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
"Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"
So... manually, then.
Someone needs to go after these DMCA abusers, and by that I mean this National Music Publishers Association who are getting a bot to send things out which is supposed to be "under threat of perjury" if it's a false statement.
It's supposed to be a double edged sword instead of merely a club to beat down on the consumers - cut them with it.
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.
I'm less sympathetic to commercial infringement, and I guess this is most likely infringing, but I can't help thinking this is pointless.
Lyrics sites can't generate a lot of direct revenue for the music industry through lyric licensing fees. They do generate indirect revenue by people googling for the song they heard a snippet of and then buying an album. Also many of the ads are going to be related to the song (listen to this song on last.fm, buy the ringtone) so it seems odd that they're putting the effort in to stop this.
Read between the lines. This is filed under 'Undesirable side effects of contemporary copyright law'.
The DMCA is at it again.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
I remember lots of lyrics and if friends ask me, I tell them what they sing exactly in the song.
Should I be afraid they'll sue me next?
Ergo, not covered by copyright.
And moreover should they actually own the copyrights?
For a start, they don't, the MPAA are working on behalf of the copyright owners. So they, the MPAA don't own copyrights. They have not been asked to issue the takedown by the copyright owner.
Secondly, the label will own the copyright, but that work was done as a work for hire to reduce the rights of the actual artists, and works for hire aren't covered under copyright like that.
Thirdly, even where the other two hurdles happen to be passed, the copyright was for a limited time. That is no longer the case, so in the quid-pro-quo of copyrights, the owners of the copyrights should not hold the copyrights at all: the rights should be struck off.
Lastly, they aren't making money from the lyrics. They are making money off the ads on their site and they have costs of running the site which any business can deduct. If the copyright owners don't want the unauthorised making of money off adds on the site, then they should pony up money to pay for the sites and request that any revenues from the pages are forwarded to them.
I mostly use lyric sites to discover what a catchy song is called when I only know one or two lines.
I totally get how they can argue that file sharing sites etc cost them revenue, but this!?
These people are doing work and you think that this is wrong.
Why?
The revenue is not coming from selling the lyrics, they're coming from ads on the pages, so they are NOT making money off someone else's work.
Moreover, the entire frigging point of capitalism is making money off someone else's work: otherwise there would be NO PAID MANAGEMENT. NO SHAREHOLDERS. NO INTEREST RATES ON LOANS. EVERY one of those is making money off someone else's work.
Yet I bet you won't call any of those wrong and illegal and justly forbidden, will you?
Whats next, kareoke ? oh wait, it is... crap. Well to be fair, I love lyrics website cause I know some singers just don't know how to talk correctly. it's like they have a hot potato in their mouth. I mean, listen to the granpa of heavy metal... Ozzy osbourne... Who the hell understands that guy when he talks. Sure, he's a great guy, I really love is music but... You need the enigma machine to decode when he speaks.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
... but most of us could not care less.
MILEY CYRUS LYRICS
"Wrecking Ball"
We clawed, we chained our hearts in vain
We jumped never asking why
We kissed, I fell under your spell.
A love no one could deny
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I put you high up in the sky
And now, you're not coming down
It slowly turned, you let me burn
And now, we're ashes on the ground
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
And instead of using force
I guess I should've let you win
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
I guess I should've let you win
Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
And some couldn't.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
It merely highlights how silly copyright itself is.
It took me a while to figure that out.
Good.
today, not a single fuck was given.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other, hiding lyrics behind JavaScript, have pop-ups, and in some cases carrying potentially infected ads. There are a few sites like SongMeanings.com that also include user comments, but most operations just seem to be trading other people's copyrights for ad impressions.
Interesting to see .nl and .br sites in the list.
Since they risk being shut down, the DBs need to end up torrented by an "unknown security breach at YourCompanyNameHere.com" and they'll never go away. It doesn't fix the problem with the destruction of ad revenue, but it undermines the NMPA's actions.
I've actually looked up a few lyric sites recently and they all had different variations. They look like most are phonetic so I'm guessing there's an industry somewhere using Chinese or Indian workers to transcribe the lyrics by listening to the songs rather than getting them from the publishers.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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...
Imagine there's no...damn. [[please deposit $.99 to continue]]
rewriting history since 2109
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").
Most music publishers stopped including lyrics with CDs ages ago, and almost never post them on say, the band's web site. The vast majority of lyrics on these sights are poor transcriptions posted by fans, which they lyric sites systematically swipe from each other. So if one site says the line is "there's a bathroom on the right", they pretty much all do.
Are less-than-perfect transcriptions of lyrics that have never been officially published a violation of copyright?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I definitely remember lyrics.ch. I used it often to find the lyrics to that song I loved or to look up that song I heard on the radio but didn't know the name/singer of. In fact, with the latter case, a visit to Lyrics.ch would sometimes result in a sale for the recording industry. After all, if I loved that brand new song by that brand new band on the radio but didn't know either one by name, I'd be unable to purchase their works. After a visit to Lyrics.ch, I'd have been able to purchase their CD.
Nowadays, it would be even easier to generate sales. Just place a "Buy it on Amazon/Google Play/iTunes" button with a link to the song and these lyrics sites could drive profits to the record labels. They should view these sites as free advertising, not copyright violators. However, if they wanted some modicum of control, perhaps they should make a "lyrics site" license with some easy-to-follow requirements (e.g. no pop-up ads, no malware served, no links to "free downloads", links to Amazon/Google Play/iTunes, etc.) and a low cost of application. Then lyrics sites could "go legit" without too much fuss and the record labels would get the free publicity they generate.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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?!)
When there's a real person out behind the website, like Lucky Wilbury, or Calin Coburn, then the right thing to do is patronise the legitimate source.
How many of the "protected" artists are offering their own sites for this stuff?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Look, I am not an american, and i don't know all the music outside. But if I hear a tune I like, I google the lyric, et voila ! A new sale for EMI/whoever. If you remove the lyric web site... There is no way I can find out. Congratulation you killed sales.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The lyrics don't belong to the record companies, they belong to the song writer (who may or may not be the artist that is singing them.
It was a sardonic comment.
"It's copyright infringement"
"Right. I'm a sure a lot of people actually give a damn as well"
Is the second person actually claiming to give a damn? I'd interpret that as saying that people other than him might conceivably give a damn but he's not one of them.
Likewise, the commetn from "nurb432" was "And some of us could care less." implying that while some people may care less, he's clearly not one of them. i.e. He couldn't care less.
Subtext, you see.
It may be a regional thing. I hear it that way very often here in California. Occasionally even used correctly as the OP had it.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
1. before lyrics sites, listeners simply didnt have access to much of the lyrical content of the music they were exposed to. industry cronies like the RIAA didnt give a shit if the poetic art of a song was conveyed legibly or eloquently; the tipper sticker is still at their discretion and used liberally to bump or kill a song or artists popularity. These lyrics sites stepped up and helped promote artists directly by engaging their listeners with informative and open information in most cases as to the content of a song, not just the sound of it. lyrics sites had forums dedicated to the meanings of songs as well as where to purchase them. As a parent, you appreciated these sites because it let you enforce or relax certain censorships against your child without having to resort to a vague and condescending sticker on the tin which of course, is not present on mp3s.
2. litigation cannot stop the internet much as cloistered catholic monks could not stop the spread of literacy. many lyrics sites will go dark to avoid litigation, but one can reasonably expect the site owners have an absolute plethora of other names and domains they can fall back on. Remember, the music industry trade association in question isnt proposing a solution to the problem of the lack of song lyrics in popular culture, theyre just enforcing trade and copyright at the behest of their stakeholders. lyric databases can be created and dissemenated across tor or through magnet links in bittorrent if need be.
3. a smaller point but the university of georgia's music industry shill happens to be david lowery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lowery
David is a musician famous mostly for the song 'low.' as far as most are concerned hes a relatively one hit wonder. so Yet another internationally renowned, nationally proven and locally beloved music figure has joined the staff this semester, and heâ(TM)s no slouch next to the other big names already there. 2 years later he just so happens to work on a project to help litigate lyric sites? it feels like the university of georgia might be a 'stacked deck' in this case used to justify litigation under the guise of academic research. Seeing as hes not published and his algorythm as well as its findings lack peer review outside a multi million dollar industry litigation agency, if he really is the researcher then we've got problems. if hwoever hes just a semester instructor, http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/releases/david-lowery-to-teach-spring-semester-course-for-ugas-music-business-certif
then id like to know the engineer or scientist and see more of their work.
IMHO, lowery has an axe to grind and is being used nicely by the industry to grind it (Metallica anyone?) hes not a top 10 for any label, so if this one fails theres no chance we lose a major investment...after all this is a guy on his blog who equates playing low-budget venues with serving in iraq
http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/48-friends-3-guys-walk-into-a-bar-in-canoga-park-why-being-backstage-at-a-low-grade-music-festival-is-like-being-in-iraq
hes also posted tabs and lyrics to the songs from his band, Cracker. now correct me if im wrong, but your label owns that song. they own the tabs, they own the melody, they own your stage presence and likeness. http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/45-movie-star-and-get-off-this-cracker-more-on-selling-out-the-marc-jacobs-edition-m1-tank
if Sony or the RIAA took any of this se
Good people go to bed earlier.
Britney Spears was a 21st century human singer. Her song "Toxic", a "traditional ballad," was played on Lady Cassandra's "iPod". The "iPod" is really a Jukebox and no one knows the lyrics to the song. The Music "Industry" destroyed said lyrics in a veiled attempt to prevent paying customers from knowing what the artist was singing. The effect was actually destruction of their own markets... Fools I tell you. They know not what they do. Here are some alternatives: Jamendo, Free Music Archive, Magnatune
- Good things come to he who waits... but, but Arch Linux FTW!
I'm pretty sure Doug Ingle never even knew the actual lyrics.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Unlike many of the posters above who are saying that this will kill music sales because when they don't know the artist or song title, they search for lyrics, I actually read the article - they're targeting only unlicensed lyrics sites. The fully licensed azlyrics.com will still exist, as will lyricfind.com and musicmatch.com. In fact, it appears that the ones that are targeted are the ones that have tons of pop-ups, malware advertisements, redirecting scripts, etc. So, good.
I hate lyrics sites, as they're often not accurate, and the sites themselves are rather skeevy. I really don't understand why bands (or their labels) don't post lyrics to their own sites?
Or even better, put the lyrics in the MP3 files themselves, when they're sold! iTunes has a spot for lyrics, and it's ridiculous that I have to fill in that box myself, even when I purchase a song from the iTunes store (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Wowza. All that from "subtext"!
Now if you'll come over here I have a sheep I've just eviscerated. Would you mind having a look at the entrails?
IANAL, but I am familiar with the business. For those of you claiming this is self-destructive, the NMPA as well as individual publishers actually license the lyrics right to certain lyrics websites. The publishers own a valid copyright in the lyrics alone, so legally speaking, republication of the lyrics without copyright license is infringement. Several lyrics websites are officially licensed and sanctioned. I won't name names, but you can usually tell which are licensed and which aren't by the quality and accuracy of the lyrics on the site.
Usually the publishers steer clear of these sites due to lack of personal jurisdiction, or at best make half-hearted efforts by throwing around a take-down notice here or there. Publishers want to collect money, and they're well aware that going after Lars Lokke Ummerstal in Latvia isn't going to be profitable. However, take-down notices are relatively cheap and easy, and I believe the idea is to stick by principle and crack down on infringing websites in order to have a chilling effect on copyright infringement generally. This is not new, or particularly newsworthy.
It's also not really all that infuriating, from a copyleft perspective. Because publishers are licensing their copyrights to lyrics and tablature, they aren't strangling the marketplace of ideas. The only real question is whether or not the sites are unfairly targeting websites legitimately engaging in fair use (as opposed to those actually making money off of advertising revenue and merely claiming their use is fair), but, as fair use is an affirmative defense and not a bright line rule, there's no way for a site to prove as a threshold matter that their use is fair.
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.
"Gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown"
Buy the rest of the lyrics to this song by clicking HERE
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Here is what I interpret from you comment:
:P
"I believe that you are deriving an implausibly large amount of information from a small piece of data, and that you are in fact pretty unreliable. I bring up sheep entrails not because I actually have a sheep but as a comparison between your conclusions and that of a soothsayer reading the entrails, and I feel I can use this to mock you in a lightheared way."
