Jump to content

Talk:CD Baby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

Certainly, the CDBaby and CD Baby articles need to be merged, but in which direction? *Dan T.* 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Seeing that the actual site has the space in its name in the page title, I guess you're right that it should be merged into the CD Baby article.)[reply]

As a user of the CD Baby website as both a musician and online music purchaser, I feel the currant article is fair and accurate. It's direction does not read like an advertisment to me. User:Jann P.* 11:35 April, 22 2006 (EST)

Mrm. I added the interview link after someone sent me to CD Baby. Perhaps that will help with a possible merge. Good luck! =Chica= 5 July 2006

Citations

[edit]

This article is severely lacking in citations. I removed most of what I could not verify through a web search. I added citations to claims made on the CD Baby website and clarified that most of the information is coming directly from the subject of the article. There is still a good deal of language I don't agree with later on in the article, and there is definately room for more diversity in the source of information for this article, and verification from independent sources. Nerwin81 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who picked which artists to include under the "notable independent musicians" section? Obviously they are notable, because they have wikipedia articles, but why these particular notables? Just one example of another notable artist that is Not listed here is Here Come the Mummies. If I had a CD on CD baby, I could simply introduce my band into this part of the article. Free Advertising.161.28.92.137 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a publication edited by volunteer editors like yourself. The answer to "Who picked..." is whomever made the edit that put them there. If you believe an artist was left out, who should have been included (and is notable by Wikipedia standards) than edit the article to put them there. The section has since been removed, but I'm not sure why. Pgapunk (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that CD Baby seems to censor reviews of CDs? They seem to absolutely refuse to post a (even just slightly) negative review of a CD in its reviews section. This angers me, as what is the point of reviews if they only show those which rave about a CD?? I feel this should be incorporated into the article provided that others have noticed this tendency as well. --smileyborg (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Makers buys CD Baby

[edit]

Anyone seen this? http://sivers.org/blog Wamnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious e-mails

[edit]

CD Baby has a tradition of including hilariously funny text elements into their e-mails.

Example: "Your CD has been gently taken from our CD Baby shelves with sterilized contamination-free gloves and placed onto a satin pillow. A team of 50 employees inspected your CD and polished it to make sure it was in the best possible condition before mailing. Our packing specialist from Japan lit a candle and a hush fell over the crowd as he put your CD into the finest gold-lined box that money can buy. We all had a wonderful celebration afterwards and the whole party marched down the street to the post office where the entire town of Portland waved "Bon Voyage!" to your package, on its way to you, in our private CD Baby jet on this day, August 26, 2009. We hope you had a wonderful time shopping at CD Baby. In commemoration, we have placed your picture on our wall as "Customer of the Year." We're all exhausted but can't wait for you to come back to CDBABY.COM!!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Sigh... We miss you already. We'll be right here at http://cdbaby.com/, patiently awaiting your return." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.161.133.225 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical history

[edit]

CD Baby relaunched the website with major infrastructure changes (using ASPX) to support future growth, including redundancy that protects the original material on the site in a way that initially was not available to the artists and incurred significant risk to them. The website is no longer being run with the original or revised PHP of Sivers.

Did the new changes harm the artists, or did the new version seek to shield the artists from harm which had been present in the old version?

Crasshopper (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CDBaby sold again.

[edit]

Interesting article about Cdbaby´s new owner. www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/cd-baby-owner-avl-digital-sold/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.40.161 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ls47fGMsS8 Scott Manley makes mention of them inappropriately copyrighting and distributing CC3.0 licensed music and spamming strikes against YouTube users posting Kerbal space program videos because the music is used with compliance in the game. Ransombot (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt1ubSVMwaw CDbaby is mentioned quite a few times in this enforcing licences against against independent and partnered YouTube streamers in some cases probably legitimately. In others against the verbal contract of artist and streamer prior to signing with CDBaby Ransombot (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk66jt_yBhg lovelyti2013 mentions CDbaby again taking CC3.0 work and applying strikes against her channel. Ransombot (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohjGAiYCDzo featured royalty free music found from http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe?feature=watch the artist who has produced and distributed his music free was claimed by CDBaby YouTube's policy regarding claims made the artist ratify his contract as seen http://www.teknoaxe.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830 Ransombot (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransombot (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. CD Baby (among others such as The Orchard and Go Digital) are huge copyfraudsters on YouTube. Nobody knows why because Google refuses to address the issue of copyfraud on YouTube. They assume all claims are not only made it good faith, but are 100% valid unless and until the claimant either removes the claim or a court rules otherwise. Why? Who knows? They won't talk about it. But, the prevailing presumption is that they profit from copyfraud, so turning a blind eye to it is the best financial move for them. Of course, Google's complicity in YouTube copyfraud means that no reliable source will ever talk about the copyfraud committed by CD Baby and others and, for this reason, none of these allegations will ever appear on Wikipedia. This is unfortunate, but it's a combination of complicity from the Powers That Be (of which Wikipedia is a follower, according to their own policy), and Wikipedia's reliable source policy.68.42.32.128 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to see some reference about this on the page since they have never stopped doing this and are notorious for it. Quillszz (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it provides information on a website that holds a unique niche in a market, it explains the purpose of a website. An innovative website happens to have an article about itself, does that warrant it's removal from wikipedia solely because it simultaneously markets the site. If so, delete the page on amazon. ) --98.116.127.217 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CD Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the news name

[edit]

Doesn’t seem encyclopedic to have a section “In the news”, kinda weird DemonDays64 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. They've been removed now Rayman60 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

taken from article and ELs

It doesn't read like an advertisement

[edit]

I see no discussion here supporting the notion that this article reads like an advertisement and in my opinion it doesn't. Removing tag. --Pgapunk (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Claim of Paid Editor Tag

[edit]

I see nothing in the article or on the talk page supporting the claim that someone was paid to create or edit this article. It reads from a neutral point of view. Removing tag. --Pgapunk (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pgapunk:, It's significantly cleaned up, but a little bit remains, for example the COMPANY exercised editorial discretion to infuse things about conference they host. Please see Special:Contributions/Chriscdbaby. The user name, and an involved party's employee or contractor to engage directly with corporate reputation management effort falls as COI editing, and undisclosed paid editing if it wasn't explicitly disclosed. While it maybe sourced, hands of the company should be having no direct editorial control of the article as such causes article to be presented in curated in the way they want it.Graywalls (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Conflicts of interest were involved in earlier edits. By the way, do you know why the "notable artist" section was removed? Pgapunk (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CDBaby's Customer Service In Decline

[edit]

I know an artist who has been trying for months, without success, to take over management of a deceased musician's account.

CDBaby has refused to respond to their requests, and CDBaby no longer provides any telephone number for urgent issues like this. They even anticipate heated responses to their irresponsible behavior, and give you an e-shrug and no commitment whatsoever to follow up on what is a vitally important legal issue for all the artists on this platform.

There is obviously a problem with this platform that needs to be repaired immediately, if struggling artists are to be respected. They claim to represent thousands of artists, but for the moment have left them flat. 108.28.26.101 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CD_Baby&oldid=1254763309"