PDA

View Full Version : AH.FM On Demand *feedback needed*



Pages : [1] 2

Dan
Feb 3rd, 2009, 23:57
Hello everyone,

Many of you ask when is that on demand system coming, well I have some more news for you all and also i wanted some feedback from you :) First off a little about the on demand system, it will consist of 12 months of sets/special events/ that includes "in the mix" "dejavu" "ladies night" "eoyc" "yamc", that means you will be able to stream any set in last 12 months @ 192k. Also there is a chance of a "download" feature that might be available, Im in the process of getting more info from a lawyer in canada, if your wondering why canada? well thats where AH.FM is based out of.

So you're wondering "yayy that sounds very nice" you will be able to listen and download favorite shows onto your ipod, iphone etc... with all these nice things there comes the running costs, and startup costs to get this thing up and running. That includes paying for the person who will design and code the whole application, I have to buy a server with lots of data storage, royalty fees, and of course monthly bandwidth fees for the streaming and downloads. Also as always there is the extra costs that always come up, such as new hardware being replaced/upgraded.

So I would like to get some feedback from you guys on this, I created a poll. If you guys would be interested in this kind of feature and willing to subscribe with a monthly fee & what would be a reasonable fee a month. Reason why I would like to see feedback is I don't want to get a loan and get this whole thing running and have no one to be using it. So thank you for reading this long post, and I appreciate all the feedback.

:friends:

BenParker
Feb 4th, 2009, 00:09
It sounds like a cool idea Dan, and yeah i'd be willing to subscribe. :) :grinning: :hug:

The Cat Lady
Feb 4th, 2009, 00:10
First to vote. Sign me up. :super:

I'll be able to retire TAP most likely, and won't that be a relief for us both? (kiss) :hug::love::cat:

GreyDog
Feb 4th, 2009, 01:21
I think if I listen to a live set I like, I'd look at the Set info link and see if there was a download link for the entire set, and if not, then head to the download On Demand at AH.FMwould be available. I would also like to pay a small fee for every set or yearly: Like $5 for Bronze, $10 for Silver and $15 for Gold packages.

I pay $10 every 6 months now for RvsB, and barely go there, AH is easily worth $15. and only $30 Includes a T-Shirt?

The Cat Lady
Feb 4th, 2009, 01:54
I like a sliding scale depending on what you want. The best deal would be for a year subscription. A little more expensive for 6 months. More for 1 month. And maybe $1.99 for a single GET IT NOW set. :cat:

edit: Include a t-shirt with the year's subscription as a premium. That would be the coolest thing EVER. :grinning:

Wailo
Feb 4th, 2009, 04:59
Hello Dan, kind of you to keep this open to the community.

For me, I will vote No, because of the facts:

1- It is possible to get all these sets, hot and fresh, for free.

2- It doesn't have (the sets) true value to be bothered and pay for it. The service will only attract a very few number of listeners who also have the option to make an online payment in their region.

3- Sounds commercial (to me at least), which is not among the stated values of AfterHours, even if the reason is to justify the running cost of the service.

The torrent site was doing an amazing job, so if
there is a chance of a "download" feature that might be available
then why not re-establish what has been terminated? since the main obstacle (downloading) has been overcome.

This is only a personal opinion, which I believe that others may agree with me as well, it does not in anyway reflects any negative approach toward AfterHours. I love AfterHours, and will always support it.

SentriX
Feb 4th, 2009, 07:48
Hello Dan, kind of you to keep this open to the community.

For me, I will vote No, because of the facts:

1- It is possible to get all these sets, hot and fresh, for free.

2- It doesn't have (the sets) true value to be bothered and pay for it. The service will only attract a very few number of listeners who also have the option to make an online payment in their region.

3- Sounds commercial (to me at least), which is not among the stated values of AfterHours, even if the reason is to justify the running cost of the service.

The torrent site was doing an amazing job, so if then why not re-establish what has been terminated? since the main obstacle (downloading) has been overcome.

This is only a personal opinion, which I believe that others may agree with me as well, it does not in anyway reflects any negative approach toward AfterHours. I love AfterHours, and will always support it.

Torrents aren't an option as far as I am aware,

My thoughts: Dan knows my thoughts lol

Config
Feb 4th, 2009, 13:31
Hello Dan, kind of you to keep this open to the community.

For me, I will vote No, because of the facts:

1- It is possible to get all these sets, hot and fresh, for free.

2- It doesn't have (the sets) true value to be bothered and pay for it. The service will only attract a very few number of listeners who also have the option to make an online payment in their region.

3- Sounds commercial (to me at least), which is not among the stated values of AfterHours, even if the reason is to justify the running cost of the service.

The torrent site was doing an amazing job, so if then why not re-establish what has been terminated? since the main obstacle (downloading) has been overcome.

This is only a personal opinion, which I believe that others may agree with me as well, it does not in anyway reflects any negative approach toward AfterHours. I love AfterHours, and will always support it.

I pretty much follow Wailo in his points, they really make sense to me. I think an on demand service should be free for all , the ones who appreciate it will surely donate some money for that system, just like some people also donated when the torrent site was up.
Personally i can get all sets i want if i ask them to the dj's themselves. I don't listen that much to sets anyway, so maybe i can't really give a good answer to this. But this is my opinion anyway :)

Dan
Feb 4th, 2009, 15:12
Hello Dan, kind of you to keep this open to the community.

For me, I will vote No, because of the facts:

1- It is possible to get all these sets, hot and fresh, for free.

2- It doesn't have (the sets) true value to be bothered and pay for it. The service will only attract a very few number of listeners who also have the option to make an online payment in their region.

3- Sounds commercial (to me at least), which is not among the stated values of AfterHours, even if the reason is to justify the running cost of the service.

The torrent site was doing an amazing job, so if then why not re-establish what has been terminated? since the main obstacle (downloading) has been overcome.

This is only a personal opinion, which I believe that others may agree with me as well, it does not in anyway reflects any negative approach toward AfterHours. I love AfterHours, and will always support it.

Torrents is out of the question, torrent donations were very slim, meaning few people donated, those donations did not cover Hungary machine, the money that's being paid monthly for that machine is not even a fraction of what the donations were for that specific seed box. So to sum up yes torrents were free to everyone, but it was not free for me and Kowy (hungary machine owner).

There is no final answer as if I will set this thing up, all I'm looking for here is some feedback which you have been giving :hug: if people wont be interested I see no need to dump money for new server, hardware storage, monthly bandwidth bills and possibly royalties (waiting to hear back from lawyer) + pay the developer to design whole application and ofcourse maintenance.

Thank you whoever gave feedback, keep em coming :)

Sypher
Feb 4th, 2009, 18:28
i was just thinking. what if you can choose what quality we want the "on demand". i mean, like 92 kbs would be free (ex. basic) and 192 kbs would cost maybe $15-20a year (premium or something), plus you will be able to download all the sets.. and you can't do what with the basic packaged. i would like to pay somewhere between $15-20 for that! i also thing that, in this way, you might get more money then the torrent page. since that was more like a donation. this will still be some sort of donation, but in another way...


but guess this is something GrayDog already have said:unsure:

SUNNY TOMORROW
Feb 4th, 2009, 18:46
Sorry, but i'm not quite getting this.

Okay, you got rid of torrents and said you where going to replace it with an on demand download. So this is nice. No mention of there might be any payment toward this service from us so people are looking forward to it.

Now suddenly your saying oh this costs so much and would people be willing to pay for it?. Well, you must have had some idea that it was going to cost a fair bit. Why did you not say in the first place that there might be a fee charge towards it. That way people would have known well in advance what was coming.

Is what your saying that if we dont pay for it then we dont get it? Not that I would be paying for anything anyway. I don't pay for free radio much as I love to be here.

I'm not trying to be nasty about it or anything:hug: But the whole thing is a bit bizarre. I know your offering a lot but if its free radio then its not my concern how you are paying for it.

This is kind of simla to what was being offered at the other station where many of us came from, they called it premium, where you had a channel that played replays and stuff and supposedly got a better quality sound if you payed for it. I never payed for that and I wouldnt be paying for this. So I would definately be voting no to your proposal.

Dan
Feb 4th, 2009, 19:12
Sorry, but i'm not quite getting this.

Okay, you got rid of torrents and said you where going to replace it with an on demand download. So this is nice. No mention of there might be any payment toward this service from us so people are looking forward to it.

Now suddenly your saying oh this costs so much and would people be willing to pay for it?. Well, you must have had some idea that it was going to cost a fair bit. Why did you not say in the first place that there might be a fee charge towards it. That way people would have known well in advance what was coming.

Is what your saying that if we dont pay for it then we dont get it? Not that I would be paying for anything anyway. I don't pay for free radio much as I love to be here.

I'm not trying to be nasty about it or anything:hug: But the whole thing is a bit bizarre. I know your offering a lot but if its free radio then its not my concern how you are paying for it.

This is kind of simla to what was being offered at the other station where many of us came from, they called it premium, where you had a channel that played replays and stuff and supposedly got a better quality sound if you payed for it. I never payed for that and I wouldnt be paying for this. So I would definately be voting no to your proposal.

Thank you for your feedback, that's all that was asked, and I never said anything about if you care or anyone cares what it costs to run AH.FM, some people like to help and some don't as yourself quote you:


I know your offering a lot but if its free radio then its not my concern how you are paying for it.

Once again thanks for feedback.

piccoli
Feb 4th, 2009, 19:44
This is kind of simla to what was being offered at the other station where many of us came from, they called it premium, where you had a channel that played replays and stuff and supposedly got a better quality sound if you payed for it. I never payed for that and I wouldnt be paying for this. So I would definately be voting no to your proposal.



what they had was if you wanted quality (192 Kbps)you needed to pay it, free only 92 K, here you have 192 Kbps for free, it's a big difference Sunny

DhumKetu
Feb 4th, 2009, 20:15
Running 192 kbps and 96 kbps both shall cost, irrespective of if its free to air and we are trying to find a way to ensure our running costs are covered before we start.

