[numair]

Sometimes people will make investments that truly, really, make no sense. In order to appear smart, and to fit in with people they want to befriend (and with whom they want to work or do deals), others will give you very long-winded explanations of why you simply don't get it, this time is different, etc. In the end, common sense prevails.

Most of the "contrarian" bets out there weren't really contrarian at all; you simply didn't have enough information to understand what was going on. AH's deal for Skype, for example -- you didn't have an understanding of the psychology of dealmakers at eBay or Microsoft to know what would happen (and, to be honest, I find it strange and distasteful that they are so proud of an investment in which they screwed over all of the portfolio company's employees so severely). Investment managers, all of them, have no imagination whatsoever; a good deal is one in which you simply have a lot more information than anyone else, and are thus able to engage in high-stakes information arbitrage.

Sometimes investment managers forget they are just that, investment managers. They want to be cool, they want to be the man in the ring, they want to be the creative artist. That's where they screw up. Phil Falcone's disastrous bet on LightSquared is an excellent example of a really smart guy shooting himself in the balls in this manner.

RapGenius is one of these investments. And anyone who has been around the block longer than a couple years is fully aware of it. Whether they are willing to piss off AH and state this publicly, however, remains to be seen. Very few people have ever truly called out KP on Segway, or Sequoia on Color, for example. It pays to remain quiet.

As for me, I'm just hoping smart young kids will stop trying to analyze this deal, and others like it, in the hopes of finding or "discovering" any sort of logic in what they see. Don't waste your time. Don't base any of your own ideas on what you see happening. Just focus on what you're doing, and ignore all of this nonsense. Yeah, these guys raised $15 million. No, they aren't role models; no, their business doesn't actually make sense within the context of the deal; and no, you shouldn't try to emulate any of this crap.

Oh, and this article has it all wrong. It isn't at all difficult to get close to people in the entertainment industry. They are all watching their businesses getting disrupted by young technologists, so they have an obsession with getting to know all of the young technologists they can. You used to collect cars or jewelry -- now you collect smart kids with startups. I can't wait for the next big rap song that has someone bragging about how "I got way more startups than you."

Call me a hater, I don't care. I'm just being honest.

[pemulis]

I don't know about that. A universal annotation platform that reached its full potential could basically eat the entire Internet. You can see hints of that in the founders' public interviews, when they say they want all of Business Insider's articles annotated on Rap Genius, for instance. The area is fraught with copyright concerns, and who knows if Rap Genius is the company to pull it off, but anything with that sort of growth potential is worth watching.

[Edit] Here's the most interesting quote from the Business Insider interview:

"Some books are in the public domain, like Moby Dick. Then there are some books that aren't in the public domain. And when people start to annotate these things, they create something new so people aren't just coming for the book anymore. They come for the meaning."

That would be a huge expansion of fair use. If they can make this argument successfully in court, everything ever written would suddenly be on the table, and they would be well positioned to gobble it up.

[johnrob]

If they pulled that off it would mean the government effectively repealed the notion of copyright (I could read any book I wanted to on rapgenius). I'm not sure how likely that is.

[pemulis]

I doubt they could go so far as hosting full books, but they're going to find out exactly where the line is.

[001sky]

In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits <<limited>> use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

-- They will need to overcome the spotify issue, presumably [1]

____________________

[1] The underlying issue is the model appears to be leveraging in-copyright source material. The rights holders will argue its a for-profit platform for re-publication, rather than a permitted use in a limited capacity. That is the issue at hand for the market and/or courts to decide.

viz:

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  1     the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2     the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3     the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4     the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.**
 

_______

However, there is reason to think a deal could be structured that benefits all parties. The business has potential to add real value, as it is a new channel for adding new life into legacy content libraries (for example).

[pemulis]

One of the biggest questions will be how transformative annotations are, and whether that will give adequate protection if users upload large chunks of copyrighted text. Google's use of thumbnails in image search wound up being covered by fair use[1] for this reason, and a judge recently ruled that book scanning was covered by fair use[2], as well. From the article:

> "The use to which the works in the HDL are put is transformative because the copies serve an entirely different purpose than the original works: the purpose is superior search capabilities rather than actual access to copyrighted material," wrote Judge Baer. "The search capabilities of the HDL have already given rise to new methods of academic inquiry such as text mining."

This might set precedent for a showdown over annotations that quote extensively from the source text, since online annotation systems also "[give] rise to new methods of academic inquiry."

The main point here is that laws about fair use are pretty vague, and new technologies always shake things up. We don't know what is legal and what isn't until it's put before a judge. In the case of Google's book scanning, the court case took seven years, which shows just how tricky this area of law can be.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/google-v-perfect-...

[2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-...

[001sky]

Over annotations that quote extensively from the source text

The page they have up with the Topic Blog post, however, is just a 100% reproduction with flyover notes. If You were to reprint the entire Harry Potter series, and add notes to the margins, it might seem similar. I believe that was already a subject of legal debate, though. Which might be precedent [see notes 1,2].

That being said, I don't per-se disagree with any of the issues being raised in your post. Also, I wouldn't rule out they will find a way to license content. The issue is just at what price? That's the spotify connundrum, IMHO.

_______

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._and_J._K._Rowling_...

Judge Patterson said that reference materials were generally useful to the public but that in this case, Vander Ark went too far. He said that "while the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled." He said he ruled in Ms. Rowling's favor because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide."

[2] Another example, might be you-tube. Who has its "annotations" listed below each work of art. These are commonly referred to as "Comments". Some of the comments can now even be time-inserted into flyovers, more similar to the "flyover" type annotations currently up on the linked article. This is an example where there is both licensing and unlicensed content as a hybrid model.

[INTPenis]

I won't call you a hater, you're simply someone with a different taste in music.

Music comes in many forms, even individual genres come in many forms. You can't hate on all rap just because of some bad role models, just like you can't hate on all people of a group because of some bad apples.

[AnandKumar]

Honestly, my $5 stake in App.Net seems to be one such case.