[Article] Threat of Legal Action on Music Copyright

CaptSolo

Irish Times today: "Threat of Legal Action on Music Copyright"

ISPs have been put on notice of legal action if they do not implement a system which would cut off the broadband connections of people found repeatedly downloading music illegally. The letters seek the implementation of a “graduated response” to copyright infringement by the service providers customers.

Last month, Eircom settled a High Court action taken by the four major music labels forcing it to take measures to prevent the use of its networks for the illegal free downloading of music.

“I would hope that the others ISPs would follow suit,” said Dick Doyle, chief executive of the Irish Recorded Music Association, which represents the major labels. “They have seven days to respond or we will go down the legal route.”

J-blk

It'll be very interesting to see how other ISPs will react to all this, especially some of the ones that are part of larger parent companies outside Ireland (like UPC, BT, etc)...

Wetbench4

But don't they realise that fighting to control the internet is a losing battle. As soon as they implement something, someone just finds a new way around it. They are wasting they're time and money.
Also, how come all this didn't happen after napster was shutdown? P.S Napster was before i had the net so not really sure about the history of it, just know it got closed down.

paulm17781

Wetbench4 wrote: »

But don't they realise that fighting to control the internet is a losing battle. As soon as they implement something, someone just finds a new way around it. They are wasting they're time and money.
Also, how come all this didn't happen after napster was shutdown? P.S Napster was before i had the net so not really sure about the history of it, just know it got closed down.

It's almost as you say. Napster got shutdown then Kazaa, Limewire and a bunch others popped up. No idea what happened them junk may have killed them. Then torrents then rapidshare etc. There will be something new the whole time. If labels would only accept this and try to embrace it (and worry less about their profits). They're finding themselves increasingly irrelevant and doing what they can to stop their demise.

CaptSolo

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's almost as you say. Napster got shutdown then Kazaa, Limewire and a bunch others popped up. No idea what happened them junk may have killed them. Then torrents then rapidshare etc. There will be something new the whole time. If labels would only accept this and try to embrace it (and worry less about their profits). They're finding themselves increasingly irrelevant and doing what they can to stop their demise.

Like you are saying this won't stop people from using the internet and, if they wish so, sharing files. (Actually, seems like even _downloading_ a music file will be enough to disconnect you according to what record companies demand)

However, the music industry bullying ISPs into adopting user cut-off and ISPs agreeing to police their users is a bad trend for online rights in Ireland.

In other countries it seems to be at the level of governments deciding what is good for their people (and if internet access is a basic right that people should have) and how to balance copyright protection and freedom online. In Ireland it is private companies agreeing how people will use the Internet from now on.

acalmenvoy

J-blk wrote: »

It'll be very interesting to see how other ISPs will react to all this, especially some of the ones that are part of larger parent companies outside Ireland (like UPC, BT, etc)...

Thats wot I'm waiting to see, will they roll over and get tickled like Eircon...:o

He said he was also concerned about the reference in the letter to Eircom agreeing to block access to “the Pirate Bay websites or similar websites”. The Pirate Bay is a Swedish website which provides a directory of films, TV shows, music and other content that can be downloaded from third parties.

Huh? Any Eircom users having trouble with this?

NullZer0

Well... Im just going to keep downloading. Nuff said.
I don't really care because I think information / intellectual property should be free to share.

jor el

J-blk wrote: »

It'll be very interesting to see how other ISPs will react to all this, especially some of the ones that are part of larger parent companies outside Ireland (like UPC, BT, etc)...

eircom is owned by an Australian company, you don't get much farther out of Ireland than that.

It doesn't matter where the parent company is anyway. If they want to do business in Ireland, they adhere to Irish regulations. The threat of legal action in Irish courts cannot be ignored either. At the moment though, this is an agreement between IRMA and the ISP, no laws are being effected, created or changed.

iRock wrote: »

I don't really care because I think information / intellectual property should be free to share.

People are free to believe what they like, but that doesn't give you the right, or immunity.

Blocking some of the torrent sites will do nothing either, unless they block the protocol itself, this will all have little impact.

As paulm17781 said, this is just another effort by the record labels to prevent themselves from becoming obsolete, which they pretty much are.


<mod> As with the other thread, please don't link to torrent or warez sites, and don't go giving info on how to continue to download copyright material. It's dodgy enough discussing torrents, without giving out methods to continue infringing copyright while avoiding being caught.

NullZer0

jor el wrote: »

People are free to believe what they like, but that doesn't give you the right, or immunity.

Considering nobody has done anything (and nobody will) I would consider that immunity because last time I checked (and I could be wrong) but this is NOT a criminal offence.

My tracker hasn't been touched either.

Eitherway I wont be standing down.

The network is there to be used as originally intended... to serve and receive content. Wasn't that the underlying concept of ARPANET - the first packet switched network?

jor el

iRock wrote: »

Considering nobody has done anything (and nobody will) I would consider that immunity because last time I checked (and I could be wrong) but this is NOT a criminal offence.

Copyright infringement is a criminal offense, but it's generally not investigated on a small scale.

The last time IRMA went to the courts, they took action against all the ISPs, and succeeded in getting subscriber information. Several dozen people were issued with notice of legal action, though I believe all of them settled out of court.

If it stays as it is now, there should be no legal action against anyone. You will not be immune to your ISP taking whatever action they decide though.

CaptSolo

jor el wrote: »

Blocking some of the torrent sites will do nothing either, unless they block the protocol itself, this will all have little impact.

And the protocol itself is legal hence no reason to block it. As BBC News describes it with surprising clarity in "Pirate Bay joy at charge change":

BitTorrent is a legal application used by many file-sharers to swap content because of the fast and efficient way it distributes files.

No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers; instead the site hosts "torrent" links to TV, film and music files held on its users computers.

Regarding not linking to torrent sites in general (re. mod "please don't link to torrent"), you are "criminalising" torrent sites in general this way by implying their use can only be illegal. Links to legal torrents should not illegal, nor should be ways to continue downloading legal torrents in cases if ISP has blocked access to torrent sites.

BTW, the BBC News article mentioned above provides a direct link to ThePirateBay as one of the sides involved in the dispute. Yet I can see how boards.ie might not want any links to it (considering record labels here are very lawsuit-happy in achieving their goals).

J-blk

jor el wrote: »

eircom is owned by an Australian company, you don't get much farther out of Ireland than that.

It doesn't matter where the parent company is anyway. If they want to do business in Ireland, they adhere to Irish regulations.

Yes it is, but Eircom as a broadband provider only operates in the Republic and nowhere else - so anything they agree to, has no impact at all on any other ISP outside Ireland.

On the other hand, I would imagine that if UPC or BT or other companies that do operate as broadband providers in other countries made a similar arrangement as Eircom did, then it could become a precedent of what the music/movie industry bodies expect in the other territories that said ISP operates.

NullZer0

jor el wrote: »

Copyright infringement is a criminal offense, but it's generally not investigated on a small scale.

The last time IRMA went to the courts, they took action against all the ISPs, and succeeded in getting subscriber information. Several dozen people were issued with notice of legal action, though I believe all of them settled out of court.

If it stays as it is now, there should be no legal action against anyone. You will not be immune to your ISP taking whatever action they decide though.

Just incase im coming across wrong here, yup I know what you mean. How long can they fight the battle though thats the question?

jor el

iRock wrote: »

JHow long can they fight the battle though thats the question?

They're a dinosaur fighting extinction, and they have deep pockets. I can't see this ending any time soon. Let's not forget that this is something that's essentially been going on since tape-to-tape copying in the 80s.

Considering that something had to happen, along the lines of people being sued and fined, this is probably not the worst outcome.

paulm17781

jor el wrote: »

Let's not forget that this is something that's essentially been going on since tape-to-tape copying in the 80s.

If you haven't already, look into to some examples of this. It's funny how similar it was to what is happening today or how OTT some of the advertising was.

My favourite was the Dead Kennedy's released an album on tape with one side blank so you could record stuff on it too.

I've said most of this on other threads but the majority of stuff I've bought lately is independent and only found because of the internet. If labels would stop fleecing people (artists get approx. $1 from album sales) they may even see their revenues rise. I have no problem supporting a band. I have an issue supporting a large company who have no need to exist.

NullZer0

jor el wrote: »

They're a dinosaur fighting extinction, and they have deep pockets. I can't see this ending any time soon. Let's not forget that this is something that's essentially been going on since tape-to-tape copying in the 80s.

