I'm glad at least there's a big target (Rap Genius) to hopefully fight this fight for the little guys, even if I don't like the direction the site(s) are going.
What fight is that, precisely? What exact principle would you like Rap Genius to defend on everyone's behalf? Because at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.
at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.
The thing is that the value in this case is not in the lyrics themselves but in the transcription and compilation into a central database. The people looking them up already have a copy - they are listening to the song. A transcription is something they could do themselves if they wanted to put in the effort.
From a maximalist perspective you are quite correct. But from the perspective of how much the publication affects the market for the lyrics I think it is reasonable to conclude that at worst the impact is marginal and in the vast majority of cases it has none at all.
It is actually the right to exclude others from making copies.
It is not an absolute right either. Even the most hardcore maximalists accept that there are some conditions under which that right does not exist, c.f. Jack Valenti's acknowledgement that it would be unconstitutional if the term of copyright was forever.
IMO Rap Genius falls squarely within the fair use safe harbor of copyright law, since it provides educational/critical analysis of lyrics rather than simply republishing them for profit.
Not to mention, the content is the center of all that is RapGenius. It is educational/critical analysis of lyrics, written by people.
Would we expect annotated versions of books to be free? No. Would we expect critiques of movies... with the movies themselves to be free? No. That argument just doesn't hold any water.
True, but lyrics are only a portion of a musical work, and in general they're a pretty small amount of text (compared to, say, the median news article). I think RG would respond by pointing out that the volume of commentary frequently dwarfs source material.
I guess it's not really about that. It's that artists (besides mainstream ones) need all they can get from any source they can get it -- they really do, just to get by.
The two sides are: artists just can't make it through with a little pay with little sources of revenue, or we don't get our lyrics, tabs, and/or the songs themselves for free. It's a difficult balance where solutions are hard to find.
It's worthwhile to basically see lyrics as poetry. Poets get by by selling poetry (well, few, in this day and age), lyricists/songwriters should also ideally be able to get by.
Part of the problem is that there's a lot of good music available to me. Literally more than I can ever listen to, much of it for free online.
I think the music industry has to adjust to handouts (eg, donations on their site) and merchandise/performances rather than viewing the song itself as something worth selling.
If there's a barrier to me using the music easily, including unavailability of the lyrics, not only am I not going to spend money on things that make them more money (shows, merchandise, etc), but there are a dozen other artists who are all clamoring to make it easy for me to hear their music.
The song - and attached lyrics - should be a way to get me to buy other things or given them money after, and not try to be "sold" to me.
The Harry Fox agency (harryfox.com) is the industry broker for music publication licensing, virtually everything in the US can be licensed through them.
You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did
Looks like LyricFind is owned by Gracenote. Considering that Gracenote got its start by absconding with user-submitted CDDB data, submitted with the understanding that it was GPL'd, that they would pay for lyrics licensing is ironic.
As a user, I just want to be able to type some fragment of lyrics into google and see what song it is. I don't care about the underlying ideological issues (at least, not as much as I care about the usability of finding lyrics). I'm a bit annoyed that rapgenius and all its affiliated sites are taking over the top spots in google, but at least their ads are less annoying than all the other lyrics site.
If the officially licensed rightsholders of those lyrics would like to also make a site, so be it, but it seems they are a bit late to the party.
Comments
I'm glad at least there's a big target (Rap Genius) to hopefully fight this fight for the little guys, even if I don't like the direction the site(s) are going.
What fight is that, precisely? What exact principle would you like Rap Genius to defend on everyone's behalf? Because at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.
at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.
The thing is that the value in this case is not in the lyrics themselves but in the transcription and compilation into a central database. The people looking them up already have a copy - they are listening to the song. A transcription is something they could do themselves if they wanted to put in the effort.
From a maximalist perspective you are quite correct. But from the perspective of how much the publication affects the market for the lyrics I think it is reasonable to conclude that at worst the impact is marginal and in the vast majority of cases it has none at all.
That's what copyright means. The right to make copies.
It is actually the right to exclude others from making copies.
It is not an absolute right either. Even the most hardcore maximalists accept that there are some conditions under which that right does not exist, c.f. Jack Valenti's acknowledgement that it would be unconstitutional if the term of copyright was forever.
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/11/forever-less-one-day/
IMO Rap Genius falls squarely within the fair use safe harbor of copyright law, since it provides educational/critical analysis of lyrics rather than simply republishing them for profit.
Whether it's a small portion or the entirety of the copied work is also a factor...
Not to mention, the content is the center of all that is RapGenius. It is educational/critical analysis of lyrics, written by people.
Would we expect annotated versions of books to be free? No. Would we expect critiques of movies... with the movies themselves to be free? No. That argument just doesn't hold any water.
True, but lyrics are only a portion of a musical work, and in general they're a pretty small amount of text (compared to, say, the median news article). I think RG would respond by pointing out that the volume of commentary frequently dwarfs source material.
The lyrics are copyright as a separate work. The lyrics are the entirety of that work. The recording, the music, etc. are all separate.
I am genuinely interested in what you think the artists lose if I have easy access to the written lyrics of their songs?
I just do not understand it?
I guess it's not really about that. It's that artists (besides mainstream ones) need all they can get from any source they can get it -- they really do, just to get by.
The two sides are: artists just can't make it through with a little pay with little sources of revenue, or we don't get our lyrics, tabs, and/or the songs themselves for free. It's a difficult balance where solutions are hard to find.
It's worthwhile to basically see lyrics as poetry. Poets get by by selling poetry (well, few, in this day and age), lyricists/songwriters should also ideally be able to get by.
Part of the problem is that there's a lot of good music available to me. Literally more than I can ever listen to, much of it for free online.
I think the music industry has to adjust to handouts (eg, donations on their site) and merchandise/performances rather than viewing the song itself as something worth selling.
If there's a barrier to me using the music easily, including unavailability of the lyrics, not only am I not going to spend money on things that make them more money (shows, merchandise, etc), but there are a dozen other artists who are all clamoring to make it easy for me to hear their music.
The song - and attached lyrics - should be a way to get me to buy other things or given them money after, and not try to be "sold" to me.
I don't think there is even a reasonable way to pay them something in this case. Am I mistaken?
You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did: http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/01/30/lyricfind-gets-the-gl...
The Harry Fox agency (harryfox.com) is the industry broker for music publication licensing, virtually everything in the US can be licensed through them.
You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did
Looks like LyricFind is owned by Gracenote. Considering that Gracenote got its start by absconding with user-submitted CDDB data, submitted with the understanding that it was GPL'd, that they would pay for lyrics licensing is ironic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote_licensing_controvers...
As a user, I just want to be able to type some fragment of lyrics into google and see what song it is. I don't care about the underlying ideological issues (at least, not as much as I care about the usability of finding lyrics). I'm a bit annoyed that rapgenius and all its affiliated sites are taking over the top spots in google, but at least their ads are less annoying than all the other lyrics site.
If the officially licensed rightsholders of those lyrics would like to also make a site, so be it, but it seems they are a bit late to the party.
I know I like to unwind at the end of the day by sitting back with an alcoholic beverage and reading through a nice mixed set of song lyrics.
This rationale would prevent providing a cast list for a movie, because you're publishing the casting agent's work without paying them anything.
No, it would not, because a cast list is a set of facts and cannot be copyrighted.
How is a list of people in a proprietary movie legally distinct from a list of elements in a proprietary compound?
If you are talking about compounds that are drugs from pharmaceutical companies, those are patented rather than copyrighted.
I don't understand your question but reiterate that the cast list of a movie cannot in fact be copyrighted.