31–40 of 94 posts
Farewell Soundcloud. It was nice while things lasted.
So it is something special, and I hate to see them mucking around with it ...
First, that is a low blow linking to others doing it. They know, or haven't got to them yet. Websites like Etsy do the same on license content. Two, they choose you be set an example. Three, I always thought of Soundcloud the Vimeo of music. If it is an artisans music website, upload your own creations. Unfortunately for soundcloud, aren't they killing their main userbase? DJ's mixing mainstream songs.
I learned that the hard way in 2001 when the IFPI went after my links (yes, only links) to then popular sites like mp3board.com and others - while the biggest news portal in the country had exactly the same links and weren't prosecuted at all.
Farewell Soundcloud. It was nice while things lasted.
Yes,it really was. I am an old, classic, get off my lawn style person who never signed up for twitter or Facebook and still uses a dumbphone. But somehow I got onto SC and discovered a lot of great music there, which has led to a few hundred dollars of amazon purchases. So it is something special, and I hate to see them mucking around with it ...
Get a license or use something else. And don't complain that they're being "unfair" by taking your stuff down and not telling you what infringed. If you didn't upload/sample/perform other people's stuff, you wouldn't need to worry about what songs were infringing.
Get your samples cleared. After having to get written permission from Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and other services to use screenshots of their web pages in my books, this doesn't surprise me in the least. Fair use is a defense, not a right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do that now by posting a comment to the thread. I realize that's not exactly what you mean, but (a) it's close, (b) we're biased in favor of reusing existing features wherever possible, and (c) I'm not convinced that the submitter's comment should be privileged over other users', other than by being first to appear. What chippy wrote was fine, but that would not always be the case.
I don't think the submitter's comment needs to be privileged. But it would be nice if both text and url are entered then the system just magically turns that text into a comment from the submitter. It would just save the submitter a step. I'll refrain from the typical dev comment about how it should be easy to do in the code. It probably isn't that easy. But probably not that hard either. :)
Will think about this and maybe look at relevant historical data.
I don't understand the problem, I guess. You can't profit from other people's copyrighted material without their permission. That's just how copyright works. And they can grant or deny that parmission. Get a license or use something else. And don't complain that they're being "unfair" by taking your stuff down and not telling you what infringed. If you didn't upload/sample/perform other people's stuff, you wouldn't n…
Sure you can. "Fair use" is the most common example of that, but you don't need to make a fair use defense in order to find examples of people profiting off of others' copyrighted works legitimately.
In fact, it should be noted that a lot of famous songs you probably know are themselves based on copyrighted works. Coolio's "Gansta's Paradise"[0] and Kanye West's "Stronger"[1] are very famous examples. Not all samples are licensed - it's very common to use unlicensed samples, even in music released by major studios.
I don't know which artists are with which labels off the top of my head, but I'd bet anything Universal is profiting off of unlicensed samples for some of their artists. Many (most?) Soundcloud users, on the other hand, aren't making a single cent off of the music they post.
[0] samples large parts of "Pastime Paradise" by Stevie Wonder
[1] samples Daft Punk, but this was actually itself sampled Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby"
I don't understand the problem, I guess. You can't profit from other people's copyrighted material without their permission. That's just how copyright works. And they can grant or deny that parmission. Get a license or use something else. And don't complain that they're being "unfair" by taking your stuff down and not telling you what infringed. If you didn't upload/sample/perform other people's stuff, you wouldn't n…
Now I get that it sucks that you don't get explicit explanations of what infringed, and I worry hugely about their power to supress content that they actually do not own, but:
1. Stop pretending that you should get a free ride because you're promoting the artist. If you actually give a shit, discover and promote new music from awesome bands that are not beholden to the labels. That's the only way to break the stranglehold.
2. Don't rage at the service that provides a great product to producers of real, original content, just because you've repurposed the platform to promote your infringing mix.
I don't understand the problem, I guess. You can't profit from other people's copyrighted material without their permission. That's just how copyright works. And they can grant or deny that parmission. Get a license or use something else. And don't complain that they're being "unfair" by taking your stuff down and not telling you what infringed. If you didn't upload/sample/perform other people's stuff, you wouldn't n…