Guitartabs.com Suspends Under Legal Pressure 348
Music publishers are stepping up their campaign to remove guitar tablature from the Net. Recently Guitartabs.com received a nastygram from lawyers for the National Music Publishers Association and The Music Publishers Association of America. These organizations want to stretch the definition of their intellectual property to include by-ear transcriptions of music. Guitartabs.com is currently not offering tablature while the owner evaluates his legal options.
Stairway (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stairway (Score:5, Informative)
Store worker yanks the guitar from (Wayne, IIRC?), points to a sign posted that says "No Stairway", at which point Wayne and Garth look at each other and say "Denied".
They would have gotten away with it, too, if not for the meddling employee!
Re:Stairway (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stairway (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stairway (Score:5, Interesting)
I had so much sympathy for the guitar shop employee. Imagine every wanna-be rocker coming in to try to play Stairway, butchering it every single time. The whole idea of a single note being enough to identify the song was at the same time good for a laugh, and scary to think that American copyright law kept the film makers from using more than a one note before violating the law.
the AC
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stairway (Score:4, Insightful)
This was in no way making us money, or losing any money for the record companies. We weren't choosing to listen to Midis over buying CDs or anything like that. Oh sure, you can argue maybe we were abstaining from buying sheet music over using the tabs, but at the same time - most of what we played did not have sheet music transcriptions for all instruments.
And being able to have your song in tab notation, sheet music notation and have it playable as a Midi (for all instruments) is a lot more useful than just having the sheet music for one instrument in a book.
With mysongbook.com down, not only are tabs a lot harder to find, but it's harder to find the higher quality ones, or ones that include all instruments (instead of just guitars+bass).
This is nothing but greed - record companies trying to work out if they can make money off tabs...and until they can work that out, banning any other distributions all together.
~Jarik
IP issues. (Score:5, Interesting)
But if a song is IP, why does it matter how it was copied? Copying it by looking at the paper, or copying by listening... It only takes a more talented individual.
It's like saying that it's legal to copy DVDs, but only if you're talented enough to crack the encryption yourself, with no help.
It either IS or IS NOT legal to copy it, there should be no 'only if by this method' BS.
Fair use. (Score:5, Insightful)
and
Reading a book so you can publish a review (with spoilers and character names)?
You cannot use those characters in your own book without licensing them. You cannot use that tablature in your own song without licensing it.
This is about personal, private usage.
Reverse Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In and of itself, for an in-house project? Sure. If it's patented it needs to be in the patent description, so fuddling around to better understand that patent (so you can use it the day it expires) is fine. If it's just copyritten, the ideas therein aren't protected.
But by and large, writing down the fingerings of a song isn't going after ideas -- it's going after the specific collection of them. It's like, as I say elsewhere, writing dow
Re:Reverse Engineering (Score:4, Informative)
No, I don't buy it. Writing down the script of the play would give you the exact script. However, a song is a human interpretation of written music, much like a binary is a computer translation of source code. The difference is that humans do not perform exactly what is written, while computers do. Further, other humans attempting to reverse-engineer the written music from the performance would also not transcribe the exact music as it was played. So, like the old game of "telephone" with one person whispering to another person, to yet another person, and then trying to figure out the original message, no transcription of a performance is going to get you the music as it was originally written. You would have a parody of the original written music - similar, but not quite exact.
parody (pr'-d) n., pl. -dies. [answers.com]
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.
And of course, parody is protected under copyright law.