Considering that something had to happen, along the lines of people being sued and fined, this is probably not the worst outcome.

I think the next few days will tell a tale

paddyb125

I wouldn't have bought a lot of the music I own if it wasn't for p2p. A good example would be Bon Iver's album, I downloaded this and was so impressed that I purchased it the next day and then went on to buy his EP and go to one of his gigs...its not all bad

paulm17781

paddyb125 wrote: »

I wouldn't have bought a lot of the music I own if it wasn't for p2p. A good example would be Bon Iver's album, I downloaded this and was so impressed that I purchased it the next day and then went on to buy his EP and go to one of his gigs...its not all bad

That's it. It's the major acts (Britney et al) who suffer and this is where the labels interests are. There is so much good music out there that you would never hear if it weren't for word of mouth, tape copying, file sharing etc. Record labels don't care about this, they care about maximum revenue for their artists, which is their business, but they're more a constraint on the industry these days than anything. As more and more bigger acts (Radiohead, NIN and others I can't think of) turn to the internet, labels will only get more aggressive over P2P, sadly they should really look at a different model as their current one will lead to a shrink in business.

barnicles

As many pirates say,

don't wound what you can't kill.

paddyb125

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's the major acts (Britney et al) who suffer and this is where the labels interests are

I agree. I'm sure most artists don't mind people downloading their music illegally, they get most of their money from gigs and merchandising anyway. Most will just be glad to have their music 'out there' and have people recieving their message.

watty

paddyb125 wrote: »

I agree. I'm sure most artists don't mind people downloading their music illegally, they get most of their money from gigs and merchandising anyway. Most will just be glad to have their music 'out there' and have people recieving their message.

Rubbish!

barnicles

I tend to disagree.

Music labels should embrace P2P as it provides a cheap way of distribution, not attempt to destroy it.

jor el

Gemma Hayes said, on a radio interview, that she see's nothing wrong with illegal downloading, and anything that gets your music listened to cannot be a bad thing. Good for artists yes, not so good for the record companies. The day will come when the proper artists realise that they don't even need them, some already have.

The 10 minute pop sensations, like everyone on X-Factor, still need the record labels, and that will always be the case. This album and single sales market is extremely lucrative, and it's that which the industry wants to protect. They're not going to stop trying, even if it gets them no more than a symbolic victory and a few headlines.

paddyb125

watty wrote: »

Rubbish!

Explain please...

watty

But like ANY network you get disconnected for doing wrong.

Civil offences often have more costly penalties if you are sued than a criminal prosecution.

Originally Posted by iRock View Post
I don't really care because I think information / intellectual property should be free to share.

Strangely almost anyone that generates useful information and intellectual property thinks it is immoral and very like theft to use it with out they get compensated in some manner.

In every culture for the whole of recorded history people have belived this. Perhaps you have no logic for your belief except that others produce information / intellectual property and you don't so it suits you to try and justify just taking it.

It's wrong and the rights holders are morally and legally entitled to sue you for damages.
Criminal Theft of pay TV = €8,000 prosecution
Sued for enabling others to get Cable TV for free by provison of codes and setbox = €180,000 and all legal expenses.

Just because something is not a criminal offence does not mean it's legal. Breaking Civil law is breaking the law.

watty

jor el wrote: »

Gemma Hayes said, on a radio interview, that she see's nothing wrong with illegal downloading, and anything that gets your music listened to cannot be a bad thing.

Well that just shows she understands nothing about economics and thinks recording studios are free and all musicians want to do it as hobby.

That kind of attitude and comment is total rubbish.

techdiver

watty wrote: »

Rubbish!

Explain, why this is rubbish.

Take for example the way in which TV networks have embraced free downloading on the back of shows becoming cult hits due to the "illegal" downloading that was being engaged in. Battlestar Gallactica is an ideal example of a show that became successful based on the pilot being downloaded using torrents.

Word of mouth spread and it became a hugely successful show for the sci-fi channel. If the record companies leaned to think outside the box they could embrace this technology and use it for it's own benefit instead of declaring war. A war which they cannot possibly win.

Take a read of a balanced article:

http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html

Many of the models discussed can be applied to the music industry, such as intro advertising etc.

The solution is to embrace and utilise the tools available instead of trying to kill it.

watty

barnicles wrote: »

I tend to disagree.

