I’ve supported myself for the past decade with my side project(indiehackers.com)
indiehackers.com
I’ve supported myself for the past decade with my side project
https://www.indiehackers.com/@yvo/how-ive-lived-the-4-hour-work-week-for-a-decade
82 comments
Great story. I worked as your competitor with metrolyrics about 5 years ago. It was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. I think you put the correct amount of effort in, added some value and moved on nicely. Much kudos
I feel like starting a business with a massive theft of other people's intellectual property isn't a great model to follow.
No different to starting a company that lets people get cheaper rides while avoiding taxi restrictions or one that lets you find cheaper places to stay by avoiding hotel and zoning laws.
A lot of successful startups and internet businesses are done on a 'break an awkward law first, ask for permission later' kind of way. There's a reason a common startup mantra is 'it's better to beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission'.
And yes, YouTube is another obvious example here. Wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular if it was so strict on copyright right from the start.
A lot of successful startups and internet businesses are done on a 'break an awkward law first, ask for permission later' kind of way. There's a reason a common startup mantra is 'it's better to beg for forgiveness rather than ask permission'.
And yes, YouTube is another obvious example here. Wouldn't have been anywhere near as popular if it was so strict on copyright right from the start.
I think republishing someone else's work without permission them is morally wrong, but offering a taxi ride is only wrong insofar as it is illegal. One is a good law protecting content creators, the other is crony capitalism. So I think there is a difference.
The taxi market differs between countries, but in those markets where the regulations are there to protect the riders and drivers, ie minimum wages, proper tax handling, health insurance, passenger's insurance, etc, Uber is morality wrong in just the same way.
It's hard to bootstrap some models without a lot of money. Even with money, it's not obvious there is a market until people prove it via piracy.
For example, Crunchyroll is the least terrible anime streaming site and they got started by stealing anime that was "stolen" by folks that wanted to put decent subtitles on shows from Japan.
They eventually hired some of the folks they were stealing subtitles from, and got licensing deals from the content owners once they had revenue. But they never would have been able to negotiate a deal if they'd have asked for permission instead of forgiveness.
It's entirely possible to imagine that another streaming company (Netflix, Hulu) would have looked at all of the great quality subtitles being produced by non-content owners and figured out that there was revenue to be had. But I fail to see how they would have seen the demand if people hadn't been stealing and making good subtitles to begin with, and producing huge numbers of stolen downloads/streams.
For example, Crunchyroll is the least terrible anime streaming site and they got started by stealing anime that was "stolen" by folks that wanted to put decent subtitles on shows from Japan.
They eventually hired some of the folks they were stealing subtitles from, and got licensing deals from the content owners once they had revenue. But they never would have been able to negotiate a deal if they'd have asked for permission instead of forgiveness.
It's entirely possible to imagine that another streaming company (Netflix, Hulu) would have looked at all of the great quality subtitles being produced by non-content owners and figured out that there was revenue to be had. But I fail to see how they would have seen the demand if people hadn't been stealing and making good subtitles to begin with, and producing huge numbers of stolen downloads/streams.
I guess a lot could be said these days about the profitability and future prospects of Spotify, but their music catalogue in the early days beta was at least partially sourced from Piratebay and other torrent sites. [1]
Considering the deals they later made with the record companies, it does indeed seem like asking for forgiveness rather than permission could be the best strategy, as was noted by some of the comments in this thread.
[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
Considering the deals they later made with the record companies, it does indeed seem like asking for forgiveness rather than permission could be the best strategy, as was noted by some of the comments in this thread.
[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files...
Negotiating with the record labels from the get-go before even having a popular site sounds like it would have never resulted in a profitable company. The record labels don't give two shits about whether their licensing deals are equitable. They likely would have tried to gouge the small startup, possibly preventing it from ever growing.
I agree but it worked for Spotify according this version of the company's history.
http://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-fi...
>I feel like starting a business with a massive theft of other people's intellectual property isn't a great model to follow.
This is the basis of essentially every single huge successful consumer application/website over the past decade. There's really only 3 ways to make money on the internet it seems. IP theft, advertisement, and selling physical goods.
This is the basis of essentially every single huge successful consumer application/website over the past decade. There's really only 3 ways to make money on the internet it seems. IP theft, advertisement, and selling physical goods.
4. selling to those who enable 1-3.
Well back in 2004 there was no way to get an actual license. Most lyrics sites claimed to be safe under DMCA or "Educational Use".
Only up until the publishers stood up for themselves, the industry shifted slowly.
paulcole(1)
See YouTube, Google. I'm guessing you're right. :-)
It sounds like all the competitors were in the same boat at the time. Likely the issue is that no one had a license to the lyrics and the ever slow to catch up record labels weren't doing it either. So it created this space that asked for filling, even if illegally.
Serious question: is this theft of IP? I know if a songwriter writes a song, you need to license it in order to perform it for profit, but are the actual lyrics intellectual property?
Excerpt from https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ50.pdf :
"The copyright law of the United States provides for copyright protection in “musical works, including any accompanying words,” that are fixed in some tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(2). Musical works include both original compositions and original arrangements or other new versions of earlier compositions to which new copyrightable authorship has been added.
"The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies, to prepare derivative works, to sell or distribute copies, and to perform the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights through the author. note: Copyright in a musical work includes the right to make and distribute the first sound recording. Although others are permitted to make subsequent sound recordings, they must compensate the copyright owner of the musical work under the compulsory licensing provision of the law (17 U.S.C. §115). For more information, see Circular 73, Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.
"Copyright Protection Is Automatic
"Under the present copyright law, which became effective January 1, 1978, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. A work is created when it is “fixed” or embodied in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection under the law.
"The copyright law of the United States provides for copyright protection in “musical works, including any accompanying words,” that are fixed in some tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(2). Musical works include both original compositions and original arrangements or other new versions of earlier compositions to which new copyrightable authorship has been added.
"The owner of copyright in a work has the exclusive right to make copies, to prepare derivative works, to sell or distribute copies, and to perform the work publicly. Anyone else wishing to use the work in these ways must have the permission of the author or someone who has derived rights through the author. note: Copyright in a musical work includes the right to make and distribute the first sound recording. Although others are permitted to make subsequent sound recordings, they must compensate the copyright owner of the musical work under the compulsory licensing provision of the law (17 U.S.C. §115). For more information, see Circular 73, Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.
"Copyright Protection Is Automatic
"Under the present copyright law, which became effective January 1, 1978, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. A work is created when it is “fixed” or embodied in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection under the law.
Lyrics are copyrighted. Musical scores may be separately copyrighted. Individual performances or recordings of music and lyrics together may also be separately copyrighted.
Typically, the latter is pursued by recording companies, because that is the IP they own or exclusively license. The rest is rarely handled by the individual rights-holders, as they usually just let ASCAP or a similar organization handle the business and litigation end, and just cash the royalty checks.
Licensing the lyrics should be a whole lot cheaper than the music or a specific recording. So it would not cost a lyrics site as much to be fully legit as it would for a music streaming site. Likewise, it may cost less to license a cover band to perform something than to license the recording made of it by a famous group, if the song was not actually written by them. This is why ABC's Dancing With the Stars uses so many covers, but obviously still uses recognizable recordings where Disney already has or can cheaply obtain a performance license.
Typically, the latter is pursued by recording companies, because that is the IP they own or exclusively license. The rest is rarely handled by the individual rights-holders, as they usually just let ASCAP or a similar organization handle the business and litigation end, and just cash the royalty checks.
Licensing the lyrics should be a whole lot cheaper than the music or a specific recording. So it would not cost a lyrics site as much to be fully legit as it would for a music streaming site. Likewise, it may cost less to license a cover band to perform something than to license the recording made of it by a famous group, if the song was not actually written by them. This is why ABC's Dancing With the Stars uses so many covers, but obviously still uses recognizable recordings where Disney already has or can cheaply obtain a performance license.
> Likewise, it may cost less to license a cover band to perform something than to license the recording made of it by a famous group, if the song was not actually written by them.
You could even pay the original artist to perform it. The recording is what's licensed, not all performances by that artist. On Spotify I've seen quite a few older artists re-recording their old hits, presumably because they get more money if they themselves own the license to their own cover.
You could even pay the original artist to perform it. The recording is what's licensed, not all performances by that artist. On Spotify I've seen quite a few older artists re-recording their old hits, presumably because they get more money if they themselves own the license to their own cover.
I'm not sure how it wouldn't be. How would this differ from publishing an author's novel on your website? Or more closely related, a poet's work?
That makes sense, I didn't think of it like that. I was thinking that since the value is in the performance, that that's where the protection would be.
"Property" is becoming an obsolete concept. Read Paul Graham's essay 'on property', he explained it very well.
Most very successful businesses had to bend the rules a bit to get where they are at.
Most very successful businesses are government monopolies or oligopolies, and are the result of the state continuously interfering on their behalf over a period of decades or more. Sometimes multiple times. At least here in France.
The really big companies are France Telecom/Orange, GDF/Suez, Total, BNP Paribas, Sanofi, EDF and Societe Generale, maybe Renault. All fit this pattern. None are the result of innovation, the closest would be Sanofi and Renault up until WW1.
I have not yet been to another country where it was different.
The really big companies are France Telecom/Orange, GDF/Suez, Total, BNP Paribas, Sanofi, EDF and Societe Generale, maybe Renault. All fit this pattern. None are the result of innovation, the closest would be Sanofi and Renault up until WW1.
I have not yet been to another country where it was different.
yep, and as a pleb I don't know if I should hold onto my ethics or say fuck it and follow in their footsteps.
Hi, OP here. Happy to answer any specific question...
Why does https://www.directlyrics.com have a TITLE of "Azlyrics" and an H1 of "Azlyrics" but http://www.azlyrics.com seems to be an entirely unrelated web site? The latter is typically what I end up at when I search for song lyrics if I click one of the first few links (though if I want to read some amusing analysis, usually there is a Genius.com link a few below).
Yes, good eye. A great example of continuious testing SEO opportunities.
What if Google would start ranking directlyrics on specific 'azlyrics' queries? I haven't seen it happen yet, but if it worked... expect it to be reverted next week.
What if Google would start ranking directlyrics on specific 'azlyrics' queries? I haven't seen it happen yet, but if it worked... expect it to be reverted next week.
Right, so you're using one of your competitors' names quite prominently on your own site? And, er, you think that's ok?
It's AZLyrics's responsibility to police their own trademarks, so it's okay, unless they say it is not in a C&D letter.
So it's legally okay, as far as we know.
Still a dick move, though. It's not okay in my opinion. But I'm not the one who may gain or lose thousands of dollars by deciding whether or not to do it, either. I can't say for certain whether it would be okay or not from outside my comfy judgment armchair.
So it's legally okay, as far as we know.
Still a dick move, though. It's not okay in my opinion. But I'm not the one who may gain or lose thousands of dollars by deciding whether or not to do it, either. I can't say for certain whether it would be okay or not from outside my comfy judgment armchair.
It's blatant, intentional trademark infringement for direct commercial gain. IANAL, but I would think this might result in something quite a bit more expensive than a C&D -- like a lawsuit with punitive damages.
ETA: and now the site owner is on record here on HN stating that the intent was to steal search traffic. I'm sure this is a cutthroat business ... but this is an open invitation for one's own throat to be cut.
ETA: and now the site owner is on record here on HN stating that the intent was to steal search traffic. I'm sure this is a cutthroat business ... but this is an open invitation for one's own throat to be cut.
The USPTO trademark search system (TESS [0]) reveals that "azlyrics" is not a registered trademark [in the US].
If the company hasn't registered it, and doesn't enforce it, it is not a trademark.
[0] http://tess2.uspto.gov/
If the company hasn't registered it, and doesn't enforce it, it is not a trademark.
[0] http://tess2.uspto.gov/
So many lawyers here on HN, I forgot...
It's not us you need to worry about. Good luck!
Yeah man these people are crazy
On "initial interest confusion":
http://www.klemchuk.com/30-trademark-infringement-by-meta-ta...
http://www.klemchuk.com/30-trademark-infringement-by-meta-ta...
Yeah, that's incredibly shady.
The whole thing is pretty parasitic.
'How I let other people create so I don't have to work'
'How I let other people create so I don't have to work'
Reminds me of how some companies will take out Adwords for direct competitors' names to show up in the top of search results for their competitors.
So you're putting the name of a competitor on your site to see if it improves your seo? You're a madlad! I wonder if it'll work.
Where did the initial seeding of all the lyrics & bands come from? Also, are most of the new lyrics contributed by users and if so how do you handle authenticating that the lyrics provided are accurate?
My license provider has a database of over 1.2M lyrics.
But matter of fact is that Directlyrics hosts only around 10k. A decision made early on to focus on less pages compared to competitors that needed to rank 1M+ paghes.
But matter of fact is that Directlyrics hosts only around 10k. A decision made early on to focus on less pages compared to competitors that needed to rank 1M+ paghes.
So where did the lyrics come from when you started the site? Did you type them out yourself, take from some other site in the same niche, etc?
How has the advent of ad blockers affected your revenue stream?
I never measured that. But the numbers I deal with are so large, that even after blocking the number of ad impressions are still huge.
The biggest revenue hit was the decline of ringtone revenue.
The biggest revenue hit was the decline of ringtone revenue.
Have you ever studied what your competition is doing wrong and why you've managed to stay ahead of them for so long?
how much has rapgenius taken away from you? i know i used to land up in one of many crappy lyrics sites, such as yours, because those seem to be the only places to find them but these days i mostly stick to rapgenius for its clean interface. i imagine rapgenius's rise must have done some damage with their clearly superior technology?
Genius is killing it. They bring more then just lyrics, and build a community. Something I failed in both.
But its always fun to remind them that Justin Bieber & Ed Sheeran are their top traffic sources.
But its always fun to remind them that Justin Bieber & Ed Sheeran are their top traffic sources.
It's also cool that artists will jump on to elaborate on their own lyrics. Here's Eminem talking about his hook in 'Rap God'
https://genius.com/2566991
Do they jump on because of the community, as part of a PR plan, or does Genius pay them?
The transition from unlicensed to licensed seems like a big step. Did the publishers just reach out and ask you to pay a fee?
So back in 2010 the first law suit started against lyrics sites:
> http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/californ...
It was pretty clear that others would be next. Hence unlicensed wouldn't be maintainable.
Next to that, I wanted to sell advertising to big brands. My advertising partner insisted we needed to be licensed for the Coca Cola's of this world to spend money on my traffic.
So for me it was an opportunity to increase revenue, at the costs of lower profit margin.
It was pretty clear that others would be next. Hence unlicensed wouldn't be maintainable.
Next to that, I wanted to sell advertising to big brands. My advertising partner insisted we needed to be licensed for the Coca Cola's of this world to spend money on my traffic.
So for me it was an opportunity to increase revenue, at the costs of lower profit margin.
I think the commenter's question was more about _how_ you did it :) (Thanks for answering questions here btw)
Did publishers just reach out to say "hey, pay this fee"? Or did they straight up start with lawsuits/C&D? Or did you reach out to them and say "hey I got this site, how much do I pay you to become licensed?"
Did publishers just reach out to say "hey, pay this fee"? Or did they straight up start with lawsuits/C&D? Or did you reach out to them and say "hey I got this site, how much do I pay you to become licensed?"
So I went out and found licensing pro-actively. I wasn't contacted before in a formal way. But I know they (NMPA) did sent C&D letters to over 40 domains eventually.
I found one line from that article really funny:
> an LA-based company that was run by a self-proclaimed co-founder of MySpace
I've met several people in southern california that say they are myspace co-founders. Why on earth is myspace the go-to mark for them?
> an LA-based company that was run by a self-proclaimed co-founder of MySpace
I've met several people in southern california that say they are myspace co-founders. Why on earth is myspace the go-to mark for them?
Big enough for name recognition, but obscure enough that most people don't know offhand who founded it?
Read the whole article waiting to find out how he got the lyrics and was disappointed. An article on a website selling content should at least include the source of the content.
[deleted]
I've contracted malware twice from merely clicking on Google search results for lyrics. I never visit lyrics sites anymore.
I'd be curious to see some month to month (or year to year) financial charts.
It's actually pretty aligned with the traffic graph shown.
Exceptions are months (e.g. around Christmas) where my advertising partner would be able to attract up to 3x revenue from the same amount of traffic as the month before.
Exceptions are months (e.g. around Christmas) where my advertising partner would be able to attract up to 3x revenue from the same amount of traffic as the month before.
"And that’s all there is to it." srsly?
That's a lot of content to get licensed. You have to individually negotiate with every band and artist to get the license for their lyrics?
There are two companies available who are intermediaries between me (site) and the lyrics publisher (writer) and handle all licensing:
- Gracenote (they sold their lyrics licensing to lyricfind)
- Lyricfind
E.g. Google and Bing also license their lyrics offering through Lyricfind.
I only deal with them.
- Gracenote (they sold their lyrics licensing to lyricfind)
- Lyricfind
E.g. Google and Bing also license their lyrics offering through Lyricfind.
I only deal with them.
Out of curiosity, is getting the rights to a lyric catalogue a 4 figure, 5 figure, 6 figure deal?
Back then there was a minimum commitment in the 6 figures.
Unlikely. First you go to ASCAP, then all of its competitors. For artists that don't use a rights clearance and royalty processing company to handle that stuff, you might just wait to get a letter from their attorney and offer a reasonable settlement based on the ASCAP rate.
Tracking down loose artists on your own initiative just to give them enough money that they won't track you down and sue you seems like an overly honorable use of time and money to coexist with a successful business.
Tracking down loose artists on your own initiative just to give them enough money that they won't track you down and sue you seems like an overly honorable use of time and money to coexist with a successful business.
There are 3 main record labels (Sony, Universal, and Warner) which own pretty much the entire market. So just 3 contracts to negotiate (or 4 if you include EMI pre 2012).
ASCAP and BMI are who you deal with. For small potatoes they have rate cards, making it as easy as pie.
And as I was reading this I was humming Springsteen to myself
"Glory days, well, they'll pass you by
Glory days, in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days"
Turns out directlyrics doesn't have those lyrics. Google however returned them at top of the search homepage.
And... wow!
TIL there is a version of this great song with a verse that was not included in the original 80s version.
"My old man worked twenty years on the line
And they let him go
Now everywhere he goes out looking for work
They just tell him that he's too old"
Here's the video: https://youtu.be/P5-IoEcolp8
Glory days!