Forum Moderators: not2easy
I'll make my lyrics website anyway, thanks a lot! lolWhen RIAA comes after lyrics websites, I know I will not be long and I'm sure I will not be the first.
You do realize that if the RIAA is able to tie this thread back to you, they will be able to prove that you "willfully" infringed upon copyrights and this would push the statutory damages much higher than if you had been ignorant of the situation.
You watch too much CSI.
Please keep in mind your list of fair use was only the USA one. Please remeber there are people here in the UK, Australia, Canada....ect. US law is not international law. Not yet anyway.
All the countries I listed have different definitions they are similar but are inforced in different manner. For example no 12 year old girls or 80 year old Grandmas have been sued for ten of thousands of dallars over some downloads anywhere else but the in USA.
Anyway I am not going to try to sway you to my side of thinking but let's just say I seriously disagree with your way of thinking and I would even call it dangerous and it is a very slippery slope to be on.
I always wonder what Campbell's soup lawyer's would do in this day in age if Andy Warhol did that famous painting of the soup can. Things have gotten too complicated and things are getting out of hand. (see RIAA lawsuits and Sony DRM rootkit/spykit)
[edited by: Demaestro at 8:19 pm (utc) on Aug. 23, 2006]
You do realize that if the RIAA is able to tie this thread back to you, they will be able to prove that you "willfully" infringed upon copyrights and this would push the statutory damages much higher than if you had been ignorant of the situation.
So, I write a letter explaining all this stuff and send me by certified delivery to each webmasters running the lyrics site, and that makes them more liable because now they are aware of their situation!?
You watch too much CSI.
Please keep in mind your list of fair use was only the USA one. Please remeber there are people here in the UK, Australia, Canada....ect. US law is not international law. Not yet anyway.
All the countries I listed have different definitions they are similar but are inforced in different manner. For example no 12 year old girls or 80 year old Grandmas have been sued for ten of thousands of dallars over some downloads anywhere else but the in USA.
You continually try to mix in shades of grey to justify stealing other peoples works (e.g. to create a song lyrics site) when it really is a cut and dry issue, whether you live where July is summer or winter. Fair use clauses of copyright laws around the world do not allow for one to compile and redistribute song lyrics. Even chopping up the lyrics into pieces and commenting on each individual section of the lyrics is a legally dicey proposition if in the end the entire song is still getting republished.
For all of your pronouncements about fair use and how different your country's laws are, I think you had better sit down and do some serious research on this subject and review some case law interpretations of the law. I think you will be sorely disappointed in what you learn.
So, I write a letter explaining all this stuff and send me by certified delivery to each webmasters running the lyrics site, and that makes them more liable because now they are aware of their situation!?
You continually try to mix in shades of grey to justify stealing other peoples works (e.g. to create a song lyrics site) when it really is a cut and dry issue, whether you live where July is summer or winter. Fair use clauses of copyright laws around the world do not allow for one to compile and redistribute song lyrics. Even chopping up the lyrics into pieces and commenting on each individual section of the lyrics is a legally dicey proposition if in the end the entire song is still getting republished.
See this is where you are wrong, it isn't cut and dry. Fair use clauses of copyright laws around the world DO allow for one to compile and redistribute song lyrics, under certain conditions. You saying that they don't is incorrect, and is a very staunchy view of the law.
See this is where you are wrong, it isn't cut and dry. Fair use clauses of copyright laws around the world DO allow for one to compile and redistribute song lyrics, under certain conditions. You saying that they don't is incorrect, and is a very staunchy view of the law.
Tell you what, you try it and then give us the URL of your website redistributing copyrighted song lyrics so that we can give it to the copyright owners. Then I want you to try and fight their copyright infringement claims on the fair use defense. If your website survives the legal onslaught, I'll believe you.
There are very few and very narrow conditions under fair use that would allow one to copy song lyrics and even then it would be very hard to get away with republishing the entire lyrics of a song.
I've showed evidence of why what you claim isn't protected under fair use. Show some solid evidence (ala the Chilling Effects website) that proves you would have any ground to stand on in any fair use claims.
I stickied you the URL, since I can't drop it here.
But I will post the disclaimer from said site.
So you forward that off and we will wait and see.
******************************
All song lyrics are the property and copyright of their respective owners.
All song lyrics provided for educational purposes and personal use only.
<snip sitename> is a not-for-profit organization.
If you want to use song lyrics, Please contact the writer or performer of the song lyric in question.