Re:Reverse Engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
The brain is identifying the tonal root, rhythm, chords, and the relations between chords. Is this illegal also? Is it illegal to tell your band buddy: Hey did you hear that? That was an awesome change to the parallel key when they went from the A to the C chord? Silly stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine going to an artist's gallery, and you see a well-done drawing and decide to sit there and draw it yourself. The artist would probably yell at you, and the legality of copying it like that is probably in a sort of grey-area, depending on how you intend to use it. However, you can't go and make copies then go selling them to people or places... He solely h
Fair use is not republishing (Score:4, Insightful)
"Publishing" is not "personal, private usage". Fair use is not republishing. Fair use is sitting in your personal space looking at the tablature and playing. It probably includes looking at your tablature and performing it in a public venue with the appropriate payments made to whatever organization "collects" the performance royalties. However publishing that tablature on the web (distribution) is something entirely different. I *am not* saying it is something bad, just that it is something that is not fair use.
How is that different than my book review example? (Score:5, Informative)
In that case, no book reviews or movie reviews or any other review would ever be legal without express permission.
I can publish a movie review complete with character names, plot and spoilers.
You can read my movie review and write your own, private, screen play with that same plot and characters and events.
Two examples of "fair use".
Re:How is that different than my book review examp (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, no book reviews or movie reviews or any other review would ever be legal without express permission.
That is a straw man argument. It is also severely flawed on its face, reviews contain excerpts not the entire work.
I don't think you understand what tabs are (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in no way agreeing that listening to a song, and telling a friend (or a million friends) that 'these are the notes that guy played, in this order' is wrong (or illegal), just that your description of what is being removed is wrong.
Says who? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how that is relevant. Reviews contain excerpts not the entire work, and guitartabs was publishing neither reviews nor parodies. It essentially publishes a form of sheet music.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference between listening to a song so you can guess at the tablature and publishing that
and
Reading a book so you can publish a review (with spoilers and character names)?
A matter of appropriate metaphor. A song is a perforamnce -- there is a copyright both on the actual sound produced and the original sheet music. Re-creating the sheet music is closer to watching a play, and writing your own line-pages for a production.
(And, FWIW, a review is a derivative work only allowable via Fair Use. Hew close enough to be derivitive (names, plots, et al) and use them in a way that isn't Fair Use (like, oh, making an RPG) and you'll get slapped with a lawsuit.)
Re:Fair use. (Score:5, Informative)
The sheet music publishers need to get over themselves. People who want to casually learn to play an instrument aren't going to go and pay hundreds of dollars for lessons and buy the sheet music of their favorite artists.
The really sad thing is that these lawsuits are killing what copyright was designed to protect, promotion of the arts.
Re:Fair use. (Score:4, Insightful)
"It is bleedingly obvious that tablature is made and distributed for scholarship. In fact, I was attempting to teach my self how to play bass guitar. I got relatively good at it until the tab sites started shutting down. Now I haven't practiced in months."
While you make some good points, I think you go too far in inferring that the copyright holders' defending of their rights is to blame for your not practicing.
I learned to play guitar in the days before the Internet. I did so using books of songs. I had a Beatles songbook that probably cost all of $10, and similar collections. They did just fine in giving me songs to learn to play. On occasion I would buy the sheet music for one particular song -- at two or three bucks, it was not a bargain compared to the collections -- but it was not a financial hardship.
"The sheet music publishers need to get over themselves. People who want to casually learn to play an instrument aren't going to go and pay hundreds of dollars for lessons and buy the sheet music of their favorite artists."
Paying for lessons and buying sheet music aren't linked. One can do one, the other, or both. Sheet music is readily available pretty cheaply; this is unrelated to the cost of lessons.
"The really sad thing is that these lawsuits are killing what copyright was designed to protect, promotion of the arts."
The music publishers are doing this because they want to launch their own ad-supported sites with tabs, lyrics, and sheet music. Keep in mind that music publishers are very often the composers and lyricists themselves; with few exceptions, composers and lyricists get a much bigger piece of the pie vs. CD sales, and the revenue stream for music publishing typically bypasses the record company altogether -- and this is a good thing. We talk about ways to support the artists without supporting the record companies... this is a great way to do it.
Here's how it works out for supporting the composers and lyricists for the various methods of getting your sheet music and tabs:
Now, back to guitartabs. Here we have the situation of a third party (the webmaster) making money off of somebody else's work even though they were not part of the creative process. This is exactly why we hate the record companies, because they do something very similar.
