
Study Prompts NMPA to File Take-Down Notices Against 50 Lyric Websites - subimage
http://pitchfork.com/news/52967-study-by-camper-van-beethovens-david-lowery-prompts-nmpa-to-file-take-down-notices-against-50-lyric-websites/
======
greg5green
I'm hoping that Rap Genius will fight this as I'm pretty sure Hofheinz v A&E
Television Networks sets the precedent for them. The ruling there was that a
documentary on Peter Graves was okay because clips from the actor's works were
used "for the transformative purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the
actor's modest beginnings in the film business," and that "A&E's biography of
Peter Graves does not merely purport to supersede the original movie at issue,
but to create a new copyrightable film biography."

Each of the annotated Rap Genius lyrics are used to explain and understand
where the original artist is coming from and the point of the site isn't just
to let people know the lyrics (which is at best half of the work being used,
if you were concerned with the 3rd of the criteria on fair use) but to provide
original content that explains everything. I don't think they would have a
problem winning, but the will and money to win might be a problem :s

I'm not aware of any more recent case law that might supersede this as it has
been a few years since I've been in an IP Law class. Anyone know more?

~~~
alex_c
I see where you're coming from, but that argument opens up a pretty big
loophole to use any copyrighted material however you please. There's a big
difference (in terms of both effort and value) between a documentary and some
user-generated annotations of varying quality.

I'm not clear what you mean by "at best half of the work being used" regarding
lyrics, since the full lyrics are reproduced.

~~~
greg5green
Most of the fair use case law I have seen doesn't try to differentiate between
good and bad commentary about the work they are building upon because it's
really tricky and subjective.

Also, with "at best half of the work being used" I was referring to the fact
that it is just lyrics and doesn't include the other elements of the song.

~~~
alex_c
Ah, I see. AFAIK the lyrics and the recording are considered distinct works
with separate copyright (and often different owners), so the lyrics count as
the "full" work in this case.

~~~
greg5green
I think you might be right about that. I vaguely remember that weird
difference being part of the way Hallmark has managed to hold the copyright to
Happy Birthday. If I remember correctly, the lyrics were way out of copyright,
but the piano arrangement that was written in the 30s or 40s and is now in
common use now was copyrightable. Bleh.

~~~
hipsters_unite
@alex_c is right: the recorded iteration of the song is one licence, and the
music and lyrics (covered by the publishing licence) is another. If Rap Genius
haven't licensed the music and lyrics, then it's no different legally to
filesharing mp3s.

------
subimage
Why was the original link and title I submitted edited?

Please change it back:

[http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-
among-...](http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-
among-50-lyric-websites-served-take-down-notices/#.UoLs8JTXSiw)

~~~
Amadou
Because it is "blogspam" and against the policies of this site.

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

 _Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they
found on another site, submit the latter._

It is already at least the second submission of this story in the last 24
hours. The previous one is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722938](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722938)

~~~
subimage
It's not "blogspam" \- it gave a nod to the place I saw it originally, while
providing a unique perspective on the subject because of my experience.

1 - The Pitchfork article didn't mention any numbers relating to what the
license cost. 2 - I gave context into who David Lowery is 3 - The headline
included RapGenius, which most people find news on interesting

That information was provided by me, after discussions with song publishers &
research. Changing the title & URL is extremely disrespectful.

~~~
bjterry
I was excited to read your article because based on this comment I thought it
would have in-depth analysis of the issue, but I found it to be a very shallow
in terms of additional content. It has one paragraph with the licensing costs,
which is useful information, and then the two sentence blurb on David Lowery,
which didn't seem to be meaningfully connected to the issue at all (it
actually is somewhat negative in my view, because it seems to imply a slight
hint of perhaps ad hominem, but that was just my initial impression, and
doesn't seem totally justified upon rereading). If you had multiple
discussions with song publishers and research on this topic, it would
definitely be valuable to share them.

With respect to disrespect, Hacker News exists for the benefit of its readers,
and not necessarily for the benefit of the Internet's citizen-journalist army.
Hacker News admins prefer "canonical" sources in most situations. That said, I
wouldn't consider your post "blogspam."

