Thread by @ajkohn

The response from @LyricFind (lyricfind.com/index.php?id=3…) to the accusation of copying lyrics from Genius is odd in a lot of ways. #seo #lyricsgate

First, lyrics from Genius did wind up in a LyricsBox. That's been proven with the watermark that they used. So whether LyricFind and Google say this isn't the case is immaterial. It's a fact.

This paragraph is interesting because it makes it clear that lyrics are not a commodity. Many corrections are necessary to get the the lyrics right. So one site's lyrics might differ from another. There's added value in getting them right.

Those corrections being made by the LyricFind content team seem to be done, not by listening to the song or contacting the artist, but by referring to other sites. Usually you'd cite referred works in your content, right?

But it's here that I'm truly puzzled. Not just because the "it's just a small bit of theft" as a defense is strange but that they don't seem to understand sampling.

Remember when Google caught Bing copying their search results? Here's the link to refresh your memory. (searchengineland.com/google-bing-is…) The number of searches they used to catch this systematic approach by Bing? 100.

See, it would be lunacy to try to watermark every single song on Genius. And the watermark itself was only necessary because it made it easier to track. Prior to that Genius had to catch specific content changes.

Trying to spot when the LyricsBox suddenly reflected the specific lyrics that Genius had for, say, a song like Panda, wasn't easy. So the watermark was both clever but also necessary to understand the scope of the content theft.

Tracking the songs that were most valuable (aka popular) and limiting the number of songs with that watermark enabled full HTML tracking of SERPs for business critical content.

So the question isn't how many out of the total database of songs were copied but of those that were watermarked, how many were copied. If that rate is single digits, maybe it's trickle down theft via lyrics on another site or in a YouTube video.

But if the copy rate is 20%, 30% or more then the process by which those lyrics are sourced becomes pretty clear. And the timing of those watermarks being added or removed from the LyricsBox, tracked via HTML captures can also be illuminating.

I'm not a Google hater. Not even close. And that's what makes this so disappointing. When Genius did wrong in the past, they got caught, owned up to it and started doing things the right way. Now it's time for Google to do the same.