- Related Stories
-
Please don't steal this Web content
August 2, 2007 -
Pay-for-blogging site raises questions
July 11, 2007 -
Hollywood hates pirates, but can it use them?
July 3, 2007 -
Hollywood's YouTube frustration grows
June 11, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
'Facebook Secrets' blog gets DMCA takedown treatment
August 16, 2007 -
YouTube wants to depose Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart
August 13, 2007 -
Google wins another copyright case
July 13, 2007 -
Google appeals Belgian copyright ruling
July 3, 2007
Often the Web sites we end up on have misspellings or incomplete and inaccurate lyrics, not to mention annoying pop-up and flashing ads. But there's another problem with the sites--many of them are violating copyright by republishing the lyrics without permission. And they are making money from the Google text ads that appear on the site.
That's money that could be going into the pockets of people like Alexander Perls Rousmaniere, a Los Angeles-based artist who writes and produces dance club tracks, including some pop hits.
Perhaps not so surprisingly, Google--the company that's been sued for $1 billion by Viacom because of its YouTube video unit and has been the target of increasingly testy attacks from all sorts of publishers--finds itself in the center of yet another copyright storm. This time, it's the people who write music--some of them well-known and some of them obscure--complaining that the search giant is helping others step on their copyrights.
"Google is selling advertising on all the big copyright-infringing lyric Web sites," Rousmaniere said. "It may seem like small potatoes, but lyrics are a huge search term on the Internet--these sites (and Google) are probably pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly, all on the back of copyrighted material."
Rousmaniere has complained to Google, repeatedly, with limited success--Google has removed some ads on sites publishing his lyrics but then the ads go back up, he said. Google told him it is his responsibility as copyright holder to police the infringing sites and file additional complaints when the old lyrics or new lyrics of his appear without his permission, he said.
"It would literally be two to three hours a day for the rest of my life" monitoring the Web for copyright violations, Rousmaniere said. Many of the Internet service providers for the sites are located outside the U.S., making it difficult for him to ask them to shut the sites down, he added.
A Google spokesman said he could not comment on any particular copyright holder's complaint.
"We take copyrights very seriously. In accordance with our policy, we disable ads on websites in our content network when we are made aware that they appear next to copyrighted content," the company said in a statement. "Copyright holders who find their copyrighted material appearing next to Google ads can find more information about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down requests on our AdSense Web site. Hundreds of thousands of Web site publishers responsibly abide by our policies and we're committed to preventing those who don't from using our program."
Focusing on sites that monetize
Rousmaniere isn't the only copyright owner concerned about the lyric sites. Lawyers representing National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) have met with Google to discuss the matter, said Jacqueline Charlesworth, senior vice president and general counsel. The NMPA is the leading trade association representing U.S. music publishers, with more than 700 members.
"It's a significant concern. We do send DMCA notices to sites that are commercially oriented, that are trying to profit and aren't paying the people who wrote the songs," Charlesworth said. "We did reach out to Google before we started the program and they said they would cooperate."
The NMPA began sending warning letters to infringing lyric Web sites a few weeks ago and at least one site has taken down the copyrighted lyrics, she said.
"Our next step will be to send DMCA notices to the ISPs who host the site or the search engine that shows sites up in results," she added. "We're hopeful that it will be effective. The goal and the focus here is really the sites that are trying to monetize the lyrics."
Rogue lyrics Web sites have been on the Internet for years--in part because until recently there wasn't a readily available way for consumers to get lyrics from copyright holders.
"We wanted to make sure there was a legitimate alternative available and now that there is, we think it's appropriate to have the lyrics taken down off the other sites," Charlesworth said. "There is a market for these lyrics. There is consumer demand and the lyrics enhance a digital service. It's a very significant potential market."
In April, Yahoo and Gracenote launched an online lyrics service that has received the rights from music publishers, like Universal Music Publishing Group and Sony/ATV Music Publishing, to republish copyrighted lyrics.
At the time the deal was announced, Gracenote Chief Executive Craig Palmer told Reuters that licensed lyrics services could add as much as $100 million a year to the $4 billion the music publishing industry posts in revenues annually.
