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?

51 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Greed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pure and simple.

    1. Re: Greed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well we all know how much lyrics sites lead to a loss in sales for these companies. I personally print out the lyrics and scripts for every piece of media I'm interested in. It's way better than listening to a song or watching a movie obviously!

    2. Re:Greed! by BreakBad · · Score: 5, Funny

      The last thing I would describe modern lyrics as is 'valuable'. Surely they must be talking about Johnny Cash.

    3. Re:Greed! by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don't the copyright-holders publish lyrics for everything on the web themselves? Then they'd kill demand for other lyrics sites and get ad revenues.

    4. Re:Greed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So is the music industry offering a better alternative? Clearly some people want the lyrics. As usual, the "industry" ignores a demand and instead turns to lawsuits.

    5. Re:Greed! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's not sensible reasoning. The point of copyright is to encourage authorship. Someone else making money doesn't matter if it doesn't prevent the copyright holder from making money in any way, and there is no indication that these sites will reduce authorship of new works.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:Greed! by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      But they didn't want to. They had no business nor plans to a business to sell that work. There's a lot of argument about weather "intellectual property" can or can not be stolen since it's not a real object. But if that property isn't even for sale, it most certainly can not be stolen. If anything these sites are probably adding to the value of the real property... the song.

    7. Re:Greed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It does stop them from making money."

      No it doesn't.

      "They are not able to sell the lyrics now even if they want to"

      They never wanted to.

      "Love it or hate it, the take-downs are the right thing."

      No, they're wrong.

      The leeches are those who stole from the public and got copyrights extended and gave nothing back for it.

    8. Re:Greed! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      There's no market in selling lyrics to end users. The price end users are willing to pay to get lyrics is the mild inconvenience of ads.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Greed! by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 2, Informative

      So is the music industry offering a better alternative? Clearly some people want the lyrics. As usual, the "industry" ignores a demand and instead turns to lawsuits.

      Yes, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you even read the article? (Actually, you clearly didn't. I know, I know, that's fairly normal around here.) The alternative is licensing lyrics from the publishers--which most that I have heard of (e.g., azlyrics.com) are actually doing. I have honestly never heard of most of the unlicensed sites (top results: rapgenius.com and lyricsmania.com). The industry claims licensing is cheap, and their problem is that sites that don't license are making money from their ads to such an extent that the industry questions whether the lyrics aren't more valuable than the actual music.

      --
      R.Mo
    10. Re:Greed! by Mitsoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      (Assume sarcastic tone for this post)

      The value in lyrics is their ability to pull in customers to identify a song and, hopefully, convert them to a customer. They want to steer customers to their 100% legal platform, that encourages customers to purchase the song legally through approved* channels. (* = Big corporations)

      Unfortunately, it costs money to make such a website, and the music industry can't afford to create a website to promote their business! They'll probably spend $400 million on lobbyists (& congressmen.. er.. as a DONATION.. to their private anonymous funds.. not to the congressmen.. this isn't a BRIBE... No no no.. that's unethical...) and ask congress for a tax on Flash drives instead.

      I for one look forward to hear how--after 90% of the sites go offline--there is a 20% drop in music industry sales due to ""pirating"". Most songs on the radio are unannounced (or are announced 12 minutes later in a string of band names and song titles), so casual listeners type in lyrics to find songs.

      No lyrics sites? Average Joe's like me that listen to the music radio stations for 10 minutes a day don't buy the songs they are playing on the radio.

    11. Re:Greed! by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I make money by pushing bits around; specifically, I write and maintain software for my company. The company has a general idea of what value I create, and pays me based on that. Sometimes I do better than they plan on and sometimes worse. It's a pretty sweet deal, but it doesn't transfer well to artistic endeavors.

      Suppose I were able to write publishable-quality fiction. Suppose I then wanted to write a novel on speculation. How am I supposed to make money on it? I've written it, so under a no-copyright regime I can either sit on it, which does nobody any good, or release it freely, in which case I get no money for my work. Suppose I want to write another novel, despite not getting paid for the first. I have to go around fundraising as well as writing. People have to decide that they're willing to give me money, despite me not having much of a track record. And, of course, if I raise enough money (conditional on releasing the novel, I assume), that's an absolute upper limit on what I can make. It seems to me that I can put a heck of a lot of work in on fiction before I can start getting significant money from it.

      In the current world, with copyright, I can write on spec, and if I can talk somebody into publishing it I can get financial rewards from it. They may not be much, but they can continue. I can strike it rich if I write something that really catches on. In the meantime, readers can decide if they want to pay me for my novel on a case-by-case basis. They don't have to commit to paying me sight unseen. If they come along and decide they like my work, they can reward me for the stuff I've already published. Under which regime can we expect more good fiction?

      The difference is that your software is relatively easy to agree on a price for. You agree to provide good-quality software that does something specific. This is worth a good sum of money to somebody who pays you. Fine. A novel is not written for a particular need (aside from series and romance novels), and there is usually no one person who values the novel so highly as to pay what the author needs for a decent living. If some organization would guarantee a base amount of money for an original novel, there's be at least some reward for writing one, and we'd be paying endless amounts of money for crap.

      And don't give me the line about how people will create because it's fun. Creating something is fun. Making it into a polished and entertaining product involves a lot of drudge work that nobody's going to do without being paid for it. Without copyright, people would still play the guitar and sing and tell stories, but that's where it stops.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re: Greed! by WillKemp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well we all know how much lyrics sites lead to a loss in sales for these companies.

      Quite the opposite, i'd say. I've often heard a song i liked on the radio, but not known what it was called or who it was by, and then googled bits of lyrics to find out so i could buy it. And i'm sure i'm not the only person who does that. The Google search inevitably takes me to one of those lyrics sites. If they weren't there, chances are i wouldn't have bought the song.

      They're just shooting themselves in the foot as usual, with their mindless short sighted approach.

  2. Suicide? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Suicide? by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Theoretically, this could be a preparatory move to putting online their own lyrics clearninghouse, with handy links where you can buy the song or album. But, nah, that would require the RIAA to do something that benefits artists and customers, and that would be against type.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Suicide? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It must be pretty galling being a record label. You know you are shit, and have failed to set up any kind of online music service to rival Amazon, iTunes, Spotify and the rest. YouTube shit on your music video sites from a great height. Yet, you will never give up fighting your friends, because anything less than 100% of the market is unacceptable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This would have been a great idea 10 years ago, and I would have spent plenty of money.

      Now most recorded music that was in any way popular during the last 50 years seems to be sat on Youtube, guarded by Google's legions of lawyers. Putting lyrics together with an iTunes link would have zero effect on my purchases in 2013. Much too little, much too late.

      Something the music industry could still do to save itself (I hope you're reading RIAA):

      1) Buy Ticketmaster before it becomes bigger than the entirety of the recorded music business. This will give you leverage to help control the price of concert tickets.
      2) When somebody buys an album (say for $10), give them a voucher/code that they can redeem against the cost of attending a concert in the future for the same value (in this case $10)
      3) 30%-50% of the vouchers/codes will never be redeemed, so that is pure profit. Make them have no expiry date, this will give them a higher perceived value with music purchasers. Let people trade them, again adding to the perceived value. Limit of 1-2 vouchers per concert.
      4) Take a small hit when somebody cashes in their voucher, but you are still making an overall profit on the ticket sale - not to mention the $10 you got for the album originally.
      5) Customers enthusiasm for the band increases, more albums and concert tickets are purchased.
      6) Profit, resurrection of the music industry.

    4. Re:Suicide? by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really like your points.

      But for the RIAA to do that they'd have to actually care about music artists.

  3. Complicated algorithm? by Drewdad · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"

    So... manually, then.

    1. Re:Complicated algorithm? by Drewdad · · Score: 2

      "based on our exhaustive web search"

      We googled it.

      "Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"

      So... manually, then.

      Yup.

    2. Re:Complicated algorithm? by wed128 · · Score: 4, Funny

      To be fair, Google's search algorithm is fairly complicated...

  4. So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? by dbIII · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Sadly, these DMCA abusers know the "risks." If they abuse the DMCA, they can be found guilty of perjury, except:

      1) This would require the person being sued to counter-sue in court. Often, the people being sued are people or companies without the financial resources to take on a big legal powerhouse like the RIAA. Thy would need to invest time, money, and energy in their court case. All three of which they might not have enough of to effectively see the battle to completion and all three of which these legal powerhouses have in abundance.

      2) They would need to win a court battle. The judge would need to actually find against the abuser and not let them off on a technicality. e.g. no "Well, sure they sued a hundred people for sharing songs they never even had, but it was a technical glitch and they apologized (after lengthy court battles and a dozen people settling). No harm done."

      3) The penalty will need to be severe enough to act as a deterrent. If a DMCA abuse typically brings in $3,000 per person/company and the DMCA abuser sends out a hundred of these, fining them $50,000 is just going to be "cost of doing business", not "reason to stop and never do this again."

      Sadly, I don't see these three lining up right on a constant basis for quite some time. Even more sadly, the DMCA abusers know this and feel they can act with impunity.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also I've known lyrics to a song before but not the name. Being able to search the internet based on lyrics is what has allowed me to find a song I was after.

      Reducing access to lyrics is reducing people's ability to find the name of a product they wish to buy.

    2. Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by bmo · · Score: 2

      singers are so mush-mouthed these days

      These days? Really?

      And they weren't 45 years ago?

      Go ahead, try to sing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" accurately without looking at a lyrics sheet.

      I dare you.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      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.

