# Now That Soundcloud Is Out, What Are The Alternatives?



## valenciasound (Feb 5, 2016)

Hi everyone,

As per Daryl's post where he quoted part of Soundcloud's Terms of Use:

"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, licence to other users of the Platform, and to operators and users of any other websites, apps and/or platforms to which Your Content has been shared or embedded using the Services (“Linked Services”), to use, copy, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public."

Since I won't use Soundcloud anymore (I was using it to send private sets for demos), does anyone know of a good alternative?

I have a website so I could host something myself. Is there a reliable player I could use to just play them on my site?

Thanks for the help.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 5, 2016)

box.net


----------



## Daryl (Feb 5, 2016)

valenciasound said:


> Since I won't use Soundcloud anymore (I was using it to send private sets for demos), does anyone know of a good alternative?


If all your links are private, and nobody shares them you should be OK, because nobody can get hold of your content to do anything with it.


----------



## Vin (Feb 5, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> box.net



I agree with Gunther, Box is a great cloud service, it doesn't compress audio and you can send .wav files.


----------



## valenciasound (Feb 5, 2016)

Daryl said:


> If all your links are private, and nobody shares them you should be OK, because nobody can get hold of your content to do anything with it.


Ah ok, I had gone into full paranoia mode and was assuming that once something was uploaded to Soundcloud, even if it was private, and even if I later deleted it, they'd have some copy stored somewhere which they'd then be legally permitted to release or anyone could.

All my links are private and I usually delete them after 1 week.. maybe it's not so bad then.


----------



## Alatar (Feb 5, 2016)

valenciasound said:


> I have a website so I could host something myself. Is there a reliable player I could use to just play them on my site?



I believe the default Wordpress theme has an MP3 player nowadays.


----------



## PeterBaumann (Feb 5, 2016)

Is there anything like that which doesn't compress audio in the way that soundcloud/youtube does? I have a wordpress page but I suspect that most of those will be mp3 players as you say


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Feb 5, 2016)

Alatar said:


> I believe the default Wordpress theme has an MP3 player nowadays.


It does.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 5, 2016)

PeterBaumann said:


> Is there anything like that which doesn't compress audio in the way that soundcloud/youtube does? I have a wordpress page but I suspect that most of those will be mp3 players as you say


box.net


----------



## Vin (Feb 5, 2016)

Alatar said:


> I believe the default Wordpress theme has an MP3 player nowadays.



Any cloud service like Box, Dropbox, Mega etc.


----------



## gjelul (Feb 5, 2016)

germancomponist said:


> box.net





How's box.net an option @ $15 x 3 (user minimum) = $45 a month. Just called them and there is no way around it... Sync.com maybe something worth looking into.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 5, 2016)

I use box.net for so many years now, an I never had to pay only one penny!


----------



## Vin (Feb 5, 2016)

gjelul said:


> How's box.net an option @ $15 x 3 (user minimum) = $45 a month. Just called them and there is no way around it... Sync.com maybe something worth looking into.



Not sure I understand. They have a 10 GB free account...I've got 50.


----------



## Kralc (Feb 5, 2016)

valenciasound said:


> "By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, licence to other users of the Platform, and to operators and users of any other websites, apps and/or platforms to which Your Content has been shared or embedded using the Services (“Linked Services”), to use, copy, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public."



Okay, real talk here: Could someone hypothetically "legally" use the new Batman vs Superman track uploaded to SC, or any big name bands/artists? (*hypothetically, cause no doubt WB's Watertower music has enough lawyers to fix it...)


----------



## PeterBaumann (Feb 5, 2016)

Google drive?


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Feb 5, 2016)

Kralc said:


> Okay, real talk here: Could someone hypothetically "legally" use the new Batman vs Superman track uploaded to SC, or any big name bands/artists? (*hypothetically, cause no doubt WB's Watertower music has enough lawyers to fix it...)



I would really like to know the answer too. 

First time i see these rules.. 

Also please someone in simple terms can explain what the hell "limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, licence" actually means?


----------



## synthpunk (Feb 5, 2016)

copy.com leaving the field sux (May), so I am evaluating box.net (10G free) and Mega (50G free) and have a free dropbox (2G). Mega seems clumsy and there is the proceeding rep.


----------



## Arbee (Feb 5, 2016)

My simplistic take on it is that a) you have to guarantee before you upload that you have full ownership/permission to upload (which probably isn't the case with Batman), and then b) you hand it over for Soundcloud and partners to do whatever they want with it. Perhaps it's not quite that brutal, but I can't see any other way to read it, and I've taken my tracks down.....


----------



## ryanstrong (Feb 5, 2016)

Wish there was something as socially engaging like Instagram is but for music. I mean essentially that's what SoundCloud is but it's not right.


----------



## Guffy (Feb 5, 2016)

Mixcloud?


----------



## soundslikejoe (Feb 5, 2016)

Octave.is


----------



## buschmann (Feb 5, 2016)

soundslikejoe said:


> Octave.is


Very yes.


