Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Industry Issues Take Down Notices to 50 Major Lyrics Sites

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the public-does-not-understand dept.

Music 281

alphadogg writes "A music industry group is warning some 50 website that post song lyrics that they need to be licensed or face the music, possibly in the form of a lawsuit. The National Music Publishers Association said Monday that it sent take-down notices to what it claims are 50 websites that post lyrics to songs and generate ad revenue but may not be licensed to do so. The allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm developed by a researcher at the University of Georgia." The "complicated algorithm" (basis statistics using Excel and Google) is described in the NMPA's "Undesirable Lyric Website List." Anyone remember lyrics.ch?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Greed! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399571)

Pure and simple.

Re: Greed! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399597)

Well we all know how much lyrics sites lead to a loss in sales for these companies. I personally print out the lyrics and scripts for every piece of media I'm interested in. It's way better than listening to a song or watching a movie obviously!

Re:Greed! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399599)

Yes, but this case - on the part of the websites attempting to generate ad revenue. I don't see a problem with them preventing folk making money from other peoples copyrighted works.

Why? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399701)

These people are doing work and you think that this is wrong.

Why?

The revenue is not coming from selling the lyrics, they're coming from ads on the pages, so they are NOT making money off someone else's work.

Moreover, the entire frigging point of capitalism is making money off someone else's work: otherwise there would be NO PAID MANAGEMENT. NO SHAREHOLDERS. NO INTEREST RATES ON LOANS. EVERY one of those is making money off someone else's work.

Yet I bet you won't call any of those wrong and illegal and justly forbidden, will you?

Re:Greed! (4, Interesting)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45399765)

That's not sensible reasoning. The point of copyright is to encourage authorship. Someone else making money doesn't matter if it doesn't prevent the copyright holder from making money in any way, and there is no indication that these sites will reduce authorship of new works.

Re:Greed! (-1, Troll)

asylumx (881307) | about a year ago | (#45399869)

It does stop them from making money. They are not able to sell the lyrics now even if they want to, because the lyrics are already available for free from another source. Love it or hate it, the take-downs are the right thing. I really appreciate the lyric sites as a customer of the music industry because I don't have another good way to get the lyrics but truth be told they are getting your eyes on someone else's content and selling them to advertisers. They are leeches.

Re:Greed! (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#45400089)

But they didn't want to. They had no business nor plans to a business to sell that work. There's a lot of argument about weather "intellectual property" can or can not be stolen since it's not a real object. But if that property isn't even for sale, it most certainly can not be stolen. If anything these sites are probably adding to the value of the real property... the song.

Re:Greed! (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45400163)

But they didn't want to. They had no business nor plans to a business to sell that work. There's a lot of argument about weather "intellectual property" can or can not be stolen since it's not a real object. But if that property isn't even for sale, it most certainly can not be stolen. If anything these sites are probably adding to the value of the real property... the song.

That seems to be wrong. They have been mentioning "fully licensed" lyrics site. If I search for some lyrics and find only one lyrics site that pays for the lyrics and makes money with ads instead of 100 others that don't pay for the lyrics, I'm fine with that.

Re:Greed! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400151)

"It does stop them from making money."

No it doesn't.

"They are not able to sell the lyrics now even if they want to"

They never wanted to.

"Love it or hate it, the take-downs are the right thing."

No, they're wrong.

The leeches are those who stole from the public and got copyrights extended and gave nothing back for it.

Re:Greed! (0)

jalopezp (2622345) | about a year ago | (#45400153)

You don't think any revenue was lost? Imagine the people that really need to know the lyrics to a song. Every time one of them looks up the lyrics on the web, they no longer need to buy the album to know what the song says. Even if the lyrics on the recorded song are difficult to understand, they may have gone to a licensed lyrics site and earned them revenue through advertisement.

Looking through lyricsseal.com you learn that lyrics sites generate over 212m unique visitors per month, and that 7/25 of those sites are unlicensed. Doing maths, they explain that this means that over 50% of all lyrics page views are worldwide (not a typo). Don't believe me? Look at this infographic [lyricsseal.com] (I am linking directly to the image so that you don't inadvertently infringe on anyone's copyright) and see the truth.

Clearly, every one of those million page views per month represent an album's worth of lost revenue, plus just under 50% of a month's revenue worth of advertisement for the licensed lyrics sites. This must be stopped.

Re:Greed! (5, Funny)

BreakBad (2955249) | about a year ago | (#45399605)

The last thing I would describe modern lyrics as is 'valuable'. Surely they must be talking about Johnny Cash.

