Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

shaunstrudwick wrote:

right - this is a very 'strudders' question but...

if I've purchased the track do I own the rights?

lol

"I am the fucking club" - Flares 19.03.14

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

In the case of Soundcloud I think the major issue is the download function, not the streaming.

And as for the copyright protection systems, well they're all far from perfect. But there is a LOT of content out there and nailing a unified, industry standard programme/algorhthym to perfectly pick this apart is next to impossible. In most cases however a take down comes about from a complaint from the copyright owner, which in turn arises from their discovering it. This is usually down to nothing more complicated than a good old Google alert. You want to increase the chances of keeping a mix live, don't post a full tracklist, it's a huge 'come and find me' flare in the sky.

Finally, the tone of this thread continues to be that people like SC are arseholes for getting to grips with copyright law, when they are actually in the right (you may not like it, but that's a fact). Yet, in other points in this thread, not to mention others on this board, people bemoan the fact no one is making money and the industry struggles to viably maintain itself. Anyone else see the irony at work here? Soundcloud begin taking steps to protect artist rights and they're slammed. The old cliche of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' leaps to mind.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Royal Male wrote:
vinnyt77 wrote:

I don't know what I'm doing right, but I've never had any of my mixes queried or taken down, despite not using any sort of overdub at the beginning of the first track... Intro tracks do tend to be something beatless and floaty though - would that confuse the recognition software?

The mixes have to have more than 3 listens before they take them down.

Which all of the mixes I have on my page at the moment do...

Last edited by vinnyt77 (Thursday Jul 2014 23:55:16)

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

marcus wrote:

In the case of Soundcloud I think the major issue is the download function, not the streaming.

And as for the copyright protection systems, well they're all far from perfect. But there is a LOT of content out there and nailing a unified, industry standard programme/algorhthym to perfectly pick this apart is next to impossible. In most cases however a take down comes about from a complaint from the copyright owner, which in turn arises from their discovering it. This is usually down to nothing more complicated than a good old Google alert. You want to increase the chances of keeping a mix live, don't post a full tracklist, it's a huge 'come and find me' flare in the sky.

Finally, the tone of this thread continues to be that people like SC are arseholes for getting to grips with copyright law, when they are actually in the right (you may not like it, but that's a fact). Yet, in other points in this thread, not to mention others on this board, people bemoan the fact no one is making money and the industry struggles to viably maintain itself. Anyone else see the irony at work here? Soundcloud begin taking steps to protect artist rights and they're slammed. The old cliche of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' leaps to mind.

Yes Marcus, but the only reason Soundcloud do this is they're scared if getting sued, they don't pay any royalties and with the money they make from their subscriptions maybe it's time they did

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

That's not entirely true Matt, copyright is copyright, it doesn't matter whether SC pay royalties or not, they could still be sued if they're allowing people to download copyright material without permission. They are undoubtedly two entirely separate issues from a legal perspective since the copyright objection from labels regards ownership of the recording itself, whilst the royalties SC should be paying mainly relate to the mechanical / publishing side of things.

On the subject of them not paying, well, they're still technically classed as a start-up and are investing way beyond what they generate. Their CEO acknowledged they're moving toward monetisation and mechanical payments will need to be addressed in a recent article so they're not trying to avoid the issue or act outside of precedent here. iTunes didn't pay mechanical royalties for years, took it to court and ended up paying back way less than they should, yet where would the industry be today without them? Give SC the time they need to get sorted and move into profit and it will be a huge asset to the industry.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

What happened to people making music for the love of it as opposed to making music for financial gain?

When I play......no dog barks!!!!

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

marcus wrote:

Finally, the tone of this thread continues to be that people like SC are arseholes for getting to grips with copyright law, when they are actually in the right (you may not like it, but that's a fact). Yet, in other points in this thread, not to mention others on this board, people bemoan the fact no one is making money and the industry struggles to viably maintain itself. Anyone else see the irony at work here? Soundcloud begin taking steps to protect artist rights and they're slammed. The old cliche of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' leaps to mind.

Marcus, if you're referring to my post about no money to be made, I was saying that Soundcloud's route isn't the answer to me.  I don't bemoan Soundcloud because they're obligated to comply to copyright law.  I just think they could do a better job at it and turning said 'violations' into a stream to be heard instead of downloaded.  Mixcloud's whole existence lies upon the fact that you can't grab content directly from the site, therefore copyright claims are negligible.  I think the problem lies in the fact that a lot of people have had stuff pulled down after it being there for ages.

In this day and age of content streams, I as an artist want my stuff heard as much as possible to help increase exposure, so seeing it being taken down from something that's in a DJ mix isn't something I'd want.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Nick Sneddon wrote:

What happened to people making music for the love of it as opposed to making music for financial gain?

