10 ms·

Genius sues Google and LyricFind over allegedly stolen song lyrics

85 points by msaltz 7y ago

Proven 7y ago
illiterate. it didn't sue them of "allegedly stealing" but for stealing.
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
>Genius doesn’t have a copyright claim because it doesn’t own the lyrics. Both Genius and Google hold licenses from music publishers to print song lyrics Genius makes the lyrics publicly available on the web and there was just a good outcome on web scraping public data. I can't imagine Genius has a case here but IANAL.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  If I make content publicly available on my website, should you be able to scrape it wholesale, AND commercialize it, AND tell me to piss off when I raise a complaint? If so, why?
  - alwaysdoit 7y ago
    Because the lyrics are not copyrighted by you, they are copyrighted by the Artist, whom Google and LyricsFind have a contract with to give them permission to use those lyrics?
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      You might want to look at the concept of transcription, particularly germane to music. A transcription can be a creative work, so it can be protected by copyright. A transcription is copying and transforming an original work in a particular (symbolic). The original work that the transcription is based on is also protected by copyright, so to make the copy that embodies the transcription, you need permission from the original rights holder. Splicing the transcription onto an illegal copy of an original performance is also copyright infringement, but resynthesis based on the transcription is not. A transcription also might not be entitled to copyright protection, if it is the product of a computer program, since feeding a sound file into a program is not a creative activity. (The program that generated the transcription is, of course, protected by copyright). Ergo, there absolutely can be claims that you need to license my content, consisting of original synthesized copyrighted lyrics. I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them".
      - toast0 7y ago
        > I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them". That's pretty much what the contracts are; the rightsholders don't actually have the lyrics in a machine readable form; or if they do, they're from liner notes which often don't actually match the songs as performed on the media that came with the notes, so pretty worthless.
        FireBeyond 7y ago
        In which case, worst case scenario, Genius is saying “then come up with them yourselves, you can’t plagiarize our efforts”. Note that the anticompetitive part of the info boxes is a far different and separate issue.
        nvrspyx 7y ago
        They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users or given to them by the artists themselves and then Genius adds the watermarks mentioned in the lawsuit. Worst case scenario, Genius is saying "you can't benefit off the efforts of our users, only we can". It seems that the only thing giving Genius any footing is their Terms of Service, which ToS tend to be unenforceable. Also consider the case involving LinkedIn which set precedence in being able to scrape public information. Then again, IANAL so they may have more footing than I realize and/or they may do some transcription themselves, but it is largely their users.
        FireBeyond 7y ago
        > They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users Users who have consented to supply said efforts to Genius. Not to Google. Or LyricFind.
        nvrspyx 7y ago
  - unreal37 7y ago
    What if you're just republishing someone else's content? It's not your original content, you're just publishing someone else's? Can I scrape your website to get that content I am legally allowed to get (because I have a paid license)?
  - toast0 7y ago
    "Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright" Given that the lyrics aren't owned by Genius, and that Google has a license to them, there's no reasonable claim of copyright violation. There have been several cases lately that seem to suggest there's no problem with using public data either. If you don't like it, don't make the data public. Require a login, and then you might have a case.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      “Phantom streets”. Come up with the same map as me based on research and first principles, you’re safe. Plagiarize my effort and in the process capture the fake/non existent streets I -added- to the map to show that you were plagiarizing my work? Then absolutely I have a case against you. Come up with the same lyrics for a song as I do based on listening to it? Fine. Cutting and pasting my content, including unnecessary embedded Unicode spaces used to watermark my content, my transcription (see my other comment on this), absolutely problematic and actionable.
