Songcrafters.org

Hi guys,

Our forum is on a shared webhosting account, these are hosting accounts which are shared by other people on the same physical server. Meaning, one server to 200 or so websites. There are some rules to hosting files in these accounts (called the TOS=Terms of Service) and one of those rules is no backups allowed. I think this is what happens in the Post your MP3 board. For now nobody from the hosting company complained but our forum is growing fast (13GB of files) and I think in the future I foresee a collision course. That's why I'm going to disable the upload of files (greater than 40kb) to the server, in order to maintain a sustainable existence.

But nothing is lost! All the files that were uploaded will remain there as long as possible and the Post your MP3 board will continue but with other sources for the MP3's, like:

Uploading to Soundclick and then posting the song link
Uploading to Myspace and then posting the song link
Uploading to Skydrive (Windows Live)

Basically, you can use any file hosting service by linking to that specific MP3 file.

The MP3 tag will still be allowed, and so if you have a direct link to the MP3 file you can still play it normally.

This change is to happen in the start of November. I ask for your understanding of the situation and I'm sorry that it has to be this way.

seems like you are a victim of your own success pedro. i would suggest anyone with a hotmail account use skydrive a lot of people might not be aware they have it but if you look along the top of your hotmail page click where it says more, this offers you more options one of which is skydrive, i think it allows you to store and share up to 6gigs of data. to allow any upload to work here, you would need to upload it to one of your public folders to allow anyone to access it, if you post it in a private folder the file will only be available to the people you  chose.

been a while since i put a link to skydrive but a while back when this site was changed all my skydrive links disappeared. also i cant remember how to connect the link, so 64  will have to do another masterclass on that for me.

with regards to collabs this might cause problems, people wont want to post  works in progress or unfinished songs at soundclick or myspace, this shouldnt be a problem for existing collaborators as most do collaborations via email, but for example recently gritter a new and very welcomed arrival, posted his space cats collab for others to added to, i presume this means its going to be difficult for future newbies to get involved in collaborations in this easy and informal way.

also one of the great things about the collab threads is watching a song develop.

I hope we can find an easy solution to this. I anyone have access to a server that could host the files that would be great!! If not, lets together try to find places that's reliable, easy to use, available from all countries and without limits to the size of / number of / types of files that can be uploaded.

I am not sure what to think about this...  Like the setup and the ease of using and sharing material.  Although i do not mind clicking on links to listen to songs linked from other sources - it may be problematic on flipping back and forth.  40kb's -hmmmm!?

If it is a matter of memory storage, why not have a maximum storage per forum member, and after a set period of a posting the member needs to decide which songs to delete from storage to be able to add more/new songs - or something to that nature....  There may be many more solutions...

I like that Idea Diego.  I would much rather remove the older songs to make way for the new as it is so easy to post here. That's one reason I like it here.   It may end posting for some..  I know I for one would have to get an account somewhere. Just another place to try and keep up with.

Quote from: wiley on October 23, 2009, 07:01:08 AMI like that Idea Diego.  I would much rather remove the older songs to make way for the new as it is so easy to post here. That's one reason I like it here.   It may end posting for some..  I know I for one would have to get an account somewhere. Just another place to try and keep up with.

On a follow up to my previous post ---  i was looking over the amount of postings for a number of the popular br units, and there are a lot of postings - in particular for the micro br - what if we were to limit to say 10 - 20 megs for each member for each of: their br unit site and for collabs, so could have a max of 20 to 40 megs (4 -8 songs) combined ---- then it is up to the member to do a bit of administration if more postings are desired.  And, the site administrator can crack the whip if these maximums are exceeded!

If a member wanted to introduce the same songs (that had been posted previously, but delted for space) then they can added them for the new members benefit.

Just a thought...

i could certainly free up a lot of space as a lot of the songs i have posted appear on soundclick , so i could remove mp3s and relace with a link to the finished song.

The MP3 facility is one of the key factors in this sites success we must find a way to keep it going...................
I am in favour of ditching the archive on say an 8 week cycle to allow us all to use the mp3 on current stuff
After all we can all download any music we want to keep
Please try and somehow keep this function as other music sites have it in some form

I have just been checking out Soundclick.  It sounds like you cannot post Covers unless you pay a fee to the original.  That would make soundclick useless to those of us that like to do covers.Not everyone writes their own songs. That's why this place is nice, we can just play and comment. Can't seem to find anything on My Space. 

Quote from: oldrottenhead on October 23, 2009, 05:18:29 AM..also one of the great things about the collab threads is watching a song develop...

I agree /w Jim. Collabs has such a small impact, that maybe you should reconsider restricting that area. Just try it for a month and see how it works out. That area is a gold mine for courage and inspiration.


Also, I don't think there is a need to keep older files - Use a 30-60 day hold time. Now that there is an mp3 link feature, the people that want their music on here forever should use a link instead of uploading a file. You don't owe anybody to keep all that old clutter. Dump it.


Pedro, I do appreciate the great community that you created. It has done more for me than you will know. Please reconsider the complete clampdown.

Thank you,

Mark

Quote from: oldrottenhead on October 23, 2009, 05:18:29 AMseems like you are a victim of your own success pedro. i would suggest anyone with a hotmail account use skydrive a lot of people might not be aware they have it but if you look along the top of your hotmail page click where it says more, this offers you more options one of which is skydrive, i think it allows you to store and share up to 6gigs of data. to allow any upload to work here, you would need to upload it to one of your public folders to allow anyone to access it, if you post it in a private folder the file will only be available to the people you  chose.

been a while since i put a link to skydrive but a while back when this site was changed all my skydrive links disappeared. also i cant remember how to connect the link, so 64  will have to do another masterclass on that for me.

with regards to collabs this might cause problems, people wont want to post  works in progress or unfinished songs at soundclick or myspace, this shouldnt be a problem for existing collaborators as most do collaborations via email, but for example recently gritter a new and very welcomed arrival, posted his space cats collab for others to added to, i presume this means its going to be difficult for future newbies to get involved in collaborations in this easy and informal way.

also one of the great things about the collab threads is watching a song develop.

