

Ask HN: Why hasn't Rap Genius been shut down? - frankacter

Given the news of the recent raid of Undertexter, I&#x27;m curious how a service like Rap Genius stays online?<p>Undertexter profited, via banner ads on the site, for the community sourced subtitles.<p>Rap Genius, while not currently profitable, did take a 15 million USD round of funding for their site hosting community sourced song lyrics.<p>Undertexter created derivative work by creating translation of copyrighted subtitles to native languages.<p>Rap Genius created derivative work by creating an annotation layer on top of copyrighted subtitles.<p>In both cases, neither party had obtained permission or licensing.<p>So how is Rap Genius&#x27;s model or execution different from Undertexter?
======
tehwebguy
I believe because:

1\. Lyrics are user generated content, UGC + DMCA Safe Harbor makes it easy
for a site to keep operating, even if they have to keep taking some content
down.

2\. They have done a seemingly good job of getting major label rappers on
board with the service, so maybe the labels actually get this this could be
helping them make money.

~~~
frankacter
1\. So are translated subtitles. Is the premise that Undertexter was not
responding to DMCA requests to take down reported content, but Rap Genius is?

2\. This confuses me. Unless the labels are licensing/legally approving of the
use of the content, isn't just allowing it to happen weakening their case
against sites they are not so friendly with?

------
itsprofitbaron
Undertexter was profiting from simply translating subtitles whereas, Rap
Genius falls under fair use because, they're creating a new layer on top of
the lyrics.

------
jaspertheghost
Because Rapgenius hasn't profited out of the lyrics yet. DMCA focused on
monetization of other people's content as one of the main criterias for
violation. It doesn't matter whether it's UGC or not.

~~~
staunch
If I recall, this is basically the surest way to lose your DMCA protection.
The key is for them to prove that you knowingly profited from the copyright
infringement. Another issue is what percentage of your service is
legit/infringing.

As much as people hated it at the time, the DMCA is a pretty reasonable law
(which is why the bad guys at various companies are trying to replace it).

~~~
dangrossman
The DMCA has no such consideration of profiting from infringement or the
percentage of the service that is legitimate versus infringing. A service that
contains nothing but infringing content, and puts ads on every page hosting
that content, can be completely free from liability for the infringement. No
need to speculate based on bits and pieces you think you've heard places --
read the bill! It's short, it's not hard to read, and it's something you
should know given your profession.

~~~
staunch
This is common and incorrect view of the legal system in the US. The law as it
is written is only half of the picture. You need to understand the relevant
case law to have any idea how a judge might actually rule on a given case.
This is one reason why attorneys make so much money.

------
aTMoZFeaR
Users submit lyrics, sometimes the actual artist of the song verifies it too,
it's a completely different theme than 99% of lyric databases, kind of like,
the reddit of lyrics in a way?

~~~
frankacter
This is the same model as Undertexter (minus the "sometimes the actual artist
verifies it part), the subtitles are sourced via community user submissions.

What do you mean by it being different than 99% of lyric databases?

Are you implying that 99% of the lyric databases copy their content from
somewhere or the site admins themselves enter the content themselves?

Does that really make a difference since the end result would be identical
(both in content and in execution) in that they are hosting and displaying
copyrighted content that they are not licensed for, regardless of what the
originating source was.

------
karmajunkie
rap genius is not derivative. its transformative, and therefore falls under
fair use. Its also UGC, which as noted is specifically granted safe harbor
under the DMCA.

~~~
tptacek
Is UGC always a safe harbor? To qualify for safe harbor in the case of file
sharing services, it's not enough not to deliberately populate the site with
copyrighted content and to honor takedowns; there's also a requirement that
the operators of the site not run it with foreknowledge of infringing
copyright, so that if they became aware of copyvio content, they'd still be
required to take it down.

------
al1x
I'm more curious about how they plan on monetizing "annotating stuff".

------
josephpmay
Because the RIAA isn't as crazy as the MPAA

~~~
frankacter
Or are they?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lyrics_Server](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lyrics_Server)

"On January 14, 1999, Swiss police raided de Vries' apartment and the
service's ISP and seized equipment in pursuit of a criminal copyright
violation complaint filed on behalf of eight music publishing companies
including Polygram, EMI, and Estefan Enterprises. Although the industry
succeeded in taking down this service (and turning many music fans to dislike
the industry), the Internet proved more powerful than the industry, and song
lyrics are now freely available on many similar sites."

------
benatkin
Shhhhhhhh.

