# Soundcloud -- BEWARE



## JohnG

_By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_

Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting. [edit: while there are other paragraphs in the user agreement that may be intended to address issues raised here, I personally am not comfortable with this language and would not post on the site]


----------



## pmountford

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Yes, I'm sure I read this and yet I couldn't understand why every man and his dog has a presence on Soundcloud. And just like a sheep I did as so many others have and uploaded but since have had that nagging feeling that I shouldn't have. I look forward to this discussion..


----------



## dcoscina

Does anyone know of a alternative solution to Soundcloud? I'd prefer not having the fruits of my labours used without my expressed consent.


----------



## Barrel Maker

Wow! That's news to me. I'm curious if that's a new policy or their original terms and conditions; either way I'm removing my music. Thanks for sharing the info.


----------



## JohnG

dcoscina said:


> I'd prefer not having the fruits of my labours used without my expressed consent.



It's not just "used," David, it's used -- for free. And without notice, as far as I can see -- there is no clear obligation to notify the copyright holder (and by the way, the "copyright holder" appears to be just about anyone who accesses Soundcloud, for practical purposes). I am no lawyer but based on how I read this, someone could, it appears, write an entire score based on your theme (derivative work) without notice or payment; or simply use it in a film without paying you.


----------



## airflamesred

It's there in black and off white.

I vaguely remember getting an email from them with a change of TOC, maybe a year ago? I guess the way forward is not to put your best work there, just a taster.


----------



## dcoscina

JohnG said:


> It's not just "used," David, it's used -- for free. And without notice, as far as I can see -- there is no clear obligation to notify the copyright holder (and by the way, the "copyright holder" appears to be just about anyone who accesses Soundcloud, for practical purposes). I am no lawyer but based on how I read this, someone could, it appears, write an entire score based on your theme (derivative work) without notice or payment; or simply use it in a film without paying you.



That's what I was afraid of.


----------



## buschmann

I jumped to http://www.octave.is (octave.is) for easy and proffesional sharing and bandcamp for a public front and/or commercial stuff.

Bandcamp terms states as follows:

_*Am I signing over the rights to my music, home and firstborn?* No. The only rights we take are the obvious ones we need to run the service. For example, the right to host the music you upload, stream and sell it on your behalf, display whatever lyrics and artwork you put on the site, and so on._

I have the feeling soundcloud terms is much the same actually, but they have commercialized them selfs beyond my liking and understanding.


----------



## dcoscina

Soundcloud never garnered any paying business for me, just added followers who can listen to all our stuff for free- which in principle always irked me- musicians pay for all the benefits of SoundCloud and music listening public can hear for free. That's a bit fucked up. Then again, humans will take the path of least resistance and who would bother to pay to listen to music when half the free worlds believes they are entitled to art for free.


----------



## pinki

Bandcamp is the way forward. Thanks for posting this. Bad.


----------



## tack

I never used it much, but I just deleted my Soundcloud account all the same. If nothing else, it's one more small voice in protest.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen

So if you're a film maker you could theoretically throw into your film any track on Soundcloud?


----------



## Zhao Shen

tack said:


> I never used it much, but I just deleted my Soundcloud account all the same. If nothing else, it's one more small voice in protest.



Yeah the unfortunate thing is that SoundCloud will never go down until a similar platform comes to challenge it. And hopefully their challenger won't succumb to the gradual progress from promoting the artists to becoming just another corporate entity.


----------



## jmvideo

Uh... then why are the still tons of big name artists with record contracts who post their full songs to SoundCloud?

Surely it can't be legal for anyone to steal their songs just because it's on SoundCloud?


----------



## bbunker

I'm no lawyer, but the rest of the paragraph delimits the actual ways in which these usages are permitted. Here is the remainder of the pertinent section: (Note that the paragraph does not actually conclude here - the rest of it limits the use of trade and service marks by end users...)

_"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public, _*Your Content utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services. You can limit and restrict the availability of certain of Your Content to other users of the Platform, and to users of Linked Services, at any time using the permissions tab in the track edit section for each sound you upload, subject to the provisions of the **Disclaimer** section below."
*
(Bold in the second half of the paragraph added by me)

There are in effect three sections to this paragraph - the first, which lists the license which is being granted and to whom, second, the things which one can do with that license (i.e., use, copy, etc.), and the third, which begins with "Your content utilizing" which limits the application of that license to the parameters that you as content provider have set, and that these activities must exist within the context of 'utilizing the features of the Platform." Unless these film makers are using exclusively Soundcloud to make films, then there is absolutely zero license granted to steal anything from that paragraph in full.

There is also this paragraph which concludes the section on the Grant of License which precludes the uses being discussed in this thread outside of the platform:

_"Any Content other than Your Content is the property of the relevant Uploader, and is or may be subject to copyright, trademark rights or other intellectual property or proprietary rights. Such Content may not be downloaded, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, re-uploaded, republished, displayed, sold, licensed, made available or otherwise communicated to the public or exploited for any purposes except via the features of the Platform from time to time and within the parameters set by the Uploader on the Platform or with the express written consent of the Uploader. Where you repost another user’s Content, or include another user’s Content in a playlist or station or where you listen to another user’s Content offline, you acquire no ownership rights whatsoever in that Content. Subject to the rights expressly granted in this section, all rights in Content are reserved to the relevant Uploader."_

I would agree - always read the terms carefully. But also be sure to read them in full, and without stopping your reading of the terms before you've actually reached the end of the license being granted. It's the difference between "_I want to kill everyone who tries to kill me" _and _"I want to kill everyone."_


----------



## OleJoergensen

Thank you for sharing this information.


----------



## vewilya

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_
> 
> Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting.


Thanks for sharing. Bloody awful!


----------



## tack

bbunker said:


> _"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public, _*Your Content*_ utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services._


What's interesting about that for me is that both here and on Soundcloud's site, because the "Your" in "Your Content" is capitalized, my brain erroneously interpreted the preceding comma as a period, which, as you say, rather significantly changes the meaning. That makes "Your Content utilizing ..." a grammatically incorrect sentence fragment, so that failed to parse when read. "Your Content" makes perfect sense as a predefined term in the context of the agreement, of course. Nothing unusual about the language, just a basic interpretation failure.

