Slashdot Mirror


Discogs Turns Record Collectors' Obsessions Into Big Business

HughPickens.com writes: Ben Sisario writes at the NYT that Discogs has built one of the most exhaustive collections of discographical information in the world, and with 24 million items for sale, (eBay's music section lists 11 million) Discogs is on track to do nearly $100 million in business by the end of the year. One of Discog's secrets is the use of Wikipedia's model of user-generated content with historical data cataloged by thousands of volunteer editors in extreme detail. The site's entry for the Beatles' White Album, for instance, contains 309 distinct versions of the record, including its original releases in countries like Uruguay, India and Yugoslavia — in mono and stereo configurations — and decades of reissues, from Greek eight-tracks to Japanese CDs. "There's a record-collector gene," says Kevin Lewandowski. "Some people want to know every little detail about a record."

The site, once run from a computer in Lewandowski's closet and originally restricted to electronic music, has grown rapidly. "It took about six months working nights and weekends on Discogs, and I launched it in November 2000. It was very simplistic compared to what it is now, but it started growing right away." Discogs now has 37 employees around the world, 20 million online visitors a month and three million registered users. Lewandowski, who is the sole owner of Discogs, says he had no interest in selling the business. He has watched other players enter the field over the last 15 years, including Amazon, which in 2008 introduced SoundUnwound, a Wikipedia-like site for music that was quietly shut down four years later. Discogs may have survived because of the innovation of its marketplace, giving collectors an incentive to expand the database with every imaginable detail. "I want it to go on forever," says Lewandowski.

5 of 31 comments (clear)

  1. Private DB of public data? No thanks by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    Having never heard of Discogs before, it basically sounds like it's like MusicBrainz with more data. Is that about right?

    I'm always uneasy with helping private, for-profit entities fill a database with publicly-available information (e.g. Amazon-owned IMDb), since there's generally very little stopping them from taking it all private and locking it behind a paywall in the future. If a site is asking its users to assume the responsibility to generate and maintain the data, as is the case with these publicly-maintained databases, there should be protections in place ensuring that the data remains in the hands of the users. Wikipedia, MusicBrainz, and other non-profit projects do a great job of cataloging public information, and they do so with the backing of organizations and foundations whose primary purpose is to maintain the projects for their own sake, rather than to turn a profit.

    I'm normally not an "information wants to be free" sort of guy, but apparently I am when it comes to this sort of information.

    1. Re:Private DB of public data? No thanks by Yergle143 · · Score: 2

      I had never heard of MusicBrainz (or Discogs) before...I use Wikipedia and Ebay....shy away from Amazon.
      The visual aspect of Discogs is a big plus...browsing through a stack of albums is a dead art...and having a marketplace next to reviews and discussion groups seems a good way to find new music (in my case new means old...very very old.)

    2. Re:Private DB of public data? No thanks by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      And yet you are contributing to Slashdot.

      There's a difference, of course. Our comments may provide some marginal monetary value to the corporate overlords overseeing Slashdot, but that value is quickly lost because the draw of this site is not in its archives, but rather in the active commenting that continually draws the users back. Nothing of value is lost if comments we made a decade ago disappear into the ether. We'll all still keep showing up here and posting fresh comments, which will keep us coming back. If the day comes that they lock things down, the comments we made here won't provide them with any meaningful value.

      Not so with the other examples I mentioned. Contributions to them have a lasting value, and that lasting value is what draws people to those sites. We generally don't go to Wikipedia for the talk pages where content and policy are debated. We go there to look up and read information. So it is with MusicBrainz. And IMDb. And apparently Discogs. Yet in the former two, they exist as projects unto themselves with protections in place to keep the data freely available, whereas the latter two exist as for-profit entities that, to my knowledge, lack any similar protections.

      Amazon has already tapped IMDb's massive trove of data to populate the information that shows up on Amazon devices when you're watching Amazon Instant Video and want to know things like who's on-screen. But with them arbitrarily dropping Chromecast and Apple TV from their store in the weeks right before Christmas in order to encourage Amazon Instant Video adoption, who's to say that they won't want to push their integration with IMDb as a competitive advantage and remove the public APIs used to access the data? Suddenly, my new Apple TV gets a lot dumber as Siri loses access to all of that info. And the Chrome extension I use that adds IMDb info to Netflix pages in my browser? Stops working.

      Maybe I'm just jaded because of everything that led up to MusicBrainz' existence (see: histories for CDDB and freedb, both of which began as free repositories before eventually being sold), but I've seen this whole thing play out enough times to not trust privately-held repositories for public information. All too often, they end up selling out for big bucks later and get locked down. I'll use those for-profit services for lookups, but I would rather not let them build their value on my hard work unless I'm getting paid or there are guarantees in place that my work will remain free.

  2. How about a link? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's four links in the summary and no actual link to Discogs itself.

  3. Re:About that White Album by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Birthday
    Revolution 1
    While My Guitar Gently Weeps

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."