There 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.
I 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.
Not 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.
Comments
If the cost really is only $20k, I find it hard to believe that RG finds this small price to be unreasonable...
There 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.
I 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.
Not 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.
Would it be fair use to put the script of every movie and TV show online?