RIAA Goes After Lyric and Tab Sites

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.betanews.com/article/Music_Industry_to_Attack_Lyric_Tab_Sites/1134421643' target='_blank'>http://www.betanews.com/article/Music_Industry_to_Attack_Lyric_Tab_Sites/1134421643</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The litigious music industry will have a new target in 2006: sites that provide lyrics and scores to popular songs. The Music Publishers' Association says fines and the removal of such Web sites is not enough -- it is even advocating jail time for those operating these sites. MPA President Lauren Keiser told the BBC Monday that he thought if the MPA would be successful in "[throwing] in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective". He says the guitar tabs that have been commonplace on music sites for years are "completely illegal." The effort marks the first time the MPA would embark on a legal effort to protect the copyrights of its members. Individual companies have used the courts to protect their rights in the past."</i><br /><br />This news is a few weeks old, but I just had to post on it, because it pushes my buttons. As a musician who has used both types of sites many times in the past, I would sincerely mourn the loss of this type of content on the Web. I cringe at the thought of trying to get lyrics from the Flash-based "wizzy-woo!" sites that most band now have. And when I was first starting out playing bass, those tab sites were like manna from heaven - very useful to learn songs from. This makes me sick - is there no online freedom of information anymore?

[OSUKid7]

I admit to using these types of sites as well. Since I rarely remember song names or artists, I just do a quick google (er, Blingo, (http://www.blingo.com/friends?ref=WVkCnEkS0KT8pR9GZqHZuPB3g0M) rather ;)) of some lyrics so I can go get the song on Napster.

Even so, I can see why these services are illegal. Lyrics are copyrighted, right? Same with the music itself, and the guitar tabs. I admit it's very convenient to be able to find these things online, but, although I don't like to admit it, the artist/recording companies have the right to uphold their copyrights.

So I don't see what you mean by is there no online freedom of information anymore?
Sure, information is as free as the copyright holder makes it. Your argument sounds about the same as some people being convinced that since mp3s are freely available on P2P networks, they're allowed to use them. Copyright is the issue in both cases.

[Felix Torres]

Convenient though they may be, (and I use lyrics sites often, myself) they are not authorized to publish those lyrics. And the sites that draw traffic because of those lyrics are almost always making money off that traffic; its not a public service, its a business.

By the letter of the law, this is a clearcut case with ample case history; more so than the P2P operations.
What is surprising is that they waited this long to act...
Not sure if any judge would go with jail time but massive fines are almost certain.

As for the information wanting to be free thing? That is a philosophy, not a law or anything, and not a particularly popular one among folks that actually *create* stufff.

The only people who don't believe in IP rights are those that never created anything worth getting paid for. ;-)

[Jerry Raia]

I don't get it. Using that logic I shouldn't be able to listen to a song on the radio cause I might hear the lyrics which are protected?? A lot of the songs I have bought from iTunes were made possible because I looked up the lyrics and got the name of the song. Let the RIAA go after them, it will cost them in the long run. They still want us to buy garbage overpriced CD's with one good song. It's OVER RIAA. Come out of the cave and see the light!

[Felix Torres]

I don't get it. Using that logic I shouldn't be able to listen to a song on the radio cause I might hear the lyrics which are protected??

The radio stations pay the studios *and* the composers per play.
Every single song they play, they pay for.
Ditto for the legal internet radio stations.
If you make money out of distributing somebody else's IP, you should pay them, no?
Now, if its your music or your songs/books/whatever, and you decide the stuff is worthless to start with, you can then give it away for free, no problem.

But giving away somebody else's creations is kinda frowned at by the courts... ;-)

[Jerry Raia]

I understand that, but if I listen to a song and write down the lyrics should I be sued? Of course not. How is printing the words on a web site and saying who wrote them a problem? It's not the same as giving away the music is it? Things have gone way over the top with this. In a rational world none of this would be a problem.

[Jason Dunn]

Even so, I can see why these services are illegal. Lyrics are copyrighted, right? Same with the music itself, and the guitar tabs. I admit it's very convenient to be able to find these things online, but, although I don't like to admit it, the artist/recording companies have the right to uphold their copyrights.

Hrm. I guess I never thought about it that way - as a musician myself, who has written a few songs back in the day, I'd never consider lyrics intellectual property, nor would I consider the notes that I was playing IP. The lyrics are a component of the song, but when someone heard the song, they were hearing the entirity of the lyrics, so it's not exactly the secret sauce.

There are only seven main notes in music - musicians "reverse engineer" the IP of a song all the time by just listening to it and playing along. Is the DCMA going to try and stop that next?

The performance itself is the IP...that said, I know someone who produces and writes songs for a living, and I'm sure he'd have an interesting opinion. I'm going to make sure I ask him about that!