Re:Greed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399621)

Well, considering that the websites that are posting the lyrics are profiting from the ad money....

Also, those things are so overloaded with ads and badly designed... I don't feel so bad for them.

Re:Greed! (5, Insightful)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about a year ago | (#45399669)

Why don't the copyright-holders publish lyrics for everything on the web themselves? Then they'd kill demand for other lyrics sites and get ad revenues.

I'll tell you why (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399927)

That would be making money off their own work. And they don't have to: copyrights will bring in money without any further work from them and they're not in the business of doing work. Just getting paid.

Moreover, the entire bloody thing is run by accountants now. And to an accountant, EVERY sum is zero-sum. Double entry bookkeeping. Look it up. True fact.

So if someone else is making money, that's not "them making money", that's MONEY LOST TO YOU. ***EVEN THOUGH*** you are not going to do that work to get the money EVER.

Moreover, the ROI is very low and the work high, and that's just too much like hard work.

So, rather than do all that work and maybe make a tiny bit of money, they whine and bitch and insist that nobody can make money off "their work" (whilst completely ignoring the money they made off the work of their teacher teaching them their craft. Scrounging bastards").

Re:Share! (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#45400015)

When there's a real person out behind the website, like Lucky Wilbury, [bobdylan.com] or Calin Coburn, [bobnolan-sop.net] then the right thing to do is patronise the legitimate source.
How many of the "protected" artists are offering their own sites for this stuff?

Re:Greed! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399709)

So is the music industry offering a better alternative? Clearly some people want the lyrics. As usual, the "industry" ignores a demand and instead turns to lawsuits.

Re:Greed! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400097)

Whether right or wrong, it's their prerogative. Some people want the source code to OS X or Windows or nVidia drivers... does not mean that those companies have to provide it.

Silly, but it is their right... (0)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#45399585)

They own the copyright and that's that.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (3, Interesting)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year ago | (#45399657)

Read between the lines. This is filed under 'Undesirable side effects of contemporary copyright law'.

The DMCA is at it again.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#45399665)

And some of us could care less.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45399749)

... but most of us could not care less.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#45399767)

And some couldn't.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#45399849)

I worded it that way for a reason. But no, i wont explain it.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399943)

Does that mean you could care more, but not enough to explain your reason?

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399953)

You used a phrase that is almost always used incorrectly to mean the exact opposite of what you're saying. When someone points this out, you claim that you did it that way on purpose, but wont explain what your cryptic comment really meant?

Be honest. You used the wrong phrase, and now can't bring yourself to admit it. It's OK. Let go of some of that stubborn pride, and it you'll feel better.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400007)

You used a phrase that is almost always used incorrectly

That is only true on Slashdot. I have never seen or heard 'I could care less' elsewhere.

Re:"could care less"... (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about a year ago | (#45400115)

It may be a regional thing. I hear it that way very often here in California. Occasionally even used correctly as the OP had it.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#45400111)

It was a sardonic comment.

"It's copyright infringement"
"Right. I'm a sure a lot of people actually give a damn as well"

Is the second person actually claiming to give a damn? I'd interpret that as saying that people other than him might conceivably give a damn but he's not one of them.

Likewise, the commetn from "nurb432" was "And some of us could care less." implying that while some people may care less, he's clearly not one of them. i.e. He couldn't care less.

Subtext, you see.

Educational purposes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399667)

Ergo, not covered by copyright.

And moreover should they actually own the copyrights?

For a start, they don't, the MPAA are working on behalf of the copyright owners. So they, the MPAA don't own copyrights. They have not been asked to issue the takedown by the copyright owner.

Secondly, the label will own the copyright, but that work was done as a work for hire to reduce the rights of the actual artists, and works for hire aren't covered under copyright like that.

Thirdly, even where the other two hurdles happen to be passed, the copyright was for a limited time. That is no longer the case, so in the quid-pro-quo of copyrights, the owners of the copyrights should not hold the copyrights at all: the rights should be struck off.

Lastly, they aren't making money from the lyrics. They are making money off the ads on their site and they have costs of running the site which any business can deduct. If the copyright owners don't want the unauthorised making of money off adds on the site, then they should pony up money to pay for the sites and request that any revenues from the pages are forwarded to them.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399757)

From your sig:

Somewhere in Chicago a community is missing an organizer.

Really? Still upset Obama won? Childish doesn't begin to describe you.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (-1, Offtopic)

zidium (2550286) | about a year ago | (#45399933)

I'm personally not upset that Obama won, the first time.

