Google Beats Song Lyric Scraping Lawsuit (hollywoodreporter.com) 48
Genius Media Group was pretty clever when it used digital watermarks to show that Google had been copying its huge collection of song lyrics. One of those watermarks spelled "redhanded" in Morse code. That Google was caught lifting another site's song lyrics made international news -- and even merited a mention during Congress' Big Tech hearing late last month. But was Google's scraping illegal? On Monday, a New York federal judge dismissed claims by Genius. From a report: Genius doesn't own copyrights to the song lyrics. Those rights belong to publishers and songwriters. Genius does have a license to the song lyrics in question. Additionally, Genius spends a lot of time and millions of dollars facilitating collaborative lyric transcription. Can't it protect its sweat? Genius believed so. Genius prohibits its users from transmitting its transcriptions for commercial purpose. Google breached the Terms of Service, claimed a complaint filed in New York state court. After the case was filed last December, Google had it removed to federal court on the basis that Genius' state claims were preempted.
As federal court provides the exclusive jurisdiction for copyright controversies, the initial question in this case was whether Genius was doing anything more than disguising copyright claims. That's the subject of a new 36-page opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Margo Brodie. There's little doubt that the transcribed song lyrics fit within the types of works protected by the Copyright Act and thus satisfy subject matter of a preempted claim. However, under precedent, state contract claims over what's typically regarded as intellectual property can nevertheless survive so long as there's an "extra element" at play. That could be contractual obligations that are qualitatively different from a copyright claim. Here, Brodie rejects the proposition that Genius' attempt to guard against scraping for profit constitutes an extra element.
As federal court provides the exclusive jurisdiction for copyright controversies, the initial question in this case was whether Genius was doing anything more than disguising copyright claims. That's the subject of a new 36-page opinion from U.S. District Court Judge Margo Brodie. There's little doubt that the transcribed song lyrics fit within the types of works protected by the Copyright Act and thus satisfy subject matter of a preempted claim. However, under precedent, state contract claims over what's typically regarded as intellectual property can nevertheless survive so long as there's an "extra element" at play. That could be contractual obligations that are qualitatively different from a copyright claim. Here, Brodie rejects the proposition that Genius' attempt to guard against scraping for profit constitutes an extra element.
Double Standard (Score:3)
Corporations own everything, regardless of who made it, on your device or elsewhere. Your own words belong to them.
God forbid you try to claim ownership of anything on their computers though. They own that too.
Re:Double Standard (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not what it is about at all.
The company wanted to move the lawsuit from a federal case about copyright and convert it to a state case about contract violations. That would move the venue and the nature of the lawsuit, remanding it from federal court to state courts.
There are rules about if cases belong in federal courts or state courts. The judge ruled that in this case, the proper case for a complaint about violating federal copyright laws is the federal courts since it is federal law, and that the case is fundamentally about copyright.
This does not prevent them from filing cases with the individual states, and in fact, they are still free to file separate lawsuits regarding state contract law violations in various state courts. Critically, that avenue is still open to them. It will just be a different lawsuit. This specific lawsuit was filed regarding copyright ownership, distribution of copyrighted material, and distribution of derivative works, all federal copyright claims.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a problem here, I would say that the copyright holder should be required to provide the materials they're licensing (like lyrics) to the licensee. That would avoid this situation entirely. If the copyright holder cannot provide a copy of the materials being licensed (like lyrics), then I cannot see how they can claim to hold a copyright on it, nor prove that the copyright is theirs if it were challenged.
The CD. Transcribing to a new format isn't a new w (Score:4, Insightful)
> If the copyright holder cannot provide a copy of the materials being licensed (like lyrics), then I cannot see how they can claim to hold a copyright on it, nor prove that the copyright is theirs if it were challenged.
The copyright holder has the song on CD. .wav, .mp3, .mpeg, or .txt file format.
Transcoding the song to mp3 doesn't make a brand new work.
Transcribing to text doesn't make a brand new work.
It's the same song, whether it's in
Re: (Score:2)
Transcoding the song to mp3 doesn't make a brand new work.
Of course it does. Blah "ON A COMPUTER" is the new (old, now) way to completely reinvent technology and issue a new, enforceable patent -- or at least charge for it again. And if you can somehow add in bit-rot, well so much the better.
At least until it gets brought and counter-claimed into court, and then you just have to shop^W locate the right judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't conflate patents Vs copyrights. Copyrights have never been subject to the "on a computer bullshit"
Make a dumb lawsuit (Score:2)
I would come back and file a really ridiculous and dumb lawsuit against Google.
Screw the song lyrics, how about JUST the watermarks. Those are separate from the song lyrics themselves. File a lawsuit over duplication of JUST this content! Abuse the legal system!
Re:Make a dumb lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
I would come back and file a really ridiculous and dumb lawsuit against Google.
That's actually what the original lawsuit was. It was a federal lawsuit against copyright claims.
After they filed the federal case and saw it was going badly, they attempted to change it to a state case regarding breach of contract and unjust enrichment. They wanted to remand the case over to the states, instead of sticking with their original contract claims.
But changing the scope of an issue is not the same as altering the nature of the issue. The lawsuit in question was in the nature of a federal copyright issue, and even though they want to change the scope to the state rights, it cannot change the nature of the case being about federal copyright issues.
The companies can still file with their individual states about violations of state contract law, which would have been the smarter choice to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I remember reading that map makers would do this. They would introduce deliberate errors to catch people who were copying their stuff. I have no idea what legal mechanism made this work though, since you can't copyright facts or the effort in collecting said facts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you. I forget sometimes that we live in a society that considers unedited candid digital pictures to be property.
Re: (Score:2)
The watermarks are functional, not creative. So no dice. You cannot copyright the term "red handed".
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim that its use is of artistic value and your use of it is a piece of art, you can. The use of the term "red handed" in this case is part of a collage and installation.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, a copyrighted work can contain red handed. But it wasn't artistic just because you said it was. It was a proof that the content was copied. Just like the trivial pursuit case, that's not enough.
You can aim to be Elvis reincarnated (Score:2)
> you claim that its use is of artistic value and your use of it is a piece of art
You can claim to be Elvis reincarnated. That doesn't make it so. Making stupid claims mostly just pisses off the judge, which isn't a good thing.
You can claim to be a beautiful young woman, with a 70 year old dick. That doesn't make it - well okay that claim might fly in California.
Re: (Score:2)
The watermarks are functional, not creative. So no dice. You cannot copyright the term "red handed".
This is why on appeal this is going to get sent back. It is circular; if there isn't a copyright claim, then the copyright claim can't preempt the contract claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting and clever analysis. I hope you're right about this.
What Google did was shitty. But the problem with the law is that you have to find just the right way to say what someone did was shitty, in the right place, at the right time, to elevate it from "shitty" to "illegal", and therefore actionable.
Insert a few more watermarks (Score:2)
Google just can't refrain from being evil (Score:3)
Google is as rich as can be. They could have bought Genius for pocket change, or licensed the content for a fraction of that.
But no, they have to be evil and just take what they want, from whoever they want.
I guess it's legal but it's still evil.
Re: (Score:1)
It's legal because they're rich. You noticed there are two sets of laws, one for flesh and blood people, and another set for the ultra rich and corporations?
For starters, the investment class pays in a different tax structure (capital gains) instead of the income tax structure that predominantly applies to the plebes.
Demand that they pay their fair share, or stop stealing our representatives. Right now, the average person on the street is carrying the country, while these assholes play golf. To rub salt in
Re: (Score:1)
It's legal because they're rich. You noticed there are two sets of laws, one for flesh and blood people, and another set for the ultra rich and corporations?
For starters, the investment class pays in a different tax structure (capital gains) instead of the income tax structure that predominantly applies to the plebes.
Demand that they pay their fair share, or stop stealing our representatives. Right now, the average person on the street is carrying the country, while these assholes play golf. To rub salt in the wound, the post-slave catcher origins of the police involved the merchant class getting the public to pay (via tax) for hired thugs to beat the public up.
Implement a progressive tax on long term capital gains going at least as high as income tax, instead of 0%. Steve Jobs famously took a $1 salary, allowing him to pay the lowest possible capital gains tax, in a way the average person can't.
The income tax scale stops at a paltry 37% for $622,051 married, filing jointly, further highlighting the fact that, once you're rich, you can pretty well opt out of this tax scale via various dodges.
Fuck them. No taxation without representation. You can't skip out on your taxes and then use them to buy our representatives away from us. Fuck. The. Corporations.
Wow. You really have a chip on your shoulder.
Short term capital gains are taxed as regular income
Long term capital gains (for a high income earner) are taxed at 20%
Now, how do you get capital gains? Why, you have to put your capital at risk, and then it has to go up in value.
And then you have to sell the investment in order to get the capital.
If you were lucky enough to make money Uncle Sam is your partner and wants a piece of the action.
If you lost money you can offset gains, or deduct up to a big $3000
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're being disingenuous [irs.gov]. Long term capital gains are taxed as low as 0% and only as high as 20%, unlike income tax which goes to 37%.
Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if your taxable income is less than $78,750.
See the tables from Forbes [forbes.com], as well.
For example, Steve Jobs... the wealthy can take a nominal income, such as $1, and bypass the income tax and the upper brackets of the capital gains tax. The investment class doesn't get income or pay taxes the same way the average worker in this country does.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're being disingenuous [irs.gov]. Long term capital gains are taxed as low as 0% and only as high as 20%, unlike income tax which goes to 37%.
Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if your taxable income is less than $78,750.
See the tables from Forbes [forbes.com], as well.
For example, Steve Jobs... the wealthy can take a nominal income, such as $1, and bypass the income tax and the upper brackets of the capital gains tax. The investment class doesn't get income or pay taxes the same way the average worker in this country does.
Not disingenuous at all. You were very explicitly referring to the high earners, and the 20% rate applies to them.
Now you are talking about the earners making less than $78K, and you are upset that their capital gains are taxed at a lower rate.
But their federal income tax rate is also lower at 22%. Isn't that what you would want?
They earn less and as a result they have a lower earned income tax rate and no capital gains tax?
Next you believe that by taking a 1$ salary you will be completely shielded from c
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand how tax brackets work? The top tax rate is applied to income ABOVE the $622k level. Income below that level gets taxed at the lower rate, for everyone. Your other response shows you understand perfectly well how tax brackets work, and are intentionally creating a strawman to argue against, because you are also conflating capital gains taxes with income taxes.
If you lost money you can offset gains, or deduct up to a big $3000 a
Re: (Score:2)
37% of a $622k income is $230,000 in federal tax alone.
Do you understand how tax brackets work? The top tax rate is applied to income ABOVE the $622k level. Income below that level gets taxed at the lower rate, for everyone. Your other response shows you understand perfectly well how tax brackets work, and are intentionally creating a strawman to argue against, because you are also conflating capital gains taxes with income taxes.
If you lost money you can offset gains, or deduct up to a big $3000 a year. That's the extent of the downside risk your "partner" Sam is shouldering.
Another way of putting it, is that Uncle Sam is me, and every other taxpayer. The government isn't some magical group of other people, it's society at large. So you are describing a situation where wealthy individuals are gambling their money on the stock market, and if they lose money, the rest of us collectively, have to cover their losses and give them money. And you seem to be implying that taxpayers aren't great partners because they don't cover a higher value of gambling losses?!? Crazy idea, but maybe people shouldn't be gambling their money if they can't afford the losses?
I understand brackets and marginal rates just fine. The poster I was responding to wrote "The income tax scale stops at a paltry 37% for $622,051 married,.."
And that is why I used that number as a threshold.
I don't need you to cover my investment losses.
But since you aren't taking the risk you shouldn't get the benefit of my investment gains either.
Re: (Score:3)
"You didn't build that".
Do I have to bring up Somalia? Businesses aren't built in some kind of vacuum. As a taxpayer I've already invested in roads and education, and myriad other elements that are critical to the success of any given business, and taxpayers invested way more money, decades earlier, than the capital gains crowd. So yes, taxpayers absolutely deserve a piece of the pie that they helped ba
Re: (Score:2)
But since you aren't taking the risk you shouldn't get the benefit of my investment gains either.
"You didn't build that".
Do I have to bring up Somalia? Businesses aren't built in some kind of vacuum. As a taxpayer I've already invested in roads and education, and myriad other elements that are critical to the success of any given business, and taxpayers invested way more money, decades earlier, than the capital gains crowd. So yes, taxpayers absolutely deserve a piece of the pie that they helped bake.
Bring up anything you want.
You didn't build my business. You already get the benefit of the roads and education you are funding. The business is already paying taxes on profits too.
You absolutely do not deserve to get a piece of my reward for taking risks, unless if you are equally liable for losses.
And "You didn't build that" was said by a guy who is now a multi-millionaire on money he took zero risk to acquire.
He definitely built nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing evil about it. Google did license the material. Just not from genius. If copyright holders got to double dip on the same content you would no doubt be calling for their heads, but right now your post looks like an anti Google rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing evil about it. Google did license the material. Just not from genius. If copyright holders got to double dip on the same content you would no doubt be calling for their heads, but right now your post looks like an anti Google rant.
If they licensed it from another source, why did they obtain it from Genius?
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't. They obtained it from LyricFind, and licensed it from LyricFind. Read the lawsuit. The only reason this lawsuit was valid at all was because it was about copyright claims. If this were about breach of terms of service it would be instantly thrown out because Google didn't scrape GMG, LyricFind did.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't. They obtained it from LyricFind, and licensed it from LyricFind. Read the lawsuit. The only reason this lawsuit was valid at all was because it was about copyright claims. If this were about breach of terms of service it would be instantly thrown out because Google didn't scrape GMG, LyricFind did.
If they obtained it from LyricFind, did LyricFind obtain it from Genius?
How else did they make that steganography claim?
Outline of the legal case (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a complicated case to follow. I read through the ruling. Here is my digest. I'm not a lawyer.
1. LyricFind transcribe song lyrics on their website. Their website put up "terms of use" which prohibit using those transcribed lyrics for a bunch of things.
2. Google scraped those song lyrics and displayed them in "info-boxes", in contravention of the terms of use.
3. LyricFind complained to Google about this. Google said "okay, sorry" and put an attribution on other info-boxes saying where they came from, and hamfistedly tried to disguise the fact that they were scraping from LyricFind, and provided assurances that they did not and would not scrape from LyricFind. Nevertheless they did continue to scrape.
4. LyricFind brought suit. They claimed that Google had violated terms of use, and was anti-competitive.
5. Google countered that this wasn't a matter for terms-of-use or competition at all; instead it's purely a copyright matter, and there's nothing in copyright-law that would stop Google from scraping.
6. In this recent court case, the judge agreed with Google on matter (5). Therefore the case is closed and Google won.
Re:Outline of the legal case (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting this seems gloss over an important fact. Google didn't scrap GMGs lyrics, Google paid LyricFind for lyrics, and it looks like that LF scraped them. While the suit did also target LF, it seems like Google shouldn't really be involved. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some sort of indemnification clause in the contract between Google and LF.
But I suppose if it never gets past the "is this even a case we should be handling" part, they wouldn't need to get into contract nitty gritty.
I didn't really expect the outcome to be "No dummy, you can copyright a crowd-sourced transcription of an already copyrighted work". But, like a lot of these things it makes perfect sense when the opinion comes out.
Two companies .... (Score:1)
fighting over the ownership of song lyrics neither of them own
Re: (Score:2)
fighting over the ownership of song lyrics neither of them own
I laughed too; you just can't make this stuff up.
"I don't own it but somehow he stole it from me"
Similar to what they lost in AU (Score:2)
Google Beats? (Score:2)
I thought Beats was owned by Apple?
Blame Stupid Capitalized American Titles and Trademarked Common Words.