I was'nt aware I had skydrive on my Hotmail, I have just checked it out and uploaded a couple of songs didnt take to long, but I dont know yet how to connect the link    Alex

Hmmmm----That wouldn't be good! That facility is definitely one of the things that's so good about here ( apart from the general friendliness and all the rest).
 I understand the problem, but hopefully there's a way round it? Maybe, as Mike suggests, a limited life for MP3's? Another forum a couple of us are on is Guitar Blast, and the way they do it is you have your own personal size limit ( I think it's about 13mb). So that's either a couple of big files, or more smaller ones. When you've reached the limit you have a choice which ones to delete. The post is still there, just no MP3, so if anyone's interested they can ask for it, either to be e mailed, or re-posted.
Sound click's ok for some, but not everyone, and as PJ says, not really for covers, and collabs could be tricky too.

One of the dangers, as I see it, is that people will start to drift away from here, and maybe find other sites that will work better, and it'll turn into just another  'question and answer' forum? That would be a real shame, 'cos its so good on here.

I think I'd better into gear and download a lot of the tracks I've not done yet, don't want to lose them!!!!!

I'm willing to pay to play!

Well I hope a viable solution is found. But here's a question just off the top of my head, although I plead guilty to ignorance on technicalities. Most oridnary PCs these days boast Hard-Drives of 250gbs etc, and some of the servers around the Internet actually make a point of selling their servers as having 'tetrabytes' of Hard-Drive capacity. How soon would the BR-Comm exhaust its limit, if in fact there is one?

Shame. 

We will find a way round it. We're all addicts after all.

It is a testament to the success of your original idea though Pedro. You will have my support what ever you decide.

Hmmm, thanks for all the ideas, guys. I will take all of them in account so keep them coming.

I like the idea of reducing the archive to one or two months. The idea of limiting the size per user is also interesting in order to maintain a balance. Had a look at guitarblast.com and it seems to work well, there.

By reducing the overall used webspace to 3GB (600 songs) and mainting it at that point, I think we wouldn't have any problem.

Oh Please that would be great!!

would it just be the mp3s removed with the original thread still be there or would the entire thread be removed.

Only the MP3's would be deleted not the topic and the posts, that way users could have the opportunity to ask the MP3 poster to send them the MP3 or the original poster to link the MP3 from another source.

cool , would that make it still possible for multiple mp3 posts in the collaborations thread

Pedro: The home page of your web provider, Bluehost.com, lists the following features for all accounts:


If they provide unlimited hosting space and unlimited file transfer, why do you think we'll have a problem?

Why not take bluehost at their word and leave things as they are? If they eventually complain about the size and want to charge you extra, maybe you could contact Boss and ask them to sponsor the site. I think your site promotes Boss products (increasing Boss sales) and lessens the burden on Boss's tech support department (reducing Boss's expenses), so they should be willing to sponsor the site. The trick is in contacting the right person at Boss/Roland. Perhaps their marketing department?

this might be of interest to pedro http://www.bluehostforum.com/archive/index.php/t-11898.html

What made me think was this:

http://www.bluehostreview.org/bluehost-hosting-offering-unlimited-storage-space

 (the first comment)

And eventually led me to search for other examples. The TOS states that backup files are all the files that the website doesn't need to run. MP3's files aren't needed for actually running the forum and so that scares me a little bit. I want BossBR.net to never end and that requires a sustainable solution.

Quote from: admin on October 23, 2009, 03:06:20 PMWhat made me think was this:

http://www.bluehostreview.org/bluehost-hosting-offering-unlimited-storage-space

 (the first comment)

And eventually led me to search for other examples. The TOS states that backup files are all the files that the website doesn't need to run. MP3's files aren't needed for actually running the forum and so that scares me a little bit. I want BossBR.net to never end and that requires a sustainable solution.

I agree, as I have made this forum a big part of my music endeavors, daily if I can!  It is good thta you are doing some planning for the future before we do end up with some limits.  I do have songs posted under soundclick, but spend a lot more time on this forum and recently under facebook and I'm sharing links to songs under the br forum --- so good pr for the musicians and what goes with it, which may result on folks wanting to purchase these units...

on first read i think the TOS is talking about using your site or webspace for storage (like a gigantic skydrive or harddrive), i think you can clearly show that that is not the case here , that this is an active website and forum with lots of users and members actively reading and contributing to the forum and its threads and that the mp3s are part of that activitey, they are not just being stored.

sorry guys im really a bit of a  blockhead when it comes to the nuts and bolts-pardon the  expression ---but hopefully things can be worked out -and then someone can send me the dummies book of how to -please
thanks all I love this site
tommy

It is this actual part that bothers me:

QuoteUnlimited Hosting Space. BlueHost.Com does not set arbitrary limits on the amount of disk space a Subscriber can use for the Subscriber's website, nor does BlueHost.Com charge additional fees based on an increased amount of storage used, provided the Subscriber's use of storage complies with these Terms. Please note, however, that the BlueHost.Com service is designed to host websites . BlueHost.Com does NOT provide unlimited space for online storage, backups, or archiving of electronic files, documents, log files, etc., and any such prohibited use of the Services will result in the termination of Subscriber's account, with or without notice.

The post your MP3 can be seen as a type of electronic files archiving, doesn't it?

Quote from: admin on October 23, 2009, 03:06:20 PMWhat made me think was this:

http://www.bluehostreview.org/bluehost-hosting-offering-unlimited-storage-space

 (the first comment)

And eventually led me to search for other examples. The TOS states that backup files are all the files that the website doesn't need to run. MP3's files aren't needed for actually running the forum and so that scares me a little bit. I want BossBR.net to never end and that requires a sustainable solution.

I see what you mean. Pretty misleading advertising by bluehost then, to say that space is unlimited.

How does the SMF software store the attachments? Does it store each MP3 as an individual file? Or are the attachments stored within the database? If it's the latter case, then I don't see a problem because the database is a necessary part of the website. But if the MP3s are stored as individual files, then they might say that violates the terms of service (http://www.bluehost.com/terms_of_service.html). Are there any options in the SMF software that would allow attachments to be stored in the database instead of separately?

