[GohJHM9k]

. . .at best it's a grey area...

RTFB nothing grey about it. Personal use-OK. Distribution-not OK.
The U.S. law was changed some years ago adding sort of "moral rights" to bring it into accord with european law so that U.S. law could be enforced.

I suspect that the representatives of the copyright holders (publishers) will simply get a fee from the tab sites just like they do with radio and bars and jukeboxes etc. They don't want to keep you from having or using the stuff, they just want to be compensated and they have that right. It is not being greedy, it is business. The stuff belongs to them.

[Vipvlad]

how so? if i look up tabs/lyrics for a song i like, i don't see how the artist loses out...unless my alternative would be paying him/her to come to my house and teach me the song...

The alternative would be paying for the published music, where I'm sure the songwriter gets a royalty.

[rionetrozasa]

Ok, the two songs I had posted before were done by a guy who wrote in the 17th century for lute (Robert DiVisee), and by a guy who died in 1917 or so (Enrique Granados). So I am pretty sure both of the songs are now in the public domain.

Just a small point here.

Whilst the pieces themselves may be in the public domain, the arrangements may not be as they would probably be quite modern bearing in mind that, as the guitar didn't exist in its present form in the time of Robert de Visee and the Granados piece would have had to have been transcribed from the piano, these works as you played them would have had to have been later transcriptions.

I know that a lot of "classical" musicians get around this by going back to the manuscripts themselves and creating their own transcriptions if they're able but if you're using, for example, the transcriptions of Yasuo Abe for a piece by Bach or the transcription of de Visee's D Minor Suite by Frederick Noad and making money out of them by recording etc. there will probably be copyright issues in the same way as with a modern piece.

Cheers,

Matt. (Who isn't going into the way that some musicians change a small part of an arrangement someone else has done then pass it off as a new arrangement of that piece. )

[sPncEjF7]

RTFB nothing grey about it. Personal use-OK. Distribution-not OK.[...]

that's not the question though...the issue for me is whether this applies to tabs...

it's someone having a go at transcribing the music...nothing more than that...
i don't see how it's any different than someone describing a painting...

[sauppyshurb]

The alternative would be paying for the published music, where I'm sure the songwriter gets a royalty.

They do, however getting published sheet music for many non top-40 bands is very hard. That's where I think the ban is wrong, if you have a published thing then sure, getting it for free can hurt the label (not so much the artist), but if there is no published one getting it for free is proably not harmful.



Ona related topic, Some canadian independent labels and artists have ledt the CRIA and formed a new group with a different outlook on sharing and Digital Rights Management. Some bands I really like this support this: Broken Social Scene, Wolf Parade, The New Pornographers and Metric.

For the record: I disagree with both people who simply download albums nad never buy them (simple theft to me) and Major Label policies.

[nicktender]

So unless I have permission from the owner of a copyrighted song, I do not have the right to "perform the copyrighted work publicly."

So this means I cannot play a party, a park, or anywhere where there are people. That guy at the guitar store who picks up a guitar he's thinking about buying and busts out a riff from (insert your favorite metal band here) is technically breaking the law, because he's doing it in public.

And as stated explicitly, I cannot have a recording of me performing a copyrighted "work" up, even if noone makes any money from it. I simply never thought about the arrangements or transciptions being copyrighted as well. I guess I'll be pulling down the two songs I had put up - I am not sure who transcribed or arranged the versions I played, but since I heard them from professional recordings, I'd guess they're probably copyrighted. I'm not even sure how to check, since I'm only aware of the performer and composer credits for either.

I guess I can understand property being protected, but this is pretty discouraging. Ahh well, I'm not really a very good guitarist anyways, heh.

[Aztegjpl]

That guy at the guitar store who picks up a guitar he's thinking about buying and busts out a riff from (insert your favorite metal band here) is technically breaking the law, because he's doing it in public.

Actually, there was a case where the RIAA did intend to force instrument stores to pay royalties if customers played copyrighted material. I'll have to go look for the source later. Kierkegaard is getting tired of me procatinating.

[exchpaypaleg]

So unless I have permission from the owner of a copyrighted song, I do not have the right to "perform the copyrighted work publicly."
So this means I cannot play a party, a park, or anywhere where there are people.
That guy at the guitar store who picks up a guitar he's thinking about buying and busts out a riff from (insert your favorite metal band here) is technically breaking the law, because he's doing it in public.

Go back and read the sections of the law I provided. Is that what it says? No it doesn't say that.

