D.I.Y.

Are Clueless Labels Ruining Mix Platforms Like SoundCloud?

Adam-singerBy Adam Singer of The Future Buzz.

[Summary as this is a long post]: SoundCloud’s content ID, implemented due to pressure from record labels, incorrectly flagged one of my uploads as infringing material. As a paying customer and huge fan of SoundCloud I am fearful clueless labels may be senselessly setting a precedent that will destroy the web’s best music platform and community for independent artists. Not to mention cost labels profits, fans and perhaps create a backlash against record labels altogether – who as overly litigious middlemen could be irrelevant in a digital future.]

I’ve already written posts bemoaning industries who cling to the past particularly on issues like copyright. But I’ve typically shared examples of other people and brands put in these ridiculous situations that benefit no one.

Inevitably, I now have a personal story of overly aggressive copyright holders going after my own art.

First some quick context: for those who don’t know, when not working in tech or blogging I produce and mix downtempo electronic music. It’s a relatively obscure genre and one of the best ways to find new artists is through mix sets. One of the biggest reasons I create them is to uncover hidden gems and unknown artists to share with new listeners. In all cases, the songs are mixed, edited and include FX. This means it would basically be impossible to rip off a single song as a stand alone element, it is part of a larger production. I also gladly pay for the songs I use to support the artists and help them reach new listeners. This is the entire function of this genre of music: it’s hobbyist and word of mouth driven.

What happens next is if a listener enjoyed one of the specific tracks or artists on a mix they’ll seek it out on their own (tracklists are always included) and purchase a copy of that song (or even a whole album), start to attend that artist’s concerts, look for future releases and potentially become a true fan. This find-ability is important for artists of all sizes but particularly up-and-coming artists. In fact, I would say that all artists, except perhaps those at the “mega fame” level who lack empathy for their fans and their less famous artistic peers (so all but .01%) would be happy their works were adapted by others for their own projects. For digital creations more circulation always increases its value. In cases the work is adapted or built upon this is even more so (people will seek out the original). And anyway, from a copyright standpoint this seems like a clear cut case of fair use, one you’d have to be a special kind of hater of art to go after.

So if you were a label publishing anything in an obscure genre certainly you’d be interested in hearing your artist’s music reach new listeners, as well as keeping the “connectors” of the genre (who, by the way, are *always* paying customers and easily most frequent purchasers) interested in using your art as part of their works. Right? In a sane world, yes. In our illogical world of copyright insanity, nope. It’s no wonder the industry is suffering, they’re fighting the future and driving us away from their labels and artists.

Copyright itself is broken and in reality needs to be scratched / built back from the ground up to work in a digital world to not hinder the creation of new works and frustrate artists and fans. But that doesn’t mean in the meantime labels can’t treat fans well and let artists freely engage with and adapt their work. It’s a shame this isn’t frequently the case.

On to what happened: I just finished a new mix to kick off 2014 and in addition to publishing it on my music blog, I decided to upload it to SoundCloud to share with listeners there.

About a minute after the upload had finished, I noticed it disappeared from my SoundCloud dashboard. What had happened? I received the following email from SoundCloud — apparently my mix (which is 100% legal / fair use) had tripped their Content ID which scans for copyright material being used illegally:

Adam-singer1

I was pretty shocked, as I pay for all the songs I use in my mixes, source credit appropriately and happily support the artists and labels I like. According to the copyright warning, my mix included a track that on a label called Merge Records. But wait! My version of the song purchased was not on Merge Records, the remix I used was released on a different label and was incorrectly flagged. I pulled up my receipt of my Beatport purchase and confirmed that, in fact this song was released on a label called Sonar Kollektiv who does allow their music to be used in other artist’s works:

Adam-singer2

I was curious so went to the song page on Beatport to explore more, and discovered that this label’s version was in fact being used by others in mixes and charts:

Adam-singer3

I sent an appeal to SoundCloud, but of course it’s still pending while everyone’s time is wasted. Here’s hoping sanity prevails, but the point is as a paying user of SoundCloud I expect to be able to share my work instantly. Otherwise, why would I pay for their service when I can upload to my own domain and not deal with blocks to sharing my own art? Hosting is cheap, SoundCloud is easily making huge margins from me (and other users) hosting a few GBs on their servers, you’d think they’d be catering to their customers and not copyright lawyers from overly aggressive, anti-Internet record labels. Subscription service 101: focus on the user.

