Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

OLGA offline

131 Posts
54 Users
0 Likes
225.4 K Views
(@noteboat)
Posts: 4921
Illustrious Member
 

Yes, I do.

And you think it's so different the original artist deserves nothing for it?

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 1:59 am
(@webcrush)
Posts: 6
Active Member
 

Yes, I do.

And you think it's so different the original artist deserves nothing for it?

Well, I've been a musician for 25+ years and I can say that playing a song I love is nowhere even close to as satisfying listening to the original recording.

Do they deserve something for it? Sure they do, like when I buy the CD or pay to see them perform it.

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 3:01 am
(@gnease)
Posts: 5038
Illustrious Member
 

Well, I've been a musician for 25+ years and I can say that playing a song I love is nowhere even close to as satisfying listening to the original recording.

That's really too bad. Many of us have enjoyed our own performances/arrangements of covers as much or more than the beloved originals. Part of the joy of music is making a known tune one's own ... and doing it quite well.

-=tension & release=-

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 4:09 am
(@tal919)
Posts: 1
New Member
 

Please see my blog about it.

http://dmcadoesntownearorpen.blogspot.com/

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 5:52 am
(@misanthrope)
Posts: 2261
Noble Member
 

Please see my blog about it.

http://dmcadoesntownearorpen.blogspot.com/

It would be nice if it were true, but where's the proof? There's not even any citations to tranfser the burden of providing proof to someone else...

ChordsAndScales.co.uk - Guitar Chord/Scale Finder/Viewer

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 7:53 am
(@noteboat)
Posts: 4921
Illustrious Member
 

I read your blog, tal. It's totally mis-informed.

Besides making a blatantly false statement, claiming no cover bands pay royalties (in fact, almost all of them DO pay royalties, typically through the venue managment), you're making a huge error in understanding what "freedom of speech" really is.

Take a nice hard look at the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It says Congress won't restrict your speech. And Congress isn't - no senator or representative says tab is illegal. No laws prevent you from transcribing (or publishing) anything you'd like.

But it says nothing about the ownership of speech (or any other expression), and you've leapt to the assumption that "free" is the same thing as "communally owned". The simple fact is, if someone already owns speech - through copyright, patent, tradmark or other legal protection - Congress will not stop them from pursuing legal claims against you.

Why? Because that would not only limit their free expression, it would also prevent them from petitioning for redress of grievance - they are twice as 'protected' by the first amendment as you are.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL

 
Posted : 14/08/2006 1:26 pm
(@fishrokk)
Posts: 2
New Member
 

I'm a rank noob here, but I read this entire thread today and think I have something to add. Tal's blog may be off-base, but points to a key arguement. The Fair Use section of Title 17, Circular 92 of the Copyright Law of 1976. It can be found here (which I got to from Tal's blog):
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

It could (and I think should) be argued that tab online is used per section 1, for educational purposes and not commercial purposes. Then the burden of proof would fall to the MPA and NMPA lawyers to argue that posting tab online is NOT fair use under section 4. Essentially they would have to produce facts and figures showing that sales of published sheet music was negatively affected by the presence of guitar tab online.

'Course, I'm not a lawyer and may have overlooked something major.

 
Posted : 16/08/2006 3:49 am
(@metallica442)
Posts: 1
New Member
 

Can the MPA do anything about people getting together and telling each other how to play a certain song? If that is illegal then wouldn't it naturally be illegal to sing a song in public where, perhaps, someone may learn to sing it? I see no distinction between what someone plays and what they sing. In both cases the person is replicating what they've heard, it's just a lot harder to play it than sing it. This can't continue to go on as it is or there will be no music for anyone. Then what kind of world would that be?

In the long run wouldn't this end up hurting the music industry? For now they just want money from works that already exist but, by shutting down these tab sites, they are losing the aspiring musicians that would've learned from the tabs. Who know's how many musicians could've made it big but quit because the tabs from which they're learning are gone? I think (and hope) that this will negatively affect the profits of the music industry.