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        Perhaps this varies from country to country, but for the US, doesn't Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co. explicitly say that you cannot copyright these fake streets and someone creating a map that includes them would not be grounds alone for infringement?
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      The watermarks they encoded to identify the original source are pretty creative :).
  - criddell 7y ago
    This lawsuit doesn't revolve around copyright, does it? Isn't Genius claiming that scraping the lyrics is a violation of their EULA?
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      The other issue Google / LyricsFind has is that their response wasn’t “this is totally okay, you have no case”, but “we would never do that, we would investigate, and cancel licensing agreements with anyone doing that”. And then not doing that. And instead concealing and fixing the watermark that allowed the -detection- of the issue. You can’t do that, and make the statements above and then credibly try to argue “nothing to see here, you have no rights”.
- unreal37 7y ago
  This is like a re-trial of the famous Supreme Court case that the white pages phone directory cannot be copyrighted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Facts are not copyrightable. And a collection of facts are not copyrightable. There has to be some spark of creativity or originality even small. Wonder what Genius is claiming makes their lyrics "original" compared to what they get from the source...
ehmorris 7y ago
Better source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/genius-media-sues-google-claiming-anticompetitive-use-of-song-lyrics-11575391257 https://www.wsj.com/articles/genius-media-sues-google-claimi... This is different from the story that came out this past summer, about Genius watermarking lyrics. 1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again. 2. Genius has filed an actual lawsuit. Disclosure: I used to work at Genius Also, a direct link to the legal complaint, which is a surprisingly fun read: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=3E0o8kQz4X3cWcbbid67wQ==&mod=article_inline https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- neonate 7y ago
  That WSJ article is at http://archive.is/ZC39Y http://archive.is/ZC39Y.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > 1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again. After that first watermark, either Google, Lyricfind or both took steps to 'un-watermark' the lyrics (once they knew what to look for), but kept doing it unabated, as Genius showed when they used another watermark that they didn't reveal (pretty sneaky, with Unicode space characters in certain locations only).
- crazypyro 7y ago
  So Genius gets people to transcribe the lyrics mostly for free and then sells them to other companies for a lot of money. Google found someone to provide lyrics and that company allegedly scraps Genius for cheaper than Genius charges for direct access. So this is basically a continuation of the on-going question of whether scraping is legal? That's my basic understanding from reading the complaint. I'm also not sure why Google is at fault, except for a bunch of ranting about the Information Box stealing their business. Guess there's also the attempt to try to enforce Genius' ToS...
dang 7y ago
Url changed from https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-stealing-music-lyrics https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-s..., which points to this.
criddell 7y ago
If Google can show that the lifted lyrics come from LyricFind, does that get them off the hook?
- ehmorris 7y ago
  They do have an indemnity agreement with LyricFind, but they're kinda implicated here because they knew about the issue for so long and did nothing.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    And quite possibly -told- LyricFind about the watermarking method Genius was using so that LyricFind could strip it and continue unabated.
dijit 7y ago
I’ve noticed this actually. Sometimes I look up lyrics only to see them incorrectly transliterated on Google’s search box drop down. So I click through to genius and see the same error. But other sites have a different transliteration. I thought it was just them exposing the content from genius, the same way it works for weather.
