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."

85 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Facilitators by biocute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't this (linking/facilitating) the reason why Napster and friends got nipped? They are sort of helping illegal (as determined by whoever) activities to gain publicity.

    While I enjoy freely available and searchable lyrics, I must admit 9 out of 10 times I regretted having looked up the lyrics, it kinda ruins my feeling once I understand every single word and can sing-a-long. Am I the only one having this kind of 'empty-yet-lyric-filled' feeling?

    1. Re:Facilitators by Trinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe my comprehension of spoken(sung?) language sucks but I prefer having the lyrics, it really helps me understand what an artist is trying to communicate, and among other things it makes it a lot easier to read the subtext involved. This is especially helpful in the case of a "rock opera" type "concept" album (one example is Green Day's "American Idiot", another from another area is VNV Nation's "Matter+Form")

    2. Re:Facilitators by gid13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ruined feeling is probably because 9 times out of 10 the lyrics suck more ass than a donkey vacuum.

      "Anything too stupid to be said is sung."
      -Voltaire

    3. Re:Facilitators by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Facilitators by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Write your own damn songs.

      I do. I'm an improv pianist and perform in a classical choir, and in fact saw (back in the days of Napster) someone downloading a recording of said choir from me. Did I think "Oh, someone deprived us of a $10 CD?" Of course not.

    5. Re:Facilitators by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 5, Funny
      While I enjoy freely available and searchable lyrics, I must admit 9 out of 10 times I regretted having looked up the lyrics, it kinda ruins my feeling once I understand every single word and can sing-a-long. Am I the only one having this kind of 'empty-yet-lyric-filled' feeling?

      <burn karma, burn>Maybe you should listen to songs with less stupid lyrics?</burn karma, burn>

      Kidding.
      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
    6. Re:Facilitators by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

      I must admit 9 out of 10 times I regretted having looked up the lyrics

      I was really disappointed when I looked up this song's lyrics...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    7. Re:Facilitators by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Funny

      lyrics; What I use against my conservative Christian wife when she sings Janet Jackson songs that she doesen't understand :P

    8. Re:Facilitators by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Oh, someone deprived us of a $10 CD?"

      But your actual losses were closer to $150,000.

    9. Re:Facilitators by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 5, Funny

      The fact that you couldn't grasp those limited lyrics (4 words total) while listening to the song says a lot.

      This, coming from someone who can't count to five...

    10. Re:Facilitators by Woldry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My God, your knowledge of music and who's interested in it is pretty damn pathetic.

      Classical choral music makes up about 2/3 of my collection of several thousand CDs/tapes/records (yeah, I'm a dinosaur, but still). I have a pretty large circle of friends and family for whom it makes up a smaller, but still significant, percentage. We're all always on the look for well-done recordings of choral music, especially if the choir or the compositions on the recording are new or unusual in some way.

      You need to widen your circle of acquaintances if you really think that it's "simply not true" that "people give a fuck about" types of music you don't listen to just because they're not played on your favorite ClearChannel station.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    11. Re:Facilitators by Woldry · · Score: 2, Funny

      They would have checked the lyrics, but they didn't want to run afoul of the RIAA.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    12. Re:Facilitators by Woldry · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • First off, it was Entropius, not I, who mentioned his classical choir CDs.
      • Second, even if your out-of-your-ass figure of 3 dozen is correct, that is not "nobody" as the AC (you?) claimed.
      • Third, Entropius mentioned that someone does download his music, and that he doesn't object. Presumably he was offering this as an example of the reasonable approach he wishes the RIAA would take. (Entropius, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
      • Fourth, my mentioning my circle of friends was another way of proving that the claim of "nobody gives a fuck" was incorrect. I give a fuck. So do most people of my acquaintance. This disproves the claim.
      • Fifth, my mention of CDs (as opposed to downloading) was specifically in response to the AC's (your?) claim that "nobody would buy [Entropius' choir's] CD anyway." The AC brought CDs into the discussion, not I.
      • Sixth, A difference in quantity is not a difference in kind, nor is it a difference in principle. Sure, more people will download 50 cent. This is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, which (as I understand the thrust of Entropius' argument -- again, Entropius, please correct me if I'm wrong) is this: "What is the reasonable response to someone downloading music to which I control the rights?"
      • Finally, don't bother replying as AC. I will not read any further responses from any ACs on this. Show the balls to put even a virtual name to your thoughts!
      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    13. Re:Facilitators by waferhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or if that really great song you heard turns out to be "Prison Sex" by Tool.
      (Ok, it still a great song, just try not to sing along...)

