Dubstepforum.com

Shonky wrote:Hopefully we can get back to the music and keep the business bullshit out of things in the future.

Me too.

But the sad fact is that this kind of thing was inevitable. Not specifically with Rinse/Ammunition and Barefiles - and I don't feel I can comment on this particular ting, I've got alot of respect for them both - but the bigger the scene gets, the more money there is to be made, the more business stuff gets involved.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I also think Deapoh has been misrepresented by this. As far as I can see, he didn't slander anyone. He posted up the facts, and people drew their own conclusions. The snippets he posted didn't demonise Ammunition, and they didn't distort the truth. Respect for posting up the full emails, but the situation is the same.

i whole-heartedly agree. i didn't feel there was any slander on deapoh's part, and genuinely feel he conducted himself as professionally as can be expected considering this is something he feels so passionately about.

Sarah and Gee made the decisions about Barefiles. No one else was involved and the others that work for Ammo I have a lot of respect for.

i really would just like to say that i don't think deapoh should be held responsible for any slanderous or unverifiable statements made in the original post. he posted his account of the situation as he saw it, and as a result people responded with their OWN views and opinions based on this.

to suggest he misled us somehow is unfair, as without including ALL correspondence made (which i very much doubt anyone would actually want to see) all either side can do is put forward their version of events anyway, so we're only ever given an out of context distortion of events at best. common sense should imply that you're not going to get the full extent of a complex business arrangement via a post on a forum. this should be generally implied without deapoh having to stipulate this. so to imply that deapoh somehow mislead us and distorted the truth by not revealing all details of negotiations (ie the financial info) is unfair.

if some slanderous or unverifiable statements were made, deapoh did nothing to incite this, in fact as i see it, quite the opposite. and i honestly can't see what he's done wrong, i certaintly can't see what would merit a ban from fwd anyway. was it for something he actually said or rather the backlash and somewhat extreme views expressed by some of the forum members in their responses? would the situation be the same if the original post only got 2 responses ? hmmm...

anyway, for me, someone who posted in the original thread the situation, my stance and overall view remains the same.

initially, the attitude towards deapoh, someone who's done so much for rinse fm aside, i was disappointed with the decision from a once humble pirate radio station to ban ANYONE from hosting ANY material related to them, and make profit from hosting radio mixes made by djs and producers who will never receive any of the proceeds.

sure you reserve the right to be the sole outlet of all your material, but u don't HAVE to, and sure u can charge £7 quid entry instead of £5, or add ridiculous mark ups on rare records, but again, u don't HAVE to.

it's this ethos of 'we can so we will' that i was opposed to in the original thread and still am now. the momment rinse fm becomes a profit making organisation everything changes. how long until the artists start demanding the royalties they're entitled to ? and we can no longer hear them because of financial implications. it's all a downward spiral if u ask me.

i don't even care if i come across idealistic or sentimental, because dubstep, in terms of the music, the dances, the people and general atmosphere surrounding it is something i tend to feel sentimental and idealistic towards. i'm not saying that this decision has done anything to diminish my affection for dubstep, but at the same time has done nothing to strengthen it either.

anyway

thanx Luke, Sarah and Geeneus for replying and sorry if anything i've said personally has offended any of u, i hope it hasn't, but if it has, i do apologise.

Tappy Tippon wrote:all either side can do is put forward their version of events anyway, so we're only ever given an out of context distortion of events at best. common sense should imply that you're not going to get the full extent of a complex business arrangement via a post on a forum.

init.

I admit that when I read the correspondence, I thought Sarah's "you can't host it" comment was a response to the suggestion that barefiles would no longer be free (and i know now that has changed). And it that case, I was more sympathetic to Rinse's position.

Someone shoulda just called Judy. Bish bash bosh, sorted in 25 minutes or less - including commercial breaks.

Hey dubway, your blog was the fucking shit man.

BIG UP YOUR CHEST

Jamie wrote:

Someone shoulda just called Judy. Bish bash bosh, sorted in 25 minutes or less - including commercial breaks.

Nah man you need some real heavyweight legal representation for a case of this magnitude. Time to bring in....

baraka wrote:

edit: never mind

flipw wrote:

rachel wrote:business is business - i buy tunes, i go to nights, i download sets. i don't really want to know abt the dealings that make all of this possible.

it's cool to keep your head in the sand if you want. I rarely watch the news and never read a paper.

I am however interested in the ethics of the companies behind the products and services I consume.

i do watch the news and seldom don't read the paper. and i'm not, by and large, too interested in the ethics of promotions companies. i feel this is the right way round

ThinKing wrote:

baraka wrote:

edit: never mind

huh what are talkin about i never said that

rachel wrote:i do watch the news and seldom don't read the paper. and i'm not, by and large, too interested in the ethics of promotions companies. i feel this is the right way round

different strokes...

edit:....for different folks, whatever make you haaaapppeeee

rachel wrote:

flipw wrote:

rachel wrote:business is business - i buy tunes, i go to nights, i download sets. i don't really want to know abt the dealings that make all of this possible.

it's cool to keep your head in the sand if you want. I rarely watch the news and never read a paper.

