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."
If they are making money out of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
??
???
Re:Question: (Score:2)
Some Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
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:If they are making money out of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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..
Re:If they are making money out of it... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
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.
Re:boy, is this short sighted (Score:3, Funny)
Can't wait to hear their cover of "She'll Be Coming Around the Mountain".
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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: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 t
Re:Uh...no (Score:3, Informative)
My intended meaning was that anyone should be able to give a live performance of any song.
A band in a club. Or a kid's birthday party singing "Happy Birthday".
You can - assuming you've paid the fee to ASCAP or BMI (depending on which PRO (Performance Rights Organization) covers the song). They're cheap, too - around $300/year for a blanket license, last I checked.
Re:Uh...no (Score:3, Insightful)
The second issue is that of how widespread the distribution is. I'm sure there are thousands of websites right now that are 'illegally' 'publishing' poems. I put publishin
Re:Uh...no (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, evil on a massive scale is it's own justification.
Re:Uh...no (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright exists to serve the public good, PERIOD. It is not considered a natural right of it's own by anyone except media moguls and their shills.
This just isn't some radical hippie idea, it's a 200 year old law known as the US Constitution.
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 Ki
Not theft (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Words? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Words? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Words? (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright on the song, sure. But on the fscking lyrics? That's just anal.
Re:Words? (Score:2)
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*.
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"
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:Words? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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)
Re:Can I sing them ? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can I sing them ? (Score:3, Interesting)
lyrics for American Life by Madonna (Score:5, Funny)
Re:lyrics for American Life by Madonna (Score:5, Funny)
"What the fuck do you think you are doing".
That's the way mine goes.
Goblin
Lyrics (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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).
Re:Lyrics are copyrighted (Score:2)
Agreed. MPA has no right to break the law just because someone else does.
That's really hurting the music industry. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, the iron fist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, excuse me? Don't you want to sell more albums and get more royalties?
I guess not.
Re:Ah, the iron fist. (Score:2)
"Don't you want to sell more albums and get more royalties?"
No exactly. They just want more money. They don't care about the albums.
Can't find the site back, but numbers showed that numbers of albums decreased, and, even when sales decrease, money gained by albums went up from around 350US$ in the beginning of the '90 to more than 500 kUS$ now.
I believe it. (Score:2)
It's just like the theatre company I used to work for. They charged around $38 for the cheapest seats and up to around $75 for the best. They didn't often sell out shows, but had a loyal subscriber base. The question I always wondered, though, is whether it is better to sell out at a slightly lower price that more people can afford or hope you'll sell out at the higher price?
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)
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.
don't sing along -- you might be next (Score:5, Funny)
What we really need to do is clamp down on people who actually _sing_ those songs, out loud, without paying a royalty. And I'm not talking just street musicians -- what about those immoral folks who sing in the shower? And the even more wicked ones -- since they try to conceal their crimes -- yes, people who hum along in their heads.
Let's face it. It's wrong. The original artist (via the record company) has complete control over how the music is to be experienced. Any performance not sanctioned by them is clearly illegal. And worse, all those folks who heard you sing would otherwise have bought the CD, so you're losing sales -- stealing from the artist.
Not only that, but someone could record you singing the song, even if the original CD was copy protected, which would clearly be a breach of the DMCA.
I know theft when I see it.
What would be OK? (Score:2, Insightful)
Reproducing lyrics in text could be considred an art form (for sure there will be differences).
How about a search-only lyric site? Where you can google for that song that goes: "... hu hu hu what ever you mean
Why in the hell would anyone object to the reproduction of l
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen to yourself. Me listening to a CD with other overhearing may be considered 'stealing' in your world! Everyone within earshot should pay a royalty!
Lyrics are *part* of a song. Not the entire work. I don't understand why reproducing it is *stealing* the song. One would think the *artists* would *want* people to know what they are saying! Next we crack-down on people who hum tunes in p
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to see the business case for how lyrics damage record sales.
If lyrics are protected and cannot be published or read, where does fair use end? Can music reviewers still write reviews with lyric snippets?
Is posting the technical specifications of a product illegal once it has hit the market and ANYONE can get them for free, just like lyrics?
The only argument I see is that having the lyrics on a site generates traffic that can potentially generate profit for a site - so you are profitting from the artists work. But by that same logic, just having the name of the song listed on your site generates the same traffic. Are those now illegal to publish as well? Is it also illegal to place the singer's or group's name on the site, because that may also generate traffic? Are unofficial fan and gossip sites illegal because they generate profit for the creator?
The answer is yes. Remember all those lawsuits folks scoffed about when, for example, the Crayola corporation shut down multiple websites about their crayons, and *Ty (beanie babies) did the same? They even went so far as to serve legal papers to quake clans for using their names - and they could because they had the money to back up their legal departments insane claims.
Welcome to 1984.
Songwriters & lyricists (Score:3, Insightful)
That is why they get royalties for the performance, even broadcast, where the performing artist does not.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:5, Funny)
Poetry? Let's read an example of modern music and the "poetry" within.
Any law which makes it illegal to copy crap like that is OK by me.
I like how you jump from "lyrics" to "music" without even changing gear. If I tried something like that I think I'd ruin the synchro.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case I think you're... um... partly wrong. Whether that's the same as being partly pregnant (ie impossible) I have yet to determine for myself.
I can't necessarily say it's not equally wrong to reproduce someone's song lyrics as it is to do the same with published poetry. HOWEVER, the REASON behind copyright is to protect someone's... source of income, no? For a poet, this is the published word. For a lyricist, however, it's the song that his word goes into. You cannot argue that an artist would lose any revenue from the lyrics of his / her song being printed. Obviously if the song was reproduced without permission, there's an argument.
So yes, it is equally illegal. But is it equally wrong?
Why is it people think music is somehow different from other forms of art and can be readily and freely stolen?
Downloading the music that you should be paying for == stealing. Even most people who do it will admit to that. I just can't convince myself that putting the lyrics up on a website as a reference is the same thing. Or even close.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
No
How about if I write down the words to that song? Am I breaking the law now?
No
OK, now I put the lyrics up on my web page. Now?
Yes, you distributed.
The radio station had to get permission before they played the song. You have the right to listen to that distribution via the airwaves. You have the right to make a copy. You have the right to write down the words. But you can't give it away.
if an author is giving out copies of his book at a st
Attacking more customers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, P2P happened. All I gotta say is, you reap what you sow.
That is all.
Lyric sites are good! (Score:5, Funny)
Even if there sole purpose is to stop the muppet next to you with a walkman singing "Whats a glove got to do with it"
Re:Lyric sites are good! (Score:3, Funny)
Even if there sole purpose is to stop the muppet next to you with a walkman singing "Whats a glove got to do with it"
The Archive of Misheard Lyrics: http://kissthisguy.com/ [kissthisguy.com], named after the line in Hendrix's Purple Sky...
Phil
Lyric availability (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
RIAA lobby congress to impose tax on all paper (Score:5, Funny)
It's about making "piracy" more difficult (Score:2)
Therefore, in theory, I think it's ethic for them to go after people who publish lyrics that came printed with the original album. On the other hand, if the album didn't come with the lyrics, to prosecute people who listen to the music and publish what they heard is ridiculous, those people are contributing to increase sal
I wouldn't mind so much.. (Score:2)
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.
Re:What the hell (Score:4, Funny)
"GadJi Beri Bimba Clan Dridi
Lauli Lonni Cadori Gadjam
A Bim Beri Glassalal Glandride
E Glassala Tuffm I ZIMBRA
Bim Blassa Galassasa Zimbrabim
Blassa Galassasa Zimbrabim
A Bim Beri Glassala Grandrid
E Glassala Tuffm I ZIMBRA
GadJi Beri Bimba Clan Dridi
Lauli Lonni Cadori Gadjam
A Bim Beri Glassalal Glandride
E Glassala Tuffm I ZIMBRA"
-- The Talking Heads, "I Zimbra"
Master plan (Score:2)
2. People can't find out which CD to buy.
3. Watch sales plummet even further.
4. Blame file sharing for lost revenue.
5. ???
6. Profit!
RIAA increases scope of copy protection schemes (Score:2)
You can't even "reverse engineer" (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey! Did you buy the new Eminem CD?"
"No! I went to lyricfind.com and READ THE LYRICS for free!"
"Cool! Think I can read the new Britney Spears CD there?"
"Sure! Why not?"
"Great! Now we'll NEVER HAVE TO BUY CD's AGAIN!!!"
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.
Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to slap some sense into the industry.
I'm starting to think an ORGANIZED boycott may be the only way to do it.
I think i know why they're trying to do this (Score:3, Funny)
"dun dun duh-dun dun dun-duh-dun/ping/bip-bip-bip bup-bup-bup bop-bop-bop-bing"
With the lyrics and the melody, a person can imagine what the song sounds like without ever hearing it. Oh the piracy that will ensue and lost revenue from songs imagined.
C'mon people use your imaginations!
Did anyone read the website? (Score:3, Informative)
Right.
If you already have these recordings in your (church/religious) library, you must destroy them.
Right.
I think they presume a bit too much.
How far does this go? (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to be another excessive move from the recording industry. It seems to me that every time they take a step like this, the big record companies make themselves more obselete. Ultimately, artists won't want to be associated with their vile behaviour- there have been issues over artistic control of recordings for years and the more that viable alternatives arise, the more the creators of music will want to escape the machine.
Hopefully soon we will start to see the big kids of the music industry adding financial bancruptcy to their moral and creative bancruptcies.
Re:How far does this go? (Score:4, Insightful)
Afterall, they are "reverse-engineering" the music in order for you and I to be able to play the notes ourselves.
Assinine. All of this is simply assinine.
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)
They're f*cked. (Score:3, Insightful)
This action is only one more reason I only buy CDs used, unless they are from non-RIAA labels.
Fuck 'Em (Score:5, Funny)
Never one to take this kind of nonsense sitting down, I replied immediately.I've been checking my mail but, still, nothing.
-Waldo Jaquith
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
Yes, you are. (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, the MPA's lawyers can, if they so choose, make an argument that you're not acting in accordance with the permission granted to you by the copyright owner. They can make an argument that the person who you think holds the copyright really doesn't. Th
Where can you buy the lyrics, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
MPA has the right to go after these guys (Score:3, Insightful)
As many college students know, searching Lexus Nexus, and research abstracts are extremely useful. But they also require large fees from the University to pay the original copyright holders. Likewise, if some is going to publish someone else's lyrics, they should have to pay fees to the original copyright holder. And if that means, charging the end consumer, so be it. Record companies may find it in their interest to publish lyric catalogues at a loss in order to drive sales.
Anyone who argues in favor of copyright looters should spend some time in Basra and let me know how that feels. I, like everyone else, prefers free to paying, but until they figure out cold fusion, you can't get something for nothing.
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)
most of you have no idea what you're talking about (Score:3, Informative)
It DOESN'T MATTER if the sites publishing them don't make any money off of it.
It DOESN'T MATTER if free lyrics sites could have the effect of increasing album sales rather than decrease them. We're not talking about recordings. The RIAA is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
It DOESN'T MATTER if the lyrics are available for sale through legitimate channels.
It DOESN'T MATTER if you think the lyrics are inane and stupid. That doesn't make them any less worthy of copyright protection.
Unless you have permission from the copyright owner, you CANNOT PUBLISH the lyrics.
The MPA is entirely in the right on this one.
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.
I seem to remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cracking down on file traders... Ok, that probably only affects a subset of their customer base, but going after fan sites that post lyrics to songs? It's not like the person who wrote the lyrics is going to actually miss out on song royalties because someone could read their lyrics on the web instead of listening to them in the song. Also, I know of a lot of parents that use such sites to figure out what their kids really are listening to. These days it isn't always easy to tell what is being said in the songs just by listening.
Radio Free Berkeley (Score:2)
The FCC won on a technicality that since FRB never applied for a non-existent micro-broadcast license, they were in violation of FCC rules.