Song "removed at the request of the copyright holder" in XBM

[Joe920]

This might be user error, but on W10M I got a message in XBox Music Preview that certain songs couldn't be played because of copyright issues. These are songs that I own legally, and that I manually placed in a 'Music' folder that I made on OneDrive. Probably not the way this should be done, but either way it was surprising to me to see this popup. Thankfully the files are still there, but none of them play.

 

[t.mehoves]

I noticed this yesterday when I went to play music and found it odd as well.

 

[Formula84]

Subscribed

 

[EssThree]

Quite possible that MS is receiving complaints from record companies about people streaming music that wasn't licenced to do so. It's complete rubbish that so many things we pay for aren't actually ours to do with as we please.

 

[DCTF]

This is well known, I'm afraid. Both Apple and MS's cloud storage is inspected automatically for copyright breaches, among other things. It's a pity because I'd love to use OneDrive as my cloud storage backup, but there is no way I'm going to pay them a monthly fee unless I know they're not going to bar me from accessing my files.

13 best cloud storage services 2015: Dropbox vs Google Drive - PC Advisor

If privacy is a major concern then it should be noted that Microsoft reserve the right to scan your files to look for what it would deem objectionable content. This could be copyrighted material or things of an explicit nature. Apple has a similar policy, making the two potentially more intrusive than their competitors.

Anybody who uses automatic meta-tagging services and also listens to fairly niche music will have many CDs that are misidentified by systems like this (some old hardcore EP might get tagged as being Sarah McLachlan, and you have to go in and re-edit the tags yourself). Additionally, some of my CDs are records I made - if my label has applied for these protections, I might be barred from a backup of my own music.

If you want a better service, go with a competitor.

 

[paulsalter]

Looks like it is trying to stream from the music store, instead of your copy of it

What happens if you try to play it on your computer, opening the MP3 file directly from explorer?

 

[Fiann]

Hopefully it's a bug. Files uploaded to your music folder are no different than ones you play from, say, an SD card. The courts have found that format shifting (i.e. ripping a CD to MP3) is legal. That's the basis of music locker services. They don't match a song and then stream it from their one copy, they keep a unique copy of each one loaded.

 

[DCTF]

Hopefully it's a bug. Files uploaded to your music folder are no different than ones you play from, say, an SD card. The courts have found that format shifting (i.e. ripping a CD to MP3) is legal. That's the basis of music locker services. They don't match a song and then stream it from their one copy, they keep a unique copy of each one loaded.

I don't think the legality of it matters - MS and Apple can have their own policy and not allow that, and it's their right to do so. It is a fact that both of these companies hunt down and disallow copyrighted material from their lists. If you don't want to lose the use of entertainment media, you should not buy storage from these companies. Your right to access those files will always be in question.

I want storage as an ultimate backup for my music collection, given that the same calamities that could damage the originals could take out my hard drive copies too. Therefore I will only buy that service from a company whose policies are suitable for my needs.

 

[Asskickulater]

I don't think the legality of it matters - MS and Apple can have their own policy and not allow that, and it's their right to do so. It is a fact that both of these companies hunt down and disallow copyrighted material from their lists. If you don't want to lose the use of entertainment media, you should not buy storage from these companies. Your right to access those files will always be in question.

I want storage as an ultimate backup for my music collection, given that the same calamities that could damage the originals could take out my hard drive copies too. Therefore I will only buy that service from a company whose policies are suitable for my needs.

I have no idea where you're blaming Microsoft at, Microsoft doesn't goo around looking for copyrighted content for starters, they remove something when its requested by the legal copyright holder. This is most likely a bug, and if its not, guess what? You get to blame your artists record label for being greedy, not the one getting told to do it.

Think about your logic for a second, your trying to say that Microsoft doesn't want you to put your music collection on onedrive, yet the music locker is made specifically for that's and advertised as such.

 

[DCTF]

I have no idea where you're blaming Microsoft at, Microsoft doesn't goo around looking for copyrighted content for starters, they remove something when its requested by the legal copyright holder. This is most likely a bug, and if its not, guess what? You get to blame your artists record label for being greedy, not the one getting told to do it.

Think about your logic for a second, your trying to say that Microsoft doesn't want you to put your music collection on onedrive, yet the music locker is made specifically for that's and advertised as such.

Sorry, where did I "blame" Microsoft? I said that Microsoft are very clear about their policy, therefore if this bothers you, you should choose a different service. What's happening here is not a bug - it's the result of a policy. I didn't say that all your music will be removed - I said that the accessibility of your music will constantly hang in the balance. That's not something I'm comfortable with, so I'll use my free quantity of storage for less problematic files and use a different service for a paid subscription.

I don't blame Microsoft, and I also wouldn't blame a record label for being "greedy" - that's a ridiculous thing to say about a company whose business relies upon sales. I am a musician and I have record deals, as I said up the thread. I understand completely why copyrighted material can be blocked on a service like this. That's why I won't give my money to a service that might do this - because I would be at fault for that choice, not them.

 

[Asskickulater]

Sorry, where did I "blame" Microsoft? I said that Microsoft are very clear about their policy, therefore if this bothers you, you should choose a different service. What's happening here is not a bug - it's the result of a policy. I didn't say that all your music will be removed - I said that the accessibility of your music will constantly hang in the balance. That's not something I'm comfortable with, so I'll use my free quantity of storage for less problematic files and use a different service for a paid subscription.

I don't blame Microsoft, and I also wouldn't blame a record label for being "greedy" - that's a ridiculous thing to say about a company whose business relies upon sales. I am a musician and I have record deals, as I said up the thread. I understand completely why copyrighted material can be blocked on a service like this. That's why I won't give my money to a service that might do this - because I would be at fault for that choice, not them.

It is greed. Plain and simple, did I buy the song? Yep, do I have it on my hard drive? Yep, what right do they have to say I cant stream it to all my personal devices?

 

[DCTF]

It is greed. Plain and simple, did I buy the song? Yep, do I have it on my hard drive? Yep, what right do they have to say I cant stream it to all my personal devices?

They don't have a right. They've put it to MS and Apple that they don't want this to happen, and MS and Apple have said, "Okay then".

It's still not "greedy". You, I, and all of these companies are well aware that if we choose to, millions of us can figure out how to get anything we want for free, from a wide range of avenues. All of us know that customers continue to buy music because lots of people are nice, and choose to do that anyway in order to support the artists.

However, things aren't going well these days, and attempts to preserve profit aren't greed. The boss of Warner Music takes home the same paycheck for the job - he doesn't get an extra floor built on his mansion this year if he prevents cloud storage services from allowing distribution of Ed Sheeran. A small indie label's staff don't get a pay rise for protecting their artists' revenues. However, failure to prevent losses could cripple the company. Very few labels in the world have the ability to resize without sweating, and many would be and have been killed outright by destabilising market effects.

Labels must also consider the needs of the remaining retailers and distributors. Modernisation is important, but so are the traditional networks. Big changes in technology are a problem, and the ideal thing for the industry is adaptation that happens slowly and can be eased into. Of course it looks like they're fighting a losing battle - in all probability, that's exactly what this is. But music fans ought to worry about what happens to the culture unless we emerge out of the other side with a solid business plan in place. If there is nothing, if we are just dropped into an open system, then perhaps all we will have left is a live music industry (reducing the likelihood of investment in lengthy creative studio recordings, leaving too many musicians struggling for a share of a much smaller market, cutting off huge chunks of culture which aren't suited to live performance, and so on).