I guess for me it boils down to the fact that lyrics and tab sites cater to the fan, the person (presumably) buying the music, or at the very least showing an interest in it. While it might be a technical violation of intellectual property, it's not a replacement for the actual music itself, which is what P2P networks are. I just don't see the two as being morally equivalent - if I'm looking up lyrics to a song that I'm interested in, I'm not taking money out of the artists pocket.

I can't be the only one who sees the difference here, can I?

[OSUKid7]

Hrm. I guess I never thought about it that way - as a musician myself, who has written a few songs back in the day, I'd never consider lyrics intellectual property, nor would I consider the notes that I was playing IP. The lyrics are a component of the song, but when someone heard the song, they were hearing the entirity of the lyrics, so it's not exactly the secret sauce.
Well, as another musician, I respectfully disagree. What is IP in music if it's not the lyrics (if applicable) or the notes? Are you saying it's okay for you to write a song, publish it, and then anyone can go remake it and publish it themselves? I would hope there's some decency and more than the recording is actually protected as IP.

There are only seven main notes in music - musicians "reverse engineer" the IP of a song all the time by just listening to it and playing along. Is the DCMA going to try and stop that next?
With that logic, I could say there's only 26 letters in the English language, so could I "reverse engineer" a book by copying the characters and then republishing it? Or for that matter, computers store data in binary. So could we simply replicate the sequences? It really seems like the same thing.

The performance itself is the IP...that said, I know someone who produces and writes songs for a living, and I'm sure he'd have an interesting opinion. I'm going to make sure I ask him about that!
Ah yeah, I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts. :)

I guess for me it boils down to the fact that lyrics and tab sites cater to the fan, the person (presumably) buying the music, or at the very least showing an interest in it. While it might be a technical violation of intellectual property, it's not a replacement for the actual music itself, which is what P2P networks are. I just don't see the two as being morally equivalent - if I'm looking up lyrics to a song that I'm interested in, I'm not taking money out of the artists pocket.
Yeah, I don't mean that lyircs/guitar tabs are replacements for the music, but they are definitely a piece of the music. And if you give away all the pieces for free, all that's left is the actual recording. I know most people use those sites in order to go buy (er, maybe that should be "obtain" ;)) the actual recording, but in any other media, using just part of the IP is still a violation. (Think plagiarism.)

I can't be the only one who sees the difference here, can I?
Nah, I'm guessing most people feel the way you do. But just like the idea of P2P networks several years ago, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's legal.

[Jason Dunn]

Some interesting counterpoints!

Are you saying it's okay for you to write a song, publish it, and then anyone can go remake it and publish it themselves?

No, you're right, that wouldn't be fair. Although I believe there's nothing immoral for (let's say) a band I'm in to cover a song without feeling that I need to pay a royalty to the person who wrote it. I think any musician would agree. If you cover a great song, people want to buy the original, not your version of it (though they are some exceptions of course). Now, recording that performance and selling it, well that's a completely different thing.

With that logic, I could say there's only 26 letters in the English language, so could I "reverse engineer" a book by copying the characters and then republishing it?

It's all about where the value is. The value of a book is in the words, the content. If someone re-publishes a few paragraphs from the book, that's fine. If someone re-publishes the entire thing, that represents the total value of the content, and is thus immoral. When it comes to songs, where I'm coming from is that the value is in the performance of the music - not the words itself. The words itself have no commercial value. Would someone go out and buy a book of the latest INXS lyrics? No, they would not (let's set aside the exceptions such as Kurt Cobain lyrics books or whatnot). It's true that there are songbooks released by the artists with the official notes and words in them, and that musicians buy them, but that's usually only so they can cover the song themselves (see above).

Now, how many people are using the lyrics/tab sites instead of buying the official song books? I'm willing to bet that 99.999% of the traffic to lyrics sites are non-musicians who just want to know the words to their favourite songs. There's nothing immoral about that in my view. Tab sites...that's a bit more of a grey area I think, because one could say that some musicians who might buy a music book are getting the same info from the tab sites. That's pretty iffy though.

I also think about how when I was learning to play bass, tabs sites were very helpful to me as a young musician - I wasn't able to go out and buy a songbook for every song I wanted to learn. Justification? Perhaps.

Yeah, I don't mean that lyircs/guitar tabs are replacements for the music, but they are definitely a piece of the music. And if you give away all the pieces for free, all that's left is the actual recording.

But the actual music, isn't that what 99.999% of the people really want? It seems to me that by shutting down lyrics and tab sites, the only people being hurt are the fans of the music. I don't think that, if every lyric and tab site was wiped out tomorrow, there would be a rise in songbook sales or CD sales. It's just the wrong idea.

...just because it's popular doesn't mean it's legal.

Conversely, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Someone looking up lyrics to their favourite song is not immoral, regardless of what copyright lawyers might say.