3 ms·
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, o
by 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 agoGoogle 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 agoGoogle 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!
- criddell 7y agoGoogle licenses from the same music publishers. They have to or they wouldn't be able to display the lyrics. Just having a license doesn't necessarily give you the actual lyrics though. They still have to create or buy them from somebody. In the past I think LyricFind said that when they licensed lyrics, some were provided by the publisher and it was the publisher that scraped them from Genius. I may be mis-remembering that, but there was something along those lines. I think this is an issue of Genius alleging that LyricFind scraped their website with is a ToS violation.