Music labels should embrace P2P as it provides a cheap way of distribution, not attempt to destroy it.

BBC, Sky, C4 use P2P as a cheap distribution method.

P2P isn't the issue.

No-one is suggest to block it (you can't anyway).

There are two SEPARATE problems:

1) CDs are too expensive and Digital Distribution is poor.

2) Some people think that if it costs nothing to make a copy, then the copies should be free. They will use all the wrong things from (1) to justify their lack of morals.

paulm17781

watty wrote: »

Well that just shows she understands nothing about economics and thinks recording studios are free and all musicians want to do it as hobby.

Or that you know little about the modern music industry. Many, many artists are going the independent route these days. You can get studio equipment relatively cheap or use a laptop. Yes, I have friends who have released professional CDs made in their home studios.

It is record labels who are trying to stop this, most musicians, sensible ones anyway are embracing the internet as they know it is the future. Record labels need to protect their revenues, something that soon won't be needed.

AB03

watty wrote: »

Well that just shows she understands nothing about economics and thinks recording studios are free and all musicians want to do it as hobby.

That kind of attitude and comment is total rubbish.

Frankly mate, your comments are complete rubbish.

jor el

watty wrote: »

Well that just shows she understands nothing about economics and thinks recording studios are free and all musicians want to do it as hobby.

That kind of attitude and comment is total rubbish.

Well I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand economics, but I do think she had a point. Publicity in any form can help. True that illegal downloading probably costs record companies and artists more in potential revenue, than they actually make from it, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

watty

paulm17781 wrote: »

Or that you know little about the modern music industry. Many, many artists are going the independent route these days. You can get studio equipment relatively cheap or use a laptop. Yes, I have friends who have released professional CDs made in their home studios.

It is record labels who are trying to stop this, most musicians, sensible ones anyway are embracing the internet as they know it is the future. Record labels need to protect their revenues, something that soon won't be needed.

And unless they have a day job how do they buy the shopping, pay mortgage and spend money on all the other things the "freetards" spend their money on.

Where is the business model in taking music for free? It will kill decent music if allowed to go to its conclusion. You'll only get decent music as part of adverts.

NullZer0

I think what I dont understand is... why dont people realise that music should be out of love... not for money.

To me THAT is the problem.

NullZer0

watty wrote: »

business model

Thats what I dont get... the whole "business model".
Don't get my wrong I studied business for three years.. but music ... to me and the majority of REAL fans and/or musicians is about talent and enjoyment.

For others it is about image and $$$ ---> which is causing the problem.

paulm17781

watty wrote: »

And unless they have a day job how do they buy the shopping, pay mortgage and spend money on all the other things the "freetards" spend their money on.

Where is the business model in taking music for free? It will kill decent music if allowed to go to its conclusion. You'll only get decent music as part of adverts.

So you're telling me that the only good music is commercial music? I'm not sure I need continue if you're going to make absurd statements like that but I will.

Most of them DJ, play gigs, sell merchandise etc. There doesn't have to be a business model, people do this for enjoyment and try to make a living out of it. I know many people who give out free CDs at gigs and festivals because the publicity is good.

Look up Einsturzende Neubauten, they gave up on labels in 2002 having never received a penny from them yet they've been going since 79.

paddyb125

watty wrote: »

Well that just shows she understands nothing about economics and thinks recording studios are free and all musicians want to do it as hobby.

That kind of attitude and comment is total rubbish.

This all has nothing to do with the artists, its all about the record companies...i'm sure if you asked the artists themselves they wouldn't have a problem with it...I take it you buy all your music then?

AB03

watty wrote: »

And unless they have a day job how do they buy the shopping, pay mortgage and spend money on all the other things the "freetards" spend their money on.

Where is the business model in taking music for free? It will kill decent music if allowed to go to its conclusion. You'll only get decent music as part of adverts.

I'm also wondering why Im wasting my time replying to your nonsense but I suppose I'll just have to, after all, this is the internet. Couldn't let an argument die now could I?

Fact is, the really good music, the music with soul, the music which has had thousands of hours of rehearsal in dingy bedrooms and crappy ill-equipped studios, is done for the love of what the artist does. Not for money.

