Posting song lyrics -> jail time!

[maya]

I do! Plus... sometimes I just like to know what the heck the singers are trying to say... I've never been good at hearing the words.

Quite a few of the artists nowadays seem to sound muffled when you hear them, either that or my hearing is going downhill from here.

It could just be a combination of things the recording, media, other interference. A lot of possibilities, a bad artist is not one of them though.

 

[Toreador93]

Anyone who uses tabs instead of real music should be in jail anyway

If you would like to volunteer your time to teach me, and about 10 million other people, we'd surely appreciate it.

Musician's that come to mind who can't read music (at least for their instrument):
Jimi Hendrix
Slash
James Hetfield
Eddie Van Halen

http://www.vhlinks.com/pages/interviews/evh/gw1099.php
"EVH: Well, yeah, but I fought against that because I never really learned how to read music. I would just watch my piano teacher�s fingers and�

GW: Wait a minute � you mean you won three piano competitions by faking it?

EVH: Yeah, I guess I was blessed with good enough ears to pull it off. I won fist prize three years in a row out of 2,000 kids. And the judges would make remarks like, �Hmm, very interesting interpretation of Mozart.� And I�d think, Oh, sh*t, I thought I was playing it right! But I guess they got off on the fact that I put myself into it. "

 

[latergator116]

Maybe because they downloaded the songs and didn't get the CD liner??

Or the CD didn't come with the lyrics. That's the only reason why I use the lyric sites.

 

[Counterfit]

If you would like to volunteer your time to teach me, and about 10 million other people, we'd surely appreciate it.

Musician's that come to mind who can't read music (at least for their instrument):
Jimi Hendrix
Slash
James Hetfield
Eddie Van Halen

http://www.vhlinks.com/pages/interviews/evh/gw1099.php
"EVH: Well, yeah, but I fought against that because I never really learned how to read music. I would just watch my piano teacher's fingers and"

GW: Wait a minute ? you mean you won three piano competitions by faking it?

EVH: Yeah, I guess I was blessed with good enough ears to pull it off. I won fist prize three years in a row out of 2,000 kids. And the judges would make remarks like, 'Hmm, very interesting interpretation of Mozart.' And I'd think, Oh, sh*t, I thought I was playing it right! But I guess they got off on the fact that I put myself into it. "

There's a difference between learning to play by ear (which is a good idea for anyone to try. Some people don't have a choice, Art Tatum for example), but using tabs, well, that's just wrong.
Clicky

Also, I fixed some of the quotes in your quote

 

[CanadaRAM]

It's a lost cause for the corporate ***holes. As soon as they shut one website down, 5 more will go up. It can't be stopped. When Napstur and Audiogalaxy went down for file-sharing, look how many more sites went up. They need to forget about the lawsuits and concentrate on producing GOOD bands instead of these SISSY-ROCK bands of today.

And... when the corporate ******* record companies miraculously DO produce some good bands, then most of those who use this rationalization for unlicensed copying and downloading will steal that music, too, and $^@% over the GOOD artists. Bleh.

 

[iMeowbot]

True. And I see your point about the copyright law. How did you get to be so knowledgable in this area? I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, I'm just genuinely interested in this subject.

The piracy thing a major issue for anyone whose work can be distributed in digital form, so it's kind of important to know how it works That's going to be the case for lots and lots of Mac users in particular, given where those machines are traditionally found.

Anyways, based on your statement about musicians not being able to read tab (which I did think was pretty funny btw), I'm not certain that you understand what tablature is.

Why? That stuff has been around for ages. It's sometimes even useful for describing music in ASCII media.

The point of all that was though is that the very nature of tablature is it's inherent inadequecies (especially the ones freely available on the net) to represent the actual music without a copy of the recorded performance to accompany it.

