Dubstepforum.com

unlikely wrote:

Ovesen wrote: Thank Jah for the internet, or whatever.....

i can't find an accurate textualization for the tone of laugh that made me do. Muhuhuhuhu maybe?


i see this as unavoidable really (youtube, not inserting the word Jah into things at random, although it seems that may be too )

You might have missed my point, wich wasn't really about jah (I don't know that much about rasta, actually, and don't care that much), but, that if you don't want your tunes on the internet, then don't put them there. Don't give people digital copies, but press a dubplate, and play it out.

I don't really want to discuss wether putting stuff on youtube is morally aceptable or not. I don't do it myself, but i listen to tracks on youtube, before buying. Alot . Trying to keep things away from certain parts of the internet, while keeping them up other places (including sedning email) is just not possible.

Getting pissed over it, is about as usefull as getting pissed over a spider eating a fly.

yea that was kinda my point too, no sense stressing over something unchangeable and relatively innocuous

and sorry, that was just a little dig, i have little knowledge/don't care too, just amused that people looking in seem to think it is a necessary cultural moire in dubstep sometimes, but you were obv just digging at the same thing too

Controversial

not really

ok

tes la rok wrote: I was sincerly amused coz you wont say from who you heard it. It was well funny way to put it "DJ/PRODUCER" But anyway back to topic. If anyone know how much PRS pay from youtube.. like 1 penny of each hit or so?

I haven't read anything on the subject, but I'd guess it would be a case of YouTube having a blanket agreement with the PRS, e.g. YouTube pays a flat fee every month. Then the money is shared amongst all artists registered with PRS, similar to the way PRS licensing money from Bars, Shops etc. is paid.

I'll have a look for some info.

i love it.
some guy put up 'sunshine' and got some great responses...
one person says that i 'sucked off an horse' tho...

Wow! Hot topic.

Firstly, there is a conflict of interests in having a low quality version of your tune up on the internet. It's good because people all over the world get to hear your stuff but it's bad because they're hearing a really shitty version of it. Some people would say that if it's a good track that won't matter because the idea will be stronger than the delivery but since there is no way of controlling your content in the public domain you just have to hope your work will be respected enough for people to actually buy it.

Protection of your content is possible however. I do a show on a community radio station that pays PRS an "all inclusive" annual fee for everything that gets played, provided it is not re-broadcasted or hosted in the public domain. If it were then we would have to pay a huge amount more as PRS overestimate the amount of times a song is played and heard in order to cover their asses which is fair enough. It keeps everything protected, live & exclusive but obviously the drawback is no archive. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing because with more and more stations streaming 24-7-365 there simply isn't enough time in the world to hear most of what is archived, and it keeps people on the button with their choice of station instead of thinking "oh, I'll just download it later". It was Ok a few years back when you had Barefiles.com picking the cream of the crop but the internet radio market is pretty saturated right now.

Secondly, Screwface mentioned earlier that 40,000 hits for an unsigned artist is good - which it most certainly is, but the easy access to new and existing producers is also having a negative effect, as part of the reason they're unsigned is because they have 40,000 hits instead of say 4000 actual sales. This applies to myspace, youtube, virb or whatever resource you use to hear new music. You have to wonder if these sites didn't exist whether or not people would listen to radio more selectively and then go out and buy more tracks as a result.

Furthermore, many people listen to music on their PC or Mp3 player and don't even have a Hi-Fi system that would do the track justice. And what some people don't realize is that some Mp3 players (naming no names) decode all tracks to your headphones at 192kbps or in some cases 128kbs so it doesn't matter what the quality of the file you're playing is - it's gonna sound just like it does on youtube.

Bottom line - Music should be priceless, not free.

Ed Teach, Preach... and name those mp3 players that decode audio lol.

tbh we're pretty spoilt for flippin choice when it comes to having access music..

a good thing quality aint all that so dnt really matter.

Ed Teach wrote:Wow! Hot topic.

Firstly, there is a conflict of interests in having a low quality version of your tune up on the internet. It's good because people all over the world get to hear your stuff but it's bad because they're hearing a really shitty version of it. Some people would say that if it's a good track that won't matter because the idea will be stronger than the delivery but since there is no way of controlling your content in the public domain you just have to hope your work will be respected enough for people to actually buy it.

Protection of your content is possible however. I do a show on a community radio station that pays PRS an "all inclusive" annual fee for everything that gets played, provided it is not re-broadcasted or hosted in the public domain. If it were then we would have to pay a huge amount more as PRS overestimate the amount of times a song is played and heard in order to cover their asses which is fair enough. It keeps everything protected, live & exclusive but obviously the drawback is no archive. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing because with more and more stations streaming 24-7-365 there simply isn't enough time in the world to hear most of what is archived, and it keeps people on the button with their choice of station instead of thinking "oh, I'll just download it later". It was Ok a few years back when you had Barefiles.com picking the cream of the crop but the internet radio market is pretty saturated right now.

Secondly, Screwface mentioned earlier that 40,000 hits for an unsigned artist is good - which it most certainly is, but the easy access to new and existing producers is also having a negative effect, as part of the reason they're unsigned is because they have 40,000 hits instead of say 4000 actual sales. This applies to myspace, youtube, virb or whatever resource you use to hear new music. You have to wonder if these sites didn't exist whether or not people would listen to radio more selectively and then go out and buy more tracks as a result.

Furthermore, many people listen to music on their PC or Mp3 player and don't even have a Hi-Fi system that would do the track justice. And what some people don't realize is that some Mp3 players (naming no names) decode all tracks to your headphones at 192kbps or in some cases 128kbs so it doesn't matter what the quality of the file you're playing is - it's gonna sound just like it does on youtube.

Bottom line - Music should be priceless, not free.

deep writer