Which is why i simply copy/paste a lot of information from various sources into markdown files for the time being - simple (and not time consuming), but not a permanent solution…
Too bad wikipedia is not more comprehensive. They have a lot of data, and i don’t see them going away anytime soon.
Please lobby them! I have, to no avail.
Bandcamp is a distributor, a platform, and they do not really get involved in the content. Labels “own” the data.
To come back to Roon, it seems Roon "prefers’ Rovi over MusicBrainz, and it is not clear how the choice is made (if an album exists in both databases). So even if you add data to Musicbrainz, it may actually never be used by Roon if a release, however incomplete or inaccurate, also exists in Rovi. I may be wrong, but this is what i suspect.
There’s some remarkable self-publishing going on on bandcamp and at least for those a simple Bandcamp to musicbrainz export would be nice. At least as an option.
Agreed but i do not think the data in bandcamp is even structured. It is just basically text on a page, and they have no control on the digital downloads. .it is all managed by the “suppliers”
At least that is what i have seen from the albums i purchased.
Not quite. Track data is structured and must come from a database in Bandcamp. But credits are just text. (Just inspected page source ;)) But your main point remains. When I talked with Bandcamp they were pretty clear they did not want to get into that business. My guess is that they don’t think it adds much value to their artists, and they are trying to keep costs low to maximize what they can pay artists.
I assume it is just a matter of who they can strike a deal with.
Roon can’t just Hoover up copyrighted information and use it in a product, even if it is freely available to consumers. They must sign a license.
I do find it strange that labels don’t put emphasis on metadata for streaming services. ACT, for example, have lots of good stuff including PDFs on their site, and included with the CDs and LPs, but all the business statistics are clear, streaming is outclassing all other distribution channels and ACT music has lousy metadata on Tidal and Qobuz.
What are they thinking? Trying to stem the tide? Thumb in the dike?
Are you saying that metadata from musicbrainz could be somehow considered to be under copyright? The core data dumps are CC0, public domain - that wouldn’t be something to worry about for Roonlabs. Or are you referring to the descriptive information taken from various places and entered into musicbrainz?
I’d wish they’d win … 
But maybe it’s not ACT but Kontor who manages the digital distribution. Don’t really know, though.
I think it’s truer to say that they assert that to be the case. Without signed contracts from all contributors on file, the actual situation is a bit fuzzier.
But for that the data entered would have to be considered to be protected under copyright somehow. Now is music metadata (not talking album art or reviews) protectable as such? Just because someone enters data in musicbrainz doesn’t mean that person can claim a right on those data - I think. Haven’t checked the account opening procedure - maybe that provides the record you hint at.
“This allows for non-commercial use of the data as long as MusicBrainz is given credit and that derivative works (works based on the CC licensed data) are also made available under the same license.”
Non-commercial is a blocker.
Derivative works also CC is a blocker.
I don’t know anything about the specific sources, it’s just a general observation based on a lifetime in software: stuff is either restricted, or restricted from commercial use, or use requires that the using product is also free. Rare to find anything else.
Any user that contributes to MusicBrainz should be aware that their contributions will be made available to the public under the licenses described below. Furthermore, MusicBrainz users give the MetaBrainz Foundation the right to license this data for commercial use. The income from these licenses keeps MusicBrainz running and covers the paychecks of paid MusicBrainz developers.
Given Roon leverages MusicBrainz I think it’s safe to assume they’re doing so on a commercial basis.
Roon should fundamentally and primarily improve the ability to edit and curate what’s there. The editing of tracks and the sliding puzzle hell of reorganising them is so bad, one can’t help but wonder if it’s been done on purpose to stop people from tinkering.
Really it would be good to have Roon pool collective experiences in the community to try and find a good solution to specific “1st build” compromises.
Roon should be perhaps focusing of gaining feedback about how to fix so many little things that are fundamentally “broken” or unusable about Roon, namely box-set handling, classical tagging, generally tagging of music.
IMO It’s odd that Roon asks for extensive feedback about implementations after the event and never officially asks for assistance with ideas about current projects to get it fundamentally right first time.
(although I do remember something about playlists years ago? Did anything ever happen with that dev?)
@joel already commented on a thread I created a while ago, where I showed heaps of examples. I could probably use all the albums on the Roon home page to show how behind Roon is behind the ‘free’ Tidal app… but the Roon Team is well aware. They say there is a plan to close this gap.
See here:
They actually do that (see here).
But will there ever be a ‘fundamentally right’?
IMHO it is like it is. Everyone has to decide for himself, if he’s willing to further use a product or abandon it for an other (in other ways flawed) product. Everyone has it’s own priorities and use cases. That’s why so many operating systems (and distributions there of), back-up, music player, … software exists.