Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Issues Take Down Notices to 50 Major Lyrics Sites
alphadogg writes "A music industry group is warning some 50 website that post song lyrics that they need to be licensed or face the music, possibly in the form of a lawsuit. The National Music Publishers Association said Monday that it sent take-down notices to what it claims are 50 websites that post lyrics to songs and generate ad revenue but may not be licensed to do so. The allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm developed by a researcher at the University of Georgia."
The "complicated algorithm" (basis statistics using Excel and Google) is described in the NMPA's "Undesirable Lyric Website List." Anyone remember lyrics.ch?
Pure and simple.
Are they trying to destroy their business? That's the only reason I can think of for making it harder for people interested in their product to get information about it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords, let alone any kind of recording. If you don't already know the tune, the lyrics aren't going to help you understand the actual music. And since singers are so mush-mouthed these days, you need the lyrics to avoid accidentally creating new mondegreens.
Does iTunes even include the lyrics when you buy a song?
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
It is such a sham they even call it the "music industry". The amount of assets in the form of recording studios and distribution is relatively quite small. What's big is the number of office buildings housing lawyers. If you ever drive around the West Hollywood or Beverley Hills area you'll see big office buildings full of lawyers. That's what the "industry" is...
That would be making money off their own work. And they don't have to: copyrights will bring in money without any further work from them and they're not in the business of doing work. Just getting paid.
Moreover, the entire bloody thing is run by accountants now. And to an accountant, EVERY sum is zero-sum. Double entry bookkeeping. Look it up. True fact.
So if someone else is making money, that's not "them making money", that's MONEY LOST TO YOU. ***EVEN THOUGH*** you are not going to do that work to get the money EVER.
Moreover, the ROI is very low and the work high, and that's just too much like hard work.
So, rather than do all that work and maybe make a tiny bit of money, they whine and bitch and insist that nobody can make money off "their work" (whilst completely ignoring the money they made off the work of their teacher teaching them their craft. Scrounging bastards").
That's what this amounts to. And lost revenue. I've lost count of the number of times where I've been out in public and overheard pieces of a song I liked and committed key phrases to memory to google later. Never fails to find the song. (And frankly, sometimes the results are embarrassing. I like that shit?!)
In all of those other cases there is some type of exchange going on. The issue here is that you have group A producing content and then group B taking that content without compensating A and then using it as the basis for making money. It can be argued (pretty easily) that the lyric generators are adding value in the process, and thus there is an exchange going on between consumer and aggregator (via advertiser), but the relationship between producer and aggregator is completely one way.
While I think the music industry is being a jackass and this will do nothing positive for them, legally and even ethically I can see their point.
Silly, but it is their right... They own the copyright and that's that.
It's silly so the law shoud be changed. Nobody shoud have right to restrict sharing of public knowledge/culture/ideas.
I know its all fashionable to beat on the man, but seriously.
There might be some companies where CEO's do nothing, and there is certainly a debate worth having on whether many CEO's are paid too much.
But, the CEO is the person who decides what products the company makes, is responsible for making sure those products are built on time, and sell when they hit the market. They are the people who ultimately insure the company makes its payroll so workers have jobs and get paid. If its a publicly traded company you can add on the massive burdens of answering to regulators, shareholders and the media.
Most CEO's I've seen work really hard, I doubt I'd want the job. They usually have to travel a lot, they have to sit an insufferable amount of meetings, they carry huge burdens on their shoulders most of the time.
You seriously need to spend a week BEING a CEO, so we can all see how horrible you would be at it, and then maybe you would stop running your mouth spewing nonsense.
@de_machina