I am upset, however, with how he has out-Bushed Bush. And I am very saddened that the very people who majorly voted for him are significantly worse off in virtually every category after 4 years of his presidency decided to vote for him again. Not because their lives were better due to a stronger economy, more liberties, more rights, or anything like that.

No, they voted for him primarily because they were given more stuff belonging to others and told they deserved it ("entitlements") and because his skin color more closely matched their own. Or simply because they are totally brainwashed into always voting Democrat.

I mourn for the hundreds of thousands killed by Obama, Snowden, and all the other whistleblowers who have been demonized, exiled, or imprisoned / assassinated over the last 9 years.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (-1, Offtopic)

zidium (2550286) | about a year ago | (#45400039)

Oh, and just for the record, I *deeply* detested President Bush, both terms. I actively protested both the Afghanistan Slaughter and Iraqi Massacre, multiple times. I would spend every evening and weekend for months trying to get people aware of the WMD hoax and coming invasion, and how morally wrong it was.

I tried telling people about ECHELON since the 90s (when I was a teenager), I hosted LooseChange911.com for several months and gave Dylan some seed money back in the early 2000s when 90% of everyone believed in the official conspiracy theory of 19 Arab hijackers, many of whom were still alive (obviously never on the planes).

The last semi-OK president was Clinton, but then I'm pissed off about Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian Massacre, the OK City inside-job bombing, ECHELON, the World Trade Organization, the DMCA, the MPAA/RIAA AND the dot com bubble, all part and parcel of HIS Presidency.

Hell, I guess I have to go all the way back to Bush Sr., or maybe there hasn't been a good president in my entire life ;-(

The point is, it's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Statism and Surveillance. The Pan-opticon.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399769)

It merely highlights how silly copyright itself is.

Re:Silly, but it is their right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399831)

Do they? Can you copyright facts? I don't believe you can - you can only copyright the specific presentation and layout of those facts. In this case, if you put "as performed by {artist name}" in front of the lyrics - and are putting down what they actually sang (as transcribed by someone listening) I think you would have a good case for reporting on facts that cannot be copyrighted. Of course those MLK Jr. speeches may constitute a contradictory precedent.

Suicide? (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45399595)

Are they trying to destroy their business? That's the only reason I can think of for making it harder for people interested in their product to get information about it.

Re:Suicide? (5, Interesting)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#45399703)

Theoretically, this could be a preparatory move to putting online their own lyrics clearninghouse, with handy links where you can buy the song or album. But, nah, that would require the RIAA to do something that benefits artists and customers, and that would be against type.

Re:Suicide? (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#45399971)

It must be pretty galling being a record label. You know you are shit, and have failed to set up any kind of online music service to rival Amazon, iTunes, Spotify and the rest. YouTube shit on your music video sites from a great height. Yet, you will never give up fighting your friends, because anything less than 100% of the market is unacceptable.

Complicated algorithm? (5, Funny)

Drewdad (1738014) | about a year ago | (#45399603)

"Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"

So... manually, then.

Re:Complicated algorithm? (2)

Drewdad (1738014) | about a year ago | (#45399637)

"based on our exhaustive web search"

We googled it.

"Allegedly infringing sites were identified based on a complicated algorithm"

So... manually, then.

Yup.

Re:Complicated algorithm? (4, Funny)

wed128 (722152) | about a year ago | (#45399643)

To be fair, Google's search algorithm is fairly complicated...

Re:Complicated algorithm? (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a year ago | (#45399859)

People in the music industry tend to be big time suckers when it comes to technology. Remember, these are the people who really believed that DRM being sold by big tech companies was all about keeping their music secure so it couldn't be "pirated". So, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone approached them and claimed to have a "sophisticated algorithm for identifying infringing web sites" and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. And when I say "bought", I mean literally. This is the "more money than brains" crowd.

So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#45399629)

Someone needs to go after these DMCA abusers, and by that I mean this National Music Publishers Association who are getting a bot to send things out which is supposed to be "under threat of perjury" if it's a false statement.
It's supposed to be a double edged sword instead of merely a club to beat down on the consumers - cut them with it.

Re:So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#45399685)

Apparently the only claim that the "perjury" part covers is that hey believe they represent the copyright holder.

Also, even if they're lying about this, perjury is a crime that needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Re:So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399791)

It's a double-edged club. Blunt on both ends. See? Perfectly fair!