EDIT: self snip
[edited by: Demaestro at 9:58 pm (utc) on Aug. 24, 2006]
A court gets to decide...... and that's the beauty of the current system.... I get to challenge laws I deem to be unfair and infringe on my rights.
An example of it being 100% legal is a school. Wants to do a song in band class. It is perfectly fine for them to... copy the lyrics... hand them out to the students. Make flyers for the parent presentation. Give all the parents a flyer with the lyrics on it. Maybe even put the lyrics on the newsletter.
Now if you would go after someone in this situtation then you belong in 1984, and not the year. The fictional world.
All song lyrics are the property and copyright of their respective owners.All song lyrics provided for educational purposes and personal use only.
Music Song Lyrics is a not-for-profit organisation.
If you want to use song lyrics, Please contact the writer or performer of this song lyrics.
For the record, I have successfully forced several websites belonging to bona fide non-profit organizations and government entities to remove my articles from their sites. This includes a non-profit organization's site in Australia.
Your belief about fair use (fair dealing in Australia) is exceedingly flawed. The website you showed me would NOT fall under fair use/dealing provisions of most countries even if you didn't have ads on it. While I am loathed to link to Wikipedia, I think in this case they are one of the better sources to reference as they have the most to gain from a permissive interpretation of fair use/dealing doctrine and thus their less than permissive writings on this subject help reinforce what I have been saying:
[en.wikipedia.org...]
[en.wikipedia.org...]
For reference, since I think someone Australia, Australia's copyright law can be found at:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au [comlaw.gov.au]
Also please see:
http://www.copyright.org.au (PDF) [copyright.org.au]
of particular interest from the above document:
====
There are no general exemptions from copyright requirements for non-profit use.
There is no general right of ”fair use” of copyright material under Australian law.
=====In general terms, if you want to use copyright material (such as books, newspaper articles, scripts, music, artistic
works or films) in any of the ways reserved to the copyright owner, you will need the copyright owner’s
permission. For example, permission is generally needed to use copyright material in any of the following ways:
• copying (including photocopying, copying videos or CDs, printing a digital file, downloading material from the
internet, and scanning hard copies);
• emailing, faxing, or putting material on the internet;
• translating text;
• making an arrangement or transcription of a musical work;
• making a dramatic work (such as a play, film script or dance) based on a literary work (such as a short story),
or vice versa; and
In short, contrary to what has been claimed in this thread, fair use/dealings provisions DO NOT ALLOW for the republishing of song lyrics in their entirety on Internet webpages without the permission of the copyright owner.
While I could really care less if you were sued into oblivion. I do think there is a responsibility to other Webmaster World members to make sure that flawed fair use defenses like yours are exposed to help people better understand this issue and maybe prevent them from basing a website on false legal theory.
===EDIT===
Oh make sure to read the "Fair Dealing" exceptions on the PDF from Copyright.org.au I mentioned above. Compared to Australia, the U.S. fair use provision under copyright law is down right permissive.
--Note--
While I understand that there is a general provision against posting links, I think it is extremely important for the purposes of disseminating accurate information that links to authoritative sources be made in this post and I have avoided referencing and "commercial" sources.
[edited by: KenB at 12:25 am (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
Let me ask it other way. Why there are so much? and why unlike napster they have not being shut down?
Some have been there since the beginig of the internet.
That's what makes people think it is too easy to get yet another lyrics website.
The caveat to all of this is that it is the responsibility of the copyright owner to enforce and protect their copyrights. If a song's owner decides to ignore sites that republish their lyrics (for profit or not) that is their business.
Just to add, changes to US Federal legislation about a year or two back made certain kinds of copyright infringement a FEDERAL CRIME, enforceable by law enforcement, and prosecutable by them.
Prior to that the copyright holder had to initiate preceedings in civil court.
Let's give for granted that it is completely wrong to have a lyrics website.Let me ask it other way. Why there are so much? and why unlike napster they have not being shut down?
Some have been there since the beginig of the internet.That's what makes people think it is too easy to get yet another lyrics website.
Maybe this is because the music industry sees music swapping as a bigger threat to their revenue than written song lyric sites. Remember as I stated earlier, it is generally the responsibility of the copyright owner to track down and pursue copyright infringement claims.
Just to add, changes to US Federal legislation about a year or two back made certain kinds of copyright infringement a FEDERAL CRIME, enforceable by law enforcement, and prosecutable by them.Prior to that the copyright holder had to initiate preceedings in civil court.