 
Posted : 16/08/2006 5:17 am
(@noteboat)
Posts: 4921
Illustrious Member
 

fishrokk, most tab sites have tried to use the educational 'fair use' exclusion - at least in their disclaimers - but I think that's pretty thin ice. In order to deterimine if something is fair use, courts are supposed to weigh all four factors mentioned in the section you referenced; it's not a situation where meeting one or two is sufficient. Here's how they stack up:

1. The purpose and character of the use. No argument that the purpose of internet tab can be educational... but the 'character' of the use is where tab sites fall short. In David's lessons, the 'character' of the tab is to illustrate a concept - his lessons are clearly educational in character - but in most tabs, there's no educational context... which makes it a tough sell to say it's educational.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work. I don't think this plays into the argument either way.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Here tab sites fail: the amount is the entire song. You can't argue that's not a substantial portion.

4. The effect on the potential value of the copyright. Now this plays into metallica442's post too - we're talking about the effect on the particular right and its value (in this case, publishing rights). Courts couldn't care less about whether the inustry as a whole makes more money, if record sales increase, or if concerts sell more tickets. What's at stake is whether music publishers may sell less sheet music because tab is available.

And the folks threatening tab sites - the MPA - don't care about the impact on the industry as a whole. If wider use of tab sells more CDs, there's nothing in it for them - somebody else (RIAA members) own those rights.

In my opinion, a better route for tab sites might be to characterize themselves as 'libraries'. There are problems with that approach too, but it avoids the substantiality issue (libraries lend whole works), and doesn't depend on interpreting the 'character' of the use.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL

 
Posted : 16/08/2006 9:36 am
(@bobblehat)
Posts: 309
Reputable Member
 

The easiest way around this would seem to be a tab forum.As I understand it the responsibility lies with the person posting the message not with the owner of the site.I cant see anybody trying to track down half a million people posting tabs!

Just A thought.

My Band: http://www.myspace.com/thelanterns2010
playing whilst drunk is only permitted if all band members are in a similar state!

 
Posted : 16/08/2006 10:04 am
(@misanthrope)
Posts: 2261
Noble Member
 

1. The purpose and character of the use. No argument that the purpose of internet tab can be educational... but the 'character' of the use is where tab sites fall short. In David's lessons, the 'character' of the tab is to illustrate a concept - his lessons are clearly educational in character - but in most tabs, there's no educational context... which makes it a tough sell to say it's educational.
I think there's a pretty good argument tab is fundamentally educational in itself - you don't read it for fun like an article, or admire its aesthetics like art, you only read it to learn music.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. I don't think this plays into the argument either way.
Good :)
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Here tab sites fail: the amount is the entire song. You can't argue that's not a substantial portion.
I might! Think of a multitrack recording laid out on screen, time on the X axis and tracks on the Y. You may be tabbing the entire X axis, but you're unlikely to be tabbing more than a couple of tracks from the Y axis. If I tab two tracks out of 50 odd, that's only 4%. Not to mention that if I just note the chords without marking the strumming pattern, I'm technically only tabbing a small propertion of the information available to be tabbed. I'm sure a clever lawyer could string that one out for weeks...
4. The effect on the potential value of the copyright. Now this plays into metallica442's post too - we're talking about the effect on the particular right and its value (in this case, publishing rights). Courts couldn't care less about whether the inustry as a whole makes more money, if record sales increase, or if concerts sell more tickets. What's at stake is whether music publishers may sell less sheet music because tab is available.
This is the one it'll all come down to in the end.

ChordsAndScales.co.uk - Guitar Chord/Scale Finder/Viewer

 
Posted : 16/08/2006 10:18 am
(@pearlthekat)
Posts: 1468
Noble Member
 

Thig thing I'm wondering about is that i think our arguments wither way don't really matter because none of this is actually going to court, if i'm not mistaken. This will end up in court if a tab site refuses to shut down. As far as I know when any of them have gotten a cease and desist letter, they've shut down. So they've won.

 
Posted : 17/08/2006 12:22 am
(@paulhackett)
Posts: 794
Prominent Member Admin
 

My understanding is that a letter is sent to the site's hosting company at the same time. The threat being that the hosting company faces legal action if they don't shut the site down. I don't think the lawyers writing the letters actually expect to make it to court. As there's no guarantee they'd win the cases never go that far. Intimidating letters do the trick. And the cases are argued here instead.

Guitar Noises Newsletter

 
Posted : 17/08/2006 12:43 am
(@danlasley)
Posts: 2118
Noble Member
 

So we should get Google to host a tab site - they have experience saying No to intimidating lawyers.

 
Posted : 17/08/2006 4:56 pm
(@noteboat)
Posts: 4921
Illustrious Member
 

ummm... like China?

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL

 
Posted : 17/08/2006 6:42 pm
Page 5 / 9