To labels: I’ve created at least 30 mixes over the last 10+ years and 100% of the time, until today, the labels and artists were excited I was using their work and the exposure they received. I’ve gotten plenty of emails from artists thanking me for using their creations. And I’m equally excited when others use my tracks in their mixes. There is a long tail of artists out there and personally I don’t have any interest dealing with those not supporting an open culture in music. It makes no sense to get involved in music in the first place if you don’t want to be a part of a creative and collaborative process.

I wanted some outside feedback, so today I chatted with some of my artist peers who have also had their content pulled without warning from SoundCloud. Again, in this case the artists I spoke with do not profit from their work. They create it as a labor of love, and SoundCloud is their platform of choice they pay to use as a hobbyist. Why a record label (shockingly the example above is an independent one) would want to try to stop themselves from being a part of digital culture is insane. Is it possible an indie label is that out of touch with the world and doesn’t realize this type of art music is ingrained in remix culture? My SoundCloud issue will likely get resolved, but that last sentence is really the scary part. Digital is the best free marketing machine for their work there is. The artists on these labels should think carefully about if they want to align themselves with a brand hurting their relationships with their biggest fans. You’ll never build a reputation by treating your users like criminals. I’d encourage anyone producing music to either go with a label that allows and encourages fair use of your work or skip having one altogether.

Back to SoundCloud, of course, I don’t have to use it. I also hosted the mix on my own music domain here – available 100% for free to listen and download. The labels obviously have no grounds to send cease and desist letters to me for a case of clear fair use so there’s never an issue with that. The reason they target SoundCloud is it seems like an easy thing to blame, freak out about the fact that someone else built a platform they didn’t, and try to stop something that (was) a true artist community. For no benefit to them: at no point was SoundCloud a haven for piracy. So I think this is a huge mistake for SoundCloud to engage in this type of mass, automated enforcement of copyright police and cater to the whims of labels instead of their users.

A comment from another SoundCloud user on their new policy issuing content ID sums it up nicely:

This is a MAJOR mistake that is gonna cost you dearly. If you stop allowing dj’s to upload their dj-mixes it’s just a matter of time before they’ll all be gone. Guaranteed. You should have stood up and fought for a new system, an elimination of the conservative thinking that is paralyzing the music industry. It would have gotten you legendary frontrunning status. But you – probably your spineless management – have conformed and thus failed, no matter how cool and nice you’re trying to sound in your statement. 100% wrong and an incredibly costly mistake. You’ll experience the consequences.

While harsh, this is legitimate. I understand the importance of not allowing individual songs to be posted to SoundCloud that are clearly someone else’s intellectual property. But again, as a longtime SoundCloud user this was never an issue with the service. Rather than having a guilty until proven innocent policy, SoundCloud needs to determine a better way to manage the platform.

Beatport should be upset here too..

Adam-singer4

I’m also really concerned for Beatport here. As a huge fan of them and having spent hundreds (maybe thousands) of dollars on their content sites like SoundCloud issuing content takedowns may cause me to stop supporting new artists if I’m unable to use their work how I wish. I have a feature request for Beatport that could greatly help our whole industry: add a warning tag next to labels and songs engaged in policing their work against being mixed / remixed so as artists we can make the decision to purchase them or not. And I can almost guarantee a majority of users would only purchase from labels who allow use of their art, encouraging more artists to align with them. I certainly would.

Why is this happening? Fear. Not understanding how technology can benefit artists and labels alike. Yet the fear is illogical and the opportunity is here now: from a macro perspective, digital revenues for music continue to increase in share, up to 82.6% of total purchases in 2013.

Adam-singer5

The internet opens up a whole new world of creativity and legitimate uses for art. Yet what we’re seeing above is the old gaurd trying to put the genie back in the bottle and treat digital music as a scarce resource. The simple fact is music is now democratized to create and share, giving birth to a long-tail of artists, remixers and producers. But the music industry isn’t interested in that. They want to manufacture and tightly control the creations of bland, vanilla artists that appeal to the masses (and as a by-product they don’t care about artists and remixers).