I am however interested in the ethics of the companies behind the products and services I consume.

i do watch the news and seldom don't read the paper. and i'm not, by and large, too interested in the ethics of promotions companies. i feel this is the right way round

big up rachel.

This is a little upsetting....
Barefiles did well, but it's not a groundbreaking concept....i'm not suprised at all that rinse have stepped in, and rightly so....barefiles became popular because of the music available on it, that music being broadcasted by Rinse!
Its upsetting because i feel the original dialogue at the beginning of this thread suggests that Mr. D saw an opportunity for a money-making scheme, and sure, the boy's put in a hell of a lot of work, but charging money for downloaded radio shows is ludicrous. I wouldn't pay. Not ever.

No disrespect to either parties, i'm in support of both, but as soon as monetary gain takes over, thats it....game over.

incyde wrote:i wish i hadn't said anything on the previous thread because its not really my business and i didnt know the whole situation at the time nor do i now. its just a conflict between them and conflicts happen, i dont think we should be judging either party because were not really directly involved. much respect to both rinse and deapoh.

Yes, I broadly agree with that.

For me the situation looks a little different now. I'm a bit surprised by some of the content of the final "Barefiles ltd" email.

Clearly Deapoh's a soldier though.

Tappy Tippon wrote:
it's this ethos of 'we can so we will' that i was opposed to in the original thread and still am now.

BANG! same for me...

etidorhpa wrote:This is a little upsetting....
Barefiles did well, but it's not a groundbreaking concept....i'm not suprised at all that rinse have stepped in, and rightly so....barefiles became popular because of the music available on it, that music being broadcasted by Rinse!
Its upsetting because i feel the original dialogue at the beginning of this thread suggests that Mr. D saw an opportunity for a money-making scheme, and sure, the boy's put in a hell of a lot of work, but charging money for downloaded radio shows is ludicrous. I wouldn't pay. Not ever.

No disrespect to either parties, i'm in support of both, but as soon as monetary gain takes over, thats it....game over.

If you actually read the emails and pay attention to the text you'll notice your statements are incorrect.

Under half of the downloads from Barefiles were Rinse sets. Not even the majority.

and again,

Barefiles talked about selling radio mixes but came to the conclusion that it was unreasonable to sell radio mixes. Radio mixes will remain free.


d-range

etidorhpa wrote:This is a little upsetting....
Barefiles did well, but it's not a groundbreaking concept....i'm not suprised at all that rinse have stepped in, and rightly so....barefiles became popular because of the music available on it, that music being broadcasted by Rinse!
Its upsetting because i feel the original dialogue at the beginning of this thread suggests that Mr. D saw an opportunity for a money-making scheme, and sure, the boy's put in a hell of a lot of work, but charging money for downloaded radio shows is ludicrous. I wouldn't pay. Not ever.

No disrespect to either parties, i'm in support of both, but as soon as monetary gain takes over, thats it....game over.

cosign

ADRUU wrote:eh...back to ysi's

yep.
big up all the mixes providers at the audio section and the radio show crews... yesterday was listening to bamdub reload-radio show and it was too sick.
also big up dubway for keeping one of the biggest dubstep flags "uncorporate".

by the way what's the role of the producers in this corporate thing? at the end of the day they're the ones who build the tunes that make the sets that will be sold...

edit: reload-radio not subfm.

Batfink wrote:how does a company like Rinse FM protect its copyright when its an illegal venture?

"hi i own a pirate radio station and need to shut someone down who wants to host our illegally broadcasted mixes without our consent."

EH?

My thought this whole time...

Maybe I'm missing something.

Rich_c90 wrote: I admit that when I read the correspondence, I thought Sarah's "you can't host it" comment was a response to the suggestion that barefiles would no longer be free (and i know now that has changed). And it that case, I was more sympathetic to Rinse's position.

Me too kind of. I don't think Rinse can charge for Rinse sets, Barefiles definitely can't. But as has been repeated a hundred times, they never have or will charge for radio shows which is right.

As I can see it, there are two totally separate issues. How does barefiles pay for itself and how does rinse pay for itself.

I've donated to barefiles before and I'm very happy to do so again to keep it running but I wouldn't pay for radio sets individually or by subscription. I can totally understand that Barefiles' popularity may eventually kill it, there was always going to come a point where the cost of the bandwidth would get too large to cover by donations. I'm gutted but I understand if that's what's happened.

Rinse's issue is unconnected. The fundamental problem is that Rinse gives away its content for free. The only way anyone can ever charge for it is if it stops doing that, which it can't because it's a radio station. Pirates have always had a hard time funding themselves - hosting parties, getting DJs to pay subs etc. They can't charge for content, it's never worked and it won't now.

Barefiles has no right to distribute rinse sets but it's a bit precious and totally counter-intuitive of rinse to have a problem with it. Would Rinse have a problem if some kind soul set up a fucking enormous global transmitter for them for free? It's mututally beneficial.