Lyric Sites In Trouble With The MPA 666
Joe the Lesser writes "Apparently the Music Publishers Association is cracking down on sites, like LyricFind, that display song lyrics without permission. 'Just because there is no central licensing body it doesn't make it right to take lyrics and publish them without permission.' says Sarah Faulder of the MPA."
Words? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really hurting the music industry. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Attacking more customers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, P2P happened. All I gotta say is, you reap what you sow.
That is all.
Next up for US lawmakers (Score:5, Interesting)
Without owning the CD, or the rights, you can't:
Sing it,
tell a friend,
write it down,
remember it,
listen to a friend's copy,
listen to it in someone else's car
hear someone sing it (excepting the band, provided you paid them in the first place)
am I missing anything?
This is assinine.
That's how I buy my music (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Words? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously. They've got a copyright on something a guy stands in front of thousands of people at a time singing. I just don't get it. This doesn't hurt *anybody*.
What the hell (Score:4, Interesting)
Finding them will still be easy: if you know 2 or 3 words of a song, type those words + authorname + songtitle + the word lyrics into google and you're still going to find it just as easily.
Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm definitely a lyrics person. I love clever lines even if the music verges on the pretentious ("sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars, carved into stone on fhe face of the earth", "like someone took a knife, edgy and dull, cut a six inch valley through the middle of my soul") It's not Shakespeare but it's about the only thing interesting in many songs. Take away my ability to view lyrics and I won't buy the music.
And I know at some point they'll go after the tab sites that put their own versions of songs.
Signatures (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't new (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's some links
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,17499,00. html [wired.com]
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/01/23/1031244.shtm l [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/30/123324 6 [slashdot.org]
The music industry has been trying for years to stop os reading what their artists are singing.
Customer service? What for? That's the enemy. (Score:4, Interesting)
They required that the lyrics not be presented in text, so they had to devise a method that presented the lyrics in some kind of applet so end users couldn't grab 'em all wholesale.
The end result: if you didn't user Windows you couldn't use the site.
I stopped visiting, which, of course, was the point of their actions.
Memories of www.lyrics.ch (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to hear a song on the radio, remember the chorus, look up the title/artist at lyrics.ch, and then buy the CD (downloading at 28.8 sucked!).
Of course the RIAA/Harry Fox took down the site, and in protest I haven't bought a CD since.
Re:If they are making money out of it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or for programs to supply the source code of programs so people without computers can admire the programs..
You call this entertainment?? (Score:4, Interesting)
We should refer to these people as the "litigation" industry to be more accurate. I hereby vow never to be entertained by the litigation industry again.
Yes, I realize that nobody likes the litigation industry, but I'm just sick of it, and needed a vent. If I ran across an "entertainment industry" scumbag dying in an alley, I would only stop to kick their teeth in.
bitching about lyrics? (Score:3, Interesting)
So whats the beef? Posting lyrics isnt stealing anything unlike posting mp3 tracks taken from the latest album.
I work for a band(s)
Re:Can I sing them ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lyrics (Score:4, Interesting)
It's only fair use if you're citing part of the lyric for a paper or an article. Copying the whole thing, for the sole purpose of having a copy of the whole thing, is simple infringement. Poetry is protected the same way, and you'll find that there are in fact several popular poets (or their estates) who aggressively protect their work from online reproduction.
Music is heard, but the words are still copy and are fairly copyrighted.
Re:Words? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is wrong for the same reason republishing a book online is.
You can memorize a book too. But publishing it for mass consumption is a totally different action.
The copyright holders may believe (correctly or not) that the value of their property is diminished if part of that property is made freely available to all. It doesn't matter if they're right about that or not, they still have the right to protect their IP.
I think it's clearly a bad idea on their part. If only because it pisses people off. I think being able to look up a song title on google by entering a lyric string is a wonderful thing. Apparently, they disagree. Too bad really. I hope this means that only lyrics from indie tunes get published on the web. Anything to quell the damaging, sanitized, over produced, mental diarhea that is Top 40 Pop Music.
Without this, I will end up buying fewer CDs (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're as hopeless with names and/or often listen to one of those radio stations who insist on telling you the artist before the song, these sorts of sites are often the only way to find out the artist of a song to buy the CD!
Shooting themselves and us in the foot, as usual.
Stop buying CD's! (Score:2, Interesting)
But clamping down on the casual downloader and seeming to even wanting to stop people from making a mix of their own CD's was bad enough. Now this?!?!
