
2.5M Installs Later, R.I.P. Downloader for SoundCloud - lsiebert
http://passy.svbtle.com/25-million-installs-later-rip-downloader-for-soundcloud
======
zaroth
Bit confused on one point -- so SoundCloud revised their ToS to deny
downloads, but they kept the download URL in the API response? Amazing that
after two different illegal take-downs it just kept getting back on top of the
listings.

Random Android question: When the app was taken down, I guess you lose app
storing listing and IAP. But existing users would still be able to run it, and
the developer would still get ad impressions and ad revenue?

I don't quite understand SoundCloud's rationale... Why is it OK for me to do
an HTTP GET from one user agent but not another? How is that something they
have legal standing to dictate?

Hartig seems perfectly happy to let his obviously well liked software be
stomped into oblivion? SoundCloud could perfectly well provide the equivalent
functionality, but instead they snuff out an honest developer?

It's not even like he was deep-linking the content (oh no, don't actually use
hypertext markup how it designed to be used, _shiver_ ), this was just an
added intent in the existing 'Share' dialog.

So serious question: 3rd party apps insert themselves into the Share dialog.
It's purposefully designed that way. In that dialog, the _user_ gets to choose
how to handle the data being shared. Basically, it's in a clipboard and the
user is choosing where to paste it. How does SoundCloud get Google to nuke an
app for properly using this interface?

(Sorry, that's like a dozen different questions that this post has raised in
my mind)

~~~
ch0wn
Hi, author here.

> Bit confused on one point -- so SoundCloud revised their ToS to deny
> downloads, but they kept the download URL in the API response? Amazing that
> after two different illegal take-downs it just kept getting back on top of
> the listings.

I think they eat their own dogfood here. As far as I can tell, they have no
special privileges for their owned and operated clients. If you for example
look into the network panel when using the web client, you'll see that they
directly access `api.soundcloud.com`.

> Random Android question: When the app was taken down, I guess you lose app
> storing listing and IAP. But existing users would still be able to run it,
> and the developer would still get ad impressions and ad revenue?

Yes indeed. I'm surprised how much of a long tail the app has. Even though
it's now been almost two months since I've taken down the app and SoundCloud
has also revoked the API key, I'm still getting a sizeable amount of ad
impressions in a completely dysfunctional app. :/

> I don't quite understand SoundCloud's rationale... Why is it OK for me to do
> an HTTP GET from one user agent but not another? How is that something they
> have legal standing to dictate?

It's their platform, they can do whatever they want. As operator of a platform
like this, it's natural wanting to control the experience. I think it's
remarkable how open SoundCloud remained over the years whereby most other
platforms leverage their APIs as a way to find initial adoption and then
quickly close them down as soon as they reached a certain point.

> Hartig seems perfectly happy to let his obviously well liked software be
> stomped into oblivion? SoundCloud could perfectly well provide the
> equivalent functionality, but instead they snuff out an honest developer?

I'm certainly not happy about this, quite the contrary. But I see and
understand their rationale, learned a lot along the way and SoundCloud has
always treated me fair.

> How does SoundCloud get Google to nuke an app for properly using this
> interface?

I'm quite interested in the exact process myself. I presume that this all
works under the ominous "copyright" umbrella.

~~~
e12e
>> Bit confused on one point -- so SoundCloud revised their ToS to deny
downloads, but they kept the download URL in the API response? Amazing that
after two different illegal take-downs it just kept getting back on top of the
listings.

> I think they eat their own dogfood here. As far as I can tell, they have no
> special privileges for their owned and operated clients. If you for example
> look into the network panel when using the web client, you'll see that they
> directly access `api.soundcloud.com`.

But it _is_ strange that they in their TOS for the website state:

"You must not copy, rip or capture, or attempt to copy, rip or capture, any
audio Content from the Platform or any part of the Platform, other than by
means of download in circumstances where the relevant Uploader has elected to
permit downloads of the relevant item of Content."

In other words, they seem to allow users to download content that is available
for download. So if I write my own web browser, I'm free to download
downloadable content -- but not if I write an app for Soundcloud...

Or perhaps, it's this clause:

"(x) You must not rent, sell or lease access to the Platform, or any Content
on the Platform, although this shall not prevent you from including links from
Your Content to any legitimate online download store from where any item of
Your Content may be purchased."

It's unclear to me how Soundcloud cannot get Firefox for Android banned under
this clause as well... (well that would be insane, but you can ask for the
desktop version of the site, and download from there?).

