De SoundCloud-saga neemt een nieuwe vlucht, PRS for Music klaagt de site aan

Het begint steeds meer te lijken op de val van het Romeinse rijk. Onlangs schreven we al dat de grote SoundCloud-schoonmaak is begonnen. In wat mogelijk een poging is tot winstverhoging, ging SoundCloud tekeer met het verwijderen van mixjes, tracks en accounts, door te claimen dat ze copyrightovertredingen begingen. In veel gevallen bleek de muziek die ze verwijderden echter van de artiesten zelf te zijn. Veel dj's en producers spraken zich uit over wat leek op complete willekeur, en veel van hen gaven aan over te stappen naar een ander platform.

Nu lijkt het erop dat deze SoundCloud-opschoonbeurt slechts het begin is. In een email naar haar leden heeft de Perfoming Rights Society for Music – een instituut dat verantwoordelijk is voor het inzamelen van royalty's van live-optredens, radiozendtijd, streaming en andere kanalen – bevestigd dat ze juridische stappen ondernemen tegen SoundCloud na vijf jaar van "mislukte onderhandelingen". Het conflict lijkt te zijn ontstaan doordat SoundCloud blijft herhalen dat ze geen licentie voor hun service nodig hebben, ondanks dat ze de muziek hosten van 4500 geïdentificeerde PRS-cliënten.

De email van PRS omschrijft het als een "moeilijke beslissing", maar ze zeggen ook dat ze er op staan dat SoundCloud "een licentie moet hebben voor het gebruik van het repertoire van onze leden of anders te stoppen met het inbreuk maken van hun rechten."

Wat er nu gaat gebeuren is in ieder geval interessant: óf SoundCloud bindt in en gaat betalen voor de muziekrechten, óf ze gaan juridisch het gevecht aan. Het is moeilijk om een resultaat te bedenken dat geen serieuze schade voor het platform oplevert, zowel financieel als voor de geloofwaardigheid.

De volledige email is verkregen via Fact (Engels)

Dear Member,

PRS for Music begins legal action against SoundCloud

After careful consideration, and following five years of unsuccessful negotiations, we now find ourselves in a situation where we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings against the online music service SoundCloud.

When a writer or publisher becomes a member of the Performing Right Society, they assign certain rights to their works over for us to administer, so it's our job to ensure we collect and distribute royalties due to them. SoundCloud actively promotes and shares music. Launched in 2008, the service now has more than 175m unique listeners per month. Unfortunately, the organisation continues to deny it needs a PRS for Music licence for its existing service available in the UK and Europe, meaning it is not remunerating our members when their music is streamed by the SoundCloud platform.

Our aim is always to license services when they use our members' music. It has been a difficult decision to begin legal action against SoundCloud but one we firmly believe is in the best, long-term interests of our membership. This is because it is important we establish the principle that a licence is required when services make available music to users. We have asked SoundCloud numerous times to recognise their responsibilities to take a licence to stop the infringement of our members' copyrights but so far our requests have not been met. Therefore we now have no choice but to pursue the issue through the courts.

We understand SoundCloud has taken down some of our members' works from their service. With our letter of claim, we sent SoundCloud a list of 4,500 musical works which are being made available on the service, as a sample of our repertoire being used, so that they understood the scale of our members' repertoire and its use on the service. We asked them to take a licence to cover the use of all our members' repertoire or otherwise stop infringing.

SoundCloud decided to respond to our claim by informing us that it had removed 250 posts. Unfortunately, we have no visibility or clarity on SoundCloud's approach to removing works, so it is not currently clear why these particular posts have been selected by them given the wider issue of infringement that is occurring. Ultimately, it is SoundCloud's decision as to whether it starts paying for the ongoing use of our members' music or stops using these works entirely.

If the streaming market is to reach its true potential and offer a fair return for our members, organisations such as SoundCloud must pay for their use of our members' music. We launched our Streamfair campaign in June to raise awareness of this issue and highlight how music creators need to be properly remunerated from streaming. We believe that all digital services should obtain a licence which grants them permission to use our members' music and repertoire, in this case the works of songwriters, publishers and composers.

The streaming market cannot fairly develop unless this happens. We have always been pro-licensing and pro-actively work with organisations in order to propose an appropriate licensing solution for the use of our members' works.

We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the need for extended litigation. Members will appreciate that this is now a legal matter and our ability to communicate around it is therefore limited by the legal process. However, we will try to share information and updates whenever we can.