Until recently the music culture I am a part of (electronic / jazz) has remained fairly underground and outside of this. But it seems like our culture may be on the cusp of ruin as well due to clueless labels and music executives who are anti-art and see their fans as line items on a balance sheet as opposed to humans. The artists themselves are in most cases complacent which is also sad.

Yet, despite all the “sky is falling” fear revenue in the music industry is up and piracy is down. My friends at Techdirt elegantly sum up this issue:

…the reason that music piracy is down and revenue is up is because the industry has finally started allowing more innovation into the market. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what we’ve been arguing for years. If you let the tech industry create useful new services that better provide the public with what they want, you get services and products that people are willing to pay for. And when that happens, infringement decreases, because the legitimate and authorized services are better than infringing. It’s why music infringement fell off a cliff in Sweden when Spotify launched there, despite also being the home of The Pirate Bay. Notably, when music infringement plummeted in Sweden, other types of infringement did not similarly drop.

In other words, for all the complaints about these new services, and the many, many attempts to hold them back or neuter them, letting new services grow and thrive seems to be the best “anti-piracy” measure that the record labels could have used. And yet it still thinks it needs to focus on punishing fans and limiting services.

For me, personally I’ll continue to forgo having a label and publish all my music for free under a Creative Commons license. I still think it has never been a better time to be a fan or creator of music. For fans, the selection continues to widen and your ability to build an amazing library has never been easier. For producers software like Ableton puts studio-quality tools at your fingertips. Let’s hope the technology platforms do the right thing and don’t ruin their products by bending to the whim of clueless labels stuck in the past.

Update: SoundCloud responded to me, they still refuse to let me publish this mix. No one wins in this situation: the artists, labels and fans all lose. As does SoundCloud. I’m not sure who to blame but I will have to rethink what platforms I am paying to use and which artists I will support in the future.

TL;DR: clueless labels are treating their fans and supporters as criminals and attempting to ruin the next generation of digital platforms for independent artists, making products like SoundCloud less useful.

 
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on:

22 Comments

  1. Based on these quotes:
    “I’ve created at least 30 mixes over the last 10+ years and 100% of the time, until today, the labels and artists were excited I was using their work and the exposure they received.”
    “add a warning tag next to labels and songs engaged in policing their work against being mixed / remixed so as artists we can make the decision to purchase them or not.”

    the writer would seem to want to change the default on all copyrighted music to be “open for re-use for any purpose” unless explicitly stated otherwise. The default today is, of course, “you must get explicit permission to use my work”.
    I’d be interested in how other people feel about changing the default on intellectual property from ‘you can only use mine with my permission’ to you ‘can use mine unless I expressly indicate that you cannot.’ Seems like it puts the burden on the wrong people to me, as the writer could simply follow the law and ask for permission before using the tracks, no?

  2. Time to start using Mixcloud more often!
    My little SC story.. I was asked to remix a track by a band (from Sweden) – I did, they liked it and put it out on a digital EP. I was pretty happy and wanted to put my mix up on SC for streaming on my main site. However, SC blocked it, sighting copyright infringement.
    I had to ask the band to post it on their own SC acct, which they happily did.. but it made me shake my head a bit.

  3. I put a video up containing music I had created myself in order to avoid any copywrite issues. They didn’t block the video, but, said there was a copywrite issue with 5 different tunes. I submitted a complaint back in October 2013, 3 of the claims were discounted, but, 2 remain. I have re-submitted another complaint and am awaiting the response. This is very annoying when I know that it is MY MUSIC and no one else’s.
    I am now actively moving the contents of my channel elsewhere simply because of this issue, furious!!!

  4. Why is this the labels fault? Aint it Youtube or Soundcloud that should be better at recognize the right tracks? If the former services would like to earn money on music then why shouldnt they invest? Why should the label use resources to keep their music off these services, if they or the artists dont want them there?
    The writer might be right in his instance, but ohh how many times I’ve seen bad remixes and original uploaded stuff where the fan or remixer think he or she helps the artist. NO YOU DONT!