This is interesting. Can you elaborate what kinds of copyright infringements are pursued as a federal crime?
Just to add, changes to US Federal legislation about a year or two back made certain kinds of copyright infringement a FEDERAL CRIME, enforceable by law enforcement, and prosecutable by them.
You're like a ice mountain climber. You know your stuff, you know the risks. But a responsible mountain climber does not tell indoor mountain climbers to come join him on glacier because it's easy and everyone can do it. He keeps to himself, assuming the risks for his own person.
But my problem with all your arguments is that you keep encouraging people to follow you on that glacier, as if they were all trained ice climbers. They are not. They will slip and be buried under an avalanche of ice! You have to be responsible about what you say on a message boards.
As for fischermx, why did you ask us for our opinion in the first place if you don't care about what we say? Just because someone has a lyrics' site and has not been caught doesn't mean it's ok to do it. That's not how the law works. Doing something illegal and not been stopped doesn't make it legal by magic.
Some examples above are not on sound ground. For example, I don't know what school you guys went to, but educational usage are no longer protected and it's been like that for years. I remember when I was in high school and later college, professors told us often that they could no longer print anything they wanted for the classes they were giving. They had to seek authorizations, like everybody else.
I remember a case where the college's bookstore had to negotiate a printing license with a book publisher for a text that was out of print, so they could provide legal copies for one of our classes. In fact, this type of deal was a standard procedure.
We used to have article compilations called "readers" with several texts from different journals, newspapers, books and magazines which would cost us more money because the bookstore paid the rights to use them.
Local print shop and copy stores which proliferate around colleges would not accept to copy entire books for students because they knew they were being watched. Students had to go outside the college area to find a crooked copy place willing to copy a book from the library from them.
So please, don't tell me that colleges and educational insitutions have privileges that other users don't have. If it were the case the entire text book business model would fall and crumble, as schools, faculties and students could copy from the single copy of books held by their campus libraries.
I feel like some here think that my message is that you can go ahead and do it and F*** the world if they don't like it. I am not saying that at all. You started reading my posts and they have a different opinion then yours and you start flaming without even reading what I am trying to get across.......
I have never said that lyrics aren't copywritten. I said they were.
I said ask a lawyer if you want to do this. (The best advise)
I then went on to say that I see nothing wrong with it.... and I don't.
I didn't say it was legal.
I didn't say it was fine.
You make it seem like I am giving people card blanch to copy and publish song lyrics. I didn't.
I said there are circumstances that would allow for you to do it..... And there are.
I said I'll do it and will defend my right to do it. And I did, and I do.
Do I recommend everyone to it? No! But I also don't see what good it does us to just read a crappy law and say, well there is a law against it so I can't do it....
That is so wrong, if you think you are in within your rights, then challenge the law. BUT get and talk to a lawyer first and find out what kind of a fight you are in for and what your chances are.
Copyright law wasn't always on the books, which means someone faught for it. Which means in all likelyhood someone faught against it. just because the decision went one way and not the other doesn't mean they got it right the first time. Can't you see this is the beaty of our systems. We can right wrongs. We can challenge stupid laws....... This is what I am trying to convey.
[edited by: Demaestro at 3:34 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
...but educational usage are no longer protected and it's been like that for years.
Correct - you can see the kind of issues faced by educational users by looking at forums like the Copyright Advisory Network.
...but educational usage are no longer protected and it's been like that for years.
And do you feel that this is a just of fiar descion?
Don't you feel that things have gone to far when a school can't photocopy text books when they run out?
Don't you think the laws have gone to far when a school can be shut down for photocopying lessons out of a text book because they have too many students, or poorere students that can't afford the required text book for the ciriculum?
This goes to what I was saying earlier about the different ways country prosecute offenses. Some commen sense must be executed.
There is no reason I can't go to a song repository to look up lyrics... none at all. There is no reason a school can't photocopy text books.
All reasons that prevent us from such things have been manufactured by special interest lobbists who pay lawmakers big $$ in your country to ensure that we have less rights and companies have another method of collecting funds from consumers. It must end at some point, it is not a sustainable system.
All reasons that prevent us from such things have been manufactured by special interest lobbists who pay lawmakers big $$ in your country to ensure that we have less rights and companies have another method of collecting funds from consumers.
Demaestro, this is where I have a problem with your arguments. You're always talking about the copyright laws benefiting special interests, big corporations and companies.
Well, I have news for you. I'm one of the special interests that copyright laws protect. My living, and the living of many others on this board, is made by creating unique content. And it is our right to copy it that pays our bills.
Now, let's get on to song lyrics and your special interests arguments. Do you actually know who receives the royalties? Unless the person has sold the copyright, that means the songwriter, who in most cases is a poor shlub like me trying to make a living.
When someone steals a CD from you, you no longer have the CD to use.
When someone infringes on your copyright, you still own your copyright.
It is an infringement of a right, just as trespassing is an infringment on your real property rights. You do not say that a trespasser stole your property do you? Then why say that someone stole your copyright when they didn't?
As for fair use of the song lyrics, it is possible to publish an entire work and claim fair use, but it is extremely rare to be able to meet the requirements to do so. It would generally have to be a newsworthy event that you are reporting or commenting on or a parody to gain that right. Just posting it on your website because you like it does not meet the high bar for being able to do that.
I understand the need for copyrights, I too take advantage of them for my living as well. But I don't use the law as a vessel to constantly increase my profits and earnings. Do you understand the difference? Song writters and artist along with their management companies will survive without profitting from the placement of lyrics on websites. They have many avenues of revenue, they don't need to bilk someone looking to do a Kareoke night as his place and wants some lyrics. There is a line and IN MY OPINION this issue is over the line of reasonable.
Dave.... you should be a lawyer, very well said. And what you touched on, about there being allowences, has been my point, that it isn't cut and dry. I understand the burdon is high to meet fair use clauses, but none the less there are provissions in law that allows for these types of things.
And so, you like the protection that copyright gives you, but decide by yourself that a songwriter shouldn't have the same protections?
I can't quite see where it's over the line for a songwriter to enjoy the same rights you do.
I would equate this to when painters try to copyright a color from one of their paintings. The color is only a portion of a whole completed work. Just as the lyrics to a song are only a portion of the whole of the work. I can't reproduce a painting with 1 color. Or 1 shape. I can't reproduce a singers voice or the music accompaniment with the lyrics.
Yes I know companies and artists have copywritten colors and I also feel this is going too far and this is again something I would challenge. If I use a color of red and Ferrari contacts me to tell me I am using their copywritten shade of red on my webiste then I have only 1 response to it...... And it is the same response I have when you tell me someone "owns" the rights to a collection of words from a language that I speak. And that is... See you in court, if I loose then fine but I won't lay down and let people infringe on my rights to place colors on my website.
In my mind there is a difference between providing entire works for free and providing reference material to entire works.
Do you actually know who receives the royalties? Unless the person has sold the copyright, that means the songwriter, who in most cases is a poor shlub like me trying to make a living.
Listen I am not trying to demean your argument, I understand what you are saying but are you argueing that there is a huge market for revenue when it comes to providing song lyrics? How much to you think the royalties reciever should get everytime someone wants the lyrics to a song? 10c? 2c? What if I already paid for the song, shouldn't I be entitled to the lyrics?
I pay for a song... $$ money in their pocket..
Now shouldn't I have some fair use over MY copy of the content? How many more times should I give them money for the same song. Should I pay a fee to have the lyrics? How about if I want it in my car, in my home nad on my MP3 player? Should I have to pay for the song 3 times? 4 if I want the lyrics? How many times should each consumer pay for a product?
[edited by: Demaestro at 5:20 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
KenB...While I agree with much of what you are saying... your unwillingness to entertain the idea that there are actually fair uses of copyrighted works on this planet is short sighted.
Copyright law wasn't always on the books, which means someone faught for it.
Copyright law is not a new idea; it has been with us for around three-hundred years and was an important enough issue to be written into the U.S. Constitution when the United States was founded.
Can't you see this is the beaty of our systems. We can right wrongs. We can challenge stupid laws.......
Do you really think we would have such a rich diversity of music today if artists did not have a realistic hope of being able to earn a living off of their works? In a world without strict copyright laws, the only one's who gain would be those who republished other people's works without compensating the creator of said works or creating any truly unique works of their own. Yes there are fair use/dealings provisions in copyright laws around the world that try to balance the interests of the public against the interests of the copyright owner. These provisions; however, are designed to be slanted in the direction of the copyright owner and only allow for very narrow uses and this is the way it ought to be.
Don't you feel that things have gone to far when a school can't photocopy text books when they run out?
Don't you think the laws have gone to far when a school can be shut down for photocopying lessons out of a text book because they have too many students, or poorere students that can't afford the required text book for the ciriculum?