Looking through the bluehost forum (http://www.bluehostforum.com/search.php?s=5512df5b7b0091e7625f88dc0ce8b3ae&searchid=2527297), I get the impression that a bigger problem might be the file count limit of 50,000 files. Where do we stand on that? (apparently, you'll find the count in the file '/tmp/userquota').

thats the bit that  i read and interpretted as above. i dont think you have anything to worry about, its not like the mp3s are being stored in folders or that you are using your webspace as a hard drive. the mp3s are part of an active forum there for the users of that foru. you could be pedantic and say they are archived but i think in this case the term archive means, stored or saved like a library.

Quote from: admin on October 23, 2009, 03:51:16 PMIt is this actual part that bothers me:

QuoteUnlimited Hosting Space. BlueHost.Com does not set arbitrary limits on the amount of disk space a Subscriber can use for the Subscriber's website, nor does BlueHost.Com charge additional fees based on an increased amount of storage used, provided the Subscriber's use of storage complies with these Terms. Please note, however, that the BlueHost.Com service is designed to host websites . BlueHost.Com does NOT provide unlimited space for online storage, backups, or archiving of electronic files, documents, log files, etc., and any such prohibited use of the Services will result in the termination of Subscriber's account, with or without notice.

The post your MP3 can be seen as a type of electronic files archiving, doesn't it?

wow..interesting thread. Wish i understood it all a bit more thoroughly. All i can say is that Life is about the here and now and not the yesterdays. I think the popular suggestions of deleting songs/threads after 30-60 days is fine except for maybe the tutorials. I would happily remove all my songs...my SC link gets anybody interested right to them in a heartbeat. Limiting files is also a very practical idea and doable. I see keeping the MP3 player posting as a key to this site. Folks seem to want and need immediate feedback on projects. SC sites are free and unlimited. Archive all your stuff there. I know lots of folks that post random tracks there for collabs. It's no big deal. And Wiley...i have heard hundreds of covers while there..it's not an issue as long as you don't try to sell them or offer free downloads. Stream only.
   As for Boss/Roland helping out....great idea but good luck. They seem oblivious to their consumers.
   This site is way too helpful and fun to not survive. I think this issue can be fixed easily because people here communicate very well and all seem willing to sacrifice  yesterdays news for the sake of more todays and tomorrows.

So at fawm.ORG and 50 Songs in 90 Days powered by fawm.ORG they have a player set up and you simply put the URL of the file you want to stream and add information like title and then post. What this does is make each user find a spot to put their stuff. Google pages is awesome but they are not taking new accounts, but google sites will work. It is somewhat more intermittent in it's streaming, but seems to be decent. You have to upload your file then set it to public.
If anyone has webspace provided by their internet provider you can upload a song then copy link location and that should work as well.

So I guess I'm saying that there are options (not many) that would allow for us to stream unlimited, but it's up to the users to provide the space. Most players won't stream a myspace song without traveling to that site.

If that hotmail option (6G per person is quite a bit) works for uploading files.. well that's a really cool deal. I'll play with it later and see if it works for how I use it.

I propose that we consider a two tiered approach. Have a limited amount of file hosting here (as mentioned above) but also make it possible to input our own url to stream. I for one could host all of my own files and just stream it here.

Quote from: Pigfarmer Jr on October 24, 2009, 01:47:32 PMI propose that we consider a two tiered approach. Have a limited amount of file hosting here (as mentioned above) but also make it possible to input our own url to stream. I for one could host all of my own files and just stream it here.

We can already do that with the [singlemp3][/singlemp3] tags.

For example, here's a song you posted in the Yahoo! BossBR group:


Nothing is attached to this message. It's streaming directly from the Yahoo! site.

More info here (https://songcrafters.org/forum/index.php?topic=4808.msg59162#msg59162) and here (https://songcrafters.org/forum/index.php?topic=4442.msg52649#msg52649).

Unfortunately, sites like SoundClick and MySpace hide the actual URL of the MP3 file so there's no way to link it to our MP3 player. But any web storage site that lets you access the MP3's URL directly can be streamed from our MP3 player. SkyDrive (http://skydrive.live.com/) is nice because it gives you 25GB of storage for free. Unfortunately, I suspect that they periodically change the URLs of your files to prevent hot-linking. I'm not sure about that though. Time will tell.

Quote from: 64Guitars on October 23, 2009, 04:03:13 PMI see what you mean. Pretty misleading advertising by bluehost then, to say that space is unlimited.

How does the SMF software store the attachments? Does it store each MP3 as an individual file? Or are the attachments stored within the database? If it's the latter case, then I don't see a problem because the database is a necessary part of the website. But if the MP3s are stored as individual files, then they might say that violates the terms of service (http://www.bluehost.com/terms_of_service.html). Are there any options in the SMF software that would allow attachments to be stored in the database instead of separately?

Looking through the bluehost forum (http://www.bluehostforum.com/search.php?s=5512df5b7b0091e7625f88dc0ce8b3ae&searchid=2527297), I get the impression that a bigger problem might be the file count limit of 50,000 files. Where do we stand on that? (apparently, you'll find the count in the file '/tmp/userquota').

The sites uses various MP3 files stored in a folder called attachments, so they can't be seen as necessary to run the site.

I think I've figured out a solution:

• The attachments folder is limited to 3GB.
• The archive is limited to one month, any MP3 file in the post your MP3 and Collaborations boards older than one month are automatically deleted.
• Users have a space quota of 15 MB (around 15 minutes of music) and they will be able to delete their attachments
• I will store a copy of all the MP3 attachments before deleting them in my hard drive and DVD's.

What do you think?

That sounds like a good idea because you can always increase/decrease the storage levels and timeframe depending on the economic weather.

I really like that solution!

Mark

The thing that worries me is that deleting any existing attachments will leave a whole bunch of broken messages with MP3 players linked to non-existent files or comments referencing songs that are no longer in the message. Existing members might understand this but new members will probably be posting messages daily complaining about MP3 players that don't work. And visitors will be left with a bad impression of the site if they encounter a lot of messages with broken links or references to non-existent songs.

