PRS for Music, a UK performing rights organization, at the end of last month sued SoundCloud for copyright infringement on behalf of its members.
The action may prove a decisive moment for the Berlin-based streaming service. It represents a collision between SoundCloud’s approach and the organizations involved in administering copyright, and more broadly, between the conventional models for sharing and monetizing music and those evolving on the Internet.
I spoke to representatives from PRS and SoundCloud to try to get greater clarity. Those responses were naturally a bit guarded, as the two are actively engaged in legal action. However, there’s a lot you can read into what they’ve said, and the conflict more generally.
Even if you don’t use SoundCloud, there are some major implications for the way in which music is shared online – let alone if you are specifically licensed by PRS. (And you don’t have to live in the UK to be part of this legal action – more on that in a bit.)
First, let’s deal with the public statements made about the case, and understand what we’re talking about. When copyright laws were written, the Internet didn’t exist. This has produced a somewhat counter-intuitive distinction in the work itself (the composition – the thing you’d traditionally have written on paper), and the recording of the work. Those are licensed separately, and that’s because the legal notion is that the transmission of a recording is both a “performance” of the work itself, and a use of the recording material. That is already somewhat confusing in the United States, and then when you stream on the Internet, you’re subject to separate laws in every single separate provinciality abroad.
When we’re talking about PRS, we’re talking about performing rights. These produce royalties that are administered to members representing songwriters and publishers; if you self-released, you’re effectively both. If you’re a member of ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GEMA, or one of another organizations, PRS is actually also collecting royalties for your music in the UK.
That means it’s very possible you, the reader, are in principle named in this suit. Here’s where things get a bit weird. Let’s say you’ve got a song you recorded, and you’re an ASCAP member in Texas. And let’s say you – or your label – uploaded that music to SoundCloud, which you very likely have the right to do (it’s your music). Now, technically, your own upload just infringed your own copyright, if PRS claims that it needed a performing royalty. In fact, theoretically, if you uploaded your music to your own site – not SoundCloud’s – you would still be owed a performing license, one paid by yourself through PRS and back to you again. It’s just unlikely that if it were your own site, or your label’s site, anyone would show up trying to enforce the copyright. SoundCloud is different.
By the way, even SoundCloud explains that it is possible to infringe your own copyright. (It’s possible to do this even on your own site – which is why I think not joining a performing rights organization may become a compelling possibility to consider in the digital world, depending on your particular use case). From their copyright case:
Can you answer “no” to all of the following questions?
Were you signed to a record label when you recorded the track?
Do you have a publishing deal?
Are you a member of a performing rights organization or collecting society?
Have you licensed your track to anyone else?
Does the track contain the entirety or any part of someone else’s song(s) Is it based on someone else’s song(s)?
Now, more broadly, SoundCloud also clearly has a lot of music that wasn’t uploaded directly by creators. Apart from the frequent use of DJ mixes, there’s some content that is simply straight out infringing. But to be clear, this lawsuit doesn’t differentiate between those cases: it’s claiming royalties for all three.
PRS sent a letter to its members (now, this wasn’t addressed to the many more overseas artists it represents, but just those who are directly registered with PRS):
Dear Member,
PRS for Music begins legal action against SoundCloud
After careful consideration, and following five years of unsuccessful negotiations, we now find ourselves in a situation where we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings against the online music service SoundCloud.
When a writer or publisher becomes a member of the Performing Right Society, they assign certain rights to their works over for us to administer, so it’s our job to ensure we collect and distribute royalties due to them. SoundCloud actively promotes and shares music. Launched in 2008, the service now has more than 175m unique listeners per month. Unfortunately, the organisation continues to deny it needs a PRS for Music licence for its existing service available in the UK and Europe, meaning it is not remunerating our members when their music is streamed by the SoundCloud platform.
Our aim is always to license services when they use our members’ music. It has been a difficult decision to begin legal action against SoundCloud but one we firmly believe is in the best, long-term interests of our membership. This is because it is important we establish the principle that a licence is required when services make available music to users. We have asked SoundCloud numerous times to recognise their responsibilities to take a licence to stop the infringement of our members’ copyrights but so far our requests have not been met. Therefore we now have no choice but to pursue the issue through the courts.
We understand SoundCloud has taken down some of our members’ works from their service. With our letter of claim, we sent SoundCloud a list of 4,500 musical works which are being made available on the service, as a sample of our repertoire being used, so that they understood the scale of our members’ repertoire and its use on the service. We asked them to take a licence to cover the use of all our members’ repertoire or otherwise stop infringing.
SoundCloud decided to respond to our claim by informing us that it had removed 250 posts. Unfortunately, we have no visibility or clarity on SoundCloud’s approach to removing works, so it is not currently clear why these particular posts have been selected by them given the wider issue of infringement that is occurring. Ultimately, it is SoundCloud’s decision as to whether it starts paying for the ongoing use of our members’ music or stops using these works entirely.
If the streaming market is to reach its true potential and offer a fair return for our members, organisations such as SoundCloud must pay for their use of our members’ music. We launched our Streamfair campaign in June to raise awareness of this issue and highlight how music creators need to be properly remunerated from streaming. We believe that all digital services should obtain a licence which grants them permission to use our members’ music and repertoire, in this case the works of songwriters, publishers and composers.
The streaming market cannot fairly develop unless this happens. We have always been pro-licensing and pro-actively work with organisations in order to propose an appropriate licensing solution for the use of our members’ works.
We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the need for extended litigation. Members will appreciate that this is now a legal matter and our ability to communicate around it is therefore limited by the legal process. However, we will try to share information and updates whenever we can.
Emphasis mine. There are already several points here to digest:
First, this has been ongoing for five years – a point that’s likely to come up in legal proceedings.
It’s also telling that SoundCloud believes it doesn’t need a license for UK and European streaming. Now, that may sound really strange, but remember that this doesn’t mean the music would be entirely un-licensed or even un-monetized.
And this sheds some light on take-down notices – or, at least, it makes it clear that we’re still in the dark. PRS is expressing the same frustration with SoundCloud that a lot of SoundCloud users have: the service simply isn’t explaining how it decides to take content down. And it seems to be fairly random: the 4500 works listed by PRS here are presumably a small fraction of everything it could have sent, and then SoundCloud removed a small fraction of that (if PRS’ statement is accurate).
But it’s also historical here that PRS continues to rigorously defend the need for licensing. And I wonder, actually, why that isn’t a matter for open debate. The traditional music stakeholders – even the ones that may represent you – continue to argue for licensing as the panacea for streaming. But as I said, the entire licensing model is complex. It’s also weighted heavily toward bigger labels and publishers, because they can sign deals with artists that ensure them a big piece of the pie, and then aggregate a lot of different content so the royalties add up.
That is, there are two points with which you might disagree. If you’re a lawyer, you can argue the details of whether SoundCloud is genuinely liable for this specific license (not to play music for free, but to pay for the PRS license in Europe). And if you’re an artist, entirely independent of that, you might ask whether PRS’ licensing scheme is best suited to making you any money on the Internet. If you believe the answer is no, you shouldn’t join a performing rights organization. Performing rights organizations would like you to believe the answer is yes.
What’s unclear is what PRS is suing for. There’s an implication here that by arguing with SoundCloud’s Safe Harbor status, PRS could sue SoundCloud not just for royalties now, but for all back royalties over the course of half a decade. I think that would almost certainly shutter the entire site overnight, which could have a devastating impact on artists and labels.
I asked PRS explicitly what their goal was, though, and it’s clear that they remain primarily interested in the site operating with a license in place. The thing is, if PRS did shut down SoundCloud, while it would prove a point, it would both anger members who use the service and by definition would eliminate royalties on hundreds of millions of future plays.
For some really good analysis of this statement and that quote in particular, see Music Business World this week
PRS VS. SOUNDCLOUD: 5 KEY TALKING POINTS TO CONSIDER
I think the key is, PRS and the labels really need SoundCloud as a big entity for licensing to work at all. See also their deal with Spotify. This sort of homogenization of streaming makes the job of licensing far easier.
SoundCloud wouldn’t comment directly on this case to CDM (PRS did), but instead a spokesperson for the company pointed me to their existing statement:
It is regrettable that PRS appears to be following this course of action in the midst of an active commercial negotiation with SoundCloud. We believe this approach does not serve the best interests of any of the parties involved, in particular the members of the PRS, many of whom are active users of our platform and who rely on it to share their work and communicate with their fanbase.
SoundCloud is a platform by creators, for creators. No one in the world is doing more to enable creators to build and connect with their audience while protecting the rights of creators, including PRS members. We are working hard to create a platform where all creators can be paid for their work, and already have deals in place with thousands of copyright owners, including record labels, publishers and independent artists.
There’s not much here that answers PRS’ claims; we actually know more about SoundCloud’s likely position from the PRS statement than the SoundCloud statement. But note that the deals they have in place don’t mention performing rights organizations – and remember, there are two kinds of licenses we’re describing here.
PRS did clarify their position a bit for CDM. Here’s that exchange:
CDM: Whose works does this suit cover? I know there is a representative list, but is the case built around all PRS-represented music? I assume it includes, for instance, partners like ASCAP (when played in European territories)?
PRS: Our legal action covers all PRS for Music member repertoire.
PRS recently announced a multi-territory deal with Spotify Europe. How are those royalties calculated? This is some sort of fixed statutory rate per play?
PRS: There is no statutory licensing rate in the UK, although the Copyright Tribunal was established to adjudicate licensing disputes in the UK between copyright owners (incl. collecting societies) and businesses using copyright music on the issue of the reasonableness of rates, amongst other things. In relation to Spotify, this is a bespoke negotiated licence and as such the terms are confidential.
Ed.: Okay, here my question shows a bit of ignorance – I’m referring to the kind of statutory licensing set in the United States, where the federal government fixes rates. I’ll be the first to admit that while I’m definitely not an expert on US IP law, I’m even less familiar with the law in the United Kingdom.
But notice – PRS want you to believe that licensing is the way to go. But the deals on which you depend are completely confidential. So you’ve got a choice: SoundCloud not telling you why they’re removing your music, or PRS not telling you how their licensing deals work. Transparency isn’t really coming from any of these players here. And the entire system at this point depends on one-by-one, independent negotiations.
Next, I dealt with the scenario above – creators registering their works who then upload music to a service in a way that infringes not someone else’s copyright, but their own.
For many of our readers – and again, many of them themselves members of PRS (or other performing rights organizations) – the material on SoundCloud is work they’ve uploaded with the intention of sharing. What would you say to those artists when they find that this use on SoundCloud is being targeted by PRS? Isn’t there some conflict of interest when, for instance, SoundCloud asks them to take down music they uploaded themselves, in response to a complaint by a performing rights organization? Or do you believe those artists are not acting in their own self-interest when they upload music in this way?
PRS: When a writer or publisher becomes a member of the Performing Right Society, they assign certain rights to their works over for us to administer. This means we are then able to efficiently and effectively license organisations for their use of our members’ work, then collect and distribute royalties back to the members. Licensing protects the interests of all of our members, very many of whom are having their content used by SoundCloud without their permission, expressed or otherwise. Our members all agree that they should be paid to have their content used by third parties and sometimes the achievement of this goal means having to make difficult decisions for the collective good. We understand that many of our members use and appreciate the service provided by SoundCloud. At PRS for Music we can also see the value that a service like SoundCloud could add to the market if it were operating with proper licensing. But as things stand, our members receive nothing for their content being consumed on SoundCloud.
There are a couple of important points they make in response. One, as I said, if this were just creators uploading their own music, it would be one thing. But as was the case with YouTube, as long as these sites have mixes and so on, it’s another story.
Two, though, note that PRS also recognizes their own members are SoundCloud users. That makes me wonder if they won’t try to use this legal action to find a deal – which is what I ask next.
What’s the end game here? You say you hope not to have extended litigation, but do you believe SoundCloud owes back royalties for the five years during which you’ve been in negotiation?
PRS: The primary aim is to move SoundCloud towards having a fully licensed service that fairly pays our members when their music is used on the service.
That’s important, as this means the goal is a settlement in which SoundCloud keeps operating.
Now, it also made sense to talk to SoundCloud. The only way that company – billion-dollar valuation or no – can work with stakeholders is if it’s actually bringing in money as it’s promised. Eric Wahlforss, who also spoke on a panel I hosted this summer, responded to those issues.
CDM: Am I correct in understanding that monetization – and presumably, revenue that would impact licensing music – is going to be based on some combination of subscription and advertising revenue?
Eric: On SoundCloud enables our Premier Partners to monetise their content through advertising, and to earn a share of the resulting revenue. This will also include a share of revenue from our subscription products once they’re launched.
We’re now over a year into the On SoundCloud program. Are there advertisers onboard that you can talk about? That is, I’ve seen some of the publishers; how is the monetization picture? Earlier this year you mentioned $1 million in advertising payments, is there a new number?
Eric: Since the launch of On SoundCloud we’ve paired brands like Jaguar, Sonos, Microsoft, Taco Bell, Asics and Axe with SoundCloud creators like Sizzlebird, ILoveMakonnen, Metro Boomin, Viceroy and Big Data. These partnerships have helped artists shine an additional spotlight on their work, while getting paid in the process.
Our native offering, ‘promoted tracks’ puts branded content at the top of every SoundCloud users stream to drive engagement: plays, likes, reposts, shares. For example, HBO has worked with SoundCloud to launch their shows including ‘Catch the Throne’, which was used to promote this year’s series of Game of Thrones.
We’re yet to release new payment figures but the number is obviously growing month on month.
Ed.: the absence of payment figures here is a bit frustrating, actually – cue Dr. Evil quote about “one millllllion dollars.” Then again, remember YouTube faltering early on in ad revenue. It’s tough. The one ace in SoundCloud’s hole is, at least they have creators willing to pay for subscriptions. That makes them very different from services like Spotify, which are really mostly about consumption.
Is there any updated timeline as far as rolling out On SoundCloud to more users?
Eric: On SoundCloud remains invite only at the moment and we’re still adding new partners as fast as we can. We started with 20 select partners representing 2,000 labels at launch, and have now grown to over 600, representing over 25,000 labels, many of whom are independents. These include Merlin and Warner Music Group, as well as a landmark partnership with the National Music Publishers Association in the US. Our goal remains to provide monetization opportunities for all creators on the platform.
The addition of labels is the important one, even if some big players still aren’t onboard. And that also shows some overlap between the stakes of labels and performing rights organizations.
Is providing paid listener subscriptions still on the table? (Am I correct in understanding that’s an option?)
Eric: We will be launching listener subscriptions in the future. Our subscription philosophy is about delivering subscribers additional functionality, and the free tier will continue to be a core part of our platform for creators and listeners in a way that is complementary to our subscription services.
Conclusions
Let me be perfectly frank: I think as creators, we want this to work out. First, PRS has a point. Without getting into the fine points about which licenses work in which localities internationally, SoundCloud simply has to do a better job licensing the music on its site – like, licensing it at all, in most cases. I think we should have a debate about what sort of copyright framework makes sense, and whether licensing is really a model that works for artists. I know the people who believe that it does work are often very open to talking about that, so this can be a vigorous and valuable debate.
But we can only have that discussion if the basis of copyright law remains enforceable and (while this may seem near-impossible) enforceable internationally. Even those of us who are advocates of open source licensing or Creative Commons licensing depend on copyright law as a foundation. (That’s why you have so many lawyers involved in those issues.)
At the same time, whatever high-minded argument PRS wants to make about licenses, it’s ugly if we imagine a world without SoundCloud. Labels depend on streams as a window to actually selling music direct; artists rely on data from listeners and exposure and the ability to promote events and sell tickets. These activities very often far outweigh royalty checks in terms of actual monetary value. If you break SoundCloud, you may well break a lot of the way music is working for artists right now.
This is one to watch. I think it will remain important to see how the SoundCloud case unfolds, because it has implications far beyond the service. And we should also talk about alternatives to SoundCloud that do have licensing in place, for no other reason that I think no single service can serve everyone. YouTube dwarfs Vimeo, on the video side, but a lot of very specific creative niches find Vimeo invaluable. Yet there isn’t yet a “Vimeo for sound,” even as SoundCloud is clearly “YouTube for sound.”
Hey, that was fun! Let’s go listen to some music.
Previously:
Native Instruments CEO, SoundCloud CTO talk music’s future direction
The promise of ”new business models” has now been heard for almost 20 years and still the billion dollar valued internet corporations (spotify, google, soundcloud and so on) has not managed to come up with something that can replace the existing licensing system or the record companies.
The record companies provided venture capital (advances) to artists and made available editors and PR resources. The internet corporations are far more greedy and provides nothing but dumb server space.
The current streaming models only work for simple teenage music. As almost all streams goes to a few percent of the available recordings it makes full sense to offer a cheaper service that only offers these few percent of recordings.
The rest of the music business (like belgian accordion music and so on) needs something like album downloads. Or maybe we should all buy a token music cassette to gain access to the download. Exclusivity is the shit here!
As it is now with the ad-based internet corporations in control will lead to a world of teenage music, no creative and fun intellectual or middle-class but a large base of amateurs where talent is downed (droned) out.
Well, that’s true – to a point.
I would say that artists are already establishing a business model that isn’t dependent on the fractional values you get from licensing. In the 90s, I think it was just a given – if you’re making music, you should join a performing rights society.
Now, I think there are cases to be made for maintaining complete control rather than handing anything over to a performing society. And I don’t mean giving up the idea of getting paid. I just mean that a lot of us find that having direct control over where and how our music is heard, and data from those plays, is a swifter route to getting paid.
Of course, this might also suggest that hosting your own music and not handing it over to SoundCloud is potentially useful. It’s been funny how many people have said “Bandcamp” in comments on everything I’ve said on SoundCloud, too. I think that’s apples and oranges, but the fact that it came up says that having direct control is the biggest priority for a lot of people.
i strongly disagree with almost all of your statement.
without going into detail:
– the old business model you are referring to has been in a steady downward spiral and is not working anymore (https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/global_recorded_music_industry_revenue_-_adjusted_for_inflation_revenue_inflation_adjusted_chartbuilder-1.png?w=640)
– i don’t have a statistic for this but soundcloud and free large scale music streaming have made it possible for margin artists (maybe too experimental for the mainstream) to find an audience and make money through the side effects of this (gig offers, collaborations, etc)
– i won’t even go into an argument about whether it’s better to have record companies in power to select who should be exposed to the world as opposed to a democratic online medium.
– at the heighday of record companies profits in the 90s the majority of available music i would call “teenage music”.
– as an exampe bandcamp has found quite a nice way for independent artists to profit from their work. it has possibilites such as letting the buyer specify their price. people around me who have moved to sell their work through bandcamp have reported it being more lucrative for them than going the traditional way through labels, record companies, a huge amount of unnecessry costs and very low profit margins for the artist.
Thomas, would you kindly provide a source for that graph? I would be interested in finding out more
The promise of ”new business models” has now been heard for almost 20 years and still the billion dollar valued internet corporations (spotify, google, soundcloud and so on) has not managed to come up with something that can replace the existing licensing system or the record companies.
The record companies provided venture capital (advances) to artists and made available editors and PR resources. The internet corporations are far more greedy and provides nothing but dumb server space.
The current streaming models only work for simple teenage music. As almost all streams goes to a few percent of the available recordings it makes full sense to offer a cheaper service that only offers these few percent of recordings.
The rest of the music business (like belgian accordion music and so on) needs something like album downloads. Or maybe we should all buy a token music cassette to gain access to the download. Exclusivity is the shit here!
As it is now with the ad-based internet corporations in control will lead to a world of teenage music, no creative and fun intellectual or middle-class but a large base of amateurs where talent is downed (droned) out.
Well, that’s true – to a point.
I would say that artists are already establishing a business model that isn’t dependent on the fractional values you get from licensing. In the 90s, I think it was just a given – if you’re making music, you should join a performing rights society.
Now, I think there are cases to be made for maintaining complete control rather than handing anything over to a performing society. And I don’t mean giving up the idea of getting paid. I just mean that a lot of us find that having direct control over where and how our music is heard, and data from those plays, is a swifter route to getting paid.
Of course, this might also suggest that hosting your own music and not handing it over to SoundCloud is potentially useful. It’s been funny how many people have said “Bandcamp” in comments on everything I’ve said on SoundCloud, too. I think that’s apples and oranges, but the fact that it came up says that having direct control is the biggest priority for a lot of people.
i strongly disagree with almost all of your statement.
without going into detail:
– the old business model you are referring to has been in a steady downward spiral and is not working anymore (https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/global_recorded_music_industry_revenue_-_adjusted_for_inflation_revenue_inflation_adjusted_chartbuilder-1.png?w=640)
– i don’t have a statistic for this but soundcloud and free large scale music streaming have made it possible for margin artists (maybe too experimental for the mainstream) to find an audience and make money through the side effects of this (gig offers, collaborations, etc)
– i won’t even go into an argument about whether it’s better to have record companies in power to select who should be exposed to the world as opposed to a democratic online medium.
– at the heighday of record companies profits in the 90s the majority of available music i would call “teenage music”.
– as an exampe bandcamp has found quite a nice way for independent artists to profit from their work. it has possibilites such as letting the buyer specify their price. people around me who have moved to sell their work through bandcamp have reported it being more lucrative for them than going the traditional way through labels, record companies, a huge amount of unnecessry costs and very low profit margins for the artist.
Thomas, would you kindly provide a source for that graph? I would be interested in finding out more
The promise of ”new business models” has now been heard for almost 20 years and still the billion dollar valued internet corporations (spotify, google, soundcloud and so on) has not managed to come up with something that can replace the existing licensing system or the record companies.
The record companies provided venture capital (advances) to artists and made available editors and PR resources. The internet corporations are far more greedy and provides nothing but dumb server space.
The current streaming models only work for simple teenage music. As almost all streams goes to a few percent of the available recordings it makes full sense to offer a cheaper service that only offers these few percent of recordings.
The rest of the music business (like belgian accordion music and so on) needs something like album downloads. Or maybe we should all buy a token music cassette to gain access to the download. Exclusivity is the shit here!
As it is now with the ad-based internet corporations in control will lead to a world of teenage music, no creative and fun intellectual or middle-class but a large base of amateurs where talent is downed (droned) out.
Well, that’s true – to a point.
I would say that artists are already establishing a business model that isn’t dependent on the fractional values you get from licensing. In the 90s, I think it was just a given – if you’re making music, you should join a performing rights society.
Now, I think there are cases to be made for maintaining complete control rather than handing anything over to a performing society. And I don’t mean giving up the idea of getting paid. I just mean that a lot of us find that having direct control over where and how our music is heard, and data from those plays, is a swifter route to getting paid.
Of course, this might also suggest that hosting your own music and not handing it over to SoundCloud is potentially useful. It’s been funny how many people have said “Bandcamp” in comments on everything I’ve said on SoundCloud, too. I think that’s apples and oranges, but the fact that it came up says that having direct control is the biggest priority for a lot of people.
i strongly disagree with almost all of your statement.
without going into detail:
– the old business model you are referring to has been in a steady downward spiral and is not working anymore (https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/global_recorded_music_industry_revenue_-_adjusted_for_inflation_revenue_inflation_adjusted_chartbuilder-1.png?w=640)
– i don’t have a statistic for this but soundcloud and free large scale music streaming have made it possible for margin artists (maybe too experimental for the mainstream) to find an audience and make money through the side effects of this (gig offers, collaborations, etc)
– i won’t even go into an argument about whether it’s better to have record companies in power to select who should be exposed to the world as opposed to a democratic online medium.
– at the heighday of record companies profits in the 90s the majority of available music i would call “teenage music”.
– as an exampe bandcamp has found quite a nice way for independent artists to profit from their work. it has possibilites such as letting the buyer specify their price. people around me who have moved to sell their work through bandcamp have reported it being more lucrative for them than going the traditional way through labels, record companies, a huge amount of unnecessry costs and very low profit margins for the artist.
Thomas, would you kindly provide a source for that graph? I would be interested in finding out more
All the PRO’s do a very poor job of adminstrating. If every creator was to register every work, I’d imagine they’d never catch up, even with easily accessible digital playlists.
Well, administering streaming, though, ought to be very easy. Centralized services, completely digital access. This is a heck of a lot easier than working out what some cafe was playing on their radio in the old days. And that could explain why these organizations are seeing increased revenues.
When I said this should be open to more debate, I didn’t necessarily mean that you’d wind up opposed – on closer examination.
But that to me is the real problem. There’s a complete lack of transparency. And now with these entities in legal battles, it gets worse. We don’t know nearly enough about who’s getting paid or how much or how the deals work to even make an informed decision.
Definitely not a detractor of being a benefactor. The cheque’s in the mail? The transparency issue is, and (I presume) will always be an issue, because the PRO’s ‘talk the talk’ but ‘the walk’ is suspect. This lack of transparency is an issue with the streamers and the administration visa vie PRO’s. In the past digital copying levies have not reached most composers/artists – as promised. Like a union (or charity) that takes a huge chunk of revenues for “administration”? I have a few anecdotes that would make you wonder.
All the PRO’s do a very poor job of adminstrating. If every creator was to register every work, I’d imagine they’d never catch up, even with easily accessible digital playlists.
Well, administering streaming, though, ought to be very easy. Centralized services, completely digital access. This is a heck of a lot easier than working out what some cafe was playing on their radio in the old days. And that could explain why these organizations are seeing increased revenues.
When I said this should be open to more debate, I didn’t necessarily mean that you’d wind up opposed – on closer examination.
But that to me is the real problem. There’s a complete lack of transparency. And now with these entities in legal battles, it gets worse. We don’t know nearly enough about who’s getting paid or how much or how the deals work to even make an informed decision.
Definitely not a detractor of being a benefactor. The cheque’s in the mail? The transparency issue is, and (I presume) will always be an issue, because the PRO’s ‘talk the talk’ but ‘the walk’ is suspect. This lack of transparency is an issue with the streamers and the administration visa vie PRO’s. In the past digital copying levies have not reached most composers/artists – as promised. Like a union (or charity) that takes a huge chunk of revenues for “administration”? I have a few anecdotes that would make you wonder.
All the PRO’s do a very poor job of adminstrating. If every creator was to register every work, I’d imagine they’d never catch up, even with easily accessible digital playlists.
Well, administering streaming, though, ought to be very easy. Centralized services, completely digital access. This is a heck of a lot easier than working out what some cafe was playing on their radio in the old days. And that could explain why these organizations are seeing increased revenues.
When I said this should be open to more debate, I didn’t necessarily mean that you’d wind up opposed – on closer examination.
But that to me is the real problem. There’s a complete lack of transparency. And now with these entities in legal battles, it gets worse. We don’t know nearly enough about who’s getting paid or how much or how the deals work to even make an informed decision.
Definitely not a detractor of being a benefactor. The cheque’s in the mail? The transparency issue is, and (I presume) will always be an issue, because the PRO’s ‘talk the talk’ but ‘the walk’ is suspect. This lack of transparency is an issue with the streamers and the administration visa vie PRO’s. In the past digital copying levies have not reached most composers/artists – as promised. Like a union (or charity) that takes a huge chunk of revenues for “administration”? I have a few anecdotes that would make you wonder.
These old school record industry people get on my nerves already, they always have to get in the middle of every transaction in the name of helping the artist. Oh well, i might just have to cancel my ASCAP membership.
Well, in this case, canceling your ASCAP membership won’t accomplish much. You could stop registering works if you’re concerned about collection – that depends on how valuable the performing royalties are to you.
A better thing to do would be to engage more directly in ASCAP’s member activities. ASCAP is run by its members. If you want to understand their position, and if you eventually decide you want them to do something differently on your behalf, there are avenues for doing that.
These old school record industry people get on my nerves already, they always have to get in the middle of every transaction in the name of helping the artist. Oh well, i might just have to cancel my ASCAP membership.
Well, in this case, canceling your ASCAP membership won’t accomplish much. You could stop registering works if you’re concerned about collection – that depends on how valuable the performing royalties are to you.
A better thing to do would be to engage more directly in ASCAP’s member activities. ASCAP is run by its members. If you want to understand their position, and if you eventually decide you want them to do something differently on your behalf, there are avenues for doing that.
These old school record industry people get on my nerves already, they always have to get in the middle of every transaction in the name of helping the artist. Oh well, i might just have to cancel my ASCAP membership.
Well, in this case, canceling your ASCAP membership won’t accomplish much. You could stop registering works if you’re concerned about collection – that depends on how valuable the performing royalties are to you.
A better thing to do would be to engage more directly in ASCAP’s member activities. ASCAP is run by its members. If you want to understand their position, and if you eventually decide you want them to do something differently on your behalf, there are avenues for doing that.
Everyone has a goal in a conflict like this: PRS wants revenue for their members, Soundcloud wants to stay in business.
But the only group that is successfully monetizing this situation are the lawyers.
Yes, the legal industry is far better than the music industry.
Heck, I think just being a Notar in Germany probably easily beats the entire music biz. 😉
Everyone has a goal in a conflict like this: PRS wants revenue for their members, Soundcloud wants to stay in business.
But the only group that is successfully monetizing this situation are the lawyers.
Yes, the legal industry is far better than the music industry.
Heck, I think just being a Notar in Germany probably easily beats the entire music biz. 😉
Everyone has a goal in a conflict like this: PRS wants revenue for their members, Soundcloud wants to stay in business.
But the only group that is successfully monetizing this situation are the lawyers.
Yes, the legal industry is far better than the music industry.
Heck, I think just being a Notar in Germany probably easily beats the entire music biz. 😉
its interesting that people would upload their music to a free listening site and then expect payment. it’s like taking a stack of promo records into a record store with a “free records” sign on them and then thinking the record store should pay you for the records that were taken.
but obviously its not the artists that filed the law suit, its the PRO “on behalf” of their artists.
SoundCloud is promo, and a place to share ideas, sketches and songs that you might not consider album worthy but cool to share with the community. plus i have not seen the epidemic of fans unloading music that is not theirs the way it happens on youtube. i think the majority of music uploaded is owned by the uploader. i could see that the biggest problem might be cover songs, dj mixes and remixes, but those are often ether helpful or non-destructive to the success of the original song anyway. and how does SoundCloud make money? how do they survive? i pay for my account and I’m happy to, they provide a great service that is the primary way people find out about my music.
this lawsuit doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. obviously IMO.