But a self-described "small fish" like Rousmaniere may not benefit from a service like that, which focuses on large publishing companies. For him, the courts could be an answer, although convincing a judge that Google is liable for copyright infringements of its AdSense publisher partners would be tough, said Denise Howell, an intellectual property lawyer and blogger.
"If it could be demonstrated that the terms (of service for AdSense) are not being enforced (or are not being enforced with sufficient vigor), a plaintiff could try to build a case portraying the terms as mere window dressing, and Google as an entity with a business model that condones or even encourages its users' infringement," Howell said.
However, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court decision in Google's favor in May (PDF) is an indication of the "uphill battle" someone suing Google would face, she said.
In that case, Perfect 10, an adult-oriented Web site, accused Google of contributory copyright infringement by profiting off revenue-sharing through Google ads on Web sites that display its images without permission. The court disagreed with that point, although it said thumbnails Google's image search displayed of Perfect 10's photos likely infringe on the copyrights.
How thumbnails translate to music lyrics is still anyone's guess.
See more CNET content tagged:
lyric, DMCA, music publisher, Google Inc., tune
However, charging people to read the lyrics so they can sing along, or whatever, is abusive and, well, dickish. You wrote a song, congratulations. If I like it, I'll buy it. Don't charge me for the lyrics, the MP3 version of the song I have on CD, the album art, etc. That's a move that angers the public and causes things like underground lyrics sites and MP3 downloads.
Many call it theft. I call it civil disobedience, especially in light of the fact that in the US courts, money prevails more often than justice. Individuals cannot match up against corporations, much like disenfranchised people unable to match up against armed government agents or law enforcement.
The tipping point has long been crossed. to get back in balance, some real concessions are going to need to happen. Otherwise, the underground is where people will stay.
-R
Its not about civil disobedience or anarchy or public domain. These groups are distributing copyrighted material and making revenue off of providing that free service. This is the basic internet marketing business model. Deliver a service in demand for free, then piggyback ad sales on that service.
The second group in the article has the best angle here. They're not targeting Joe Schmo who posts his favorite song on his homepage, they're only going after sites that are setting up revenue streams based on that song lyric content. And all those sites have to do is get permission and possibly offer compensation to the copyright holder. Its the same thing any newspaper, book, or magazine publisher has to do.
Ridiculous!
I also agree with the other person that said they find songs by searching for the lyrics. That's like 50% of all my music purchasing. I hear a song somewhere, write down as many lyrics as I can hear, and try to find the artist and album by Googleing it.
If I can't find the song... poof... no money for them. Silly.
If you want those other sites to go away, there's one very easy solution... start your own website, music companies. As soon as the CD goes gold and is released to the manufacturer for duplication, post the lyrics.
Make it massively easy to link to, have some added bonuses that only a music company could offer. Heck, put your own ads up.
Pretty soon, people will link to you, people will search you out, and your GoogleRank will rise until "I feel lucky" always goes to you.
These people are bringing solutions. All you're doing is showing that being a lawyer pays, and in turn, encouraging more young ones to go to law school, which in turn breeds more lawyers with nothing better to do than find ways to make themselves money by encouraging you to sue someone.
Just say no to lawyers.
(Yes, I'm being facetious. I'm there sure are some nice lawyers who contribute positively to society. I hope to meet one someday.)
1. Lawyers do not make the laws, elected officials make the laws (and not all of them are lwayers). If you do not like the laws, VOTE against the people who made the laws you did not like, don't rant against the people who take cases to court. Have you ever heard of cause and effect?
2. A CLIENT hires a lawyer to enforce their rights or defend them if they are charged with something - a lawyers never goes into court alone on a matter without a CLIENT, unless the lawyer is representing him/her self in court. Most of them don't - they are smarter than that.
3. The large majority of lawyers are not litigators or sue anyone - they never see the inside of a courtroom.
Instead of ranting against "pond scum" lawyers, rant against their greedy, "pond scum" clients, who are trying to enforce rights they may or may not have, but rights that you appear to disagree with.
