Banned from the internet : Those disturbing lyrics from :

[remicks]

*****


The Emotions :
I DON'T WANNA LOSE YOUR LOVE

It makes no sense to me :roll:
..... but you try doing a search for the lyrics and see what you get !!!



*****

[paul]

Now aint that some ****! You're right remicks. :o
I don't get it. I mean, if you really wanted you could sit down and listen real carefully...ah, **** that. I'm gonna look for that album in my collection and see if they're on the liner or something. Very strange! :roll:

[BrunoRepublic]

The lyrics were likely removed not due to their content, but by a legal threat from the copyright owner(s).

Many people aren't aware of this, but from a legal perspective, posting the lyrics to a song is no different from posting the song itself. This dates back to the era before recordings, when sheet music was the main way in which music was distributed. Song lyrics are subject to the same copyright protections that the music is. This is why when you buy an album that includes the lyrics in the liner notes, you often see "lyrics reprinted with permission", even when the songs were written by the performer, because they have to get permission from their publisher. Likewise, many albums that are mostly original material but include one or two covers often cannot include the lyrics to the cover tune. Radiohead said it best when they put something like "lyrics reprinted by kind permission, even though we wrote them" on the liner notes to OK Computer.

Years ago, there was a big lyrics site (I think it was lyrics.ch) that got shut down for the same reason. The vast majority of copyright owners aren't concerned about any potential copyright threat from lyric sites, but a handful are, and exercise their rights accordingly.

[paul]

Holy **** Graham. So even if I find the album has the lyrics, I can't post 'em :-o For goodness sakes! Ya know what, I hope the industry continues to implode :icon_twisted:

[remicks]

*****

Ya know what, I hope the industry continues to implode :icon_twisted:

I agree .... Screw these " its all about the money" music whores .
Let that oh so superiorly and oh so preciously written song rot in unsung music hell .

A SMART lyricist …. instead of insolating their work under the control of these greedy publishers with their “ hands off, its mine “ attitude .... would instead get down on their creative knees and thank their lucky stars any time anyone bothered to show even the slightest interest in their dried up old tune .:razz::razz::razz::razz::razz:

I thought writing a song was like presenting a gift to the world . Screw you, selfish writers of I DON'T WANNA LOSE YOUR LOVE !! You wanna be left alone ? You got it !!! :evil::evil::evil:



And as far as not losing the love …..Guess what ?
Ya did !!!!:razz::razz::razz:


*****

[Bernie]

What Graham wrote above is unfortunately the truth. This is why I can't allow members to post entire lyrics on the site or upload audio samples.

In any other field or business one would kill for this kind of publicity where the consumer is happily recommending their product. If the music business model prevailed in other areas of our lives we would see Heinz ketchup suing all the restaurants for having their ketchup on every table.

[Nano]

Well said, Bernie!

remicks, take into consideration sometimes (AFAIK, most times) the guys who sue are not the original writers, but those who posess the copyright. Many times the artist sells the publishing rights for money, or loses them over an agreement/trial with other bandmates, producers, etc. Northern Songs belonged to Lennon-McCartney in the Sixties, but after that it went a very complicated route and ended in public sale in the Eighties (that's how Paul lost the rights to his Beatles songs to Michael Jackson).

The Rolling Stones had a similar problem. Allen Klein manages the copyright of their old songs via ABKCO, and when he sued Richard Ashcroft for plagiarism over a sample in "Bittersweet Symphony" (The Verve) and won, he collected all the royalties, even when the song is credited to "Jagger-Richards". Ain't life great? :roll:

[Mixmachine]

In any other field or business one would kill for this kind of publicity where the consumer is happily recommending their product. If the music business model prevailed in other areas of our lives we would see Heinz ketchup suing all the restaurants for having their ketchup on every table.

Hmmm, but Bernie IMO your analogy doesn't quite work :icon_mrgreen:

I'm sure that Heinz would object to the placing of Ketchup bottles in every restaurant if someone was obtaining for free the supply out the factory's back door.

I'm with the Company's (or private citizens) right to protect their products, property, intellectual rights and /or Brand names, once you start to dilute this principle your are heading down a slippery road with only disaster as the final result, take a look at what Piracy is doing to many industries (electronics, Toys, Garment, entertainment etc) across South America, Russia , China and other countries, legitimate buyers ultimately pay the price for piracy while the rest are saddled with inferior bootleg copies usually produced by criminal organizations that in turn put out of business legitimate local retailers, (they pay taxes to improve government criminals don’t!) among the worse offenders you have institutionalized totalitarian regimes confiscating properties, factories and appropriating long established Brand Names, no soon after that they come after your own home...

[Bernie]

Hmmm, but Bernie IMO your analogy doesn't quite work :icon_mrgreen:

I'm sure that Heinz would object to the placing of Ketchup bottles in every restaurant if someone was obtaining for free the supply out the factory's back door.

