Soundcloud Boldly Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account, and Quietly Announces Data Mining, All in One Month

Image via SoundCloud
Image via SoundCloud

Back in February, I penned a speculative article in regards to SoundCloud‘s interesting choices in venture capitalist partnership, and a comment was left by someone that said my opinion “proves that you have absolutely no understanding of how the SoundCloud business model works or how venture capital works and should be prefaced as wild conjecture.”  Obvious political and strategic moves were made alongside a series of partnerships with companies that have the ability to cross-pollinate all social media platforms and mine your data for profit, but we’re apparently just bloggers that have no idea how the real world works.  Though there was a lack of concrete evidence to back our claims, the writing was on the wall, and all we had to do was sit back and wait.

SC00 Soundcloud Boldly Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account, and Quietly Announces Data Mining, All in One Month

As it turns out, all you have to do is read a little bit and connect dots to stay months ahead of economists, and SoundCloud’s new policy for cookies spells out exactly what we speculated.  In a nutshell, the new guidelines state that you will start being tracked as of next month, your information will automatically be collected if your account is hinged to Facebook or Google+, and that you need to send a handwritten letter to Germany to opt out, but refusing to comply may result in termination of your account. It confirms our assumptions, and hints further at SoundCloud aiming to monetize or sell in the coming months.   This announcement came quietly in a single notification that I haven’t seen since it popped up on my home page a couple of weeks ago, and has since eclipsed by the release of their new mobile app, which has been met with mixed reviews.

The most interesting move, though, is one that nobody is really speaking on–and it’s the most frightening. SoundCloud seems to have given Universal the keys to the car within the last month, and is allowing the media giant full access to flag accounts’ records without any communication whatsoever with SoundCloud.  We’ve seen an insane wave of song removals, copyright notifications, and account terminations on behalf of SoundCloud in the past month, but seeing that majors now have back end access to systematically scrape all of their content without having to answer to anyone is crazy.  Below are a series of emails to and from SubFM DJ Mr. Brainz, who had his account flagged directly by Universal with no involvement from SoundCloud at all. 

SC01 Soundcloud Boldly Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account, and Quietly Announces Data Mining, All in One Month SC02 Soundcloud Boldly Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account, and Quietly Announces Data Mining, All in One Month SC03 Soundcloud Boldly Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account, and Quietly Announces Data Mining, All in One Month

The question posed by Mr. Brainz warrants discussion.  Is a BBC mix somehow more important? Are heavily-trafficked accounts less likely for a major to flag?  Are majors going to tiptoe around big acts and chop away at the novice musician until they control SoundCloud?   We’re also curious what Universal’s issue is with SoundCloud, and we’re scratching our heads as Warner, Interscope, and Atlantic are using Soundcloud heavily, and Universal seems to have a hands-off policy with the platform.  The most notable account strikes in recent weeks were against Kaskade, who complained publicly and now claims the ball is already rolling to start his own music platform. We’re curious about what the next step is for musicians that are fed up with corporations killing their vibe. 

  • Coldninjapro

    “Hey guys let’s make soundcloud like YouTube sounds like a great idea” – sarcastic man

    • wiier9l

      Welcome to hell. population: YOU

      • womp


  • Yolo Swankins

    it all comes down to money. record labels make zero profit from soundcloud streams. Online streaming is killing the majors and they are finding a way to fight back.

    • Xai Avalon Tourney

      All the majors I know are doing well, if you mean the big shots well we both know they stole most of their work or bought it at some point. ;)

    • George Harris

      Having DJs play your music is usually seen as a good thing for a label. More listeners, better profile, more sales. From a purely profit oriented view, penalising DJs who play unlicensed music is a short-term fix and will end up killing the majors. Small and independent labels who embrace new tech will benefit.

    • Joe

      fuck maors anyways, they’re designed to fuck the artist over. they make artists nowadays sign what are called “360 deals” which allow them to take a cut of every money making opportunity (movie roles, endorsements, etc.) an artists gets, even though they do nothing to secure those opportunities. not to mention the outrageous “fronting” fees they’ve been charging artists for decades, plus the bullshit “breakage and return” fees that should not be an artists responsibility in the first place. major labels can eat a dick, they dont give a shit about the artists.

