Warner/Chappell Issues Copyright Claim Over YouTube Video Deliberately Containing None Of Its Music

from the phantom-menace dept

Warner/Chappell's DMCA takedown arm is so damn proactive it can kill YouTube videos containing as little as 0% of its IP. A clip of Star Wars posted to YouTube sans overbearing John Williams soundtrack was targeted by Warner/Chappell, the owner of the rights to John Williams' Star Wars compositions.

Here's Jeremy Hsu of Wired with more details.

Fans of the YouTube channel Auralnauts, which posted the doctored Star Wars scene in 2014 as a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the emotional power of Williams’ score, loved it for that weirdness. But another set of viewers—those with the rights to the movie’s soundtrack—tuned in to these sounds of silence and heard something else: the ka-ching of a cash register.

That’s what the Auralnauts discovered earlier this summer when they received word that Warner/Chappell—the global music publishing arm of Warner Music Group—had filed a monetization claim on their “Star Wars Minus Williams” video through YouTube's Content ID System. That’s right: The copyright holder was claiming ownership of something that wasn’t there.

There are several theories to what went wrong here, although Warner engaging in kneejerk copyright claims with zero pre-claim vetting doesn't appear to be the frontrunner. First, a clip of music sounding a lot like a John Williams piece opens the video. But the piece is written and composed by Gustav Holt -- and is "copyright-free" according to Wired. The studio behind Star Wars had no objection to the clip, so it's not related to the visual content. That leaves Warner, possibly motivated by a faulty trigger in its Content ID auto-scanning. There's also a four-second loop of Williams' score appended to the end of the video, which may have pulled the Content ID trigger as well. But even if so, there are still problems with Warner and YouTube's Content ID system because the wrong piece of music was named in Warner's copyright claim.

[T]he Warner/Chappell claim incorrectly identified the “Star Wars Main Title” track as being present in the Auralnauts video. The single brief Williams excerpt used by the Auralnauts actually comes from a track titled “The Throne Room and End Title.”

Whatever the case is, the claim was obviously bogus. But it shows how fragile an ecosystem YouTube can be for those using it as a revenue stream. Even when wrong about pretty much everything, Warner was still able to siphon this video's profits from the Auralnauts. The Auralnauts challenged Warner -- which the article points out is something that happens in less than 1% of content claims -- but it didn't matter. In fact, it's unlikely anyone at Warner even bothered to read the challenge before issuing a rejection.

That leaves the Auralnauts in the difficult position of risking their entire channel to continue disputing Warner's obviously erroneous copyright claim.

[I]f a copyright claimant such as Warner/Chappell does not back down from its claim, the video is likely to get taken down from YouTube entirely—and in that event, the Auralnauts would also be penalized by the platform as a copyright scofflaw and barred from some privileges, such as linking to their own store. Three such takedowns and YouTube will delete your channel.

Despite the constant complaints about YouTube being some sort of infringement wonderland, the odds are stacked almost completely in favor of legacy industry copyright holders. Nothing happens to Warner if it continues to file bogus claims. But those targeted by claims are expected to just let the bogus claims happen because challenging claims is a great way to damage your own YouTube account.

Filed Under: audio, auralnauts, content id, copyright, john williams, monetization, star wars, youtube
Companies: warner/chappell, youtube

Documentary About Freeing Happy Birthday From Copyfraud Comes Out The Day After Happy Birthday Officially Declared Public Domain

from the happy-birthday dept

You may recall that last fall, a judge ruled that Warner/Chappell did not hold the copyright on the song "Happy Birthday," as the company had alleged for decades (and which it used to take in approximately $2 million in licenses per year). Of course, while many in the press immediately claimed the song was in the public domain, we noted that was not what the court actually said, and the song had actually become something of an orphan work, and theoretically, someone else could claim the copyright. Indeed, the heirs of Mildred and Patty Hill (who are often cited as the creators of the song) stepped up to claim the copyright. In December, all the parties agreed to settle the case with Warner agreeing to pay $14 million to go to some of the people who had falsely licensed the song. But, part of the settlement agreement was a stipulation that the song, finally, officially be declared in the public domain.

Last Thursday, the judge, George King, granted the settlement and officially declared Happy Birthday in the public domain: If you can't read that, it says:

The Court hereby declares that, as of the Final Settlement Date, the Song entitled Happy Birthday to You! will be in the public domain.

So now, after all this, it's finally officially in the public domain.

And, right on cue, Jenn Nelson, the filmmaker who started to make a documentary about the song and eventually decided to challenge the copyright status on it, has put out a great 15-minute documentary about the fight to free Happy Birthday from the bogus copyright claims of Warner/Chappell. Watch it here:

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, public domain
Companies: warner/chappell

Warner To Pay $14 Million In 'Happy Birthday' Settlement; Plaintiffs Ask For Declaration That Song Is In Public Domain

from the finally-put-all-this-litigious-BS-to-rest dept

A large settlement is on the way in the "Happy Birthday" lawsuit. Eriq Gardner of the The Hollywood Reporter has the news:

According to a court filing on Monday, music publisher Warner/Chappell will pay $14 million to end a lawsuit challenging its hold on the English language's most popular song, "Happy Birthday to You."

This is indeed a large payoff, one that indicates Warner/Chappell is not willing to test the merits of its case in front of a jury. The merits of the case, of course, are pretty much some random assertions with little documentation to back them up, but assertions that have, nonetheless, allowed Warner to obtain an estimated $50 million in licensing fees over the years. The $14 million Warner will pay is roughly in line with what it expected to make during the remaining years of the copyright term.

Warners was expecting to have "Happy Birthday" under copyright until 2030. An IP valuation expert retained by the plaintiffs estimated that the song was to reap between $14 million to $16.5 million in the next 15 years.

$4.62 million will be headed to the plaintiffs' attorneys with the rest being split among qualifying members of the class. But what's far more interesting is what the plaintiffs have asked the judge to approve.

The Settlement includes an express agreement by Defendants and the Intervenors to forego collecting any more fees for use of the Song, saving the Settlement Class millions of dollars. In addition, if approved by the Court, by declaring the Song to be in the public domain, the Settlement will end more than 80 years of uncertainty regarding the disputed copyright.

As it stands now, the ownership of the song is still up in the air. Warner doesn't own it but no definitive declaration has been made as to who holds the rights. Lots of people made the assumption that Warner's lack of ownership = public domain, but that's not what the court has determined to this point. If the court pursues this -- and the information compiled to this point points to this conclusion -- we could see "Happy Birthday" finally remanded to the public domain.

If the court decides this isn't going to be part of the agreement, the song will still reside in legal limbo. All anyone will know for sure is that Warner won't be coming after them for using the song. But the heirs of Patty and Jessica Hill -- the sisters who wrote the lyrics -- might. The charity run by the heirs has already entered a motion to intervene, claiming if Warner doesn't own, then it does. If the judge declares the song to belong to the public domain, that's $14-16 million the heirs won't be collecting. It might go the plaintiffs' way, considering the judge's decision suggested the Hill's abandoned the copyright years ago (and may not have actually written the lyrics, either). There's a substantial amount of money at stake here and it's highly unlikely the Hills' heirs will let it go without a fight -- even if it's nowhere near certain they have any claim to the copyright at all.

Filed Under: class action, copyright, happy birthday, public domain, settlement
Companies: good morning to you, warner/chappell

Charity Pops Up Claiming That It Holds The Copyright On Happy Birthday

from the zombie-copyright dept

It ain't over yet, folks. While many in the press went on and on back in September that the song "Happy Birthday" had been declared in the "public domain," as we pointed out, that's not what the judge said. He only said that the Summy Co. did not hold the copyright, because it seemed clear from a lawsuit back in the 1940s that the Hill Sisters (who sorta wrote the song -- long story) only assigned the rights to the music and not the lyrics -- and everyone agrees the music is now in the public domain. As we pointed out, this actually made the song an "orphan work", which created a new kind of mess, and as we noted, it was entirely possible that a third party could now make a claim to holding the copyright -- though we thought it was unlikely.

Oh, how naive of us.

While Warner/Chappell is asking the judge to give the copyright back to it, and the filmmakers who brought the suit are asking for the song to be declared definitively in the public domain, who should pop up out of nowhere... but... the heirs of the Hill Sisters, who are now claiming that if Warner/Chappell (via the Summy Co.) don't hold the copyright, then clearly the heirs of the Hill Sisters do:

Until this ruling, The Hill Foundation, Inc. (“Hill Foundation”) and the Association for Childhood Education International (“ACEI”) (collectively “Applicants”) believed the rights to the Song had been properly assigned to Summy Co. by the Song’s original author, Patty Hill, and her sister, Jessica Hill. Indeed, the Applicants have been accepting royalties from the Defendants for over twenty (20) years as the beneficiaries of Patty and Jessica Hill’s estates pursuant to what they believed was a valid assignment from the Hill Sisters to the Summy Co. As a result of the Court’s ruling, it is now likely that Applicants are the valid owners of the copyrights to the Song, and none of the current parties are able to adequately represent Applicants’ interests. For these reasons, Applicants respectfully request that this Motion to Intervene be granted, allowing them to protect their interests in the copyrights to the “Happy Birthday to You” lyrics.

Yup. The copyright on Happy Birthday is like a zombie that just keeps coming back again.

So, yeah, we warned that this was possible, but thought it wasn't likely -- but we should have known better. At least we didn't falsely report that the song had been declared in the public domain like most everyone else in the press. Of course, whether or not the heirs of the Hill Sisters have a legitimate claim here is another fairly large question -- and gets us right back to the question of whether or not the song really ought to be declared in the public domain. After the original ruling came out, Glenn Fleishman, over at Fast Company, was one of the only reporters who actually explored what arguments the Hill heirs might have:

The only likely group that has standing to pursue legal action if they demanded royalties and didn't receive them is the charity that became the ultimate beneficiary of the Hills, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). It has received a third of royalties collected by Warner-Chappell for decades, or roughly $750,000 a year in recent years. Should ACEI choose to attempt to enforce rights, sue Warner-Chappell, or carry out any other action, it has just two bases on which it could proceed. (Diane Whitehead, the executive director of ACEI, says, "We are not commenting at this time.")

Patty Hill could have created the lyrics, written them down in some form, and never authorized publication. Unpublished manuscripts retain protection for 70 years following the last author's death, even for works this old. Patty died in 1946, and thus in this scenario, copyright expires on January 1, 2017. (Mildred likely had nothing to do with the lyrics, but her earlier demise makes that irrelevant.)

However, the Hill sisters in the 1940s lawsuit maintained that they had made a transfer of rights in 1935. These are the rights that the judge said didn't exist. That ruling could leave the unpublished rights active. But Brauneis says, "We don't know that Patty Smith Hill ever wrote anything down." No manuscript has ever been mentioned nor presented across multiple trials and 125 years. This also requires that the Hills never "abandoned" the rights, a complicated concept, but Brauneis says his reading of the judge's ruling is that King leaned toward that interpretation.

There was actually ample discussion during the court case and in the judge's ruling suggesting that if it's true that the Hills at some point had the copyright on "Happy Birthday" (even though it's not at all clear that they even came up with the lyrics), that Patty Hill almost certainly abandoned the rights under the laws at the time. The matter is made much more complex by the interplay of a few different copyright regimes, including common law copyright found in various state laws at the time, but it strikes me that the heirs of the Hill Sisters have an uphill battle here. But, until the court actually declares the song in the public domain -- contrary to what some people will tell you -- you probably should not go around singing the song in public claiming that you're free to do so.

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, hill sisters, public domain
Companies: acei, association for childhood education international, hill foundation inc., warner/chappell

Happy Birthday Copyright Saga Not Over Yet: Warner Asks Judge To Reconsider, Filmmakers Push For Public Domain Ruling

from the not-over-yet dept

Last month, as you may recall, Judge George King said that Warner/Chappell did not hold a valid copyright in the lyrics to the song "Happy Birthday." Many news reports falsely claimed that he had declared the song to be in the public domain, but that's not what he said at all. As we noted, all this really did was turn the song into a giant "orphan work." And, of course, there's the simple fact that this is just a district court ruling that is likely to be appealed.

Recent filings have shown that both sides would like the case to continue, though in different ways. In a joint status report filed by both sides, the filmmakers (who want to use the song as the basis for their documentary) are asking the court to go through with the trial in order to make a final call on whether the song is really in the public domain:

Plaintiffs believe the Court should determine whether Happy Birthday is in the public domain together with its determination of Claims II and III of the Complaint (as to which there is no right to a jury trial). Plaintiffs believe that further proceedings on Claim One will not materially advance the ultimate disposition of the litigation.

And now, Warner/Chappell has basically asked the judge to reconsider the big ruling, or alternatively, to let them go straight to appeal on the issue of the validity of the copyright.

Warner/Chappell respectfully requests that the Court either reconsider the September 22, 2015 Memorandum and Order Re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 244) (the “Order”) or certify the Order for interlocutory appeal. Warner/Chappell makes this Motion with due recognition and appreciation for the substantial time and effort the Court invested in resolving the summary judgment motions. Warner/Chappell nevertheless believes that the Order satisfies the standards for reconsideration or certification.

The main argument by Warner is basically: "but, you're just supposed to assume the copyright is valid."

Courts uniformly apply the presumption of validity where errors in registration are non-fraudulent and immaterial. That rule applies where the registration omits or misstates an author, because that is an immaterial error.... That rule applies here. Registration E51990 identified as author Preston Ware Orem (author of the arrangement) but omitted the name of Patty Hill, who (the fact-finder could conclude, Order at 18-19) authored the “text” that the application claimed and that (the fact-finder could conclude, as shown) constituted the “familiar” lyrics of Happy Birthday. The registration claims copyright over both the “arrangement” and the “text,” (J.A. 48). Hence, the most that can be said is that the registration omits the name of all co-authors.

The Order effectively creates a rule that the omission of the name of additional co-authors deprived registration E51990 of any prima facie evidentiary presumption that Summy was authorized to publish and register the Happy Birthday lyrics. That was clear error under the applicable authorities. The omission of Patty’s name was immaterial: there is no basis in law, logic or evidence to believe the Copyright Office would have done anything different with the registration had her name been included. There is no evidence or even any contention by Plaintiffs that the omission was an attempt to defraud the Copyright Office. Even if Plaintiffs presented evidence that Summy was not authorized to publish and register the lyrics, the evidentiary effect of the prima facie showing would not disappear. The dispute, at most, would create a triable issue of fact.

But that's bogus. The wrong name on the application was only one issue, and a small one at that. The much bigger issue is the fact that it does not appear that the copyright registration in question really did apply to the lyrics. The Court focused mostly on a later legal dispute between Summy and the Hills, none of which would have made sense if the Hills really had transferred the copyright in the lyrics to Summy. Warner's response to that is to argue that the Court chose to ignore language in the agreement between the Hills and Summy. Accusing the court of ignoring language probably isn't going to make the court very happy, but I guess when you're desperate to keep a totally bogus $2 million+ revenue stream flowing, you gotta trying something. But, of course, the real idea here is to move it up to the appeals court:

If the Court does not reconsider the Order, Warner/Chappell respectfully requests that the Court certify it for interlocutory appeal...

In short: this is not over yet. Stay tuned.

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, public domain
Companies: warner/chappell

Warner Music Reprising The Role Of The Evil Slayer Of The Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit

from the there's-a-movie-plot-in-here-somewhere dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about an interesting lawsuit filed against Warner/Chappell Music, claiming that the song Happy Birthday is in the public domain, and Warner owes millions in fraudulently collected licenses. As you may or may not know, Warner has some rather dubious claims over the copyright to the song, and despite pretty thorough research showing that the song is almost certainly in the public domain, it's also the most profitable song in history, earning millions of dollars every year for Warner. So with this class action lawsuit filed against it, you didn't think that Warner was going to give up easily, did you?

Of course its initial response ignores pretty much all of the evidence concerning why there is no actual copyright on the song, but instead focuses on some technicalities to try to dismiss most of the non-copyright claims and then limit the potential liability by arguing that the statute of limitations only goes back three years. It does promise to have a more complete response to the rather compelling evidence that the entire copyright is completely bogus. However, it seems that even the arguments it's making to limit the lawsuit here are suspect. Oddly, Warner appears to be flipping the usual arguments on their head. Copyright preemption and the statute of limitations generally are used when it comes to infringement claims, rather than totally bogus claims of holding a copyright there is no copyright on (i.e., copyfraud). As such, it seems there's a decent argument that Warner's arguments shouldn't apply here. Preemption is built around the idea that federal copyright law preempts any attempt to do end runs around federal law by throwing in some questionable state copyright claims. But that's not the situation here. Here, the state claims are not about state copyright claims, but rather things like fraud and unfair competition that come about due to flat out lying about holding a copyright for something that's in the public domain. That's not trying to "preempt" federal copyright law, but rather to argue that lying about holding a copyright and shaking down all sorts of people for singing Happy Birthday is a form of fraud.

As for the statute of limitations claim, again the statute of limitations is generally focused on the time frame of some infringement, rather than the timeframe of non-infringement which people only later discovered was licensed under fraudulent claims of potential infringement. Also, the case law on statute of limitations claims in copyright is a complete mess at times, and it sometimes depends on when the plaintiff discovered the violation. So, while Warner may be able to knock out a few minor issues with this stance, it's certainly not a slam dunk, and they're still facing the main issue, which is the overwhelming and somewhat damning evidence that their entire claim to holding the copyright is a complete and total sham -- a sham used to shakedown films, TV programs, restaurants and venues for millions of dollars.

And, of course, there's just the general sentiment of the public, who seem to recognize, implicitly, that claiming a copyright on a song as simple and iconic as Happy Birthday (which has been around for well over a century, long after any copyright should be expired) is somewhere up there on the scale of evil with kicking kittens for sport.

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, preemption, public domain, statute of limitations
Companies: warner/chappell, warner/chappell music

Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain; Demands Warner Pay Back Millions Of License Fees

from the about-time dept

Happy Birthday remains the most profitable song ever. Every year, it is the song that earns the highest royalty rates, sent to Warner/Chappell Music (which makes millions per year from "licensing" the song). However, as we've been pointing out for years, the song is almost certainly in the public domain. Robert Brauneis did some fantastic work a few years ago laying out why the song's copyright clearly expired many years ago, even as Warner/Chappell pretends otherwise. You can read all the background, but there are a large number of problems with the copyright, including that the sisters who "wrote" the song, appear to have written neither the music, nor the lyrics. At best, they may have written a similar song called "Good Morning to All" in 1893, with the same basic melody, but there's evidence to suggest the melody itself predated the sisters. But, more importantly, the owner of the copyright (already questionable) failed to properly renew it in 1962, which would further establish that it's in the public domain.

The issue, as we've noted, is that it's just not cost effective for anyone to actually stand up and challenge Warner Music, who has strong financial incentive to pretend the copyright is still valid. Well, apparently, someone is pissed off enough to try. The creatively named Good Morning to You Productions, a documentary film company planning a film about the song Happy Birthday, has now filed a lawsuit concerning the copyright of Happy Birthday and is seeking to force Warner/Chappell to return the millions of dollars it has collected over the years. That's going to make this an interesting case.

More than 120 years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Happy Birthday to You is set was first published, defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, and with that copyright the exclusive right to authorize the song's reproduction, distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal copyright law. Defendant Warner/Chappell either has silenced those wishing to record or perform Happy Birthday to You or has extracted millions of dollars in unlawful licensing fees from those unwilling or unable to challenge its ownership claims.

Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to 1893, shows that the copyright to Happy Birthday to You, if there ever was a valid copyright to any part of the song expired no later than 1921 and that if defendant Warner/Chappell owns any rights to Happy Birthday to You, those rights are limited to the extremely narrow right to reproduce and distribute specific piano arrangements for the song published in 1935. Significantly, no court has ever adjudicated the validity or scope of the defendant's claimed interest in Happy Birthday to You, nor in the song's melody or lyrics, which are themselves independent works.

Plaintiff GMTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, seeks a declaration that Happy Birthday to You is dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as monetary damages and restitution of all the unlawful licensing fees that defendant Warner/Chappell improperly collected from GMTY and all other Class members.

The full lawsuit, embedded below, goes through a detailed history of the song and any possible copyright claims around it. It covers the basic history of "Good Morning to You," but also notes that the "happy birthday" lyrics appeared by 1901 at the latest, citing a January 1901 edition of Inland Educator and Indiana School Journal which describes children singing a song called "happy birthday to you." They also point to a 1907 book that uses a similar structure for a song called "good-bye to you" which also notes that you can sing "happy birthday to you" using the same music. In 1911, the full "lyrics" to Happy Birthday to You were published, with a notation that it's "sung to the same tune as 'Good Morning.'" There's much more in the history basically showing that the eventual copyright that Warner/Chappell holds is almost entirely unrelated to the song Happy Birthday to You.

The detail in the filing is impressive, and I can't wait to see how Warner/Chappell replies. As the filing notes, there are a variety of copyright claims around the song, but all are invalid or expired, and the very, very narrow copyright that Warner/Chappell might hold is not on the song itself. In other words, Warner/Chappell is almost certainly guilty of massive copyfraud -- perhaps the most massive in history -- in claiming a copyright it clearly has no right to.

If and to the extent that defendant Warner/Chappell relies upon the 1893, 1896, 1899, or 1907 copyrights for the melody of Good Morning to All, those copyrights expired or were forfeited as alleged herein.

As alleged above, the 1893 and 1896 copyrights to the original and revised versions of Song Stories for the Kindergarten, which contained the song Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy and accordingly expired in 1921 and 1924, respectively.

As alleged above, the 1899 copyright to Song Stories for the Sunday School, which contained Good Morning to All, and the 1907 copyright to Good Morning to All were not renewed by Summy Co. before its expiration in 1920 and accordingly expired in 1927 and 1935, respectively.

The 1893, 1896, 1899, and 1907 copyrights to Good Morning to All were forfeited by the republication of Good Morning to All in 1921 without proper notice of its original 1893 copyright.

The copyright to Good Morning to All expired in 1921 because the 1893 copyright to Song Stories for the Kindergarten was not properly renewed.

The piano arrangements for Happy Birthday to You published by Summy Co. 111 in 1935 (Reg. Nos. E51988 and E51990) were not eligible for federal copyright protection because those works did not contain original works of authorship, except to the extent of the piano arrangements themselves.

The 1934 and 1935 copyrights pertained only to the piano arrangements, not to the melody or lyrics of the song Happy Birthday to You.

The registration certificates for The Elementary Worker and His Work in 1912, Harvest in 1924, and Children's Praise and Worship in 1928, which did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to Happy Birthday to You to anyone, are prima facie evidence that the lyrics were not authored by the Hill Sisters.

And, now we await Warner/Chappell desperately trying to refute an awful lot of evidence that they've been engaging in millions of dollars worth of copyfraud year after year.

Filed Under: copyright, happy birthday, public domain
Companies: gmty, good morning to you productions, warner/chappell

Music Publishers Now Suing Lyrics Sites And Their Execs

from the and-on-it-goes dept

Last week, we noted that LyricWiki had been pressured to kill its API after music publishers threatened it with a lawsuit. In the comments to that post, someone insisted that there haven't been any lawsuits over lyrics online. If that's true, it just changed. Apparently the removal of the API wasn't enough, as the parent company of LyricWiki, Motive Force Web, along with LiveUniverse (the site run by former MySpace exec Brad Greenspan) have both been sued by a group of music publishers, who are insisting that such sites are unfairly "profiting on the backs of songwriters." I'd really like to see them prove that. These sites aren't profiting off the backs of songwriters, they're helping more people find and understand the lyrics of songs they like. That gives fans a closer connection to the music and more reason to buy things which will actually bring songwriters money. It's stunning how shortsighted and backwards the music publishers are being here.

Even worse, the music publishers didn't stop at just suing the two companies here. They also sued the individuals behind them personally. This is a trick that the record labels have been pulling lately as well. It's legalized bullying. These companies realize that by suing execs of these companies personally, it puts that much more pressure on those execs to settle, even though there's no basis whatsoever to go after those execs personally.

So, nice job Peermusic, Warner/Chappell, Bug Music and your lobbying buddies at the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), you've pissed off more music fans, made them less likely to find or be interested in music of the songwriters you represent, and have filed misguided lawsuits against individuals who dared to try to provide useful information to the public.

Filed Under: apis, copyright, lyrics, lyricwiki, music publishers
Companies: bug music, liveuniverse, motive force web, nmpa, peermusic, warner/chappell