Song lyrics, links to copyrighted material, videos, audios etc.

[nurirgendwo]

I find that it's often difficult to find song lyric translations on the internet so I thought it might be helpful to post them here under the language the band sings in. I find that music can be a great teacher because it adds emotion to what you learn.

What do you think?

 

[volky]

Rules are very clear and specific regarding limitting this. Lyrics can be translated, but not all in the same thread.

 

[cherine]

Yes, the rules is clear: we can translate up to four lines of lyrics. In one thread or in ten threads. In other words: don't try to go around the rule by deviding the song into several threads of four lines

 

[TimLA]

The purpose of this question is (1) a request for information, and (2) depending on #1, a request to update the Rules.

Issue of text:
It is clearly stated in the rules, and understood my most, that no copywritten text is allowed to be copied into the forum database (the posts). Done - no issues.

In the rules, it doesn't make it clear that we are or are not allowed to link to copywritten text that resides on other servers.
Historically, I have linked to, and have seen many links to copywritten texts, and haven't seen any major problems in terms of the mods.

Issue of sound:
Our technology is such that we can now record our own voices or any other sounds we might want to, and it seems that we could reasonably attach them to a post (limited by size of course).

I have linked to outside .wav files (some bird chirps months ago) and they may or may not have been copywritten.
Clearly we should not attach a copywritten .wav file.
The rules don't make any statements about sound files, copywritten or otherwise.

Issue of video:
Analogous to sound, we can now easily video anything we'd like, and upload them attached (size limitations again).

But links to external video may be an issue. In IE, we've been told that we cannot link to any copywritten video.
Clearly, we should not attach any copywritten video.
Recently a few of us have been passing around via PM links to short video clips to help us with accents.
The rules don't make a clear statement in this regard.

My questions (rhetorical if you wish).

1. If there is a distinction between posted text and linked text, should there be a similar distinction with sound and video?

2. Should the rules be updated to speak to the issues of posted sound/video (in the WR database) vs linked sound/video (residing on another server)?

Just some thoughts.

 

[nurirgendwo]

Thanks for looking for a workaround Tim, but I think it's probably best that we avoid doing anything that would incite a copyright holder to take action against this forum.

Perhaps someday the world will wake up and realize how much we're hurting ourselves with copyrights, but until then I'm just happy that forums like this even exist.

It sounds like the correct answer is to exchange this type of information in private.

 

[lsp]

A member in IE wrote that another member had put together a fantastic series of accent examples from YouTube, but for copyright reasons couldn't post the links on WR; we would have to request the list by PM.

Is this a misunderstanding of WR's rule? What is the restriction on links, and why? Isn't is just like listing book titles and pages in a bibliography? I can understand not pasting the actual material itself into a post, but providing a link is the solution when it comes to copyrighted material like song lyrics- how can it also be the problem?

 

[Jana337]

Thanks for the input: We will post a meaningful reply once this lazy weekend is over. Please bear with us.

 

[Macunaíma]

If all websites that provide links to other websites which host material protected by copyright were to be liable for that breach of copyright, then we would be in a situation were virtually the whole web would be legally exposed to the charge of breach of copyright, including search engines like Google, Altavista, and so on, and we would be paralyzed, so to speak.

I don’t know what the implications of providing such links to protected content hosted elsewhere are under American law, but I have never heard of a website which has been sued for providing links to external content.

Taking YouTube as an example, the great majority of its content is either not protected by any copyright laws or is licensed. If a company or a person were to sue YouTube for publicizing protected material as well as all those who provide links to YouTube, then they would have to bring lawsuits against half the globe.

 

[Alxmrphi]

Personally, sometimes when I go to watch videos on YouTube it says "removed due to copyright violation"

Personally I think while YouTube hasn't removed the videos and it is seen as not a copyright infringement we should allow it here, especially if it helps a lot of people overcome language barriers.

It's YouTube that sweeps their site and remove copyrighted videos, why when they are linked to here should we have supplementary rules when the "host" site will allow them to be there.

I also agree completely with lsp's comment.

 

[Denis555]

I thoroughly agree with Macunaíma. I don't see any hard evidence that it would be a problem for us to provide links that the only scope is to help other people to learn foreign languages. That's pretty much like the search machines do. They're in no way hold accountable for the contents of any site...

 

[lsp]

So? Any official clarification about links?

Seems weird that the widepsread linking conventions that create the very dynamics of the internet, that enable blogs and search engines, that spawned del.icio.us, digg and other social networking sites whose sole purpose is sharing content via linking and common views of everyone's bookmarks, and is the entire content of some of the most popular sites on the web (popurls.com and sites like it have no content but links), that gave rise to tagging and thousands of RSS feeds - are causing so much deliberation for the WR team.

 

[mkellogg]

Hi everyone,

You've raised some good points and I am discussing them with the mods. We hope to have an update for you soon.

Mike

 

[mkellogg]

OK, after lengthy discussion with the moderators, we've come up with a policy.

For lyrics, the rules don't change. Sorry.

For audio and video:
These files are too difficult for the moderators to police, so:
- No audio or video files or links unless you get moderator approval ahead of time.
- All these threads need to say which moderator approved it.

So, let's try this, and hopefully it will not be too much of a burden on the moderators. Please only request approval of audio/video content that definitely has value for language learners here at the site. Also, please understand that some moderators are unable to visit many of the video sites because they connect from work and their employers forbid them from visiting such sites.

 

[TrentinaNE]

Some of the moderators would also ask forer@s to bear in mind that WRF is not an audio forum. WRF is a supplement to the WR dictionary. Threads are meant to be "timeless" so that they can help currently unknown users in the future. Threads that ask "please click on the video I uploaded and evaluate my pronunciation" are of extremely limited usefulness to other people. In addition, such links often expire after several days or weeks, leaving behind a virtually worthless thread. We do recognize the importance of listening and speaking for learners of languages. That does not mean that WRF is the proper venue for honing those skills.

Personally, I can't see many valid reasons to ever post an audio/video link in a WR thread.

Elisabetta

 

[Chaska Ñawi]

Addendum to Post 13: As of 2007, no links to YouTube files are allowed.