    14. Re:Facilitators by mcvos · · Score: 2

      Actually, being able to look up the lyrics to a song has often resulted in me buying an album.

      The record companies aren't interested in selling more albums. Well, they are, but not as much as in power and control. They want to make sure everybody knows that they control everything music related, and once that's been accomplished, they'll start worrying again about how they wanted to make money.

      Personally I think it's a crappy business model, but it's the only one that explains their recent behaviour.

    15. Re:Facilitators by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 3, Funny
      lyrics; What I use against my conservative Christian wife when she sings Janet Jackson songs that she doesen't understand :P

      Be careful or your conservative christian wife will use the rhythm method against you!

      --

      Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  2. Do it or not by NotoriousGOD · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  3. Next.. by skinfitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Next up: no singing in the shower without a license.

    1. Re:Next.. by raider_red · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're also confiscating all of the Hymnals at Church.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    2. Re:Next.. by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 2, Funny

      Surgeons report rise in operations of amputation of eyes, ears & throats as people are scared of accidently infringing copywrite.

      This is in response to a RIAA lawsuit where they sued a 12 year old girl for humming along to music in an elevator that unfortunatly was held under copywrite.

    3. Re:Next.. by i_should_be_working · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, there's a new type of DRM coming out where after you have remembered a song 3 times it erases itself from your memory.

      Wait a minute. I could use that sometimes.

  4. Overkill by revelCyllufyalP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. But aren't lyrics not copyrighted or are the hundreds of sites out there that give song lyrics away for free underground criminal enterprises?

    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.

    --
    $ man sig
    bash: No manual entry found for sig.
    1. Re:Overkill by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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.
    2. Re:Overkill by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 2, Informative
      But aren't lyrics not copyrighted or are the hundreds of sites out there that give song lyrics away for free underground criminal enterprises?

      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.
    3. Re:Overkill by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      However, copyright law provides fair use exemption depending on the nature of the infringement. A non-profit lyrics site for the purposes of lyric criticism would be fairly safe. A company publishing lyrics and selling ads... less so. A company selling a product designed to search for lyrics... probably not protected at all.

      Fair use covers quoting small portions of a work, not "quoting" the whole thing. 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).

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    4. Re:Overkill by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  5. what?!? he doesnt kiss guys... by zxnos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    are you sure about that?

    --
    always mosh clockwise
  6. Re: Lyric Site Shutdowns by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems that their tactics are already working. I'm already having trouble finding the lyrics for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. If there are any underground sites still operating, please let me know. Thanks!

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  7. What's new by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what's new? Companies send Cease and desist orders all the time, it's the easiest way to scare people into doing what they want. It's ridiclous but it's true, if you act like you're going to sue people they figure out if they can aford the law suit (win or lose) and more often than not they see they don't have the money so they're forced to stop.

    It's like pointing a gun at someone, they "could" not get shot, but is it worth the risk when you could just give them your watch and be done with it?

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:What's new by HunterZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like pointing a gun at someone, they "could" not get shot, but is it worth the risk when you could just give them your watch and be done with it?

      Funny thing is, it's illegal to point a gun at someone and threaten them into doing something...

