SoundCloud face musicians' wrath in takedown expose

Hot on the heels of news that SoundCloud, the online service that allows budding rocks stars the ability to post and stream music, had apparently allowed Universal Music Group, the world's dominant recorded music company, the right to take down any track it deemed might infringe it's copyrights, as well as flag accounts, and even completely terminate accounts, in place of or on behalf of Soundcloud,  a rather battered soundCloud has published a statement saying 

"As a responsible hosting platform, we work hard to ensure that everyone’s rights are respected. In the case of rights holders, that means having processes in place to ensure that any content posted without authorisation is removed quickly and efficiently.

In the case of users, that means having separate processes in place to ensure that any content removed in error can be reinstated equally quickly. If any user believes that content has been removed in error – for example, because they had the necessary permissions from Universal Music and/or any other rights holder – then they are free to dispute the takedown.”

But the damage is seemingly done. Just as MySpace's demise can be partially traced back to the somewhat ridiculous move by owners News International in 2006 to impose standard terms which meant that it  'owned' the recorded music placed on the then hugely successful platform by aspiring popsters,  SoundCloud's bland statement goes no no way towards addressing what has been alleged - and nor has it done anything to stem the anger and if anything has just priovoked urts own users even more. One article - headed "2014 - the year SoundCoud Betrayed Indie" says SoundCloud's recent approach to takedowns was summarised as "We've Cancelled Your Account But We Can't Tell You Why" giving the examples of SubFM DJ Mr. Brainz, whose account now seems to be deleted, who was warned by SoundCloud of impending deletion due to a 3 count violation: Hypebot explains that since he didn't have details on the violations he wrote back and got this in response from SoundCloud:

"Your uploads were removed directly by Universal. This means that SoundCloud had no control over it, and they don't tel us which part of your upload was infringing. If you look at your tracklist it may help you find the Universal content that they wanted blocked."

"The control of removing content is completely with Universal. This means I can't tell you why they removed your uploads and not others, and you would really need to ask them that question."


"I don't know what method they use to find infringing material unfortunately. their anti-pirecy team are based in the US."

With the article describing the SoundCloud statement as "corporate bullshit"

It doesn't bode well for SoundCloud: after American DJ Kaskade had 70 percent of his SoundCloud tracks removed due to alleged copyright infringements, he said he would start his own music sharing site instead.

More here http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-can-remove-soundcoud-tracks-without-oversight-140703/