Re:So can a "complicated algorithm" face perjury? (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45399919)

Sadly, these DMCA abusers know the "risks." If they abuse the DMCA, they can be found guilty of perjury, except:

1) This would require the person being sued to counter-sue in court. Often, the people being sued are people or companies without the financial resources to take on a big legal powerhouse like the RIAA. Thy would need to invest time, money, and energy in their court case. All three of which they might not have enough of to effectively see the battle to completion and all three of which these legal powerhouses have in abundance.

2) They would need to win a court battle. The judge would need to actually find against the abuser and not let them off on a technicality. e.g. no "Well, sure they sued a hundred people for sharing songs they never even had, but it was a technical glitch and they apologized (after lengthy court battles and a dozen people settling). No harm done."

3) The penalty will need to be severe enough to act as a deterrent. If a DMCA abuse typically brings in $3,000 per person/company and the DMCA abuser sends out a hundred of these, fining them $50,000 is just going to be "cost of doing business", not "reason to stop and never do this again."

Sadly, I don't see these three lining up right on a constant basis for quite some time. Even more sadly, the DMCA abusers know this and feel they can act with impunity.

verb or noun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399631)

It took me a while to figure that out.

Re:verb or noun? (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#45399783)

It took me a while to figure that out.

Good.

Re:verb or noun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400035)

I drink 16 espressos a day. I just woke up. Cut me some caffeinated slack.

Re:verb or noun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399823)

Notices made of down were taken to 50 major lyrics sites by music industry issues.

I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (4, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#45399639)

It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords, let alone any kind of recording. If you don't already know the tune, the lyrics aren't going to help you understand the actual music. And since singers are so mush-mouthed these days, you need the lyrics to avoid accidentally creating new mondegreens.

Does iTunes even include the lyrics when you buy a song?

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#45399739)

Also I've known lyrics to a song before but not the name. Being able to search the internet based on lyrics is what has allowed me to find a song I was after.

Reducing access to lyrics is reducing people's ability to find the name of a product they wish to buy.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399871)

For some reason I have a lot of difficulty understanding words that are sung. If it were not for lyrics sites, I would not understand most music. I literally cannot parse words that are sung.

they are not reducing your access (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400045)

or eliminating your ability to search. They are ensuring they get ad revenue from your search destination.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (1)

Formorian (1111751) | about a year ago | (#45400049)

Wish I had mod points. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a song on the radio at a friends or just out and about or blaring from the radio across the street (rarely listen to actual radio in my car or home) and searched the web by lyrics to find artist/song. Then I went and bought it on itunes.

Basically they want to reduce sales. I don't understand these people.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399741)

It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords, let alone any kind of recording. If you don't already know the tune, the lyrics aren't going to help you understand the actual music.

Yeah, but these websites are getting ad revenue, and we can't have people making money out of our product, no sir, not even if the material they're using is a hollow shell of what we actually sell. Think of the profits we're losing! We could be getting that money ourselves! If we could be bothered. Which we couldn't.

Anyway, stop humming our music in a public place you dirty pirate.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399799)

Anyway, stop humming our music in a public place you dirty pirate.

Once we perfect mind reading technology, then we will bill you for every time you think that song that's stuck in your head.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (1)

Barny (103770) | about a year ago | (#45399837)

I well see the comedic nature of your post, it is nice to see sarcasm isn't dead on the net :3

http://youtu.be/vfol_TLLnIw [youtu.be]

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#45399829)

singers are so mush-mouthed these days

These days? Really?

And they weren't 45 years ago?

Go ahead, try to sing "Jumpin' Jack Flash" accurately without looking at a lyrics sheet.

I dare you.

--
BMO

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399951)

It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords

First they came for the guitar chords and we did nothing...

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45399983)

It's not like they're posting the sheet music or the guitar chords, let alone any kind of recording. If you don't already know the tune, the lyrics aren't going to help you understand the actual music. And since singers are so mush-mouthed these days, you need the lyrics to avoid accidentally creating new mondegreens.

Just by coincidence, I did a search for some sheet music just yesterday. Found lots of matches, checked two. One sold the sheet music for a song for $3.28. The other offered it for free. What they offered was a pdf file with an obviously scanned copy of the first one.

Re:I never understood the vendetta against lyrics (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#45400149)

iTunes used to have a plugin that automatically grabbed the lyrics to the song you were playing and put them up on the screen. There was a version for the iPhone as well. The RIAA shut both down almost immediately. As far as I know, there is no legal way to get the lyrics on most songs if they're not published in the booklet, and if you buy eletronically the lyics are virtually never included. Also, I would never pay seperately for the lyrics, that's rediculous.