------
jcutrell
This is really quite silly to me.

Lyrical content can't be "sold" to consumers - it can only be used in
promotional material. I can't imagine how anyone would be able to calculate
damages for punitive action, but I can't imagine that it's very easily
demonstrable, except directly to the licensing company who would supposedly
otherwise be paid the licensing fees.

To me, this resembles a flailing music industry fishing for revenue.

At the same time, the published material itself is certainly copyrighted.

Does anyone believe these sites are, in any way, _not_ helping the artists?

~~~
lbr
Agree. Silly and not a huge deal. Beyond that, buying the rights wouldn't be
expensive.

"obtaining a blanket license to “re-publish” lyrics online from someone like
musiXmatch starts around $20k/year."

Doesn't sound too bad for a company that raised 17M.

Beyond that RG still has a ton of room to expand into other areas.

~~~
ngoel36
If the cost really is only $20k, I find it hard to believe that RG finds this
small price to be unreasonable...

~~~
rallison
I imagine RG considers it unreasonable because they consider what they are
doing to be fair use. As such, any amount above $0 could be considered
unreasonable.

~~~
lbr
Not only that, but RG has also gotten a ton of positive feedback from artists.

The question is this: Do the founders wish to be provocative and make a point
about the music industry, or do they want to avoid friction? After watching a
few interviews with the founding team, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the
former.

------
rabidonrails
Why wouldn't they just buy the license? 20k/yr for a blanket license sounds
incredibly cheap...what am I missing?

~~~
mattront
The license cost starts at 20k/year with 1.4 USD license fee per 1000 views
(CPM) for websites and mobile apps. The licensing of 1.4 USD CPM alone is more
than normal sites can hope to earn from 1000 page impressions.

Source: [https://developer.musixmatch.com/](https://developer.musixmatch.com/)

~~~
wildgift
Maybe they should sue over the price.

I don't think it's realistic to expect to get the lyrics for free.

~~~
adventured
[http://www.lyricfind.com/services/lyrics-for-
free/](http://www.lyricfind.com/services/lyrics-for-free/)

------
batbomb
The "undesirability index" is seriously just google search popularity for
random popular songs, plus whether or not they pay.

~~~
bjterry
The "undesirability index" is hilariously loaded terminology, along with
really quite questionable methodology. They weight each spot on the google
results based on the first result being 1, the second being .995, the third
being .990, and so on. It seems like it would make a lot more sense to weight
it based on traffic. The first result should be like .4, the second .2, the
third .1, and lyrics appearing on pages two through 20(!) should be scaled
down to the infinitesimal value they represent. www.digitaldreamdoor.com has
an "undesirability index" of 2.35, vs. rapgenius' 12.77, but in terms of
actual traffic, that ratio is probably off by an order of magnitude
(trafficestimate.com estimates 7M uniques vs. 422K, which is still unreliable,
but it's something).

------
brimtown
Never thought I'd see a Pitchfork article on the frontpage of HN.

~~~
subimage
It didn't start as that. They edited my original title & link...

[http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-
among-...](http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-
among-50-lyric-websites-served-take-down-notices/#.UoL1PpTXSiw)

------
pit
Here's an example of a licensed lyric site:
[http://www.lyricsoverload.com/](http://www.lyricsoverload.com/)

And a mobile app that uses licensed lyric content:
[http://musixmatch.com/apps/](http://musixmatch.com/apps/)

~~~
wildgift
lyrics without errors. what a concept.

------
subimage
I would appreciate upvotes on my original article - as a HN editor changed the
URL and title once this hit the front page.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723445](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6723445)

Thank you!

------
wildgift
It would be better for everyone if writers could get paid for views of their
lyrics. It would set a precedent for paying the artist. Even if it's just a
few ten-thousandths of a penny per view.

------
belorn
If a program that process songs and returns lyrics are an copyright
infringement, is a program that process songs and return song titles an equal
copyright infringement?