If we must remove existing MP3s, I think it would be better to move them somewhere else (SkyDrive?) and adjust the MP3 player links so that they point to the new location. That way, the messages still make sense and the MP3 players still work, even though the files are no longer stored onsite. SkyDrive gives you 25 GB of storage for free, which should be enough for the current MP3 collection. And you could disable future MP3 attachments and have members host their own files instead. There are two potential problems with this idea. 1) I don't know if this would violate SkyDrive's Terms of Service. 2) I don't know if links to SkyDrive files remain consistent (I think they periodically change them to prevent hot-linking). But, if SkyDrive isn't suitable, maybe you could find some other storage site that you can use in the same way. If necessary, perhaps even a paid web storage site financed by sponsorship or donations.

Failing that, I think that all non-working MP3 players in messages should be replaced by an image of the player with a message like "Sorry, song deleted." overlaid on top of the image. It would be a shame if we had to resort to that, but at least it would be better than a bunch of broken MP3 players (with no explanation), or messages that refer to a deleted MP3 player.

One last thought:  Before you do anything, don't you think it would be a good idea to ask bluehost about the situation first? Explain to them that your site is a web forum where members can post their own MP3s (so not a copyright concern) and that the songs are an integral part of the forum. Who knows - they might not have a problem with it. If they do, then you can move the MP3s offsite. But it would be a shame to delete everything based on an assumption if it turned out that bluehost doesn't even mind the current situation. As a precaution, I'd backup everything before contacting bluehost - just in case they decide to delete stuff themselves.

When deleting the attachments with SMF, the post becomes like this:
https://songcrafters.org/community/index.php?topic=6.msg8#msg8
I might even add a "contact the user for more information." to the text.

On another note, I think that archiving all the MP3 files is sometimes unecessary. The truth is that, by statistics, most attachments stop being played a month or two after post. And so, I think this change would be almost unoticed.

The thing people would notice most is the 15 MB limit, but I think this change is very important, as it would bring greater balance and variety to the Post Your MP3 board.

QuoteOne last thought:  Before you do anything, don't you think it would be a good idea to ask bluehost about the situation first?

i second that

Deleting files will break all of my jukebox pages too.

https://songcrafters.org/Festivals/Early%20BossBR.html (https://songcrafters.org/Festivals/Early%20BossBR.html)

i'm feeling quite sad about this and feel it could be the end of a golden era, i hope my feelings are unfounded tho.

My head is hanging low at this point...

Signed,

Sad Marky

Quote from: oldrottenhead on October 25, 2009, 03:08:01 PMi'm feeling quite sad about this and feel it could be the end of a golden era, i hope my feelings are unfounded tho.

I can't help feeling this is not good :-[
If it goes ahead I think putting a limit on members of 15mb is wrong.........
some members are very prolific and keep this site going and to put a physical limit on their inspiration is in IMO against the great spirit we have here.....
I also would be sad to loose the archive from here so lets hope Bluehost don't have an issue with us........

Is that 15mb divide amongst all users, or has consideration been made for active users? We do have a ton of inactive users, which we can assume will never be active.

This is without a doubt a bad suggestion, but.... if this is actually going to happen..... then have the file limit based on board status. The more posts, the more MB. Again, I think this is a ridiculous suggestion, but I'd hate to see somebody who has not posted a single post a year after they joined to have 15mb cap and solid contributors have the same cap.

I don't know what to think!! But I do know that if something has to give. OUT with the old and in with the new.   I know I very seldom go back through the old posts.  There is so much going on in the new.  And 64 made me a juke box player. But I would give it up to have things basicly remain the same here.  If a song comes across and you want it, get it. AFter 2 months it is history. I feel delete it all  then there would be no broken links etc.  This place needs to live for the future.  I would hate to see it loose the present. The past is the past.!!  I can feel it coming on already. LOL
P.J.

QuoteOne last thought:  Before you do anything, don't you think it would be a good idea to ask bluehost about the situation first? Explain to them that your site is a web forum where members can post their own MP3s (so not a copyright concern) and that the songs are an integral part of the forum. Who knows - they might not have a problem with it. If they do, then you can move the MP3s offsite. But it would be a shame to delete everything based on an assumption if it turned out that bluehost doesn't even mind the current situation. As a precaution, I'd backup everything before contacting bluehost - just in case they decide to delete stuff themselves.

Already did that, just waiting for the response. Who knows, maybe they do think it is alright! I've stated clearly that website will grow 2/3 GB a year and that the MP3's are a big part of the forum. Let's see...

Fingers crossed, this is slightly worrying but whatever we will have to find a way round it.

Cheers,

Nigel

Received a response from bluehost:

QuoteA database of that size while not specifically against our TOS does generally cause performance problems on a Shared hosting environment such as ours. For larger databases such as that I would normally recommend looking into a virtual private server or a dedicated server, or in some cases just a dedicated server for the database it's self.

Basically, this is not good because although it is not against their TOS, it is frowned upon and will most certainly be a problem in the future, when the database grows. What I want is a sustainable situation, something that could go on indefinitely. Even though I could simply forget them, let the database grow and eventually if they did anything, complain and maybe press charges or something like that but I prefer to keep things simple.

The solution is limiting the database to some relatively small value, such as 3GB, while promoting the use of external backup websites. This is no problem to them, bluehost with this value, and with a little adjustment, no problem to us.

Before I delete anything, a backup with all the MP3 files will be put online in some free backup storage. Which can be a way for users to manually link to their post, using the singlemp3 tag.

Sorry about this guys, this is kind of my fault. I really thought it was unlimited storage, with no problems whatsoever. I guess we will have to get used to it.

OK it looks like we will need to adapt >:(
Their certainly seem to be a lot of options....However I believe that we should have a BR approved option as many new members will not have the experience of hosting...
As PJ said I have used box net in the past and the Blues test has been up on box nett for over 3months
https://songcrafters.org/community/index.php?topic=4840.msg59613#msg59613
I don't know enough about hosting to gauge how good this site is it has a 1gb of free use

What do you guys think about us having a standard site recommended by us?............................... ???

First of all, thanks to Admin (Pedro?), for getting such a site as this into being in the first place, and good luck to those who have to implement the forthcoming changes. Responding to 48, it would probably be an advantage if indeed all the MP3s etc could be kept in one place/site. so I for one am with you in this.
Best of luck to everyone.

looming at this sitecalled musicwebtown , it allows you to upload and stream 2gigs of mp3s. http://www.musicwebtown.com/community/index.php does anyone have any info on it. am gonna give it a try will let you know how it goes

update its only a months free trial doh.

