Upcoming changes

[felixblumenfeld]

I can only side with the comments made by many, if not most, posters. It is very sad that, without any prior announcement, discussion, disclosure of financial statements and needs, etc., the founder of IMSLP has decided to turn this indispensable documentary resource into what it has never been meant to be, at least in the mind of all those volunteers who submitted the result of their research and scanning out of devotion to the very worthy cause of making public-domain classical music available. I am much concerned with the fact that their work should become available to users only after they have had to deal with a limitation, be it financial or technical.

I am very heavy user of IMSLP, often dozens of times a day, not only as part of my scholarly work but also for the pleasure of following recordings while listening. Very often I need to download a score only to check a minor detail, which explains the frequency of my visits; having to wait fifteen seconds each time if I refuse to pay for the work of volunteers will become a major inconvenience. IMLSP is as important to my scholarly activity as blood in my veins. Paying some twenty dollars a year for having access to all this is not much in itself, but the way in which a major change that is very likely to cause permanent damage to IMSLP’s reputation was implemented is simply not acceptable. I very much hope that the founder will take into account the numerous comments made so far and shelve this membership plan. Many posters have offered solutions (or elements thereof) that ought to be considered seriously. It would be quite a tragedy for scholars and musicians if one of the most valuable bibliographic resources ever became a commercial venture.

Everyone is surely impatiently expecting Mr. Guo’s reaction to all the postings made in the last few days. One can easily imagine that he will prefer not to rush his answer.

[vinteuil]

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.

I wrote the banner text (in the interest of clearer communication about the plan), and I'll take responsibility for the misleading wording. I certainly didn't intend to deceive anybody by it, however. Technically speaking, of course, "All scores will...be available" is true, but I agree that it's oversimplified and might cause confusion. I've changed it accordingly. (Sorry for making people think badly of Edward in the process!)

I'm not going to tell anybody how to post or what tone to adopt, but I would encourage people not to jump to negative conclusions about Edward's motivations. (This is as somebody who is not involved in the IMSLP "organization," only as a contributor to the site.) I understand that, without more information, it's hard to know what to think of him, but maybe you could consider this: if IMSLP were truly a money-making scheme for Edward, why wouldn't he have monetized it earlier? Why would he have, in fact, operated it (and paid for legal fees etc. etc.) with his own funds for several years? And why would he monetize the site in this fashion?

I really don't mean anybody any offense by this, but the 15-second wait period is not exactly a sure-fire way to guarantee subscriptions. The point being: I assume that if Edward ever wanted to make money off of IMSLP (which I don't think he ever will, and certainly hasn't done now), he would block access for non-subscribers altogether, completely plaster the site in ads, merchandise more heavily, or some similarly drastic method. But he hasn't done that, and he won't, because this is not a nefarious scheme to make money off the backs of volunteer contributors.

[KGill]

For the record, Feldmahler announced this in the Moderation Forum on December the 13th. It was presented as a done deal at that time, essentially.

... I understand that, without more information, it's hard to know what to think of him ...

The lack of information is precisely one of the most damning points that has been raised here. It is also one of the most obvious: you have a business, or you take donations. The two do not sit well together.

I really don't mean anybody any offense by this, but the 15-second wait period is not exactly a sure-fire way to guarantee subscriptions.

This should have been an excellent supporting reason to not have installed the thing in the first place. Of course it's not a guarantee, any more than an extensive donation drive would have been (possibly less). But we never got that, did we?

I believe the following recent posts in particular demand thorough, serious responses:
http://www.imslpforums.org/viewtopic.ph ... 323#p40323
http://www.imslpforums.org/viewtopic.ph ... 336#p40336
http://www.imslpforums.org/viewtopic.ph ... 340#p40340

[coulonnus]

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.

And what about libraries like BNF or BSB where you check a box to promise that your download is not for a commercial purpose?

