Song Sites Face Legal Crackdown

CaptainPotato writes "According to the BBC, the Music Publishers' Association is stepping up to launch the next phase in the music industry's battle against online music. The MPA is demanding jail time for the maintainers of websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics. The MPA President has stated that closing websites and imposing fines is not enough, stating that by 'throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective' in its crusade." We just recently reported on the pearLyrics cease-and-desist order as well.

Comments

That makes sense

[SilverspurG]

"But now the internet is taking more of a bite out of sheet music and printed music sales so we're taking a more proactive stance."

Because refusing to negotiate politely with a force which has demonstrated itself as larger is always seen as proactive.

Re:That makes sense

[voice_of_all_reason]

Larger, more organized, more motivated, better equipped...

It's not a war, it's a suicide mission

Re:That makes sense

[poot_rootbeer]

Because refusing to negotiate politely with a force which has demonstrated itself as larger is always seen as proactive.

There's no need for negotiations here, because the law is very clear: you may not reproduce song lyrics without permission of the copyright holder, except as permitted under fair use provisions.

If a mob of people walked into your house and started pocketing all your possessions, would you "negotiate politely" with them because there's more of them than of you? Or would you call for law enforcement?

Re:That makes sense

[uradu]

> If a mob of people walked into your house and started pocketing
> all your possessions, would you "negotiate politely" with them
> because there's more of them than of you? Or would you call for
> law enforcement?

If Guido was pinning me to the ground while his buddies were doing said pocketing, I think I would be quite open to negotiations. Nay, I would welcome them heartily.

Re:That makes sense

[merdark]

Lets correct your analogy. If a mob of people started cloning existing clones of your possessions, without ever entering your house or depriving you of the original possessions, would you even care?

Re:That makes sense

[drinkypoo]

Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.

Re:That makes sense

[drinkypoo]

There's no need for negotiations here, because the law is very clear: you may not reproduce song lyrics without permission of the copyright holder, except as permitted under fair use provisions.

OTOH I thought no one could own the facts? If you listen to the song and type in the lyrics, is that legal? If you listen to the song, figure out the notes, and write some sheet, is that legal?

Re:That makes sense

[poot_rootbeer]

I thought no one could own the facts?

Lyrics aren't facts. They are creative works.

If you listen to the song and type in the lyrics, is that legal? If you listen to the song, figure out the notes, and write some sheet, is that legal?

Yes, unless you offer the product of your research to the public without the songwriter/lyricist's permission.

Re:That makes sense

[hackstraw]

Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.

Yeah, when I spoke with the owner of a local CD shop that was in walking distance to a University, and she was saying that she was going out of business 2 years ago because nobody was buying CDs anymore saw it as an opportunity to do something different. There still is one CD store left in town, but then there is always Target and Wal-mart.

So, yeah she wasn't deprived of much. Its all perception.

Re:That makes sense

[Kahlus]

No, that just means that the market is changing. That shop owner, much like the RIAA, needs to adapt. The market is moving towards digital downloads and away from CDs for music distribution.

Re:That makes sense

[skwirlmaster]

I'll ignore the attack on your parent post. But you are correct. They still own the lyrics, and the only thing they are losing is the ability to sell lyrics to the tiny population who cares about reading them.

As far as tabs go, there is probably a bigger market of people who want to buy those. However, why sell them at all? Why not provide them on the artists site, and allow lyrics sites to link to them. You would be getting free advertising for your artists.

Of course that wouldn't work for the RIAA. They don't want free marketing, they want total control of you. They want to tell you when you can listen to the music you bought, who you can listen to it with, where you can listen to it, and most importantly how you listen to it.

Who wants to change your business model to fit the market when you can just develop a stranglehold on it?

Re:That makes sense

[drdewm]

I can see your argument a few years back blindly following a corrupt rule of law: There's no need for negotiations here, because the law is very clear: you may not as a black person vote.

Re:That makes sense

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, when I spoke with the owner of a local CD shop that was in walking distance to a University, and she was saying that she was going out of business 2 years ago because nobody was buying CDs anymore

Okay, and so that's automatically because of copyright infringement? You're even dumber than the other guy. Have you ever heard of digital downloads, used CD sales, ebay/half.com, or any other place to buy CDs besides a local music store?

In fact, surveys have generally indicated that copyright infringement leads to album sales, because most mp3s suck. 128 bit? Please. Actually, the because is my own input, I have no idea why it would actually work that way, but it seems that the people who do the most downloading also buy the most CDs.

Re:That makes sense

[hackstraw]

No, that just means that the market is changing. That shop owner, much like the RIAA, needs to adapt. The market is moving towards digital downloads and away from CDs for music distribution.

Like I said, she adapted and opened up a clothing store or something. It was no big deal, but that was the first and only time I have spoken with someone whose current livelihood was affected by downloads. She didn't know much about computers to set up a download site, and even if she did, she would not have been able to get content or customers. Actually, it was back in 2002, right after the napster thing, not two years ago.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If my primary source of income had been selling my possessions and a group of people set up across the street giving away exact copies of everything I was selling, then yes, I would care. So would you.

Re:That makes sense

[NathanBFH]

I don't have a lot of space in my apartment and hate owning too much clutter. I also listen to a lot of music and used to own many, many CDs. I've gone 2 years with out a CD purhcase (and hope to never purchase another one ever again) because I prefer digital purchasing/downloading of music. All of the devices I listen to music on support MP3 playback (computers, ipod, etc.) and I have less clutter in my apartment. Hundreds of CDs adds up to a lot of closet space after a while! Plus, who wants to change media just to listen to a new artist?

In short, ditigal downloads fit my lifestyle much better than outdated optical media. The market is changing, and bussinesses that refuse to change with it will be left in the dust.

Re:That makes sense

[hackstraw]

You're even dumber than the other guy.

If you were any more polite, I'd tell you to fuck off.

Okay, and so that's automatically because of copyright infringement?

No, it was from people downloading music off of the internet.

Have you ever heard of digital downloads

Yeah, that is what we are talking about. Digital downloads at that time was Napster (they closed down right before her store), remember them?

used CD sales

She sold used CDs, but then again there was one more store that was further down the road (not walking distance) that had higher priced ones and gave you less for your used disks.

ebay/half.com, or any other place to buy CDs besides a local music store?

Those were not big at the time. I'm not even sure half.com existed.

Actually, the because is my own input (WTF?), I have no idea why it would actually work that way, but it seems that the people who do the most downloading also buy the most CDs.

Who would have thunk that music buffs are more into music than those who aren't into music much?

Re:That makes sense

[drinkypoo]

Okay, and so that's automatically because of copyright infringement?

No, it was from people downloading music off of the internet.

hahhAHaHAHahhAHAHAHAHahahahAHAHAHAHA!

Very nice, sparky.

Re:That makes sense

[drinkypoo]

Well, it makes sense to sell tabs. People will pay for them. It doesn't make sense to sell lyrics, because people won't buy them. Instead you will just end up with just as many lyrics sites, but someplace where they don't respect US copyright law. Those people will sell banners and other ads, so it's worth it to do the site. End result: Nothing really changes, except the domain.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright Infringement is theft noob. By infringing you are stealing the authors right to royalties and recognition of innovation in an artistic or other wise production clad field. Please use your brain. You are stupid, Thank you.

Re:That makes sense

[dlZ]

The whole Napster thing put my old favorite local record store out of business, too. Same thing, walking distance to the local campus, and he sold lots of new and used CDs. Large amounts of vinyl, too, which kept me quite happy in small releases of punk and hardcore. The owner moved on to other business ventures (not another store, though.)

We now have a small chain retailer (it's 3 stores, all within a 3 hour drive, the closest being about 15 minutes from me.) They're great, and have a lot of the same types of items the other store did, in addition to a lot of hard to find DVDs. They adapted to the changing market better, by expanding their selections and really doing a local push where the other store didn't. It worked, and we still have a music retailer locally that isn't some huge Wal-Mart type store.

I still buy music, but I refuse to buy anything that's RIAA related. Funny thing is, I don't have any trouble with that, because of the type of music I listen to (and I listen to a very varied range, not just the above mentioned punk and hc.)

Re:That makes sense

[Buran]

Right. Okay. It's just easier, after all, to scream "PIRACY!" instead of actually realizing that, oh, THE MUSIC SUCKS THESE DAYS. That's what's driving a lot of people away -- in addition to, like others have pointed out, the fact that you don't need to go to a local store anymore. I buy from iTunes these days when I do buy music. I only buy Elton John CDs these days. So a store would blame my no longer coming in on piracy, right, because it's easier?

Only one problem with that: the easy answer is wrong.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know that it wasn't just Walmart or Target that ran her out of business? Like you said yourself:

"There still is one CD store left in town, but then there is always Target and Wal-mart."

Re:That makes sense

[Arandir]

THE MUSIC SUCKS THESE DAYS

Here's a clue: No matter when "these days" are, the music has always sucked "these days". My great grandpa complained about Glenn Miller and Les Brown. My grandpa complained about Buddy Holly and Elvis Presley. My dad complained about the Beatles and Jimmy Hendrix. I'm complaining about whatever that whiny noise is coming from kid's boomboxes these days.

Whatever music teenagers are listening to these days, one of the main reasons for its popularity is its ability to annoy adults.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course copyright violation isn't theft. It's a contract violation.

You are stupid. You're welcome.

Re:That makes sense

[Matt Perry]

If a mob of people walked into your house and started pocketing all your possessions, would you "negotiate politely" with them because there's more of them than of you? Or would you call for law enforcement?

let's fix that analogy. if a mob of people walked into my house and started making copies of my possessions, leaving with their new copies while I still have mine, then I might not mind so much, except for all the foot traffic.

Re:That makes sense

[Dashing Leech]

"So, yeah she wasn't deprived of much. Its all perception."

That's a straw-man argument. The "something" deprived of in theft is the usage of the item that was stolen. Nobody is deprived of the use of the copyrighted material when it is copied. It is not theft. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened had the copyright infringement not happened is *not* the same thing as the deprivation of the use of said item.

But thanks for repeating the same mistaken straw-man argument that the media industry continues to make.

Re:That makes sense

[Buran]

Yes, and who has the money to purchase stuff? Why, it's the adults, of course. As long as the people with the money don't want the product, there's no demand. Economics 101, baby.

Re:That makes sense

[orangesquid]

I've never quite understood the "Don't post copyrighted lyrics" thing. What sales are being lost? Are there really companies that just "Sell lyrics"? I understand that there is definitely a market for selling sheet music or tabs (I guess it's a service to help people who can't play things by ear, although I don't feel like they're selling "information" that isn't already part of the sell of the CD/vinyl/cassette itself), but is there a market for _selling_lyric_sheets_? Did I miss something? If you buy music, do you not have permission to know what the words are? Why do some artists act like the lyrics are a big secret and you're not supposed to be able to understand them or you're not supposed to know what they're singing about?

I'm really lost on this one. I do understand why companies might not want other people to _make_money_ off of lyrics, for example, suppose an artist has a homepage with lyrics which generates them some ad revenue, but everybody obtains the lyrics through google which redirects them to other sites and generates ad revenue for people who didn't write the lyrics. But why would companies care if Joe Schmoe posts their favorite songs' lyrics on their nonprofit homepage, or somebody has a nonprofit fan site with lyrics of an artist's songs?

I guess there are people who write lyrics just to sell them to be used in songs by artists who don't write (just perform), but once they're used in a song, I still think my point about "when you buy a song do you not have permission to know what the words are" is valid.

If I'm not understanding something, can somebody please explain to me what I'm not understanding? I'm an artists who writes, records, and performs, and I don't understand why I would want to keep my lyrics a secret or why I should care if somebody posts my lyrics on the internet.

Perhaps there are some artists who don't really make money off of their music but instead just have fans because of their image? Their image might include something like "I'm too cool for my lyrics to be understandable/intelligible" but that's really the only case I can think of for when an artist would potentially lose anything from someone posting their lyrics.

Re:That makes sense

[Dashing Leech]

"Copyright Infringement is theft"

There are at least two huge holes in your reasoning. First, "theft" or "stealing" require you to deprive the owner of the use of said item. Copyright infringement does not. In fact, the owner may not even know about it. Loss of potential income from hypothetical sales that might have happened if the infringement did not occur is not the same thing. It is not the purpose of the laws.

Second, copyright law does not give author's a right to royalties or recognition. Copyright law is explicit that it is only a right of refusal. That is, it gives authors the right to refuse to allow others to copy it. It does not provide a right to income from it. That is merely one way in which authors have exploited their right of refusal, by refusing everyone except those who pay them. The difference is important.

Re:That makes sense

[stonedonkey]

Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.

Deprives them of something like... a return on their investment? According to your logic, I can take something you want to profit from, and secretly distribute it for my own profit -- but I better not take the original copy! Gotta draw the line there, muchacho!

Sure, "theft" and "copyright infringement" have different legal ramifications, but infringement doesn't necessarily cause less damage.

Re:That makes sense

[Buran]

Which is not needed for fair use. Libraries allow reproduction for research purposes and it's up to the reader to govern themselves. I can walk down to the library downstairs, pull one of the medical journals off the shelf, and copy a pile of articles from it, in their entirety. I am allowed to do that because I am using them for research. Other than a notice posted describing the restrictions under which copying can be done, there's no one looking over my shoulder telling me what not to do. It's my own responsibility to police my actions, not anyone else's. A library organization, website, etc., merely provides the information.

Or is the RIAA gestapo going to invade libraries next?

Re:That makes sense

[rajafarian]

Don't stupid people pi55 you off? They're the reason why Bush is (still) president and the Patriot Act just got extended. Among other things.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

O, so I suppose that Microsoft is being deprived when I build a PC and use Linux, and never buy a copy of Windows?

This is not the first time that the RIAA has bitched and moaned about a change in technology. They tried (and failed) to do the same thing with FM radio, and then they just adapted. Eventually, the RIAA will have to adapt to file sharing, because there is simply no way to truly get rid of it. It is what people want. People want to be able to click on the title of a song, and be able to listen to it shortly thereafter. People do not want to sort through hundreds of CDs to hear what they want to hear.

When technology improves, business models change. People who do not keep up go out of business, and that is how the world works. It happens in all industries, and yet for some reason, the entertainment industry has always felt the need to sue people over it (FM Radio, Betamax, Napster -- and now, individual people).

Re:That makes sense

[poopdeville]

If that were true, every kid in America would be listening to the Boredoms. Most people are voracious listeners, and will listen to and like just about everything they hear. Especially during their formative teen years. If you had taken it upon yourself to teach your kids how to apprciate music, they would have figured out how to find good music by now.

My friend's teen has recently gotten herself into Ikue Mori, a terrific Japanese avant garde drummer. She introduced her friends to it at a party, and now they're combing the Tzadik website looking for more music to explore.

Re:That makes sense

[poopdeville]

Here's a little known fact. The lyrics to Strawberry Fields, by the Beatles, are:

Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout
Strawberry Fields forever

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out, it doesn't matter much to me
Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout
Strawberry Fields forever

No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right, that is I think it's not too bad

Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout
Strawberry Fields forever

Always, no sometimes, think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream
I think I know I mean a "Yes" but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree

Let me take you down, 'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real, and nothing to get hungabout
Strawberry Fields forever
Strawberry Fields forever
Strawberry Fields forever

I haven't asked for permission to post this fact, nor should I have to.

Re:That makes sense

[gcalvin]

This is actually a good representation with some of the real problems with lyrics sites. The title of the song is actually "Strawberry Fields Forever". It was written by John Lennon (although commonly attributed to Lennon and Paul McCartney), not by The Beatles. The lyrics themselves look mostly right, but I'd be willing to bet that "'cos" should be "'cause" and "hung about" is two words. And that "I think I know..." line looks way off to me.

My point is not to play Grammar Nazi or Spelling Nazi on this post. My point is that copyrights serve to protect not only the revenue stream, but the integrity of the creative works as well. Lyrics sites tend to have even worse editorial control than Slashdot. People post all kinds of garbage, nobody checks for accuracy, and works are mis-attributed or not attributed at all. Yeah, you should have to seek permission to post somebody's artistic work, and not only that, but you should take care to reproduce it faithfully.

Re:That makes sense

[splatter]

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it."

John Lennon

Re:That makes sense

[Traiklin]

If my primary source of income had been selling my possessions and a group of people set up across the street giving away exact copies of everything I was selling, then yes, I would care. So would you.

so then why aren't walmart, target, gamestop, ebgames (well not so much now), your local videogame store, blockbuster, hollywood video, family video, the local grocery stores, car dealerships all suing each other every day over someone else selling the samething they are?

That analogy is flawed by what I just said, in a town near me I can go down 2 major streets and encounter, Toys r us, Target, Walmart, Kmart, Best buy & a mall, guess what? each store sell the exact same thing that the other is selling litterally right next to each other or just down the block.

if you look at Best Buy they sell video games, walk into Walmart they are selling the same games, according to your analogy one of these stores has the right to sue the other because they are stealing from them.

Re:That makes sense

[Traiklin]

well it depends

if it's a group of white kids then it's rap (if no black people are around, remember they want to be black till real black people show up)

for girls it's usually something pop

Punk for the outcasts who think it's cool and they are rebelling against something

then there are the ones who don't care and listen to what they like which are the intellegent ones since they don't stick to only one genre of music that dies and comes back and loses artists left and right.

Re:That makes sense

[aybiss]

Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.

Please stop posting this and getting modded up by your fanboys every time something like this comes up. Whilst technically copyright infringement is not theft, as an artist when people copy my work without paying for it I am ripped off and I will call you a thief to your face.

Adding this as 'informative' to every discussion on copyright is downright insulting to people's intelligence and is laughable given that every reason you have for committing piracy is moral and yet you hide behind technicalities like this to avoid feeling guilty about what you do. You are assholes AND thieves. Thank you.

Re:That makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearchannel's monopolizing of concert venues and pump-n'-dumping of "artists" with titties and butt is responsible for killing radio.

It is obviously, objectively, inarguably dead.

The end.

Also, you're stupid. Goodbye.

Man.....

[TomHandy]

Now this just seems silly. Personally at least, I can tell you that I use lyrics sites for ONE primary purpose; to be able to find a song that I heard somewhere based on its lyrics, so I can then buy it. Seriously; that's all they are really useful to me for (of course, they can also be useful just to know the words of a song, but that's something else). What POSSIBLE benefit can they see in shutting something down that has a primary use of helping people to identify and purchase their product? Really, it just seems like madness.

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

They still want you to be able to do that, on their servers so they can monitor you behaviour, after giving them your email address so that they can spam you into the next century.

Re:Man.....

[SeanMon]

I use these lyric sites for the same purpose. After I hear a song on the radio that I like, I search for whatever lyrics I can remember from the song and then I purchase the song from the iTunes Music Store. I think that it would be an excellent addition to the store if Apple supplied a "Search lyrics" option and provided song lyrics with purchased music.

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you. I have never understood why they would possibly want to sue fans that put lyrics online. My guess is that they probably want to go after sites that have huge databases of lyrics, and are making money off the data. I would be in favor of changing copyright law so that song lyrics can be used freely for something other than in music.

Re:Man.....

[lbrandy]

Personally at least, I can tell you that I use lyrics sites for ONE primary purpose; to be able to find a song that I heard somewhere based on its lyrics, so I can then buy it

I think you misspelled "download".

Re:Man.....

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In one sense, I think it might be to protect the song writers as they don't perform or record songs, but I agree, this is stupid. I hate it when some CDs don't include the lyrics, I've grown accustomed to having them, not having them is anomaly that shouldn't happen. I too have used short phrases to find what the song name was to track down the CD.

Re:Man.....

[Iriel]

(Warning: What you are about to read is purely sarcastic...except for where it isn't)

Actually, the Recording Industry A**holes of America have struck gold this time! Do you have any idea how many times I have grown to hate a perfectly good song because some tone deaf moron could just look up the lyrics and try to imitate Brittney Spears? I can't tell you how much it grates my nerves to hear the greatest songs of our generation being brutalized by people just because they know the words!

Now, the RIAA can keep everyone in the dark so everyone can just sit and listen peacefully without being forced to endure someone's immitation of scratching their nails across a chalkboard. An experience that would otherwise be followed by them asking you if they should go on American Idol. Next, artists will be sued for publishing their lyrics as well so there will be no distractions between their corporate mind sex attempting to portray society/culture and my ears.

Oh happy days!

Re:Man.....

[Mooga]

Back in highschool I had to do a project which was to find songs about history and turn in the printed out lyrics and a small paper on the songs.

DUDE! My highschool made me BRAKE THE LAW!

I never really knew that it was illegal to post lyrics...

Re:Man.....

[jim_v2000]

This is why I will probably never by another music CD...unless it's indy. (Plus I wrecked my machine trying to get the Sony DRM off before anyone knew what it was...)

Re:Man.....

[jimbolauski]

I think what the MPA wants a piece of the karaoke money. This is possibly the only way to make money off the words of songs. I for one would be glad if karaoke would die because of this. When I'm drowning my sorrows at the local water hole the last thing i want to hear is an off tune drunken idiot.

Re:Man.....

[Mr. Slippery]

I think it might be to protect the song writers as they don't perform or record songs, but I agree, this is stupid.

Song writeres get royalties when amateur muscians - such as me - play their music at the local bar. Or when pros cover their songs in concert or on a recording.

Where do amateur muscians often learn the words and chords to songs? The net. Making it easier for musicians to learn songs helps songwriters.

Musicians have been fighting the publishing industry over this for over seven years. It's protectionism for buggy-whip manufacturers, no benefit for artists or creators at all.

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn! they've finally caught on the my scheme! All this time I avoided the Kazaa controversy by downloading illegal sheet-music and having some local band play it for me while I record it! There goes my free music :(

Re:Man.....

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I use lyrics sites for two reasons:

1. To find the names/artists of songs I like and know the lyrics to.
2. To read the lyrics of songs that are hard to make out. (And the label was too cheap to print it on the liner notes)

Re:Man.....

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

My highschool made me BRAKE THE LAW!

I guess they didn't realize what was at steak..

Re:Man.....

[duffbeer703]

That's just the problem -- the CD isn't their product and the MPA doesn't get a dime!

The sheet music association is even more obsolete than RIAA -- they are a legacy of the era when entertainment consisted of a piano or guitar in the living room.

What they are probably hoping for is to make a deal with iTunes where they get $0.005 cent for each song for bundling the lyrics.

Re:Man.....

[Frymaster]

After I hear a song on the radio that I like, I search for whatever lyrics I can remember from the song and then I purchase the song from the iTunes Music Store.

wonderful! except.... the mpa doesn't care if you buy cd's or aac's. the music publishers association represents companies that publish sheet music. now, what the mpa is saying is "if you want to find that artist/song based on a snippet of lyrics you should go down to your local music publishing store and buy glossy tab/sheet music books til you find the song your looking for".

Re:Man.....

[idunno2112]

BREAKING NEWS: Sony unveils perfect DRM

All new releases are simply "BEEEEEP" for 74 minutes, censoring the lyrics and music so nobody can copy the artist's, er, record company's intellectual property in any way, shape or form.

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I already copyrighted that song. It's part of the "Annoy Your Neighbours" ten-disc set.

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a piano in my living room you insensitive clod!

Re:Man.....

[DavidTC]

I know.

In what crazy-ass universe does lyrics cut into sales of anything?

People who 'legitimately' need them, people who are singing cover versions or whatever, already are paying for them when they pay for the rights to sing the song, or they're already outlaws and cracking down on the lyrics won't help anything.

Everyone else gets them for two reason: To figure out the name and singer of a song, so they can get it, or to figure out the words to a song they already have.

Re:Man.....

[shippo]

It depends if the copyright has expired. I'm not sure about the US copyright laws, but in the UK sheet music rights expire 70 years after the composer's death, at the end of the calendar year. So if your songs were very much historical they may be OK.

As Elgar, Delius and Holst all died in 1934, the original scores of their entire works expired at the end of last year. However if someone edits a score to include corrections (which can happen) the copyright expires 70 years after the editor's death. So any of their works that have been corrected by someone else will still probably be in copyright.

Re:Man.....

[DavidTC]

But that's gibberish. If you're looking for the name and artist, you aren't going to page through all the sheets to find them.

And if you are, there is absolutely no reason to then buy the sheet music. You have learned what you were trying to learn the second you find the right sheet.

So all you're doing is wasting everyone's time. They still wouldn't get any money.

The only way they'd make money is, as you suggest, people who wanted to learn the name and artist just went down and purchases sheets randomly, without looking at them, until they hit on the right one. That does not seem like a very likely plan of action.

Re:Man.....

[DavidTC]

Exactly.

