Posting song lyrics -> jail time!

[commonpeople]

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.

OK Meowbot- but do you really think that people should be sent to jail for writing out a few chords?

And don't put all the blame on the government- it's the MPA president who's pushing for jail time.

"Mr Keiser said he did not just want to shut websites and impose fines, saying if authorities can "throw in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective"

 

[iMeowbot]

OK Meowbot- but do you really think that people should be sent to jail for writing out a few chords?

Of course not, that jail thing is just some hot air from some lobbyist. But I do think that the tab and lyric sites (as they exist now) should go away if their operators aren't willing to help feed the songwriters whose work they are copying. (They certainly can get licenses, all they need to do is go and get them)

There are ways to do this and still take advantage of fair use. Misheard lyrics sites are in pretty good shape because they exist to provide commentary on the original works and stick to quoting short passages. An instructional guitar site would be in a much better position if it stuck to discussing ways to play particular tricky passages, rather than simply copying entire songs.

A "what song is that anyway?" site could still take advantage of fair use by using a different method. One way it might work: users could submit individual lines and provide the songs where those lines can be found. A search engine could take that and belch out a list of songs that probably match, perhaps with links to Amazon or iTunes samples so that the user can see if that's the right one. That's just one example, somebody more creative could think of something better.

And don't put all the blame on the government- it's the MPA president who's pushing for jail time.

If the DoJ actually took on such a case, that would be entirely up to the DoJ. And it would indeed be their fault if they decided to file a criminal case over "a few" chords.

 

[commonpeople]

OK, but this is still petty infringement. I would hope that some sort of compromise could be reached, and the MPA is only inflaming things with their jail time remarks. This problem is nowhere near the seriousness of pirating music.

My experience is probably quite typical. I'll use these sites once every couple of months when I want to look at some lyrics in detail to a song which I already own. I doubt that even Paul McCartney would have a problem with that. Can you give me an example of an artist who posts a "stealing lyrics is killing music" label on their website?

Again, if they can't convince me, a 33 year old with a PhD, then I very strongly doubt that this will convince the average teenager.

 

[CanadaRAM]

OK, but this is still petty infringement. I would hope that some sort of compromise could be reached, and the MPA is only inflaming things with their jail time remarks. This problem is nowhere near the seriousness of pirating music.

My experience is probably quite typical. I'll use these sites once every couple of months when I want to look at some lyrics in detail to a song which I already own. I doubt that even Paul McCartney would have a problem with that. Can you give me an example of an artist who posts a "stealing lyrics is killing music" label on their website?

Again, if they can't convince me, a 33 year old with a PhD, then I very strongly doubt that this will convince the average teenager.

OK, the "Jail time for ISP's" comment was simply asinine and a poor poor PR move. No argument from me over that.

You're arguing your narrow example of someone who would only occassionaly look up lyrics and then only for songs you already have purchased... what makes you think that that's typical? Other than that by choosing the least probable use, it makes the most defensible argument?

Paul McCartney and any other artists don't have to post a "do not copy our lyrics" notice on their website -- there is ample notice provided on every CD, LP and book. For example: (c) 2004 The Arcade Fire on the nearest CD to me at the moment. The copyright symbol printed on the work asserts the author's rights and is ALL that is necessary to indicate that the author does not permit unauthorized copying of the music or the lyrics.

 

[commonpeople]

OK, the "Jail time for ISP's" comment was simply asinine and a poor poor PR move. No argument from me over that.

You're arguing your narrow example of someone who would only occassionaly look up lyrics and then only for songs you already have purchased... what makes you think that that's typical? Other than that by choosing the least probable use, it makes the most defensible argument?

Paul McCartney and any other artists don't have to post a "do not copy our lyrics" notice on their website -- there is ample notice provided on every CD, LP and book. For example: (c) 2004 The Arcade Fire on the nearest CD to me at the moment. The copyright symbol printed on the work asserts the author's rights and is ALL that is necessary to indicate that the author does not permit unauthorized copying of the music or the lyrics.

I'm not debating the legality. I'm debating the seriousness of the issue and whether compromise can be arranged. I know of several artists who encourage fan sites, who post lyrics- I was wondering if there are any who explicitly discourage this. Yes, I know there's a copyright symbol, but in how many cases does the artist care that fans are posting their lyrics?

You think it's not typical for people to just check on lyrics to songs they already own? I disagree, but research would have to be done to prove me wrong. Also- I would like to see research estimating the cost to the artists.

 

[hookahco]

oh this REALLY encourages me to legally buy music and support the record company bastards instead of getting it for free.
filthy animals.. theyve gone too far and need to be stopped.
and please dont tell me how the bands are getting screwed.. the record companies are screwing them... not me.

 

[commonpeople]

oh this REALLY encourages me to legally buy music and support the record company bastards instead of getting it for free.
filthy animals.. theyve gone too far and need to be stopped.
and please dont tell me how the bands are getting screwed.. the record companies are screwing them... not me.

