Soundcloud "Ingestion" - Question, Comments & Concerns

  • 24 April 2017
  • 1 reply

Without even addressing the fact that this "ingestion" was rolled out without even as much as a warning or explanatory email to account holders, or the fact that this rollout is a complete disaster (tracks that are not my own or tracks that have not been approved by the labels I share ownership with--regardless of what i see in the auto-response going out to most users), I have some serious questions & comments. This rollout is akin to Facebook scouring the internet for photos and information about their users, then posting that into users' feeds with no way of being able to remove it--no matter how unflattering, misappropriated or flat-out wrong it is, let alone the fact that Facebook is a free platform, while Soundcloud is in most instances of professional content providers a paid service. Do you not see how wrong this is on multiple levels?

Do the terms of service allow Soundcloud to forcibly put tracks into content providers music streams without their consent? As far as I can tell, they do not. This obviously seems like a push to grab more 'Soundcloud Go' users (who pay $5/month) at the expensve of content providers (who pay $15/month or more). If you want to provide a streaming service, why do you feel the need to piggyback the followings the providers have created in order to advertise & sell your service to content consumers? Why can't it be separate? The idea that as a company you would exploit content providers and their fanbase is completely unprofessional and frankly, quite surprising. Did anyone even consider this before rolling this out?

Also, what happens when a label re-releases an old track? Does this track that could be 10 or more years old get placed in a content provider's feed as though the track is new? Is it of any concern that this can result in multiple versions of the same track in the same feed? Is there any concern that this can affect the branding and image providers of content are trying to present to their followers? While I understand that sites like Beatport or Spotify would do this simply because all they do is provide and catalog content as it is released, it's Beatport & Spotify music consumers that are paying for the service, not the providers.

As a music provider, the reason I use and pay for the service is that the site has been is a neat & tidy way to present mixes, releases & free track giveaways in one location. I can justify the backwards idea of a provider paying to provide content as advertising, but if I'm not in control of what is in my feed or how it's presented, why would i pay for this service or what is the purpose of even having an account? Did anyone at Soundcloud consider any of this before making such a drastic change without even so much as a warning or informational notice sent to users who provide content?

The only people this issue is affecting are professionals who create music to be released, who in almost all instances ARE YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS. I have never had an issue with Soundcloud restricting what can be uploaded based on copyright, whether that's DJ mixes, edits/mashups or anything else--it's simply enforcing the law. This, on the other hand, is something completely different, and at the very least should be something you can toggle on or off. Users at the very least should be able to approve/reject content much like the "tagged photo" system in Facebook. Does that not seem reasonable?

A detailed & well-thought response to this post would be most appreciated. A blanket form response I've seen to many with some of the same concerns is not what I'm looking for here, and with the amount of money I've paid into this site over the years I would certainly expect more.

1 reply

Userlevel 6
Badge +1
Hi Doc,
All good points. Sorry nobody else has added comments here but unfortunately this Help "Community" doesn't really work like a forum in that there isn't much in the way of discussions.

This issue has also caused the extra problem of old tracks being put into the wrong artist profiles.
Someone made a post today suggesting a petition about this problem:

The other issue is the one where artists find a new account has been made with their name, often with "official" in the URL, and the released tracks have been put there. Personally I think this is just a tiny, tiny bit better than artists feeling their own accounts have been hijacked but I think something needs to be done to make clear what these extra accounts are. Using a different word to "official" in the URL and having an extra word or words in the user name. Something like "Releases" or "Catalog".