So yes, I regret having behaved rather unskeptically here.

Not that I will miss my Soundcloud account. If I were the producer of much content, I would still much rather host it myself, where I have the control, and don't need to worry about a third party suddenly changing the terms of service on me.


----------



## InLight-Tone

I think you should insert a repeating audio watermark on any tracks you upload there like Royalty Free libraries do...


----------



## Zhao Shen

InLight-Tone said:


> I think you should insert a repeating audio watermark on any tracks you upload there like Royalty Free libraries do...


*Clicks play* 

"Ooooo this track sounds kinda nice! Loving the vibes."

"Audiojungle"

"FUUUUUUU"


----------



## JohnG

bbunker said:


> I'm no lawyer, but ...
> I would agree - always read the terms carefully. But also be sure to read them in full, and without stopping your reading of the terms before you've actually reached the end of the license being granted....



You're right that there are ways to limit the generality of the license you're granting to Soundcloud, but for some issues _you have to do it._ You as a user have to take active steps to go through and set parameters. I don't like that, especially because many websites make changes to the user agreements regularly, changes that almost always are intended to protect the host and the host's ability to earn money, not the user.

I am deeply suspicious of such a long agreement as well. Your have to read it over and over to really understand what you're accepting, something few users do.

Overall, while you make good points, @bbunker, I read the agreement as contradictory in places, opening the door to ambiguity. When it comes to the question of "who owns what," I don't like to see language that seems to say one thing in one place and another in another place. 

I just don't like it. Sam I Am.


----------



## AllanH

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license to ... use, copy, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_



That seems more expansive than last time I looked. It essentially means that by posting to SoundCloud I would be giving up all rights, including performance, copyright, distribution, derivative works, etc. 

Crazy ...


----------



## InLight-Tone

AllanH said:


> That seems more expansive than last time I looked. It essentially means that by posting to SoundCloud I would be giving up all rights, including performance, copyright, distribution, derivative works, etc.
> 
> Crazy ...


Fuck that, thanks for bringing this to our attention!


----------



## bbunker

JohnG said:


> You're right that there are ways to limit the generality of the license you're granting to Soundcloud, but for some issues _you have to do it._ You as a user have to take active steps to go through and set parameters. I don't like that, especially because many websites make changes to the user agreements regularly, changes that almost always are intended to protect the host and the host's ability to earn money, not the user.
> 
> I am deeply suspicious of such a long agreement as well. Your have to read it over and over to really understand what you're accepting, something few users do.
> 
> Overall, while you make good points, @bbunker, I read the agreement as contradictory in places, opening the door to ambiguity. When it comes to the question of "who owns what," I don't like to see language that seems to say one thing in one place and another in another place.
> 
> I just don't like it. Sam I Am.



I think it is terribly worded - but there is no way to interpret that paragraph in which the clause which follows the last 'your content' is not active, so all licenses granted are limited specifically to the platform itself, and the derivative works (i.e., playlists, embeds) which make use of the platform. As it stands in your redacted version, the sentence is actually meaningless - because there is no noun in the sentence which describes what material the license refers to. The first reference to 'your content' only describes what the catalyst for the granting of a license is, and not what the material being licensed is, or the scope of the license.

Would you mind editing your original post to include the entirety of the paragraph? In the spirit of encouraging people to read their agreements fully, a less redacted version would be better, wouldn't it?


----------



## JohnG

I will (slightly) amend my post, but I still think the warning is warranted. 

1. I don't find the terms of use anything like as clear as they ought to be

2. there are far too many weasel paragraphs in it

3. language in one place appears to contradict language in other places, leaving the users in what I judge to be an ambiguous position, one I don't like.

I briefly had a Soundcloud account and took it down because of the user agreement.


----------



## airflamesred

JohnG said:


> I will (slightly) amend my post, but I still think the warning is warranted.
> 
> 1. I don't find the terms of use anything like as clear as they ought to be
> 
> 2. there are far too many weasel paragraphs in it
> 
> 3. language in one place appears to contradict language in other places, leaving the users in what I judge to be an ambiguous position, one I don't like.
> 
> I briefly had a Soundcloud account and took it down because of the user agreement.


I think you're right John, there is a an arse covering angle to the wording. And in fairness I can't really blame them.


----------



## milesito

Are there any other free options that would allow me to upload my music and post a music player on my web-site?


----------



## MarcelM

milesito said:


> Are there any other free options that would allow me to upload my music and post a music player on my web-site?



audiomack offers this, but iam not sure about the agreement there. have a look maybe?


----------



## Spip

milesito said:


> Are there any other free options that would allow me to upload my music and post a music player on my web-site?



Just do it ! It seems pretty simple. That's what I will do as soon as I have some time to spend on it.

And about SoundCloud, maybe I'm wrong but I think there is nothing new here. These agreements are the same since the beginning. From what I understand, it allows SoundCloud and everything else related to it, to use your music.


----------



## rgames

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_


There are two issues - the first is the "limited, royalty free license to distribute, publicly display" piece, which is what you want folks to do with your Soundcloud tracks, correct? If someone posts a link to your track on his Facebook page then he's "publicly displaying" your track. By posting it on Soundcloud you're allowing him to do that for free, so it's a royalty-free license. There's nothing wrong with that (assuming you're the one who uploaded the track to Soundcloud).

The "adapt, prepare derivative works of" is the only concerning piece but the terms do clarify that you can prevent that from happening. So I agree it's odd that such rights are granted in one place without reference to the fact that they can be rescinded under language used elsewhere.

But I guess it's like when you do work-for-hire and you transfer copyright of the music, including PRO rights, then they give you back the writer's share. It's still a different scenario because you're actually getting paid for the music, but kind-of the same thing.

So I think the agreement is, overall, fine.

rgames


----------



## Chris Porter

Just to add a healthy dose of skepticism here, has anyone heard of any case where Soundcloud has taken someone's work that was uploaded there and used it for commercial purposes? If so, did that person try to take action against Soundcloud and wasn't able to due to the Terms of Use? I feel like if this was a major issue we would have heard of many unhappy users whose works were used without their permission. I haven't heard of any (not to say there haven't been - I just haven't heard of any).


