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.

[Bernie]

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?

But it has been turned into a commodity by the music and publishing industry. They have split a part of the process off so they can make even more money. They are nickel and dime-ing the artistic contributions of the musicians and artists just like selling a television in parts instead as a whole. Enjoying art is not making it a commodity.

[paul]

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.

Well Quinny, let's examine you reasoning here my friend. How are lyrics compromised by sharing them, more specifically writing them electronically or the old fashioned way? Surely with that logic one takes the same risk when it is sung. In fact the risk is greater because the song lyrics may be misheard and sung incorrectly by the listener.
What does it mean to give art away? Art in my view at its core is about sharing your work with an audience. If it's meant solely for the artist then I consider it nothing more than self-indulgence. That's OK but not in the tradition of what art does.

The medical example fails entirely in my view. As I said above, most of the things being offered by various businesses aren't necessities. Medical procedures are among the few exceptions. I think we could all agree that we could do without songs written by someone. Surgery on the other hand is a different issue. 8)

[needlefingers]

It is ironic that the pop, hip-hop and dance music of the last 15 years was created by sampling the music and lyrics of past hits.

My opinion is this; EVERYBODY DOWNLOADS AND FOR DIFFERENT REASONS!

I have, on tape and other recordings, the admission from producers, artists and DJ’s, that they too have downloaded music in the past to help in their current projects.

Some just needed to hear how something sounded originally. Some do it to add to their sets or DJ gigs. Others did it because it has not been released or is unavailable on CD’s.

A few years ago, I was working with a dance artist who wanted all her albums converted to CD’s. She was neither the writer nor publisher of the material she sang. But the industry was not re-issuing her albums on CD and she needed them for several reasons.

One day, her ex-husband(a music producer and owner of the studio) and I got into a discussion about downloading. He was against it, and wanting to set an example for their 19 year old son, who was away at college, asked me how was he to “raise him” on this issue.

After I railed into him about why he is asking a gay man how to raise his 19 year old, I lifted one of the CD discs we had made for his ex-wife and boldly told him to say “See. Mommy and Daddy do it too”. It shut him up.


They did not come after us when we shared our records with friends. They did not come after us when we got tape recorders and taped our songs off the radio or from our friends’ phonograph. They did not come after us when we got VCR’s and taped our music from MTV or Top of the Pop’s. They do not go after e-bay for selling records clearly labeled “NOT FOR SALE PROMO ONLY”. They do not go after second hand record shops that re-sale their music.

Sony practically invented the CD and they also sell computers that burn CD’s. They have opened their own Pandora’s Box.


Furthermore, large corporations like Sony and Disney, through lobbying and campaign contributions, have further eroded the copyright laws in the last 60+ years. Copyright in the US is now Life + 75 years with still no royalty paid to the artist whose recording is used.

The original framers of the Constitution were very careful when it came to laying out rules for copyrights and patents. They came from a country where the monarchy owned their properties. They were also capitalists who wanted to keep the money for themselves

Still, they also understood that for the good of commerce and the expansion and progression of ideas and inventions, patents and copyrights had to have an expiration date. But where the patent laws have changed little, copyright laws are always being re-written. Money has bought out the integrity of today’s Congress.


I am tired of paying “Import” prices for American artists. The industry forces us to buy the full CD and most times without the mix I want or need. Why am I paying more for a remix of Kelly Clarkson or Mary J. Blige? The European market is more conditioned for CD single sales, but I have to wait 3-6 months for it to show up on the shelves of Tower Records or Virgin.

And Kelly Clarkson is a good example of the shell game the industry plays with the consumer. Most of the songs on that CD were remixed even for radio. This means, when you buy it, it does not sound the same. They did this with the last Justin Timberlake album.


I agree with Bernie. It is the exposure that produces sales. I may have to download to hear it or play it today. But I do go out and buy it if I like it or need it. And if it is the version I am looking for.

My logic may be twisted, but I feel the music industry has brought this on itself. And I don’t think it is downloading that is the base of their sales slump. The product isn’t always up to par either.

I refuse to pay for, or play, Paris Hilton.

[QUINNY]

You guys are missing the main point. That is: An artist (in this case, writer of a song's lyrics) should have the absolute authority to decide how his or her material is used by third parties. You either believe in intellectual property rights or you don't. You guys obviously don't. What part of the argument don't you understand?

Music is a fairly unique artform, in that it has to be 'broadcast' ( i.e. multiple copies made or literally broadcast via radio) in order for the artists/producers to make any money from it. Could you really envisage a world where just one original of a track was made and sold for mega bucks? The real problems have arisen since digital came into being, because a perfect copy (legally or illegally sourced) can be made. Imagine if you could download a perfect copy of The Mona Lisa via the internet for free. The original would lose it value overnight and living artists would be less inclined to paint anything original. Well, that's more or less what's happened with music, because guys like you don't understand the finer points and seem to be hell-bent on destroying that which you supposedly love.:D :D :D

Look at things from a different angle too. Until the advent of digital media, the record companies had been very good at finding new talent and bringing the very best musicians to the awreness of the general public. The profits in relation to turnover, were actually small to middling, so contary to your assumptions, the major record labels especially, have never been rip-off merchants. If you were a record company, wouldn't you try to stop all attempts to wrestle your successful business from you, especially from a group of freeloaders and especially in an age when bootlegging (in all its forms) is soooo easy?

For goodness sake, forget about your own penny pinching attitudes and look at the wider picture!!!

[Nano]

Ah Q... You may be supporting a good cause here (even if I don't share it) but you're using the wrong arguments. There is no such thing as a perfect copy. Certainly an mp3 download isn't one, even if I package it in a CD with a xerox of the original cover. I wouldn't fool anyone with that. It has zero value in the market. And you guys have talked here for years about how inferior an mp3 version is to the original audio. But moreso, what you call the "original" record is also a copy, licensed for use by the owner of the master tapes (usually, the record company).

The thing is, some people do care for audio quality and pay for it. Others are less worried and prefer an inferior version (mp3, CD copy, tape copy, whatever) for much less money (used for Internet connection, virgin CD or tape, etc.). Others don't care for that either and just listen to the radio (which they bought) for free.

There are zillions of good copies of la Mona Lisa in the world. In my country, the syrup brand "La Gioconda" offers hundreds of them printed in their product in every supermarket. And most people doesn't feel the need to go to Paris to watch the original. And they have the same right to say "yes, I know la Mona Lisa" than anyone.

There's an excellent article about the original vs. copy thing by German philosopher Walter Benjamin, it's called "The work of art in the era of its technical reproduction". Don't worry, this guy died in 1940 and he had no idea of what mp3 would be. But he's very deep and insightful in this matter.

Another thing: before the XX century (and that cover some 4.000 years) there were no record companies nor ways to duplicate a music performance. Yet there were musicians and they made a living. Maybe they were not superstars, but I don't think that's a necessity.

[paul]

I appreciate what you're saying Q but in the real world there is no absolute control over anything. Pick any example you want. Do car companies, dvd manufacturers, or even ketchup companies have absolute say over how the end user uses that particulart product?
Some of these artist live in la-la land. If they have issues with their work being exploited then don't expose it to the public. At that point I don't see it as art because IMHO artist share there view of the world with others. Often times "others" come away with different interpretations. Isn't that the part of the beauty of art!
Nano, I share your thoughts on mp3. What garbage. CD is about 90% there particularly since engineers understand better how to exploit that format now. DVD and SACD as well as hi quality vinyl is still better. At this stage in my life though I refuse to repurchase everything I have in DVD or SACD. I still have my turntable though 8-)

[remicks]

*****:icon_biggrin:


Here they are !
The top secret lyrics to:

I DON'T WANNA LOSE YOUR LOVE

Dinner’s ready
And the wine is chilled
My baby’s comin’ over
Well, I know just how I feel

Because I don’t wanna lose your love
Think how it feels, baby
It’s getting harder to conceal, yeah
Do I fit in the life you’ve been livin’, boy {Baby, say I do}
Do you feel all the love I’ve been givin’ you

Oh, when you come home, do you care to see me
Things ain’t the way they used to be, baby
But I can’t believe that you don’t wanna leave
You’ve got to say just what’s the reason
Don’t take my love for granted, boy
And then turn around and do me dirty, whoa

I don’t wanna lose your love (I don’t wanna)
I don’t wanna lose your love (Ooh...ooh...)
Don’t wanna lose your love (Don’t wanna lose you)
I don’t wanna lose your love (Oh, come on)

Come on and say that you will (Just say you will)
I’ll do the best to fulfill (I will be there)
I don’t wanna lose your love
I don’t wanna lose your love

I think you need my love
You can’t defeat my love (My love)
You won’t believe my love (Don’t wanna lose you)
I don’t wanna lose your love

