"Google licenses lyrics content from music publishers (the rightful owner of the lyrics) and from LyricFind. To accuse them of any wrongdoing is extremely misleading." "The lyrics in question were provided to Google by LyricFind, as was confirmed to WSJ prior to publication," LyricFind wrote in its statement.
Genius based its allegations in part on lyrics for a song from New York-based rapper Desiigner. Since the lyrics for Desiigner's hit song "Panda" were hard to understand, Genius asked the rapper himself for help. If anything, the conflict goes to show how messy the world of music metadata can be. Those same lyrics, transcribed by Desiigner, later allegedly showed up on Google.com, suggesting that Google may have lifted the lyrics from Genius.com.
https://twitter.com/jherskowitz/status/1140638739292741632″ />
"We take data quality and creator rights very seriously, and hold our licensing partners accountable to the terms of our agreement," the company added in a statement. "We're investigating this issue with our data partners and if we find that partners are not upholding good practices we will end our agreements." In response to the report, Google denied any scraping on its part, and instead said that it was getting song lyrics from a variety of legal sources.
"Genius claims, and the WSJ repeated, that there are 100 lyrics from Genius in our database. "The scale of Genius’ claims is minuscule and clearly not systemic." To put this into perspective, our database currently contains nearly 1.5 million lyrics," it wrote.
To prove its point, Genius proceeded to alter lyrics hosted on its site with a variety of different apostrophes. The Journal reported that Genius had been complaining to Google about the alleged theft for some time, with Google consistently denying the allegations.
Many publishers simply don't have the right lyrics either, which could prompt some of them to take the matter into their own hands, suggested music tech veteran J Herskowitz in a tweet Monday morning: As convincing as this chain of events may sound, the incident also points to another possible scenario.
The company also aimed to put Genius' claims in perspective: LyricFind said that it had been contacted by Genius in the past, and offered to remove any content that the company took issue with — but that Genius didn't respond to this offer.
However, a lyrics data provider at the center of the controversy claimed on Monday that those allegations were without merit. Lyrics annotation service Genius.com has accused Google of scraping its site and stealing its content, the Wall Street Journal reported this weekend.
The message in question: "Red handed." Soon after, the modified lyrics, complete with the hidden message, showed up on Google.com, according to Genius. The company alternated between apostrophe styles in a frequency that allowed it to embed a secret morse code message into the text.
One of the sources singled out in reports on the controversy is LyricFind, a Canada-based lyric licensing service that works with 4,000 publishers, including all of the majors. On Monday, LyricFind published a lengthy response to the Wall Street Journal story, accusing the paper of repeating inaccurate claims by Genius.