[discophage]

In reply to Vinteuil, sorry, but I have to side with KGil on this. The problem is not, in itself, the 15-second wait or the blocking of newly uploaded scores, the problem is not with the 22-bucks yearly subscription or even having to pay something to access this cornucopia of scores. The problemS of Mr Guo's decision are:

- the utter lack of transparency of his decisions, accounts and financial needs and goals. You are telling us that "this is not a nefarious scheme to make money off the back of volunteer contributors", but the point is, we don't know and aren't told precisely what goals this scheme is pursuing, what costs they are supposed to cover.

- the total betrayal of all the uploaders who thought they were contributing to a free-access, community project: they have NOT given all these uploads to Mr Guo and his private company, they have given them to the community.

- the fact that IMSLP is owned by a privately-owned, commercial company with no accountability.

- the fact that MANY better, less antagonizing methods to raise funds could have been essayed - all involving more transparency and less unilaterality - and haven't.

Once again, I wish to say that I have the deepest gratitude to Mr Guo for what he has done so far. IMSLP has become indispensable to many, many music lovers and practitioners. You seem to say that he has even paid from his own pocket some of the expenses involved in maintaining the website, and there is no reason why he should have. Contributing to covering the costs of maintaining this website is perfectly okay. But Mr Guo also needs to remember, or realize, that he hasn't been a private entrepreneur like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk creating new things, new products, new technologies and new needs: he's been the rallying point of a community effort. This is indeed what he has created and his major contribution. But the consequence, which he must live up to, is that he cannot take decisions all of his own, decisons that concern the whole community of contributors and users. You are telling us that you don't think Mr Guo "ever will" try to make money off of IMSLP. How do you know? How can you tell the future of anybody? I don't know Mr Guo and I can't tell what he will do and turn into in the future, but his present decision, its lack of consideration and transparency, is unfortunately not a good omen and not one likely to encourage trust.The reason, I believe, of everybody's concern here, is that this looks like a begining, not an end. As the French say, "l'appétit vient en mangeant", "appetite comes with eating".

The lack of response given by Mr Guo in the last few days to the general outcry is also a cause for concern. I understand that he needs to think it over, but he needs to think fast, because in one fell swoop he's destroyed much of he immense goodwill that the website had garnered since its inception, and this too is a huge loss, not just to him but to all of us.

[Humphry]

I've changed my mind - I subscribed but I still get begging messages and also have to wait to download. It is not working properly or adequately. Beware!

[rtprtp]

Agree. But few are questioning his motivations. No one is supposed to carry out such a decision without consulting the community. Edward seems to be fully aware of this. However, the way these decisions are made betrayed the principle he himself once promoted.

Quote:

I'm not going to tell anybody how to post or what tone to adopt, but I would encourage people not to jump to negative conclusions about Edward's motivations. (This is as somebody who is not involved in the IMSLP "organization," only as a contributor to the site.) I understand that, without more information, it's hard to know what to think of him, but maybe you could consider this: if IMSLP were truly a money-making scheme for Edward, why wouldn't he have monetized it earlier? Why would he have, in fact, operated it (and paid for legal fees etc. etc.) with his own funds for several years? And why would he monetize the site in this fashion?

[Richety]

I have just registered to post in the forums (I should have done this ages ago) partly just in order to respond to this thread.

Like others, these changes while understandable raise some concerns. I am a musician, who also is involved in sourcing music from manuscripts for both amateur and professional groups on occasion. I have over the years been building my own collection of urtext typeset editions of 18th century music mainly for my own personal use and the use of an amateur music group. I have not uploaded these anywhere, but had been planning to upload them to this site at some point for others use. These changes make that less likely (at the moment anyway).

This site has been enormously helpful to be able to access public domain scanned manuscripts of newly discovered music but also in particular music that has not been published or is just too expensive for a charitable music organisation to consider buying.