  • DRUW

    Fuck major labels

    • EdC

      Soundcloud has been on the nose for a while, but this is terrible. Like Google and Youtube right now with their indie crushing changes to music..Considering dj mixes are a plural form and don’t promote the singular songs much, maybe this Hedge fund driven EDM takeover thing has the investors trying to change the format of ‘mixtapes’, so they can sell more of their own crap after making it hard for you to promote your own, or even for others, just as they have done with the corporatisation and buying out of big festivals.

      the TPP man..the TPP!

      • Nicholas James Concklin

        YouTube isnt doing anything to crush indies. Stop propagating misinformation. They’re blocking ANYONE from using their content ID and monetization system unless they’re apart of Music Pass. Anyone can still upload videos.

        • Marcos Marado

          See what’s happening with the videos of Enough Records (CC Licensed) material as an example…

          • Nicholas James Concklin

            That is unrelated to this situation entirely. Enough Records’ videos have been tagged as featuring material owned by the distro RouteNote. Whether or not this is in error, this type of copyright dispute is not uncommon and is still unrelated to the controversy surrounding Music Pass, YouTube and indies.

        • yungchiraqboi


      • wiier9l
  • Scott Cohen

    To be clear, Kaskade didn’t really allude to “starting a new platform.” It sounds like he is just going to host his music on his own site/server somewhere. Which is something we should all be doing, TBH. Don’t hold your breath for a KaskadeKloud anytime soon.

  • Amen Acid

    Big acts have gotten taken down as well. I don’t think that influences the decision at all, just whether you are infringing copyright for songs or artists that Universal doesn’t want you to infringe. Also, SoundCloud is german, and Germany has some of the worst copyright law in Europe—far worse than the US since DJs have to pay money to even play a track live.

    All in all, we have it pretty damn good hear, and all you have to do to keep your tracks from being pulled is put in 10 seconds of silence at the beginning of your track.

  • alex

    This is all just FUD.


    You had me at Venture Capital. Money for the sake of money always ruins the fun.

  • Patrick Fee

    Soundcloud, not Universal removed a DJ mix of mine for the first track on it. I simply added an intro (some movie dialogue that segued into the first track) and it posted just fine after that.

    • Michael DjNappy Abernathy

      the 12 seconds of silence intro for DJ mixes is another solution that everyone seems to be eager to broadcast… it’s been said enough times publicly that we’re pretty sure they’re aware :-)

  • PeterE34

    To be clear here, I am not on the side of major labels, I agree that they are part of the problem with the music Industry today, but as a musician myself it seems to me from my experiences that a bigger problem with the industry is this weird consensus that it is okay to upload and share music without the required copyright. The music industry has been in decline for the past decade, and the major labels are an easy scapegoat for this, however the real cause is the fact that record sales have plummeted since the phenomenon of online streaming and sharing. This is what has caused the downright immoral 360 deals the the majors now employ, and the prices of gig tickets to skyrocket as record sales are no longer a viable source of income.
    But the majors are surviving, the people who are really suffering are the independent labels who are fairer to their artists. These companies rely on actual record sales to survive, and the culture that the uploading and sharing of music has created has meant that people don’t buy music nearly as much as they used too, resulting in these smaller companies struggling and lots of great bands going unheard due to the lack of funds to promote their material. Yes, major labels exploit the copyright laws to make money, but we seem to often forget that they are originally there to protect the artist.
    I agree with many of the points in the above article, it is unfair that a paid account was suspended without absolute clarity as to why, it is concerning that the people you are paying are not the ones that are in control of what gets suspended, and it is also concerning that major labels seem to have back door access to a service such as soundcloud, however it seems to be missing the bigger picture here. Copyright infringement doesn’t just hurt the major labels, it actually kills the little guy everybody is claiming to be on the side of. With the tools we have now to promote and sell our own music, there really is no need for major labels at all, so if you really want to help the music industry get back on its feet (and as a side effect, eradicate the need for major labels) help restore some respect for copyright laws by stopping the pretence that it is okay to infringe them.

