The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Net Neutrality and YOUR business Modular Synthesizers
Old 6th April 2010
  #1
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Net Neutrality and YOUR business

I thought I'd post this in here and make it relevant to you as a person in the music business.

FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality' - Yahoo! News
Quote:
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so-called "net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
I think that this is for one, a bad bad road to start down for the internet and choice as a whole but to keep it on point with this forum I ask this:

How will the end of net neutrality affect your business as a(n) engineer/musician/producer/record label?

How will independents compete on the internet if you have to pay Comcast/whoever an exorbitant amount of money just to be on an equal playing field as the majors? Won't this create a new barrier to entry into this business that will stifle not only competition but also creativity in the long run?

It's an interesting thought and for the hopes of music and the internet as a whole I hope that net neutrality is not abandoned in favor of pay-to-play.
Old 6th April 2010
  #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT View Post
I thought I'd post this in here and make it relevant to you as a person in the music business.

FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality' - Yahoo! News

I think that this is for one, a bad bad road to start down for the internet and choice as a whole but to keep it on point with this forum I ask this:

How will the end of net neutrality affect your business as a(n) engineer/musician/producer/record label?

How will independents compete on the internet if you have to pay Comcast/whoever an exorbitant amount of money just to be on an equal playing field as the majors? Won't this create a new barrier to entry into this business that will stifle not only competition but also creativity in the long run?

It's an interesting thought and for the hopes of music and the internet as a whole I hope that net neutrality is not abandoned in favor of pay-to-play.
It means there will be a commercial, mainstream internet governed by commerce and regulation which will then make the ISP's responsible for the content and copyright protection (especially when they own the content) - and then there will also be "dark nets" which will have all forms of illegal content... hello mr.gibson... cyberpunk here we come.

that's my take, ymmv....
Old 6th April 2010
  #3
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
It means there will be a commercial, mainstream internet governed by commerce...
We already have this. It means ISPs will be able to tell you what sites you can go to without paying a lot more and as a content provider it means the price of entry will skyrocket. Neither is a good thing for all but the very very few majors. It takes a level playing field and stacks it very heavily in favor of large corporations. ymmv...
Old 6th April 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
Yes, but this may actually result in the FCC eventually imposing heavier regulation upon the telecom industry, so the game isn't quite over yet. Check his out:
US Court Rules AGAINST FCC On Net Neutrality In Big Win For Comcast
If this were a McCain administration, the game would be over.
Old 6th April 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
JustinAiken's Avatar
 

Old 6th April 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

I guess it's time for Congress to actually do it's job for once and make some law about this issue.
Old 6th April 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Batchainpuller78's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinAiken View Post
Roflol!!!! really that amuses me a lot, although seems scarily realistic at the same time, hmm I think I'd have no problem adapting to non internet life again in case of such a scenario.
Old 6th April 2010
  #8
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

But to get back to what I originally asked. How do you think this could affect the music industry as a whole and independents specifically?
Old 6th April 2010
  #9
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT View Post
But to get back to what I originally asked. How do you think this could affect the music industry as a whole and independents specifically?
I'm inclined to view this opinion far more narrowly than most others I've read. For starters, Comcast had already changed the practice that had gotten it in trouble with the FCC in the first place - the order that the court vacated here was one merely requiring Comcast to disclose its policy for ensuring adequate bandwidth, an order that Comcast was complying with.

Second, this opinion does not entirely foreclose the FCC from regulating broadband in the way it was trying to do. The FCC made at least 3 separate arguments for how it could exercise jurisdiction over broadband companies that were shot down by the court only because they had not been raised in a timely manner.

Finally, Congress could just as easily grant the FCC explicit jurisdiction over broadband to allow the kind of regulation it was attempting here.
Old 6th April 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Bye bye Gearslutz, hello Guitar Center's Pro Studio Board TM.
Old 6th April 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

As a chess player, this is very bad.

The independents depend on that "level playing field", which so many here don't believe in, yet absolutely exists.

They say it isn't level because the majors bring so much clout and money to the table, but it absolutely is, because anyone can put any money they want on any product they want and force their way in. Even better, it is level because the Pomplamooses of the world are gaining market share without any investing, rather just on the quality of their work.

So if general traffic can be manipulated by a new charging scheme, that has a potentially drastic effect on the independent anybody. They will be forced to the outside as the big fish force their way into the "less expensive services" through advertisement and existing prowess.

Yes this has great intention behind it in the reduction of P2P, but like most laws, they go too far, and at the end of the day, we all need to appreciate that the big ISPs, have pizzas being delivered to board rooms right now for groups of high paid folks who are devising new methods to get paid from both sides as much as possible without pissing off customers to the point of canceling and switching to another provider. Another provider who is most certainly aware of what the competition is doing before the competitions customer does.

