Live data from Hacker News

What is going on with SoundCloud?

factmag.com

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#61
post #3

It's a shame, really. SoundCloud used to be good service for independent musicians, and I really liked the social aspects of it and the integration into Ableton. But next thing you know, you read about deals with Warner and 100M funding and whatnot. Let's just hope Bandcamp keeps its focus; it's currently my favourite site for discovering new music.

SoundCloud's take-down algorithms are only targeting musicians who rely on sampling copyrighted works. This, clearly, is a large chunk of SoundCloud's current user base but I honestly think this will result in a net increase in quality.

What is it about sample-based music that makes it so inferior to acoustic music (on average) that culling it en masse "will result in a net increase in quality"?

edit: of order words out

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might fall under Title I (which is the transcription of the WIPO treaty to US law), but most mentions of DMCA are about Title II (the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act") which only applies to service providers, not first-party content hosting. First-party hosting still needs an ISP though, and that ISP can be sent DMCA notices.

What is the responsibility of the ISP to its subscribers in that case? I.e. would I reasonably be able to take legal action against them if they deny me the service for what turns out to be a frivolous DMCA claim?

> would I reasonably be able to take legal action against them if they deny me the service for what turns out to be a frivolous DMCA claim?

The point of the DMCA Safe Harbour provision is that the OSP is protected if they don't involve themselves and just proxy claims assuming their are in good faith/correct. So no. You may have a claim if the OSP does not restore service after a counter-notice with no followup legal action from the claimant but they're allowed 10-14 business days for that one so you may be out for 3 weeks without any recourse, but OSPs can also rely on their TOS to make that moot and even ignore the counter-notice altogether.

You probably won't even have a claim against the originally alleged copyright owner: the notice of copyright infringement only requires "good faith belief" under no penalty of perjury.

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the responsibility of the ISP to its subscribers in that case? I.e. would I reasonably be able to take legal action against them if they deny me the service for what turns out to be a frivolous DMCA claim?

> would I reasonably be able to take legal action against them if they deny me the service for what turns out to be a frivolous DMCA claim? The point of the DMCA Safe Harbour provision is that the OSP is protected if they don't involve themselves and just proxy claims assuming their are in good faith/correct. So no. You may have a claim if the OSP does not restore service after a counter-notice with no followup legal…

> You probably won't even have a claim against the originally alleged copyright owner: the notice of copyright infringement only requires "good faith belief" under no penalty of perjury.

That you don't have a specific DMCA-derived or declaration-under-penalty-of-perjury-derived cause of action doesn't mean you don't have a standard defamation-based cause of action.

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might fall under Title I (which is the transcription of the WIPO treaty to US law), but most mentions of DMCA are about Title II (the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act") which only applies to service providers, not first-party content hosting. First-party hosting still needs an ISP though, and that ISP can be sent DMCA notices.

What is the responsibility of the ISP to its subscribers in that case? I.e. would I reasonably be able to take legal action against them if they deny me the service for what turns out to be a frivolous DMCA claim?

> What is the responsibility of the ISP to its subscribers in that case?

Largely, to fulfill whatever is in their terms of service, though so long as they follow the counternotice procedures in the DMCA -- which require you first to file a counternotice -- they have no liability to you for removing content in response to a facially valid (even if substantively completely false) DMCA claim, even if they would otherwise under general principles of law or your terms of service (that's why the DMCA notice/counternotice provisions are called "Safe Harbor" provisions -- they provide a shield from existing copyright liability and liability to the user whose hosted content is removed, provided, in the first case, that the notice provisions are adhered to, and, in the second, that the content was removed in response to a DMCA notice and the counternotice provisions are adhered to.)

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#65
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SoundCloud's take-down algorithms are only targeting musicians who rely on sampling copyrighted works. This, clearly, is a large chunk of SoundCloud's current user base but I honestly think this will result in a net increase in quality.

> Paradoxically, the takedowns are often hurting the artists that they’re meant to be protecting. On August 12, London DJ Plastician had a track he produced, owned and released on his own label blocked by SoundCloud’s copyright detection algorithm.