Hey, hey, yeah....hey, hey, well
You just don’t know
Oh...whoa...what you do to me, well
I wanna ask you somethin’
Hey, baby, hey, baby
I think we can make it, how ‘bout you
But don’t just send me away to be alone {Away}
I don’t think I can take it

‘Cause if you tell me to go {Oh, I will}
I will leave you {For sure}, oh
Don’t ask me to stay and do me wrong, yeah
Do I fit in the life you’ve been livin’, boy {Baby, say I do}
Do you feel all my love I’ve been givin’ you

Whoa, I want the love you hung amongst the wall
Now you’re the one, you never call, baby
But I don’t think you really wanna leave me {No, no}
I think you’re confused {No, no} and you don’t want to believe it
You can’t take love and just walk away
With the guilt that you carry, you’ll be back some day, whoa

I don’t wanna lose your love (I don’t wanna)
I don’t wanna lose your love (Mmm...hmm...)
Don’t wanna lose your love (Don’t wanna lose you)
I don’t wanna lose your love (Well)

Come on and say that you will
I’ll do the best to fulfill
I don’t wanna lose your love
I don’t wanna lose your love

I don’t wanna lose your love
Don’t wanna lose your love
Don’t wanna lose your love
I don’t wanna lose your love

Yeah...hey
Oh, yeah, mmm
You just don’t know
No, what you do to me, well, well
Ooh, ooh, well

I don’t wanna lose, lose your love
I don’t wanna lose, lose your love
I don’t wanna lose, lose your love
I don’t wanna lose, lose your love

I don’t wanna lose, lose your love
I don’t wanna lose, lose your love


*****

[needlefingers]

Aging rockers set to lose rights on early hits

By Mike Collett-White
Fri Dec 1, 9:34 AM ET



When finance minister Gordon Brown stands up to make his pre-budget speech next week, aging rockers Cliff Richard, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones might do well to tune in.

Not normally the stuff of rock'n'roll, Wednesday's address looks set to reject music industry calls for an extension of copyright on sound recordings to 95 years from 50, meaning veteran acts' early hits could soon be free for all to use.

The government commissioned Andrew Gowers to review all areas of intellectual property law, including challenges thrown up by the consumption of music and film over the Internet, and he is seen as unlikely to recommend a copyright extension.

His conclusions are expected to be published next week as part of the chancellor's annual pre-budget report.

Official sources say the Labour government appears more swayed by the right of consumers to access music cheaply, or, if it is 50 years old, essentially for free, than by old performers seeking protection.

Commentators also point out that the 50-year sound recording cover is standard in most European countries, and Britain would be unlikely to want to stand alone by extending it.

Richard has led the way in highlighting the issue, with his first hit "Move It!," from 1958, perilously close to the cut off point for copyright protection.

More significantly for record labels who do a lucrative trade in remastering and repackaging old hits, The Beatles catalog could be up for grabs from 2012 and 2013, including early hits like "Love Me Do" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand."


Then come The Shadows and The Rolling Stones, to name but a few.

In 2005, Elvis Presley's record label re-released his British No. 1 hits over consecutive weeks to cash in ahead of the deadline.

MUSIC "STOPS BEING YOURS"

David Arnold, who composed the scores for four James Bond movies, argues that the 50-year copyright limit discriminates against performers and record companies.

"I don't think anyone involved in music's creation can understand how, after a certain amount of time, it stops being yours and starts being everyone else's," he told Reuters.

"We need to do the groundwork so there is an element of protection for artists and record companies who take a risk with an artist," he added. "That's if we value the entertainment industry and value music in our society."

Richard has said he would like to see copyright protection for singers and record labels extended, pointing out that songwriters enjoy protection for their lifetime plus 70 years.

In the United States, copyright protection is 95 years.

Industry bodies like the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) argue that the failure to extend protection on old hits will jeopardise investment in future talent.


Emma Pike, chief executive of the British Music Rights group, sides with the BPI, but says the Gowers Review raises broader issues for music and film in the 21st century.

"Sales of legitimate music downloads are growing exponentially ... but the overall picture globally is still one of decline," she said.

"There is a statistic that 80 percent (of Internet music download traffic) is illegal and 20 percent legal, so we have an enormous amount of work to do and the music industry simply can't do it on its own."

[BrunoRepublic]

BTW, the above is only relevant to the UK.

[needlefingers]

But the article does point out that 50 years is the standard in most European countries.