taejavu 7y ago
Are sites like Genius still in a legal grey area concerning copyright? As in, the lyrics are unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted works. (I’m aware this lawsuit isn’t about copyright, I’m just curious)
- kemonocode 7y ago
  Pretty sure Genius actually licenses their lyrics to be in the clear in that regard.
  - criddell 7y ago
    As does Google.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      Except Google licenses from companies who don't do it legally, and didn't cease when they were notified. They didn't stop after a WSJ article. On top of it, once the watermark was disclosed, they removed it.
      - criddell 7y ago
        Google licenses from the same music publisher that Genius does. I doubt Genius or any of the other lyrics sites have the right to create sub-licenses.
        edmundsauto 7y ago
        Google licenses from a number of places, including LyricFind. Which, I don't think, is a music publisher. I offer that to correct a mistake, knowing it doesn't invalidate your point. Reading the complaint, it sounds like it's a ToS violation. The interesting thing is that Google -> Genius have some business agreements (Genius is an adsense customer, at the least). To my Not A Lawyer brain, that moves it out of the "scraping public documents is fine" and into a more complicated relationship. The outcome of this lawsuit will be interesting!
paulpauper 7y ago
Google is notoriously hard to sue. they don't settle easily or readily Genius was caught many years doing blackhat SEO that would have gotten smaller sites permanently banned, but thanks to google's kindness was forgiven.
- Dwolb 7y ago
  “Thanks to Google’s kindness” The business isn’t kind - it’s practical. This should read “thanks to a positive transaction value Genius was forgiven”
  - paulpauper 7y ago
    how is letting a tiny company game its algos and get away with it help google's hundred-billion dollar search business
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Because Genius was popular enough it would piss off users if their results didn't show up on the first page. Clearly Google seems to agree that Genius has the best results based on the efforts they've taken to steal and even hide the fact that they're stealing from Genius. Just to be clear, Genius may be small compared to Google, but they are the de facto source of lyrics for music. Can you imagine if users suddenly no longer found Google useful for figuring out lyrics? It would genuinely cost them users switching to Bing, DuckDuckGo, etcetera.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
      Because the VC money, the board is tied. In the end that's the way with all the SV startups that gives them insane advantage. Too many vested interests.
    - snappy173 7y ago
      b/c if Genius didn't get SEO traffic, they wouldn't let Google scrape their site ...
    - 7y ago
Deimorz 7y ago
Mike Masnick's thoughts about how dumb this lawsuit is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-doesnt-take-genius-to-recognize-how-dumb-genius-lawsuit-against-google-is-over-stolen-lyrics.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-do...
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Many of Mike Masnick's arguments about how "dumb" this is are ... entirely lacking. When Genius points out that - after being told what their apostrophe watermark scheme was - LyricFind / Google started stripping that watermark while still copying things wholesale, Mike says: > Damned if you do, damned if you don't Which is obstinate to say the least. Mike tries to paint the picture that it's entirely okay, because they removed the mechanism to detect copying, while still copying. Poor LyricFind. Poor LyricFind, who, while covering their tracks, -weren't- deleting the _second_ watermark, that Genius didn't tell them about, thus showing that this was an entirely wilful, knowing act. All of his arguments complain/whine about "how dare they, they have no copyright, of course, because they did nothing!", wilfully ignoring that Genius, and any other sites who _actively license_ the ability to reproduce lyrics these days have to generate their own lyrics from first principles - the days of liner notes/lyrics are largely gone. Mike's arguments for the most part consisted of calling Genius "idiots" for failing his tests as to what the law is, often wrong, or willfully ostrich-like to anything that might derail his diatribe.