I deal with hundreds of small artists and labels, from all over europe and the simple reality is : not only do the overwhelming majority of these people do what they love to do for very little monetary return, they also utilise the same services which you're criticising to their full extent, in both an upload and download capacity!

REAL music has finally overcome the reign of commercialised rubbish which has plauged the human race for the past half a decade and the reason for this shift has been one thing : the internet.

Get with the times buddy.

Signed: An Artist

paddyb125

AB03 wrote: »

I'm also wondering why Im wasting my time replying to your nonsense but I suppose I'll just have to, after all, this is the internet. Couldn't let an argument die now could I?

Fact is, the really good music, the music with soul, the music which has had thousands of hours of rehearsal in dingy bedrooms and crappy ill-equipped studios, is done for the love of what the artist does. Not for money.

I deal with hundreds of small artists and labels, from all over europe and the simple reality is : not only do the overwhelming majority of these people do what they love to do for very little monetary return, they also utilise the same services which you're criticising to their full extent, in both an upload and download capacity!

REAL music has finally overcome the reign of commercialised rubbish which the plauged the human race for the past half a decade and the reason for this shift has been one thing : the internet.

Get with the times buddy.

Signed: An Artist

There we go...straight from the horse's mouth!

AB03

watty wrote: »

...and Digital Distribution is poor.

Also have to point this out,

Digital distribution has been the most effective method of releasing music to a worldwide audience ever created!


www.trackitdown.net
www.beatport.com

Seriously man, what are you talking about at all?!?

CaptSolo

AB03 wrote: »

I deal with hundreds of small artists and labels, from all over europe and the simple reality is : not only do the overwhelming majority of these people do what they love to do for very little monetary return, they also utilise the same services which you're criticising to their full extent, in both an upload and download capacity!

REAL music has finally overcome the reign of commercialised rubbish which the plauged the human race for the past half a decade and the reason for this shift has been one thing : the internet.

Get with the times buddy.

Signed: An Artist

Well said. The Internet is changing how people listen to music and hopefully we can find more independent music which is really worth listening to.

One thing I can not understand though. Why free downloads of licensed music are automatically associated with lost sales (and therefore must be responded to by cutting off Internet access)? Is there proof of it (apart from declining income of record companies which might as well be from outdates business models or from people getting fed up with them)?

At least in Canada the opposite might be true: Gov't Commissioned Study Finds P2P Downloaders Buy More Music

watty

AB03 wrote: »

Also have to point this out,

Digital distribution has been the most effective method of releasing music to a worldwide audience ever created!


www.trackitdown.net
www.beatport.com

Seriously man, what are you talking about at all?!?

I can't easily buy the music I want in uncompressed highest quality
I can't until recently buy it without DRM
It's MORE expensive than buying a CD in many cases.

Digital purchases should be free of DRM, uncompressed and about 1/4 to 1/10th the cost of Retail CDs. No distribution cost, no manufacturing cost.

I mean the Offical digital distribution is poor. I'm not interested in and have never done copyright infringing downloads.

I've downloaded free music that the Artist / Band has chosen to distribute for free. That's not what TPB is about. Usually it's highly compressed and in cases where I have been interested I've bought the album.

In surveys of REAL people, most people offered Digital Download want the "hard copy" too. Some US cable / Fibre companies when you buy the download put the DVD into the post. At the right price that's a good service for those not wanting to backup or leery of backups.
I recovered a HDD where PCB chips had exploded. The guy had maybe over €800 of iTunes on it. Most people ar'n't good at backups.

paddyb125

watty wrote: »

In surveys of REAL people

Who are these 'Real' people??

paulm17781

watty wrote: »

I can't easily buy the music I want in uncompressed highest quality
I can't until recently buy it without DRM
It's MORE expensive than buying a CD in many cases.

Digital purchases should be free of DRM, uncompressed and about 1/4 to 1/10th the cost of Retail CDs. No distribution cost, no manufacturing cost.

I mean the Offical digital distribution is poor. I'm not interested in and have never done copyright infringing downloads.

I've downloaded free music that the Artist / Band has chosen to distribute for free. That's not what TPB is about. Usually it's highly compressed and in cases where I have been interested I've bought the album.