There might be a tiny bit of infringement that lyrics are enabling. People might download them and perform their works without compensation.

Of course, anyone who can copy the music by ear can probably copy the lyrics too. Or they could buy the sheet music and no performance rights.

Meanwhile, these 'illegal' covers are promoting the original band, and if the cover band gets big, they'll purchase the rights, or someone will catch on.

Of course, if the theory is, without printed music, no one can ever sing the music, they've just shot themselves in the torso. Because, if that were true, no one would ever buy performance rights, because they don't know how well they can sing the damn song.

I am not a musician, but I am sure that every single person who has ever paid to sing someone's song has first attempted singing it at least once before paying for it, if only to themselves. Probably many times. It would be really stupid to pay for the rights to sing it, and then discover that they don't really like it.

Re:Man.....

[shawb]

But if you can find the music that you actually like to listen to, you might buy music that's not RIAA approved.

Umm... tinfoil hat off. This isn't the RIAA, it's the MPA, which is a consortium of sheet music publishers. I would imagine that they paid the musicians or record companies money for the privilege of being able to publish the music, and the sheet music was probably double checked for accuracy by the IP holder.

One big problem with sheet music is that is has been mostly irrelevant since jazz came around. The subtleties of volume change, pitch bending and tempo swing which make most jazz and post jazz music alive are just not amenable to transcription. Basically you can't write down a groove or anything funky.

Re:Man.....

[Mooga]

All the songs where definetly NOT older then 70 years. Lots of the songs where about WWII and 'Nom if I remember correctly. This happened probably over 3 years ago and I can't remember. Infact the paper probably died with my old computer ages ago (when I was kinda n00bish :X)

Re:Man.....

[SeanDuggan]

Of course, if the theory is, without printed music, no one can ever sing the music, they've just shot themselves in the torso. Because, if that were true, no one would ever buy performance rights, because they don't know how well they can sing the damn song.

I am not a musician, but I am sure that every single person who has ever paid to sing someone's song has first attempted singing it at least once before paying for it, if only to themselves. Probably many times. It would be really stupid to pay for the rights to sing it, and then discover that they don't really like it.

You do realize that one doesn't have to buy a performance license per song, right? As long as the venue you're at (county fair, bar, etc) has the rights to air the music in question (typical licenses allow all songs within a catalog with BMI and ASCAP sharing the market 50/50), you can perform it all you like. And if you're not performing in a business venue or for money, you can sing all you like. They haven't shut that down (yet...). Now, to stamp CDs of your cover, or sell digital copies, then you need a Mechanical License or Digital License and the price comes per unit, per song. It's about 9 cents per song per unit, often cheaper if you negotiate with the companies. You can license it at that rate whether they like it or not.

Lyrics, on the other hand, are more controlled. Publishing the lyrics themselves in a book or on a CD+G requires permission from the owner of the lyrics, who may not be the music owner. And they can refuse to grant you the right. Interesting situation, eh?

Re:Man.....

[pipingguy]

It's all about squeezing the last possible penny out of copyrighted material. Apparently, the TV show Freaks and Geeks cannot be released on DVD because of music licensing issues.

Instead of thinking, "Hey, this might generate more interest in the music", they think, "It's mine, mine, mine!".

As for people providing lyrics to songs and getting slapped for it, that is the ultimate insult.

Morons.

Re:Man.....

[Buran]

File a lawsuit. They hacked your computer and caused damage and lost time. They should be compensating you for their illegal actions. Say, a shiny new top of the line computer sounds nice, eh? Plus punitive damages?

Re:Man.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit sometimes I don't know what the heck an artist is saying, so I look up lyrics on the interweb to figure it out. Usually the lyrics are posted on the artists own web site?

Re:Man.....

[soupdevil]

Lyrics can be harvested from those sites and added to pirated mp3s to increase the value of those pirated mp3s, and make it less likely that a person will feel the need to buy the CD with lyric sheet.

Re:Man.....

[Ledgem]

If you catch even a snippet of a song, you can find the title and artist easily by putting the words you heard into Google. If you have the title and artist, you can buy the CD, sure; but you can also download the song now. If you only heard the song, there's a chance that you'll recognize the artist. The RIAA doesn't care if you know what that particular song is, because they want you to buy the whole CD. If you want to find out what CD it's on, you'll go into the store and listen to the samples. Now you're in the store: you're probably going to buy something. Maybe something else will catch your eye as well. Remember, the RIAA is still pretty firmly against using the internet as a means of distribution, it would seem.

Remove the lyric sites, and you're making it just a bit harder for people to effectively utilize P2P networks to get what they want. This is more of an informational war, and I think it's one of the RIAA's smarter legal moves. I disagree with it, but this one is intelligent. They're starting to target the process that the consumers are using, rather than the broad networks and the consumers themselves.

Re:Man.....

[microbox]

What POSSIBLE benefit can they see in shutting something down that has a primary use of helping people to identify and purchase their product? Really, it just seems like madness

Lyrics sites are invaluable for many musicians - I always thought that was their primary purpose. These guys have no feeling for music, and since that's their living, that means they have no soul.

As a musician...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a musician i have only one thing to say:
Fuck you, music industry.

Re:As a musician...

[unfunk]

as a Composer, I wholeheartedly agree with the afore-mentioned sentiment.

Re:As a musician...

[littlecharva]

I concur, and I'll bet that most of the young bands around today learned to play guitar the same way I did: by downloading tab from the internet.

Re:As a musician...

[somersault]

me meee I did that. Though everyone in my band plays the guitar too so I play drums now :) These guys wont be happy until they have all the money in the world, and then they'll probably take away our hearts for having the same BPM as some of their songs..

Re:As a musician...

[Havenwar]

As a listener I can say that it is well fucked already.

What, can't you see it? The music industry with a grumpy fresh woken smile and that "bedroom hair" and all? Perhaps it has just not really noticed how properly focked it is.

And why can I so boldly proclaim the downfall of the music industry? Because sooner or later, history tells us, all companies that refuse to adopt to modern techniques and more importantly to the needs and wants of their modern customers, will fall... and fall hard.

Smaller companies pop up, offer better service, and down come the giants.

Re:As a musician...

[cryfreedomlove]

Well then, Havenware. What's stopping you? I'm assuming that your better service, based on free everything, will be launched by you any day now. I can't wait.

Re:As a musician...

[pilgrim23]

I also am a musician, published even, and I TOTALLY AGREE. I own one song of mine from 20 plus years back which I posted on the wem for download FREE so the Music Industry can go play squat tag on the nearest broken promise.

In the Middle Ages the Church controlled all writing. Easy to do, they had all the scribes. Thne the printing press changed the world. In reponse, the Church threatened to excommunicate anyone in pocession of an unauthorized press. The more things change, the more they don't..

Re:As a musician...

[Anonymous Coward]

"..all the money in the world..."?

Can I watch when they finally get around to battle with B. Gates? I think it'd be something to see.

Re:As a musician...

[zlogic]

Only on Slashdot a Fuck You post gets modded 5, Insightful.

Re:As a musician...

[pintpusher]

Damn, I'm old. I learned to play guitar by recording songs off the radio onto...

wait for it...

cassette tape(!), and then playing it over and over and over while desperately trying to find that one missing note. ah well, I should have waited a decade or so and done it the easy way :p

Re:As a musician...

[Havenwar]

What's stopping me? Doctors orders actually. My brain wasn't built quite like yours, so where you seem to be good at spurting sarcasm and bitter words when people suggest ideas you don't quite comprehend, I'm good at getting ideas and drawing up plans, but not so good at all the social work that needs to be done to put them in action.

In this case such a service would require social contacts with artists, pr people, and of course customers, not to mention web developers and software developers. I could draw up a plan for you, but it seems like a lot of wasted time for someone so bitter. I don't think the pr people woudl enjoy that. Not to mention you misspelled my name, that's just not nice.

Re:As a musician...

[Homebrewed]

As a musician, I also don't get this. One of the reasons I go out on the net is to get lyrics for songs that I might want to cover. If I get the lyrics and cover the song at a show, the author gets paid royalties. If I should happen to get lucky and record the song, and it gets played on the radio and/or sells lots of records, the author of the song makes megabucks.

When lyrics are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...only outlaws will sing.

Re:When lyrics are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll have to buy the lyrics from their cold dead hands......

Idiots

[jocknerd]

Nothing more to say.

One question:

[Vengeance]

Who in the HELL ever buys sheet music for lyrics?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Didn't think so.

Re:One question:

[Cyberax]

I'm not a native English speaker, so sometimes I need to read lyrics just to understand a song.

Having said that, I don't think lyrics are usefull WITHOUT the song itself. So if I download lyrics it means I've already bought this song. And there is no way I'm going to buy lyrics separately.

Re:One question:

[Vengeance]

Hehe. Being a native speaker of English doesn't necessarily mean that one can understand the lyrics for any given song!

Re:One question:

[mebob]

This is very true. Most of the time nothing more than a refernce when learning or playing the music. Most poeple looking up lyrics sure as hell aren't doing so they can perform the song. I'm a resonable person, but if you want me to like you bands and buy thier CD's and merchendise stop alienating me!!! It's thing like this that have made millions decide that stealing music isn't really wrong.

Re:One question:

[jcorno]

Music classes and choirs. My high school choir did a great rendition of "Fuck the Police." There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

Re:One question:

[Vengeance]

Are they not buying it for the musical staves as well?

I'm talking about laying out four or five bucks (or whatever sheet music costs these days) solely in order to obtain the lyrics for a song.

While I've certainly enjoyed getting lyrics I didn't know as serendipitous acquisitions after obtaining songbooks and such, I'd certainly never bother buying sheet music for the sole purpose of getting the words.

Re:One question:

[th3space]

See the following bands for proof: Deerhoof, The Fiery Furnaces and Coheed & Cambria.

Re:One question:

[dpilot]

Just keep in mind that EVERY TIME someone goes to a place like Lyrics World to find the words to a song, that's revenue deprived of some poor, starving songwriter. That's because EVERY TIME someone wanted those words to a song, if places like Lyrics World hadn't existed, they would have hopped right into the car and driven to their local music (not Record/Tape/CD) store to buy a copy of the sheet music. There's NO SUCH THING as casually wondering what the words to a song are - there's only thieving and conniving to deprive starving songwriters of the ability to feed their poor children.

Clearly this move is going to enhance my enjoyment of music, and make me want to buy more.

Re:One question:

[70Bang]

Who in the HELL ever buys sheet music for lyrics?

Prospective musicians who need something to do because no one left a section of the newspaper behind to read. And when they're done, it serves a second purpose.

Seriously, though.

I've mentioned the individual song sales before. The long-term economics of low-cost singles are not in the best interest of RIAA et alia. Prices will continue to rise and people will return to bootlegging ripped material.

If a CD has thirteen tracks and sells for $13us, each track is being sold for $1us. Unless you're a diehard fan, if you could limit the songs you purchase to those you have heard & like (usually "singles", because that's what everyone hears on the radio), you're going pay less than the $13us. In the case of iTunes, is how it works. You like four tunes, you buy them at $0.99us and paid $3.96us. The same production work|cost has been invested but the CD sales aren't what they were expected, although the singles may be selling well; again, iTunes.

To use the logic of Microsoft (or any software company, but particularly them, as they make the loudest noice), RIAA, or MPAA, those are "[guaranteed] lost sales". Were it not for the ability to purchase iTunes for $0.99us, people would have to buy those CDs. These singles are stealing their profitability.

I agree it's just a matter of time before RIAA takes a dirt bath. Some artists have already seen the writing on the wall and are being smart. Others (when their contracts end), are going to find out they don't need: RIAA or someone like Sony BMG to hose up PCs - we now have two software issues on their discs - how many more are there? And they can work with a production company and push their songs online. Faithful fans will reward them.

RIAA sucks and they know it. They're trying to flex their muscles so everyone they represent will think they're big & strong and necessary.

Face it RIAA: people are starting to realize you don't wear clothes.

Re:One question:

[Spy der Mann]

And being an native speaker of English doesn't necessarily mean you can sing understandable songs! :)

Example: Madonna

As heard on the radio:
"?ai? ?oes?ai? ... so s?l?l?y"

Which could be interpreted as:

"Can't do spice... so silly"

But in reality, what she meant to say was:

"Time goes by... so slowly"

And perhaps an appropriate expression for this would be:

(t|c)(i|ai)(me|n)(t|) (g|d|b)o.? s(p|b)(i|ai)(ce|s|) so s.?(l|)+(i|y)

AH HAH! I get it now! They made the singers sing that way to ENCRYPT their lyrics! Darn, the RIAA is smarter than we thought :(

Re:One question:

[Gryle]

As evidence by Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or The Kingsmen's" Louie Louie".

Re:One question:

[Vengeance]

Oooh, so technically, deciphering lyrics is a DMCA violation, too!

Re:One question:

[WebCrapper]

Even then, lyrics and all that don't sound right a lot of the times. My wife is in a professional band (ie: a real 40 piece band). Some of the stuff they buy sounds so horrible once they play it (Usually due to the arrangement), they literally give it away to the local high school.

I still can't believe the music industry honestly thinks that suing their customers is going to make them more profitable.

I can also successfully say I haven't bought more than 4 CD's in the last 5 years. I really loose respect for a lot of artists that cannot sing worth cat piss live, but the music industry has doctored them up to sound perfect. I know no one is perfect, but dear god - we have some people that are freakin tone deaf singing professionally!

Re:One question:

[guitaristx]

Just keep in mind that EVERY TIME someone goes to a place like Lyrics World to find the words to a song, that's revenue deprived of some poor, starving songwriter. That's because EVERY TIME someone wanted those words to a song, if places like Lyrics World hadn't existed, they would have hopped right into the car and driven to their local music (not Record/Tape/CD) store to buy a copy of the sheet music. There's NO SUCH THING as casually wondering what the words to a song are - there's only thieving and conniving to deprive starving songwriters of the ability to feed their poor children.

-- Says the RIAA executive, from his leather chair with heat and massage, while lounging in a $5,000 dollar suit, smoking a cigar lit from a one-hundred-dollar bill.

Re:One question:

[thrills33ker]

Dude, get a new radio.

Re:One question:

[MurkyWater]

I have to disagree with you. Usually when I look up a lyric to a song, I'm doing so for the purpose of finding out the name of the song, for the purposes of purchasing the song. If I can't find out the name, then the music industry just lost a sale. The other times when I look up a lyric, it's to figure out a word or phrase to a song that I don't understand. If lyric sites didn't exist, I would continue to go without knowing what the song says. I wouldn't rush out to the store to buy the lyrics/sheet music. Hell, I wouldn't even casually walk to the store. Lyrics are something that don't matter to me. It's all about the music.

Remember this next time you make a generalization: All generalizations are false.

Re:One question:

[dpilot]

Nifty .sig reference to metasyntactic, I'd never heard of the term, before. I guess everyone's going to have some favorites missing on the list, like Fred and Ethel. (I'd hold them as distinct from Fred and Barney, and not complain about just Ethel being missing, because in that context one should complain about Wilma and Betty.) As for Qux, Quux, Quuux, ... , clearly a Lisp origination.

I don't think MurkyWater recognized my grandparent-post as satire.

Re:One question:

[pfrCalif]

Wow, that's either more sarcasm than I can comfortably handle, or utterly missing the point. Either way very enjoyable!

Re:One question:

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree. Every time I have looked up lyrics (maybe seven or eight so far) I would have gladly paid 3 million dollars for them. So my acts have already cost them 21 to 24 million dollars.

The level of remorse I am feeling cannot be described with words. Jail time isn't what I deserve, I should probably just be shot or forced into indentured servitude or slavery. That would put a stop to my larcenous behavior.

Re:One question:

[pla]

If lyric sites didn't exist, I would continue to go without knowing what the song says. I wouldn't rush out to the store to buy the lyrics/sheet music. Hell, I wouldn't even casually walk to the store.

Well, in fairness, if I just happend to pass a store with sheet music in the course of my daily travels, I might have stopped in to look up a lyric...

Of course, I wouldn't ever buy the sheet music just to satisfy a minor point of curiosity, but I might stop it and take a quick peek to figure out a confusing phrase...

Yeah, yeah - Call me a thief. And I sometimes read the tabloids while waiting too long in line at the supermarket.

Re:One question:

[Anonymous Coward]

"As evidence by Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit""

What do you mean? It clearly says "Here we are now, in containers. Raising chickens wearing trainers" Are you deaf?

Re:One question:

[Andrewkov]

I wouldn't pay for just lyrics. I play guitar in a semi-pro cover band, and I use these lyric sites a lot, it will be rather annoying to have these sites shut down, not to mention the free sheet music sites. Obviously I can figure out the lyrics and music by ear, but it takes longer. When you have to learn 50 songs in a hurry, every bit helps.

I wonder how long until my band gets sued for playing these songs in public.

Re:One question:

[NulDevice]

Being a native english speaker, I've had to look up the lyrics so I could sing those turkish, russian, and panjabi songs.

No, I'm not kidding.

Re:One question:

[Esion Modnar]

Oooh, so technically, deciphering lyrics is a DMCA violation, too!

Yeah, and so is misinterpreting them. (Excuse me, while I kiss this guy.)

Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Afecks]

I fail to see how protecting lyrics is a big deal when most songs consist of "oooh", "uhh" and "yeah". Can you really copyright grunts?

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Response from Lil' Jon:

WHAT?! AH-WHAT?!

OH-KAY!

And all this is just to get past the lameness filter, because I think having that in caps is appropriate.

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[God'sDuck]

Can you really copyright grunts?

dude, you can copyright SILENCE..

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Xarius]

You'll find out in three days when your cease-and-desist arrives! ;)

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Shadow99_1]

I gotta say that sounds more like you listen to a lot of porn... ;)

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Harley Davidson's low rumbling engine noise is protected.

Besides, if people know the lyrics, they're more likely to get up on stage on karaoke night.

(please don't call it carry-okay - look at the spelling and explain how "kara" becomes "carry". If you want to get reasonably close, try "kadda-okay")


Speaking of rap, three areas of life which I discovered from independent sources which happen to involve a cutoff of age nineteen: smoking, drinking coffee, rap music; i.e. if you haven't developed a taste for those things by the time you're nineteen, you're in a very, very small minority to start later in life.

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[salzbrot]

> Can you really copyright grunts?
oooh?
uhh...yeah!

BTW: this post is copyrighted!

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Gleng]

You forgot "Uh-huh!", "Like that!", and "That's right!"

Yep, I think that pretty much covers it.

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[MooUK]

This reminded me of something:

At an open mic night we run, we do/did have a couple of regulars who we call Metal Guy and Nu-Metal Guy. The latter is the backing vocals. He actually brought LYRICS for his grunitng for months.

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[lionheart1327]

Can you really copyright grunts?

Oh yeah. Just ask the porn industry.

Re:Maybe I listen to too much rap but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, your momma's in trouble, oh yeah.

(Just playin' the dozens... *chuckle*)

(But no, seriously, I nailed your mom. Sorry, dude).

Lawsuits ad nauseum

[SisyphusShrugged]

Talk about lawsuit happy...can there really be that much money in song lyrics and sheet music?!?

Reminds me of that South Park episode, "Now Britney wont be able to buy her third caribbean island, all because of you evil children and your selfish downloading of music!"

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Moby Cock]

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

It spins them right round, baby, right round, like a record, baby, right round, round, round.

Aaaahhhhh! Illegal lyrics, Slashdot is doomed!

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Zocalo]

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

I hope so, because if they get their way then that will be the only way future listeners of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" will have of finding out whether Bealzebub really does have a devil for a sideboard...

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

Yeah, about that... I wanted to set one up, but they sued me over my choice of 'entertainment' there. Apparently I'm supposed to pay for that music stuff they subject on you guys.

I swear, maybe I should stop torturing the lawyers long enough to sick 'em on these guys...

-Satan

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

I certainly hope so, as I don't want those arseholes in my hell :(

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

Your username and post make this link necessary:

http://www.meatspin.com/

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

"...can there really be that much money in song lyrics and sheet music?!?"

It's my brother's fault!! Let's go get him!!

Uhhh, Ahh, Well, maybe not.

After all, he makes some of his living from selling his sheet music.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[J-Doggqx]

I heard the next phase is a crackdown on people singing along to music in their cars and showers.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Tom]

I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics.

And I hope your faith in the afterworld doesn't prevent you from taking action against this insanity now and here. Stop letting the pope tell you to accept it all because things will be better later. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. You should act as if they won't, because that is the "erring on the side of caution" option here.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[gullevek]

gosh. twice the link on the same day. what about a good old goatysex? nope, all has to be moving now!

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Necromancyr]

I thought it was "You spin me right round, baby, right round, like a record, baby, right round, Ground Round." Never did understand it.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am absolutely certain there is a special ring of hell reserved for these RIAA goons and their SCO-like tactics."

Yeah, they get to listen to their own music.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Moby Cock]

I took a bit of license to make it fit with the idea of a ring of hell spinning (right round, baby, like a record...)

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[LanimilbusLE]

I hope so, because if they get their way then that will be the only way future listeners of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" will have of finding out whether Bealzebub really does have a devil for a sideboard...

Mama, just found a song,
Put a search in on the net,
Clicked my trigger, then I read,
Mama, life had just begun,
But now I've gone and thrown it all away-
Mama ooo,
Didn't mean to make you cry-
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow-
Carry on,carry on,as if nothing really matters-

Then the MPA sings...
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go!

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's a bathroom on the right. That's far more important information.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Eravnrekaree]

I think the notion of prosecuting the sharing of lyrics is quite ridiculous and actually could be harmful to the record labels. Often if I hear a song, I will attempt to find the name of the song by typing the lyrics into Google and doing a search. In the results several web sites come up with the full song and the author and title of the song. Then I can go purchase the song from itunes or whatever. I will now no longer be able to find the names of the songs that I have heard easily.

I think the music industries attempt to cripple technology is also insane. File sharing and other other innovations should not be hindered for they do have legitimate uses, and people should have the right to make as many copies of something that has legally come into their posession as they wish for their private use.

The music industry is partly itself to blame for the illegal sharing of music online. For years they refused to allow consumers to for a reasonable way purchase and download music online, which is what people wanted. So many resorted to peer to peer networks, which are not specifically designed for illegal sharing and have many legitimate uses. Some are finally starting to wake up and realise that if they provide a reasonably priced service, people will not have as much of an excuse to resort to sharing music, and people will have a legitamate way to download music without infringing.

-----
Stop male and female genital mutilation of children and unconsenting persons --
http://mgmbill.org/faq.htm

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Total_Wimp]

So do you know:

The first line to LA Woman, by The Doors?

The lyrics that follow "Blinded by the light.." in the Bay City Rollers/Manfred Mann/Bruce Spingsteen song "Blinded by the light"?

I've heard the answer to both, and they make sense, but it was fun being very confused for a number of years :-)

TW

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[NtroP]

...finding out whether Bealzebub really does have a devil for a sideboard...

A devil for a sideboard...? I thought is was "a devil set aside for me".

Damn! If only I could look up the Lyrics!

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

Satan, dude...

*Make* the lawyers torture the RIAA suits.

Sell CDs, and videos.

Surefire hit.

Reverse above, release for next xmas.

Re:Lawsuits ad nauseum

[smeenz]

Speaking of which, is SCO dead yet ?.. their website still seems to be up and running.. can't for the life of me imagine how or why it's still there.

That's stupid

[MarcoPon]

It seems that they are in a quest to prove everyday to the world that they are even more stupid than previously supposed to be.

Re:That's stupid

[grub]

Yep, this will just drive "lyric-ju4r3z" onto P2P. And you can fit a lot of lyrics in a RAR file the size of the average MP3 song. ie.: "RollingStones-DiscographyAllLyrics.rar" would roll in under a meg or 2 I bet.

Re:That's stupid

[funkatron]

It's incredibly stupid since lyric and tab sites can lead (eventually) to more income for the songwriters, both from people who use the sites to find out the name of a song to buy and from bands learning the songs and performing them live (they have to pay songwriting royalties, usually handled by some sort of entertainment license for the venue)

Yep

[Kythe]

Really great plan. Take out sites that are probably used by many people (I am also one) to track down songs to buy.

These guys never met a good business plan or marketing scheme they didn't want to sue out of existence. The only reason they've survived this long is that they've been the only game in town.

Artists are already discovering that they can afford home studios and to self-publish their songs online, which (as recent studies indicate) helps market the small-time bands. I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business.

Re:Yep

[Evan Meakyl]

I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business or will be healthy because of biased laws and active lobbying.

Re:Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business."
They mean the same thing, moron.

Re:Yep

[Ithika]

"gotten out of the business" != "gone out of business"

Re:Yep

[radu124]

> I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies
> will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business.

