So in surfing this a.m., I ran across this.......

Since many here have talked about tabs and such I thought worth posting.

July 17, 2006

To all "Guitar Tab Universe" visitors:

The company which owns this website has been indirectly threatened (via our ISP) with legal action by the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) as well as the Music Publishers' Association (MPA) on the basis that sharing tablature constitutes copyright infringement. At what point does describing how one plays a song on guitar become an issue of copyright infringment? This website, among other things, helps users teach eachother how they play guitar parts for many different songs. This is the way music teachers have behaved since the first music was ever created. The difference here is that the information is shared by way of a new technology: the Internet.

When you are jamming with a friend and you show him/her the chords for a song you heard on the radio, is that copyright infringement? What about if you helped him/her remember the chord progression or riff by writing it down on, say, a napkin... infringement? If he/she calls you later that night on the phone or e-mails you and you respond via one of those methods, are you infringing? I don't know... but I would really like to know. If anyone has information on this, please email support@guitartabs.cc.

Apparently, the NMPA/MPA believes that the Internet may be on the foul side of the legality line they would like to draw here. For me, I see no difference. It's teachers educating students and covered as a 'fair use' of the tablature. The teachers here don't even get paid nor do the students have to pay this website to access the lessons.

An attack on this website is really an attack on every one of you who have told someone (in person, or via the written word, telephone, or e-mail) how you play a song on guitar. And who, especially among small websites, has the deep pockets to fight the NMPA/MPA? They use scare tactics while there is, in fact, no legal precedent on this matter (to the best of our knowledge). If you are interested in expressing your opinion to the NMPA/MPA, contact them via their respective websites. Please do not resort to vulgar language or insults.

Millions of people use the Internet to learn guitar, in one form or another. It appears the NMPA/MPA and their members do not want to support us and help us further our education. To you visitors from outside the USA or UK, can you find your favorite artists' "official sheet music" at your local music store? Even in the United States and United Kingdom, we often can not. The NMPA/MPA have a choice to make: either they support us as aspiring guitarists, or they choose to alienate their customer base. To date, not one sheet music publisher has contacted this website to either inquire as to our activities or to express interest in any type of dialogue or collaboration whatsoever. All we deserve is a cold, indirect, impersonal threat without any explanation? They should embrace new technologies or else become relics of the old economy.

Since I'm now 'worried' about working around tabs at all, I'm in a tough situation! Luckily, I'm fairly confident that if I alone listen to a song and then figure out how to play it by ear, I will then be able to enjoy using that knowledge to practice and improve my guitar playing skills. Is that what is necessary for everyone to do? Work these things out alone? What a sad situation.

Sincerely,
Rob Balch

Manager of "Guitar Tab Universe"

If you would like to help out and join the effort to fight for our freedom to tab and share, please check out MuSATO.

You can comment on this statement and/or situation here.

------------------
jam on,
Terry
http://www.artisans-world.com/

Funnily enough I came across that tonight as well!

Ridiculous.

Another example of a knee jerk reaction to the internet, and the public's ever increasing ability to access what they want without big business being able to control it!

For what it's worth, here's my take -

If you copy music, lyrics, chords, tabs, etc. from a legal document/source and distribute it for profit - that's copyright infringement.

If you figure out music, lyrics, chords, tabs, etc. on your own and share that info - that's NOT infringement.

Make sense?

I saw it months ago and it's been debated much. If you publich sheet music or books, you'd probably have a different view.

Their problem is in how to enforce it worldwide. The internet has changed everything. Some good, some bad.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

The sad thing is it's not the artists its the lawyers that are looking for ways to increase the revenue.

Bill,
I suppose I would if the someone was selling it for profit, this guy isn't, he's sharing it for free after figuring it out on his own.
As he said, if you're sitting around with some friends jammin' and you show them the chords to (pick a tune) and you then all sit around and play it, then that's infringement. No-one will play anyone's songs if they have to pay royalties on it everytime they perform it.

Performing a cover before a live audience can only help not hurt an artists sales.