First of all, THANK YOU Pedro for all the time and effort you put into making this the best place on the web for us!!


And.....
If I read this correctly:

Quote..........or in some cases just a dedicated server for the database it's self.

does that mean that if we could find someone to host the database, we could continue with the site as is ?

Quote from: admin on October 27, 2009, 04:53:35 AMReceived a response from bluehost:

QuoteA database of that size while not specifically against our TOS does generally cause performance problems on a Shared hosting environment such as ours. For larger databases such as that I would normally recommend looking into a virtual private server or a dedicated server, or in some cases just a dedicated server for the database it's self.

Basically, this is not good because although it is not against their TOS, it is frowned upon and will most certainly be a problem in the future, when the database grows.

It sounds like it's not a problem right now but you're worried about the future. So, why don't you leave everything as it is for now? Members are already looking at offsite storage sites like MediaFire (http://www.mediafire.com/), Dropbox (http://www.getdropbox.com/), Ubuntu One (https://one.ubuntu.com/), and Box.net (http://www.box.net/). When we find one or more sites that prove to be suitable, members can start using them with the singlemp3 tags for new posts instead of uploading the files to BossBR.net. That will slow down the growth of the attachments folder. Additionally, members can start moving their previously-posted songs to offsite storage themselves and edit their messages to link the MP3 player to the offsite file. That way, the old posts will still work.

Quote from: admin on October 27, 2009, 04:53:35 AMBefore I delete anything, a backup with all the MP3 files will be put online in some free backup storage. Which can be a way for users to manually link to their post, using the singlemp3 tag.

If you find a suitable free storage site to put the files, I volunteer to edit all the old posts and link the MP3 player to the offsite files. However, I'll need the attachment numbers of each file to identify them with the posts. The filename alone is not enough because many songs have been posted with very cryptic filenames ("T12V2_01.MP3", for example) and there's no way I'll be able to match them up with the posts unless I also have the attachment number. Also, I ask that you don't delete any existing MP3s. Instead, I will delete them one-at-a-time as I edit the posts. That way, all of the old posts will still work. They'll just gradually move from the BossBR.net server to offsite storage.

64 that is an extreme undertaking. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking it will be about 2 months work considering many posts have multiple links to attachments. Is it a possibility to copy the database in tact to another location and do a find and replace on the path?

Pedro: Did you ever look into the possibility of adding the SoundClick MP3 Player widget to BossBR.net? See this message:

https://songcrafters.org/community/index.php?topic=4442.msg52744#msg52744 (https://songcrafters.org/forum/index.php?topic=4442.msg52744#msg52744)

Many members already have songs posted on SoundClick. Unfortunately, they can't link them to our MP3 player with the singlemp3 tags because SoundClick hides the URL of the files. But they do provide their own MP3 Player widget which can be embedded in any HTML page. If you could add a new SoundClick button in the message editor which would embed the SoundClick Player widget into a message, then your problem would be solved. We could just tell everyone to open a SoundClick account and post their songs there. Then they could add the player to their message here without attaching any files.

64 When I checked out soundclick, It seemed very strict on posting any cover songs. You had to contact so and so and pay for the rights etc.  If that is the case that will leave many of us out in the cold. For me SoundClick is not the answer, if I understood their rules. For many it would probably work as they do mostly originals. So I guess we wait and see what happens!

I'm not suggesting that SoundClick should be the only way of posting songs here. But, as many members are already using it, we could move a lot of files off the server. For those who don't want to use SoundClick, the [singlemp3][/singlemp3] tags could still be used to link our existing MP3 player to files stored at some other site. We just need to find a site that will allow direct linking to the files. SkyDrive's unsuitable because they change the link every day. I suspect that MediaFire and Box.net do the same. I'm not sure about Dropbox and Ubuntu One. I might try Ubuntu One next week. There are probably other free storage sites we need to check out too.

Update:  FileDEN (http://www.fileden.com/) looks very promising. See this message (https://songcrafters.org/forum/index.php?topic=4834.msg59760#msg59760).

Hi Wiley..
   I've been at SC for over 4 years and have seen hundreds of folks upload cover songs, myself included. The only time you need to pay fees and all that is if you are selling your covers. You would also want to avoid (just to be on the safe side) allowing them for free download as well. These are options you can easily choose in the uploading process. Don't let that issue discourage you from archiving songs there.

Ok,  They just made it sound like it costs.!!  Will wait and see what happens.

Quote from: admin on October 27, 2009, 04:53:35 AMReceived a response from bluehost:

QuoteA database of that size while not specifically against our TOS does generally cause performance problems on a Shared hosting environment such as ours. For larger databases such as that I would normally recommend looking into a virtual private server or a dedicated server, or in some cases just a dedicated server for the database it's self.

Not so fast. In principle, a large database causes server load issues only if it's being accessed frequently. Does the account have a bandwidth quota, or a database quota?  Sometimes these are separate parts of the hosting plan.  Read the TOS for these provisions.

The position you need to take is that it's not a file space issue, per their agreement. And that you are not using their Web sever to backup your hard drive. A simple look at the access logs would confirm that the MP3s are being accessed by site visitors (which would not be the case if you were using the site for your personal storage).

Therefore...

• If it's a database issue and MP3s are stored in the database table, then there is a way of writing these files to the disk, and then re-link to the files using the [singlemp3][/singlemp3] tags. It might take a little scripting--or some SMF hacker might already have figured this out.  But that would reduce the size and load on the database.
• If it's a bandwidth issue then we need to consider the alternate bandwidth options, such as hosting the files elsewhere.  (Take a look at your usage statistics to see if you really are bumping into a contractual threshold.)

We were bound to run into a speedbump like this sooner or later.

If your usage statistics and analytics show usage through the roof, then that's actually a very good problem to have--it's data you can take to Boss (or another sponsor) and say, "We've been boostering the BR product line for free.  Now we need a revenue stream to keep this particular PR machine alive."

I'm sure even a dedicated server wouldn't cost a corporate sponsor more than $1200 US per year.  That's peanuts. In return they could get an acknowledgment in the footer (Hosting Support Generously Provided by XYZ Corporation).

Ted, good post. I'll wear a Boss t-shirt as well if it would help get sponsorship....

