4 ms·
That is true under a maximalist interpretation of copyright. On the other hand, what is really being sold here is the transcription and search-ability of the l
by Amadou 13y ago
That is true under a maximalist interpretation of copyright. On the other hand, what is really being sold here is the transcription and search-ability of the lyrics (and in RapGenius's specific case the community-contributed critical analysis of the lyrics).
Since the near total majority of people who will be reading the lyrics already posses a copy in audio form it seems unfair, in anything other than a maximalist context, to pay for them twice.
- benologist 13y agoRG, and the others, rely pretty much exclusively on song lyrics to pull traffic from Google. It's impossible to know who possesses what song in audio form, and it's up to RG if the pass that cost on to their users if they wish to.
- alex_c 13y ago>Since the near total majority of people who will be reading the lyrics already posses a copy in audio form If you mean "legally possess", I very strongly doubt that's true...
- wildgift 13y agoIt's not maximalist to say that a website cannot make a copy of something for someone who owns the item in another form. That right to copy belongs to the copyright owner, not the person who owns a copy.
- Amadou 13y agoFor argument's sake let's say you are right, that it is not maximalist. That would imply there is a more extreme interpretation that would qualify as maximalist. Can you describe what that interpretation might be? What is more extreme than saying without exception that the "right to copy belongs to the copyright owner, not the person who owns a copy." Meanwhile, I'll just leave this right here: http://www.ripshark.com/ http://www.ripshark.com/