If this is infringement, then anyone that gigs and does not pay the artist and publishers royalties if they sing their songs at a gig, is also violating copyright laws. There, they are getting paid for the gig and making a paltry profit for the work. Where does/would it stop?

Terry



------------------
jam on,
Terry
http://www.artisans-world.com/

Clubs, restaurants and businesses pay ASCAP and BMI to cover royalties. We don't have to do that as performaers.


Russ

How about nursing homes, hospitals, weddings, parties, corporate events etc.?



------------------
jam on,
Terry
http://www.artisans-world.com/

The publishing industry's beef is when it is published to a website, it has infringed upon their ability to sell sheet music or books. Which isn't the same as you and I sitting around a campfire and I show you the chords. I don't know all the answers, just saying...

I don't think anyone would sue you or I if they heard about our campout. If I publish it to a website, that's another story. I guess.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

Where does it end?

What about all the Song Lyrics sites on the Internet? Is that all copyright material?

The bottom line here is it's all about money--money they're not stuffing in their pockets because they're no longer selling sheet music, CDs, and lots of other goodies that they had monopolized over the past century. Now they're pissed, and they're using the court system to try and cash in on their recent losses. What a crock!

For me, I'll keep on doing what I've done for most of my life--freely share the knowledge I've gained from a host of sources and if the bastards want to sue me--go right ahead. I'm always ready for a good fight with the bureaucrats.

Cheers,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

.... the fact that he's sharing it is the problem .. if he didn't do that, others who could NOT figure it out for themselves might have to buy the sheet music, or record ...

What about midi file notation software that reads the midi file and tells you what chords are being played???

t.

Yes.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

I wouldn't recommend getting into a fight with ASCAP and BMI. You'd lose. As far as nursing homes, corporate events, etc, officially, someone must pay. Hotels generally pay to have music of all varieties, including recorded music played. When you sign up for Musak or other service, the liscensing is included. Several years ago, the targets were office buildings. Then, professional offices (doctors, dentists, etc.). One year, there was a problem of playing liscensed music and video at the Consumer Electronics Show, of all places. My client had to pay or not demo sound systems.

In reality, I can't imaging ASCAP or BMI going after nursing homes, but it is possible.

Around here, ASCAP comes to town every month or so, and checks the newspaper, marques and entertainment guides. Then, they lean on owners of establishments, not the musicians.

Believe me, I've met and dealt with these guys. They're rough and well funded.

Fees are to compensate composers and performers, and there is a formula which supposedly figures compensation for every sale of printed material and every broadcast or performance. How that happens, no one knows. I have been dealing with these goons for more years than I can remember.Of course, the safe way is to play unliscensed/original music. That would be no problem.The official response is "how else can performers and composers get fairly compensated for their work"?

Russ

A couple of years ago, I bought several domains as lyric sites for styles of music I like. I let them expire without ever developing the sites and now, I am glad I did. Powers that be have been going after lyric sites lately. I never dreamed they would; I assumed since the internet grew to what it is, lyric sites (that even PROMOTE purchasing the copyrighted songs/books/sheet music) would be okay. Wrong.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

Does that mean that all combination of words are copyrighted?

So, if I use the term "Beat It", I'd be violating Michal Jackson's copyright. But, If I hear his song, Beat it and then transcribe the lyrics, that would be copyright infringement? How? I did not copy his work?

The copyright law states that a work must be substanially changed to not infringe on the copyright. The figure they came up with is by 25%.

So by only using "beat it" you have substantially changed it by leaving out all the rest of the song. Secondly speaking it as opposed to singing and or performing it, also makes it a non infringement.
Terry


------------------
jam on,
Terry
http://www.artisans-world.com/

This is from the last time we were dealing with this:
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
• To display the copyrighted work publicly, 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; and
• In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.”
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
• Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
BEBOP

Musically as far as I know ONLY melody lines are copyright protected. If someone can tell me this isn't true it will be the first time I've heard about it. Chord progressions and rhythms do not describe a song accurately enough to be copyright protected. In fact MANY songs have EXACTLY the same chord progression. I very much doubt that guitar tablature is protected by copyright. It probably comes down to whether the website being threatened can afford to protect themselves against litigation. Even if they can't that doesn't mean that they are liable, simply that they can't afford to try to protect their rights.