      --
      Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    2. Re:What's new by kaiser423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny this is, it's illegal to do so with a lawsuit. Just much harder to prove the intent, and also involves another lawsuit.

  8. What dirty deeds! by ScaryMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    It must have been that "Thunder Chief" I keep hearing about...

    1. Re:What dirty deeds! by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Funny

      Huh? I thought those were "dirty knees".

      I must need to get my hearing aid adjusted. Damn whippersnappers and their weird lyrics.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  9. Alternate programs. Plus, anyone got a mirror? by Bananatree3 · · Score: 2, Informative
    There are several other programs that do this kind of thing for iTunes:

    SingPod

    Sing that iTune

    Also a question, does anyone have a mirror for the pearLyrics program?

    1. Re:Alternate programs. Plus, anyone got a mirror? by XeRXeS-TCN · · Score: 2, Informative

      Found a copy of it on RapidShare.

  10. $.10 per song lyric by fnhoser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't wait to have to pay to understand the words to a song.

  11. Forgetting one thing by Lord+of+Ironhand · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While I totally do not condone the activities of the RIAA and similar (to the contrary), you *can* usually read the lyrics when you actually buy the CD, since most of the time it has a lyrics booklet included. Since they want you to buy the CD and not download it, this *does* make sense from their perspective.

    Since I don't want to be on the whole defensive of the RIAA, here's a link to the RIAA Radar to balance things - boycott the RIAA!

    1. Re:Forgetting one thing by lrucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But first you have to buy the CD - what I've used lyrics sites for most often is "hey, that song on the radio was pretty good - wonder who the artist is?" Most of my recent iTunes purchases came after doing something like that - and on occasion I've even bought the entire CD.

    2. Re:Forgetting one thing by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      While I totally do not condone the activities of the RIAA and similar (to the contrary), you *can* usually read the lyrics when you actually buy the CD

      This app was a plugin for iTunes, so it's meant to fill in the gap for those who, legally, bought the song online.

    3. Re:Forgetting one thing by Twisted64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you get a copy of the lyrics when you buy off iTunes? I don't know the answer to that one, but I'd say it's probably "no." I once used EvilLyrics to assist in decoding those crazy System of a Down songs, and found it VERY useful. If they really follow through with this, they'll have to shut down the hundreds of lyrics sites on the web. Like the guy said, it's just a specialised browser with lots of cache...

      --
      Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
    4. Re:Forgetting one thing by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're assuming that their priority is to get the most sales.

      Their priority is to persuade everyone that there is no way to have one's songs sold without using the labels' service.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  12. Re: Lyric Site Shutdowns by simcop2387 · · Score: 4, Funny

    oh please everyone knows the lyrics!

    bum bum bum bummmm
      BUM BUM BUM BUMMMM

  13. Surprised it took this long... by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...shutting down recent lyrics sites, that is. After the big fuss made over lyrics.ch, I was surprised to be able to consistently find the lyrics to songs I've heard on the radio by simply searching Google. Many times, the places I'd find lyrics hosted lyrics for thousands of songs. What took them so long in shutting down these massive sites?

    I don't really understand it. Unlike mp3s, I can't see lyrics downloads doing anything but boosting sales. Nevertheless, posting lyrics violates copyright and it is within their rights to try to get these places shut down.

  14. Re: Lyric Site Shutdowns by Carthag · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm posting them here, risking life & limb:

    Lalala-laa
    Lalala-laa
    lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala-

  15. cover bands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful



    yeah lets make it harder for cover bands to cover songs let alone regular people from understanding the message. Yhat way we can just string random words together with a crappy 4/4 beat and a repetative melody and mass sell crap you our consumers coz they will buy anything if we advertise it 24/7....see Brittany spears ,stock aitken and waterhouse for clues on this process...

    yet another way to control and destroy culture....folk music was the evolvement of other tunes and melodies with new words....you cant sample, you cant get lyrics, you cant record music off the radio you cant share music, you cant do anything really without fear of "the man" which of course is what making music is all about...fear, conflict & free expression all the things that the music distributers want to stop.... it may get to the stage where you cant actually be allowed to sing along with the tunes for fear of retribution....

    music is there to be enjoyed not billed for LEARN YOUR FUCKING INDUSTRY

  16. More reasons to end copyright by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copyright is, at its most basic, the monopoly to use force to control a non-physical "thing." Before copyright racketeering, we had ten thousand years of art, music and creation. Today marketable art is more and more in the hands of those who can not produce. Where 7 years of legal force might be ok, no law offering power ever stays reasonable.