  - criddell 7y ago
    The fact that Genius has to do work to get the lyrics doesn't really matter from a copyright point of view, does it?
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      You licensed the lyrics, which the rights holder didn’t supply. You didn’t license a third party’s (often subjective) interpretation of them.
cthalupa 7y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how Genius has any chance if winning this lawsuit. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is this: 1) Genius does not hold a copyright on any of these lyrics 2) Genius licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one. 3) Google does not hold a copyright on these lyrics 4) Google licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one. 5) "Watermarking" lyrics is not enough to get a derivative work copyright As both parties have non-exclusive licenses and neither own the copyright, I really don't see how Genius has any chance of winning this case. As best as I can tell, it would be perfectly legal for Google to purposefully and specifically copy the lyrics from Genius. Edit: Reading through the filing, they seem to basically be suing them for violating their website's TOS and some 'unfair practices' laws local to California and New York. I am unsure of how legally binding TOS are for websites in general, and whether or not being able to view lyrics without ever viewing the TOS effects things, etc.
- ehmorris 7y ago
  This lawsuit isn't about copyright. It's about violating Genius' TOS and anticompetitive behavior.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Google never signed a contract with Genius? How would violating a terms of use they were never subject to be illegal?
    - McDyver 7y ago
      Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that. Who knows, maybe that's the way forward
      - msla 7y ago
        > Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that. When Google has the ability to levy taxes, things will be very different all over.
fierarul 7y ago
So Google licenses lyrics that don't exist in text format. How does that work? Seems like Google has a license to listen to the audio, produce the text lyrics and then use these lyrics. Since Google is indirectly stealing these lyrics, their license is not valid.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  Do you have a source for this interpretation of their license? It does not match the interpretation of anyone else out there that I am aware of - it is not even an argument that Genius is making in their lawsuit.
  - fierarul 7y ago
    If two parties get gold mining rights in a river can one party steal gold from the other since they both have rights to the gold in the same river? Certainly Genius is reading these threads and get new ideas.
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      You're trying to conflate physical items with intellectual property here - that isn't how the legal system works in the US or in any country that I am aware of. Genius has no ownership over the lyrics - they are not their intellectual property. When you get a license to mineral rights, whatever you extract is your property and you have ownership of it. That isn't the case here, and as such, it's a nonsensical analogy.
      - fierarul 7y ago
        OK, maybe my gold example was not so good. But in what way is Google licensed? The lyrics in text format do not exist. So the 'rights owners' license something that provably does not exist and they do not have? That is valid how? Which means the license covers a process Google is allowed to apply to the recording. Since Google gets stolen lyrics I doubt their license covers that.
organicfigs 7y ago
On a side note, I met the founder of Genius (then called RapGenius) at the first hackMIT. It's been 7 years but I still remember him insulting multiple people and being embarrassingly immature.
- yowlingcat 7y ago
  Do you mean this one [1]? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-fired https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder...
  - organicfigs 7y ago
    Unfortunately, that article isn't surprising at all
- austenallred 7y ago
  I think there are some mental health concerns at play, unfortunately.
- zmzrr 7y ago
  On a side note, let me throw shit at Genius for this completely unrelated thing.
wilde 7y ago
I love dunking on Google, but isn’t this vacated due to the LinkedIn scraping case? https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-data-scraping-cfaa-lawsuit-ninth-circuit-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-dat...

