US music publishers sue online lyrics sites Music moguls are opening up another can of web whoop-ass on alleged copyright-infringement miscreants, this time suing online lyrics sites. And no, this isn't a move by the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA), which is apparently still basking in the glory of its $1.92m victory over the file-sharing mother of four, …
The media industry seems awfully interested in making their offerings as unappealing and uninteresting to the world as possible.
I can only hope that their determined drive to hoard it all for themselves will soon lead to them having sole possession without any party expressing interest in it ever again.
EPIC FAIL MORE.
Seriously, why does it matter that the lyrics of songs are posted online for people to view? Have you ever actually known someone that would go out and purposely BUY just the lyrics for a song (be it via sheet music or some other form)? Can you honestly say that the music industry is losing money due to "lyric piracy"? I'd love to see the figures on that.
Actually I think you do need a license to display the covers because they are protected by copyright too. That's why MusicBrainz doesn't allow people to simply upload covers, you usually have to link them from Amazon or CD Baby. I can barely understand the logic behind that. As for the lyrics, that is just insane.
As AC said above. WTF? I've never seen anyone buy lyrics. Or sell, for that matter. What with you being able to hear it by yourself and all that. Of course there are reasons to seek lyrics. As a non-native English speaker, I could not understand lyrics just from hearing them years ago -- an even now it is sometimes difficult, depending on the singing style. So in such cases (or for other languages I don't, and will never, know) it is useful to have the lyrics. But not enough that I'd pay for them just to sing along.
And nowadays, with digital music, we don't get those CD sleeves with the lyrics anymore. So they want to fleece us once again for that too? Some bands do publish their lyrics, and sometimes even tabs and sheet music, on their official websites. I do buy a lot of sheet music for guitar and organ, sometimes even for stuff in the public domain. But lyrics, I don't see the point. Someone?
I'll remember a catchy lyric from the radio, on a jukebox or hear someone else singing it as they walk past.
Then I'll go google that lyric to find the song
Then I'll head off to $legal_music_store and buy it (if available)*.
Without this huge morass of sites giving away lyrics to songs I'd not bother finding new songs. Or I'd only get the ones I'd heard AND knew the titles of.
And it's not like the artists are actually being ripped off- there's an argument about that when you're downloading MP3s but not with the lyrics. You don't get a sense of the timing, the intonation and pitch of singing, any fancy vocodery stuff or odd vocalisations- and that's before you factor in actually missing the song itself.
The licensed outlets will always have a place- I'm not going to have my programs looking stuff up on some random site when there's Gracenote sat there. But they can't be allowed to dominate the market.
*I normally head off to Youtube etc first to listen to it, then if it's any good I'll buy it.
I seen to recall that in order to sing "Happy Birthday" you should pay royalties. These greedy good for nothing nincompoops are ruining the Internet. First they destroy Pirate Bay, Mininova and now lyric websites. Are there anymore things they want to target?
I watched House when it was on channel 5, now they bottled it so it's only available on Sky, there is no justification for me to get Sky satellite just to watch House. I hardly watch much telly anyway. I had to rely on mininova to watch House. Now no more.
Do they honestly think that there are people out there who download lyrics (to keep) for songs they don't own? After all, this is the only group of people causing the music publishers to lose money: anyone who already owns the song has already paid the "licence fee." **
Sheet music is a different issue, and that is something which should be charged for, but that's not what these sites are providing. Of course, one could argue that making sheet music available for free would encourage people to become musicians and actually be beneficial in the long term (since you actually have to have some talent to convert sheet music into the song).
**As for people illegally obtaining the songs, that's a whole different kettle of fish and has nothing to do with the lyric sites.
if the Oxford English dictionary would claim copyright to it's contents it would make a small fortune and destroy civilisation.
I would love to know who only looks at lyrics and ignores the actual song. Without music, most lyrics suck and are all clichéd anyway. How the hell can you copyright a cliché!!!
Fire because I'm well pissed off.