I can hear the wheels turning now......but why don't lawyers simply refuse to take cases I think are worhtless, unless they are greedy _____________(insert your favorite expletive here)? Well TV James, it is called the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and our country was founded on the principles of equality for all people who believe they have been wronged, would like to have their case decided one way or the other. Having said this, I am afraid that most people today (including our elected officials) believe these principles of justice old-fashioned and irrelevant.
Everyone in this country has the right to bring their grievance to a court, regardless of social status and income, and have a decision made by a judge. If you yourself want to be the ultimate arbiter of all that is right and wrong in this country TV James, and want to deny everyone else the right to have their case heard, or taleast those you disagree with, there is a great country on the opposite side of the world where its leaders think just like you, and would welcome you in their midst. It is called Iran.
Funny. I don't see any "official" method of obtaining lyrics over the web. Why are they not included with my iTunes purchases? I am sick and tired of these idiots who refuse to recognize that the game has changed, and they either need to change their model or die.
What's next? Will they sue me for typing in the lyrics to songs I own? Are Paul Anka's lyrics really that brilliant to warrant this (erm, not that I own any Paul Anka CD's, really.)
I like Rap Music - this is a cool web site
3pstudios.net made by some bunch of guys using off the shelf equipment. If you have talent, there is no need to steal anything.
The other lyrics sites ostensibly are infringing on copyrights only insofar as they make money on the deal. I suspect if the lyrics sites were non-profits and only used ad money to offset their service costs, there wouldn't be a problem.
The industry and artist complaints have to do with others profit at their expense -- even if they weren't poised to do anything to garner that money. They don't seem to want to eliminate the lyrics sites, they just want their share of the profits or to eliminate the profits. I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
There is no good, safe centralized place to look for song lyrics. I don't go to alot of the websearch sites simply because of the pop-ups/pop-unders.
As far as the smaller sites that have, say, google ads. How much money do you reckon alot of these sites are actually making, if they're even making a profit? Some of them may just be trying to find a way to pay for their hosting service.
"guitar tabs" for songs because they feel that if you want to learn
to play a a song you like on your guitar you need to purchase
the printed copy from them.
If they could, all of these organization would like to set it up to
where everytime you read a book, listen to a song, sing with a
bunch of friends at a garage band party, hum a tune to yourself
in the shower, they would be able to charge you a fee or sue
you for copyright infringement.
If they did get off their butts and do what people obviously want, they could do it better, and make money off google adds. An no I'm not going to pay for looking up yrics. They should make their money off google ads.
I would agree that those sites are likely infringing copyright. At the same time, why is it that the song writers did not go out and create such sites themselves? In my entire life, I never saw an encyclopedia of song lyrics that I could purchase. Clearly, they never cared about potential revenue. I could almost guarantee that not a single song writer would have ever gotten off their rumps to create such a site, had it not been revealed to them that there is actually revenue potential.
Now that some web sites are making money, they cry foul. Song writes, music companies, and whoever else owns the copyrights to songs should first go create a great song lyrics web site and then file their complaints directly with the infringing web site owners. Even then, they ought to be a little thankful to those sites for revealing to them that there was such an opportunity. Perhaps they ought to buy those sites, rather than sue them!
Instead want to sit on their hands and complain to Google? Come on!
If customers have a choice of getting lyrics from the artist, or what others can figure out, of course people will go to the artist as the source. Then, instead of the RIAA just making bad publicity and spending money on lawyers and lawsuits, they would compete with the other lyric sites and would easily win because of access to the source. This would cause the other lyric sites to close. So the RIAA would get both their goals - make money and close down other lyric sites - and all without losing all of their money to lawyers.
P.S. The reason I waited until 2002 to get a CD player was that you would more likely get lyrics with a cassette than with the CD.
- the music is the product, not the lyrics
- by smqt September 19, 2007 5:33 AM PDT
- when are these idiots going to lay off?
- Reply to this comment
-
(27 Comments)next when you buy and mp3 you're going to have to pay added
fees for:
? lyrics
? album art
? id3 info
- ?