I don't want to see artist page with 10 "No cover image available" images
2007-09-01 24459, 2007
luks
and nothing else
2007-09-01 24402, 2007
brianfreud
luks: yes, and half the point is that then ppl would be incentivized to add the image urls...
2007-09-01 24408, 2007
warp
brianfreud: i commented on it yesterday.
2007-09-01 24444, 2007
brianfreud
we could only show those with art... but that seems worse than presenting them all, and allowing ppl to add the missing art
2007-09-01 24444, 2007
copper
icentivized?
2007-09-01 24458, 2007
brianfreud
given a reason to do something
2007-09-01 24459, 2007
copper
icentivicized
2007-09-01 24405, 2007
luks
there is no good way to add album art
2007-09-01 24407, 2007
copper
icentivided
2007-09-01 24408, 2007
SenRepus
made up word?
2007-09-01 24409, 2007
luks
not all albums are on amazon
2007-09-01 24417, 2007
brianfreud
coverart ar...
2007-09-01 24420, 2007
warp
brianfreud: we can't add cover art for a LOT of albums.
2007-09-01 24445, 2007
brianfreud
warp, unless we lose the archive.org method, seems to me, there's no release that can't have art...
2007-09-01 24450, 2007
warp
brianfreud: for those we can, i think most ppl are doing a good job already.. an incentive doesn't seem particularly neccesary.
2007-09-01 24454, 2007
luks
using archive.org to use copyrighted images is something we should get rid of
2007-09-01 24403, 2007
luks
not encourage people to use it
2007-09-01 24422, 2007
brianfreud
well, I promised ru I'd not add any til he heard more from the lawyer - seems it's back in flux again
2007-09-01 24456, 2007
brianfreud
google is pushing hard to allow it though
2007-09-01 24457, 2007
SenRepus
that who archive thing seems like a bad plan to me too
2007-09-01 24457, 2007
luks
I'd very much prefer if we can upload for example max. 130x130 images
2007-09-01 24404, 2007
copper
ew
2007-09-01 24407, 2007
brianfreud
that would be fine with me
2007-09-01 24413, 2007
luks
I doubt somebody could see such small images as a copyright violation
2007-09-01 24413, 2007
warp
ruaok was also planning to talk to some archive.org guy about it. not sure where/when, perhaps at burning man?
2007-09-01 24416, 2007
brianfreud
hell, 100x100 would work
2007-09-01 24428, 2007
copper
what's the point?
2007-09-01 24432, 2007
brianfreud
the images in that screenshot, btw, are 190x190
2007-09-01 24454, 2007
warp
luks: might be allowed under US fair use law, but not in countries which don't have fair use.
2007-09-01 24455, 2007
luks
copper: to have an idea how do the album look like
2007-09-01 24455, 2007
brianfreud
on an 1180x768 screen
2007-09-01 24408, 2007
luks
warp: MB is hosted in the US
2007-09-01 24410, 2007
copper
you can barely see anything on such small images
2007-09-01 24422, 2007
warp
luks: i know that, but if you need mirrors at some point, etc...
2007-09-01 24428, 2007
copper
300x300 would be more reasonably
2007-09-01 24430, 2007
brianfreud
warp: yes, but they we return to "the country of jurisdiction is the country in which the server is located"
2007-09-01 24432, 2007
copper
reasonable*
2007-09-01 24448, 2007
brianfreud
copper: at that point, I think there's a reasonable challenge for official releases
2007-09-01 24448, 2007
luks
copper: I'd argue that 300x300 is usable for printing
2007-09-01 24400, 2007
copper
oh come on...
2007-09-01 24402, 2007
luks
and that clearly would be against copyright law
2007-09-01 24402, 2007
brianfreud
the main point though of the archive.org thing originally was bootlegs
2007-09-01 24403, 2007
luks
s
2007-09-01 24419, 2007
brianfreud
or lp/reel-to-reel that will never be on azn
2007-09-01 24423, 2007
luks
I think 150x150 is enough for a preview
2007-09-01 24432, 2007
brianfreud
150 or less is fine by me
2007-09-01 24434, 2007
luks
or even smaller size
2007-09-01 24435, 2007
Freso has quit
2007-09-01 24437, 2007
copper
printed 300x300 pixel images can't possibly qualify as counterfeit...
2007-09-01 24439, 2007
brianfreud
thumbnail size
2007-09-01 24435, 2007
copper
blah, you seem to have reached a consensus anyway :P
2007-09-01 24435, 2007
brianfreud
copper, though I wouldn't want 300x300 printouts myself, I think the point is that the images be large enough to ID, but small enough that there is no question that anyone would want to print them
2007-09-01 24453, 2007
copper
who would want to print 300x300 images?
2007-09-01 24457, 2007
brianfreud
somewhere between 100x100 and 150x150, noone would ever want that printed
2007-09-01 24412, 2007
copper
rephrase: who in their right mind would want to print 300x300 pixel images?
2007-09-01 24430, 2007
brianfreud
btw, luks, speaking of which, did you happen to see the bug report I put in about the art tab?
