4 ms·

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-geniu

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.
    - criddell 7y ago
      The third party's interpretation isn't protected, AFAIK.
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        Read my sister comments- transcription, if by a creative process and not automated absolutely -can- (but not always) be protected.
        criddell 7y ago
        Do you think it is in this case?
      - true_religion 7y ago
        It can be. Without a license from the original artist, Genius’ derivative work would be unusable by them, but the derivative work still receives its own copyright.
        criddell 7y ago
        What Genius did (tweaked punctuation) isn't covered by copyright. This case is about the scrapers violating Genius' website terms of service.
  - Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
    Not germane in this case, but yes, it would in “sweat of the brow” jurisdictions like the UK.

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.
  - criddell 7y ago
    The third party's interpretation isn't protected, AFAIK.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      Read my sister comments- transcription, if by a creative process and not automated absolutely -can- (but not always) be protected.
      - criddell 7y ago
        Do you think it is in this case?
    - true_religion 7y ago
      It can be. Without a license from the original artist, Genius’ derivative work would be unusable by them, but the derivative work still receives its own copyright.
      - criddell 7y ago
        What Genius did (tweaked punctuation) isn't covered by copyright. This case is about the scrapers violating Genius' website terms of service.
- Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
  Not germane in this case, but yes, it would in “sweat of the brow” jurisdictions like the UK.