Music industry wants those that share lyrics on the Net jailed (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

Or the site could ask for permission to post the lyrics, which may be granted freely, depending on the artist and who actually wrote the songs - the majority of popular artists do not write their own material. The key element in all of this is unauthorized use.

I would also agree that one big argument for prosecution is that many of the sites are using other people's property for their own gain, either through ad revenue, sales commissions, or by selling information on their visitors to others. So is it fair for sites that are hosting other people's work to make money while those who created the work don't?

 

[Will_B]

Without lyric sites, how are people supposed to discover what band they heard on the radio?

You're driving home, you hear a song you like - the DJ never says who it is, so you type a line or two into google and then you know whose album to buy.

They want to shut this down?

Even their claim that it deprives bands of income makes no sense, since if a musician wants to record a cover tune he or she will by necessity need to learn how to play that tune first!

 

[dpippel]

The music industry continues to excel in generating negative press about itself. The MPA and RIAA may as well save a bunch of money and fire their PR departments, because they must be playing golf all day instead of doing their jobs.

No matter how justified some may feel these actions are, it's the way they're being handled that smacks of greed, pomposity, and pettiness. I have no sympathy whatsoever for any of these industry organizations.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Remember the RIAA have publically stated that using covert rootkits like Sony is perfectly OK.

 

[Marko Berg]

I've recommended CDs and DVDs to friends who subsequently purchased copies of those works. Where's my share?

 

[Marko Berg]

And Thomas Hesse, head of SonyBMG, seems to think computer users won't mind such technology as long as they don't know what it does or aren't aware of it!

The cynic in me wonders why I should be a law-abiding citizen when the music industry just doesn't care.

 

[David Brown Eyes]

If this is true than explain Itunes, the now legal Napster.

Not everyone is a criminal out to screw the artists. To treat everyone as such will bring death to your industry.

 

[LarryDavenport]

The argument, if it should go to court, is the feds should make the RIAA offer the lyrics online for free so parents can read what there kids are listening to.

 

[Kevin M]

This is fucking ridiculous, how about movie quotes? How about the title of the songs? How about game walkthroughs? Cheat codes? Internet sites that offer help with PC problems (hey, they haven't asked microsoft or apple for permission to tamper with their operating systems)? How about the Hardee's "angus beef" burger in my stomach, is that mine yet...it isn't fully digested yet and it is a copyrighted product isn't it?


Hyperbole? Exaggeration? Yes, but the slippery slope they are treading with "copyright" lawsuits is as well IMO.

 

[Carl Johnson]

I'd agree that filing a lawsuit over a websites unauthorized publication of lyrics is ridiculous, but I can't blame the company that filed the suit for staying on the cutting edge of societal evolution. Twenty years from now when there are very few if any sources for information or entertainment outside of the net everything will cost money. Ten dollars for a movie, two dollars for a song off of the soundtrack and fifty cents more if you want the lyrics. There's a chance that in the future the information will be a source of revenue, so the company is using the lawsuit to protect their rights to that information.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Copyright issues aside, it never ceases to amaze me how groups like the RIAA have raised their "Antagonize the Customer" philosophy to such a high art.

It would just be sad if these industry groups weren't throwing millions of dollars at politicians to co-opt the government in their paranoia-driven attempts to treat all media consumers as criminals.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

A big difference, from a legal standpoint. I don't see how publishing lyrics should make them freely available to everyone, especially if the person doing the distributing is in no way related to, or authorized to distribute them in the first place.

 

[ThomasC]

I don't think that's much different than arguing that once a book is published, someone should be perfectly free to convert it to an electronic format.

 

[Rachael B]

Aye, Mr. Silverman! :star: The MPAA and RIAA have become the colossal threats to freedom.

 

[Shaw]

George Orwell was right in his book, 1984. Big Brother is real and watching and it's not just the US Government, it's the MPA and RIAA.

The real shame in all of this is that the thing that is really suffering here is the Arts themselves. The Arts aren't just a bunch of real properties that you can hold in your hand.