----------



## bbunker

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_
> 
> Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting. [edit: while there are other paragraphs in the user agreement that may be intended to address issues raised here, I personally am not comfortable with this language and would not post on the site]



Please, John, the paragraph in its entirety is as follows:

_"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public, _*Your Content utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services. You can limit and restrict the availability of certain of Your Content to other users of the Platform, and to users of Linked Services, at any time using the permissions tab in the track edit section for each sound you upload, subject to the provisions of the **Disclaimer** section below."
*
Your original post is causing a lot of confusion because it doesn't even provide an ellipsis to indicate that there is more to follow (like the actual CONTENTS and SCOPE of the license!), and cherry-picks the portion that you dislike, without even providing all of the clauses in that section of the agreement. You're free to dislike the terms and act accordingly, and encourage others to do so, but I really do think that the chopping up of this paragraph in your first post is misleading a lot of our forum comrades, and should be edited to include the full text of that paragraph.


----------



## bbunker

rgames said:


> The "adapt, prepare derivative works of" is the only concerning piece but the terms do clarify that you can prevent that from happening. So I agree it's odd that such rights are granted in one place without reference to the fact that they can be rescinded under language used elsewhere.



If you'll look at my first post, you'll see that I point out that later in the same paragraph, all of these uses are allowed only when specifically "utilizing the features of the Platform" - so it allows derivative works within the scope of Soundcloud. This of course allows playlists, sequences in which pieces of music are not in their original order, and whatever kinds of presentation of the material within the scope of the Soundcloud platform can be envisaged. Later paragraphs make clear that this license of use on the Platform of Soundcloud is not in any way a granting of additional ownership rights whatsoever.

So, the license is granted, but limited by the parameters that you may set to restrict such activity. The complete paragraph does indeed reference the fact that these rights may be severely restricted by the uploader.


----------



## AllanH

Chris Porter said:


> Just to add a healthy dose of skepticism here, has anyone heard of any case where Soundcloud has taken someone's work that was uploaded there and used it for commercial purposes? If so, did that person try to take action against Soundcloud and wasn't able to due to the Terms of Use? I feel like if this was a major issue we would have heard of many unhappy users whose works were used without their permission. I haven't heard of any (not to say there haven't been - I just haven't heard of any).



"Impressions" posted last year that there are radio stations that play from Soundcloud and based on the royalty free license, do not think they should pay:

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...r-in-this-industry-so-far.32740/#post-3716487

That thread is very good (and depressing) in its own right and deals with various forms of theft of music.


----------



## Mundano

i know very little about this, but as musician i think the first step is to protect ourselves from the first instance: *where is our money? at least?* I have found this:

https://www.orfium.com/
https://www.orfium.com/welcome/
FOR MUSIC INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS

Directly upload and sell your music or share for free on your own terms
Generate earnings from YouTube videos that use your music
Have your remixes featured alongside the original versions and earn money when other users upload remixes of your originals
Non-exclusive publishing, micro-licensing, sync-licensing, and creative commons licensing service options
Get discovered by fans, record labels, publishers, and music industry professionals






Edit: read small words at the end
"
*SoundCloud only offers ad-based monetization with a 10-20% payout and all music is made available to non-paying users which generates very low earnings on a per-stream basis

**Digital distributors and record labels typically keep an estimated 47% of Spotify and Apple Music earnings leaving their artists with only about 23% and 24.5% respectively

***Spotify forces artists to participate in a “Freemium” model where most users don’t pay for music which generates very low earnings on a per-stream basis and significantly dilutes overall earnings per-stream"


----------



## Chris Porter

AllanH said:


> "Impressions" posted last year that there are radio stations that play from Soundcloud and based on the royalty free license, do not think they should pay:
> 
> http://vi-control.net/community/thr...r-in-this-industry-so-far.32740/#post-3716487
> 
> That thread thread is very good (and depressing) in its own right and deals with various forms of theft of music.



I remember that thread. At the time I only had a few tracks up on AudioJungle (an account I've since deactivated) so I didn't feel like going through that guy's entire library (on multiple sites) to try to find any tracks he may have used. But I remember being glad that he was finally caught and shut down. 

But that post from "Impressions" is a perfect example of someone, that radio station, misinterpreting the Soundcloud terms and using tracks outside of the scope of the agreement.


----------



## bbunker

Chris Porter said:


> I remember that thread. At the time I only had a few tracks up on AudioJungle (an account I've since deactivated) so I didn't feel like going through that guy's entire library (on multiple sites) to try to find any tracks he may have used. But I remember being glad that he was finally caught and shut down.
> 
> But that post from "Impressions" is a perfect example of someone, that radio station, misinterpreting the Soundcloud terms and using tracks outside of the scope of the agreement.



'Misinterpreting'... like when I 'misinterpret' that the speed limit also applies to me when I'm in a hurry.

Seems like ultimately the only real, important factor in the 'strength' of legal language is if litigating would make enough money to call in a legal team. SMH.


----------



## Chris Porter

bbunker said:


> 'Misinterpreting'... like when I 'misinterpret' that the speed limit also applies to me when I'm in a hurry.
> 
> Seems like ultimately the only real, important factor in the 'strength' of legal language is if litigating would make enough money to call in a legal team. SMH.


Yeah, it's a bad situation when people feel like they can use our music in any profit-making way they see fit. And you bring up a good point: unless they agree to stop using your music simply because you ask them to, it's almost impossible for us to take legal action since it would just cost too much money to do so. So we're left without much of an option. :(


----------



## milesito

So if we take down our sound cloud music (and it was uploaded in private mode) and a library wants to exclusively pick up the track are we hosed?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

We got a moderation alert from someone who doesn't like what John wrote because he thinks it's wrong.

Never mind that I think John is probably right, that's not what we moderators do. If you think something is incorrect, post why - as you did. But don't report the post.


----------



## Arbee

I tend to believe "if in doubt, don't" and that was the reason I took my tracks off Soundcloud some time ago.


----------



## dannymc

i"ve only recently starting working with some exclusives. i was always a bit nervous about posting these same tracks on soundcloud in case of something like this. thanks for posting John, removed a track which is due to be signed. i'd like to get complete clarification on this thou for the future. 

