[JamesTornC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm

This is unbelievable. The MPA has decided to ban ALL types of tablature, and lyrics sites across the internet. One of the best sites, Mysongbook.com which has over 85,000 members, and an extremely extensive and wide-variety of midi files were forced to take down about 99.9% of their files because of this. Keep in mind that these tabs were made by ear, and get this, "Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing." As if major artists and publishers don't have ENOUGH money to shove up their holes. What next, a ban on singing in the shower because it infringes on copyright? Only in America...

Please support artists worldwide by signing this petition. http://www.petitiononline.com/mioti/petition.html

POWER TO THE MUSICIANS!!

[citicroego]

that is insane

[Anykeylo]

. . .As if major artists and publishers don't have ENOUGH money to shove up their holes. . .

So if you have several guitars, since you can only play them one at a time, it would be ok for me to come over and help myself to one of the extras?

Perhaps the music publishers would be better served by offering the lyics and music or tabs at a reasonable price. Maybe itunes could give you them for an extra .05 per song then it would not seem so onerous if they shut down free sites which are, no matter how you justify it, stealing. makes sense because the cheat books they sell don't have the songs I want.

Before the internet we just listened to the song over and over until we sort of got it. The bars that I played paid ASCAP and/or BMI license fees.

[Accor$314]

If you happened to read the article there was a quote, "I just don't see why PearLyrics should infringe the copyright of Warner Chappell because all I'm doing is searching publicly-available websites," PearLyrics developer Walter Ritter said. "It would be different if they had an alternative service that also provided lyrics online and also integrated [with iTunes] like PearLyrics did. But they don't offer anything like that at all."

[SeLvesTr]

Then there is another quote:

A Warner Chappell statement said the company wanted to ensure songwriters were "fairly compensated for their works and that legitimate sites with accurate lyrics are not undermined by unlicensed sites".

"We have requested that PearWorks provide us with information regarding the sources of their lyrics, and have further asked that they discontinue the service if these sources are operating without a licence."

My question to you was in regard to your statement:
"As if major artists and publishers don't have ENOUGH money to shove up their holes."

Sounds like your big problem is having to pay for somebody else's property.

[saturninus.ribb]

Sounds like your big problem is having to pay for somebody else's property.

Somehow I get the distinct feeling that this isn't the answer what he was looking for.

[cbUDaNFRu]

Somehow I get the distinct feeling that this isn't the answer what he was looking for.

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.

[Candykiss]

Bring back paisley shirts!!!

Uh no!! I was born there. Dont remind me!

[h98hhYxM]

My question to you was in regard to your statement:
"As if major artists and publishers don't have ENOUGH money to shove up their holes."

Sounds like your big problem is having to pay for somebody else's property.

Let me ask you this first, do you play an instrument? Have you ever purchased an official licensed tablature book? If you ever have you'd know that they charge upwards of 30 dollars for a tab book that contains the one song you want to learn, plus 20 other crap songs that most people wouldn't even want to listen to. It's the same way that you want to buy an album that has the one good song on there and 10 other songs that are totally lame. I've bought these tab books before and sometimes I find mistakes in EVERY BAR. My problem isn't that I don't want to pay money, it's that the MPA must be made up of greedy bast@#ds to take away music from amateur musicians. Without us they are nothing, and when there are less guitarists, bassists, and drummers out there I hope they think back to this.

[expabsPapsgag]

I have played guitar for many years now. I hate tabs, because they are always wrong, and I can't read them very well. It's easier for me to just listen to the song as it's playing and pick out the notes.

Which begs the question - if you are a player of musical instruments, are you legally not allowed to play a song (even if you did not use "stolen" tabs) that you don't own the rights to?

For example, if I'm at a party with some friends and I pick up a guitar and start playing some song that I heard on the radio, I guess I've "stolen" the licensed and copywrited property of the record company/artist/whomever. This seems to be what this is implying.

I guess I had always had the conception that "stealing music" was more about stealing the performance - the recording - the actual product that was produced by the artist, but that the "instructions" for how to make the music were only protected if they were used commercially to make money.

I guess the web sites hosting tabs and such are making money from property not their own, but what are the implications of going after tablature?

If I hear a song somewhere and, simply by ear, start playing it for non-commercial purposes, have I broken the law? Have I stolen the music?

I posted a link to a recording of myself playing a song actually on this site - It is a classical guitar song that is performed by many in colleges and schools, as well as commercially by professional classical guitarists. I learned the song by ear. Have I broken the law here, and should I take down this recording?

What about the kid at the school talent show who plays his rendition of some commercial song. What about bands in bars who play "cover tunes". Are they all breaking the law as well, stealing that music content from the artists who wrote it? In some cases, cover bands get paid (not much, but still) to perform in bars.

I'm very curious as to peoples' thoughts here.

[rbVmVlQ2]

Downloading copyrighted recordings via "file sharing" utilities or whatever is clear theft in my book. Playing copyrighted songs is more of a gray area. I believe you are only required to make compensation to the artist if you are making money from it yourself, but I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. So if you perform a song for your friends, that's fine. But as soon as you perform it in public for money, you need to pay somebody. Which is why bars and other performance venues have these automatic deals set up where you pay ASCAP or whoever some fees. Recently we ran an Irish dancing competition and had to argue with the venue not to charge us those fees because all the songs were in the public domain.

I guess having sites with tabs and lyrics would be some sort of copyright issue but that seems like a gray area to me. If I figure out the chords to some song and play them for my own use, I can't see how anyone would object. If someone else figures them out for me and gives them to me for free, that seems OK too. I think it's a copyright issue if they are distributing copies of the actual transcripts sold to the public.

That's the way my guitar teacher handles it. He works out of a shop that sells sheet music - they are OK with him transcribing for students, but not photocopying copyrighted material.

[uaodnabnjz]

Neil, from a legal point of view (and of course I could be wrong) it is my opinion that you are absolutely correct. In additon to selling the copyrighted sheet music (because isn't that what tab are?) there is the issue of hosting the songs on a site that makes money selling advertising, Thus you are making money "giving away" my sheet music.

As for nanikure, yes I play an instrument and I have bought music books but only artist specific. You are correct about the "cheat books" that's why I would not buy them.
i-tunes has solved the album problem by allowing you to buy one song off an album (except the apple catalogue but that is their loss-the apple vs. apple lawsuit is another issue. I read the agreement and was not surprised that Apple Computer won)
I suggest that you leave out the "rich bastards", and "got too much money already" arguments out because they just make you look stupid. There is a great scene in the movie "Network" where Ned Beaty brings Peter Finch into the boardroom for a little chat. He says something like "You are fucking with primal forces of nature. Do you think they sit around the Kremlin discussing Marx? No, they talk about the price of wheat" You see, in the real word where grownups live, nothing happens until one guy sells something to another guy. You want free stuff, move back in with your parents.

Dohrt, you have the wrong impression. There is nothing wrong with playing a song. There is nothing wrong with transcribing a song. Kids that play in talent shows are not breaking the law. Bars pay a fee to ASCAP and or BMI who then pay royalties to the artists. If I have a bar I will usually have music playing to entertain my customers, I am making money partly from the music so I have to pay for it. Radio stations pay the fees based upon their Arbitron rating which also sets the rates for advertising on the station.
Now, as for your "classical song" I would assume that if it is "classical" then the copyright has run out and it is in the public domain. Your recording is subject to copyright protection, thus someone cannot use that in a commercial venture without compensating you.

Without getting too much into it, there is a thing called "compulsive license" that allows my band to do a cover of your "published" song without your permission but I have to pay the fee. Using the song in a movie or a commercial or the like is different and requires permission and a negotiated fee.

[casinoboneerer]

As for nanikure, yes I play an instrument and I have bought music books but only artist specific. You are correct about the "cheat books" that's why I would not buy them.
i-tunes has solved the album problem by allowing you to buy one song off an album (except the apple catalogue but that is their loss-the apple vs. apple lawsuit is another issue. I read the agreement and was not surprised that Apple Computer won)
I suggest that you leave out the "rich bastards", and "got too much money already" arguments out because they just make you look stupid. There is a great scene in the movie "Network" where Ned Beaty brings Peter Finch into the boardroom for a little chat. He says something like "You are fucking with primal forces of nature. Do you think they sit around the Kremlin discussing Marx? No, they talk about the price of wheat" You see, in the real word where grownups live, nothing happens until one guy sells something to another guy. You want free stuff, move back in with your parents.

You don't have to act so damn arrogant towards me just because you see things differently than I do. I'm saying since the tabber transcribed the song completely by ear (it explicitly states on the site that the tabber may not infringe on copyright [stealing the notes from a book etc.]) they should be able to share it any way they want. Many of the younger generation of musicians use online tablature as a resource to help improve their playing. If the bands would actually put out legal tabs online that were actually accurate and affordable, then there wouldn't be much of a problem here. However, since they haven't, it's just saying don't do it without any other alternative.