"If you had five Baby Facebooks, they would still have an incentive to steal" or otherwise use their scale to thwart rivals, Singer says.
That would likely require a new federal law (or new interpretation of existing law) to bar the type of anticompetitive behavior the major tech players have been accused of. antitrust laws are geared around price harms to consumers, whereas the likes of Google and Facebook offer their services for free. One of the issues is that current U.S.
European regulators ruled that parts of agreements between Google and Android partners violated European law, including requiring manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and Chrome browser app as a condition for licensing Google’s Play Store app. antitrust probes would be a fine like the $5 billion penalty the European Commission imposed last year, according to Citigroup analyst Mark May. For Google, the worst-case scenario of the U.S. antitrust case against Facebook is “even less clear than it is for Alphabet,” May added. Meanwhile, a U.S.
Saber-rattling from D.C. The growing backlash against Silicon Valley giants, who are viewed as harming competitors and wielding inordinate power over a key sector of the economy, could become part of the conversation in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. about curbing the power of tech titans Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple has gotten louder.
Court of Appeals rejected the idea that Microsoft should be broken up as the remedy for anticompetitive behavior. government filed an antitrust suit — joined by 20 states — against Microsoft, seeking to break it up. The complaint centered on the software giant's bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer together. The DOJ won an initial ruling approving splitting Microsoft into two entities (an OS company and an applications company). It's worth noting that two decades ago, the U.S. The Justice Department later reached a settlement with Microsoft, which among other concessions agreed to share APIs with third parties. But the D.C.
"Breakup remedies are radical and they frequently have unintended consequences," says Prof. Herb Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania and the Wharton School. "Judges aren’t good at breaking up companies."
Crane, senior professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. For a "let's break up Big Tech" antitrust movement to happen, as Sen. Daniel A. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has proposed, "there would have to be a sea change first in how the antitrust enforcement agencies think about antitrust and then in how the courts think about it," says Prof.
For now, expect business as usual among the big technology companies, according to Wall Street analysts.
"Unwarranted, concentrated economic power in the hands of a few is dangerous to democracy — especially when digital platforms control content," Pelosi wrote. "The era of self-regulation is over."
Even if government regulators decide they have credible grounds to pursue antitrust cases against Big Tech, it will be at least five years — perhaps longer — before anything concrete happens as they wind through the court system, according to legal experts and industry analysts. But could that lead to the U.S. breaking up one or more of the tech companies? It's a long shot.
The prospect of major regulatory action against tech companies spooked investors — shares of Alphabet, Google's parent company, fell 6% on Monday — but tech stocks rebounded Tuesday amid a broader market uptick.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined the fray Tuesday in a pair of tweets, citing the House Judiciary's launch of "a long overdue investigation to determine if dominant digital platforms have harmed Americans in the marketplace & the voting booth." Her statements come a week after she lashed out at Facebook when the company refused to remove a doctored video.
action against Google would come after "significant business practice scrutiny by the EU that has resulted in limited impact on Google's ad business," BofA Merrill Lynch analyst Justin Post wrote in a note Monday. He also pointed out that an FTC probe into Google ended in 2013 "without further action into whether Google used its dominant web search position to disadvantage rivals." Any U.S.
Historically, antitrust law considers consumer harms in terms of pricing. can use to rein in the big tech firms. But if, for example, Amazon or Facebook steal an idea from a competitor or acquire a startup before it can become a rival, "that doesn't result in higher prices — it’s some future innovation harm," says Hal Singer, fellow at George Washington Institute Public Policy. Going down the antitrust path could take up to a decade to reach a resolution, according to Singer. The question is what legal grounds the U.S.
But for now, the idea that Facebook, Google, Apple or Amazon will be broken up remains just rhetoric.” /> It may be becoming fashionable to speak out against Big Tech.
The chorus for the American government to "do something" about Big Tech has included Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes (who hasn't worked at Facebook in over a decade) urging the U.S. government to find a way to break up the social giant to rein in its "unprecedented and un-American power."
But the current political climate is somewhat different, Post acknowledged, and he believes that if the DOJ moves ahead against Google that "would likely embolden critics of Facebook, Amazon and other tech giants as well" heading into the 2020 election year.
regulators to do something, or at least make it look like they're trying. The DOJ is looking into Google and Apple and the FTC is examining Facebook and Amazon, according to a Wall Street Journal report. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in the past few weeks have divvied up their oversight of Big Tech with potential antitrust probes in the offing, per multiple reports. Political pressure is building on U.S.
Even so, it's not clear that breaking up tech giants would actually work to fix the problem, for example, by requiring Facebook to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp or making Google divest YouTube, says Singer. Congress might get there faster through legislation, akin to the Glass-Steagall provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, which forced banks to separate commercial and investment banking.

“I would like it if we could have a moment of silence so that every single one of us could reflect on our love and respect for her and everything that she did in her life," Swift continued. "So if we could please cut the lights, we’ll have a moment of silence for Aretha.”
"She did so much for music; she did so much for women's rights; she did so much for civil rights," Swift said in comments that we taped by fans and posted on social media. Words could never ever describe how many things she did in her lifetime that made the world a better place, and this is her home." "She was one of those people where no matter what you said, no matter what glowing, positive thing you said about her, it would be an understatement.


Swift's words come just days before Franklin's funeral on Friday, which is scheduled to feature performances by Stevie Wonder, Jennifer Hudson, Faith Hill, and Ariana Grande.” />
But it's worth noting that the R&B icon sang happy birthday to Swift at the Women in Music Awards later that year. During an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2014, when asked about various modern pop stars, Franklin simply commented on Swift's "great gowns, beautiful gowns" rather than reflect on her musical talents. In the past, Swift and Franklin have been linked by a less-friendly moment.
Taylor Swift held a moment of silence in remembrance of the late Aretha Franklin at her Tuesday night concert in Detroit — Franklin's hometown.

After Greenberg's departure, Epix said it was developing a standalone subscription VOD service. Since its 2009 launch, Epix has been available on multiple platforms and devices — but so far it has been available only to subscribers of participating pay-TV providers.
Walmart has declined to comment on its SVOD streaming plans. Greenberg didn't respond to requests for comment.
According to that report, Walmart is mulling an $8-per-month price point to undercut the entry-level pricing of Netflix and Amazon's video products. Walmart's exploration of an SVOD service was first reported last week by The Information.
But its chances of success will obviously hinge on the nitty-gritty details of how much it costs — and what customers will be able to watch. It's not clear at this point what programming a Walmart SVOD package might include.
According to the Journal, Walmart's SVOD service would be separate from Vudu; in addition, the company is still doing due diligence on the initiative and expects to make a go/no-go decision by late summer or early fall, the newspaper reported. Previously, sources told Variety that Walmart was looking to launch the pay-streaming service through its Vudu division and targeting a rollout in the fourth quarter of 2018.
Walmart acquired Vudu in 2010, and the service competes with the likes of Apple’s iTunes, Amazon Video and Google Play. Vudu currently offers 150,00 titles to buy or rent, while its free, ad-supported streaming service, called Movies On Us, includes 5,000 movies and TV shows.” />
Walmart has turned to cable-industry veteran Mark Greenberg to help develop a low-cost subscription video-streaming service, sources confirmed to Variety.
Greenberg exited Epix last fall after nearly a decade running the premium TV venture as CEO, which he helped launch. Epix is now owned by MGM, which bought out its two other founding partners — Lionsgate and Paramount Pictures — in April 2017.
He also has worked for HBO and Showtime. Prior to co-founding Epix, Greenberg ran a management and consulting company whose clients included Comcast, Participant Media and Lionsgate.
Industry sources confirmed a Wall Street Journal report that Greenberg is working with Walmart to scope out a potential subscription VOD service, with a lineup of content and a price point designed to appeal to Walmart's core base of consumers in "Middle America." The retailing giant is planning to jump into the subscription-video space, angling to compete with Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.
For Walmart, Greenberg represents an exec who's well-versed in the challenges of running a subscription-video service. He was part of the founding team that created the strategic blueprint for Epix, which was the first cable TV network designed to span multiple platforms: linear TV, VOD and digital devices.

His ascend at the company coincided with Netflix's first major PR debacle, the proposed split of its DVD business into a separate company called Quickster — which Netflix quickly walked back on. Friedland had joined Netflix as VP of communications in 2011, and became the company's chief communications officer a year later.
Netflix chief communications officer Jonathan Friedland is leaving the company following a controversy over insensitive remarks. Friedland announced the departure on Twitter Friday, saying that he felt awful about "the distress this lapse caused."


On Friday, Netflix's stock closed at $411.09. This week, Netflix's stock price surpassed $400 for the first time in the company's history. It was down $4.35, or around 1% in after-hours trading following the news of Friedland's departure.” /> Friedland's departure comes at a time of success for Netflix, which has been beating market expectations over the past quarters, and now has over 125 million subscribers worldwide.
Before joining Netflix, Friedland had served in communications roles for Disney. He was a journalist by trade before crossing over to work in comms, and worked for a decade for the Wall Street Journal, where he served as the paper's Los Angeles bureau chief.
There is no word on any possible replacement for Friedland. A Netflix spokesperson referred Variety to Friedland's Twitter statement, saying that the company didn't have anything further to add.