While I support protecting musicians' rights it's times like these that I detest the attitude of the music industry. They don't represent musicians just their own right to profit from musicians. They are just panicing that independant distribution of music on the Internet is eroding the business model that has supported them for far too many years and they are trying keep the last remnants of profit from disappearing. I can't feel sorry for them at all.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 09-18-2006).]

spot on nigel..its the same here, only melody and lyrics are copyrighted...chord progs are not...in the case of chord charts i can't see how you can be sued, but some tabs actually transcribe the melody and or solo lines (which are copyrighted i believe) so possibly they would come under the copyright law...

Yeah, I guess it's the inclusion of the lyrics that is the problem. Maybe if they put an 'x' in front of each word it would thwart the legal infringement of lyric copyright.

Maybe "thwarting" isn't the point. Why go to the effort of creating such a site in the first place? I doubt it's for the benefit of all mankind - it's probably to drive hits to a banner-laden website or some other for-profit scheme. I hardly think of people who create music distribution websites of any kind as some kind of benefactors for anyone other than themselves. If anyone is going to post tabs or lyrics or MP3 files or whatever of popular music it should be the artists and/or the publishers who created it because it's their property - and I don't see them doing that so noone else should either. Copy the "lyrics" from Time Magazine onto your website without permission (even with an "X" in front of each word) and the question of infringement isn't so vague.

We are musicians - the rules are in place to protect what we create, without which artists could not profit from their work and therefore there'd be no reason for the work to exist. I see other forums where musicians are constantly dissing copyrights like it was some evil empire thing (some of the posts here sound like that too). If anyone should be supporting copyrights, it's us, and our example is what others follow.

Not everyone performs for money but for the satisfaction of giving enjoyment to others
and themselves.

I acknowledge there must be protection for those who perform and write music or a living
but who really make the big bucks.

I get anoyed when I want a particular piece of music only to be told it is not in stock or out of print.

I feel it is then legitimate to souce it from somewhere else perhaps not legally but justified.

Cousin Ken

.

to add to esh's post i reckon it would be super if artists would post tabs and such on their own websites and charged a fee for download..i would be happy to pay for tabs,chord progressions, lyrics packages for songs...as long as it was a reasonable charge..for example out here we have bigpond charging around 1.90 to d'load an mp3, to download a tab i would be happy to pay the same as long as the artist gets their fair share...BUT you dont see too many artists actually doing it though....would others be happy to pay for d/loading tabs etc etc?
dennis

Some artists reserve all their rights and do not allow their song to be re-recorded or printed or published in any form other than the original recording. Each area of publishing is separately negotiable, often with different companies. If a song is not available in tab or sheet music or whatever form you are looking for it's probably because the artist or their representatives have simply not struck a suitable deal in that area yet, or a deal was struck for a limited time and then it expired. That's business.

It is my understanding that once a song has been recorded and offered for sale and distribution, anyone can cover that song (record it). The original copyright holder cannot prevent them from covering it as long as the copyright holder is paid royalties due. I think a compulsory license can be had for $80? That figure sticks in my mind. For up to 1,000 copies? It may have changed, since the mechanical rate is now 9.1 cents per unit; it used to be 8 cents.

Regarding an artist offering chords/tab for sale, that sounds wonderful but I wonder if it would be good or bad. Some might feel you owe it to them, haha. I have no clue if it would be worthwhile but yeah, there have been times I guess I would pay a small amount for finding out how the original artist played a song. Interesting idea.

I have a book of Beatles chords/lyrics and geez, whatever I paid... I just looked and yep, the tag is on it... $20... it has been darn sure worth it! I have enjoyed many an hour of playing / learning those songs. Wonderfully accurate book, seems to me. By Rikky Rooksby.



------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

------------------
jam on,
Terry
http://www.artisans-world.com/

Up here in Canuklehead land, we've got SOCAN.
Basically a society set up by has-been performers, receiving government funding to "collect" fees for music played, those fees, supposedly being distributed to the artists & writers.
Problem is, as an example, a Dentist's office, can't play, let's say, an Elton John cd, without paying fees to SOCAN.

I spoke with someone from the SOCAN office quite a while back when this sh*t hit the fan.

I questioned where the fees collected would be going to. "To SOCAN members", I was told.

Be assured, Elton John is not a member of SOCAN, so any monies paid by the dentist's office, are not going to be heading Elton's way, rather, these fees being collected are supposedly being distributed to SOCAN members, many of which, particularly out on the west coast, are shrubs, writing songs about clouds, and driftwood. Songs that are never gonna get air play. Songs that nobody (except the writer and people tied to trees with flowers in their hair) would listen to.

We did a gig once at a local Yacht Club. The venue was given a fee choice by SOCAN. $29 if there was no dancing. $58 if there was dancing. Go figure that one out.

The yacht club paid the fee, along with a submission of a matching "administation" fee by the yacht club.

I agree the advancement of the internet has made music more readily available to everyone.

If artists want to make money with their music, they must be prepared to get out and promote it, by way of concerts, etc.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/...b9-95256c613824

------------------
...shboom

I absolutly agree with the Canadian artists.

Cousin Ken

Gary, THATS THE SPIRIT!!!
but I think you ought to start practicing tunes like Jailhouse Rock and The Chain Gang

If I set up my own website and I have mp3 recordings of me playing popular songs (most likely copyrighted) on my arranger ... Would I be in violation?
How do you guys and gals with websites, and/or links into other sites, do this and stay out of trouble?

"Inquiring minds want to know".
(is that last statement of mine copyrighted?
if so, let me know and i will edit it out, unless Scott talked Nigel into removing the edit feature )

Ahhh, its still working.


[This message has been edited by MrEd (edited 09-20-2006).]

Remember the controversey George Harrison got into with "My Sweet Lord"? The claim was that it was an infringement on another previous top 40 tune. Since changes to many tunes are similar, I believe it's up to the legal folks, who, sometimes are not trained in music, to decide copyright infringements. Some claims have been a little hard to proove.

I believe the copyright includes the lead line, words and changes.

Generally, ASCAP and BMI go after folks who profit from public performance of copywritten materials (Clubs, restaurants, office buildings, professional service locations, etc). Can't imagine that they would persue nursing homes, family picnics, charity events, etc.

That would really be cold, legal or not!

Russ

The tune was "He's so fine" by the chiffons,
here is a web site that lets you listen and read about the infringement.
http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Harrison/Harrison.aspx

As far as I know, yes. I have asked about this on other forums. A license for each song would be necessary. If anyone knows any different, advise me. Such as posting some mp3's of copyright material to allow prospective clients to hear songs you might play.

If you do it just for funsies and do not play for money, you could request a "gratis" license.

As for what are the odds of them coming after you, I have no idea. There are countless sites with copyrighted material. But it would be a drag if they did, wouldn't it. They are definitely getting more pro-active with suing.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

They don[t have time or resources to check milions of little websites. I've posted songs on mine for 10 years. I suppose if they ever tell me to quit, I will, then change websites.
DonM

Assuming that I am correct in saying that, legally, you need licenses, the risk, Don, is that they hit you with a "pay us $5,000 to settle or we go to court." Ask the mamas whose kids were downloading and hit with such demands. Ugh.

They have gone after people who download, they have gone after people who post lyrics and tabs, they have now gone after Youtube and Myspace. Who's next? One can also just wing it and buck the odds, since, like you say, there are countless sites with copyrighted songs.

Who can say but the music industry powers that be have gotten pretty agressive.

Of course, the sad thing is that so many can't afford to get licenses. It's not worth it to spend several hundred dollars to get licenses for most small-time musicians.

------------------
Bill
Yamaha PSR2000

Regarding downloads (ok this is SLIGHTLY off topic - please bear with me all, and answer if you can) if I put up an original recording (on say, My Space, or one of those online Song Contests - specifically "American Idol Underground") can people steal my song, or is it "auto copywrited" once it's online.

Or do I need some heavy duty legal representation to protect my rights (and songs)?