7 ms·

I'm glad at least there's a big target (Rap Genius) to hopefully fight this fight for the little guys, even if I don't like the direction the site(s) are going.

whiddershins 13y ago
What fight is that, precisely? What exact principle would you like Rap Genius to defend on everyone's behalf? Because at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.
- vacri 13y ago
  I know I like to unwind at the end of the day by sitting back with an alcoholic beverage and reading through a nice mixed set of song lyrics. This rationale would prevent providing a cast list for a movie, because you're publishing the casting agent's work without paying them anything.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, it would not, because a cast list is a set of facts and cannot be copyrighted.
    - thuuuomas 13y ago
      How is a list of people in a proprietary movie legally distinct from a list of elements in a proprietary compound?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I don't understand your question but reiterate that the cast list of a movie cannot in fact be copyrighted.
      - wglb 13y ago
        If you are talking about compounds that are drugs from pharmaceutical companies, those are patented rather than copyrighted.
- chc 13y ago
  I don't think there is even a reasonable way to pay them something in this case. Am I mistaken?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did: http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/01/30/lyricfind-gets-the-global-rights-for-song-lyrics-from-all-four-major-publishers/ http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/01/30/lyricfind-gets-the-gl... The Harry Fox agency (harryfox.com) is the industry broker for music publication licensing, virtually everything in the US can be licensed through them.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did Looks like LyricFind is owned by Gracenote. Considering that Gracenote got its start by absconding with user-submitted CDDB data, submitted with the understanding that it was GPL'd, that they would pay for lyrics licensing is ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote_licensing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote_licensing_controvers...
- Amadou 13y ago
  at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything. The thing is that the value in this case is not in the lyrics themselves but in the transcription and compilation into a central database. The people looking them up already have a copy - they are listening to the song. A transcription is something they could do themselves if they wanted to put in the effort. From a maximalist perspective you are quite correct. But from the perspective of how much the publication affects the market for the lyrics I think it is reasonable to conclude that at worst the impact is marginal and in the vast majority of cases it has none at all.
  - whiddershins 13y ago
    That's what copyright means. The right to make copies.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      It is actually the right to exclude others from making copies. It is not an absolute right either. Even the most hardcore maximalists accept that there are some conditions under which that right does not exist, c.f. Jack Valenti's acknowledgement that it would be unconstitutional if the term of copyright was forever. http://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/11/forever-less-one-day/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/11/forever-less-one-day/
- bandushrew 13y ago
  I am genuinely interested in what you think the artists lose if I have easy access to the written lyrics of their songs? I just do not understand it?
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    I guess it's not really about that. It's that artists (besides mainstream ones) need all they can get from any source they can get it -- they really do, just to get by. The two sides are: artists just can't make it through with a little pay with little sources of revenue, or we don't get our lyrics, tabs, and/or the songs themselves for free. It's a difficult balance where solutions are hard to find. It's worthwhile to basically see lyrics as poetry. Poets get by by selling poetry (well, few, in this day and age), lyricists/songwriters should also ideally be able to get by.
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      Part of the problem is that there's a lot of good music available to me. Literally more than I can ever listen to, much of it for free online. I think the music industry has to adjust to handouts (eg, donations on their site) and merchandise/performances rather than viewing the song itself as something worth selling. If there's a barrier to me using the music easily, including unavailability of the lyrics, not only am I not going to spend money on things that make them more money (shows, merchandise, etc), but there are a dozen other artists who are all clamoring to make it easy for me to hear their music. The song - and attached lyrics - should be a way to get me to buy other things or given them money after, and not try to be "sold" to me.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  IMO Rap Genius falls squarely within the fair use safe harbor of copyright law, since it provides educational/critical analysis of lyrics rather than simply republishing them for profit.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Whether it's a small portion or the entirety of the copied work is also a factor...
    - selmnoo 13y ago
      Not to mention, the content is the center of all that is RapGenius. It is educational/critical analysis of lyrics, written by people. Would we expect annotated versions of books to be free? No. Would we expect critiques of movies... with the movies themselves to be free? No. That argument just doesn't hold any water.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      True, but lyrics are only a portion of a musical work, and in general they're a pretty small amount of text (compared to, say, the median news article). I think RG would respond by pointing out that the volume of commentary frequently dwarfs source material.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        The lyrics are copyright as a separate work. The lyrics are the entirety of that work. The recording, the music, etc. are all separate.
- siegecraft 13y ago
  As a user, I just want to be able to type some fragment of lyrics into google and see what song it is. I don't care about the underlying ideological issues (at least, not as much as I care about the usability of finding lyrics). I'm a bit annoyed that rapgenius and all its affiliated sites are taking over the top spots in google, but at least their ads are less annoying than all the other lyrics site. If the officially licensed rightsholders of those lyrics would like to also make a site, so be it, but it seems they are a bit late to the party.