----------



## Michael Rajecki (Feb 5, 2016)

I'll weigh in with a different opinion - YouTube. I'll qualify this with the fact that I'm a smaller composer who doesn't have a huge following or name ton of name recognition.

I know it's a video focused platform, however I've seen decent success with it. I feel that YouTube allows you to brand visually far more effectively than Soundcloud ever did and has a far superior search engine. More importantly, people who are using YouTube are actually searching for content. My experience with Soundcloud isn't vast, however I've found that more often than not the groups and connections I find on there are focused toward musicians and not listeners. Additionally, YouTube has a strong and pre-established music presence. There are tons of music channels that already have a huge following and are focused towards nearly any genre of music you can imagine - the potential for promoting via YouTube is huge. 

Beyond that, the ability to organize your music via playlists is similar to Soundcloud but also allows you to keep listeners listening to your music as opposed to Soundcloud's seemingly random next-play selection. Descriptions, comments, likes, shares, etc. are all pretty much the same. If you manage your tags correctly, many of your songs can show up on the related videos section and also have the possibility of showing up in google searches since YouTube is owned by Google, however this probably isn't a huge draw for musicians. Annotations also allow you to direct viewers/listeners to any associated website.

If you're interested in using an online streaming platform simply as a way to display your music then honestly anything will work well for you. If you're looking for a way to promote your music then I think YouTube is an effective platform to do so.


----------



## pkm (Feb 5, 2016)

If there's a lawyer in here, I think they could clarify better than I can, but I'm pretty sure Soundcloud's language is necessary for them to be able to host your music and provide an embeddable player. Just like any other service. YouTube probably has very similar language, as does Facebook, Dropbox, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## gjelul (Feb 5, 2016)

Vin said:


> Not sure I understand. They have a 10 GB free account...I've got 50.



10 gigs is not enough if you really want to replace SoundCloud or Dropbox. Working on a film, just one score would be more than 10 gigs. Let alone if you want to permanently have files uploaded, or some kind of a back-up.

Sure, the free option maybe enough if you're in for simple things.


----------



## valenciasound (Feb 6, 2016)

I don't think I got my original question across clearly enough:

I have a server so I can host the files no problem myself. So box.net, Google Drive and the rest weren't what I meant.

I'm just wondering if anyone knows of a good way to then have those files (which I'm hosting myself) play in a little player on my website - something that would reliably work on most browsers... Anyone have any idea?


----------



## Vin (Feb 6, 2016)

gjelul said:


> 10 gigs is not enough if you really want to replace SoundCloud or Dropbox. Working on a film, just one score would be more than 10 gigs. Let alone if you want to permanently have files uploaded, or some kind of a back-up.
> Sure, the free option maybe enough if you're in for simple things.



Of course, but compared to Dropbox's 2 GB free, it's definitely a better free option.

Like I said, I have a 50 GB account.

Also, Mega offers 50 GB free.


----------



## Anders Wall (Feb 6, 2016)

valenciasound said:


> I don't think I got my original question across clearly enough:
> 
> I have a server so I can host the files no problem myself. So box.net, Google Drive and the rest weren't what I meant.
> 
> I'm just wondering if anyone knows of a good way to then have those files (which I'm hosting myself) play in a little player on my website - something that would reliably work on most browsers... Anyone have any idea?


http://jplayer.org

Best,
/Anders


----------



## Kralc (Feb 6, 2016)

pkm said:


> If there's a lawyer in here, I think they could clarify better than I can, but I'm pretty sure Soundcloud's language is necessary for them to be able to host your music and provide an embeddable player. Just like any other service. YouTube probably has very similar language, as does Facebook, Dropbox, etc. etc. etc.


See, that's what I kinda feel in a way too... 
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see SC improve on the service I actually pay for, but I hardly feel that I'm going to pull all my tracks and never upload anything again.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 6, 2016)

IoannisGutevas said:


> Also please someone in simple terms can explain what the hell "limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, licence" actually means?


OK, a few things that might help:

In the old days we had broadcasting. Now we have streaming as well. Theoretically as Soundcloud is broadcasting/streaming your music, they not only need to have a licence to broadcast your music, they need to pay Performance Royalties as well.
So, you give them a licence to play your music (fully paid up licence).
You tell them that they never have to pay you any Royalties (royalty-free)
You can use your music elsewhere, even if you have uploaded it to SC (non-exclusive)
Worldwide is what it says.
The issue I have is that it's not just a question of streaming your music. By uploading you allow other people to rearrange, edit, pretty much anything, even if it is for their own self promotion, and you don't have any say at all.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 6, 2016)

Kralc said:


> See, that's what I kinda feel in a way too...
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see SC improve on the service I actually pay for, but I hardly feel that I'm going to pull all my tracks and never upload anything again.


That's your choice. However, until recently, when Soundcloud actually agreed to pay Royalties to PRS, no PRS member was allowed to upload to Soundcloud, unless it was a private link.