    • Contemplating Jazz

      That’s not the problem here, the problem is that they remove this guy’s content but BBC (who also is infringing copyright by uploading the same content) gets to keep theirs because it is more mutually beneficial.

      • PeterE34

        That would be a fair point, however the BBC pay a PRS license fee (PRS collect money via fees, and use it to distribute royalties to the artists and labels) which grants them the right to broadcast material without infringing copyright.
        Anyway, my point here is that arguments like that are being used to justify the infringement of copyright which is damaging the industry as a whole, and the first people this effects are smaller independent labels and self published artists. In short, it seems to me that the abuse of copyright here justifies some sort of penalty, regardless of the apalling way universal and soundcloud have gone about handling the issue.

        • Miglet32

          That license doesn’t apply to listeners governed by other copyright systems. For instance, Mixcloud in the US recently got an overhaul, for the worse… no rewinds, no tracklist until having played through a mix, and no mixes with more than two or three songs by the same artists.

          • PeterE34

            If you are correct then I agree that the BBC and other co-operations should be treated the same as everyone else, however this argument seems to be getting used as a justification for others to upload material they don’t have a license for, which I believe is wrong, and is what stimulated my original reply.

        • Tomjuno

          Wrong. Songwriters receive money from PRS when their music is played on BBC TV and Radio only. Artists receive no royalties when the BBC use their music on Soundcloud. It is a breach of copyright and exactly the same as anyone else uploading other peoples music online. It is therefore unfair that universal remove some profiles and not the BBC. However, to list other accounts doing the same in a reply to soundcloud is cheap and where I come from called grassing. No one likes a snitch.

  • Pingback: One artist’s good-bye to Soundcloud (and facebook) | eve massacre

  • Stellerex


  • Siberian_Oilburger

    Юниверсал – Пидор!

  • JesusAintARealNigga

    Soundcloud taking an L


    Universal just doesn’t wanna play internet nice. <— potentially relevant.

    "The record industry is a master class in avoidance, and Universal was a
    case in point. In 1995, David Geffen's contract with Universal (it had
    bought Geffen in 1990) ran out, and he departed. Universal quickly
    scaled back the digital music distribution effort that Griffin, von
    Goeben, and Wood had developed, via analog corporate death knell—the
    memo. Since then, Universal became part of an ongoing game of musical
    clusterfuck with the rest of the record industry, as companies acquire,
    absorb, merge and otherwise manufacture alliances to stay afloat. This
    dwindling connection struck a lasting blow to the industry. With their
    music filtered through distribution services, labels lost their

  • Turtleyo

    Gender information? Why do people keep confusing gender and sex. Sex is who are you are whether man or woman and gender consist of the roles you play in society whether they be masculine or feminine. Gender roles dont necessarily have to do with your sex…so SoundCloud wants to makes suggestions based off masculine and feminine music taste? O.o

    • Alex Goodwin

      Yup, that’d be the goal. Your dollars don’t have a sex.

    • Victor Ware

      My assumption is that it has nothing to do with music tastes based on sex or gender but everything to do with selling that info to advertisers, partners, etc.

  • Lujxio

    bruh bruh your an idiot and don’t know anything about data science

    • Lm

      Says the guy who uses ‘bruh’ in his language…

      • Scott

        The ability to parse data requires an analytic mind. One’s writing skill, or chosen vernacular, has little to do with it. There are enough cases, throughout human history, to say that your words are ignorant of actual fact.

    • Rashaad Fontenot


      • Paul Laroquod

        a dick

  • Music Man

    Soundclick flags copyrighted music pretty quickly, and causes issues like this for a lot of people. People just stopped using the site as much. SoundCloud kind of got big because of that. Not surprising eventually they would stop the outlaw ways of the site.

  • ChaosOverkill

    Fuck Soundcloud right in the dick, chode smokers.

  • Tusk

    To play Devils Advocate, you showed the e-mail that “Greg” stated Soundcloud mixes that weren’t being taken down such as Kaskade but then at the end of yoir article state that Kaskade HAS had copyright infringement issues. Perhaps the others then have too and some of your point is moot?