  5. I’ve had dj mixes blocked on soundcloud for containing tunes that were given away as free-downloads ON SOUNDCLOUD!!!!

  6. I had one of earliest mixes taken down by soundcloud, but only after I paid for full membership. I contested it and even agreed to pay ALL legal fees as I know that I infringed no copyright. They actually later said I hadn’t necessarily, but used woolly terms like “may” have.
    After a back and forward of emails (all pushed by me) they said that it was taken down because SKINT Records had asked for it to be taken down. i asked why and was told they didn’t wasn’t their track played. I informed them it was only part of the song and it was mixed in and out, so much was only with other music at the time….they never put it back, or gave me a proper response to my complaint.
    I was very annoyed at the time as the site is full of DJs doing the same thing, I make no money and always wrote out the track lists. I have contacted SKINT and FATBOY SLIM repeatedly to ask for permission since and had no reply.
    Since then I have learned only some labels/artists seem to do this. Others seem to have software that scans at upload and stops you there and then.
    I would like to see sites like Soundcloud make very clear rules and apply them constantly.
    If they will not accept DJ mixes without full written permission of all artists they need to state that clearly and apply across the board. I know for a fact that some better known DJs are using tunes they have not sought permission for and I doubt they will ever, ever be challenged.
    If they tell me the rules and they don;t meet what I want I will go elsewhere. Now they seem content to take my money and let me roll the dice.

  7. I also had many of my set’s blocked on SoundCloud because of copyrighting issues ! As a paying costumer is sow annoying ! It’s a mix ! There is no spaces and is between 2 other songs ! I am strongly thinking about if i will renew my account with SoundCloud !

  8. The other thing that annoys me about Soundcloud is they encourage the spam they pretend to try and stop, simply allowing people to look at who has un-followed would stop a lot of spam that is based on people thinking follow being followed by follow requests….I have spoken to SC about this and they don;t seem interested because they know a lot of people would not think the site generated as much traffic if they realise most of it was spam.
    YES i I know I could use another site, but I want to use Soundlcoud and mention a few issues with it instead!

  9. You’re taking SC’s police bot waaaay too seriously (in my honest opinion). Is the ‘offending’ track in question the first tune on your mix by chance? In my experience that’s usually the case. If so, just edit the first 20-30 seconds of your mix/track (this being the only part of each uploaded track that their fully automated bot analyses in my experience)..chances are their police bot will then be fooled. Job done. 🙂

  10. Yes, because as Soundcloud states, even if they’re free downloads, you don’t own the right to re-up them. Only the creator does.

  11. Ok sorry if I offend anyone BUT you only have yourselves to blame here. You are letting Soundcloud use you instead of using them. You can host your own mixes on your own website and no one can do anything to you without a direct contact which if you have permission will be a non-issue. Stop using these muppets who are making money of your free content and stupidity. Start using your own servers and move away from these big companies who are ripping you off. They need you more than you need them and you can always upload a snippet on their sites as a teaser for your own site. #useyourownwebservers

  12. For this reason I chose to use Mixcloud for my mixes instead of sound cloud. They have a totally different way of dealing with this, using the principle of being a radio station. Royalties are being paid with plays, there is no blocking of content and the platform is free and unlimited.

  13. Even though I understand your anger and share your concerns, there seem to be some things you do not fully understand…
    “I was curious so went to the song page on Beatport to explore more, and discovered that this label’s version was in fact being used by others in mixes and charts:”
    Uploading a mix to Beatport Mixes is something completely different to uploading a mix to Soundcloud. Beatport is paying royalties to the rights holders (i.e. labels/artists) thus making the mixes legal. (Same is true for mixcloud by the way, who also have contracts with performance rights organizations)
    “I expect to be able to share my work instantly. Otherwise, why would I pay for their service when I can upload to my own domain and not deal with blocks to sharing my own art?”
    When signing up for that paid service, you agreed to their terms & conditions, which clearly state that you are only allowed to upload material to which you fully own the rights to do so.
    In the case of DJ mixes, this means you need the license of the rights holder of every single track you used in order to be allowed to upload that mix in accordance with Soundcloud’s terms & conditions – the same term & conditions you agreed to and signed when signing up for your account.
    “Beatport should be upset here too..”
    The beatport claim clearly says “play with music”. Not ‘perform it’ or ‘release it’. Both are different things from purchasing a piece of music.
    The performance rights are typically paid by promoters, the rights to release stuff has to be acquired individually.
    Once again, I do understand your problem, not least because I may be facing the same troubles with every mix upload.
    But still, labels DO have the right to demand that unlicensed uploads of their works have to be blocked. After all, uploading music without having acquired the rights to do so IS illegal. Labels that chose not to pursue people who upload their music anyways do so out of goodwill, which – by definition – is something that cannot be claimed.