The government should just enforce obvious laws that are being broken in broad daylight, instead of inventing new laws, with new loopholes, new outs, and certain pork.

ARG!

The only hope is that enough people have tasted from the independent tree, and know that it is good.
Old 7th April 2010
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrT View Post
But to get back to what I originally asked. How do you think this could affect the music industry as a whole and independents specifically?
it could be great. no piracy. i like that.

indies and majors music are all sold at the same outlets - itunes, amazon mp3, etc. there is no barrier to entry. so it doesn't negatively effect indies.

indies, majors and unsigned artists are all cohabitating on myspace, facebook, youtube, etc.

so if it effective makes piracy the same crime as national security, via dark nets... well... and how many people are going to pay for multiple ISPs just to have the risk of a lawsuit for copyright infringement?

the majority of people will go with the ISPs that offer the best service, with the best content at the best price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petermichael View Post
The government should just enforce obvious laws that are being broken in broad daylight
this also would be a nice solution...
Old 7th April 2010
  #13
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
indies and majors music are all sold at the same outlets - itunes, amazon mp3, etc. there is no barrier to entry. so it doesn't negatively effect indies.
So what if let's just say... Universal strikes a deal with Comcast so that their site works better than than the other majors. And Verizon makes a deal with Sony. Will you want to switch providers just to have one work better than the other. And what if you have your own site and you can't afford to have it "carried" by Comcast. Do you really think people will switch their ISP just to view your little website?

This has the potential to turn the internet into cable TV. I don't like that. I believe in net neutrality. You already pay for your connection speed. I see no reason that you should have to pay for the content of what it brings to your computer as well.
Old 7th April 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
indies, majors and unsigned artists are all cohabitating on myspace, facebook, youtube, etc.
Those sites wouldn't have existed if the net didn't provide equal access for all.
Old 7th April 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
well no one owns the internet. If ISPs become enforcers we will just start our own ISPs We'll all have to get T1 lines
and/or go back to dial up. Or setup massive private wireless networks

Unless FCC controls the 2.4GHz or whatever wireless uses within the air waves like they do radio, that could be trouble. But like ham radio we'll have the hamnet, They can't stop what can't be stopped. They could not enforce it, it would be anarchy and chaos if they tried.

we'll attach foam cups and string if we have to......... we will not be regulated
Old 7th April 2010
  #16
I still put forth that the government, big media and big teleco are gonna make a deal.

Read up on Xanadu, Ted Nelson's pre-internet project. That would be cool. Jaron Lanier's been talking about it.

One giant walled garden. Everyone is both a consumer and producer. Everyone can charge for their content (blogs, music, video, etc) or not. Single point of entry, one user account - debits/credits.

Everyone pays everyone else for that content. Everyone is equal. Everyone contributes. Everyone get's paid.

Ted Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project Xanadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so called "open culture" has been a disaster...
Findings - Jaron Lanier Is Rethinking the Open Nature of the Internet - NYTimes.com

here comes the dark net/s...
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf
Old 7th April 2010
  #17
Here for the gear
 

IMO, here is a libertarian take that puts this issue in perspective.

YouTube - Net Neutrality for Dummies: Will the FCC control the Internet?

Cheers.

ZAP
Old 7th April 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Barfunkel's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinAiken View Post
I've heard about plans like these before, but how exactly will it work in practice? Especially with google, what's it good for if the links don't work (unless you pay for them)? How do small sites work, say a small independent record store? How does anyone access those?
How do you access GS? Does every single website in the world have to negotiate a deal with every single ISP in the world, or they'll be cut out? Sounds easy and practical - not.

The chances of that happening are about zero of course, I'm just interested in how it's supposed to work even in theory. Wouldn't that basically kill most Internet business besides Ebay, Amazon, itunes and the other big ones, since you simply can't access most online stores. You can watch a video on youtube, but can't access a record store that sells the song (unless it's mainstream pop and thus available on itunes)? You can access ebay, but you can't access websites that have information about the product (say VSE or GS). You buy a piece of gear, but can't download new drivers for it because a boutique gear manufacturer probably isn't included in the 200 supported sites.

From a business point of view this makes about zero sense. I wouldn't even have Internet anymore since it wouldn't be useful to me anyone. I wouldn't be able to buy anything except food anymore, since I couldn't access information or online stores.
Old 7th April 2010
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barfunkel View Post
I've heard about plans like these before, but how exactly will it work in practice? Especially with google, what's it good for if the links don't work (unless you pay for them)?
my guess is it's more about what is excluded than included... as in... comcast owned premium content would NOT be made available to competing ISPs like Verizon, ATT&T.

