3 ms·
> Again you're not understanding what I'm saying. How many times do you want to repeat this? > SoundCloud did not start off with DJ mixes or copyrighted mater
by thinbeige 9y ago
> Again you're not understanding what I'm saying.
How many times do you want to repeat this?
> SoundCloud did not start off with DJ mixes or copyrighted material.
The CEO and CTO were themselves very much into EDM. SC positioned itself repetoire-wise as a DJ platform from very early on, most tracks, traffic, the first surge were EDM-based the first years. And 99% was copyrighted material stitched together. I don't know where you have your information from but it's just blatantly wrong.
Anyways, I think that our current discussion does not contribute to the initial points in any way and doesn't make us both feeling better, so I stop here. Have a nice day!
- lukaslalinsky 9y agoIt was a platform for producers, not DJs.
- res0nat0r 9y agoBut the underlying issue is that those DJ tracks many times technically did need permission from copyright holders to be posted. Unfortunately dealing with this w/o a ton of money is just a failing exercise. Soundcloud is still good to get DJ mixes from DJ's I like, but I can seeing it go away just due to all of the costs that would accompany trying to ensure they have the right to share everything that is posted by users.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago>> But the underlying issue is that those DJ tracks many times technically did need permission from copyright holders to be posted. What the parent and I are saying though is that DJ mixes were a small part of the content in the early days. It wasn't created to host DJ mixes or marketed as that initially. Producers/songwriters/amateurs were the bulk of the content. SoundCloud could have built a decent business by banning copyrighted material and only dealing with original works. There was never any need to get into the messy licensing business.