whiddershins 13y ago

What fight is that, precisely? What exact principle would you like Rap Genius to defend on everyone's behalf? Because at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything.

vacri 13y ago
I know I like to unwind at the end of the day by sitting back with an alcoholic beverage and reading through a nice mixed set of song lyrics. This rationale would prevent providing a cast list for a movie, because you're publishing the casting agent's work without paying them anything.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, it would not, because a cast list is a set of facts and cannot be copyrighted.
  - thuuuomas 13y ago
    How is a list of people in a proprietary movie legally distinct from a list of elements in a proprietary compound?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I don't understand your question but reiterate that the cast list of a movie cannot in fact be copyrighted.
    - wglb 13y ago
      If you are talking about compounds that are drugs from pharmaceutical companies, those are patented rather than copyrighted.
chc 13y ago
I don't think there is even a reasonable way to pay them something in this case. Am I mistaken?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did: http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/01/30/lyricfind-gets-the-global-rights-for-song-lyrics-from-all-four-major-publishers/ http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/01/30/lyricfind-gets-the-gl... The Harry Fox agency (harryfox.com) is the industry broker for music publication licensing, virtually everything in the US can be licensed through them.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    You license them from the publishers, as LyricFind did Looks like LyricFind is owned by Gracenote. Considering that Gracenote got its start by absconding with user-submitted CDDB data, submitted with the understanding that it was GPL'd, that they would pay for lyrics licensing is ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote_licensing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote_licensing_controvers...
Amadou 13y ago
at first glance it might seem like you are referring to the right to publish someone else's work for profit without paying them anything. The thing is that the value in this case is not in the lyrics themselves but in the transcription and compilation into a central database. The people looking them up already have a copy - they are listening to the song. A transcription is something they could do themselves if they wanted to put in the effort. From a maximalist perspective you are quite correct. But from the perspective of how much the publication affects the market for the lyrics I think it is reasonable to conclude that at worst the impact is marginal and in the vast majority of cases it has none at all.
- whiddershins 13y ago
  That's what copyright means. The right to make copies.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    It is actually the right to exclude others from making copies. It is not an absolute right either. Even the most hardcore maximalists accept that there are some conditions under which that right does not exist, c.f. Jack Valenti's acknowledgement that it would be unconstitutional if the term of copyright was forever. http://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/11/forever-less-one-day/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/11/forever-less-one-day/
bandushrew 13y ago
I am genuinely interested in what you think the artists lose if I have easy access to the written lyrics of their songs? I just do not understand it?
- selmnoo 13y ago
  I guess it's not really about that. It's that artists (besides mainstream ones) need all they can get from any source they can get it -- they really do, just to get by. The two sides are: artists just can't make it through with a little pay with little sources of revenue, or we don't get our lyrics, tabs, and/or the songs themselves for free. It's a difficult balance where solutions are hard to find. It's worthwhile to basically see lyrics as poetry. Poets get by by selling poetry (well, few, in this day and age), lyricists/songwriters should also ideally be able to get by.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    Part of the problem is that there's a lot of good music available to me. Literally more than I can ever listen to, much of it for free online. I think the music industry has to adjust to handouts (eg, donations on their site) and merchandise/performances rather than viewing the song itself as something worth selling. If there's a barrier to me using the music easily, including unavailability of the lyrics, not only am I not going to spend money on things that make them more money (shows, merchandise, etc), but there are a dozen other artists who are all clamoring to make it easy for me to hear their music. The song - and attached lyrics - should be a way to get me to buy other things or given them money after, and not try to be "sold" to me.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
IMO Rap Genius falls squarely within the fair use safe harbor of copyright law, since it provides educational/critical analysis of lyrics rather than simply republishing them for profit.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Whether it's a small portion or the entirety of the copied work is also a factor...
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    Not to mention, the content is the center of all that is RapGenius. It is educational/critical analysis of lyrics, written by people. Would we expect annotated versions of books to be free? No. Would we expect critiques of movies... with the movies themselves to be free? No. That argument just doesn't hold any water.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    True, but lyrics are only a portion of a musical work, and in general they're a pretty small amount of text (compared to, say, the median news article). I think RG would respond by pointing out that the volume of commentary frequently dwarfs source material.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      The lyrics are copyright as a separate work. The lyrics are the entirety of that work. The recording, the music, etc. are all separate.
siegecraft 13y ago
As a user, I just want to be able to type some fragment of lyrics into google and see what song it is. I don't care about the underlying ideological issues (at least, not as much as I care about the usability of finding lyrics). I'm a bit annoyed that rapgenius and all its affiliated sites are taking over the top spots in google, but at least their ads are less annoying than all the other lyrics site. If the officially licensed rightsholders of those lyrics would like to also make a site, so be it, but it seems they are a bit late to the party.