BTW, have we thought about getting Boss to link to this site from the corporate web page?

Cheers,

Nigel

Quote from: wiley on October 27, 2009, 01:35:03 PM64 When I checked out soundclick, It seemed very strict on posting any cover songs. You had to contact so and so and pay for the rights etc.  If that is the case that will leave many of us out in the cold. For me SoundClick is not the answer, if I understood their rules. For many it would probably work as they do mostly originals. So I guess we wait and see what happens!

I agree with Wiley here, I looked into it awhile back too, and, since I really only do covers, I didn't think it would work for me.

Saw the later post, but the TOS on soundclick certainly made it seem as if I could get into difficulty.  Given the music industry's penchant for doing stupid things to make a point, I decided to avoid soundclick altogether.

The last thing SC admin wants is to get sued. They have to post that for liability sake. There are over 2300 covers posted at the moment...and that is just in country. No one can or will sue you if you aren't trying to make money. How many bands play covers all night in bars?...and they ARE getting paid. Neither Neil Young or his record company are going to get upset if Pinedog sings some of his songs. Nobody cares. If you try and charge and SC admin sees that, i would think they would indeed give you the boot to cover their own butt. I've never known anyone there to have had an issue with it.

I do realize its a CYA on their part, but it does make me uncomfortable enough that I won't use the site at this point.

Quote from: Pinedog on October 27, 2009, 05:35:05 PMNo one can or will sue you if you aren't trying to make money. How many bands play covers all night in bars?...and they ARE getting paid. Neither Neil Young or his record company are going to get upset if Pinedog sings some of his songs. Nobody cares.

Pinedog: You're thinking reasonably.

The perspective of music publishers is that if you perform music from their catalog, you are taking something of value from them--unless you do it alone in a soundproof room with the lights out.

In the USA at least, bars have to pay licensing fees to the ASCAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCAP) for the right to play canned music or live music on their property--even if a live band plays all originals.

What Neil Young cares about is one thing.  What the publisher of his catalog cares about is another--and the publishers are the ones with the lawyers.  (They're the ones who tried to make cellular networks and their users liable when copyrighted music played on a ringtone in a public place (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/court-rules-phones-ringing-public-dont-infringe-co).)

So it does matter.

The only things that keep us under the radar is that we are small, and apparently not backed by any deep pockets.  Sometime in the future, Admin's problem might not be about database servers load, but about take-down notices.

Personally, I think cover songs on this site are a potential problem for Admin and/or those of us who post them here.  If I were running this site, I'd have a Terms of Use agreement to which users of this site would have to agree, and that agreement would say (a) that the user is liable for any copyrighted work that they upload, and (b) any copyrighted work discovered on the site may be taken down without notice.  The YouTube model, essentially.

This forum has become a big part of my happenings, and I am stearing folks to the forum to listen to songs (including) some very cool covers - what we are doing is not malicious in any shape or form --- this is a great learning tool and a very relaxing site for me.  I for one think that if the problem deals with storage for our mp3's then lets handle it - I have posted some alternatives and there are some additional ones.

To me this is quite similar to getting together with family and friends and sharing music - and if we do covers it would not be much different than sitting in the UK/USA/Norway/Finland/Austalia/Brazil or any other location - around a camp fire sipping spirits and playing songs - including covers!

It is good that we are planning ahead, and I am truly amazed at the expertise of a lot of the folks on this thread regarding the issues and the possible fix.   - becaue to me this site is alot more than just a forum --- it is comparable to a school (the school of BR recorders and music), with developing friendships, learning material, and have a blast with it.

With the brain power on this site I am sure a workable solution will be found.

A BIG THANKS to Pedro, 64, Jim H and others that have taken it upon yourselfs to find workable solutions for us all!!!

Points well taken Ted. You are right on all counts. I know about ASCAP and the problems they have trying to collect on places that have some original bands, some cover bands, and the half and half. I once worked at a bar where we had a sound system and they wanted money for that. Owner didn't pay and they backed off. Your example of the ringtones is also a good one..but in that instance there was someone looking to profit from someone else without paying. I'm sure that you are right...if a publisher wanted to sue me for singing a Neil Young song (even though it was posted as "stream only"), he could. I'm just saying that i don't think that would ever happen. When the profit equation is removed, litigation becomes highly unlikely.
I guess if this issue makes ya nervous, it's best to just avoid it by not posting covers. It would definitely suck to find out i was getting sued over some crummy version of a Neil Young song that nobody ever listened to anyway  :D

PS...my apologies to all for taking this thread a bit off course

Quote from: Pinedog on October 27, 2009, 06:48:51 PMPoints well taken Ted. You are right on all counts. I know about ASCAP and the problems they have trying to collect on places that have some original bands, some cover bands, and the half and half. I once worked at a bar where we had a sound system and they wanted money for that. Owner didn't pay and they backed off. Your example of the ringtones is also a good one..but in that instance there was someone looking to profit from someone else without paying. I'm sure that you are right...if a publisher wanted to sue me for singing a Neil Young song (even though it was posted as "stream only"), he could. I'm just saying that i don't think that would ever happen. When the profit equation is removed, litigation becomes highly unlikely.
I guess if this issue makes ya nervous, it's best to just avoid it by not posting covers. It would definitely suck to find out i was getting sued over some crummy version of a Neil Young song that nobody ever listened to anyway  :D

PS...my apologies to all for taking this thread a bit off course

This forum, would not be the same without covers ---  I for one do not think that we should have any problems - bands are getting payed at bars and such - so i agree with you!!!

Quote from: Diego Ayala on October 27, 2009, 06:52:53 PMThis forum, would not be the same without covers ---  I for one do not think that we should have any problems - bands are getting payed at bars and such - so i agree with you!!!

I don't think payment is the issue.  From the perspective of the copyright holder, if you 'do a cover' you are taking their property and publishing it internationally without their permission.  That is actionable.  Whether they would take any action is debatable but Warner's closed down a pizza joint near me for decking itself out as the batcave, JK Rowling's lawyers closed down a stick model of Hogwarts at an Indian religious festival, things happen.

If the idea is to move to a more secure footing then I think liability as well as load is an issue.  I also think that, as Ted suggests, the YouTube model, a disclaimer and promise of action if infringement offends, is a good idea.