    • Miglet32

      Other big, big names such as the BBC don’t seem to be affected, even tho their SC mixes aren’t technically legit for US users.

  • Contemplating Jazz

    Universal already does this with iTunes, corporate bullying is the future (and present state) of the music business, unless the indies win this fight against Youtube. If they win, it may start a snowball effect and they will stop pestering us…unfortunately that won’t happen, the majors have the money = the best lawyers = loopholes around the legal system which allows them to destroy the small companies = monopolising the industry like they always have. It all goes back to corrupt legal systems only defending those with more money, I don’t see that changing anytime soon

  • Andy Wilson

    I’d just like to start by saying that I think the recent developments in Soundcloud’s backend are disapointing, Major Labels are mostly run by small-minded money-men, the lack of transparency in data-mining in general is an infringement on personal liberty (although more fool us for putting personal info on the internet?) and I am personally worried that my own music featuring extensive use of samples is now at risk.

    However, I think I can clear up the perceived BBC hypocrisy.

    The PRS (who deal with all publishing copyright and royalty payments in the UK, for those out of the loop) give the BBC a blanket license on all music used across output from the network, including Radio – I’m pretty sure this is because the Beeb is paid for by the public through the license fee, and has regulations against advertising in any broadcast (it’s kinda like a nationwide PBS). This basically means they are legally entitled to use any music they like for anything they make, because they’ve already paid royalty fees through this license to the PRS.

    This explains why, in this case, Universal haven’t taken down the BBC radio shows containing music from their label – because the BBC has already indirectly paid them for it.

    That being said, I think it’s shit that Greg has had his account suspended, because I agree with him in the fact that people who share music in this way usually lead other people towards buying it, or at least opening up a new avenue for people to discover music, more fans will eventually lead to more sales, surely? (That last part was directed at the small-minded money-men)

    • Michael DjNappy Abernathy

      but hosting streams / downloads of BBC mixes outside of BBC and re-broadcast elsewhere is fine? legitimately curious… i know they usually have things up for a week on their player and then self-destructs…

      • Miglet32

        They aren’t. Each region that receives a stream has its own set of rules, meaning that BBC should be flagged for mixes in places like the states, similar to the new rules governing how US users are allowed to listen to content on Mixcloud (no rewinds, no track list until being listened to, no more than two tracks by the same artist on a mix).

        DMCA here in the states is a stale fucking dinosaur that needs fixing. Even if they do not move to protect mixes, remixes and mash-ups absolutely should be protected.

        • Guest

          (It’s 4 or more, not two tracks by the same artist just FYI, minor detail and fair point)

    • wiier9l
  • Pingback: Is This The End Of SoundCloud For DJs? - Digital DJ Tips

  • Pingback: Copyright-Probleme & mögliche Monetarisierung bei SoundCloud » Spex – Magazin für Popkultur

  • Augure

    Let me explain to you: Music is propaganda. Major labels are not the only ones to poor MILLIONS in the making of albums, music videos, marketing and promotion…

    When your music/videos repetitively reach hundreds of millions of people in the world, especially young influenceable people, you’ll want to control this propaganda channel.

    That’s why majors never stopped bullying and cracking down on anything that is not just copyrighted, but rather that is different music or music coming from people not working for the medias or major.

    Hope you’ll better understand now. Also Soundcloud was hyper promising. They just killed themselves, and as a german company they didn’t have to let their site be corrupt….

    • Kid

      Soundcloud is swedish. Just wanted to point that out :)

      • Augure

        Soundcloud is German bruh, Spotify is swedish.

        • Adam Åstrand

          the founders are swedish, they started up soundcloud in stockholm and then moved to Berlin.

  • ben

    The real question is why is this dude pointing out OTHER people who are “infringing” when he gets caught thats some weak shit

    • LongTimeLurker1stTimePoster

      **Insert joke about DJs being about as smart as a 5th grader here**

  • Pingback: Soundcould erteilt Universal Takedown-Freibrief

  • littletubesoftoothpaste

    this is not good for anyone…we need a new system!

