Music Industry Issues Take Down Notices to 50 Major Lyrics Sites 281
alphadogg writes "A music industry group is warning some 50 website that post song lyrics that they need to be licensed or face the music, possibly in the form of a lawsuit. The National Music Publishers Association said Monday that it sent take-down notices to what it claims are 50 websites that post lyrics to songs and generate ad revenue but may not be licensed to do so. The allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm developed by a researcher at the University of Georgia."
The "complicated algorithm" (basis statistics using Excel and Google) is described in the NMPA's "Undesirable Lyric Website List." Anyone remember lyrics.ch?
Greed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Pure and simple.
Re: Greed! (Score:5, Funny)
Well we all know how much lyrics sites lead to a loss in sales for these companies. I personally print out the lyrics and scripts for every piece of media I'm interested in. It's way better than listening to a song or watching a movie obviously!
Re: Greed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well we all know how much lyrics sites lead to a loss in sales for these companies.
Quite the opposite, i'd say. I've often heard a song i liked on the radio, but not known what it was called or who it was by, and then googled bits of lyrics to find out so i could buy it. And i'm sure i'm not the only person who does that. The Google search inevitably takes me to one of those lyrics sites. If they weren't there, chances are i wouldn't have bought the song.
They're just shooting themselves in the foot as usual, with their mindless short sighted approach.
Re:Greed! (Score:5, Funny)
The last thing I would describe modern lyrics as is 'valuable'. Surely they must be talking about Johnny Cash.
Re:Greed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't the copyright-holders publish lyrics for everything on the web themselves? Then they'd kill demand for other lyrics sites and get ad revenues.
I'll tell you why (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be making money off their own work. And they don't have to: copyrights will bring in money without any further work from them and they're not in the business of doing work. Just getting paid.
Moreover, the entire bloody thing is run by accountants now. And to an accountant, EVERY sum is zero-sum. Double entry bookkeeping. Look it up. True fact.
So if someone else is making money, that's not "them making money", that's MONEY LOST TO YOU. ***EVEN THOUGH*** you are not going to do that work to get the
Re:Share! (Score:2)
When there's a real person out behind the website, like Lucky Wilbury, [bobdylan.com] or Calin Coburn, [bobnolan-sop.net] then the right thing to do is patronise the legitimate source.
How many of the "protected" artists are offering their own sites for this stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the copyright-holders publish lyrics for everything on the web themselves? Then they'd kill demand for other lyrics sites and get ad revenues.
If you read TFA (I know, I know...) you'd see that there are sites that are licensed to post these lyrics (presumably a "we aren't going to post them, but you can" situation, which is as close as we'll get to what you mentioned)--quite a few, in fact. The takedown notices were for the sites they determined were not licensed to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't the copyright-holders publish lyrics for everything on the web themselves? Then they'd kill demand for other lyrics sites and get ad revenues.
Because rent-seeking is more profitable.
Let some other sucker do the heavy lifting, then show up at their digital door with some virtual goons. "Say, this shore is a nice lyrics site you got here...would be a real shame if something were to happen to it..."
Protection^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Licensing income is more stable than ad revenues...
On a side note, when oh when will this damned forum enable <s> </s>, <del> </del>, or <strike> </strike> tags?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So is the music industry offering a better alternative? Clearly some people want the lyrics. As usual, the "industry" ignores a demand and instead turns to lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So is the music industry offering a better alternative? Clearly some people want the lyrics. As usual, the "industry" ignores a demand and instead turns to lawsuits.
Yes, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you even read the article? (Actually, you clearly didn't. I know, I know, that's fairly normal around here.) The alternative is licensing lyrics from the publishers--which most that I have heard of (e.g., azlyrics.com) are actually doing. I have honestly never heard of most of the unlicensed sites (top results: rapgenius.com and lyricsmania.com). The industry claims licensing is cheap, and their problem is that sites that don't license are making money
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
These people are doing work and you think that this is wrong.