Likewise, premium content owned by Verizon would not be available on Comcast (unless Comcast paid a premium for it, which they passed onto their subscribers).

I think that's more of the model - I think a bit too much is being made of this - no one would pay for ISP service that was so limited as to be non-functional.

this is about offering premium content. I could be wrong... we'll see...

ultimately I think it's a good thing as it restores value to content and an incentive to protect it.
Old 7th April 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Cursed Lemon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
my guess is it's more about what is excluded than included... as in... comcast owned premium content would NOT be made available to competing ISPs like Verizon, ATT&T.

Likewise, premium content owned by Verizon would not be available on Comcast (unless Comcast paid a premium for it, which they passed onto their subscribers).

I think that's more of the model - I think a bit too much is being made of this - no one would pay for ISP service that was so limited as to be non-functional.

this is about offering premium content. I could be wrong... we'll see...

ultimately I think it's a good thing as it restores value to content and an incentive to protect it.
And when an ISP buys Google, Facebook, etc., then what?
Old 8th April 2010
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
And when an ISP buys Google, Facebook, etc., then what?
as has been said around here, I guess we'll have to "adapt"...
Old 9th April 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post
I still put forth that the government, big media and big teleco are gonna make a deal.

Read up on Xanadu, Ted Nelson's pre-internet project. That would be cool. Jaron Lanier's been talking about it.

One giant walled garden. Everyone is both a consumer and producer. Everyone can charge for their content (blogs, music, video, etc) or not. Single point of entry, one user account - debits/credits.

Everyone pays everyone else for that content. Everyone is equal. Everyone contributes. Everyone get's paid.

Ted Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project Xanadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so called "open culture" has been a disaster...
Findings - Jaron Lanier Is Rethinking the Open Nature of the Internet - NYTimes.com

here comes the dark net/s...
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf

Yeah, he is basically saying that giving away information for too little price, should be made criminal, so that he could charge more for the same info.

What a clown, seriously. Internet is a "lawless" medium, and many people give there for free, that is of course problematic for people that want to charge for the same stuff that is already in the internet for free. Its like having a store, and then a guy figures out how to make products free and starts giving them away for free, you need to change your profession then.

They want to make it illegal to even speak to other people without paying, cause you may give people free information like "extreme eating puts on weight", this must be stopped so that he can make money... And so that there can be more buerocrats, who eat away everones money...
Old 9th April 2010
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Yeah, he is basically saying that giving away information for too little price, should be made criminal, so that he could charge more for the same info.

What a clown, seriously. Internet is a "lawless" medium, and many people give there for free, that is of course problematic for people that want to charge for the same stuff that is already in the internet for free. Its like having a store, and then a guy figures out how to make products free and starts giving them away for free, you need to change your profession then.

They want to make it illegal to even speak to other people without paying, cause you may give people free information like "extreme eating puts on weight", this must be stopped so that he can make money... And so that there can be more buerocrats, who eat away everones money...
He's not saying that at all.

What he's saying is, you can give away everything you want that is yours to give away - but you can't steal and give away that which is not yours.

pretty simple stuff.
Old 9th April 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

This just seems bad all around. I am not sure I fully understand potential consequences or benefits companies and individuals might gain or loose from this but my theory is this:

The internet in all it's pieces is one of the few services that is widely like by just about everyone. Some people may not like certain websites, or certain companies that only exist on the net, but the beauty is that you can do everything. The only complaints I hear really is from their provider, which are usually minor and often have more to do with their TV or phone service. Many people think their is room for improvement, the beauty of the internet is improvements are rapid and easy. One person can revolutionize how we do something over night.


For the consumer, I can only see a potential for downgrading what they have, I can't see much in the way of making their experience "better". I guess some people who only enjoy using email may have an opportunity to pay less but that doesn't benefit the provider so I don't really see that happening. The reason people enjoy the internet is it is not "packaged". Your service might be with other services but the experience is not. If providers started packaging the internet and you could not use two competing services without having two providers, I don't think anyone will be happy.

Innovation has the potential to be stifled. This could be non existent or minor. If it gets to any point where you need to pay a provider money if you offer a competing service, innovation will become slow and we will not see revolutionary ideas and technology to the extent we do now.

This also has a lot of potential to hurt providers. The consumer could potentially be very unhappy, depending how far providers would go. I think we would inevitably see one provider monopolize as well if we really see companies have to pair up with providers to remain in existence.

