Slashdot Mirror
Warner Chappell Apology For PearLyrics
RacerZero writes "The recent Slashdot story Music Should Be Heard But Not Understood sparked a good deal of discussion about the overreaction of music industry heavyweights. This week Wired is running an apology from Warner Chappel music for their poor judgement. From the article: 'Facing an upswell of protest, Warner Chappell Music on Friday formally apologized to Walter Ritter over a letter it sent to the software programmer earlier this month targeting a helper application for Apple's iTunes called pearLyrics.'"
Is there a page that gives the words of what they were really saying?
Incidents like this illustrate the absurd litigious reactionaryism of the current music industry.
1. Music Industry hears of application/service/person doing anything new related to music
2. SUE SUE SUE I SAY!!!!!!!!!
3. Oh wait, you mean this application/service/person might actually be doing something legal/useful/beneficial to us??? oh ok we're sorry
apology ? from who ? i..i...head explodes.....
The system still works every once in a while. Kudos for someone in the music industry recognizing that things like this help instead of hurt them.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
I have a new idea for an MBA course. It will be called "Don't prosecute your customers when they try to advertise your product". I'm not sure if we'll be able to fit it into a single semester though.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
According to the article, Apple immediately removed the link to this software. With their teams of lawyers you figure they could have performed a proper review of the claim and seen it was just another case of Goliath bullying around innocent people.
But lest we forget, Apple can never be wrong, even when your money goes to line the pockets of Bill Gates.
As an artist, I hope this becomes a trend where music companys realize that our music is art and not just small green pieces of paper. I'm glad that this guy got an apology!
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
Good to hear that at least one company seems to have even the tiniest bit of common sense and decency left (even though they probably just did it because of the negative reaction they were getting, too, not because of a guilty conscience).
Now I'm just waiting for an apology from Sony, too - although I have the feeling that it'll be issued at about the same time that Duke Nuken Forever comes out.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I'm willing to bet next they'll try suing someone for using a G to C chord progression. Oh wait, that's been done before. Maybe they'll try suing you for looking at a disc next. Why can't we just neutron-bomb these bastards out of existence and let our legal system have a fucking break?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Does this mean Hendrix stops kissing guys?
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
BetaDot's story and why you should defend your rights as a consumer and boycott Sony.
"First, We kill all the lawyers"
the music industry has gotten so paranoid that free advertising is seen as a mortal threat.
a friend of mine who is in the business told me recently:
Oh, I love these "the big record companies are Satan" kind of posts.
All my friends at big record companies would vastly prefer this to be the case as opposed to the reality:
the big record companies don't have a clue and are scared they won't exist in ten years.
that last bit is interesting:
and are scared they won't exist in ten years.
Of course, the paranoia doesn't help, and still leaves us with the question of what would be a realistic business plan they could follow.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
ad-laden websites that offer unlicensed lyrics and guitar tabs will soon be under attack.
What the hell are they going to do considering maybe 85% of the tablature I've found on the net doesn't even work with the song I'm trying to learn anyways? "We're going to sue you for your interpretation/impression of this song that you've put into tablature and uploaded to the net."
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Emphasis added.
If there is money to be made by "selling" access to lyrics, I think they'll try to get all other sites ruled as "illegal" because they are "unlicensed".
I think they're still focused on getting every last cent they can from the public, in any fashion, for the music / lyrics / art / whatever.
Sorry they got caught. Sorry people reacted the way they did.
What makes me think that if no-one had noticed, they'd have taken this thing right through to the bitter end, even if it meant ruining the poor guy?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Chappel or Chappell?
I just can't stand the huge media corporations anymore. I try to rent or borrow stuff as much as possible now, and only buy stuff that I have to have. Basically I am 90% boycotting them - I hope they, their legal teams, and their crappy, overpriced products all die out. The day when the RI/MPAA and others have died out and all music goes directly from artist to one or many online music store(s)/subscription service(s) will be a good day for us all. They are dinosaurs - big, mean, stupid, and unable to adapt to their environmet. they have had their day, and we are only waiting for a meteor (sign from God that their time has passed?). Maybe it's iTunes Music Store?
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
And Bill Gates got Person of the Year from Time? Great, now the apocalypse really is on its way. Dammit.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Back in the '60s the sheet music for a song cost more than the 45 RPM record, and you got 2 songs on the record and only one on the sheet music.