  • Pingback: SoundCloud Decreasingly User Friendly | The Fog

  • Pingback: DJ們,向Soundcloud告別吧 - 耳朵蟲 | Earworm

  • Pingback: Soundcloud gewährt Universal absolute Takedown-Rechte | DER METABØLIST

  • Pingback: Is This The End Of SoundCloud For DJs? | Optikal Dubs Records

  • Zuur

    What I find amazing is that SoundCloud sign a deal for automatic deletion / termination and they don’t even request Universal provide them with details what they’re doing ON THEIR OWN SITE.

  • psymbionic

    Universal doesn’t have magic keys to SoundCloud. All copyright holders share the ability to have their content removed from the internet through something call The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I would suggest doing some research on that. Basically, any content owner is able to send a takedown notice and the receiving party doesn’t have any option but to remove it.

    SoundCloud also has an automatic content identification system similar to Youtube. That means there is a robot which scans your music and compares it to a database of copyrighted songs. If the content owner has decided they do not want their works on a site, then the robot will automatically remove it.

    Kaskade actually wrote a blog article explaining this exact thing:

    Source: I run an independent label and work closely with distributors on the backend for services like Youtube, Soundcloud, Spotify, etc. I’m not specific fan of major labels, but I am a fan of the truth.

    • Greg / Mr Brainz

      Read the email they sent me, bro. They said they don’t know what tool they used and that Universal did it themselves. They suggested “I check the tracklist” to find out what tune it was. I put full tracklists in my mixes, so from their hint, I wager they were doing text searches, not audio content matches.

      • psymbionic

        You misread what I wrote. There are two things being said in this article: 1) Universal and other majors have some kind of backdoor access to Soundcloud, which they don’t, and 2) SC is on some kind of rampage to remove even legal content like Kaskade’s music.

        Major labels have loss prevention teams that do scour the internet looking especially for recently released music. Lots of text searches I imagine. When they find something like your radio show, they have the option to send DMCA’s to services like SoundCloud, which requires them by law to remove the finding. You can contest these claims if you have permission to host this content, but if you don’t, then there’s not much you can do. DMCAs are the real fucked up thing here, not SC, who is just following the rules.

        The claim about Soundcloud targeting smaller artists is also false. The main difference is that the bigger an artist is, the bigger their team is and the more connections they have. They have a much better chance to get every song in that BBC Essential Mix cleared than you do as a podcast DJ.

        The end result is that what that Soundcloud rep told you is 100% correct: If Universal owns the copyright to something, you can’t post it if you don’t have permission. Some people without permission might get away with it, but that doesn’t mean they will forever. It’s the way the law works.

        • ActuallyInformed

          Not really. If soundcloud has been DMCA’d to take down his stuff, then A.) It would have told him that on his tracks, and B.) The soundcloud rep that he talked to would have been able to say “Hey, Universal sent us a DMCA notice. We didn’t have a choice.” Instead, what he got back was “Universal did this. We have absolutely no idea what tool they used, or why they did it. Sorry.” That points to Universal just having access to their system. A DMCA notice isn’t a magical content eraser. You’ve got to be able to give notice as to what’s being infringed upon, and you have to give that notice to the platform hosting the infringing content, which means that they would know exactly why the party who sent the notice wants your content removed.

          • psymbionic

            I still believe you’re reading what you’d like to from the Soundcloud rep’s reply. In no way does he say that Universal has backdoor access to Soundcloud, but he does say they have the right to pull down their music and SC can’t do anything about it. Unfortunately, he is a bit vague there. He doesn’t specify that it was a DMCA, but no one asked either. He says that he does not know what tools they use to *find* content, because he has no connection to Universal. They just send a DMCA and Soundcloud is forced to abide. The easiest way to clear all of this would for Mr Brainz to ask SC’s rep if they received a DMCA.

            There are actually a lot of articles on the web about majors abusing DMCAs and getting in trouble for it. The RIAA actually got sued a couple years back for flooding Youtube with bullshit DMCAs in an attempt to establish dominance. Pretty ridiculous overall.