Poor artists, less music and I dare say less quality music.  Artists have a right to live decently as well in my eyes. I think it's a misnomer that artists have always done things for the love.  I personally started making music for the love, but once I woke up that the love of music wasn't going make a living for me, I did my best to monetize my love so I could survive.  I think any person who loves what they do naturally tries and turns it into a living because it's what they want to do for the rest of their lives.

Art is an investment in culture.  In order to invest in that, artists have to find a way to live sustainably so they can further contribute back to their art.  Less income means less time working on their art and more time scrounging to get by - whether that be working in a crappy job or some other industry.

The obvious issue with musicians and a lot of other areas of art is that the advent of digital content has removed a lot of their revenue streams and they have to find new and more innovative ways of earning a living.  Thus, so you see things like crowd funding websites asking to produce albums, fund studios, etc., people having to tour as much as possible, meet and greets with fans for extra ticket prices and so forth.   A lot of an artists life is spent further away from them actually doing what they do best - art - and more time spent pushing themselves to the public in whatever way they possibly can to help maintain their existence as an artist.

Last edited by loopdokter (Friday Aug 2014 09:08:22)

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

..I've had mashups/bootlegs pulled by Soundcloud, and they've only ever been streamable

soundcloud.com/unbroken1

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

I think a lot of the problems is second release labels trying to throw their weight.

I got 3 of my mixes pulled down in one hit, one of them had been up for months already, and all the tracks were Maceo/Maetrik tracks.
I asked Eric about it on facebook and he basically said 'Fucking annoying as I want my stuff to be played by as many people as possible, I make my music in the hope people will get to hear it and like it.'
Turns out another label had bought the rights to put it out again as a new release on some comp or ep they were releasing, it was that label that caused the issue with Soundcloud.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Stay underground lads. Its the only way.

------------
I am STILL a child of the 80s mix: https://soundcloud.com/themills23/i-am- … of-the-80s

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

millsy23 wrote:

Stay underground lads. Its the only way.


I am staying underground, only got 400 followers!!! sad

Edit: Oh, you mean with tunage.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

1. Don't pay for a premium account
2. Don't post a tracklist
3. Start the mix with something from a scifi movie.
4. Stop moaning, it's free.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

marcus wrote:

Smashdad, the issue isn't Soundcloud here, it's uploading content you don't own the rights to, which is what areas of the industry are waking up to. OK, it took them six years, but that's been six glorious years of freedom. The reason SC can't stick it, or stand-up to any label that can prove ownership of a track is because they simply don't have a leg to stand on. And they didn't open the box or create this problem; as I said in the other thread, it was designed as a showcase for unsigned artists and bands and got hijacked by DJs and producers due to it's functionality.

With respect mate, regardless of the broader issues you address, this thread specifically places those issues in the context of Soundcloud so I would suggest Soundcloud IS the issue here...

With regard to 'content you don't own the rights to' - much of the music I bought in the 1980s came with the skull and crossbones logo and 'Home taping is killing music' legend plastered on the packaging.  That was clearly a lie then and it's no more accurate now.  The fact is taping an early Westwood show from LWR and sharing the cassette with all your mates at school to copy so they had all the latest hip hop tunes did nothing to harm the fledgling hip hop scene in this country - in fact I'd suggest it was largely responsible for blowing it up to the size it achieved.  The same goes for the hundreds of thousands of bootleg, illegal, mix-tapes and cds from the early rave scene - they played a HUGE part in popularising the nascent scene and opened the floodgates for the £Ms that followed.


marcus wrote:

Yes, you're right, the dance community does, for the most part, tolerate use of tracks as part of a mix because within this genre it works as a marketing tool, but that doesn't make it legal. It only takes one label in a mix of, say, fifteen tracks to complain and the whole thing obviously has to come down. And yes, you're right, people will migrate away from Soundcloud, the only reason we're debating them is because it is currently the market leader and therefore the one in the spotlight on both sides of the fence - label and consumer; but don't fool yourself to thinking the majors will only be picking on SC right now, they'll be searching hard for an industry wide solution to the problem (as they see it).

You're right to agree with me - 'the dance community' not only 'tolerates' use of their tracks as part of a mix but actively goes out of its way to encourage it.  I helped run a very small label ten years ago and a significant chunk of our costs went in making and mailing free, promo, copies of our tunes to DJs in the hope that they'd use them in a mix - preferably one that was broadcast somewhere... 

Explain to me how Soundcloud is different, in ANY way, to be-at.tv and/or Boiler Room - to pick but two examples?  If I wanted to I can stream the output of both/either, run it through my set-up, record it to my hard-drive, edit out the bits I don't want and then use the edited data in a mix.  Can't I?!  Kids routinely make relatively high quality audio rips direct from record labels' official You Tube channels.  To all intents and purposes there is no difference between streaming only and/or making downloads available - the 'workaround' is too obvious and too fucking easy to argue otherwise.

