7 ms·

Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. Most lyrics sites claimed to be safe under DMCA or "Educational Use". Only up until the publisher

Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. Most lyrics sites claimed to be safe under DMCA or "Educational Use". Only up until the publishers stood up for themselves, the industry shifted slowly.

paulcole 9y ago
>Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. There's also no way to hang the original Mona Lisa in your house but that doesn't mean you get to steal it.
- zanny 9y ago
  Hey look, its the physical-goods-are-the-same-as-digital-information strawman. Haven't seen ya in a while.
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it. In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else. It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
    - wumbolad 9y ago
      Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
      - paulcole 9y ago
        oh ok, that's fine then.
      - 6stringmerc 9y ago
        Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background. The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Using/taking what isn't yours isn't right. Period. Do it if you want but don't ignore that pretty simple fact.
    - xiaoma 9y ago
      So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
      - paulcole 9y ago
        Yes, I have sung Happy Birthday but I don't remember starting a business making money off of it and then bragging. Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
        xiaoma 9y ago
        IMO it takes greater mental gymnastics to justify the current copyright laws which extend far past the life of the author than it does to justify a lyrics site. The current law is almost exactly what Jefferson was worried about when writing about US copyright in its initial form—it locks up vast swaths of modern culture and even that of nearly a century ago. It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...

paulcole 9y ago

>Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. There's also no way to hang the original Mona Lisa in your house but that doesn't mean you get to steal it.

zanny 9y ago
Hey look, its the physical-goods-are-the-same-as-digital-information strawman. Haven't seen ya in a while.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  A more apt comparison is downloading an image that is still under Copyright (Mona Lisa is public domain, though photos of it may not be), getting a high quality print made at a local print shop, hanging it in your living room, and charging people $5 to come look at it. In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else. It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
  - wumbolad 9y ago
    Except he wasn't charging them to see it. He had a huge neon sign in the background that he was being paid to have in his house, and they got to see the mona lisa for free. If they happened to see the neon beer sign as well, then awesome.
    - paulcole 9y ago
      oh ok, that's fine then.
    - 6stringmerc 9y ago
      Right, intent matters, so if host-homeboy knows he can profit then he's in on the graft. Your logic reminds me of people who try to defend themselves in court without any legal background. The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
- paulcole 9y ago
  Using/taking what isn't yours isn't right. Period. Do it if you want but don't ignore that pretty simple fact.
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
    - paulcole 9y ago
      Yes, I have sung Happy Birthday but I don't remember starting a business making money off of it and then bragging. Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
      - xiaoma 9y ago
        IMO it takes greater mental gymnastics to justify the current copyright laws which extend far past the life of the author than it does to justify a lyrics site. The current law is almost exactly what Jefferson was worried about when writing about US copyright in its initial form—it locks up vast swaths of modern culture and even that of nearly a century ago. It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > So it goes without saying that you're not one of those people who has committed the monstrous act of singing Happy Birthday without paying to license the performance rights? But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...