A lot of work goes into this site, not just from those that run it but also all the many contributors who volunteer their time in the name of free flow of information. But IMSLP clearly also needs some funding to continue to be able to maintain the site. This is perfectly understandable and I support decisions to generate some funding to maintain the site's purpose. My concern or objection really, is the particular decision to introduce a subscription policy. There are other sites that have to rely on donations, but they have managed to avoid using subscriptions because they are not commercial ventures as such. Board Game Geek for example, is a discussion forum and resource of all board games that have been produced. It is a widely used site that has contributors from all over the world. They also need some funding to continue maintaining the site, and all the many administrative tasks that are required. However, they have used crowd funding systems and advertising to generate donations from the community. I don't understand why a crowd sourcing platform hasn't been explored where funds generated have a clearly defined purpose.

My other concern is learning that the 'Classical Music world' have apparently been disrespected by the way the site is run. I don't fully understand why this is. From my experience musicians have delighted in the resource that this site has provided. I can only assume we are talking about publishers and scholars who would likely cast a dim view over people performing from urtext scans or poorly typeset parts full of errors. I can understand this, one of the reason I do my own typesets of manuscripts is because of misreadings or mistakes in others work (no criticisms intended). This is natural, and to be frank is now the way the world is. Perhaps the Classical Music World (which I am part of) needs to get used to this. Apologies if I am speaking out of turn but these are my initial thoughts. I will also add that I am speaking from a UK perspective. However, maybe you are implying that some libraries may feel that their resources are being abused by the fact their handiwork or scanning is not recognised once a manuscript is put out on the web. A library no longer gets anything back once a manuscript is 'out there' and uploaded to a third party site. But surely, once they choose to do that (for good reasons) this has to be expected?

Anyway, despite all this I do support trying to find a way to increase donations. I just don't agree with the strategy of introducing a subscription system without the consent of all those many volunteer contributors who still own the majority of the information that is on this site. I also don't agree with the move towards this becoming a commercial venture. This decision may very well turn out to be the death knell and something else will take over in its place. It's happened on the web many times before, and will happen again. It would be really sad to see all the work that has gone in to this site be for nothing.

Finally I don't want to come across as negative, but this is an important issue. This is a wonderful site and the founder has put so much work in to this. I definitely do not question the motivation for this, as I say in principle funding is important. But I am holding off on purchasing a subscription for the time being until I see how this pans out.

[Richety]

I have just registered to post in the forums (I should have done this ages ago) partly just in order to respond to this thread.

Like others, these changes while understandable raise some concerns. I am a musician, who also is involved in sourcing music from manuscripts for both amateur and professional groups on occasion. I have over the years been building my own collection of urtext typeset editions of 18th century music mainly for my own personal use and the use of an amateur music group. I have not uploaded these anywhere, but had been planning to upload them to this site at some point for others use. These changes make that less likely (at the moment anyway).

This site has been enormously helpful to be able to access public domain scanned manuscripts of newly discovered music but also in particular music that has not been published or is just too expensive for a charitable music organisation to consider buying.

A lot of work goes into this site, not just from those that run it but also all the many contributors who volunteer their time in the name of free flow of information. But IMSLP clearly also needs some funding to continue to be able to maintain the site. This is perfectly understandable and I support decisions to generate some funding to maintain the site's purpose. My concern or objection really, is the particular decision to introduce a subscription policy. There are other sites that have to rely on donations, but they have managed to avoid using subscriptions because they are not commercial ventures as such. Board Game Geek for example, is a discussion forum and resource of all board games that have been produced. It is a widely used site that has contributors from all over the world. They also need some funding to continue maintaining the site, and all the many administrative tasks that are required. However, they have used crowd funding systems and advertising to generate donations from the community. I don't understand why a crowd sourcing platform hasn't been explored where funds generated have a clearly defined purpose.

