Oh yeah, that is true. But as a repository for your DJ mixes I have no complaints.
2 Likes
Iāve been using hearthis.at for several years now and never had any issues.
The interface can be a bit fussy but i prefer is over Soundcloud.
2 Likes
I have soundcloud for my longer mixās I have had a couple of mixās i could not upload but most are fine, I had used Youtube but after getting next to new views on my last few vids I gave up, not worth it, same with Tik Tok, i was getting plenty of engagement and then out of no where I started getting less and less views. Instagram seems to be working for me atm.
It seems to be harder now to get content out there but it is inconsistent as another DJ can play similar or the same music but the engagement/views do not appear to be affected.
Mixcloud really need to push their platform they should be trying to capitalise on these issues if they donāt another company will.
Twitch is the place to play. Recently, you could play with no takedowns but some of your VODās would be partly muted to avoid DMCA fines etc; because they were in talks for a deal with the labels. Low and behold, Twitch has made that deal and now have an official, legal, DJ program. There will be no VODās however as this is covered under a separate license. They are launching this in July or August and details are here. Twitch So, DJās can play live legally but the cons are, yep we are paying for some of it and your streams canāt be saved for later viewing.
3 Likes
BTW, If youāre not a Twitch Affiliate and not making money, you wonāt be paying anything.
2 Likes
Just read an article in Private Eye about the argument between TikTok and Universal records. TikTok accused them of being greedy money grabbers, and it ended with some of their major artists taking the matter into their own hands and allowing their music back on the platform.
Iāll post a screenshot. Major record companies are scum.
1 Like
Hi there people, Im gonna join this rant.
I havr abandoned my mixcloud, especially since they adopted the subscription model. Besides, I was barely getting views from like 2 or 3 lonely cats. The moderators perhaps?
Looks like Twitch will become the place to be now, specially with the recently announced mode for djs. However, in their guidelines reads that music bought in physical format or downloaded cannot be used, only what they have to offer from their catalog. So I cannot show or play my vynil records, or any of my legally downloaded music there?
If things are going that way, then I donāt see a glimpse of hope for us.
@efren Those are the current guidelines, which apply to using Twitch NOW, not once the DJ program starts.
Link: Twitch.tv - Music
As far has i know, the only one website, where you can post video with copyrighted music who is DJ āfriendlyā is Mixcloud
3 Likes
Streaming was, I think, one of those outlets for the art form which heightened during the covid lockdowns as DJs, who were used to playing out to āfansā (albeit temporary ones who had wandered in off the street for a quick barcardi and coke) still needed an outlet for their art. Of course, it also leveled the playing field for the home-streamers whoās only audience was usually their bedroom mirror or poster of some festival DJ in a crucifix poseā¦
And during lockdown, I donāt think that the powers that be, the music companies, the copyright police, the take-down Daleks etc were particularly in a position to do much about it all , as they themselves were in lockdown too.
When lockdown lifted finally, perhaps the number of home streams was noted by the copyright holders as āa problemā and since then, takedowns have become more prevalent.
1 Like
Hi, @PKtheDJ. I gotta tell you, you are 100% correct when stating the effects of copyright laws on music uploaded wrongly [I prefer not to use the term illegally] to YouTube or SoundCloud.
But hereās a few bits of information that you may not have been aware of:
A) When we DJ at nightclubs, bars, or even hotel weddings, the reason we donāt have to pay copyrights on the tracks is because it is customarily presumed that those business already have blanket licenses for music to be played there.
I would love to see the first instance of a greedy record company [do we still call them record companies if they barely manufacture ārecords?ā] or licensing organizations or writersā/artistsā advocacy groups sue DJs because some major club or hotel chain wasnāt paying āits fair share.ā Because of the current ārentalā model of music, when no one actually buys anything physical and loses access to their libraries if they stop the extortionā¦ erā¦ subscription payments, itās had the effect of making a far larger group of āarts organizationsā seek and ā ā ā ā every possible penny from anyone they can.
B) If terrestrial radio TO THIS DAY is allowed to not pay certain licensing for copyrighted works because for ages itās been seen as the stations promoting the artists/songs; there should be an opening for us as well somehow.
Note I said terrestrial radio, as this does not apply to satellite radio (for logical reasons that I canāt recall at the moment).
C) @STU-C does have a point that --if heās not even trying to monetize the YouTube videos heās posted containing copyrighted material-- there actually is no reason why that same copyright holder would not be able to take over the monetization of the play counts for Stuās videos.
D) When SoundCloud started out, it was intended as a platform for musicians to be able to āmore easilyā collaborate remotely on a project (usually a single song made up of several elements). Many people just did as they wished and that ended up giving us the GREAT SOUNDCLOUD POOP MONSTER that it is today.
MixCloud, on the other hand, perhaps because it started out across the pond in the U.K., from its first iteration, knew it wanted to be the repository and platform to assist DJs and others with their MIX SETS. Way back when, when you uploaded your playlists and timecodes, it would even link the tracks youād played to a site that listeners could use to purchase the music you had played.