      Just by coincidence, I did a search for some sheet music just yesterday. Found lots of matches, checked two. One sold the sheet music for a song for $3.28. The other offered it for free. What they offered was a pdf file with an obviously scanned copy of the first one.

    4. Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      Go ahead, try to sing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" accurately without looking at a lyrics sheet.

      I dare you.

      or "Louie Louie"

    5. Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Right, but is it complete? Is it well indexed and searchable? Is it blocked by any corporate firewalls?, any mobile firewalls in places like the UK because of explicit content?

      A reduced number of sites still means a reduced amount of ability to search for your product.

      But the sites that are being blocked tend to be the ones with malware, obnoxious popups, and weird javascript. A reduced number of sites doesn't actually impair your search ability, if you're only getting rid of the chaff.

  6. Bit of an own goal, surely. by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Re:Silly, but it is their right... by ameen.ross · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)
  8. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why? by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why? by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why is it even relevant?

      Lyrics site are renown far and wide as the primary distributers of drive-by malware and general bad hygiene. No one would go to lyrics sites of there were an official alternative. The sites ad value by making the lyrics available, and they can only do that because neither the bands nor the labels bother. More power to them; hope they all make millions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. Move your hosting to Antigua (:-)) by davecb · · Score: 3, Funny

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  10. Re:Silly, but it is their right... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... but most of us could not care less.

  11. It needs to be shared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  12. Evil vs. Bad by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 2

    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.

    Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013
    Rank | Website | final score %
    01 www.rapgenius.com 12.77%
    02 www.lyricsmania.com 10.4925%
    03 www.lyricstranslate.com 8.41%
    04 www.stlyrics.com 6.76125%
    05 www.lyricsreg.com 6.71375%
    06 www.lyricstime.com 6.05125%
    07 www.lyrster.com 5.675%
    08 www.parolesBmusique.com 5.18%
    09 www.kovideo.net 5.0975%
    10 www.songonlyrics.com 4.86625%
    11 www.indexBofBmp3s.com 4.805%
    12 www.lyricstranslations.com 4.79%
    13 www.karaokeBlyrics.net 4.665%
    14 www.romanticBlyrics.com 4.385%
    15 www.maxilyrics.com 4.34375%
    16 www.poemhunter.com 4.2375%
    17 www.metalBhead.org 4.225%
    18 www.songteksten.nl 4.21%
    19 www.lyricsres.com 4.18%
    20 www.lyricsdepot.com 4.09125%
    21 www.songtextemania.com 3.95%
    22 www.lyricsboy.com 3.81%
    23 www.elyricsworld.com 3.6975%
    24 www.eBchords.com 3.69%
    25 www.popdust.com 3.475%
    26 www.hotnewsonglyrics.co 3.41875%
    27 www.anysonglyrics.com 3.405%
    28 www.guitaretab.com 3.405%
    29 www.allthelyrics.com 3.375%
    30 www.oldielyrics.com 3.3475%
    31 www.musicloversgroup.com 3.34%
    32 www.karafun.com 3.225%
    33 www.lyrics.astraweb.com 3.18375%
    34 www.videokeman.com 3.1575%
    35 www.lybio.net 2.935%
    36 www.urbanlyrics.com 2.8725%
    37 www.asklyrics.com 2.8425%
    38 www.bmusiclyrics.com 2.8275%
    39 www.nomorelyrics.net 2.7975%
    40 www.plyrics.com 2.7825%
    41 www.hitslyrics.com 2.765%
    42 www.vagalume.com.br 2.665%
    43 www.lyricsforsong.net 2.66375%
    44 www.seeklyrics.com 2.61%
    45 www.letras.mus.br 2.565%
    46 www.lyricspinas.com 2.52%
    47 www.parolesmania.com 2.515%
    48 www.cowboylyrics.com 2.4825%
    49 www.lyricsmansion.com 2.36875%
    50 www.digitaldreamdoor.com 2.35125%

    Interesting to see .nl and .br sites in the list.

    1. Re:Evil vs. Bad by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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,

      Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one. As usual, the music industry is fucking over musicians, I doubt they will pay musicians for the advertising revenue that the lyrics attract.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  13. The "Music Industry" is just a bunch of lawyers by Andover+Chick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  14. Imagine by JustOK · · Score: 2

    Imagine there's no...damn. [[please deposit $.99 to continue]]

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  15. I'll tell you why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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").

  16. Cutting off your nose to spite your face by korbulon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?!)

  17. A few issues need to be addressed. by nimbius · · Score: 2

    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.
  18. Not taking down *all* lyrics sites by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  19. Legal Analysis by Warhawke · · Score: 2

    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.

  20. Re:Silly, but it is their right... by pantaril · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:No there isn't. by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:Most are wrong anyway by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

    The lyrics at these crappy sites are almost universally wrong. Mistakes everywhere. Don't even get me started on sites that include chords or tabs.

  23. Re:No there isn't. by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...
  24. Re:Silly, but it is their right... by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.