One could spend their entire life and career tracking down all the songs that got included on albums not because they were good but because of who would make money because of owning the publishing rights.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Another sad thing is the chilling effect on further development of anything associated with the music industry and music lovers in general. As was said in the article:
A search feature like that could actually HELP the music industry (as well as listeners) by leading potential customers to new 'must have' songs for their collections.The short-sighted, overly litigatious folks in the music industry are the ones causing the majority of the problems for their industry. The world has changed over the last century, and they need to look ahead rather than behind in shaping their business.
--
Tomas
[fluff fluff fluff]Your program is illegal, next time we will criminalize you before we slap you with lawyer letters, so we are in a better position marketing the incident in our favour [fluff fluff fluff]
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
RTFL from the EFF. It wasn't the volume of opinion or all your voices or a realization that pearLyrics might be beneficial to them or a conscience--it was the potential liability for damages from misrepresenting a non-infringement to the developer's ISP as an infringement that caught their eye. They would very likely have lost and paid out money not even adding the insult of losing in court and having that all over the web. They have no conscience--this was simply fear and greed in action. They had the legal tables turned on them, saw a potential loss staring them in the face, and gave up--defeat is not an indication of remorse or conscience--it is just defeat, no more, no less.
Dream on sucker... We just said that we're sorry, it's not like we MEAN it or anything.
- Warner Chappell
I don't really care where Slashdot's stories are duped from, since I read Slashdot for the comments.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Especially the centerfold comments!
The current distortion of the copyright system (endless extensions to copyright, multinational corporations going after individuals) is beginning to defeat the entire frakkin' point of having copyright in the first place: the encouragement of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology.
From the Wired article:
One of Ritter's recent brainstorms -- an application that queries lyrics data online to help music fans choose tracks based on themes, like "love" or "breakup" -- may now remain only an idea, he says.An apology from Warner Chapell (dear God how many components of the Time Warner omni-media complex exist?) doesn't eliminate the reality that they would rather use copyright to ensure that technology develops only the way they want it to, extending their cartel into the far future. They've already won on the legal front - copyright extensions far past the death of the author - now they blatantly want to control technology through legal terror.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
NOFX - Dinosaurs Will Die
;)
It's about how "the parasitic music industry" is going to "destroy itself."
I'm not gonna post the lyrics for fear of being sued
If ignorance is bliss, knock the smile off my face.
Even with the apology, it seems that the software is still not available.
So it's like "Sorry we invaded our country, killed your citizens, but didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction - but hey, sorry! And no, we won't give you your country back until things are the way we want them."
Until the software is back up, Warner can cram their apology up their ass.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
But it wasn't really an apology, it was a justification for their actions. Oh sure, they said the tone and content of their letter was out of line--and at least they recognize this... However, what they really said, if you read between the words, is that they're going after the lyrics sites next, and that if his software points to unliscensed lyrics, he could still be ass-deep in lawyer-shit.
One question: is there currently *A SINGLE* liscensed lyrics database/site, anywhere, even if its not free? Also, would RIAA would have to be responsible for the accounting and distribution of royalties, or would it be up to BMI and ASCAP or other international organizations--like liscensing for radio/internet broadcast?
I feel that it's going to be too complicated to ever do on a legally-liscensed basis, even if there's a modest subscription price for the service.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
"the encouragement of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology."
That's where you're wrong. It's the encouragement of the expression of ideas to advance literature, music, science, and technology (emphasis mine). Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the idea itself (only patents protect ideas and in very limited cases). Innovation comes from expressing a multitude of ideas in new and creative ways, not expressing the same idea the same way over and over and over ad nauseum.
This is the internet. You're allowed to say fuck. :-)
Also, using Battlestar Galactica-speak is... well... a bit nerdy, and detracts from your point (which is spot on and I entirely agree with).
This whole thing could have been avoided if they had shown that they know they have the power of the law behind them if they had put something on the site like so many of the newspages I read do. Here's a quote from Common Dreams, this little bt appears on the bottom of everry article they post, and very similar bits appear on many other sites.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
And personally, I think it's rather plain that the case could be made that providing lyrics to published songs could be considered 'fair use' for both research and educational purposes.
That's my $0.02.
Is it just me, or could that have been better written as Warner Chappell Apology to PearLyrics? If you don't know the names of the people involved, one would think that the person who wrote the program is apologizing for making it in the first place.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Zonk, you're on notice: -5 for duping a ./ article from days ago.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
The record industry, those companies that have for the past hundred years made big bucks selling audio recordings on lightweight disks, are on auto-pilot search-and-destroy mode. They have programmed their legal weapons to seek out and burn anything that looks, sounds, or feels like new audio technology. This is like The Terminator where self-programmed robots go out to hunt and destroy anything that is human.
The record industry has set up their legal departments to automaticly hunt and destroy anything on the web that has anything remotely to do with music and pop culture. Hell, they don't own or control or make money off the web, so why not turn it into a free-fire zone. They have nothing to lose.
Even if they occasionally incure some collatoral damage or wipe out one of their own experiments by setting their lawyers into 'kill 'em all, let the market sort them out' mode, so what? At worse, all they have to do is write a meaningless letter of apology to an obscure magazine that no one will ever read anyway. Then it's another round of campaign contributions to purchased politicians to pass laws to put song file downloaders into jail. Let the poor stupid college students try to prove that the song that they downloaded was not an RIAA band. Hard to do that when you're in prison. Fuck 'em.
Don't be surprised to see Sony (the USA's largest music company) buy Wackenhut (the USA's largest corporate prison company) in the not too distant future. Sony can then get rich off selling music and from putting people like you in corporate prisons for listening to it.
Hell, maybe AOL-Warner can buy Corrections Corporation of America. That way they can actually put an RIAA MP3 file on your PC (copy it there as part of the AOL install process), and then leave it to you to prove that you didn't download it yourself. Hard to do when you're in AOL corporate prison.
200 years ago white people turned black people into slaves to make money off them. The black people created the blues music to excape (even if only on a cultural level) their enslavement. 100 years later white people start listening to the blues music created by the slaves. 50 years later the record companies steal the blues music from the black people. 50 years later (the present time) the record companies use the fact that white people are listening to the music that the record companies stole from the black people to turn the young white people into slaves by putting them in prison for listening to the blues music created by the black people to lessen the burden of slavery. And it never occurs to the white people or the black people that they wouldn't continue to be sold into slavery if they would just kill off all the record companies and slavetraders (corporate prison managers and stockholders). Instead they just piss their freedoms away endlessly bickering over horseshit ideas like 'intellectual property' and 'copyright'. Only in America.
Naturally they want to earn some revenue, but this is not the 1980s anymore. Failing to make the lyrics available online is creating an artificial scarcity for the work - consequently people collaborate to relieve this problem by making their own lyrics sites and contributing new songs or corrections. This collaboration is an emergent behaviour of the Internet, and the Music Industry needs to understand this. The Internet makes scarce information plentiful, and that obsoletes their business model of selling the lyrics on large sheets of paper.
Hearing impaired people enjoy music too, but perhaps in ways slightly different than the main stream of music fans. I wonder if this action could be considered discrimination against the hearing impaired?
If there is money to be made by "selling" access to lyrics, I think they'll try to get all other sites ruled as "illegal" because they are "unlicensed".
I think they're still focused on getting every last cent they can from the public, in any fashion, for the music / lyrics / art / whatever.
I suspect they're sniffing for a way to establish a racket for print licensing somewhat similar to performance licensing. At first, I was surprised by the statement, "legitimate web sites with accurate lyrics must not be undermined by unlicensed web sites", because it seems to me that in order to extract the maximum revenue, they shouldn't license *any* sites/tools for that kind of service unless fees can be collected for each use, or at least for each user. Many hands need many pockets, and there are a lot of hands vying for those pockets in the industry.
Or, put another way, the pockets of the many outweigh the pockets of the few (or the one), so they need to get the money from the end users rather than the distributors.
But publishers have been complaining for a long time about lost revenues due to photocopiers, and it's nearly impossible to stamp that out. Now those aren't even needed to spread the material. I see a parallel of sorts with the problems performance rights orgs had back when they actually tried to go after musicians covering songs to collect royalties. Eventually they realized that they were trying to stick their hands in pockets that were much too shallow and hard to track, so they turned to the venues instead, under the theory that they receive the "ultimate benefit from the performance". The system they've worked out is hardly accurate or fair to many of those they represent, but the organization is still getting money from many pockets, and that's what counts (for them). It also helps to limit the control of that licensing to just a few entities, forcing artists into the difficult position on which the parasites of the industry thrive: either accept an unfair deal or nothing at all.
