Mixcloud & Graeme Park
- Thread starter Whipper
- Start date
Col I have heard about him doing this before, way before Mixcloud started to charge etc, for what reason I dont know, is it because he dont like certain sets or is it he wanted the rights to the sets..
Now is it GP himself asking or is mixcloud just doing it because he has select account, which then drives more people to his account..
Just looked at his page on mixcloud and most of his sets are locked aka wants 2.99 a month to be able to listen, and its not just his new stuff thats locked, its his old sets also, so im guessing it could be to do with that...
I closed my Mixcloud down when they brought in the new rules, the most stupid rule they have is that one were you cant rewind the set if your a free user
you have to restart the set again, and I think it was only so many plays of the set in month or something..
heres the plans bleow
Plans | Mixcloud
Upgrade your Mixcloud experience whether you're here to create or here to listen. Pro for creators gives you access to unlimited uploads, live streaming, uploads in HQ and more. Premium for listeners gives you access to offline and unrestricted listening as well as upfront tracklists.
www.mixcloud.com
To be honest I think all platforms will go the same way
Actually Col I was just thinking, who does own the rights to all these the old sets the Dj ? or the Promotor ?...
The dj played at an event, promoter records the set, promotor then sell sets via record shops or even at their next event..
Id put money on it that none of the promotors or djs had any rights to sell mixed dj sets, Discogs banned the sale of 99% of the mix
tapes, because they have no royalties paid..
But who does own the rights to a mixed tape that has copyrighted music
The dj played at an event, promoter records the set, promotor then sell sets via record shops or even at their next event..
Id put money on it that none of the promotors or djs had any rights to sell mixed dj sets, Discogs banned the sale of 99% of the mix
tapes, because they have no royalties paid..
But who does own the rights to a mixed tape that has copyrighted music
Maybe he has one of his tracks in that mix, if that is the case I think he could get it pulled under copyright laws.
This is an interesting read
djtechtools.com
This is an interesting read
The Basics of DJ Copyright Laws
We have had an influx of DJs sending us messages asking about fair use, copyright, and the legalities of playing
djtechtools.com
I hadnt thought of that ColMaybe he has one of his tracks in that mix, if that is the case I think he could get it pulled under copyright laws.
This is an interesting read
The Basics of DJ Copyright Laws
We have had an influx of DJs sending us messages asking about fair use, copyright, and the legalities of playing
Just had a read of that, has you say a interesting read
A certain somebody is apparently on a mission at the moment over whether folks have rights to this and that. To what degree and over exactly what, I don't know at the moment, so this is a bit of speculation and rumour, not factual.
I can understand not wanting people blatantly ripping off your work that's popular and capable of earning you some decent income. I can understand it in a
case where somebody's pushing some sort of business squarely aimed at ripping off your back catalogue, using your name, selling it for profit and/or undermining your ability to generate revenue. I can see why action would need to be taken, not only for copyright but for potentially trashing your reputation or brand.
However, trying to, say, intimidate people for a youtube video of a mix set the uploader created, or making and distributing a free mix-set that THEY might have themselves mixed well over 20 years ago (because one of the claimants tracks just happens to be in the mix)? Go f-k yourself and the horse you rode in on tends to be my position on that kind of caper.
I appreciate a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it grates on me that for a scene that was all about freedom, sharing, being part of a special, enjoyment of music, etc, people could potentially start trying to monetise every last whisper, perhaps pushing for whole videos and mix sets to be pulled or maybe even trying to monopolise on a whole scene like "Madchester" or whatever and virtually claiming themselves, in a way, to be the embodiment of it that everybody has to ask permission of.
If it is THEIR whole set being uploaded, their sole tracks from start to finish, their image and brand names being marketed, fair enough. It's their property and they should be getting paid for it where they can.
As for the rest, for example, a theortical case of "you don't have permission to upload that 1991 DJ mix because it has two of my tracks in it" or whatever - I tend to think you'd have to be a bit of a pretentious wanker to be all over everything and everybody like a rash.
Hopefully that's not what's going on and they are just rightly going after the serious and blatant targets. I don't really know and I'm not saying I'm right. I could be persuaded otherwise.
I can understand not wanting people blatantly ripping off your work that's popular and capable of earning you some decent income. I can understand it in a
case where somebody's pushing some sort of business squarely aimed at ripping off your back catalogue, using your name, selling it for profit and/or undermining your ability to generate revenue. I can see why action would need to be taken, not only for copyright but for potentially trashing your reputation or brand.
However, trying to, say, intimidate people for a youtube video of a mix set the uploader created, or making and distributing a free mix-set that THEY might have themselves mixed well over 20 years ago (because one of the claimants tracks just happens to be in the mix)? Go f-k yourself and the horse you rode in on tends to be my position on that kind of caper.
I appreciate a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it grates on me that for a scene that was all about freedom, sharing, being part of a special, enjoyment of music, etc, people could potentially start trying to monetise every last whisper, perhaps pushing for whole videos and mix sets to be pulled or maybe even trying to monopolise on a whole scene like "Madchester" or whatever and virtually claiming themselves, in a way, to be the embodiment of it that everybody has to ask permission of.
If it is THEIR whole set being uploaded, their sole tracks from start to finish, their image and brand names being marketed, fair enough. It's their property and they should be getting paid for it where they can.
As for the rest, for example, a theortical case of "you don't have permission to upload that 1991 DJ mix because it has two of my tracks in it" or whatever - I tend to think you'd have to be a bit of a pretentious wanker to be all over everything and everybody like a rash.
Hopefully that's not what's going on and they are just rightly going after the serious and blatant targets. I don't really know and I'm not saying I'm right. I could be persuaded otherwise.
Last edited:
I wonder if it could be GP himself asking, there was an interview in one of the papers where he was unhappy about loss of income due to clubs being shut, seems a lot of these out of work dj's, musicians, as well as actors, are looking to sellling their wares so to speak online, but you are right, is the music technically his? Mixcloud has become a pain, and i personally prefer hearthis.at nowadays. Enjoying this discussion immensely I might add.
Cheers,
notlob
Cheers,
notlob