Use to get how to play a song also of a site called Dansm's. Usually just basic cords and the lyrics or part of the lyrics that people figured out. The media people stopped him and others like it.
It is just one thing after another. The singing in the shower bit above was funny, but makes you wonder if a cop see's you singing in your car if your going to get a ticket for copyright infringement in the future.
Well, there is one way to hurt them. Boycott. Just stop buying tapes, CD's,... Also to make it legit, stop downloading from sites so they can't say that is where the buyers have gone. Just quit for a year. Let them see that you hold their purse strings or continue to be their patsy.
This reminds me of the Dixie Chicks and their comments in England. Hate us, say what you want, it's your right, just don't stop buying our music. Make us rich!
Re:Words? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the definition of a song then? if I write a rap song that is just lyrics with a simple baseline, can I only copyright the baseline?
Not only does this argument make no sense, but there are (if i recall correctly) numerous legal precidents saying otherwise.
Just as the music is copyrighted, the lyrics are composed by the author and should be copyright as well.
That said, i'm not sure I agree with the MPAs stance...
Where can you buy the lyrics, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Words? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is stuff like this that is going to cause a massive disrespect for copyright. BTW, this seems to be already happening.
So what about a poem? Isn't that similar to what song lyrics are?
So if I write a poem about the RIAA, MPAA, MPA, SPA and BSA, can nobody else say it? Or write it down? Or memorize it?
We've already split copyright so fine there is nothing left. Mechanical rights. Performance rights. etc., etc. We haven't yet split out "memorization rights" or "thinking about it rights", "humming or whistling it out loud rights". The latter is especially egregious, as someone other than yourself might hear you whistling without paying! This is stealing!
So what about a sig? Can I sue someone for stealing my sig? (It is in great demand you know! Can't have people stealing food off my table.)
In fact, is my sig a derrivitive of someone else's idea? (The Karma sig.)
Re:Uh...no (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you sing a song in public, the lyrics are now "out there".
For that matter, so is the music.
What's next? Is the RIAA going to send snitches out in public to rat on local bands for playing cover tunes? What is the difference between posting lyics to a copyrighted song on your website versus actually playing the song live in a club to a large group of people and singing those copyrighted lyrics over a PA system? Seems to me both constitute broadcasting the lyrics to the public. So is the RIAA going to sue us for playing cover tunes in clubs?
Should they? Can they? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ungrateful Bastards (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just silly. What are they selling - the words or the music? I feel I should be able to reproduce darn near anything I hear as long as I give credit where credit is due. How is hearing a song on the radio and then posting what you hear any different than video cameras in public places? What if the video camera captures something copy protected - do you need a license to reproduce it??
Finding Lyrics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fuck 'Em (Score:2, Interesting)
This is an interesting concept. They're actually illegal tab arrangements?
What's the figure on the number of possible variants that can exist?
Some people might remember that the Fields of the Nephilim 'reused' the rhythm guitar section from 'Ace of spades' by Motorhead...I wonder if anything happened there?
OD
Lyrics and Tabs (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA is on fairly solid legal ground when they try to stop people from passing around MP3s of copyrighted songs when they represent the copyright holder. Lyrics and tabs are another story entirely.
95% of the time, lyrics aren't supplied with the original song, and instead someone takes the time to listen to the song and try to guess what was said. Sometimes it's just a guess. Take the famous "Scuse me while I kiss the sky / kiss this guy" lyric by Jimi Hendrix. I remember hearing an interview where somebody who knew him said he intentionally said it so that it could be interpreted both ways. Writing down lyrics or tabs based on listening to the song and trying to figure out what was said or what was played is essentially reverse-engineering the song. Having said that, it has to be the easiest reverse-engineering task there could ever be. The output you're attempting to duplicate is a 1:1 mapping of the process used to create it. In other words, to get the words you hear, all you have to do is recreate the words that the artist was singing.
Now if this exceedingly simple "reverse-engineering" is illegal when there is absolutely no form of encryption or copy-protection, then no form of reverse-engineering can be legal. The MPA might have a case if someone were releasing lyrics for unreleased songs, where the "copy protection" is the lock and key under which the unreleased songs are kept, but once something is played on the radio, how can they pretend it's not ok to try to transcribe the song?