The worst part is that those lyric sites always included links to Amazon/iTunes Music Store to buy the song. They were undoubtedly responsible for at least a few sales. The law says they're allowed to act like idiots though, so we gotta let them.

Le Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399641)

  1. Please don't let rapgenius be on that list! Please no rapgenius! Please, no! Please, no! No, no, no!
  2. ... looks at #1 on the list
  3. GODDAMMIT!

Bit of an own goal, surely. (2)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#45399645)

I'm less sympathetic to commercial infringement, and I guess this is most likely infringing, but I can't help thinking this is pointless.

Lyrics sites can't generate a lot of direct revenue for the music industry through lyric licensing fees. They do generate indirect revenue by people googling for the song they heard a snippet of and then buying an album. Also many of the ads are going to be related to the song (listen to this song on last.fm, buy the ringtone) so it seems odd that they're putting the effort in to stop this.

MAY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399653)

The National Music Publishers Association said Monday that it sent take-down notices to what it claims are 50 websites that post lyrics to songs and generate ad revenue but may not be licensed to do so.

Excuse me, MAY? If you are issuing a take down notice to a website and you DON'T KNOW if it is even infringing, isn't that deliberate perjury under provisions of the DMCA? There needs to be stiff, rapidly escalating, monetary penalties for issuing phoney take down notices.

afraid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399659)

I remember lots of lyrics and if friends ask me, I tell them what they sing exactly in the song.
Should I be afraid they'll sue me next?

A new level of foot shooting (1)

EireannX (905058) | about a year ago | (#45399679)

I mostly use lyric sites to discover what a catchy song is called when I only know one or two lines.

I totally get how they can argue that file sharing sites etc cost them revenue, but this!?

Re:A new level of foot shooting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399715)

They are targeting unlicensed sites. There are plenty of licensed ones available so nobody will be missing anything.

Lyrics websites are stealing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399695)

Naturally the fucktarded shitdot sheeple are going to post the "Oh noes, we should be able to copy teh lyrics whenever teh fuck we want and post them on teh intarwebs" because even property let alone intelectual property has been deemed wrong by their communist butt buddy Richard "RMS Titanic" Stallman. People write lyrics so they can make a living, something the fucktarded shitdot sheeple can't comprehend because they live in their mommy's basement because they can't get a job for more than a week without getting fired. Then they also wonder why they can't get laid, well that and they have shrinking dicks. Which means the shitdot sheeple are nothing more than a bunch of communist loving fucktards, with an entitlement attitude, who should go and collectively slit their fucking wrists.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR
WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MODPOINTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!!!!!

You shit eating grin-tard moron. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399751)

The reason why you're getting flamed, downmodded and farted upon is not because EVERYONE ELSE is a fucking retarded shitstain on humanity's underpants, but because YOU ARE.

Want more money? DO MORE FUCKING WORK. These sites are doing work and getting paid.

But apparently you don't like it when *workers* get paid, only the *masters*.

And you label others sheeple!

WOOT! I PISSED OF THE FUCKTARED SHITDOT SHEEPLE!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400165)

Oh, I do work, and get paid over $100k for doing hard work at that. Plus I have a hot wife that can cook and three children. I don't mind paying for the shit I earned. You fucktarded shitdot sheeple want everything for free and don't want to work a lick which explains why you fucktardedshitdot sheeple can't get a fucking job or get fucking laid, except when you suck each other's cocks and fuck each other's asses. You fucktarded shitdot sheeple loathe hard work so much you don't like it when even an independent songwriter gets paid for his or her hard work. No wonder you go for the communist parties such as the dumbocratic party. This also explains why you fucktarded shitdot sheeple hate capitalism. If anyone is nothing more than a shitstain it is the fucktarded communist advocates like you and the rest of the fudgepacking, twinkie sucking faggots here at shitdot. LMFAO

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

ABOUT TIME !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399707)

These web sites get more from ads than the MPAA pays in royalities !! This cannot continue !! Why should some dweeb in Romania make money on artists' work when the artists make pennues a day (not counting those from heaven) !! This is action well worth taken !!

Re:ABOUT TIME !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399897)

M-ovies PAA. RIAA doesn't pay royalities. Record companies do. That is the idea. Turns out that doesn't happens as it should. But there is iTunes. Pandora pays eLPM of 1 cent so and artist can clean up with only a few billion listens.

And I do so love a parade. Yes, thank you for your support.

kareoke ? (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about a year ago | (#45399719)

Whats next, kareoke ? oh wait, it is... crap. Well to be fair, I love lyrics website cause I know some singers just don't know how to talk correctly. it's like they have a hot potato in their mouth. I mean, listen to the granpa of heavy metal... Ozzy osbourne... Who the hell understands that guy when he talks. Sure, he's a great guy, I really love is music but... You need the enigma machine to decode when he speaks.