Can we get in between set advertisements? Sponsors? Direct Banner Advertisements in the On Demand Page?

SentriX
Feb 4th, 2009, 20:31
Running 192 kbps and 96 kbps both shall cost, irrespective of if its free to air and we are trying to find a way to ensure our running costs are covered before we start.

Can we get in between set advertisements? Sponsors? Direct Banner Advertisements in the On Demand Page?

ick to all of that...

so disruptive

DhumKetu
Feb 4th, 2009, 20:52
Well ... it does bother ... but tbh, I understand the situation in here coz me and a friend of mine run a regional language streaming radio station, and we spend more than $500 a month out of our pockets just to keep it running, with royalty fees and payment to syndicated content providers and so on. So, basically its tough on the Webmaster's part to keep a thing like this running, coz its real costly.

Kowy
Feb 4th, 2009, 21:02
i think you guys are getting it all WRONG...

Take this as a new SERVICE by AH.FM which is not free of charge, but whoever likes the sets will have the option to get them, WHILE ROYALTIES ARE PAID AFTER SONGS, so it makes this thing all legal. Plus you're supporting the artists and labels indirectly (which you wouldn't do in other ways, i assume)

Comparing it to the previous "torrents distribution service" well, that's something not fair... you guys taking it like this: "We haven't had to pay so far, but now we do, wtf it's a ripoff!"
That previous site was ran by me, i've never asked money from everyone but i accepted donations to cover some of my costs... and btw I've never expected anyone to say thanks for me either. It was free, it was good, but it wasn't right the way it was, period.
This question is about the future service, whether it should be launched or not... so pls stop complaining and start to think reasonable...

Storing and serving 1 year of AH.FM sets and events, and you guys want it for free. Nothing on the internet is free, everything has its own costs, covered by commercials, ads, popups, whatsoever or maybe out from someone's purse.

So please, i'm asking everyone to look at this thing as a possible future service, which won't be launched if there's no need for it. that's all i wanted to say.

Kowy

Laan
Feb 4th, 2009, 21:25
We've talked about this, I think on demand is a good idea, depending on what listeners want. The costs needs to be covered as well..

Laan
Feb 4th, 2009, 21:28
Personally i can get all sets i want if i ask them to the dj's themselves. I don't

Only ppl with good connections can get any set they want, even they can't easily get it, they have to ask every single dj. On demand would work easy, a single click and you will be able to listen to all 12 month last shows. There is a big difference..

piccoli
Feb 4th, 2009, 22:16
i think you guys are getting it all WRONG...

Take this as a new SERVICE by AH.FM which is not free of charge, but whoever likes the sets will have the option to get them, WHILE ROYALTIES ARE PAID AFTER SONGS, so it makes this thing all legal. Plus you're supporting the artists and labels indirectly (which you wouldn't do in other ways, i assume)

Comparing it to the previous "torrents distribution service" well, that's something not fair... you guys taking it like this: "We haven't had to pay so far, but now we do, wtf it's a ripoff!"
That previous site was ran by me, i've never asked money from everyone but i accepted donations to cover some of my costs... and btw I've never expected anyone to say thanks for me either. It was free, it was good, but it wasn't right the way it was, period.
This question is about the future service, whether it should be launched or not... so pls stop complaining and start to think reasonable...

Storing and serving 1 year of AH.FM sets and events, and you guys want it for free. Nothing on the internet is free, everything has its own costs, covered by commercials, ads, popups, whatsoever or maybe out from someone's purse.

So please, i'm asking everyone to look at this thing as a possible future service, which won't be launched if there's no need for it. that's all i wanted to say.

Kowy



exactly, for free people have the streaming radio at 192 K, so it's fair to charge for the on_demand, but if only will have "demand" of enough people for that.

Paying for separated servers for the streaming and the ondemand will not be easy

JayCan
Feb 4th, 2009, 23:00
so when i look at the DJ side of that all....

I give each month a set to AH.FM like the most other djs. With the demand system the users will be able to download these sets when they pay a lil ...my question is, are all djs okay with that ? i mean is f.e. Shulz okay with the DL of his GDJB ??? coz if not...we will have problems...and when yes every DJ is okay with that, what more than the general Promotion is for the DJs ? For a DJ its easy to do the same extra Promotion what the on demand will bring ...every dj can put a DL link in the DJ and Producer Corner when he/she wants that extra Promotion...so if you ask ME as DJ i would say NO to a on demand system coz i cant check how often is it downloaded etc but the feedback on a Thread in Forums then is a lil bit control and shows me a part who has catched my set coz i see the users writing in there that they catch it etc.
From the USER Side of me i would say YESSSS coz i have not the time to listen to each set live...but there is the point...when i have no time to listen in normal why should i have suddenly time to hear on demand ???

So i cant say what will be the best. I see 2 different sides...he DJ side and the user side...

Everything has costs...for DAN to run the station or the new on demand system, for a DJ the equipment, the tracks, etc
So from DJ Side i would say if the user needs to pay for the DL, the incoming money must be split ... one half for DAn to fix the costs for the system, other half for the DJs...and so it is NOT to manage coz who will say wich dj gets wich money ...

I see also a general point what Sunny said...Ah and all its services were always free for the user...some donate, others not... as i understood DAN until now his dream is, to give the world best service for free...so the user will always say what Sunny said...i catch all what is free , what isnt free its not interesting, and the donaters will say no problem, i donate so i get a better service then...but how will you control that all ??? Yu will maybe create a 2 different users community...the one half is the user paying group, the other the "normalos"

so i see alot of problems comming with that

in general i would say...keep as much as free as possible to make ah grow, but i understand that costs are there, but the user isnt station manager or staff or something like that , so to ask for money will always be a nesty situation

other point is, who needs any replay if a on demand system is established ?? so there in my mind we will have shitloads of free slots then for new djs or longer shows, coz replay you can replay as often as you like with the on demand system, but the other side is without a replay the most user never will hear the set when they dont pay for a on demand system...and the so community will go smaller and smaller

ahhhhhhhhh

so many things to think about

Tomek
Feb 4th, 2009, 23:46
my question is, are all djs okay with that ? i mean is f.e. Shulz okay with the DL of his GDJB ??? coz if not...we will have problems...
I guess he didnt allow to download his sets from old torrents site due to royalty fees and unclear law situation, now it'll be fixed :)


Paid on demand system is imo good idea... similar system have proton and frisky radio afaik... they offer you to listen or download your fav shows whenever you want for $10 per month. Regular listeners still can catch replays of the previous shows for free, but at unscheduled times (so kinda like it is here now)...

Personally, i dont really care about that option as i wasnt really using torrents often... But it might help cover some costs if there will be enough people willing to pay for it :smile: if it works for other stations should work here as well :smile:

RichT2008
Feb 4th, 2009, 23:48
I would be happy to pay for an on demand service, since (as I have pointed out before) I simply cannot get access to AH.FM during the daytime.

A download option would be even better, then at least I can listen in the car or on my ipod in the gym!

If the quality of the playback/download is at least 192K mp3, then I personally would pay $5 to $10 a month to get access without any issue.

It was great to get the sets for nothing via the torrent site. But I used to donate fairly regularly anyway, as it was well worth supporting such a great feature.

Whilst I can still get lots of music for free from the likes of ETN.FM's torrent site, the quality of AH.FM's sets (and variety) is un-paralleled:choon:.

t4e
Feb 4th, 2009, 23:50
This is kind of simla to what was being offered at the other station where many of us came from, they called it premium, where you had a channel that played replays and stuff and supposedly got a better quality sound if you payed for it. I never payed for that and I wouldnt be paying for this. So I would definately be voting no to your proposal.


not similar in any way....

maybe you remember when they added the the Content Link Advertising back in November 2006, where certain key words in posts would turn to hyperlinks

extremely annoying, but was a way for them to make some money

Premium gave ppl access to better quality stream, but it came with other perks, the most important of all was the option to disable the damn Content Link Advertising and also not to hear the Commercials in the middle of the sets, as well as in between them.

"leather trimmed shift knob for your Syon" anyone? :ee:

I was one that chose to pay for the Premium service, not only for the better quality of the stream, or to get rid of the advertising, but purely because i got a "free ride" for 4 years and i watched the place develop and evolve, and i figured its time i show my appreciation and give something back.

What happened there, stays there, i am not mentioning this to open a can of worms, and start a discussion about the other place.

Also when i came over to AH, I had a pretty good idea what it takes financially to run such a service so i chose to become a Supporter right away, to show my appreciation for what i am being offered.

Same goes for Torrents, i hardly downloaded anything but i still donated.

This is not intended to imply to anyone that they have to donate, is just my own opinion and what and why i chose to do it.


Now, what would everyone think if we had that Content Link Advertising introduced in this forums?

I already see ppl complaining about the Google adds being distracting, obviously they do not realize that as little as it may be its a source of covering some of the costs of running AH.

Dan
Feb 5th, 2009, 00:22
I guess he didnt allow to download his sets from old torrents site due to royalty fees and unclear law situation, now it'll be fixed :)


Paid on demand system is imo good idea... similar system have proton and frisky radio afaik... they offer you to listen or download your fav shows whenever you want for $10 per month. Regular listeners still can catch replays of the previous shows for free, but at unscheduled times (so kinda like it is here now)...

Personally, i dont really care about that option as i wasnt really using torrents often... But it might help cover some costs if there will be enough people willing to pay for it :smile: if it works for other stations should work here as well :smile:


yeah frisky does it friskyRadio | Subscription Downloads (http://www.friskyradio.com/store/item4/)

I know a few other stations do also, this is just a extra service that some people would like to have, people that always looked for sets to download on sites will keep on doing that, but there is and are those people that would rather have the luxury to pay small fee and download it.

I think many people forget that AH.FM is FREE 192k.

