Has anybody else heard about this?

I don't get the issue. You want to learn the songs? Get the books. Or train your ear. Or both.

I'd dare to bet a few bucks that anyone who is unable to figure out the basics of most pop/rock songs is equally unable to make a proper bend or even tune his guitar properly without tuner. Every musician needs properly trained ears, and once you've got that you don't need no tab.

But as always: it was free, now it isn't. So people cry.

I agree that most guitar players over the last 30 years or so learned from other musicians, and listening to records and lessons( I wore out a lot of Niel Young records :lol:) I have bought my share of Music books over the years , I don't read music, but I could get the chords and lyrics. As i got better playing by ear i didn't use them any more. I don't think that Tab's really stunt any ones growth as a player any more that the music books I bought back in the seventies did, but the Truth is If we didn't have tabs the kids today would still find a way to learn how to play.( They would still have Guitar Noise :D ) --the dog

BTW I'm not saying I never use tabs, just not that often :wink:

the music publishers are being stupid and shortsighted. under capitalism it's all about supply and demand. there is obiously a big demand for online tab so someone will be there to supply it.

Supply and demand is a price-setting mechanism in a free market. Capitalism is about putting your capital (money, land, labor, whatever) to the best use so it makes you even more capital.

Would there be a demand for reliable $500 cars? For bars where every third drink is free? For colleges that refund your tuition if you don't land a great job within 30 days of graduation?

You bet there'd be demand. There's also no supply. Why?

Becuase capitalism isn't about supplying demand, it's about making money. And you can't make money supplying those demands, no matter how big they might be.

Making money isn't about meeting all of a demand, either... it's about meeting all of the demand that will pay your price. Take barbecue grills - Weber sells a lot of them. They'd probably sell ten times as many if they gave a year's supply of free steaks with each grill. But that doesn't mean they'd make ten times the money; they'd make less money, so it would only be foolish and short sighted if they actually tried to meet that 'demand'.

I'm seeing this 'market' argument on a lot of guitar boards. It's faulty logic.

Making money isn't about meeting all of a demand, either... it's about meeting all of the demand that will pay your price.
...
I'm seeing this 'market' argument on a lot of guitar boards. It's faulty logic.
You are correct; however, the MPA are foolish to think that $4.95 for a single "digital download" of sheet music is an appropriate market price. (Yet that is the current average price.)

Apple proved with iTunes that there is enormous demand for downloadable music at 99 cents a pop, and people will forego downloading "free" music when the price is right. I'd be happy to pay the same for an authorized, accurate tab, especially if I could "preview" a few bars before committing to the download. I bet thousands of aspiring musicians would pay that price, too - and they'd buy complete tab books when it made economic sense (just like we can buy complete albums on iTunes.) But 5 bucks per tab? No way.

Oh, they're definately pushing the price envelope.

I've posted before about how the price of downloaded tunes is way out of whack with the cost... downloading a new CD will cost $10 or so, versus maybe $12-15 for buying the CD with all the manufacturing and distribution costs.

There's a proposed settlement in the Sony lawsuit that gives you a much better idea of what a download should cost... Sony is offering a choice of $7.50 cash plus one free download, or three free downloads.

So they value a downloaded CD at $3.75 - probably about where it should be, and probably about what they make on a hard copy CD sale after expenses.

what i was saying is that there is huge demand for online tab. it exits already. i don't think they should try to shut down the online tab sites without replacing them with something. sheet music isn't what people want. people want tab and they want online tab.

I understand that... but the question isn't demand, it's legality.

I mean, replace 'tab' with 'marijuana':

There's a huge demand for marijuana. It exists already. I don't think they should try to shut down growers without replacing them with something. Legal alcohol isn't what people want, people want to smoke.

That's not a really good argument to throw in front of a judge.

Farfetched?

I went to college in the 70s. At that time, about 1/3 of all Americans admitted to using marijuana within the previous month on all the surveys I recall. That's a lot more people than there are using guitar tabs.

I could see situations where a 'market argument' might make sense in the tab thing, but not from that angle... price gouging through monopoly power, anti-trust collusion on price setting for sheet music, etc. But the fact that lots of people want it doesn't mean a court will automatically make it legally available.

i understand what you're saying, too. but this issue SHOULD have nothing to do with the courts. the courts can't make the music publihers go into buiness with the tab sites, and basically that is what i was proposing. they shouldn't be trying to shut them down.. they should be working with them so that everyone makes money. if the tab sites don't want to, then i can see them trying to shut them down, but to come in and have them shut them down right off the bat...well, i don't feel that was right.

Once again:

The issue is not the legality of the sites.

_IF_ the site is offering tabs which are a person's interpretation of the song as they hear it, and not copied out of a song-book, then it is not covered under any current IP law.

Since most sites include disclaimers that that is what they are offering, and there are no probative facts in evidence to give reason to disbelieve that claim, then there is no question of legality here.

The only thing at issue is that the music publishers association has the deep pockets necessary to fight a protracted legal battle, and the site owners do not. Therefore, the site owners are making a business decission that it is easier and safer to not fight the fight.

Oh, and Noteboat, just to take the other side of that argument. Why are speed limit laws now set to something above 55 MPH? Could it possibly be that there was such a demand for tolerance of that behavior, and such wide-spread civil disobedience around the law, that the law was changed because enforcement simply became to burdensom for the police?

