Following severe criticism, SoundCloud forcibly abandons the "do not sue" clause for artists

On the defensive, SoundCloud now resumes what could hurt the artists. However, several questions remain unanswered.

Earlier this month, SoundCloud launched a promising initiative at first glance.

The monetization program, dubbed SoundCloud Premier, would allow artists with more than 5,000 plays a month to participate and make money for their works.

There was only one problem: the company's new First Accord page contained predatory clauses.

First of all, you can never sue SoundCloud for any reason. So if the company distributes your works without a license, you can not sue them. On the other hand, with Spotify for Artists' direct download beta program – DRCT Beta – the company does not require arbitration and does not exclude lawsuits.

Second, yes, SoundCloud will not affect your copyright on the music. However, while the independent streaming music service generates 55% of net revenue on ads, a key clause remains unresolved. The payment percentage can change at any time without the artists being notified.

It sounds like a raw deal for the artists. The page of the agreement quickly prompted sharp criticism on social media.

However, apparently, the company did not understand and preferred to turn a deaf ear to the critics.

Speaking with The Verge, SoundCloud defended his controversial initiative, highlighting the "benefits" of his program.

"The SoundCloud Premier monetization program runs on a 55% net fixed income share and monthly royalty payments paid to creators for 45 days, which exceeds most other platforms."

Clearly circumventing the "do not sue" clause, the new measure is seen as beneficial for independent artists.

"SoundCloud Premier is totally non-exclusive, the creator always retains all rights to the content and reserves the right to leave the contract at any time. We are always looking for ways to simplify our agreements for the benefit of our creative community and will seize the opportunity to avoid future confusion."

In short, no, you still could not continue. And yes, the company could change its pro-rata share of 55% at any time without ever telling you.

Now, as a result of major criticism on the page of his contract, the company has issued a statement.

"Our bad. But no, we will probably not let you continue anyway. "

In a blog post, the company admitted that it may have scared users with its outdated "do not sue" clause. Under pressure, SoundCloud removed the controversial measure.

"Our team has reviewed the agreement and clarified or deleted elements that may be unclear or unrelated to the open service we currently have – this includes the removal of the obsolete clause from not suing the wording. part of our previous invitation-only service. agreement."

Stating that this would still allow artists to retain rights to their works, the company has updated the following clauses.

"You receive a proportionate share of 55% of net income.

You are paid for each calendar month within 45 days of the end of this month, regardless of your salary.

You have the freedom to leave the program at any time, and you can still use any platform other than SoundCloud.

As with any change to the SoundCloud Terms of Use, you will be notified two weeks before we make any changes to this agreement so that you can review and accept the changes."

However, many things remain unclear, including how the company will force artists to resort to arbitration. Can artists now sue the company for broadcasting their work in unlicensed streaming? Or, has SoundCloud found a new way to force artists to give up their rights as creators of content?

You can see the agreement terms updated here.