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 00:35
Okay. I was at the other place for 4 years, too. And like t4e, I was a Premium Member for the same reasons that she gave. I'm a supporter here and I pay more here than I paid there, about twice as much. I'm happier here and I prefer sets to track rotations. I can live without ASOT.

I have a tiny idea what it costs Dan to do these things. I'm running the replacement torrent site, poor though it is. Pure stop gap measure until Dan gets this off the ground. I GOTTA have AH on my iPods and in my car. And folks, I can tell you IT IS NOT FREE.

Dan is trying so hard to give us the very best with the least amount of disruption. I HATE those new Google ads. They work. They draw my eyes away from the posts. I hate that. IMHO Supporters should not have to see them. I didn't mind the regular link ads. I even clicked on a few of them. Point is, Dan is trying to survive just like the rest of us are and he's NOT independently wealthy. He has to defray his costs however he can. JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD DO.

I love this idea. And I don't mind paying for it. It's worth it. Period. :cat:

Config
Feb 5th, 2009, 00:36
Jaycan has some good points in his post, but i'll pick this one out:




Everything has costs...for DAN to run the station or the new on demand system, for a DJ the equipment, the tracks, etc
So from DJ Side i would say if the user needs to pay for the DL, the incoming money must be split ... one half for DAn to fix the costs for the system, other half for the DJs...and so it is NOT to manage coz who will say wich dj gets wich money ...



He's totally right here. If AH would be selling sets the dj's mixed it's kind of unfair towards their dj's if i may say so. We mixed it and bought our tracks , gear and all the necessary stuff. It's not cheap for us who mix with decent dj gear too. If there would be something to pay for a single set i think the dj should be getting a part of this. How big that part is? I don't know. How will AH manage it? I don't know? But selling sets that dj's gave in for free is not to be done.



The best thing is to work with a login system where people just subscribe to the on demand system and pay a fee for that. After that it should be ALL free. Even the set downloads, cus then we're getting onto the first problem again.

I have no doubt AH will choose this option instead of pay per download sets. It's the better in every kind of way.


There will still be a lot (or even more) dj's who will drop their download links at the end of the sets, so i think in all cases people will be satisfied.

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 00:42
And yeah, you can go to the DJs sites and get them, if you can find them. Do you know what a pain in the ass that is? I DO! I'M DOING IT NOW for TAP. This is SO much better. You can hear it before you buy it, you can have it ALL if you desire it. And you DON'T have to go HUNT it down or BEG for it like I'm doing now.

I WANT my torrents site to become obsolete and no longer needed. This is THE way to achieve that goal. Come on people. Be reasonable. Sunny. Hey. I want my mortgage for free. My light bill, water bill and Internet service free, too. Free food would be great and free gas wonderful.

I can also want in one hand and shit in the other. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! :cat:

Dan
Feb 5th, 2009, 00:57
Jaycan has some good points in his post, but i'll pick this one out:



He's totally right here. If AH would be selling sets the dj's mixed it's kind of unfair towards their dj's if i may say so. We mixed it and bought our tracks , gear and all the necessary stuff. It's not cheap for us who mix with decent dj gear too. If there would be something to pay for a single set i think the dj should be getting a part of this. How big that part is? I don't know. How will AH manage it? I don't know? But selling sets that dj's gave in for free is not to be done.



The best thing is to work with a login system where people just subscribe to the on demand system and pay a fee for that. After that it should be ALL free. Even the set downloads, cus then we're getting onto the first problem again.

I have no doubt AH will choose this option instead of pay per download sets. It's the better in every kind of way.


There will still be a lot (or even more) dj's who will drop their download links at the end of the sets, so i think in all cases people will be satisfied.


I think this is where the organization needs to pay for royalties, and not the djs. Your forgetting the people who really should be getting paid are the producers who produce the music that you play. Yes you create the sets to be aired on AH.FM but in return you get promoted across the globe. So you have to look at it as yes they might have the system and people can download BUT they are paying royalties for those sets, royalties that go back to the producers. Essentially users that will use this service are the ones that are supporting the producers.

Config
Feb 5th, 2009, 01:42
That's not entirely true. As i said; Dj's already have supported the producers too. They bought the tracks they play in the sets and therefor have the right to play those tracks out. Indeed the organization needs to pay for royalties, it's true. But that's not the only party who pays for the tracks to be played :) Actually a dj supports the producers even more than the users will. The users would be paying for a single set, which will cost a lot less than buying all the tracks in the set on itself, the sum of those tracks will be lots higher. :)

Also a reason why i think a subscription in return for a fee is a way better way for an on demand system.

Of course dj's should be very grateful for the promotion they get, and i don't think any dj over here isn't grateful for that :)

Jellyfish
Feb 5th, 2009, 01:57
Some years ago someone created rapidshare as one of the best free hosting sites, and quickly it grew and became the main site to upload all kind of illegal stuff such music, films, tv series… so they added their special feature.. “u can pay us some extra money and u will get high speed and you wont have to wait 1 hour till start to download your next file”. People went crazy and everybody said.. “I wont pay for anything that I can get it for free, I can wait”. 5 years later most of ppl have megaupload or rapidshare accounts cause that little monthly cash, makes their lives easier.


Humans (and dancers :p) do not like to wait, we do like to control everything, even music schedule. I really think that on demand thing would be so useful, not only cause I can download my favourite shows and keep them with me forever, also because sometimes, specially during mornings, replays don’t fit with my activities (sometimes too prog, sometimes too uplift) or maybe cause I listened to those shows the day before and I don’t want to listen to them again.. then, the only thing I need is to log in into my premium account and listen to whatever I want.

That makes my life easier.

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:08
Jelly, I'm with you. I like to control as much of my life as possible. I hadn't though of your particular angle, but you are absolutely right. When there is a REPLAY on I don't particularly want to hear again, I can listen to a different set, AND DOWNLOAD IT TOO! I've died and gone to River Oaks. :angel::cat:

t4e
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:15
That's not entirely true. As i said; Dj's already have supported the producers too. They bought the tracks they play in the sets and therefor have the right to play those tracks out.

i just have few words to say as reply to that:

a DJ will make more money in one night playing in a club than a producer will ever make in a year for his track

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:28
i just have few words to say as reply to that:

a DJ will make more money in one night playing in a club than a producer will ever make in a year for his track

And that is why all the headliners have to do those grueling world wind tours. To make enough money to pay for their producing habits. I couldn't do it and neither could Config, I'll bet. Otherwise, he would be doing it. But I imagine that he'd rather have a REAL life. :mask:

firefox_muc
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:33
I should be sleeping at this time. Nevertheless.

There is no need to have all sets on demand or for download. If some DJs don't want to - leave them alone!

About donating I would like to see a poll whether people prefer other ways to donate than paypal. I do! I didn't donate to torrents because paypal was the one and only option. I'm sorry for that Kowy. There are other ways to donate to AH. I don't know whether the service for credit card donations would be an option.

@ Dan: frisky can't compete - 128k only.

Torrents are closed since more than two months now. Looking around I found a lot of sets for legal download. This does not include T-*P.
And I tested other stations.

On demand can not substitute downloads, at least not now. Like many others I like to listen to my favourite DJs in my car. In some years we may have stable internet stream even in our car or elsewhere. I still buy CDs, Mellomania for example.

Whatever you do - good luck! It's impossible to turn back the clock.

:music:

dfx
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:40
They bought the tracks they play in the sets and therefor have the right to play those tracks out.
wrong, buying a track only entitles you to listen to it personally, it does NOT give you the right to play it in any sort of public event - no broadcasting, no public events, no filesharing, no download links etc, nothing like that, not even if it's mixed in a set.

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:42
JayCan.

I disagree. The DJs and Producers Corner is NOT the Ritz-Carlton. I LIVE on AH and I think I've been in that thread twice. So I do not see that as a good place for anyone to get REAL promotion and exposure. The On Demand service, however will do that for them because it's OUT FRONT and I would imagine that Dan will give it a prominent spot on the home page there.

As to the 2-class system, we already have that. We have the Supporters and the Freeloaders. Not that there's anything wrong, per se, to being a freeloader. I do it, too, you bet. Just not here. But so far as I can tell, I haven't seen any rioting in the streets between the two groups. We all get along just fine. So I just don't see that as a valid argument for or against the On Demand/Download.

You have a VERY valid point about REPLAY in the general meaning of the term. With On Demand, it becomes wasteful of space. If Dan used those time slots for new DJs, he might be able to pull in the other time zones in the US better. It's not much fun for the folks on the Left Coast. No live sets, no one in the forums to talk to. I'd like to see a few more DJs on board for the left hand time zones. :cat:

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:50
wrong, buying a track only entitles you to listen to it personally, it does NOT give you the right to play it in any sort of public event - no broadcasting, no public events, no filesharing, no download links etc, nothing like that, not even if it's mixed in a set.

Technically, you are absolutely correct (depending on the copyright laws of your particular country). Every time a track is played publicly in any way, the artist "should" get a little cut. He/she don't. Things would be different if they did. But it's nearly impossible to enforce that.

God knows the RIAA is trying their damnedest to get their hooks into that pie. :P

Tarek
Feb 5th, 2009, 02:56
This is a toughie...

Frankly I think you have outdone yourself. The torrent server was a bonus, everyone knew that. Without a download method, the raw basics are the only things in place. Sunny's point of view is not unique (I'm not entirely agreeing with him though). Many people, especially the listeners that do no sign up and contribute, share Sunny's opinion, I can guarantee that. So by offering a service, you're just giving a foothold for exploitation of a new service, if it's free of course.

If it's not free, however, what stops someone from subscribing, downloading a bunch of sets (if we take Config's idea) and just uploading them on a blog or ftp server and giving links to all the "normalies"? Nothing is the answer. Of course you'd say that's our problem, but then it comes back to the same thing. Anyone can easily record sets live anyways for free, it's not that difficult. There are so many loopholes in a system like this.