One thing is for sure, you are never going to convince someone who wants to close you down, for whatever reason, that recording music on advanced digital technology and distributing it around the world is like sitting around a campfire.

Quote from: Ted on October 27, 2009, 06:15:38 PMIf I were running this site, I'd have a Terms of Use agreement to which users of this site would have to agree, and that agreement would say (a) that the user is liable for any copyrighted work that they upload, and (b) any copyrighted work discovered on the site may be taken down without notice.  The YouTube model, essentially.

One thing I wouldn't do if I were the Admin, is ever comment on a cover song, or facilitate cover songs in any way (festivals, playlists, etc.).  The purpose would be to maintain deniability. "Your Honor, there are more than 100,000 posts on the site, I can't possibly be expected to monitor them all. However, I address all violations of the terms of use immediately when they are brought to my attention."

Sorry if my vicarious paranoia is a bummer.

P.S. Wouldn't Vicarious Paranoia be a good name for a band?

Regarding the bluehost issue I think now it's the time to solve any flaws in my initial idea, specifically, the unlimited upload. It is really necessary to reduce the attachments database to ensure the continuity of our community.

I'm trying to see if it is possible to redirect all the attachments to an external webserver.

Quote from: admin on October 28, 2009, 05:14:15 PMI'm trying to see if it is possible to redirect all the attachments to an external webserver.

If the issue is database load (and not disk space), couldn't you write the attachments to the same server you're on already?

My understanding of database-backed Web applications is that it's fairly inefficient to store binary data (such as sound, image, and video files) in database tables. This is why the database seems to be the issue (its size and the strain on the server), and not the amount of storage space.

Web developers prefer to store in the database a reference (i.e. path and filename) to where the file is stored.  So the database has to supply a bit of HTML, instead hundreds of KB of data.

I just poked around looking for a mod that does this.  I didn't find one, but I bet someone in the SMF developers community might have a solution for this problem.  Have you asked around?

The issue is the disk space, the MP3 files are stored in a folder. The database that bluehost was referring to are all the files in that folder.

Just an idea...

wwwBox.net seems to work well - 1 Gig Storage for free, and bigger plans available

While not as simple as a straight upload, adding a hyperlink is not that hard.

Example - it pulls up a small window and plays, and allows for a download.  It also has a method to allow for collaborations.

http://www.box.net/shared/vtyona27df (http://www.box.net/shared/vtyona27df)

A power user on his/her own would have the option of getting an upgrade.  It is also a great off site backup regardless

Has anyone looked into Filefactory.com? It has 100 gb storage and streaming music ability but I don't know anything about this sort of thing. It was one of the first things that came up when I looked into free file hosting. It seems legit but as I said I am clueless and just wanted to see if anyone else had tried it.

Well, it's Nov 1st. What did we decide to do?

A couple of thoughts.

As already has been said if you record a cover and play it to the public it's a copyright violation and the reason that we "get away with it" is that there is no incentive to the copyright holders to take the time to do the work to take down the millions of covers on the net. It's time consuming and it's costly for them in man hours if nothing else.
    I agree that the largest risk BossBrNet runs is that someone such as a record label (like Neil's) decides we shouldn't oughta do post them anymore. There must be something in place, a TOS, that lets us know we are all individually responsible.
    What does this mean? It is the same as harassment at work. You can talk dirty all you want as long as everyone does. As soon as one person TELLS YOU it bothers them or they are uncomfortable or to stop you are good to go. But once that happens you must cease the action. The same with covers.  Now if you sell a million records with a cover you are a lightning rod because they can profit off of it. Otherwise, once the site is told to stop, they must take reasonable action to stop the action at that time or they can and I assume will be sued. We don't want that.
   
    As has already been said, multiple solutions exist. None of them are perfect, but many of them are doable. If there is a way we can use widgets from other sites (and I'm ignorant on this) that is one great solution. I have recently started using ReverbNation for some original tunes, for instance.  Finding spots that will stream, like google pages, is another. Google pages was the perfect solution until they decided to stop letting new accounts sign up, and apparently they are slowly closing down the google pages. Mine have been up for a year since they told me that they'd be moving the stuff 'soon'. Still streaming and I'm still uploading. I feel that once a viable solution or solutions exist that it is up to the individual members to do the work. Ie, some of the solutions are more work than others, but it's up to us to use them or fix the links.

64 offered to fix old links.. and while that's great... I'd much rather have his time and energy spent toward helping us record or implementing a single song load from the BRexplorer (HINT HINT) than fix a bunch of links, most of which aren't used on a daily or even weekly basis. A simple message to all of us telling us what we need to do to fix the problem and let us do that. If we, as individuals, decide the old files can die then so be it. - A compromise if 64 was willing is to compile a list of the old files by username and then let each individual user see and fix their own links. But even then I'd assume it is our own responsibility. What amounts to a few minutes per person adds up to a huge project for one person.

Added a BBCode that automatically adds a Soundclick Widget!

Testing on this post with a song by Oldrottenhead:

[soundclick]8243034[/soundclick]

Works great!! To use it you just need to add the song ID (a big number) in the soundclick tag, like this[soundclick]1213232[/soundclick]
This is definitely a great advance. I will try to add more widgets from other music sites.

cool as frack how do i do this

Just write:

[soundclick]SongID[/soundclick]
I will add a button, tomorrow.

Also, I've made the decision, Post your MP3 boards will no longer support uploading a MP3 to our server, except the Collaborations board, which will remain as it is but with an auto-deletion of attachments older than 2 month. The other boards will have to use an external website, such as Soundclick (now with the widget!), Box.net, Skydrive, or any other. As to the music that already is in the server, I'm still trying to see if it can be moved with losing anything.

I will write some guides to help the new MP3 posting process which will be linked in the Post your MP3 board new topic page.

This changes are to take effect tomorrow. You'll see it is not that bad.  :D

No matter what happens in the future Pedro, nothing can ever take away the knowledge that has been shared and the fun that has been had. This whole site is a gift. Here's to ya! (emoticon of two beers clanking together)

I've been using the odd Google site to communicate with my band members and have been streaming songs from there to Br.net for a couple months.  Internet Explorer users have had to download tunes, but Firefox and Chrome seems to stream just fine.

