Francis James
Where on the purchase page does it say I can't record with ContentUnlimited tracks?
Answer: nowhere.
I've had the subscription for about 10 minutes and I want a full refund.
Answer: nowhere.
I've had the subscription for about 10 minutes and I want a full refund.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 8:45 pm
kradcliffe
Simple really. Rented tracks are DRM protected. If you record they can be copied so that's why it's not allowed.
Don't really think that needs to be highlighted as its pretty obvious.
Don't really think that needs to be highlighted as its pretty obvious.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:10 pm
Francis James
Of course it does or it's obfuscation and it's illegal.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:11 pm
Francis James
That's the beauty of living in a civilised country, I don't have to "work it out for myself". If they are advertising a product that has restricted usage they have to explicitly say. Because it's not that clear and it's not that obvious.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:12 pm
kradcliffe
If you read the conditions on the page it also says Content Unlimited is for USA and territories use only. Never noticed that before!
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:13 pm
Francis James
Until you attempt to buy it and the purchase page is tailor made for British customers... it even automatically sets the country and asks for the post code... the price is £8.99, rather than $9.99 converted for exchange rate...
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:15 pm
Francis James
I understand it's a small company and they can't get everything right but if it had been explicit I would have gone to another website.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:16 pm
kradcliffe
I only noticed as I went to subscribe earlier. I always thought it was licenced for worldwide use so if this has changed its happened on the sly as that was not the case originally.
Atomix need to be clear about this as I could have been using the content illegal in the UK had I not read the small print.
Atomix need to be clear about this as I could have been using the content illegal in the UK had I not read the small print.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:20 pm
Francis James
Tbh I like the software, but I'll be going to another subscription service for my music.
The problem I've got is that I'm only learning. I need to be able to record everything that I do. But at the same time because I'm only learning and don't know if I'll be any good to be a pro I don't want to be sinking too much money into it.
The problem I've got is that I'm only learning. I need to be able to record everything that I do. But at the same time because I'm only learning and don't know if I'll be any good to be a pro I don't want to be sinking too much money into it.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:25 pm
locoDog
You won't find a 'hire' service that allows recording, think about the logic, if you can record [directly] high quality tracks then you're not hiring the tracks but pirating them.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 9:42 pm
Francis James
there are plenty of DJ subscription services that provide the music in mp3 format. Granted, those services are fully licensed and some of them cost a bit more.
I was given no reason to believe this would be any different. In a market economy there's no reason a service could not be provided at significantly below the rate offered by competitors.
I was given no reason to believe this would be any different. In a market economy there's no reason a service could not be provided at significantly below the rate offered by competitors.
Posted Wed 12 Oct 16 @ 10:05 pm
tayla
You are trying to be clever, but are coming across as an idiot. You bought into the service thinking it was a quick and cheap way of building a library without paying the true market value, you took a gamble on beating the system, put it down as a bad choice and get over it, just opt out of the service and count it as a life experience.
All you have lost is one months rental on the songs you have downloaded, because, as you already knew those tunes would never play if you didn't keep the service in credit.
All you have lost is one months rental on the songs you have downloaded, because, as you already knew those tunes would never play if you didn't keep the service in credit.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 12:18 am
fallguy66
You are trying to be clever, but are coming across as an idiot.
I like the way you get right to the point!
I like the way you get right to the point!
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 2:47 am
DJ Varium
Not wishing to play devils advocate, or encourage piracy, but if the guy only wants to record what he is doing for his own purposes, rather than to play them out or sell them on, then I see his point. Obviously though Atomix cant allow this to be possible their end or people would take advantage of it and just record all of the tracks, and they have to protect the artists or they wouldn't allow their content to be on it. That said, if you are outputting your sound to an external mixer, one with a usb send output, then you can just send the audio you are playing, back into the computer and record it with audacity.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 8:01 am
DJ Varium
I don't personally subscribe to the service, CD's are like £2 on ebay and you can rip them and then sell them on again, and you then have them forever in FLAC quality, but that's just me.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 8:03 am
klausmogensen
Andy7689 wrote :
I don't personally subscribe to the service, CD's are like £2 on ebay and you can rip them and then sell them on again, and you then have them forever in FLAC quality, but that's just me.
Well, when you sell the CD's you sell the rights to the music, so that wouldn't exactly be legal either - at least not where I live (Denmark)
That's actually the reason why I still have 1.000+ CD's stored in the Attic :)
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 8:41 am
DJ Varium
Probably not no, though it makes little difference whether i have them in my attic, throw them in the bin, or sell them on. The artist gets no money from anything other than the original sale. Most people these days have ripped their collection and then sold their CD's to Music Magpie or whatever. Not saying its technically right
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 8:57 am
DJ Varium
Klaus, having looked into it a little bit, just because I am pedantic like that :). It is illegal to rip any CD whether you own the original or not apparently, it makes no difference whether you sell the CD or not, the crime is the same.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 9:28 am
Adion
Andy7689 wrote :
Probably not no, though it makes little difference whether i have them in my attic, throw them in the bin, or sell them on. The artist gets no money from anything other than the original sale. Most people these days have ripped their collection and then sold their CD's to Music Magpie or whatever. Not saying its technically right
Of course it makes a difference. If you don't sell it, more CD's would have to be manufactured to supply demand, and the artist would get money from this new press.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 10:29 am
DJ Varium
I get your point Adion, but there is 1000's of copies of every album 2nd hand available, there will never be a point where if you want to buy an album 2nd hand, its not available and you have to buy it new, just wont happen. Im not saying its fair, netflix is killing the movie studios and the music industry is being killed by downloads and streaming. You have been able to copy physical media for 30 years +, it had no discernable affect on the music industry. Streaming is what is killing it. The point is though, from a legal standpoint, it makes no difference if i keep the cd or not, Buying a CD 2nd hand or new, keeping it or not, doesnt matter, still does not give me the right to copy the work. It is illegal to rip a CD....period. So unless you are using CDJ's for every track, everyone is as guilty as the next person.
Posted Thu 13 Oct 16 @ 10:50 am