What I'm saying is, leave ah.fm the way it is right now. It should be the user's choice to donate or not and be supportive, and it should be the DJ's choice to publicly distribute his/her set, whether locally, or at their own expense/time. There are many problems that can arise with a system like that. This way, you wouldn't be spending money and the subscribers wouldn't be spending money for this system while people can easily exploit it for free.

As for the rare exceptions like t4e, with unparalleled levels of thoughfulness and selflessness..I'm not sure what you'd do..maybe instead of hosting a whole torrent website..just subscribe to a hoster and upload everything there..I'm pretty sure it's not as expensive.

Also..the whole idea of having more time space for new DJs can easily be done even without the on-demand..they do not relate to eachother..

firefox said that you cannot turn back the clock, and he is absolutely right. People who listen to sets here look for the download link provided by the DJ..or look at their myspace blogs or whaetver, and alot of the times you find them without much effort.

Hope I didn't offend anyone, just stating my opinion

The Cat Lady
Feb 5th, 2009, 03:01
Firefox_muc. It's okay to say it. It's not the F-Bomb. TAP, TAP, TAP, TAP. Like dancing on terrazzo tile. :LMAO:

I'm not entirely illegal. Only semi. I have the written permission of the DJ on file for every set I have, with the exceptions of the big AH events. And I'm not going to kill myself to try to get them anymore. It's just flat more than I can handle all by myself. EOYC 08 almost killed me to put that together for TAP. I still feel like I need a vacation. I won't be doing that again.

Dan can do this better than I will EVER be able to do. People think I'm the enemy for what I did. Not hardly. I'm one of AH's biggest fans. OBVIOUSLY. Or I wouldn't be busting my ass like I am. I love AfterHours. I love Dan and all the Staff. And I adore our DJs. Everything I do is for them. As soon as On Demand is viable and up and running, TAP closes. No one will need it anymore. Not even me. :cat:

Joe-Shadows
Feb 5th, 2009, 06:50
Really The Discussion Goes Very Positive


In MY P.O.V ,,, @ First I Agree That Running The station Costs Dan Alot & AH is Not A Commercial Entity ,, it's 100% Free ,,, So I Agree On That AH.FM On Demand Payment But I may Not Use it !!!!

Talking as Accountant , Not A DJ or User Now !!!

I 've ManY Ideas On That :-

1- Make The On Demand Free for Listening Live @ The Website But Make The Download for Premium Users Or Instant Payment for One Set

2- Other Things Finance AH May be Good
For Ex : Make A Record Label For Ah ,, AH has a great Name & many Resident Producer @ AH & 'll Hurry Up to Sign Thier Tracks in ... Also You Can Make Other Miscellenous Things On Store Like T-Shirts !! ( Caps , DVDs For AH shows , etc )

3- I Dont See DJs 've The Write To 've Money from That AH in Demand ! As The Whole Thing Promote Them !! & Anyway The Radio Station Idea is to rebroadcast What DJs Plays on Thier COncerts @ Radio , Spreading The Music .... etc , So DJs 've Other ways 2 Get Money By Doing Concerts Or Producing Tracks

4- AH.FM Sets May Be A Releases On BeatPort ,, BeatPort Sells Mixes ,,, Then Why Not AH. SEts Sold To beatport , & Dividing The Profits ( Beatport , AH , The DJ ) , That's Other Way For Financing Also !!!

5- Google Commercials Dont Annoy me @ All ,, Just installed The Add-Block From Firefox & it Dont appear :)

At Last All OF These 're Several Opinions By Me & I Really Appreciate What Dan Does For Us & we All 've to Thank Him For Bringing AH to Us & The Unlimited Work He Do ! , & Has The Write To Ask For Donations But He Dont , He Just Know That People Who Love Ah & Can Donate > 'll Donates :)

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers :loveah:

trace of trance
Feb 5th, 2009, 08:34
I hardly ever download any sets since I like to listen them "live" so I prolly wouldnt susbcribe the on demand service. If do need a set or 2 like once in 6 months time im pretty sure I can get then for free. And I actually think replays kinda cover the on demand listening system. The download service is totally different thing. I know theres ppl who wants get newest sets coz they do listen them in mp3 players or so its good for them I guess.

However its a step to a commercial playground direction and I dont like it. I think there is other better ways to cover costs like for example "a cost cover campaign" where u pay voluntarily some amount of money and get a t-shirt or so in return.

JayCan
Feb 5th, 2009, 09:27
To pick shortly up some points Config and my great Friend TCL said...

i tell you what i think about DJs they didnt promote their self: Let them go *haha* not really but, hey...from my point i give every Set for Download for free on several places: My Social Group, in the Show Thread, via PM or Mail, sometimes on other Boards...yeah and if anybody asks me i give my set coz i love musik and want to that everybody can be with my sounds....OTHER DJs do NOT...never in Life ther is a Lange Set for free anywhere on that globe...coz his Management dontwant that...so pfff...i dont listen Lange ( its just an example i dont bash at him ;-) ...
And as i said before... i see both or many sides of that

In general an ON DEMAND SYSTEM is a real great Service and maybe a hundred Users will use it. On Other Side then to make it really Exclusive the Replays have to go coz a intelligent user can record it live or the several replays..what is illegal but ppl do it ;-) ....and so comes the next step....they could do it the whole day without anybody knows...i know im talking about the black sheeps but they are those who kills every idea and service...

For me in General A ON DEMAND SYSTEM is a great thing
The Problems to keep it as the idea said is really difficult and i dont know what will happen to AH when this comes arround....maybe a testing phase will give more information about how users will handle with that service

for an idea cozing on discussion about DJs, Producers etc....sure the producers need the money but: Do you really think the few buggs from an AH ON DEMAND SYSTEM will help ARMIN to produce a new track ??? Not really...the money comes from the labels etc and Producers make the contracts with the labels and then when song is aired they should get money for that IF IT IS A COMERCIAL RADIO STATION...in Internet Radio Business i never heard about a station who needs to pay for the Tracks they are aired there...so THIS could be a great chance to make AH the real no ONE...if there is collected Income from the ON DEMAND SYSTEM...and DAN will give a few bucks of that to a POT where the DJs and Producers on AH subscribe too he will make history coz then hes the First and Only Station Manager looking for the PPL they do the Musik...so maybe ate the end of year there is then a big pot and every Producer and DJ gets a lil money out of that....OR and other idea is to spend that to upcomming Talents...who knows

so at last...yes TO a ON DEMAND SYSTEM but then do replays down...make the shows bigger and went over to a 24/7 hour live Radio exclusive DJ set Station

Lazarus
Feb 5th, 2009, 10:10
OK, here's my two cents:

As TCL said, nothing is free. Free stuff on the internet is an illusion as someone somewhere is paying for it.

An on-demand service for AH would be costly, in terms of storage space and bandwidth, and it's safe to say that over the past year AH's bandwidth costs have probably doubled or so, given that the listeners seem to be double they were 12 months back, give or take.

On "normal" FM radio, there are two types - commercial radio which is funded by advertising, and public service radio which is funded by taxes (like the BBC for example).

I love the fact that AH is run for the love of the music and not for profit, which is why I've no problem being a supporter every month, but it's easy for me to say as I have a full time job and it's easy for me to pay through paypal. However, I know that there are others not in this position.

So for me the question is - "If the on-demand service were to exist, how would it be funded?" It's not fair to ask Dan to pay for everything because although he's a fantastic guy I'm sure he's neither a millionaire nor willing to bankrupt himself for the sake of online radio.

Hence I think these are the options we have:

Make the on-demand service available only to subscribers for a fee (providing the fees cover the costs of the service itself)
Make the on-demand service available to all in the hope that more people come to the site and donate to cover the costs of the service itself
Don't make the on-demand service at all and leave things as they are now (as TCL says, a lot of sets you can acquire if your patience and googling skills are up to scratch)
Increase the amount of advertising on the site and/or the stream itself


Out of the options I like the last one best as a long-term solution. We have a great community here and lots of listeners which makes us a good marketing spot for advertisers. It would mean perhaps 2-3 mins of adverts inbetween one-hour shows, or maybe 4-5 mins after 2 hour shows, so the DJs would each, say, have to play one less tune per set. But in the greater scheme of things, people listen to adverts on normal FM radio without a second thought and ensure them because it pays for everything else - likewise the same is true for TV.

You see, what is going to happen in the next few years is that internet radio is going to find it's way into people's cars, and when that happens, internet radio is going to become massive. And when it does, the bandwidth side of things is going to become a far bigger issue than on-demand services, but again, the question will be how it will be paid for. And the answer then, I believe, will be in advertising.

Config
Feb 5th, 2009, 12:35
i just have few words to say as reply to that:

a DJ will make more money in one night playing in a club than a producer will ever make in a year for his track

well i don't really think you can generalize 'a DJ' like that. Not every dj is so lucky to play in clubs and at parties :wink: And the few times it might happen, it won't compensate the expenses of the tracks you're buying

Config
Feb 5th, 2009, 12:44
wrong, buying a track only entitles you to listen to it personally, it does NOT give you the right to play it in any sort of public event - no broadcasting, no public events, no filesharing, no download links etc, nothing like that, not even if it's mixed in a set.

that's where the royalties kick in of course. Party, radio, and club organizers pay that money. At least , that's how it works in Belgium.
And i know that it's not legal to spread your sets, but that's where the royalties kick in, which are less high than the total cost of all the tracks in that set. That's what my point was/is.

Either way dfx, you've been sharing sets too, so you know how dj's feel about that.

t4e
Feb 5th, 2009, 12:57
well i don't really think you can generalize 'a DJ' like that. Not every dj is so lucky to play in clubs and at parties :wink: And the few times it might happen, it won't compensate the expenses of the tracks you're buying


there's two categories of DJ's

those that want to break in the business and make a living from DJ'ing, in which case is the same as any other job, you have to find ways of promoting yourself.
your "tools" are the hardware and the tracks you need to make the set.


than there's those that do it for the love of music as a hobby


what i'm getting at is that for those that wish to make a living out of DJing they need to invest , in themselves afaic, without the expectation of an immediate return on their investment.