            I’ve had music pulled from Soundcloud both automatically (which I have rights for, and was able to have reinstated and subsequently whitelisted) as well as manually through a DMCA. A bootleg remix track with 45k plays was taken down, as well as a Hype Machine #2 charting through direct action from Capitol/Universal. It sucked but I’m actually glad they did not take it further than sending me a cease and desist. Ultimately, a “free use” defense against a copyright claim only works if you can prove that you did not benefit from it – and both doing a bootleg remix for free download as well as playing music via internet radio has benefits which would be shown in a trial.

            Soundcloud doesn’t specify when something is taken down automatically or when it is DMCA’d in their disputes list, but you can look at that and file a counter.


            My main issue is that I don’t understand all the Soundcloud hate. Soundcloud is being forced to follow the law just like Youtube and everyone else. They didn’t “sign a deal” or anything with majors to give them authority, the majors already had the authority ever since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed.

          • seekritstuff

            > My main issue is that I don’t understand all the Soundcloud hate. Soundcloud is being forced to follow the law just like Youtube and everyone else.

            There is absolutely no law stating that SC must provide a content matching service or provide Universal with backdoor access (which they clearly have if they can pull down content without the help of SC). DMCA compliance is the only thing they have to do. This was blackmail by the labels, pure and simple.

          • Victor Ware

            No, the SC rep clearly stated that Universal directly removed the content. and that “the control of content removal is completely with Universal.” That’s called a backdoor my friend.

  • Benne

    There are great alternatives out there. For example
    Its free, unlimited and ad free. I like it!

    • Miglet32

      For now… but as alternatives become more popular, they are more likely to be targeted by labels and such…

      We’re basically entering into a vicious cycle of service build-ups and take-downs. DMCA needs to be rewritten by logical realists, not the RIAA and MPAA.

  • Pingback: Soundcloud continues to push boundaries of privacy policies; enables Universal to screen, monitor, and terminate accounts - Dancing Astronaut

  • Pingback: Soundcloud continues to push boundaries of privacy policies; enables Universal to screen, monitor, and terminate accounts |

  • Bum face

    look. Since Soundcloud changed its business model with ‘Next’ to focus on listeners rather than creators, it has basically become a competitor to Spotify. So it has to get licensed.

    Universal has pointed this out and they have a legitimate claim.

    Soundcloud has built its business on people uploading music that it hasn’t contributed fuck all to making. That was fine when its main customer base was creators; but now it has 250m accounts, mostly listeners, the least it can do is get licensed like Spotify, Mixcloud and YouTube have (I’m no Google sympathiser I hate the fuckers but YouTube *is* technically licensed, at least in the UK).

    The writing has been on the wall for Soundcloud since it changed the GUI/UX to favour listeners. I say fuck it, fuck Soundcloud, it has only one option now, that’s to become the listening platform of choice. It holds zero love for creators now, unlike before, when it was like the greatest gift ever to DJs and makers. If it actually had any love for creators, it would get licensed now instead of holding out till the last possible moment.

    Personally I hope it goes down, like Mr Brainz I too have been evangelical about it for years only for it to systematically destroy everything I loved about it in the last 2. Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes – if they wanted to sort this out all they’d have to do is sign up for a proper license like other streaming services have. Universal are no angels but if you think they’re a bigger enemy of artists and songwriters than Soundcloud you’re dicking yourself around. Soundcloud invest fuck all in artists.

    • seekritstuff

      They do not need a license, as they are protected under the DMCA. As long as they respond to DMCA takedown requests they should be 100% in the clear. No, this was a backroom deal just like the YouTube deal–somebody got a big check, or got blackmailed by the threat of thousands of lawyers with so many supoenas it would blot out the sun. I feel bad for soundcloud, but they absolutely did not have to `get licensed` because they were hosting a lot of music.

      • Bum face

        if everybody adhered to the Terms of Service then you would be right. However, since Soundcloud’s critical mass was in fact heavily built through traffic from unauthorised remixes, mashups, DJ sets and covers, in practical terms you are wrong. Remove all unlicensed content from Soundcloud at this point and the service dies. At this point, the *only* future for Soundcloud is as a licensed service.

        [On top of which, protecting a company with several tens of millions of dollars in cash investment from being sued by people who earn an average £5,000 a year, upon whose work Soundcloud depends, makes DMCA an abused loophole that needs overhaul.]

  • dj blanco

    i had the same issue and since canceled my account after 5 years every week they would be pulling radio shows down that were up since the start which i legitimately pay ascap as well as the labels for use there is no rhyme or reason for their lack of communication and will be the downfall of soundcloud

  • Pingback: Soundcloud annoints Universal "Lord High Executioner" for music | Hihid News

  • Benne

    who needs soundcloud? great alternatives out there:
    free, unlimited, more features.

  • Pingback: Telzik | Les nouvelles conditions d’utilisation de Soundcloud nuisent-elles aux DJ ?

  • Pingback: On Soundcloud And Digital Privacy | Sounding Board

  • Brian Kerk

    Mr. Brainz is kind of a dick for ratting other people out like that.

  • Pingback: SoundCloud Issues Statement As Universal's War Against Users Continues | Magnetic Magazine

  • Pingback: Soundcloud Gives Universal Records Complete Control To Delete Your Content | Magnetic Magazine

  • mistrust

    I had 3 soundcloud copyright disputes a while ago, all for remixes I’d been asked to do for a record label. Soundcloud’s answer was that they use a content ID system to detect copyright infringement and have a strict policy to protect artists’ interests. Hmmm. I wrote to them about it, and mentioned they might like to consider all of the unofficial remixes they allow on their site… You can read my emails to them and their replies here….

  • Pingback: Soundcloud Releases New App, Allows Universal to Flag Your Account | Blog

  • LongTimeLurker1stTimePoster

    So, that’s kind of the final straw for SoundCloud. My material on there is only original. It was never for mixes but idiot DJs went and pushed the issue. Screw it.

    If you’re an independent artist, do yourself a favor and look into DistroKid.

  • Pingback: Soundcloud Gives Universal Music Full Powers To Terminate Any & All Accounts | Your EDM

  • Marcos Marado

    Am I the only registered user that did *not* get an e-mail nor a soundcloud notification regarding the privacy policy changes, as they state there they send?

  • Pingback: » SoundCloud vs. Users’ Uploads? It’s Nothing That Controversial, Really AUDIO KORNER

  • beedogs

    Cancelling my pro account as soon as payment’s due for this year. What total bullshit.

  • Collin dubya

    sound cloud will just lose it’s user base and they will move on to the next site that isn’t a total sell out.

  • Pingback: WAVO Exclusive: Gabe Flaherty - Booze Run ft. Loeb | That New Jam

  • Pingback: Universal Music Can Delete Any SoundCloud Track Without Oversight | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: Universal Music Can Delete Any SoundCloud Track Without Oversight - TorrentScene | TorrentScene

  • taint wrangler

    I guess the lesson learned here is to boycott by not putting songs by major label artists in your mixes. It’s not really like they need any more exposure anyway.

  • Howard Treesong

    SoundCloud has no control over how the majors remove content. That must be reassuring.

    Also, the: you infringed our copyrights may be a legitimate claim but then they don’t tell you what the offending part is.

  • Pingback: Les nouvelles conditions d’utilisation de Soundcloud nuisent-elles …Le Public, journal politique, littéraire et quotidien | Le Public, journal politique, littéraire et quotidien

  • rajerthat

    Wow, Soundcloud really had something going with its userbase. We loved them. Fuck them for turning corporate.

  • Pingback: Universal Music Can Delete Any SoundCloud Track Without Oversight | We R Pirates

  • Sk

    My husband had an original track flagged for infringement. I WAS THERE WHEN HE MADE THE DAMN TRACK. what the f*ck is he infringing??? The software he paid for to make the music with?!?!?!!!! Their methods for finding infringing music is complete BS!!!

  • Homework_Doer

    While I realize it’s not quite as popular a service (yet), what nobody is discussing here is that Mixcloud actually has arrangements in place with PROs to remunerate artists and labels based on the tracks listed in the mixes posted there. Every mix requires a track list on Mixcloud, and royalties are paid out accordingly – therefore you’ll never have a mix taken off Mixcloud for infringement… so if you want to post DJ mixes, that’s where you should be doing it (if you want to avoid the risk of them being taken down, at least). SoundCloud is a service better suited to copyright holders (labels, artists) posting their own music which they own the rights to. I’m no fan of the major labels or how this is being handled (lopsidedly, with rules clearly applied unfairly) – but if anyone thinks it should be legal to post DJ mixes on SoundCloud with impunity, they simply haven’t done their homework.

  • Pingback: Universal Music Can Delete Any SoundCloud Track Without Oversight |

  • Generally Dallas

    This is history repeating itself.

    SoundCloud was a response to the vacuum left by being bought and destroyed by Vivendi UNIVERSAL.

    Now, Universal has control of SoundCloud. Don’t dream; it’s over.

  • Plamen Alexandrov

    So, what did Universal say?

  • Brooks

    Companies update their privacy policy very frequently. And this update actually just means they are starting to get smarter about user segmentation, from a product standpoint. Nearly every smart software company uses a product to help with this user segmentation. A good example of said product would be Mixpanel. The second point, about fb and google, is merely a change to the oauth process. They already collect data from fb and google when you click “sign-in with google”. Every single company that uses google and facebook for oauth collects data from facebook and google. It allows you to create a profile without filling out a shit ton of information for your profile, which decreases user drop off in the user registration flow. With that said, you are correct, they will try to monetize. That is what companies do. It’s not a bad thing. If people didn’t monetize you wouldn’t have products to use.

  • Pingback: The Microscopic Giant » Around The Way 7-4-2014

  • Pingback: SoundCloud cede todo el poder a Universal Music | E7radio noticias, de Venezuela y el mundo

  • Pingback: These Bros Are Not Your Bro, Bro ¶ PersonPeople

  • Pingback: Four Soundcloud Alternatives to Discover and Share Great Music | Hihid News

  • Pingback: #SoundCloud app update fails Product Management 101 | Content in Context


  • Pingback: Universal Music darf Tracks von SoundCloud löschen

  • rolandclark

    luckily i released so much music in my lifetime I can do hours and hours and hours of a mix which I own the copyrights

  • Pingback: Four Soundcloud Alternatives To Discover And Share Great Music | Lifehacker Australia

  • bh

    Vivendi / Universal are who killed and it appears they are hungry again.

  • Pingback: SoundCloud больше не доступен для DJ? |

  • Pingback: Soundcloud selling stakes to the majors | Music As Industry

  • Pingback: High [and Low] Points In SoundCloud's Failed Attempts To Communicate With Angry Musicians | Planet 6 String

  • Michaël Vijfvinkel

    Same thing happened to me! Still have my account, but a mix was removed by Universal and SoundCloud couldn’t tell me which track caused the takedown. Had a similar conversation with SC Support, but it resulted in nothing and they eventually also didn’t respond to me asking why other sets were left up. I’ve mailed Universal, but they obviously don’t have time to respond…

  • Pingback: Música aqui, lá e em qualquer lugar | Conexões Sonoras

  • Pingback: Daily Operation: House Shoes, Katalyst & Alchemist | The 5 to 9 Life

  • Mike S

    OK Soundcloud, got it, message received: “Take your @$$ over to Mixcloud”

  • Mike S

    Also, I am baffled by the vitriol and venom that some so called “artists” spit at EDM DJs. OK, we get it, you actually strummed a guitar, sang into a mic, banged on a physical drum kit, and now you feel compelled to dump on any other form of music that doesn’t exactly conform to your ideals about how songs should be produced. Sorry some of us actually enjoy the rhythm, melody and soundscape that DJs & producers can build, sometimes with others’ music, sometimes with programming their own music, and even sometimes (GASP!) with real honest to goodness instruments!! Honestly, get over yourselves.

  • Pingback: Four Soundcloud Alternatives to Discover and Share Great Music | MediaStreet News & Opinions

  • Adi Goldstein

    RIP soundcloud

  • warabou

    This is so fucked up. Also, how does gender help them determine what music content you’ll like..? Oh yeah I forgot every guy likes metal every girl only likes bubblegum pop. Sexist capitalist fucks. Major labels are a cancer on music