snowbelle

: )

Can't connect either

It does complicate things. I also think it is nice to have multiple characters. If you are with someone, you end up telling them about the alts anyways. If you really dislike someone, you put them on ignore, which ignores their alts as well. You can't do much about multiple accounts. Have fun and enjoy the experience. Whether the Avatar you meet is real or fake, doesn't matter; because for a single moment when you do meet that person, they can either make your day or ruin it. In general, most people are selfish, lead people on, have ulterior motives when engaging with someone, or pretend to be their friend to bed them. No, you aren't special or different from anyone in this place (ahem, you know who you are).

<3

The thing is recording isn't illegal, its recording and redistribution for profit that is illegal. If Achilles or anyone that is defending him realize this, we'd still have the public DJs up. When DJs rip music and upload to MixCloud for distribution, the blanket license makes the content legal, making the recording aspect moot.

There are very few times I agree with Riela. But she is right about putting this much power into a player's hand, it is dangerous because personal opinions affect too many people. It is understandable why this was done, just unfortunate decisions couldn't be made without being unbiased.

Except you are saying subscribed content from CU is illegal, which is clearly wrong. You are stuck with the mindset that tracks need to acquired individually for it to be used for DJing. Even though it has been clearly shown that CU was built to circumvent this issue. And that is the reason why CU is still strong and Beatport going out of business.

Okay, well I think it is about time you moved on to the 21st Century. Oh and dare I say the Internet? She wasn't streaming illegally, get it through your head.

First Problem: It is clear it was personal, but none of us are condoning your personal decision on it but instead of making an informed decision you banished CU on the spot. Illegal is a very relative term here. She wasn't doing it for profit, she just wanted to share her work with the public free of charge on MixCloud. For which MixCloud, whether they were recorded illegally or not, will pay the artists all the royalties. Would it have mattered who recorded the stream? If I recorded the stream and posted it on MixCloud, will you shut down the dj servers? She streamed from her computer to your proxy servers. She recorded on her computer before it reached your server. The streaming was legal, but her recording is not..the recording part is not your issue nor do you have any right to say she can't do it. But she didn't play any recorded tracks, she played live with CU tracks. Second Problem: This is your speculation on your part, I know she has always used legal content on streaming. I asked her to play a recorded song once, and she refused to do so. I also asked her to play a youtube song, but she couldn't find the song on CU so she didn't play it. The bottom line, however, all the artists are credited accordingly with her uploads to MixCloud. If you look at the meta info on the tracks played in MixCloud they are identifiable...you can even buy the songs If you think it is still bad you can report her track on MixCloud for being illegal. I can 100% guarantee you, it will go overlooked because it is very trivial. Edit: You made a big issue out of a simple thing as recording, when all she was doing it was for fun, provide great times to 3dx users and improving a skill she is clearly good at. Edit 2: It doesn't bring the game into an illegal context because she is doing it on her own PC. It has NO relation to streaming. She could record after the streams were done. Would you have made the same decision then too?

He isn't an accessory. His servers weren't aiding in the recording. All the recording was done on her PC. She wasn't spinning music on his servers, she was streaming to his servers. His server was a proxy to stream legally to 3dx users (public). He is void of all responsibilities of what happens outside of his servers. Which was the case, to look at it differently...suppose his servers didn't exist, can the recording be made? Yes. He is right to change the rules. But the rules need to apply to all the content providers, not just CU. Whether it is Google Music, iTunes or Amazon do you not think all should be subject to the same rules/scrutiny? This is why the post was made, the rules were targetted against CU, what was done with CU can be done with all other providers. Which makes the rules inconsistent.

As much as I have been refraining from saying, "You are an idiot." It doesn't change the fact that, you are one. So for one last time for your thick skull, rules were being followed. He changed the rules because he didn't like it. Means he threw a fit without being reasonable. It isn't fair, it is childish at best. And has nothing to do with life not being fair.

Blanket license from CU doesn't cover as streaming service, but it covers using content from these providers to play music. Blanket license on Mixcloud covers uploading music to their servers, allowing what you upload to the servers be *legal.* The servers or radio station needs to get a license (which Achiles) had, similar to mixcloud. So with both of these together, everything that was done with CU to stream content to 3dx was legal. The music industry hasn't been cleaning them out because they make the most money from subscription models, hence iTunes, Google Music, Amazon. It is not up to us to do the math. You don't know how the royalties are being paid. Also, you don't understand the business behind subscription service. A subscription service will net artists more $ than a one time fee because it is being paid monthly. Subscription models are more profitable for any artists than one time fees, because with one time fee, there is a hard cap on how much they can receive. With subscription models, their revenue stream is endless month over month. The $60 ones are licensing fee for streaming radio, not obtaining music. Two different things. Correct, he covered the license. So why doesn't he want to allow CU as a legal source of music? Note that purchasing a music track from Google, iTunes, Amazon or Beatport doesn't automatically give you the license to stream. Say no to CU and yes to all the rest, makes no sense.

Everything that was done was legally done. He brought his personal views (and issues about legal content) in when he said CU is not allowed for streaming content anymore. HIS house, HIS rules, HIS decision, HIS opinion, HIS fault. It wouldn't have been HIS fault if the HIS opinions weren't so skewed on CU. That is the real issue here. He has the right to say NO to something that is being done on HIS servers, not something that is being done on someone else's.

Don't be delusional. Jess wanted to stream with CU (which majority of the DJs in 3dx do), and you know who said no because he didn't like that she was recording her mixes. He wasn't being reasonable, so she is seeking help from her audience to voice what seems to be an unfair decision to remove CU as a legal source of streaming content. Instead of saying, "Okay, CU is legal music" a fit was thrown and public servers shut down. It is like shutting down all the public schools in your city because a parent voiced a complaint against one of the teachers. x.x