Classical music is considerably better than any of the complete arsebiscuits that come out of the excuses that the recording industry makes for songwriters nowadays. And royalty free, so you can tell the NPAA (or whatever the fuckheads call themselves -- who cares?) to piss off. I haven't bought a copyrighted (in terms of the music; the performance is copyrighted probably) album for years. And I'm educated by it, as opposed to the barely cognisant idiots who listen to songs like 'Smack my bitch up' or the aforementioned 'Pussy monster' (whatever the hell song that is...)
In conclusion, fuck the recording industry. Fuck them in the ass.
(I might have had something to drink. Maybe.)
They have shut down a few tabs sites with legal threats.
For those who dont know, tabs are bass/guitar music tablature, enthusiasts work out chords/bass lines etc. for songs and post them up for free. Most have small errors and are not 100% true to the original but are a good starting point for working out a song. A couple of good sites have closed recently after legal threats, pure madness.
...prepared to give me a full refund on any records, tapes and CDs I return on account of not quite being able to make out what exactly is being sung? As an alternative, I'll happily accept the artist being recalled to the studio and remaking the recording taking care to pronounce each word more carefully.
Maybe they're worried that people will switch to MIDI files for the backing music accompanied by the MS speech synthesiser singing along from the lyrics file (can't be worse than most rap artists).
Is there somehow vast riches to be made by alienating one's customer base, i.e. the people who've bought the songs whose lyrics they'd quite like to decipher? That's the only possible explanation I can think of for this unrelenting crusade of apparently pointless litigation.
Well, that and stupidity, in which case anything that hastens the culprits' demise is surely a good thing.
"Music fans are the biggest losers when licensed businesses, like LyricFind, Gracenote and TuneWiki can't survive and prosper because unlicensed, illegal businesses are allowed to thumb their noses at the law."
Music fans don't lose anything, there would always be the non-royalty paying sites.
If he *really* wants the licensed business to survive, make their licenses free.
It would seem Mr David is only interested in one loser, himself.
I think you've missed the point - this is not the recording industry that is taking this action. It's a body that represents composers - a completely different thing. The recording industry does not, in general, own the copyright to the lyrics or compositions, only particular recordings. Copy a classical recording within the copyright period and the recording industry might be interested.
On another point, all those amateur musicians who have recorded covers of copyrighted songs on YouTube without authorisation are all technically in breach (as, of course, is Youtube).. However, I haven't heard of any copyright holders (or their representatives) chasing these down. What I have seen is live cover versions of Hallelujah (written by Leonard Cohen) taken down off of YouTube. Not amateur covers, but some live recordings of that song by Brandi Carlile (I know somebody who had an account suspended for that reason). Live recordings of Brandi's own songs remain up so this will almost certainly be down to actions by those representing the rights to that song. The rights to Leonard Cohen's songs have been the subject of some bitter legal proceedings which may well be connected.
If I hear a song I like on the radio, I try to remember a segment of the lyrics and then Google them to find the name of the song. From there I go to Youtube to find a copy of the song to hear the whole song to see if it's worth buying.
Only Youtube's probably not allowed to play it in my region and now the lyrics can't be found on the Net?
Well, I'll just save my money for beer then. Epic Fail by the increasingly irrelevant media corps...
Lyrics, in the absence of music, is usually referred to as Poetry.
These ****tards are, in effect, removing poetry from the internet on the basis of their 'ownership' of the material. Note well, that these people are not the artists, the poets, who wrote the works, but the twunts who've managed to 'buy the rights' and are now seeking to maximise THEIR profits.
Who owns the right to Shakespeare? Blake? DeFoe? Are we going to see all instances of their work removed from the public view as well? Where will these morons stop?
For myself, I intend to listen to a few albums that I legitimately own, scrawl down the lyrics as I hear them (IE, probably not correctly) and then post them to my social networking pages, along with crosslinking to Amazon etc. where the album can be purchased. I'd like to see them even try to sort that mess out, even if they can prove that the lyrics I've written down 'belong' to them.
Exactly how inaccurate do the lyrics need to be before I am *NOT* impinging on their so-called 'rights'?
Your arguement ig, except for one minor flaw.
One not all classical music is royalty free. There is still "classical" music being made today, with full copyrights applied. So please rephrase that.
