Soundcloud has been developing quite a draconian reputation of late, with users complaining that their files are being deleted and accounts shut down. But this has just taken a sinister Big Brother-ish turn — it seems that Soundcloud has handed over the keys to the streaming kingdom and lets Universal Records delete what it wants, when it wants, and without recourse to the end user or Soundcloud.
SubFM DJ Mr. Brainz has been doing what so many DJs do and uploading his sets to Souncloud, and of course has incurred a couple of strikes on his account. On his third strike, he wrote to Soundcloud to find out what had happened. The reply is nothing short of scary for DJs, nay everyone:
It seems that Soundcloud has given the big labels the ability to shut down accounts and remove content without notice and without reason. So if you’ve paid cold hard cash for your account, then you’re shit out out of luck. Soundcloud are effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and pointing at someone else.
Now… uploading copyright infringing audio to Soundcloud is essentially bound to incur the wrath of the label, artist, or hosting platform. This I’m absolutely fine with, and wouldn’t expect anything else. But giving that level of access to a label is bang out of order, especially when someone has paid for a service. If it’s such an issue, then Universal should make it a legal issue and send a cease and desist letter, or leave it in the hands of Soundcloud. It’s the digital equivalent of vigilante justice, and carries the chance of being dished out in error too. It happens on Youtube all the time.
And what of the rest of the mix? What right does Universal have to shut down all the other potentially non-infringing music that’s in the mix? For me, it’s a complete cop-out from Soundcloud who would rather sit back and let the big boys dish out rough justice.
I smell a class action lawsuit brewing to be honest. Mr. Brainz should expect his stuff to be taken down, but by Soundcloud, and only after a final warning. Letting a third party do it feels untruly wrong. Consider a big can of worms well and truly opened.
Source: Digital Vertigo
Will be interesting to see how this plays out for producers dropping remixes of songs.
I can’t see there being any class action lawsuits here. When you sign up for Soundcloud you are agreeing to their TOS. I’m almost 100% positive that there is a clause in the TOS that allows this kind of action, no one would have recourse.
Even when purchasing the service, you aren’t purchasing more rights, you’re just purchasing more access to Soundcloud. Soundcloud has agreements with major labels so they can continue to exist, and you are beholden to those agreements. I’ve had mashups and mixes taken down from Soundcloud, and, well, that’s the way of things. You want to put mixes up, use a different service that does not have the same arrangements Soundcloud has.
a different service might mean much less plays, people use sc because it has more traffic therefore you get more attention. A diiferent service is cool but when nobody hears it then there is no point, and most ppl who make or remix or mix music are not super famous.
I agree 100%. But that isn’t Soundcloud’s problem. They are super successful because they have access to major record labels and the dance music their artists write. So, since that’s there, they are giving access to their files to be scanned and taken down.
Mixcloud doesn’t allow you to put up individual tracks, only mixes, and that’s their right as the provider. Soundcloud can demand that all content on their service is original and doesn’t violate any semblance of copyright. That’s what we sign up for. It sucks but it is what the situation is.
I have plenty of tracks I made myself on Mixcloud as well as mixes, so Mixcloud does allow you to put up individual tracks.
I had a a remix taken down even though the artist I “infringed” upon has acapellas for download on his soundcloud page plus DJ sets full of other people’s music. http://www.soundcloud.com/disgomusic Even stranger are guys that have had their own older tracks taken down from their soundcloud page because the indie label that released it is now owned by a major….and the artist no longer has rights to even promote his own music online. If the majors were smart they would monetize and incentivize, instead of stifling creativity. Soundcloud is not Youtube. Unless they plan to squeeze in adverts like the music streaming services, the focus is going to be on community and discovery (while charging fees to content creators), not passive consumption (with ads pushed to listeners). Stop the take downs, make a deal with the majors, and create a blanket license for derivative works…then just roll it into a paid version of soundcloud. DONE.
Just one more reason not to use soundcloud. There are other services out there that are much more DJ-friendly.
I had the same feelings when I read this at the weekend Mark. Soundcloud seriously are shooting themselves in the foot and giving control to the major record labels means they have effectively lost control of the site. Most DJ’s that have not already defected to a different services may well think twice. Also producers who use any sort of samples may also have to look out for law suits. Are they about to become the next Myspace of the internet?
This is nothing new. Two of my DJ mixes were taken down about 2 years ago by EMI Music Mexico. I didn’t upload a mix since then to Soundcloud and am using Mixcloud and Playfm instead.
