Jump to content
IGNORED

Major UK Music Body Sues SoundCloud Over Unpaid Royalties


Joyrex

Recommended Posts

I never signed with the local artist royalty service, they never paid smaller artists which had been proven time and again by small radio stations that tested it, but never publicised, published or prosecuted (cause who has the money right), take a nasty cut, have said many things that I entirely disagree with and are not representative of the majority of artists views (like about downloading as a crime) and in the contract you are stuck with them in perpetuity, it's beyond onerous. Fuck them all to hell. Where there's easy money, an opaque administrative system and a disconnected membership, you are going to get sheisters lining up to take control. Just like with so many chairties these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of experiences I've had with labels / copyright / royalties when releasing my own music have been awful. Buy shit off Bandcamp directly from the artist or pirate it and let this old model finally die off as it slowly has been for the last decade and a half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does SC have any investors? I'm sure there is some VC behind it, and things like this are going to make current (and potentially future) investors very nervous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Richard still hasn't admitted that account is his, then how can Chrysalis make a copyright claim? Also doesn't unreleased = non-copyrighted?

No, unreleased != non-copyrighted - you couldn't go release the SC tracks yourself, could you? Where you here for the CWLP stuff? We had to pay the publisher a hefty percentage of the Kickstarter income for offering up the digital version of the CWLP, even though it was never released.

And I don't think Chrysalis is making a copyright claim, but they may have issues with Richard releasing hundreds of tracks for free versus releasing them and they get their customary cut of the sales...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude that's all you, I won't even to pretend to understand UK copyright law, although I did take a copyright law class in college. I vaguely remember either you or Grant mentioning the MFM tapes, and that it wasn't copyrighted bc it was never released, am I hallucinating? who knows how the SC debacle will shake out. I'm just a bystander.

 

but again, Richard has probably registered Caustic Window as an alias with Chrysalis, whereas the SC account could get into a messy court battle if he never admits to it, wouldn't that get into tracing IP addresses and so on, at least under US copyright law? Again, that wouldn't apply to an artist living and registered in the UK right? He would be under the domain of BMI, am I mistaken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, why would you need to go through a publisher if you just "published" them yourself by uploading them to soundcloud. A bunch of tracks that didn't belong to anyone but RDJ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard is one of the highest profile artists on SC that has no problem torpedoing his own career, he is unpredictable and that's why some of us love him. Who else would upload a dozen tracks the same week as a new commercial release? although they're modular tracks with a niche audience, only maybe Radiohead would have the same ballz to do as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dude that's all you, I won't even to pretend to understand UK copyright law, although I did take a copyright law class in college. I vaguely remember either you or Grant mentioning the MFM tapes, and that it wasn't copyrighted bc it was never released, am I hallucinating? who knows how the SC debacle will shake out. I'm just a bystander.

 

but again, Richard has probably registered Caustic Window as an alias with Chrysalis, whereas the SC account could get into a messy court battle if he never admits to it, wouldn't that get into tracing IP addresses and so on, at least under US copyright law? Again, that wouldn't apply to an artist living and registered in the UK right? He would be under the domain of BMI, am I mistaken?

No, the MFM tape (specifically the tracks on it) were (and are) subject to copyright, since RDJ produced them under his publishing agreement with Chrysalis (I'm not going to keep assuming I know the details and conditions of that contract, since I don't), and most likely the SC tracks fall under that as well.

 

MFM also has the distinction, like the CWLP, of being pressed (a test pressing) and assigned a catalogue number, which I am sure they filed with the publisher as well. Whether it was ever released or not is secondary.

 

It might be the case that Chrysalis doesn't like the whole SC setup because they cannot accurately track income from the plays of these tracks (and thus generate revenue for themselves and Richard).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If he didn't release the soundcloud tracks under any name associated with chrysalis, what legal recourse do they have?



None.

 

 

 

dude that's all you, I won't even to pretend to understand UK copyright law, although I did take a copyright law class in college. I vaguely remember either you or Grant mentioning the MFM tapes, and that it wasn't copyrighted bc it was never released, am I hallucinating? who knows how the SC debacle will shake out. I'm just a bystander.

but again, Richard has probably registered Caustic Window as an alias with Chrysalis, whereas the SC account could get into a messy court battle if he never admits to it, wouldn't that get into tracing IP addresses and so on, at least under US copyright law? Again, that wouldn't apply to an artist living and registered in the UK right? He would be under the domain of BMI, am I mistaken?


No, the MFM tape (specifically the tracks on it) were (and are) subject to copyright, since RDJ produced them under his publishing agreement with Chrysalis (I'm not going to keep assuming I know the details and conditions of that contract, since I don't), and most likely the SC tracks fall under that as well.

MFM also has the distinction, like the CWLP, of being pressed (a test pressing) and assigned a catalogue number, which I am sure they filed with the publisher as well. Whether it was ever released or not is secondary.

It might be the case that Chrysalis doesn't like the whole SC setup because they cannot accurately track income from the plays of these tracks (and thus generate revenue for themselves and Richard).


Or to put it in a more formal way - Chrysalis might not like the SC setup because they cannot engage in rent-seeking behaviour anymore.

Unlike Uber and Airbnb, soundcloud and bandcamp truly are disruptive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big companies are really digging their claws deep into Soundcloud. They've started removing unofficial remixes and giving users warnings. I know exactly why they're doing this and I completely understand, but that was kinda what was so great about Soundcloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mixcloud is better for mixes imo

 

posting mixes has always been bending the rules

 

why not post a playlist and then a link to mixcloud for the mix?

 

I was talking about remixes. Not mixes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mixcloud is better for mixes imo

 

It's really not if you're a producer who DJs their own tracks. Any mix containing more than 3 tracks from one artist gets blocked from being listened to in the USA even if the uploader is the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.