Slashdot Mirror
Universal To License Music To SoundCloud In Streaming Deal (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Universal Music Group has agreed to license its music to online audio platform SoundCloud – a major step for the popular startup, which has struggled to receive legitimate recognition in the industry. SoundCloud will enjoy access to Universal material, including work from top global artists signed to the label such as Adele, Taylor Swift and Kanye West. Conversely Universal will be able to access SoundCloud's advertising, analytics and data tools with the aim of increasing revenue streams and bolstering fan/artist engagement.
Well if Kanye West, Adele, and Taylor Swift are considered to be music it might be time to agree with the Republicans!
Although, considering the music coming out these days, I've already got all I need.
The idea of "legitimate recognition in the industry" is ludicrous. Soundcloud is the new music industry, or at least the face of what is to come. It's a huge gamechanger because artists take their content straight to Soundcloud with very little overhead and no gatekeepers, and they can reach fans directly. I'm a huge music person, and I rarely ever have to leave Soundcloud to stay entertained. There's a huge number of very talented people and good content. I don't listen to pop music or the radio, and I'm actually genuinely excited because a lot of people in my age group are starting to be the same way. The electronic dance music umbrella of music genres is particularly interesting in that it is significantly divorced from the megalabels like UMG and yet still growing rapidly. Over the last couple of years I've watched a number of small artists that I found early on grow a significant following and start touring. If anything, this is the establishment music industry trying to stay relevant to younger people. I've slowly seen Soundcloud continue "selling out" and seeing more of the corporate branded pop garbage being pushed in my face on the site which is disappointing. I really wish they could find a more "wholesome" way of staying funded
Before you get too excited, what will a membership cost?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Thought it said "steaming deal".
Have gnu, will travel.
artists take their content straight to Soundcloud with very little overhead and no gatekeepers
I thought the gatekeepers were the traditional music publishers. A music publisher differs from a record label in that a record label owns copyright in a recording (as embodied in a CD), while a music publisher owns copyright in the underlying musical work (as embodied in sheet music). There are millions of existing musical works, with BMI alone controlling a repertory of over nine million, and only so many possible hooks in the seven notes of the scale. (Proof available on request.) So when an artist writes and records a piece of music and uploads it to SoundCloud, what steps is the artist supposed to have taken to ensure that his song doesn't accidentally infringe copyright in one of the millions of existing songs? I ask because I compose music, am considering seeking extra exposure through SoundCloud, and want to limit my liability in cases of accidental infringement. Has anyone heard from a lawyer on this?
Well if Kanye West, Adele, and Taylor Swift are considered to be music it might be time to agree with the Republicans!
Since you're such a sophisticated listener, can you provide a list of what you personally consider to be "music"?
lucm, indeed.
Soundcloud is one of the more dynamic and interesting sources for music. Who cares if it receives "legitimate recognition in the industry"? The industry is a dinosaur and is best left for the junkpile of history alongside the whale oil industry.
I find some of the most interesting new music on Soundcloud. Nothing from Taylor Swift or Adele is going to make me more likely to use it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Somehow I don't see a lot of money flowing in the direction of Soundcloud from Universal, and wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of changes to allow people to access music only in ways they really wouldn't want to, and eventually Soundcloud is completely different and ends up fading away.
Just posted a couple tracks. Now they are going to feel shy....
Wham! is good.
Expect the Republicans to... shut this down! Their kind hates music.
No they don't. They love to co-opt music whose meaning they don't understand and use it without permission at political rallies.
You remind me of a former mother-in-law. She'd run off at the mouth, bashing those Bravo reality TV shows because they're such an easy target, but when someone would ask what kind of TV shows *she* liked she would hide behind a lame joke because she was afraid to be mocked.
Coward.
lucm, indeed.
Well if Kanye West, Adele, and Taylor Swift are considered to be music it might be time to agree with the Republicans!
Haters gonna hate!
"Talented" is a subjective metric.
I think she's whiny. And apparently, has a thing for writing songs that are creepy and stalker-y. Which wouldn't even be so bad (good songs have been written about stalking someone), except it's played off the same way as Twilight being played off as "romantic".
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Kanye West, but here goes:
In the sense of being a "top artist", Kanye is a draw. He pushes records, and makes headlines. Instead of dismissing him as the ass he is, he gets headlines both because of what he says and because of the ass he married. That makes people money.
And on top of that, I have a couple of Kanye songs on my playlists when I work out. So, if you can sell to someone like me, who generally gets a distaste for listening to music by people whose personality often overshadows what SHOULD be making people like Kanye famous, there's a legit case to be made for his talents after all.
It ain't like Adele and Taylor Swift are much different in that regard. They're both "brands with a media narrative" whose talents are WAY oversold. And people like to follow them. So, sadly, "top artist" really isn't about "talent" so much as "can push sales".
Really, I don't know why I bothered to explain that; that should be patently obvious, but if people like you are still naively pushing the idea that talent is the only thing that matters, I guess it HAS to be said.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Dude, chill out. I'm sure you think Kanye West is very a very talented musician. You remind me of a 13 year old girl.
I didn't say that Mr West was or wasn't a talented musician. I'm just waiting for you to man up and mention stuff you like, not just stuff you don't.
Double coward.
lucm, indeed.
Thanks, I created a channel on Pandora and added those in there. I'm usually more of a Bob Seger person lately but it's good to have a bit of variety.
lucm, indeed.
You appear to refer to a defense that an alleged infringer never had access to the copyright owner's work, in the "access plus similarity equals copying" formula from copyright case law. But I seem to remember reading that the court can impute access if the copyright owner can show that the alleged infringer reasonably should have heard the copyright owner's composition. This would appear to make the independent creation defense unavailable if the earlier work had been played on FM radio during the alleged infringer's lifetime.