Movies, Music and all of these things are intangibles. They are about what we are as human beings.

And maybe that is exactly what these industries are trying to stop. They are only interested in promoting conformity, not individuality. Controlling the way people think about the world around them seems to be their agenda.

My worry is that the public will accept these notions and ideas. That we will no longer live in a world where we think for ourselves.

Once someone has heard a song, seen a movie, attended a live performance, that experience stays with them. It seems to me that our freedom to experience these things is being overshadowed in a much more significant way than ever before.

And this seems to be heading in a direction way beyond mere pirating. I am not a pirater myself, but it is easy to see that this is heading for destruction of our culture.

And who really "owns" anything? Just because I bought a CD with a copyright, I am not allowed to share it by just having someone over to listen in my own home? Can I not walk down the street thinking about a certain song?

And what was the purpose of this whole industry in the beginning? To spread the message that a particular perfomer had!

It's easy to see today from the poor selection of "artists" that are in the Top 40 today that there is not one ounce of integrity in the industry. They sell to the lowest common denominator for nothing but profit. No pride, no sense of accomplishment, no feeling that they are having a positive impact on society.

This is also an insult to the public. They believe that they can throw garbage in the street and everyone will come running. The scary part is that many people do buy whatever is thrown their way. The industry has "dumbed down" the public to the point where they feel they can get away with anything.

File-sharers and downloaders aren't exactly earning any brownie points in this either, but the industry is panicking. They are really freaking out. They need to take a couple of deep breaths and calm down. They just aren't seeing the big picture. But I guess they also feel that they can afford not to care.

If they would just chill out and work hard and get some real musicians in the studios like they had in the past, they would see people come back into the stores. And lower those prices on CDs!

threerandot

 

[Carlo_M]

A little background about me:

1. I do not download songs illegally. Period.
2. I buy a ton of music I like (granted most are not top 40), I have over 600 CDs.
3. I did not lost any sleep when Napster & Co were shut down.
4. I did not care when the RIAA targeted a few high-volume downloaders and filesharers for lawsuits.

That said, I do believe this final step is a step too far.

It will *NOT* deter people who fileshare music if their lyrics are not online. Not one bit. Who here thinks an illegal downloader is going to say "What? I can't get the lyrics online? Well I'm just not going to download this song!"

Anyone? Bueller?

Now what it will do is hinder people like me, who buy a lot of music, and maybe want to look up lyrics online for reasons like:

1. They aren't on the original liner notes.
2. I want to cut-n-paste them to a Word file because I'm learning to play that song live (usually I'll have the guitar chords also on there).

There's actually a lot of people I know that look online for the words for both of the reasons above.

 

[Jay_B!]

this I agree with. I love The Killers, but for about 3 months in the summer of 2004 I kept hearing Somebody Told Me on the local rock station, but the DJ's never announced who it was, so it took me actually Googling the lyrics to figure out who the hell the band singing that song about the boyfriend that looked like the girlfriend he had in February of last year was. Same thing with various oldie songs I've heard but didn't know who the artist or song title was.

I am sure everyone has had an incident like that with wondering who sings ______.

 

[Marko Berg]

A book is a complete work of art, and converting that to an electronic format for free distribution would harm the author and publisher. Song lyrics are not a complete work of art, in fact in my personal opinion they shouldn't be protected by copyright by themselves. Feel free to disagree with me.



This may be the most recent step, but it won't be the final step. I'm waiting for the music industry to try to copyright music notation and then sue everybody who's ever written down a few notes.

 

[Jay_B!]

what I'm waiting for is them to charge people to even hear a song in their head.

"sir, I detect that you just had a few seconds of 'I'm So Excited' by The Pointer Sisters play in your head a moment ago, pay up or we're going to sue you in court"

 

[Dick Knisely]

I just looked. Of the last 32 CDs I bought, not one has the lyrics in the packaging. Nearly 50% have no information at all except a paragraph of marketing blurb about the group. Several lack the track timing info in the song list.

Tell me again about who gets the short end of stick here?