As a plastician fan, I'm not surprised if this ends up happening to even more producers of in his scope of genre. Theirs is a completely different culture than the DMCA/Mainstream Commercial American Pop Music - their community is very tightly-knit, and they freely pass around unreleased tracks, samples, and song stems for each other to remix. They will often hold onto a track for years before putting it on an independent label release. More underground UK artists will sadly stray away from the app altogether.

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#66
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they want to make deals with the majors, and they already have one with Warner. Which is fine, of course, but it no longer interests me personally. Instead of being a platform for indie musicians, it seems they are more interested in becoming a streaming platform for music from major labels, and that no longer interests me at all. Besides, I don't think their funding will be enough to compete in that area...

Fair point about the focus on majors. I would argue, though, that they're not completely abandoning indies, just raising the bar for entry. Like going from hypem.com to pitchfork.com

What sort of bar are you referring to? The fact that one could just use additional processing plugins on their samples to make them unrecognizable by algorithm doesn't correlate well to the quality of the track in question.

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point about the focus on majors. I would argue, though, that they're not completely abandoning indies, just raising the bar for entry. Like going from hypem.com to pitchfork.com

What sort of bar are you referring to? The fact that one could just use additional processing plugins on their samples to make them unrecognizable by algorithm doesn't correlate well to the quality of the track in question.

There are large swaths of the SoundCloud user base that rely so heavily on sampling that they contribute very little creatively. A great example is "nightcore". Though the result is quite enjoyable it really doesn't take a lot of skill to create (wholesale copy a trance song, pitch up the vocals, speed up the track a bit, done)

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point about the focus on majors. I would argue, though, that they're not completely abandoning indies, just raising the bar for entry. Like going from hypem.com to pitchfork.com

What sort of bar are you referring to? The fact that one could just use additional processing plugins on their samples to make them unrecognizable by algorithm doesn't correlate well to the quality of the track in question.

To ChrisArgyle: Oh yes, I understand that. Even worse are the wannabe rap artists who will use the entire artist name and title of a track to "trojan horse" their own rap rendition and trick people into playing their music to drive up play counts. They're still getting away with this somehow.

But the commercial trance songs themselves are sampling other tracks (although doing it much better), and also licensing issues down to the one-shot drum samples they're using.

One of my tracks takes a Beyonce vocal stab and it processes it so much you won't recognize who the singer was - unless you knew the steps to reverse engineer it - and, you'd be surprised to find many talented audio engineers who are much better than I can do this easily. When I hear songs on the radio which use a similar technique, I can pick this up instantly. AFAIK, my track hasn't been pulled off SC yet.

Did you also know that many companies (Verizon and TMobile have been known to do this) have audio engineers who will "reverse engineer" a song their marketing team likes from an indie artist to recreate it so they don't have to pay royalties? Its not hard to trick these algorithms, and in many cases they come up with false positives anyways.

Most of the (commercial) "Industry" itself is running off uncredited samples, many of which have been cut from 1960-1980s Jazz/Blues tracks. These tracks still are technically copyrighted[0], but the artists are often not knowledgable over who is sampling their tracks, or in many cases they don't care / want people to sample their stuff. Most of their record labels have also long since died off which would have tried to protect their works as well. You would be shocked to find how wide the range of genres are of producers that are doing this.

In sum, it stinks of a moneygrab. Soundcloud became big enough to get into DMCA's non-artistic crosshairs.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...

Re: What is going on with SoundCloud?

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SoundCloud's take-down algorithms are only targeting musicians who rely on sampling copyrighted works. This, clearly, is a large chunk of SoundCloud's current user base but I honestly think this will result in a net increase in quality.

What is it about sample-based music that makes it so inferior to acoustic music (on average) that culling it en masse "will result in a net increase in quality"? edit: of order words out

Don't mistake me, there is no comparison to acoustic music. I use SoundCloud daily to discover new electronic music (which I do with great success)

I'm speaking from my frustration with the sea of unimaginative "remixes" that barely diverge from the original mix.

Post reply on HN