You don't need me to tell you this- but you're rationalizing your crime. You've convinced yourself that you're in the right- as opposed to being a petty criminal.

(Edit) I guess you're not saying that you ever actually stole music of course.

 

[Counterfit]

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.

I think the point of confusion here is what a chord progression is. The Chord-O-Matic doesn't give you chord progressions, it show you how to finger chords on a standard guitar, and arranged them uniquely. That is not what a chord progression is.

Although the material assembled may itself be in the public domain, an arrangement may be copyrighted if the arrangement, expression, and manner of presentation are not in the public domain. Flick-Reedy Corp. v. Hydro-Line Mfg. Co., 351 F.2d 546 (7th Cir. 1965); See, 17 U.S.C.A. § 7.
Applying this standard, it is apparent that the Chord-o-Matic is a copyrightable work. The chords which it presents are admittedly in the public domain, but it arranges and presents these chords in an original, creative, and even novel way. No one prior to the plaintiff ever [**19] attempted to present a categorized system of available guitar chords in a quick reference system such as a wheel. In addition, no one prior to the plaintiff and his Chord-o-Matic ever attempted any substantial categorization of guitar chords based on a system of root classification, classification by letter name and kind, and classification as movable chords, all in one place. Earlier works did teach the fact that chords may be moved along the neck of the guitar by use of the grand barre. Earlier books also undertook to classify chords by root, and some undertook to classify chords by kind and by letter name. None of the earlier works, however, undertook to depict such a large number of chords or to present any comprehensive system of class classifying any substantial number of the available chords.

 

[iMeowbot]

OK, but this is still petty infringement.

If it was all petty, there wouldn't be much of a fuss. But at Leo's Lyrics they claim to have 200000 songs available; 1.8 million at songtext.net; 50000 at azlyrics; 530000 at lyricsdownload. All of those are collecting ad revenue too. The scale of this thing is big.

I would hope that some sort of compromise could be reached, and the MPA is only inflaming things with their jail time remarks. This problem is nowhere near the seriousness of pirating music.

It's probably a bigger deal, because it's publishing and not recording that tends to get money into the hands of artists.

My experience is probably quite typical. I'll use these sites once every couple of months when I want to look at some lyrics in detail to a song which I already own. I doubt that even Paul McCartney would have a problem with that. Can you give me an example of an artist who posts a "stealing lyrics is killing music" label on their website?

They do that through their trade groups. Do you know that these days, songwriters are typically the publishers too? The idea that lyricists don't mind not being paid for their work is bizarre.

 

[iMeowbot]

I think the point of confusion here is what a chord progression is. The Chord-O-Matic doesn't give you chord progressions, it show you how to finger chords on a standard guitar, and arranged them uniquely. That is not what a chord progression is.

Try reading the who decision and your Wikipedia article. "A chord progression (also chord sequence and harmonic progression or sequence), as its name implies, is a series of chords played in an order."

The courtt decision you quoted above said only that the chords themselves were in the public domain. That's analogous to the way individual words are in the public domain. It was the arrangement of the chords into a particular order -- just like the explanation at the start of that Wiki article -- that made the wheel copyrightable. The way the wheel works is not something that can be copyrighted, that would require a patent. It's the fact that a book copied the ordering and organization of the chords, which was deemed a creative use of those public domain elements, that turned it into a copyright matter.

It would be a lot more convincing to show an actual law or court decision that stated that chord progressions are not subject to copyright.

Some more decisions: Swirsky v. Carey, where it was held that the chord progression cannot be ignored in a plagiarism case, even if that progression is so common (like just about all of the popular ones) that it has fallen into the public domain. Recycling them does play a major role in determining if a work is original. In Intersong-USA v. CBS, the common chord progression is discounted specifically because it is a common one.

 

[commonpeople]

If it was all petty, there wouldn't be much of a fuss. But at Leo's Lyrics they claim to have 200000 songs available; 1.8 million at songtext.net; 50000 at azlyrics; 530000 at lyricsdownload. All of those are collecting ad revenue too. The scale of this thing is big.

It's probably a bigger deal, because it's publishing and not recording that tends to get money into the hands of artists.

They do that through their trade groups. Do you know that these days, songwriters are typically the publishers too? The idea that lyricists don't mind not being paid for their work is bizarre.

I know of at least two songwriters who link to non-official fan-sites that contain their lyrics. It's not that bizarre- some artists aren't interested in bleeding their fans for every last penny.

 

[yojitani]

I tend to stay out of debates on file-sharing etc. However, for those of you outraged by this latest move by our money hungry masters, I'd recommend reading Jacques Attali's book, Noise. There you'll find the whole sordid story of copyright on notation etc - not so long ago, the same arguments being made against file-sharing we're being made against the illegal distribution of sheet music. At any rate, read Attali's book, but be warned that he writes as a French academic even though he's just a mainstream socialist.

YOJ

 

[iMeowbot]

I know of at least two songwriters who link to non-official fan-sites that contain their lyrics. It's not that bizarre- some artists aren't interested in bleeding their fans for every last penny.