I worded it that way for a reason. But no, i wont explain it.
You don't have to. It's obvious to all of us that you're a fucking idiot.
I can find no heart within the beast.
You're fucked.
Where is the legal site that contains lyrics, as not all albums and certainly not mp3s, come with them. This is another case of someone providing a service when there is no legal alternative. Or worse, if there is, its completed fragmented among a bunch of different sites.
...
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
I think a Mafia-style approach would be far more effective. After you shatter enough kneecaps people start getting the hint.
Why is everyone so upset? The NMPA is already doing exactly what every Slashdotter would want, which is license multiple websites to provide lyrics for free to everyone who searches for them. They're just ensuring that unlicensed sites either get licensed or disappear so that those that are licensed can fully exploit those licenses.
I am OK with people saying: this is MY stuff and you don't get any advantage out of it, period.
Unfortunately, the music biz is more like: "here, get the first dose, it's free" = lots of PR, payola airplay, artificial support in the social media.... When the artist gets famous it's "hands off, you have no license to do anything!", which technically is true but also frustrating.
I guess we need more hipsters.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
...and nothing of value was lost :)
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
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.
Deal. Now Freaky Friday this shit so that I can get on with destroying a company that's existed for over a generation. Man, I'm gonna short term flip that Fortune 500 so hard they're feeling it for five CEOs after, which, I know is only like, two years time, but still.
Hurry up, I want to finish in time for the coke and hooker parties.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Actually it isn't.
They own the copyright to the original recording, even the copyright on the original words.
Nobody has photocopied the words or ripped the recordings.
The lyrics are there for educational and research purposes so people who are curious about the lyrics can make a better job of singing along.
That to me sounds a lot like fair use and yet more over-reach from the industry.
The behavior of copyright-owners is silly — in this case. Or so it seems to me. But I am not a copyright owner myself.
How do you jump from that to the idea, that the entire copyright law needs changing, is beyond me.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
American soldiers who received lethal doses of radiation from DU munitions
It always amazes me how people who make up whackjob conspiracy theories can't even be bothered to stay within the laws of physics. At least the entirely made up "100k innocent casualties" is part of an entertaining story and could possibly be true. But when you start making physically impossible claims, you're just being an ass. Stop that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There's a big difference between "You earn me money, and I pay you. Deal?" and "I'm going to sell ad space and use someone else's work to earn myself money without asking them".
The first is a situation that's often initiated by the one providing the work, for the mutual benefit of the employer and employee. If either finds that it's not to their own benefit, they can end the relationship. The second is a one-sided use of someone else's property for their own gain. I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong (no harm, no foul), just that it's not the same thing.
Even "capitalism" is defined as private ownership and production of goods and services. Lyrics sites provide a service, but they don't own the goods that they use to do what they do.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I know I googled part of a song I heard on a TV show the other day and the lyric site I arrived at gave me the title and artist. Using that I bought the CD. Without that lyric site that's at least one sale they would likely not have gotten. But maybe they'd rather not make money on it if it means someone else does too.
No. One doesn't own a copyright, one merely holds a copyright, which is a "limited" time monopoly on publication. When you talk about "owning copyrights" you're playing into the MAFIAA's hands; that's weasel word language they came up with, and it's false.
Free Martian Whores!
Excuse me Mr. zidium but your ignorance and racism are showing.
No, they voted for him primarily because they were given more stuff belonging to others and told they deserved it ("entitlements") and because his skin color more closely matched their own.
Entitlements were done away with in 1996 with PWORA. The only entitlements are Medicare and Social Security, which WE FUCKING PAID FOR. White people who receive SNAP vastly outnumber black people on SNAP.
They didn't so much vote for Obama as voted against Mr. billionaire who stated he likes firing people, and said that in the middle of a recession. They voted for Obama because the Republicans became loonies.
I am upset, however, with how he has out-Bushed Bush
Oh, really? So he let his guard down and our country was attacked? Nope, he killed the man who attacked us. Did he start two wars, one with no justification at all? Nope, he ended them. He tried to close GITMO and was unsuccessful, none of the states would take them scary ter'sts. Did he crash the economy like Bush did? Nope, it's been slowly recovering since he took office. Did he lower taxes on the people who least need their taxes lowered? Nope.
Obama's biggest fault is not dismantling the domestic spying, but repealing the PATRIOT act is Congress' job, not the President's.
I've noticed that most racists are as clueless as you. Kudos for being honest about your racism, though, that takes guts.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
That describes no CEO I've ever met. They manipulate board meetings, decide how far they can go outside of the law without getting caught, make insider deals that serve their own interests at the expense of the workers, manipulate financial data to increase their bonuses, make big business deals of buying and selling subsidiaries in order to make the greatest profit for their buddies, and generally leave the running of the actual company to underlings.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
But, the CEO is the person who decides what products the company makes
engineers, designers, upper management
is responsible for making sure those products are built on time
middle management
and sell when they hit the market.
sales
They are the people who ultimately insure the company makes its payroll so workers have jobs and get paid.
accounting, payroll, human resources
If its a publicly traded company you can add on the massive burdens of answering to regulators
legal
shareholders
board of directors
and the media.
public relations, advertising
So... the CEO does nothing.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The lyrics sites in question have already consulted with their lawyers, and released the following statement which clarifies their positions on the issue:
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Motherfucker!
(fuck you slashdot junk text filter)
Oh man, dude, that's utter genius! Now what song are those the lyrics to, again?
Oh God, here we go comparing IP to actual physical property again.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
What really got me was the word "may". So they simply start sending out threats left and right without even bothering to even check if there's any base to the accusations? If a site they threaten is actually licensed, will the organization issue an equally public apology? I don't think so.
And that, dear folks, is the "entertainment industry" for you!
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Oh yeah. I was system administrator of its ISP at that time.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
The song is about 2 MB of what the labels would consider information that has a value (from an information theoretic viewpoint, they wouldn't permit broadcasting lower-quality lossily-compressed versions of the tracks).
The text of the lyrics are at most 2KB of that. Punters are not downloading the vocal tracks from these sites, just lyrics with no tune information, no timing information, no volume information, no timbre information, etc.
In what way is *one thousandth* of the song not fair use?
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
And that 'other stuff' would still be someone else's work.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The distinction you are attempting to make is without difference.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Say, this is an interesting method of valuing things — by size, eh?.. The mass of a key is even smaller fraction of the mass of the house it opens — stirring any thoughts?
Your brain, likewise, is a small share of the total mass of your body... Heck, a single hair from your pretty head is even less — but you'll object strongly, I'm sure, to any efforts by police to use it for DNA-analysis.
But enough analogies — the simple truth is, the texts, however small their size, are not yours, and "fair use", if any, is at the owner's discretion.
Back to the fraction and songs, if we still must, the lyrics are copyrighted by themselves — not as part of a song, but by themselves, 100%.
Maybe, once you create something of your own, you'll begin to respect the value of other people's creations.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Exactly. No difference whatsoever.
So when a friend lends me a DVD and I copy it, who did I stole from? From my friend, the DVD vendor, the producer, the artists, the factory where the DVD's was produced? Because as far as I understand, the friend still gets to keep his original, unchanged DVD. So the one who whines that he was robbed was actually robbed?
Completely and utterly ridiculous. It's a copyright violation, sure, but theft of actual property? I had no clue that people exist outside Big Media that still believe that lie.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
OK are these guys insane? Why don't they just have all the musicians arrested so they can't write music that people will download. And how about going to kindergarten and getting all those lawbreaking students humming songs they heard on the radio? Oh oh oh, wait they need to get those radio stations that are playing those songs too. And Walmart, Target, K-Mart, etc need some take down notices for selling that music. I'm sure if they all come together and try really hard they will be able to single handed destroy the music industry for many, many years to come. Hell it could take centuries before anyone would even consider writing a song.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
But from the perspective of ethics and morality, there is no difference — both are about equally reprehensible.
That's a moralistic fallacy. You could argue that, morally, there is no difference between murder and fraud, and not be wrong. Morality is subjective and my morals are different from yours.
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
We may have some differences in morals, but I'm quite confident, not paying the creators — contrary to their wishes — for your use of their creations is against yours as well as mine. You just don't bother to look at things this way — because the allure of free stuff is too much.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.