DJ "contests" that break copyright law and various website terms of service...

[NickJames]

Has anyone else noticed the number of "contests" out there that require you to post your mix to SoundCloud which is against their terms of service:



viii. You must not use the Platform to upload, post, store, transmit, display, copy, distribute, promote, make available or otherwise communicate to the public:
b. any information, Content or other material that violates, plagiarises, misappropriates or infringes the rights of third parties including, without limitation, copyright, trademark rights, rights of privacy or publicity, confidential information or any other right; or

http://soundcloud.com/terms-of-use#use & http://soundcloud.com/pages/copyright

And the requirement to make the mix "downloadable" for judging which would be distribution of copyrighted material...

I already have a dislike for these contests because they tend to do their "judging" based on criteria and metrics that have nothing to do with the ability or talent of the entrants (number of friends, number of likes, number of plays, etc) but I find it hilarious that they are also promoting copyright infringement on this scale and the breaking of the SoundCloud terms and conditions.

What are your thoughts on this practice?

[moyo wilde]

i don't know, if they are releasing their own stems to be used by people seems okay to me. i think some of them work with soundcloud. seems like a win-win situation. the artist/label gets promo and so does soundcloud.

i think there are a lot of interesting things coming out of these contests. you get tracks done in an infinite number of genres.

i don't really have a problem with the contests, because i see it as a reasonable form of advertising. i really like them cause although i haven't sat down with any of them i get a lot of different things to work with, whenever i get around to making tracks.

[TheBoggler]

I think that's why the creative commons license is an option. If soundcloud seriously had a problem with it, their fingerprint system would be way more complex. And even if it were, mixcloud is almost the same thing without the cool widgets, but devoted to mix submissions. I am by no means in support of piracy, but when soundcloud gets pissy about mixes... it's just too much IMHO.

[TCMuc]

@ moyo wilde: I thing NickJames was talking about DJ contests, so we're not talking about remixing stems that were released by the artist for that exact purpose but about making a mixtape using other people's (copyrighted) tracks.

@ theboggler: the big difference between soundcloud and mixcloud isn't the cool widgets but the fact, that mixcloud actually pays royalties/fees to performance right societies, which makes uploading a mix to mixcloud legal, as they pay for the rights, and uploading a mix containing any material but your own to soundcloud illegal, as they don't pay anything

[Marc S]

legalities aside, i dont vote for or get involved with any compeition online that is judged that way, since anyfacebook friends whore can get 10'000 votes for a mix that is not worth 2. its a sham,

[drop1]

Not that it will ever change but any kind of competition of this nature should be judged blind like we do the battles here. Networking comps cloaked as something else are BS.

[Manu]

internet friends > skills

[JuxtaPoser]

Yeah, I don't ever bother entering these things and I generally avoid supporting people who do. It's just a thinly veiled spam campaign dressed up as a DJ competition... it's bullshit.

[TheBoggler]

@ theboggler: the big difference between soundcloud and mixcloud isn't the cool widgets but the fact, that mixcloud actually pays royalties/fees to performance right societies, which makes uploading a mix to mixcloud legal, as they pay for the rights, and uploading a mix containing any material but your own to soundcloud illegal, as they don't pay anything

Makes sense. However, when dealing on ethics alone, mixcloud doesn't reimburse the primary artist of the music, only whatever 'performance right societies,' which, by their very nature, are NOT non-profit. So, sure - it may be technically legal to do it on mixcloud, but the artist still is seeing no influx of profit from having a mix made with their material, making it ethically equivalent to soundcloud.
I'm all for abiding by laws that make good logical sense, i'm a good boy. I pay my taxes, I don't pirate - I buy my music, and I don't kill people. I do, however, speed, neglect to use my turn signal, I drank when I was under 21, and I buy liquor for my underage friends, and I don't care that the artist isn't being paid a second time for the music I already purchased [even if I wanted them to through mixcloud, it doesn't sound like that's how it works anyway].
Just how I feel about it, I guess.

However, I have seen some real sketchy competitions like that. Like Marc S said - stupid facebook whores. My buddy who actually got me into DJing is.... well... pretty bad at it. But his work is so much more recognized than mine because it seems like he knows every damn person in the state through facebook. My facebook is limited to 140 or so people I have actually met and hung out with over the years. But my mixing is more solid.

[mrkleen]

Makes sense. However, when dealing on ethics alone, mixcloud doesn't reimburse the primary artist of the music, only whatever 'performance right societies,' which, by their very nature, are NOT non-profit. So, sure - it may be technically legal to do it on mixcloud, but the artist still is seeing no influx of profit from having a mix made with their material, making it ethically equivalent to soundcloud.

Not true. Ascap and BMI pay all artists who have songs in their repository a fee (the equivalent of a royalty check) for establishments (legal websites included) where someone is playing or performing their music. 88% of all fees paid to ASCAP (for example) go directly to their member artists. So if Mixcloud is paying ASCAP fees....artists ARE getting some of that money.

[TheBoggler]

Not true. Ascap and BMI pay all artists who have songs in their repository a fee (the equivalent of a royalty check) for establishments (legal websites included) where someone is playing or performing their music. 88% of all fees paid to ASCAP (for example) go directly to their member artists. So if Mixcloud is paying ASCAP fees....artists ARE getting some of that money.

Ah, well ya learn something new every day, huh?

In that case, how does mixcloud get by while giving out free accounts? Adverts?
And honestly - when I throw a mix on there, no fingerprint software is able to determine the artist of every track in a mix. So is it just a bulk like.... 'we pay every artist this fraction of a penny for every mix thrown on here'? Or... what?.... if what i'm asking makes sense. Because if that's true... then it's like the artist really isn't being paid at all anyways.

[NickJames]

In that case, how does mixcloud get by while giving out free accounts? Adverts?

Adverts and referrals to Juno, iTunes, etc.


And honestly - when I throw a mix on there, no fingerprint software is able to determine the artist of every track in a mix. So is it just a bulk like.... 'we pay every artist this fraction of a penny for every mix thrown on here'? Or... what?.... if what i'm asking makes sense. Because if that's true... then it's like the artist really isn't being paid at all anyways.

On mixcloud you have to provide a track list.

[TheBoggler]

On mixcloud you have to provide a track list.

I've put a handful of mixes up on mixcloud, and never had to give a tracklist... :shrug:

[RDRCK]

I've put a handful of mixes up on mixcloud, and never had to give a tracklist... :shrug:

I've always had to post a track list. I don't think it's policed heavily, but I am sure that if it's noticed, your mix will be taken down if there's no track list. Either that or they'll give you a warning that you need to post a list.

[Sigma]

What are your thoughts on this practice?
I don't give a shit. Putting mixes of other artists' music on the Internet without permission is copyright infringement in a lot of countries whether it's available to stream or download, and the SoundCloud terms that you quoted apply to streaming as well. Almost every mix that's up on SoundCloud is technically breaching copyright, as are the majority of the unofficial remixes and mashups that are on there.

Which of these scenarios is most likely when you put a mix up online for people to download?...........

1. It leads to more sales of music through people discovering new songs and artists.
2. It leads to fewer sales of music because people have the song in your mix so they no longer need to buy it.

I think 1 is more likely than 2. If a person hears a song in my mix and pirates the full track, they probably weren't going to buy it anyway, but I think there's more people who discover new tracks in mixes and go on to buy music from those artists than there are people who think "I was going to buy this song, but the track is in this mix so I won't bother now".

My issue with most of these "contests" is what Marc said on page 1. I understand that it's hard to organise a large scale contest for DJs where there's a judging panel, cos there could be hundreds of mixes to listen to, but it's still little more than a "who's got more friends on social networks and who will spam the most forums?" battle a lot of the time.

[Finnish_Fox]

uploading a mix containing any material but your own to soundcloud illegal, as they don't pay anything

The only mix I haven't been able to upload is an old French house mix that I started with Scott Grooves - Mothership Reconnection (Daft Punk Remix), which is owned by EMI.

[Finnish_Fox]

Almost every mix that's up on SoundCloud is technically breaching copyright, as are the majority of the unofficial remixes and mashups that are on there.

I think this is the crux of the entire argument... copyright and patent laws have to reassessed in my opinion if we really want to clear the mess up over digital rights.

Its not as if this is the digital age is the first era in which creative works were infringed upon. Legal or not, Disney adapted stories and illustrations directly from Hans Christen Andersen and other writers. One of Led Zeppelin's most recognizable songs is tantamount to a cover song.

[Sigma]

I think this is the crux of the entire argument... copyright and patent laws have to reassessed in my opinion if we really want to clear the mess up over digital rights.
I don't think that's ever going to happen to be honest. I have read one or two stories of DJs getting sued for having certain tracks in their mixes, but until they start targeting no-name guys like me then I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.

[Finnish_Fox]

I don't think that's ever going to happen to be honest. I have read one or two stories of DJs getting sued for having certain tracks in their mixes, but until they start targeting no-name guys like me then I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.

For sure.

I was more talking about the other side of that coin - that copyright and patent laws need to be reconfigured so that we can get the most out of all this technology we have. Hypothetically, the cure for cancer or AIDS could be right around the corner but because someone has some process or step patented, it prevents anyone else from using it and bring said drug to market.

To put it another way, how much value to be put to a 3-word sample or 3-chord progression? I think, currently, while we can cite many exceptions, the situation is that it more or less discourages people from creating something new with it. I'd like to see a situation where artists get credit for their original work but the leash is loosened up to give the thousands of small artists with no legal weight a chance to express themselves and be heard.

I don't think it will change anytime soon, though.