[capeAngedlelp]

You don't have to act so damn arrogant towards me just because you see things differently than I do. .

It's not that I see things differently than you do, you are wrong. If that translates to arrogant then there is no point in telling you that I have been practicing law for twenty years. As Fonz pointed out, you are apparently just not interested in hearing anything that is not what you want to hear.
If the tabber transcribes the song and sells it there is a violation. If he gives it away on a site that makes money selling advertising, there is a violation. Sorry you don't like it but them's is the fax jack.

[9V4i8xw1]

You don't have to act so damn arrogant towards me just because you see things differently than I do. I'm saying since the tabber transcribed the song completely by ear (it explicitly states on the site that the tabber may not infringe on copyright [stealing the notes from a book etc.]) they should be able to share it any way they want. Many of the younger generation of musicians use online tablature as a resource to help improve their playing. If the bands would actually put out legal tabs online that were actually accurate and affordable, then there wouldn't be much of a problem here. However, since they haven't, it's just saying don't do it without any other alternative.

Dude, chill out...so far all Iggy has done is point out the argument in terms of protecting the artists. Your only reply has been "oh, they are too rich" and growing hostility because its countering your view.

[sestomosi]

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.

However, what about a song that *is* copywrighted - an example would be an arrangement I did for "Our House" by CSNY - not taken from tabs, and not the *exact* same thing as played on the album (Deja Vu, was it?), but rather an arrangement for vocals and single classical guitar (integrating the piano and bass into one guitar part) - clearly the same "song" albeit with a different musical arrangement. I would assume that if I recorded this and posted it, even if I wasn't being paid, that I would be violating copyright rules? Or is that not the case? Does it matter if I'm hosting it on a site with no advertising (i.e. a site that makes no money - my own site that is completely free) ?

I'm sorry to nitpick, but I'm suddenly very concerned about something that before I didn't really think was a problem. Thank you everyone for your commentary and advice.

[chuecafressds]

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing,"

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...

i still think it's another example of the music industry thinking they're all powerful...

[Fksxneng]

This is interesting.

Melody is usually the determining factor in copywriting music (not recordings of course). The chords and arrangment are usually considered uncopywriteable.

The THING about this is, the lead guitar parts and other clever inventions the guitar player (or other musicians) came up with... THATS what is being protected in this case, that AND, of course, the lyrical content (which is quite copywritable).

Teaching guitar has forced me to check out these strange arrangments from time to time, mostly to see where the kids get these bad tips on playing.

Often the "transcriber" has reproduced only the most simpile main riff or lead part of a popular, playable song (pretty hard to find perfect brian may, or satriani solos and so-on). One is often hard pressed to find chords beyond the iffy ones supplied with the ASCI lyrics.

The worst part for the "artists" is really that the most sincere form of flattery is immitation, these kids are trying to share what their hero's hard working lawyers dread the most... ANY KIND of free access to the music. The funny thing is, at least TAB promote a basic kind of musicianship... one that requires the user to work for the results (unlike recorded music theft).

Still, the squirly ASCI files do represent a profit center for the publishers and THAT profit has clearly been obliterated by these sites. At the music store where I work, the books simply rot on the shelves... music books have always been a dodgy "value proposition" as the inacuracies do cause frustration, but instead of fixing the real problem (the publisher's sloppy workmanship) they set out to crush the public version.

I dunno... I say it serves kids right for not developing their ears as much as they could.

I only need books for truly difficult music... the current crop of home brewed tunings and painfully obvious, repeatitious circle-of-fifths writing requires little effort to decode.

Perhaps my students will find me more useful now!!

(hehehe)

[blogforlovxr]

. . .However, what about a song that *is* copywrighted . . .

Here are the relevant sections of the law.

17 U.S. Code § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
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:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(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;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

and

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.

and then:

17 U.S.C. § 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords
In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by clauses (1) and (3) of section 106, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section.

[putza]

so where do tabs come into that then? assuming you're not performing it publicly (which is a different matter altogether), I don't see why they would be illegal...

and i wondered how long it would take for someone to post some US law to settle the matter for us...how does that affect us non-US types?
if we try and say tabs are an arrangement of a musical piece, then it could be protected under the berne convention...

at best it's a grey area...