Why?
The revenue is not coming from selling the lyrics, they're coming from ads on the pages, so they are NOT making money off someone else's work.
Moreover, the entire frigging point of capitalism is making money off someone else's work: otherwise there would be NO PAID MANAGEMENT. NO SHAREHOLDERS. NO INTEREST RATES ON LOANS. EVERY one of those is making money off someone else's work.
Yet I bet you won't call any of those wrong and illegal and justly forbidden, will you?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I think the music industry is being a jackass and this will do nothing positive for them, legally and even ethically I can see their point.
Re: (Score:2)
In all of those other cases there is some type of exchange going on. The issue here is that you have group A producing content and then group B taking that content without compensating A and then using it as the basis for making money.
Who is A and who is B?
I know for a fact that the artists directly supply the lyrics for some songs on some of the lyrics sites I use. Rapgenius.com being one that does a particularly good job of showing this. But the labels have no say in that, so by their logic that's still unlicensed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know its all fashionable to beat on the man, but seriously.
There might be some companies where CEO's do nothing, and there is certainly a debate worth having on whether many CEO's are paid too much.
But, the CEO is the person who decides what products the company makes, is responsible for making sure those products are built on time, and sell when they hit the market. They are the people who ultimately insure the company makes its payroll so workers have jobs and get paid. If its a publicly traded company
Re:No there isn't. (Score:5, Funny)
You seriously need to spend a week BEING a CEO, so we can all see how horrible you would be at it, and then maybe you would stop running your mouth spewing nonsense.
Deal. Now Freaky Friday this shit so that I can get on with destroying a company that's existed for over a generation. Man, I'm gonna short term flip that Fortune 500 so hard they're feeling it for five CEOs after, which, I know is only like, two years time, but still.
Hurry up, I want to finish in time for the coke and hooker parties.
Re: (Score:2)
The first is a situation that's often initiated by the one providing the work, for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee. If either finds that it's not to their own benefit, they can end the relationship. The second is a one-sided use of someone else's property for their own gain. I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong
Re: (Score:2)
These people are doing work and you think that this is wrong.
Hardly. The vast majority of them just scrape each other's databases and stuff them full of ads. They are pathetic bottom feeders trying to make a quick buck.
Re: (Score:2)
The revenue is not coming from selling the lyrics, they're coming from ads on the pages, so they are NOT making money off someone else's work.
How much money would they be making if someone else's work, ie the lyrics, weren't on the page?
zero fucking dollars
So don't tell me they're not making money off someone else's work. That's just willful ignorance.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it even relevant?
Lyrics site are renown far and wide as the primary distributers of drive-by malware and general bad hygiene. No one would go to lyrics sites of there were an official alternative. The sites ad value by making the lyrics available, and they can only do that because neither the bands nor the labels bother. More power to them; hope they all make millions.
Re:Greed! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not sensible reasoning. The point of copyright is to encourage authorship.
If that were true then there would be no copyright monopoly over any work once it's published. See, you'd have to do more work (authorship) to make more money then, right? Just like every other labor field? It's not like the mechanic charges you for each time you benefit from the work they did once with a coin slot on your ignition switch -- That's because they could just do a little work, then just kick back and not fix cars; Just collect rent on existing cars.
Copyright is the antithesis of encouraging
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive the self reply, but today's humans have a hard time thinking about post-information scarcity so I'll give the answer to the typical response I get: "Well then how can they make any money at all" -- Simple, the same way any other laborer makes money. Since the bits are in infinite supply, they are not scarce; What's scarce is the work to configure the bits. Market the ability to do work like a car mechanic does: Agree upon a price for the work and do it, get paid, release the work "for free" since
Re:Greed! (Score:4, Insightful)
I make money by pushing bits around; specifically, I write and maintain software for my company. The company has a general idea of what value I create, and pays me based on that. Sometimes I do better than they plan on and sometimes worse. It's a pretty sweet deal, but it doesn't transfer well to artistic endeavors.