Next, you opion is you own, but remember clasical music was once the pop music of the day. You may say that modern popular music played on the radiophonic devices won't be around, but the Beatles,Elvis's Buddy Holly songs are already half a centuary old. Even more "modern" ones such as the the like of the Jam's going Underground are knocking on 30 years old.
How many "Classic tunes" from 1850 can you name? I bet hundreds were written, but only the very best are still around. the same for modern music.
And by classical, what do you mean. I love Violin concerto's, yet at the same time love "Smack My Bitch Up" (which you proberbly have never even heard or know what it is actually about). I hate hip hip, but love Fur Elise.
You see unlike yourself, I don't have such a bigotted, narrow minded view of music, pretend to be suprior to other at the same time showing utter ignorance to the world around with you.
If we all listend to your ideas of what is good taste, we'd all still be bangning sitcks against tree trunks.
DavCrav
"And I'm educated by it, as opposed to the barely cognisant idiots who listen to songs like 'Smack my bitch up'"
Right, where do we start with shite lyrics? Beatles?
'Nothing to get hung about.'
Anyway, always thought that it was the music and production that made 'Smack My Bitch Up' such a cracking chooon. When you see teenagers these days still jumping around and singing along to 'S.M.B.U.' , years after it was released, you know it's a classic.
(most old classical was pure Stock Aitken and Waterman stuff, produced for a specific market, reins held by someone else and controlled by other people)
Re: Anonymous Coward's comment
"I'll remember a catchy lyric from the radio, on a jukebox or hear someone else singing it as they walk past. Then I'll go google that lyric to find the song. Then I'll head off to $legal_music_store and buy it (if available)."
I've just done a quick check of the last 10 CDs/Vinyl I bought and 4 of them fall into this category. In other words these sites have generated over £40 of legal sales.
That sounds to me more like free advertising than copyright theft.
Saying 40% of all my music purchased involved lyric sites is probably not very scientific but it feels about right (I'd guess 20-50% result from internet searches of some form). I buy way more music than most people I know too so am probably the sort of people record companies should keep sweet.
I don't think the problem is actually posting lyrics publicly, we can all agree that this is stupid. I believe the problem stems from creating a for-profit site that depends on publishing lyrics without license.
Had LyricWiki remained a community site, which allows users to share lyrics, without any affiliation to private organizations looking to make a buck (or a quid, as you please), it perhaps would not have gartner so much attention. As it stands, it is owned by Motive Force LLC, which is a company trying to make money off the social-networking craze. In this way, LyricWiki is used to attract traffic and extend services in order to increase profits. And of course, you know that the music industry will not stand still when encountering someone--anyone--else making money off what they think is exclusively theirs.
-dZ.
I have recently started to notice that many of the bands and artists i have recently started to like and paid to see (yes paid money to them directly for a live performance)... have shunned record labels and their punitive ways.
Many artists are being ripped off too and those who are vaguely smart are turning to their own websites to offer their tunes (via an indy label) or offer their merchandise etc.
The big music biz idiots have already killed their golden egg laying goose, they are just not letting it lie without making a big noise about it!
SO... keep your stinking lyrics, i wont be able to find and buy the song legally, i'll then ask a friend if they will be able to tell me what the tune was and then put some mp3 on a usb stick...
I hope people who are writing academic literature for business studies courses are noting this down in the "How to ruin a fairly good business" section.
Guitar Tabs would come under the heading of Sheet Music. I think they have a point with shutting down sheet music sites - you can easily buy legal tabbed sheet music. As the illegal sites are attempting to duplicate the artistic arrangement of the copyrighted work. If it was a unique arrangement of the music then I could see your point. But a few errors do not, in my opinion constitute a unique arrangement.
"Have you ever actually known someone that would go out and purposely BUY just the lyrics for a song (be it via sheet music or some other form)?"
I used to have ambitions as a pub singer (when RSI was threatening to make any other job impossible.
I now own quite a few songbooks, and in general the most important bit is the lyrics, because in many cases they're not pronounced clearly on the recordings. You don't have the same problem with tunes.