If you want to support artists, that's great -- I agree with you 100%. Why not buy the sheet music and tabs you want, or wait and use the tab/lyric sites operated by the publishers themselves? That way, you support the artists, not some guy who's making a living by making unauthorized copies of others' work.
Your support of guitartabs sounds similar to the common rationale for P2Ping music -- sure, the artist doesn't make any money, but you are "supporting" the artist by reproducing their work. I think a majority of artists would agree that financial support is better.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be like if the vast majority of people who use P2P illegally would not buy the song if it wasn't available for free. Casual players like myself aren't going to buy the sheet music.
With regards to ad-supported tabs at an official website: that is a great idea and I'm 100% behind that. I don't know
Re:Fair use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the sheet music and tabs I want aren't available for purchase anywhere, yet they're still subject to takedown notices on every tab site I know. So please tell exactly what am I to do in this situation?
Re:Fair use. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pray tell, how does that promote the useful arts and sciences?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Judging from your story about buying a Beatles song book for $10 bucks, I know that you really haven't grasped the issue at hand, and don't play much guitar.
Sheet music is mostly written for piano. It represents a sort of lowest common denominator transcription of the music, like Muzak for singalongs. Guitar "song books" are much the same, but have guitar chords added. You think eithe
re: I disagree... it's not a zero sum game.... (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, a lot of tab out there is really poor. Very inaccurate, or only partial tabs - made by some kid who wanted to share the fact that he "finally figured out the guitar chords for the first chorus" or what-not. If I can choose between one of these "unofficial" tab collection sites, or a real, "authorized" one that's st
Re:IP issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shall we outlaw whistling next?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe. If you do it for cash, yes. Tab sites are commercial enterprises (note the banner ads). See this: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp [snopes.com].
Re:IP issues. (Score:4, Insightful)
So to expand on my last post, be careful what you whistle. Some day soon, someone may come along and tell you that you that you owe them a royalty for that performance of their intellectual property.
Re:IP issues. (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, I can't even sign "Happy birthday!" to my kid, I have to use some open-source song such as "Today is the anniversary of your birth!" with similar hooks, but not quite.
Thank you very much, copyright laws. You've made our world a better place!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why somebody might think that copyright law doesn't cover derivative works like
Copy to memory?! (Score:2)
It has come to our attention that your brain makes available so-called "remembered" versions of copyrighted musical compositions owned or controlled by members of the NMPA and MPA, without permission from the publishers.
The versions of these publishers' musical works that you store in your brain are not exempt under copyright law. In fact, U.S. copyright law specifically provide
One way around this... (Score:2)
Nothing fancy. For instance, here is the chord changes for "Hey Joe". C-G-D-A-E......there, come arrest me.
That's the chord changes, then it's up to the musician to listen to how Jimi Hendrix did it inside of those chord changes when he made his cover of the song....which is actually better than to read a transcription anyway as if you figure it out for you
Also, what if the tab is just wrong? (Score:2)
Maybe post the tab, but everything is transcribed one note up.
I mean, how far can they go? What if there's a post somewhere discussing Zeppelins "The Rain Song" and it's weird DGCGCD (which I think is the tuning for electric, a slightly different tuning goes for acoustic) tuning, can they go after them as well, because in that tuning, the guitar practically plays the song itself. I mean,
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite - More like saying that you and your friends can legally film yourselves doing a reproduction of a movie on DVD, purely for noncommercial use.
Which you can.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guitar tabs aren't copying. It's a transcription and summary created by someone who knows the notation and can ascertain an approximation of what happened.
So what about Cliff's Notes? Outlines? Chord charts? Sentence diagrams? Sitting down and listening to the record over and over to figure out the lyric?
The record company has copyrighted the recording. The songwriter has copyrighted the melody and lyrics. The publisher has control over sheet music. Is the arrangement copyrightable? Nope. The 16 bar blues
Is it their property (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is it their property (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've used those sites before, as an amateur. I understand much of the copyright law we have now dates from the time when sheet music was the only way to copy music. Back then, people would buy a single copy, and copy it note for note to another paper, and sell it.
Now, I can see the point here, but people aren't copying published sheet music, they're creating tablature from memory. A lot of it isn't even right (they typically have ratings for accuracy).
Obviously, if someon
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That doesn't make too much sense. I mean, if instead of photocopying an electronics schematic I manually draw a new one, with the original right there for reference, is that "my work"?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
transcribe
1. to make a written copy, esp. a typewritten copy, of (dictated material, notes taken during a lecture, or other spoken material).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcribe [reference.com]
If you're good at transcribing, then by definition, it is a copy. Making copies is protected by copyright, that's why it's called a "copy-right".
In other words, it's not yours and it's not an "original work"
Re: (Score:2)
"How do the artists feel about this?"
Remember, publishing rights is a great revenue stream for composers and lyricists... a revenue stream where they typically get a much bigger cut than via CD sales. And, in most cases (and this is the great part) the record companies don't see any of the money! You're right that it's not the RIAA's property... but we're not talking about record companies here.
I guess we can take the position (and many do) that if an artist wants to make money off their work in any w
Re:Is it their property (Score:4, Insightful)
Appropriate response (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not yet decided what response is appropriate.
Don't give in to bullies.. the law is on your side.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When they do, file the appropriate DMCA response outlining why the material isn't infringing.
Except that it clearly is. You can create sheet music based on copyrighted material and publish it, either. Sheet music publishing rights and performance recording rights are separate animals, but both have clear copyright protection.
Even some anti-copyright people recognize that taking a book, making copies of it, and selling the copies is not really appropriate. This is exactly the same thing. Guitartabs.com
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it clearly isn't clear that that's the case.
Re:Appropriate response (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they can. What they lose if they do that is the DCMA's protection against a civil suit.
The notion that if you follow the anti-takedown notice rules, the ISP is *prohibited* from removing the material in question is a popular one, but it's flat-out wrong:
Copyright delenda est (Score:5, Insightful)
"Under the circumstances, both the transcriber of the compositions and you as the owner of the website are copyright infringers."
And they're right. Under copyright law, merely transcribing a song by ear (even without sending it to a website) is copyright infringement. Specifically, unauthorized creation of a derivative work. That is an illustration of how nasty and flawed the entire system of copyright is.
Re:Copyright delenda est (Score:4, Insightful)
Transcribing a song for your own study and private performance is covered under the Fair Use exception. Publishing it is not.
The rights owner can prevent others from publishing an exact copy or a derivative work. That's what makes a copyright valuable. Publishing a composition in a different notation style is still publishing the composition.
Sure it's sad that there isn't another source for these tablatures. Maybe the publishers are thinking of getting into the tablature business. Maybe they are just really short-sighted and think that they can force people to buy the standard notation versions. Maybe the publishing companies will suffer by doing this. But that is their prerogative.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we think in terms other than black and white when it comes to copyright here? That's really an example of how the _entire system_ is flawed? Or maybe just that part. An overly broad and abusive definition of derivative works being used to the detriment of society is not an indictment of copyright as a whole, and you shouldn't try to make it one. It's an indictment of overly broad and abusive definitions o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the 19th Century, authors and producers of popular musical entertainment (such as, at the time, Gilbert & Sullivan) had to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent "entrepreneurial" productions of their works appearing on the American stage within weeks of the London production as a result of transcribers busily noting down the entire work in the audience - the Vi
Re: (Score:2)
I have come around to the opinion that breaking the copyright laws is a good thing in and of itself. It's also a recklessly foolish thing to do. You'd be better off convicted of killing an RIAA director than to have the full weight of the copyright law come down on you. Sell paraquat to teenagers...the punishment is less. (Mind you, it's rare for the full penalties to be imposed for co
WTF??? (Score:4, Funny)
The Music Publishers Association of America???