That's cool that they do that, but it's the songwriter's prerogative, and no one else's, to make that call. There are book authors and publishers who have decided to make some of their material available free of charge too (link to Baen free collection), but that doesn't mean that it's okay to do that with all books.

 

[CanadaRAM]

I know of at least two songwriters who link to non-official fan-sites that contain their lyrics. It's not that bizarre- some artists aren't interested in bleeding their fans for every last penny.

It's the artist's choice though. Not Joe Siteowner's choice.

 

[mac15]

Ridiculous, absoltely ridiculous. What are the record companies thinking?

 

[Counterfit]

Try reading the who decision and your Wikipedia article. "A chord progression (also chord sequence and harmonic progression or sequence), as its name implies, is a series of chords played in an order."

The courtt decision you quoted above said only that the chords themselves were in the public domain. That's analogous to the way individual words are in the public domain. It was the arrangement of the chords into a particular order -- just like the explanation at the start of that Wiki article -- that made the wheel copyrightable. The way the wheel works is not something that can be copyrighted, that would require a patent. It's the fact that a book copied the ordering and organization of the chords, which was deemed a creative use of those public domain elements, that turned it into a copyright matter.

The wheel and book were just lists of chords, presented in a very organized way, and not meant to be played in the given order (unless you're Ornette Coleman ).

It would be a lot more convincing to show an actual law or court decision that stated that chord progressions are not subject to copyright.

Some more decisions: Swirsky v. Carey, where it was held that the chord progression cannot be ignored in a plagiarism case, even if that progression is so common (like just about all of the popular ones) that it has fallen into the public domain.

There was more to that case than just the chord changes.

Dr. Walser admitted that the lyrics and verse melodies of the two songs differed "clearly and significantly," but stated that the two songs' choruses shared a "basic shape and pitch emphasis" in their melodies, which were played over "highly similar basslines and chord changes, at very nearly the same tempo and in the same generic style." Dr. Walser also noted that it was a "suspicious coincidence" that the two songs' choruses were both sung in B-flat. Dr. Walser further testified that the choruses in both One and Thank God shared a similar structure in that measures five through seven of each chorus were "almost exactly" the same as the first three measures of each chorus.

Recycling them does play a major role in determining if a work is original. In Intersong-USA v. CBS, the common chord progression is discounted specifically because it is a common one.

As the Court observed in its Opinion and Order of March 20, 1985, there is similarity between the music of "Es" and "Hey." They do sound and are similar in some respects because they both use a descending scale step motive in the verse. (Tr. 970). Such a descending scale step motive, however, is not uncommon and has often been used as a compositional device. Iglesias has incorporated this device in many of his recordings. (Tr. 1037-38). There also are similarities in the structural patterns, chord progressions and the pitch of each song. Those structural patterns and chord progressions, however, also are common, (Tr. 1026-27, 1030-31, 1032-36), and the pitch is based on common compositional techniques. (Tr. 970-72).

They don't mention the chord progression solely, as they also note similarities between "structural patterns" (rhythms?) and "pitch", which I take to be the range and melody.

The choruses of the two songs are quite different. True, each song does contain a sequence of descending notes, but such a sequence is common and found in "Welcome to My World," "The Greatest Performance of My Life," and Iglesias's own song, "Preguntale." (Tr. 1010-11). The chorus of each piece has other notes which are more important and are different. (Tr. 999-1004). In addition, "Es" employs the same descending scale step motive as it employed in the verse, while "Hey" employs an ascending scale step motive. (Tr. 1007). Parts of the harmonies of the two songs are similar, but they use a common progression. Among other songs which use such a progression is "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." (Tr. 1025, 26). The remainder of the harmonies of the two songs are different. In both the verse and the chorus, "Es" contains a much more complicated chord progression which sounds very different from the chord progression of "Hey." (Tr. 1021-31).

They don't even mention chord progressions in the conclusion, they tend to emphasize the similarity in the melodies.

As was ably demonstrated by Mr. Ricigliano, "Es" and "Hey" do contain common elements. Both use a descending scale step motive in the verse. (Tr. 970). This descending scale step motive, however, is a commonly used compositional device. Not only is this device found in "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star," but the identical note progressions found in "Es" and "Hey" also are found in compositions entitled "Amore un Altra" and "Without You." (Tr. 971-72). In addition, Iglesias has incorporated this device in many of his recordings. (Tr. 1037).

Furthermore, to disregard chord progression, key, tempo, rhythm, and genre is to ignore the fact that a substantial similarity can be found in a combination of elements, even if those elements are individually unprotected. See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003); Apple Computer, 35 F.3d at 1445. Thus, although chord progressions may not be individually protected, if in combination with rhythm and pitch sequence, they show the chorus of Thank God to be substantially similar to the chorus of One, infringement can be found. See Three Boys, 212 F.3d at 485; Satava, 323 F.3d at 811.

Aye, there's the rub.