My other concern is learning that the 'Classical Music world' have apparently been disrespected by the way the site is run. I don't fully understand why this is. From my experience musicians have delighted in the resource that this site has provided. I can only assume we are talking about publishers and scholars who would likely cast a dim view over people performing from urtext scans or poorly typeset parts full of errors. I can understand this, one of the reason I do my own typesets of manuscripts is because of misreadings or mistakes in others work (no criticisms intended). This is natural, and to be frank is now the way the world is. Perhaps the Classical Music World (which I am part of) needs to get used to this. Apologies if I am speaking out of turn but these are my initial thoughts. I will also add that I am speaking from a UK perspective. However, maybe you are implying that some libraries may feel that their resources are being abused by the fact their handiwork or scanning is not recognised once a manuscript is put out on the web. A library no longer gets anything back once a manuscript is 'out there' and uploaded to a third party site. But surely, once they choose to do that (for good reasons) this has to be expected?

Anyway, despite all this I do support trying to find a way to increase donations. I just don't agree with the strategy of introducing a subscription system without the consent of all those many volunteer contributors who still own the majority of the information that is on this site. I also don't agree with the move towards this becoming a commercial venture. This decision may very well turn out to be the death knell and something else will take over in its place. It's happened on the web many times before, and will happen again. It would be really sad to see all the work that has gone in to this site be for nothing.

Finally I don't want to come across as negative, but this is an important issue. This is a wonderful site and the founder has put so much work in to this. I definitely do not question the motivation for this, as I say in principle funding is important. But I am holding off on purchasing a subscription for the time being until I see how this pans out.

I've been wondering about whether this is all partly linked to the fact that some German libraries might be worried about funding for themselves if people download scores from IMSLP rather than direct from the library website. Less traffic for them might translate into less funding. I have noticed that on for example, entries on IMSLP that have scanned manuscripts from the Dresden Library are now behind the paywall, but they also show the link direct to where you can download the same file without paying or a wait from the original library source. So, in this instance all you have to do is click the link to the library and download the manuscript there giving some traffic to the library. It does however negate the work someone did in uploading the file to IMSLP. Not sure if this applies to other libraries' scanned entries on IMSLP. Anyway, I am wondering if this will just encourage people to use those other sites directly and who don't charge anything, and IMSLP will then only be a list of all the links to those sites catalogued by composer.

[Boccaccio]

I've been wondering about whether this is all partly linked to the fact that some German libraries might be worried about funding for themselves if people download scores from IMSLP rather than direct from the library website. Less traffic for them might translate into less funding. I have noticed that on for example, entries on IMSLP that have scanned manuscripts from the Dresden Library are now behind the paywall, but they also show the link direct to where you can download the same file without paying or a wait from the original library source. So, in this instance all you have to do is click the link to the library and download the manuscript there giving some traffic to the library. It does however negate the work someone did in uploading the file to IMSLP. Not sure if this applies to other libraries' scanned entries on IMSLP. Anyway, I am wondering if this will just encourage people to use those other sites directly and who don't charge anything, and IMSLP will then only be a list of all the links to those sites catalogued by composer.

I don't think there is a any conenction between the paywall and German libraries being worried about their funding.

For the libraries, less traffic should not translate into less funding. The money for the scanning process usually comes from the German Science Foundation (DFG). I don't know if the DFG also provides any money for running the servers that host the files for online access afterwards, but my suspicion is that this money is more likely to come from other sources like the libraries core funding. So less internet traffic means less IT costs for the library and thus more money to spend on other things.

I reckon that the true reason for having the link on IMSLP is just to credit the scanner and provide easy access to their website. Obviously, it seems strange to have files behind a paywall and providing a direct link to where you can get them for free. But my guess is that the introduction of the paywall was something not completely thought through, and so there are some things related to it that appear odd now.

[Richety]

I've been wondering about whether this is all partly linked to the fact that some German libraries might be worried about funding for themselves if people download scores from IMSLP rather than direct from the library website. Less traffic for them might translate into less funding. I have noticed that on for example, entries on IMSLP that have scanned manuscripts from the Dresden Library are now behind the paywall, but they also show the link direct to where you can download the same file without paying or a wait from the original library source. So, in this instance all you have to do is click the link to the library and download the manuscript there giving some traffic to the library. It does however negate the work someone did in uploading the file to IMSLP. Not sure if this applies to other libraries' scanned entries on IMSLP. Anyway, I am wondering if this will just encourage people to use those other sites directly and who don't charge anything, and IMSLP will then only be a list of all the links to those sites catalogued by composer.

I don't think there is a any conenction between the paywall and German libraries being worried about their funding.

For the libraries, less traffic should not translate into less funding. The money for the scanning process usually comes from the German Science Foundation (DFG). I don't know if the DFG also provides any money for running the servers that host the files for online access afterwards, but my suspicion is that this money is more likely to come from other sources like the libraries core funding. So less internet traffic means less IT costs for the library and thus more money to spend on other things.

I reckon that the true reason for having the link on IMSLP is just to credit the scanner and provide easy access to their website. Obviously, it seems strange to have files behind a paywall and providing a direct link to where you can get them for free. But my guess is that the introduction of the paywall was something not completely thought through, and so there are some things related to it that appear odd now.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, that makes sense.

[Richety]

Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker and have never talked/written about such subjects before, so my text might not be the most elegant one.

When I noticed that there was suddenly a star behind my user name on IMSLP, I wondered what this was supposed to mean. When I found out that it was due to being granted a contributor membership, my first thought was: "Is it April's fools day?" Frankly, I think having this membership model (and introducing it suddenly from one day to the other without any discussion in the community) is a very bad thing. Part of my surprise might be due to the fact that I was not aware that IMSLP is actually owned by a company instead of being a non-profit organization from the community for the community - my fault of not having informed myself about this earlier.

Let me comment on some of the points made in this thread previously:

1. >>Librarians are worried about preservation and sustainability.<<
To me this sounds like other librarians have talked you into worrying about sustainability which for me implies that up to now there has been no real concern about these issues.

2. >>the income we receive from various sources have been enough to maintain the site so far, but I increasingly believe that this level of funding is not sustainable in the long run<<
So this means that right now IMSLP is sustainable?! What is considered the long run? I doubt that one can make any serious predictions about the far future, i.e. looking ahead for more than a year or two. I know that a library project should have the ambition of being long-term (centuries would be fantastic) but since there is no previous experience with internet-based libraries it's hard to make a prediction of what the future of IMSLP or similar projects will be in the end of the day.

3. >>there are several orders of magnitude difference in scale between Wikipedia and IMSLP<<
I am not sure that the difference in scale matters. Both platforms should have a similar bunch of people around. There is the vast majority of people who just profit from using the service without contributing ever. Then there are some people who do contribute by writing article/uploading scores and finally there is an even smaller group of admins who keep the whole thing running in the background. I would reckon that if IMSLP acts on a smaller scale than Wikipedia, it will also require less of these specialists so in the end of the day, things should actually scale smoothly with size.

4. >>the way I have run IMSLP is disrespectful to the classic music world<<
This sounds like IMSLP owes anything to the classical music world. I disagree with this. IMSLP offers a unique service to the classical music world for sure, but so the classical music world has to live with whatever IMSLP offers - or become an active member of IMSLP and help to change things in anyway that is requested.

5. >>I've had relatives of contributors write me angry e-mails saying how the contributor is broke and without a job, but still spends most of his/her time on IMSLP, and demand that I pay the contributor (and to this day I don't think the contributor knows I've been indirectly trying to help his finances). I've had to listen to crying over the phone because a contributor cannot pay his/her bills. The fact of the matter is, being a high-level contributor on IMSLP requires a very specialized skill set and much dedication - otherwise IMSLP would not have nearly the quality and consistency it currently has. Unfortunately, people with such a skill set are usually in financial trouble - it's just the way the music world works I suppose.<<

If a contributor is broke and without a job but still spends most of his/her time in IMSLP, that is his/her free decision. If you go to the park each day and water the flowers you cannot expect anybody to pay you a salary neither.
So if it all boils down to not being able to maintain the current quality and consistency, one probably just has to arrange with it and go for lower quality - this might then in turn attract new people who want to improve quality. Another point might be to explicitly document all the internal standards used at the moment, this way everybody could help to keep quality up.I also highly doubt that the last statement about people with such skills being usually in financial trouble is correct.

6. "witness how we technically have two dozen copyright reviewers but only one is currently active"
Maybe it would be enough to actively look for new copyright reviewers (and similarly for other specialists that are required to run the site). I remember that in the past there used to be a shortage of reviewers, but back then, there was an announcement (either in the forum or on the wiki, I don't remember) that new people are needed and apparently new people were found because at some point the search was closed. I don't see why such an approach should not work for any other type of specialist needed for operating the site unless skills are required that only 2 people in the world can offer.

7. Disclosing finances
I think transparency is a key thing to have. I don't share any concerns about privacy neither for two reasons. First of all, I don't see that making a salary public is a bad thing. If you work e.g. as a state employee, everybody can look up your salary as well. Furthermore, in making finances transparent, there is no need to specify names of employees, just stating that a certain amount of money goes to a certain type of job (e.g. copyright reviewer) would already help a lot.

Finally, a very practical question: Can IMSLP continue to offer scores that were released under a CC non-commercial licence?

Interesting post, I agree with the comments. Point 5, though I'm sure a horrible experience, as someone who does do volunteer work for charities only I would be to blame if I was broke and continued to feel obligated to do volunteer work without income. We cant be responsible for others ranking of priorities. There's probably a lot more to it so difficult to comment.

I think if there is a clear objective and outlining of what the money will be contributing towards might make it less of a shock. But also perhaps making a clear distinction between:

1. Paying a subscription for running the platform as a non-profit, but,
2. the public domain works remain just that
3. Contributors typeset 'editions' remain in their ownership and responsibility to pull off the site at any time

I hope my comments are useful in some way.

[homerdundas]

I was surprised and angered to see the new subscription system on IMSLP. This was incorporated suddenly and without community discussion beforehand. Since we have a huge number of active patrons and volunteers visiting this library, I was mystified as to why there was not extensive consultation on this matter beforehand.

I don't have problems with requesting donations, or a 'subscription fee' if you call it that, but I find the nag page, imposition of a download delay and membership pop-up ugly, ham-fisted and insulting. It is clearly intended to annoy users and says in effect: We will stop annoying you if you pay us money. This has to be one of the worst ways to generate support for any organization. I have some alternative suggestions.

I suggest to follow the example given by the regional servers with a single page displayed prior to each score download. This page has a dual purpose: it displays both a copyright disclaimer and an appeal for support. I propose the same for the IMSLP main site. This is not an empty suggestion: as part owner of the Canadian and EU servers and I can say that this simple appeal has been successful in generating enough donor funding to operate not only the two servers, but this forum web site. Note that in a subscription process we could even have the user agree in advance to the terms of the disclaimer, thus eliminating any additional page displays for times the user chooses to log in.

Next, IMSLP should have an annual funding drive similar to that run by Wikipedia. Note that registration on the wiki and in the forums has produced a huge database of email addresses. An annual funding drive with a reminder email to everyone who has ever registered on this site would surely bring in much needed funds. You need not limit such requests to occasional users. I'm sure many who are active contributors to the content of the site would also make monetary donations if so requested.

In the longer term, I suggest that IMSLP try to obtain some kind of charitable status for its USA operations. Though I am not familiar with American tax law, I assume that IMSLP would have similar standing to other arts organizations. I'm sure that having charitable status would increase the number and size of donations.

Homer

[coulonnus]

Some universities e.g. Duke University and Harvard College recommend imslp. Perhaps they would be ready to take part of the copyright-reviewing job and imslp-site mirroring?

[Choralia]

For the sake of completeness, I've added a remark about regional servers to the membership Q&A page:

Also, files on the IMSLP regional servers in Europe and Canada are downloadable without any waiting period because these servers are operated by unaffiliated organizations that have chosen to simply collect voluntary donations through the server's landing page, without any membership required.

Max