SoundCloud Halts Volunteer Archiving Project (vice.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SoundCloud Halts Volunteer Archiving Project (vice.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday July 22, 2017 @11:46PM from the stopping-the-music dept.

Slashdot reader nielo tipped us off to more SoundCloud news. Motherboard reports: Last week, a group of volunteer digital preservationists known as The Archive Team announced they would be attempting to independently archive a 123.6 million track, 900-terabyte swath of SoundCloud, the popular streaming music and audio service that recently announced mass layoffs and office closures, sparking fears of an imminent closure. But just as the volunteer archive of SoundCloud was due to be getting started, it's been abruptly called off at the behest of the company... I reached out to SoundCloud for more information, and a spokesperson responded with the following written statement: "SoundCloud is dedicated to protecting the rights and content of the creators who share their work on SoundCloud. We requested the Archive Team halt their efforts as any action to take content from SoundCloud violates our Terms of Use and infringes on our users' rights... SoundCloud is not going away -- not in 50 days, not in 80 days or anytime in the foreseeable future..." But that hasn't stopped some individuals on Reddit's r/datahoarder subreddit from attempting to gather their own personal archives of as much of SoundCloud as they want and can afford to host.

48 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

They should talk to The Pirate Bay by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 00:05 · Score: 0

I heard from an anonymous coward that they will host archives for free. :)
1. Re: They should talk to The Pirate Bay by KGIII · 2017-07-23 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  They don't host much of anything, except magnet links and very small .torrent files.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Okay. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 00:05 · Score: 0

So soundcloud wants to protect whatever commercial value their silo has, and instead of a single large archive they've created uncontrollably many small ones.
Now, I'm not sure that trying to archive soundcloud was a good idea in the first place, but I don't buy their corporate blather either. They think nothing of simply refusing all service including refusing to tell you how to contact them if you dare visit with the wrong browser. They're not the only ones, but that doesn't really matter. All sites that do that are perfectly useless to me, and in fact have no staying power.
copyright is a crime against humanity by KiloByte · 2017-07-23 00:39 · Score: -1, Troll

See my sig -- we're getting more and more proofs that copyright is one of worst long-term evils.
Some of past discussions.
Let's see how the MAFIAA argues that burning down the SoundCloud of Alexandria leads to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
1. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Stealing my ideas and claiming them as your own is also an affront to my humanity.
2. Re:copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  what sig?
3. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-07-23 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Stealing my ideas and claiming them as your own is also an affront to my humanity.
  Freely using/sharing what is public and unlimited is different than stealing or unfairly claiming the authorship of what you didn't create.
  
  Since some time ago, all my public online activity can be considered public domain. You can freely use any of my stuff with no restriction and without having to refer me as its author (it would be nice though). A different story is you unfairly claiming to be the author; in that case, you would be lying or even stealing.
  
  PS: just the idea is usually worth pretty much nothing.
  
  --
  Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
4. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:12 · Score: -1
  
  Stealing my ideas
  FUCK YOU. Who the hell do you think you are, thinking you're so special you had that unique, original idea? You cannot copyright ideas. Only specific applications of an idea. You cannot copyright a story about a princess who kisses a frog that turns into a prince. You can only copyright the exact order of words in which you wrote that story. The more we get rid of idiots like you who think that ideas are somehow "protected", the better off the world will be. YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE.
5. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:27 · Score: -1
  
  creimer, the three seats you take up on the bus are an affront to the rest of humanity.
6. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Were taking about music, and I am exactly as smart as I think I am, and I can compose a mean electronics song too.
7. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  at this juncture in human history unique music can still be created, and that's what we are talking about here. I spend several months crafting a unique song which I think is pretty good and I want some level of protection on it. My ego demands it.
8. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Err i'm pretty sure he was just joking :P
9. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by CustomSolvers2 · 2017-07-23 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think is pretty good and I want some level of protection on it. My ego demands it.
  I wasn't trying to convince everyone to rely on a format which works for me (mostly via code samples of my work by being hired to develop whatever), but perhaps not for others. I was simply clarifying the difference between using what is publicly/unlimitedly available, stealing and copyright. Additionally, this is a pretty complex reality; for example, SoundCloud aren't the authors of the songs and their copyright claims are about restricting the redistribution of what others created.
  
  --
  Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
10. Re:copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  If the artists/musicians wanted their work freely distributable they would have released it into the public domain.
  Here's a clue, they didn't.
  It's because of self entitled little shits like you not respecting the creators that we have all these copyright laws.
11. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because they can't easily verify the original authors are ok with it.
12. Re:copyright is a crime against humanity by Kjella · 2017-07-23 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  See my sig -- we're getting more and more proofs that copyright is one of worst long-term evils.
  Yeah, that you can't copy music for free - other than those the artist has given permission or that's older than Mickey Mouse - is clearly one of the true great evils. I mean it's not like the world is now accumulating every shitty two-bit wannabe who knows how to abuse an instrument and there's enough music, TV series, movies, porn and computer games to waste several lifetimes. It's not like we got any more serious issues going on we should fix first...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
13. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-23 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  creimer, the three seats you take up on the bus are an affront to the rest of humanity.
  Not only are you posting in the wrong thread, you're posting under a story that creimer hasn't even posted in yet.
  Now, how about trying to stay a bit on topic? Here' I'll show you how it's done:
  Soundcloud is probably hosed, but whether it is or not, it is acting within the law. If you don't like it, whining won't change anything. Instead of whining, why not try to change the law? If you're going to complain that it's too hard to change the law, you still have another alternative - create your own music and set it free.
  Now, if you're going to argue that you don't have the talent or the means to promote it, but that others who do don't have the right to be rewarded for their talent and their work, you're on thin ground. How much of this stuff that you demand be free would you even have heard of? How much would have been created in the first place?
  That's how copyright, by giving a limited set of rights to the copyright holder, incentivizes the creation and promotion of work that would otherwise not exist. If you wanted to go back to the pre-copyright system, then a lot of what you would have available would be that which patrons of the arts are willing to subsidize, both for creation and public performance. Do you really want the rich telling you what you should be listening to? That's far more a form of censorship than copyright.
  (/me awaits the usual flood of hate posts)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
14. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  So long as you don't use G flat. I own G flat. It was my idea.
15. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 02:52 · Score: -1
  
  I got a Black Amazon Dot, which matches my vintage 2006 Black MacBook.
16. Re:copyright is a crime against humanity by KiloByte · 2017-07-23 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Please read the second discussion I linked to. It's not about a random person freeloading on that Bieber video, it's about putting massive barriers to creating new works and to transmitting culture.
  Being content that you can live, eat and copulate is what animals do. It's important, yeah, but for me "humanity" means things what make us different from non-human animals, and most of that difference can be called "culture". Copyright is the current biggest obstacle to creation and transmission of culture, ergo, it is a crime against humanity.
  Murdering a person destroys the animal part. Burning a book destroys the cultural part. Both parts matter. And while a single human is (usually) worth more than a single book, it's almost never a single book that gets burned.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
17. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Solandri · 2017-07-23 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think there's a fair middle ground here. A short-term copyright, say about 20 years, should be enough for creators to come up with ideas and profiting from them, while still promoting the sciences and arts in the long-term.
  
  Oh, will you look at that. The original length of copyright was just 14 years. Gradually, over the centuries, it's been bastardized to the current ridiculous life plus 70-120 years. Can you imagine if we had to pay for other things for that long? We'd still be paying the progeny of the people who worked on building the Brooklyn Bridge.
  
  Scale copyright's duration back down to about 20 years (or hell, even 40 years - average length of a career), and most of these problems disappear on their own. Yes you should get credit for and be able to profit from thinking up clever ideas. No you and your progeny should not be able to extract a toll from society in perpetuity for using the idea.
18. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by TeknoHog · 2017-07-23 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Stealing my ideas and claiming them as your own is also an affront to my humanity.
  That would be plagiarism, which is very different from unauthorized copying. As an artist, I want to be seen and heard as widely as possible, while being recognized as the author of my works. This means I don't care too much for copyright protections, except the part about authorship.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
19. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  That has no bearing on this archival attempt, and more importantly SoundCloud isn't being honest with their reasons for stopping the archival attempt.
  Why? Because they say they're dedicating to protecting the rights and content of the people sharing content on their service, but the only stuff that the archival team will be able to readily archive are things the content creators have explicitly flagged for people to download in the first place.
20. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2017-07-23 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  you and your progeny should not be able to extract a toll from society in perpetuity for using the idea.
  What a great idea! I think i'll copyright it --- in perpetuity. So my 35th future grandson will still be profiting from this. Super!
  
  Now all I need is a wife.
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
21. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  But deep down your shit and you know it.
22. Re: copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  People still retain copyright even if they have shared the files on SoundCloud and some with the intention that people listen to the music, but not for the purposes of archiving as it may violate the terms of the copyright licence if not for personal use.
23. Re:copyright is a crime against humanity by murdocj · 2017-07-23 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  How is copyright theft? You can argue that it impedes progress, but it sure isn't stealing from anyone.
not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

...so...90 days then, thanks for the heads up
the death spiral has begun
1. Re:not in 50 days, not in 80 days by KiloByte · 2017-07-23 00:59 · Score: 2
  
  ...so...90 days then
  Why this unwarranted optimism? Be realistic, 81 at the most.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  A couple of weeks ago it was reported that Soundcloud cofounder Alexander Ljung said the company only had enough money to survive until the fourth quarter of this year — which begins in 50 days.
  Soundcloud responded to this with an official statement saying "SoundCloud is fully funded into the fourth quarter."
  Note that they don't say they are fully funded to the end of the 4th quarter, just "into" the 4th quarter.
3. Re:not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  LOLZ
  http://variety.com/2017/music/...
  “SoundCloud has clumsily attempted to refute our TechCrunch article on its financial and morale problems by issuing a statement to Variety saying our post contains ‘extensive inaccuracies,’ yet its supposed ‘corrections’ simply repeat what we did publish, and refute something we didn’t publish. SoundCloud writes ‘SoundCloud is fully funded into the fourth quarter,’ which is the same quote we already included from its PR. SoundCloud writes ‘we continue to work with all employees who were let go to support them during this transition, with employment and financial assistance,’ but we never said it wouldn’t support these employees, merely that it uprooted people’s lives by hiring them and then laying them off weeks later. '
4. Re:not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Whenever corporate bosses speak, it's never to be trusted. They publicly state whatever is in their best interest. "We have no plans at all to reduce headcount" means layoffs will absolutely be coming within a short time. Why? If they come right out an say it, then morale and productivity will drop and people will start looking for jobs while they copy off their client list onto a USB stick. Sometimes they want to reduce the cost of that headcount reduction so they may come right out and say "yes, we are planning on a staffing reduction" in the hopes that a lot of people leave on their own and they don't need to pay severance or have them dip into unemployment. Unfortunately, the ones that leave are likely the ones they should be keeping while the ones that stay are the ones unlikely to get hired by some other company.
  And of course, giving absolutes such as "No, we are NOT closing in 30, 50 or 80 days" means perhaps in 90 or 120 days then end will come. There is also the "...or in the foreseeable future" weaseling that when pushed, he will respond with "the situations changed, and we did not foresee those changes so what I said was true at the time".
5. Re: not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  When your company is about to vanish by the end of the month, tell a nice shiny lie so you have time to run to your escape jet before the angry mob catches on
6. Re: not in 50 days, not in 80 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  They do have a continuous stream of revenue ($20 million annual) which that math apparently ignores. Worst case scenario is they perform additional layoffs until revenue > expenses and last indefinitely.
  Of course people might be getting scared from all of this shut down talk and their revenue starts shrinking as pro users move somewhere else ...
7. Re: not in 50 days, not in 80 days by BarbaraHudson · 2017-07-23 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but they have to pay royalties to labels for songs listened to by paying SoundCloudGo+ users since the deal last year. If those royalties are "per licensed song played", the $10 a month subscription fee may not cover it for heavy users.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
GAME OVER MAN! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:20 · Score: 0

Game over!
YOU FAIL IT? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:29 · Score: -1

our caUse. Gay
Eye bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:39 · Score: 0

Eye bet your fun at partys.
Truth impaired by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 01:48 · Score: 0

SoundCloud is not going away -- not in 50 days, not in 80 days or anytime in the foreseeable future..>>>>>>
Riiiiiiiiiiggghhht...., I also won't cum in your mouth, and your call is important to us
At least the mass layoffs came first by PrimaryConsult · 2017-07-23 02:36 · Score: 1

Good luck coding around the attempts at mass archiving without any programmers...
90 days by Chewbacon · 2017-07-23 02:36 · Score: 2

She conveniently left out that typical interval. I'd say 90 days, sound cloud will be no more.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
1. Re:90 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  she's corporate PR. They could already be bouncing checks to employees & vendors.
2. Re:90 days by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  In the meantime, their bots still like my couple fan sound capture tracks every two weeks like clockwork.
who cares by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 04:34 · Score: 0

its just bitz wif cheez.
sigh by nnet · 2017-07-23 04:43 · Score: 1

when you put your data on someone elses computer(s)....
Yet another reminder... by CODiNE · 2017-07-23 08:47 · Score: 1

Remember kids, "The Cloud" means someone else's computer. And you may have signed over your data to them too! Hope you read all the fine print.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
The cloud = Mainframe and trying to get access to by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 09:32 · Score: 1

....and you are still paying for time on it, either through ads, giving up your privacy or any other means or a combination thereof.
(Still gets the shivers when "batch processing" ment giving a deck of punch cards with a program to a mainframe operator and waiting hours or days for a printout of the results, hoping you didn't fuck anything up in the meantime)
STFU!!! by CanEHdian · 2017-07-23 09:39 · Score: 2

If you're going to do this, STFU and just do it. OF COURSE they're going to whine and complain. First get all the meta-data, then distribute the content archiving around the globe (so you can archive 24/7 within 'reasonable hours' and reasonable amounts of data for that part of the globe). Then you just need to keep regular tabs to get new content. Once SoundCloud shuts down, and is gone, you can wait as long as you need before making your archive available to the general public. But the content is saved.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.