So sure, go after the people who copy lyrics out of jacket liners. Go after the people who release lyrics for unreleased songs. But if a judge decides that it's ok to go after someone who just tries to transcribe a song he/she heard, it means the end of "trying to figure out how something works". Say that bed you bought at Ikea, the one you lost the instructions for. If you figure out how to put it together and put up the instructions on the Internet in case someone else loses their instructions... you'll get busted. If you figure out how the levers work in the Hungry Hungry Hippos [hasbropreschool.com] game and post an explanation, you're going to prison. If you figure out how the magician managed to saw his assistant in half by watching carefully, remember not to bend over in the prison shower.
No, I'm Not (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your goal here? To continue to run your Website? To not need to kneel down and kiss the MPA's boots? To make a stand and defend a sane interpretation of copyright law? All of them are admirable goals. In your shoes, I'd probably have the same ones.
How are you going about achieving your goal? By tweaking lawyers. By tweaking lawyers who have already implicitly threatened serious legal action. By tweaking lawyers who work for a massive and well-funded organization who have already implicitly threatened serious legal action.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, WHAT DID YOU THINK YOU WERE DOING?
I know what I'm doing.
While knowledge about point the first is amusing, point the second is the ace up my sleeve.
-Waldo Jaquith
Re:Uh...Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
None of these sites make money for publishing lyrics. They are all money holes, essentially. They run on donations, advertising, and the money earned by the contributors elsewhere.
There are books with music and lyrics to a good many songs, but very often they are badly written, and it is hard to find any more than a very small selection of the most popular bands, if they have deigned to publish one. They often cost as much as the CD whose songs they contain.
If all you are looking for is lyrics, there is no reason in my mind you should not be able to get that much on the internet, for free. Many bands do publish their lyrics on their site, but most do not publish the real lyrics to their songs (like some other posters have pointed out, the misheard lyrics or amateur fans' renditions are often used).
The whole situation is rather frustrating, honestly.
Re:Words? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a problem with the monopolistic organization of the [R|M]*A groups. It seems the musicians want collective bargaining power at some point in the past, and now this beast is running around the neighborhood stomping on everyone.
Anywhere a "performance" is given of a copywritten song, or its content repeated outside the "fair use" guidelines, this group wants money. "Fair Use" is getting beaten into a corner; its the other beast everyone in the neighborhood forgets to feed. So, we end up with Girl Scouts who can't sing Happy Birthday around a campfire without paying someone. Such crap.
Let's recap:
- Buying a tee shirt/bumper sticker/button at a concert that's not "sanctioned" by the band. Just a screen of the band icon and such. BAD DOG
- Playing, singing or otherwise performing any copywritten song for a general audience that charges admission or participatory charges. This could include religious ceremonies, campfires, school plays, retreats, school trips on a bus, etc. BAD DOG
- Sampling over 1.5 seconds or repeating more than 4 bars of a prior song. Doesn't matter if the original is warped/manipulated beyond recognition. If it can be proven this was not your work, you are toast. God help us if this happened in literature or TV shows. BAD DOG.
If am SO fscking sick of the pompous attitude of these [R|M]*A groups. Musicians need to start over and draw a smaller line around the Fair Use boundary. They also need to streamline the radio play channels, publishing houses, and digitize their distribution.
We've all read these before:
- Unravel the radio play hits by simply exposing the accounting of their income from studios AND intermediates.
- Download by song.
- For the mortals, burn discs at the U-serve kiosk listening station in the mall.
- Mandate fixed percentages for artist royalties.
- Complete disclosure of marketing costs, without rollup these publishers and studios actually pay.
'scuse me
mug
Re:Uh...no (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm using the concept of property rights to illustrate that all "rights" are "invented" by someone, so that is an irrelevant argument against intellectual property rights.
Prior to Europeans coming to the US, Indians did not have the concept of "land ownership". Everyone could use the land.
In Feudal Europe, the Kings owned the land. Individuals did not.
Does that mean that land ownership in North America is "invented", and therefore should be ignored? Does that mean that if I want to use your pool, I can, because property rights are an invention perpetuated those who profit from it? Of course it doesn't.
So how can the author of the post I'm replying to claim that "idea that copyright infringement is theft was invented by copyright holders and those who profit from strong copyright protection.", implying that it's a fake concept and therefore should be ignored?
And how can the author portray "profit" in such a one-sided way? Party A creates something. Party B wants to use it for free, in essence "profiting" from the work of Party A, and denying Party A the ability to "profit" from something he created himself.
Why is it evil for the creator of a work to profit, but not evil for the user of that work to profit?
Re:If it's not legal by law, then it must be illeg (Score:2, Interesting)
As a side not, Sarah works for the UK arm of the MPA - so even if we spent lots of time with the MPA it wouldn't have been with her!