Major music publishers, though, haven't been able to stamp out the competition and achieve that level of control (yet), as artists can still administer those rights themselves if they want without too much difficulty. To make that less feasible, publishers need to offer something that would be too impractical for most artists to collect on their own, but (ideally) would have a larger payoff than what this licensing usually generates. The internet just might offer a way to get that kind of leverage for a change, especially if there isn't a practical and fair way to sort out who should get what royalties from the use of web services. If a publisher can engineer that situation, the artists can then grovel for crumbs from their hands, too.
Or maybe I'm too cynical.
of these "big name" artists and I have no interest in them or the music. But this article reminded me that I intended to make a year-end donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/ and I have just done so. Who will join me? (Or are you all hot air and no action?)
I have to say that it makes me queasy watching people who receive cease and desist letters just comply with them without puting up a fight; even if it is only until "a situation gets clarified." I am really mainly referring to cases where it is obvious that industry is trying to stifle free speech, or lock consumers into non open source alternatives - and especially where (like with nost of the RIAA lawsuits) they are trying to use their size and familiarity with the legal system (and staff of corporate lawyers) to try to simply intimidate citizens out of even attempting to fight for their rights.
Warner apologized because they "feared protest." Yet the developer still seems to be too intmidated to put his app back online at this stage.
Maybe that's not the case, I don't know - I have no idea what his personal situation is, and I am not tyring to suggest that he is spineless by complying with their order, maybe he just can't deal - I don't know and I do certain respect someone's right to respond to these things in whatever way makes sense for them personally...
- but I do certainly hope that most developers, artists, free thinkers, and everyone else who uses the web and forms of digital media/media creation and distribution tools to express themselves in any way shape or form would fight this sort of abuse; I know I would - and I wouldn't comply with shit just after receiving a letter.
If more people don't start standing up for their rights we're all going to get walked on, and there are plenty of bastards lining up to do it.
It is all very well for them to belatedly admit they got it wrong for what ever reason:-) but what are they going to do to undo the damage that they have done, and where can I get pearLyrics from now?
The story, jackass. There is no implication that the Slashdot story affected the outcome, just that it sparked discussion--which is true. That discussion occurred on Slashdot.
Ok, let me get this straight...the guy made a program that helps find the lyrics to a song for Itunes users? I have yet to hear a cheap knock off song by someone in either the 1st,2nd and 3rd world because the "lyrics" were downloaded and read. They should just go and ban Karaoke machines and bars while there at it.
O_o
This is Slashdot!
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
I'm willing to bet next they'll try suing someone for using a G to C chord progression. Oh wait, that's been done before.
That's not as far off the mark as your sarcasm might imply. There a lot of room for major music publishers to sue independent songwriters, alleging infringement through subconscious copying.
I think it would be best to keep to borrowing from friends(at least until the RI/MPAA hires the FBI to track down that kind of thing).
A larger public library would count as "friends", right?
An apology from Warner Chapell (dear God how many components of the Time Warner omni-media complex exist?)
Minor nit: Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group, consisting largely of Warner Bros. Records and Warner Chappell Music, and sold it to Edgar Bronfman Jr. in early 2004. It is now the largest publicly-traded American company that specializes in the business of music.
And I will continue to do so.
I think 'working with' Warner/Chappel is making a deal with the devil. Their C&D and apology are worthless, as they do NOT own the rights to all lyrics.
I own all the lyrics to my songs, all the music The Schmoejoes play, and Warner/Chappel can't claim ownership.
Well, some people believe in decorum. Others find using substitutes from 70's TV shows funny. Still others actually prefer the way the made-up word looks/sounds to the aesthetics of the real word.
But this is Slashdot. If we weren't nerds, we wouldn't be here.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
powertabs is currently down for example due to this whole incident, olga is still up but who knows for how long...
-- the cake is a lie
Younger folks who have only heard the studio version often believe the lyrics to be "kiss the sky." But in live performances (find one and listen if you doubt me), the lyrics are definitely "kiss this guy." At one show, he changed the line to "'Scuse me while I kiss this policeman," probably referring to police at the show, or perhaps even to the "kissed a cop" line in the song "Love Potion Number Nine."
"Support our Oops."
The event, jackass. Everyone knows there's no such thing a Slashdot story.
. . . you're probably not.
Patrolling ftw
But listening to a bit of music and notating it is not copying.
Yes it is. Listening to a recording and notating it is as much copying as listening to an audio book and typing every word into the computer.
Listening to a bit of music and showing your band the chord changes and specific parts (as you might do in a cover band) is neither copying nor copyright infringement.
Technically true because no fixation occurs.