| Poll: How do you feel about non-members being allowed to download music? |
| I believe both, members as well as visitors, should be able to download music" |
|
55% |
[ 33 ] |
| I have no opinion on this |
|
3% |
[ 2 ] |
| music downloads should be restricted to members |
|
41% |
[ 25 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 60 |
|
|
Moderator
 |
| GaryLester wrote: |
At this time I Do Not support non-member downloads.
Since nobody has asked I won't boor you with my reasons why. |
I asked, actually. Behold:
| Eidolonia wrote: | | For the people who want downloads to be members-only, would any of you mind explaining your reasons? I'm interested. |
It was a page ago, though. 
| GaryLester wrote: | | Rather I would ask this.... how or why would doing so benefit either me as an individual artist or iCompositions as a community? |
The answer to both questions is 'exposure'. (Not the indecent kind.)
Someone comes along to the site, and hears a tune they like. They want to download it and put it on their iPod.
If they can, they then listen to that song a lot. Maybe it becomes a favourite of theirs, and they think 'Hey, I should get more of that guy's songs.' They come back and listen again. That artist now has a new fan.
Also, they think 'iCompositions... I got that song from iCompositions. Maybe there's more good stuff there too.' So they listen to more, and maybe download more, and maybe eventually they think 'Hey, this iComp thing is pretty cool, maybe I'll sign up.' And then we gain a new member.
Alternatively, they find a song, and think 'Hey, I like this, I'll put it on my iPod. Oh, I have to be a member?'
Then they think one of:
* 'Oh, I'll just download it anyway using my super-sneaky technique.'
* 'Forget it, it wasn't that great anyway.'
* 'I guess I'll create a throwaway account, download it and never come back.'
* 'I guess I'll join, then.'
Here's another way to look at it. By prohibiting anonymous downloads you're stopping nothing; by allowing anonymous downloads you're making life easier for people, and that tends to make people happier. Which is, in my opinion, good for the site and good for your music.
But let me fire the question back at you: if you don't feel that there's anything to gain by allowing free downloads, do you feel the same way about allowing people to listen to any song they like without being logged in, as opposed to (say) just making the top ten available for anonymous listening (as a 'try before you buy' offer)?
-Eido |
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 1:36 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
| o0o wrote: |
@feenix I believe that leaving a comment or getting feedback on ones songs will not decrease when the download for non members is on.
|
I certainly don't believe so myself, either.... I can't see how non-member downloads could have an impact on comments by members.
| o0o wrote: |
So if someone creates an account only to leave you a message that would double flatter me. Wouldn't it for you?
|
It'd be the absolute ultimate flattery for me. And hey, then they could download it, too.... and if they created an account just to download that song (something they'd do ONLY if they really like it a lot), I reckon they'll leave a comment, too...
See, I have no interest in promoting myself in the market, and to get my music "out there" to as many people as possible.
There seem to be two groups of people here, one of them (a small bit) larger than the other (but not much larger), and the answers to my poll seem to reflect the situation...
1) A majority here (but not a huge majority) are serious about promoting themselves in the market and want as many people as possible to download their music and spread it around. This helps them to build up a fan base - and that's the bottom line in the popular music business, I reckon.
2) The other group, which I belong to, makes music entirely "for kicks": the love of playing and composing/songwriting, the interest in music itself as an art form, to deliver a message, etc... and they'd probably prefer to find "good homes" for their work.
I'm not insisting that iCompers belong EXCLUSIVELY to one group or the other. There'll be overlaps. It's just an arbitrary and very loose model for me, to help me understand what's happening around me.
btw: I don't really believe that inactive members take up a lot of space... in terms of storage, 80000 small database entries seems insignificant compared to even a handful of songs by one artist... and they use absolutely no computing power or bandwidth at all, at all.
anyway, I rest my case. Everybody has their own valid reason for or against non-member downloads, and I must think carefully about what I want to do, and how to implement it for myself.
meanwhile, I reckon, this is pure GENUS:
| DarrylM wrote: | What about the possibility of a 4th option: "Make it an option that artists can set on a song in iComp version 4.1."