My perspective with my provider is it is merely offering me a way to access the world wide web. It also gives me TV channels on my TV. That is the only "service" I want from them. I want my internet provider to give me access to the whole world wide web, nothing more, nothing less. I think the majority of people look at it this way.



It's all speculation, I just don't understand where this could be a positive thing. Maybe I don't understand something here but it doesn't seem like the provider really benefits. Sure, there is a potential in the short term to make money but it seems like every avenue to make money will piss someone off because it is forceful, it isn't because they offer a benefit, it is because they take away something from them and now the have to pay. That is a bad business model in the long run, we have moved to far away from the AOL days to ever going back to it. When AOL was what everyone was using, it offered the consumer a lot, but didn't limit them from anything (to my knowledge). It's services just became unnecessary over time as people came out with better things.
Old 12th April 2010
  #25
SL_
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicAndFilmGeek View Post

One giant walled garden. Everyone is both a consumer and producer. Everyone can charge for their content (blogs, music, video, etc) or not. Single point of entry, one user account - debits/credits.
Sorry, but I'm reading this in this is way too ridiculous for me not to show my intelligence (or it's absence probably in this case).
Is this garden what you really want? Doesn't it remind you of something? Something big and once powerful (debatable) and that doesn't even exist anymore because it blew up very nasty in the 90s leaving thousands and thousands of people on the brink of an absolute bankruptcy (you literally couldn't buy a freakin bread).
Well, let give you a clue. It was USSR. If you may or may not know it all came out of exactly same idea of a one big garden where everybody can do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it's not breaking the rules of the garden. Well I'm afraid the thing doesn't work. And what actually goes on the internet right now is either Wild Wild West or freaking South Africa.

This is all cool and kids like me can get their hands on the latest Waves products. But for some reason I think that me being jobless and not running my own studio business at the moment is not just due to all this economy crisis or too many folks trying to get in or me being deaf (I know I'm not. Too many people told me I'm not). I think it is due to this unlimited access to things that cost a lot of money but for some reason you can get them for free. Yeah, go and find yourself a free MacPro. Let us know where is this secret warehouse where people can just get in and get out with as much stuff as they possibly can carry with them without literally paying a penny.
It is not real. And with modern world and technology making more and more use and actually relying on Internet for its benefits, our real and unreal economies are getting dangerously close. And if any of you are watching Fringe, you may know that when 2 worlds collide only 1 can exist. So eventually I'm all up for all the things to do with regulating the way Internet is being used. I know I will probably be fined if anyone will see the contents of my external HDD or effectively will be disconnected, but atleast with the right legislation there will be a working system that can generate reliable income. But now, I see it more as who's got the biggest gun playground.
With Internet people were given an opportunity of getting information for free. When they realized it, they thought: "well... if I can get THIS for free, why should I pay for anything here whatsoever". And so we calling some crap e-commerce, which is in fact salvaging.
Old 29th April 2010
  #26
80425
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I guess it's time for Congress to actually do it's job for once and make some law about this issue.

fixcongressfirst.org

It's the most logical step needed to restore faith in our government.
Old 29th April 2010
  #27
80425
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL_ View Post
Sorry, but I'm reading this in this is way too ridiculous for me not to show my intelligence (or it's absence probably in this case).
Is this garden what you really want? Doesn't it remind you of something? Something big and once powerful (debatable) and that doesn't even exist anymore because it blew up very nasty in the 90s leaving thousands and thousands of people on the brink of an absolute bankruptcy (you literally couldn't buy a freakin bread).
Well, let give you a clue. It was USSR. If you may or may not know it all came out of exactly same idea of a one big garden where everybody can do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it's not breaking the rules of the garden. Well I'm afraid the thing doesn't work. And what actually goes on the internet right now is either Wild Wild West or freaking South Africa.

This is all cool and kids like me can get their hands on the latest Waves products. But for some reason I think that me being jobless and not running my own studio business at the moment is not just due to all this economy crisis or too many folks trying to get in or me being deaf (I know I'm not. Too many people told me I'm not). I think it is due to this unlimited access to things that cost a lot of money but for some reason you can get them for free. Yeah, go and find yourself a free MacPro. Let us know where is this secret warehouse where people can just get in and get out with as much stuff as they possibly can carry with them without literally paying a penny.
It is not real. And with modern world and technology making more and more use and actually relying on Internet for its benefits, our real and unreal economies are getting dangerously close. And if any of you are watching Fringe, you may know that when 2 worlds collide only 1 can exist. So eventually I'm all up for all the things to do with regulating the way Internet is being used. I know I will probably be fined if anyone will see the contents of my external HDD or effectively will be disconnected, but atleast with the right legislation there will be a working system that can generate reliable income. But now, I see it more as who's got the biggest gun playground.
With Internet people were given an opportunity of getting information for free. When they realized it, they thought: "well... if I can get THIS for free, why should I pay for anything here whatsoever". And so we calling some crap e-commerce, which is in fact salvaging.
Net Neutrality and social/political reform is always about the struggle for power.