Mix,

Your point is well taken, but doesn't really apply since we are talking about lyrics and not MP3 or file sharing.

The publishers and record labels whine, but they could and should make all of these lyrics easily obtainable. They complain about the lyrics sites, but they sit on all this material and could easily put up a lyric site of their own while at the same time selling more music and related products. They wouldn't even have to charge for it and still make money from the advertising and cross promotion of CDs, DVDs...

I worked at a music store and sheet music had a huge mark-up, but few people bought it and most of it was returned. The web is a perfect outlet for them and they don't get it.

[ol'skinflint]

Now aint that some ****! You're right remicks. :o
I don't get it. I mean, if you really wanted you could sit down and listen real carefully...ah, **** that. I'm gonna look for that album in my collection and see if they're on the liner or something. Very strange! :roll:

so, what's fascinating about lyrics like "Dinner's ready and the wine is chilled..."

[ol'skinflint]

The lyrics were likely removed not due to their content, but by a legal threat from the copyright owner(s).

Many people aren't aware of this, but from a legal perspective, posting the lyrics to a song is no different from posting the song itself. This dates back to the era before recordings, when sheet music was the main way in which music was distributed. Song lyrics are subject to the same copyright protections that the music is. This is why when you buy an album that includes the lyrics in the liner notes, you often see "lyrics reprinted with permission", even when the songs were written by the performer, because they have to get permission from their publisher. Likewise, many albums that are mostly original material but include one or two covers often cannot include the lyrics to the cover tune. Radiohead said it best when they put something like "lyrics reprinted by kind permission, even though we wrote them" on the liner notes to OK Computer.

Years ago, there was a big lyrics site (I think it was lyrics.ch) that got shut down for the same reason. The vast majority of copyright owners aren't concerned about any potential copyright threat from lyric sites, but a handful are, and exercise their rights accordingly.

My favorite lyricists (Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder) seem justifyably proud of their lyrics and often print them. Years ago, the Eagles tried to SELL the lyrics to one of their albums on a mail in deal. I lost a lot of respect for the Eagles then, and the remaining respect was lost when I saw their ticket prices. That is ONE money hungry band.

[remicks]

*****

I've looked up many song lyrics .... and this is the first time I've come across this access denied BS .

So what is it about I DON'T WANNA LOSE YOUR LOVE that makes it so much more special in the eyes of its publishers .....than the many other songs whose lyrics are found on the internet ??



******

I agree with Mixmachine ...that a talent like Paul Jabara should get every penny possible for his creative accomplishmnets .

As for all the after-the-fact pimpers of his and other past people's music, who suck off from those creations to pay for their yachts , pools , and hair transplants .... ...... screw those "rights" controlling , but with no-talent-of-their-own music leeches . ................. :p


*****

[Nano]

Back in 1985, when the PMRC ladies were in full swing, Frank Zappa made an incredible speech before the U.S. Congress (you can Google it, it's for free :-P ). He offered as an option (to the idea of "porn" warning stickers for parents in album covers) that the lyrics of all songs be printed in a separate sheet, visible between the plastic envelope and the back cover. But, he warned, to do that the labels (or somebody) would have to pay all the publishing houses involved. This could be big money with albums including cover versions of pop classics, or with compilation albums including the original versions of said classics.

In the end, Congress and industry agreed it was easier to put the "Parental Advisory" sticker to any record remotely "dangerous".

[paul]

So as soon as a record company releases lyrics, we all turn commie, every other word used will be comrade, and jesus christ, the sky is falling too.

Anyway, I think it's stupid for the music industry. This may be penny wise but it's pound foolish. By putting the lyrics out there and let's say a guy like me starts to sing it (botch it more likely) at a karaoke, it'll be like free advertising for that song. Some people might actually go out and buy a song they never heard or saw before I sung it. No, they wouldn't buy my version singing it cause I suck. Even if I had Luther's voice, the companies could sue me and collect royalties and still make mo' money.
Other businesses often hand out thousands and perhaps millions of free samples all the time to get the exposure. Let's face it, most of that stuff including music is not a need. If we didn't know about it we wouldn't care. By giving free samples and in this case lyrics, you make it desirable for some to buy that product.

PS - This site by the way is an excellent example for what I'm talking about. The level of discussions about various songs sparks interest in buying the songs.
Bernie, I hope BMG is mailing you a check once a month. :grin:

[QUINNY]

What you guys don't realise is that the song lyrics are put together through an artistic thought process and art is something that shouldn't be compromised or made into a commodity. Once it's been given away, its artistic merit is totally compromised, n'est-ce pas?

If you ever need a hip replacement....ask the surgeon to do it for free and see what he or she says. He or she could certainly afford to do the odd few for free.