I can see what you're getting at, but music scores in formal notation have the same limitations. You probably won't be able to make out what an orchestra would sound like by looking only at the tuba part, but that part is still protected. The original writer's expressions are still being reproduced. Defects aren't going to work toward making tabs okay, since avoiding inferior counterfeits is one of the justifications used for having copyrights in the first place.

Here's a question: If I described how a song was played verbally such as: "the first note is with your index finger on the 3rd fret of the "A" string followed by the second note on the...." would that be a copyright infringment? Because tablature is essentially that, and I'm still not convinced that this is a copyright violaiton.

Well, OLGA was already shut down twice over copyright, once by EMI and once by NMPA/HFA. It has since resurfaced under a shell corporation, but even they expect to get whacked again sooner or later.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

If I transcribed "Harry Potter and the Chalice of Mud" from an audiobook, and then published it, it would be a clear act of piracy --- regardless whether I was making a profit or not. No different from publishing the lyrics to a popular song.

The difference is that these sites don't claim it as their own, or earn profit from posting the lyrics. The lyrics are often printed in the slip in the CD, which is meant to be for public use. This is from my lyric reference site, lyricsondemand.com

All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for educational purposes only.

is that not enough to stop them from being sued?!?

 

[CanadaRAM]

The difference is that these sites don't claim it as their own, or earn profit from posting the lyrics.

Doesn't matter a whit. (besides, you think they give away the payperclick and affiliate advertising on their sites? c'mon...)

The lyrics are often printed in the slip in the CD, which is meant to be for public use.

No, they are meant for use by the person who buys the CD -- a completely different concept from public use.

If the artist wants, they can give away the lyrics, on their Website or on Kellogs cereal boxes -- but it is the artist's choice, not the choice of anyone else.

This is from my lyric reference site, lyricsondemand.com
All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for educational purposes only.
is that not enough to stop them from being sued?!?

Nope (see earlier this thread). The stated intention has no bearing on the copyright infringement - the infringment is in publishing the copy without permission, not the intended use of the copy. Educational classroom use may fall under the US concept of fair use, in certain restricted circumstances (see imeowbot's reply above) but a lyric download site would fail all of the tests for fair use (non-commerciality, educational purpose, restricted proportion of the work used, potential for commercial damage).

It's the same dodge used by pirate software "Backup disk" sites posting a disclaimer "You may only use download this software if you have a legal license to it" It's bogus and means nothing, legally.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I use those sites to find and BUY the music after I know how to lookup the song by song title. Sometimes it isn't obvious what the song name or artist is when played over the radio.

 

[Counterfit]

Tab alone for a 3 chord I - IV - IV rock song would probably be iffy (in that it may not be able to be distinguished from 500 other songs with the same changes).

Chord progressions can't be copyrighted, never mind a single chord

 

[freeny]

Well i guess closed captioning is next. Then next the words in songs will be encrypted so that when we listen to them we wont be able to hear the lyrics or remember them, because we might write them down.

They've been doing that for years already, It's called RAP.

 

[iMeowbot]

Chord progressions can't be copyrighted, never mind a single chord

That's one of those half-true things that can get people into trouble. A list of chords without context can't be copyrighted, no more than a list of letters can, because they're both pure utilitarian information without any ideas attached. It takes only a very small amount of additional matter to transform either one into something that is protected. Bright Tunes v. Harisssongs is a good illustration of how little it takes to make only a few notes stick.

(In a bit of weirdness, Harrison ended up owning Bright Tunes, years after this decision was made. He did keep the original agreement to give all the royalties to charity even after that, though.)

 

[angelneo]

I have encountered many blogs which posted the lyrics of their favourite song. Are they liable to being sued as well? I think music cannot be deconstructed to their basic elements and start expecting everything down to the letters to be under the same level of ownership. Music is the combination of notes, melodies, lyrics so on. Furthermore, these people are not claiming that the lyrics belong to them, they are not asking people to pay to use the services (even though we can see effort in consolidating and storing the database, I considered the cost of buying lyrics book to covered these type of fees). It would be a different matter if I copied the lyrics and start telling others its my songs, or start selling lyrics by its merit alone.