Note that this is the user TOS[1], not the API TOS[2] -- but that line is a
little more fuzzy than they would like it to be IMNHO.

[1] [https://soundcloud.com/terms-of-use](https://soundcloud.com/terms-of-use)

[2] [https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/terms-of-
use](https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/terms-of-use)

[edit: entirely forgot to thank the author for being open about this, and
publishing the app for everyone to access. On another note: did you already
provide source to some of the users on request? Or did you just recently add
cert pinning?]

------
userbinator
There are still plenty of SoundCloud downloaders, and as long as the data is
transferred it can still be downloaded. In fact one of the first hits on
Google for "SoundCloud downloader" is a website that claims to do just that (I
didn't try it but I'd bet it's functional - likely on a mobile device too.)

 _Data storage and file management is difficult, especially within the UX
constraints on mobile devices_

This is a very common excuse ("security" is the other one) to justify the
increasing constraints on what mobile devices can do - when I think it's
really about _control_ over the users. On my desktop, I can double-click files
to open them in the app they're associated with, and double-click apps to open
them too. I can save files anywhere, including the desktop, and they'll be as
accessible as apps. I can use one app to interact with files I created with
another one. I have an Android phone and despite it having more processing
power and screen resolution than desktops a decade ago, it is nowhere near as
flexible. Apps are mostly locked into accessing only the data they've created,
with the exception of external storage (which is also starting to disappear).
This app-centric model means that working with files/documents is difficult; I
can't easily save a file into a folder and have it show up as an icon on the
home screen. From what I've read, iOS and WP isn't so different in this
respect.

In the context of something like SoundCloud, the motivation for this model and
their removal request isn't so obscure: DRM. Google wants services like
SoundCloud and other media providers to get the impression that they are on
their side, so its decisions are aimed at restricting users' ability to share
and remix content freely. Ideally to them, everything must be done via an app,
which Google must approve, and which cannot do anything someone else
disapproves of...

Thanks for opening the source; the Play Store is not the world and the app
will live on outside of it, possibly with further improvements from others.
There's a huge app modding community that doesn't even need source, but
they'll be glad to have it.

~~~
smosher_
> There are still plenty of SoundCloud downloaders, and as long as the data is
> transferred it can still be downloaded.

A while back I was fooling around with their API. The "stream" you get is just
an mp3, so downloading any song is incredibly easy. It's a shitty thing to do
though. The artist will only get a single play out of it... and maybe they
were trying to sell you a download. You (not you in particular, anyone reading
this) might not sympathize with SoundCloud, but please act in good faith
toward its users. SC users are changing the music landscape.

Trivia: the stream mp3 isn't the same thing you get when you click the
download link. SC streams are at a particular bitrate, but the proper
downloads are of the original file which could be an aiff or higher bitrate
mp3.

------
werid
Just a few days after they annonced a deal with Warner Music Group...

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/04/soundcloud-confirms-
licensi...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/04/soundcloud-confirms-licensing-
deal-with-warner-music-group/)

------
Nux
Soundcloud are being wankers here, haven't they learned not to piss against
the wind yet?

~~~
flatfilefan
Probably hoping they have such a long one they will make money before the
first drops will fall back down on them.

------
trevmckendrick
Would love to hear rough revenue numbers.

~~~
rpwverheij
same. very interesting article, and interesting to hear about the distribution
between income from adds and people paying to remove adds. But I for one would
be also interested to get a rough estimation of what finding a nice little
niche space like this could bring you in terms of revenue

~~~
dwightgunning
7k downloads per day... At one point 1/3 of revenue from the in-app purchase
to remove ads.

------
untilHellbanned
Great post, thanks for sharing. Did the ad revenue generate some good returns
for you?

------
hobo_mark
I find this extremely interesting, does anyone know or can estimate what
percentage of Soundcloud usage happens on mobile compared to the web version
which _does_ allow downloads?

~~~
ch0wn
Sorry, I can't link you to a source, but they gave a talk at DroidCon UK where
they mentioned that 65% is _native_ mobile listening.

------
nickchuck
Hilarious title on this commit haha
[https://github.com/passy/scdl/commit/44e86d73adbcca3f0818b67...](https://github.com/passy/scdl/commit/44e86d73adbcca3f0818b67631a1659fe844b338)

------
notastartup
this was such a great app. i remember in the morning before work i would
download some songs and listen to it on the bus on my phone.