I hope for this, but it won't happen.

I hope for it not for personal benefit but only to prove that natural selection still works. If they are stupid they deserve to die.

The reason it won't happen is because it's too much money involved. There are too many people interested in keeping them alive.

Re:Yep

[EvilBudMan]

--I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business.--

Nah, they'l still be making money off of Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and stuff like that.

Re:Yep

[Supersonic1425]

Not if they sue everyone else out of the game before that.

I think this is ludicrous. How can they get away with it? What next? Will they make guitars illegal because they allow people to play copyrighted songs?

When I used to play guitar, I used tabs to help me learn songs that I had already bought. The same applies to lyrics. No matter how hard I think about this, I still can't see how tablature/lyrics would ever negatively affect the sales of music.

"Hey, did you check out that band's new song?"
"No, I learned it on guitar and sing it myself instead."
"Bad-ASS!"

Re:Yep

[fireweaver]

Kythe (4779) wrote: "Artists are already discovering that they can afford home studios and to self-publish their songs online, which (as recent studies indicate) helps market the small-time bands. I'm thinking that within 10-20 years, the RIAA companies will either be defunct or will have gotten out of the business."

Third possibility: Aggressive lobbying and under the table political contributions result in the creation of an agency under whose supervision and involvement all music business must be carried out. Making, selling, listening, etc.

Re:Yep

[TheoMurpse]

Has any historical research been done as to the increase in resentment towards the music industry? I mean, there are obvious reasons why it exists now, but when did people start hating the industry? Was it when companies like ClearChannel started consolidating the broadcast industry and decreased the variety available on the radio?

Was it when regional music stations began dying?

I'd really like to see some research done as to the history of resentment towards the industry.

Did people think The Four Tops sold out when they began making records with Motown? What about with Arista?

When did these feelings actually start. If someone knows of research being done, please let me know. I think it'd be a great insight into the regression of music.

Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a site that has a guitar tab to a song with the lyrics on it...is that unauthorized/unlicensed material that will now become "illegal"? That's just horrible if it's true. How much longer can these crazy corporations before they finally shoot themselves in both feet and fall down?

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[gowen]

Those of us who are ancient will remember that that's happened before. In the mid-1990s, the Harry Fox Agency (IIRC) threatened to sue the OnLine Guitar Archive (OLGA) for illegally reproducing lyrics without permission. Many lyrics were partially excised as a result, but the threatened death of online guitar resources failed to happen...

So if you ever get a tab sheet were you get the first word of a line and a sequence of dots instead of the lyrics, now you know why.

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[chiller2]

I don't see how it could be, because 99% of the tabs you'll find online are interpretations of the song by others rather than by the original artist, thus they are not the same.

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they only show part of the lyrics its not copyright infringement? Google books search is not copyright infringement - Is there a difference?

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[gowen]

Google books search is not copyright infringement

Interesting assertion. Still, I think it's better to wait until after the case has been litigated before revealing the result.

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[xtracto]

Bah, dont worry, the only thing they will get is that the next
BritneySpears.FuckMeHard.ReleasedByDevil.mp3.192.r ar Emule file will include the lyrics.
This will give more value to the illegal versions of the music (because they will have lyrics, covers and non-DRM music against no-lyrics-booklet, DRM-and-what-not CD).

And of course, for those of you who do not know, it is possible to download text files or any other kind of files from emule, so I guess if they start to close the Lyrics/Tabs networks, we will start seeing lyrics .txt files on the mule. (I have seen mysongbook powertab tabs already there IIRC).

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[monktus]

Fair Use is very subjective and usually not enshrined in law unless it's for comment or parody, so showing part of the lyrics still has the potential for litigation. To be honest, lyrics sites do publish copyrighted material without permission so technically they're fair game. However I don't believe that this next round of lawsuits will do the image of the MPA, or the music industry in general any favours, and I agree with most of the posters so far in that it's a bit ridiculous. Again, it's interesting to see that this is the American MPA kicking things off; I wonder if the UK body will do the same?

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[Millard Fillmore]

Ah, yes. I actually still have the t-shirt I bought to support OLGA's legal defense in the Harry Fox matter. As long as the lyrics weren't with the tabs, they were OK with it, correct?

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[gowen]

That's freaky. You post a link to OLGA and my name (nearly) at the top (I'm Gareth Owen, not Owens, but that is me they're refering to). Grrrrr...

Re:Will this pertain to TAB sites too?

[conJunk]

Wow. I didn't realize that qualified me as "ancient". I've got *heaps* of tabs from OLGA that still have the full lyrics. When that stuff started happening, I grabbed as much as I could. Of course, the new ones sans full lyrics aren't much less usefull, and still containt about all the information you need to have a decent go of the song.

Call Oberlin!

[Puhase]

All music conservatories must now be shut down as they are producing students capable of transposing music from just listening to it and therefore becoming music pirates. I wonder if the people who own the sounds studios have the copyright for things like the sound a river makes. If so, our national parks are in danger of a lawsuit!

Re:Call Oberlin!

[rawwa.venoise]

you're funny but it might be trought. Imagine that conservatories now must pay RIAA for the right to teach children to play electric guitar. With all the scores protected by IP laws you can't teach people to play metal, blues and rock.

Lucky for us that at least lots of music has been produced in the past and has been falling in the public domain.

Perhaps this will be the dead of POP and ROCK and all sort of teenager music groups as there will be no more musicians capable of playing an electric guitar.

Re:Call Oberlin!

[God'sDuck]

Perhaps this will be the death of POP and ROCK and all sort of teenager music groups as there will be no more musicians capable of playing an electric guitar.

pish - that happened years ago and didn't slow them down a bit!

A crying shame...

[bcarl314]

Back in the good old days, I recall printing out the lyrics to "It's the end of the world as we know it" by REM from gophernet. Ah, how times have changed. Seems like everyone and their brother were downloading lyrics back then. I suppose these companies should go after the U of Minn since they never cracked down on the practice (other than saying you were limited to printing 10 pages per hour from the computer labs).

hmm..

[somersault]

I wonder why suicide is on the rise.. surely the world is always becoming a better place?

Re:hmm..

[digitalcaffeine]

Because suicide is painless, it brings on many changes

Re:hmm..

[somersault]

ah yes, good point. When I hung myself while firing a nailgun through my temple and chopping through my neck with a chainsaw, it didnt hurt at all. The only thing that brought me back was the warm fuzzy feeling in my soul remembering all the acts of love brought into the world by the RIAA.

Re:hmm..

[digitalcaffeine]

ummm... i was quoting lyrics from a song. Sorry for confusion.

Re:hmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

One of you doesn't understand sarcasm.

Damned if I can figure out which one of you it is though.

Re:hmm..

[Andrewkov]

I would post the lyrics to "Suicide Solution" by Ozzy Osbourne, but I'm scared of getting sued...

Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[digitaldc]

Great, now people will be writing about Jimi Hendrix singing "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" in Purple Haze and Creedence Clearwater Revival singing "There's a bathroom on the right" in 'Bad Moon Rising'

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[cosam]

My personal favourite remains Marvin Gaye's "Central Heating", closely followed by "Slow Running Water" from Deep Purple.

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[Gleng]

I remember reading on a misheard lyrics website a few years ago, that someone misheard the lyrics to Smoke on the Water as:

"Slow Motion Walter, the fire engine guy."

Ah here it is: http://www.amiright.com/misheard/artist/deeppurple .shtml

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[LoadWB]

http://kissthisguy.com/

Check it out. I think I saw the link here before, in fact. It is a great site, if a little difficult to navigate.

This site (obviously, perhaps) falls under fair use, but I wonder if the RIAA will put this on its list. I mean, the site has money generating ads and unlicensed excerpts of the real lyrics. I am sure the RIAA will ignore that 1) the bandwidth, hosting, et al needs to be paid for and 2) the RIAA is receiving FREE promotion of its wares.

How about this: lyrics sites respond by sending the RIAA invoices for promotional fees.

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[shreevatsa]

Just today, I was looking at http://www.amiright.com/misheard/ and http://www.iusedtobelieve.com/music/misheard_lyric s/misheard_lyrics_s1.php, for misheard lyrics. (Believe it or not, I once heard Celine Dion sing "I'm Alive", and I thought she was saying "When you masturbate...", but it turns out she was trying to say "When you bless the day" :) )
Will these sites (which only offer one-line "corrections" (but are also very amusing to read)) also be forced to shut down / go to jail?

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[zenmojodaddy]

In a similar vein, has anyone else ever thought that Queen sing 'Beelzebub has a devil of a sideboard... EEEE' in Bohemian Rhapsody? Or that John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John croon 'You're the one that I want, you are a vol-au-vent'?

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, I once heard Celine Dion sing "I'm Alive", and I thought she was saying...
Yeah, I can't believe you heard Celine Dion! Why would anyone do that?

Will these sites ... also be forced to shut down / go to jail?
I'm sure the sites won't be forced to go to jail!

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[Zog The Undeniable]

From the same song, "Spare him his life from these pork sausages".

My wife thought until quite recently that the chorus to Dido's "White Flag" was "I will go down with this shit".

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[kook44]

"I tell you to end your [enjoy] life. I wish I could, but I'm too late." -Ozzy

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[geobeck]

AC/DC: "Dirty deeds, done with sheep..."

Beatles: "...the girl with colitis goes by."

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[barkingcorndog]

Great, now people will be writing about Jimi Hendrix singing "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy" in Purple Haze

Oddly enough, I have a live recording of Jimi where he actually does say, "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy". I Can't remember the name of the box set it came from.

Re:Lyrics needed for Beach Boys "Goodbye Raisins"

[qzulla]

Oddly enough, I have a live recording of Jimi where he actually does say, "'Scuse me while I kiss this guy". I Can't remember the name of the box set it came from.

Naturally.

qz

There wouldn't e a problem if....

[millahtime]

There wouldn't e a problem if the stuff was resonably priced. I would rather have it on cd (higer quality). But, it costs so much. When you look at profits there is a lot of wiggle room. A bunch of flippin rich babies and their cartel.

Please don't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy our music. Music is for making money, not for enjoying! How dare you attempt to gain some sort of pleasure from the audio we worked so hard to sell you. Don't sing along. You will just use the wrong lyrics and sound stupid... Or worst yet, make our music sound stupid. Oh wait... too late. We are stupid!

Fanaticism not only among religious people

[Hinhule]

throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective

Yes, sue the fans and throw them in jail. He was later overheard saying.

That'll show the little bastards and make the other little bastards want to pay through their nose. Now gimme my mirror I want to see my lover.

Re:Fanaticism not only among religious people

[Anonymous Coward]

He was later overheard saying.

That'll show the little bastards and make the other little bastards want to pay through their nose. Now gimme my mirror I want to see my lover.

Which was in turn followed by:

Cooooo! Cooo! COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Poor man...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," This songwriter person must be really poor. They are constantly robbing this guy in alot of stories I've seen on slashdot. I think we could all arrange a fund-raising concert or something so this guy can have a merry Christmas...

Sue This!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a song I just copyrighted.....

DUM DUM DUM DA DUM DUM.... Scr3w the MPA..... DUM DUM DUM DA DUM DUM

Repeat 3x ...Its a death metal song... Underground.... where the MPA should be.

_-FenixAsin-_

Damn it that's not good enough

[squoozer]

Why didn't he just come out and say what he really wanted to say:

"Just prison time! That's not enough! These low life scum deserve nothing more than to be stoned to death (women aren't allowed to partake in the stoning, of course). They have stolen food from the mouths of hungry little children and strangled kittens. Well they would strangle kittens if they could. There probably terrorists as well you know!"

Will common sense ever return to the world? I think not with people like this running things.

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[Vengeance]

Your first mistake is in assuming that common sense was *ever* a part of this world.

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[helmespc]

Jailtime? And I thought throwing junkies in jail was questionable. Come on.... jailtime for web site operators? Joe Website: Whater you in fer? Bubba: I killed a family of 4... Whatchou in fer? Joe Website: Giving out song lyrics online. Butta: Squeal like a pig....

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[SilverspurG]

At no other time in history has the collection of taxes been so automated. In centuries past there was a feedback system of what a fair tax was. That system was governed by how well the people were doing. If the landowner ask for too much there just wasn't any way to take more from the peasants without initiating a physical confrontation. In many cases this was done and peasants were outright killed to intimidate the remainder into reaching deeper into their pockets or, in many cases, signing over into legal debt which could be used against them for all years to follow.

In today's society it is completely automated for them to take us down to our very last dollar. There is no way for us to regulate this. There is no way for the taxpayer to say "No". Most employers require that you submit to taxes or they rescind the job offer. I've heard that the IRS isn't fun to deal with either.

There is no common sense when these humans have a limitless supply of money.

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[SilverspurG]

And I walked over to the bench there, and there's--Group W is where they put you if you may not be MORAL enough to join the army after committin' your special crime.

There was all kinds of mean, nasty and ugly-lookin' people on the bench there --there was mother rapers--father-stabbers, father-rapers! FATHER-RAPERS sittin' right there on the bench next to me!

And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible and crime fightin' guys were sittin' there on the bench, and the meaniest, ugliest, nastiest one--the meanest father-raper of them all--was comin' over to me.

And he was mean and nasty and horrible and all kinds of things, and he sat down next to me. He said, "Kid, what'd you get?"

I said, "I didn't get nothin'. I had to pay fifty dollars and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested FOR, kid?" and I said, "Litterin'."

And they all moved away from me on the bench there, with the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean, nasty things, till I said, "And creatin' a nuisance."

And they all came back, shook my hand and we had a great time on the bench talkin' about crime, mother-stabbin', father-rapin', --all kinds of groovy things that we was talkin' about on the bench, and everything was fine.

Courtesy of this page. I wonder if it's illegal?

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be pretty young then, because there was a time when common sense was considered right and greed was considered wrong.

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[dkleinsc]

The page you linked to is not illegal in the least. It's protected under the right of parody, without which Weird Al Yankovic would have had a rough time.

As far as your post is concerned, I'm not entirely sure who's got the rights to Alice's Restaurant. Given the kind of guy that Arlo Guthrie was, it could easily have been any of these:
1. Arlo
2. Arlo, with a copyright notice similar to the kind his dad liked to use (Sort of a Creative Commons thing)
3. nobody at all
4. Alice
5. Richard M Nixon

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[geobeck]

Are there any P2P'ers in the audience?
Get 'em up against the wall!
And that one with the website, he don't look right;
Get him up against the wall!

And that one uses BitTorrent! He's stealing our songs!
Who let all this riff-raff commit all these wrongs?!
And he's posted lyrics! Look at all he's got!
If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot!

Are copyright owners starting to channel Roger Waters?

Re:Damn it that's not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given the kind of guy that Arlo Guthrie was"

You mean "is". I don't think he died or has really changed much. ;)

Soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be really less risky to do real piratery (read : attack ship on sea, rape, robe/plunder) than do copyright infrigement, matey. For what matters, I think we are anyway way past the point where shoplifting a few CDlend you in less-hot water than downloading the same 15 sond online...

$0.02

[fwice]

Just my personal experience --

but I've bought a ton of cd's by listening to a song on the radio, writing down a random verse, and later googling that phrase to get to one of those cheesy lyric pages. I then can see what the song is, and what artist is making it.

Shut that down and you're gonna lose my sales.

Re:$0.02

[munehiro]

Shut that down and you're gonna lose my sales.

Exactly what they want.

1) shut down lyrics sites
2) sales dropping more due to the problem you reported
3) RIAA complains to the government
4) government provide more draconian and consumer-bashing laws
5) consumers are forced to pay (much more) exploited by new laws, even non actually buying the product
6) profit

Re:$0.02

[JudgeFurious]

Exactly. It's not like radio these days makes any effort to tell you what a song is called or even who performed it most of the time. If it's a band or singer you aren't familiar with then the single fastest way to find out who did and what it's called is to throw a line or two in Google.

  The labels have moved past greedy and stupid. They're on to new territory here with this kind of talk. They're pioneers in the art of customer fucking.

Re:$0.02

[Nate B.]

Excellent point.

On the occasion that I listen to some of the local Hitz stations fed by satellite programming, the dee-jays have this annoying habit of rarely mentioning the name of the song after it's finished although they occasionally mention the artist at the beginning of the song. Mind you, there is isn't much modern music that appeals to my ears these days, but it would be nice to at least know who did that cover of an older song I recognize.

Just like Amazon has never gotten a penny of my money due to their stupid patents from some years back, the RIAA hasn't gotten any of my money since they've really started acting stupid. But then I'm old enough that having the latest hit on an iPod isn't the most important thing in life anymore. ;-)

Re:$0.02

[thempstead]

Its not just hearing songs on the radio ... i've been watching a program on the TV, say a sitcom for instance, and a snippit of music comes on in the background which i've liked.

A quick google and I can usually discover what it is and then i can find out if its available on cd/itunes/whatever ...

Without being able to google it then I'd probably forget about it entirely ....

t

Re:$0.02

[oliderid]

I do exactly what you do.

Sometimes I cannot get the title on the radio . they didn't say it or I wasn't paying attention or I couldn't understand it (English isn't my native tongue).

I guess they will loose a big fraction of my sales too.

Simply think about all these teenagers fans. Englishspeaking and non-englishspeaking looking for the lyrics of their favorite song. Instead of forbidding it, they should consider it as part of their marketing.

Sharing lyrics is as old as the humanity. I'm sure historians will call this period the dark age of music.

Olivier

Re:$0.02

[pintpusher]

dee-jays

Damn, we don't even get dj's around here. Just sequenced crap-o-la from some schmuck with a windows box in some corporate tower. How do I know its a wondows box? You can hear the damn "ping" when the user clicks a greyed out button. Crap.

On the flip side, one of these schlock purveyors actually states the title and artist after every song. I can't tell you how cool that is. Now if only they played some decent music.

jail time?

[geoffrobinson]

I am not for illegal music downloading or for violating copyrights, etc.

However, jail time? That, to me at least, implies that society has been harmed in some measurable and somewhat significant way. Music lyrics? Is this after multiple warning to cease and desist?

Are they profiting off of this?

Obviously, I'm thinking outload here. But the main point is that jailing people is not something we should be deciding willy-nilly based on people from an industry that feels threatened.

It's one thing for them to want the state to help them in regards to illegal activity that affects their business. This is quite another.

Re:jail time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Not only that but it wastes tax payer's money (keeping a person in jail is expensive) on something fankly i doubt many people would want their money to be spent on. Money we give to the goverment to protect and serve us is now being used to screw us over. How lovely. Trying to protect their business model is within their right, however we may dislike it (artist chose to publish under them), but it should not fall onto jail time for the reasons you stated/implied.

Re:jail time?

[archeopterix]

Obviously, I'm thinking outload here. But the main point is that jailing people is not something we should be deciding willy-nilly based on people from an industry that feels threatened.

Heh heh, you might want to look up "William Randolf Hearst" and "marijuana"...

Re:jail time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure thinking 'outload' in public is illegal.

Re:jail time?

[Dhalka226]

Are they profiting off of this?

Very possibly. I don't recall a lyrics site I've been to thus far that didn't have some form of advertising on it.

That said, though, I think a fair trade would be to permit the lyrics to be posted as long as a link to a site where the song can be purchased is included.

This post is the end of Slashdot

[Vokkyt]

cause it will have lyrics from Bohemian Rhapsody in it...which is seemingly appropriate in my mind.

Is this the real life- Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see-
I'm just a poor boy,i need no sympathy-
Because I'm easy come,easy go,
A little high,little low,
Anyway the wind blows,doesn't really matter to me,
To me

Mama,just killed a man,
Put a gun against his head,
Pulled my trigger,now he's dead,
Mama,life had just begun,
But now I've gone and thrown it all away-
Mama ooo,
Didn't mean to make you cry-
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow-
Carry on,carry on,as if nothing really matters-

Too late,my time has come,
Sends shivers down my spine-
Body's aching all the time,
Goodbye everybody-I've got to go-
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth-
Mama ooo- (any way the wind blows)
I don't want to die,
I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all-

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
But I'm just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
He's just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let him go
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go let me go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-

So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye-
So you think you can love me and leave me to die-
Oh baby-can't do this to me baby-
Just gotta get out-just gotta get right outta here-

Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters-,nothing really matters to me,

Any way the wind blows....

Re:This post is the end of Slashdot

[se7en11]

Sorry you're not allowed to say "No,no,no,no,no,no,no-". It's copywritten by the RIAA.

Re:This post is the end of Slashdot

[Androclese]

*Commence Headbanging in a Wayne's World-esque manner*

Re:This post is the end of Slashdot

[Transmogrify_UK]

This seems somewhat relevant as well. I'm not sure how, but lets just say it is.

"Baby One More Time"

Oh baby, baby
Oh baby, baby Oh baby, baby
How was I supposed to know
That something wasn't right here
Oh baby baby
I shouldn't have let you go
And now you're out of sight, yeah
Show me, how you want it to be
Tell me baby
'Cause I need to know now what we've got

[CHORUS:]
My loneliness is killing me
I must confess, I still believe
When I'm not with you I lose my mind
Give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time

Oh baby, baby
The reason I breathe is you
Boy you got me blinded
Oh baby, baby
There's nothing that I wouldn't do
That's not the way I planned it
Show me, how you want it to be
Tell me baby
'Cause I need to know now what we've got

[Repeat CHORUS]

Oh baby, baby
Oh baby, baby
Ah, yeah, yeah
Oh baby, baby
How was I supposed to know
Oh pretty baby
I shouldn't have let you go
I must confess, that my loneliness
Is killing me now
Don't you know I still believe
That you will be here
And give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time

[Repeat CHORUS]

I must confess that my loneliness
Is killing me now
Don't you know I still believe
That you will be here
And give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time

frustrated

[milamber3]

I think this is the music industries equivalent of "kicking the dog" to get out their frustrations about not being able to even put a dent in p2p.

SSSSH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth Anony Coward: "Smart people use IRC or "Us...t"

SSSH!! There aren't very many of us and we would like to keep it that way. If you are in the know, good. But don't spread it. kthnx.

BTW, good point about the popups and stuff on music sites. Whoever modded parent troll needs to rethink his groupthink.

Re:SSSSH!!

[DavidTC]

That thing besides IRC that you mentioned is about the only way to get complete albums, and mostly the only way to get rare and bootleg stuff, although there are a few obscure p2p places too.

I am glad...

[The Clash Man]

I am glad that they are doing this. Perhaps this will finally let people see that this has gone to far. That groups like the MPA and *AA have exceeded their bounds and are just being asinine. Maybe now things like this will come to an end.

Off with their heads!

[penguin-collective]

Just imagine how much more effective of a deterrent it would be if we simply guillotine those music fans who dare post song lyrics on the Internet! Off with their heads, I say!

Make Room

[Dareth]

I guess we need to make room in the jails.

The MPA is demanding jail time for the maintainers of websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics.

Time to let all the copyright honoring murderers out of jail to make room. After all, the people they killed probably illegally downloaded music!

Society knows who the "real criminals" are.

Re:Make Room

[plusser]

I think we are going to have problems, as only the record executives are the only not breaking the law.

Maybe I should write a sort song, using some typical sentences from a legal document. Then I should sue everybody that publishes the lyics from my song!

This could be a completely new game; writing something that does not contain the lyrics of a copyrighted song; thus preventing any future court action by an over zealous music industry that can't understand why most of its customers are going to end up in jail.

My question is...

[mcsestretch]

How far can this go? For example, if I type, "Embrace me, surround me, as the rush comes." have I violated their intellectual property?

If it's illegal to transcribe all of the lyrics, what about half of them? One stanza? One line?

Re:My question is...

[OverlordQ]

Yes, you have violated the Motorcycle.

Re:My question is...

[TheSpoom]

As I remember, copyright can't apply to less than three words (can someone verify this?). So yes, you have.

Re:My question is...

[91degrees]

Depends on context. This is where Fair use comes in. What is the nature of the work? Are you profitting for it? how much of the work did you copy? Are you losing them a sale? These are only rules of thumb (and only a rough paraphrase of the rules), but copying a few lines as an example, like you did, is clearly fair use. Copying all the lyrics to a song onto a free website may qualify as fair use, but it's not quite so clear cut.

too much greed kills the money source...

[Alphab.fr]

There is a real but small market for printed lyrics & score/tabs in nice books, sure.
But seriously, would you spend hours to find/print the one from the web, or buy a nice book withotu any mistake, and a nice layout?

I don't remeber having heard anyone publish a study about declining publish lyrics sales...

They're just over greedy. As somebody else said, most people who look up lyrics online end up BUYING the damned record.

And is there ANY legal site where you could purchase and downlaod lyrics and tabs ???

Personally, I think lyrics should be included in the file when you buy a song from the ITMS or other. WOuldn't it be could to have the possibility to see the lyrics displayed while playing?

I'm just sick of thos RIAA idiots... and I'm gonna backup my dear pearlyric widget !
Unfortunatly, I only have v0.4, if somebody has the latest, please share!

Don't Sue my Brain

[beaversoc]

Shit I just thought a set of Lyrics, Dammit agian. Off to get a alumnium foil Hat and hide

Re:Don't Sue my Brain

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong wrong wrong.

Tinfoil works. Aluminum doesn't.

Re:Don't Sue my Brain

[legalize.ganja.now.]

"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed for ever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

George Orwell, 1984

Right after the SONY BoD goes to prison

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hear them calling for the Board of Directors and top management for SONY to go to prison for putting root kits on a couple of million machines.
That is clearly a go to prison offense unlike copyright violations which is a civil matter.

This reminds me

[Aceticon]

This reminds me of something a virtual radio commentator that you hear when playing a recent game says:

"Remember, you shouldn't wistle the tunes you hear on the radio because it breaks the author's copyright. Wistling is killing the music industry!"

Re:This reminds me

[Thondermonst]

OK, off to jail with you! You just violated "The Movies" copyright...

What are we talking about here?

[91degrees]

Is sheet music still a major source of income for song writers? I thought most of the lyrics and music avaialable online were for popular songs, and surely the songwriters get almost all their money from the mechanical royalties from record sales.

Re:What are we talking about here?

[DMNT]

Is sheet music still a major source of income for song writers?

I think you misspelled shit, and yes it is. For proof, turn the radio on.

Why is this illegal?

[miracle69]

If you are reconstructing lyrics from listening to a song that they broadcast over public airwaves, what is illegal about me documenting what I heard?

Re:Why is this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are reconstructing lyrics from listening to a song that they broadcast over public airwaves, what is illegal about me documenting what I heard?

Exactly.. It's not illegal, or should not be. Copying something verbatim from sheet music may be illegal, but writing your own interpretation of the music for a song should not be.

Re:Why is this illegal?

[abiessu]

No kidding! And why would it be illegal for me to pull out a guitar/piano, pick out chords/notes that I find to fit the song, and post those with the lyrics I've been able to discern? It's like the industry forgets that fan activity is what keeps people adopting and buying their products...

Re:Why is this illegal?

[ZedmanAuk]

Because it's the same as reading a copyrighted book or newspaper (even free ones!) and then re-typing the text on your computer and posting it on the web without permission from the copyright holder. You can argue this is just documenting what you read. It's still copyright infringement, however.

What the MPA should be doing here instead of sending cease & desists or threatening people with jail is to either set up their own lyrics site with ads (and perhaps a premium version without ads) or negotiating with these sites to get a piece of their revenue (I'm sure many of them are profitable from their ads). Of course the music industry is very shortsighted...

Re:Why is this illegal?

[CaveMike]

Actually they did try this (or maybe it was RIAA). Does anyone remember the Interational Lyrics Server -- the IMDB of lyrics? But before IMDB, before Google, and even before the OLGA threat. They got threatening letters so they moved the servers out of the country. Then the local police worked with the FBI to raid the remote servers and grab them. In the end, the ILS capitulated and offered their service up under the direction of the copyright holders. Unfortunately, the new site sucked and wasn't worth it. The new site would only flash a verse at a time, you couldn't set the flash speed, move forward or back, and of course you couldn't cut-and-paste.

These idiots!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have about 150 books of tablature (yeah, I know, but I like it). I also frequent OLGA and other sites when it's just a quick riff I need to grab.

But I have paid for about 150 books.

And if they shut down ANY site I will not get to 151.

But don't think there won't be battles over this -- what about chord progressions? Those have never been protected. Or whent hey are represented as numbers? ("It's a basic I-IV-V"). Or parts of a song, which certainly could be considered fair use?

Profits

[g_bowskill]

I wonder how much more profits the music industry would make if they just sacked all of their lawyers?

I mean seriously, are they kidding us with this rubbish all the time? The last album I brough was because the artists website had a free animation of the song that you could watch, I then searched for the lyrics to my favourite song of theirs, enjoyed both items so much I brought the album. Do they really not have a clue how their own industry works?

Re:Profits

[Andy Gardner]

No they want to eliminate the providers of these 'services' and prevent anyone other than themselves from offering them. That way they can then set up their own lyrics web sites and charge for subscription.

Two words

[Kythe]

"Bull" and "Shit".

I am so sick of that excuse.

This has never been about the artists, who are making increased profits with p2p file sharing, etc.

This is about a few mega-corps who have had a cartel lock on the marketplace, and haven't had to develop any business sense at all.

Songwriters are primarily song performers, and they make most of their money in tours.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't agree with you more! Actually, I was trying to be sarcastic but I fucked up on the formating! Nice site btw. ;-)

more betrayal

[yagu]

Jail time for unlicensed publishing of lyrics? I don't know how many times I've gone looking for lyrics to songs and the only place I can find anything is some web site where a fan has taken the time to put lyrics together. Maybe that's changed some and now that the music industry see dollar signs you really can go "buy" this stuff -- is it my responsibility to monitor and find this stuff (which, btw should have been available a long time ago)?

The music industry has betrayed the consumers since forever. Are they going to go after the publicly available and free CDDB? Probably. But even that didn't exist until the consuming public put together the first application to make this available on-line. And guess who provided the data? The friggin' public, again. And, now that the industry sees dollar signs, they want to claim ownership.

Scores?

[Libor Vanek]

OK, I understand the "lyrics part" - it's "intelectual property" same as poems, books etc.

But WTF about "unlicensed song scores"? Does that mean that I can't publish on my blog what songs I like and hate?

Re:Scores?

[LiquidCoooled]

lets put this in programming terms:
    Musical score != Rating.
    Musical score == the actual music source code.

Re:Scores?

[Cerv]

Is this a joke?

If not, here's the relevant OED entry:

        6. Mus. A written or printed piece of concerted music, in which all the vocal and instrumental parts are noted on a series of staves one under the other.
    Commonly stated to be so called from the practice (not now always followed) of connecting the related staves by 'scores' or lines continuing the bars.

        b. A musical composition with its distribution of parts.

        c. spec. (A piece of) music composed for a film; the musical part of the sound-track of a film; formerly, the background music and effects of a silent film.

Re:Scores?

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope you're joking...

Re:Scores?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify for you, a "score" is the printed music itself, typically with all the parts individually. But maye you knew that and were making a joke.

Re:Scores?

[metternich]

As others have pointed out score refers to the printed music. (That is what notes you would play on the piano, guitar, etc.)

Actually I think the reverse is true. No one buys sheet music for lyrics, people buy music for the scores. Therefore, while I don't understand why they would go after people just for publishing lyrics, people publishing scores seem legitamate targets. (standard objections about copyright aside.)

Re:Scores?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's a perfect way to put in slashdot. kudos, man

There was no one left to notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

When they came for us.

If only the MPA would think this through

[StressGuy]

When I was younger, I got my hand on "Pinball Wizard" in guitar tablature. The very next thing I did was get a recording of "Pinball Wizard" to help me learn it.

Point is, all those your guitar wannabees out there who are given access to the sheet music will want to purchase the associated CD's to help them learn to play it. THE SHEET MUSIC SELLS THE CD!!

Even today, I'm trying to learn a celtic folk piece called "The Wind the Shakes the Barley". I need to hear several examples of how that is played to get an idea.

You guys at the MPA and RIAA are pushing me too far....I'm *this close* to giving a verbal account of an NFL football game.

Hooray! No more lyrics for ANYONE! Thank goodness.

[supersheepboy]

I believe that their paranoia of intellectual property theft has gone out of control. Somewhere in the back of my mind, they will ban music altogether because someone out there will copy the music and brand it as theirs. Way to go!

Level 4

[Lifewish]

They'll definitely be in the fourth ring of hell, reserved for the prodigal (I have no idea what this means in context) and avaricious. It's just after the Styx, iirc/

Re:Level 4

[LoadWB]

Damn, I figured that is where they would end up. I wonder if I can still get concert tickets.

Those of us that play by ear are next.

[93,000]

DUDE: "Hey man, I just figured out the solo for [insert song here]. It's so cool to play."

OTHER DUDE: "Sweet, show me how it goes."

DUDE: "Um, I can't -- it's illegal. And don't tell anyone I figured it out myself. If anybody asks I bought the music."

In similar news, concertgoers will now be forbidden from watching the hands of musicians during the performance, lest they learn something about how a song is played without paying the proper royalties.

Re:Those of us that play by ear are next.

[Carthag]

Easy to fix, the audience will be given blindfolds and white-noise headphones before the concert.

Re:Those of us that play by ear are next.

[anarchyboy]

And then play pinball?

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...from Jurassic Court: It has been reported that the dinosaurs are suing mammals for becoming extinct.

hhhmmm...

[irchs]

How will they prove that the tabs/lyrics etc are from actual tab/lyric books?!

Surely someone could just post what they thought the lyric was, without even reading it, and just happen to be right?! Same for guitar tabs etc...

Maybe a wikipedia like solution is in order?! Would a wikipedia like lyric/tab site be at risk from these cowboys?!

Indeed!

[th3space]

A perfect example of pure self-production/self-release is the band (and arguably the 2005 Indie Darling Band of the Year*) Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! They produced/printed their own music (released by Clap Your Hands Records), sold it exclusively at shows and through their website (at a profit of 4-5 USD per disc, a figure that is considerably higher than that of what bands on majors and indies make per disc moved), got a mention in Pitchfork back in June of this year and have since exploded. Whether or not the band continues on the road of DIY/RYO remains to be seen (the only argument for joining a label in this bands case would be tour support, although that opens up a whole host of other problems/financial woes), but at least a band of merit/worth/talent has proven that you can make a splash without big money and record executives getting in the way of the artistry.

*not an actual award, but the buzz on them has been pretty stout

Re:Indeed!

[jocknerd]

Going the DIY route, bands may actually create a new industry. The will need touring promoters and facilitators. I smell an opportunity.

Re:Indeed!

[FinestLittleSpace]

good band, too.

Re:Indeed!

[casualsax3]

I've heard of them, and I've been trying to find the CD in person since I saw them mentioned on Pitchfork to no avail.

Re:Indeed!

[tgrimley]

They're on Amazon now. Band name is "Clap Your Hands Say Yeah" without the exclamation point.

Re:Indeed!

[casualsax3]

Thanks, is it worth the buy?

Re:Indeed!

[th3space]

I've seen it in print with/without the exlamation point. Thanks for the help.

Re:Indeed!

[th3space]

A-effin-men.

Re:Indeed!

[tgrimley]

Definitely. Saw them live, and to be honest it doesn't live up to the record. Download the tracks at their site (http://clapyourhandssayyeah.com/) and if you like them you'll love the rest of the record.

Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[jolyonr]

So here, for your illegal enjoyment, are the lyrics for Daft Punk's track 'Around the World', encoded in a C style language for your benefit.

for(i=0;i<143;i++)
{
printf("Around the World\r\n");
}

Jolyon

Am I an illegal now?

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[adpe]

And I just spent my last modpoint on some trolling moron, damnit.

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[Aceticon]

And here's my version that will break the copyright of every artist that ever added a silent track to a CD:

for(i=0;irandom()*10000;i++)
{
printf(" ");
}

Aarrgh, shiver me timbers!

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[Anonymous Coward]

That code doesn't do what you probably planned it would do. Each iteration you'll have a new random number.

To keep the same form as grandparent, try initializing i to the random number * 1000, and decrementing it instead.

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[MiliusXP]

correction, it's 72 times, not 143 :D for(i=0;i72;i++) { printf("Around the World\r\n"); } I took a look at some lyrics sites... oops :$, i listened the original cd

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, you have no idea what the function irandom() does, it could just return 1.

I'm just sayin...

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[jolyonr]

I have the extended 12" edition!

Jolyon

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[eyeball]

lol!!!!!

Re:Illegal - Daft Punk 'Around The World' Lyrics

[kmactane]

I've just gotta ask... you didn't actually count how many times they repeat that phrase, did you?

So how about self-written guitar tabs?

[marsu_k]

I know I learned initally to play the guitar by ear, and have since been playing songs just by listening them long enough (although lessons did help a lot also). While I never had the need to write the notes down, I know there are many tabs out there that are not copied, but are written by people that have just listened to the song. Isn't that quite akin to reverse-engineering? So will they be sued also?

WTF?

[Donniedarkness]

What's the purpose of shutting down lyrics sites? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. Do the record industries plan on making more money if no one can read the lyrics of their songs?

Perhaps they're jealous of all the annoying pop-up (redundant, I know...) ads that places like AZlyrics can have. Honestly, I'm LESS likely to buy a song that I can't find the lyrics to (assuming that I heard the song on the radio and didn't catch all the lyrics).

Re:WTF?

[Nate B.]

Hmmmm, perhaps this is how they want to keep Joe Public from knowing the actual lyrics to the latest "cop killer" rap album.

Thiefing Bastards

[malsdavis]

Thiefing Bastards! ...I'm talking about the music industry. They won't stop till they've got every last cent.

Deprieving artists of a living my arse. I'd like to see them try find an artist who makes a living from selling lyrics!

Surely any real "artist" would prefer people actually understood the lyrics they were singing rather than deprive all their fans for that one in a million customer who is crazy enough to actually buy a songbook purely for the lyrics.

I'm simply disgusted at the pure greed of music publishers!

Tabs are just laborious interpretations

[bender647]

It takes me maybe two to eight hours to listen and write the sheet music for a song using Lilypond for other band members to use. No, it isn't my original song, I'm just writing down notes on how to play it. Now someone is telling me its illegal to do this. How long before they arrest us for playing the songs in our garage? What is the end goal? To destroy our interest in music altogether?

Jail Time?!?

[gibson042]

Last I heard, the United Kingdom had a split criminal/civil system of law. In the United States, and I thought mostly everywhere else, copyright infringement is a civil offense. Either I am wrong, or this means that the UK allows punishment of civil offenses with jail time!

Oh sure it's no big deal to you.

[JudgeFurious]

Downloading your free music and dooming these entertainers to lives of only semi-luxury. How do you sleep at night mister?

Re:Oh sure it's no big deal to you.

[Lifewish]

Downloading your free music and dooming these entertainers to lives of only semi-luxury. How do you sleep at night mister?

Actually that might bother me somewhat - if it wasn't for the fact that in most cases the entertainers get treated like shit by the music industry.

Re:Oh sure it's no big deal to you.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a silly attempt at a quote from the South Park episode the parent poster mentioned.

Blue by Eiffel 65

[Anonymous Coward]

ppl will think that the chorus goes like 'now i'm blue, i'm in a need of a guy, need of a guy, need of a guy'

Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)

I will note...

[Kythe]

...that it appears this group isn't the "RIAA" companies per se, but rather an organization of sheet music/lyrics publishers.

Sheet music, I can understand. But lyrics? What the hell? There are only two reasons to look up lyrics online:

1) Curiosity about that "one line" you've never been able to understand
2) Finding a certain song's name

Neither will impact business, period. In fact, both promote the song, which very likely promotes the buying of sheet music.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in relation to the copyright wars. It's the clearest example yet of companies suing "because they can" and because of a complete lack of business sense, rather than because it's in the public (or even their) interest to do so.

No one, and I mean no one, is going to shell out cash to buy lyrics. A manufacturer might as well sue customers for saying good things about their product in an online forum.

Re:I will note...

[InvalidError]

That's right. The lyrics are in the song and a trained ear can get them off the stupid song unless the singing is so bad or trampled by "background noise" that lyrics become the only way to figure out exactly what was said.

For sheet music, I wonder what percentage of the studio's customer base actually gives a damn about them. Almost everyone may have an interest in music, 10% of people may have an interest in lyrics beyond finding a song or clarifying parts of them but sheet music? Probably well under 1%.

Well, I have learned that common sense and smart decisions are deprecated in the upper levels of the entertainment industry. The major labels/studios are too big for their own good, they lost sight of what their real objectives should have been and now they are well on their merry way to self-destruction through customer base alienation. Tunnel vision is dangerous.

Re:I will note...

[MyDixieWrecked]

Sheet music, I can understand.

There are countless songs on the web that have guitar/bass/drum tablature (sheet-music-like transcriptions of songs... but only show tuning and fingering, no time signatures, generally). For at least as long as I've been playing guitar (around 10 years), I've been scouring the web to learn how to play certain songs. Sure, there are books you can buy which show you how to play "Clapton's Greatest Hits." but the fucken book costs upwards of $20, and I don't want to (but I did) pay 20$ to learn to play one riff and the basic chord structure of "I shot the sherrif."

also, not every artist has commercially available transcriptions of their songs.

and another point- online guitar tab (olga.net, etc) is sometimes horribly inaccurate and almost always incomplete. Because of that, there's a header on most online tab stating that the transcription may not be accurate and is the author's interpretation of the work.

I could understand if someone got their hands on one of the books and copied everything into a text file and submited it to a site... that's wrong. but sometimes, you don't wanna noodle around for days to figure out a song that you're only gonna jam to in your room.

what's next? making bands play license fees when they play covertunes at a show? how about when I crank my amp up to 11 and rock out on some sabbath, are they gonna charge me with illegal broadcasting of commercial music because my neighbors can hear it?

all I have to say is "wtf."

Re:I will note...

[CastrTroy]

The question is, what can you do with the sheet music? Naturally you can learn how to play those songs. But can you put on a performance of those songs legally. Are they going to go after cover bands next, claiming they aren't allowed to play the songs because they are taking revenue from the real band? What's the point of buying the sheet music if you aren't allowed to perform it?

Re:I will note...

[MrByte420]

And I would hardly call the tablature thats available today "sheet music". They are mostly created by-ear and the chords are voiced to the liking of whomever figured it out. This is hardly an equal product to actual guitar tab books.
For thoose who aren't guitarists, Tab looks like this:

---0----------
---0----------
---1--2------
---2--2------
---2--2------
---0----------

This would be an E chord followed by an A chord if your playing along at home.

The numbers represent frets to push down on and the lines represent which strings to pluck.

There's no timing and is far from ideal.

Re:I will note...

[guitaristx]

I'm the kind of person that glances at the sheet music for lots of popular rock music whenever I go into a music store (music store = store that sells musical equipment, not store that sells CDs), and I've found, more often than not, the sheet music has at least two of the following true of it:

• Watered down - harmonic, melodic, and/or rhythmic complexities edited out
• Over-complicated - usually the result of a sheet music transcriber pounding the sharp, angular irregularities of the music as the performer(s) wrote it into the smooth, round hole of what-they-teach-you-in-school
• Little to no attention to elements of the music that cannot be put into grand staff (dots-and-sticks) notation, such as picking style, relative mix loudness for each instrument, effect chaining, et. al.
• Little to no attention to drums
• Changed key from the original

I could really care less about the sheet music, and so would anyone with a reasonable amount of musical skill.

However, prosecuting sites that host lyrics is absolute senselessness. Next, I assume, they're going to start going after every band, amateur or not, who does cover songs. "Damn those song-stealing bastards!" says the RIAA. "They're robbing us blind! Put down your hundred-dollar-bill-wrapped-cigar, Phil, and get the litigators on the phone! Tell them not to believe the rhetoric about how cover songs make the music more popular, it's stealing! We're being victimized!"

I suppose it's going to be illegal very soon for us to sing along to the lyrics in our cars, and the RIAA is going to lobby for the addition of a microphone and a credit card reader to every car stereo system so that they can detect those horrible sing-alongers that *gasp* actually enjoy listening to music and charge them money for each word of a song that they sing. So, the usual /. formula would go:

1. quit your day job
2. write better speech-recognition software
3. market it to the RIAA (what? you wrote it open-source? You criminal!)
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!!

Re:I will note...

[Registered Coward v2]

what's next? making bands play license fees when they play covertunes at a show?

Aren't they already doing this; except the venue pays the royalties for the songs?

Re:I will note...

[AeroIllini]

Well, I have learned that common sense and smart decisions are deprecated in the upper levels of the entertainment industry. The major labels/studios are too big for their own good, they lost sight of what their real objectives should have been and now they are well on their merry way to self-destruction through customer base alienation. Tunnel vision is dangerous.

I whole heartedly agree. However, the problem I see here is that there really is a place in the music marketplace for music publishers/distributors, just not on the terms the RIAA is trying to dictate.

Does anyone know of any record companies, perhaps newly created, that are not members of the RIAA and stand for artists' rights? I'd love to buy music from a distributor who still thinks of it as a service industry, to both the fans and the artists, instead of a manufacturing industry who is constantly battling evil thieves. There are lots of ways of making money off music without destroying your customer base, but the RIAA member companies have lost sight of that.

Re:I will note...

[pintpusher]

I'm sorry, but that is an E followed by an Esus4. It makes an interesting, discordant transistion that you really need to resolve within a few beats or people will think you're playing out of tune. Makes a great passing chord in certain applications though.

this:

---0--0-------
---0--2-------
---1--2-------
---2--2-------
---2--0-------
---0----------

is E followed by A. next would likely be E and then B A E and then you're playing the blues. Provided of course, you got da' blues.

Sorry, couldn't ignore it.

Re:I will note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think the second chord is an Esus4 (but that's one of my very favorite chords evar!) :)

/CF

Re:I will note...

[DavidTC]

Hell, at least going after bands who sing, and get paid for, cover versions, makes some sense. It might, indeed, be counter-productive in the long run, but it makes sense in the short term: If you want to sing covers, you pay for the rights to perform the music.

In the long run, there is a good deal more evidence that hearing a cover of 'Tainted Love' illegally performed in a bar somewhere will cause you to buy than MP3s will. Their shortsightedness and attempt to retain control of their artists are causing them to shoot themselves in the foot, but at least they have some reason for it.

Whereas this 'lyrics' crackdown would render one thing impossible: Searching for the name and artist of a song.

Without the name and artist, WE CAN'T BUY THE DAMN SONG.

They may not care if we can sing along to a song or not, by looking up the lyrics from the name and artist, but surely someone would go 'Hey, wait. We still need to let people look things up in the other direction.'

Re:I will note...

[sesshomaru]

Well, I can see one source of potential income, Karaoke, which might be worth some money to them. I know a lot of people who buy Karaoke VCDs so they can sing My Way, Imagine or another popular song. (Personally, I'd prefer Dream Island Obsessional Park, but that's just me.)

Of course, the VCDs my friends buy usually come from the Thai black market.. (and occaisionally have significant, silly-sounding mistakes in the lyrics).

Hey, such things are essential for Karaoke night, and some of the sushi bars and korean restaurants in the area probably make money from karaoke too... I wonder if they'll figure out a way to charge karaoke singers, too. In that case, I hope a defense can be that the accent makes the song utterly incomprehensible so you can't prove they were actually singing it...

Re:I will note...

[Shelled]

If I recall sheet music was the major issue for music publishers until the electronic reporduction of music (think Edison cylinders and Victorolas) took the focus. I'm more curious how much longer we're going to let this tiny minority of artist-abusing, zero-value ratfucks demand how society be run. Make no mistake about it, their demands determine how all information is shared in an information age. Next stop: mandatory DRM in printers.

Re:I will note...

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"No one, and I mean no one, is going to shell out cash to buy lyrics. A manufacturer might as well sue customers for saying good things about their product in an online forum."

but they will visit the free, official site of the MPA (am I the only one who's never heard of this group?) and generate ad revenue for them, instead of some schmo listening to the songs and typing up what they think the lyrics are.
that is, of course assuming that the MPA would cowboy up and fill the void after they shut everybody else down. and who's to say they'd do something so rational?

Re:I will note...

[MrByte420]

Ha..i wondered after i posted if someone would pick up that my numbering was off. I noticed it as soon as I hit submit...

Re:I will note...

[schlick]

I suppose it's going to be illegal very soon for us to sing along to the lyrics in our cars, and the RIAA is going to lobby for the addition of a microphone and a credit card reader to every car stereo system so that they can detect those horrible sing-alongers that *gasp* actually enjoy listening to music and charge them money for each word of a song that they sing.

This reminds me of the story Snow Crash where L. Bob Rife wanted to remove his proprietary data from the minds of his employees. After all their thoughts are not their own, he paid them to think about those things!!!

Re:I will note...

[MyDixieWrecked]

you guys really should have tab'd out Smoke on the Water. Then we could essentially slashdot sam ash/guitar center with a legion of geeks trying out their new-found guitar playing talent.

that'd rock... in the most literal sense.

Also, for those people that know nothing of guitar tab, there's palm-mute, slide-up, slide-down, and vibrato:

. . . . .
0-0-0-0-0---2/5----7\5----2~~~~~~~---

(strings removed due to lameness filter)

Re:I will note...

[NulDevice]

That's right. The lyrics are in the song and a trained ear can get them off the stupid song unless the singing is so bad or trampled by "background noise" that lyrics become the only way to figure out exactly what was said.

Two words: Louie Louie.

Re:I will note...

[qzulla]

No one, and I mean no one, is going to shell out cash to buy lyrics. A manufacturer might as well sue customers for saying good things about their product in an online forum.

Don't they print these with CDs? They used to. But then I have not bought one in years.

qz

Re:I will note...

[Anonymous Coward]

"both promote the song"
the question is WHICH song(s), is it the song the media invested so much into or is it someone's independent song.
Lyrics is a type of advertising and media want to control that too. It is no use to media if u know how good their competitors' music is

The only times...

[CaptainPotato]

...that I use online lyric sites are for when I want the words for music that I have purchased, but the publisher saw fit not to include the lyrics in the packaging, or for looking up the name of a song that I have heard and want to know what it is.

In the first instance, there's no more money to be made from me as I have already spent money - and I would refuse to pay to use a site that provides lyrics. Indeed, it would also discourage me from buying more music in the future from companies that endorse this approach.

In the second instance, there's also no money to be made from me as I won't be able to find the song by using its lyrics. Lose-lose for the music industry, it seems. To top it off, with this type of attitude, I'm also far less likely to purchase anything from companies pursuing this type of strategy.

That's why I stick with Internet radio and music from individuals, groups and companies that respect their fans, rather than trying to milk them for all that they are worth.

I'm not a musician, so I don't download tabs. Shutting down tab sites also seems pointless as any half-decent musician can pick up a song by listening to it. Every musician I know does it this way. Does this mean that the music industry wants to also jail musicians who learn by listening, rather than by buying officially sanctioned tabs and scores?

Silly me, I forget that all the great musicians learnt from the officially sanctioned sources, rather than listening and imitating their heroes... and that anybody who disagrees with what the music industry wants must be a pirate and thief.

Re:The only times...

[Stalky]

In the second instance, there's also no money to be made from me as I won't be able to find the song by using its lyrics. Lose-lose for the music industry, it seems.

I'm not so sure. Maybe they're thinking that they can create their own look-up facility: you provide the sample of the lyrics, and they provide you with a list of songs that it might belong to. That way, they hope to convert some lyric downloading into sheet music sales, and still not lose those recording sales that lyric downloading now promotes.

Same mistakes all over again..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/2/28/9750/03 486/70#70

Is this REALLY illegal?

[MrBandersnatch]

Consider these 2 scenarios :-

1) Someone takes the lyrics/score as written in a book/CD case, copies it and publishes it on a web page.
2) Someone listens to a song several times, transposes the lyrics/score as they hear it and transposes it on a web page.

Now 1) is a clear breach of copyright (and should be settled in a civil court as such) but 2)...I cant help but think of that as a derivitive work and as such NOT in breach of copyright.

I dont know though - could someone enlighten me please?

Re:Is this REALLY illegal?

[Doug Merritt]

Now 1) is a clear breach of copyright (and should be settled in a civil court as such) but 2)...I cant help but think of that as a derivitive work and as such NOT in breach of copyright. I dont know though - could someone enlighten me please?

Nope! That's a common misunderstanding, but actually derivitive works are still copyright of the original copyright holder; there's not really a difference between your two examples, for this purpose.

Derivitives do add one complication, which is that the changes may be copyright of the person who made the changes -- in addition to the original copyright. In such cases, neither the original copyright holder, nor the derivitive copyright holder, can do anything at all with the derivitive work unless both parties agree.

That doesn't come up that often, comparatively. Example: If you translate Bohemian Rhapsody into Latin in a creative way, the copyright holder of Bohemian Rhapsody can indeed forbid you from making any copies of your translation; they don't lose any rights.

On the other hand, they cannot make copies of your translation into Latin, either, without your permission.

It doesn't come up all that often, because why would they want to do anything with your Latin translation? Usually they don't, usually they just want to enforce their own original rights.

P.S. the above assumes that the derivitive work required creativity to create. If it was e.g. a very mechanical translation that required no creativity, then the original copyright holder may have rights to that non-creative derivitive as well. Phone books, for instance, are not creative works.

Wow....

[Daytona955i]

I mean come on.... Ban all sites with music lyrics?!?!? What kindof discussion leads to this?

Did you know they have internet sites with lyrics to songs that we own that they can download for free?

Oh no, now John Doe can download it and sing it without having to buy the song!!!! It's like stealing, we should sue them!!!

No, I've got a better idea, let's throw them in jail!

I mean seriously, I can see their argument that downloading an exact copy of a song can hurt their sales (though I think sueing grannies, children, et al is stupid on their part) but lyrics and tabs? I mean, I've downloaded my share of tabs for songs I know, in fact I usually own the song. I've even used lyric sites to find out exactly what it is they are saying in that Barenaked Ladies song or to find a song that I only know a snippet of. But to say that my sad attempts at trying to play from a guitar tab is hurting them is laughable at best.

I mean, I thought they were going overboard when they were suing filesharers left and right without going after the big time pirates who profit from their piracy. Now I think they've gone off the deep end. I forcee RIAA becoming obsolete within the next 10 years.

Scary!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is off the chart scary. Prisons are for those who commit crimes against the public. Not people who violate Sony patents or anybody elses. This is a matter for civil litigation, not imprisonment. If they want to get a judgement against somebody and sue their pants off, so be it. But I do not think it's fair to expect the American taxpayer to pay for imprisoning people who get sony's shorts in a twist. Next they will be pushing to have legislation allowing them to build their own private prisons and imprison trademark, patent and DMCA violators themselves. Sheeh!!!!

Isn't it time

[flyinwhitey]

Isn't it time we stopped bitching about this behavior and started doing something about it?

It's nice to know there are so many people who see through ploys like this (jail time? JAIL TIME?) but what is being done?

I'm tired of it. I'm sure most of you are tired of it. So why are we still tolerating it?

And please, no boycott stuff. It doesn't work, at least not well enough. We need something more, but what I don't know.

Re:Isn't it time

[stinerman]

You don't have to worry about a thing. No jury of anyone's peers will send someone to jail for telling someone the lyrics to a song or for telling someone how to play a song.

Its technically illegal to give an account of a football game. Think about that for a second. It is illegal for me to tell you what happened somewhere. If that ever went to trial do you think anyone would find such a person guilty?

How does a civil statute = jail time?

[junster2]

This is not a crimal statute, it is a civil statute that is being broken, so how do you end up in jail exactly? Oh, thats right buy your very own Senator or Congress person and you are half way there.

I think we should throw in some bricks...

[PortHaven]

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!

Please tell me what the fuck is wrong with having the lyrics posted so that people can find the words when they try to quote them...oh dear. It's not like people are using the lyrics to perform the song, and if so, then they'd get nail by the performance rights collectors.

All we want is to be able to find the lyrics essentially to educate us, and that should be in fair use. And were the MPA to provide such themselves that'd be cool.

But !@#$% them...I am so sick of this crap. It's gone way beyond sanity.

Not on my taxes !

[Anonymous Coward]

I would recommend that the music publishers build their own jails; hire their own warders; buy food and drink for the prisoners.
And while they're about it, make their own laws.
They're not going to freeload on my taxes for the purpose.

So what's next?

[rawwa.venoise]

So next thing will be RIAA to sue everybody that criticises any musician on unauthorized blog, since this can be considered negative publicity and thus they will not sell another extra million copies of some crapy artist.

Now imagine the reviewers on any site given a 8/10 because they are afraid of getting sued by giving a lowe rate. And yes, forget to post the artist name on any blog. It is illegal also as the name usage is unauthorized ...

It won't be enough...

[Kythe]

...to save them.

or will be healthy because of biased laws and active lobbying.

The only thing that could save them would be if it became illegal to publish and promote your own copyrighted music material online. And as much as I'm sure they'd like to have that happen, I can't imagine a majority in Congress coming up with a good enough excuse to do so.

Re:It won't be enough...

[BewireNomali]

What I think is possible is that the industry is moving past the idea of "open computing". What I mean by that is that boxes like the xbox360 will be the appliances that people use to check their email and to send/receive IMs, VOIP, etc. The idea of an operating system won't matter to the user, any more than it matters what software the plane you're in is running. Even pilots aren't too familiar with avionics, and it doesn't matter - as long as it works. Once the public has been conditioned to accept computing as this pervasive background thing, then DRM will establish a firm foothold and it becomes difficult for file trading because most won't know enough and won't care enough to mod/change their boxes (which may stop working if you try) in order to manipulate their software in order to trade files.

It all has to to with what generations grow up with. My nephew is 9 - and to him the internet is AOL. His mom is a member, and to him, the web is a place to check his email, play games, and find out information about more games. He knows of this thing called google - you ask it a question, and it gives you answers, but he doesn't like it too much because he feels like it doesn't answer them "right" most of the time. He already has preferred channels for getting his information. X-Play on G4 shapes his gaming opinions ("dude, how can you like that game? it only got 2 out of 5 on x-play!") - and the internet isn't this wide open place for him - but an aggregation of things his already likes to do at places he trusts and knows.

What frustrates him about the internet: Maybe like two years ago, I was babysitting, and we were watching the Discovery channel on rare spiders. He was so interested that he wanted to find out more. I suggested the internet. At the time (lol) whenever he wanted to find something out, he rationalized that the answer would be at www.nameofthatthing.com - in this case www.spider.com. So he typed that in... and suffice it to say, what he got had little to do with spiders.

It was a goth porn site. The main page was some chick with her tits out, nothing more than he'd seen on national geographic, but it made him really mad for some reason. He was like, "spider.com should be about spiders!" All of which is to say, to him the internet isn't ordered the way it should be. And I don't think that sentiment is totally incorrect. I think that the media congloms are slowly moving towards ordering it that way.

I hypothesize that the internet will become more ordered - less transparent - and places like blogs and message boards will be some of the few places average citizens will get to post... and registrations will be scrutinized and traffic will be analyzed... and the status quo will normalize. In this reality, file trading abates because the critical mass audience will be conditioned to accept the status quo - which is the internet as a background datastream - a stream that provides the water coming from your faucet but a stream that you don't DRINK FROM directly. Drink from the faucet - not from the stream. Disagree? Look at AOL commercials with its propaganda. (The internet is a dangerous place. We PROTECT YOU and your children and your money and your life.)

Unfortunately, I think the RIAA has the right idea - scare the kids with fear of litigation - (my nephew wanted the Rock Lobster clip from Family guy - I downloaded the torrent - and we laughed about it for like two hours until my sister made us delete it because she didn't want to get sued - my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).

Don't get me wrong, I in no way support this. This is what I think is happening though.

Re:It won't be enough...

[killmenow]

The only thing that could save them would be if it became illegal to publish and promote your own copyrighted music material online. And as much as I'm sure they'd like to have that happen, I can't imagine a majority in Congress coming up with a good enough excuse to do so.

In the name of stopping piracy, there is a strong likelihood that the U.S. Federal Government will enact legislation closing the analog hole and mandating that EVERY device capable of playing media MUST enforce the license of that media. I hope, however, saner thinking will win out in the end.

When (if?) this happens, in order for ANY device to play media, the media itself will have to be digitally "protected" with a key the device is capable of verifying. Independent artists will be virtually locked out from producing and distributing media themselves (to any kind of mass audience) and will be required to go through those holding the keys. Who will that be? The big boys: MPAA & RIAA members, etc.

Frankly, this is the only rational reason for the sound and fury these organizations produce in regards to piracy. The amount of money they claim they lose to piracy is a fictional number. They made it up. There is no true way to know how much they are losing due to piracy and there are contra-indicative numbers showing it leads to more sales, not less. But whether they really lose money to piracy or not is beside the point.

They will lose everything when they lose control of the media distribution channel. And that, folks, is the real reason for all the lobbying efforts. It ain't about losing some money today. It's about losing all of it tomorrow.

But you all knew that already, didn't you?

Re:It won't be enough...

[Travelsonic]

my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).

MP>Wrong much like the analogy that the RIAA spoon fed your nephew, although indirectly.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Spackler]

he rationalized that the answer would be at www.nameofthatthing.com - in this case www.spider.com. So he typed that in... and suffice it to say, what he got had little to do with spiders.

It was a goth porn site. The main page was some chick with her tits out, nothing more than he'd seen on national geographic, but it made him really mad for some reason.

It made me mad to. It is now some business. No goth tits. Thanks for nothing dirtbag.

Re:It won't be enough...

[PyroX_Pro]

Quote: He already has preferred channels for getting his information. X-Play on G4 shapes his gaming opinions ("dude, how can you like that game? it only got 2 out of 5 on x-play!")

That's great, he's already getting into the flock, train your sheep young we don't want them forming their own opinions on anything. Baaaaaaaaa!

Re:It won't be enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, he's already getting into the flock, train your sheep young we don't want them forming their own opinions on anything. Baaaaaaaaa!

Speaking of sheep and groupthink - I bet you like google and linux and hate microsoft.

who says you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's nine. Where did you get your information on what games/music/movies would be good when you were nine? That's what... third grade? That's barely beyond just watching whatever your parents give you stage.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, does someone have to go to your house and type in www.suicidegirls.com for you? Is that too hard?

Re:It won't be enough...

[pharwell]

I didn't find any info at www.nameofthatthing.com either. In fact, looks like the domain isn't even registered. No wonder!

Re:It won't be enough...

[Spazntwich]

Your story is interesting except for the fact that if you check out the wayback machine and load up the history for spider.com you find that since 1997 it's been owned by spider software, and remains that way. No goth porn.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're either completely missing the point, not interested, or like... not bright.

The point parent is making is that the internet isn't rationally organized to its future generation of users, which is an interesting point.

the kid went to spider.com.... or whatever site he fucking went to... and DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING ABOUT SPIDERS.

It's an interesting point... one that has possibilities for revenue potential as well as a wholesale reorganization of how information exists on the grid.

If you're gonna nitpick - he did say it was several years ago - and he didn't type the url... the kid did.

But no... like a fucktard.... you decide to check the wayback machine instead of bearing it serious thought.

what a lamer. I bet your parents are proud.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Chosen Reject]

Ah, the analog hole. It cannot be closed though. What about those small tape players people use to record class lectures or business meetings or even just short notes to them selves? What about personal still and video cameras. They can record anything and there is no way they will be able to tell if you are recording something that is copyrighted. As long as there is a distance between the output and the brain, there will be a way to record it. And even if there isn't a measurable distance, it will still likely be recordable.

Re:It won't be enough...

[PyroX_Pro]

I liked google back when all they did was search and had no ads. I like Apple, BSD, and still use my Windows PC heavily. Any other brain busters?

Re:It won't be enough...

[Buran]

I know you were being a wiseass, but I'm going to call your stupidity anyway.

What the hell? Are we going to start suing people as we fail to realize that sites change over time? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.

Use a fucking search engine, dirtbag.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow a clue, you humorless fuck.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Valacosa]

"What I mean by that is that boxes like the xbox360 will be the appliances that people use to check their email and to send/receive IMs, VOIP, etc."
It worries me too, partly because the same thing has already happened with so many other devices.

I work in a physics lab, so I'm used to taking things apart or cobbling things together from parts. But most people are unwilling to use things that aren't functional "black boxes", which don't require any understanding of the underlying machinery. Cars are a good example here; they've gotten more complicated - but easier to use - as time has progressed. Some people balk at the idea that they'd have to change the oil!

Re:It won't be enough...

[BewireNomali]

I agree with you totally. History has already proven with other devices.

You mention cars. It's the same with other forms. Radio, television, planes, etc.

Computing is awesome because it became ubiquitous before it became standardized. I'm not a historian, but I'm not sure if that's ever happened before. We're going through the standardization phase now.

One of the most persistent slashdot memes is the "in korea, only old people.... " and I think it's because younger people there consider email the equivalent of sitting down and writing a letter... in other words, antiquated. Even here on slashdot, fun is made of the ten people in the world who are still ham radio enthusiasts, etc.

Around the world, people routinely give up freedom for convenience. I don't think it will be different in this regard.

Re:It won't be enough...

[joemawlma]

There will ALWAYS be a market for what is in demand by the people. In this case, there will ALWAYS be independent artists who want a music player that can play un-"locked" files and there will always be plenty of fans of independent music who want the same thing. The more the RIAA tries to "lock" in the content, the more people will seek out alternatives. Therefore, there will always be alternatives thanks to the demand for it. And with social networking, people will ALWAYS know that these alternatives exist. If one business gives in and starts only making players that play "locked" files, there will almost instantly be a new startup that focuses on making what the sell-out business used to make; because there is money in it! Once something is out of the bag, there is no shoving it back in (even if it does force companies to change their business models). As a semi-related example, look at filesharing. What happens EVERY TIME the RIAA or MPAA shuts down a bittorrent (or any p2p) website that hosts copyrighted material? 10 more pop up in its place.

Re:It won't be enough...

[Jherek Carnelian]

My nephew is 9 -

and we laughed about it for like two hours until my sister made us delete it because she didn't want to get sued - my nephew has now internalized that meme - downloads are like shoplifting to him - which is to say wrong).

At 9, your nephew is at that stage of development in which he will see all forms of authoritarianism as the good and righteous way to live. Right now he's got very rigid beliefs about following rules. Just wait until he's 13 or so, all that was wrong will suddenly be right.

Re:It won't be enough...

[gcalvin]

In the name of stopping piracy, there is a strong likelihood that the U.S. Federal Government will enact legislation closing the analog hole and mandating that EVERY device capable of playing media MUST enforce the license of that media.

There are plenty of Congress-critters who I wish they would close their anal log holes.

Tablature?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," he said.

As an amateur guitar player, I'm wondering what the ramifications of this movement are. Can you even copyright a chord progression?

Re:Tablature?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you even copyright a chord progression?

In principle, yes. More specifically, I'm not sure how small a copyrighted composition can be before the Copyright Office said "uh, no"; but then again, I don't know how small a piece of prose can be either. "Happy Birthday to You"/"Good Morning to You" is a pretty small piece of music (8 bars in 3/4, 3 notes per bar), but was nonetheless covered by copyright. OLGA and other such sites have been breaking Copyright law for forever, and occasionally the Harry Fox Agency etc. have given them a hard time. The article indicates that it's going to get harder. Which sucks, but isn't at all surprising.

If he runs "iTunes"...

[Kythe]

...you owe him an apology :)

Really, the whole point is that the music industry as it was is competing with the ability of bands to record and market and distribute their own material. So I'd say the "better service" is already here. No need for an official launch date.

Why the outrage?

[Kunta Kinte]

Like others have been saying, I use music sites to find more about a song I might have heard for the first time. Or some songs have lovely lyrics, and you just want to figure out what the entire piece is about.

But...

Music lyrics are copyrighted material...

And the agents of the MPA are presumabley, agents of the songwriters. And they are requesting that their works be taken down.

So why the outrage? Are you suggesting that you have some right to the songwriter's works against their wishes?

My solution to this issue is to let the MPA get what they want. Hopefully smarter artists will, in the future, fill the void this creates.

Re:Why the outrage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that you have some right to the songwriter's works against their wishes?

Yes, I am. I have many such rights. Copyrights are a privilige. Ideally they wouldn't exist, and everything would go straight into the public domain. Since that diminishes the incentive for the artists to create, *we* grant them a monopoly on their works for a limited period. If they abuse that privilige to a certain extent, it'll eventually reach a point where it will be better to end copyrights and live in a world where the only artists who provide us with content are those that do it for the love of what they do, and not so much for money. There'll be less content out there, but if the price I'm paying otherwise is too high, I'm willing to live with that.

Besides, there'll probably be a lot less crap out there.

Re:Why the outrage?

[m50d]

The jail time is what I'm outraged about. Sure, it's against the law - but words cannot express how ridiculous it is to even suggest it's severe enough to deserve jail time.

Re:Why the outrage?

[fishbowl]

"And the agents of the MPA are presumabley, agents of the songwriters. And they are requesting that their works be taken down."

Exactly. What I take from this, as a musician and songwriter, is that whatever power and authority is given to agents, is, by equal protection doctrine, also given to me.

Re:Why the outrage?

[pintpusher]

As has been pointed out several times already, the outrage is in:

1) jail time for a civil offense.

2) the implication that a listener's interpretation of an artist's work is copyright infringement. Its not, its derivative. Along the lines of "I think he says when singing this song."

If someone copies the official lyrics from a licensed source and publishes it, thats copyright infringement. If someone guesses at the lyrics and says "this is my guess", that's not. Although, what if they get it exactly right?

I think the point is who cares. Few if any people are ever going to pay for the lyrics to a song, and the uses of these lyrics are mostly to help people find the song and purchase it or, in my case, learn the lyrics so I can perform the song at a license paying venue. Either way its $ to the author. nuff said.

Also: Don't Bands Sites Have Lyrics?

[Webcommando]

Most of the bands I listen to have an official site. On these sites they have lyrics as part of the resources. So what exactly is the shutting down the lyric sites do? Perhaps drive more people directly to the band's site. Perhaps leading to more sales. Hmm...I don't think eliminating the other sites will help if that is the goal.

Re:Also: Don't Bands Sites Have Lyrics?

[Andrewkov]

Probably those bands are doing that illegally. Usually the record company owns all rights to the bands songs and lyrics.

I don't have a link, but there was a Slashdot article a while ago about a band getting sued by its record company for putting MP3's of their stuff on the web without the record companies permission.

who cares

[dbmasters]

I am so bored and tired of this whole thing I just plain don't give a crap anymore...I don't play in cover bands (their next targets I am sure) I don't distribute lyrics of tabs, I don't pirate music and I don't buy CD's anymore cuz the industry sucks. I listen to indie music and the radio... it doesn't affect me so screw it...subjects been beat to death...support the indie musicians they LOVE to have their music downloaded and it actually has some heart...

Confucius says...

[boldtbanan]

But would you know which song lyrics to buy without finding the song through a lyrics site first?

Lyrics and Guitar Tabs

[gadlaw]

I can't begin to tell you how many CD's I've purchased without lyrics or with stylish unreadable excuses for lyrics. (I'm looking at you Pearl Jam Ten) Thank goodness for the internet and for people who've taken the time to transcribe those lyrics so I can have some clue about what song I'm badly singing to myself. Am I going to buy a songbook for 20 or 30 bucks so I can get the lyrics for one or ten songs? Heck no. I'm going online to find those lyrics and so are you. I'm also playing guitar and sometimes, even though I have do have books of lyrics and guitar tabs as well as magazines each month that provide official music company approved guitar and bass tabs I do get online and find the opening riff for something I want to learn how to play. Guitar tabs are everywhere and they show you approximately how to play the song you're looking to play. There is even a program or three that plays user created guitar tabs (guitar sheet music)I think Guitar Pro 4/5 has 40 thousand user created tabs. All this is illegal and needs to be stopped? Not going to happen, as long as information flows and people still have the freedom to communicate they will busily write out lyrics and guitar tabs and try to transcribe the music they like to play and to sing. All these MPA/RIAA/MPAA people are doing is making people like me really really hate them. Not only hate them but make me go out of my way to not buy their products. I have significantly cut down on the CD's I buy because of all the crap the record companies are pulling and the more they push me the less likely I am to ever come back and buy from those bastards.

Mondegreens.

[Demon-Xanth]

Alot of these are called "Mondegreens" because of an old song that said "And I laid him on the green." was misheard as "And Lady Mondegreen."

Other examples:
"Drink your milk, gotta keep 'em seperated." --Offspring (Take him out)
"Hey Pac Man, What's up? Me you biznatches, wanna freebie?" --Bloodhound Gang (freebase)

Yeah

[Kythe]

I realized after I posted MY response that it looked like I was responding to you. I knew you were quoting :)

What pisses them off...

[Anthony Liguori]

Is the guys that put bots on Usenet to troll for lyrics, then setup lyric sites (any google search for a song name will turn these sites up) with a ton of obnoxious ads. These people are making a living off of someone else's work. It's not right.

Of course, I'd hate to see legal action against fan sites or usenet groups. Unfortunately, the MPAA doesn't have a good reputation in choosing its lawsuits carefully.

Explain this if someone can

[Ka D'Argo]

Ok, while some people download lyrics to learn the song/artist so they can buy it, what about everyone else?

Case in point. Say you buy a cd. Love the cd love the artist. The cd just comes in a standard jewel case, with cover and back art with a listing of tracks on the back and inside jacket cover. No lyrics what so ever. Now you own this cd, shouldn't you be entitled to finding out what exactly the words to the song's are? For some genre's of music a simple careful listen to each song works. However I think we can all agree this is far from a solution cause many genre's aren't so easy to sit down and do that. Imagine trying to figure out every lyric from a heavy metal band where the lead singer is more so screaming/grunting than coherently singing the words? (nothing aganist heavy metal, if it sounds that way it's how they choose just saying not everyone can understand it right off the bat).

Two thing's will happen (at least here in America);

- 1) the RIAA does this and takes the entire thing including downloading music to the next level. Soon it'll be heavy jail time for recording the radio to a cassette or cd, soon it'll be illegal to sing (kareoke style I guess you could call it) already copywritten songs in any public establishment there is not your home, same with playing instruments and copywritten notes. Eventually radio's in cities will become what the RIAA tries to push on internet shoutcasts (key word, tries); only "Free" music is allowed i.e. public domain stuff or stuff with no copyright that is open to anyone to play or listen too.

- 2) A variation or series of variations of the above, except the RIAA really gets out of hand by doing stupid shit. Like suing more 12 year olds, except not even offering them the settlement and taking it to trial themselves. This is actually the better of the two, cause while they are more evil in this one, the entire world would see how fucking stupid it is to enforce this crap when CNN/CSPAN or Court TV has the trial live on international tv as a 12 year old girl is in court, facing felony charges (least I think it's a felony, if not, then a misdemeanor) for downloading some Britney Spears songs. (bonus points for making them look even more corporately evil if the judge lands some outrageous sentance like jailing the 12 year old in juvie until she is 18 years of age).

Either way both lead to a path of self destruction for the RIAA. Quality earns money, when they learn this they'll understand. Sure it was cool paying $15-20 an album for a cd, back in 1993/94 when they hit the scene. 11 years later....They should be half that price if anything.

RIAA to consumers: You can buy the songs...

[jeffehobbs]

...you just can't find out what they mean.

~jeff

Could be...

[Kythe]

...but considering that many, many people seem to think iTunes et al are even easier and worth the small cost, I wouldn't bet on it.

Can anyone offer a reasonable solution?

[stanleypane]

I see alot of gripes on here about identifying music by typing some lyrics into Google, or what have you. I myself have found and purchased alot of CD's using that same method and I would be very upset if I no longer had those tools available.

On the other hand, you have a seemingly endless amount of lyric sites that house quite a bit of copyrighted lyrics. That in itself should not be a punishable crime, if you ask me. The problem is when alot of these sites employ advertising and other things to garner cash for their service. You then have many sites potentially turning a small profit by distributing copyrighted lyrics.

If the major labels would just wisen up and start providing complete archives of songs lyrics in a reasonable manner (no charges), then it would be a win/win situation for everybody. Instead, they don't ever once consider the benefit involved in such a service and begin this assanine crusade to jail people that are helping the labels out in the first place.

The real problem is that the major labels are too f*cking stupid to provide a much needed service to their loyal customers. Those folks then turn to someone else that is doing the job right.

Ignoring customers at a time like this is their major fault. I could care less if someone else is turning a profit off their lyrics because of it. As well as many other frustrated consumers.

Where is the reasonable solution? The RIAA and record labels don't have one. They continue to delve into lawsuit after lawsuit with little or no effect at all. Before you know, all of the lyrics sites will spring up in areas where copyright means nothing.

Wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

The group they are targeting is not you and me, nor is it people who trade music online. The group they are targeting are COVER BANDS! Think about it, how long until they are targeted next. You are taking away tabs and lyrics, both of which are essential to bands who travel around colleges and cover songs. Without seeking online tabs they will not be able to learn how to play the music any more, and they might even be signing the wrong lyrics! How long is it until cover bands are targeted next and are deemed illegal?

In my opinion, this is just plain bullshit and I cannot believe they are doing it.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Maintainers of websites offering home-made .srt subtitles were hung up two days ago.

Executives.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ever lose it one day and become like a serial killer, I think I'd specialize in record executives:

And where are the angels to guard?
Where is the god of men and children?
He is stalking the minds of dark poor souls.
I know it's right because I know it's time for freedom:

To kill another and to kill another
And to kill another child of the flag
Till there are none left... and another,
And to kill another, and to kill another...

VNV Nation, Serial Killer.

Give the Music Back -- The Hooters

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Give The Music Back
The Hooters

They took the beat away, replaced it with machines
They took the words away and threw 'em on a screen
They turned the switches on and handed us the phones
They blasted out our ears with endless monotone

Can you feel it, can you feel it
From a million miles away
Can you hear it, can you hear it
Getting louder everyday

Give the music back, give the music back
Give the music back before it's gone
Give the music back, give the music back
Put the music back into the song

They drove the blues away and banished rock n' roll
They cut away the heart and sacrificed the soul
They closed the discos down and shut off MTV
They locked the music up and threw away the key

Can you feel it? Can you feel it?
From a million miles away
Can you hear it? Can you hear it?
Getting louder every day

Give the music back, give the music back
Give the music back, before it's gone
Give the music back, give the music back
Put the music back into the song

And now a silence fills the rooms where once we sang
And all is quiet where once the chimes of freedom rang
Somewhere a pirate ship is crashing through the waves
Sending a signal out, a ballad to the brave

Give the music back, give the music back
Give the music back before it's gone
Give the music back, give the music back
Put the music back where it belongs...

Fair Use anyone?

[stinerman]

I've been learning how to play bass guitar for the past two years, mostly by downloading tablature and playing along with various songs. This certainly falls under fair use, specifically teaching and scholarship. I can play a few dozen songs by memory, none of which have been performed publicly (in fact, I've never done a public performance of any song). Please tell me how I am a threat to the artists or even the copyright holders of these songs. I can't wait to see the statistics on how much they're losing in sheet music sales to piracy ... likely somewhere in the billions of dollars.

Don't they know that many of their artists learned how to play music in much the same way, by hearing a song and effectively reverse engineering it? Elvis Costello didn't learn to read and write music until the mid 90s, nearly 20 years after his first album was released.Let them waste their money on lawyers "protecting" their "IP". It's just so amazing that these people are so devoted to making sure their copyrights are never infringed that they're going to dig themselves a grave. I, for one, can't wait.

Their Current Buisness Model

[UnderDark]

1. Make it illegal to post the lyrics of songs online.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

Um, am I missing something?

[mpath]

IANAL Disclaimer ... People can only go to jail if the government prosecutes. Civil suits cannot end with jailtime ... right?

RIAA, here's your rope! Pick your size!

[Spy der Mann]

Haven't the idiots learned?

Yesterday: Let's bring down song sites! (And the music downloads went P2P)

Then: Let's bring down kazaa! (And the mp3 went to underground p2p)

Today: Let's bring down lyrics sites! (Guess what'll happen next?)

RIAA, just don't say I didn't warn you... *smiles*

Hey! These Guys are Trying to Read for Free!

[scovetta]

I'm only mildly disappointed by this action. The (RI|MP)AA? is only continuing their tradition of squeezing every last penny out of their consumer base at the expense of anyone who stands in their way. They'll sue *anyone*, and now they'll try to have *anyone* put in jail for violating their "rights". Perhaps they have a legal right to do this, but where does this end? This issue is seriously eroding people's rights. I can publish a song, and prevent you from:
  - Copying it (certainly)
  - Letting someone else listen to it (AFAIK)
  - Sing it

Where does this end? I'll tell you. When artists and musicians realize that as soon the pain associated with their art form reaches a certain level, people will quickly move elsewhere. The (RI|MP)AA? likes to think that society depends on them for what they need (e.g. music) to survive. Actually, it's quite the other way around, except that they are the only game in town. People need something to do in the car. They need an activity to go to at night (concerts). They don't like total silence at work. That's the reason for the existence of *most* modern music. There are certainly exceptions, but the new Ashley Lipsyncher Simpson CD is their bread and butter.

As for movies and the rest of the "art forms", it's generally the same thing. If the whole music/movie industry dried up over night, there wouldn't be much of a loss to society as a whole. Independent musicians would quickly take their place, and something would come along to replace movies like Cabin Fever and television shows like The Bernie Mac Show.

Most people don't have a problem paying for music or movies. I certainly don't. But I will not allow myself to be subjected to rediculous licensing agreements and terms associated with the goods that I purchase. Imagine if you went to a grocery store and purchased a can of Betty Crocker cake icing, and on the back it said, "This Icing is being licensed to you, the consumer, for the exclusive use with Betty Crocker brand cakes and cake mixes. Unauthorized use will have you subject to prosecution. Under the terms of this non-transferable license agreement, you agree to not share this Icing with anyone else. In addition, you give up your right to sue Betty Crocker if said Icing makes you sick and/or you die from its consumption."

Yeah, just wait and see.

Re:Hey! These Guys are Trying to Read for Free!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if you went to a grocery store and purchased a can of Betty Crocker cake icing, and on the back it said, "This Icing is being licensed to you, the consumer, for the exclusive use with Betty Crocker brand cakes and cake mixes...

Actually, they're ahead of you already; SodaStream[tm] home soda makers are "sold" under condition that you accept a EULA that only permits you to use Official SodaStream[tm] Refills and Concentrates.

I have a question

[ajdowntown]

I can understand why digital copies of music are illegal, but why is it illegal to post the lyrics to a song? Can someone help me there please?

They'll sing a song with different lyrics...

[paiute]

When members of this mob are convicted of conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, etc., they will be arguing just as hard that fines and community service are enough punishment.

Dear music industry

[eMago]

We are the Internet.

We will add your technological distinctiveness to our own.

Resistance is futile.

You will be assimilated.

I suggest...

[A-Trav]

...that we stop feeding the fools in the RIAA and MPA money. If we show them what kind of money they lose by attacking their customers, then maybe they'll stop being so sue-happy. Here's my full purposal: 1) Stop BUYING music 2) Stop listening to the radio 3) Stop going to concerts 4) Only listen to music that you already own or have not bought If we can cut off the source of their cash (ie: us) then they'll have to come up with a business plan and maybe begin competing with each other for our money. If not, then the power should return to the artist's hands.

TABS and Lyrics

[AgeOfUnreason]

For me and a millions of other budding musicians how are we to learn our instruments. Are guitar tabs are covered by this copyright (even if they are interpretaions and not accurate)? I normally try and find the sheet music first (since this is the most accurate source) but 90 % of the music i listen to, there are no printed music out there. So I have to go on line to find the tabs and lyrics. Don't blame the artisits here either since usually they'd love you to be able to play their music but since they sold the rights to the publishing companies they have no say in it.

End of OLGA?

[Cunk]

So will this mark the beginning of the end for the venerable OLGA? That was one of my first discoveries when I was but a lad on the Internet and it really opened my eyes to the fact that the Internet was more than just the MUD on the college network. I'd hate to see it threatened.

Re:End of OLGA?

[coquelicot]

just go and quickly mirror it - before it's too late! :-)

Why are you still giving them money?

[f0rtytw0]

Its been years since my money went into the pockets of the RIAA and every time I start thinking about buying a cd they pull something like this and my resolve gets a nice shot in the arm. I don't even ask people to buy me music because I know where that money is going and I know what it funds. It would make me feel sick knowing my money would be funding the nice corporate police force they have going.

Brought to you by the people....

[amcdiarmid]

Who state (paraphrased) "Our customers don't know how badly we have fucked up their computers, so why should they care that we fucked up their computers so badly that any half compitant thief can steal their personal data, savings, and life?"

Way to go guys.

I used to think that I stopped buying music when I turned 25, because I stopped having disposable income. Turned out that the music just sucked, and the asses putting it out kept trying to give me diseases.

Bad timing

[trollable]

So bad! Just when I launch my music website.
Hmm, maybe I'm not concerned. I just link to free and/or Free music.
If you're an artist or a label, consider to add your direct links there.
Yes it is pre-alpha. Lot of work still needed.

Excuse me......

[MyNameIsEarl]

....while I kiss this guy.

Copyright reform

[Weezul]

We seriously needc coyright reform: limit to 7 years & invalidate without publishing "all source materials used in creation". So software would never receive a copyright unless it was open source software, and music would never receive a copyright unless lyrics & tabs were published. Of course, they don't need to promote the source, but it needs to be available online from their site, and at the library of congress.

Crusade

[Tom]

Crusade is absolutely the proper term. Pointless warfare on innocents, in order to distract from the actual problems of poverty, oppression, er, wait: greed, rampant cartels and lack of innovation and adaptability.

Point out the lost sales to the MPA

[nonsense28sal]

Many have noted how being able to look up lyrics *increases* sales by identifying the correct song to purchase. Perhaps it should be pointed out to the MPA how this maneuver will impact their sales. Full contact information listed below.

Gentlemen, start your text editors....

From their site:

The MPA welcomes your questions and comments. The most efficient way to contact the MPA is via email. Emails from the general public are usually replied to within 2-3 business days. You can email MPA Administrator Julie Averill, at:

mpa-admin@mpa.org

Additionally, you may submit written correspondence to:

Music Publishers' Association

243 5th Avenue, Suite 236

New York, NY 10016

Contacting the MPA via phone is not recommended, unless you are a member or vendor communicating about specific MPA business:

(212) 327-4044

and in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Websters and Oxford English Dictionary band together to sue any web site that uses any english words .....

Mainstream USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I flipped that guy the bird!

Fuck you, I'm out.

[Shihar]

My spending on music (online or CD) has slowly been dropping. I am down to maybe a couple CDs a year and nothing online. This shit is simply too much though.

Fuck it.

I am not going to buy another piece of music until this worthless industry gets its shit together and removes their head from their ass hole. Sueing over posting the fucking lyrics to a song?

Fuck this industry all together. There are other less stupid ways of entertaining myself. Music doesn't have a monopoly on recreation. I'll stick to free commercial free podcasts and forget everything else. I won't even listen to the radio (not that it isn't shit anyways) simply because I don't want to support the bastards even in theory by listening to commercials.

Are my last few dollars drying up for this worthless industry going to have any impact at all? Hell no. That said, I know I will feel a lot less slimier not giving these shit heads a cent.

Re:Fuck you, I'm out.

[Tiny Elvis]

I feel the same, but I just can't pass up the opportunity to overpay for a cd full of shit music that will FUCK UP MY PC!!!!!! good times!

Really it's just corporate greed, it's widespread (every industry) and getting worse.

Re:Fuck you, I'm out.

[gryfen]

This is more or less my opinion as well. What gets my panties in a bunch is the pure hypocrisy of these corporate bastards, and how they'd *like* us to think they are selflessly protecting the income of the poor starving artists out there, when it's often their contracts which allows them to make money hand over fist when many of the artists are struggling to make ends meet simply because they don't get a large enough share of the income from their own art!

My $.02? Let's show them, *really*, how we can hurt their profits, if we actually try. I personally *want* to financially support my favorite artists, but I know that buying their music through the Music Industry's channels will result in the artist only getting a small fraction of that money. So I will, starting now, only buy music that I can download or buy direct from the artist/their website, where the profits go directly to them. And I will listen to and support the public-supported radio stations that *don't* have advertisements (in my experience, the music there is often more interesting, and the shows just as entertaining). And if enough people do this as well, the RIAA *will* feel it.

But really, it's what the Music Industry would want. They are only in it to help the starving artists make a decent living, right?

Think harder!

[dingleberrie]

A couple of strategies

1) They're going to sell lyrics and sheet music online, say $2 to $10 each. Maybe a fee-based searchable lyric database that also lets you buy the song, ringtone, sheetmusic, or just donate money for all the times you heard the song on the radio.

2) They're trying to damage thier own sales. Clearly their profits are not correlating with thier own claims of damages. They've already made many disks less desirable by making them difficult to rip, but that doesn't reduce sales enough. By reducing sales, they can prove they were right to pursuade legeslators to enact significant power on their behalf.

3) I can't think of a three, but a list with only two entries is not epistemologically satisfactory.

Throwing away my mod points...

[UncleRage]

Aspiring teen musician wants to be Rock-God!

Aspiring teen musician's parents buy him/her a guitar.

Aspiring teen musician spends a year or so learning their favorite songs via tabs.

Aspiring teen musician learns to play really reall because of said tabs and begins to compose their own music -- becoming an actual musician in the process.

Record company eventually hears the once aspiring teen musician and signs them for a recording contract.

Record company now has a new talent in which to make more money.

What happens when we take out the tabs? Aspiring teen musician, flustered by never figuring out that their Guitar-God! was actually playing in drop-D gives up, shelves the guitar and goes back to smoking pot with all their friends -- ultimately, POSSIBLY robbing society of a creative artist.

Now... where's the real crime?

Obvious disclaimer: Contemporary pop mostly sucks, most "artists" are not really musicians at all, record companies don't give two shits about anything other than what's in their grasp at the very moment and I've done nothing more here than simplify and overstate the patently obvious.

On a closing note... Hey recording industry! When I play guitar, my middle finger is resting across the frets, it's aimed at you!

copyright the alphabit

[Lost Penguin]

I claim copyright on the Alphabit:
I want 150K per letter of MPAA and RIA

Re:copyright the alphabit

[gg3po]

I claim copyright on the Alphabit:
I want 150K per letter of MPAA and RIA

That's an interesting strategy you have there. I think, however, you'll find that you may just receive a tad more royalties if you copyright the alphabet, instead of this "alphabit" thing of which you speak.

Start a campaign on jury nullification

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's start educating the public about jury nullification and encourage people, when they are summoned as jurors, to use it against DMCA. All you website owners, post the call-to-awareness/action prominently on your sites. By the sheer number of people that DMCA harassed, abused, inconvenienced and irritated this would sure tumble their butts over. Start doing this right in time for this and onwards. Scare the **AA to death. Let's nullify DMCA out of existence.

Life imitates art

[Salsaman]

As ever.
The Onion: RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

Surely this is commercial piracy? profits?

[sharopolis]

Whilst I personally don't approve of the RIAA and others tactics I can kind of see why they they might be getting upset by this.
It would be a very stupid and shortsighted move for the RIAA to shut down amateur fansites that that offer lyrics, but many of the big lyric sites are run for profit. Have a look, a lot fof them are pop-up ridden spyware infested nightmares, the kind of websites Slashdotters usually condemn. They are profiting directly from the IP of others, often offering crappy interpretations of songs ripped from usenet posts, and making cash from the whole internet ad racket thing, a lot different in my book from P2P sharing. Many of these places have more in common with the well known pirate DVD outfits than your usual internet traders.

If this turns out to be a witch hunt, where genuine dedicated non profit fansites get cease and desist orders then It's a bad thing, another case of the music industry shooting itself in the foot. On the other hand I can't get too upset when the RIAA decides they've had enough of sites using their artists lyrics as a lure into the 'free ipod' and 'you've got spyware' pay per click ads.

Olga removed their lyrics years ago.

[tinrobot]

They're OK for now...

I do worry about all the other tab sites.

Dumb and Dumber

[Nom du Keyboard]

I use lyric web-sites to identify songs I hear and want to locate. With a few words one can Google: "a few words" +lyrics and quickly find the title and artist(s) of a song that has caught my fancy. I'm certainly never going to buy any song I can't identify.

Now the stupid RIAA wants to end this. How this is going to help them is beyond me. Do they really think (as they apparently think regarding iPod hardware) that there's money to be extracted from these web-sites? Most seem to be a labor of love with likely little extra money to give to the greedy bastards. And I doubt that if you license the lyrics, that they will give them too you in machine-readable form. How many of these are captured and typed in by contributiors? Dumb all around.

Coming soon, how long before huming a song in public gets you jail time?

And is the MPAA suing the IMDB yet for giving movie plot summaries?

Use P2P

[courtarro]

Before all the lyrics and tabs sites disappear, let's make sure to collect them and start using P2P for distribution. Heck, you could probably include every lyric ever written in one 100MB torrent, passed around from user to user, and maybe release new lyrics or updates in a monthly package.

Even better would be to write a plugin support searching this one package: a customized plugin for the various torrent clients that enables user-to-user searches. The 100MB package would maintain a specific architecture (like gz'd XML files) so that any computer that has a full copy of the package could search it for lyrics, as well as supply a single lyric file on demand.

Pretty soon...

[maxdamage]

Your going to need to license a song in order to have it stuck in your head.

Imperfection of amateur performance

[SeanDuggan]

The Patrician had it right. He preferred reading the sheet music because it was so much more pure and perfect, not involving all of that icky sweat and spit that actual performances do.

*sigh* Fact of the matter is, though, the lyrics are copyrighted material so really, it is illegal to post them verbatim. Not that I agree with the RIAA, but they've got pretty solid legal grounds here. I think they're cutting their own throat, but they have grounds.

What they need to do, of course, is produce authoritative lyrics sites of their own. The various lyrics sites are often done by people transcribing what they here, so you get amusing mondegreens and a lot of general disagreement over similar sounding words. Och, and then there's Louie Louie... the song for Freudian word association. ("No really! The song says, 'he shot a wad into her hair.' It's all about sex, man...")

What about sites like Myspace and Livejournal?

[LordJezo]

Kids everywhere post song lyrics on their blogs all the time.

Does this mean they will be sued for putting a song with some meaning to them on their websites during a time of childhood angst?

IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!

[merc]

Now, when are they going to go after all those teenage girls mimicking Brittney Spears -- lip syncing in front of the mirror. This is an unauthorized use (singing along without a license) of copyrighted proprietary material.

*grumblecakes*

Just follow Sony advise

[The_DoubleU]

From their FAQ.
http://www.sonymusic.com/about/faq.html#2.4
Where can I find sheet music?
We do not sell sheet music at this time. You may want to do a search on the Internet for other sites that can help you. One thing I know, I'm not buying any more CD's/DVD's off these bastards.

Just use the DMCA

[cvd6262]

Simply ROT-13 the lyrics. (I know there are FF extensions that will decode it.)

When the RIAA comes knowcking, file suit against them from circumventing your encryption.

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

[alex_guy_CA]

Important article from The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43029/ RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

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.

Re:RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

[kellererik]

Are you one hundred percent sure that this was "The Onion" and not the "Times" or any other reliable news-source?
Just checking...

This does not make sense at all...

[kandresen]

There is supposed to be a good reason for putting people in jail, and this is not one of them.

Ask yourself:

1) are these people a risk for the society at large?
2) what are we supposed to accomplish by putting them in jail?

As to number one, the problem is more an etical issue - nobody dies, nobody get anything but possibly lower sales.

As to number two, US is already country with highest % og people in jail, yet in no other industrialized country are there as many people shooting each other with gun - if jailtime worked, why are these number not going down? It is like, send these harmless schoolboy to learn how to become hardcore criminals in jail.

Why not instead focus on rehabilitation? Set up a schedule where those caught are constraint in the area of the crime? What is worse, one year in prisson or one year without rights for using Internet? ;)

Please stop sending people to hard core crime schools when not a danger to the society at large.

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

"if jailtime worked, why are these number not going down?"

They are going down. Crime has been decreasing steady for the past 20-30 years.

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[skwirlmaster]

Your comment is too broad. I will agree some times of crime are at lower levels now, but what about identity theft? Is that lower now than it was 30yrs ago.

Clearly crime is a moving target. Bank robberies are probably down quite a bit comparted to 100 yrs ago, but that doesn't mean people aren't stealing money.

I would be interested in knowing if there is a metric for measuring aggregate crime statistics.

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[SirGeek]

And what "criminal" law are they breaking ? This is a CIVIL law, not criminal law

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[d34thm0nk3y]

USC Title 17?

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, people are still stealing money. Only now they are disguising it as legally protecting their "IP".

Re:This does not make sense at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question to ask yourself is this...

Do you want to spend $50,000 on average annually to incarcerate someone? My bet is the music industry isn't willing to pick up that bill.

Where are the music scores? MIDI files?

[edmicman]

I agree with what everyone has said about the lyrics - I can't fathom how people looking up the words to songs loses anybody money. I, too, have caught a line on the radio, jotted it down, and looked it up later so I could get it. I *can* see how posting sheet music online would be a problem, though. But where are all these sheet music sites? I guess I haven't looked around lately, but back in the day there were some songs I wanted piano music for, or at least something I could use to try and read the music to play it on some instrument. I didn't have much luck finding what I thought were fairly popular songs. What about MIDI files? Sometimes I would be able to take those, load it into a program that displayed the notes, and it would print it out. There was a ton of shareware out that did this exact thing. Or guitar tabs? There's TONS of guitar sites out there with tabs for every song imagineable. These will fall under this idiocy, too, right?

I dont get it...

[night_flyer]

with a DJ not (usually) announcing who a song is by, how am I supposed to find out what the name of the song is? as it stands now, if I remember a bit of the lyrics I can punch them into google and usually find the song... on a lyrics site... so no lyric sites, no finding out what the name of the song was, no sale... duh!

Karaoke and licensing

[SeanDuggan]

I was going to respond back with a detailed answer on how karaoke and music licensing works, but honestly I'm more mystified than ever after having looked it up. I found a site that had laws regarding karaoke, but I'm still mighty confused. The licensing for performance of karaoke seems to come under the generic performance royalities rules which any business which transmits music, whether it's jukebox, personal CD player, or FM radio, must use. The production of the karaoke CDs comes under Mechanical Rights which is a flat fee for each "product" involving a cover of a song. Basically, for every time you stamp a CD with the cover of a song, or have a track downloaded (whether you sell it or offer it for free), you are compelled to pay a small fee to the licensing company, about 9 cents IIRC. You are allowed to license any song in this manner whether the publisher wants you to or not. The lyrics, on the other hand, are under stricter copyright laws and are not legally associated with the music. To publish lyrics, you have to license it from the copyright holders, who may or may not be the same people who have the license on the music. And, interestingly enough, lyrics can be withheld whereas music cannot.

As for karaoke and drunk people... yeah, it generally takes alcohol for people to have the courage to get up there and, quite frankly, I've found that it generally takes alcohol to make listening to some of them bearable. Every year, I give up alcohol for Lent and I find that going to karaoke during that time period is actually rather painful...

As a side note, it's kind of a shame that karaoke is largely only offered in bars. If they offered it in a location more conducive to voice health like maybe a coffee shop, you might get more talented singers up there. As it is, anyone with a trained voice generally avoids those smoke-filled dens like the plague.

First ever C-language pagewidening

[Foerstner]

Geez, put some line breaks in there...

Sheet Music is knowledge

[kook44]

Ok- Scanning and making available published sheet music is a no-no. But if I enjoy playing music, and I want to share with others how I think a particular song is played, I should be free to do so.

music publishing != recording industry

[poot_rootbeer]

Some of you still don't get it, even though it was pointed out repeatedly in the pearLyrics story comments.

MPA != RIAA. One is a music publishing organization, the other represents the recording industry. They both work to preserve their members' copyright protections, but they're not even the same kind of copyright.

this is just stupid

[Robocoastie]

now the music industry is "stuck on stupid". This is ridiculous.

You don't even get lyrics in the liner notes!

[rfunches]

My girlfriend and I seem to hear the line of one of our favourite songs differently. Normally I'd say look at the liner notes, but no...it seems like almost every CD now contains no lyrics. And in this case, I can't find the lyrics to the song online. For movies, if you don't understand what's being said, you can turn on closed captioning. Granted, you can't republish the captions (i.e. the script) but they give you the words for reference. Since closed captioning is pointless for music, printed lyrics in the liner notes or available somewhere online are the equivalent. If I buy a CD and have, as the recording industry likes to argue, only a "license" to listen to the music in its original form, then why don't I have the right, according to some of these publishing agencies, to understand what the hell I'm listening to?

Re:You don't even get lyrics in the liner notes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get the lyrics because the record companies are no longer so willing to pay the music publisher (and thus, the lyricist, which sometimes happens to be the artist) the extra money they'd need to pay to print those lyrics!

You know what will happen now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sales will drop because less people are remembering that song that they can only remember one line of, and the industry will blame Piracy! Giving them more of an excuse to do more things like this!

They're really shooting themselves in the foot. If things carry on like this, music is just going to fall over and die!

Can we have a new mod category please?

[Robber Baron]

-1 False Analogy!

MPA Preparing to Launch Pay Lyrics Service?

[Millard Fillmore]

My guess is that the MPA, or individual members thereof, are planning to launch their own for-profit, possibly subscription based, lyrics website.

That's the only explanation I can think of. The RIAA wants to eliminate free/pirated downloads becuase it cuts into their album sales, or their pay-download site profits. The MPA wants to eliminate free guitar tabs so they can charge instrumentalists for sheet music. IN both cases, there is a for-profit, legal market for those goods. MPA members cannot currently profit in any way from the desire of music fans to know or look up lyrics. So why shut down lyrics sites unless they're planning to find a way to make it profitable for them...

Re:MPA Preparing to Launch Pay Lyrics Service?

[NulDevice]

Such places already exist - one I know of is musicnotes.com.

Did anyone go after Xerox?

[rip_1956]

"The Xerox machine was the big usurper of our potential income,"

If Xerox is taking away from the sheet music revenue, which is entirely possible is a small way, why don't they go after them?

Answer is, the don't want to pick on an entity big enough to fight back.

"Hey, lets go after the little guys instead."

Brave bastards, ain't they?

Coming next...

[phorm]

Wait until they sue all the IM users who use song lyrics in their nickname/tag (lots in my list)...

Re:Man.....Oh, Man

[ElitistWhiner]

I'm the reverse case. I use the lyric sites to backfill lyrics missing on the CD's I buy. Go figure...

THEOTF.COM

[Anonymous Coward]

Come and talk about this and anything else at

www.theotf.com

Where you can talk about LIFE!

Who in the HELL ever buys sheet music for lyrics?

[ElitistWhiner]

This is too funny. I've spent the last two months researching a new band format. Bought tons of iTunes, scraped lyrics sites and picked winner's. Then tried to find Sheetmusic...

No one buys Sheetmusic for lyrics! There are no sites to buy from. Oh there are the marching band, orchestra and random Pop music sites. But there are no sites supporting the software product that is sold into the marketplace.

This is precious Comedy

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The MPA is demanding jail time for the maintainers
> of websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics.

And this is wrong because...? Asking nicely isn't working. Fines and prosecution of hundreds isn't working. Next step: jail time.

"But...but...but I can download it for free and I don't waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaana pay for it. Must find reason that justifies it...must find reason to thieve...must fine reason to make myself convinced psychologically I'm not a thief..."

I humbly await outrage-driven troll or flamebait moderation of an otherwise accurate, if pithy, observation...

Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[sabat]

-1 Flamebait

Their business model is outdated. Consumers dictate business models. The industry is trying to hold on to an archaic model and attempting to use government to prop it up.

You are incorrect, sir. "I don't waaaanaa" = consumer demand = what makes the market work.

Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Consumers dictate business models.

However, no matter how hard they go "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh", consumers do not dictate that consumers may steal.

You may end up being correct, of course. Rampant, easy theft may be unbeatable in the long run (and a sad thing that would be.) But that point is not yet, by any means.

Nor is it a desirable state of being.

Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[sabat]

It's not thievery, by definition. To steal means that someone loses something to someone else. That does not happen here.

This is merely a paradigm shift. As with all paradigm shifts, some people understand, and many others don't -- and the ones that don't usually start screaming "foul!"

Theft is not unbeatable in the long run. But new business models are. We don't need publishers anymore. A lot of people just aren't used to that idea yet.

Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

You do not own the right to redistribute it. Therefore it is theft.

I am astounded by people who bring up the "it's not technically theft" argument, when by every conceivable moral and ethical standard, which is what matters, it is.

"We're gonna take and redistribute your stuff without your permission and without paying you" is no more a paradigm shift than "we're gonna round up your type and put them in extermination camps." Lovely world.

Next... whistle and get sued

[thepoch]

I've stated this before a couple years back. Pretty soon, we'll have to pay licensing fees for simply whistling tunes.

When does the greed end?

MPA Contact

[Lord_Dweomer]

If any of you would like to contact the MPA and POLITELY inform them that people primarily use lyrics to look up songs to purchase, or any of the other reasons why this is asinine and works against them, I've taken the liberty of copying and pasting their contact page info below:

The MPA welcomes your questions and comments. The most efficient way to contact the MPA is via email. Emails from the general public are usually replied to within 2-3 business days. You can email MPA Administrator Julie Averill, at:

mpa-admin@mpa.org

Additionally, you may submit written correspondence to:

Music Publishers' Association
243 5th Avenue, Suite 236
New York, NY 10016

Contacting the MPA via phone is not recommended, unless you are a member or vendor communicating about specific MPA business:
(212) 327-4044

Can blue men sing the whites?

[metamatic]

There was another case, too.

There used to be a fantastic web site about the Bonzo Dog Band. It had an annotated copy of the lyrics, explaining all the 60s pop culture references and in-jokes.

Some wankers from EMI threatened copyright litigation, and the entire thing was yanked. Even though the information was not available from EMI.

Re:Can blue men sing the whites?

[gowen]

There used to be a fantastic web site about the Bonzo Dog Band. It had an annotated copy of the lyrics, explaining all the 60s pop culture references and in-jokes

On the plus side, some musicians aren't as stupid as their lawyers. neilinnes.org contains lyrics and guitar chords for many Bonzo's songs, all with the full knowledge and blessing of Neil Innes himself.

It's all about the ringtones, baby

[Thondermonst]

I was thinking about why the hell they were doing this when I suddenly remembered something. In 1998 when I had my first cell phone, some friend showed me how you could turn a music score into a ringtone. So I found a music score for one of my all time favourite tunes ("Girlfriend In A Coma" by The Smiths, for those interested), turned it into a MIDI-file and converted it with some tool to the format of the Nokia phone. In those days they didn't sell any ringtones, but now ringtone-versions of popular songs mean big money.So I think the MPA-slimes figured out there was a backdoor and they are trying to shut it.

Don't know why they go after lyricssites. Maybe to prevent illegal karaoke-versions... "And next is Kenny with 'Romanian Balcony' by Quinn"

The claim to information

[halber_mensch]

From the article:

"The Xerox machine was the big usurper of our potential income," he said. "But now the internet is taking more of a bite out of sheet music and printed music sales so we're taking a more proactive stance."

Ok, I can understand a street peddler selling burned copies of CDs is illegal. I can sort of understand that downloading digital facsimiles of songs without paying for them is illegal. But to infer that two innovations in communications (Xerox, internetworking) have 'usurped the potential income' of a business that sells printed information is not entirely surprising to me, and I am not in the least bit surprised it took these idiots 7 years to figure out that their entire business is obsolete now.

Sheet music publishers made their initial business footprint by publishing information that was elsewhere unavailable. Now that technology has finally permitted people to information more freely and readily, and sheet music publishers have not jumped on the bandwagon of progress, they're becoming unuseful and obsolete. Sure, if someone makes a photocopy of their material and puts it on a web page without obtaining reproduction rights they are in violation of copyright - but to claim that the information of what essentially is the description of what a song sounds like to be under their rightful domain is ridiculous. People simply have another source of information that is free and available, and whenever the common man is empowered it's always the duty of the corporate entity to throw a tantrum and scream "it's not fair, I'm supposed to get money for services I'm unable to convince people to use anymore!"

But then again some jackholes were already allowed to open pandora's box with the introduction of "intellectual property", which basically means that any corporate entity can get copyright and patent protection for just about the vaguest of ideas. I'm surprised the process of "suing competing information providers on notice of ineptitude of buiness model" hasn't been copyrighted and patented yet. Imagine how much money the RIAA, MPAA, and MPA could get in court if they figured that one out...

INAL and IDRTFA

[louden obscure]

but jeeze, jailtime for this? maybe those prosecuted could plea bargain down to DUI...

Deaf People and Lyrics

[mcspoo]

I wonder if the RIAA gives any consideration to deaf people and music. Since we cannot HEAR the music, often our only exposure to music is the lyrics. If they withhold the lyrics, they prevents deaf people from enjoying music. They're stomping on my rights, dammit!

Natural Progression

[nurb432]

If they whine enough to the general public that it is evil and should be a 'crime', and wave enough cash, then eventually the law will be passed.

One side effect of converting a civil issue to a criminal issue is that the burden of enforcement shifts to the state. More cost effective then having to do it yourself, so the extra $ used to buy the law is actually saving them cash.

And dont forget that there are some laws on the books now that state if you cross a threshold of 'loss' then its automatically converted into a criminal case. So if they can 'prove' you 'stole' thousands of dollars, the case moves over to criminal court, and jailtime becomes an option.

( not that i agree with this, just that its an option for them )

Clean-room reverse engineering

[Xtravar]

1. Put a guitarist, bassist, and drummer in one room with the song.
2. Put a guitarist, bassist, and drummer in another room without the song.
3. Have the first group describe completely the song without writing a single musical notation.
4. Have the second group reconstruct the song in musical notation.
5. Put it online.
6. Don't get sued.
7. ???
8. Profit!

In all reality, this is ridiculous. I would guess most people use music tabulation because they're lazy and don't want to figure it out themselves. If it really came down to it, they would figure it out rather than paying for it. My god, claiming that it's illegal to tabulate music is like saying you can't try to spell out new words (or company names, or products, etc) that you heard pronounced.

I had a guitar teacher who would write out song tabs for me to learn, rather than having me buy the books, should he be sued?

Not to mention, the music these companies are protecting is usually so simplistic that the tabs aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Play these chords! G A B D G A B D G A B D

There are companies that sell musical notation of Mozart and other long-since public domain works, and they somehow make money. Sometimes it makes sense to buy music... like when it's far too complicated to sit at your computer with your web browser open.

And lyrics? Like many have already said, lyrics are used for finding that song you heard on the radio BECAUSE THE RADIO NEVER TELLS YOU WHAT SONG JUST PLAYED.

Sometimes I wonder how people with these grand ideas remember how to breath, because obviously they don't have the mental capacity to do much else.

Agreed

[ZMech13]

I've used those sites to track down numerous songs so I could go out and buy them. Usually because the song is stuck in my head and the only way to get it out will be to purchase it and play it over and over.

Competition from Recording Industry

[quanticle]

Going the DIY route, bands may actually create a new industry. The will need touring promoters and facilitators. I smell an opportunity.

How is this different from what the recording industry does today? Arguably, this is the only reason anyone joins up with the recording industry: help with concerts and promotion (e.g. marketing). With professional grade audio editing tools available on the market, one can record wherever he or she wants, so the main incentive of joining a label (studio access) has been removed.

When the industry sees that it can't maintain its monopoly on recording, it will have to switch to a more marketing service oriented business model.

Why not just ask permission?

[maiden_taiwan]

I run a web site that contains lyrics for songs on major labels. Years ago, I asked permission of the copyright holder to reproduce the lyrics, album art, etc. on my web site and got it, free.

It wasn't hard.

Re:Why not just ask permission?

[NulDevice]

Yeah, I did that too. Atlantic, RCA and Beggars were more than happy to oblige. They even let me put up tablature and scans of the album covers.

We should create a bounty fund for RIAA execs

[grumpygrodyguy]

The MPA is demanding jail time for the maintainers of websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics. The MPA President has stated that closing websites and imposing fines is not enough, stating that by 'throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective' in its crusade.

Is it still too early to wish assassination on guys like this?

Re:We should create a bounty fund for RIAA execs

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's the next big game mod, "RIAA takedown". Camping outside the offices of EMI or Jack Valentis house with a Barratt lite .50 high velocity sniper rifle squeezing off round after round into screaming wimpering record company execs,
splattering thier brains into clouds of pink mist.... ahhh yes! M -M -M -M MONSTER KILL!!!!
Hmm, the thought fills me with the kind of righteous excitement that you get from destroying something you know to be truly evil. I didn't realise I could actually HATE any human beings so much. Yes, that would certainly be a brilliant _game_ to play wouldn't it.

/ remember kids, in real life violence solves nothing, but talking about it can be very theraputic.

Imagine

[dkarney]

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Written by: John Lennon

MySpace?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

I wonder how much trouble all the teens who include lyrics in their MySpace profiles and such will have?

Kid: I love this song... look at the lyrics... aren't they great!
Industry: Stop in the name of love
Kid: Hey, that's a lyric too, you have to sue yourselves!
Industry: Oh, I hadn't thought of that... <vanishes in a puff of logic>

What this really means.....

[Prog_Burner]

I think that the publishers just want total control, you'll be able to pay to search....and of course they won't be able to get together, so for that one song you heard on the radio, you have to pay 3 or 4 times to look it up on each site (who knows who publishes songs anyway?) The problem for them is to somehow give people no other option to find the name of a song. Once the MPAA, RIAA and BSA are finally able to shut down every form of communication that can be used for sharing digital information, they can just start their own and all the problems of the world will be solved!

wtf is they sippin' on?

[HalAtWork]

The MPA President has stated that closing websites and imposing fines is not enough, stating that by 'throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective' in its crusade.

Throwing in jail time to your kid if he spills orange juice will probably make him pay more attention too, but it doesn't mean it's the right solution. Throwing in jail time to prevent someone from taking any action will probably make them hesitant to take the action, but it doesn't mean that the actions deserve punishment either. The very reasoning behind this is nonexistant...

and the last lawsuit will be....

[Anonymous Coward]

this just in,the **AA finds out that the ears of listeners have been converting sounds from "fill in the blank" and reproducing them as signals to the brain. lawsuits have already been launched.

We must protect the artistry!

[PFI_Optix]

With lryics like this: Bombastic love So fantastic Where I'm completely yours and you are mine And it's gonna be exactly like in a movie When we fall in love for the first time How could we not force people to pay money to read them???

We've heard this before

[Kythe]

Anyone remember the "Net Computer"? It was supposed to replace the generic computing platform. It turned out that it didn't quite work.

What it seems to me you're proposing is that just a couple of companies will take over information technology platform production, and put whatever limitations they want into that platform. I think competition, along with ever-changing applications for computers, will prevent this. It has thus far, despite predictions to the contrary.

I'm not saying that copyright profiteers wouldn't like things to work out the way you describe, however.

Re:We've heard this before

[BewireNomali]

I'm not necessarily proposing that things go in the manner I described. It's just that I can imagine that the status quo is invested in it.

Re: network computing: I'm pretty certain we're heading that way. It's a bandwidth issue. Ultimately, we won't buy software at all. Very few companies will give us access to their code. This model, they would probably contend, would serve to drastically reduce piracy.

I think that several Asian markets will be interesting testbeds, as they've already built out the bandwidth necessary for a more centralized computing experience. That should be interesting.

Again, I'm not proposing it. I'm actually opposed to centralization in most forms. Centralization is de facto oppression. I'm not interested.

However, things like the Apple computing experience and ITunes are already paving the way. Plug and Play all the way. Don't worry about how your machine works - it just works. Seamless... negligible input from the end user. And we all applaud it.

The MPA welcomes your questions and comments.

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPA welcomes your questions and comments. The most efficient way to contact the MPA is via email. Emails from the general public are usually replied to within 2-3 business days. You can email MPA Administrator Julie Averill, at:

mpa-admin@mpa.org

I'm in trouble.

[eheldreth]

I can from time to time figure out how to play and entire song with out the sheet music, guess I can expect **AA to come cut off my fingers and break my martin. First of all most tabs are not that accurate and second I learned to play guitar using tabs from the net. I still use it to help learn new styles of playing. I guess maybee I should be given a labotomy(speeling) for singing the lyrics to a song while I'm working.

The more things change the more they stay the same

[richardoz]

For the words of the profits were written on the studio wall,
Concert hall
And echoes with the sounds of salesmen.

Neil Peart, Rush Permanent Waves 1979

Maybe we should cut off their...

[TheGadgetGeek]

Let's take this to the next logical level...

Capital punishment for career offenders -- maybe cutting off their index finger for the second offense...

In reality, copyright is a *CIVIL* crime and should only be pursued in civil courts (e.g. sue the person/site operator for damages as a party to an infringment).

If these "out of control" corporate weenies get their way, we will start seeing debtor's prisons for credit card deadbeats, whippings for adultery, tongues cut off for slander...

Just my $0.02

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me!

In fact, I use lyric sites...

[FlyingOrca]

...because for me, and for almost all of my friends, entertainment IS a piano in the living room (ike at my keyboard player's house, or my girlfriend's house, which has the best music parties in town). And a bunch of guitars, and a bass, and a banjo or two, and a mandolin, and a set of uillean pipes, and some good whistle flutes, and an accordion, and some percussion, and fifteen or twenty good singers who have been getting together (professionally and casually) for twenty years or so.

We do like to learn new material every now and again; in fact, with a computer in the music room at my gf's place, we can look something up and try it out spontaneously (once everyone has drunk enough, heh).

There are still plenty of DIY entertainers out there, and my city (Winnipeg) has a thriving music scene because of it. Internet lyric sites don't provide anything you can't do for yourself with a pen, paper, and ears, they just make it easier. Long live the folk process, and fuck the music "industry"!

Re:In fact, I use lyric sites...

[duffbeer703]

That's really good to hear... growing up, my grandfather used to play the accordion and piano (and a piano accordion) and we'd have a great time.

Unfortunately, passive/pablum entertainment rules the day in most homes.

tequila

[Lord Ender]

Does anyone know what the lyrics to the Champ's song, "Tequila," are? I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be sued.

Re:tequila

[Anonymous Coward]

<PleaseDoNotFeedTheTrolls> anyone who can't plug "Champs", "Tequila", and "lyrics" into Google should be shot. Along with anyone else who is related to them. (maybe we could line them, head-to-head, and use just one bullet?)
We have to keep the gene pool nice & clean.
<PleaseDoNotFeedTheTrolls>

Do you know why Louie, Louie was banned in so many places? No one knew the lyrics and figured they had to be lewd. Otherwise, people would be singing them. You'd have thought some parent would have "cracked the code" like they would today.

Then, there's the story about Elvis shown only from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan show. The sad part it was his third visit. They knew what they were getting into and could have done it on the second visit.

"Wake Up, Little Susie", banned in Boston

And finally, we bring Ed S to deal with the Stones' "Let's Spend the Night Together" and changing it to "Let's Spend Some Time Together".

Re:tequila

[Lord Ender]

Look above you. Did you see that? It wasn't a meteor--it was the joke.

AC/DC

[SammysIsland]

Dirty Deeds and the Thunder Chief!

Provide Us a Service

[ksheff]

Then they better provide a search service that allows you to type in a phrase from the song and it spits back possible names of the songs, the writer, a verse/or short mp3 version of the song, and a link to buy it. When I use google to search the lyrics sites, I usually have no idea what the name of the song is or who wrote it. This is usually for old songs that I heard a musician sing in a bar that's not heard on radio anymore and may not even be in print anymore (like the old blues songs Scott H. Biram digs up from time to time). Spending tons at time at a music publishing store that may not even sell a book containing a song is a waste of my time.

If they don't like the fact that people are typing in this stuff and providing it for free on the internet, then they better step up to the plate and provide a service that makes it simple and easy to search and buy their product. That's one of the reason why iTunes is successful. They should have done this a decade ago.

This has more to do with tabs than lyrics.

[nocaster]

I think TFA is talking mostly about guitar tab and music scores...not necessarily lyric sites. There are scores of guitar tab sites that have thousands of tabs for just about every song you can think of. There are also books published with the same info only they are "supposed" to be accurate. The problem is that many tabs on these sites are for songs that have no "legal" books in print.

Been happening for years

[gatzke]

A buddy of mine at Georgia Tech got busted for this in 1995. He was a big Jimmy Buffet fan and had put lyrics online and he got a cease and desist.

This stuff is copyright and they don't want you to publish it online, even if you are president of the fan club. I personally don't get it, but they own the copyright so they can take their ball and go home.

think before you call someone stupid

[geekee]

"Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you."

So am I stupid for using the phrase "You stole my idea.". Copyright infringement is theft because distributing copyrighted material at a lower cost than the copyright owner would charge deprives him of revenue, and lowers the value (in monetary terms) of the copyrighted work. That is, if I want to charge $1 for a song I own, but someone else is selling an exact copy for $0.50 under the same conditions, I need to lower my price to $0.50 to sell any songs.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So am I stupid for using the phrase "You stole my idea."

No, because that's what we call a metaphor. The phrase "you stole my idea" is generally used in a jocular or figurative sense: it is not usually used in the context of accusing someone of a serious crime. Whereas "reproducing the lyrics to a song without permission is stealing and should be punished by jail time" is not a figurative use, but an attempt to redefine the meaning of a word and to use the redefinition to justify a draconian punishment for something that clearly isn't obviously wrong to many people.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[Buran]

You are erroneously assuming that someone would have paid $1 for the song in the first place. There is no way to prove that. Furthermore, theft is the act of depriving someone of something physical.

And before someone gets up in arms and calls me stupid, look it up in a goddamn dictionary. All the people who are yelling "YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR SAYING THAT!" don't know their own language.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[xero314]

I was going to argue that you were incorrect in thinking that theft requires taking of physical property, but I realize the problem is not in your understanding of the word theft, it is the understanding of the word property. Now theft, in legal terms, can include both Property and Services (look up Theft of Service in any law library, there are countless cases), which does show that property does not need to be involved for theft to take place. In this case though, the copying of copyrighted material, property is involved. Property typically referes to something owned, though there are other defenitions for the word property. The thing owned need not be physical in anyway (I'm not getting into the definition of something or owned because this would never end) as has been show by national and international Intelectual Property law. Intelectual Property is an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark just to name a few.

