Artists, consumers and real estate agents present their different points of view about the controversial present and future of the leading musical social network.
Text and coordination of AnttonIturbe.
As described in detail in these three articles by The FADER and MixMag, the controversy focuses on the new policies adopted by SoundCloud in the face of poor financial results ($ 29 million in losses) last year and pressure on the part of the three majors (Universal, Sony, Warner) to apply copyright laws in a more strict manner, whose eagerness to collect in the form of constant complaints is what has caused that economic hole in the first instance.
This has led to SoundCloud to “sell” to these majors and market laws (at least partially) to survive. On the one hand, Universal-Sony-Warner owns between 3 and 5% of the shares of the company and guarantee and supervise the payment of royalties to their artists for each fragment or complete theme that is used in the different mixes uploaded to SoundCloud( DJ mixes, mixtapes, radio programs …).
On the other SoundCloud includes advertising content to obtain revenue and launches premium accounts with monthly fees to its users and launches a new application whose characteristics can be analyzed. It is to pay three different levels of quota that allow for as many levels of space and time to upload music as well as a better positioning of the same in internal searches in proportion to the level acquired (Partner / Pro / Premier).
This platform is part of the SoundCloud agreement to sign with Warner and Universal to pay royalties to the artists of those labels whose contents have been uploaded to SoundCloud.
It should be noted that about copyright this is what is said and “recommended” by SoundCloud: