Apple in talks to bring lyrics to iTunes

[AppleInsider]

A proposed deal between Apple and digital media company Gracenote could soon see the iPod maker serve up song lyrics through its ubiquitous iTunes Store.

The move would be part of a larger industry-backed push to stifle proliferation of unauthorized websites that currently dominate the market, often offering inaccurate lyrics and never compensating artists for their work.

Gracenote and Yahoo! kicked-off the effort earlier this week in announcing a licensing deal allowing Yahoo! Music to offer legal, licensed song lyrics from hundreds of thousands of songs to its customers. Some feature artists include U2, Elvis and The Beatles.

In a deal with music publishers last summer, Gracenote gain the rights to distribute lyrics from nearly 100 music publishers, including the top five: BMG Music Publishing, EMI Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner/Chappell Music, and dozens of prominent independent publishers.

“Song lyrics are continually among the top 10 searches performed on major search engines, though the results often provide consumers a frustrating experience filled with inconsistent and incomplete lyrics, and annoying pop-ups,” said Craig Palmer, president and chief executive officer of Gracenote.

In speaking to Reuters, Palmer revealed his firm is in discussions with various other music partners, such as Apple's iTunes. "We wouldn't be in the business to launch just one service, so stay tuned," he said.

The arrival of lyrics on iTunes could present exciting opportunities for Apple, which already offers high-quality album artwork downloads to its customers. A deal between Gracenote and Apple would almost certainly pave the way for lyric downloads to digital music players, allowing iPod users to sing along to their favorite tunes. Karaoke products and possibilities also exist.

In speaking to Reuters, Palmer said licensing lyrics should boost worldwide music publishing revenues, estimated at about $4 billion annually, by as much as $100 million annually within the next 10 years.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2698)


[ Digg this story ] (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_in_talks_to_bring_lyrics_to_iTunes)

[digitalclips]

Cool :)

Now watch as Microsoft suddenly think of this too!

[mono]

Oh dear god. What else will my commute on the tube have to endure? :)

[Macvault]

How about tabliture and sheet music too!

[Morris]

Oh dear god. What else will my commute on the tube have to endure? :)

People hanging upside down... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6592213.stm)

[solipsism]

Search by lyrics would also be useful for that song/artist whose name you don't know.



PS: When are we going to see subtitles for video content? Quicktime is apparently adding this feature in Leopard so I'm expecting this option to be included fot eh hearing impaired.

[Buck]

Yeah right. They're going to steal obscure lyrics from obscure sites just like anyone else.

[GQB]

But what's more important is complete, searchable liner notes and credits. My biggest sense of loss in switching from CD to iPod/iTunes it the inability to know who's playing on each track.

[bdkennedy1]

What a gigantic load of CRAP. To this day I don't understand what the big deal is about posting lyrics. It's TEXT. You can't restrict TEXT.

[digitalclips]

What a gigantic load of CRAP. To this day I don't understand what the big deal is about posting lyrics. It's TEXT. You can't restrict TEXT.

mmm... if you had penned a number one hit's lyrics after years of struggling as a writer, you might feel a little differently



Oh dear god. What else will my commute on the tube have to endure? :)

:lol: Not to mention with ear buds in ... can you imagine the pitch problems? :wow:

[LordJohnWhorfin]

Now watch as Microsoft suddenly think of this too!
...or Yahoo... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6591887.stm)

[Clive At Five]

...or Yahoo... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6591887.stm)

Perhaps you didn't read the article............

Gracenote and Yahoo! kicked-off the effort earlier this week in announcing a licensing deal allowing Yahoo! Music to offer legal, licensed song lyrics from hundreds of thousands of songs to its customers. Some feature artists include U2, Elvis and The Beatles.

:rolleyes: :no:

-Clive

[Cleverboy]

Tabliture and sheet music would be INSANE(ly great). Lyrics would be more than good enough however, considering how many Kareoke albums there are in iTunes.
Perhaps you didn't read the article............ Well... actually... This is odd. The news cycle seems to have just as short a memory as kids these days. This was already alluded to weeks ago.... Apple partnering with Gracenote to release song lyrics, yadda yadda.

