SoundCloud and Universal Music Agree to Licensing Deal | Hacker News Reader

SoundCloud and Universal Music Agree to Licensing Deal

nytimes.com

30 pointshannes200013 comments

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that SoundCloud gets into the ring to compete with Spotify, Apple Music et al. SoundCloud shines for small musicians, independents, for actually building a community around music. The other players don't do this. I blame VC money. Let's see if they can partner with the big labels and avoid watering down what makes them unique.

This isn't about competing with Spotify. This about having the major labels on board so people can remix and play with and use that content without Soundcloud getting sued into oblivion. Maybe you'll find all of Kanye's albums now added into Soundcloud as well but the point is to allow Soundcloud to continue as it is - and that was never going to happen without some kind of subscription. They have gazillions in VC funding and have to find a way to monetise the site.

People definitely underestimate Soundcloud. I'm an Apple Music subscriber and I'll be moving to Soundcloud as soon as their new service begins. There's tons of content on there you can't get anywhere else. Not just mixes, but demos and legitimate pre-releases from the artists themselves. Out of all the music streaming services, Soundcloud is the only one that gets "social" right.

I use SoundCloud for exactly this.

Discovery of independent music, as well as remixes.

I have a huge SoundCloud playlist that I keep adding to.

I also use Spotify. Another huge playlist. More music I like.

I hate having to choose when I really want to mix the two playlists.

Hmm, IIRC they had a surprisingly open streaming API (raw .mp3 stream). Doubt that will be staying. :(

Edit: I see that API still exists at the moment. I wonder how that works with the ads they have running on the website. Do you currently get no ads if you use a custom player which uses that API?

Does this mean they'll finally stop their absolutely ridiculous policy of removing mixtapes and remixes of popular songs, and of shutting down the accounts of "offenders"?

Yes, but they'll put ads in front of them and give the money to the rights holder, which is not a hindrance producers who create original material will have to suffer with.

As a remix artist myself, my experience from youtube (which I believe have similar deals in place) is that rights owners will tolerate (i.e. monetize) straight copies of their work, but many remixes, mashups and cutups get blocked. Which is sad because I feel the opposite would be more beneficial to pop culture as a whole (i.e. more interaction, variation and interpretation, less passive consumption of blockbuster hits).

Echoing thoughts from one of the best documentaries of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

The content I suppose is interesting if a bit pretentious, but the voice over is like nails on a chalkboard.

I wonder how many times that has been removed, blocked, or otherwise interfered with by Big Music.

Soundcloud stopped being cool the second they put ads on it. This just seals it's fate as a youtube without videos.

The biggest problem I have with their ads is that I pay for SoundCloud and still have to suffer through them :(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com