Danny


----------



## bbunker

From *Orfium*'s Terms of Service, just for comparison:
_
You hereby grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Company an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use and exploit your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing rights_

Wow, that sounds familiar.

From *Bandcamp*'s Terms of Service:

_Each Artist uploading Music to the Service grants Company and its authorized sublicensees and distributors, if any, the worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, right and license to: (i) reproduce, distribute, publicly perform (including on a through-to-the-audience basis and by means of a digital audio transmission), publicly display, create derivate works of, communicate to the public, synchronize and otherwise exploit (collectively, “Exploit”) (1) the Artist’s Music
_
These all of course go on to limit the scope of these licenses to the use of the platform itself. As does Soundcloud.


----------



## mikehamm123

I disable downloads.

There are other clauses in the agreement that prohibit people's stealing content... its pretty self-contradictory.


----------



## scottbuckley

bbunker said:


> From *Orfium*'s Terms of Service, just for comparison:
> _
> You hereby grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Company an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use and exploit your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing rights_
> 
> Wow, that sounds familiar.
> 
> From *Bandcamp*'s Terms of Service:
> 
> _Each Artist uploading Music to the Service grants Company and its authorized sublicensees and distributors, if any, the worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, right and license to: (i) reproduce, distribute, publicly perform (including on a through-to-the-audience basis and by means of a digital audio transmission), publicly display, create derivate works of, communicate to the public, synchronize and otherwise exploit (collectively, “Exploit”) (1) the Artist’s Music
> _
> These all of course go on to limit the scope of these licenses to the use of the platform itself. As does Soundcloud.



I'm with @bbunker - this 'scary use' of my music is solely limited to the platform. It would be great to get a lawyer's point of view on this - I wouldn't be surprised if some of this wording has a reason for being there that ISN'T malicious - just essentially giving the platform permission to distribute your music as you want them to.

I often regard all this legal stuff as an evolutionary system - the wording exists because something happened in the past that left someone open to litigation. I hate taking a stance that EVERYTHING a company does isn't in the best interest of the artists - but I can understand why you all feel that way, too... such is our modern world.

-s


----------



## ghostnote

I don't think the competitors (except Bandcamp) will last for too long. I've tried 3 of them and Soundcloud is still my main resource for showcasing my portfolio and discovering new stuff. I was concerned after the shut down of the groups, but this new station thing really makes sense and also showed where the group feature had its downsides.

I really hope Soundcloud will improve further, because I can't see any potential (right now) in Bandcamp (nor in all the other platforms) getting a serious competitor.

And I fully agree: Downloads should be disabled.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

FWIW, I find the title of this thread to be a bit over-the-top - could it be edited?


----------



## Zookes

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> FWIW, I find the title of this thread to be a bit over-the-top - could it be edited?


Maybe this grey-loss of IP ownership does not worry some, but this word "BEWARE" describes such things well for those it does worry.

Soundcloud agreement implies many very bad things and is ambiguous sometimes. @JohnG describes this.


----------



## Mike Fox

I never did like the layout of Soundcloud, which is why I used Bandcamp instead. I never read Soundcloud's agreement, so thanks for posting that John.


----------



## Demisane

Alright, I just read through the entire Grant of License. So basically, this clause exist for Soundcloud to be able to let other users listen to your work. If you read further you see an entire paragraph saying how using/downloading content is a breach of service.



> Any Content other than Your Content is the property of the relevant Uploader, and is or may be subject to copyright, trademark rights or other intellectual property or proprietary rights. Such Content may not be downloaded, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, re-uploaded, republished, displayed, sold, licensed, made available or otherwise communicated to the public or exploited for any purposes except via the features of the Platform from time to time and within the parameters set by the Uploader on the Platform or with the express written consent of the Uploader. Where you repost another user’s Content, or include another user’s Content in a playlist or station or where you listen to another user’s Content offline, you acquire no ownership rights whatsoever in that Content. Subject to the rights expressly granted in this section, all rights in Content are reserved to the relevant Uploader.


----------



## JohnG

The point of my original post is that the agreement is written in a way that easily could lead to confusion -- bad confusion -- that could cause misunderstandings and disputes. 

1. It's over-long,

2. You have to read all of it to understand any of it, and

3. I don't think it's good form for an online agreement like this to be drafted with paragraphs deep in the agreement that alter significantly terms that otherwise seem clear at the beginning.

I think this is fatally poor drafting for an agreement for a broad audience. I am familiar with this style -- my very first film had an agreement written in a similar way. I also accept that legal agreements do have to be read in their entirety to be complete. For this purpose, however, I think it's a bad choice and have heard it lead to problems.

Another document that has to be read in its entirety -- but rarely is -- is the prospectus that comes with a stock or bond offering. Investors don't read prospectuses cover to cover either, and that leads to problems, so the SEC introduced a prospectus summary. Possibly such a summary could help with this agreement, but until there is one and it can be read and clearly absorbed in a few minutes, I stand by my objections.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## Demisane

JohnG said:


> The point of my original post is that the agreement is written in a way that easily could lead to confusion -- bad confusion -- that could cause misunderstandings and disputes.
> 
> 1. It's over-long,
> 
> 2. You have to read all of it to understand any of it, and
> 
> 3. I don't think it's good form for an online agreement like this to be drafted with paragraphs deep in the agreement that alter significantly terms that otherwise seem clear at the beginning.
> 
> I think this is fatally poor drafting for an agreement for a broad audience. I am familiar with this style -- my very first film had an agreement written in a similar way. I also accept that legal agreements do have to be read in their entirety to be complete. For this purpose, however, I think it's a bad choice and have heard it lead to problems.
> 
> Another document that has to be read in its entirety -- but rarely is -- is the prospectus that comes with a stock or bond offering. Investors don't read prospectuses cover to cover either, and that leads to problems, so the SEC introduced a prospectus summary. Possibly such a summary could help with this agreement, but until there is one and it can be read and clearly absorbed in a few minutes, I stand by my objections.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> John



You maybe right about the drafting being unprofessional, I can't comment on that as I have never had a creative legal agreement with anyone yet. Though from what I gather, soundcloud is being vague enough to keep themselves out of trouble whenever somebody decides to sue.


----------



## synthpunk

Orfium has launched now FWIW
https://www.orfium.com/welcome/#intro


----------



## Hasen6

To be honest I don't know why anyone puts their music in full tracks online with no watermark at all...especially not on a huge site like soundcloud. Soundcloud is China's free music library to score all their tv and movies.


----------



## Kaan Guner

Hasen6 said:


> To be honest I don't know why anyone puts their music in full tracks online with no watermark at all...especially not on a huge site like soundcloud. Soundcloud is China's free music library to score all their tv and movies.



So what is your take on this one? People shouldn't upload their finished works for free online?

And... Soundcloud is better or that little website no one knows about?


----------



## Hasen6

Kaan Guner said:


> So what is your take on this one? People shouldn't upload their finished works for free online?
> 
> And... Soundcloud is better or that little website no one knows about?



Soundcloud appears to be blocked in China...at least playing the music seems to be prohibited. I would imagine its soundcloud blocking it since I can't see any reason China themselves would want to block it. Although a simple VPN would get around that. Well you're protected by copyright which works fairly well in the west but in China they're not bothered about copyright. I even heard tracks from composers on the old garritan forums on a Chinese show and frequently hear movie music on adverts or soap operas in China. When you hear LOTR music on a cheap soap opera you know something is up.

Personally I just wouldn't upload a complete track and certainly not without a watermark. China also have the most pirates and hackers so your music is also likely to end up on some kind of pirate music pack that westerners would even end up using.

I don't think there's any problem with soundcloud specifically, its just the largest of this type of site. The main concept of having your music uploaded and available for free. If someone licences your music and then uses it online its still open to stealing...but at least you've had some compensation for that already. Just putting music online totally for free doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


----------



## Flaneurette

Thanks for the information. I will certainly not make use of this service when I want to release something that is close to my heart. We live in strange times, along these insatiable creatures of consumption...


----------



## Mundano

"Magnetic's David Ireland catches up with the founders of the new music streaming platform Orfium. Is Orfium the future of streaming? Tune in and hear what the founders of the platform have to say about the status quo, their platform and the future of streaming services for independent artists."


----------



## Mus'images

I just read the warranty conditions of soundcloud, and i think that there is no need to worry. Here is an excerpt of the conditions of guarantees that explain my reasoning, of which i have highlighted the important passages:

"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public, Your Content utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services. *You can limit and restrict the availability of certain of Your Content to other users of the Platform, and to users of Linked Services, at any time using the permissions tab in the track edit section for each sound you upload, subject to the provisions of the Disclaimer section below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in these Terms of Use grants any rights to any other user of the Platform with respect to any proprietary name, logo, trademark or service mark uploaded by you as part of Your Content (for example, your profile picture) (“Marks”), other than the right to reproduce, publicly display, make available and otherwise communicate to the public those Marks, automatically and without alteration, as part of the act of reposting sounds with which you have associated those Marks.*"

Please correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Dear Villain

tack said:


> Not that I will miss my Soundcloud account. If I were the producer of much content, I would still much rather host it myself, where I have the control, and don't need to worry about a third party suddenly changing the terms of service on me.



I know I'm late to the dance, but this caught my eye, only because last week I posted a track on the composer's sub-forum with a link directly to it on my site, only to have someone suggest to me that it was too much trouble to download an mp3 from my site and that most users here would only listen to links streamed from services like Soundcloud (despite the fact that the link to my site immediately streams the file, no downloading necessary). It kind of shocked me, but of course, like everyone else, I follow the suggestions/path of others before me and now have re-activated my soundcloud...Interesting thing is, I just might remove myself from the platform (again!) after reading all this.


----------



## Flaneurette

I found this new site or service, that many think will be the future of online music and video. Called LBRY.



I am really excited by this. And I hope it will get big. Things have to change. The artist should be in full control of his or her work, instead of corporations like Soundcloud, Youtube, Myspace etc. etc. It will happen eventually, because the Internet was built for freedom.

Signup for early access


----------



## thousandfold

I am just wondering. Why do artist who presumebly know this still keep using Soundcloud?


----------



## Desire Inspires

Flaneurette said:


> It will happen eventually, because the Internet was built for freedom.



The internet was not built for freedom.

If this service is successful in any way, it will become a corporate controlled entity. That is reality.


----------



## elpedro

The internet was built for freedom?It was built for commerce,pure and simple.The A.I. of internet commerce dictates that, if you want to see the internet as "built for freedom" you will be shown exactly that...along with some google advertisements, of course....


----------



## mikehamm123

in the glory early years of the internet, everything was free and users expected everything to be free.

before that it was a military/university network.


----------



## mikehamm123

*SoundCloud Cuts 40% of Staff in Push for Profitability*

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...percent-of-staff-in-bid-to-remain-independent


----------



## synthpunk

I was also anticipating in the early rollout and when I got the email the other day looked very forward to it. Unfortunately it just looks like a Commerce site of some kind unless I'm totally missing the plot?



Flaneurette said:


> I found this new site or service, that many think will be the future of online music and video. Called LBRY.
> 
> 
> 
> I am really excited by this. And I hope it will get big. Things have to change. The artist should be in full control of his or her work, instead of corporations like Soundcloud, Youtube, Myspace etc. etc. It will happen eventually, because the Internet was built for freedom.
> 
> Signup for early access


----------



## elfman

tack said:


> If I were the producer of much content, I would still much rather host it myself, where I have the control, and don't need to worry about a third party suddenly changing the terms of service on me.


Absolutely.


----------



## Hasen6

I don't see what all the fuss is really, just make sure all your tracks on Soundcloud are well watermarked.


----------



## OleJoergensen

Hasen6 said:


> I don't see what all the fuss is really, just make sure all your tracks on Soundcloud are well watermarked.


I didn’t even know about watermarking an audio file, thank you for the tip!
I googeled it and undertsand now.


----------



## Hasen6

OleJoergensen said:


> I didn’t even know about watermarking an audio file, thank you for the tip!
> I googeled it and undertsand now.


