Wikipedia talk:Featured sounds/Musopen

Proposal to Acquire a Professional Musopen Account for Wikipedia

Never got traction, never happened. Pity, but nothing I can do about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The difference between lossless (top) and lossy (bottom) in images, dramatized. You can tell that both are butterflies, however the quality of the lossless version (top) is much, much higher. The same concept applies in sounds, you can tell what a composition is, but the quality of a lossless track is much, much higher.

Featured Sounds has need of a musopen professional account in order to acquire lossless versions of free use music. There are two purposes to this. First, we aim to replace currently uploaded lossy versions of musopen tracks with lossless versions, and second, we aim to expand the number of lossless files hosted on Commons. In several cases, we have the first part of a several part musical composition, and are in need of the other parts. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is one such case, where we have the first of three parts from Musopen, but not the second or third.

Musopen music is all public domian, and the lossy versions of the music hosted there can be accessed for free. However it costs ~~$4 a month~~ $50 a year (which they advertise as $4 a month, but is paid for by the year) to have a professional account, which would allow us to download the lossless versions from Musopen. As you can see by the above link to the Sonata, Wikipedia already uses Musopen as a source of sound files, with no problems.

The difference between lossy and lossless is illustrated in the image to the right. While that is an image, not a sound file, the basic concept remains the same, in that lossless is much better quality.

I believe that this would be a good use of WMF funds, as it meets the Foundation's goals of acquiring a large depository of free use files (i.e. what Commons is) and of improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia (because you can read about the Moonlight Sonata, or you could read about it and listen to it.)

I'm cross posting this on several places where it would be of interest. If the community thinks it's a good idea, we can begin thinking about which budget it comes from and who has access to the account. (To the second point, I would volunteer my time as the/an account holder, and upload from Musopen upon request.)

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nominate and Support Sven Manguard Wha? 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds like a good idea! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Re-adding after comment was deleted) Sounds good, but the money would have to come from the WMF, I think. Still, it'd really help the sounds we've got, and add a nice new media feature to lots of our articles. Two questions: How long would we need the subscription for, and how many files do they have? The Cavalry (Message me) 1:22 am, Today (UTC+0)
- There are hundreds of pieces (but not thousands), some in multiple parts. The full list can be browsed here. As to how long we would need it, the only option, it appears, is a $50 US a year subscription using paypal. I'm sure we'd pull 50 files from it at least though, possibly multiple times that. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great idea, surprised I wasn't the first to vote. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we want to pay for their 'premium service', download all their premium files, and then republish them on a site that anyone can view without any subscription fee at all. How does that fit into their business model? That is, why would/do they allow us to do that? Happy‑melon 10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - I would like to avoid another National Portrait Gallery but as they offer their listening services for free we may not have that problem. A little clarification would be appreciated. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all Musopen works are required to be in the public domain. sonia♫ 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of the works are public domain, we can't steal them. What we're paying for is not the work, as much as the costs of keeping the site afloat. Bandwidth costs money. Moreover they make it explicit that we can do exactly that, as seen in the disclaimer and OTRS ticket that goes with Musopen uploads on Commons (again, link is above.) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have a "business model" - they are a non-profit charity. They charge money for lossless because they can't realistically give away that much bandwidth based on their donation levels. Wikimedia can afford it. Jujutacular ^talk 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four dollars a month? Are we sure someone doesn't already have a subscription for that cheap? This seems like relatively small money; also, why not make a deal between them and the WMF directly, e.g. pay a one-time fee and they send us their whole collection? /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just clarified that, sorry. They actually charge $50 once a year for a whole year, so it's really just advertising. As for the one time fee for the collection, that might work, except for that their collection is growing, so we'd have to have an account to get the new stuff anyways. If we negotiated a partnership, it would have to have a stipulation allowing us free lossless access to the new works as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you guys go out and purchase anything, if you're expecting to get reimbursed from the foundation for this, you should clear it first with the appropriate people (Philippe or Christine would be the first level contact, and they can pass it along further if needed). Just sayin', that might be important -- $50 doesn't grow on trees for anyone. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been purchased yet. The idea was to gain consensus and then bring it to the budget keepers. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.