JayCan
Feb 5th, 2009, 13:07
what i'm getting at is that for those that wish to make a living out of DJing they need to invest , in themselves afaic, without the expectation of an immediate return on their investment.


so true:bravo::bravo:

trace of trance
Feb 5th, 2009, 13:37
what i'm getting at is that for those that wish to make a living out of DJing they need to invest , in themselves afaic, without the expectation of an immediate return on their investment.

There we get to the point... is this on demand meant to make profit to AH or just cover expenses.... where is the line of being non-profit organisation as AH has advertised itself? Everyone makes own conclusions

t4e
Feb 5th, 2009, 14:17
There we get to the point... is this on demand meant to make profit to AH or just cover expenses.... where is the line of being non-profit organisation as AH has advertised itself? Everyone makes own conclusions



my reply was to config and has nothing to do with the On-Demand system:P




AH is not even a Not For Profit Organization, because that would imply that is subsidized, meaning that the running costs are covered by an independent source.

The thread was open to get opinions from people as to whether this will be a worthwhile service, before actually investing a lot of money into it

Looks to me that instead its all turning into a discussion about what profits are to be made and who's gonna get a piece of it.

Dan
Feb 5th, 2009, 14:33
There we get to the point... is this on demand meant to make profit to AH or just cover expenses.... where is the line of being non-profit organisation as AH has advertised itself? Everyone makes own conclusions

ON demand would like to break even with the running costs, thats the whole purpose of this thread, to see who would be interested in subscribing before I invest all this money into getting a developer to develop it, server, huge disks to hold 12 months of sets, backup, monthly bandwidth bills + royalties since there will be sets for download.

Thank you

trace of trance
Feb 5th, 2009, 14:42
my reply was to config and has nothing to do with the On-Demand system:P




AH is not even a Not For Profit Organization, because that would imply that is subsidized, meaning that the running costs are covered by an independent source.

The thread was open to get opinions from people as to whether this will be a worthwhile service, before actually investing a lot of money into it

Looks to me that instead its all turning into a discussion about what profits are to be made and who's gonna get a piece of it.


ON demand would like to break even with the running costs, thats the whole purpose of this thread, to see who would be interested in subscribing before I invest all this money into getting a developer to develop it, server, huge disks to hold 12 months of sets, backup, monthly bandwidth bills + royalties since there will be sets for download.

Thank you

sorry if u got offended my point wasnt to attack on anyone... just give an another point of view :hug: i already answered for my part of the service in my first post

trace of trance
Feb 5th, 2009, 14:53
The thread was open to get opinions from people as to whether this will be a worthwhile service, before actually investing a lot of money into it

Looks to me that instead its all turning into a discussion about what profits are to be made and who's gonna get a piece of it.

it just have to be clear and see through for everyone if its for making profit or covering just cost always when u ask money from other ppl in the name of cost covers... coz if not then we are moving slightly on a fraud.


im sure AH needs more money to cover costs I just dont like the idea it would turn to be another comercial radio... "the free" thing was the main reason why I & the ppl I invited got here in the first place

Dan
Feb 5th, 2009, 15:10
it just have to be clear and see through for everyone if its for making profit or covering just cost always when u ask money from other ppl in the name of cost covers... coz if not then we are moving slightly on a fraud.


im sure AH needs more money to cover costs I just dont like the idea it would turn to be another comercial radio... "the free" thing was the main reason why I & the ppl I invited got here in the first place


It was free and it is free and it will be free, however were talking about a whole new service for people that are willing to subscribe and use it, others can still download shows from myspace etc where ever they were getting it before.

"extra" service that has a subscription on it to cover the running costs and pay royalties. AH.FM 192k 96k etc is all free nothing is changing in that aspect.

Once again all i wanted was feedback, nothing is set in stone, thank you.

Config
Feb 5th, 2009, 15:49
what i'm getting at is that for those that wish to make a living out of DJing they need to invest , in themselves afaic, without the expectation of an immediate return on their investment.

Of course. I agree with that. Actually myself , i'm not that much of a big dj, and the parties i played i did it for free actually. You have to build a name first. It's true you can't expect an immediate return for all the efforts you make, i don't even want that. Everything until now i did it for free. Lots of deejays are willing to give out their sets for free, but if someone is charging people for sets you gave in for free, of course a dj would like a small cut out of that. I think it's not more than logic. If AH ONLY charges the royalties that have to be paid for a set than i have not a single problem with it. If there will be an extra part of profit in the price, then i'm pointing to the first part of my post..


Either way, i think this is a very interesting discussion. And it's not because i'm pointing out some things about an on demand service that i'm against it :) Just drawing people's attention to some aspects that might cause discussion later on :)



Once again all i wanted was feedback, nothing is set in stone, thank you.

of course, we're only trying to help here :)

trace of trance
Feb 5th, 2009, 15:50
It was free and it is free and it will be free, however were talking about a whole new service for people that are willing to subscribe and use it, others can still download shows from myspace etc where ever they were getting it before.

"extra" service that has a subscription on it to cover the running costs and pay royalties. AH.FM 192k 96k etc is all free nothing is changing in that aspect.

Once again all i wanted was feedback, nothing is set in stone, thank you.

thats good to hear the plans are only for chargeable on demand service :bravo:

anyway I will vote Maybe coz I cant say defo No either

t4e
Feb 5th, 2009, 16:41
Of course. I agree with that. Actually myself , i'm not that much of a big dj, and the parties i played i did it for free actually. You have to build a name first. It's true you can't expect an immediate return for all the efforts you make, i don't even want that. Everything until now i did it for free. Lots of deejays are willing to give out their sets for free, but if someone is charging people for sets you gave in for free, of course a dj would like a small cut out of that. I think it's not more than logic. If AH ONLY charges the royalties that have to be paid for a set than i have not a single problem with it. If there will be an extra part of profit in the price, then i'm pointing to the first part of my post..


Either way, i think this is a very interesting discussion. And it's not because i'm pointing out some things about an on demand service that i'm against it :) Just drawing people's attention to some aspects that might cause discussion later on :)



of course, we're only trying to help here :)

i agree with that, and the intention of having a charge for OnDemand is not that ppl pay for the sets but rather for the resources that allows for that, i.e. storage, bandwidth and so on...maybe the wording in the original post was less than perfect :smile:

to make an analogy i'll use the example of one of my experiences:

once upon a time :ee: i had no mp3 player, but rather a CD player, so the DJ that introduced me to trance offered his sets for free, like everyone else, but also if you were too lazy, clueless or whatever else, to burn them yourself he would do it for you with a beautiful artwork printed on it and mail it for a small fee, which only covered the cost of the blank CD, printing supplies and postage

r3s1s74nc3
Feb 5th, 2009, 19:52
Hello everyone,

Also there is a chance of a "download" feature that might be available


This one rocks! Thank you Dan hope that this will be available:super::bravo:

piccoli
Feb 5th, 2009, 22:14
It was free and it is free and it will be free, however were talking about a whole new service for people that are willing to subscribe and use it, others can still download shows from myspace etc where ever they were getting it before.

"extra" service that has a subscription on it to cover the running costs and pay royalties. AH.FM 192k 96k etc is all free nothing is changing in that aspect.

Once again all i wanted was feedback, nothing is set in stone, thank you.




i'm not being negative here Dan, just a bit real, i think there will not have enough "demand" to cover the expanses, i see nowadays people wants everything by free, if they want free they have the streaming radio already and it's not easy to run it.

I think you remember our conversation in Vienna, the most important is you first try to get a sponsor like google or coca-cola, like America on line sponsors ETN radio:wink:

jedrekmx
Feb 5th, 2009, 22:43
i'm not being negative here Dan, just a bit real, i think there will not have enough "demand" to cover the expanses, i see nowadays people wants everything by free, if they want free they have the streaming radio already and it's not easy to run it.

I think you remember our conversation in Vienna, the most important is you first try to get a sponsor like google or coca-cola, like America on line sponsors ETN radio:wink:

Sorry to go off topic butt It's really hard to get sponsors, and then in time when you do you are at the mercy of what the sponsors what since they are paying out of their pockets for your service.

Arada
Feb 5th, 2009, 23:48
Wee, i don't need music on demand, either i can get it or i listen to stream(s) available.
And there are many streams in "our" world wide web!

trace of trance
Feb 6th, 2009, 14:05
i'm not being negative here Dan, just a bit real, i think there will not have enough "demand" to cover the expanses, i see nowadays people wants everything by free, if they want free they have the streaming radio already and it's not easy to run it.

I think you remember our conversation in Vienna, the most important is you first try to get a sponsor like google or coca-cola, like America on line sponsors ETN radio:wink:

its all about marketing... need to make donating desirable... creating it as a nice picture :smile:

for example would u donate $30 if u would get ah AH T-shirt and some AH Dj exclusive compilation cd in return? :wink: i would

existent
Feb 6th, 2009, 15:31
i'm not being negative here Dan, just a bit real, i think there will not have enough "demand" to cover the expanses, i see nowadays people wants everything by free, if they want free they have the streaming radio already and it's not easy to run it.

I think you remember our conversation in Vienna, the most important is you first try to get a sponsor like google or coca-cola, like America on line sponsors ETN radio:wink:


its all about marketing... need to make donating desirable... creating it as a nice picture :smile:

for example would u donate $30 if u would get ah AH T-shirt and some AH Dj exclusive compilation cd in return? :wink: i would


I read some of the posts in the thread but not all of it...

I might be willing to pay a reasonable fee (instead of donating once a while) if I will have the chance to listen to the whatever set I want whenever. Because you can't always have time to listen to the live sets or catch the replays.

I will also have to agree with picolli though. I don't think there will be enough demand to cover the expenses. some of the djs already provide the DL link for their sets, and it is not really hard to find any other set online anyways (even though it is not really legal).

And as ToT said, with some marketing, you can get more donations/subscribtions for sure.. Prize draws, or free give aways... :ee:

You can compare the number of people who currently donate to the number of people who might probably subscribe for an on demand service..

What is the % of AH supporters right now for example?

Dan
Feb 6th, 2009, 16:35
I read some of the posts in the thread but not all of it...

I might be willing to pay a reasonable fee (instead of donating once a while) if I will have the chance to listen to the whatever set I want whenever. Because you can't always have time to listen to the live sets or catch the replays.

I will also have to agree with picolli though. I don't think there will be enough demand to cover the expenses. some of the djs already provide the DL link for their sets, and it is not really hard to find any other set online anyways (even though it is not really legal).

And as ToT said, with some marketing, you can get more donations/subscribtions for sure.. Prize draws, or free give aways... :ee:

You can compare the number of people who currently donate to the number of people who might probably subscribe for an on demand service..

What is the % of AH supporters right now for example?

Hello thanks for feedback, there is a difference on having supporters that support AH once and get a supporter status in forum and someone who is a supporter and does it each month "subscription based" costs to run AH or this on demand system are monthly based.

To be honest as a few of you already stated I see no point in openning up this service cause its not cost effective & i don't need anymore ahfm debt :)

hugs mate

firefox_muc
Feb 6th, 2009, 19:55
Why don't you limit supporter status to one year after a donation?

Dan
Feb 6th, 2009, 21:03
Why don't you limit supporter status to one year after a donation?

possible :)

The Cat Lady
Feb 7th, 2009, 02:23
Why don't you limit supporter status to one year after a donation?


possible :)

Unless you are a monthly supporter like some of us are. :grinning:

Although, I have to sadly report that I will have to stop that for a little while, I think. I need that money for things that are not luxuries. :cry:

AH is the most luxurious thing in my life. God, I love AH. :love::love::love::love::cat:

The Cat Lady
Feb 7th, 2009, 02:24
Hello thanks for feedback, there is a difference on having supporters that support AH once and get a supporter status in forum and someone who is a supporter and does it each month "subscription based" costs to run AH or this on demand system are monthly based.

To be honest as a few of you already stated I see no point in openning up this service cause its not cost effective & i don't need anymore ahfm debt :)

hugs mate

(??)

So ... does that mean you WON'T be doing it? Oh crap. :(

Maybe when the world gets back on its feet again, people won't be so hesitant. :(

JayCan
Feb 7th, 2009, 07:14
Mhhhmm

So is there a short overview what all the cost are for on demand system ?? Mean what costs the HDD, the server, the service, etc...

so maybe some like to spend money for the setup itself...f.e. one person will spend the HDD


cheers

danmark_ori
Feb 7th, 2009, 09:56
Hello everyone,

.. .. ..

So I would like to get some feedback from you guys on this, I created a poll. If you guys would be interested in this kind of feature and willing to subscribe with a monthly fee & what would be a reasonable fee a month. Reason why I would like to see feedback is I don't want to get a loan and get this whole thing running and have no one to be using it. So thank you for reading this long post, and I appreciate all the feedback.

:friends:



Hi Dan :cap:

You're considering monthly costs and hence mention monthly incomes - by a monthly fee. Once an investment is made, the costs have to be equalled by incomes within some period of time. For me, time is lacking. Time for listening : streaming audio < 'live', replay or 'on-demand' > as well as for re-hearing off-line downloaded stuff. When you're introducing an 'On Demand' feature, I cóuld and probably will make some use of the opportunity. By exception. But not on a regular basis. Not 'large scale'. Because of the height of any fee ? No. These days simply because I don't have the time. I don't have the time to listen more as I already do now. If I was you, I would be considering the costs - and be very careful before entering yet another financial obligation :hmmm:

Dan
Feb 7th, 2009, 11:43
Mhhhmm

So is there a short overview what all the cost are for on demand system ?? Mean what costs the HDD, the server, the service, etc...

so maybe some like to spend money for the setup itself...f.e. one person will spend the HDD


cheers

server: 350 euro
disks: 85 euro each 500GB each in raid
to get the application built: 250 euro
monthly cost for servers colocation + bandwidth: 200 euro

So basically 800euro to just start... Like others said its not worth it.




Hi Dan :cap:

You're considering monthly costs and hence mention monthly incomes - by a monthly fee. Once an investment is made, the costs have to be equalled by incomes within some period of time. For me, time is lacking. Time for listening : streaming audio < 'live', replay or 'on-demand' > as well as for re-hearing off-line downloaded stuff. When you're introducing an 'On Demand' feature, I cóuld and probably will make some use of the opportunity. By exception. But not on a regular basis. Not 'large scale'. Because of the height of any fee ? No. These days simply because I don't have the time. I don't have the time to listen more as I already do now. If I was you, I would be considering the costs - and be very careful before entering yet another financial obligation :hmmm:

Thank you danmark, I gave alot of though and I dont need another financial obligation.

This thread will be locked after the weekend, there is no point in pushing this forward when most people want something that costs money FREE.

Thank you all for your feedback it was very nice and interesting to see all opinions.

piccoli
Feb 7th, 2009, 12:36
server: 350 euro
disks: 85 euro each 500GB each in raid
to get the application built: 250 euro
monthly cost for servers colocation + bandwidth: 200 euro

So basically 800euro to just start... Like others said its not worth it.



Thank you danmark, I gave alot of though and I dont need another financial obligation.

This thread will be locked after the weekend, there is no point in pushing this forward when most people want something that costs money FREE.

Thank you all for your feedback it was very nice and interesting to see all opinions.




exactly Dan, see, who donates to the radio, hardly will subscribe for the ondemand system, so or one or other, personally i prefer donate for the radio than for the ondemand system and i'm speaking for my self, i am a donator for the radio i hardly would subscribe for the ondemand system.

The Cat Lady
Feb 7th, 2009, 15:23
Dan. Tell your monthly donators what you told me. That you wouldn't be double-dipping.

For me personally, this is a crushing, disappointing defeat. I really wanted this to go through. Dan, we have to talk. There has to be another way that we can do this. I mean it. And you know that I do. You know how I am. (kiss, kiss, kiss) Fierce-:hug::cat:

JayCan
Feb 7th, 2009, 17:33
DAN!!!

I wouldnt close so fast...its just a few days and its just the meanings of a few hardcore members on ah....

i would do the following...make a nice Newsletter out of it...ask via that newsletter about and talk about the service itself...try to make an cost overview for the single user and what he gets for it...

if THAT didnt work and ppl are not interested THEN you can say RIP On Demand

just a thought how it could work ;)

Altered-Mind
Feb 7th, 2009, 17:59
DAN!!!

I wouldnt close so fast...its just a few days and its just the meanings of a few hardcore members on ah....

i would do the following...make a nice Newsletter out of it...ask via that newsletter about and talk about the service itself...try to make an cost overview for the single user and what he gets for it...

if THAT didnt work and ppl are not interested THEN you can say RIP On Demand

just a thought how it could work ;)

good idea :iagree: :music:

t4e
Feb 7th, 2009, 18:02
DAN!!!

I wouldnt close so fast...its just a few days and its just the meanings of a few hardcore members on ah....





but aren't the "hardcore members" that we count on?

while the Newsletter idea is good, i know that some opt out of receiving it, plus lest say there's 20, 30 even 50 ppl that would say "yes, i will subscribe"..who's to say that they actually will do so when the system is up and running?

IMO more important is the feedback from those "hardcore members", they are here every day, and most are supporters already, i don't see how the opinion of those that never visit the forum can be of any influence or be relied upon

Altered-Mind
Feb 7th, 2009, 18:07
but aren't the "hardcore members" that we count on?

while the Newsletter idea is good, i know that some opt out of receiving it, plus lest say there's 20, 30 even 50 ppl that would say "yes, i will subscribe"..who's to say that they actually will do so when the system is up and running?

IMO more important is the feedback from those "hardcore members", they are here every day, and most are supporters already, i don't see how the opinion of those that never visit the forum can be of any influence or be relied upon

very good point :yes: :book:

JayCan
Feb 7th, 2009, 18:17
but aren't the "hardcore members" that we count on?

while the Newsletter idea is good, i know that some opt out of receiving it, plus lest say there's 20, 30 even 50 ppl that would say "yes, i will subscribe"..who's to say that they actually will do so when the system is up and running?

IMO more important is the feedback from those "hardcore members", they are here every day, and most are supporters already, i don't see how the opinion of those that never visit the forum can be of any influence or be relied upon


good point

BUT

we have also about over 1000 listeners each day:wink: but they are not in forums:wink: so maybe there are more than the 150 hardcorers will using it

Wailo
Feb 7th, 2009, 18:27
I got an idea which I think it is possible to be implemented, with NO COST really, assuming that download is legal and agreed by DJs.<o:p></o:p>
Instead of<o:p></o:p>

* paying for coding and designing new website<o:p></o:p>
*paying for servers, HDD etc...,<o:p></o:p>

Why not host it on one of the available and very reliable web servers?! BOOOO, nothing to pay for! if there is cost, I am sure it is nothing comparing setting up a full server. and it can be easily covered by donations.<o:p></o:p>
Some hosting websites are offering direct link to the files with the option to embed if necessary.<o:p></o:p>

What I mean by direct link, is that one-click will immediately start playing/downloading! Which is pretty much acting as ON DEMAND system

The embedding will give the ability to present it in AH STYLE.<o:p></o:p>
By creating dedicated thread for it, with a little bit of organizing, it will make it perfect.<o:p></o:p>

Definitely, I know that this involves a lot of work/time to upload sets to the web servers. To be honest, I find it necessary for the events ONLY (in the mix,...etc) to be organized and hosted for downloading! for the regular shows, I can live with links posted by Djs for each show, Or:<o:p></o:p>

Create another dedicated thread for regular show, make it very organized (only titles and links) and searchable by DJ name/show name, then it is up to the DJ if they want to share their sets or not, and you can make an action button like the Reporthttp://forum.ah.fm/fusion/buttons/report.gif button, so any member can hit this button if wants that particular set but link is not posted, this reports directly to the DJ that a number of listeners would like to download his/her set. Make it easier for to get the sets.