Move your hosting to Antigua (:-)) (3, Funny)

davecb (6526) | about a year ago | (#45399747)

--dave

It needs to be shared (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399753)

MILEY CYRUS LYRICS
"Wrecking Ball"

We clawed, we chained our hearts in vain
We jumped never asking why
We kissed, I fell under your spell.
A love no one could deny

Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you

I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

I put you high up in the sky
And now, you're not coming down
It slowly turned, you let me burn
And now, we're ashes on the ground

Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you
I can't live a lie, running for my life
I will always want you

I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me

I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
And instead of using force
I guess I should've let you win
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
I guess I should've let you win

Don't you ever say I just walked away
I will always want you

I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me

I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

Free advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399763)

Idiots, it's free advertising! My guess is they know the sites aren't going to shut down, they just want their licensing fees.

Single point of failure (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#45399771)

This really needs to be addressed, for the average person. We cant continue having single points of failure for services. There is too much at stake, both for the content consumers and the people trying to do their best to provide it.

Time for the pitchforks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399775)

Seems this has gotten out of hand. And the politicans who should be defending *our*, not *their* interests are looing the other way.

What other solution there is?

Identifying a song (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399793)

If I listen to a song on the radio, I can identify it by searching on the internet for a small part of the lyrics. How would me not being to identify a song I might decide to buy help the record companies?

And by the lyrics sites (1, Redundant)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#45399803)

today, not a single fuck was given.

Re:And by the lyrics sites (1)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#45399817)

Now for a more productive post: This is insanely stupid. Since DJs are a thing of the past the artist/title usually isn't announced so unless you have soundhound ready to go what you do is go home and query on the lyrics, find the artist/title on a lyrics site then go to Worst Buy, Sprawl*Mart, or Amazon or Google Play or iTunes and buy the music. They're shooting themselves in the foot yet again.

Obviously the music industry STILL doesn't "get" teh interwebz.

Re:And by the lyrics sites (1)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#45399881)

"However, there is anecdotal evidence that these lyric websites generate huge web
traffic and may involve more money than one might think. "

My anecdotal evidence is that if I am not quick enough with SoundHound (usually while driving) I google the lyrics then buy the content on CD or iTunes or Google Play. Music industry lawyers, your clients make more money by allowing the alleged "infringement" than not allowing it - just like in the days of Napster.

Morons.

The only way to stop the music industry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399825)

...is to organize and sustain an effective boycott. Stop purchasing music from RIAA associated labels. Without revenue, they can't pay their lawyers.

Evil vs. Bad (2)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#45399851)

I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other, hiding lyrics behind JavaScript, have pop-ups, and in some cases carrying potentially infected ads. There are a few sites like SongMeanings.com that also include user comments, but most operations just seem to be trading other people's copyrights for ad impressions.

Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites Oct 22nd 2013
Rank | Website | final score %
01 www.rapgenius.com 12.77%
02 www.lyricsmania.com 10.4925%
03 www.lyricstranslate.com 8.41%
04 www.stlyrics.com 6.76125%
05 www.lyricsreg.com 6.71375%
06 www.lyricstime.com 6.05125%
07 www.lyrster.com 5.675%
08 www.parolesBmusique.com 5.18%
09 www.kovideo.net 5.0975%
10 www.songonlyrics.com 4.86625%
11 www.indexBofBmp3s.com 4.805%
12 www.lyricstranslations.com 4.79%
13 www.karaokeBlyrics.net 4.665%
14 www.romanticBlyrics.com 4.385%
15 www.maxilyrics.com 4.34375%
16 www.poemhunter.com 4.2375%
17 www.metalBhead.org 4.225%
18 www.songteksten.nl 4.21%
19 www.lyricsres.com 4.18%
20 www.lyricsdepot.com 4.09125%
21 www.songtextemania.com 3.95%
22 www.lyricsboy.com 3.81%
23 www.elyricsworld.com 3.6975%
24 www.eBchords.com 3.69%
25 www.popdust.com 3.475%
26 www.hotnewsonglyrics.co 3.41875%
27 www.anysonglyrics.com 3.405%
28 www.guitaretab.com 3.405%
29 www.allthelyrics.com 3.375%
30 www.oldielyrics.com 3.3475%
31 www.musicloversgroup.com 3.34%
32 www.karafun.com 3.225%
33 www.lyrics.astraweb.com 3.18375%
34 www.videokeman.com 3.1575%
35 www.lybio.net 2.935%
36 www.urbanlyrics.com 2.8725%
37 www.asklyrics.com 2.8425%
38 www.bmusiclyrics.com 2.8275%
39 www.nomorelyrics.net 2.7975%
40 www.plyrics.com 2.7825%
41 www.hitslyrics.com 2.765%
42 www.vagalume.com.br 2.665%
43 www.lyricsforsong.net 2.66375%
44 www.seeklyrics.com 2.61%
45 www.letras.mus.br 2.565%
46 www.lyricspinas.com 2.52%
47 www.parolesmania.com 2.515%
48 www.cowboylyrics.com 2.4825%
49 www.lyricsmansion.com 2.36875%
50 www.digitaldreamdoor.com 2.35125%

