Soundcloud sold to Warner

[Deejaesnafu]

http://doandroidsdance.com/news/warn...oud-agreement/


discuss....

[astromech]

Your title is a bit sensationalist. Really, this could be a good thing for users if it covers remixes, samples and DJ mixes.

[Deejaesnafu]

i think its pretty concise and to the point.....i didnt say "END OF THE WORLD.....sc sold to warner" , but frankly i think its pretty newsworthy and relevant.

[SlvrDragon50]

How is it sensationalist lol. All it covers is the main point, SC got sold to WMG.

I don't think this is good for users. Music labels and freely streaming music sites typically result in tight regulation of what is uploaded..

edit: Okay. I just read the article.

happydan is correct. SC wasn't sold to WMG. They just signed a licensing agreement which is great for users. Assuming SC doesn't start charging fees and playing a ton of ads.

[Jester]

Nope. read this http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/71...ith-soundcloud

Selling your company has nothing to do with "signing a licensing agreement"

Its called reading the article not the headline 101.

[deathy]

From the original article:

"However, with Warner now having an ownership stake in SoundCloud, those fees only serve to allow for Warner to assume ownership stakes in the company without any loss of potential dividends from their new corporate acquisition."

From the article you just linked:

"But the label is walking away with a stake in SoundCloud as part of the pact."

"Sold" is too strong a word, but I suspect Warner having a stake is going to eventually shift toward them owning it outright.

[ImNotDedYet]

It could be a good thing, could be a bad thing. Getting labels on board overall is a good thing. Getting the first was likely the most difficult, but getting others on board now should be easier.

Now...what they'll be willing/have to do to maintain having these labels on board with their streaming service is another thing.

Finally, an ownership stake in the company is relatively meaningless. This happens all the time with startups. Investors give money and get an ownership stake in the company. In this case, it's not necessarily an investment on Warner's part, but it's still relatively harmless IMO. It does however depend on the amount of ownership Warner gets.

[deathy]

Now...what they'll be willing/have to do to maintain having these labels on board with their streaming service is another thing.

That, right there... a deal with the devil.

Finally, an ownership stake in the company is relatively meaningless. This happens all the time with startups. Investors give money and get an ownership stake in the company. In this case, it's not necessarily an investment on Warner's part, but it's still relatively harmless IMO. It does however depend on the amount of ownership Warner gets.

Yeah, indeed... I was only correcting Jester's statement that it was only a licensing deal, which it wasn't (and he didn't closely read his own article). It's not the same as them having been bought by Warner, either, but it is still a development that I intend to pay attention to.

[Deejaesnafu]

Nope. read this http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/71...ith-soundcloud

Selling your company has nothing to do with "signing a licensing agreement"

Its called reading the article not the headline 101.

yah if you read the article, like i did , you will notice the part about them aquiring an "ownership" stake meaning to my interpretation over 51 percent, for intents and purposes the company was sold to warner.

just sayin.. GTFO my arse people, im just trying to start a conversation about it.

[ImNotDedYet]

An ownership stake does not mean majority ownership of the stocks, only that you now have a stake in the company's stock. A controlling stake would be > 50% of the overall stock. There is no mention of the actual percentage of ownership given through this agreement, however I would guess that they have enough of a stake in the company now to get someone on the board of directors for Soundcloud, (even small, non-publicly traded companies often have boards of directors, especially when outside funding comes in) which could persuade them to move in ways more beneficial to Warner.

As mentioned previously, it's a big move and only time will tell what direction soundcloud will eventually wind up going.

And I didn't feel like anyone was getting up in your arse, just discussing...