Do you want it in the corporations hands, or the peoples?
Old 29th April 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
petermichael's Avatar
 

ah, the people... that has such a nice, insidious ring to it.

in the US, the government is easily the biggest, most untouchable, financially motivated corporation there is to be found.

meanwhile they can't do the only function they really have in.... oh.... say the digital music front, for example.

that being function as a regulating, policing body, and provide justice to the creators and rights holders, and penalize the offenders.

instead what have we got? a new system of health care, on borrowed money.

and in the UK it's even better, where they just determined that travel is a basic human right.

HOW ABOUT THE BASIC RIGHT OF PROTECTING THE RIGHTS HOLDERS YOU BUNCH OF CLOWNS.
Old 2nd May 2010
  #29
SL_
Gear Nut
 

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. The whole internet is for some reason been left as "non-important" aspect of the economy and politics all together. The only people that seems to have any real control over are Telcos, which in my opinion is the most greedy and consumer-unfriendly industry of all. It's like selling air. So in fact they are making money on illegal transactions (in copyright terms). So lets say instead of internet I'm selling drugs, or should I say tickets to warehouse full of drugs and God knows what else. There are legal things there but more then anything there are illegal things here. So I'm just standing here , selling tickets (hey, why don't you buy a yearly pass? Only £30/month!). Do you think I'm going to stand here for long without being arrested if in fact there are drugs, weapons and stolen cars inside? Do you think I would be able to talk myslef out of jail by saying, Hey, guys! I'm only selling tickets. The customers know what is legal and illegal and they make their own decisions when thinking what to get out of that warehouse with them, so I can't be hold liable for whatever they do inside.
WTF? I mean, every time I'm hearing about somebody trying to raise this question officially and openly, saying to the Governments, This HAS to Stop! And all it ends up in is the jury sits there ticking the boxes away while a football team of lawyers of Telcos listing all the known loopholes in each given Governments policy. So they don't even answer to the question raised. All they doing is saying, look, there way too many holes in your policies and you can try to sue us, but look at how many loopholes your policy's got. Are you sure about this? And 99 times out of 100 the jury or the government will be way too scared by loosing big business (which in fact they won't as you can not kill the Internet. All you can is just switch a provider) and looking embarrassed so they say No Problems. Cary on selling your tickets, just try not to sell too much as we have some weirdos knocking on our doors saying something about drugs and stolen cars in your warehouse.
I do understand that it is easy to sit around and say how bad things are and is much harder to think of something to correct things. But I'd rather pay a, I don't know, a "save your industry - TAX", or something, rather then pay £30/month to browse the internet and download hacked plug-ins
Oh, and then we have Gordon Brown saying we need super fast broadband throughout the country. What is he thinking about? Instead of shutting or policing the bloody warehouse he wants to build an airport close by so we can have Internationals coming and using this warehouse of stolen goods.
How this is for a civilized society?
Old 4th May 2010
  #30
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL_ View Post
So lets say instead of internet I'm selling drugs, or should I say tickets to warehouse full of drugs and God knows what else. There are legal things there but more then anything there are illegal things here. So I'm just standing here , selling tickets (hey, why don't you buy a yearly pass? Only £30/month!). Do you think I'm going to stand here for long without being arrested if in fact there are drugs, weapons and stolen cars inside?
Not that great of an analogy... More like: You would be selling tickets to a warehouse where all sorts of things were for sale by all sorts of vendors. There also happens to be a large section of the warehouse that no one watches, so people take what they can because they can. Now someone tries to arrest you for it and you say "I only sold the ticket! They chose to take without paying." That would be appropriate. And a good defense.

The problem is that this is NOT what I started this thread to discuss. I'm talking about how net-neutrality (or the lack of) will affect YOUR business. And so far nobody has really even touched on this at all.

I would like to know if YOUR BUSINESS can withstand having to pay an extra special premium just to have the "privilege" of a web presence? You know... one people will actually see or that won't be bottlenecked by poor performance because you couldn't cough up the dough?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
rack gear / Music Business
5
improvpwnd / Music Business
36
not_so_new / Downloads, the future - Q+A forum with expert guests from CD Baby, Tunecore and Nimbit
4
OzNimbus / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump