Ask HN: Why hasn't Rap Genius been shut down? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why hasn't Rap Genius been shut down?

16 pointsfrankacter18 comments

Given the news of the recent raid of Undertexter, I'm curious how a service like Rap Genius stays online?

Undertexter profited, via banner ads on the site, for the community sourced subtitles.

Rap Genius, while not currently profitable, did take a 15 million USD round of funding for their site hosting community sourced song lyrics.

Undertexter created derivative work by creating translation of copyrighted subtitles to native languages.

Rap Genius created derivative work by creating an annotation layer on top of copyrighted subtitles.

In both cases, neither party had obtained permission or licensing.

So how is Rap Genius's model or execution different from Undertexter?

View on HN

I believe because:

1. Lyrics are user generated content, UGC + DMCA Safe Harbor makes it easy for a site to keep operating, even if they have to keep taking some content down.

2. They have done a seemingly good job of getting major label rappers on board with the service, so maybe the labels actually get this this could be helping them make money.

1. So are translated subtitles. Is the premise that Undertexter was not responding to DMCA requests to take down reported content, but Rap Genius is?

2. This confuses me. Unless the labels are licensing/legally approving of the use of the content, isn't just allowing it to happen weakening their case against sites they are not so friendly with?

Undertexter was profiting from simply translating subtitles whereas, Rap Genius falls under fair use because, they're creating a new layer on top of the lyrics.

Because Rapgenius hasn't profited out of the lyrics yet. DMCA focused on monetization of other people's content as one of the main criterias for violation. It doesn't matter whether it's UGC or not.

You, and the people replying to you, are pulling this out of thin air. The words "profit", "money" and "commercial" never appear anywhere in the bill. No aspect of the safe harbor rules hinge on monetization. On the other hand, the one thing you said that doesn't matter (that it's UGC), is the #1 requirement for protection. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/text-digital-mill...

Case in point: YouTube contains tens of millions of copyright infringing videos. YouTube runs ads on these videos. YouTube was sued for hosting these infringing videos (Viacom v YouTube). YouTube did host the infringing material, and profit from it; that was undisputed. It was found not liable for that infringement because of the DMCA.

If I recall, this is basically the surest way to lose your DMCA protection. The key is for them to prove that you knowingly profited from the copyright infringement. Another issue is what percentage of your service is legit/infringing.

As much as people hated it at the time, the DMCA is a pretty reasonable law (which is why the bad guys at various companies are trying to replace it).

The DMCA has no such consideration of profiting from infringement or the percentage of the service that is legitimate versus infringing. A service that contains nothing but infringing content, and puts ads on every page hosting that content, can be completely free from liability for the infringement. No need to speculate based on bits and pieces you think you've heard places -- read the bill! It's short, it's not hard to read, and it's something you should know given your profession.

This is common and incorrect view of the legal system in the US. The law as it is written is only half of the picture. You need to understand the relevant case law to have any idea how a judge might actually rule on a given case. This is one reason why attorneys make so much money.

Taking in a 15 million dollar funding round, while not considered profit, does seem to fall into a subjective consideration of "profiting from the lyrics".

If their site had no lyrics, they would have no traffic and as a result no funding.

Users submit lyrics, sometimes the actual artist of the song verifies it too, it's a completely different theme than 99% of lyric databases, kind of like, the reddit of lyrics in a way?

This is the same model as Undertexter (minus the "sometimes the actual artist verifies it part), the subtitles are sourced via community user submissions.

What do you mean by it being different than 99% of lyric databases?

Are you implying that 99% of the lyric databases copy their content from somewhere or the site admins themselves enter the content themselves?

Does that really make a difference since the end result would be identical (both in content and in execution) in that they are hosting and displaying copyrighted content that they are not licensed for, regardless of what the originating source was.

rap genius is not derivative. its transformative, and therefore falls under fair use. Its also UGC, which as noted is specifically granted safe harbor under the DMCA.

Is UGC always a safe harbor? To qualify for safe harbor in the case of file sharing services, it's not enough not to deliberately populate the site with copyrighted content and to honor takedowns; there's also a requirement that the operators of the site not run it with foreknowledge of infringing copyright, so that if they became aware of copyvio content, they'd still be required to take it down.

While certainly subjective, I don't agree that it is transformative. Consider the model is for a user to upload the copyrighted lyrics first and then they and/or others create annotations on top. Put another way, Rap Genius is essentially inducing users to upload copyrighted lyrics in order to make use of their annotation service.

That aside, even the resulting product does not seem to fit the "originality" test:

"Revisions, annotations or other cosmetic alterations to the work do not qualify as originality; the work must be unique to the author, using only minor elements of other copyrights. The court generally defines this as 'distinguishable variation' between the two works. In other words, the works must be obviously substantially different for the change to be considered transformative under law."

While the annotation layer is certainly unique and distinguishable, the lyrics are not "transformed" into a distinguishable variation, they are left in their original state on their site.

I'm more curious about how they plan on monetizing "annotating stuff".

Because the RIAA isn't as crazy as the MPAA

Or are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lyrics_Server

"On January 14, 1999, Swiss police raided de Vries' apartment and the service's ISP and seized equipment in pursuit of a criminal copyright violation complaint filed on behalf of eight music publishing companies including Polygram, EMI, and Estefan Enterprises. Although the industry succeeded in taking down this service (and turning many music fans to dislike the industry), the Internet proved more powerful than the industry, and song lyrics are now freely available on many similar sites."

Shhhhhhhh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com