Lyric Sites In Trouble With The MPA

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."

If they are making money out of it...

then yes there should be royalties paid to the copyright owners. Non-profit users shouldn't have to though.

Question:

If there is no central licensing body, who gave authority to the MPA to sue LyricFind on behalf of the copyright holders?

??

???

Some Clarification

First of all, the MPA never sued us. In fact, we were never sued by anyone. We hardly even talked to the MPA, since when we did, their response was "You'll have to talk to the publishers directly." - so, not very useful.

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

then it is still theft.

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

The thing you have to realize, is that the entire music industry is exceptionally evil. Not plain run of the mill "kicking small children with steel toe boots" evil, no, a much more special and exceptional evil -- pitting artists against their own fans, and screwing both on a massive scale. This includes lawsuits brought against college students, state sanctioned cyberterrorism on a massive scale, hypocritical moral indignation, paying artists next to nothing for music that earns the companies millions of dollars net, and actions like this, which take a practice which wouldn't be illegal anywhere else(scrawl down the lyrics to your favourite song, and hand out a bunch of copies. No court in the country would touch the case with a 500ft pole) and call it something different because "it's digital", bribing(through the more ambiguous "softmoney contribution), and other evil things (though I'm sure they do get out their small child kicking boots once in a while for concerts).

In this case, evil on a massive scale is it's own justification.

Re:Uh...no

If the sites are taken down, then the copyright holders still aren't getting any money. Where are they losing out here?

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

Either way you look at it, copyright holders are not getting the $$$ that they are legally entitled to.

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

In the news:

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

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

Either way you look at it, copyright holders are not getting the $$$ that they are legally entitled to.

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...

If they don't include the lyrics maybe the hearing impared should simply sue them back. There are lots of people who can enjoy music but whose hearing isnt good enough to pull the lyrics out of the music.

boy, is this short sighted

I heard an old Billy Joel ballad on the radio, a song from back in the days when I had hair. I just had a few lines, but the melody stuck with me.

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

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to say this. I've found countless songs by looking for lyric snippets. I don't see how people posting lyrics online hurts the MPAA in anyway.

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

I don't see how people posting lyrics online hurts the MPAA in anyway.

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?

How is this wrong? If you simply listen to the lyrics, you can learn a whole song by heart, without permission. Are they going to crack down on people with good memories too?

Re:Words?

Its not for knowing the lyrics in a song , it is for republishing it.

Re:Words?

Well, gee. I can see how *that's* aweful. 'Cuz the last thing any song writer wants people to know is what his lyrics are! Think of what would happen if everyone knew the lyrics to their songs? Mass hysteria my friend, mass hysteria.

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?

Ridiculous?

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?

Whatever. There comes a certain point when ideas (misnamed intellectual property by these types) proliferate into culture that they should cease to be owned but rather should become public domain, as they are ingrained to the point of becoming common knowledge anyhow. That is the biggest failing of copyright law today.

Re:Words?

If you put a book on the net, and people download it or read it on a web site, publishers and authors lose money.

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 ;P )

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 ?

Am I still allowed to sing (off key) to a song in the shower, without owning the original cd ?

Re:Can I sing them ?

Only if nobody hears you. If they hear you, then it's a performance and you have to pay royalties. You might be safe if people hear you and don't enjoy it, though...

lyrics for American Life by Madonna

la lala lala LA !, la la lala Luh !..

Re:lyrics for American Life by Madonna

Shouldn't that be

"What the fuck do you think you are doing".

That's the way mine goes.

Goblin

Lyrics

This seems asinine to me. Don't free lyrics serve to enhance the listening experience? It seems to me that they are most likely to increase music sales.

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

I mean isn't this fair use?

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

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.

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

This reminds me of Sony's attempt to have Aibo enthusiast sites shut down because they were doing things with the Aibo that Sony hadn't intended.

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

Unless you're a top songwriter you basically get paid dirt.

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.

RIAA is seriously making some good efforts in keeping everyone hating it's guts. Can anyone even speculate how lyrics sites hurt the industry? Dont bother saying "provides pirates with track titles", most official artist sites have lyricks and track listings. RIAA is slowly but surely shooting its own foot.

Ah, the iron fist.

You'd think by now these people would understand that if you can search a snippet of lyric and the complete lyrics show up, then you'll know who the artist is and can go out and buy the album that may have been unknown to you before.

Um, excuse me? Don't you want to sell more albums and get more royalties?

I guess not.

unfathomable

I can't count the number of times I've gone to a lyrics site to find a song name/title/artist based soley on a line of lyrics.

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.

It's no hoax. As someone else pointed out, this has happened before. lyrics.ch was fantastic but it got killed by this kind of action.

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.