    The web is ending our need to copyright, as enforcing it will soon be impossible. BitTorrent is getting replaced with third party proxies so information stores can;t be traced. Small bands that give away their music are seeing increased sales of show tickets and merchandise. Old Brick and mortar retailers can't compete with eBay and Amazon, and the used market always offers the same art for less.

    Here's the basis for the end of copyright: the free market. The laws of supply and demand say anything for sale with an unlimited supply is worthless. Art is worthless -- the profit comes from how you package it (live versus CD) and what you offer as a value added incentive.

    1. Re:More reasons to end copyright by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, you can whine about the differences between ideas and material objects all you want. They're one and the same. You can whine about knowledge and a creative commons - and that itself is bullshit, for the TV (as an example again) requires such knowledge to be manufactured. Furthermore, if knowledge belongs to everyone, surely too do the resources of the planet.


      No. No, you're completely wrong here. Copyright is NOT, I repeat NOT, a form of property. Not "Intellectual Property", of property of any kind. This is important.

      Copyright is a privilage granted by the government for a limited time to the Authors of various kinds of works. This right can be transferred, bought sold, used etc, etc. This right also allows certain fair uses by non holders. i.e. I can use your copyrighted work for certain small and/or personal uses without your permission.

      Contrast with property. Actual property. Something copyright is not. I own my property. You own yours. Our ownership of it will never expire. No one else can use or make use of our property without our express permission. The government cannot take away my property, nor can anyone else, without due process of the law.

      You've been conned by the new "Intellectual Property" mantra. It's not property. It's a privilage.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  17. Re:Sosueme by Plug · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this meant to be a ripoff of Pretty Vegas?

  18. WikiLyrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every lyrics site I find is loaded full of ads, and I think they all steal from each other. Why isn't there a wikilyrics site?

    1. Re:WikiLyrics by ewhac · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why isn't there a wikilyrics site?

      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

  19. And history repeats itself... by John+Whitley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some of you here may remember the Vivarin Lyrics Server, the story of which is told here.

    Some of the details of Vivarin's story are *very* interesting. The overall arc is similar to pearLyrics: a new search tool for lyrics is created, then eventually cease-and-desisted. But many of the details, and the early internet era in which they occured, make for a good read.

    It's sad, even pathetic, that in all these years the RIAA and its member companies haven't gotten even the least bit of clue. These sorts of search services add enourmous value. Thousands of people were able to identify and purchase music based on Vivarin's services ("what is that song, I remember a few words..?"). Heck, Warner's laywers called to provide thanks as Vivarin had helped them to win a legal case.

    I seriously hope that the RIAA's stranglehold doesn't let up before they realize that hold is around their collective neck.

  20. Mirror available here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  21. The Onion by centinall · · Score: 5, Funny

    LOS ANGELES - The Recording Industry Association of America announced Tuesday that it will be taking legal action against anyone discovered telling friends, acquaintances, or associates about new songs, artists, or albums. "We are merely exercising our right to defend our intellectual properties from unauthorized peer-to-peer notification of the existence of copyrighted material," a press release signed by RIAA anti-piracy director Brad Buckles read. "We will aggressively prosecute those individuals who attempt to pirate our property by generating 'buzz' about any proprietary music, movies, or software, or enjoy same in the company of anyone other than themselves." RIAA attorneys said they were also looking into the legality of word-of-mouth "favorites-sharing" sites, such as coffee shops, universities, and living rooms. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43029

  22. Re: Lyric Site Shutdowns by doubtless · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure it's stored in the same sites that has John Cage's 4'33"

    --
    geek page at KY speaks
  23. Dang! by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I'll NEVER figure out what Kurt Cobain was saying!

