4 ms·

> LyricFind. LyricFind is a Google licensing partner, and may be the source of the Genius content appearing in Google’s search results. LyricFind published an e

> LyricFind. LyricFind is a Google licensing partner, and may be the source of the Genius content appearing in Google’s search results. LyricFind published an explanation on its web site Monday, saying, “Some time ago, Ben Gross from Genius notified LyricFind that they believed they were seeing Genius lyrics in LyricFind’s database. As a courtesy to Genius, our content team was instructed not to consult Genius as a source. Recently, Genius raised the issue again and provided a few examples. All of those examples were also available on many other lyric sites and services, raising the possibility that our team unknowingly sourced Genius lyrics from another location. As a result, LyricFind offered to remove any lyrics Genius felt had originated from them, even though we did not source them from Genius’ site. Genius declined to respond to that offer. Despite that, our team is currently investigating the content in our database and removing any lyrics that seem to have originated from Genius.” https://searchengineland.com/google-to-add-attribution-to-licensed-lyrics-providers-318402 https://searchengineland.com/google-to-add-attribution-to-li... The dismissal seems logical to me

luckylion 6y ago
If that flies, it's a great tactic. You can't just use the data from site A, so you build anonymous sites B, C and D who use the data from site A, and use the data from those sites instead. "We didn't source from A".
- jdm2212 6y ago
  It's not a great tactic if the owner of site A decides to sue you and subpoenas the hosting providers for B, C and D. You can only get away with it as long as you aren't successful enough to draw the attention of anyone with money to burn on legal fees.
- jtxx 6y ago
  pretty much data laundering
qppo 6y ago
Last I checked, ignorance wasn't usually a defense but I'm not a lawyer. I just know not to pretend the Keurig I bought off the back of a truck was a good deal for everyone involved. But physical analogies to IP fall apart quickly so I'm not going to encourage people to read into that too deeply
- jimbo999 6y ago
  The "buried" lede here is that they think Ben Cross is a giant asshat blowhard.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    He’s Gross
- jdm2212 6y ago
  So there's two different concepts. One is original creative output, which is copyrightable. The other is information, which is not copyrightable. If you find something verbatim identical in a bunch of different places, you've got a strong case that it's just information, because if it were original creative output it wouldn't show up identically in multiple places. If it turns out everyone was plagiarizing a single source, but you were unaware and took down the offending content when asked, you won't have much in the way of legal liability.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Sounds like everyone and their mother is scraping stuff off Genius, not just Google; they went after Google specifically because they knew they couldn't just disappear and they had the financial means to pay for compensation, unlike the thousands of crappy lyrics websites. That said, it would've been just if Google would pay for access to Genius' particular, well-curated, "source" database of lyrics, especially given that they're basically stealing traffic.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  But it sounds like the issue is that Google really wasn't using Genius's data directly. The problem is that Google is sourcing from "The Internet," and everybody and their grandmother is 'stealing' from Genius. Here's an interesting question: if Genius closed up shop tomorrow, how long would it take Google to become the primary source of song lyrics online (by rebuilding Genius's dataset from general Internet harvesting)?
- ggggtez 6y ago
  The same thing came up in the Linked In scraping case. The courts have defended website scraping. Even if Google scraped it on purpose in order to steal traffic, it would likely be legal.

luckylion 6y ago

If that flies, it's a great tactic. You can't just use the data from site A, so you build anonymous sites B, C and D who use the data from site A, and use the data from those sites instead. "We didn't source from A".

jdm2212 6y ago
It's not a great tactic if the owner of site A decides to sue you and subpoenas the hosting providers for B, C and D. You can only get away with it as long as you aren't successful enough to draw the attention of anyone with money to burn on legal fees.
jtxx 6y ago
pretty much data laundering

qppo 6y ago

Last I checked, ignorance wasn't usually a defense but I'm not a lawyer. I just know not to pretend the Keurig I bought off the back of a truck was a good deal for everyone involved. But physical analogies to IP fall apart quickly so I'm not going to encourage people to read into that too deeply

jimbo999 6y ago
The "buried" lede here is that they think Ben Cross is a giant asshat blowhard.
- tomcam 6y ago
  He’s Gross
jdm2212 6y ago
So there's two different concepts. One is original creative output, which is copyrightable. The other is information, which is not copyrightable. If you find something verbatim identical in a bunch of different places, you've got a strong case that it's just information, because if it were original creative output it wouldn't show up identically in multiple places. If it turns out everyone was plagiarizing a single source, but you were unaware and took down the offending content when asked, you won't have much in the way of legal liability.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Sounds like everyone and their mother is scraping stuff off Genius, not just Google; they went after Google specifically because they knew they couldn't just disappear and they had the financial means to pay for compensation, unlike the thousands of crappy lyrics websites. That said, it would've been just if Google would pay for access to Genius' particular, well-curated, "source" database of lyrics, especially given that they're basically stealing traffic.

shadowgovt 6y ago
But it sounds like the issue is that Google really wasn't using Genius's data directly. The problem is that Google is sourcing from "The Internet," and everybody and their grandmother is 'stealing' from Genius. Here's an interesting question: if Genius closed up shop tomorrow, how long would it take Google to become the primary source of song lyrics online (by rebuilding Genius's dataset from general Internet harvesting)?
ggggtez 6y ago
The same thing came up in the Linked In scraping case. The courts have defended website scraping. Even if Google scraped it on purpose in order to steal traffic, it would likely be legal.