DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Forums > Help

New Artist Uploads Policy

JFF	Date: November 25, 2003 @ 6:30 PM It was nice while it lasted,but it could not have lasted forever .. $4 a month sounds pretty good to me... ..but why the track limit? to be fair quite a few of the tracks I have uploaded I wouldn't have if paying for em, so that's good 'cause it gets rid of some of the of your servers , but can't we just have a MB limit? or is the the 20/100 so that people still upload in a decent bitrate? PS: I have had many many so if ^ does not make sense, it's not my fault. PPS: After the week i've had at work with servers, I understand a 1/100th of what Fu-Dog must be doing, so every respect to him, it's coming along nicely..
Psipher	Date: November 26, 2003 @ 8:59 AM would it be possible to have the option of having songs stored on members own web space but still played from dmusic? that way i could put my own personal web space to use! just wondering if it would work with the number of plays etc.... obviously there may be problems with the speed/bandwidth of other ppl's servers when it comes to streaming etc but that would be up to them! at least this way you could save on dm server space and resources? not that i have a problem with the monthly subscription, cant expect anything for nothing, especially the use of servers to store music for others to hear!
pixelmasochist	Date: November 26, 2003 @ 10:22 AM Psipher: That sounds like a pretty nice idea, it's something that was floating around my brain too (glad I actually read the posts made before I did something dumb too). Personaly I feel the current state of affairs will present problems to some of the hardcore dmusicophites, but for me it's cool I just deleted a few tracks to make space myself, it's no biggie as they were all from my old band and probably could do better to rot away in the background anyway I do have a friend who I write (music) with and I am pressing him to set up an account here. We would also like a band account so we could have our own stuff and our together stuff hosted (like mux/spiralmux/vandaman) is this going to present problems? I have also been practiing my guitar playing and have come up with something that's acceptable to me as music But it's alternative in style and my main output is electronic. (the bit where I tie the post together and try to make sense) To achive all of this I would need to create 3 accounts. I also know that I am not one of the more popular artists here, there are heaps of people who do comminicate with others and are alot more interactive than I am, to me it would seem rude to create 3 accounts for my own stuff when that space could be used by someone more deserving... Well that's it, I have just lost the plot I have a cold and I feel like death on a stick! I was going somewhere with this but I have forgotten where now. Decided to post anyway, just in case there's someone on this site who understands what I'm rambling about and can forge something resembling sense out of this. P.S. fu-dog: I do not envy your possition here at all, but I thank you for taking the time, patience and effort in doing what you are doing! Thank you! (that goes for the rest of the DM Cru too)
fu-dog	Date: November 26, 2003 @ 12:30 PM Psipher, that's a very good idea. We could set up a simple tracking system for artist's offsite audio. I'll add this to my list of things to do... somewhere very near the top. pixelmasochist: Sometime soon i'll be setting it up so that each user can create more than one artist account, and logically manage them all. This will allow you and your friend to create another band without having to manage new user accounts. This system will allow you to share your designated "space/visibility" allotments between more than one band. If you and another user form a band together, this means that the band will be allowed to have 16 visible tracks instead of just 8 (for non-subscribers), and if you're both subscribers you'll have more space than you'll probably need, unless you're hyper-prolific. I haven't actually tested this account sharing to see if it's working right, but that was the theory behind the design and i haven't found any related bugs thusfar. (i'll check on this functionality soon) This will hopefully bring more members of each band online to foster more community interaction.
pixelmasochist	Date: November 27, 2003 @ 7:05 PM fu-dog: You are my hero!
ChillinBuzz	Date: November 27, 2003 @ 10:56 PM once i took my medication Fu, i soon came round... i think i made some thinly veiled comment about another site... but damned if i can remember it from all the misguided red mist
RasMasta	Date: November 28, 2003 @ 12:45 AM I like all the ideas mentioned!
fallfandave	Date: November 28, 2003 @ 9:17 AM QUOTE FROM EARLIER IN THIS 'TOO LONG TO READ IT ALL'THREAD : The limits have changed thusly: free) 40 MB upload limit, 8 tracks live limit subscription level one) 100 MB upload limit, 20 tracks live futher subscription levels) to be discussed/implemented * addendum * I have been developing a "collaboration lock" feature for subscribing artists. This will enable them to grant access only to certain users on the site for any given track. Collaboration access tracks will be above and beyond the track display limit posed on artist pages. This means that collaborating artists can go to a special section where their collab tracks are displayed and accessable independantly of the artist/band page. I note this so that the above limits come across as less of an imposition to those of you involved heavily in the creative aspect of the community here. WELL these sound fair limits to me....with maybe an additional 7 or 8 tracks allowed if they r just short things 'beats' or whatever they r....dunno if the additional can be implemented but it sounds less complex to implement on the face of it, speaking as a layman to these matters, than say the collaboration lock. I like that i dea too....i dont think allowing ppl to have 15 long tracks live at once is will compromise quality.....but i think it would probably throw away any incentive to subscribe...and it is no doubt vital to the site that some do subscribe to the site and they be rewarded for doing so
fu-dog	Date: November 28, 2003 @ 5:29 PM Okay. I did some testing today and found that the "shared artist accounts" are working the way i'd expected. Example: Reb and Harvey sign up as free members and create a band page together. Individually, each user has 40MB of file space and 8 visible tracks allowed. Together, their band has a total of 80MB of file space and 16 visible tracks allowed. When multiple artist accounts are finally supported, it will enable each user to spread their allocations across as many artist accounts as they wish. Questions, comments, and/or ideas?
Jennae	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 2:37 AM ok I have been thinking about this, and seeing as someone in my position cannot even be a subscriber and have as much uploading space as I whoringly want... why not offer uploads on individual purchase, or say 5 uploads for so much or whatever. I mean even though I have a lot of songs, I still should be able to purchase more space for uploads if I wanted right? as long s you are getting $ for the :note: should be all good. anyone with any longevity here, or anyone who might collaborate alot might find this option useful. is it an option? 20 just ain't enough. for me anyways. just a question
Jennae	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 2:38 AM even an increase yearly membership amount or whatever
Apertome	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 4:12 AM fu: regarding "shared artist accounts," that rocks! It raises some questions in my mind: - Can members allocate specific amounts of space to the collab and the rest to themselves, or does it all become available to either? - What if Harvey & Reb need more space and create a new user account for "Bob," claiming Bob is their guitarist when really Harvey and Reb still do everything? I suppose at some point you have to rely on people to be honest. Also, it seems a little unbalanced that a band with (say) 3 members would ultimately get more space than someone who works alone. The number of people in a band really has no correlation with the quality or quantity of its work. I am curious how this would affect me and people in situations like mine. Right now I have 2 user accounts, since I had to create a new one to create a 2nd band page for my band with Vandaman. My understanding is that with this space sharing deal I would instead create a band page under my existing solo name, and add Van to that band. Then, to make space for our collaborative stuff, we'd have to sacrifice space for our solo material? Meanwhile, band xyz has 3 members who don't collab at all, and is sitting pretty with 120 megs and up to 24 visible tracks? It seems to me that this kind of system would actually discourage people from forming collaborative bands on DMusic. Why not set the quota per band instead of per user? Say, each band gets 8 tracks/40 megs. This way you actually allocate less disk space total, since xyz still just gets 8 megs, even though it has 3 people in it. OTOH, the problem with this scenario is that it doesn't take into account the subscription status of the members. I actually like the space sharing idea, it just seems unbalanced as I understand it. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it needs some adjustment.
Jennae	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 1:35 PM I agree with Mux on this needs fine tuning
fu-dog	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 2:26 PM Jennae, you're talking about buying 5 uploads, but then you speak of 20 not being enough? The "20" limit was related to how many tracks can be visible at a given time. Do you mean that an artist should be able to buy more harddrive space, and/or increase the number of visible tracks they can have at one time? I do intend to setup a system that will allow this, but that's on hold until i get our secure online store setup. Mux, responses to your questions: 1) Space is allocated across the board. Each artist can use their space as they see fit, whether that's for collab tracks, solos, etc. 2) If H & B open another account under a fake user and add that user to their band, they will indeed get more space and "game" the system. However, in the very near future i will have a tracking system enabled to find people abusing the system in such a manner, and if found they risk annihilation from the site. Concerning large bands getting more space: This is indeed a problem i anticipate, and i've a couple ideas to make things more fair across the board, but for right now it's going to have to fly. In any case, the point of this arrangement is that each "user" gets a certain amount of space to deal with as they see fit. If ten users want to put all their resources into one band, then that is they should be allowed to do so. Each individual is granted the same priviledges. One thing that will be enabled when i get multiple artist accounts setup is "track trading." If you've got a collab with someone else, and you've uploaded but are out of "live/visible" track allocation, then you can pass ownership of that track off to your collaborator to have them set the track "live." Your case with Vandaman is a good example to discuss... You would indeed lose out on space for solo material due to your uploads for another artist/band. If you or Vandaman wishes to increase their overall system usage, be it solo or shared artist accounts, then you will pay more for your increased usage. Each user pays for the ammount of the system they use, regardless of how they decide to use it. There is a possibility that this could discourage users from collaborating. Solutions may need to be found if this is the case, but i doubt it will be a real problem. Setting up a defined allocation (Y) for a band instead of a user would allow a user to setup multiple (X) bands and gain (X*Y) tons of space. How do we decide how many bands someone can form? That seems more restrictive to me than does putting limits on overall usage on a per-person basis. In terms of sharing, i think you're missing the fact that if any of the members of a large band are really into creating music (no doubt they are) that they will be doing solo work, and hopefully collaboration work with multiple artists on DMusic. All of the sudden their allocated space isn't all for their one large band, but for various other directions their heading as well. The system resources that the large band seems to have over the small band is really just an analog to the resources a large band has over a small band in real life; more creative input, more instrumentation, more time for somebody to spend talking to fans, etc. Yes, there will be execptions, but it's the best model i've been able to patch together at this point. In any case, the system will be tuned down the line. The current evolution was just the most expedient and functional. It will undoubtedly find change again in the near future.
Jennae	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 4:04 PM Thanks for the feed back fu dog
Apertome	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 7:49 PM Hey fu-dog, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I will find another site to be the primary distribution channel for my music. I will not be subscribing; DMusic has already demonstrated it is not afraid to change the terms of its paying members' service with no warning, decreasing their available space. I simply cannot pay for a service if I don't know what I am getting. I'll still be here at DMusic; the community is wonderful. But not only have you lost a potential sale, you have alienated a loyal user; I can no longer recommend DMusic to my friends.
Jennae	Date: November 30, 2003 @ 10:49 PM I do agree from a subscribers point of voew on terms and space changes without warning ... but at the same time I also know how things tend to go sometimes.. I think the heart is in the right place but the staff is underdeveloped for such a growing place. I think In time all will sort.
ChillinBuzz	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 3:33 PM different levels of subscription sounds good, with an option to changeover - for the ability to downgrade as well as upgrade your subscription? ( having your own site helps - i know it aint easy to find a good deal and just as much a pain to code it too but it IS worth the time and effort! hell, if i can do it, anyone can ) true, the changes should've come sooner and less sharp but business decisions are at work here, seeing as we ARGUABLY are the best indie site going IMHO ( yes, biased ) and we knew it was coming - even i had a shock but the proposed alterations and band member advantages are NOT going to work for all. look at me, a solo artist normally - wtf would multiple members do for me? jack diddly squat but there are ways to cope and as for growth... the last year alone was far more than any expectations I ever had of the growth of this site. my default genre, electronic, has grown at least 400% and brought with it a flood of great artists and that's just that ONE genre! the community, which when i joined was doing well considering the tail end of all matters DM, has become the most diverse gathering of people from all over the world i have ever seen, again way beyond all things i ever considered possible. and with diversity comes conflict, contradiction and eventually some hate. and there isn't much that can be done unless it really spills over - and again i am surprised that this hasn't been as much a shock to the system as expected. granted, things worked out well for some and not for others but without any of us the place would be nothing. ZERO. squat sorry if i am rambling - the place needed some & injected into its' veins - i stand behind DMusic despite its' rather unpopular decisions at times - this is, after all, a matter of survival too.
johnnygnote	Date: December 1, 2003 @ 6:42 PM WOOOOOOOOOOO OK i have read most of this thread. I am not a subscriber, but I've been here for a while (love it) I asked a question in another thread but got no answer, I noticed on the subscription page there is no mention of a yearly fee, my question is.. Can I sub up for a year at the monthly rate? A yearly break fee would be nice but the rate is still reaonable for a year at the monthly rate. And earlier in the thread FD you mentioned a possibility of Free - 15 Sub - 40 Although that is very reasonable, I would suggest Free - 20 Sub - 50 I'm one of the artists that have only one member and though I could create another persona to upload more tunes, I refrain from it out of courtesy to others who are new to the site and need the space.
Jazzmary2U	Date: December 2, 2003 @ 12:33 AM Fu.. I'm on your side. You had the s to make a decision that will, IMHO, ultimately serve the dmusic community better for longer. Where, oh where do folks get the idea that they can have a lot of something for nothing.. and then abuse it.. C'mon, you guys, you know what I'm talking about.. some folks strum two G chords and want to upload.. look, I'm just saying that when you think that something is available to you unlimited, and dmusic comes closer to this than any other site I know of, you automatically think that you don't have to mind any bandwidth.. also, there are some songs that have sat on this site for a long, long time without much activity on the part of the member.. they upload and run.. So, Fu, keep doin whacha doin, dog.. I completely understand what is up. And folks, being part of a community means working and sharing together for the benefit of the community.. I plan to rotate the best of my stuff and keep contributing.. 'cause I know for a face that leflaw aint Billgate
Jazzmary2U	Date: December 2, 2003 @ 12:37 AM .. I meant, "fact", not face. Also, I suggest contributing a dolla for every whine.. then maybe these folks can afford some more servers!
Gatherer	Date: December 6, 2003 @ 10:09 AM "I will find another site to be the primary distribution channel for my music. I will not be subscribing; DMusic has already demonstrated it is not afraid to change the terms of its paying members' service with no warning, decreasing their available space. I simply cannot pay for a service if I don't know what I am getting. I'll still be here at DMusic; the community is wonderful. But not only have you lost a potential sale, you have alienated a loyal user; I can no longer recommend DMusic to my friends." mux ... you are part of what makes this community wonderful and one of the reasons I decided to move here. I've never seen "management" anywhere so willing to bend over backwards trying to please such a diverse group before. As djfacemachine posted earlier, normally a mass directive is issued saying "here's the new policy, deal with it". Here you have changes being made as fast as suggestions are posted. Now that's what I call being responsive! Perhaps you and others who are the most adversely affected by the change should put together a workable plan and submit it to the admins. They seem very open to suggestions and, in fact, appear to be asking for them. At least a compromise of sorts might be able to be worked out. No one should expect them to be the ones making all the sacrifices. As Jazzmary points out, community means "working and sharing together for the benefit of the community". Saying you'll not recommend this site to your friends is sad indeed, and neighbor to neighbor, I hope you'll reconsider. You can come over anytime and borrow a shovel or cup of sugar.
Apertome	Date: December 8, 2003 @ 5:47 AM Hey Gatherer, I appreciate your positive attitude toward the situation, and I understand what you're saying. Personally I do think the community is what makes DMusic great. I realized after I made my last post in this forum that it was kind of unclear. The reason I won't subscribe is not because limits are being instituted, but because DMusic has lost my trust. Yes, the admins are open to suggestions, but this really goes to the heart of the problem: it is clear that they will not hesitate to make changes as they see fit, even changing the terms of contracts with existing customers. If I had subscribed before this policy was implemented, expecting unlimited uploads, I would be furious. The bottom line is that I don't think it's realistic to expect people to pay for a service when they don't even know what they're getting. I have other reasons as well, but this is the main problem for me. That said, I will be watching developments at DMusic with much interest. If things improve, I'll reconsider my position.
djfacemachine	Date: December 8, 2003 @ 1:48 PM woo ha
MarkCee	Date: December 9, 2003 @ 4:11 PM Check it.
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 10:16 AM May I make a recommendation that would involve the promotion of another OMD without dissing dmusic in any way?
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 10:29 AM I guess I can! Some of you already have! I would recommend that Jennae use soundclick's slurp feature to move all of her finished tracks over to soundclick. Then she could delete those tracks from her dmusic page and continue to do her collab thang!
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 10:34 AM The soundclick slurp feature rocks. I moved my entire catalogue and my uncle's catalogue (over 150 songs) in one weekend right before mp3.com closed down.
Jennae	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 1:38 PM my point is I don't want to redirect my music anywhere else period. Although appreciate your attempt to assist with a good idea really, but, I don't want to have to lose any music from my page. I WANT to be able to purchase space as needed really. and there is stuff I could defintely remove from my page for it's not all finished products, but again, not one of those 54 some odd songs don't have DL on them, so, why take it away from the listeners if they are being utilized?? My situation is an isolated one, I've accepted that and dm has tried to accomodate me to some extent. I'm just waiting until something more suitable applies. most sights only allow so many uploads in general and it's erally hard to complain about what dm DOES allow. respectively, I just need my OWN web sight so I can upload as many songs as I want continuously... maybe I need my own server doesn't matter really, I don't care about it anymmore at this moment. Nothing new is coming out at this time. If I am collabing with others that had room for uploads then so be it but at this time I'm leaving my pge as is. I like it just how it stands.
GnutProductions	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:47 PM this all cool i just appreciate the free space and bandwidth (any free amount). In fact i made the logo for d- music host out of gratitude for this. Anyways just my 2 cents.
fu-dog	Date: December 30, 2003 @ 1:39 PM Base upload limit raised to 75MB.
Thaspian	Date: January 5, 2004 @ 3:37 PM
RancidFish	Date: January 11, 2004 @ 5:08 PM Why are "live tracks" and "space" separate? Most reasonably, wouldn't you want "total storage space" and "space of live tracks"? Someone like myself, writing short tracks, would use a lot less bandwidth allowing people to d/l eight 2mb songs than someone with seven 10mb songs up for download. My $0.02.
Acumen	Date: January 11, 2004 @ 5:14 PM yeah, I was wondering why all of a sudden I had more than 35mb of storage left.

Previous 100

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: