[Macworld.com]

The news that Gracenote has reached licensing agreements giving it access to the lyrics to more than a million songs could mean a new iTunes feature is just around the corner. Dan Miller explains. [more]

[Adwiz]

While I'm in complete agreement that it will be awesome to have the lyrics available for many of the popular songs in my iTunes library (it remains to be seen what percentage will actually be covered), I'm also concerned about the fate of lyrics on the web.
This step leads to commercialization of lyrics, which will conceivably cause the music producers to ban all free lyrics sites. We've already seen cases where they sued lyrics site owners, but they were specifically quoted as saying that they only wanted to stop those were creating these sites for commercial gain. They were leaving the little private sites alone that were obviously just doing it as part of the free exchange of useful information that the Internet is based on.
What worries me is if all lyrics publication is banned so that only Gracenotes subscribers ever have access to lyrics at all. This would be a big step backwards.

[dreyfus]

Fully agree. Another point: I would really like Apple to add some better metadata to tracks and albums on the iTunes store... composer information is missing many times and if you buy an entire album it should at least include a list of musicians and the producer. If it is too much work to integrate that into the database, why not at least include a PDF of the original booklet/sleeve?
Dreyfus

[b_baggins]

I hope lyrics get commercialized. Lyrics fall under copyright law which means the writers would get royalties from Graceland. Something they don't now at all with the "free" sites.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

What worries me is if all lyrics publication is banned so that only Gracenotes subscribers ever have access to lyrics at all. This would be a big step backwards.

---

If it totally balkanizes the availability of song lyrics on the Web, I'm inclined to agree. But as another poster pointed out, song lyrics are copyrighted as well, and songwriters certainly deserve compensation.

[bastion]

Quote:

---

I would really like Apple to add some better metadata to tracks and albums on the iTunes store...

---

For good or ill, I believe under the current relationship it's up to the property owner to provide that data, not Apple.

[wwelsh39]

I guess my first concern is the cost. It seems to me that once you've purchased a song you should be entitled to the lyrics as well. So, will Gracenote charge us or Apple for these lyrics?

[Machound]

Dan or Peter,
One subject that's missing from the discussion so far is concert lyrics. Often the extended format of a concert yields lyrics that are almost completely different from the studio version. Who is going to maintain all those lyrics when Gracenote and the RIAA shuts down the third party sites?
I have a fairly sizable .mp3 and .aac library -- currently 70 GB, headed for 100 GB when I finish converting my CDs. Of that, perhaps 20 GB needs lyrics added. I've already copied-and-pasted lyrics in for a few dozen concerts manually (uugh) from online lyrics databases, but I don't have time to do that for the rest.
What advice do you have for those of us who are stuck with an uncertain future and limited free time? Should we wait and see what happens with Gracenote and RIAA? Or should we get busy adding lyrics before the public sites go down, flawed as they may be, painful though the process of adding lyrics remains?
So far my answer has been to skip lyrics for all but the worst mumblers and word inhalers -- Dave Matthews, Dylan & Springsteen. Maybe it's just not worth the effort.
Another concern: I question whether Gracenote's "official" lyrics will be an improvement over what the artists actually sang, what they told the labels they sang /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif, or what someone else thought they sang. So much of what's in the Gracenote database is already terribly flawed. Will Gracenote's lyrics be any more accurate than the rest of their database?
I question how much editorial discretion the RIAA will invoke to avoid the wrath of Congress and fundamentalist groups. Witness some of the substitutions in liner notes' wording over the years. Also, the data is only as reliable as the person typing it in. I doubt most songs will be committee reviewed. It'll probably depend how comfortable a person may be typing certain words or phrases.
I'll be damned before I pay the RIAA for lyrics that are already in my CD liner notes, especially if it's just as full of errors as what's on the free sites. Notwithstanding Gracenote's claims of accuracy, I believe what my eyes show me.
Unless Gracenote and others can make this data extremely convenient to use, I wonder if the cons will mostly outweigh the pros.

[Adwiz]

Quote:

---

Lyrics fall under copyright law which means the writers would get royalties from Graceland.

---

It's a question of balancing the free and legal exchange of information with commercialization. Here's what I mean:
If you took the copyright issue to its limit, you would not be able to sing a song in the shower without paying royalties because that would (in the eyes of the RIAA) be a violation of the copyright of the lyrics. In their view, if someone else could hear you, you are performing publicly and therefore should be made to pay a royalty.
The copyright laws allow for "fair use" of copyrighted information. This is a bit of a gray area at times, and this is also where the Internet lyric sites become an issue.
It would certainly be fair use for someone who likes a song to want to view the lyrics so that they can better familiarize themselves with the words, especially if there is a confusing vocal part that isn't quite clear. This would fall under fair use and does not require a license under the law. If you had to pay to access that information because no other options were available it would be a shame.
A student writing an essay for high school or college should also be able to quote a famous line from a song without worrying about paying royalties or being charged with a crime. This would also fall under fair use, just as it would if a TV news report quoted from lyrics of a song to make a story more interesting.
On the other hand, I'm totally in agreement with protecting writers from abuse of copyright.
The purpose of copyright is to protect artists and authors from the exploitation of their creative works for financial gain. It is not meant to restrict all exposure to creative works except under license.
My original point is that in the eyes of the RIAA and others who are bent on changing the definition of music licensing, all activities related to music should be "rentals" rather than ownership. They ultimately want you to pay for every use of a piece of music, be it lyrics or recordings. They are not really interested in fairness or balance. This becomes dangerous if they are able to set precedents through unexpected "back door" tactics like lyrics. I wouldn't be surprised if, shortly after this Gracenotes thing goes live, the RIAA cracks down on all lyrics publication for any purpose whatsoever, unless you pay for a license. Ultimately they would want you to pay for every usage, including that song you're singing in the shower.

[Machound]

"Lyrics fall under copyright law which means the writers would get royalties from Graceland."
I did not see anything in the article suggesting artists would receive royalties on downloaded lyrics. More likely Gracenote would disperse royalties to the record labels, not the individual artists. What happens once the labels have the cash? Are they obligated to pass it along to the artists? Who would monitor that they did so, assuming they were even obligated to pay the writers?
Unfortunately there's a long history of labels not dispersing funds to artists. People's worst suspicions have proven correct too many times in the past.
Assuming Gracenote cuts a deal to provide lyrics to Apple, how much will it add to the price of a downloaded track?

[jmincey]

"Lyrics fall under copyright law which means the writers would get royalties from Graceland."
Lyrics do not yield royalties as such and proceeds from the publication of lyrics go neither to the songwriters nor to the labels. Instead they go to the publisher of the music. Smart and savvy artists publish their own music, but those who do not have no rights whatsoever to revenue from publication rights.

[Machound]

I'm getting busy adding lyrics to my tracks before the internet sites get shut down by the RIAA (if that's indeed what is coming). Painful though it is to add lyrics one at a time, I sense we're coming to the end of the golden age of free lyrics downloads. Damn the RIAA and all their treachery!
BTW, pearLyrics is still available through MacUpdate.com. Get it while you can! PearLyrics app works great; I didn't try the widget.

[Dan Frakes]

To follow up on Dan's article: pearLyrics actually can find lyrics for all your tracks without having to play them individually. However, you have to use the app version instead of the widget. I mentioned this feature in my review last year:
http://www.macworld....yrics/index.php
(You use the File: Cache Lyrics for Playlist command. Keep in mind that this could take a [long] while with a large library /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[cpoff]

it appears as though pearlyrics is no longer available through their website.
you trying to pull a fast one, mr. frakes?
- cp