Mp3 Juice is the most popular free mp3 search engine tool and music downloader, is very popular. MP3 Juice is a great tool to convert and download youtube videos and music. The Mp3 Juice website is the best way to quickly and easily download mp3 music. Its simplicity makes Mp3juice easy to use, so anyone can search for and download high-quality audio files
This website offers unlimited downloading of youtube music and Mp3 juice song free download in HD quality. You can also click "PLAY" to play the audio file before you download it. Mp3juices take only 2-5 seconds to convert and download audio files.
The mp3juices website has no viruses and is completely safe to use. It's also a great alternative to paid mp3 music downloading tools. Mp3juice can be accessed in many languages. You can use it to convert your YouTube videos to mp3 format.
You can access this free mp3 download website online via an internet connection or WiFi. Bookmark this website to make it easy to access on a regular basis. Once you have downloaded the audio file, open it in any audio player to listen offline in high-quality.
MP3 juice music is easy to navigate through and provides a simple interface for downloading the audio. You might be wondering why people prefer mp3juices to get mp3 juice for free. This tool provides high-speed audio downloads, and users don't need to give any personal information.
I am a very strong beleiver that fair use images of living people should be permitted but the rationale altered to encourage a replaceable image to be restored immeditely if found. I have added fair use images of many living people where it is not always likely a free image will become available and it really is a very important part of the article to physically identify the subject particularly when it is an image for such media coverage anyway- but certain wikilawyers delete them even though a fair use rationale is give. Taking away the photo seriuosly affects the qulaity of the article and takes away a valuable info resource. While I do also agree with the concept of freeness, I do also take the quality of wikipedia as an encyclopedia very seriously and anything whiches compromises the qulaity of knowledge I disagree with. I suggest that the tagging is changed to this image must be deleted immeditely when a free image becomes available. THis way the article will always have the resource but will encourage a replaceable image to be found. As wikipedia grows I hope there will be a branch which specializes in the search for free images for use on wikipedia. In response to Big DT of course Wikipedia shoudln't be an archive of promotional photos. Images should be used to imrove the qulaity of an article only and identify the subject described certainly not for some archiveErnst Stavro Blofeld 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is horrifyingly bad proposal which would reverse one of the healthiest trends in the history of Wikipedia at the very moment when major successes are being had every single day. We should NOT rely on promotional images under unclear license conditions for a number of reasons. First, we are powerful enough now to demand, and get, freely licensed promotional images. This proposal undermines our credibility in making such demands. Second, we undercut all the flickr-types who are very very happily trying to create freely licensed alternatives. Many photographers report that it is a lot of fun to see an article improve from no picture, to *their* picture (freely licensed), and disheartening when people whine about not being able to use the professional photo, licensing be damned.
Copyrighted promotional photographs of living people (including bands) may be used in articles about those people if no free alternative photograph is available and the photograph complies with all other fair use criteria. When a free image becomes available it should replace the copyrighted promotional photograph as explained by the first dot point.
This would still permit deletion any time a "free alternative photograph" is available, which is true in most cases. Many of the supporters of this proposal express a desire to use fair-use promo photos in cases where there is no free alternative photograph of similar quality. If that's really what we're debating here, then the proposed wording should reflect that. Perel 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously, what's the big deal about this? There is nothing in this that would mean that we do not prefer free pictures - in fact, the policy pretty much explicitly says that when a free image becomes available, it automatically replaces the copyrighted picture, without even some minimal guidelines about the adequacy of the free image, which I would prefer. The only difference, then, from current policy, is in the issue of whether a fair use image of a living person is replaceable. The current interpretation of policy seems to assume that pretty much every fair use image of a living person is replaceable, except perhaps under certain circumstances (recluses, people most famous for how they looked at a given point in their career), although even this latter doesn't seem to be agreed to by many of those against these changes. The proposed change would do the opposite, and assume that photos of living people are not replaceable until an alternative is actually found. While I'd suggest that perhaps we could come up with a more nuanced policy (Daniel Case's suggestions over at Wikipedia:Replaceability of fair-use images strikes me as probably better), it seems to me that this is much closer to reality than the current assumptions. Getting a picture of a living individual is not at all like getting a picture of a make of car, or a building, or a video game system. The first and last exist in many, many copies. The second exists only in one place, but is generally going to be easily accessible to anybody in the vicinity to take a picture. This isn't true for any living person. There are some, like US politicians, who will always have public domain pictures. But the idea that it is easy for wikipedians to take photographs of living people is ridiculous. So is the claim that we can easily get people to release photographs under GFDL or some other free licensing arrangement. In both cases, this may be true, and we should of course try to do so, but there's no reason to assume a priori that either of these things is possible.
The proposal might be inappropriate, but the large interest in this proposal indicates that something needs to be changed to clarify the matter for the rank and file editors. I believe that the first fair use criterion needs to be clearer on why it is so fundamental to Wikipedia. Based on the above, it appears that the fundamental goals of the first fair use criterion are (i) the ability to request and receive images from copyright holders due to Wikipedia's reputation from its high copyright standards and (ii) the future position of having copyright holders spontaneously provide image content to topics that they are involved in due to Wikipedia's reputation from its high copyright standards. The first fair use criterion needs to be revised to make it clear that the purpose of the first fair use criterion is to further these fundamental goals. A proposed revision Always use a more free alternative if one is available. In the collective, this will work towards encouraging copyright holders to spontaneously provide their content to Wikipedia, which is a fundamental goal of Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 16:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 2b1af7f3a8