Well, *but* — my guess is, if SoundCloud’s ‘infringements’ were mostly artists and labels uploading their own tracks, even though that is technically a violation of the performing license, you wouldn’t see PRS suing them. I think the reality is that uploads by other users and DJ mixes are the norm, not some edge case. For instance, I’m fairly certain Bandcamp doesn’t pay a license fee for their streams. But no one would go after them, because it’s obviously not in members’ interest for the PROs to do so.
Here, I think it is at least arguably in the PROs’ member interests. You can disagree with it, but it at least makes sense.
yeah, i can see that perspective for sure. i would think that lost revenue would be near impossible to calculate, mainly because sound scans might not pick up covers, songs buried in the middle of a dj mix and remixes. i wrote the music for a song for an artist that was released on Sony music. i actually tried to upload the song on SoundCloud so i could embed it on my site. SoundCloud somehow recognized the song, title and artist and would not let me proceed with the upload. and i own part of that song. so it must be dj mixes and alternate versions? because it seems they have some sort of safety net in place? super interesting.
its interesting that people would upload their music to a free listening site and then expect payment. it’s like taking a stack of promo records into a record store with a “free records” sign on them and then thinking the record store should pay you for the records that were taken.
but obviously its not the artists that filed the law suit, its the PRO “on behalf” of their artists.
SoundCloud is promo, and a place to share ideas, sketches and songs that you might not consider album worthy but cool to share with the community. plus i have not seen the epidemic of fans unloading music that is not theirs the way it happens on youtube. i think the majority of music uploaded is owned by the uploader. i could see that the biggest problem might be cover songs, dj mixes and remixes, but those are often ether helpful or non-destructive to the success of the original song anyway. and how does SoundCloud make money? how do they survive? i pay for my account and I’m happy to, they provide a great service that is the primary way people find out about my music.
this lawsuit doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. obviously IMO.
Sure, *but* — my guess is, if SoundCloud’s ‘infringements’ were mostly artists and labels uploading their own tracks, even though that is technically a violation of the performing license, you wouldn’t see PRS suing them. I think the reality is that uploads by other users and DJ mixes are the norm, not some edge case. For instance, I’m fairly certain Bandcamp doesn’t pay a license fee for their streams. But no one would go after them, because it’s obviously not in members’ interest for the PROs to do so.
Here, I think it is at least arguably in the PROs’ member interests. You can disagree with it, but it at least makes sense.
yeah, i can see that perspective for sure. i would think that lost revenue would be near impossible to calculate, mainly because sound scans might not pick up covers, songs buried in the middle of a dj mix and remixes. i wrote the music for a song for an artist that was released on Sony music. i actually tried to upload the song on SoundCloud so i could embed it on my site. SoundCloud somehow recognized the song, title and artist and would not let me proceed with the upload. and i own part of that song. so it must be dj mixes and alternate versions? because it seems they have some sort of safety net in place? super interesting.
its interesting that people would upload their music to a free listening site and then expect payment. it’s like taking a stack of promo records into a record store with a “free records” sign on them and then thinking the record store should pay you for the records that were taken.
but obviously its not the artists that filed the law suit, its the PRO “on behalf” of their artists.
SoundCloud is promo, and a place to share ideas, sketches and songs that you might not consider album worthy but cool to share with the community. plus i have not seen the epidemic of fans unloading music that is not theirs the way it happens on youtube. i think the majority of music uploaded is owned by the uploader. i could see that the biggest problem might be cover songs, dj mixes and remixes, but those are often ether helpful or non-destructive to the success of the original song anyway. and how does SoundCloud make money? how do they survive? i pay for my account and I’m happy to, they provide a great service that is the primary way people find out about my music.
this lawsuit doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. obviously IMO.
Sure, *but* — my guess is, if SoundCloud’s ‘infringements’ were mostly artists and labels uploading their own tracks, even though that is technically a violation of the performing license, you wouldn’t see PRS suing them. I think the reality is that uploads by other users and DJ mixes are the norm, not some edge case. For instance, I’m fairly certain Bandcamp doesn’t pay a license fee for their streams. But no one would go after them, because it’s obviously not in members’ interest for the PROs to do so.
Here, I think it is at least arguably in the PROs’ member interests. You can disagree with it, but it at least makes sense.
yeah, i can see that perspective for sure. i would think that lost revenue would be near impossible to calculate, mainly because sound scans might not pick up covers, songs buried in the middle of a dj mix and remixes. i wrote the music for a song for an artist that was released on Sony music. i actually tried to upload the song on SoundCloud so i could embed it on my site. SoundCloud somehow recognized the song, title and artist and would not let me proceed with the upload. and i own part of that song. so it must be dj mixes and alternate versions? because it seems they have some sort of safety net in place? super interesting.
Thank you Peter for writing an in depth text in world of 127 character sound bytes. Really appreciated!
Thank you Peter for writing an in depth text in world of 127 character sound bytes. Really appreciated!
Thank you Peter for writing an in depth text in world of 127 character sound bytes. Really appreciated!
I have real trouble following this whole case. I use DistroKid to release my work to the major streamers and retailers. I’m not a member of ASCAP or PRS. I can see my “royalties” (my petty, petty royalties) trickle in from iTunes and Amazon. And I can see them come in from Spotify (I think i’m up to .008 dollars). I also use SoundCloud because I can customize it and share easily and see my stats. I have a link that points to iTunes and I have downloads disabled. I wish I could get paid for my SC feed as most of my plays come from there.
so, in theory, if I were a member of PRS (for example), they’d be tasked with getting my performance royalties on my behalf? by myself, i’d be just pissing into a gale, but with PRS or ASCAP behind me, I need to be acknowledged by SC. I suppose this is PRS’s point of view.
I think SC is the best site for artists despite the fact you can’t get paid. BandCamp is terrible to use and it’s neigh impossible to get people who aren’t familiar with BandCamp’s system to give over their credit card number to a site they’ve never heard of. I’d hate to see SC go down, it’s what Last.FM was supposed to turn into and it’s what Apple is trying to do with Apple Music, minus Apple’s invisible Hand of Taste.
as an aside, I had SC take down a song of mine, claiming it infringed on some German release of relaxation music (on Sony). Both tracks used a background of tweeting birds in a forest, my BG was taken from FreeSound.org and was used in accordance with the wishes of the person who recorded it. It took three emails for them to repost my song, which was had been posted three years before that german relaxation CD was even released.
I have real trouble following this whole case. I use DistroKid to release my work to the major streamers and retailers. I’m not a member of ASCAP or PRS. I can see my “royalties” (my petty, petty royalties) trickle in from iTunes and Amazon. And I can see them come in from Spotify (I think i’m up to .008 dollars). I also use SoundCloud because I can customize it and share easily and see my stats. I have a link that points to iTunes and I have downloads disabled. I wish I could get paid for my SC feed as most of my plays come from there.
so, in theory, if I were a member of PRS (for example), they’d be tasked with getting my performance royalties on my behalf? by myself, i’d be just pissing into a gale, but with PRS or ASCAP behind me, I need to be acknowledged by SC. I suppose this is PRS’s point of view.
I think SC is the best site for artists despite the fact you can’t get paid. BandCamp is terrible to use and it’s neigh impossible to get people who aren’t familiar with BandCamp’s system to give over their credit card number to a site they’ve never heard of. I’d hate to see SC go down, it’s what Last.FM was supposed to turn into and it’s what Apple is trying to do with Apple Music, minus Apple’s invisible Hand of Taste.
as an aside, I had SC take down a song of mine, claiming it infringed on some German release of relaxation music (on Sony). Both tracks used a background of tweeting birds in a forest, my BG was taken from FreeSound.org and was used in accordance with the wishes of the person who recorded it. It took three emails for them to repost my song, which was had been posted three years before that german relaxation CD was even released.
