Has anybody else heard about this?

If this crackdown goes through maybe they'd resort to an iTunes-type system, where you buy sheet music on a song-by-song basis? :?

Wonder if iTab has already been registered?

If this crackdown goes through maybe they'd resort to an iTunes-type system, where you buy sheet music on a song-by-song basis? :?

That service already exists. You can buy music at http://www.musicnotes.com or at http://www.sunhawk.com or at http://www.sheetmusicdirect.com . They're great resources.

This is my opinion about Tabs and cover bands. If I wrote a "hit" song and I hear some cover band playing it, they are promoting my song FOR ME. It didn't cost me ANYTHING and...I'm still in the public's eye and I'm still being heard. So if someone asks "hey who did that tune...I liked it" or when my next album comes out people are not like "Oh I remember him...didn't he have a hit at one time ???" I just saved a bunch of money in marketing costs (and car insurance).

Please...did Gene Simmons sue "Strutter" (KISS cover band) and tell them to Cease and Desist...NO!!! Gene Simmons is VERY money hungry. Ever read his book "Sex Money & Kiss." Anything you want to stamp KISS on he'll sign up for it. He did a bass guitar endorsement with "Strutter's" bass player on the cover of a magazine. You really couldn't tell the difference between the two in makeup.

Here is a problem I WISH I had...

Just my $.02

You're exactly right, Tommy. Not only is "imitation the sincerest form of flattery," it increases interest in the original.

I don't think you will ever here songwriters complain about an act covering their tunes illegally in a bar :roll: not even metallica :P BTW I heard Michal Jackson owns the rights to the birthday song :lol: I think the birthday song melody is public domain, but the words are not. --the dog

Tin Pan Alley existed before the heavy-handedness of copyright. It doesn't now.

Tell me again about how this is about the artists?

I don't think they can. :?

We've previously discussed "Happy Birthday." The rights belong to AOL-Time-Warner.

We've previously discussed "Happy Birthday." The rights belong to AOL-Time-Warner.

well I guess you can't believe every thing you hear on the John Boy and Billy show :oops: ( my wife listens to them :lol: )

We've previously discussed "Happy Birthday." The rights belong to AOL-Time-Warner.

well I guess you can't believe every thing you hear on the John Boy and Billy show :oops: ( my wife listens to them :lol: )Yeah, I listen to 'em most every morning. I don't believe everything I hear there, but it's a hoot! :lol:

http://thebigshow.com/

We've previously discussed "Happy Birthday." The rights belong to AOL-Time-Warner.

well I guess you can't believe every thing you hear on the John Boy and Billy show :oops: ( my wife listens to them :lol: )Yeah, I listen to 'em most every morning. I don't believe everything I hear there, but it's a hoot! :lol:

http://thebigshow.com/

ROTFLMAO--the dog

Nonsense!

This is what confuses me. At what point does intellectual property become your possession?

Just about everything in our lives has been built off of someone else's idea at some point or another?

If someone were taking the artists actual work, remastering it and selling it without permission. That would clearly be a violation of their rights to intellectual property. With that said, it is my opinion that if you see something, reengineer it yourself, then offer it to the public for free, then you are in a sense doing no more than taking an idea and making it a product of your own creation.

What they are trying to do is essentially saying that the recording industry actually has the rights to chord progressions and intervals. Where do you draw the line? Next they will try and dictate what settings you can have your gear on because your tone is too close to their clients?

Lyrics are another story. They can clearly be defined as original work, and would be the same as copyrights on books and other literature. Anything else is a matter of interpretation.

No one is claiming copyright protection on chords or intervals. Copyright is extended to the sequence of intervals, though - just as copyright for a novel is extended to the sequence of letters and words.

The most interesting debate over copyright is happening in the UK right now. Libraries are pressing Parliament to revise copyright law because of the rise in digital rights management, with some sound arguments:

- Digital rights protection doesn't expire; once a work is coded for protection, it is protected forever - superceding the expiration provided for in copyright law

- Digital rights do not allow libraries to make additional copies to preserve their collection, something explicitly allowed under copyright law

- Digital rights attached to platforms, such as iPods, inextricably link the rights protection to a technology, requiring the purchase of specific hardware and the potential need for upgrade purchases to maintain a collection.

- As a result of these arguments, digital rights management seizes for itself rights that have not been assigned by law, to the detriment of public libraries.

I think in the near future, the libraries will open to door to wider discussion of these issues, with the potential for re-thinking the entire rights protection logic.