    1. Re:Dang! by S7urm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Im pretty sure he was saying "annamomma, is contagious, you wan onna, an ferbagis,"

      oops does this mean I can be sued?

      --
      "This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
    2. Re:Dang! by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now I'll NEVER figure out what Kurt Cobain was saying!
      Oh well, whatever, nevermind.

      (sorry couldn't resist ;)
      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  24. The RIAA doesn't want you to own it by rgm3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's because the lyrics are a piece of the song. True, a tiny piece, but the RIAA is fighting for a world where you have to pay for each time you experience the song, based on their definition of experience wrapped by their DRM. They figure they paid the artist off, they own it now, and you can't know about it or listen to it unless you pony up the cash! Then it'll work for 6 months, and your subscription will expire, HA! Whoops, you've figured out how to transfer your iTunes songs and videos anonymously to a new Blue-Ray disc and make a copy for your friend? We'll take you to court!

    Thanks for shopping RIAA.

  25. Embarrassing by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How embarrassing. Musicians are generally thought of as being cool people. But (I would hope) that they are getting rather uncomfortable being associated with these weirdo-goon squad from the RIAA.
        The RIAA doesn't really help you in your musical career and they act like psychotic creeps. How long before people will stop want to be musicians because they don't want to have to be associated with these RIAA industry people.
        Could music actually become uncool as a result of the RIAA's vulgar actions? (I sound like Carrie Bradshaw there) Or are the people who want to become rock stars so out of it anyway that they couldn't care less?

    1. Re:Embarrassing by jaseparlo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about Metallica's response to Napster. People like Fred Durst own music publishing companies, you can bet he'll side with the RIAA without a thought for fans. Just about the only path to an increased audience is through the major publishers. Look at the garbage they sell though, do you think many of the people getting famous today are actually artists in the sense of creating and deeply caring for what they do?

      --
      All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
  26. amaroK by Brent+Spiner · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:amaroK by morbuz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, and the lyrics database it uses has everything:
      http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=macgyver6 ld.png

      --
      CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
  27. Re:Damn.... by joey_knisch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check wikipedia

  28. Re:Adding to metadata... by ghc71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bah humbug. It's not copyright infringement, it's fair use. The lyrics are a small part excerpted from the work (which is both the lyrics and the music), and this app is non-profit and designed for reference.

    --
    - Sig files: contemptibly familiar the second time around.
  29. Slap back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given that, normally, the songwriter (or his/her publishing company) holds the copyrights to music and lyrics, how is that the record labels are putting themselves in a position to enforce lyric copyright?

    The record labels may have the rights to the artist's sound recordings, but the actual music and lyrics to any given song is another matter. If i were the Pearlyric author (which, btw, is a great widget on Mac OS X Tiger and, thankfully, continues to work), I would ask whomever sent the C&D notice to provide proof (written documentation) of copyright ownership pertaining specifically to lyrics (or, alternatively, proof of assignment of copyright ownership or agency) for all songs which Warner claims to have enforcement standing. I don't think they can, at least not for song lyrics. Those rights are held by the music publisher, which generally isn't the record company.

    The Pearlyric author makes a good point that his app is nothing more than an aggregator of content that is already freely available on the net. Essentially, there isn't an effective difference between his app and, say, Google. Both do the same thing; only Pearlyric (as the name implies) has the narrow purpose of gathering song lyrics currently on the net (from established lyric content sites) based on either the song being played in iTunes or a user generated search. If Pearlyric is guilty of infringement here, then so is Google (or any other search engine), not to mention the lyric site owners.

