SoundCloud Has Given Universal Music Group The Ability To Directly Remove Content
from the more-power,-less-accountability dept
As Mike recently covered, SoundCloud's infringement takedown system has more than a few issues. The EFF's Parker Higgins had uploaded a recording of the Apollo 13 astronauts, something clearly in the public domain, but SoundCloud took it down and the "remedies" available to Higgins all assumed the removed content was covered by someone's copyright. And, like many takedown notices, there was no indication who had requested the removal, or if it was simply SoundCloud's automated infringement bot making bad assumptions.
Now, there's more bad news for users of SoundCloud's service. Apparently, Universal Music Group has the power to directly pull tracks without issuing a takedown request to SoundCloud. This has resulted in a paying customer of SoundCloud having his account deleted for copyright violations with the only recourse available being to contact Universal directly to dispute the takedown.
The user, Mr Brainz, pointed out to SoundCloud that he sees some inconsistencies in its copyright enforcement. His account is being targeted but other mixes from other users are being left alone, despite their inclusion of copyrighted tracks.
[click through for a larger versions of these screenshots]
SoundCloud's response to his complaints was basically, "It's out of our hands."
Your uploads were removed directly by Universal. This means that SoundCloud had no control over it, and they don't tell us which part of your upload was infringing. If you look at your tracklist it may help you find the Universal content they wanted blocked.SoundCloud now has a YouTube problem. In an agreement reached in 2011, YouTube gave UMG the same sort of direct access, which has resulted in abusive, bogus takedowns by the label. This looks like more of the same. While SoundCloud is certainly under a lot of pressure to police uploads for infringing content, handing direct control over to an entity that once declared SoundCloud to be a "pirate site" was never going to work out well.
The control of removing content is completely with Universal. This means I can't tell you why they removed your uploads and not others, and you would really need to ask them that question.
I don't know what method they use to find infringing material unfortunately. Their anti-piracy team are based in the US.
Now that Mr Brainz's problems have gone public, SoundCloud has issued a statement in response… and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
As a responsible hosting platform, we work hard to ensure that everyone's rights are respected. In the case of rights holders, that means having processes in place to ensure that any content posted without authorisation is removed quickly and efficiently.Translated from PR speak, the statement basically says that the end user is out of luck, especially in the case of Universal's direct takedowns. Does anyone seriously believe Universal will look into challenged takedowns? There's nothing in this unfortunate partnership that indicates Universal can be held accountable for bogus takedowns. Beyond that, there's nothing in the long history of the DMCA that indicates any rights holder will be held responsible for bogus takedowns, much less be willing to engage in a useful discussion about fair use or other edge cases.
In the case of users, that means having separate processes in place to ensure that any content removed in error can be reinstated equally quickly. If any user believes that content has been removed in error - for example, because they had the necessary permissions from Universal Music and/or any other rights holder - then they are free to dispute the takedown.
If Universal orders a takedown, the content is gone and the user's account is one step closer to being shut down. End of story. In Universal's case, there's no consideration given ever for fair use. Other takedowns, some of them the result of a misfiring algorithm, can still be disputed, but the process SoundCloud has provided doesn't factor in fair use, public domain or other instances that aren't clearly cases of infringement. And if you get enough bogus takedowns, your account -- even your paid Pro account -- is dead and SoundCloud won't be handing out refunds.
When a service becomes popular enough that infringement detection needs to be automated, problems are necessarily going to arise. Bots aren't perfect, but that's the reality of the situation if you're going to retain your safe harbors. But giving rights holders the ability to directly pull the plug on content is a bad idea and providing no real avenue for dispute only makes it worse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: audio, copyright, direct access, dmca, fair use, music, removals, takedowns
Companies: soundcloud, universal music
Reader Comments
The First Word
“UMG: You know that tool you gave us to take down any content that we deem to be infringing?
Tech Support: Yes.
UMG: Well, I can't find the "Delete All" button...
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If SoundCloud is looking to go out of business this is a good start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your grave - can you dig it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I doubt it'll end up getting raided like what happened to Dotcom though. That seemed like the US was trying to make an example out of the founder more than anything (which has backfired spectacularly, btw).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are thinking of HotFile where they gave WB(iirc) special access and they went hog wild deleting things they did not own, had no rights to, and just didn't like the fact it was there. iirc (what I'm old) they were real worried about this coming out in court when they were suing HotFile as a jury might go what do you mean you gave them way more power than the law allowed, they abused the hell out of it, and still sued you?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And another site bites the dust
Hope they at least got some money when they handed over control of the company to Universal, hate to think they got nothing but a 'Well, okay, in return for complete control over what your users upload we'll probably not sue you into oblivion', even if that's likely exactly all they got 'in return'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I said stop looking behind the curtain!
The internet was never a 'wild west', unless by that you mean the old industries never could clamp down on that pesky 'choice' and 'alternatives' that it offered their former captive audience/'employees', and you might have trouble finding unbiased people who believe that more choice is somehow bad for customers and creators.
Also, if you would, could you point to where exactly 'copyright infringement [is] being prosecuted' here, because all I'm seeing is a company being given the power to pull tracks with absolutely no limits and no accountability, no 'prosecution' in sight, just 'we/our bot says that song/song snippet is ours, therefor you're guilty', and if you need some evidence of just how incredibly faulty those 'detections' can be, I'm sure I can find several examples without too much trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I said stop looking behind the curtain!
Yea, it certainly was, you're probably too young to have been a part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I said stop looking behind the curtain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I said stop looking behind the curtain!
The internet certainly IS wild west, with all those self-appointed sheriffs, vigilantes and lynch-mobs of the content-industry running rampant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm a guitarist and I've got several videos of me covering classic thrash metal bands on youtube with the real track playing in the back with my (well, after lots of practice and imo) guitar just perfectly playing over it so you hear what I'm doing. Never had a single takedown and there's one cover of a particularly difficult song to play where I got 15 000 hits, and the content id bullshit hasn't been able to do crap, and I cover some Slayer who without any of them making a move to do so ended up on a major label since the mid 90's (label mergers).
When they manage to take this sort of stuff down is when I'm gonna be outraged. I remember when they tried to take down LYRICS sites and also GUITAR TABS around 2007-2008, they succeeded in killing many sites and now stuff impossible to find, that I have printed thankfully, but their fight will always be in vain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, you don't give a shit about them do you, only your corporate gods. You're to stupid to even recognise the promotional value (and thus increased revenue) for Universal in the mixes being removed, let alone give a crap about the innocent people who are guaranteed to be affected by this.
Just keep on with the same lies, it will hopefully speed your own demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I cannot wait for the day someone decides enough is enough and has the financial backing to sue these music monopolists into oblivion. All it takes is one person demanding to know why their content was taken down and why the industry refuses to allow legal recordings that are fair use, i would love to see this guy take Universal to court, he has more than a 80% chance of winning even not knowing what content they are taking his paid account down for.
And no excuse that that computer did this, and it was a mistake, they know what they are doing there are too many people that have problems with fair use being targeted and it has been going on too long if they were interested in allowing fair use material they would have stopped the computers from taking that content down.It would be great if the courts banned the use of automated systems and with no warnings and discussions about fair use.
it would be even better if they had to give up all the software they use for taking down content and investigators finding they knew and specified fair use content, i would sue them for billions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's hoping...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Users and Rights holders
SoundCloud better hope UMG doesn't use that statement to show in some court that SoundCloud has always intended uploaders to not upload their own content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh it's worse than that
Unless I'm missing something, these are not DMCA takedowns, which means the (theoretical) limits, protections, and punishments in the DMCA don't apply here. Universal, and any other company that can strong-arm SoundCloud into giving them this level of control can simply lay claim to, and pull, whatever they feel like, with no limits at all, and no punishments if they get it wrong.
I can only hope that enough users of the site learn about this is are willing to drop their accounts there and move elsewhere, causing a noticeable hit to SoundCloud's profits, as after selling out their customers like this SoundCloud deserves to suffer for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh it's worse than that
When a weed grows in your garden, there are two ways to get rid of it. You can cut it off at the ground, and it's gone... until it pops up again. Or you can rip it out by the roots, and then it's gone. The only way to truly fix copyright abuse is to rip it out by the roots: repeal and reverse the DMCA. Restore the sacred legal principles of Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence. Outlaw the use of DRM in any form for any reason. Make it crystal clear that the rights of people, not copyright owners, come first, and no one has any right whatsoever to infringe upon them until they have been proven guilty in a court of law.
Only when we've managed to accomplish this will we make any meaningful progress against copyright abuse. But as long as the root's still in the ground the same weed keeps popping up. We cut off SOPA and PIPA, and now we've got it growing right back as the TPP. Looks like we've just about managed to kill that one, but it'll grow back again soon enough (and it really didn't take long, did it?) unless we rip it out by the roots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh it's worse than that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHO wants to break sound cloud..
Have everyone RENAME their files, to Copyrighted names..use a small ext. to define WHICH file it is so the consumer knows which is which..
THEN SUE SOUND CLOUD AND UMC for taking down all the files..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHO wants to break sound cloud..
Judge: Well, they said it was a mistake and they're sorry, that's good enough for me, case dismissed.
Companies never get punished for issuing takedowns, or in this case just removing the stuff directly, no matter how insane and glaringly wrong the takedown/removal is, you should know that by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WHO wants to break sound cloud..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sensible, reasonable, tempered, measured approach
What could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A sensible, reasonable, tempered, measured approach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UMG: You know that tool you gave us to take down any content that we deem to be infringing?
Tech Support: Yes.
UMG: Well, I can't find the "Delete All" button...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compare to human property
Anybody could go up, claim, and take property, if it looked like a duck, without going to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law
Such a system is not required by law.
The notice and takedown procedure only requires the online service provider to have a takedown system per url, and the copyright holder must jump through several hoops to get there.
So why does Soundcloud go beyond what the law requires?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a nice company you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it...
Threats of ruinous legal fees(doesn't matter how right you are if you're driven under due to court costs), threats of changes to the laws to hold them personally liable for the actions of their users, and similar things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if they illegaly remove a song of a person that can no longer access SoundCloud account?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really dread UMG!
They're possibly worse than WMG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]