Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

Matt, stop it. John's about to turn the lights off FFS.

Once you go FLAC. You never go back.

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

smallman1 wrote:
Unbroken1 wrote:

..did a 'Kalami Bay'-themed mix a couple of years back Ed


Any Demis Roussos remixes on there?

'When there's life to be lived - and God Damnit I've lived it'
Dogmong 2017

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

erik.b wrote:
MattBlack wrote:

Has anyone tried Mixcrate yet?

Ask Munkyn I think he does

never used it erik...I have account...never ventured into mixcrate..don't have any experience of it

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

Looks like Jody Wisternoff has fallen foul of Soundclouds copyright rules and had his account terminated

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

marcus wrote:

That article is utter bobbins written by someone who clearly has no understanding of copyright. To simply brush it aside as the top of the article misses the point entirely.

The problem isn't Soundcloud, it's sharing a mix that contains however many tracks who's copyright belongs to the producer and / or label on any download platform. By rights of the law you should either get permission or pay a license a la any commercial project. If another downloadable mix platform rises (should SC fail in the near future) the majors will simply put that in their cross-hairs. The issue lies with legality not the parts of the sharing / distribution jigsaw.

And didn't Soundcloud start life as a platform / showcase for unsigned music? It got hijacked by DJs and mixes due to its functionality so I'm sure they'll be happy to roll forward in a remit closer to their original conception if it does ever become a widespread issue.

Well said. Any idea what the big record companies might be loosing in sales or dollars due to SC djs?

Wish I was old and a little sentimental.

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

I think this maybe closer to the truth … casualties

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

Jodie Wisternoff

Doesn't mess with the classics.

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

I think the other problem here is genre. Underground dance labels don't mind their tracks in mixes because they are mostly marketing to prosumers who are more likely to jump on a prosumer site like Beatport and purchase as a result. It's all good exposure to them.

The majors are obviously more commercial and figure it differently; that even if it's part of a mix once a consumer has it it's a sale lost. Not to mention a license fee gone a begging.

They also deal in sweeping policy that is applied across all genres under their umbrella. For the most part they don't sit down and say, "Let's let all dance content on SC slide because that's more in keeping with how that genre works." If it's an infringement, then it's an infringement. They're massively dogmatic. There's probably a very strong argument they should adopt a more 'indie' approach in this modern landscape, but it ain't gonna happen.

SC should be paying royalties on copyright material, that much is correct, the issue is how to police what's unsigned artist owned music and what isn't. I guess it should adopt some form of metadata submission on upload as YouTube does.

Re: Another nail in Soundclouds coffin?

Wonder if Marcus ever paid by the Wild in the Country money?