Isn't the RIAA enough??
You Americans hate music... huh?
Re:WTF??? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah. We just love Associations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
finally a reason to thank the RIAA and DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you enjoy downloading tabs off the net to learn new songs, this is not good news.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolving definitions (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is republisher's greed ok? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a misrepresentation, a straw man. Transcribing is not the issue. Publishing the transcription, in effect republishing the original artist's work, is the issue.
hmmm... perhaps Greed?
Who's greed? The greed of the owner of the copyrighted work who wishes to control publication or the greed of the web site operator who
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Publishing the transcription, in effect republishing the original artist's work, is the issue.
It's just as arguea
Re: (Score:2)
MPA win anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Do a rot13 equivalent (Score:3, Funny)
Metaltabs already went through this (Score:5, Informative)
Insanity (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Luck (Score:4, Interesting)
This is simply Asinine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You reverse engineer patents, not copyrights. (Score:3, Informative)
On top of that, the process isn't even the same. Reverse engineering takes place in clean rooms where the reverse engineering team are shielded from the actual product they're trying
Re:You reverse engineer patents, not copyrights. (Score:4, Informative)
Copyrights are weaker than patents in that they cover specifics rather than the abstract. However, copyright also has stronger rules about what is and isn't allowed with copyrighted works.
For instance, in the US it's illegal to create a derivative work of a copyrighted piece without permission of the copyright owner*. Not surprisingly, tabs and sheet music (objects created with the express purpose of allowing someone to recreate the original work), are covered by that rule. It may surprise you, but there are companies out there that produce tabs and sheet music for songs that have actually licensed the rights to do so. Not surprisingly, these companies are also not happy about people creating their own tabs/sheet music and (more importantly) distributing them over the Internet.
* Other provisions of Title 17 need to be taken into account, particularly Section 107 Fair Use. For example, a movie review only contains minute details about a movie's plot, so that is exempted from copyright law, as opposed to a (tran)script of the movie.
Culture Growth (Score:5, Insightful)
How does new music come to be? Do you think a good (and creative) musician got to be that good all by himself? The way I learned music is (1) by listening to good music, (2) by trying to figure out how the piece worked and what made it satisfying and (3) trying to recreate the same effect on my own. Most of the times, on at least one of those steps, I needed somebody else's help. Either in getting to know new music, in figuring out the chords or in learning to play in new ways.
I couldn't have played the way I do without this help, and I have OLGA to thank for a large piece of that. Of course, I got a lot of help from my friends and teachers, but the sort of collaboration that is possible on the net is, I believe, a real boon for every musician, of every level, from beginner to professional. Then again, who's to say if my friend telling me (or writing down for me to play) the chords to a copyrighted song is legal!?
My point being, this kind of litigation has only one effect, and that is to suffocate creativity and the growth of our culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a running Jump.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
If the write down just TWO Notes then there will most likely be some other works of music that uses those same two notes in that sequence. If that piece of music is copyrighted then tough luck, you are in violation of the prior art's copyright which will pprobably be in violation of a previous piece of work. Repeat this back in time until the legal period of copyright has expired.
IMHO, Any TWO notes is a sequen
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which, there's only so many combinations of two notes... 144 if you're dealing with two notes in the same octave, 576 if you're dealing with two octaves.
I haven't done a study, but I'm fairly sure that the probability of two notes in a row, played on the same instrument, being within two octaves
Tab books? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
3 chords (Score:5, Interesting)
1-1-4-1-5-4-1-5
Three chords that are the base, in that very same order, of at least one third of every rock'n'roll and blues tunes known by human.
Guitar tabs are not the tune. The tune is the combination of the melody, the lyrics, the chords, the arrangements and the feeling of the band. Finally, this story is all again a try to patent the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
That would qualify as the majority of the song.
You see, US copyright law does care how much of the material is similar or the same, as outlined in Title 17 Section 107 Fair Use.
That's also why it'd be impossible to sue and win over the chords you mentioned above.
they should start suing each other. (Score:5, Informative)
Metallica has a good case against Kid Rock since American Badass sounds like Sad But True.
The Beatles should have sued the Monkeys for ripping off Paperback writer to bring up Last Train to Clarksville.
How about Don Henley's End of the Innocence and Bruce Hornsby's Thats Just The Way It Is".
Rod Stewart should sue Kiss for Hard Luck Woman its a complete copy of You Wear It Well.
A-Ha's take on me completely lifted the Police's Every Little Thing She Does is Magic.
Linkin Park should sue itself for making Pushing Me Avway and Numb which are nearly identical musically. Ditto for Nickelback.
While we are at it, lets just make it illegal to play any song using 12 bar blues
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that was Bruce Hornsby playing the piano on that track. In fact, I seem to recall Henley put lyrics to Hornsby's music on that one.
Not nitpicking, just enjoy trivia. I agree with your point.
Of course it's a copyright violation (Score:2)
I have long been of the understanding that an original, by-ear transcription of a song, which is a duplicate of no copyrighted work and which generally deviates substantially from the work on which it is based is the property of its transcriber, and not the original composer of the song.
Where did he get that weird idea? If that were the case, composers would never get paid anything.
Remember, this isn't about a copyright of the performance, which is what the RIAA is about. It's about a copyright of t
Copyright (Score:5, Funny)
Blah blah blah blah-dy blah blah blah,
D A
Blah blah blah blah-dy blah blah blah.
D
Blah blah-dy blah blah, blah blah blah,
A
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
E7 D
Blah, blah blah; blah blah blah.
A
Blah! Blah blah blah.
There, I've just written some chords for a song I made up. But you know what? Those chords are NOT COPYRIGHTABLE. The lyrics are (and if you record and distribute a song with these lyrics without paying me royalties, I'll come after you). The melody is, but I haven't written that down. The arrangement is (harmonies, instrumentation, etc.) but I haven't written that down either. The chords themselves are not. This is data, information about how the song is put together - not art.
By the way, this particular series of chords (transposed into all 24 major and minor keys) is used in hundreds if not THOUSANDS of different songs.
This is getting ridiculous... (Score:2, Insightful)
Our species thirsts for knowledge, striving for ever greater understanding of all the facets of the organic and the inorganic, as well as thought and form, including music.
We've progressed by sharing information for thousands of years and that included songs and music for worship, history, mythology, and just plain fun. Anyone who would restrinct that geneticly instilled curiosity, regardless of their claims of "protection" actually does far more harm than good.
Simply put, it's unnatural for us to not sh
Reverse Engineering (Score:2)
This is just silly BS. I'm tempted to start posting tabs all over the place. Tab tshirts, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
"I've played guitar for over 25 years. If I sit down and transcribe a song to tab by ear, is that not reverse engineering? Isn't that supposed to be allowwed?"
Sure, it's allowed. Just don't publish your copy of the song -- the music publishers (who are often the composers themselves) have claimed that right, via copyright law.
In particular, don't publish unauthorized copies as a for-profit business, as guitartabs has done. If you do, you're likely to incur the wrath of the music publishing associations
Anyone who can play by ear (Score:2)
On top of that, if you play a song written by someone else at a gig or even in your own home you are infringing on said persons copyrights and should be burned at the stakes.
Why does the music industry want to kill itself so badly?
Well, there goes every fakebook every published (Score:2)
What if.... (Score:3, Interesting)
A web site allows anonimous upload of a track, and returns a computed tablature for this track. Is chord computing illegal in the USA?
That's simply foolish, please someone set up such a web site to show how ridiculous is to forbid musical notations.
Re: (Score:2)