30 Oct
2016
30 Oct
'16
6:46 p.m.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 17:25:46 +0000
Neil C Smith <neilcsmith.net(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2016 13:43, "jonetsu"
<jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:23:12 +0100
> Alf Haakon Lund <alf(a)mellomrommet.no> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. Just remember that this being a free service means
> > You Are the Product. From the terms:
>
> > How does this compare to soundcloud and others?
>
> Very good point.
>
> Soundcloud is:
Actually, if you read the Grant of Licence section, it
appears very
similar. Most content sharing sites have similar terms or they
couldn't function. I do like that SoundCloud is a bit more explicit
why, and appears to be revokable.
It is more detailed indeed. Options can be set by the user to cover
some aspects. I guess it would be possible to make pieces non-public
and share the link(s) through various forums and such.
I wonder how many people actually stumble across inadvertently on
pieces of music put on Soundcloud. Apart from the ones scanning for
new arrivals and immediately sending you offers for larger
distribution. "I like your piece very much... blah blah." But wait,
the piece is 8 minutes long and you send me that within one minute of
the posting of the song.