I’ve supported myself for the past decade with my side project
indiehackers.com
indiehackers.com
And as I was reading this I was humming Springsteen to myself
"Glory days, well, they'll pass you by
Glory days, in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days"
Turns out directlyrics doesn't have those lyrics. Google however returned them at top of the search homepage.
And... wow!
TIL there is a version of this great song with a verse that was not included in the original 80s version.
"My old man worked twenty years on the line
And they let him go
Now everywhere he goes out looking for work
They just tell him that he's too old"
Here's the video: https://youtu.be/P5-IoEcolp8
Glory days!
"The copyright law of the United States provides for copyright protection in “musical works, including any accompanying words,” that are fixed in some tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(2). Musical works include both original compositions and original arrangements or other new versions of earlier compositions to which new copyrightable authorship has been added.
"The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies, to prepare derivative works, to sell or distribute copies, and to perform the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights through the author. note: Copyright in a musical work includes the right to make and distribute the first sound recording. Although others are permitted to make subsequent sound recordings, they must compensate the copyright owner of the musical work under the compulsory licensing provision of the law (17 U.S.C. §115). For more information, see Circular 73, Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.
"Copyright Protection Is Automatic
"Under the present copyright law, which became effective January 1, 1978, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. A work is created when it is “fixed” or embodied in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection under the law.
Typically, the latter is pursued by recording companies, because that is the IP they own or exclusively license. The rest is rarely handled by the individual rights-holders, as they usually just let ASCAP or a similar organization handle the business and litigation end, and just cash the royalty checks.
Licensing the lyrics should be a whole lot cheaper than the music or a specific recording. So it would not cost a lyrics site as much to be fully legit as it would for a music streaming site. Likewise, it may cost less to license a cover band to perform something than to license the recording made of it by a famous group, if the song was not actually written by them. This is why ABC's Dancing With the Stars uses so many covers, but obviously still uses recognizable recordings where Disney already has or can cheaply obtain a performance license.
You could even pay the original artist to perform it. The recording is what's licensed, not all performances by that artist. On Spotify I've seen quite a few older artists re-recording their old hits, presumably because they get more money if they themselves own the license to their own cover.
This is the basis of essentially every single huge successful consumer application/website over the past decade. There's really only 3 ways to make money on the internet it seems. IP theft, advertisement, and selling physical goods.
The really big companies are France Telecom/Orange, GDF/Suez, Total, BNP Paribas, Sanofi, EDF and Societe Generale, maybe Renault. All fit this pattern. None are the result of innovation, the closest would be Sanofi and Renault up until WW1.
I have not yet been to another country where it was different.
For example, Crunchyroll is the least terrible anime streaming site and they got started by stealing anime that was "stolen" by folks that wanted to put decent subtitles on shows from Japan.
They eventually hired some of the folks they were stealing subtitles from, and got licensing deals from the content owners once they had revenue. But they never would have been able to negotiate a deal if they'd have asked for permission instead of forgiveness.
It's entirely possible to imagine that another streaming company (Netflix, Hulu) would have looked at all of the great quality subtitles being produced by non-content owners and figured out that there was revenue to be had. But I fail to see how they would have seen the demand if people hadn't been stealing and making good subtitles to begin with, and producing huge numbers of stolen downloads/streams.
A lot of successful startups and internet businesses are done on a 'break an awkward law first, ask for permission later' kind of way. There's a reason a common startup mantra is 'it's better to beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission'.
And yes, YouTube is another obvious example here. Wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular if it was so strict on copyright right from the start.
Considering the deals they later made with the record companies, it does indeed seem like asking for forgiveness rather than permission could be the best strategy, as was noted by some of the comments in this thread.
[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
But matter of fact is that Directlyrics hosts only around 10k. A decision made early on to focus on less pages compared to competitors that needed to rank 1M+ paghes.
What if Google would start ranking directlyrics on specific 'azlyrics' queries? I haven't seen it happen yet, but if it worked... expect it to be reverted next week.
So it's legally okay, as far as we know.
Still a dick move, though. It's not okay in my opinion. But I'm not the one who may gain or lose thousands of dollars by deciding whether or not to do it, either. I can't say for certain whether it would be okay or not from outside my comfy judgment armchair.
ETA: and now the site owner is on record here on HN stating that the intent was to steal search traffic. I'm sure this is a cutthroat business ... but this is an open invitation for one's own throat to be cut.
If the company hasn't registered it, and doesn't enforce it, it is not a trademark.
http://www.klemchuk.com/30-trademark-infringement-by-meta-ta...
'How I let other people create so I don't have to work'
The biggest revenue hit was the decline of ringtone revenue.
But its always fun to remind them that Justin Bieber & Ed Sheeran are their top traffic sources.
It was pretty clear that others would be next. Hence unlicensed wouldn't be maintainable.
Next to that, I wanted to sell advertising to big brands. My advertising partner insisted we needed to be licensed for the Coca Cola's of this world to spend money on my traffic.
So for me it was an opportunity to increase revenue, at the costs of lower profit margin.
Did publishers just reach out to say "hey, pay this fee"? Or did they straight up start with lawsuits/C&D? Or did you reach out to them and say "hey I got this site, how much do I pay you to become licensed?"
> an LA-based company that was run by a self-proclaimed co-founder of MySpace
I've met several people in southern california that say they are myspace co-founders. Why on earth is myspace the go-to mark for them?
Exceptions are months (e.g. around Christmas) where my advertising partner would be able to attract up to 3x revenue from the same amount of traffic as the month before.
Tracking down loose artists on your own initiative just to give them enough money that they won't track you down and sue you seems like an overly honorable use of time and money to coexist with a successful business.
- Gracenote (they sold their lyrics licensing to lyricfind)
- Lyricfind
E.g. Google and Bing also license their lyrics offering through Lyricfind.
I only deal with them.