Suppose I were able to write publishable-quality fiction. Suppose I then wanted to write a novel on speculation. How am I supposed to make money on it? I've written it, so under a no-copyright regime I can either sit on it, which does nobody any good, or release it freely, in which case I get no money for my work. Suppose I want to write another novel, despite not getting paid for the first. I have to go around fundraising as well as writing. People have to decide that they're willing to give me money, despite me not having much of a track record. And, of course, if I raise enough money (conditional on releasing the novel, I assume), that's an absolute upper limit on what I can make. It seems to me that I can put a heck of a lot of work in on fiction before I can start getting significant money from it.
In the current world, with copyright, I can write on spec, and if I can talk somebody into publishing it I can get financial rewards from it. They may not be much, but they can continue. I can strike it rich if I write something that really catches on. In the meantime, readers can decide if they want to pay me for my novel on a case-by-case basis. They don't have to commit to paying me sight unseen. If they come along and decide they like my work, they can reward me for the stuff I've already published. Under which regime can we expect more good fiction?
The difference is that your software is relatively easy to agree on a price for. You agree to provide good-quality software that does something specific. This is worth a good sum of money to somebody who pays you. Fine. A novel is not written for a particular need (aside from series and romance novels), and there is usually no one person who values the novel so highly as to pay what the author needs for a decent living. If some organization would guarantee a base amount of money for an original novel, there's be at least some reward for writing one, and we'd be paying endless amounts of money for crap.
And don't give me the line about how people will create because it's fun. Creating something is fun. Making it into a polished and entertaining product involves a lot of drudge work that nobody's going to do without being paid for it. Without copyright, people would still play the guitar and sing and tell stories, but that's where it stops.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't want to. They had no business nor plans to a business to sell that work. There's a lot of argument about weather "intellectual property" can or can not be stolen since it's not a real object. But if that property isn't even for sale, it most certainly can not be stolen. If anything these sites are probably adding to the value of the real property... the song.
Re: (Score:2)
But they didn't want to. They had no business nor plans to a business to sell that work. There's a lot of argument about weather "intellectual property" can or can not be stolen since it's not a real object. But if that property isn't even for sale, it most certainly can not be stolen. If anything these sites are probably adding to the value of the real property... the song.
That seems to be wrong. They have been mentioning "fully licensed" lyrics site. If I search for some lyrics and find only one lyrics site that pays for the lyrics and makes money with ads instead of 100 others that don't pay for the lyrics, I'm fine with that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"It does stop them from making money."
No it doesn't.
"They are not able to sell the lyrics now even if they want to"
They never wanted to.
"Love it or hate it, the take-downs are the right thing."
No, they're wrong.
The leeches are those who stole from the public and got copyrights extended and gave nothing back for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Greed! (Score:4, Funny)
(Assume sarcastic tone for this post)
The value in lyrics is their ability to pull in customers to identify a song and, hopefully, convert them to a customer. They want to steer customers to their 100% legal platform, that encourages customers to purchase the song legally through approved* channels. (* = Big corporations)
Unfortunately, it costs money to make such a website, and the music industry can't afford to create a website to promote their business! They'll probably spend $400 million on lobbyists (& congressmen.. er.. as a DONATION.. to their private anonymous funds.. not to the congressmen.. this isn't a BRIBE... No no no.. that's unethical...) and ask congress for a tax on Flash drives instead.
I for one look forward to hear how--after 90% of the sites go offline--there is a 20% drop in music industry sales due to ""pirating"". Most songs on the radio are unannounced (or are announced 12 minutes later in a string of band names and song titles), so casual listeners type in lyrics to find songs.
No lyrics sites? Average Joe's like me that listen to the music radio stations for 10 minutes a day don't buy the songs they are playing on the radio.