Plus, the lyrics don't belong to the performer, but to the writer. Sleevenotes usually only contain lyrics where they were written by the band -- the band forego the possibility of extra royalties from the printed material in order to make a more appealling product and increase sales. The increased sales benefit performers more than writers, so most professional writers do not license their lyrics for sleevenotes as they want to sell more songbooks.
Basically, it's someone's work and fair dos -- they want paid.
@Paul 125
" From what I was taught at school, its illegal to photocopy lots of music, but you can copy it by hand free of charge. "
Not quite. What you're talking about is out of copyright stuff like Beethoven, Mozart et al. The tune is in the public domain, but a particular publisher's typesetting is in copyright, so you can copy the tune freely, but not the typesetting. With music that is still in copyright (Beatles, Stones, Rogers & Hammerstein, Jackie Wilson etc), copying the tune is still technically infriging on the writer's copyright.
copyright doesn't prevent someone to come up with the same "words" or ideas or creation independently, plus I've seen many art students go in museums and "copy" the artwork with their own hands... which is perfectly fine by the copyright laws!!!
this is a no-brainer case and the judge should dismiss it as soon as he/she reads the claim...
actually attempted to purchase the sheet music for a song they liked?? Something from a successful songwriter who isn't that well known outside of the industry? (like Guy Clark, fr'instance)
The industry association sounds like the little boy who dug a hole in the back yard and is crying because he can't bring it into the house with him.
If this is so egregious, why don't they come up with some sort of "iTunes" site where I can pay a dollar or two and download a pdf of the sheet music for a song for the instrument and key of my choosing? The software is certainly possible to do that.
Instead, they try to sue some people who are attempting to fill a need that they've failed miserably to satisfy themselves. If they're too clueless to successfully monetize these assets, why punish someone else?
That seems like a very important point that is overlooked in the article. If the sites being sued are indeed trying to profit off the back of someone else's work, then I will quite happily side with the US music publishers on this one. Having their stance misrepresented in the media is not helping anyone.
(Of course, one could argue that the "non-licenced" sites try to make money from advertising and are therefore gaining some benefit - i.e. profit - from the work of others)
Blake, Shakespeare, John Donne and so on are all out of copyright so you can distribute them as much as you like. However, those for more contemporary poets such as John Betjamen will remain in copyright until 70 years after hist death (in the UK - the term of copyright varies by country - the works of HG Wells are out of copyright in the US but will remain copyrighted in the UK until 2016). The copyright of such works remains with the author's estate (or whoever those rights have been sold to) for that period.
@Brett Cammack
"don't they come up with some sort of "iTunes" site where I can pay a dollar or two and download a pdf of the sheet music for a song for the instrument and key of my choosing? The software is certainly possible to do that."
There's plenty of them to be fair. Musicnotes, sheetmusicdirect, PureSolo etc
I'm viciously anti-freetards pirating MP3s, but this is a step too far. I'm still amazed that OLGA was taken down - surely lyrics and chords are an interpretation of a work? Obviously if these interpretations enter the commercial sphere their clients (the songwriters) deserve full remuneration, but for personal use it's bizarre.
"Basically, it's someone's work and fair dos -- they want paid."
Yes it's someone's work, and yes they *should* be paid, but hey, it ain't gonna happen. The MAFIAA and related entities are NOT involved in any part of the creative process, antd they mostly do NOT redistribute the money they make to the artists. They're the patent scammers of art, a huge overfed leech that is about to kill its host.
I'm not saying that unlicensed distribution is good, I'm just saying that both sides here are just profiteering from the work of others without due retribution, so Mr Israelite and consorts don't make me cry. Hear that sound? It's the world tiniest violin playing for them...
While I broadly agree with the comments made, i feel something is being missed.
There are a lot of people who write songs and/or music without being recording artists. The Spice Girls didn't write Wannabe, but the guys who did made £1M+ from their royalties.
These folks make a living by licensing (in the case of the lyricists) their words, usually through a music publishing company. The deals are usually 50/50 split so any loss of income is a loss to the writer. While I don't suppose the sums involved here are very large, the publishing companies are not going to just give away any source of revenue. I wonder what the license costs would be in the event that these sites enquired?
