![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
This Fanlib approach to user generated content isn't just happening to fandom. this article in the technology section of The Guardian Newspaper talks about musical publishers seeking yearly licenses from fansites that quote/archive song lyrics.
And I quote:
eta:
Now admittedly this product in this instance - the lyrics - do belong to the artists who penned them and haven't been altered, transformed or used in a derivative way by the people hosting them on websites, for the most part. But... I find it oddly mercenary, though not surprising.
The wonder of the web is, for the most part, user generated content, be that meta, discussions, fiction, blogs, lyrics, wikipedia... And I can foresee them trying to force us to pay for access to what we, as a collective, create. And that's on top of paying our ISP's of course.
And I quote:
- In answer to the question of why aren't we giving away lyrics free now, the better question is, why were we giving them away for all those years? We've looked at the huge demand and decided that this is an untapped income stream."
eta:
Now admittedly this product in this instance - the lyrics - do belong to the artists who penned them and haven't been altered, transformed or used in a derivative way by the people hosting them on websites, for the most part. But... I find it oddly mercenary, though not surprising.
The wonder of the web is, for the most part, user generated content, be that meta, discussions, fiction, blogs, lyrics, wikipedia... And I can foresee them trying to force us to pay for access to what we, as a collective, create. And that's on top of paying our ISP's of course.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 01:24 pm (UTC)Well, in the US anyway it's Fair Use to reprint excerpts of things for the purposes of analysis or critique. Works in their entirety are another story. So these guys may have a point.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 01:31 pm (UTC)Yes, I just edited the post and said so... having thought about it BUT there is still something insidious in the wind.
I guess it's because for most of us (at least as I see it) the net functions as ones own personal access point to a public glut/library of information.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 01:42 pm (UTC)This Fanlib approach to user generated content isn't just happening to fandom.
I had just posted on my journal about CBS buying out last.fm. Maybe I am being paranoid, but with the CBS/Fanlib connection.... *eyes that*
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 01:51 pm (UTC)So... let me get this straight -- in their world, you can't know what the words to a song are unless you buy the CD which may or MAY NOT have the lyrics in the liner notes?
So... what if you hear it on the radio and want to know the lyrics?
Argh. Head. Hurts. Brain. Melting!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 03:39 pm (UTC)It's not like FanLib at all. FanLib is trying to make money off material they don't own. This whole lyrics business is similar to me creating a website, full of ads that will make me money, with all the original Harry Potter books up on the site for everyone to read. You betcha JKR's lawyers would come calling if I tried something like that. So no, I'm not surprised nor upset the music business is looking into this. If anything, I'm surprised they've let it slide for so long.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 05:35 pm (UTC)And song lyrics are not derivative works--it's hard to argue that quoting the *entire* text of a song is "fair use."
no subject
Date: 2007-06-02 12:27 am (UTC)Exactly. And this isn't about the big corporate sharks going after the small people on the net. I'm quite sure the music business isn't going to mess with some 13-year-old emo kid posting lyrics of a few favorite songs on her myspace account.
They're going after the big websites who are making (probably quite some) money off posting thousands of song lyrics. And I really can't blame the music industry for that. Why should someone else be making money off stuff they own? It only makes sense they're doing something about that and try to get some profit out of it themselves.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 03:43 pm (UTC)However, if you Google for 'lyrics', what comes up are a mass of ugly sites plastered with ads and occasionally spyware. The majority of them aren't fan sites in any sense of the world -- they're farming ads through content scraping (as is obvious from the fact that they all share the same misspelling of lyrics). Frankly, I don't blame the copyright holders for wondering why all that ad revenue is going into someone else's pockets.
(Ironically, if there's one thing those large lyric databases remind me off, it's fanlib.)
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 05:33 pm (UTC)i've only looked up lyrics when i can't understand what the hell the singer is saying (ever tried to actually understand some heavy metal? or even better, death metal?)
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 06:13 pm (UTC)But listing the lyrics in full, well, that is someone else's work.
Of course, I wonder if this'll just shut those sites down or force them underground. Because although I do use those sites, I'm not going to pay to access song lyrics, are you?
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 06:27 pm (UTC)My true point, I think was what I said in the second comment down, that I conceive of the net as a public library of a sort. With access to song lyrics and Shakespeare.
And, possibly wrongly I think of ISP fees as community tax.
I regret the fact that I can now conceive of a near future in which all information housed on the net will be passworded away for access via cash.
A little like access to the Athens university network maybe? In which poorer colleges have access to some e-journals and richer colleges have access to all?
And wasn't that a tangent?
no subject
Date: 2007-06-01 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-02 07:53 am (UTC)Because this isn't exactly new.