But the biggest kicker (and the reason they are the only folks I give my money to nowadays) is because they always have (or have tried) to ensure they cover the necessary blanket licenses for the music uploaded to their site so we --the DJs-- donāt have to concern ourselves with silly takedown notices.
E) Interesting story: I sometimes post(ed) videos to YouTube from moments during my gigsā¦ nothing where music was central to the videoā¦ but videos where background music could be heard. YouTube --as a result of a DMCA notice-- muted the videos COMPLETELY. That kinda $h!tty, if you ask me.
F) Final story: my dog passed away almost 2 years ago; sheād been with me as my closest friend and the purest kind of love Iād ever experienced in my life. After her passing, I made a compilation video of some of the cutest pix and videos I had of her. I set the whole thing to the instrumental of āNessum Dormaā from the opera TURANDOT. It was a royalty-free version of the track (done on purpose so they wouldnāt mute the video). About 6 months ago, I received a notice that one of the major labels had a copyright claim to the music. I cursed them all to hell (in my mind), and promised myself to never bother with posting ANYTHING EVER AGAIN to YouTube nor FACEBOOK.
Bottom line, there needs to be more give-and-take with regard to all the copyrights and licenses and ways we can get in trouble for just doing the thing we love to do. And MIXCLOUD rocks!!
1 Like
They have adopted the Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition ā¦
- Anything stolen is pure profit.
- Whatās mine is mine, and whatās yours is mine too.
Youāre right in a sense. The reason is where said record companies would rather not allow any distribution on that platform - period. Itās their material and their right to say / do what they wish as they please to the letter of the law in each of the lands in the seven kingdoms. (Been watching too much House of the Dragons).
I get the frustration - totally do. Iām frustrated by the above.
Unless it is actually not their material, which happens as well. Play a prelude by Chopin, make a video of you playing the piano, and watch the copyright claims coming in ā¦ sometimes manual claims, there is someone sitting in an office putting claims on other peopleās recordings - because that is something that matters too: there is the copyright of the creator/composer/writer and the copyright of the recording ā¦ and even if Chopin is long dead and his compositions are in the public domain, there is certainly a nice pianist with an exclusive contract with one of the major labels who has played it for them, so that they own the rights of their recording - of course, they do ā¦
But, besides the āalgorithmā which is on their side and will boldly claim all Bachās preludes for one of the major labels, labels employ actual people who go out into the wild wild web and claim even things which they do not own. See this amusing story here for example:
And that is actually a scam. Because a less-known or unknown musician can dispute the claim, but it will be decided not by some nice neutral guy at YouTube, but by the very people who illegally claimed the content - so they can monetise it or whatever. And because nobody knows how to fight back and because everyone risks their channels being closed down, probably too many just tolerate it - and for the claimants? Money for nothing ā¦
Here is a really ridiculous example: A gamerās video was demonetized because his washing machine chimed the end of a washing cycle in the background with a melody by SchubertāDie Forelle. Someone had recorded their washing machine, uploaded it as an album track, and slapped a YouTube Content ID on it, years ago! Ars Technica has the story:
And it is lucrative:
At that time, YouTube described Content ID as āan entirely new revenue stream from ad-supported, user generated contentā for rights holders, who made more than $5.5 billion from Content ID matches by December 2020. More recently, YouTube reported that figure climbed above $9 billion, as of December 2022. With so much money at play, itās easy to see how the system could be seen as disproportionately favoring rights holders, while creators continue to suffer from income diverted by the automated system.
There is no risk involved, if somebody falsely claims a video. They can put a claim on all videos on YouTube, literally on everything, Ferengi-style:
- Whatās mine is mine, and whatās yours is mine too.
And if someone disputes it and goes through the complicated and scary process, they let the claim expire. Otherwise, they enjoy a free lunch ā¦ We are looking at a situation where big conglomerates rake in the cash stolen from YouTubers.
- Anything stolen is pure profit.
2 Likes
Pretty good point 
I think that you need to read this: How a Samsung Washing Machine Chime Triggered a YouTube Copyright Fiasco | WIRED
Some people have been registering royalty-free versions of songs and taking down things they shouldnāt.
YouTube can be truly broken in these cases.
EDIT: I just saw @Parysatis posted the same (but Iāll leave it here as itās even better with more exposure!).
2 Likes
Ive been having good luck w youtube lately.
1 Like
And --just as in the article-- getting a hold of YouTube reps (or in my case, Facebookās) is just about impossible.
The guy in question had reason to spend time fighting because of his channelās monetization.
In my case, I think I may have mentioned it, there was no monetizationā¦ only a royalty-free tribute to my dead dog.
Didnāt think Iād see the Ferengi rules of engagement ever quoted on a DJ forum 
+10 points to @Parysatis
6 Likes
I guess it will soon involve loads of Gold-Pressed Latinum to be able to streamā¦
2 Likes