5 ms·
Study Prompts NMPA to File Take-Down Notices Against 50 Lyric Websites
- jcutrell 13y agoThis is really quite silly to me. Lyrical content can't be "sold" to consumers - it can only be used in promotional material. I can't imagine how anyone would be able to calculate damages for punitive action, but I can't imagine that it's very easily demonstrable, except directly to the licensing company who would supposedly otherwise be paid the licensing fees. To me, this resembles a flailing music industry fishing for revenue. At the same time, the published material itself is certainly copyrighted. Does anyone believe these sites are, in any way, not helping the artists?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wmf 13y agoOTOH, when a site wraps ads around lyrics, why should all of the ad revenue go to the site and none to the songwriter? Effectively the lyrics are being "sold" in exchange for the user's attention.
- Amadou 13y agoThat is true under a maximalist interpretation of copyright. On the other hand, what is really being sold here is the transcription and search-ability of the lyrics (and in RapGenius's specific case the community-contributed critical analysis of the lyrics). Since the near total majority of people who will be reading the lyrics already posses a copy in audio form it seems unfair, in anything other than a maximalist context, to pay for them twice.
- benologist 13y agoRG, and the others, rely pretty much exclusively on song lyrics to pull traffic from Google. It's impossible to know who possesses what song in audio form, and it's up to RG if the pass that cost on to their users if they wish to.
- alex_c 13y ago>Since the near total majority of people who will be reading the lyrics already posses a copy in audio form If you mean "legally possess", I very strongly doubt that's true...
- wildgift 13y agoIt's not maximalist to say that a website cannot make a copy of something for someone who owns the item in another form. That right to copy belongs to the copyright owner, not the person who owns a copy.
- Amadou 13y agoFor argument's sake let's say you are right, that it is not maximalist. That would imply there is a more extreme interpretation that would qualify as maximalist. Can you describe what that interpretation might be? What is more extreme than saying without exception that the "right to copy belongs to the copyright owner, not the person who owns a copy." Meanwhile, I'll just leave this right here: http://www.ripshark.com/ http://www.ripshark.com/
- lbr 13y agoAgree. Silly and not a huge deal. Beyond that, buying the rights wouldn't be expensive. "obtaining a blanket license to “re-publish” lyrics online from someone like musiXmatch starts around $20k/year." Doesn't sound too bad for a company that raised 17M. Beyond that RG still has a ton of room to expand into other areas.
- ngoel36 13y agoIf the cost really is only $20k, I find it hard to believe that RG finds this small price to be unreasonable...
- rallison 13y agoI imagine RG considers it unreasonable because they consider what they are doing to be fair use. As such, any amount above $0 could be considered unreasonable.
- lbr 13y agoNot only that, but RG has also gotten a ton of positive feedback from artists. The question is this: Do the founders wish to be provocative and make a point about the music industry, or do they want to avoid friction? After watching a few interviews with the founding team, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the former.
- ngoel36 13y agoWould it be fair use to put the script of every movie and TV show online?
- Amadou 13y agoThere is no way that any specific licensing source, or even handful of licensing sources, is comprehensive. If you accept that this use does not qualify as fair use then in good conscience you can only display the lyrics for which you have purchased a license. That cripples the coverage you can provide by making it too resource-intensive to seek out a licensing agreement for the lyrics of more obscure songs.
- munrocape 13y agoConsidering the fact that numerous artists on Rap Genius comment and participate on their and other's lyrics, I would imagine that the artists certainly see a benefit. (http://rapgenius.com/verified-artists http://rapgenius.com/verified-artists)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rabidonrails 13y agoWhy wouldn't they just buy the license? 20k/yr for a blanket license sounds incredibly cheap...what am I missing?
- nostromo 13y agoIf I were RapGenius I would welcome the payment because it would clear out a ton of competitors and duplicate content in one fell swoop.
- tehwebguy 13y agoThe license is probably not entirely static, most likely based on traffic like paid web fonts. My guess is that it would be significantly more expensive for Rap Genius.
- mattront 13y agoThe license cost starts at 20k/year with 1.4 USD license fee per 1000 views (CPM) for websites and mobile apps. The licensing of 1.4 USD CPM alone is more than normal sites can hope to earn from 1000 page impressions. Source: https://developer.musixmatch.com/ https://developer.musixmatch.com/
- wildgift 13y agoMaybe they should sue over the price. I don't think it's realistic to expect to get the lyrics for free.
- adventured 13y agohttp://www.lyricfind.com/services/lyrics-for-free/ http://www.lyricfind.com/services/lyrics-for-free/
- subimage 13y agoWhy was the original link and title I submitted edited? Please change it back: http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-50-lyric-websites-served-take-down-notices/#.UoLs8JTXSiw http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Amadou 13y agoBecause it is "blogspam" and against the policies of this site. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter. It is already at least the second submission of this story in the last 24 hours. The previous one is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722938
- subimage 13y agoIt's not "blogspam" - it gave a nod to the place I saw it originally, while providing a unique perspective on the subject because of my experience. 1 - The Pitchfork article didn't mention any numbers relating to what the license cost. 2 - I gave context into who David Lowery is 3 - The headline included RapGenius, which most people find news on interesting That information was provided by me, after discussions with song publishers & research. Changing the title & URL is extremely disrespectful.
- batbomb 13y agoThe "undesirability index" is seriously just google search popularity for random popular songs, plus whether or not they pay.
- bjterry 13y agoThe "undesirability index" is hilariously loaded terminology, along with really quite questionable methodology. They weight each spot on the google results based on the first result being 1, the second being .995, the third being .990, and so on. It seems like it would make a lot more sense to weight it based on traffic. The first result should be like .4, the second .2, the third .1, and lyrics appearing on pages two through 20(!) should be scaled down to the infinitesimal value they represent. www.digitaldreamdoor.com has an "undesirability index" of 2.35, vs. rapgenius' 12.77, but in terms of actual traffic, that ratio is probably off by an order of magnitude (trafficestimate.com estimates 7M uniques vs. 422K, which is still unreliable, but it's something).
- greg5green 13y agoI'm hoping that Rap Genius will fight this as I'm pretty sure Hofheinz v A&E Television Networks sets the precedent for them. The ruling there was that a documentary on Peter Graves was okay because clips from the actor's works were used "for the transformative purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the actor's modest beginnings in the film business," and that "A&E's biography of Peter Graves does not merely purport to supersede the original movie at issue, but to create a new copyrightable film biography." Each of the annotated Rap Genius lyrics are used to explain and understand where the original artist is coming from and the point of the site isn't just to let people know the lyrics (which is at best half of the work being used, if you were concerned with the 3rd of the criteria on fair use) but to provide original content that explains everything. I don't think they would have a problem winning, but the will and money to win might be a problem :s I'm not aware of any more recent case law that might supersede this as it has been a few years since I've been in an IP Law class. Anyone know more?
- dangero 13y agoThe key difference here is that Rap Genius does not use clips, but rather the entire lyrical work. Also it's important to note that often times the lyrics on Rap Genius contain no annotation, so in that case, it is not the same situation of referencing bits of work to create a new work.
- greg5green 13y agoIt may be all the words, but it is not the entire lyrical work. Intonation and cadence are incredibly important for the genre. Songs like Freeway, Kanye and Mos Def's "2 Words" do not have even close to the same impact without being heard. Also, the entire work includes the beat. I'm guessing Kanye would argue the beat to "2 Words" was pretty important too.
- dangero 13y agoI think a pretty close comparison would be a complete transcript of a movie or television program.
- brimtown 13y agoNever thought I'd see a Pitchfork article on the frontpage of HN.
- subimage 13y agoIt didn't start as that. They edited my original title & link... http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-50-lyric-websites-served-take-down-notices/#.UoL1PpTXSiw http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-...
- pit 13y agoHere's an example of a licensed lyric site: http://www.lyricsoverload.com/ http://www.lyricsoverload.com/ And a mobile app that uses licensed lyric content: http://musixmatch.com/apps/ http://musixmatch.com/apps/
- wildgift 13y agolyrics without errors. what a concept.
- wildgift 13y agoIt would be better for everyone if writers could get paid for views of their lyrics. It would set a precedent for paying the artist. Even if it's just a few ten-thousandths of a penny per view.
- subimage 13y agoI would appreciate upvotes on my original article - as a HN editor changed the URL and title once this hit the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723445 Thank you!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- subimage 13y agoHow what works, exactly? Thank you for the vague URL and lack of explanation I suppose.
- belorn 13y agoIf a program that process songs and returns lyrics are an copyright infringement, is a program that process songs and return song titles an equal copyright infringement?