Why was the original link and title I submitted edited?
Please change it back:
http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-...
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?
Why wouldn't they just buy the license? 20k/yr for a blanket license sounds incredibly cheap...what am I missing?
The "undesirability index" is seriously just google search popularity for random popular songs, plus whether or not they pay.
Never thought I'd see a Pitchfork article on the frontpage of HN.
Here's an example of a licensed lyric site: http://www.lyricsoverload.com/
And a mobile app that uses licensed lyric content: http://musixmatch.com/apps/
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
Thank you!
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.
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?
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?