I'll tell you where the difference does exist though - Soundcloud has jumped into bed with Universal in preparation for selling themselves for £millions. 

It is (the) Universal (music group) who are behind the almost all the takedown threats.  And it typical, traditional, music industry fashion they're making an absolute fucking mess of it.  I know a fella (as plenty on here also do) who's been running his own labels for 10+ years and adopted Soundcloud when it came along as a fantastic tool for hosting promo material of his label's releases and spreading its popularity.  And it worked.  So he kept doing it.  In recent weeks he's received 'take down' emails for 75% of his own label's uploaded promo clips! 

Soundcloud's audio recognition technology is shit and basically not fit for purpose.  All the while though they continue to take money out of the accounts of small label owners who are trying to promote their own music but being denied the service they've paid for.


marcus wrote:

So, if they do succeed (and I admit the premise is based on an industry wide lock down on unlicensed content being used in mixes), how could demand for properly licensed product not increase? I'm not convinced they will be able to get the genie back in the bottle in its entirety, I kinda agree with you there too, but then they may not have to, the average consumer is nothing like as musically enlightened as the members of this board.

Mate, the 'average music consumer' has never even heard of Soundcloud.  It is a hugely esoteric thing and the likes of you and I are all very much aware of it etc etc etc but the reality is it's more or less insignificant.  Which, in my opinion, simply magnifies the pointlessness of this whole 'takedown' purge.  If you'll forgive my confused metaphor, Universal are randomly wielding a huge sledgehammer to protect their tiny nuts. 

I could link you to umpteen examples of DJs/producers/artists who have initially given away their work on Soundcloud, built up an intense, focussed and loyal following who now buy pretty much everything they upload 'stream only' clips of.  The business model of giving away relatively small amounts of product to gain much wider popularity for that product is proven beyond any doubt.

And God forbid we ever fall back to a situation of a small cabal of major-label sponsored DJs putting out the only available dance music mixes - like it was rapidly becoming in the early '00s.  That could signal the death of countless small labels, the end of umpteen fledgling production careers and would be a disaster for the scene.

Last edited by smashdad (Friday Aug 2014 15:02:29)

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Big Fella wrote:

1. Don't pay for a premium account
2. Don't post a tracklist
3. Start the mix with something from a scifi movie.
4. Stop moaning, it's free.

I have paid for a premium account.
I have 36 mixes online currently - probably somewhere around 600 different tracks 'in the mix'.
All my mixes are tracklisted.
On two or three occasions I've needed to overdub a 30 second 'intro' to fool the detection software.
I've never (yet?) had a mix taken down.
My subscription runs out in 6 weeks or so - not yet decided about renewing.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

..its when the producers of Bladerunner start getting litigious we all have to worry

soundcloud.com/unbroken1

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

either way all my mixes have gone (not that I had many plays or likes) and my account will be removed shortly...definitely going undeground...will still post them on twatbook should I feel the urge, otherwise alternate locations will be posted here

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii178/Segmentrecords/imagejpg1_zpsc705861c.jpg

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Unbroken1 wrote:

..its when the producers of Bladerunner start getting litigious we all have to worry

haha

When I play......no dog barks!!!!

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

I think for 24 euros a  year i will try out the premium side of hearthis https://hearthis.at/premium/

Last edited by munkyn (Saturday Aug 2014 02:06:12)

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

Each time, I ask the artist, they say thanks for the support, I dispute the case with a quote from the artist, tick a few boxes saying I accept responsibility for copyright infringement and within a few days the mix is back.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

MarcusGraham wrote:

Each time, I ask the artist, they say thanks for the support, I dispute the case with a quote from the artist, tick a few boxes saying I accept responsibility for copyright infringement and within a few days the mix is back.

Its not usually the artist that makes the complaint, its usually the label as they are the ones who own the copyright

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

MattBlack wrote:

Its not usually the artist that makes the complaint, its usually the label as they are the ones who own the copyright

Won every dispute so far with this method... I tend not to buy any Sony owned tracks.

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

MarcusGraham wrote:
MattBlack wrote:

Its not usually the artist that makes the complaint, its usually the label as they are the ones who own the copyright

Won every dispute so far with this method... I tend not to buy any Sony owned tracks.


thanks Marcus, however its a done deal mate...soundcloud is gone  as far as I am concerned now....contrarianism continues

Re: Anyone disputed Soundcloud copyright take down

munkyn wrote:

I think for 24 euros a  year i will try out the premium side of hearthis https://hearthis.at/premium/

While currently great, they're a young Soundcloud that will likely head down the same route once it has a similar user base as Soundcloud.  I suspect they're currently not registering on the radar of the content types who are nagging Soundcloud.