Upcoming changes

[Sallen112]

Ok I haven't wanted to post in this thread yet, but as I have been monitoring and reading over everyones comments so far, why do we have to have a similar system like Wikipedia regarding ONLY donations? Why can't we have our own unique/creative system (subscriptions in this case + donations) to fund the site, servers, etc.? It just seems like everyone here is making such a big deal over for example the 15 second waiting period for downloading a file. I AM SURE everyone here can look at something else online before a file is fully downloaded, and then save the file to your desktop or somewhere on your mobile device. The time you spent studying a score (or part) for hours or days DOES NOT equal to waiting 15 seconds for a file to begin viewing, at all. Jesus... there are worse file sharing sites with longer wait times before downloading a file, I don't see why waiting for a file to download is any different.

[rtprtp]

I am not a musician and am fine with the 15 seconds delay. Still some doubts:

Apparently, this change should bring more income to the website. However, there is little information concerning how this will be distributed.

It also means that there’s little hope for the website to become free again. For a user, contributing more through subscripting only helps to keep the others outside the paywall.

Contrary to Guo’s claim, this approach is unsustainable for the score-sharing in general. It would be more difficult for IMSLP to contribute this collection to another party (as WIMA did to IMSLP) after it gets linked with the revenue of the company.

There are some ethical considerations as well:

Many of the users posting here are volunteers who contributed their work. I also had a quick look and about half of the files are from anonymous uploaders. I am not sure if they would do the same after the subscription system had been in place. Apparently, many of the uploaders here were unaware that their uploads can be used as such. Many of them uploaded the files, in the hope that the others can access it freely (not just for free). This decisions is in apparent contradiction to the will of many of the uploaders.

After all, IMSLP is the effort from a group that have little influence over any major decisions (just to be curious, among the people posted here, who got notified about this change beforehand?). From what I heard, what happened to an ordinary contributors is simply the appearance of a yellow star in their accounts, granting them access to things they had contributed themselves. All these happened overnight and no one knows what IMSLP will do next. We should simply think of better ways of hosting the scores, where the resources are more distributed and major decisions can be discussed before putting into practise.

[Boccaccio]

We should simply think of better ways of hosting the scores, where the resources are more distributed and major decisions can be discussed before putting into practise.

This is actually a good point. Since all the material on IMSLP is either CC or in Public Domain, one could simply (probably it's not so simple from a technical point of view) mirror all the scores, either in a new, project from the community for the community or in some existing platform like wiki source (Does anybody know what the general wikipedia attitude towards music scores is? I could not really find out anything quickly.).

[reccmo]

It rankles me to see the WIMA collection within IMSLP presented like that.

I guess that scores from the WIMA collection are currently excluded from the 15 seconds delay mechanism. As far as I understood, all scores released under CC licenses are also excluded

I've tested that on a score from my ongoing complete edition of Georg Gerson's works

http://imslp.org/wiki/Herr_Michel,_G.6_(Gerson,_Georg)

it's true that the download of my modern edition published under CC is not delayed. But the download is delayed if you want to see the autograph score on which I base my edition. This facsimile is among thousands provided by The Royal Library in Copenhagen. I uploaded the facsimile with the full consent of the library which itself publishes its facsimiles under CC. However, when I upload scanned scores like that I can't set a CC license. I must set a Public Domain license. IMSLP should at least except also those files from The Royal Library and similar institutions from download delay.

, as well as those available on the regional servers (that have their own autonomous fundraising mechanism).

It is very instructive for me to learn how much some people value their own 15 seconds of time, and totally despise the time of others who spend hours every day to keep this project alive.

Max

[dlewis1080]

I have had a little more time to reflect on these changes, but have found myself only more frustrated and disappointed.

I produced my scans so as to benefit the project, whose sole focus was to help music lovers. I wanted to make these scores available for musicians around the world without any restraints. I would not have done so otherwise.

