« Find Out About New Apps Gone Free and See How Much Data They Use With Know My App | Main | New On Our Music Industry Jobs Board: Viacom Music Group, Cymbancha, TuneSat & More »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Changing the defaults in copyright law?

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?


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.

Les Scurr

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!!!


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!


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


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.


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 !


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!


got no sounds cloud go figure?


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. :)


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

too much hassle

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

b mcfly



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.

DJ Nussdog

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.

John Joseph

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources