'Genius' Site Said It Used Morse Code To Catch Google Stealing Song Lyrics (morningstar.com) 157
"Genius.com says its traffic is dropping because, for the past several years, Google has been publishing lyrics on its own platform, with some of them lifted directly from the music site," reports the Wall Street Journal:
Google denies doing anything nefarious. Still, Genius's complaints offer a window into the challenges small tech companies can face when the unit of Alphabet Inc. starts offering competing services on its platform... Genius said it notified Google as far back as 2017, and again in an April letter, that copied transcriptions appear on Google's website. The April letter, a copy of which was viewed by the Journal, warned that reuse of Genius's transcriptions breaks the Genius.com terms of service and violates antitrust law.
"Over the last two years, we've shown Google irrefutable evidence again and again that they are displaying lyrics copied from Genius," said Ben Gross, Genius's chief strategy officer, in an email message.... Genius said it found more than 100 examples of songs on Google that came from its site. Starting around 2016, Genius made a subtle change to some of the songs on its website, alternating the lyrics' apostrophes between straight and curly single-quote marks in exactly the same sequence for every song. When the two types of apostrophes were converted to the dots and dashes used in Morse code, they spelled out the words "Red Handed."
Genius is a privately held company, and its investors include Andreessen Horowitz, Emagen Investment Group and the rapper Nas... Genius clients include the music streaming website Spotify Technology SA and Apple Inc.
The article also notes March study from web-analytics firm Jumpshot Inc. which found 62% of mobile searches on Google now don't result in the user clicking through to a non-Google web site.
"Over the last two years, we've shown Google irrefutable evidence again and again that they are displaying lyrics copied from Genius," said Ben Gross, Genius's chief strategy officer, in an email message.... Genius said it found more than 100 examples of songs on Google that came from its site. Starting around 2016, Genius made a subtle change to some of the songs on its website, alternating the lyrics' apostrophes between straight and curly single-quote marks in exactly the same sequence for every song. When the two types of apostrophes were converted to the dots and dashes used in Morse code, they spelled out the words "Red Handed."
Genius is a privately held company, and its investors include Andreessen Horowitz, Emagen Investment Group and the rapper Nas... Genius clients include the music streaming website Spotify Technology SA and Apple Inc.
The article also notes March study from web-analytics firm Jumpshot Inc. which found 62% of mobile searches on Google now don't result in the user clicking through to a non-Google web site.
Google's new motto ''-.. --- / . ...- .. .-..'' (Score:5, Funny)
The above subject is 'do evil' in Morse code.
Re:Google's new motto ''-.. --- / . ...- .. .-..'' (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Genius.com doesn't own the copyright for the lyrics either.
Google may be violating someone's copyright, but that someone is not Genius.com.
Genius.com may be transcribing the lyrics from the audio, but non-creative direct transcriptions are not protected by copyright.
Car analogy: A valet takes a photo of your keys so he can steal your car later. Then a 2nd valet takes a photo of the photo. Then the 1st valet complains that his rights are being violated.
Re:Google's new motto ''-.. --- / . ...- .. .-..'' (Score:5, Informative)
they didn't say it violated copyright, they said it violated Genius' terms of service and antitrust law.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to Genius.com just now and could view lyrics without agreeing to any ToS. So it seems unlikely that Google agreed to any ToS, therefore there can be no violation.
Re:Google's new motto ''-.. --- / . ...- .. .-..'' (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Google's new motto ''-.. --- / . ...- .. .-..' (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not necessarily true outside the US because some countries follow the "sweat of the brow doctrine" and allow copyrights for facts. There was an attempt in the US Congress to extend Copyright law to protect facts, but it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sundar is American and as far as I can tell has made Google act far more in accord with traditional American values of fucking everybody else to make money.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably Google's official policy is to never lift data like this. But some low-level temp does it anyway, out of laziness and a lack of consequences. So the people at Google who are denying this probably sincerely believe this isn't happening. The people doing this don't give a shit and the worst consequence they will ever face is being rotated out to a different temp job.
Antitrust is Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
It's things like this that really help bolster a strong anti-trust case against Google and Facebook.
At this point the misbehavior is so strong, across so many facets, I tend to think such action is inevitable...
Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:1)
I fail to see how "sharing" lyrics is theft.
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone including Garmin, Google and Apple do that with their maps. The question is whether lyrics are copyrighted (they are) and whether Genius and Google paid to display them. If Google paid the copyright owner party, avoiding Genius' licensing fees, Google does not commit copyright infringement unless the minute changes that Genius makes to catch copiers (like Google) is a copyrightable work on its own (unlikely, but that's why we have judges to interpret the law.
It's also possible Genius is just angling for a multimillion dollar buyout.
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:5, Interesting)
Genius did not claim copyright infringement, it claimed violations of their TOS which includes prohibiting scraping their site and displaying the contents elsewhere.
Given the morse code trick, they have a decent case for that.
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really.
Google for "Omerta lyrics," for example.
Genius.com comes up as the top result and link in the search results, albeit below the "direct" Google answer (which would be a large part of the antitrust claim; which frankly is the better one).
Click the link. You're sent to the song lyrics. Just as Genius.com intended.
Now look at their robots.txt [genius.com] file. See the exclusions? See what is not excluded?
Genius.com expressly wants the lyrics to be indexed for search purposes. But the same information pulled to index and heuristically associate the page contents with the search terms can be analyzed to pull the lyrics themselves. You don't even have to pull the information again.
Google analyzing information already in their possession is not a violation of their Genius.com's TOS.
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:4, Interesting)
So in other words, their robots.txt should follow their terms of service, and block Google completely. Which would be monetarily committing suicide, because then they would never get any hits from Google ever again. Superb planning on their part, they just want free money Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a horse in this race, but your words got me to thinking:
Genius.com did some work to display lyrics.
It sounds like you are saying that it is just fine for Google not to do any work and just take the work that genius.com performed and receive money for the work that genius.com performed. Is that what you are saying?
Is it wrong for genius.com to want money for their work being being displayed? How would it be "free" money since genius.com did work?
I am confused about the message that you are sendi
Re: (Score:3)
Google analyzing information already in their possession is not a violation of their Genius.com's TOS.
It might be, depending on the TOS. They do explicitly forbid "harvesting or collecting, through use of automated scripts or otherwise, the contents of the Service or email addresses ... for the purposes of ... reproducing the content of the Service". They can do that without forbidding indexing.
Re: (Score:3)
The TOS doesn't allow site crawling for indexing in a search engine, yet their robots.txt file does.
Your mistake is that you think that the TOS describes the entirety of the relationship between Genius.com and Google.
If Google eliminates crawling and delists Genius.com because it cannot index it, claiming that that would violate the TOS, what do you think that Genius.com would say?
Re: (Score:3)
Google analyzing information already in their possession is not a violation of their Genius.com's TOS.
Nobody is talking about analyzing, they're talking about reproducing the content in whole on the Google website.
Are you arguing that Google may reproduce non-excerpted material on its site because they crawled it? Man, if you think the eurotrash news is upset now...
Re: (Score:2)
Solely because they crawled it? No.
If it's not protected by a copyright owned by the site and the actual copyright owner does not object (due to license or otherwise)? Yes.
Genius.com is not alleging a copyright violation because (1) they don't own the copyrights in the lyrics (2) the modifications that they're making to punctuation in the lyrics are not protectable by copyright and (3) the material that th
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that Google hasn't licensed putting complete song lyrics at the top of a search page already...
It was worth it 5 years ago [futureofmusic.org]. So much for that high quality prediction.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Robots.txt is not legally binding. It’s an optional expression of preference, and need not match up with legally binding documents.
B) Allowing a page to be indexed for search purposes does not mean a search engine has the right to use that content for other purposes, such as reposting it elsewhere. A site can allow access for one purpose without obligating themselves to allowing something unrelated, in much the same way that buying a DVD does not give you the right to redistribute its content via P
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Course of conduct is legally binding. The TOS cannot be the sole document governing search engine access because search engine access is effectively not allowed in the TOS, yet is in reality. Robots.txt represents an industry custom - one that Genius.com is actively using to express preferences.
Untrue. All major search engines cache sites, which is "reporting it elsewhere." You also assume that the site gets to dictate what is done with the indexed data -- it does not. If there's no written agreement agreed to by both side that covers the particular activity, all bets are off. Courts can refuse to create obligations, can look to course of conduct and industry custom as evidence of implied or reasonable default terms, etc.
Indexing activity can also be take it or leave it. Genius.com can use robots.txt to signal that Google cannot crawl lyrics, and Google can simply not index that content for lyrics. That's why the antitrust claim is the stronger one.
BTW: The DVD example is terrible since the DVD content that you're referring to will be copyrighted and owned by the seller. Hand me a copyrighted DVD with project Gutenberg texts on it, and I will go to their offices, copy those texts off it, and publish those texts on the internet right in front of them. This is no different. The owners of the copyrights in the lyrics are not Genious.com, and are not suing Google.
The TOS does not govern Google's access to the site. Google hasn't agreed to it (these are solely autonomous systems), and you cannot point to any TOS terms governing site indexing, yet Genius.com engages in SEO precisely to get their site indexed, and expressly permits indexing via robots.txt. That written waiver is legally binding.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair points all around. Thanks for the excellent corrections!
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. As evidence of my comments being good faith analysis rather than bullshit, see this [searchenginejournal.com] as well.
Now, the antitrust argument is a whole different story. There may be an analogy to Google's comparison Shopping [reuters.com] service in Google's practice of top-paging lyrics and selling ads against the enhanced search result.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that since the grocery store clearly posted a sign that they were open, they have no legal leg to stand on if they complain that someone comes in every day at noon and pees on the floor? That to prevent the latest attack of the piddle monster they must post a closed sign?
Re: (Score:3)
No. I'm saying what I'm saying, which is not anything like your deeply flawed, non-analogous analogy.
Robots.txt says that Google can crawl the site. The crawling, and what Google does with the crawled data, is not subject
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did the search. At the very top is an example of the forbidden scraping and displaying elsewhere in violation of the TOS. Below that is the permissible link to their page with the lyrics. Where's your confusion? Robots.txt allows vusuting the page because of the permitted second link. Nothing in robots.txt implies that the scrape and re-display is permitted.
There are plenty of examples where one use for data given to you is permitted while another is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous indexing agents cannot agree to and are not subject to the TOS.
And excerpt, and Google cache link.
I'm not confused. You are [searchenginejournal.com].
Yep. So you admit that the access was permitted.
Re: (Score:2)
But a TOS is unenforceable in most cases. It's not because I visit a public site that I have to agree to its invisible contract.
Re: (Score:2)
But most of the time it is unenforceable mostly because you only have a casual relationship with the site, and so that limits the scope of their relationship with you.
If you're there for business purposes you might have increased exposure to those terms. And if you're reusing their content in your own business, without any express agreement, then the TOS might actually have a lot of weight all of a sudden.
Re: (Score:2)
And who agreed to the TOS?
This is one bunch of pirates suing another bunch of pirates. Screw them both,
Re: Once they are out there, they are out there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Genius is upset that Google is not compensating them for their reposing of other people's IP without compensation.
That's a lot of apostrophes... (Score:2)
I don't understand all the love for Gmail, etc (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
My life is incredibly simple and plain. I don't have any private information that I wouldn't be willing to share. So If I am going to get convenient free service for useless information then fine.
Re: (Score:2)
So you do not mind that that makes you a perfect scapegoat when "they" need to make an example out of somebody? Giving the authorities a personality profile is always risky and never a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
A scapegoat for what?
I go to work, I sleep, I do a few simple hobbies at home in between that.
I am a single guy and have no plans to change that.
Making all this information available means that anyone can easily see that this who I am and what I do.
There's nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, says the anonymous poster...
Re: (Score:2)
And you couldn't be more wrong.
Deliberately celibate. Simply no interest.
Good try though...
I'm one of the most harmless persons there really could be. Quiet, reserved, content. Happy just working at my job and on my home projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberately celibate. Simply no interest.
Aha! An dangerous pervert that does refuse to contribute to society by having children! Burning at the stake is obviously too good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, I don't think you understand what a pervert is?
I've only read about how people are worried about overpopulation, not under. Never come across someone who would complain about someone not having children (aside from like a family member or something).
And once again, my life is open so anyone can clearly see there is no and has never been any dangerous activity. That's the point. I could have a camera on me 24/7 for all I care. I'd be amazed if anyone actually watched it for more than 5 seconds.
But my
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading that comment you replied to, whilst wearing sarcasm specs. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies. Sarcasm is definitely a weak point for me, especially through text.
Re: I don't understand all the love for Gmail, etc (Score:2)
"The greatest perversion of all is abstinence."
- apocryphally attributed to Masters & Johnson
Re: (Score:2)
Well good thing i'm not abstaining from anything then?
Abstinence requires restraint. Restraint is not required when there is no desire, interest, or ability in the first place. I'm no more abstaining from sex than a cripple is abstaining from walking, or you are abstaining from cutting your arm off.
Perversion is doing something sexually unacceptable. There is nothing sexually unacceptable about doing nothing.
Re: I don't understand all the love for Gmail, et (Score:2)
Sounds pretty fucked in the head to me. _Seriously_ perverted.
You better seek professional help, before you snap and go on a shooting spree. In the meantime we might have to lock you up just in case. Good thing the gestapo already knows all the details of your life - really makes pre-crime prevention like this a lot easier.
Re: (Score:3)
A scapegoat for what?
Anything really. Anybody can be made a scapegoat and the more you know about them, the easier it is. Maybe the day your number will come up is just a slow news day.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't really make sense to me.
If everything in my life is transparent and public, then anyone can easily see what i've done.
They can easily see that what someone says is nowhere remotely close to anything I have ever said or done etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They could easily see that if they were looking. Most people do not. They start throwing stones.
Re: (Score:2)
The gushing is usually inversely proportional to their ability to maintain a mail service or their willingness to pay for a service.
A cognitive dissonance is pretty high. A few people actually do like it, of course, but usually I hear nonstop bitching whenever Google doubles the whitespace but then it dies down pretty quickly because they have few available options that let them be cheap and lazy.
LOL! Busted! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to learn morse. Then I discovered PSK modes. PSK31 will push through where even morse struggles.
Re: (Score:2)
PSK31 still requires a better effective SNR than CW Morse. Modes like Olivia, FT8, JSCall, JT65, etc. soundly outperform either, however.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to drop all pretense of conversation and just admit you want to collect QSO cards without actually talking to anyone. Which is most of what PSK is anyway, but at least you have the option of turning off macros.
Re: LOL! Busted! (Score:1)
Plus, it's kind of like cursive writing today. Kids don't know it, adults don't know it, so it's kind of a cryptic code.
I've never yet met anybody that didn't know handwriting yet. Can someone confirm that American adults don't know cursive anymore?? I know they stopped teaching it to the younger generation, but what happened to the adults?
Now wait for google too... (Score:3)
Now wait for Google to run str.replace(/[‘’]/g,"'"); in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:2)
If they had been doing this systematically, they would likely have sanitized the text a long time ago. A very weak steganographic signature like this is _easy_ to find.
Re:Now wait for google too... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the text isn't being sanitised, maybe Genius should accidentally bury a DROP TABLE statement or two in their lyrics...
Google WAS great. Now, they are today's MS. (Score:3)
Seems more complicated than it first appears (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick search says that's what Genius has done [nytimes.com] (paywalled). Genius entered a licensing agreement with the music labels to offer the lyrics on their site. That brings up an interesting question. I assume Google is also licensed to reproduce these lyrics (they wouldn't be offering them if they weren't). So the question really boils down to: if two entities are both licensed to reproduce the same thing from the copyright holder, can they copy from each other? I would have to think the answer is "yes." If I'm licensed to play music at a restaurant, I do not have to arrange a recording session with the band and create my own recording of their music. I can just buy the CD from a store and play it in my restaurant.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a TOS thing, not a copyright thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If I'm licensed to play music at a restaurant, I do not have to arrange a recording session with the band and create my own recording of their music. I can just buy the CD from a store and play it in my restaurant.
But, can you go to another establishment (say, a competing restaurant for example), and record the song being played there, and then play it back in your own restaurant?
Re: Seems more complicated than it first appears (Score:1)
Omg, no. A thousand times no.
I think it sad that you seem to believe that google would adhere to someone else's copyrights. Go look up the book publishers vs google case.
As for the rest, having the right to reproduce the lyrics is not the same as having the right to copy the efforts of someone else who had the rights to the lyrics. Google needs to do their own work not rip off someone else's. Why is this not stunningly obvious?
Re: (Score:2)
Does Google reproduce them in full? If they don't then it may fall under fair use.
There were a number of court cases around copyright & search, one would assume they would have already set precedent in terms what is allowable /shrug
It's not illegal. Genius is probably violating. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Supremes have ruled that a compilation of data isn't enough for a copyright. In addition, genius.com doesn't have a right to those lyrics, since they're copyrighted by someone else, so they shouldn't be commercially exploiting them.
"Over the last two years..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Genius are cuck losers complaining that free market isnt fair to them
Free market doesn't include theft of work to prop up your own profits.
Hint to Slashdot readers - anytime someone uses the word "cuck" you can immediately assume they (A) don't know what they are saying and (B) are eternally angry with many personal issues. Be kind to them, for they lead a self-imposed hard life - just don't believe anything they say.
Re: (Score:2)
There's probably a pattern to the "cuck" usage that spells out "stupid shit American" in Cyrillic. IMHO, many of the ACs with "issues" aren't ACs at all, rather, replying from black and grey building in NE Moscow. Disinformation is king in the world-destabilization race.
Re: (Score:2)
Free market doesn't include theft of work to prop up your own profits.
What is the subject of the "theft" in this case? What has been stolen/taken away?
Re: (Score:2)
TOS violation
What governs this "terms of service"? Is what they provide copyrighted or something?
the theft of Genous' time and resources to transcribe and make lyrics available to their users
No that isn't theft, they don't spend any extra time for this at all.
not for free to a competitor to steal and post online as their own.
Actually you can sign up for free whether you're a competitor or not, and again Genius doesn't own the copyright here so what exactly has been "stolen"?
I can see the argument that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is "stealing" of that exclusive distribution right granted by copyright law, at least from a legal standpoint, but that doesn't a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THe terms of service include not using the lyrics they put up on their website elsewhere without permission. Their TOS is available on their website.
They don't own those lyrics so what right do they have to dictate what somebody does with them? Indeed if they owned those lyrics there would be copyright, and then of course fair use cases, but they don't own the copyright.
You say they don't spend extra time transcribing lyrics and making them available, how the fuck do you work that out?
What's so complicated about that? They spend time transcribing the lyrics, Google isn't costing them any extra time that they don't already expend.