    Moreover, the Pearlyric application is (err...was) distributed for free and is clearly intended for narrow, personal use only. A claim of infringement here is wildly misplaced, particularly when it's made by the record companies.

    1. Re:Slap back by mcubed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that, normally, the songwriter (or his/her publishing company) holds the copyrights to music and lyrics, how is that the record labels are putting themselves in a position to enforce lyric copyright?

      It's not "the record labels," it's Warner/Chappell, a music publishing company. A company like Warner/Chappell pays money to the songwriters for the exclusive rights to control publishing and reprinting of songs and lyrics. Therefore, they are very much in the position to complain about copyright infringement.

      Michael

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
  30. Progress by porkface · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happened here is that someone found out that some people will continue to buy CDs if that were the only way to get lyrics. But the cost of this effort is so much greater than any gains they'll see. It's not like that is one piece of the puzzle to stopping large scale piracy. It's not even comparable to chipping away at it.

    Their only hope is to come clean on pricing, availability, and a wide variety of interoperability features that consumers want. The longer they wait, the harder it's going to be. And meanwhile there are always artists with expiring contracts waiting to be swooped up by better labels, or self-publishing.

    The only thing these labels actually own are:
    - CD manufacturing and distribution: This is an antiquated technology that is well on its way out.
    - A Stranglehold arrangement for concert venues: Well known bands can work around this. New bands might soon plan to sign 1 contract with an RIAA label, and then go it alone (roughly like Harvey Danger).

    They no longer control marketing, or any of the new distribution options. Granted these "new distribution options" are all basically free downloads or illegal networks, but that's what they have to compete with. They could spend another ten years fighting those in court and be no better off. At some point someone will put together a better fee system, and begin to attract enough new and big name artists with expired contracts, and provide all of the features. If the labels want to survive, they had better be the ones to do it first. They still haven't even admitted they're to blame.

  31. Re:Guy bashing. by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you suggesting we dig him up to do that?

  32. Re:Next..Next... by jsse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is 3Q 2030.

    You're arguing with your wife again. It seems she's missed her spending quota again this quarter. A proud patriot, you have no problem spending 85% and sometimes 90% of your income on consumer goods, yet she can't manage to spend even close to the 75% required by law. It's that foreign mentality, you suppose--that's what happens when you are educated overseas and without the benefit of a corporate sponsor. You have to remind her that if the Internal Consumer's Service (ICS) catches her, she'll be doing time in Philip Morris(TM) Prison like her uncle.

    Oh well, hopefully a night at the town's AOL-Time-Warner-Clear-Channel-Blockbuster(TM) Authorized Media Distribution Center will smooth things over with her. That reminds you--you need to have your eye- and ear-implants inspected for this quarter again, otherwise you won't even be allowed in tonight.

    You haven't attended church services for a while. Although your wife is a devout follower of God's Customers(TM) and shops in the Church Store at LEAST five tiems a quarter, you're not yet convinced that converting from Consumers For Jesus(TM) was that sound an investment.

    Your son Rick has just graduated from the local McDonalds(TM) High School. You want him to go to Pepsi(TM) University like his sister, but he wants to go to Coke(TM) College. Not that it matters--the permits you get at either school are the same. Although he really wanted to attend Stanford(TM), his corporate sponsors rejected that proposal, based on what it might do to his credit rating.

    Your youngest daughter just graduated Pepsi(TM) U. It was expensive, but she is all set now, having received a Creative Thought Permit and a Entrepreneurship License. On top of that she's accepted a job at Fortune 10 corporation. Of course almost everyone works for a Fortune 10 nowadays, there being only thirty-some corporations left. It's too bad she had to sign all those NDA's though--you'd really like to be allowed to know where she would be living and how to get in touch with her. Ahh well, it's the price you pay for our corporate security.