Ok yeah I guess not everyone knows about it. Anyone doing music for music libraries would though. Yeah I recommend everyone do it although at the moment it looks like the vast majority don't. With what it says in the Soundcloud agreement it would seem prudent to do it anyway, even if you aren't worried about countries like China treating it like a candy store.


----------



## PeterN

Hasen6 said:


> To be honest I don't know why anyone puts their music in full tracks online with no watermark at all...especially not on a huge site like soundcloud. Soundcloud is China's free music library to score all their tv and movies.



True so. Or at least theyve ripped off a lot stuff from it.


----------



## splayford

Thanks for sharing this!


----------



## eph221

buschmann said:


> I jumped to http://www.octave.is (octave.is) for easy and proffesional sharing and bandcamp for a public front and/or commercial stuff.
> 
> Bandcamp terms states as follows:
> 
> _*Am I signing over the rights to my music, home and firstborn?* No. The only rights we take are the obvious ones we need to run the service. For example, the right to host the music you upload, stream and sell it on your behalf, display whatever lyrics and artwork you put on the site, and so on._
> 
> I have the feeling soundcloud terms is much the same actually, but they have commercialized them selfs beyond my liking and understanding.




Does bandcamp stream at a higher bit rate than soundcloud? I'm confused on this matter.


----------



## PaulieDC

My apologies if this was addressed already, at work and can't read the whole thread. I'm seeing BandCamp talked about and I'll check that out. What about Spotify, is that a viable/decent/"worth it" platform, or are they as problematic as SoundCloud?


----------



## synkrotron

eph221 said:


> Does bandcamp stream at a higher bit rate than soundcloud?



No


----------



## synkrotron

synkrotron said:


> No



Okay, not strictly true.

SoundCloud Go+ subscribers can stream at 320kbps, otherwise it is (or was) 128kpbs for everyone else. Searching the interwebs reveals that SoundCloud my have "reduced" its streaming quality to 64kbps Opus (whatever that is) but I think they denied it.

And Bandcamp users that have purchased a track/album can then stream said track/album at MP3 V0s (around 250kbps). Otherwise it is 128kbps.

We discussed this over at the AO forum and some contend that the SoundCloud stream was somehow better than Bandcamp but I personally couldn't tell the difference, cos me ears are shagged (too much heavy metal).


----------



## Sarah Mancuso

synkrotron said:


> And Bandcamp users that have purchased a track/album can then stream said track/album at MP3 V0s (around 250kbps). Otherwise it is 128kbps.


Is Bandcamp really streaming MP3, though, or a more modern format where that bitrate goes a bit further as far as audio quality goes?


----------



## synkrotron

Sarah Mancuso said:


> Is Bandcamp really streaming MP3, though, or a more modern format where that bitrate goes a bit further as far as audio quality goes?











What format/quality are the streams on Bandcamp?


They’re MP3-128s. However, if you’re in the app and on wifi, items you’ve purchased stream as MP3-V0s (~250kbit/s on average).




get.bandcamp.help


----------



## 2chris

I’m going to play devils advocate here. Couldn’t that paragraph be because the embedded player is widely used? It’s like how you can embed a YouTube clip on any website. Does that mean that a site is stealing content to embed clips? It’s part of your release on YouTube, and it’s on the YouTube platform agreement that your video could be embedded in places they can’t control completely. It’s the same with SoundCloud. People could watch a YouTube clip on this site very just as easy as listening to soundcloud embeds people post here. If they don’t protect themselves, how can they allow for features like this? As much as people want to get all conspiracy theory, it’s pretty dangerous to their survival to do something to screw over the people keeping them afloat - the artists.

If people are this worried, sign up for distrokid or a similar service and get on paid streaming platforms and sites like this. People that pay for music are mostly on Spotify, Apple, or tidal. To some degree Amazon, Pandora, and some others.


----------



## Solarsentinel

What do you think of metapop? It seems we can share tracks, but i can't find the legacy for intellect property.


----------



## JohnG

2chris said:


> I’m going to play devils advocate here. Couldn’t that paragraph be because the embedded player is widely used? ... If they don’t protect themselves, how can they allow for features like this?



Part of my concern is exactly what you wrote: "If they don't protect THEMESELVES...."

That's what they are doing -- protecting themselves, not the creatives, at least not sufficiently, in my opinion. The language and the form of the contract can easily be misinterpreted (innocently or deliberately). Like many legal documents, you have to read the entire agreement to understand it; I get that and have read plenty of legal documents. I don't like the way this one is written.

I don't post on Youtube either.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_
> 
> Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting. [edit: while there are other paragraphs in the user agreement that may be intended to address issues raised here, I personally am not comfortable with this language and would not post on the site]


I simply make my soundcloud account private so I’m not worried, but that’s great info to know.


----------



## HarmonyCore

JohnG said:


> Part of my concern is exactly what you wrote: "If they don't protect THEMESELVES...."
> 
> That's what they are doing -- protecting themselves, not the creatives, at least not sufficiently, in my opinion. The language and the form of the contract can easily be misinterpreted (innocently or deliberately). Like many legal documents, you have to read the entire agreement to understand it; I get that and have read plenty of legal documents. I don't like the way this one is written.
> 
> I don't post on Youtube either.



I wonder what will be the exact marketing strategy for our music? I think we don't need to post anything ourselves and let the publishers to post on youtube, soundcloud, apple music,..etc. I am not yet a complete expert in the business side but I see many composers have their music posted on streaming services sites by their publishers such as Elephant Music, Really Slow Motion,..etc and not by themselves.

So the question remains, why would someone put his/her work portfolio on streaming sites? Just put them on your Dropbox and create a link for it. And let your publisher post wherever you want after you get paid!

Correct me if I am wrong!


----------



## Hasen6

HarmonyCore said:


> So the question remains, why would someone put his/her work portfolio on streaming sites? Just put them on your Dropbox and create a link for it. And let your publisher post wherever you want after you get paid!
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong!



Yeah exactly, or make your soundcloud private like *NoOneKnowsAnything *said.