On the plus side, links to Google sites and I assume Soundclick sites allow for large files, which means either impending prog epics and/or higher bitrate mp3s.

The information below is from Google:

For Sites created under sites.google.com/site
    * Site quota: 100Mb/site
    * Max attachment size: 20Mb
    * Pages per site: unlimited
    * Sites per domain: unlimited

I built this ugly, functional, free Google site (http://sites.google.com/site/brnethost1/brnethost1) in under two minutes and linked our crappy version of a Doobie Brothers song in another minute or two.

One way or another, these issues will pass. Thanks you, Pedro, for being proactive.

Blooby

Thank you Pedro !!! I know it won't solve all our issues but will be a big help. I will when I get time go through my old posts and insert a soundclick widget and delete the attachment if that's a help in freeing up space. It is isn't it?

Anyway .. I'll also look into using my google site for stuff I don't want on soundclick.

I would like to add what I found today to this post. It is also under 48's Skydrive. I found this place which seems to be able to provide hot links. So I thought I would also put the link here to  the website. I just put a song up today and it seems to be working.

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/

I am not very computer literate. I have a box net account and could not figure out how to link and Sky drive is useless for our purposes.  So hopefully some of you can use this.  The Soundclick widget will be great for a lot of you. And Blooby it's great you are so talented. But some of us are not and need these easy posting thing ma bobs. LOL  For me it is a sad day. And I hope this place will survive the changes. If the old stuff is lost.  So be it. "You'll see it's not that bad."  Time will tell, who can find a place to link from and who cannot.  We all must move on!!  Good luck to all of you!!
P.J.

Quote from: wiley on November 01, 2009, 06:28:12 PMBut some of us are not and need these easy posting thing ma bobs. LOL 

Wiley, that's why I mention it only took a few minutes to do. Certainly, there was a learning curve (with much more to learn), but I believe anybody could do it within twenty minutes their first time out. If folks are interested, I'll put together a tutorial.

Blooby

Blooby It would probably be a good idea to put together a tutorial!!.  I know I have been looking all week for a place and finally found the one above.  They also charge a small fee $4.95  for a lot of additional  things. I would be willing to pay, but who do you trust? I know if I hadn't found this place I would be pretty much out in the cold until someone helped. 

Quote from: Blooby on November 01, 2009, 06:04:55 PMI've been using the odd Google site to communicate with my band members and have been streaming songs from there to Br.net for a couple months.  Internet Explorer users have had to download tunes, but Firefox and Chrome seems to stream just fine.

On the plus side, links to Google sites and I assume Soundclick sites allow for large files, which means either impending prog epics and/or higher bitrate mp3s.

Time:

0:00

Volume:

50

0

 Stop   Play   Pause   Vol   Vol   Mute   Repeat   Download

The problem is it gets a bit iffy on the streaming at times. Ie, it won't work for a while then suddenly does again. Like right now when I tried to play the example. That's the problem we found on the FAWM site. (That's DOT ORG)  It works, but at times it's frustrating. Refering to google sites here.

The Soundclick add is a very very good addition, IMO. I'll have to go delete my old crappy stuff and maybe start using it as a place for streaming more than just here. Possibly.

Pedro: Just curious.  Was the soundclick tag one that you hacked yourself, or was it a SMF mod that you just had to install?

I have a BBcode mod which allows one to put a html block with a {parameter} string. I used one song soundclick widget code and modified the song ID to be the parameter and voila. Very simple, wish I done it sooner.

Quote from: admin on November 02, 2009, 02:24:14 PMI have a BBcode mod which allows one to put a html block with a {parameter} string. I used one song soundclick widget code and modified the song ID to be the parameter and voila. Very simple, which I done it sooner.

Awesome man, thanks for your effort. I know I don't use the site as much as many others, but being a member for just over a year now I have come to think of this site as one of the best on the net for having a very cool and decent community, and like every one else really appreciate the ability to sample someones music through streaming.

The change has been done, from now on MP3's have to be uploaded to external sources (except the Collaborations).

I think this is a workable solution.  It is pretty clear that there are several viable options out there to host files.

Pedro, I appreciate all the effort that you have put into making this forum a great place to share information and music.

So Pedro, I already have a soundclick account - if I want to post a song into the br forum - do I just copy the link under soundclick and then i just use the hyperlink while posting?

just the song number D....

I think you done good, Admin.

Logged on my googlepages today and two of them are being converted to google sites. Which sucks. Sites are not nearly as steady for streaming. But a friend in London has hooked me up with unlimited hosting. It's nice to have on-line music communities in which to find helpful people.

I'm gonna go deleted all the two year old soundclick files and maybe even start posting here. Thanks everyone for being so helpful.

Quote from: Diego Ayala on November 03, 2009, 07:09:23 PMSo Pedro, I already have a soundclick account - if I want to post a song into the br forum - do I just copy the link under soundclick and then i just use the hyperlink while posting?

From your SoundClick page, copy just the songid number:

(http://microrecorders.org/64guitars/Images/Screenshots/Diego%20Ayala%20-%20SoundClick.png)


In the BossBR.net message editor, click the SoundClick button to insert the [soundclick][/soundclick] tags, then paste the songid number between the tags:

(http://microrecorders.org/64guitars/Images/Screenshots/Diego%20Ayala%20-%20message%20editor.png)

Thanks guys!

I'll have to look @ soundclick and check out if i can create a separate folder to add my BR forum stuff...

I think even I can follow that, lol. Thanks (again!) 64guitars...

Regarding the existing MP3 attachments, I suggest everyone create a backup on their soundclick or other hosting source, because I will slowly reduce the database by deleting the oldest attachments.

ADM - Is this deletion process to include Collaborations? Either now or in the future?

Oh well, sustainable is a good trade-off for ease of use, imo. We love this site and would be heartbroken if it went away. Unfortunately uploading songs on Soundclick is a "Pain in the Neck" hehe. I'm sure it'll get easier the more I do it, but every time I go to upload a song on soundclick i have to dig deep into the cobwebs of my brain and try to remember how I did it the time before.

Pedro, you have a good thing going here. Thanks for looking out for us.

erik