Interesting to see .nl and .br sites in the list.

Re:Evil vs. Bad (4, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year ago | (#45400005)

I can't say I'm all that sorry to see evil (MAFIAA) go after the bad (shady lyric sites) since many of these sites are copying from each other,

Many musicians use lyrics sites to check if it's an original idea versus a existing one. As usual, the music industry is fucking over musicians, I doubt they will pay musicians for the advertising revenue that the lyrics attract.

Torrent a dump of the databases (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45399877)

Since they risk being shut down, the DBs need to end up torrented by an "unknown security breach at YourCompanyNameHere.com" and they'll never go away. It doesn't fix the problem with the destruction of ad revenue, but it undermines the NMPA's actions.

Most are wrong anyway (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about a year ago | (#45399889)

I've actually looked up a few lyric sites recently and they all had different variations. They look like most are phonetic so I'm guessing there's an industry somewhere using Chinese or Indian workers to transcribe the lyrics by listening to the songs rather than getting them from the publishers.

The "Music Industry" is just a bunch of lawyers (3, Insightful)

Andover Chick (1859494) | about a year ago | (#45399901)

It is such a sham they even call it the "music industry". The amount of assets in the form of recording studios and distribution is relatively quite small. What's big is the number of office buildings housing lawyers. If you ever drive around the West Hollywood or Beverley Hills area you'll see big office buildings full of lawyers. That's what the "industry" is...

Imagine (2)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#45399903)

Imagine there's no...damn. [[please deposit $.99 to continue]]

The lyrics sites have already responded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399913)

The lyrics sites in question have already consulted with their lawyers, and released the following statement which clarifies their positions on the issue:

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!
Motherfucker!

(fuck you slashdot junk text filter)

Lyrics sites have been around for a LONG time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45399945)

Lyrics sites were one of the first things I remember when I first checked out the World Wide Web in Mosaic back in 1993.

Any sane judge is going to want to know why it has taken them 20 years to get around to filing a lawsuit.

But is it a violation? (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about a year ago | (#45399959)

Most music publishers stopped including lyrics with CDs ages ago, and almost never post them on say, the band's web site. The vast majority of lyrics on these sights are poor transcriptions posted by fans, which they lyric sites systematically swipe from each other. So if one site says the line is "there's a bathroom on the right", they pretty much all do.

Are less-than-perfect transcriptions of lyrics that have never been officially published a violation of copyright?

.

Lyrics.ch (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#45399987)

I definitely remember lyrics.ch. I used it often to find the lyrics to that song I loved or to look up that song I heard on the radio but didn't know the name/singer of. In fact, with the latter case, a visit to Lyrics.ch would sometimes result in a sale for the recording industry. After all, if I loved that brand new song by that brand new band on the radio but didn't know either one by name, I'd be unable to purchase their works. After a visit to Lyrics.ch, I'd have been able to purchase their CD.

Nowadays, it would be even easier to generate sales. Just place a "Buy it on Amazon/Google Play/iTunes" button with a link to the song and these lyrics sites could drive profits to the record labels. They should view these sites as free advertising, not copyright violators. However, if they wanted some modicum of control, perhaps they should make a "lyrics site" license with some easy-to-follow requirements (e.g. no pop-up ads, no malware served, no links to "free downloads", links to Amazon/Google Play/iTunes, etc.) and a low cost of application. Then lyrics sites could "go legit" without too much fuss and the record labels would get the free publicity they generate.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face (4, Insightful)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#45399995)

That's what this amounts to. And lost revenue. I've lost count of the number of times where I've been out in public and overheard pieces of a song I liked and committed key phrases to memory to google later. Never fails to find the song. (And frankly, sometimes the results are embarrassing. I like that shit?!)

Welcome, my son, to the machine ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400019)

Let's see you take the subject line above down,
motherfuckers.

People want to see lyrics because they have probably
already got the music, and they like it.

You "music industry" idiots are biting the hand that feeds your sorry asses.

Me, I will never buy so much as one more song from you people,
because you have given me reason not to buy from you. Instead I
will buy from independent bands directly.

Where is Slashdot on that list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400021)

Happy birthday to you/happy birthday to you/happy birthday to auntie (pause)/happy birthday to you.

That should fix it.

How to kill your own sale (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#45400033)

Look, I am not an american, and i don't know all the music outside. But if I hear a tune I like, I google the lyric, et voila ! A new sale for EMI/whoever. If you remove the lyric web site... There is no way I can find out. Congratulation you killed sales.

Huh (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45400085)

The lyrics don't belong to the record companies, they belong to the song writer (who may or may not be the artist that is singing them.

I actually need sites like those (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45400135)

I run a FEC which plays music and since the service we use for obtaining the music in the first place (commercial service) doesn't give me the lyrics, I need to screen them for profanity. My choices are:

a) listen to each and every song, and as badly as some of these artists 'sing', I can't guarantee that I get it right and pick up any profane words
b) look up the song on a lyric site and skim it for profanity or keyword search it - takes about 3 minutes for a dozen songs vs an hour listening to all the tracks.

Music sites are just really jumping the shark - suing lyric sites? Over ad revenue?? For providing a service they refuse to provide themselves???

A few issues need to be addressed. (2)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#45400143)

1. before lyrics sites, listeners simply didnt have access to much of the lyrical content of the music they were exposed to. industry cronies like the RIAA didnt give a shit if the poetic art of a song was conveyed legibly or eloquently; the tipper sticker is still at their discretion and used liberally to bump or kill a song or artists popularity. These lyrics sites stepped up and helped promote artists directly by engaging their listeners with informative and open information in most cases as to the content of a song, not just the sound of it. lyrics sites had forums dedicated to the meanings of songs as well as where to purchase them. As a parent, you appreciated these sites because it let you enforce or relax certain censorships against your child without having to resort to a vague and condescending sticker on the tin which of course, is not present on mp3s.

2. litigation cannot stop the internet much as cloistered catholic monks could not stop the spread of literacy. many lyrics sites will go dark to avoid litigation, but one can reasonably expect the site owners have an absolute plethora of other names and domains they can fall back on. Remember, the music industry trade association in question isnt proposing a solution to the problem of the lack of song lyrics in popular culture, theyre just enforcing trade and copyright at the behest of their stakeholders. lyric databases can be created and dissemenated across tor or through magnet links in bittorrent if need be.

3. a smaller point but the university of georgia's music industry shill happens to be david lowery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lowery [wikipedia.org]
David is a musician famous mostly for the song 'low.' as far as most are concerned hes a relatively one hit wonder. so Yet another internationally renowned, nationally proven and locally beloved music figure has joined the staff this semester, and heâ(TM)s no slouch next to the other big names already there. 2 years later he just so happens to work on a project to help litigate lyric sites? it feels like the university of georgia might be a 'stacked deck' in this case used to justify litigation under the guise of academic research. Seeing as hes not published and his algorythm as well as its findings lack peer review outside a multi million dollar industry litigation agency, if he really is the researcher then we've got problems. if hwoever hes just a semester instructor, http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/releases/david-lowery-to-teach-spring-semester-course-for-ugas-music-business-certif [uga.edu]
then id like to know the engineer or scientist and see more of their work.

IMHO, lowery has an axe to grind and is being used nicely by the industry to grind it (Metallica anyone?) hes not a top 10 for any label, so if this one fails theres no chance we lose a major investment...after all this is a guy on his blog who equates playing low-budget venues with serving in iraq
http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/48-friends-3-guys-walk-into-a-bar-in-canoga-park-why-being-backstage-at-a-low-grade-music-festival-is-like-being-in-iraq [davidlowerymusic.com]
hes also posted tabs and lyrics to the songs from his band, Cracker. now correct me if im wrong, but your label owns that song. they own the tabs, they own the melody, they own your stage presence and likeness. http://www.davidlowerymusic.com/300-songs-blog/blog/45-movie-star-and-get-off-this-cracker-more-on-selling-out-the-marc-jacobs-edition-m1-tank [davidlowerymusic.com]
if Sony or the RIAA took any of this seriously, that is protecting what you signed away as their intellectual property, you could find yourself on the shortlist of 'undesireable' sites.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?