I'm not sure if that would be a useful option or how difficult it would be to implement. it could be more of just the coffee speaking! |
f |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 2:14 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
| Eidolonia wrote: |
Thanks for sharing your reasons. A follow-up question, then: have you done the stats on whether your concerns are justified? It would be interesting to know:
* how often someone downloaded a song without leaving a comment when only members were allowed to download songs;
* how often someone either downloads a song without leaving a comment or downloads a song anonymously now that non-member downloads are permitted again.
If the download rate increases significantly since the rule change, then you're right to worry; if it doesn't, you can relax. |
Eido, I'm not worried or concerned - it's just the way I feel about what I'm doing here... see my previous post...
stats are difficult to do - only the first few downloads show in the page, I'd have to be permanently on the lookout.... oh, and I haven't uploaded anything since iC v4.0... |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 2:36 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
@Eldo
Ok..since you are asking I will try to explain while I feel that way at this time.
I think it has to do with my partly with my embracing the differences that distinguish iCompositions from so many other sites.
I am sure some of it has to do with lack of experience and not having done that before.
Also I wonder if it so easy to do anyways why do we even have the download option. I had previously assumed there was a reason for that.
I would be more likely to agree with allowing non-member downloads if clear benefits to the onging development of the site and community are pointed out. Or if many of the other artists I respect say it will be a benefit to them.
If we just start allowing non-member downloads from now on does that change this from a community to a record label?
These may be just stupid thoughts on my part.
Like to hear more opinions. |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 2:59 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
| Eidolonia wrote: | | GaryLester wrote: |
At this time I Do Not support non-member downloads.
Since nobody has asked I won't boor you with my reasons why. |
I asked, actually. Behold:
| Eidolonia wrote: | | For the people who want downloads to be members-only, would any of you mind explaining your reasons? I'm interested. |
It was a page ago, though.
| GaryLester wrote: | | Rather I would ask this.... how or why would doing so benefit either me as an individual artist or iCompositions as a community? |
The answer to both questions is 'exposure'. (Not the indecent kind.)
-Eido |
I was one of those pushing to have the non member downloads stop, and while I agree a download is exposure, I think even more important is having a track record of who downloaded it, the exposure doesn't stop because they have become a member in fact it's just the opposite. We as a community offer a lot more than just a free download, your own blogs and forum comments attest to that.
My music is similar to musical created children, although they may be grown up and ready to inspire little children of their own. I'd like to know where they are and how they are doing  If the issue does come up about copyright there is a connectable trail to help prove awareness and intent. As a person who has had his music stolen by people with better lawyers and more money every little bit of protection helps. What makes iComp different from other music sites is also what makes it great, so to encourage people to be apart of it is not just a smart move, but also practical.
Moses
P.s. I'd like to add one more to your list they also might think hey this site actually cares about the artist and his music "great"... |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 3:01 pm |
|
|
Moderator
|
But Moses, it doesn't create an audit trail. That's exactly my point. If I really want to steal your music and incorporate it into a project of my own, do you think I will:
a) create an account, giving details which will lead you back to me if you decide to sue;
b) steal the audio using one of several freely available ways which will leave no more trace than my IP address in a server log somewhere?
-Eido |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 3:35 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
I am glad Mr Moses added his opinion because I admit to feeling some of that too but did not say so because I do not want to be perceived as "needing to get over myself".
Exposure has never been a reason I create songs or post them. Primarily it has to do with something I can't explain, a fascination, an excitement that has more to do with the discovery and journey.
I admit that the music I create does mean something to me and is something I often wish to share with those who care to listen.
If those who do listen enjoy it, that means something too!
To me iCompositions is the greatest pool of people I have found who also share my own excitement in regards to creating music.