When the Yahoo thing was announced, everyone acted like they hadn't heard Apple was working on this already. Now it reads like Apple is "me too" to Yahoo... although honestly, just because Apple was reported first probably means next to nothing. I see that happening a lot. I believe there were two separate instances where the iPhone remote control patent flitted through the blogs too. It's unnerving.

[mrjoec123]

But what's more important is complete, searchable liner notes and credits. My biggest sense of loss in switching from CD to iPod/iTunes it the inability to know who's playing on each track.

I totally agree. Even most artists websites don't include this info, which is a shame. I'm one of those crazy people who buys albums because I like the drummer on track 6, or the bass player on track 5.

Talk about paying for art and giving credit where credit is due. Can you imagine the outrage in Hollywood if a movie ran with no credits? Why should music be any different?

[Clive At Five]

Oh dear god. What else will my commute on the tube have to endure? :)

Oh, come now... Karoke would be an AWESOME idea...

...
...
...

for sweet 16 birthday parties...

:rolleyes:

-Clive

[Cleverboy]

Ah, here's the original press release that set off the speculation:
http://www.gracenote.com/music/corporate/press/article.html/date=2006120601

I'm thinking I must have been looking at the rampant speculation from people that can't seem to report stories that are speculative as such:
http://digg.com/apple/iTunes_to_get_lyrics_for_ALL_your_songs_automatica lly_It_s_coming

Meh.

[Clive At Five]

Well... actually... This is odd. The news cycle seems to have just as short a memory as kids these days. This was already alluded to weeks ago.... Apple partnering with Gracenote to release song lyrics, yadda yadda.

If it wasn't posted on AI or MacRumors, I probably didn't read it.

But I was able to remember reading "yahoo" long enough to be surprised at LordJohnWhorfin's post...

-Clive

[caliminius]

mmm... if you had penned a number one hit's lyrics after years of struggling as a writer, you might feel a little differently

Why? It would be one thing if these sites were selling the lyrics for profits or claiming that they were theirs, but to just post lyrics. If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all. Until I read this article, I didn't even consider the concept that it was illegal to post lyrics.


Regardless, Gracenote as the gatekeeper to "legal" lyrics scares me. Their database for albums is riddled with inaccurate garbage, so can it really be expected that their lyrics will be any better? As an example, back in the Napster days, I downloaded a song called "Ponytail Girl" that claimed to be by Depeche Mode. I went to the Gracenote website and looked the song and sure enough it was listed as being off a version of the "Exciter" album. Problem is the song is by a one-man band called Color Theory, not Depeche Mode, not even an unreleased DM song. It was however on a DM tribute album by Color Theory (and the song can be freely downloaded from Amazon.com). Or perhaps less esoterically, all the songs and albums iTunes has gotten wrong when it pulled the information from the Gracenote DB. According to Gracenote, both discs of Rush's Chronicles 2-CD set are the same. Or the Scorpions' song "Stone in My Shoe" which Gracenote tagged as the nonsensical "Stone in My Show." I'm more trusting of a random website for accurate lyrics then Gracenote.

[GQB]

I'm one of those crazy people who buys albums because I like the drummer on track 6, or the bass player on track 5.


Well, imagine being able to create an automated playlist of, say, tracks with "Larry Carlton on guitar". Gives you a playlist with a cross-section of artist ranging Joni Mitchell to Steely Dan.

And good point about recording industry (who's SOOOOO concerned about artist' rights) ignoring album credits.

[hmurchison]

What a gigantic load of CRAP. To this day I don't understand what the big deal is about posting lyrics. It's TEXT. You can't restrict TEXT.

I know the angle that "Artists are starving because of the lyrics being posted online" is totally absurd.

Why? It would be one thing if these sites were selling the lyrics for profits or claiming that they were theirs, but to just post lyrics. If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all. Until I read this article, I didn't even consider the concept that it was illegal to post lyrics.


Regardless, Gracenote as the gatekeeper to "legal" lyrics scares me. Their database for albums is riddled with inaccurate garbage, so can it really be expected that their lyrics will be any better? As an example, back in the Napster days, I downloaded a song called "Ponytail Girl" that claimed to be by Depeche Mode. I went to the Gracenote website and looked the song and sure enough it was listed as being off a version of the "Exciter" album. Problem is the song is by a one-man band called Color Theory, not Depeche Mode, not even an unreleased DM song. It was however on a DM tribute album by Color Theory (and the song can be freely downloaded from Amazon.com). Or perhaps less esoterically, all the songs and albums iTunes has gotten wrong when it pulled the information from the Gracenote DB. According to Gracenote, both discs of Rush's Chronicles 2-CD set are the same. Or the Scorpions' song "Stone in My Shoe" which Gracenote tagged as the nonsensical "Stone in My Show." I'm more trusting of a random website for accurate lyrics then Gracenote.

Yes I'm not in support of anyone gaining any copyright protection for lyrics so long as the person delivering the lyrics is not profiting from them. Thus if I wrote a song and my lyrics ended up on someones page and after perusing that page I notice a lot of advertising and pop-ups I would then have a case because my content is fueling their profitability from advertising. This way lyric sites would have to deliver them sans annoying adverstising or be shut down. That protects the artist and protects consumers.

mmm... if you had penned a number one hit's lyrics after years of struggling as a writer, you might feel a little differently

:lol: Not to mention with ear buds in ... can you imagine the pitch problems? :wow:

As long as people aren't selling your lyrics they aren't damaging your livelyhood. However there "is" a moneytrail with some of these sites that should be looked at.

[DeaPeaJay]

I totally agree. Even most artists websites don't include this info, which is a shame. I'm one of those crazy people who buys albums because I like the drummer on track 6, or the bass player on track 5.

Talk about paying for art and giving credit where credit is due. Can you imagine the outrage in Hollywood if a movie ran with no credits? Why should music be any different?

For the albums that come with Digital Booklets that information is included most of the time. Of course, I rarely find one with a booklet, and they're not searchable either unless you go through and put that info in the song. That's what I did, I put the song info (players, etc) in the comments field. It was one of the PDF booklets, so it was just copy and paste.

[Porchland]

What a gigantic load of CRAP. To this day I don't understand what the big deal is about posting lyrics. It's TEXT. You can't restrict TEXT.

You are wrong (http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm).

[DeaPeaJay]

I know the angle that "Artists are starving because of the lyrics being posted online" is totally absurd.



Yes I'm not in support of anyone gaining any copyright protection for lyrics so long as the person delivering the lyrics is not profiting from them. Thus if I wrote a song and my lyrics ended up on someones page and after perusing that page I notice a lot of advertising and pop-ups I would then have a case because my content is fueling their profitability from advertising. This way lyric sites would have to deliver them sans annoying adverstising or be shut down. That protects the artist and protects consumers.



As long as people aren't selling your lyrics they aren't damaging your livelyhood. However there "is" a moneytrail with some of these sites that should be looked at.


I wonder, if I started up a website with high quality images of the cd inserts, (digital booklets) for all sorts of albums and had ads on the site and made money with it, would that be against copyright too? If I had the resources to get that content, it would be a service to those who need it for their albums.

[DeaPeaJay]

You are wrong (http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm).


That site said

you CANNOT play a recording of the music or lyrics in public--even if you own the CD

How does that affect DJs? Does vinyl come with special licenses? Can they not spin CDs?

[digitalclips]

I know the angle that "Artists are starving because of the lyrics being posted online" is totally absurd.


Perhaps if what you did for a living could be as easily bypassed you'd have a different take on this old argument.

[digitalclips]

That site said



How does that affect DJs? Does vinyl come with special licenses? Can they not spin CDs?

I assume they pay a fee. Even my phone system that played music when on hold had to include a license fee.

[solipsism]

I believe that contracts Apple has with the labels is ending/renewing at the end of the month. Perhaps Apple negotiated lyrics in the new contracts. Maybe we'll see this change next week.

[crees!]

How about tabliture and sheet music too!
That I could tell you would be greatly welcomed. And if there was a Garageband file included, even better.

[macinthe408]

It's about time these dicknecks figured this one out. Lyrics scrolling on my iPod screen as I listen to a song. Wow, what a novel idea!

And I'm sure Microsoft will come out with a wireless version, where you can "beam" your lyrics to a group of strangers on the subway. All the strangers hook up and have a party at one of the Zune owner's flat. End of commercial and dream.

[deanbar]

Why? It would be one thing if these sites were selling the lyrics for profits or claiming that they were theirs, but to just post lyrics. If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all. Until I read this article, I didn't even consider the concept that it was illegal to post lyrics.


Regardless, Gracenote as the gatekeeper to "legal" lyrics scares me. Their database for albums is riddled with inaccurate garbage, so can it really be expected that their lyrics will be any better? As an example, back in the Napster days, I downloaded a song called "Ponytail Girl" that claimed to be by Depeche Mode. I went to the Gracenote website and looked the song and sure enough it was listed as being off a version of the "Exciter" album. Problem is the song is by a one-man band called Color Theory, not Depeche Mode, not even an unreleased DM song. It was however on a DM tribute album by Color Theory (and the song can be freely downloaded from Amazon.com). Or perhaps less esoterically, all the songs and albums iTunes has gotten wrong when it pulled the information from the Gracenote DB. According to Gracenote, both discs of Rush's Chronicles 2-CD set are the same. Or the Scorpions' song "Stone in My Shoe" which Gracenote tagged as the nonsensical "Stone in My Show." I'm more trusting of a random website for accurate lyrics then Gracenote.

On the first point, I don't agree with you. I look forward to downloading lyrics from Dashboard Widgets, as my hearing has never been very good. Although I can hear most words in a lot of conversations, quite often I can't, and with songs it's worse. I can usually hear the music, but can't make the words out, so the lyrics are useful to me. I know that older people also have the same problem with their hearing, so it can be useful for them too.

However, I've tried listening to songs to get the lyrics, but all too often a word/s is garbled and it takes forever to decipher.

I agree with you regards Gracenote though. Like you I find their database is often hopelessly innaccurate, and I would be very annoyed if we have to pay for this service separately and find we download their errors. I don't download songs from iTunes, (Apple charges more in the UK than in the States) just rip from CD's, and Gracenote automatically downloads the info for the tracks, along with all their errors, which you have to correct manually.

I imagine the lyrics service may be included if you download songs from iTunes, but the article is'nt clear on this as far as I can see.

[DeaPeaJay]

Lyrics have been on the iPod already for some time now. It's just having them included in the iTunes store that we're talking about.

[deanbar]

It's about time these dicknecks figured this one out. Lyrics scrolling on my iPod screen as I listen to a song. Wow, what a novel idea!

And I'm sure Microsoft will come out with a wireless version, where you can "beam" your lyrics to a group of strangers on the subway. All the strangers hook up and have a party at one of the Zune owner's flat. End of commercial and dream.

I'm not sure, but I thought Tiger came pre-installed with a Lyrics download Widget called "Sing that iTune", which enables you to search for lyrics and automatically transfer to iTunes, then onto your iPod when you synch. If I'm mistaken then I read about "Sing that iTunes" and downloaded it, I can't remember for sure. In addition, I also use "FetchYourLyrics", "pearLyrics", and "Harmonic". They all direct you to lyrics sites on Google, where you download from. Hope this helps .;)

[-cj-]

I hope they don't expect kids to pay to get these lyrics. Since the album artwork is free, which incidentally is also material protected by copyright, I imagine they are going to just include it in the music file.

yes, you can already cut and paste lyrics into the track information in iTunes. but i never know if the lyrics I grab are 100% accurate or not. no one wants to be the goofball singing "watch me while i kiss this guy."

[JeffDM]

mmm... if you had penned a number one hit's lyrics after years of struggling as a writer, you might feel a little differently

If the lyrics are already licensed to be performed in the recording, I don't see what the problem is. If the band paid for the rights to perform or record the song, then I don't understand why a transcript of the performance included in the same song should mean parting with more money when the song writer was already paid for that particular work. Do screenwriters get more money for subtitles and closed caption tracks put on DVDs? I really don't know, but I expect the CC and sub tracks to be included on a DVD. I expect that song lyrics to be included with the CD and am disappointed in the rare case when they aren't. I really don't think it's too much to ask that a legal download include them. Having the lyrics in the file does not give other bands the right to perform the song.

Why? It would be one thing if these sites were selling the lyrics for profits or claiming that they were theirs, but to just post lyrics.

