iTunes lyrics fight ends in apology

That rarest of all things in the acrimonious disputes between copyright holders and technology developers emerged Thursday: an apology.

Last week, music publisher Warner/Chappell Music sent a threatening letter to independent Austrian programmer Walter Ritter, complaining about a free piece of software he'd developed that scoured Web sites for song lyrics and imported them into Apple Computer's iTunes software.

Ritter immediately pulled his software, called PearLyrics, offline. But after an outcry on the Web, Richard Blackstone, Warner/Chapell's chief executive officer, called the programmer, apologizing for the letter and offering the chance to work together.

On the programmer's Pearworks Web site, a brief, contrite statement was posted Thursday in the form of a joint statement from Blackstone and Ritter.

"The goal of Warner/Chappell's prior letter to Pearworks was to gain assurance that PearLyrics operated according to (legal) principles," the statement read. "However, in both tone and substance, that letter was an inappropriate manner in which to convey that inquiry. Warner/Chappell apologizes to Walter Ritter and (his company) Pearworks."

The brief, if amicably resolved, dispute highlights growing tension over the role of Web sites that post song lyrics and instructions on how to play music online.

Music publishers say the words to songs, and the sheet music showing how to play them, are copyrighted aspects of their compositions and should not be given away for free online, any more than a band's actual recordings should. They've shut down big Web sites over the issue and have threatened a new round of lawsuits next year.

In an instant-messaging interview, Ritter said he hoped to work with Warner/Chapell to create a version of the PearLyrics software that could be used as a licensed source for the words.

"A legalized, easily accessible lyrics solution would have a couple of advantages over the (maybe) illegal ones--like accurate lyrics or...correct composer information," Ritter said. He said he is still working out details on a potential collaboration with the publishers, however.

[M C]

If the record corporations think they're gonna charge extra for lyrics...

...well, enough dumb people might bite to make it worth their while, and even to convince artists not to include lyrics in liner notes so that extra money can be made.

Sigh...

[Pete Bardo]

It's all about the publishers

First of all, this is not about the artists who wrote the songs, it's all about the publishers--the big record corporations.

Second, if they really want or need to protect their copyrights, why not leave the vocal tracks off the recordings althogether--and the music too? Then no-one would be able to make unauthorized use of them.

Whatever happened to fair use and public domain?

[michael_emmett]

Winning one small battle but losing the war

They must have realized that they can make some money off this creative guy's back. Reminds me of this Lessig's prez here
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html" target="_newWindow">http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html</a>

this is a great presentation in style and is pretty scary in content

[drewhowe--2008]

It's not the same...

It's easily arguable that a private individual's conception of the
musical structure of a song constitutes their own intellectual
property. Can you sue someone for a bad rendition of a
copyrighted song? As someone who frequents guitar tablature
sites, it's blatantly obvious that there is usually a huge difference
between the real song, and what the tablature is. Rarely,
individuals copy purchased sheet music or watch concerts very
closely in order to get the songs right. But even then, you will
find that the sheet music for most modern songs is not really
reprasentative of the music being used for recording, it's merely
a representation of the basic chord structure of the song.

This, of course, leaves me confused about what current laws
would dictate. A song is a very hard thing to put a material claim
on. Are we expected to pay for the licence of a song we whistle
in a public street? What about kareoke? If they charge royalties
to sing "happy birthday" in a movie or play, are we expected to
start paying every time we use it at a birthday party? What if I
have the latest Britney Spears song running through my head
against my own will-- will I soon have to pay for music I don't
want to hear? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

[R. U. Sirius]

you are correct

If you sing, whistle, hum, or recite the lyrics to any RIAA song, you are violating copyright, and you must buy a performing license.

The law is so stupid, that the lyrics to Wipeout are illegal to post on the web. And if you know the song, then you'll realize I just posted the lyrics in the previous sentence.

We are living in the twilight zone these days.

Keep on, keep on

Not too many industries can get away with continuously !@$ing
their customers, but the music industry does it over and over and
over... I for one look forward to the days when they wake up and
realize (a) the digital age has been here for years and years now
and (b) consumers buy more of your stuff when they're not
boycotting you for yet another slap in the face.

[jamie.p.walsh]

This is the next logical step in music players

I like the ability to look at the lyrics of songs within the player that's playing them. I can't believe they've not moved on this sooner. I guess this was there ploy. Get someone to develop it, gain buzz by making him pull it, then pay him a pittance to build it into an add-on.

[ruapits]

Tired of all this Cr@$

I have had a guitar since 1984 that sat unused for years. It was too difficult to learn without allot of time but also the available resources. I took some lessions 3 years ago for about 8 months and it gave me a good foundation to work from. I also found the tab sites that has allowed my continuing progress on the strings. I know that all of the tabs are not correct and can tell when they are played that they are sometimes off the mark to the original song. I note it and chalk it up to learning. Some tabs I try are just to hard for my skill level and I just move on to something else.
If it were to turn into a pay system I would stop playing again. I would not pay to buy a tab that I might not be able to play. Additionally the odds that the song I would be interested in would not be available. I have purchased books from groups like AC/DC and such but have toy ever noticed that it will not be from the group? It will say "As transcribed by Joe Schmo" or somebody, not by anyone actually in the band. I have always been a big music lover and have a collection of close to 1000 records, CD's and tapes. I stopped buying when the litigation started.
As far as I am concerned the recording industry and their legal attack dogs can kiss my backside. I for one will not support them with any additonal money.

[sleuth17]

Call it the ROI AA

I just want everybody to know that the R(ecording) I(ndustry) A(ssociation) of A(merica) is not its own best advocate in the long term. R(eturn) O(n) I(nvestment) will tell them what music best supports advertising. The Kalaidescope of musical tastes does not support the bulk of their overhead. The lowest common denominator is all we'll get if they have their way.

[ttrtilley--2008]

Spin

Should a jounalist not know the difference between an apology, and
damage control?
PearLyrics is still not permitted to be available.
The fight ended in surrender, not apology.