In surveys of REAL people, most people offered Digital Download want the "hard copy" too. Some US cable / Fibre companies when you buy the download put the DVD into the post. At the right price that's a good service for those not wanting to backup or leery of backups.
I recovered a HDD where PCB chips had exploded. The guy had maybe over €800 of iTunes on it. Most people ar'n't good at backups.

Fascinating. :rolleyes:

What does this have to do with musicians wanting their music out there?

What does any of that have to do with the internet has helped promote independent music?

What does it have to do with you retracting your "rubbish" statement earlier?

AB03

If you bothered having a look around the 2 sites (of which there are literally thousands btw), you'd realise that beatport for example, offers a simple option to download a fully uncompressed WAV for an extra few cent, generally no more than €2 per track in total, all inclusive, sometimes less.

Now personally, I CANNOT tell the difference between a properly recorded 320kbps MP3 and an uncompressed WAV, and I have about 8-10 years experience creating and mastering audio.
Both I and almost every other DJ in the world now use 320kbps MP3s in clubs with sound systems worth 100s of thousands of euro.

So your argument, again, is rubbish really.

the_syco

Mostly, getting signed means one of two things:
1) Getting more gigs
2) Gettings your merch sold in more shops

A mate is in a band. He has done gigs in Dublin, Belfast, Galway, and will be doing there, and also in Waterford, France, etc, but if he got signed up by, say, Nuclear Blast, his band may be given the chance to go to more countries to do the gigs, and in bigger venues.

He gets a few thousand CD's made. He sells them at the gigs. He then gets a place he knows in Dublin to sell some of his CD's. If signed, the label would get his CD's sold in the more "mainstream" shops, such as Zavvi, etc.

Record companies need money in their pockets to promote bands before they make money for them.

CiaranC

watty wrote: »

But like ANY network you get disconnected for doing wrong.

Civil offences often have more costly penalties if you are sued than a criminal prosecution.


Strangely almost anyone that generates useful information and intellectual property thinks it is immoral and very like theft to use it with out they get compensated in some manner.

In every culture for the whole of recorded history people have belived this. Perhaps you have no logic for your belief except that others produce information / intellectual property and you don't so it suits you to try and justify just taking it.

It's wrong and the rights holders are morally and legally entitled to sue you for damages.

Do you think art will disappear as soon as there is no profit in it?

Yawn. Ive been an evil stealing pirate for 22 years, and Ill continue to be one. I dont care who thinks its morally wrong. I dont care who goes out of business. There is nothing anyone can do about me, and hundreds of millions like me.

AB03

the_syco wrote: »

Record companies need money in their pockets to promote bands before they make money for them.

I dont doubt that at all, but its fair to say that most of the independant labels have had to branch out into areas other than simply production assistance, distribution and marketing over the past 5 years.

A huge amount have become booking agents and promoters for their artists and helped push both sales of tracks + gigs through the same avenues, to much success from what Ive heard.

watty

AB03 wrote: »

If you bothered having a look around the 2 sites (of which there are literally thousands btw), you'd realise that beatport for example, offers a simple option to download a fully uncompressed WAV for an extra few cent, generally no more than €2 per track in total, all inclusive, sometimes less.

Now personally, I CANNOT tell the difference between a properly recorded 320kbps MP3 and an uncompressed WAV, and I have about 8-10 years experience creating and mastering audio.
Both I and almost every other DJ in the world now use 320kbps MP3s in clubs with sound systems worth 100s of thousands of euro.

So your argument, again, is rubbish really.

€2 per track for a download. Crazy money. I'd expect an Album for that by Download and to pay 20c per track.

I use 256kbp on my portable player. Pocket headphones & ambient noise or car playback.

I've done PA and recording since before I trained and worked in the BBC 30 years ago. There is some good DJ and Club systems. But a lot of the speakers are junk.

There are absolutely not 1000s of sites with decent catalogues. That is fantasy. I can buy music easier and cheaper on CD unless I want to infringe copyright.

AB03

I couldnt be bothered continuing this, you're obviously set in your ways.

watty

Heh

This is getting just like Usenet.

If the " it costs nothing to copy, so it should be free" brigade succeed, the real musicians can publish printed music and we can learn instruments and play it at home, just like up to the 19th century was like.

Those with no playing talent can flirt or turn the pages. It will be fun, just like a Jane Austin Novel.

Wait... People will scan it and publish it on web pages, the songsmith will starve.