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.
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.
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...
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.
In this example, there is a tangible personal gain from violating the intellectual property rights of somebody else.
It ain't theft, true, but it ain't a legal business model.
The outcome of your hypothesis, legally speaking, is that the person thinking they're winning is going to lose their fucking house as an accessory. Game, set, match IP infringement.
Do it if you want but don't ignore that pretty simple fact.
Or have you perhaps also lead a less than pure life (as viewed by the RIAA)?
But, none of the copyright claims on that were valid so, how is that a monstrous act, even in an absolutist view of adherence to legal copyrights?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...
It is kinda insane that it took until 2015, though. I still somehow doubt that people who get on a high horse about lyrics sites and IP waited until someone with deep pockets was able to fend off a lawsuit in 2015 to sing the song, though.
Yes, I have downloaded music in the past but I knew it was wrong and never used mental gymnastics to justify it. I simply did it because I didn't want to pay. Haven't done it in about a decade though.
It's absolutely crucial to understand that law and "right" from an ethical standpoint are not necessarily the same, though that is the ideal state to strive for.
"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.
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.