Niamh_Saoirse
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
This is fecking absurd! 
MERGED ---> Universial Music Publishing forces lyrics to be taken down? + lyrics
- Thread starter madonna's child
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i don't know about copyright, and i don't know why every band/ artist has to ask for KIND permission to publish it's own lyrics. check out the booklet of ok computer, radiohead write: lyrics used by kind permisson even though we wrote them'. they got the point.
beau2ifulday
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
God, the more I read about this, the more angry I get.
Really, it just seems something else to add to the list of shit decisions that Universal Music/Principle Management (heck, maybe even U2 themselves, if I really want to go there) have made. U2 fans are among the most dedicated fans out there, and how do they repay years of loyalty?
Yeah. Thanks for that Universal.
Really, it just seems something else to add to the list of shit decisions that Universal Music/Principle Management (heck, maybe even U2 themselves, if I really want to go there) have made. U2 fans are among the most dedicated fans out there, and how do they repay years of loyalty?
Yeah. Thanks for that Universal.
we can send it on to their publicist or PM if you like .. e-mail whoever on staff and we should be able to pass on the messages to Regine and or Paul, we have already voiced our concerns but it would help to hear from other fans I am sure!!
AtomicLemon
War Child
OK, I asked and this is one of the responses:
Lyrics aren't copywritten (wrong use of the word) but protected by copyright law. See here:
http://www.starpolish.com/advice/article.asp?id=21
and here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
for more information.
Basically, Universal Music Publishing purchased the rights to these songs from the songwriters in U2. As they own the rights to these songs, they can do the following:
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
blah, blah, blabbidy, blah, this is the way the legal cookie crumbles, you can cry foul all you want.
Lyrics aren't copywritten (wrong use of the word) but protected by copyright law. See here:
http://www.starpolish.com/advice/article.asp?id=21
and here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
for more information.
Basically, Universal Music Publishing purchased the rights to these songs from the songwriters in U2. As they own the rights to these songs, they can do the following:
"Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
blah, blah, blabbidy, blah, this is the way the legal cookie crumbles, you can cry foul all you want.
beli
Blue Crack Addict
random pondering..
All this crap reminds me of what happened to the Star Trek clubs (stop laughing, I already know). Paramount went around and shut down most of the Star Trek clubs cause the members were watching pirated episodes.
Which we were doing. But the people at the clubs were the sort that would purchase the official video, the book, the cards, the figurines, the every conceivable piece of crap imaginable.
Paramount shut done the illegal bits and killed their whole friggin franchise in the process. Star Trek has fallen off the fandom map as there is no longer anywhere to hang, gossip, and swap stuff.
Not that I think U2 sales will die without a "clubhouse" but the things Universal are doing is directed squarely at the U2 equivalent of Trekkers. ie WHERE THE MONEY IS, GUYS!
Why dont these big conglomerates see how their own actions have the potential to hurt their own bottom line?
/random pondering
All this crap reminds me of what happened to the Star Trek clubs (stop laughing, I already know). Paramount went around and shut down most of the Star Trek clubs cause the members were watching pirated episodes.
Which we were doing. But the people at the clubs were the sort that would purchase the official video, the book, the cards, the figurines, the every conceivable piece of crap imaginable.
Paramount shut done the illegal bits and killed their whole friggin franchise in the process. Star Trek has fallen off the fandom map as there is no longer anywhere to hang, gossip, and swap stuff.
Not that I think U2 sales will die without a "clubhouse" but the things Universal are doing is directed squarely at the U2 equivalent of Trekkers. ie WHERE THE MONEY IS, GUYS!
Why dont these big conglomerates see how their own actions have the potential to hurt their own bottom line?
/random pondering
Last edited:
AtomicLemon
War Child
How about a petition?
Scarletwine
New Yorker
AtomicLemon said:
I thought U2 retained the rights to their music, per stating so in a a myriad of interviews including the latest blights. Universal only had the right to distribute + make moey on sales.
beli
Blue Crack Addict
The lyrics are on the new www.u2.com - in the brief moments that that site flashes up .
I have been trying to find a Bono quote, something about people being able to download music, concerts and LYRICS from Itunes.ie pay for it. Still looking.......
I have been trying to find a Bono quote, something about people being able to download music, concerts and LYRICS from Itunes.ie pay for it. Still looking.......
U2_Muse
War Child
Beli,
Is this what you're looking for?
I understand that they want to protect their copyright, but this seems petty.
Is this what you're looking for?
I understand that they want to protect their copyright, but this seems petty.
*Ally*
New Yorker
Scarletwine said:
It's highly unlikely that U2 has retained ALL the rights to their songs. In a standard recording agreement, the Label acquires the copyrights in the songs during the term of the agreement (with a reversion to the artist at the end of the term). However, since U2 are the 'biggest band in the world', I am sure that their record deal gives them a LOT more control over their songs/copyrights....
Because superstar agreements certainly have more favorable terms for the artist, it's quite possible that U2 sanctioned this.
But, if for some reason Universal does have all the publishing rights (ie, the copyrights to all the lyrics), then Universal could just be acting on their own- and they would have the right to enforce the copyrights WITHOUT the consent of the band.
Hard to say... We would have to get the details of U2's agreement in order to figure out who's really behind this. It still sucks, though.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
LOL at the Trekker persecution by the big corporation... sux to be them and I'm sure it will suck some more being a U2 fan in the future...
So does this quote mean U2 probably sanctioned what is going on?
So does this quote mean U2 probably sanctioned what is going on?
neutral
genius of compression, Forum Moderator
I hope I'm reading that wrong...Please tell me they are not going to start selling access to lyrics. 
brownda7
War Child
.......and this will stop the masses downloading music how?
(like biff tannen in back to the future, knucklng on the head)
HELLO........................Mr record company executive!
(like biff tannen in back to the future, knucklng on the head)
HELLO........................Mr record company executive!
beli
Blue Crack Addict
U2_Muse said:
Thanks Muse. Thats exactly what I was looking for. It does read like U2 are going to start selling their lyrics. Then again it was Bono who said it so perhaps the concept is a wee bit mangled in his version. Lets hope so.
U2dork
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Uh, does this mean we can't even discuss the lyrics anymore on a public forum? I mean ya kinda hafta quote the lines to get your point across, right? Where does it end?
brownda7
War Child
This is supplied for internet educational purposes only
A google search of u2 wanderer for the lyrics using the cache option can still get the lyrics you want.
Example
type this into google
vertigo lyrics site:www.u2wanderer.org
and click on cache.
A google search of u2 wanderer for the lyrics using the cache option can still get the lyrics you want.
Example
type this into google
vertigo lyrics site:www.u2wanderer.org
and click on cache.
svrasputin
Babyface
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2002
- Messages
- 14
I also feel that this is a travesty...Part of being a fan is having the ability to analyze lyrics...and sometimes, knowing what the exact lyrics are helps...It seems as though lyrics sites would only add to U2's publicity...this really is nonsense...
right now, I'm not feeling very good about my favorite band...
right now, I'm not feeling very good about my favorite band...
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Matt, Joel, and other website owners did what they thought was best for their websites.
However, if I had a website and received such a letter, I'd defy it and let the issue go to court! I think the negative publicity would backlash and cause a lot more problems for the label than it did for me (and believe me, I'd find ways to get my "little guy vs. the big guy" case out there).
However, as others said, where is the line to be drawn? Sharing copyrighted songs is clearly a no-no. I get that. But is sharing lyrics - lyrics that are readily available in the CD liner notes "illegal" too? If Matt or Joel make sure they write who wrote the lyrics, isn't this giving the proper and necessary credit? Is this still considered "stealing"? If Matt and Joel were getting $$ because of the lyrics, then this might make sense. But that's not true either (and the $12/year Joel charges is hardly because of the lyrics).
This "line" is becoming ambiguous. If I take a picture of U2, is it my picture or theirs? If I video U2 while they are out in the public, is it my video or theirs? Do I have a right to broadcast video I took of U2 performing? For example, if I happened to capture video of U2 performing their free concert in NYC - could I share that video online? It's my video. U2 gave a free, "unannounced" concert. I just happened to be at the right place at the right time to get that video (i.e., this isn't a real concert setting). Do I now have the right to broadcast this video, or do I have to pay royalties (even if I'm not making any $$)? If the latter, at what point does this stop? Will I have to pay royalties to the architect (or his family) to take a picture in front of the White House? Do I have to pay royalties to U2 if I happen to meet Bono one day? There's gotta be a line.
Hence, I would have fought this letter and forced them to take me to court. I think this issue needs to be resolved once and for all.
However, if I had a website and received such a letter, I'd defy it and let the issue go to court! I think the negative publicity would backlash and cause a lot more problems for the label than it did for me (and believe me, I'd find ways to get my "little guy vs. the big guy" case out there).
However, as others said, where is the line to be drawn? Sharing copyrighted songs is clearly a no-no. I get that. But is sharing lyrics - lyrics that are readily available in the CD liner notes "illegal" too? If Matt or Joel make sure they write who wrote the lyrics, isn't this giving the proper and necessary credit? Is this still considered "stealing"? If Matt and Joel were getting $$ because of the lyrics, then this might make sense. But that's not true either (and the $12/year Joel charges is hardly because of the lyrics).
This "line" is becoming ambiguous. If I take a picture of U2, is it my picture or theirs? If I video U2 while they are out in the public, is it my video or theirs? Do I have a right to broadcast video I took of U2 performing? For example, if I happened to capture video of U2 performing their free concert in NYC - could I share that video online? It's my video. U2 gave a free, "unannounced" concert. I just happened to be at the right place at the right time to get that video (i.e., this isn't a real concert setting). Do I now have the right to broadcast this video, or do I have to pay royalties (even if I'm not making any $$)? If the latter, at what point does this stop? Will I have to pay royalties to the architect (or his family) to take a picture in front of the White House? Do I have to pay royalties to U2 if I happen to meet Bono one day? There's gotta be a line.
Hence, I would have fought this letter and forced them to take me to court. I think this issue needs to be resolved once and for all.
Last edited:
beli
Blue Crack Addict
I was just thinking the same thing. And is it only Universal doing this? Or other labels as well?
*Ally*
New Yorker
i understand where you're going with that last line of questioning- yes, a line definitely has to be drawn at some point... in a lot of cases, it's not entirely clear where the line is drawn.
however, the problem is that lyrics fall into the traditional subject matter of copyright law- that is, the written word is along the same lines as recorded music. Certainly the author of a novel could sue if his work was reproduced and distributed for free on the internet (without his authorization), so I'm not sure why song lyrics would be treated any differently if the case were taken to court. I guess it's a question of obtaining permission from the copyright owner, and paying a license fee (if necessary).
Perhaps a fair use argument could be made by the fan sites... Ugh, I gotta break out my Copyright books!
that being said, i think it SUCKS if U2 is behind this... Quite a way to alienate fans (much like Metallica did during the Napster lawsuit).
however, the problem is that lyrics fall into the traditional subject matter of copyright law- that is, the written word is along the same lines as recorded music. Certainly the author of a novel could sue if his work was reproduced and distributed for free on the internet (without his authorization), so I'm not sure why song lyrics would be treated any differently if the case were taken to court. I guess it's a question of obtaining permission from the copyright owner, and paying a license fee (if necessary).
Perhaps a fair use argument could be made by the fan sites... Ugh, I gotta break out my Copyright books!
that being said, i think it SUCKS if U2 is behind this... Quite a way to alienate fans (much like Metallica did during the Napster lawsuit).
*Ally*
New Yorker
anitram said:
I just did a quick Google search- it seems that Radiohead fan sites were hit with the same request in 2003. Going to try to see if I can find out how that was resolved....
Here's a snippet of what I found:
"June 3, 2003: Radiohead fan sites have been asked to remove their lyrics and tabs archives. Yesterday, two popular Radiohead fan sites, Green Plastic and At Ease, were sent this email by a legal representative of Warner Bros. Publications and Warner/Chappell Music asking them to take down any lyrics and tabs from their site. The letter claimed "their distribution constitutes an infringement of our rights under U.S. Copyright Law. More than that, the availability of these files have a direct impact on our ability to market and sell our musical arrangements and songbooks, and that adversely affects the royalties that we are able to generate and pay to the band." Those opposed have started a petition online. Who's right on this one?"
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I still think there needs to be a line.
Publishing an entire book online DOES hurt sales. The author of a book makes his/her money from the sales of said book. Publishing it online for free is the same thing as downloading songs. The artist gets no $$ for his/her work - and that isn't fair (and often detrimental to smaller artists).
However, in the case of the lyrics for songs, is this still completely true? Lyrics are just a part - sometimes a small part - of what constitutes a song. One can't get the melody or music from lyrics. Furthermore, I know of NO ONE that would buy a CD just for the lyrics.
Therefore, even if the issue is copyrighted, I think some redefining is in order. If Matt and Joel clearly gave credit for the songs, that would be a start. And I think obtaining permission to post the lyrics (without paying) should be enough.
But then, lawyers are greedy...
Publishing an entire book online DOES hurt sales. The author of a book makes his/her money from the sales of said book. Publishing it online for free is the same thing as downloading songs. The artist gets no $$ for his/her work - and that isn't fair (and often detrimental to smaller artists).
However, in the case of the lyrics for songs, is this still completely true? Lyrics are just a part - sometimes a small part - of what constitutes a song. One can't get the melody or music from lyrics. Furthermore, I know of NO ONE that would buy a CD just for the lyrics.
Therefore, even if the issue is copyrighted, I think some redefining is in order. If Matt and Joel clearly gave credit for the songs, that would be a start. And I think obtaining permission to post the lyrics (without paying) should be enough.
But then, lawyers are greedy...
*Ally*
New Yorker
wow!!! it looks like Radiohead fans PROTESTED this action, and the websites were granted FREE LICENSES to use the lyrics!!! i guess that means that someone should start an online petition, and we should start emailing Universal Publishing and Prinicple Management!!!!
HERE'S THE STORY:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/03-06/05.shtml
Thursday, June 5th, 2003
Radiohead Fansites Win Rights to Post Lyrics, Tabs
But are forced to remove unflattering photos of naked Warner/Chappell lawyers
Ryan Goldman reports:
It's been a big week for sneaks and cheats, from Slammin' Sammy Sosa corkin' it in Chicago to Martha Stewart gearing up to toss salad like never before if found guilty of insider trading (that's gonna be one exquisite prison cell). And let's not forget the FCC, who, in addition to not letting me be me on MTV, decided last Monday that the cocksuckers at Clear Channel and Viacom should actually be allowed to own a greater percentage of local media markets in order to "increase" "diversity." Huh?!
At least there's been one stroke cast for the little guy, thanks to Radiohead fans and webmasters around the world who recently stood up to the band's copyright administrator, Warner/Chappel Music. On Monday, June 2nd, Warner Bros. Publications, Inc.'s Director of Business Affairs sent an email to several Radiohead fansites-- including AtEaseWeb.com, Treefingers.com, LittleRowboat.net, and GreenPlastic.com-- asking that they cease posting lyrics and guitar tabs on their sites. The note read:
"We are writing to you on behalf of Warner Bros. Publications and Warner/Chappell Music. We are the worldwide copyright administrators for Radiohead. Rather than sending you an overblown 'legal' letter filled with threatening language, we would simply like to ask you to remove the LYRICS & SONG archive from your website; as their distribution constitutes an infringement of our rights under U.S. Copyright Law. More than that, the availability of these files have a direct impact on our ability to market and sell our musical arrangements and songbooks, and that adversely affects the royalties that we are able to generate and pay to the band. May we count on your cooperation?"
In response, hundreds of Radiohead fans flooded their favorite discussion boards and Warner's email and voicemail boxes with cries of "unfair!", "executive pig!", and "fucking stoodent!" Although neither the band nor their record company, Capitol/EMI, commented publicly about the situation, bassist Colin Greenwood recently spoke out on UK radio in support of fansites like AtEaseWeb.com that provide listener-scribed lyrics and tabs, and promote the band and related interests for free.
Moreover, Stanley Donwood, the artist behind Radiohead's album cover art commented to the press that "fansites do more for the band, record label, and the publishing company than is generally recognized." Maybe Pitchfork's publicist (wait, we do have a publicist, right???) could get in touch with a few of these artists who seem to have their heads screwed on properly. Perhaps, then, merciless label heads could learn a thing or two about kissing the ass that feeds them. (Love ya, Cosloy, baby!)
On June 4th, after a few Internet news sites covered the story and Radiohead fans began to circulate an online petition promising to never patronize Warner Publishing again, the Warner/Chappel representative sent the following e-mail to fansite administrators (although he did not admit to being a major dickhead or nursing a major crack addiction, as many fans had speculated):
"Radiohead's management have said that the situation regarding Warner Chappell has now been resolved. Warner Chappell will be issuing yearly free licenses from now on allowing all the fan websites to use lyrics as before. Letters will be going out detailing this in the next few days."
HERE'S THE STORY:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/news/03-06/05.shtml
Thursday, June 5th, 2003
Radiohead Fansites Win Rights to Post Lyrics, Tabs
But are forced to remove unflattering photos of naked Warner/Chappell lawyers
Ryan Goldman reports:
It's been a big week for sneaks and cheats, from Slammin' Sammy Sosa corkin' it in Chicago to Martha Stewart gearing up to toss salad like never before if found guilty of insider trading (that's gonna be one exquisite prison cell). And let's not forget the FCC, who, in addition to not letting me be me on MTV, decided last Monday that the cocksuckers at Clear Channel and Viacom should actually be allowed to own a greater percentage of local media markets in order to "increase" "diversity." Huh?!
At least there's been one stroke cast for the little guy, thanks to Radiohead fans and webmasters around the world who recently stood up to the band's copyright administrator, Warner/Chappel Music. On Monday, June 2nd, Warner Bros. Publications, Inc.'s Director of Business Affairs sent an email to several Radiohead fansites-- including AtEaseWeb.com, Treefingers.com, LittleRowboat.net, and GreenPlastic.com-- asking that they cease posting lyrics and guitar tabs on their sites. The note read:
"We are writing to you on behalf of Warner Bros. Publications and Warner/Chappell Music. We are the worldwide copyright administrators for Radiohead. Rather than sending you an overblown 'legal' letter filled with threatening language, we would simply like to ask you to remove the LYRICS & SONG archive from your website; as their distribution constitutes an infringement of our rights under U.S. Copyright Law. More than that, the availability of these files have a direct impact on our ability to market and sell our musical arrangements and songbooks, and that adversely affects the royalties that we are able to generate and pay to the band. May we count on your cooperation?"
In response, hundreds of Radiohead fans flooded their favorite discussion boards and Warner's email and voicemail boxes with cries of "unfair!", "executive pig!", and "fucking stoodent!" Although neither the band nor their record company, Capitol/EMI, commented publicly about the situation, bassist Colin Greenwood recently spoke out on UK radio in support of fansites like AtEaseWeb.com that provide listener-scribed lyrics and tabs, and promote the band and related interests for free.
Moreover, Stanley Donwood, the artist behind Radiohead's album cover art commented to the press that "fansites do more for the band, record label, and the publishing company than is generally recognized." Maybe Pitchfork's publicist (wait, we do have a publicist, right???) could get in touch with a few of these artists who seem to have their heads screwed on properly. Perhaps, then, merciless label heads could learn a thing or two about kissing the ass that feeds them. (Love ya, Cosloy, baby!)
On June 4th, after a few Internet news sites covered the story and Radiohead fans began to circulate an online petition promising to never patronize Warner Publishing again, the Warner/Chappel representative sent the following e-mail to fansite administrators (although he did not admit to being a major dickhead or nursing a major crack addiction, as many fans had speculated):
"Radiohead's management have said that the situation regarding Warner Chappell has now been resolved. Warner Chappell will be issuing yearly free licenses from now on allowing all the fan websites to use lyrics as before. Letters will be going out detailing this in the next few days."
mkjc
The Fly
Y'know there have been so many instances during my U2 fandom that I've felt that the band members are a bunch of phonies and are trying to milk fans for every penny. Then I hear the music and it makes me forget about how crummy they seem and then something else comes up and it's the same all over again.
With other bands you can separate the people from the music. With U2 I think people need to feel they are good people for the music to have its full meaning. Right now I feel like they are as much a bunch of pricks as that idiot Metallica drummer but U2 just seems a bit better at hiding behind their record company.
With other bands you can separate the people from the music. With U2 I think people need to feel they are good people for the music to have its full meaning. Right now I feel like they are as much a bunch of pricks as that idiot Metallica drummer but U2 just seems a bit better at hiding behind their record company.
*Ally*
New Yorker
doctorwho said:
Completely agree on the first point!
Agree for the most part on the second point... excluding myself from that category, of course!
(i find this latest action reprehensible, just like you!)
starsgoblue
Blue Crack Addict
What exactly is Universal worried that people are going to DO with lyrics?! Written words?! What does blocking access to lyrics accomplish?
I'm all down for writing a petition letter voicing the absurdity of this and collecting signatures and having one of the board mods here forwarding this to the appropriate people. Don't underestimate the power of a unified voice. This is really silly...
I'm all down for writing a petition letter voicing the absurdity of this and collecting signatures and having one of the board mods here forwarding this to the appropriate people. Don't underestimate the power of a unified voice. This is really silly...
Similar threads