What I can tell you is that if you wanted an exclusive Publisher for your tracks, not only would they tell you to pull them immediately, but some would refuse to take the tracks on in the first place.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 6, 2016)

edit


----------



## Tatu (Feb 6, 2016)

valenciasound said:


> I'm just wondering if anyone knows of a good way to then have those files (which I'm hosting myself) play in a little player on my website - something that would reliably work on most browsers... Anyone have any idea?


I think you can still use soundcloud well for that. Just make your tracks/playlist private, but allow embedding - > you can use it on your site and that's the only place they'll ever be (right?).


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Feb 6, 2016)

Daryl said:


> OK, a few things that might help:
> 
> In the old days we had broadcasting. Now we have streaming as well. Theoretically as Soundcloud is broadcasting/streaming your music, they not only need to have a licence to broadcast your music, they need to pay Performance Royalties as well.
> So, you give them a licence to play your music (fully paid up licence).
> ...



Thank you for the answer. Its really sad to see a great service like soundcloud to come up with such retarded polices and make themselves unusable for any artist. Taking down the tracks and stop using it seems the only solution. Damn..


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 6, 2016)

edit


----------



## valenciasound (Feb 6, 2016)

Thanks for the replies. Octave.is looks quite interesting. And jplayer too.

Yea, the SC terms of use look pretty terrible to me, unless you try really really hard to let them off the hook, somehow. Which isn't what terms of use are about right?


----------



## Daryl (Feb 6, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I was about to ask you Daryl if all this was to do with the recent PRS ruling? Hmmm.


Yes and no. PRS has been in dispute for many years, but only really brought it to the attention of users fairly recently. The sticking point, as I understand it, was not the technical breach in the T & C, it was the ability to use uploaded music for advertising and the like, with absolutely no compensation to the creators of that music.

The situation with YouTube is different, because although the T & C are fairly similar, there are various opt outs that override the things that you potentially give away.


----------



## AllanH (Feb 6, 2016)

Daryl said:


> OK, a few things that might help:
> 
> In the old days we had broadcasting. Now we have streaming as well. Theoretically as Soundcloud is [].
> The issue I have is that it's not just a question of streaming your music. By uploading you allow other people to rearrange, edit, pretty much anything, even if it is for their own self promotion, and you don't have any say at all.



Thank you for all those details. There are now "internet radio stations" that play off of soundcloud based on this particular SC policy. There is no doubt (imo), that uploading to SoundCloud essentially is the same as giving the music away.


----------



## jmvideo (Feb 6, 2016)

Uh, I don't still don't get it. If I'm uploading (which becomes) an overly compressed, low quality rendition of my song, then how exactly is someone stealing it and making money from it?

The tracks I upload to SoundCould aren't even professionally mastered. I'm an un-signed artist simply uploading my tracks to gauge feedback from fellow artists and other listeners. 

Should I still worry?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Feb 7, 2016)

edit


----------



## synthetic (Feb 10, 2016)

octave.is is designed for professionals, created by a musician who was frustrated with SC. "Soundcloud is for people with fans, Octave is for people with clients."


----------



## mmendez (Feb 11, 2016)

Looks like SC might be on the way out indeed: http://www.factmag.com/2016/02/11/soundcloud-financial-report-44m-losses/

Personally I really like the site and would be sad to see it go.

Miguel


----------



## BlueStar (Feb 11, 2016)

https://www.orfium.com
http://www.wavestash.com
http://www.hearthis.at


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen (Feb 11, 2016)

synthetic said:


> octave.is is designed for professionals, created by a musician who was frustrated with SC. "Soundcloud is for people with fans, Octave is for people with clients."


 

Octave is for Soundcloud users with too much money, I would say.

I just checked Octave's monthly fee, it's $20! Professional webhosting for your personal website with tons of extra features and services is way cheaper than having an Octave account, so if your plan is not to upload any music to a network that benefits financially from your membership, then what's the point of joining Octave?

All you seem to get for those $20/mo is a stripped version of Soundcloud, which means the whole service is probably just another example of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. 

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## ghostnote (Feb 12, 2016)

I'm currently trying https://hearthis.at and am quite surprised how good it is. It seems a bit buggy here and there and the whole look of the site seems to be designed to attract DJs..., but it's also quite intuitive and has some nice new features. I've also tried orfium, but am not convinced. Time will tell if it will replace soundcloud, which isn't dead yet btw.


----------



## jmvideo (Feb 18, 2016)

No one seems to be leaving SoundCloud. Based on this thread, you'd think there'd be a mass exodus, and yet all the artists I follow, including big name artists are still uploading tracks like crazy.

Is it because they're misinformed? Or perhaps people are misinterpreting the verbiage?


----------



## AllanH (Feb 19, 2016)

I do think that most people are aware that using any "free" internet service in the end is a business transaction

With Soundcloud, you're trading exposure and free hosting for the right to your music and the right to be compensated for any and all plays.

With Facebook, you're trading your privacy and the privacy of your friends in return for your wall, storage, etc.

With Google, you're trading your entire online activity in return for a good search engine and free email, calendar, etc.

As the saying goes, if you don't know who's paying for your "free" service, it's you.

Allan


----------

