Slashdot Log In
Lyric Sites In Trouble With The MPA
Posted by
timothy
on Wed May 14, 2003 05:53 AM
from the great-artists-are-just-mumbling-anyhow dept.
from the great-artists-are-just-mumbling-anyhow dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Lyric Sites In Trouble With The MPA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 666 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
If they are making money out of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.davsoft.com.au/ | Last Journal: Friday August 30 2002, @11:12PM)
Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
??
???
Some Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.darrylballantyne.com)
Our negotiations were through the CMRRA [cmrra.ca] (Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency), who did everything they could to help us - but in the end it turned into an administrative nightmare.
Secondly, this is really old news - I went through the copyright negotiation gauntlet over two years ago (and, of course, tried to get a slashdot story back then...). I'd hardly say that the MPA is "cracking down" on lyrics sites. Since the dawm of time there have only been four lyrics sites shut down - lyrics.ch (everyone knows the story there), lyricshq.com, LyricFind, and lyricsh.com. The final 3 were shut down only because we PROACTIVELY tried to get licensing - WE went to THEM (them, in our case, being the CMRRA), not because they were "cracking down" or anything.
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.stupids.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 03 2003, @11:37AM)
It is not theft whether it is paid for or not. It is copyright infringement. This idea that copyright infringement is theft was invented by copyright holders and those who profit from strong copyright protection. If you look at copyright law you will see that it is legally quite different from theft. (and rightly so IMO)
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fbxl.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 23, @05:12PM)
In this case, evil on a massive scale is it's own justification.
Re:Uh...no (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @11:15AM)
Nobody will pay for the lyrics, apart from serious musicians who want to do a cover. If they don't want to pay, they'll just listen to the song, and copy the lyrics out.
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Funny)
That's right! Ever since I found out I could just find the lyrics to music on the internet, I stopped buying CD's entirely! You see, the only reason I bought CD's was so I could find out what song lyrics are. I've never really been interested in hearing the actual "songs". I assume most people feel the same way about this that I do, because otherwise the owners of the music wouldn't be losing any money and we'd both sound like idiots, right? It's a damn good thing someone is doing something about stopping people from having a convient way to find out what people are saying in songs! This "internet" problem has gone on long enough!!
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA and MPA have filed a joint suit against Microsoft. The suit claims that Microsoft provides a means through their conroversial web browser Internet Explorer, to download song lyrics and then play them back using a Windows feature called 'narrator'. RIAA spokesperson David Nuterballs was quoted: 'Not since Napster, have we seen such blatant use of technology to steal from our artists'. The suit, rumored to be in the trillions, pretrial will begin in July.
Re:Uh...no (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Funnily enough, as it turns out I often hear songs on the radio for which I might want to have the cd. Unfortunately it is practically impossible to find out what song/artist is being played on the radio. It is trivial to get such information about downloaded MP3s. Likewise, I will often search lyric sites (or google) for lyrics I remember from a song in order to figure out what I was listening to, then I know what CD to buy.
These people are just as wacked as the people that think you should have to pay a dollar every time you dare to hum a song someone else wrote.
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Something seems very wrong here.
Once you sing a song in public, the lyrics are now "out there".
This is getting more stupid by the day.
If you want to keep your lyrics a secret, then DON'T SING THEM and also DON'T PUBLISH THEM.
If you wrote a song, however trivial, and sing it publicly, then is someone "stealing" from you if they write down your lyrics? Put them on a web site? Yet, nothing has actually been "removed" from you?
I'm not arguing the legal aspect of the lyrics copyright status. I'm just saying that this is getting pretty downright ridiculous. Which will lead to a massive disrespect for copyright altogether. Which BTW seems to be happening as we speak.
Doesn't the MPA (not mpaa, and not riaa) have better things to do like busting down the door of kids birthday parties to arrest people for singing "Happy Birthday".
I will go so far as to say that I think one form of copyright simply should NOT exist. That is "performance rights". The very idea that nobody else can sing your song? Then keep it to yourself. (I can hear the second grade teacher saying.)
We need to form a SIG publisheres association so I can sue people who steal my sig. Would that be the SPA? Oh, wait.
Re:If they are making money out of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.linux.org.uk/diary)
boy, is this short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
I typed those lines into Google with his name, and the song popped up on a fan/lyric site. It was "And So It Goes." Never would have found it otherwise.
I did go out and buy the CD, though it wasn't easy to find. If this is their attitude, next time I'll just snag it off eDonkey. Fuck 'em. Lot's less hassle to just steal it.
Re:boy, is this short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://zorin.org/)
They're just a bunch of troublecausing greedy bastards. I don't think I'm ever going to buy a CD again.