These changes, which were implemented without warning and without the support of IMSLP contributors, fundamentally change the stance of the website. I do not want my scores to be placed behind any kind of block that punishes users who have not bought a subscription. If I knew this had been the case, I would not have made my scans.

I was told earlier about the website Wikitravel, a travel guide project created by volunteers. The owner, like the owner here, decided to monetise the website. Following this, the majority of editors, including the founders, left and joined Wikivoyage, now a Wikipedia sister project, that copies the original website but maintains free, open access. Something similar might happen here. I have already received an e-mail from a Hong Kong-based user who has an almost-complete mirror of IMSLP. He is considering hosting it as IMSLP's replacement, funded through a combination of voluntary donations and non-obtrusive advertising.

the income we receive from various sources have been enough to maintain the site so far ... I want to make IMSLP into an institution where some of the top administrative contributors can have sustainable jobs.

I do not agree with having paid contributors. The project, for the past ten years, has been successful through the efforts of volunteers. If we do not have enough copyright reviewers, tell us so that users have the opportunity to come forward. Have you forgotten this is supposed to be a project led by volunteers, not a company where users have to pay for a service?

Except I feel sorry for the 100s of volunteer contributors and editors who also thought the mission was transparently charitable.

Mr Guo's attempt to "monetize" his website is a breach, and even a betrayal of the trust put into him by all the unpaid uploaders of the scores that form the main asset of this website, and this is a form of disloyalty which leaves me quite hostile

I feel embarrassed I trusted the website with my scans.

Who makes these sort of decisions, and how are they accountable to the volunteers who make IMSLP possible? Where is the information, financial and otherwise, to back this decision?

just to be curious, among the people posted here, who got notified about this change beforehand?.

The decision was made by Edward Guo, the owner of the company/website (the user 'imslp' on this forum). Contributors were not consulted in general: apparently only a few senior contributors were. No financial information has been released, other than Guo stating previous donations have always been sufficient for server costs (but not for his desired changes to the website).

Of course, as those corporations are impersonal entities and they are not called "Edward", there is little incentive in lecturing them in hectoring tones on how to run their business to keep us happy for free forever

You are missing the point here. The library of the website was created, not by 'Edward', but by volunteering contributors. We thought we were contributing towards a volunteer-led, open access project, not a 'business' he could monetise.

The IMSLP is indispensable to me, and I am very grateful for all the work that the administrators put into the project.

I have taken from IMSLP for some years now and it's time to give back. I will gladly become a contributing member.

This is one of the biggest disgraces of all. Users are taking out subscriptions thinking they are helping IMSLP's mission. They are not. The work has been done by contributors who will not benefit from these changes. In fact, the changes go against the wishes of a majority of contributors. The donations are not going into servers that allow volunteers to do their work, but are being used for dubious and unsupported reasons. This entire situation shows there are many users who want to donate and would have donated had Guo made a proper effort to obtain donations.

[Sallen112]

Just to make this clear to everybody. All partially public domain files (that have Non-PD tags attached to them) and CC licensed files are not subjected to the 15 second waiting period. The files that bring up the 15 second wait is for the fully public domain files ONLY (with no non-PD tags attached to them).

[Bruckner8]

So, now I got to a "members only" file. No 15 second wait. Fully denied unless I'm a member.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. Subscription only.

Good luck with your new endeavor. In good time, I'm sure a new, free, charitable website will be developed to "compete" with imslp.org someday.

[Sallen112]

So, now I got to a "members only" file. No 15 second wait. Fully denied unless I'm a member.

This is exactly what I was afraid of. Subscription only.

Good luck with your new endeavor. In good time, I'm sure a new, free, charitable website will be developed to "compete" with imslp.org someday.

Where are you seeing this? If this is for CC license files, you should be able to view the file without the 15 second wait.