Isn’t it a matter of time before the likes of Universal steam into every other Soundcloud/Mixcloud like sites and do precisely the same thing to all of therm?
But it’s written in the T&Cs when you sign up, so it should hardly come as a surprise.
However, bundling MixCloud into the same category may be unjust. If I recall, the reason MixCloud is different is they actually made an effort to cover the PRS/PPL licensing of music and the surrounding issues. Sounds like a more sustainable model to me.
It’s stated in a (slightly dated) article, here:
http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/mixcloud-founder-claims-service-can-be-a-piracy-beater
Of course…and with the whole Internet…it happened with radio…then with TV… rock …punk…grunge…EDM…but they are slow enough for us to find something new and exciting …I just hope we are able to continue finding :)
It has happened, same as always, Soundcloud started as an independent company that gave room to alternative music to show and expand, there’s no other way to start ,you can’t reach Universal or mainstream if you don’t have something big to offer already, so as always they build their company and their status using the underground but then when the big money showed they showed as well what their truly motivations where: MONEY …till the point that they gave mainstream labels the control over their clients, it’s always the same story but hell…it’s hard to get used to it when your only motivation it’s music as it’s my case…well.. I’m less angry this time, I think I’m starting to mature now :)
DJs, party it’s over, time to move to another place to up your mixes…I started to migrate to Mixcloud some weeks ago actually….$$$oundcloud
Well, no surprise here. This is the never ending evolution of things giving space for new ones to grow. If the Soundcloud dudes think they can get away with this by just pointing at their T&C, then I wish them good luck. By the end of this year, Soundcloud will be dead, fo’sho. And a new platform will rise (mixcloud?)
As for corporates, greed, the cycle of money etc. again nothing is surprising. The underground is an upward stream, continuously feeding the mainstream with new artists. The bait for someone to come out of the underground has always been money. We shouldn’t be fooling ourselves, everybody would enjoy a 50 grand pay for their music.
Yes it is annoying to have a whole mix taken down because of one track – but DJs should be aware of copyright and the legality (or otherwise) of working with music that belongs to someone else.
If you copy it (i.e. record it to a mix) you’ve broken the copyright. If you create an alternative version (remix it or blend it with other music) you’ve broken the copyright. If you upload it somewhere, you’ve broken the copyright again.
Just because you’re a DJ, you don’t have the right to do want you want with someone elses creation. Buying music doesn’t entitle you to make mixes with it and share it with people.
the copyright laws are a joke, a big joke of greed
when you are a DJ on a radio station you are allowed to play the most commercialized pop music ever made, so why when you are the same pop DJ and you play the same music on youtube or soundcloyd you are suddenly breaking copyright laws?
Music should be for everybody, and being played in a mix means recognition like the Demon Boyz said way back, recognitions means more ppl hear it, more potential buyers.
Radio stations are licensed to do so. They pay fees. So do companies like DMC that create original work from copyrighted material and resell it.
Put yourself in the shoes of the artists. If you had spent days/weeks/months/years recording and producing a track, then released it for sale so you could make a living – how would you feel if it only sold a few copies because someone had uploaded it to SoundCloud and distributed it for free?
I understand what you’re saying and agree artists should get paid for the music they make. What’s bad about this restriction is the ability for smaller labels and artists to be heard/found. I find tons of new music by listening to streaming sets. Music I would probably have never come across otherwise. Once I find a song by someone I like, I go buy it online from Beatport or iTunes and the artist gets paid. But if the medium for these unknown artists to be found is squelched (SoundCloud/MixCloud etc.), how are they going to get their music heard? They’ll need to buy expensive ads, which will rip what little money they might be making right out of their hands. All of this reeks of benefiting major labels (with tons of $$) and hurting independent/smaller labels in the process.
Tracks don’t need to be put in a mix and shared by a DJ to be heard. I hardly ever listen to mixes, and yet I still discover new music.
im not talking about individual tracks, im talking about mixes
back in the days DJs were mixing records on the stations, now they do it on sites like sc or mc..nobody is just uploading an individual track from somene else on their page, that would mean i upload a Lady Gaga track and claim it to be mine wich would be stealing.
Recording or producing a track these days is nothing special anymore, anybody can do it for cheap. Thats why most ppl can’t make a living out of it anymore, also the physical copies are not really selling unless youre famous.