Re:boy, is this short sighted (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Quick point of clarification:
RIAA = Recording Industry Assholes of America
MPAA = Motion Picture Assholes of America
MPA = Music Publisher Assholes
The last group is who I think you meant to refer to.
Words? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Words? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Words? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.edespot.com/~amackenz/)
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*.
Re:Words? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://morningcuppa.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 25, @02:23PM)
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:Words? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday April 19 2004, @09:54AM)
Re:Words? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing the concept of "not getting money" with "losing money". (Incidently, this is the biggest difference between copyright violation and theft as well.)
In order to lose something, you must have it to begin with, and then have it taken from you. If your argument above were true, it would mean that when I go to a site with a posting of some book, and read it - somehow money that is in the publishers/authors bank account vanishes. This obviously isn't the case. (If it were, I'd like to see the money trail
What really happens is that I go to said site, and read said book, and there is no monetary transaction whatsoever. The publisher/author neither receives, nor loses money. Since they're not receiving money for their work - and most likely they would really like to receive money for it - they can then sue on the grounds of copyright infringement. They cannot, however, sue for theft - as no "loss" has occurred on their part.
If lyrics are on the net, who loses money? Do you know anyone who ever bought song lyrics?
I don't know - personally I think they're being a bit overzealous here. There's a lot of useful things a well-organized lyric archive can achieve.
If I buy a CD, and the liner notes don't include lyrics (some do, some don't), and I can't make out what the artist is saying - it's very useful to be able to look it up.
If I hear a song, and remember a lyric, but have no idea what the song is called, it's very useful to be able to look up the song title/artist/CD by the lyric fragment. Heck, it might lead to me purchasing the CD. No guarantee, but the possibility is there.
I don't think anyone would pay for this service, though -- especially in the first circumstance, where the CD has already been bought and paid for.
What I'm really concerned about, however, is what a lawsuit like this could mean for truly entertaining sites like http://www.kissthisguy.com/ [kissthisguy.com] (which is an archive of sometimes-hilarious misheard lyrics to various songs). I would think such things would fall under Fair Use and Parody - but we've all seen how much the *AAs respect those...
Can I sing them ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can I sing them ? (Score:5, Funny)
lyrics for American Life by Madonna (Score:5, Funny)
Re:lyrics for American Life by Madonna (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.abovetheinternet.co.uk/)
"What the fuck do you think you are doing".
That's the way mine goes.
Goblin
Lyrics (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.santacruzbynight.com/)
I mean isn't this fair use? I'll admit I'm still a bit hazy on the concept as it relates to this sort of non-commercial use, so would some kindly slashdotter explain how it would apply in this situation? Or are they talking about commercial lyrics sites? (I suppose such exist). I know I personally use a russian server for most of my lyric searches, and I'm aware Russian intelectual property law is or was rather spotty.
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:Lyrics (Score:4, Insightful)
No, and no. I can make all the copies I like of all the books/lyrics/magazine articles/whatever and be perfectly within the bounds of the law. The part that makes it infringment is the redistribution part. Granted, that is being done in the case these discussions started with, but we have to make sure we keep the ground rules of the discussion in mind.
Sensible Lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.chriscanfield.net/)
At some point, every manager and every CEO needs to stop and think "I can sue, but should I?" Lyric sites keep songs in the public eye, raise interest in their back catalog, and embed the product further into the cultural dialog. Is it a violation of copyright law? Yes, the same way that publishing screenshots of videogames is a violation of copyright law. But it makes no business sense for any videogame company to attack the publicity they recieve through the gaming news sites. And it makes no business sense to attack lyric sites which only serve to drum up interest in the music.
Question your lawyers.
Lyrics are copyrighted (Score:4, Insightful)
Songwriters should be allowed to make money off the lyrics since they wrote them in the first place.
That being said, I think LyricFind and the MPA should sit down and work out a licensing agreement with each other to work out a deal that benefits all three parites involved (Songwriters, LyricFind and consumers).
That's really hurting the music industry. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, the iron fist. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.jory.org/)
Um, excuse me? Don't you want to sell more albums and get more royalties?
I guess not.
unfathomable (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon... everyone's had an old song running through their head from time to time, where they can remember only a line or two. Enter that line into any lyric site (or google with quotation marks around it), find the song, and mark it down on your "future purchases" list.
What the hell is the matter with these people? I suppose if they want to cut their own throats they're free to do so, but sheesh...
This has to be a hoax; no organization dedicated to making money can survive long with this level of stupidity.
Customer service? What for? That's the enemy. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.jory.org/)
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.