"On another point, all those amateur musicians who have recorded covers of copyrighted songs on YouTube without authorisation are all technically in breach (as, of course, is Youtube)."
Asked the PRS about this one recently before posting a couple of cover version videos. They told us that they have a licensing agreement with social networking sites which allows for publication of cover versions, as long as we own the recording copyright.
MySpace was the only site specifically mentioned, but I'd guess YouTube have a similar licence.
1) Any performance you hear will be recent enough to be copyrighted. The *performance* has its own copyright.
2) Any sheet music you see will have been re-issued by a music publishing house, so the edition you have is copyrighted, and can't be copied even if the composer died centuries ago. (this is the music version of copytheft).
Only if you can find sheet music more than (70? 100?) years old, can you freely copy and perform. Really. Don't throw those old hymn-books out!
Almost all of the printed sheet music I USED to buy was written by some musically illiterate idiot in the back room, smoking a joint and playing a nylon stringed guitar, kind of playing along to a vinyl record....
The notes and chords were generally wrong - you know should have been an A7th and not a G# , the notes in the solo's were tabbed as simple 3 finger chords so they could fill up ONE stave - for all 2 or three guitars, and as few sheets of paper as possible, instead of having separate staves for the lead and the rhythm.
AND the words were generally wrong.
And these retards charge money for dimwitted second rate workmanship?
Oh gosh.... Oh shit no..... Oh OH OHHHHHH the music industry is just so fucked....
The transcribers don't check the sheet music, their managers don't check the sheet music, the musicians don't check the sheet music, the distributors, wholesalers and retailers don't check the sheet music.....
And all the kids picking this shit up, hoping to learn the music and become musicians are soon ground down by the morons in the industry......
It's full of stupid people who don't have any fucking standards and who don't deserve to remain in their dead beat jobs.....
And these chumps wonder why people say "Fuck them" and go copy their friends CD and all sit down and work out the parts in the song themselves and play it - and keep the idiots out of the loop.
I stopped buying sheet music decades ago... because it's a crap product.
If this frenzy on lawsuits regarding music, and not lyrics, continue, it will soon be impossible to hum a tune while waiting for a phone switch board to pick up.
They will continue with their frivolous lawsuits until they rule the media markets from every aspect.
10 years ago I stopped buying music, and also stopped watching TV.
Everything I need in this field is provided by news online or TV streams online by main publishers.
Sorry to say it but there is little if any relevancy in the lawsuits perceived losses.
As late as two weeks ago, the statement was made in main stream media, that despite a large drop in file sharing, and a massive decline in so called torrent servers, the music industry's losses continue to climb.
This to me is clear cut evidence that the whole media market is a hype only created to feed an illusion.
"I stopped buying sheet music decades ago... because it's a crap product."
Hm... Computers decades ago were a crap product compared to today's machines. Just saying.
You should look at the books available nowadays, instead of what you remember from "decades ago". Some publishers are definitely better than others, of course. I've found that the Hal Leonard ones, specially with the "Recorded Versions" symbol on the top left of the cover, are usually very good, accurate and well typeset (that makes a difference too). With good musical memory and reading the notes in the store one can compare the book and the memory and have at least an idea whether the transcriptions seem good... That's what I do. If I can't recognize the melody I remember in the notes I'm reading, I don't buy the book. Has worked fine so far for me.
The group that owns the rights to the lyrics may well not be the performer or the writer, instead a group of business people who have bought the rights with the intention of making a profit from their performance. Fair do's.
If they feel strongly enough to take on the Internet then fine but it strikes me that they are failing to understand the Internet in the same way the RIAA fails - shut down a few sites fair enough but set your own up at the same time. iTunes - industry leader in selling mp3s, didn't get where it is by complaining about some noname google search page offering mp3s, YouTube - isn't complaining because there's a Muse video on a torrent page somewhere. If Mr Solomon doesn't have his own website to promote then he shouldn't be closing down someone elses just yet. Maybe he could learn something from sites that ARE (allegedly) making money from lyrics.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