85 points by msaltz 7y ago

illiterate. it didn't sue them of "allegedly stealing" but for stealing.

>Genius doesn’t have a copyright claim because it doesn’t own the lyrics. Both Genius and Google hold licenses from music publishers to print song lyrics Genius makes the lyrics publicly available on the web and there was just a good outcome on web scraping public data. I can't imagine Genius has a case here but IANAL.

FireBeyond 7y ago
If I make content publicly available on my website, should you be able to scrape it wholesale, AND commercialize it, AND tell me to piss off when I raise a complaint? If so, why?
- alwaysdoit 7y ago
  Because the lyrics are not copyrighted by you, they are copyrighted by the Artist, whom Google and LyricsFind have a contract with to give them permission to use those lyrics?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    You might want to look at the concept of transcription, particularly germane to music. A transcription can be a creative work, so it can be protected by copyright. A transcription is copying and transforming an original work in a particular (symbolic). The original work that the transcription is based on is also protected by copyright, so to make the copy that embodies the transcription, you need permission from the original rights holder. Splicing the transcription onto an illegal copy of an original performance is also copyright infringement, but resynthesis based on the transcription is not. A transcription also might not be entitled to copyright protection, if it is the product of a computer program, since feeding a sound file into a program is not a creative activity. (The program that generated the transcription is, of course, protected by copyright). Ergo, there absolutely can be claims that you need to license my content, consisting of original synthesized copyrighted lyrics. I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them".
    - toast0 7y ago
      > I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them". That's pretty much what the contracts are; the rightsholders don't actually have the lyrics in a machine readable form; or if they do, they're from liner notes which often don't actually match the songs as performed on the media that came with the notes, so pretty worthless.
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        In which case, worst case scenario, Genius is saying “then come up with them yourselves, you can’t plagiarize our efforts”. Note that the anticompetitive part of the info boxes is a far different and separate issue.
        nvrspyx 7y ago
        They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users or given to them by the artists themselves and then Genius adds the watermarks mentioned in the lawsuit. Worst case scenario, Genius is saying "you can't benefit off the efforts of our users, only we can". It seems that the only thing giving Genius any footing is their Terms of Service, which ToS tend to be unenforceable. Also consider the case involving LinkedIn which set precedence in being able to scrape public information. Then again, IANAL so they may have more footing than I realize and/or they may do some transcription themselves, but it is largely their users.
        FireBeyond 7y ago
        > They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users Users who have consented to supply said efforts to Genius. Not to Google. Or LyricFind.
        nvrspyx 7y ago
- unreal37 7y ago
  What if you're just republishing someone else's content? It's not your original content, you're just publishing someone else's? Can I scrape your website to get that content I am legally allowed to get (because I have a paid license)?
- toast0 7y ago
  "Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright" Given that the lyrics aren't owned by Genius, and that Google has a license to them, there's no reasonable claim of copyright violation. There have been several cases lately that seem to suggest there's no problem with using public data either. If you don't like it, don't make the data public. Require a login, and then you might have a case.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    “Phantom streets”. Come up with the same map as me based on research and first principles, you’re safe. Plagiarize my effort and in the process capture the fake/non existent streets I -added- to the map to show that you were plagiarizing my work? Then absolutely I have a case against you. Come up with the same lyrics for a song as I do based on listening to it? Fine. Cutting and pasting my content, including unnecessary embedded Unicode spaces used to watermark my content, my transcription (see my other comment on this), absolutely problematic and actionable.
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      Perhaps this varies from country to country, but for the US, doesn't Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co. explicitly say that you cannot copyright these fake streets and someone creating a map that includes them would not be grounds alone for infringement?
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    The watermarks they encoded to identify the original source are pretty creative :).
- criddell 7y ago
  This lawsuit doesn't revolve around copyright, does it? Isn't Genius claiming that scraping the lyrics is a violation of their EULA?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    The other issue Google / LyricsFind has is that their response wasn’t “this is totally okay, you have no case”, but “we would never do that, we would investigate, and cancel licensing agreements with anyone doing that”. And then not doing that. And instead concealing and fixing the watermark that allowed the -detection- of the issue. You can’t do that, and make the statements above and then credibly try to argue “nothing to see here, you have no rights”.
unreal37 7y ago
This is like a re-trial of the famous Supreme Court case that the white pages phone directory cannot be copyrighted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R.... Facts are not copyrightable. And a collection of facts are not copyrightable. There has to be some spark of creativity or originality even small. Wonder what Genius is claiming makes their lyrics "original" compared to what they get from the source...

ehmorris 7y ago

Better source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/genius-media-sues-google-claiming-anticompetitive-use-of-song-lyrics-11575391257 https://www.wsj.com/articles/genius-media-sues-google-claimi... This is different from the story that came out this past summer, about Genius watermarking lyrics. 1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again. 2. Genius has filed an actual lawsuit. Disclosure: I used to work at Genius Also, a direct link to the legal complaint, which is a surprisingly fun read: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=3E0o8kQz4X3cWcbbid67wQ==&mod=article_inline https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
neonate 7y ago
That WSJ article is at http://archive.is/ZC39Y http://archive.is/ZC39Y.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> 1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again. After that first watermark, either Google, Lyricfind or both took steps to 'un-watermark' the lyrics (once they knew what to look for), but kept doing it unabated, as Genius showed when they used another watermark that they didn't reveal (pretty sneaky, with Unicode space characters in certain locations only).
crazypyro 7y ago
So Genius gets people to transcribe the lyrics mostly for free and then sells them to other companies for a lot of money. Google found someone to provide lyrics and that company allegedly scraps Genius for cheaper than Genius charges for direct access. So this is basically a continuation of the on-going question of whether scraping is legal? That's my basic understanding from reading the complaint. I'm also not sure why Google is at fault, except for a bunch of ranting about the Information Box stealing their business. Guess there's also the attempt to try to enforce Genius' ToS...

