Anyone use this MP3 site?

good point from bri, downloading a song is no different to recording it off the radio!

In the 40s they said the invention of the "wireless" would destroy the record industry and that nobody would ever buy records again.

But it didn't, and they did.

what about the difference of downloading a song to listen to yourself OR playing out when u DJ?

aye but they probably have the authority to play the tunes out without ever having paid for them!

Most of the good ones.

Pretty much all the pro DJs I have encountered still go to record shops to buy records, they don't get sent everything that is ever released, and most of the good DJs are music enthusiasts, so buy a lot of music other than the stuff they play.

To say that you don't think that pro DJs by records demonstrates to me either how little you actually know about them and how they and the whole business works or the DJs you do know aren't really in it for the right reasons - coz if they were they'd be out searching for hidden gems instead of just sitting about during the week waiting for the next trance/electro/techno/house/dnb by numbers track, crying into a cuppa because of the KeRaZy BoShTaStIc weekend you just had getting reet on it with loads of people you neither know nor care about (who will all supply you with free anything coz they now think you'll be a friend for life), whilst getting paid a fortune for it.

Even James Zabeila was buying tunes in Air Records when he was last up, and if he doesn't get sent pretty much everything that gets sent out, then who does?

Exactly Chris, couldnt agree more mate

There was an OR in there

Cheers

Just to clarify, what is the situation if a DJ plays illegally downloaded mp3's burned onto cd-r's in a club then. venues have to pay licence fees etc. is this illegal/frowned upon/not matter??

The thinking behind time thing is because effectively if you play more than that with two loops together you can be seen to be remixing/re-editing the track - albeit live, and in an extremely basic fashion - which effectively requires the permission of the original artist to do, and if you're then playing that remix out at a club, you're effectively playing an unauthorised remix, which from their point of view isn't allowed.

This is what a vinyl DJ does, but I think the thinking is that people will do a lot more to the tracks in ableton than simply just playing them on top of each other, which is why it only applies to them.

I agree, it's a slightly strange way of looking at it, but at the end of the day they are there to protect the interests of their memebers who write the tunes in the first place, not the people who play them.

what a div question

I worded that badly. i meant is a club owner liable to prosecution if his employees play pirate tracks

In most cases no.

BUT

If someone has a remix of their tune done GENERALLY the original artist has to approve it for it to see the light of day, but if people are allowed to do that live there can be no approval, and it's going straight out to the consumer and the artist might hate the "remix" they've done as it may reflect on their original badly, in their view.

Surely the artist who wrote the original tune should have the right to do this?

Or do you believe that once a piece of art is in the public domain it should be able to be edited/altered by anyone who wishes to do so, and they are then ok to release that back into the public domian?