I have real trouble following this whole case. I use DistroKid to release my work to the major streamers and retailers. I’m not a member of ASCAP or PRS. I can see my “royalties” (my petty, petty royalties) trickle in from iTunes and Amazon. And I can see them come in from Spotify (I think i’m up to .008 dollars). I also use SoundCloud because I can customize it and share easily and see my stats. I have a link that points to iTunes and I have downloads disabled. I wish I could get paid for my SC feed as most of my plays come from there.
so, in theory, if I were a member of PRS (for example), they’d be tasked with getting my performance royalties on my behalf? by myself, i’d be just pissing into a gale, but with PRS or ASCAP behind me, I need to be acknowledged by SC. I suppose this is PRS’s point of view.
I think SC is the best site for artists despite the fact you can’t get paid. BandCamp is terrible to use and it’s neigh impossible to get people who aren’t familiar with BandCamp’s system to give over their credit card number to a site they’ve never heard of. I’d hate to see SC go down, it’s what Last.FM was supposed to turn into and it’s what Apple is trying to do with Apple Music, minus Apple’s invisible Hand of Taste.
as an aside, I had SC take down a song of mine, claiming it infringed on some German release of relaxation music (on Sony). Both tracks used a background of tweeting birds in a forest, my BG was taken from FreeSound.org and was used in accordance with the wishes of the person who recorded it. It took three emails for them to repost my song, which was had been posted three years before that german relaxation CD was even released.
I’d be more likely to go with the opposite approach – the service streams user-created content provided that no other licenses apply to it. There are plenty of other services which can be bothered to distribute licensed content, if people want it. I like that the no-license approach seems to more closely fulfil the original stated purpose of sites such as SoundCloud and YouTube, that of facilitating people’s uploading and distribution of their own creative work. Especially those people who are not already affiliated with other labels, publishers, and organizations. As these are the people who had no other easy way to put their work out there. It also helps to keep these venues from being diluted by increasingly commercial elements.
I’d be more likely to go with the opposite approach – the service streams user-created content provided that no other licenses apply to it. There are plenty of other services which can be bothered to distribute licensed content, if people want it. I like that the no-license approach seems to more closely fulfil the original stated purpose of sites such as SoundCloud and YouTube, that of facilitating people’s uploading and distribution of their own creative work. Especially those people who are not already affiliated with other labels, publishers, and organizations. As these are the people who had no other easy way to put their work out there. It also helps to keep these venues from being diluted by increasingly commercial elements.
I’d be more likely to go with the opposite approach – the service streams user-created content provided that no other licenses apply to it. There are plenty of other services which can be bothered to distribute licensed content, if people want it. I like that the no-license approach seems to more closely fulfil the original stated purpose of sites such as SoundCloud and YouTube, that of facilitating people’s uploading and distribution of their own creative work. Especially those people who are not already affiliated with other labels, publishers, and organizations. As these are the people who had no other easy way to put their work out there. It also helps to keep these venues from being diluted by increasingly commercial elements.
I don’t really get why it’s logical that you can owe yourself royalties even though you own both the composition and rights to the recording. It makes no sense to me. I think soundcloud should have stuck exclusively with creative commons licensing. That should have protected the service from legal action like this. I see it as bullying, really.
I think Peter mentions that is very weird and also illogical. But whem you start involving more people into the process of releasing and making music, it stands to reason that things start getting more restrictive and complicated.
Not sure if i 100% agree with keeping to Creative Commons stuff but as an amateur i only upload CC stuff anyway
I don’t really get why it’s logical that you can owe yourself royalties even though you own both the composition and rights to the recording. It makes no sense to me. I think soundcloud should have stuck exclusively with creative commons licensing. That should have protected the service from legal action like this. I see it as bullying, really.
I think Peter mentions that is very weird and also illogical. But whem you start involving more people into the process of releasing and making music, it stands to reason that things start getting more restrictive and complicated.
Not sure if i 100% agree with keeping to Creative Commons stuff but as an amateur i only upload CC stuff anyway
I don’t really get why it’s logical that you can owe yourself royalties even though you own both the composition and rights to the recording. It makes no sense to me. I think soundcloud should have stuck exclusively with creative commons licensing. That should have protected the service from legal action like this. I see it as bullying, really.
I think Peter mentions that is very weird and also illogical. But whem you start involving more people into the process of releasing and making music, it stands to reason that things start getting more restrictive and complicated.
Not sure if i 100% agree with keeping to Creative Commons stuff but as an amateur i only upload CC stuff anyway
I could easily be wrong, but I vaguely remember that when I joined PRS I gave them a NON-EXCLUSIVE licence for streaming, i.e. I could, if I chose, grant Soundcloud a licence directly. This seems like quite an important point if true, but it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned by anyone in the coverage of this dispute.
Hi Richard it would be interesting to see if any of the larger acts that the PRS represent have similar agreements in place. Perhaps the majority do not hence this lawsuit.
I could easily be wrong, but I vaguely remember that when I joined PRS I gave them a NON-EXCLUSIVE licence for streaming, i.e. I could, if I chose, grant Soundcloud a licence directly. This seems like quite an important point if true, but it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned by anyone in the coverage of this dispute.
Hi Richard it would be interesting to see if any of the larger acts that the PRS represent have similar agreements in place. Perhaps the majority do not hence this lawsuit.
I could easily be wrong, but I vaguely remember that when I joined PRS I gave them a NON-EXCLUSIVE licence for streaming, i.e. I could, if I chose, grant Soundcloud a licence directly. This seems like quite an important point if true, but it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned by anyone in the coverage of this dispute.
Hi Richard it would be interesting to see if any of the larger acts that the PRS represent have similar agreements in place. Perhaps the majority do not hence this lawsuit.
Peter, thank you for a fantastic article, really useful and informative.
I was linked to it as a reaction to another blog post I had written about current alternatives to Soundcloud – an attempt at a guarded, civil response to the question “what if it would disappear overnight?” – and I’m happy to say that your post has put the whole situation into perspective. The industry needs channels like Soundcloud for promotion and distribution and I hope that instead of crippling the service the outcome of the lawsuit means that Soundcloud becomes a stronger site with better governance over copyright takedown requests and the PRS can go bother something else.
Something else: I tweeted a board member on the day of the announcement about Mixcloud and it seems that PRS are also negotiating with them as well.
https://twitter.com/johntruelove/status/636891099836121088
I’m not saying that there is 0 fault on either side of the lawsuit and there is tons of complexity in the issue as you point out, particularly when copyright holders put up their own works for stream but then infringe on their own works (life is stranger than fiction). Copyright law clearly needs an overhaul and common sense needs to dictate the direction this case takes, and I am sure that other services like Youtube are watching this case closely for what impact it will have on their own operations.
Peter, thank you for a fantastic article, really useful and informative.
I was linked to it as a reaction to another blog post I had written about current alternatives to Soundcloud – an attempt at a guarded, civil response to the question “what if it would disappear overnight?” – and I’m happy to say that your post has put the whole situation into perspective. The industry needs channels like Soundcloud for promotion and distribution and I hope that instead of crippling the service the outcome of the lawsuit means that Soundcloud becomes a stronger site with better governance over copyright takedown requests and the PRS can go bother something else.
Something else: I tweeted a board member on the day of the announcement about Mixcloud and it seems that PRS are also negotiating with them as well.
https://twitter.com/johntruelove/status/636891099836121088
I’m not saying that there is 0 fault on either side of the lawsuit and there is tons of complexity in the issue as you point out, particularly when copyright holders put up their own works for stream but then infringe on their own works (life is stranger than fiction). Copyright law clearly needs an overhaul and common sense needs to dictate the direction this case takes, and I am sure that other services like Youtube are watching this case closely for what impact it will have on their own operations.