----------



## fairyclown

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_
> 
> Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting. [edit: while there are other paragraphs in the user agreement that may be intended to address issues raised here, I personally am not comfortable with this language and would not post on the site]
> 
> 
> bbunker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but the rest of the paragraph delimits the actual ways in which these usages are permitted. Here is the remainder of the pertinent section: (Note that the paragraph does not actually conclude here - the rest of it limits the use of trade and service marks by end users...)
> 
> _"By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public, _*Your Content utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services. You can limit and restrict the availability of certain of Your Content to other users of the Platform, and to users of Linked Services, at any time using the permissions tab in the track edit section for each sound you upload, subject to the provisions of the **Disclaimer** section below."*
> 
> (Bold in the second half of the paragraph added by me)
> 
> There are in effect three sections to this paragraph - the first, which lists the license which is being granted and to whom, second, the things which one can do with that license (i.e., use, copy, etc.), and the third, which begins with "Your content utilizing" which limits the application of that license to the parameters that you as content provider have set, and that these activities must exist within the context of 'utilizing the features of the Platform." Unless these film makers are using exclusively Soundcloud to make films, then there is absolutely zero license granted to steal anything from that paragraph in full.
> 
> There is also this paragraph which concludes the section on the Grant of License which precludes the uses being discussed in this thread outside of the platform:
> 
> _"Any Content other than Your Content is the property of the relevant Uploader, and is or may be subject to copyright, trademark rights or other intellectual property or proprietary rights. Such Content may not be downloaded, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, re-uploaded, republished, displayed, sold, licensed, made available or otherwise communicated to the public or exploited for any purposes except via the features of the Platform from time to time and within the parameters set by the Uploader on the Platform or with the express written consent of the Uploader. Where you repost another user’s Content, or include another user’s Content in a playlist or station or where you listen to another user’s Content offline, you acquire no ownership rights whatsoever in that Content. Subject to the rights expressly granted in this section, all rights in Content are reserved to the relevant Uploader."_
> 
> I would agree - always read the terms carefully. But also be sure to read them in full, and without stopping your reading of the terms before you've actually reached the end of the license being granted. It's the difference between "_I want to kill everyone who tries to kill me" _and _"I want to kill everyone."_
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is to protect the fact that you can share music from soundcloud publically, which is kind of what artists would wish people to do. It helps promote the artists. It's the agreement that is basically saying "yes, it is ok for this person to share my song from soundcloud on their public pages to the public." But of course as the uploader, you can choose whether or not you would like that. I have a lot of my content on soundcloud hidden and I use it mostly to host songs that someone can quickly stream if I send it for business purposes. I don't really use the platform for much more than that. I agree though that the termonolgy in contracts is sooo confusing and I think everyone has a stigma of signing their life away on a contract lol! It's a scary thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## dcoscina

Just imagine if a restaurant hosted freelance chefs who could provide excellent cuisine and would drive up business. Then imagine the owners CHARGING the chefs to work there. I mean, really... just superimpose this ideology on any other sector and most people would tell them to go screw themselves... why do we as a community allow this kind of exploitation? Because there is the promise of paying work? Perhaps if you are a pop music artist, SoundCloud could be helpful but I don't see the value of a service which is extremely limited unless the content creators PAY for it. That's fucked up. And yes, I need to drop the F bomb in this case...


----------



## dcoscina

JohnG said:


> _By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license 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, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public_
> 
> Read their terms of use very carefully and consider whether you want to agree to them before posting. [edit: while there are other paragraphs in the user agreement that may be intended to address issues raised here, I personally am not comfortable with this language and would not post on the site]


Hey John, what service would you recommend? I'm genuinely interested. BandCamp is nice but seems more gauged at selling one's material on, rather than a platform to gain further exposure...


----------



## Mr Greg G

I think these platforms are mainly for showcasing. I am actually writing a personal composition (I'm not allowed to put my paid projects "out there") and as you know it, it can take a lot of time. Once it will be finished what will I do with it? Throw it in the garbage or let it die on some SSD bytes? This is a real question. Because honestly by the time I will be finished with the track, I will also be fed up with it and probably won't listen to it anymore or on very rare occasions to showcase. Unfortunately my experience is that friends and family are rarely interested in listening to tracks because it takes too much time compared to, let's say, seeing pro shots photos on Instagram or drawings.

So what do I do with this track? There's no right or wrong answer to this question. In my opinion it's better to throw it on Youtube, Soundcloud, whatever so that at least people can enjoy it even though there's this risk of it being stolen or used without my consent.


----------



## JohnG

dcoscina said:


> Hey John, what service would you recommend? I'm genuinely interested. BandCamp is nice but seems more gauged at selling one's material on, rather than a platform to gain further exposure...


Hi David,

I just have stuff on my website and iTunes etc. IDK the best platform for showcasing.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## GNP

I never really cared about showcasing my music tracks, but what I really hate about Soundcloud is that it's embed plugins do not have fucking VOLUME ADJUST.


----------



## Mr Greg G

So you just let them die on your HDD?


----------



## dcoscina

Mr Pringles said:


> I think these platforms are mainly for showcasing. I am actually writing a personal composition (I'm not allowed to put my paid projects "out there") and as you know it, it can take a lot of time. Once it will be finished what will I do with it? Throw it in the garbage or let it die on some SSD bytes? This is a real question. Because honestly by the time I will be finished with the track, I will also be fed up with it and probably won't listen to it anymore or on very rare occasions to showcase. Unfortunately my experience is that friends and family are rarely interested in listening to tracks because it takes too much time compared to, let's say, seeing pro shots photos on Instagram or drawings.
> 
> So what do I do with this track? There's no right or wrong answer to this question. In my opinion it's better to throw it on Youtube, Soundcloud, whatever so that at least people can enjoy it even though there's this risk of it being stolen or used without my consent.


yes this is the ongoing debate isn't it? Commercial works for me also don't get showcased on SC and normally it's more or less a place that I use as a sounding board when I'm developing pieces. I rarely if ever put finished work up on there.


----------



## Mr Greg G

dcoscina said:


> I rarely if ever put finished work up on there.


So what do you end up doing with these pieces?