I believe I have benefitted far more as a member than I have contributed primarily because of what I have learned and observed my those in the community.
I am never locked into any position indefinetely. Factors that weigh most heavily in this discussion as far as I am concerned are the feelings of other artists and the concerns of those who administer the site.
Ultimately I will support almost anything that benefits those parties even if it conflicts with my own interests. |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 3:47 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
| Eidolonia wrote: | But Moses, it doesn't create an audit trail. That's exactly my point. If I really want to steal your music and incorporate it into a project of my own, do you think I will:
a) create an account, giving details which will lead you back to me if you decide to sue;
b) steal the audio using one of several freely available ways which will leave no more trace than my IP address in a server log somewhere?
-Eido |
It's not that you can't steal my music, it's not even a smoking gun, but it is an attempt to make it harder and though it's not a smoking gun an IP address can be the bullets or the finger prints it's all accumulative.
As I stated earlier artist feel better about the place when they know it's not just a free for all. Just because the thief gets better does not now mean you sit back and accept being robbed.
Moses |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 3:53 pm |
|
|
Moderator
|
Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from. Ultimately I still think restricting downloads to members only is a measure which inconveniences legitimate users without preventing malicious activities, but hey, that's just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours too.
I guess if people think it helps, the immediately obvious solution is to turn off the download button on your songs (go Backstage->Music, edit the song, tick the 'Hide "Download Now" button' box and click Update) and then put a comment in the song description saying something like 'Downloads are disabled; if you'd like a copy, please PM me.' People will have to create accounts to send you the PM, and you can then use RapidShare/MegaUpload/YouSendIt/whatever to send them an MP3... Sounds inconvenient to me, but hey, it's your music.
-Eido |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 5:01 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
| Eidolonia wrote: | Fair enough, I understand where you're coming from. Ultimately I still think restricting downloads to members only is a measure which inconveniences legitimate users without preventing malicious activities, but hey, that's just my opinion, and you're entitled to yours too.
I guess if people think it helps, the immediately obvious solution is to turn off the download button on your songs (go Backstage->Music, edit the song, tick the 'Hide "Download Now" button' box and click Update) and then put a comment in the song description saying something like 'Downloads are disabled; if you'd like a copy, please PM me.' People will have to create accounts to send you the PM, and you can then use RapidShare/MegaUpload/YouSendIt/whatever to send them an MP3... Sounds inconvenient to me, but hey, it's your music.
-Eido |
Yes I agree with disagreeing LOL for those watching I think this is a good example of discussing opposite views. Granted I do think Eido and I have a mutual respect for each other, but it would be great if most disagreements could flow like this
As for the "inconveniences legitimate users without preventing malicious activities" that would be referring to guest and again in the best interest of the site it's better to become a member and reap the benefits of the site imo. 
As far the turn off the download... I do this but it is not a necessity others allow down loads on all of their songs, which I think is a great option I have allowed them on some of mine. But I also have received PMs asking if they could have a song not allowed Downloads I have granted every request that did not have legal ramification. And I have learned a little more about the person sometimes even why they wanted it. To me this is a good thing and reinforces community instead of just another music site.
I also like when people comment and say hey I liked it so much I downloaded it. People will argue that a download automatically means you liked it more than a comment, (that's debatable), but a download is less personal then your own words telling me why you downloaded it, which removes the mystery. So to me anonymous drive by downloads aren't about guest inconveniences, more than it's about encouraging community activity.
Moses |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 5:27 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
What is the value type for the "downloadable" field in the song database? If it is a boolean, then my suggestion of allowing the artist to choose what he/she wants might be difficult (adding a field to the database or re-working the field). Otherwise, if it is a simple integer value (for example), maybe it's doable? I've never programmed in PHP, mind you... I'll also admit that it's been close to a decade since I did some database work.
What I'm envisioning are 3 radio buttons rather than the one checkbox for the "Hide 'Download Now' button". e.g.:
( ) Disable downloads
( ) Allow only iComp members to download
( ) Allow all visitors to download
Or something like that?