Peter, thank you for a fantastic article, really useful and informative.
I was linked to it as a reaction to another blog post I had written about current alternatives to Soundcloud – an attempt at a guarded, civil response to the question “what if it would disappear overnight?” – and I’m happy to say that your post has put the whole situation into perspective. The industry needs channels like Soundcloud for promotion and distribution and I hope that instead of crippling the service the outcome of the lawsuit means that Soundcloud becomes a stronger site with better governance over copyright takedown requests and the PRS can go bother something else.
Something else: I tweeted a board member on the day of the announcement about Mixcloud and it seems that PRS are also negotiating with them as well.
https://twitter.com/johntruelove/status/636891099836121088
I’m not saying that there is 0 fault on either side of the lawsuit and there is tons of complexity in the issue as you point out, particularly when copyright holders put up their own works for stream but then infringe on their own works (life is stranger than fiction). Copyright law clearly needs an overhaul and common sense needs to dictate the direction this case takes, and I am sure that other services like Youtube are watching this case closely for what impact it will have on their own operations.
great article Peter !!! and about time to adress the elephant in the room … been on soundcloud since the beta days and in the early days SC was really really cool .. only composers, producers and musicians sharing their demos and releases … only original content, a great place to discover new artists and music and make new friends and find collaborations and exposure … then SC open to the public .. the joy lastet not much longer .. it started with the ‘edits’ … then came the DJ’s .. and then when Myspace completely collapsed .. the general public came in posting riped mainstream music … i don’t have any stats to back this up but it sure feels like nowadays there is 90% of commercial content on SC .. and most of it (as much as i hate PRO’s i have to admit this) unlicensed.
i’ve never been a member of a PRO since instead of joining like most people because ‘that’s what separates the pro’s from the hobbyists’ … i read the contracts beforehand … and then the decision wether to join a PRO or not was really simple to make. At the time i was still living in switzerland .. as it turns out the SUISA (swiss PRO) actually forbids their members to use a creative commons license, so for me it was clear that i would never join SUISA since i wanted to release some of my stuff under CC .. besides the monopolistic nature of PRO contracts which i’m also bit allergic to, so when i moved to germany and read the GEMA contracts it was also clear after the first couple of pages that i would never sign up with them. I also don’t make mainstream music airing on TV or Radio so i’ll never see any money from them anyways. Now if you are a member of a PRO and have signed the contract ..well you’re bound by that contract .. so quit whining or cancel your membership .. now i know this sounds a bit harsh, but unfprtunately that’s how it is
as for soundcloud i’d say that they are one of the most un-innovative internet startups around … don’t get me wrong, the initial concept is great … but they just haven’t stepped up with any usefull innovations for their members … stats are still counting my own plays, interface is still really dull, UX is dreadfull .. still no customisation of user pages, still no ordering of tracks, still no way to make money from content posted on SC other than a link to itunes or beatport .. the list goes on and on of features CREATORS have been asking for for 7 years now … in vain … and now they are coming up with this bullshit advertising sponsored crap scheme which will only benefit mainstream major label artists … and SC of course because what nobody knows is how those ad deals are structured, but i have a hunch: the lion share probabyl goes to SC and only a tiny percentage of the money Microsoft etc pays for ads is going to the artists.
souncloud is just like most internet startups, it’s about making money .. NOT for the creators, for the founders and shareholders of SC. And dodging license payments for 5 years (if what PRS says is true) is just really pathetic … are royalties due for DJ mixes and commercial tracks posted on SC … OF COURSE, there’s no two ways about it .. every bar, club, petrol station is forced to pay licenses for this kind of music by contract and by law and so is SC. Make no mistake here, these license fees are money embezzeled from the creators SC claims to work for, if they had entered into a license agreement with PRO’s like they should have instead of just serving up free content and cashing in on it many artists would have actually seen some money from all those streams.
again: i really hate PRO but in this particular case i really have to admit that PRS has a legitimate case and SC should just face the music so to say and pay backroyalties and enter into license agreements with not only PRO’s but independent artists as well. but yeah i get it, someone’s gotta pay for those flashy new headquarters and if they would pay licenses as they should once the VC’s have a look at the adjusted balance sheets and financial projections SC will quickly vanish to the same place Myspace has gone .. and although i still use SC i don’t think it’s a drama .. there’s always gonna be a next thing .. one day hopefully someone will come up with a service that REALLY helps todays musicians live from their art …
great article Peter !!! and about time to adress the elephant in the room … been on soundcloud since the beta days and in the early days SC was really really cool .. only composers, producers and musicians sharing their demos and releases … only original content, a great place to discover new artists and music and make new friends and find collaborations and exposure … then SC open to the public .. the joy lastet not much longer .. it started with the ‘edits’ … then came the DJ’s .. and then when Myspace completely collapsed .. the general public came in posting riped mainstream music … i don’t have any stats to back this up but it sure feels like nowadays there is 90% of commercial content on SC .. and most of it (as much as i hate PRO’s i have to admit this) unlicensed.
i’ve never been a member of a PRO since instead of joining like most people because ‘that’s what separates the pro’s from the hobbyists’ … i read the contracts beforehand … and then the decision wether to join a PRO or not was really simple to make. At the time i was still living in switzerland .. as it turns out the SUISA (swiss PRO) actually forbids their members to use a creative commons license, so for me it was clear that i would never join SUISA since i wanted to release some of my stuff under CC .. besides the monopolistic nature of PRO contracts which i’m also bit allergic to, so when i moved to germany and read the GEMA contracts it was also clear after the first couple of pages that i would never sign up with them. I also don’t make mainstream music airing on TV or Radio so i’ll never see any money from them anyways. Now if you are a member of a PRO and have signed the contract ..well you’re bound by that contract .. so quit whining or cancel your membership .. now i know this sounds a bit harsh, but unfprtunately that’s how it is
as for soundcloud i’d say that they are one of the most un-innovative internet startups around … don’t get me wrong, the initial concept is great … but they just haven’t stepped up with any usefull innovations for their members … stats are still counting my own plays, interface is still really dull, UX is dreadfull .. still no customisation of user pages, still no ordering of tracks, still no way to make money from content posted on SC other than a link to itunes or beatport .. the list goes on and on of features CREATORS have been asking for for 7 years now … in vain … and now they are coming up with this bullshit advertising sponsored crap scheme which will only benefit mainstream major label artists … and SC of course because what nobody knows is how those ad deals are structured, but i have a hunch: the lion share probabyl goes to SC and only a tiny percentage of the money Microsoft etc pays for ads is going to the artists.
souncloud is just like most internet startups, it’s about making money .. NOT for the creators, for the founders and shareholders of SC. And dodging license payments for 5 years (if what PRS says is true) is just really pathetic … are royalties due for DJ mixes and commercial tracks posted on SC … OF COURSE, there’s no two ways about it .. every bar, club, petrol station is forced to pay licenses for this kind of music by contract and by law and so is SC. Make no mistake here, these license fees are money embezzeled from the creators SC claims to work for, if they had entered into a license agreement with PRO’s like they should have instead of just serving up free content and cashing in on it many artists would have actually seen some money from all those streams.
again: i really hate PRO but in this particular case i really have to admit that PRS has a legitimate case and SC should just face the music so to say and pay backroyalties and enter into license agreements with not only PRO’s but independent artists as well. but yeah i get it, someone’s gotta pay for those flashy new headquarters and if they would pay licenses as they should once the VC’s have a look at the adjusted balance sheets and financial projections SC will quickly vanish to the same place Myspace has gone .. and although i still use SC i don’t think it’s a drama .. there’s always gonna be a next thing .. one day hopefully someone will come up with a service that REALLY helps todays musicians live from their art …
great article Peter !!! and about time to adress the elephant in the room … been on soundcloud since the beta days and in the early days SC was really really cool .. only composers, producers and musicians sharing their demos and releases … only original content, a great place to discover new artists and music and make new friends and find collaborations and exposure … then SC open to the public .. the joy lastet not much longer .. it started with the ‘edits’ … then came the DJ’s .. and then when Myspace completely collapsed .. the general public came in posting riped mainstream music … i don’t have any stats to back this up but it sure feels like nowadays there is 90% of commercial content on SC .. and most of it (as much as i hate PRO’s i have to admit this) unlicensed.
