Re:Data portability, the forgotten right of GDPR
by cbm-vic-20 on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @02:21PM
(#27280336)
Should music streaming services be compelled to support MusicBrainz to support this GDPR case simply because it is commonly used? Who decides that mbid is the GDPR-accepted track identifier?
Re:Data portability, the forgotten right of GDPR
by iatt on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @07:48PM
(#27284324)
In contrast to requiring a particular standard to represent metadata, the better way is to require that the exported data be machine-readable and its contents documented. This gives providers the flexibility to innovate, adding their own identifiers or whatever useful data they want, but avoids legislators forcing everyone to use a common standard that, while useful today, can quickly go out of date. Competitors can then write converters or importers based on this documentation, as could motivated FOSS users.
I understand your point but FYI music is a poor example as there is solutions to port metadata in that case. MusicBrainz aims to standardize music metadata and it is pretty commonly used. An example I know is the lastfm service, their APIs accept an optional mbid: https://www.last.fm/api/show/track.updateNowPlaying.