I have found the all 300 EOYC sets hosted this way.

firefox_muc
Feb 7th, 2009, 18:39
:iagree:
any extra service should be considered part of AH attracting listeners and creating donations.

Tarek
Feb 8th, 2009, 05:20
I got an idea which I think it is possible to be implemented, with NO COST really, assuming that download is legal and agreed by DJs.<o:p></o:p>
Instead of<o:p></o:p>

* paying for coding and designing new website<o:p></o:p>
*paying for servers, HDD etc...,<o:p></o:p>

Why not host it on one of the available and very reliable web servers?! BOOOO, nothing to pay for! if there is cost, I am sure it is nothing comparing setting up a full server. and it can be easily covered by donations.<o:p></o:p>
Some hosting websites are offering direct link to the files with the option to embed if necessary.<o:p></o:p>

What I mean by direct link, is that one-click will immediately start playing/downloading! Which is pretty much acting as ON DEMAND system

The embedding will give the ability to present it in AH STYLE.<o:p></o:p>
By creating dedicated thread for it, with a little bit of organizing, it will make it perfect.<o:p></o:p>

Definitely, I know that this involves a lot of work/time to upload sets to the web servers. To be honest, I find it necessary for the events ONLY (in the mix,...etc) to be organized and hosted for downloading! for the regular shows, I can live with links posted by Djs for each show, Or:<o:p></o:p>

Create another dedicated thread for regular show, make it very organized (only titles and links) and searchable by DJ name/show name, then it is up to the DJ if they want to share their sets or not, and you can make an action button like the Reporthttp://forum.ah.fm/fusion/buttons/report.gif button, so any member can hit this button if wants that particular set but link is not posted, this reports directly to the DJ that a number of listeners would like to download his/her set. Make it easier for to get the sets.

I have found the all 300 EOYC sets hosted this way.

Question here..Wouldn't we need to upload them from different hosts worldwide in order for everyone to have decent download speed? If every set is uploaded in ...Korea lets say, people from the West or Europe would have a hard time getting a decent speed (ie: over 50kbps), no? Or does it depend on the actual host?

SentriX
Feb 8th, 2009, 12:02
Question here..Wouldn't we need to upload them from different hosts worldwide in order for everyone to have decent download speed? If every set is uploaded in ...Korea lets say, people from the West or Europe would have a hard time getting a decent speed (ie: over 50kbps), no? Or does it depend on the actual host?


A few points having been down this avenue myself.

a: the 300 EoYC mixes are ripped and obviously illegal. Any host that finds that out is going to go "No pal you aint hosting illegal shit here" and close you down.

b: The amount of bandwidth needed for that would be MONUMENTAL - At the peak of one of my DDL sites I was using at least a terrabyte a month. Servers become sluggish and the hosting company will purposely slow down peer connections to and from your server.

c: It's different with a box - but much more expensive

d: DL speeds will be dramatically decreased i) when too many peers connect and ii) when you live so far away from the server, not to mention it would be relatively slow anyways due to the constant uploading and FTP activity of uploading more recent shows and deleting older ones.

Wailo
Feb 8th, 2009, 15:55
Question here..Wouldn't we need to upload them from different hosts worldwide in order for everyone to have decent download speed? If every set is uploaded in ...Korea lets say, people from the West or Europe would have a hard time getting a decent speed (ie: over 50kbps), no? Or does it depend on the actual host?

Hello Tarek :wave:

These websites are specialized in File hosing service, I think they are aware of all the induced issues with it.

from an experience, they were reliable, no complaints with downloading/streaming at all.
To stream 192Kbps mp3, you need at least 24KBps of bandwidth, the average speed I was getting is 90Kbps with my 1Mb connection. 3 times higher.
As you are located in Canada, I believe it is far better than mine:cry: :beat::lol:


A few points having been down this avenue myself.

a: the 300 EoYC mixes are ripped and obviously illegal. Any host that finds that out is going to go "No pal you aint hosting illegal shit here" and close you down.

Hello SentriX :wave:

I know they were illegal, I was pointing the functionality side of it, 300 sets (26 GigaByte) uploaded, and then streamed/downloaded on the other side with no problems. I think this is all what we need.

We are beyond the legal issues, since AH crew is taking care of it.


b: The amount of bandwidth needed for that would be MONUMENTAL - At the peak of one of my DDL sites I was using at least a terrabyte a month. Servers become sluggish and the hosting company will purposely slow down peer connections to and from your server.What bandwidth? All the sets will be hosted in one of the hosting website, using their bandwidth.
I am not an expert, but taking EOYC again as an example, I haven't experienced any difficulties. there were no bandwidth limitation at all, plus I think that these sites are dealing with Terabyte per week, or maybe per day.




c: It's different with a box - but much more expensiveHow come to be more expensive? since all what need to be done is to upload and then post the link. No hardware, no coding, designing and maintaining costs. even if there is a cost asked by the site for offering this service, I think the number will be a fraction of the cost, of establishing a whole new server. Donations may cover the costs.


d: DL speeds will be dramatically decreased i) when too many peers connect and ii) when you live so far away from the server, not to mention it would be relatively slow anyways due to the constant uploading and FTP activity of uploading more recent shows and deleting older ones.This was not the case with the 26 GB of sets, which is the highest it could be for AH to upload.
Maybe it may perform slightly better when running own server, but looking to the cost of it, it is not effective.

In regard to the regular shows, I made another thought about it in my previous post.:smile:

SentriX
Feb 8th, 2009, 16:40
Hello SentriX :wave:

I know they were illegal, I was pointing the functionality side of it, 300 sets (26 GigaByte) uploaded, and then streamed/downloaded on the other side with no problems. I think this is all what we need.

We are beyond the legal issues, since AH crew is taking care of it.

What bandwidth? All the sets will be hosted in one of the hosting website, using their bandwidth.
I am not an expert, but taking EOYC again as an example, I haven't experienced any difficulties. there were no bandwidth limitation at all, plus I think that these sites are dealing with Terabyte per week, or maybe per day.


How come to be more expensive? since all what need to be done is to upload and then post the link. No hardware, no coding, designing and maintaining costs. even if there is a cost asked by the site for offering this service, I think the number will be a fraction of the cost, of establishing a whole new server. Donations may cover the costs.

This was not the case with the 26 GB of sets, which is the highest it could be for AH to upload.
Maybe it may perform slightly better when running own server, but looking to the cost of it, it is not effective.

In regard to the regular shows, I made another thought about it in my previous post.:smile:

In reguards to your post:

Anything hosted on the net uses bandwidth. It's a fact. What is also a fact is that bandwidth is not and cannot be an limitless number. It is actually impossible for any hosting company to offer unlimited bandwidth. The limitation wont directly affect the users but more the staff of the site. If they exceed quota, which is very easy to do, it costs alot per extra GB of bandwidth. Also from a staff perspective incoming and outgoing connection speeds are limited or reduced if the server CPU is placed under too much strain.

All 'uploads' have to be uploaded somewhere therefore hardware is a necessity. Each 1 hour 192kbps set takes anywhere from 80-150MB per set. If you multiply this by the amount of sets a week, then a month then by 12 months the storage space required would be gargantuan. On top of that coding is required to get the main front and back ends operational. There will have to be a tonne of database connections to retrieve things like Artist name, tracklists, dl links etc...all very complex statements and functions and even more so on the administrative side. Design can take a bit of a back seat but it still needs to be done, in order to make the GUI friendly. Essentially your method is not too different when analysed to that of Dan's original suggestion.

My two cents. :music:

Dan
Feb 8th, 2009, 18:43
In reguards to your post:

Anything hosted on the net uses bandwidth. It's a fact. What is also a fact is that bandwidth is not and cannot be an limitless number. It is actually impossible for any hosting company to offer unlimited bandwidth. The limitation wont directly affect the users but more the staff of the site. If they exceed quota, which is very easy to do, it costs alot per extra GB of bandwidth. Also from a staff perspective incoming and outgoing connection speeds are limited or reduced if the server CPU is placed under too much strain.

All 'uploads' have to be uploaded somewhere therefore hardware is a necessity. Each 1 hour 192kbps set takes anywhere from 80-150MB per set. If you multiply this by the amount of sets a week, then a month then by 12 months the storage space required would be gargantuan. On top of that coding is required to get the main front and back ends operational. There will have to be a tonne of database connections to retrieve things like Artist name, tracklists, dl links etc...all very complex statements and functions and even more so on the administrative side. Design can take a bit of a back seat but it still needs to be done, in order to make the GUI friendly. Essentially your method is not too different when analysed to that of Dan's original suggestion.

My two cents. :music:

Indeed no place will give you unlimited bandwidth, no such thing as unlimited or companies would go out of business :)

I agree with the rest of your post, its easy to say "on demand" but when it comes to doing it all its a lot involved to have a solid final system.

Tarek
Feb 9th, 2009, 16:35
The only thing I can think of is discontinuing the oldest sets as newer ones come in...

jedrekmx
Feb 9th, 2009, 19:24
my question is what will be the initial costs to implement the on demand system and then what are the costs of maintenance? Based on that you can decide how much to charge and see what people think.

It's a really hard thing to do because if you don't have enough people interested in it, then you'll never cover you costs and end up wasting money that could have been used for something else. I am wondering how many of the users that only tune in and never log in to the forums will actually be interested in this...

t4e
Feb 9th, 2009, 19:35
my question is what will be the initial costs to implement the on demand system and then what are the costs of maintenance? Based on that you can decide how much to charge and see what people think.