I agreed that piracy of the music files is a bad thing but isn't these people going too far by controlling who should know the lyrics, this is getting ridiculous. The next thing you know, we will be needing a license to retrieve song names and list if we do not have the CD.

 

[Loge]

Well there is this here, for example.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/154846/

 

[djmyoneural]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that once the lyric sites are gone, I will no longer be able to find a song i heard part of on the radio. I often use the lyrics to find songs I heard and like in order to purchase them through iTunes or to buy the CD.

 

[CanadaRAM]

I have encountered many blogs which posted the lyrics of their favourite song. Are they liable to being sued as well? I think music cannot be deconstructed to their basic elements and start expecting everything down to the letters to be under the same level of ownership. Music is the combination of notes, melodies, lyrics so on. Furthermore, these people are not claiming that the lyrics belong to them, they are not asking people to pay to use the services (even though we can see effort in consolidating and storing the database, I considered the cost of buying lyrics book to covered these type of fees). It would be a different matter if I copied the lyrics and start telling others its my songs, or start selling lyrics by its merit alone.

I agreed that piracy of the music files is a bad thing but isn't these people going too far by controlling who should know the lyrics, this is getting ridiculous. The next thing you know, we will be needing a license to retrieve song names and list if we do not have the CD.

You miss the point -- it is not down to the level of the letters. It is the unique arrangement of words that is copyrighted -- no more or less so than a book or a movie or a magazine.

It's also not who can 'know' the lyrics. It's who can PUBLISH them.

It's not who claims ownership, it who can PUBLISH them.

If for example, Michael Stipe doesn't want people to know what he is mumbling, and would prefer his songs to be shouded in mystery (like people still debate what they are really saying in "Louie, Louie" decades later) he has the right not to publish the lyrics.

 

[CanadaRAM]

The thing that bothers me most about this is that once the lyric sites are gone, I will no longer be able to find a song i heard part of on the radio. I often use the lyrics to find songs I heard and like in order to purchase them through iTunes or to buy the CD.

The artists have the ability to publish their own lyrics to fill that need, if they choose.

 

[Rantipole]

There are tons of books like that, in book stores. Try a search for lyrics on Amazon, B&N, Borders. Also try searches on "fake book", "songbook" etc.

Actually, no. The original poster was asking about just lyrics. Fake books, etc., have the lyrics, AND THE MUSICAL NOTATION. There are no lyrics-only books. (OK, maybe someone has published the complete lyrics of Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen, but this type of book is EXTREMELY rare.)

That said, do I think that publishing lyrics is in violation of copyright? Of course it is.

BUTTTTT, to use lawyerspeak, what is the "damage"? (I'm talking just lyrics now, not the tabs or other musical notation.) How is this damaging the copyright holder? As mentioned in previous posts, what are you going to do--not buy the song because you know the lyrics now? Michael Stipe is going to be mad because you want to sing along to his song with actual words (a guess in his case)? There is no real damage that can result from putting some lyrics up on a web site. (I'm sure some lawyer could think of some bogus damages, but no human would agree.) If you're concerned about the $0.000001 per page of revenue from click ads, then put up your own lyric site that is better, and people will flock to that one (because the one's I've used are generally sucky).

Other thoughts on this thread:
Karaoke systems have to pay for the lyrics.

Metallica gets a bad rap because of their Napster fight. They actually supported shared recordings of their live shows. They got ticked off when people started distributing UNRELEASED works in process. 'Nuf said, I'm sure there's a whole thread on that somewhere.

 

[iMeowbot]

Actually, no. The original poster was asking about just lyrics. Fake books, etc., have the lyrics, AND THE MUSICAL NOTATION. There are no lyrics-only books.

There are plenty of lyrics-only books.

(OK, maybe someone has published the complete lyrics of Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen, but this type of book is EXTREMELY rare.)

It's rather disingenuous to claim a book of songs wouldn't count if notes are included, but here is a small sampling of better selling lyrics titles not "encumbered" by notes:

The Complete Annotated Grateful Dead Lyrics
Tears for Water: Songbook of Poems and Lyrics; Alicia Keys
Lyrics: 1962-2001; Bob Dylan
A Box of Rain: Lyrics: 1965-1993; Robert Hunter
Blackbird Singing: Poems and Lyrics, 1965-1999; Paul McCartney
Jimi Hendrix - the Lyrics
The Doors: The Complete Lyrics
Bruce Springsteen: Songs [a lyrics book]
The Complete Beatles Lyrics: Every Song Written and Recorded by Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr
Lyric Book: Complete Lyrics for over 1000 Songs from Tin Pan Alley to Today
Reading Lyrics: More than a Thousand of the Finest Lyrics from 1900 to 1975
500 Best-Loved Song Lyrics
Complete Lyrics of Irving Berlin
The Complete Lyrics of P. G. Wodehouse
Jerry Herman: The Lyrics
Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II
Nirvana - The Lyrics
Noel Coward: The Complete Lyrics
Downhome Blues Lyrics: An Anthology from the Post-World War II Era
Patti Smith Complete 1975-2006: Lyrics, Reflections & Notes for the Future
Steve Allen's Songs: 100 Lyrics with Commentary
Talkin' to Myself: Blues Lyrics, 1921-1942; Michael Taft
Unwelcomed Songs: Collected Lyrics 1980-1992; Henry Rollins
Complete Lyrics; Metallica
Hip-Hop and Rap: Complete Lyrics for 175 Songs
John Denver: The Complete Lyrics
Laura Nyro: Lyrics and Reminiscences with CD
Lyric Library - Broadway: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs, Vol. 1
Lyric Library - Christmas: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs
Lyric Library - Contemporary Christian: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs
Lyric Library - Country: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs
Lyric Library - Early Rock 'n' Roll: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs
Lyric Library - Love Songs: Complete Lyrics for 200 Songs
Lyric Library - Pop/Rock Ballads: Complete Lyrics or 200 Songs
Squeeze My Lemon: A Collection of Classic Blues Lyrics
Ian Dury and The Blockheads: Song by Song
60 Original Song Lyrics; Samuel Blankson
American History in Song: Lyrics from 1900 to 1945
The Complete Lyrics of Frank Loesser
Inspirations: Original Lyrics and the Stories behind the Greatest Songs Ever Written

...bah, this is getting old fast. I wish these things were rare so they wouldn't be so tedious to list.

 

[commonpeople]

Nope, that still leaves at least >90% of artists without lyric books. Plus, these are lyric books on paper- not ASCII text in a file. Fans would use a lyric book in a different context to a lyric site- they're fairly exclusive in their use. Do you think the people who would otherwise buy a complete Beatles lyrics would be satisfied with just a print-out?

Again and again, a legal case could be made- but that doesn't make it right (or wrong). If the law criminalizes so many without good reason, then the law should be changed. If >90% of artists have no problem with fans copying out their lyrics, then they need to help.

I remain unconvinced that any damage is being done. Where's the lyric book for 50 cent?

 

[CanadaRAM]

Nope, that still leaves at least >90% of artists without lyric books. Plus, these are lyric books on paper- not ASCII text in a file. Fans would use a lyric book in a different context to a lyric site- they're fairly exclusive in their use. Do you think the people who would otherwise buy a complete Beatles lyrics would be satisfied with just a print-out?

Again and again, a legal case could be made- but that doesn't make it right (or wrong). If the law criminalizes so many without good reason, then the law should be changed. If >90% of artists have no problem with fans copying out their lyrics, then they need to help.

I remain unconvinced that any damage is being done. Where's the lyric book for 50 cent?

Missing the point yet again. ASCII or Text or ASL or morse code, the format doesn't matter and the intention doesn't matter (with the very narrow exception of education or reporting Fair Use rights which do NOT apply to the lyric sites under discussion) the right to copy is exclusively the right of the copyright owners... and that includes the right NOT to publish.

The ability to publish a lyric in the future has value --- the artist may be negotiating for a deal right now. Or it's being held back for a limited edition boxed set, or it's going to be printed on cereal boxes, or syndicated to newspapers. It is an intellectual property that has value and you can't negate it by saying "well, I don't see you utilizing the right, so therefore the law should be changed to remove your rights, 'cause there's no good reason to protect a right you don't use."

It's like saying - you have those Apple shares that you bought at $20, but you haven't cashed them in for 5 years, so you should lose them because you didn't use them.

 

[Counterfit]

That's one of those half-true things that can get people into trouble. A list of chords without context can't be copyrighted, no more than a list of letters can, because they're both pure utilitarian information without any ideas attached. It takes only a very small amount of additional matter to transform either one into something that is protected. Bright Tunes v. Harisssongs is a good illustration of how little it takes to make only a few notes stick.

(In a bit of weirdness, Harrison ended up owning Bright Tunes, years after this decision was made. He did keep the original agreement to give all the royalties to charity even after that, though.)

But that case only briefly mentions chords, and as scale degrees (If the songs were in C, the chords would have been D minor and G major). However, chord progressions are not copyrightable.

We should note here that chord progressions cannot be copyrighted as musical compositions, a fact that jazz composers and improvisors have depended upon for nearly a century which has enlivened America's musical life. Many different tunes have been written on identical chord sequences. For example, Duke Ellington's Cottontail, Charlie Parker's Anthropology and Dexterity, Sonny Rollins' Oleo (and "The Flintstones Theme") all were written on top of the changes of George Gershwin's composition I Got Rhythm. Similarly, hundreds of thousands of blues, jazz, R&B and rock songs and instrumentals have been written on nearly identical blues changes.

 

[commonpeople]

Missing the point yet again. ASCII or Text or ASL or morse code, the right to copy is the copyright owners... and that includes the right NOT to publish.

The ability to publish a lyric in the future has value --- the artist may be negotiating for a deal right now. Or it's being held back for a limited edition boxed set, or it's going to be printed on cereal boxes, or syndicated to newspapers. It is an intellectual property that has value and you can't negate it by saying "well, I don't see you utilizing the right, so therefore the law should be changed to remove your rights, 'cause there's no good reason to protect a right you don't use."

Uh, I think I said a legal case could be made. I think you're missing the point of my mail.

 

[angelneo]

You miss the point -- it is not down to the level of the letters. It is the unique arrangement of words that is copyrighted -- no more or less so than a book or a movie or a magazine.

It's also not who can 'know' the lyrics. It's who can PUBLISH them.

It's not who claims ownership, it who can PUBLISH them.

If for example, Michael Stipe doesn't want people to know what he is mumbling, and would prefer his songs to be shouded in mystery (like people still debate what they are really saying in "Louie, Louie" decades later) he has the right not to publish the lyrics.

Perhaps, you are right about who can publish them. It's just sound so silly that they are only coming in now, where lyrics sites have been around for as long as when I start using the internet.

 

[iMeowbot]

But that case only briefly mentions chords, and as scale degrees (If the songs were in C, the chords would have been D minor and G major). However, chord progressions are not copyrightable.

Rather than an assertion on a random Web site, Trebokik v Grossman is an actual court decision upholding the copyright on a particular sequencing of chords. The deciding factor was that the Chord-O-Matic "arranges and presents these chords in an original, creative, and even novel way."

The point of confusion is that songwriters typically borrow sequences from earlier works (making that part of the composition a derived work), but when someone comes up with a unique way of arranging them, it is another story.