To be honest idc about the money anymore, i make music for the love of it, who ever does it for the money is living in the wrong time, everything should be for free, get a real job like fixing planes or cars.
Everybody here is talking about mixes. When did anyone mention individual tracks?
So if uploading one Lady Gaga track is stealing, then surely uploading a whole BUNCH of tracks in a mix is an even worse case of stealing?
Everything should be free? OK in that case I’ll hire you to DJ at my event and I won’t pay you. How’s that? :-)
Woooow, Hip Hop would have gotten really far with your capitulating attitude. Copyright is a joke, and needs a serious overhaul.
I don’t get why you’d want to upload mixes to Soundcloud in the first place. You have to pay a pretty hefty amount to get more than 2 hours worth of mixes on there, while Mixcloud does it for free (albeit with adverts). I’m honestly quite surprised that Soundcloud is still a big platform for mixes, given the drawbacks compared to alternatives.
Dear iTunes Customer,
Your phone has notified us that sang “don’t stop believing” in the elevator yesterday, and since Carl, the janitor was there, as well, this constitutes a public performance, and since you were being paid to be there, you have infringed on the copyright. The 40000 bitcoin fine has been processed your bank account on file.
The same thing is slowly going down on MixCloud. I see it as an attack by major labels (Universal, BMI, etc.) to crush competition by smaller/independent music labels. MixCloud has a new policy in the US that if 3 or more songs by the same artist are in the posted mix, you cannot stream it. This include your own mix with all your own tracks! Last week I tried to listen to a Jesper Dahlback set that Jesper mixed using all his own tunes and posted to his own website, but I was forbidden to stream it in the US. This is not cool! The sets you can stream are crippled. You’re unable to see the set list and cannot backtrack through the mix. It seem like MixCloud has also sold their soul to major label devils.
Here’s part of MixCloud’s ‘explanation’: “In America Mixcloud has blanket music licences with SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI & SESAC. These licences stipulate certain rules around how you can listen to a service like Mixcloud:
– You cannot scrub or rewind backwards within a Cloudcast, only forward
As music lovers ourselves, we understand that this may be frustrating at times, and we hope that in the future the rules will evolve to be more open to new types of services like Mixcloud.
Totally turned off by all of this corporate BS :/
Late I know but when you stream Mixcloud just use a proxy to get around the US streaming quagmire; not perfect but short term it works.
Mixcrate. You can upload mixes and they are available for download too.
DJs used to popularize/promote songs years ago in clubs. That’s why they’ve been given promo tracks/vinyl to bring new songs to the masses who then go and buy the physical format. Nowadays that’s done by TV and Internet. So the message is clear – they don’t need DJs for this anymore. So they started to screw DJs who play their songs. Now expect them to start hunting in clubs… sweet.
I understand the copyright laws, but as a DJ, i pay for the songs I use in the club. The club pays all the fees for public play, Soundcloudgets a yearly fee from me for….uh, storage?
If I upload a mix to a site thats charging $100 a year for hosting my mixes, then should’t that fee represent the artists that Soundcloud is actually hosting? We all know it’s mashups, bootlegs, remixes. 90% of their stuff is illegal. So instead of knocking us little guys around and handing us over to the wolves, why not add a copyright fee so they can do a blanket label cash toss and let us post our music.
Then, if the labels are still butthurt because your mix is still too much awesome they have to send you the C&D WITHOUT just scrapping your account.
Hell, for $100 a year at Soundcloud, you can host your own tracks on your own site just as easily. If you’re a pro this should be your answer. You’re just making it easy for the vultures to round you all up. At least they have to dig thru the internet to find out who’s costing them pennies…
Labels: Full access to SoundCloud is ‘news to us’
http://www.newsbeatalpha.co.uk/alpha-442
Stupid DJs who can’t build their music from scratch like the real pros do ARE IDIOTS WHO DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR SHIT PULLED! Either license the samples, or do your own work. FIgure it out morons!
This is a tough discussion. There are too many hack DJs who do no work building tracks from scratch, and i have no empathy with them getting their garbage removed. Producers spend a lot of time making hit tracks, and if you don’t do that work, why should you benefit from it?
At the same time, DJs have always promoted and assisted hit songs in clubs, but it’s pretty clear, if the club buys the song, then a DJ can play it there. They don’t get to distribute it online for profit.
There’s a lot of stupid people who don’t understand the reason copyright law exists, and I’m sorry if you’re so unoriginal you don’t do anything from scratch, because if you did, you would also want it protected.