  14. I encounter the exact same problem with every two or three mixes I try to publish on SoundCloud. I usually end up remixing that section or editing it out in Logic (when it’s even possible) and sometimes that saves my mix from the ‘Copyright Police’ but it’s a hell of a pain in the butt, so I often just give up and post it exclusively on MixCloud. Ultimately, SoundCloud is more tailored for original productions, and MixCloud specifically for DJ mix sets. The problem is, however, that I have more of a following on SoundCloud and would prefer to use that as a platform in addition to MixCloud, etc.
    As per you, I also pay for all my music I mix, as well as a pro membership on SoundCloud.
    Thanks for the article.
    Adrian ) Night

  15. Platforms like these aren’t doing this for fun, they are obligated to respect the law if they want their company to exist, it’s not some weird decision they made because they want to appeal to some labels, it’s more to avoid these labels to sue them.
    In jurisdiction like Europe and the US, companies are obligated to take down content when someone asks for it. The only thing you can do to change that is to ask your senat/congress/parlement/… representatives to change the law to give such companies time to verify the issue before taking it down, instead of taking it down and letting frustrated people get angry about the platform.
    If you look at Facebook, Youtube, Spotify, Google+, Flickr, Twitter,… or any other social site where people are able to upload content, the copyright process is always the same. If someone complains enough, the content will disappear, even if you are rightfully uploading your content in first place.

  16. I love the chart from 2009 about where music will be at the end of 2013. For those that care about such things, CD’s in 2013 finished with 57.3 precent of the marketshare and Digital Music sales is 40.7 and it when down in 2013.
    BTW Willing Buyer Willing Seller is the basis of good copyright law thus inventors and creators of IP don’t have to sell it to those that can’t make it themselves.

  17. In that case, the problem is that if you don’t get any answer from the owner of the material (which will be the case in 99% of the time, it ends up the same way.
    I was deleted two mixtapes by SC as well, and I sent a bunch of emails to the artist, remixer and label, but none of them answered. Now I’m screwed and just wanna move to Mixcloud

  18. what? labels LICENSE music for mixtapes. you don’t have a right to include them in your mixtapes merely by purchasing a copy. you are breaking the law. we make money off other labels and companies licensing music for their own proprietary uses, including and not limited to; mixtapes, soundtracking, live playback for commercial purposes and so forth. this pays our rent and our food if we are lucky.
    you don’t have a license to publish our copyrighted content for your gain.
    end of story.

  19. It’s frustrating how, back in the site’s (Soundcloud) infancy, it was a huge marketing platform for artists. I would be able to show of my mixing and remixing skills while introducing my audience to talent they’d never heard of via the tracklists and links.
    There are soundcloud alternatives out there, mixcloud and mixcrate to name a couple, but they just don’t have the following that soundcloud does. They also aren’t quite as user-friendly.
    While I wouldn’t want someone just loading up a playlist of copyrighted music and uploading it, I also think it’s shit to take this potential platform for exposure away from artists, both Djs and producers alike.

  20. Bit late, but top post. I’ve had mixes blocked on soundcloud on more than one occasion, and yesterday I also had one blocked on youtube.
    I really don’t get the problem with it. DJs and producers have always worked closely to support each other, its a totally two-way relationship. The DJ promotes the artists, buys their material, and aim to raise their own profile, which in turn will create more exposure and promotion for the artist (simple maths. a well known DJ listing a tracklist will DEFINITELY mean more track sales for the artists represented in the mix, as opposed to a unknown DJ with about 10 followers. But to get to well known status, requires a mix of good self-promotion but more importantly playing tracks that more people like than dont. And to get that, they need the producers of the tracks to allow them to promote the material!)
    someone above mentioned putting mixes on your own website/servers. agreed and all well and good, but as you know this is very limited exposure compared to putting on well known places like youtube, soundcloud etc, so anyone attempting to get gigs as a DJ will find that a struggle to get themselves noticed.

Comments are closed.