----------



## AllanH

Mr Pringles said:


> I think these platforms are mainly for showcasing. I am actually writing a personal composition (I'm not allowed to put my paid projects "out there") and as you know it, it can take a lot of time. Once it will be finished what will I do with it? Throw it in the garbage or let it die on some SSD bytes? This is a real question. Because honestly by the time I will be finished with the track, I will also be fed up with it and probably won't listen to it anymore or on very rare occasions to showcase. Unfortunately my experience is that friends and family are rarely interested in listening to tracks because it takes too much time compared to, let's say, seeing pro shots photos on Instagram or drawings.
> 
> So what do I do with this track? There's no right or wrong answer to this question. In my opinion it's better to throw it on Youtube, Soundcloud, whatever so that at least people can enjoy it even though there's this risk of it being stolen or used without my consent.


I think that is a great idea. On YouTube, this establishes Content ID so that you could monetize it or at least prevent others from doing so. It might also be worthwhile to register it with the copyright office, so you had some ability to go after anyone attempting to use it without your consent.


----------



## Soundbed

dcoscina said:


> Does anyone know of a alternative solution to Soundcloud? I'd prefer not having the fruits of my labours used without my expressed consent.


Disco.ac 
It’s great for sharing (privately) with industry professionals. But you can also add players to your (public) website.


----------



## dcoscina

Soundbed said:


> Disco.ac
> It’s great for sharing (privately) with industry professionals. But you can also add players to your (public) website.


Nice I will check it out!!


----------



## Markrs

osterdamus said:


> I have a Roland FP-10 digital piano and I'm interested in this sort of solution. However, can't afford the Doepfer just yet. Does anyone have experience with building such a solution with a piano that has a taller profile? Would like some inspiration on what is possible.


Wrong thread? As I think you might be referring to Rob Hill's (Westwood) studio transformation thread.


----------



## osterdamus

Markrs said:


> Wrong thread? As I think you might be referring to Rob Hill's (Westwood) studio transformation thread.


haha, yes 😄 I'll remove my response, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## 3CPU

Soundcloud and other similar sites are for showcasing, linking to people such as music supervisors for sync licensing and other interests such as labels.

My royalties have dwindled down to just $4 because I haven't been active for more than 10 years! Royalty checks on average is only $20 for most music artists (singles, album releases). Going on national tour is where music artists make extra money but the idea of sleeping in a one room shared arrangement is not pleasant. MP3, Streaming sites and technology and yeah -- globally, millions of people upload music everyday. The market is overly saturated (understatement)! How do you breakthrough?

Promotion, marketing, video production and where to get an additional $1,000 to $5,000 per month to cover the costs for a monthly marketing blitz! One of the most important assets for an independent artist is a music publicist. I had a connection years ago with one of the best music publicist, then the label said... ahem! How much is this going to cost?

I have a great aunt (writer, journalist and activist for human rights) who spent a lot of her own money to ensure coherency and success of her published works! Hugely successful and in recent times was honored and respected by the prime minister.

Edited Post: I forgot to mention that I don't use Soundcloud.

^


----------



## Thomas Costantino

That’s some wild language and certainly raises an alarm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the site was made for music creators to collaborate and have a digital library. Seems weird that they would put such language in that completely disregards the content creators. Another thing I don’t enjoy is if I send a private playlist to a client, at the end of the last track it jumps to a random suggested playlist of God knows what. I find this incredibly unprofessional at its confusing to the listener. I want them to be solely focused on the content I sent. Is there any way to turn that feature off ? 

Aside from those issues ( which aren’t small), I truly love the platform, it’s integration into websites and sound quality gets the job done. 

In their defense of the track use language, I’d assume they’re trying to cover their own butts and stay out of any legal situation between two other parties. I understand that, but there must be a better way that doesn’t sound like they’re openly letting people rip off your music.

If getting followers isn’t your aim, have you considered hiring a code guy to replicate a media player on your own site ? Basically build your own streaming library that you completely control.


----------



## Yellow Studio

JohnG said:


> It's not just "used," David, it's used -- for free. And without notice, as far as I can see -- there is no clear obligation to notify the copyright holder (and by the way, the "copyright holder" appears to be just about anyone who accesses Soundcloud, for practical purposes). I am no lawyer but based on how I read this, someone could, it appears, write an entire score based on your theme (derivative work) without notice or payment; or simply use it in a film without paying you.


Isn't this just for the services on SoundCloud?


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

pmountford said:


> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Yes, I'm sure I read this and yet I couldn't understand why every man and his dog has a presence on Soundcloud. And just like a sheep I did as so many others have and uploaded but since have had that nagging feeling that I shouldn't have. I look forward to this discussion..


my main reason is, that there people go with more listening intent, and it plays from track to track without interruption, while people do stuff.

And also because i publish a lot, a can´t afford complicated release procedures, principally regarding images.

It is very challenging today to find something that is a not a wolf appearing like sheap


i honestly don´t know! am there in good faith


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

Thomas Costantino said:


> That’s some wild language and certainly raises an alarm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the site was made for music creators to collaborate and have a digital library. Seems weird that they would put such language in that completely disregards the content creators. Another thing I don’t enjoy is if I send a private playlist to a client, at the end of the last track it jumps to a random suggested playlist of God knows what. I find this incredibly unprofessional at its confusing to the listener. I want them to be solely focused on the content I sent. Is there any way to turn that feature off ?
> 
> Aside from those issues ( which aren’t small), I truly love the platform, it’s integration into websites and sound quality gets the job done.
> 
> In their defense of the track use language, I’d assume they’re trying to cover their own butts and stay out of any legal situation between two other parties. I understand that, but there must be a better way that doesn’t sound like they’re openly letting people rip off your music.
> 
> If getting followers isn’t your aim, have you considered hiring a code guy to replicate a media player on your own site ? Basically build your own streaming library that you completely control.


don´t need code, I have in my site an independent player. BUt people don´t stop for music like this, unless they are clients


----------



## synthetic

Anyone using whyp.it? Any downsides? Or has anyone found a javascript player they like?


----------



## Cideboy

dcoscina said:


> Does anyone know of a alternative solution to Soundcloud? I'd prefer not having the fruits of my labours used without my expressed consent.








DISCO | Home







www.disco.ac


----------

