[xo1]

In reply to:

---

In other words, if you build a tool that someone uses to commit a crime, youre liable.

---

In that case why not sue gun maker for all the crime out there?

[ep_myers]

In reply to:

---

In reply to:

---

In other words, if you build a tool that someone uses to commit a crime, youre liable.

---

In that case why not sue gun maker for all the crime out there?

---

Because with guns you're only talking about human life. With music and lyrics you're talking about money. Get your priorities straight, son.

[wageslave]

In reply to:

---

Before the Internet era, if you wanted song lyrics, you had to buy sheet music, or buy the album if the lyrics were printed on the sleeve that held the vinyl record.

---

Or, you could listen to the lyrics and write them down (for free!). Was this illegal? Or is it simply illegal to distribute these lyrics?
The RIAA had a similar crackdown on guitar tab sites a few years ago. They shut down the Online Guitar Archive and everybody was saying that that's it for online tab sites. That's not how it happened, though. There's tons of guitar tab sites on the web again. The RIAA will push some people around, get bored and start going after their consumers another way and the lyric sites will be back up.

In reply to:

---

To some artists, the lyrics are just as precious as the recordings of the songs themselves--in terms of their being needed to earn royalties and put food on the table for the lyricist's family.

---

Most of the lyrics on the sites on question are not written by Gilbert or Hammerstein and most aren't available in any other form. No sale, no royalties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most lyric writers get a share of the ASCAP performance fees and album sales royalties? Their royalty income has nothing to do with published lyric sheets (or sheet music).

[pdrayton]

In reply to:

---

To some artists, the lyrics are just as precious as the recordings of the songs themselves--in terms of their being needed to earn royalties and put food on the table for the lyricist's family.

---

The reality in today's business environment is that artists who are making money off of lyrics have professional singers/musicians as their customers. They are not making money from regular consumers who simply wish to know what the lyrics really say.
Just because one is legally entitled to restrict access to one's creative work unless it is bought doesn't mean that doing so is a viable business model. It is not illegal to post copyrighted lyrics to one's own personal web site. Combine that with search engine capabilities and it's clear that clamping down on free lyrics on the web is a losing proposition that benefits no one. There won't be a sudden surge in purchase of lyrics, nor will consumers receive any kind of benefit.
Book publishers are also making the same kind of mistake. They are envious that someone else (namely, Google) has created a new product from their works... a new product that will benefit them and which they had no intention of doing on their own. Harper Collins has shown yesterday that it isn't aligning itself with the uncreative publishers who are suing Google, and instead is recognizing the value of Google's book search and finding creative ways to build on that to make even more money.
The image of a lyricist struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table for the family certainly tugs at the heart-strings... but ignores that fact that artists, like the rest of us, are not exempt from having to have a viable business model in order to make a living.

[horvatic]

This copyright law needs to be changed! There are to many greedy business people that will sue anyone to get a lousy 4 cents for something as meaning less as knowing the lyrics to a song. This is a very sad day for a free america. So don't you dare sing along with that radio station playing that song that you like cause a legal big shot from the RIAA just might sue you for copyright infringment and trying to impersonate an artist. That could mean jail time people! This is how rediculous this law can go as it gives to much power to the RIAA.

[rdtj]

The sole purpose of guns is not to break the law, thus the analogy is flawed. Unfortunately, many people see things that way as well. A gun, software, computer, etc. is only a tool. It is what is done with it that may or may not make it illegal. Software written specifically to search public domain website for copywrited material may cross the border into only having a currently percieved to be illegal purpose. I would love to see a well constructed, well financed counter suit to end this non-sense. Greed is an unbelieveable motivator for these clowns.

[keyboarder]

I wish I could come up with a witty, insightful, brilliant retort to the lawyers and companies quoted in Dan's article...but all I can think of is, "that's insane." I feel like the Luke Skywalker doll in Robot Chicken, when Vader starts telling him all sorts of Star Wars "spoilers." I'd transcribe the exchange for you so you'd know what I'm talking about...but I might be violating something!!!
I really dislike the RIAA sometimes.

[minderbinder]

"if I have a subscription to Macworld I should be able to scan its pictures, ocr its articles, and put it on the web for other presumed Macworld subscriber"
A better analogy would be if you transcribed the text of a radio show, or the script of a movie and posted that text online. I can see why they wouldn't want you to do that, although it seems stupid to go after a search engine instead of going after the people who posted the content.
If a CD includes the lyrics, that's an incentive to buy it instead of downloading mp3's, isn't it?
"It is not illegal to post copyrighted lyrics to one's own personal web site. "
Isn't it? Why wouldn't it be? Isn't it illegal to post any copyrighted material you don't own?

[macnews]

So the gun analogy is flawed. What about the person who mentioned if this is just a search engine searching internet sites for song lyrics than why don't they go after Google? After all, it is a search engine that is being used to search for song lyrics - I just did it to make sure.
Of course, like rdtj points out, the entire reason is greed and to make a statement. They are more likely to get one small developer (with small market share) to stop than a larger, infinetly more $$$$ (comparitively) and much larger market share. They know Google's laweyers would laugh and challenge them to the end.
The whole notion of "this is my copyright" is flawed as well. The lyrics are worth 99% less without the music. They should be tied into music sales, if they aren't already. The thing I find most amazing is this shouldn't be that far off from the current business model.

[Rugby]

In reply to:

---

Or, you could listen to the lyrics and write them down (for free!). Was this illegal? Or is it simply illegal to distribute these lyrics?

---

you mean the way it was done before ? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif welcome to the world of crime...
"I love you yeah yeah yeah"
ooops line already registered and trademarked as original line not for reproduction
hey I would understand if it all was about actual music sheets but this....

[pdrayton]

In reply to:

---

A better analogy would be if you transcribed the text of a radio show, or the script of a movie and posted that text online.

---

That doesn't work. Radio content is spoken word and maintains its value whether in print or in audio format.
A song does not maintain its value when transcribed to just printed words. It's about the tune, the instruments used, the singing attributes, etc.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

So don't you dare sing along with that radio station playing that song that you like cause a legal big shot from the RIAA just might sue you for copyright infringment and trying to impersonate an artist. That could mean jail time people! This is how rediculous this law can go as it gives to much power to the RIAA.

---

No, you're showing how much people exaggerate and misinterpret things. The record company wanted to stop the unlicensed distribution of copyrighted works. In this case, the lyrics. Singing them in your car is not redistribution.
Irrational anger doesn't do anyone any good.

[doglesby]

First of all, you can't publish copyrighted poems (unless you own the copyright or a license that allows publication). The same holds for lyrics.
Also, they may want to protect against transcription errors. I wanted to find lyrics to a song once and read through many obviously incorrect listings until I found the right ones.
Certainly, record companies would be smart IMO to publish lyrics for their songs. They could host an authoritative database that helps people find their property by content. That database could link to places to purchase the track/album/CD. Hopefully, the lyrics tab is actually the first step in an attempt to add such a feature to the iTMS.