dang 7y ago

Url changed from https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-stealing-music-lyrics https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-s..., which points to this.

criddell 7y ago

If Google can show that the lifted lyrics come from LyricFind, does that get them off the hook?

ehmorris 7y ago
They do have an indemnity agreement with LyricFind, but they're kinda implicated here because they knew about the issue for so long and did nothing.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  And quite possibly -told- LyricFind about the watermarking method Genius was using so that LyricFind could strip it and continue unabated.

dijit 7y ago

I’ve noticed this actually. Sometimes I look up lyrics only to see them incorrectly transliterated on Google’s search box drop down. So I click through to genius and see the same error. But other sites have a different transliteration. I thought it was just them exposing the content from genius, the same way it works for weather.

taejavu 7y ago

Are sites like Genius still in a legal grey area concerning copyright? As in, the lyrics are unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted works. (I’m aware this lawsuit isn’t about copyright, I’m just curious)

kemonocode 7y ago
Pretty sure Genius actually licenses their lyrics to be in the clear in that regard.
- criddell 7y ago
  As does Google.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    Except Google licenses from companies who don't do it legally, and didn't cease when they were notified. They didn't stop after a WSJ article. On top of it, once the watermark was disclosed, they removed it.
    - criddell 7y ago
      Google licenses from the same music publisher that Genius does. I doubt Genius or any of the other lyrics sites have the right to create sub-licenses.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        Google licenses from a number of places, including LyricFind. Which, I don't think, is a music publisher. I offer that to correct a mistake, knowing it doesn't invalidate your point. Reading the complaint, it sounds like it's a ToS violation. The interesting thing is that Google -> Genius have some business agreements (Genius is an adsense customer, at the least). To my Not A Lawyer brain, that moves it out of the "scraping public documents is fine" and into a more complicated relationship. The outcome of this lawsuit will be interesting!

paulpauper 7y ago

Google is notoriously hard to sue. they don't settle easily or readily Genius was caught many years doing blackhat SEO that would have gotten smaller sites permanently banned, but thanks to google's kindness was forgiven.

Dwolb 7y ago
“Thanks to Google’s kindness” The business isn’t kind - it’s practical. This should read “thanks to a positive transaction value Genius was forgiven”
- paulpauper 7y ago
  how is letting a tiny company game its algos and get away with it help google's hundred-billion dollar search business
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Because Genius was popular enough it would piss off users if their results didn't show up on the first page. Clearly Google seems to agree that Genius has the best results based on the efforts they've taken to steal and even hide the fact that they're stealing from Genius. Just to be clear, Genius may be small compared to Google, but they are the de facto source of lyrics for music. Can you imagine if users suddenly no longer found Google useful for figuring out lyrics? It would genuinely cost them users switching to Bing, DuckDuckGo, etcetera.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    Because the VC money, the board is tied. In the end that's the way with all the SV startups that gives them insane advantage. Too many vested interests.
  - snappy173 7y ago
    b/c if Genius didn't get SEO traffic, they wouldn't let Google scrape their site ...
  - 7y ago

Deimorz 7y ago

Mike Masnick's thoughts about how dumb this lawsuit is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-doesnt-take-genius-to-recognize-how-dumb-genius-lawsuit-against-google-is-over-stolen-lyrics.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-do...

