on April 11, 2009


Everyone that matters.
posted by dg at 5:04 AM on April 11, 2009


So by asking, "IS that really fair?" you were NOT implying that you think the policy is unfair? I guess I'm a little confused as to why you asked the question, and that's why I pointed out that other people commenting here don't seem to agree with you. I guess I misunderstood the point of this MetaTalk thread.
posted by emelenjr at 5:45 AM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]


Is it fair that you have to pay $5 to UPLOAD music files?

Yes.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:27 AM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]


So, yeah, Citizen Premier, could you elaborate a little on why you think it's unfair?

No.


Well I can really see why your request is worthy of consideration, then. Thanks for participating. Last one out, turn off the lights.
posted by absalom at 8:03 AM on April 11, 2009


So by asking, "IS that really fair?" you were NOT implying that you think the policy is unfair? I guess I'm a little confused as to why you asked the question, and that's why I pointed out that other people commenting here don't seem to agree with you. I guess I misunderstood the point of this MetaTalk thread.

It was a philosophical experiment to see if people are able to quantify fairness, duh. Why else would he start a thread asking about the fairness of a site's policy?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:12 AM on April 11, 2009


I'll pay the $5 fee for anyone who wants to come do my dishes.
posted by jeffamaphone at 8:31 AM on April 11, 2009


Is it fair that I read thirty-four comments of this crap?

Is it fair that I posted a thirty-fifth?
posted by box at 8:52 AM on April 11, 2009


I didn't say it was unfair. I asked if it was. The verdict seems to be, "yes."

The verdict is that it's not unfair.
posted by inigo2 at 9:55 AM on April 11, 2009


The verdict is that it's not unfair.

If you ask me, the way I'm reading the thread there are two verdicts. One) that it's not unfair that the songs can only be downloaded by members, and two) that it is really obnoxious to post a very vague thread with a question and then refuse to clarify.
posted by micayetoca at 10:03 AM on April 11, 2009 [2 favorites]


I didn't say it was unfair. I asked if it was. The verdict seems to be, "yes."

No it doesn't.
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:53 AM on April 11, 2009


Is there some kind of punchline coming?
posted by roll truck roll at 12:26 PM on April 11, 2009


Is there some kind of punchline coming?

I hope so because otherwise this whole thing is just fucking pointless. Actually even with a punchline it's still pretty much worthless.
posted by ob at 12:48 PM on April 11, 2009


In Citizen Premiere's defense, the line folks keep quoting could pretty easily be a product of mangled elision:

I didn't say it was unfair. I asked if it was [fair]. The verdict seems to be, "yes [it's fair]."

Bad writing, but it brings reading comprehension back into the realm of the plausible.

CP, it would be nice if you could maybe give us a paragraph or so on what you were thinking that motivated this—there's nothing in particular wrong with wanting to get the community reaction to something, but the way you phrased your post really does suggest you had a reason to think it might not be fair, and if you're going to dangle that in front of everybody it's just plain polite to keep your end of the discursive bargain by letting us know where you were coming from.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:03 PM on April 11, 2009


Phew. I responded to this thread so early this morning, I was afraid I needed either more coffee or better sarcasm detection.
posted by emelenjr at 2:57 PM on April 11, 2009


CP, it would be nice if you could maybe give us a paragraph or so on what you were thinking that motivated this—there's nothing in particular wrong with wanting to get the community reaction to something, but the way you phrased your post really does suggest you had a reason to think it might not be fair, and if you're going to dangle that in front of everybody it's just plain polite to keep your end of the discursive bargain by letting us know where you were coming from.

Man, mods are so nice. I can't get over it. Me, I would have just said "This is a bad post, and you should feel bad for making it."
posted by languagehat at 5:29 PM on April 11, 2009


I wouldn't have been so polite.
posted by dg at 7:42 PM on April 11, 2009


You can always download the MP3 because the URL is available in the View Source whether you're logged in or not. I have a bookmarklet here (warning: hosted on a silly web page because I threw this up at 2 AM one summer night) that automates that.

(More technical stuff: It actually makes an HTTP request, so you need to be online, but the bookmarklet could be rewritten to do everything in JavaScript. (I'm just lazy, and I hate JavaScript.))

(Less technical stuff: If this is uncool, I can take it down pronto.)
posted by shadytrees at 9:24 PM on April 11, 2009


I didn't say it was unfair. I asked if it was. The verdict seems to be, "yes."

I meant to say "no."
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:05 AM on April 12, 2009


mathowie, cortex, et al, if you don't like the drive-by slurpers, you probably should put a robots block on the /music/ folder, I see you don't have one. Even w/o the feed or logging in or anything any mp3 crawler worth their salt (I've written a few) will get the mp3 url out of the SWFObject init code in the js. Putting a robots block will not stop everyone, but it will shut down well meaning crawlers.
posted by neustile at 1:21 PM on April 12, 2009


« Older It's still good, but...   |   Talk to Strangers Again Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments