Matt,

Thanks for your input, but I believe you 're off topic.

It seems you don't understand this industry that well, how sounds and loops are created and how studios, producers and distributors make money. Furthermore, like Consonance said, you are not the target audience. Soundsnap is a Professional community with sounds from many Hollywood sound designers and famous producers.

I 've allowed you to make more than 10 posts on this issue, but you have been constantly highjacking the conversation.

I will now have to lock this forum topic.

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Matt, take a deep breath and listen to yourself. You're telling the people who have contributed to this site how THEY should be using their talents. Excuse my incredulity; I don't go over to where you work and tell you how to do your job. I hope I am not too naive to believe that the people who do the actual work should dictate their own terms when they have the chance. You need a reality check; your expectations are unreasonable. Your ideas about why "people will not buy sounds" are unfounded, as is your dislike of the "pay per sound model." Yes, the global is recession is bad, but the media industry shows no signs of folding up soon.

I don't mean to degrade Freesound in any way. What the people at that site are doing is great, but their goal is different than Soundsnap's. The Creative Commons is a great tool for sharing media and acknowledging the source. I wish you the best of luck with Freesound, Matt. I hope you find some sense of perspective.

Matt, your devotion to Soundsnap and keeping it alive is admirable, but in a sense misguided. From what I can tell, the decision to change the operation of the site was a community one; it's not as if Tasos is an evil dictator who invented the idea of a pay operation and forced it on everyone.

The fact is, Soundsnap is at the very least semi-professional. Field professionals and amateurs have contributed alike. I don't believe that the target audience of Soundsnap is the broke person; after all, that market does not reflect the makeup of the community. Soundsnap is samples by "power users" for power users.

Now, I myself think that Soundsnap could attract more revenue from people who wouldn't otherwise buy samples by selling sounds on a per-download basis, but at this point I believe the site is confident in the direction it is headed. Yes, the current global economy is not well, but its effects on media producers remain to be seen. Chances are slim that music studios everywhere will throw up their hands and declare, "Soundsnap now costs money, and we're completely out of it!" If anything, by being cheaper than other libraries Soundsnap stands to gain a foothold in the market, even if (ahem) Tasos will not release a usage schedule to the site members. (Not even a ballpark range?)

Look, to sum up: Soundsnap members want the website to thrive. The payment system should defray operating costs and provide an incentive for a crowd of musicians and sound technicians to contribute quality work to a pool of audio files. I hope I have not overgeneralized; to those who were part of the community a few months ago, this move was no surprise. (To those who weren't, it was.)

Wow, wait a minute! Do I here another person just coming over and joining the opposition? Way to go! Come on over! Come on over!

matt

Thanks to the both of you for replying. I accept that the challenge is necesary and it is just a minor inconvenience I will have to except.

But Tasos, I simply don't think we are on the same wavelength on the model. The fact is, in this economy people just won't buy sounds. I can't make it any clearer than that. And given that all the arguments for it are slowly beginning to unravvle. People constantly say how much better the offer is compared to other sites. Before interupting, wait a minute. That is absolutely no consolation to those who are cashstrapped; more and more people and can't even aford these rates. Spin. I wish that people, including you Tasos, would use spin less and speek in plane English a little more, so we can focus on the real debate. And people make such a big thing about how contributers should get paid. But as Shuto said, if you love it that much, you shouldn't expect money. Rather, you should enjoy the fact that your sound has a high number of downloads and good comments ETC. And I don't see why, Tasos, you make a big song and dance about how the community wanted this, but the fact is, they did so only when you broached it and not before. So, given that me and some others have lost all confidence in the model, so much so that 3 users have resigned over this and there are no real arguments left for it, when are you going to have some currage, come out, admit you were wrong and declare the model dead?I wouldn't describe me as esspessially cashstrapped, but this simply is immoral. And I can not think of any other way to describe the model than being material and finance based nonsence and an abbortion of the spirit of community. You know what guys, with the money this site makes, some of you could probably aford to buy a new book. A book on how to overcome lonelyness. Particularly site admins and some other people who can't decide if they are superman or the joker. I would be interested to read your responses to that. Don't dodge the question, answer it, admit it. The model doesn't work and in this economy could kill the site. In this economy people just won't buy sounds, and even when it recovers people may save more and the sound market will be one of the hardest hit. Strongly consider that, admit these warnings are valid, have some guts and confirm, in plane English, that the model is being diched.

Good day

matt