I was doing what I generally do on a Monday, uploading the weekly MashupMondays. Suddenly this happened:

Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:35 PM
Reply-To: SoundCloud <[email protected]>
To: (mail redacted)

“Hi there,
We contacted you recently to let you know that we’d received a report of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, because you were unable to show that you have the rights to upload this track, we’ve had to issue a strike against your account.
What’s a strike?
A strike is a warning. We issue a strike whenever someone makes a claim of copyright infringement against content in your account that is not successfully disputed.
You have two strikes. As a result, you can continue to use SoundCloud, but will no longer be able to make tracks available for download from your account. Important: If you receive a third strike, your SoundCloud account will be terminated in accordance with our Terms of Use.
OK, what happens next?
To avoid any further strikes against your account, please be careful not to upload any tracks for which you don’t have the necessary rights, and remove any other tracks you do not own the rights to from your profile.
Copyright infringement is a serious matter, which can carry civil and criminal penalties as well as being damaging to artists and songwriters. We expect all SoundCloud users to respect other people’s copyright. To learn more about copyright, please visit our copyright information page and see our Help Center articles.
If you think we’ve made a mistake in issuing this strike, please get in touch with our Copyright Team.
Thank you,
The SoundCloud Copyright Team”

After years and thousands spent on obtaining music legally I get told I’m a pirate? Not to mention all the work I’ve uploaded after the past 4 years will just vanish due to one claim? Trying to use reverse psychology when I’m paying you to upload to your platform when other, bigger platforms offer it for free? Not smart.

At this rate, this platform will become talk radio and a mirror for the podcast.

Mixcloud and youtube might just move from being mirror content hosts to primary for my mixes.

Now this article is starting to ring true more and more.

 

Seems more than harsh when only one allegedly infringing work causes the entire output to be restricted. What happens if you remove the one and only track that got flagged as unacceptable?

 

Can we stop this butthurt every single kid who does hands up remixes with shit downloaded off youtube has? You bought the track to listen to. Nobody said you can do random crap out of it. Shut up and deal with it. If you want to make music, make it yourself. And if you want to just DJ then get off soundcloud. You're not a DJ if you just upload random mixes to the internet. Go out to a club and fucking play there.

 

Are you talking to me Qrchack? If so. Wow. Quite a harsh comment from someone who doesn't know if I DJ at clubs or not? Hmmm. You wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning maybe?

 

DarthFader. The track was removed a week before I received this mail so yeah. I'm slightly confused.

 

"we DJs"
lol

 

Hahah Mostwest. I should probably not use a plural.

 

Don't upset the DJs man. The revolution is coming, they are many. We must produce more so the DJs can play on their channels serious shit. Enough with talking, I go to make some trap drops right now, fuck the rest of the song, they need the drops man!!
This shit is serious, go now all of you and make some drops, trap if possible or 3 chord EDM. They need new shit because Soundcloud is evil and ban mixtapes!!!

 

Brilliaint muciones! Hahaha! The drop man, the drop!

 

Mixcloud is great and I use it to host mixes, too. It's just sad that it doesn't offer the amount of exposure soundcloud does.
I deleted my mixes off soundcloud a while ago since soundcloud is my #1 plattform to reach my audience, I didn't want to jeopardize all the years and effort of building a following by thinking I'm above the rules.
Maybe 15 years ago some bedroom djs sold their mix cds on ebay, of course without clearing the rights beforehand. Ebay banned that practice, because in the end they would be held liable. Now with soundcloud, it's the same.
Every single person who puts music out without clearing rights puts soundcloud's neck in the noose - they are accountable for what happens on their platform.
Long story short: don't shit on the table you dine from.

 

Thank you fraifikmushi. The clarification puts it into perspective. Does mixcloud allow for mashups also or only for mixes.

 

Respectfully, they are not as far as infringing uploads. The uploading party is as clearly stated in their user agreement. The thing is that UMG and Sony have threatened Soundcloud with a liabillity suit if they do not actively enforce infringement of some of their artists work and they were missing out on 'revenue' due to bootleg remixes and djmixes. Soundcloud complied simply because winding up in such a lawsuit would be a huge added unnecesary cost and overhead. There was also the outlook of Twitter buying the site and they wanted to have a clean standing. Bizniz as usual. check & check.
Copyright maffia hard at work. Cheers. Mixcloud is a great alternative for ful length mixes.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2016

regardless, soundlcoud's stream quality is horse shit. You shouldn't be streaming your creations through that service.

 

Yes, and no. There are two different claims. In theory, the copyright holder files a claim against soundcloud for infringement. Soundcloud then files a claim against the perp a.k.a. user for breach of contract (user agreement) and possibly damages.
The fact that it doesn't happen that way is the result of negotiations and the result of soundcloud furnishing prima facie evidence that they determine and enforce rules in favor of the original copyright holder by means of the user agreement, as you pointed out.

 

Soundcloud: Presenting your *own* tracks as producer
Mixcloud: Pesenting your mixes as DJ (besides: every time a user plays your mix, the music creators get some money!)
Hearthis: Both of the above!

 

Nop. Soundcloud simply forwards or directly enforces the the claim of the 'suposed' infringement by refering to their user agreement with a three strike policy taking down the track or mix in question. After which if breached three times by suposed infringement the account will be taken down / closed. If they choose to do so they can forward the infringing partys' information to the rightsholding company ie. UMG / Sony for them to take further steps which could result in a suit, which could then result in a claim for damages for revenues lost. In practice this doesn't happen unless it is provable beyond reasonable doubt that the infringing party profited significally financially by the infringement in question.
Hope that helps. Cheers!

 

Well, not really. The only reason Mixcloud gets away with hosting mixes is that everyone keeps talking about SoundCloud so that's why all the companies strike it with copyright claims.

 

Absolutely, and I'd like to add to that, that Mixcloud has a system in place which provides most of the titles to the tracks used / played in a mix hereby crediting the original copyrightholder and somehow providing a 'fair use' service like YT and soundcloud does not.

 

Wrong.
Mixcloud has a partnership with Juno Download. Check this:

Code:

https://blog.mixcloud.com/2011/11/07/mixcloud-and-juno-download-team-up-to-improve-music-identification-for-radio/

(to forum admin: When pasting a link to the blog page of mixcloud generates a WRONG preview and a wrong link overall. That's why I had to use the CODE brackets. Please fix!)

All tracks using in the mix are analyzed and named/linked when possible. You can buy tracks right out of the mix. Furthermore, the creators in the mix are getting paid when their music is played. I already got royalties out of mixcloud mixes.
That means: Your mixes on Mixcloud will (usually) not getting banned/censored/restricted/deleted

 

The thing is that it's not your music. DJs have a bad habit of using phrases like "my music". There's a difference between playing and mangling other peoples songs at will -vs- recording it and uploading it in the form of a "production" to a site that allows people to solicit their music and you have no permission. Better than to say "This is why we DJs don't use Soundcloud" you could say it's why DJs in an under privileged position don't use Soundcloud.

 

Last edited: May 24, 2016