The main reason I'm proposing this option is that there are a number of excellent points being made on either side of the issue and perhaps a good solution is to let artists themselves decide what they would like.
I am following this discussion with great interest. Personally, I would lean toward allowing all visitors to download my music, but then again I already make my own music available on my web site, so it changes nothing for me. |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 6:36 pm |
|
|
Artist
 |
 
| feenixx wrote: |
See, I have no interest in promoting myself in the market, and to get my music "out there" to as many people as possible.
There seem to be two groups of people here, one of them (a small bit) larger than the other (but not much larger), and the answers to my poll seem to reflect the situation...
1) A majority here (but not a huge majority) are serious about promoting themselves in the market and want as many people as possible to download their music and spread it around. This helps them to build up a fan base - and that's the bottom line in the popular music business, I reckon.
2) The other group, which I belong to, makes music entirely "for kicks": the love of playing and composing/songwriting, the interest in music itself as an art form, to deliver a message, etc... and they'd probably prefer to find "good homes" for their work.
I'm not insisting that iCompers belong EXCLUSIVELY to one group or the other. There'll be overlaps. It's just an arbitrary and very loose model for me, to help me understand what's happening around me.
f |
I believe group 1 may have the desire but as to the motivation, I believe most of them are like me. As with you I do it for "kicks" but to a larger extent it's because I CAN'T not do it.....it's in there...it needs to come out or I'll be miserable and suffer....when it comes out it's for anyone who's interested and I make it available....unlike YOU(and group 2 apparentky)...I don't need to approve of who downloads my music nor do I need payment via butt kissing comments or grattitude...the act of listening or downloading is thanks enough. Please forgive me if I come off a bit rude but your view seems very elitist/antimusic. I think all music is for all who would listen. Maybe I'm wrong...in which case ignore me. |
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 | 10:55 pm |
|
|
Artist
|
| StevilDarkman wrote: | | Maybe I'm wrong...in which case ignore me. |
I'm not qualified to judge who or what "is" right or wrong.... and perish the thought that I should base my actions on such a decision
Anyway, I don't believe "being right" or "being wrong" has anything to do with any of this at all. Look:
| feenixx wrote: |
The answer, so far, seems to be a split between "Downloads for All" and "Members Only", with a slight bias towards the first option. Two valid views, held by different people for a variety of reasons of their own. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2008 | 5:38 am |
|
|
Moderator
 |
On the subject of downloading period...
Couple of points sadly we live in an age of 'Free' there is a whole generation that has grown up with the ability rightly or wrongly to access music free.
Also there is 'Free' and there is 'Free', a lot of artists will allow some free legal downloads as a 'taster/sampler' nowadays, then if you like what you've heard folk make a purchase, 'whetting the appetite' mentality, also everyone likes a bargain so say for example you got a dozen tracks for the cost of six, you think you've bagged a bargain.
We see major bands now offering 'Free' all the time, it generates publicity/traffic, 'Free' will never go away, you have to try and work in and around the system these days. |
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2008 | 6:02 am |
|
|
Artist
 |
I assume no one will give a crap what i say or a quote either. I came to iComp thru "GOOGLE" looking for free loops.
Now question is, would I have signed up if I could just get the music (which I could use in all manner of ways and give no consideration or credit to the CREATOR/ARTIST) for free too.
Now I'm Old and know what Morals and Values are and professional ethics are, so I would never steal music. I wouldn't bet the farm that there are too many of me & my type around.
It wont matter what I say. You folks wont listen any way...
A word to the wise ©Copyright everything you post and cover your ***.
PERSONLY: I'd make any downloader BECOME a MEMBER by telling me what their email was and at least devine their IP addy.
What you folks will do...I have no clue....I assume split more hairs in arguing.......
Geo/FatChance |
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2008 | 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Join Now
Login