i’ve never been a member of a PRO since instead of joining like most people because ‘that’s what separates the pro’s from the hobbyists’ … i read the contracts beforehand … and then the decision wether to join a PRO or not was really simple to make. At the time i was still living in switzerland .. as it turns out the SUISA (swiss PRO) actually forbids their members to use a creative commons license, so for me it was clear that i would never join SUISA since i wanted to release some of my stuff under CC .. besides the monopolistic nature of PRO contracts which i’m also bit allergic to, so when i moved to germany and read the GEMA contracts it was also clear after the first couple of pages that i would never sign up with them. I also don’t make mainstream music airing on TV or Radio so i’ll never see any money from them anyways. Now if you are a member of a PRO and have signed the contract ..well you’re bound by that contract .. so quit whining or cancel your membership .. now i know this sounds a bit harsh, but unfprtunately that’s how it is
as for soundcloud i’d say that they are one of the most un-innovative internet startups around … don’t get me wrong, the initial concept is great … but they just haven’t stepped up with any usefull innovations for their members … stats are still counting my own plays, interface is still really dull, UX is dreadfull .. still no customisation of user pages, still no ordering of tracks, still no way to make money from content posted on SC other than a link to itunes or beatport .. the list goes on and on of features CREATORS have been asking for for 7 years now … in vain … and now they are coming up with this bullshit advertising sponsored crap scheme which will only benefit mainstream major label artists … and SC of course because what nobody knows is how those ad deals are structured, but i have a hunch: the lion share probabyl goes to SC and only a tiny percentage of the money Microsoft etc pays for ads is going to the artists.
souncloud is just like most internet startups, it’s about making money .. NOT for the creators, for the founders and shareholders of SC. And dodging license payments for 5 years (if what PRS says is true) is just really pathetic … are royalties due for DJ mixes and commercial tracks posted on SC … OF COURSE, there’s no two ways about it .. every bar, club, petrol station is forced to pay licenses for this kind of music by contract and by law and so is SC. Make no mistake here, these license fees are money embezzeled from the creators SC claims to work for, if they had entered into a license agreement with PRO’s like they should have instead of just serving up free content and cashing in on it many artists would have actually seen some money from all those streams.
again: i really hate PRO but in this particular case i really have to admit that PRS has a legitimate case and SC should just face the music so to say and pay backroyalties and enter into license agreements with not only PRO’s but independent artists as well. but yeah i get it, someone’s gotta pay for those flashy new headquarters and if they would pay licenses as they should once the VC’s have a look at the adjusted balance sheets and financial projections SC will quickly vanish to the same place Myspace has gone .. and although i still use SC i don’t think it’s a drama .. there’s always gonna be a next thing .. one day hopefully someone will come up with a service that REALLY helps todays musicians live from their art …
As a paying SC user pretty much from the start, I find myself more and more unable to use their services. The latest result of their apparently ongoing legal/rights struggles is that they’ve disabled my ability to make privately shared tracks downloadable. Since I’ve been using Soundcloud for years as a way to exchange work-in-progress with production clients, this has basically entirely crippled the way I was using the platform. The reason for doing so seems to be that one of the labels I used to be signed to (and that still owns the rights to some of my former work) is affiliated with one of the major labels/rights holders they are in discussion with. The end result is that i’m unable to even privately share new and unreleased work that said rights holders have absolutely no say in. All while being a paying customer. I even found myself in the strange situation where the local branch of a major label requested a radio edit of a single I produced for one of their artists. After privately uploading this edit in order to share it with all parties involved (label, artist, mgmt), I immediately got a SC takedown notice, claiming a copyright infringement by said major label. I have yet to get a satisfying response to these issues by Soundcloud customer service apart from a standard legalese auto generated mail. In a way the solution for my part seems simple: just tell me that the scope of their services no longer allows me to use SC the way I’ve been using it for years and years and preferably pay me back my subscription fee. Just tell me, “hey, we’re using a new business model, we’re no longer actively seeking your type of customer. there might be more suitable services for you out there.” The thing that really annoys me is slapping me and other customers around with threats legal action (even in cases where they have absolutely no right to do so) and NEVER EVER replying to any of my totally legitimate questions regarding my rights as a paying customer of their services. Anyway, this turned out much longer than I was planning to…
As a paying SC user pretty much from the start, I find myself more and more unable to use their services. The latest result of their apparently ongoing legal/rights struggles is that they’ve disabled my ability to make privately shared tracks downloadable. Since I’ve been using Soundcloud for years as a way to exchange work-in-progress with production clients, this has basically entirely crippled the way I was using the platform. The reason for doing so seems to be that one of the labels I used to be signed to (and that still owns the rights to some of my former work) is affiliated with one of the major labels/rights holders they are in discussion with. The end result is that i’m unable to even privately share new and unreleased work that said rights holders have absolutely no say in. All while being a paying customer. I even found myself in the strange situation where the local branch of a major label requested a radio edit of a single I produced for one of their artists. After privately uploading this edit in order to share it with all parties involved (label, artist, mgmt), I immediately got a SC takedown notice, claiming a copyright infringement by said major label. I have yet to get a satisfying response to these issues by Soundcloud customer service apart from a standard legalese auto generated mail. In a way the solution for my part seems simple: just tell me that the scope of their services no longer allows me to use SC the way I’ve been using it for years and years and preferably pay me back my subscription fee. Just tell me, “hey, we’re using a new business model, we’re no longer actively seeking your type of customer. there might be more suitable services for you out there.” The thing that really annoys me is slapping me and other customers around with threats legal action (even in cases where they have absolutely no right to do so) and NEVER EVER replying to any of my totally legitimate questions regarding my rights as a paying customer of their services. Anyway, this turned out much longer than I was planning to…
As a paying SC user pretty much from the start, I find myself more and more unable to use their services. The latest result of their apparently ongoing legal/rights struggles is that they’ve disabled my ability to make privately shared tracks downloadable. Since I’ve been using Soundcloud for years as a way to exchange work-in-progress with production clients, this has basically entirely crippled the way I was using the platform. The reason for doing so seems to be that one of the labels I used to be signed to (and that still owns the rights to some of my former work) is affiliated with one of the major labels/rights holders they are in discussion with. The end result is that i’m unable to even privately share new and unreleased work that said rights holders have absolutely no say in. All while being a paying customer. I even found myself in the strange situation where the local branch of a major label requested a radio edit of a single I produced for one of their artists. After privately uploading this edit in order to share it with all parties involved (label, artist, mgmt), I immediately got a SC takedown notice, claiming a copyright infringement by said major label. I have yet to get a satisfying response to these issues by Soundcloud customer service apart from a standard legalese auto generated mail. In a way the solution for my part seems simple: just tell me that the scope of their services no longer allows me to use SC the way I’ve been using it for years and years and preferably pay me back my subscription fee. Just tell me, “hey, we’re using a new business model, we’re no longer actively seeking your type of customer. there might be more suitable services for you out there.” The thing that really annoys me is slapping me and other customers around with threats legal action (even in cases where they have absolutely no right to do so) and NEVER EVER replying to any of my totally legitimate questions regarding my rights as a paying customer of their services. Anyway, this turned out much longer than I was planning to…