An ad-supported site would qualify as profiting from someone else's copyrighted work, that's probably why. Last I remember, the songwriters group didn't go after individual pages that weren't ad-supported.

How does that affect DJs? Does vinyl come with special licenses? Can they not spin CDs?

I'm pretty sure the ones that do it legally pay fees for public performance, I think through the likes of ASCAP. When you buy the CD, it's licenced only for private performance, such as in your home or car. Public performance requires a separate license. For example, a college club that plays a movie for students has to pay for the public performance rights, last I remember, it was something like $275.

[shamino]

What a gigantic load of CRAP. To this day I don't understand what the big deal is about posting lyrics. It's TEXT. You can't restrict TEXT.
You can wrap DRM around anything. For instance, the text can be encrypted and appended to a DRM certificate. Licensed viewer programs (capable of enforcing the DRM and decrypting the text) can be written to prevent users from selecting/copying the text when it's viewed.

If you're talking about law and not technology, that's also wrong. Copyright applies just as much to lyrics as it does the recording.
... considering how many Kareoke albums there are in iTunes.
Unfortunately, the karaoke tracks in iTunes right now are audio-only. So you really can't do much with them if you don't have a lyric sheet (or have the song memorized.)

Given the fact that the publishers of these karaoke songs already have a license for the lyrics (they sell CD+G and DVD discs with on-screen lyrics), they really should be selling these tracks as videos. But maybe the license that allows them to distribute lyrics on karaoke discs doesn't cover video-downlods or something.

They can freely distribute the musical portion of karaoke discs, because the audio is by in-house cover bands, who hold the copyright on their recording. (So distribution involves a standard non-negotiable license fee, just like any other cover-band recording.) But the original artist still has the copyright on the lyrics.
You are wrong (http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm).
I think he was referring to the technological ability to restrict text, not the legal ability.
How does that affect DJs? Does vinyl come with special licenses? Can they not spin CDs?
If it's a private show (say, you hire a DJ for a wedding), then this doesn't apply. That's not a public performance. (The DJ still has to have bought the music, of course.)

If it's a public performance (say, at a club that charges admission, or at a bar), then license fees have to be paid. There are clearinghouse agencies that bulk-license music to make this easy. In the US, there are three agencies: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Most published music is licensed to one of them. In order to legally play everything published, it is common practice to pay license fees to all three.

When there is a public performance, somebody has to have paid for a license for the performance to be legal. In the US (according to a DJ friend of mine) the obligation is on the venue (the bar, club, etc.) not on the DJ. The DJ (or his employer) may, however, choose to pay for his own licenses in order to avoid problems when performing at a venue that hasn't paid.

[bedouin]

I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.

I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.

Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.

[panamajack]

Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
I agree completly bedouin !

Album linear notes, along with lyrics, should come standard with any full album download, just like when you buy a hard copy. I know tons of music lovers who claim this (particularly linear notes, album art, etc.) as the single biggest reason they don't purchase music online.

Wouldn't it be dead easy for ITMS downloads to come complete with lyrics embedded in the ID3 tags ?

[TBaggins]

Cool :)

Now watch as Microsoft suddenly think of this too!
LOL, no doubt. Sometimes I think Microsoft's entire business model is to copy whatever Silicon Valley companies are doing.

A 'fast follower' is what the media calls them, but that's always been a nice term for 'monkey see, monkey do, monkey wishes it could innovate too'... :\

.

[Cedric]

I hope they will add lyrics to AppleTV => Widescreen Karaoke, I always wanted to sing along with Bono on widescreen and DolbySorround

PearLyrics does its work very well

Originally Posted by bedouin
I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.

I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.

Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.

Totally Agree, poor music killed by business

[lantzn]

How about tabliture and sheet music too!

My son plays acoustic and electric guitar. Tablitures would be really cool indeed. On second thought he's already going through my printer paper as it is with what he can find.

[lantzn]

Oh, come now... Karoke would be an AWESOME idea...

...
...
...

for sweet 16 birthday parties...

:rolleyes:

-Clive


Just let them use this and leave us alone.
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/ikaraoke/

[lantzn]

If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all.