Suicide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they trying to destroy their business? That's the only reason I can think of for making it harder for people interested in their product to get information about it.
Re:Suicide? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Suicide? (Score:5, Insightful)
It must be pretty galling being a record label. You know you are shit, and have failed to set up any kind of online music service to rival Amazon, iTunes, Spotify and the rest. YouTube shit on your music video sites from a great height. Yet, you will never give up fighting your friends, because anything less than 100% of the market is unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suicide? (Score:5, Interesting)
This would have been a great idea 10 years ago, and I would have spent plenty of money.
Now most recorded music that was in any way popular during the last 50 years seems to be sat on Youtube, guarded by Google's legions of lawyers. Putting lyrics together with an iTunes link would have zero effect on my purchases in 2013. Much too little, much too late.
Something the music industry could still do to save itself (I hope you're reading RIAA):
1) Buy Ticketmaster before it becomes bigger than the entirety of the recorded music business. This will give you leverage to help control the price of concert tickets.
2) When somebody buys an album (say for $10), give them a voucher/code that they can redeem against the cost of attending a concert in the future for the same value (in this case $10)
3) 30%-50% of the vouchers/codes will never be redeemed, so that is pure profit. Make them have no expiry date, this will give them a higher perceived value with music purchasers. Let people trade them, again adding to the perceived value. Limit of 1-2 vouchers per concert.
4) Take a small hit when somebody cashes in their voucher, but you are still making an overall profit on the ticket sale - not to mention the $10 you got for the album originally.
5) Customers enthusiasm for the band increases, more albums and concert tickets are purchased.
6) Profit, resurrection of the music industry.
Re:Suicide? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really like your points.
But for the RIAA to do that they'd have to actually care about music artists.
Can't wait to see their version (Score:2)
"Gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown"
Buy the rest of the lyrics to this song by clicking HERE
Re: (Score:2)
I have a theory. Sometimes when you say "they can't be that stupid" the next thing you should think is "what if they actually aren't that stupid?" What if somebody with a lot of money and a lot if influence is knowingly getting the *AAs to do self destructive things?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they trying to destroy their business? That's the only reason I can think of for making it harder for people interested in their product to get information about it.
Indeed. In fact, back in the days before Shazam and Soundhound, searching for a particular lyric phrase from that song you liked that you heard over the restaurant speakers was often the only way to find out who/what it was. That was pure profit for the labels, since if I liked the song enough I would buy the whole damn album to get it (yes, this would be pre-iTunes)...
Complicated algorithm? (Score:5, Funny)
"Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"
So... manually, then.
Re: (Score:2)
"based on our exhaustive web search"
We googled it.
"Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"
So... manually, then.
Yup.
Re:Complicated algorithm? (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, Google's search algorithm is fairly complicated...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in the music industry tend to be big time suckers when it comes to technology. Remember, these are the people who really believed that DRM being sold by big tech companies was all about keeping their music secure so it couldn't be "pirated". So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone approached them and claimed to have a "sophisticated algorithm for identifying infringing web sites" and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. And when I say "bought", I mean literally. This is the "more mo
Re: (Score:2)
The "complicated algorithm" (basis statistics using Excel and Google)
I find it really disappointing how much of the 'real science' is actually spreadsheets and hand waving.
Re: (Score:2)
"""
The methodology is evolving. Iâ€(TM)m open to suggestions and am particularly
interested in developing methodology that can be used across a variety of copyright categories, not just lyrics. Currently, this is the methodology used to compile this list of websites:
"""
For those that don't understand "real science", here's the above translated into plain English.
"""
The method used is evolving. Iâ€(TM)m open to su
So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? (Score:3)
It's supposed to be a double edged sword instead of merely a club to beat down on the consumers - cut them with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, these DMCA abusers know the "risks." If they abuse the DMCA, they can be found guilty of perjury, except:
1) This would require the person being sued to counter-sue in court. Often, the people being sued are people or companies without the financial resources to take on a big legal powerhouse like the RIAA. Thy would need to invest time, money, and energy in their court case. All three of which they might not have enough of to effectively see the battle to completion and all three of which these l
I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Does iTunes even include the lyrics when you buy a song?
Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I've known lyrics to a song before but not the name. Being able to search the internet based on lyrics is what has allowed me to find a song I was after.
Reducing access to lyrics is reducing people's ability to find the name of a product they wish to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a song on the radio at a friends or just out and about or blaring from the radio across the street (rarely listen to actual radio in my car or home) and searched the web by lyrics to find artist/song. Then I went and bought it on itunes.
Basically they want to reduce sales. I don't understand these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I've known lyrics to a song before but not the name. Being able to search the internet based on lyrics is what has allowed me to find a song I was after.
Reducing access to lyrics is reducing people's ability to find the name of a product they wish to buy.
Go read the article again. They're only going after unlicensed lyric sites - azlyrics.com will still exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but is it complete? Is it well indexed and searchable? Is it blocked by any corporate firewalls?, any mobile firewalls in places like the UK because of explicit content?
A reduced number of sites still means a reduced amount of ability to search for your product.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but is it complete? Is it well indexed and searchable? Is it blocked by any corporate firewalls?, any mobile firewalls in places like the UK because of explicit content?
A reduced number of sites still means a reduced amount of ability to search for your product.
But the sites that are being blocked tend to be the ones with malware, obnoxious popups, and weird javascript. A reduced number of sites doesn't actually impair your search ability, if you're only getting rid of the chaff.
Re: (Score:2)
Malware filters aren't the only type of filters. Look up content filters.
Much of the most prominent content filtering software around will block some sites of a category but not all of them.
But as I said that's not the only issue, there's still the question of whether "licensed" sites provide the same coverage of songs as the combination of non-licensed sites.
The point is simply that reducing the number of lyric sites reduces the ability of people to find a product. Licensed sites may mitigate that to some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
singers are so mush-mouthed these days
These days? Really?
And they weren't 45 years ago?
Go ahead, try to sing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" accurately without looking at a lyrics sheet.
I dare you.
--
BMO
Re:In the Garden of Eden (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Doug Ingle never even knew the actual lyrics. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Go ahead, try to sing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" accurately without looking at a lyrics sheet.
I dare you.
or "Louie Louie"
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords, let alone any kind of recording. If you don't already know the tune, the lyrics aren't going to help you understand the actual music. And since singers are so mush-mouthed these days, you need the lyrics to avoid accidentally creating new mondegreens.
Just by coincidence, I did a search for some sheet music just yesterday. Found lots of matches, checked two. One sold the sheet music for a song for $3.28. The other offered it for free. What they offered was a pdf file with an obviously scanned copy of the first one.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst part is that those lyric sites
Re: (Score:2)
I well see the comedic nature of your post, it is nice to see sarcasm isn't dead on the net :3
http://youtu.be/vfol_TLLnIw [youtu.be]
Bit of an own goal, surely. (Score:2)
Lyrics sites can't generate a lot of direct revenue for the music industry through lyric licensing fees. They do generate indirect revenue by people googling for the song they heard a snippet of and then buying an album. Also many of the ads are going to be related to the song (listen to this song on last.fm, buy the ringtone) so it seems odd that they're putting the ef
Move your hosting to Antigua (:-)) (Score:4, Funny)
It needs to be shared (Score:5, Funny)
MILEY CYRUS LYRICS
"Wrecking Ball"
We clawed, we chained our hearts in vain
We jumped never asking why
We kissed, I fell under your spell.
A love no one could deny
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I put you high up in the sky
And now, you're not coming down
It slowly turned, you let me burn
And now, we're ashes on the ground
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
And instead of using force
I guess I should've let you win
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
I guess I should've let you win
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
And by the lyrics sites (Score:2, Redundant)
today, not a single fuck was given.