I would just suggest before you go off and tell others that they "dont't know their own language" that you take time to read up on the concepts involved and include modern references and common usages.

Copyright infringement is very much Theft, specifically Theft of Intelectual Property.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[Buran]

Theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Larceny: The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

And you can't deprive anyone of anything if the item isn't tangible.

But continuing on this argument is stupid once I have to quote definitions, so I'm outta here.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[paving-slab]

An excerpt from http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#righ tsThe World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Frequently Asked Questions What rights does copyright provide?

The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize:

* its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording;
* its public performance, as in a play or musical work;
* recordings of it, for example, in the form of compact discs, cassettes or videotapes;
* its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite;
* its translation into other languages, or its adaptation, such as a novel into a screenplay.

It appears that copyright gives the copyright holder the authority (within reason) to tell you what you can and cannot do with the copyrighted work.

Interestingly, there is no mention of anyone owning the work, but owning the copyright to the work, as in:-

"...The creator - or the owner of the copyright in a work - can enforce rights administratively and in the courts...".

Therefore if you infringe a copyright you are not stealing the work as they don't own it, nor are you stealing the copyright, which they do own.

It seems that failure to bow to this authority is an act of, well, copyright infringement, not theft.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[xero314]

If you happen to not be a citizen of the United States of America I would be more than happy to let this slide. In the US on the other hand we have what is called the No Electronic Theft (NET) act which was enacted "to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet." The US has acknowledged that Electronic, none tangible, property, used without the permission of the properties rightful owner (copyright holder) is in fact theft.

This argument started long before the internet was in the publics hands. Back when Phone Phreaks and Pirated Cable were popular (which was prior to the 90s) the US justice department determined that regardless of the act of derpivation, freely aquiring services or materials which you are not entitled to is theft

As for the denfenition war (which is silly to do because I can find a defenition to match anything, I mean some people even think Intelligent Design is science), but I will provide a few defenitions that expand on the defenitions of theft, with references.

Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
Steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Theft - a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
Property - something (as an interest, money, or land) that is owned or possessed
Intangible Property - property (as a stock certificate or professional license) that derives value not from its intrinsic physical nature but from what it represents
Intelectual Property - property that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; specifically : an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or application, right, or registration relating thereto
- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

You may personally not beleive that use of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is indeed theft, but by pure defenition it falls under the category of theft as defined by respected scholars on American English language and the Governing body of the United States of America.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[xero314]

Check my response to the sibling post to yours and you will see the point I was trying to make. Personally I don't care what you call it, but to call someone stupid for beleiving one way or the other is rude and incorrect because there are sources to back up the idea that copyright infringment is theft. People have the right to beleive otherwise, but that does not make them either more intelligent or not.

Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[paving-slab]

You may not care what anyone calls it, but I and others do. The vested interests like to use the inaccurate term "theft" because it is much more emotive than the term "copyright infringement".

The fact is that theft is not possible under copyright laws as they stand. Copyright laws only give the authority to prohibit or authorise what you can do with a copyrighted work once you have it, they don't give the authority to say how it must be obtained in the first place.

So to infringe copyright you must already have the copyrighted work, and if you already have it you are not stealing it. This, of course, is on top of the fact that the copyright holder doesn't own the work, they own the copyright to the work.

As for people being less intelligent for believing otherwise, I'm not sure there are many people who do believe otherwise. I sure there are a lot of intelligent people who (think they will) stand to gain financially if they can convince people to believe it, and a lot of people who are paid well to do the convincing.

...Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.

You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.

Re:think before you call someone stupid

[xero314]

...Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.
You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.

Actually I have been thinking it through for a long time, taking into account the good and the bad. And as much as there are some down falls to collective or nationalized property laws, they benifits far out way the deteriment. Regardless, remove of personal property rights would remove the issue of copyright infringment being theft or not.

That's not exactly true.

[Arivia]

"The lyrics are in the song and a trained ear can get them off the stupid song unless the singing is so bad or trampled by "background noise" that lyrics become the only way to figure out exactly what was said."

I'm listening to Emperor's I Am The Black Wizards right now, and I wouldn't have a clue what Ihsahn was saying if it wasn't for the lyrics I've got open in another Firefox tab. And neither the singing or production is terrible-it's just the style of the music that makes this necessary. The same could be said of music in a language you're not familiar with or music in a different genre from what you're used to-some of the effects in some electronica songs make the vocalists rather hard to understand.

1st Amendment Rights?

[Scott Swezey]

Heh, I must have missed the part in the constitution where it changes the rules when dealing with music/movie companies.

I'd say it's about time to organize a mass boycott. One week where no one buys any music (CD's, iTunes, etc), listens to the radio, goes to the movies, buys DVD's, etc.

Different Things

[SeanDuggan]

Hell, at least going after bands who sing, and get paid for, cover versions, makes some sense. It might, indeed, be counter-productive in the long run, but it makes sense in the short term: If you want to sing covers, you pay for the rights to perform the music.
Different animals entirely. I'll admit I made the same mistake you did, seeing AA at the end and assuming it was everyone's favorite download-hating entity. This is the MPAA. They're not involved in bands singing cover songs. Basically, the MPAA worries about if they're stealing the sheet music or lyrics of the cover. The RIAA worries about the band copying the original CD so everyone has a practice copy. BMI/ASCAP/a couple others worry about whether the bar has the right to broadcast the music if it's in their catalogue. And, well, the copyright office handles the compulsory licensing of recording a cover of the music if you don't negotiate with the publisher or through the Harry Fox Agency of New York.

The MPAA has a point in that none of us are saying "Hey, I look up song lyrics so that I can buy sheet music of it." Rather, we're saying we get the song lyrics to buy CDs, which profits the RIAA.

In a year 2026

[sinij]

I a year 2016 you will go to jail for singing lyrics of a copyrighted song in the shower, extra jail time will be added if you botched it badly or got some parts of it wrong.

Karaoke

[SeanDuggan]

Technically speaking, the MPAA (or whoever owns the lyrics) makes money by licensing out the songs to the karaoke CD creator and the owners of the music make money off of mechanical licensing for each CD made. BMI/ASCAP/a few small fry make money by charging the karaoke bar for the right to broadcast music from their catalog. Technically speaking, if the CD+G is from a legit company and the bar has the right to broadcast that music (the latter is generally not checked because most bars have a BMI and an ASCAP license which covers 99% of the music. The bars have this so that they can legally have a jukebox), everyone who needs to be paid has been paid. If the karaoke operator started selling CDs of the performance, or giving them away for that matter, he would have to pay a mechanical licensing fee per song per CD. Interestingly enough, the RIAA doesn't factor into karaoke at all except perhaps as the eventual receiver of mechanical licensing fees.

Let's have our cake and eat it too....

[KoshClassic]

I'll support jail time for operators of web sites that publish music lyrics and scores when the record companies support jail time for record company executives / employees who engage in payolla, price fixing etc. The law is a two way street.

Besides, you'd think it would occur to these idiots that if they actually included the lyrics to the songs on a CD in the booklet that comes with the CD (which they do, but only in a relatively small number of CDs), they'd a) encourage more people to buy the CD instead of downloading it (either illegaly, or even for $.99 per track which they lambast Apple for) and b) largely eliminate the need for web site operators to publish the lyrics in the first place.

This is not new.

[NulDevice]

The MPA has been cracking down and suing people who put lyrics online, put music online, distribute photocopies, etc etc for a long, long time. It's what they do.

They aren't as pig-headed as the RIAA, though. They're slightly smarter, and have had various legitimate online distribution vectors for nearly a decade now. Admittedly, they're not perfect - a few distribs use entirely proprietary document formats, others are slow with new releases because the engraving software is nonstandard and everything needs to be re-entered, etc etc, but they do exist and you can buy sheet music on a per-song, cheap basis. It's not a big market like digital music, so it never gets as much press. But it's there and for most pedagogical, home performance, or coverband needs they're pretty comprehensive sites.

This is all pretty much outside the label system. Some labels do have publishing arms, but they're not all-inclusive. You can sell a record through Sony but publish independently.

Additionally, if you've got lyrics or words or tabs on your website site - contact the artist, the artist's management, or the publisher. Quite often the actual copyright holder will say "yeah, sure, that's cool" - most bands don't really care about garage bands covering their music - they make a lot more from the mechanical and performance royalties when someone does than they ever do from the sheet music - why bother with a few hundred bucks from the sheet music when a single indie-band cover on 1000 CDs will get you $70 right there? For a lot of publishers it's just not cost effective to go through the trouble of printing up 1000 books of sheet.

However, I bet the primary targets of lawsuits and C&D's will be places that put up the sheet music to the big earners - "White Christmas", for example - earners for their copyright holders which make comparatively less from new recording sales and performance royalties. "Classics" like the Beatles (or god help us "Stairway to Heaven"), for which every beginning guitar student seems to buy a fake book, are big moneymakers and are more likely to be under illegal-online-violation scrutiny than someone posting the tabs to Black Flag's "TV Party."

Re: But quite frankly...

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't kara what you call it oke?

someone has to say it...

[JimXugle]

How many corporate lawyers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?













The Answer is two... if they fit inside the lightbulb

Copyright infringement isn't theft, *but* ...

[lasindi]

Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you.

Copyright infringement is not theft. But to imply copyright infringement doesn't deprive someone of something is simply false. Copyright infringement deprives a copyright holder of the right to control how his material is distributed and used. Say I were to copy code out of Linux and redistribute it under a proprietary license; that would deprive the copyright holder (Linus Torvalds) of the right to restrict how it is redistributed. Linus Torvalds GPLed Linux because he wanted to force users to contribute back their improvements; pirating Linux source code would deprive him of the right to enforce this.

Copyright infringement doesn't directly deprive people of tangible objects or property. It directly deprives people of the (intangible) right to control their work. This usually indirectly deprives copyright holders of tangibles. In Linus' case, it would deprive him of code; in the MPA's case, it deprives them of royalties.

I agree, copyright infringement isn't theft. But stop claiming that it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.

extended 12" edition

[smellsofbikes]

You say that to all the girls, don't you?

Split into verses, a la books.google.com?

[Anonymous Coward]

Split copyrighted material Sites that let you search copyrighted material, such as books.google.com, only return a page at a time, not the whole book.

For all the users that want to be able to search to find the name of a song, instead of returning a page with the entire copyrighted lyric/poem, maybe a lyric search site could return 1 verse with the name of the song, such as "Happy Birthday, verse 2".

So removing sites with whole lyrics does not necessarily mean you won't be able to search for the song title by typing in a line from the song.

Artists' Quality control Fan lyric sites often contain many inaccurate wordings, so some artists might be offended that the wrong words are being attributed to them on some fan sites. Like Mozilla wants to keep their trademark a mark of quality and doesn't let people redistribute modified copies with their trademark names and logos, an artist wants their name to be associated with the quality of their writing.

Searching for misheard lyrics Of course, if one fan mishears a lyric and transcribes it, the transcribed lyric is available for others who mishear it the same way to search for it and find the name of the song. That might not be available if the only lyrics were the official lyrics. (So to address the quality control issue, it might help to write [unofficial lyric] on every line to make clear that this is how a fan heard it and does not necessarily represent what the artist wrote or performed, so the disclaimer is sure appear even in excerpts, say from searches.)

Benefiting the artist directly How many of the fan lyric pages had actual links from each lyric page to the artist's web site store where the album can be bought? (Or if the artist does not have a site, the CDBaby page, or the Amazon store, or some place that benefits the artist, not a pirate site.) If the fan lyric site is like an affiliate site driving traffic to the artist, the artist may be more inclined to look kindly on the site.

www.mpa.org USES LIFTED CODE IN THEIR PAGE

[Anonymous Coward]

// (C) 2000 www.CodeLifter.com // http://www.codelifter.com/ // Free for all users, but leave in this header

Responsible parents and "Explicit Lyrics" stickers

[gandreas]

So the RIAA has those little http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp"Ex plicit Lyrics" Parental Advisory stickers placed on various albums, with the goal "to help parents make the choice about when -- and whether -- their children should be able to listen to a particular recording". So now child wants to buy album, responsible parent decides to investigate lyrics themselves, to determine appropriateness. Where are they going to find them if they can't find them online anymore?

without copyright, even the GPL is unenforceable

[poot_rootbeer]

Talk about false analogies. Denying suffrage based on skin color was indeed "a corrupt rule of law"; copyright protections for creators, not so much.

You disappoint me by failing to see there's a substantiative difference, and the guy who's hovering his pointer over the "-1, Troll" button for this comment I'm writing right now disappoints me too.

a game 2 way game

[LinuxRulz]

Got a great idea to stop this. You compose a song. Something called like "I'll sue you" and the lyrics saying roughly:
"I'll sue you,
If your website contains copyrighted lyrics.
You will go to jail
And you won't pass GO!"
You copyright and sue if the RIAA uses your lyrics without proper license, which you won't give them...

Solution

[MagnusDredd]

The solution is to call them and tell them that they've gone too far this time and you're not going to buy their music anymore.

Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.
10585 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, Ca 90025-4950

phone: 310-441-8600
fax: 310-470-1587

email: webmaster@warnerchappell.com

I called them. I told them I had lots of CDs already, and can simply just use to non-RIAA (local/unsigned) bands to suppliment my collection from now on. I told them that I've simply been pushed too far, and that I was telling everyone I knew.

Let them know how you feel.

Mention PearLyrics and any other tool they've shut down, and tell them you're mad as hell that it is gone now.
Mention that you used these lyrics sites to find the song name/artist of stuff you wanted to buy.
Mention that you used these sites to check the lyrics of music your children want to listen to.
Mention that you will not pay for something as inane as finding lyrics, and you don't give a rats ass WHO the publisher is.
Tell them that while some people went on download sprees, you paid for new albums, and that you are disgusted that this is the way they want to thank you.
Tell them that you have a large CD collection already, and can suppliment it with local/unsigned/non-RIAA artists... and that if an RIAA-produced album comes along that is so awesome you have to have it, you'll buy it used.

How many calls, mails, emails do you think it will take til they get the message?

MPA's view on churches and "stolen property"

[supersly2005]

"WHAT ABOUT EXISTING PHOTOCOPIES OR TAPES IN OUR CHURCH MUSIC LIBRARY? To protect yourself and your organization you should destroy all unauthorized photocopies, tapes, etc., and replace them with legal editions. Possession of illegal copies puts you in a position of harboring stolen goods."

quoted from: http://www.mpa.org/copyright/church.html

Re:MPA's view on churches and "stolen property"

[Travelsonic]

Talk about legal bullshit.... IIRC, copying copyrighted goods in the case mentioned here does not come close to falling under harboring stolen goods... copyrigh infringing maybe, but maybe they have their heads up their asses too deep.
It is shit like this that George Orwell warned us about.

I have just the trick!

[LibertarianWackJob]

I will download the internet and keep a personal copy.

$ wget --recursive --span-hosts http*

Who is being hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a fairly popular tabsite(1 mill hits/day). I will not draw any attention to myself, so I do not post the name here.

Ive got some Google-ads on it, but it is really not a commersial site. It is a hobby, and the ads pays my hosting.

The songs should be seen as receipts to how to perform the song as the artist is doing it. They are not copies of the original song, and usually they are not referring to the writer, but to the artist(or a special performance by an artist). The songs are transcribed by thousands of amateurs, and a major part of them are posted originally on Usenet forums.

I have a notice posted on my pages, saying I will remove any link to songs if someone wants me to. Ive got a couple of requests. One from a guy that by accident had posted his email-address in the file, and wanted to remove it from the Internet. I also got a couple of incidents where the credits where wrong, and the author of the song contacted me to have his name included. No one has ever requested a song to be removed.

I have however gotten several requests from recording artists wanting their songs to be included (+ some wanting me to link to their fan-sites with the lyrics on them).

I have gotten several hundred of mail from people telling me that they now have gotten back to playing the guitar again. Mainly amateurs between 10 and 90, but also a lot of performing (cover) artists telling me that my site is their primary resource when they are learing new songs.

Who am I hurting? Definately not the artists. Show me one single artist that do not want an upcoming musician to learn to play guitar by playing their songs.

The sheet music industry? Maybe. But the ordinary user at my site wants to use maybe 30 minutes to browse the 5-10 songs he can remember. Then use a few minutes just to look what the chords are, and a few sentences he cant remember. What are the music sheet industry offering him? If he is able to find the songs, he has to buy 5 tab books at $40 a piece, and wait at least 2 weeks for it to be shipped to him. Then, when he gets them, he has exactly 1:9 chance for it being in the right key for him to sing/play. ... do you think they will ask me to remove the songs before putting me in jail?

downloading 'unlicensed music"? I have a problem

[Almost-Retired]

with that statement.

Because if its unlicensed, by the RIAA or MPAA, then excuse me but where the hell do they get any legal standing?

If they didn't have an assigned copyright to the work the poor schmuk is accuused of downloading, giving them licenseing rights over THAT WORK, then they have absolutely NO STANDING in court, and are wasting their attorneys^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hshysters time to even screw with the suit.

To top that, the shysters involved, and thats the right term, would if they were not shysters, be bound to educate the RIAA/MPAA as to their lack of legal standing to bring an action. Thats one of the differences between a lawyer/attorney, and a shyster/ambulance chaser. The judge is equally bound to educate them and I've seen it happen in an action brought against me.

Shysters that would get involved with such as that give decent attorneys a bad name. To bad the bar associations are often run by such, so there is no self policing of the rank & file.

--
Cheers, gene

My response - an email to the MPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello MPA,

I realize that this email will likely fall on deaf ears, and that it is certainly not the first that you have received on the matter. In fact, I don't believe that I am even going to be able to offer you the most cogent argument that you are likely to read. However, I do feel that I would be remiss in my ethical responsibility if I were to allow you to pursue your intended course without adding my voice to the chorus of dissenters who have contacted you.

This morning, I read on the BBC news website that your organization is intending to prosecute the owners of websites that maintain databases of song lyrics and tablature, and ask that they get jail time for copyright infringement. I can not imagine how you can possibly have reasoned that the free distribution of lyrics and tablature victimizes anyone associated with the business of music distribution. It is abundantly clear to me that the two demographics of people who purchase sheet music and the people who search for song lyrics and tablature online don't share even the tiniest delta. As an avid producer and consumer of music I can say that the lyrics, tablature, and even sheet music available online do not replace actual sheet music purchased in a store. In addition, the most common use of a lyric website is to identify the musician and album of a song heard on the radio, which, it must be clear to you, can ONLY be beneficial to the music industry at large, and by proxy, to the businesses that you claim to represent. Something like this:

being able to search online for lyrics ==
knowing the name of the song and artist that you just heard on the radio ==
greater artist exposure ==
greater album sales ==
greater interest in sheet music for said artist.

Many of the world's most successful businesses have made a killing with the extremely infective business model of giving away their product to generate greater marketshare. You are in the enviable position of not even needing to create a distribution mechanism for this product, as it is already subject to viral marketing. If your organization were posessed of the intelligence to utilize this preexisting, self-popelling juggernaut of music marketing, you could all retire young. Even leaving it alone would be a significantly smarter business strategy than attempting to shut down sites which do your marketing for you.

The benefit of owning the copyrighted material is made moot if you make yourself unable to profit from it. By attacking the free channels of distribution you are only angering your customers and clients. Already the previously extant obstacles-to-entry for the production and distribution of music have become so small that anyone with a few hundred dollars can start up their own record label. By demonstrating that you are unwilling to promote musicians (and yes, that IS what it looks like) you will drive people to create their own recordings, distribute their own albums, and release their own lyrics online so that people can determine who they are when heard on the radio (or through a podcast). In the inescapable future of cellular grid-distribution, you will have two choices, one, embrace the viral nature of musical marketing and work on developing ways to profit from it as the copyright holder, and two, fight your customers and clients in a feeble (and ultimately doomed) attempt to maintain absolute control on how copyrighted content is distributed, and become an anachronism when they defect to the newer, cheaper model of recording and distribution.

The choice is yours.

ANSOOH

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sold out old hippe.

    He somewhat regularly (at least a few years ago when I was last in a part of the countryt where such things existed) plays venues like Disneyland, the Hard Rock Cafe and the House of Blues....not exactly the fuck the man, anti-establishment actions he once was famous for (e.g te abbie hoffman trial).

So...

[RidinSpinners]

So if I go up to the music clerk in my local music store and say, "Hey, do you know that song that goes dum dum dum EVERYBODY'S WORKIN FOR THE WEEKEND," if they help me out by remembering it and pointing me to it, are they OMG COPYRIGHT INFRINGING because they're storing the music in their brains instead of on CD?

One Important Thing

[BigFoot48]

this teaches us is how the Horse Shit Scooping Union felt in New York City when they saw the first Model-T drive down 42nd Street.

Why not just keep them locally?

[slyall]

Lets see. itunes lists 2 million songs. Assume average song size is 2 kilobytes and no compression
then lyrics to every song should take about 4 gigabytes. Less assuming instrumentals and cover versions.

It should be easy enough to distribute them as a torrent and search a local copy. I'm sure people can send out updates for new songs every few weeks.

I would hope that some of the lyrics sites who really arn't in it for the money make their databases available for download...

Cue

[rk]

The prescriptive versus descriptive language flamewar... now!

Soon bands playing in clubs/schools/church dances

[Anonymous Coward]

That write lyrics and chords to play live music will be in jail, they won't be able to give you live music anymore. There will only be the jailhouse blues!

I'd suggest that we write congress about this abuse, but, they are to busy abusing us all ready.

Prison time... obviously !

[dstj]

I can just picture this at the local county jail :

- Hey man, what you in here for ?
- I found my ex in bed with another guy, I stabbed them both... How 'bout you?
- I downloaded the lyrics for "I will always love you" by Whitney Houston off the Internet.
- ... Whoa! You crazy? You're really screwed now!

And in other news, licenses now required to listen

[smeenz]

And in other news, the MPAA will be requiring monthly license fees from anyone wishing to listen to any purchased media. In addition, from January next year, only people with EarDRM implants installed in their brian will be permitted to listen after paying the license fee.

A spokesperson for the MPAA, Mr Wayne Kerr, said that he could not provide comment over the phone unless our reporter agreed to have the implants installed.

In a written statement, Mr Kerr stated that the MPAA recently became aware that people have been "overhearing" music intended for the licensee only, and that this clear abuse of the artist's rights had to be stopped and stopped now. "I want to see anybody who hears our product without having paid for a license put in jail. Its the only way we're going to stop those criminals!"

Consumer rights agencies have been shocked by the proposal, but are helpless to do anything about it. They recommend the use of earplugs to reduce the possibility of hearing unlicensed music or soundbites.

Death of profit death of music

[Paraplex]

Maybe I'm overreacting here, but I'm tired of having to judge my own actions at the whim of the **AA. (gives big royal middle finger salute)

I've completely and utterly stopped caring about piracy and will simply send a few bucks directly to artists I enjoy (could someone set up the open, non-profit infrastructure to do so easily), and hope they don't mind if I help popularise them by playing covers of their songs down the beach with my friends.

As a musician, I am completely comfortable with the idea of not making money off my music, and I can tell anyone who cares to listen that the death of the profitability of music will *not* be the death of music (probably cause some form of renaissance in music once people aren't sceptical as to musicians motives and sincerity)

Middlemen must go back to their jobs selling cars (yes we don't really need them for that anymore either, but atleast it will keep them busy and off the streets)

Lyrics

[roguebfl]

Question I was actully under the impresstion that by law that producers of recroded must must provide [apon request] the lyrics to something the are selling.

how can they bee gettin loss in reveinue over somthing the have to give way when asked for?

Goodbye Xanga, MySpace

[TheoMurpse]

Well, I guess that means Xanga and MySpace better shut themselves down, because there are so many users on those sites who put song lyrics up on their pages. I've actually bought music after seeing some lyrics on those sites. I guess the MPA wants to lose purchases, huh?

Why this matters to them...

[SonicSpike]

They don't want millions of dollars of revenue being generated by someone who has no right to earn revenue off of those lyrics (ie sites with ads).

They don't care that the lyrics are out there as much as they care that they are not getting a piece of the income-stream pie.

A figure of speech, maybe?

[laughingcoyote]

No, you're not wrong in using a figure of speech. But taking it as reality is silly.

If I'm playing a multiplayer shooter with my friends, and hear "Damn, you just blew Justin's head off!" I do not presume that someone has just been killed across the room from me, but just that someone is expressing it in an easier way then "Damn, your virtual avatar just blew the virtual head off Justin's virtual avatar!"

Same here-"You stole my idea" can mean a wide range of things, and is generally understood in context-anything from "You plagiarized my work!" to "Dammit, I was going to say that but you got to it first!"