    Your older daughter, after twenty quarters of employment, was finally permitted to tell you that she is working in middle-management at AT&T. Of course, every job in the United Corporations of America is middle-management. The cheaper--skilled--labor is all outsourced to Those Other Countries, whatever they are called. In ten more quarters, assuming her credit rating remains good and she has attained Shareholder status, she'll be allowed to talk face-to-face (no encrypted channel) with us again!

    Apparently, her five year old daughter has been grounded again, this time for racking up a $6000 fine--singing "Happy Birthday(TM)" at a party without a Media Distribution License. She really needs to be taught a lesson--that as a patriotic Consumer of the UCA, she needs to respect the rights of Shareholders and property owners. What a dangerous thoughts she has! She thinks she should be allowed to say whatever she pleases, no matter what it does to someone else's portfolio! No one can get it through to her that terrorist ideas like that will land her in one of those "special" schools--and she'd be subjected to a lower quarterly limit on all her credit cards.

    Fax from your wife--she'll be late tonight. Corporate HQ has re-instated fourteen-hour work days until the end of this quarter. It's too bad she's not allowed to quit her job--you could get her a pretty sweet management position any time in your department at Microsoft.

    This document is hereby released to the public domain. You may (and are encouraged to) reproduce, republish, read, modify, and/or archive it without limitation.


    Orignal story by Accord MT

  33. Re: Lyric Site Shutdowns by Feanturi · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is exactly why we need lyric sites!

    Everyone knows it's:

    Sax-a-ma-phone!

    Sax--a--ma--phone!

  34. Let me see if I have this right by S7urm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lyrics are part of music, and since music is broadcasted without "charging" for you to hear it (radio) than why in the world would ANYONE want to block someone from Displaying what they heard for free in a lyrical context. I thought the whole point of music was so you could hear it, not so we could prevent someone from reading it. While I can understand that some musicians would not want their lyrics misrepresented or displayed in a manor that takes away from the lyric's effect, I can't comprehend telling someone they can't display it as text. If a band wants to prevent misrepresentation (which is the ONLY reason I could see anyone getting upset) they should post their damn lyrics.

    Whats next? preventing other interested musicians from creating tablature? Why don't we just halt creativity all together. I know that I have very strong influences on my creative works and I would hate to not be able to call upon them because a record label didn't want me to know WTF they were saying.

    --
    "This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
  35. Re:Adding to metadata... by torokun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The lyrics are probably a separately copyrighted work, so copying the lyrics is actually copying the whole work.

    Even if considered as part of the song, the lyrics are not a "small part".

    There's a _chance_ it's fair use, but most likely not. Copying a whole poem or book this way is the same thing. The fact that they're lyrics doesn't change the issue.

  36. Weird Al Yankovic, for example by wheatwilliams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe the posts I'm reading here, and how misunderstanding and unsympathetic you all are.

    Song lyrics are poems. They are written by professional lyricists. A person who writes song lyrics holds a copyright on what he's written, and he needs to protect that copyright in order to earn a living. Lyricists for pop songs don't get paid salaries. Their only chance is to earn royalties from sales.

    Weird Al Yankovic is an example. All of his hits are somebody else's music with Weird Al's lyrics. Lyrics are all he writes--well, he writes very little original music. For years he's had a message on his Web site urging his fans not to post his lyrics on Web pages, and not to read Web pages with his lyrics on them, because they violate his copyrights and reduce his ability to collect royalties on his work. If you want Al's lyrics, Al wants you to buy the CD with the lyric booklet in it.

    One of the main reasons people buy CDs is so they get the booklet inside that contains the lyrics. In previous generations, people bought sheet music or collections of lyrics in books called "broadsides" if they wanted to read the lyrics. This is how lyricists made income.

    If lyrics to copyrighted songs are posted all over the Internet, that's piracy. The person putting up the Web page is a pirate, and the people that read, download or copy those lyrics are committing piracy also.

