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

Both CU and Mixcloud have blanket licenses that allow DJs to stream music, their entire service was designed for this type of public streaming. The requirements do vary by country to cover this, the venue (the server it was being hosted on) needs to cover the additional license. Either way, playing music from Google Music, iTunes and Amazon Music should all fall under the same scrutiny as CU. Because I can tell you these three services were not meant for stream music to the public, like CU was meant for. Nailed it.

Let's face it, he threw a fit. He was being unfair, whether it was his servers or not. Essentially, he was on a power trip. Bottom line is: 1. He wanted music streaming to be legal 2. CU is legal 3. Jess was streaming music from CU This is all that should matter. 4. She was recording her mixes for her own purposes. This is not anyone's business except hers. You can't be that oblivious and not understand the actual issue that is being raised.

He didn't give her a second chance, he basically took away her music source because he didn't like the idea that she was recording. It is not up to him to decide what she can do with her CU subscription. You can't record music that you bought out of Google, Amazon, iTunes etc. And all of the DJ's have their mixes posted on MixCloud. It makes not sense for him to enforce rules arbitrarily just for CU.

Content Unlimited monitors and fixes their copyright issues, if you read the post that you linked. It is clear they took actions and are very transparent about it. It is a subscription service. If 100 people sign up for 9.99/month and use 249 songs, the artists get $4/song. However, its not that simple. CU doesn't provide money to artists from the subscriptions, artists and producers are priced on a flat rate. They make a deal with production companies, like 10% of the sales for for artist payment. Stop worrying about the metadata, anyone can fake the metadata. I can rip songs with torrents with proper metadata, you won't even know it. You are micromanaging your DJs, that is why these issues arise. Your DJs don't make any money for the effort they put in streaming in 3dx. They have no personal advantage in being sneaky. They do it because it is fun and want to give 3dx users a good time. Trust your DJs and verify that the source is legal. It is clear that CU is legal. Re: Spotify, you can stream Spotify publicly if you are a business: https://www.soundtrackyourbrand.com/

Terms in google, itunes, and amazon forbid recording copyrighted music as well. Just because you have a monthly sub with these platforms doesn't give you the right to stream publicly. That said, all three of these platforms need to be removed as well. You can enforce: - Making sure your DJs play copyrighted music with proper licensing. - Which CU already does, its on their website. You can call them and they will send the proper licensing docs too. You cannot enforce: - What they do with the music beyond streaming. If they are recording for their own purpose it is their choice, you have NO RIGHT to enforce they cannot do that. What they do on their PC is their business. You are more than welcome to file a DCMA complaint against them. It was, but it makes no sense. His decision is half-assed, because he doesn't understand the technology behind mp3 tagging. The sites that let you convert youtube videos into mp3, use a service that can identify songs and apply meta tags. Just because CU has the same meta data doesn't mean it is ripped off youtube. CU is a *legally verified* music provider for DJs that want to stream publicly. Edit: Achilles removed CU as a source of legal music provider in retaliation to prevent JessicaX from uploading her streams to Mixcloud. What he did was wrong, and CU should be restored as a source for getting music for public streaming. Edit 2: Note that both CU and Mixcloud has a blanket license that pay fees to the artists and music producers. Everything that is being done here is legal.

On you *blushes* *draws a Caren only safe zone around her*

I'll be there <3 However, I demand all attention be on me and not on the DJ

This is a special case. A very special case. Anyone can hurt you, whether it is your friend, stranger or an alt of either of them. Knowing someone is someone only helps me from avoiding them. But it doesn't stop them from harming me in other ways through world, local or PM. Ignoring is the only way to do this. A simple solution is to put the amount of time an account has been active in their profile by the system. So people will know that they have been here for a short/long time. I don't want people to know my alts, I use them to spend time with people that I like when I don't want to be bothered by the rest of the world. I don't want people to spy on me. Stop proposing ideas that will help 1 in 100 and screw over 99 in 100. Getting "hurt" isn't the only thing that needs to be considered here. There are other ways to solve this and exposing your alts is not it.

Okay that is a very good example, I admit it would be nice to have a solution for it. But that solution is not the proposed idea. Because the idea opens a new set of issues related to anonymity. You want to solve a case where 1 in X people are affected, while opening an issue where practically everyone is affected. However, consider that alt that is befriending you to be a real stranger, they could hurt you just as much as your friend. So the fact that knowing if someone is an alt or a main has no impact on what they can do to hurt you.

I think you are taking it too literally lol. You really think knowing that the person you trust is on an alt is going to *prevent* them from hurting you?