[saniakob]

Hi.
I have to disagree completely. You have no right to make this desition by your self or even consulting with some contributors of your trust. This project doesn't belong to you anymore, it belongs to the thousand of anonymous contributors who believed in a free project.
If you as the starter of the project feel like you can no longer sustain it as it is, then perhaps you should give the place to someone else who can think with ideas more related to the original spirit of IMSLP.
If you are going to impose this change anyway, you must no apply it to the scores already uploaded to IMSLP because you did not consult with each and every uploader about charging fees to their work ( beacuse they contributed to the project under a "free access" ideal). It is no ethical at all. In any case you must apply the changes to new submissions and ASK first if thew AGREE to be part of a fee system. If they do agree, you must ask if they agree with not getting any share of the money you collect with their work.
I am an IMSLP user for a very very long time. I did not contribute because from the start I knew this kind of issues would eventually arise if one person proclaims to be te owner of the project.
Despite all that, I had intentions to start contributing this year.
And now the problems are here. You by yourself have decided to put an end to an ideal which many followed. Now you are letting those people know that they were cheated and that their work now serves the monetary interests of a few persons.
I am a copyist - archivist of music, I specialize in early music. Now I won't contribute at all because this site does not follow my ideas of free access for cultural heritage and knowledge.
I am very annoyed and sorry about this situation. I live in a third world country and free access to culture and knowledeg if fundamental. The project started with 1 person, but by the time I got to know about IMSLP the project belonged to a community which grew from one common idea: "free acceess".
There are other ways to sustain this kind of projects, you simply chose de easyest one.
The subscriber plan will fail, beacuse free access is the reason why all the users visit the site. You are just destroying a great project.

Thank you for starting the thing off, but this site now is bigger than yourself.

p.S. To the contributors who will get the money by "crying misery on the phone". Disagreement with this plan has nothing to do with "waiting 15 seconds" to "lose 22 dollars" It has to do with betrayal. You all betrayed the people who joined IMSLP under the ideal of free access and those institutions which collaborated for FREE too IMSLP because of the mentioned ideal (and now they can not even remove their contributions).

[dlewis1080]

How would contributors feel about moving to a website hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit and charitable organisation that runs Wikipedia? I have been told this might be a possibility for us.

[reccmo]

Just to make this clear to everybody. All partially public domain files (that have Non-PD tags attached to them) and CC licensed files are not subjected to the 15 second waiting period.

I checked once again the example I posted on delayed download of a public domain manuscript facsimile from the Royal Library in Copenhagen

http://imslp.org/wiki/Herr_Michel,_G.6_ ... rg)#288592

try clicking on that URL while you're logged out from your IMSLP account and see what happens!

The files that bring up the 15 second wait is for the fully public domain files ONLY (with no non-PD tags attached to them).

[dlewis1080]

I have found the same thing! Logged out, I get this message when trying to download Brüll's cadenzas for Beethoven's fourth piano concerto:

'This is a newly submitted file that is available to members only.'

Will the banner, which claims that 'all scores' are 'still available for free to non-subscribers', be changed? This is deceitful, but perhaps we should not be surprised anymore.

[imslp]

http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Membership_Q&A

I didn't write the wording of the banner - the person who did is aware of the Q&A. New files are available to all users after a few days. The banner text is what it is for simplicity, but if you have text you want to put on there you can let me know and I will change it. It has been mostly other people tweaking the banner anyhow.

[Sallen112]

Probably add this sentence to the banner: "After a few days, this file will be available to everyone to download." I guess in my recent post above, I forgot to mention the newly submitted files part...

[rtprtp]

Still several questions.

1, who were informed about these changes before hand? Who's going to post should make this clear, so we kind of know who is the insider who isn't.

2, is it still in principle possible to have the database backed up and shared by the public, so that non of us have the monopoly over these resources (some form of distributed file sharing)?

3, why the uploads from anonymous users are still blocked from access?

Thanks everybody for the efforts. None of us values our 15 seconds. We values the time for others who are blocked from accessing these files freely. Just like freewares are not free softwares, the current membership plan goes directly against the free spirit that motivates of us. The community needs to learn form this and become more involved in major decisions.