I’m not trying to downplay the issues, but I do wonder if that possibly deserves another look. I can think of and understand some of the practical and boring reasons: consistent availability and performance of content is just one - not to be underrated - reason to host content.

On the other hand (unless I misread some of your forum posts) I’m sensing there is an arising hosting problem. I don’t know how severe it is, or if there are any other proposed solutions under consideration. But I would find it a crying shame to see ccMixter come to a slow grind or implosion.

In addition, I’m not sure, if the analogy and precedent of sites from youtube to digg are that applicable. All of those are commercial sites and all are children of their generation. To me ccMixter is unique and next generation, not only because of it’s absence of commercial motivation (although it sits happily side by side with a commercial undertaking like Magnatune - another next gen web/IP business effort), but also because it does something none of the other sites do: sequential collaboration with a first (but significant) step of formalized tracking of contributions (essentially IP). It’s another topic for potential further development (e.g. capturing songwriting origins).

So in my mind ccMixter is the beginning of web 3.0 / 4.0 type of application. (keyword: true collaboration, not just “friends” gathering and thumbs up/down) all in the name of the allmighty ad-click

If ccMixter stays a more traditional content management system, that would seem to have different (higher) funding implications than being a master database for distributed content, collaboration and IP tracking. If funding for the more traditional content management route can remain assured, then great, but if not - it might not be a bad idea to (re-)visit alternatives.

The issue is this: what you are asking is for is a different kind of software; When I mention those sites it’s not an analogy. An analogy would be: you email the guys that write a word processor and ask them to add spreadsheet functionality.

A remote link manager and a content management system are two different kinds of programs. You can’t upload links to videos to YouTube not because they are old fashioned 2.0, but because that’s not the kind of site they are.

Quote: If ccMixter stays a more traditional content management system, that would seem to have different (higher) funding implications…

not really.

relying on archive.org as a main storage is a little scary, although JD and ourmedia have certainly fallen on a lot of swords we wouldn’t have to.

I’ve always thought a decent compromise would to be to make archive a Sample Pool, which last time I checked was more than trivial but is worth pursuing.

I think it makes sense to do it the way you do it, with sample pools, particularly in light of these explanations.

A link-type place to go get more samples and downloads need not be
part of the mixter, as it would be far easier to have them either promoted in the forum; or, if a few became interesting, just to set up a links page which lists out worthy such services. But making mixter into a links aggregator in any big way would have mixter do something that new and different services will arise to do. I’d love to see a good links-based sample service arise, although in my mind the ways of policing such a thing for copyrighted material could be even more daunting than a sample-upload site.

It would be cool if the sample pools included one resource that was more or less just little seven second wave files of different instruments, as freesound is not quite that altogether. But then, as I say that, if I had the time and a few more skills, I’d just start one, rather than bemoan the need.