Talk:Jamendo

message: :Image:Logo-mauriz.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-mauriz.png

message: :Image:Logo-mauriz.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Logo-mauriz.png

message: I just found on this site that there are not 4000+ artists as the infobox says but "only" about 3550 artists represented in Jamendo (as of november 2007), whereas that page says something about 337259 artists. So there seem to be some inconsistencies both within Jamendo and between Jamando and Wikipedia. Anybody an idea how to deal with this? - Torstenphilipp (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamendo publishes dumps with artists, albums and tracks details. A simple analysis of the database can give the exact numbers. emijrp (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats in the info box 

message: Using the last database (2010-12-18), these are the results:
>>> f=open('db', 'r')
>>> raw=f.read()
>>> import re
>>> len(re.findall('<artist>', raw))
22344
>>> len(re.findall('<album>', raw))
42554
>>> len(re.findall('<track>', raw))
270975
I'm going to update the infobox. emijrp (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010-12-18 

message: "Some consider this irrelevant, since there is no quality control and to find 'good' music, one might have to sift for hours." -- IP 85.166.238.16
::: What is good music? You like Jazz, I like Rock, etc... And Jamendo site has rating system, ordering of albums by number of downloads and by number of playlists which include the song. So, it's not too difficult {only for me? :)} to find good music ("good" from my point of view) at Jamendo. -- AKA MBG (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'good' music 

message: Can we improve the article by adding examples of well-known bands, who upload albums on Jamendo? 95.56.169.16 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of notable bands 

message: For some reason, it was tagged as lacking notability. Jamendo is pretty well-known I'd say. It has been mentioned many places, for instance, TorrentFreak.com a few times, and it has a huge user-base. I can't imagine why someone would try to get it deleted for lack of notability. Makes no sense to me. Deleet (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reinstated it due to lack of verifiability. Notability cannot be established by hearsay, you need to provide actual cites by independent reliable sources. See WP:NRVE. Right now, of all the cites, we have Alexa ranking which like google doesn't count to establish notability, one blog post which doesn't count as a reliable source, and one Radio interview, which is not enough coverage to call significant (I could easily dig up radio interviews with some of my relatives, that doesn't make the pass WP:BIO).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, we've got ourselves a bureaucrat here. How nice. 'hiding' behind the usual rules. I wonder what would happen to Wikipedia if people actually followed your advice. We would need to delete half the encyclopedia. Oh well. I can't be bothered to convince you, so I'll just remove it again in the future and hope you don't notice. Deleet (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

text:  Jamendo claims to have "12,000 customers worldwide" and "has redistributed several hundred thousands of euros to its artists" according to their latest blog post here. But I guess that source wouldn't count due to being "self-published", right? Does anyone have other sources to support those numbers? Also, Jamendo gets mentioned right after iTunes in this 2012 Hadopi report as a platform "promoting responsible use". There's also a very detailed case study article on Jamendo here, but I guess due to being a wiki page it again does not count. Is an archive.org mirror a suitable way to verify the existence of a notable amount of more than 50000 Creative Commons licensed albums? And official Jamendo staff or artists regularly participate at music events, like: Midem, all2gethernow, Open World Forum, MaMA. And here's an excellent article about Jamendo on torrentfreak.com from July 2011. --Tddt (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the notability tag 

message: As far as I know Jamendo has removed its advertising revenue model completely. Its main revenue is through JamendoPRO now, which was launched in 2008. --Tddt (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business model section - outdated 

message: The official bittorrent distribution support on jamendo.com is defunct for quite a while now. OGG files are still available via their API and via various browser addons, but working, direct OGG downloads via their website are again not available for quite a while. --Tddt (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has also long since removed the ability to search by license. It has pretty much become another label. 75.167.87.218 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bittorrent defunct, OGG status uncertain 

message: Why is this considered a BitTorrent website? BreakingMad (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It provided a tracker in the past. --AVRS (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website type 

message: https://twitter.com/Jamendo/status/979369577044938752
"Only 6% of our tracks are under CC-BY. As a private individual, you can download & stream for free, without any ads, all the music of our catalog. In the meantime, artists earn revenue by licensing their music to professionals. It seems pretty fair for everyone :)"
2600:1014:B11B:2937:7CBF:7F4B:120D:CD84 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent statistic allegation