There are no blanket non-profit/educational exemptions to copyright law, because if there were, there would be no necessity for schools and non-profits to buy textbooks and other media that has no market outside of these types of institutions. Thus the creators of the works designed for educational and non-profit environments would have no incentive to create said works. This in turn would deny those environments the rich diversity of works from which the currently have the ability to choose from.
Demaestro, this is where I have a problem with your arguments. You're always talking about the copyright laws benefiting special interests, big corporations and companies.
Well, I have news for you. I'm one of the special interests that copyright laws protect. My living, and the living of many others on this board, is made by creating unique content. And it is our right to copy it that pays our bills.
A song writer should have the same rights as I do and they do. But the Lyrics from a song is hardly the entire peice of original work, it is only a portion. I can't reproduce a cd with the lyrics. I can't take the lyrics and create 1000s of versions of the song.
By your justification, a screen play should not be protected under copyright law because it is not complete unless it is acted out and recorded on film or other form of audiovisual recording.
Now shouldn't I have some fair use over MY copy of the content?
Don't you think the laws have gone to far when a school can be shut down for photocopying lessons out of a text book because they have too many students, or poorere students that can't afford the required text book for the ciriculum?
-------------
No, I don't feel bad about the textbook author and the publisher receiving their fair share of the book they produced. In fact, it might encourage them to print more copies if a college continuously asks for printing licenses year after year. Well, maybe it won't, but no one got hurt.
No one stopped the college from printing the copies. In fact they got an authorization to do so. Our copies were legitimate. The fees were also much smaller than the original book as it was cheap photocopy paper.
As for poorer students, used text books have always been available for a fraction of the original prices. So every term, one could sell their books, get part of their money back at the end of the term.
No one loses. Those who want shiny new books can buy the expensive new stuff, others can buy used. The publisher gets his dues, the author too. Students get their books, even when out of print.
What I am saying is that prosecuting/persicuting people for having a song lyric database is stupid. I am saying there is a line. And this IN MY OPINION crosses it. Please see the difference.
You are argueing over weather it is or is not copyrighted. We are both saying it is move on.
Where our opinions differ is if it is reasonable or not for someone to create an archive for public records of the lyrics of songs. I feel it is unreasonable to feel that lyrics from songs can't be centralized.
If I want a song lyric archive why should I have to chase around 10s of 1000s of song writters for 10s of 1000s songs and worse tracking down who is the intellecutal property rights holder for 10s of 1000s of songs is a huge undertaking. Not to mention getting them to repsond to my requests. It just isn't going to happen. And what would a song lyric archive or library be wothout a complete listing?
The assertion that only the copyright holder be allowed to post lyrics to a website is silly to me because not all song authors have their lyrics listed online, not all even have a website.
Can you please stop flaming me for wanting to get rid of copyright law. I have never said that I want that or that it would be good.
Can you please stop flaming me for saying that song lyrics are not protected by copyrights, I repeatedly say they are.
I still haven't heard a good argument why Google has almost everysong lyric on it's website but everyone thinks that is ok, but when I talk about making an archive it is war.
You are very idealistic. Some school budgets are streched so thin they have leaky roofs and staff shortages, no special programs, not to mention parents who can't even afford to get their child lunches let alone pay for books.
Your emample of used books brings up a really funny point though, and one that contradicts your thinking.
Your example:
Step1: Author sells a new book to a student.
RESULT:Author gets money.
Step2:Student sells used book to poor student
RESULT:Author gets nothing. Poor student out money
End Result:
Happy days for all
*****
Now my example:
Step1: Author sells a new book to a student.
RESULT:Author gets money.
Step2:Student keeps book for his notes and photocopies it for poor student
RESULT:Author still gets nothing. Poor student not out money
End Result:
File charges against the kid for copyright infringement and call him a theif
Do you see where I am coming from? At all. This isn't about me agianst copyrights, this is me looking to give us back a little freedom.
[edited by: Demaestro at 10:13 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]
Harry..... No one losses?You are very idealistic. Some school budgets are streched so thin they have leaky roofs and staff shortages, no special programs, not to mention parents who can't even afford to get their child lunches let alone pay for books.
It seems to me that any case around this matter will focus on the nature of 'publishing' on the web. There may be different judgments based on the nature of the lyrics/tab site.
Do I detect a mixing of Morality and Law in this thread? The two should never ever be connected.
[edited by: Iguana at 8:29 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2006]