FireBeyond 7y ago
Many of Mike Masnick's arguments about how "dumb" this is are ... entirely lacking. When Genius points out that - after being told what their apostrophe watermark scheme was - LyricFind / Google started stripping that watermark while still copying things wholesale, Mike says: > Damned if you do, damned if you don't Which is obstinate to say the least. Mike tries to paint the picture that it's entirely okay, because they removed the mechanism to detect copying, while still copying. Poor LyricFind. Poor LyricFind, who, while covering their tracks, -weren't- deleting the _second_ watermark, that Genius didn't tell them about, thus showing that this was an entirely wilful, knowing act. All of his arguments complain/whine about "how dare they, they have no copyright, of course, because they did nothing!", wilfully ignoring that Genius, and any other sites who _actively license_ the ability to reproduce lyrics these days have to generate their own lyrics from first principles - the days of liner notes/lyrics are largely gone. Mike's arguments for the most part consisted of calling Genius "idiots" for failing his tests as to what the law is, often wrong, or willfully ostrich-like to anything that might derail his diatribe.
- criddell 7y ago
  The fact that Genius has to do work to get the lyrics doesn't really matter from a copyright point of view, does it?
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    You licensed the lyrics, which the rights holder didn’t supply. You didn’t license a third party’s (often subjective) interpretation of them.

cthalupa 7y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how Genius has any chance if winning this lawsuit. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is this: 1) Genius does not hold a copyright on any of these lyrics 2) Genius licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one. 3) Google does not hold a copyright on these lyrics 4) Google licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one. 5) "Watermarking" lyrics is not enough to get a derivative work copyright As both parties have non-exclusive licenses and neither own the copyright, I really don't see how Genius has any chance of winning this case. As best as I can tell, it would be perfectly legal for Google to purposefully and specifically copy the lyrics from Genius. Edit: Reading through the filing, they seem to basically be suing them for violating their website's TOS and some 'unfair practices' laws local to California and New York. I am unsure of how legally binding TOS are for websites in general, and whether or not being able to view lyrics without ever viewing the TOS effects things, etc.

ehmorris 7y ago
This lawsuit isn't about copyright. It's about violating Genius' TOS and anticompetitive behavior.
- akersten 7y ago
  Google never signed a contract with Genius? How would violating a terms of use they were never subject to be illegal?
  - McDyver 7y ago
    Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that. Who knows, maybe that's the way forward
    - msla 7y ago
      > Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that. When Google has the ability to levy taxes, things will be very different all over.

fierarul 7y ago

So Google licenses lyrics that don't exist in text format. How does that work? Seems like Google has a license to listen to the audio, produce the text lyrics and then use these lyrics. Since Google is indirectly stealing these lyrics, their license is not valid.

cthalupa 7y ago
Do you have a source for this interpretation of their license? It does not match the interpretation of anyone else out there that I am aware of - it is not even an argument that Genius is making in their lawsuit.
- fierarul 7y ago
  If two parties get gold mining rights in a river can one party steal gold from the other since they both have rights to the gold in the same river? Certainly Genius is reading these threads and get new ideas.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    You're trying to conflate physical items with intellectual property here - that isn't how the legal system works in the US or in any country that I am aware of. Genius has no ownership over the lyrics - they are not their intellectual property. When you get a license to mineral rights, whatever you extract is your property and you have ownership of it. That isn't the case here, and as such, it's a nonsensical analogy.
    - fierarul 7y ago
      OK, maybe my gold example was not so good. But in what way is Google licensed? The lyrics in text format do not exist. So the 'rights owners' license something that provably does not exist and they do not have? That is valid how? Which means the license covers a process Google is allowed to apply to the recording. Since Google gets stolen lyrics I doubt their license covers that.

organicfigs 7y ago

On a side note, I met the founder of Genius (then called RapGenius) at the first hackMIT. It's been 7 years but I still remember him insulting multiple people and being embarrassingly immature.

yowlingcat 7y ago
Do you mean this one [1]? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-fired https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder...
- organicfigs 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that article isn't surprising at all
austenallred 7y ago
I think there are some mental health concerns at play, unfortunately.
zmzrr 7y ago
On a side note, let me throw shit at Genius for this completely unrelated thing.

wilde 7y ago

I love dunking on Google, but isn’t this vacated due to the LinkedIn scraping case? https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-data-scraping-cfaa-lawsuit-ninth-circuit-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-dat...