You obviously haven't listened to much music where in some places you haven't quite figured out what the artist is singing. Therefore you just adlib and when someone hears you singing the wrong lyrics you feel REALLY dumb.

http://www.amiright.com/misheard/song/search/search.php?inputSort=1&input01=shook+me+all&SearchTerms=4&Start=0

[jonessodarally]

I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.

I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.

Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.



I'm working on putting together a CD right now.
...and I'm including lyrics to all the songs. 8-)


If you'd like I can send you a copy once they get pressed, just so you can say you found a modern-day CD with printed lyrics. :lol:




Also.. I suppose its worth noting that I have paid $45 per song just to copyright the lyrics (another $45 to copyright the audio recording) so.. while I'd gladly tell you the words to any song for free, I can understand why some artists might whine about it.:rolleyes:

[shamino]

I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.
I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.
Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
Even 20 years ago, there were plenty of albums that didn't include lyrics.

And even today, there are plenty of albums that do.

The only thing I miss about the good ol' days is the really awesome gatefold artwork that you'd often find on vinyl albums. You get similar pictures with some CDs, but a 5"x10" image just doesn't look nearly as awesome as a 12"x24" print of the same image. (And the 4-panel gatefold from Yes's 3-record Yessongs album was really awesome.) But that can never happen again, unless someone is crazy enough to use a 12" disc for the next generation of media. :err:

[DeaPeaJay]

If it's a private show (say, you hire a DJ for a wedding), then this doesn't apply. That's not a public performance. (The DJ still has to have bought the music, of course.)

If it's a public performance (say, at a club that charges admission, or at a bar), then license fees have to be paid. There are clearinghouse agencies that bulk-license music to make this easy. In the US, there are three agencies: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Most published music is licensed to one of them. In order to legally play everything published, it is common practice to pay license fees to all three.

When there is a public performance, somebody has to have paid for a license for the performance to be legal. In the US (according to a DJ friend of mine) the obligation is on the venue (the bar, club, etc.) not on the DJ. The DJ (or his employer) may, however, choose to pay for his own licenses in order to avoid problems when performing at a venue that hasn't paid.


I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"

@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!

IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.

[JeffDM]

I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"

I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.

Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.

[jonessodarally]

I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"

@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!

IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.

Yeah see.. I play music because (a) i enjoy playing music, and (b) i like playing in front of people.

While it would be nice to make some extra cash off of CDs and stuff... it's just a side thing for me. I'd rather you tell five friends about it than give me five bucks.

I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.

by the way, in case anyone is curious, http://www.myspace.com/ryangraves. You're welcome to listen. You'll notice they're all downloadable, as they're just demo versions of the full recordings I'm working on now. ;)


As long as if you play a song of mine in public for free, you say "hey this is by this kid named ryan graves, he's pretty cool" then I'm game. 8-) haha, like you said... free promotion.
Although, if someone gives you $5 and says its cause they were glad you played my song, then.. I wouldn't mind if you passed some of that along to me. ha.


Edit:
I should note also that occasionally *a friend of mine* might download a song or two illegally, but nine out of ten times, *he* will end up going out and purchasing the CD anyway eventually. Sometimes *he* just wants to get a taste of the music first, but *he* likes owning the CDs too, so *he* ends up buying them. Therefore, illegal music can and does fuel marketing for the record industry. *my friend* is living proof. :D

[hmurchison]

Perhaps if what you did for a living could be as easily bypassed you'd have a different take on this old argument.

No it wouldn't. There are many views of Copyright and I just so happen to have a strict and narrow view. To me Copyright allows the originator or owner to ensure they do not have to compete with others for their orginal works for a period of time.

I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.

My opinion of Copyright is that it ensure the creator doesn't have undue competition for their works. It does not, in my opinion, give total access to every facet of a creation. Copyright exist to reward the artist/creator for their invention ...allow them to profit and then said art becomes public domain.

Like everything else in America. Copyright is broken. Artist now expect to control every facet for their lifetime+. Thus the goal isn't to reward the artist for a small period of time and then urge them to create a new piece of art but rather to shield them for their lifetime so that one idea can generate profit beyond the lifetime of the orginator. Thus the artist never has to give back as they will never see their work go Public Domain.