Re: (Score:2)
Now for a more productive post: This is insanely stupid. Since DJs are a thing of the past the artist/title usually isn't announced so unless you have soundhound ready to go what you do is go home and query on the lyrics, find the artist/title on a lyrics site then go to Worst Buy, Sprawl*Mart, or Amazon or Google Play or iTunes and buy the music. They're shooting themselves in the foot yet again.
Obviously the music industry STILL doesn't "get" teh interwebz.
Re: (Score:2)
"However, there is anecdotal evidence that these lyric websites generate huge web
traffic and may involve more money than one might think. "
My anecdotal evidence is that if I am not quick enough with SoundHound (usually while driving) I google the lyrics then buy the content on CD or iTunes or Google Play. Music industry lawyers, your clients make more money by allowing the alleged "infringement" than not allowing it - just like in the days of Napster.
Morons.
Evil vs. Bad (Score:3)
I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other, hiding lyrics behind JavaScript, have pop-ups, and in some cases carrying potentially infected ads. There are a few sites like SongMeanings.com that also include user comments, but most operations just seem to be trading other people's copyrights for ad impressions.
Interesting to see .nl and .br sites in the list.
Re:Evil vs. Bad (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other,
Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one. As usual, the music industry is fucking over musicians, I doubt they will pay musicians for the advertising revenue that the lyrics attract.
Re: (Score:2)
Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one.
Then they can use any of the handful of lyrics sites which license the lyrics and can legally distribute them. This isn't going to make the lyrics unavailable, just reduce the number of sites that all distribute the same content.
Torrent a dump of the databases (Score:2)
Since they risk being shut down, the DBs need to end up torrented by an "unknown security breach at YourCompanyNameHere.com" and they'll never go away. It doesn't fix the problem with the destruction of ad revenue, but it undermines the NMPA's actions.
Most are wrong anyway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The lyrics at these crappy sites are almost universally wrong. Mistakes everywhere. Don't even get me started on sites that include chords or tabs.
The "Music Industry" is just a bunch of lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine (Score:3)
Imagine there's no...damn. [[please deposit $.99 to continue]]
But is it a violation? (Score:2)
Are less-than-perfect transcriptions of lyrics that have never been officially published a violation of copyright?
.
Lyrics.ch (Score:2)
I definitely remember lyrics.ch. I used it often to find the lyrics to that song I loved or to look up that song I heard on the radio but didn't know the name/singer of. In fact, with the latter case, a visit to Lyrics.ch would sometimes result in a sale for the recording industry. After all, if I loved that brand new song by that brand new band on the radio but didn't know either one by name, I'd be unable to purchase their works. After a visit to Lyrics.ch, I'd have been able to purchase their CD.
Nowa
Cutting off your nose to spite your face (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what this amounts to. And lost revenue. I've lost count of the number of times where I've been out in public and overheard pieces of a song I liked and committed key phrases to memory to google later. Never fails to find the song. (And frankly, sometimes the results are embarrassing. I like that shit?!)
How to kill your own sale (Score:2)
Huh (Score:2)
The lyrics don't belong to the record companies, they belong to the song writer (who may or may not be the artist that is singing them.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Without lyric sites I would have never learned about [David Lowery's] music.
Are you saying it's like rain on your wedding day?
Not taking down *all* lyrics sites (Score:5, Informative)
Lyrics sites are dumb (Score:2)
I hate lyrics sites, as they're often not accurate, and the sites themselves are rather skeevy. I really don't understand why bands (or their labels) don't post lyrics to their own sites?
