More infos:
http://pulseradio.net/articles/2014/07/universal-music-reported-to-directly-remove-soundcloud-content

 

The way things are going soon there will be copy right on thoughts

 

wow good read. post your music on a shareware site. easier to viral

 

I don't see what the problem is.

You can't just use any music you want on a radio show. Yes, I know, music should be free, "greedy corporations" etc. But how does that work out when he wants to make money off his shows? He doesn't want to pay a license for the music so he wants to make more money than he would if he had paid for a license. I don't see how this guy is any different from "greedy corporations" since he just wants to pocket more than he would if he had paid for a license.

Pot calling the kettle black is all I see here.

I'm going to go a step further and say the guy is a big dickhead for going an listing other people's shows and trying to take them down with him. :/

 

Has anyone ever read '1984'? It's happening....

 

Copyright laws are there for a reason, he knew what he was doing.

 

Really? What could that reason be? If he didn`t know doing so, would it changed anything?
And the law is saving us from our animalistic nature? Lawyers are the guardians of civilization?
To say it frankly "Fuck the System".

 

My friend recently signed with Universal/Republic ... his stuff is still up LOL

 

Imagine if you would make an original beat from scratch and post it on soundcloud without copyrighting it and you end up with your song removed from soundcloud with no reason message or anything and the next week you see Wiz Khalifa releasing a song with an instrumental extremely similar with the song that just made a week ago which got removed, but this time they copyrighted it to their advantage and if you try to say anything against them, you just don't have enough lawyers as they have or proofs, or you just can't even afford a lawyer or court exspenses.

This could be a way of forced ghost producing without your consent and they also didn't even paid you a buck for it. So be careful with soundcloud, always manage to copyright anything originally made by you.

At first sight, it doesn't look like anything wrong, but if some of their signed artists/producers gets a "producer block", they'll get inspiration from the unwise and unfamous artists they randomly found on SoundCloud. -_-

 

this whole thing about copyright will remail an issue for the next decade, I think...
If you put it all into the proper perspectives, it all ain't so strange.
Copyright lies with the maker(s) of an original work. The maker can carry over the rights to exploit musical works (a.k.a. songs) to a record company. They specialize in this and manufacture sound carriers (physical CD's or digital files these days) In other words, a maker lends the right to exploit his/her music on a sound carrier for a specific amount of time (20 years in general) these rights allow a record company mechanical reproduction of the music that is subject to it, and they invest money into it, pay people that work for them an income. Business as anything else in society. In return the maker/artist gets a royalty fee of every sold product (sound carrier) so still nothing strange about that. Record companies defending their business and income is nothing strange either. A grocer will object to it when you take his merchandise without payment and give it away to any passing person on the corner of the street too, let alone selling it and making money that way with stuff you didn't pay for.
Anyone will flip when someone decides to step into your house and take stuff to use themselves or even worse, sell it to a next person to make a living that way...don't you?
Why is it that when a record company speaks out strongly, the whole world is judging them and calling them greedy moneygrabbing bastards??? Are all those that report a theft or a burglary greedy moneygrabbers too?? following the line of thoughts so oftenly expressed, they would be. When you get robbed or got burglared you can step to the authority and file charges. The law even protects you in it. The system does. This is different with copyright. Although it's a law, there is not really anyone or anything to turn to to let it stop or to file a complaint to begin with.
The argument that making money with a business model like that is ancient and no longer of today is totally irrelevant. If someone decides to go and make a living as a blacksmith then that's a legit choice, none of anyone's business.(it could be I missed out on the messages and forums that suggest to ban all blacksmiths from society, sorry)
I'm not working for a record company or have any relation to be a defender but come on, use some common sense and have the decency and reason to look at all perspectives before speaking your probably very blurred mind on this topic. If you do decide to have an opinion then get into the subject properly first......that's an option too.

 

I'm kinda glad, remember back when soundcloud was just for artists?

now there's all this spam and infinite duplicates of copyrighted songs posted just cause a teenage girl (or boy) feels that by getting "plays" it will boost her self esteem.

Also "artists" that sample the most popular songs in the most obvious ways will get booted.

To me it seems like a good way to purge the site.

Hey if you havent committed any infringements then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

So if you're fine with sharing your music on Soundcloud but your label doesn't think so, they're free to remove everything?

There's something wrong with IP. If you created the music, you should be the owner. You should not be forced into signing a contract and giving up your intellectual rights, imho.

 

As much as i hate it i can somewhere somewhat understand when they file in dmca complaints for album downloads, redirection links to torrent album downloads, fair enough.. I mean it is their material after all.. but not being able to stream music anymore on websites like soundcloud sucks

 

So that the artist gets paid for their material (and i don't mean the labels)
if it wasn't for copyright laws anyone could claim anyone else's work for their own.
if it wasn't for Prs/Mcprs labels wouldn't bother with artist/songwriter royalties.

 

You REALLY gotta be careful when messing with soundcloud and all the other big music sharing sites. All the 'creative commons' licenses (up to 3.0) apparently don't apply here...

 

Sorry for my fragmented expression.
In my opinion copyright laws are part of the problem and inappropriate to serve the needs of our time.
Major Labels...well, lets skip that part...
We have to find better ways to pay out artists, in a fair way and despite of possession.
I`m just questioning ownership in general, especially intellectual one.
As a collectiv (and as individuals) we refer to live as if there is not enough for everybody, a constant lack and necessity to exploit everything.
Organized theft for the benefit of a few, successfully sold to the masses as culture and justice?
Isn`t that tremendous superficial & unnatural?