    From the tenor of the posts I've read here, it seems that all of you recognize that a song, and a recording of the song, are things that the artists have a right to own and protect, but you seem to think that for some reason lyrics are exempt from that. They are not. You wouldn't tell Gilbert and Sullivan that Sullivan had the rights to earn royalties from the music, but Gilbert did not, because he wrote only lyrics and those are free. Same with Rodgers and Hammerstein. Both the music and the lyrics are intellectual property, and each hold their own copyright.

    1. Re:Weird Al Yankovic, for example by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the main reasons people buy CDs is so they get the booklet inside that contains the lyrics

      Umm, no. One of the main reasons people buy CDs is to listen to the music.

    2. Re:Weird Al Yankovic, for example by feijai · · Score: 3, Informative
      Weird Al Yankovic is an example. All of his hits are somebody else's music with Weird Al's lyrics. Lyrics are all he writes--well, he writes very little original music.
      Uh, over half of the songs on a Yankovic album are originals. Including all of my favorites. Mr. Frump in the Iron Lung, Good Enough for Now, and One More Minute come to mind.
      For years he's had a message on his Web site urging his fans not to post his lyrics on Web pages, and not to read Web pages with his lyrics on them, because they violate his copyrights and reduce his ability to collect royalties on his work.
      Where?
    3. Re:Weird Al Yankovic, for example by sd790 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Both the music and the lyrics are intellectual property, and each hold their own copyright."

      There is no such thing as intellectual property. There are copyrights and patents which are handled far differently from each other. RMS discusses this far better than I ever could.

      It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term.
  37. Ditto by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the first tactic I use when trying to identify a song.

    --
    This space available.
  38. Re:Next..Next... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  39. Not an RIAA issue. It's an ASCAP/BMI issue. by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  40. Jennifer Government? by tetromino · · Score: 2, Informative
    May I suggest Jennifer Government by Max Barry. Its advantages are that:

    • Max Barry, unlike Accord MT, has an actual sense of humor
    • Mr. Barry used to work in marketing, so he really knows what he is talking about
    • you will develop a totally new outlook on the xbox 360 shortage
    • Jennifer Government is not in the public domain -- so you get to ironically spend $12 on a work of anti-consumerist satire
  41. Re:Next..Next... by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 3, Funny
    You're arguing with your wife again. It seems she's missed her spending quota again this quarter. A proud patriot, you have no problem spending 85% and sometimes 90% of your income on consumer goods, yet she can't manage to spend even close to the 75% required by law.

    I'd be ecstatic if she spent anything less than 125%!

    Spending at or below your income is so 1970s... it's, like, what old people do?

    --
    I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
  42. Torrent of pearLyrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a torrent of the file up on The Piratebay now.

    Link to Torrent File

  43. Re:Next..Next... by ms1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reminds me of a short story I read when young (11 or so) which described a society that had access to unlimited energy (from fusion) and thus unlimited production power. In order to maintain the economy everyone had to consume. Being higher up in the hierarchy ment less consumption. The main character was falling behind in his consumption quota so he ordered his robots to use the products instead. This he had to do in secret, until he was discovered and then praised for resolving the problem with the economy. Let the robots do the consumption of good.

    Can't remember the name of the story anymore, which is sad, because it quite well describes where we might be heading.

  44. Lyrics sites/tools are good for the industry! by bubkus_jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hell, I work at a music shop (boo me all you like, I need the money), and at least 3 customers a day are looking for a song they heard on the radio, but they never caught the song/artist.

    So, I fire up a lyrics site (in my case, www.letssingit.com , as it's the only one I can access from work), and I search for the lyrics they gave me. Quite often I find the song and the album it's on, and they buy it. Now, if I didn't have a lyrics site to go to, those would be lost sales, as the customer wouldn't know what to buy.

    On second thought, to hell with the lyrics sites. Let the industry lose sales if that's how they want to play it.

  45. Re:Next..Next... by blackpaw · · Score: 2, Informative

    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