And as stated explicitly, I cannot have a recording of me performing a copyrighted "work" up, even if noone makes any money from it. I simply never thought about the arrangements or transciptions being copyrighted as well. I guess I'll be pulling down the two songs I had put up - I am not sure who transcribed or arranged the versions I played, but since I heard them from professional recordings, I'd guess they're probably copyrighted. I'm not even sure how to check, since I'm only aware of the performer and composer credits for either.

I really don't think you have to worry about that. The "rich fatcat music business guys" aren't going to send the music police after you (however, the fashion police are planning on hitting hard "Alright pal, who dressed you today?"
Don't overcomplicate or overintellectualize things.

They do, however getting published sheet music for many non top-40 bands is very hard. That's where I think the ban is wrong, if you have a published thing then sure, getting it for free can hurt the label (not so much the artist), but if there is no published one getting it for free is proably not harmful.

First off, there is no ban. Had the original poster taken the time to look into the 5 month old story he posted he would have found out that the issue is simply unlicensed sites, i.e. sites that are providing copyrighted material (and like it or not the lyrics to the songs are copyrighted as is the tune) without paying a fee to the rights holders.
In the olden days if you wrote a song and it became popular you (and your publisher) made money by selling the sheet music so people could sit in their parlors and play the song for themselves, family and friends. Later, when the phonograph came into play, the profit was focused more on the sale of the records, split between the writer, performer and publisher. ASCAP (and BMI) then came into play collecting royalties from radio stations, bars, cabarets etc. for the right to perform the songs. Again, this money was split between artist, writer and publisher. A really popular song would net more money on performance rights than on record sales.
Now we have a situation where people are offering the functional equivalent of the sheet music on internet sites and making money on advertising. If they are simply giving it away they are diluting the market and taking away from those sites that do pay the fee and therefore taking money from the artist, writer and publisher.
The music business is a business of pennys and nickels. For instance, if I write a song that is recorded by an artist (and most do not write their own songs) and that album sells a million copies the writer and his publisher might get .05 for each album sold ($50,000) and they split it however they decide, Then if that particular song is the big hit song on the album and is played by lots of radio stations then ASCAP will collect the fee from them (NY stations pay much more that East Pudunck because it is based upon how many are in the audience) If the song becomes a "classic" the money keeps on coming for years on end.

[UltraSearchs]

Power to the People!
Tear down the walls!!!
Turn on, tune in and drop out!!
Free love!!!
Bring back paisley shirts!!!
Move to the country, eat a lot of peaches go and find jesus on your own.

I never say YOU at Humboldt State...

[SinncmxM]

I never say YOU at Humboldt State...

One of my non-marketable skills is the ability to turn invisible.

[OixKKcj1]

I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer, hehehe! I did read it, but understanding it is another matter entirely. I was referring to:

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: Which I supposed meant that since the rights are "exclusive" to the copyright owner, i.e. everyone except that copyright owner and those the copyright owner authorizes are excluded from having those rights, which include:

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; This seems to state quite clearly that whether or not monies are collected, only the copyright owner or person granted this right by the copyright owner may perform said musical work publicly. As I am not the copyright holder, nor have I been granted this right, I can't play the song in public.

While there are exceptions as noted,

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

I don't think me playing this at a party, in a park, or in a music store (as examples) falls into any of those categories - unless you could argue that butchering "Stairway to Heaven" on that les paul in the music store was "research", hahaha.

But if that's not really what says, whew ! I can go back to annoying all my fellow kendoka at the annual christmas party with my bad versions of various 70s songs !! *snickers softly*

Anyways, I apologize for being obtuse about it - I am going to finally take the well spoken advice of not overanalyzing it anymore. Ahh. That feels much better. Thank you, for those who answered my questions !! Very much appreciated!!

[itepearce]

I don't think me playing this at a party, in a park, or in a music store (as examples) falls into any of those categories -

Is your party public? How about when you play stairway to freebird in the music store, is that public? Sitting under a tree in the park, public? Singng in the shower, public?
Like I said, don't over intellectualize the thing. It is economic.

[Anykeylo]

Public Performance for a FEE is the critical issue here.... not mere performance. The copyright comes into play when you start passing the hat after your magnum solo.

No one gives a damn if you play tat Blink 182 song in the park... or if you record the song while some other guy plays it, or even if you manage to successfully record Blink 182 playing the song... they only care if you are making any money at it.

The only OTHER relavent concern is wether or not the holders of these copyrights are LOSING money.

For instance, I publish worldwide (for free) a perfect TAB of a famous Blink 182 "song" and the availability of that TAB stalls the sales... even the "potential" sales... of any published works.

Moreover, these lyrics/TAB sites are still up all over the internet... so I imagine the problem is less of an "outrage" than first suggested.