Or even better, put the lyrics in the MP3 files themselves, when they're sold! iTunes has a spot for lyrics, and it's ridiculous that I have to fill in that box myself, even when I purchase a song from the iTunes store (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Legal Analysis (Score:3)
IANAL, but I am familiar with the business. For those of you claiming this is self-destructive, the NMPA as well as individual publishers actually license the lyrics right to certain lyrics websites. The publishers own a valid copyright in the lyrics alone, so legally speaking, republication of the lyrics without copyright license is infringement. Several lyrics websites are officially licensed and sanctioned. I won't name names, but you can usually tell which are licensed and which aren't by the quality and accuracy of the lyrics on the site.
Usually the publishers steer clear of these sites due to lack of personal jurisdiction, or at best make half-hearted efforts by throwing around a take-down notice here or there. Publishers want to collect money, and they're well aware that going after Lars Lokke Ummerstal in Latvia isn't going to be profitable. However, take-down notices are relatively cheap and easy, and I believe the idea is to stick by principle and crack down on infringing websites in order to have a chilling effect on copyright infringement generally. This is not new, or particularly newsworthy.
It's also not really all that infuriating, from a copyleft perspective. Because publishers are licensing their copyrights to lyrics and tablature, they aren't strangling the marketplace of ideas. The only real question is whether or not the sites are unfairly targeting websites legitimately engaging in fair use (as opposed to those actually making money off of advertising revenue and merely claiming their use is fair), but, as fair use is an affirmative defense and not a bright line rule, there's no way for a site to prove as a threshold matter that their use is fair.
Where is the legal alternative? (Score:2)
Re:Silly, but it is their right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Read between the lines. This is filed under 'Undesirable side effects of contemporary copyright law'.
The DMCA is at it again.
Re:Silly, but it is their right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly, but it is their right... They own the copyright and that's that.
It's silly so the law shoud be changed. Nobody shoud have right to restrict sharing of public knowledge/culture/ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
The behavior of copyright-owners is silly — in this case. Or so it seems to me. But I am not a copyright owner myself.
How do you jump from that to the idea, that the entire copyright law needs changing, is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
I am OK with people saying: this is MY stuff and you don't get any advantage out of it, period.
Unfortunately, the music biz is more like: "here, get the first dose, it's free" = lots of PR, payola airplay, artificial support in the social media.... When the artist gets famous it's "hands off, you have no license to do anything!", which technically is true but also frustrating.
I guess we need more hipsters.
Re: (Score:2)
No. One doesn't own a copyright, one merely holds a copyright, which is a "limited" time monopoly on publication. When you talk about "owning copyrights" you're playing into the MAFIAA's hands; that's weasel word language they came up with, and it's false.
Re:Silly, but it is their right... (Score:5, Informative)
... but most of us could not care less.
Re:Silly, but it is their right... (Score:4, Informative)
I know I googled part of a song I heard on a TV show the other day and the lyric site I arrived at gave me the title and artist. Using that I bought the CD. Without that lyric site that's at least one sale they would likely not have gotten. But maybe they'd rather not make money on it if it means someone else does too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"could care less"... (Score:2)
It may be a regional thing. I hear it that way very often here in California. Occasionally even used correctly as the OP had it.
Re: (Score:2)
I can find no heart within the beast.
You're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me Mr. zidium but your ignorance and racism are showing.
No, they voted for him primarily because they were given more stuff belonging to others and told they deserved it ("entitlements") and because his skin color more closely matched their own.
Entitlements were done away with in 1996 with PWORA. The only entitlements are Medicare and Social Security, which WE FUCKING PAID FOR. White people who receive SNAP vastly outnumber black people on SNAP.
They didn't so much vote for Obama as voted against Mr.
Re: (Score:2)
American soldiers who received lethal doses of radiation from DU munitions
It always amazes me how people who make up whackjob conspiracy theories can't even be bothered to stay within the laws of physics. At least the entirely made up "100k innocent casualties" is part of an entertaining story and could possibly be true. But when you start making physically impossible claims, you're just being an ass. Stop that.
Re: (Score:2)
It took me a while to figure that out.
Good.
rapgenius (Score:2)
...and nothing of value was lost :)