_IF_ the site is offering tabs which are a person's interpretation of the song as they hear it, and not copied out of a song-book, then it is not covered under any current IP law.

I have to disagree with that. When you tab out a song, you're either duplicating the original work in a new medium (if the tab is dead on), or you're making, as you said, an 'interpretation'.

Title 17 Section 106 of the United States Code says:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

Part 1 covers the dead on stuff (it's a copy, right?)... part 2 covers 'derivative works'.

Section 101 contains the definition of derivative work:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. (bold emphasis is mine)

I think it's pretty clear that IP law does cover 'interpretations'.

Oh, and as far as the 55mph speed limit goes, it was a 'temporary' federal law enacted in 1973 during the gas crisis. It just didn't get repealed for 22 years. And at least where I live, the local governments LOVE speed limits - speeding tickets are a major revenue source. And it's the local governments, not the police, who set those limits - if government is making money, and the police find it burdensome, they simply hire more police.

I have a question, it's not really to argue anything but I'm confused. Actually a couple questions. Is tabbing out a song for your own personal use illegal? Is working the song out by ear for your own use illegal? Stupid questions I know.....

I have a question, it's not really to argue anything but I'm confused. Actually a couple questions. Is tabbing out a song for your own personal use illegal? Is working the song out by ear for your own use illegal? Stupid questions I know.....

Not stupid questions. These activities are not illegal.

You simply have to get the copyright holder's permission first, and pay a royalty if you want to play your songs in public.:wink:

However it would be a violation of the copyright law if you make copies of your effort - even your "interpretation" of a song (see Noteboat's post on derivative works) - and distribute them.

The exception is worship music, where you are allowed to play a copyrighted song in public if it is used as part of a worship service (church, synagogue, etc.) The satanists out there can now rejoice and roll out the Sabbath tunes! :shock:

Even then, though, you are still not allowed to distribute copies of the song (music or lyrics), even if it is to your congregation members so they can practice or just sing along. :roll:

Im not going to comment on the legality of tabs, but i think what just gets to people with the whole issue is that music is so different from other 'copyrightable' things.

A new invention for example, might be copyrighted, and noone would argue that the blueprints to that are legal, even if you draw them yourself.

Where i see a distinction between a blueprint and a tab though, is that the invention is made from steel and wood while the music is instantaneous and made from you. You could recreate an invention from a blueprint and use it indefinatly but playing a song doesnt last. You can record it maybe but its not going to be anything like the original commercial version. You probly wont play it the same, there wont be the real voice, there wont be any backup instruments, there wont be any computer done effects.

noone would mistake it for the original, noone would accept it over the original.

Add on top of that, your not charging anyone for it, when you do play it public theres a royalty fee that does get payed. They get their money because you learnt the song, maybe even learnt from a tab.

A copy of the original work is a moot point in my opinion, because the copy doesnt exist in this case

what i see this coming down to is that they want to charge you for the education. This is what i believe people dont like, especialy those who arnt as commited to developing their ear, theyr just happy to strum away in their bedroom.

Knowledge should not be commercialised, as in you HAVE to buy it to have it. Much the same with the outcry over universitys offering less government supported places and more full fee places (australia).

I could go to uni to learn the facts, i could just read a text book to learn the facts, i could just have a friend tell me the facts.

I could go to music school, i could buy sheet music, i could look at a friends tab

By all means the options should be there, but they shouldnt preclude the others, and thats why i think this is wrong

I think the role of the MPA is to deal with organisatons such as music schools that use the sheet music as a tool to make money, they should be the subjects of such copyright because to them its not about the personal betterment. The MPA should not be going after individuals seeking personal development in their own privacy

It's interesting how this has come full circle - the very first big battle over music copyrights was brought forth by the publishers of sheet music, who saw the advent of radio and phongoraphs as the death knell for sheet music sales (why would anyone buy sheet music to popular songs if they could just hear them on the radio?) Those arguments led to the whole royalty thing with ASCAP, etc. Then there were fights over tape recordings, VCRs, mp3s and downloading.

Now we're back to the music publishers and sheet music. The more things change...

(I jumped ahead in this thread, so if that's been mentioned before, I apologize. And if it hasn't, it's probably because no one really cares)

what i see this coming down to is that they want to charge you for the education. This is what i believe people dont like, especialy those who arnt as commited to developing their ear, theyr just happy to strum away in their bedroom.

Knowledge should not be commercialised, as in you HAVE to buy it to have it.

I have to disagree with you, Andeh. Take a book like "Guitar For Dummies." Someone took the time and effort to put the information together, with the intention that they would get paid for it. Then say after one book is published, someone scans it into a computer and puts it on the web where anyone can download it for free. Under your argument, that would be perfectly fine since it's knowledge and people would be downloading it for their own betterment. But how would you feel if you were the person who wrote the book? Probably not so good.

Intellectual property rights are probably the single most important thing we can protect. Otherwise, not only songs and movies, but software, pharmaceuticals and all technical inventions would be left unprotected. Then there'd be little or no motivation to create such developments.

I understand that a song does not seem to be a product. It's not something we can physically hold in our hands. Yes, we can hold a CD, but it's not the physical CD that has value - it's the content, the "song". That's why the copyright of the song is so valuable, and why it has to be protected.