Slashdot Mirror
Music Should Be Heard But Not Understood
PaxTech writes "Warner/Chapell music has cease-and-desisted a small freeware developer who wrote a Mac OS X lyrics downoading application. pearLyrics in no way contributed to piracy or copyright infringement, it was merely a tool to search for lyrics on public websites and view or add them to mp3 metadata. This is part of a larger crackdown on websites distributing lyrics. Apparently, the labels would like to force us back to a world where Hendrix kisses guys."
If people don't want lyrics don't look them up. If you do, you don't need software. google.com > lyrics: "enter song here" > search
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
SingPod
Sing that iTune
Also a question, does anyone have a mirror for the pearLyrics program?
This app was a plugin for iTunes, so it's meant to fill in the gap for those who, legally, bought the song online.
http://rapidshare.de/files/8786735/pearLyricsV0_6. dmg.html
That said, the question becomes one of whether publishing the lyrics diminishes the value of the work in any significant way. Companies don't have to be assholes and defend their copyrights against harmless infringement that boosts their sales. The ones who do... are just that, and you should tell them where to shove their music.
That said, it may simply be that if people knew how inane the lyrics on the Warner label are, they might not buy the music. Somehow, I have a feeling literary criticism is precisely what they're trying to avoid. :-)
(From Google: Your search - "good warner artist" - did not match any documents.)
Actually, being able to look up the lyrics to a song has often resulted in me buying an album. I'll often hear a snatch of something and try to remember part of a chorus or something so I can look it up. Amazingly this works a fair percentage of the time!
If I can't look up lyrics, I'll buy less music. Pretty simple really.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
"Okay, I can kind of see the basis behind SOME of the recording industry's points (go ahead and mod me flamebait now) seeing as music is copyrighted property and whatnot."
That's fine. Today, we are talking about the music publishing industry. I know it's a "same difference" to a lot of Slashdotters, just as non-Slashdotter types might think that IT guys, MIS guys, coders and project managers all do the same thing.
"But aren't lyrics not copyrighted or are the hundreds of sites out there that give song lyrics away for free underground criminal enterprises?"
Lyrics are copyrighted, typically by the lyricist. The lyric sites get around this with those cryptic "only for individual private study" disclaimers -- I'd copy and paste the exact text but I don't feel like going to a lyric site right now and festooning my display with twelve pop-ups.
Anyway, the lyricist may transfer the publishing rights to a company that specializes in such things (similar to entrusting a real estate agent to sell your house or a CPA to do your taxes -- pay a little more and let an expert do it), or they might form a one-person publishing company. Lennon and McCartney created a two-person company, Northern Songs, Ltd.
As an aside, since many of these publishing companies are just the lyricist and/or the composer, and lyricists and composers are creative folks, you get some funny and clever company names. Look on your CDs -- you'll often see things like "Contents copyright (c) MegaBigRecord Company and Green Ardvaark Ltd." "Green Ardvaark" is probably the guy who wrote the words or the notes.
Warner/Chappell Music happens to be an exception -- it's a very large music publishing company that handles the publishing rights for lots and lots of musicians. They are a subsidiary of the Warner empire (as are their record, film, and book divisions) but they are not a record company, and they are not in the recording industry. They are in the music publishing industry.
"In any case I think the recording industry is definately overstepping its bounds here and should probably focus on winning the first losing battle it got it self into (the fight vs. p2p file sharing) before trying to start another one."
Different industries. This is the music publishing industry, that gets its revenues through radio airplay, jukeboxes, licensing to films and movies, etc. -- pretty much everything but record sales and other pursuits of the recording industry. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Warner should not be doing this, but this very well might be a left hand/right hand thing.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Yes lyrics are subject to copyright. This particular quote is from US law, but I'm reasonably certain all countries that follow the Berne Convention (and most at least claims to) have similar rules.
Of course, Fair Use is a possibility as well -- but almost certainly not in the case of quoting the lyrics to a complete song.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
I'm suprised no one has mentioned amaroK. It has a pretty cool built in feature that looks up lyrics, a band's Wikipedia page, and other neat stuff. They just came out with a new version too.
I don't think there is an OS X native version, but it can be compiled with Fink. Other than the fact that you can't buy music I like it better than iTunes.
Reality test... am I dreaming?
Check wikipedia
There was (though it wasn't a Wiki). It was called lyrics.ch (which has since been domain-squatted by one songtext.net). It was compiled by avid music enthusiasts, and it contained the most complete and most accurate repository of song lyrics available...
Until it was destroyed by the Harry Fox Agency. The Harry Fox Agency is the sole licensor of song lyrics worldwide, and saw lyrics.ch as unlicensed competition. So they had it exterminated. (lyrics.ch's mistake, if it could be called one, was that they accepted paid banner advertising to defray hosting costs. Sadly, this got creatively misinterpreted by the courts as unlawfully profiting off lyric distribution, violating Harry Fox Agency's monopoly rights.)
So, yes, there was one, but it got destroyed. Don't expect a WikiLyrics site to show up in its place; it will get destroyed the same way.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Niggardly != nigger.
FC Closer
For the best satire about this sort of thing, read Phl and Kornbluth'd "The Space Merchants."
Written in the 1950s, it still on the mark.
This space available.
Fair use covers quoting small portions of a work, not "quoting" the whole thing.
That is incorrect. Fair use permits any otherwise infringing act, so long as it is fair. While one of the four factors typically used to determine whether a use is fair or not has to do with "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" it is not determinative by itself. All the factors play a part, and the question is whether the use is ultimately fair or not. It is entirely possible to have a fair use that involves reproducing an entire work. For example, when time shifting or space shifting are fair uses, they involve reproducing the entire work.
While you're correct that a product designed to search for lyrics probably isn't covered under Fair Use, that's only because it doesn't need to be -- it would only need to be covered under fair use if it copied at least some of the lyrics, and that doesn't seem to be the case here at all. Here, it seems to be purely a matter of helping people to find lyrics -- which they might then copy, and it might then be illegal; but they might not copy them, and even if they do, it might well be legal (e.g. on songs that no longer fall under copyright).
Again, incorrect. There are several forms of third party liability under copyright law, where one party can be held responsible for the infringements of another, due to the former's involvement. This is how Napster, for example, was liable for infringement and shut down; because it was responsible for helping its users to infringe, even though Napster too essentially only produced some technology. You should read the Napster and Grokster cases for more on third party liability with regards to copyright.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The RIAA has nothing to do with lyrics. That's a composer rights issue, and is handled by ASCAP and BMI in the United States.
A quick search for "lyrics" on Itunes downloads shows a half a dozen other packages that seem to do the same thing. Do they think everyone will fold this easily?
There is a torrent of the file up on The Piratebay now.
Link to Torrent File
Lyrics copyrighted. Holder of copyright must grant permission to distribute. No permission = copyright violation. Duh. No matter how useful the tool is.
Let's play by the rules when the rules are fair, shall we?
Fredrick Pohl
The Midas Plague
http://www.ansible.co.uk/writing/midaswld.html
Excellent story, looks like he did some followups - must checkout my local library