[Louthcoombutt]

No one gives a damn if you play tat Blink 182 song in the park... or if you record the song while some other guy plays it, or even if you manage to successfully record Blink 182 playing the song... they only care if you are making any money at it.

I would agree with Ignatz that is economic. But in my cynical view, it's not whether you make money, but rather if they can make money from you doing it. So, maybe some suit at the RIAA or ASCAP might care. Not making money, doesn't neccessarily make it fair use, but it likely isn't worth the legal costs or negative PR to harass you for it either--again it's all economic. Even the Girls Scouts aren't supposed to use songs without licensing--that was PR fiasco...

Here's a link for more brain numbing study.

[illiderob]

Got it.

Now I see where I erred - I was thinking "public" as in the "public intoxication" or "public indecent exposure" kind - in other words, if "privacy" laws didn't apply and someone off the street could hear, then it was legally "public". But again, I have misunderstood quite blatantly. Thanks again for your responses and patience !!

[JeffStewart]

well.. there's always http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ .. not sure on UK laws.. but if it's FREE.. it isn't illegal.. most tabs online are works of the author's who posts it, so isn't copy infring. either

the quote from the article is true.. if you want the definitive sheet music you go buy the book.. it's finding the Bass / Drum sheet music to go with the guitar tab that's the challenge

mostly i use sites like these to get music for songs that there simply are no books for.. when was the last time you saw an Obiturary or Morbid Angel tab book at the local shop??

[Wxrxnhar]

well.. there's always http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ .. not sure on UK laws.. but if it's FREE.. it isn't illegal.. most tabs online are works of the author's who posts it, so isn't copy infring. either

Nope, wrong. It makes no difference if they don't charge you and if you do a tab of my song it is still my song and my tune and not yours.

[VodsNittats]

17 U.S.C. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 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.

Ultimate Guitar Tab's website Terms of Use policy

All tabs represented on the site are not intended to be accurate or official tabs for the artist, but are merely by-ear transcriptions. These tabs should be used for Study, Skill Development, Research and Scholarship only. The goal of Ultimate Guitar Archive is to provide a valuable resource for musicians who want to further their instrument skills. We do not seek to violate copyrights, and we encourage that you purchase the artist's album and official sheet music. If you see any case where a submitter has violated copyright infringement, please contact us and the tab will be removed from the archives.

Although access to the site (as well as content) is free, you may not copy/reprocude our content on other websites, compact discs, paperbooks etc. without getting prompt permission from the original copyright holders.

also.. in all the cover bands i've been with i've never once sent Cannibal Corpse a penny.. business license and a pound of flesh to the local musicans union where i'm perfoming is it.. we don't pass the songs off as our own and give credit where it is do.. but according to the law you posted even being in a cover band is supposidly illegal

[Rugda]

Ultimate Guitar Tab's website Terms of Use policy

Weeeelllll, there is another part that I left out. The next sentence is:
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.

In your case the site is a commercial venture, see the ads. Just saying that it is for education doesn't make it so. I think that if ASCAP went seeking a fee they would have to pay it.
It doesn't really make any difference that it is "ear" transcribed, the lyrics are also subject to copyright. Also, why would anyone buy my "official" tab when they can get yours for free. Therefore it has a great effect upon the potential market for my product.

also.. in all the cover bands i've been with i've never once sent Cannibal Corpse a penny.. business license and a pound of flesh to the local musicans union where i'm perfoming is it.. we don't pass the songs off as our own and give credit where it is do.. but according to the law you posted even being in a cover band is supposidly illegal

What happens is that the venue pays a fee to ASCAP not the band. The will base the fee upon the size of the crowd and they have some formula for deciding how they split up the $. They have staff that listens to the radio and they go over the play lists etc.

[broksaksaak]

hurm.. got a point there.. although if a music school hosted it as a learning tool i'm sure there would be an ad somewhere also.. so not sure how that argument would hold up

this then doesn't cover tab for music that there is no comercially available tab for.. where is the conflict? the sites would just have to remove tab for available music then and be in compliance

well.. i'm not a big fan of Hal Leonard tab.. does that have to count too?

I know what it's like to hear someone else pass off your stuff as their own.. it's why i stick to covers for auditions.. so i'm not totally against it.. copyright needs to be enforced

in my experience sites like this promote buying official tab.. it's like watching a movie on normal TV edited for your entertainment so you go out and buy it so you can actually watch it

Ultimate Tabs also operates under The Russian Federation of copyright and related rights.. maybe they can still get around it worst case scenario

Didn't know about the ASCAP kickback.. I think that is the only excuse i've not heard for not being paid in full from a venue.. "Sorry man.. those Deicide tunes are gonna cost ya".. thx for the info