Sounds great if you feel like civic duty and philanthropy are for fools. But to many of us it sounds like facism. Patents don't last as long as Copyright. If they did you'd still be cooking on Wood ranges and riding a bike to work. Innovation isn't fueled by extending Copyright power. Increasing this power is the very antithesis of Innovation and progress.

So no...I don't agree with you. I do plan on doing more creative endeavors with regards to music and cinema but you won't catch me agreeing with Disney about Copyright. As long as I don't have to compete with others with my own content that provides my bread n butter I don't see an issue.

[JeffDM]

I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.

Not quite, the lyrics are what songwriters author to make money. On a lot of songs, the musician /band and the song writer are unrelated people, there are a lot of songwriters that don't make money performing that song.

I do believe that the lyrics should be included with the song, because the writer was paid for that. It isn't as if the words on the CD gives other artists rights to perform that song.

[DeaPeaJay]

I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.

Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.

Ok, point taken.

But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.

For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.

[JeffDM]

For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.

That is sensible as well.

I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.

[shamino]

I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.

Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.
I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.
I assume, then that you live off of the income from another job.

Believe it or not, some musicians are trying to make a living off of their music. It's not just something they do for fun.
But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.
And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.
I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.

[JeffDM]

An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's.

I agree. To clarify, an unsigned artist can chose to do this, but once they sign, they lose a lot of these options.

[DeaPeaJay]

It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.

I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.


Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.


Agreed, that's copyright infringement. I'm talking about DJs properly crediting you with the work if asked about it.


It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.

Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.


We're not talking about illegally profiting off of someone else's work by selling it!

And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.


I'm not talking about pirating music. That's wrong! I buy from iTunes.


Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.


Not talking about piracy.


An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.


My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.

I'll go ahead and plug her site while I'm talking about it :) (I made it) - Emma's Bridal Jewelry (http://www.emmasbridaljewelry.com)

EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore. So therfore all other performances of it are piracy, which I'm against. - I guess you can't stop the copies that were already sold from being played. But if you didn't want the stuff to be out there, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

[shamino]

I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.
You're missing my point.

Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.

It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.
My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.
So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?

An artist selling to you as an individual isn't going to charge hundreds of dollars for his CD, because he knows nobody will buy it. Depending on circumstances, he might even give it to you for free. If, however, he knows that you plan on using that song as a part of your business, you can be certain he's going to charge more (possibly a lot more) for it. Without public performance royalties, however, it becomes possible to cheat by buying non-commercial distributions, using them commercially.

As for your sister's Jewelry business, you're not considering commercial applications. She may design an item and sell it for $500. But if that same item is going to be used in a television commercial, as a means of making money for a third party, I would expect her to charge a lot more than her normal price.
EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore.
Sometimes, a musician doesn't want to sell ANY CDs of a particular song. He may want to use the copyright law to block ALL distribution of the song. I've seen a few examples of this - usually songs that were written for a specific event. And he's got that right, too.

[DeaPeaJay]

You're missing my point.

Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.

It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.

A radio station or a DJ has every right to make money for the effort that their work requires. Sure, their business is dependent upon artists, and the artists depend on the radio stations and DJs to get their music out there. It's a symbiotic relationship.

And it's not callous or immoral to *believe* that I shouldn't have to pay those licensing fees. If I ever perform music I'll pay the proper fees, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the philosophy behind them.


So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?

If one song was capable of bringing that much money in for them, which it's not, it would have to be an *amazing* song - the biggest thing since the Macarena. In which case, I'm sure the artist behind it wouldn't be hurting financially either, because people would buy the song after hearing it on the radio. That's all assuming piracy wasn't a problem. Maybe you could justify the licensing fees that way - to counter piracy :\

[DeaPeaJay]

You know, it occurs to me that there's a double standard here. A tiny, insignificant artist who has virtually no exposure would be absolutely thrilled to get their song on the radio, they'd probably be willing to pay the RADIO station to play it if they could because of all the exposure it would get them. (Remember the Wonders in That Thing You Do)?

The radio helps make them famous, their popularity soars and they make millions. Now that they have a hit song that everybody loves they feel entitled to more revenue from that song. It's not enough to simply sell the CD or song in iTunes, they need *more* so they can milk that song for all its worth. Now that the situation is reversed radio stations would be willing to pay THEM for the privilege of playing the song.

Looks like pure greed to me.