It's a really hard thing to do because if you don't have enough people interested in it, then you'll never cover you costs and end up wasting money that could have been used for something else. I am wondering how many of the users that only tune in and never log in to the forums will actually be interested in this...


lay off the goole donation, you know it causes blindness, and read :ee:


page#5 post#71 :P


server: 350 euro
disks: 85 euro each 500GB each in raid
to get the application built: 250 euro
monthly cost for servers colocation + bandwidth: 200 euro

So basically 800euro to just start... Like others said its not worth it.

.

Wailo
Feb 11th, 2009, 11:35
Indeed no place will give you unlimited bandwidth, no such thing as unlimited or companies would go out of business :)

I agree with the rest of your post, its easy to say "on demand" but when it comes to doing it all its a lot involved to have a solid final system.

Hello Dan

Maybe I was not clear enough with spelling out my thoughts.
If you check urtrancezone.com (I think you know about it), you can see how they managed to get all the EOYC sets there, in such an plain and easy layout which make it very easy for us to get the sets.
Non of the set were hosted on there website, so there was no bandwidth worries.. On the other side, and I haven't experienced any difficluties when tried it.

At least for Special shows (events), will be more than enough.:hug:


The only thing I can think of is discontinuing the oldest sets as newer ones come in...

Good idea :good:

Dan
Feb 11th, 2009, 14:33
Hello Dan

Maybe I was not clear enough with spelling out my thoughts.
If you check urtrancezone.com (I think you know about it), you can see how they managed to get all the EOYC sets there, in such an plain and easy layout which make it very easy for us to get the sets.
Non of the set were hosted on there website, so there was no bandwidth worries.. On the other side, and I haven't experienced any difficluties when tried it.

At least for Special shows (events), will be more than enough.:hug:



Good idea :good:

AH.FM will not deal with any 3rd party sites and upload sets there and then provide links, this is not only time consuming but its against the rules that we have here between myself and the DJ's @ AH.FM.

If AH.FM wants to provide links to downloads we must pay royalties to support the producers aswell to be legal, AH is not a small underground site, were extremely professional. Also Ripped sets and the sets that we get are different. Many sets that were on EOYC were 320K, quality will never be the same when you compare ripped and original.

:friends:

Wailo
Feb 11th, 2009, 15:15
Its against the rules that we have here between myself and the DJ's @ AH.FM.

If AH.FM wants to provide links to downloads we must pay royalties to support the producers aswell to be legal,

If there is legal issues added to it, then yeah, I have to agree with you :wink:

Dan
Feb 11th, 2009, 15:41
If there is legal issues added to it, then yeah, I have to agree with you :wink:

:good::dance:

Tarek
Feb 11th, 2009, 22:40
Let's not all get in a blue mood because this didn't work though..I'm sure Dan and his crew will find something..

marco18
Feb 14th, 2009, 02:56
Hello all,

I've read around 3 pages of comments, thus not all, so maybe the point I'm going to tell is written earlier already... Furthermore I'm not a lawyer, thus I'll tell only my view on this.

Maybe it's a bit controversial, but this is my thought about keeping the server costs as low as possible:

Why not combining the benefits of torrents (less streaming costs) with a subscribe-fee + ads if necessary in the on-demand part of the website ? (If you think 'torrent, no never again', still read carefully further...)

There are many ways/techniques to get music over the internet from location A to location B.
Streaming, Downloading from a server, Downloading through peers + server (e.g. torrent), ... etc.

If it's possible to get a 'deal' with DJ's/Producers/Labels to 'sell' a set for a certain amount of money to someone interested (you're calling it 'the royalities'), then the technique how to distribute these sets should not be that important anymore, provided that the number of downloads is recorded and the 'deal-price' is paid.

Torrent can 'smell illegal', but I think It's less illegal (or even legal) if used properly. It's only a way. If there's a fixed price that has to be paid for the 'distribution' of a set, the way it'll be distributed should be no problem anymore, under condition that the price is paid. Compare sending a postal package through TNT or UPS or other companies. The way is different, but the product gets from A to B. (But I'm no lawyer...) It's good to research this topic carefully with lawyers and so. Maybe it'll turn out to be a nice precedent for the future.

Ofcourse it's then still possible to add a 'download directly' button, with a higher fee for the user, because of more costs cause integral sets have to be sent independently to each user.

----
But in some way I still think the whole on-demand idea (and how nice it smells in some aspects), can get AH into more trouble, in particular the 'selling of sets', because it's in the end hard to determine how to divide the money between the acting DJ's and the track-producers. And if it's clear, other problems arise: E.g. Some DJ's make a set consisting of 9 tracks, others of 13... That means another problem: extensive bookkeeping.

Advertising or subscribing to the feature might help a bit, since then an independent product (thus not a set itself) is then sold. But then we're almost back at the former torrent website, since the money overshoot will be to low to divide (I guess) over the DJ's/producers, assuming to go for break-even.
(As a consequence in that case, DJ's/producers will in the end all love a torrent feature above a direct download feature, since then the money overshoot should be larger.)

But these are just some of my thoughts about this. :)

I think it's for now to early to say what is really possible and not, since the legislation is (as far as I know) rather crappy/not defined about this. People looking for a nice final project of a study Law and 'authors rights' can maybe think about this topic for further research :)

@JayCan (somewhere in the beginning of this thread) : Lange offers an opportunity to download his intercity shows for free on his website, thus give him a chance ;)

Regards all! :)

Tarek
Feb 14th, 2009, 03:39
Torrent can 'smell illegal', but I think It's less illegal (or even legal) if used properly. It's only a way. If there's a fixed price that has to be paid for the 'distribution' of a set, the way it'll be distributed should be no problem anymore, under condition that the price is paid. Compare sending a postal package through TNT or UPS or other companies. The way is different, but the product gets from A to B. (But I'm no lawyer...) It's good to research this topic carefully with lawyers and so. Maybe it'll turn out to be a nice precedent for the future.

Ofcourse it's then still possible to add a 'download directly' button, with a higher fee for the user, because of more costs cause integral sets have to be sent independently to each user.

:)

The way I see it, and the way I think agencies see it is as you mentioned: Torrents HEAVILY smell illegal. It's like a prejudice, a reputation, and it's rightfully earned if you ask me. It IS a way, but I think ( don't take my word for it) that torrents kinda "tarnish" reputation of any soon-to-be professional radio station/service/etc.

SentriX
Feb 14th, 2009, 15:37
@JayCan (somewhere in the beginning of this thread) : Lange offers an opportunity to download his intercity shows for free on his website, thus give him a chance ;)

Regards all! :)

Technically it's streaming but some eeeejit messed up on the coding and provided the save as link in the player :)

Happy days, and seeing as these are now on the net and up for download doesnt that mean you are free to host given the appropriate credit? I'm not too sure on how 'public domain content' goes

cavedog
Feb 15th, 2009, 04:48
if it is easy to pay I will join. I don't have credit card so paypal and credit card payment is not possible for me. Alert pay and Moneybookers is much easier!

SentriX
Feb 15th, 2009, 14:31
if it is easy to pay I will join. I don't have credit card so paypal and credit card payment is not possible for me. Alert pay and Moneybookers is much easier!

You can get paypal with a normal debit or bankers card as far as I am aware :)

The Cat Lady
Feb 15th, 2009, 16:54
AH.FM will not deal with any 3rd party sites and upload sets there and then provide links, this is not only time consuming but its against the rules that we have here between myself and the DJ's @ AH.FM.

If AH.FM wants to provide links to downloads we must pay royalties to support the producers aswell to be legal, AH is not a small underground site, were extremely professional. Also Ripped sets and the sets that we get are different. Many sets that were on EOYC were 320K, quality will never be the same when you compare ripped and original.

:friends:

I got a lot of those 320K sets for my copy of EOYC 2008 that's on TAP. But I didn't leave them that way. I converted them to 192K to take up less space and download faster. And yes. it does contain some rips, for which I am deeply ashamed. That whole exercise was so difficult, time consuming and stressful that I won't repeat it.

Saying that breaks my heart like you cannot imagine. It means that I can't ever carry complete AfterHours events. Sometimes I can, but you can't believe what I go through to get them. I just don't want to use rips. I'm trying so hard to be legitimate and it isn't fair that everyone else uses rips freely and my own sense of honor prevents me from doing the same. I've actually been approached by two other sites to become a ripper for them. I politely declined and invited THEM to be members of my site. Plus, with no support from AH, well, it just flat becomes impossible.

I'll put up what I can get, but it's so discouraging. Links are everywhere, so I'm not exactly "exclusive" and since I can't afford anything that's actually worth a crap, my DL speeds aren't what anyone could call fast.

Frankly, I'm surprised that I have any members at all considering those facts. But, I'm not throwing in the towel. Not yet. As long as the need exists, I'll be there for the DJs and Members. They are my only concern.

I love AfterHours. I think that fact is pretty clear to everyone who knows me even a little bit. Dan, there HAS to be a way we can achieve our dreams about this. As far as I'm concerned, this is NOT over. Not by a long shot. I'm stubborn and I do not give up, even when it's in my own best interests to do so. This is NOT over. :ah::cat:

The Cat Lady
Feb 15th, 2009, 23:48
Follow up.

I have removed EOYC 2008 from TAP because it was not "pure". I will be replacing it with a pure version. I'm a practicing Catholic and like the rest of us mackerel snappers, I try to avoid the embarrassment and shame of the Confessional. The only way to avoid that is to avoid guilt. I feel like a great weight of guilt has now been removed from my shoulders.

Be aware that AH events on TAP will more than likely NEVER be complete because I just won't put up with the guilt associated with doing it any other way. I just flat can't hack it. Honor is everything to me. Without honor, we are nothing.

Thank you for your understanding. :cat: