The Performing Right Society has sent an email out to its members, detailing the very real threat of legal action against SoundCloud. They do, however, write that they are "hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the need for extended litigation."

One thing jumped out at me though:

"If the streaming market is to reach its true potential and offer a fair return for our members, organisations such as SoundCloud must pay for their use of our members' music."

Ultimately, this statement uses unfair rhetoric, and amounts to SoundCloud being punished for the ways that its users behave. It is the Twitter of music streaming, a welcome vehicle for user-generated music – it isn't Spotify, they're not presiding over everything that gets put onto the service or making deals in order to secure the catalogues of this and that label.

It isn't like that, at all, which is why I think it's such a tricky and confusing entity for people talk about rationally. SoundCloud is not a streaming service in the way that Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal are streaming services. Without understanding it properly, in that all content is uploaded by users – without understanding this, the damaging or perhaps complete destruction of SoundCloud by a tangled web of legal action, which may indeed begin to fall at its doorstep more frequently following this public decision by PRS for Music, is only a matter of time.

Anyway, if you care to read the long email, just cast your eyes directly below this sentence – enjoy it or sob quietly as you see fit.

"When a writer or publisher becomes a member of the Performing Right Society, they assign certain rights to their works over for us to administer, so it’s our job to ensure we collect and distribute royalties due to them. SoundCloud actively promotes and shares music. Launched in 2008, the service now has more than 175m unique listeners per month. Unfortunately, the organisation continues to deny it needs a PRS for Music licence for its existing service available in the UK and Europe, meaning it is not remunerating our members when their music is streamed by the SoundCloud platform.

"Our aim is always to license services when they use our members’ music. It has been a difficult decision to begin legal action against SoundCloud but one we firmly believe is in the best, long-term interests of our membership. This is because it is important we establish the principle that a licence is required when services make available music to users. We have asked SoundCloud numerous times to recognise their responsibilities to take a licence to stop the infringement of our members’ copyrights but so far our requests have not been met. Therefore we now have no choice but to pursue the issue through the courts.

"We understand SoundCloud has taken down some of our members’ works from their service. With our letter of claim, we sent SoundCloud a list of 4,500 musical works which are being made available on the service, as a sample of our repertoire being used, so that they understood the scale of our members’ repertoire and its use on the service. We asked them to take a licence to cover the use of all our members’ repertoire or otherwise stop infringing.

"SoundCloud decided to respond to our claim by informing us that it had removed 250 posts. Unfortunately, we have no visibility or clarity on SoundCloud’s approach to removing works, so it is not currently clear why these particular posts have been selected by them given the wider issue of infringement that is occurring. Ultimately, it is SoundCloud’s decision as to whether it starts paying for the ongoing use of our members’ music or stops using these works entirely.

"If the streaming market is to reach its true potential and offer a fair return for our members, organisations such as SoundCloud must pay for their use of our members' music. We launched our Streamfair campaign in June to raise awareness of this issue and highlight how music creators need to be properly remunerated from streaming. We believe that all digital services should obtain a licence which grants them permission to use our members’ music and repertoire, in this case the works of songwriters, publishers and composers.

"The streaming market cannot fairly develop unless this happens. We have always been pro-licensing and pro-actively work with organisations in order to propose an appropriate licensing solution for the use of our members’ works.

"We remain hopeful that this matter can be resolved without the need for extended litigation. Members will appreciate that this is now a legal matter and our ability to communicate around it is therefore limited by the legal process. However, we will try to share information and updates whenever we can."