The end of tabs?

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
But sitting down, tabbing a song out for yourself and then posting it? I would label that like open-source code software.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a copyright law perspective it's equivalent to taking a bit of source code out of an office at Microsoft, sitting down at your home PC, typing the code in while changing a few variables, then posting the result on the 'net. Did you hurt anyone? Maybe not. Did you harm Microsoft's market? Maybe not. Did you break the law? Absolutely! A good rule of thumb is that anything you think you can do with a copyrighted work without paying royalties is probably not allowable. There are some limited exceptions and defenses but most of what you see on the 'net, including much of what's been asserted in this thread, are nothing more than Internet mythology.

[Chrisb]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]

The piracy is simply playing it or tabbing it without paying the royalty fees. The band and record company usually have some sharing of the publishing rights and copyright, so the record company would ususally file suit naming itself and the band as plaintiffs.

It's understandable that some don't want to pay for something they could get free before, but the artists and record companies are within their rights. If you were writing and publishing your own music you'd probably feel the same, although in the PC music environment you might be afraid to say so publicly. You'd probably blame it on the record company and let them do your dirty work, but take the royalty checks.

You could pony up and buy the tabs, or get some ear training so you can figure the stuff out without tab. Many of the web tabs are just someone's ear transcriptions anyway. If they can do it, so can you. It's not really that hard, and it improves your musicality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Learning it by ear and playing it is no different than tabbing it and sending it to someone who then learns it. Same result, different road to it. Some people can't play by ear. I can't do it very well. Possibly with training I could but if you limit every guitarist to that its going to discourage alot of future guitarists.

Alot of bands have already expressed their outrage about this, so I don't think its a given that if you are in the industry you are in support of this. Alot of bands remember what it was like starting out. You barely make any money playing the club circuit and most of that goes into equipment, upkeep and the basics. If your playing a setlist of 6 songs you can buy one songbook and do a setlist of all the same band or you can get 6 songbooks and spend over 100 bucks to produce one setlist. The music industry is slowly killing the aspiring musician with their greed, wether its "legally defensible" doesn't make it fair or justified. If they continue to make young musicians pay for everything and limit their way of distributing music then where will we be in 10 years? Sure the record companies will get be richer, and the bands that get airplay will make some more money back. But what about the bands on small labels, and what about the bands trying to make it now who can barely get by as it is.

[lerxstcat]

Re: The end of tabs?

It IS different. You figure it out yourself, you didn't use illegal copies of the tab to do it. Another thing, I don't know any cover band players who use tab. They learn and play by ear. You're not in violation doing that because you didn't steal their product to do it - unless you illeagally dl'ed the music. That's another issue.

When you go to play the music live, the venue is paying fixed fees to BMI and ASCAP to cover royalty fees. You're in compliance there. Sure, you might play some promited gigs at non-regular venues where they don't get paid, but you as a player can assume the promoter's doing what's right and legal.

So the starving cover band thing doesn't fly. Very few songs you'd play at regularly paying gigs are at all difficulot to plkay by ear. You might need a little practice. You might need a phrase trainer, too, which a $50 Digitech RP50 has, or for $149 Tascam has a great one.

The point is, your need for tab as opposed for ear training is not the record companies' problem - until you steal their
copyrighted material. Then they can make it your problem. Whether anyone likes it or not, those are the simple facts of the matter.

And the bands on small labels need every penny they can get.
They do share in the royalties even though the labels often own as much or more. If it costs them $1,000 nationwide, that can matter to a band, if someone's amp blows up or his guitar is stolen. But because 50 guys used free Internet tabs, that band is in a tigtht spot. See how that can trickle down? And even if they're not getting airplay royalties, they WILL get royalties on sales of tab books, which can be directly applied to that band.

I believe that most bands talk the talk because it's PC in the music business to not go where Lars went. I bet nobody is turning down the money though.

[iced_earth]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
Copyright law, at least in the US, includes a concept of "derivative works". They're exactly what they sound like: films based on novels, paintings based on photographs, statues based on drawings, written musical scores based on recorded musical works, etc., etc., etc. The bottom line is that if you begin with a copyrighted work and produce your own version of it in another media you've infringed the coypright owned by the author of the original work. Clear as mud?

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically the author automatically has future rights to all derivative works... but the purchaser of the original work (ie, a book or a CD) has no right to the derivative work (ie, a movie based on a book or a tab from a CD)? When Iced Earth released the Dark Saga album based on the Spawn comic book character, did they have to pay for the right to do so? Is there a level of "minor changes" you can do to say the derivative work is different enough from the original that you don't need to pony up? I heard the people how produced the Owen Wilson "Behind Enemy Lines" movie changed the story just enough from the real guy who inspired the movie... So maybe tab in the future can be purposefully incorrect and "inspired by" the orignal... Not to move away from the original thread, but all of this legal type stuff is interesting to me. Thanks in advance for helping us out.

-Mike

[iced_earth]

Re: The end of tabs?

On a side note, as of today you cannot download tabs from www.powertabs.net [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img] ... I really like that site [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[lerxstcat]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Copyright law, at least in the US, includes a concept of "derivative works". They're exactly what they sound like: films based on novels, paintings based on photographs, statues based on drawings, written musical scores based on recorded musical works, etc., etc., etc. The bottom line is that if you begin with a copyrighted work and produce your own version of it in another media you've infringed the coypright owned by the author of the original work. Clear as mud?

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically the author automatically has future rights to all derivative works... but the purchaser of the original work (ie, a book or a CD) has no right to the derivative work (ie, a movie based on a book or a tab from a CD)? When Iced Earth released the Dark Saga album based on the Spawn comic book character, did they have to pay for the right to do so? Is there a level of "minor changes" you can do to say the derivative work is different enough from the original that you don't need to pony up? I heard the people how produced the Owen Wilson "Behind Enemy Lines" movie changed the story just enough from the real guy who inspired the movie... So maybe tab in the future can be purposefully incorrect and "inspired by" the orignal... Not to move away from the original thread, but all of this legal type stuff is interesting to me. Thanks in advance for helping us out.

-Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Dark Saga is derivitive ENOUGH of Splawn, then they should've paid. if they didn't and the comic publisher found out, they could sue them and probably win. Iced Earth is not that well-known and might fly under the radar though.

I wonder if Rush paid Ayn Rand for 2112? They would certainly have to if sued, it's so direct a ripoff of "Anthem" by Rand that they'd have to lose such a case.

Oh, I believe the threshhold is 85% similarity for plagarism to apply. But a judge decides, so if you cleverly made it 80% the same you might still get slammed.

[Chrisb]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
It IS different. You figure it out yourself, you didn't use illegal copies of the tab to do it. Another thing, I don't know any cover band players who use tab. They learn and play by ear. You're not in violation doing that because you didn't steal their product to do it - unless you illeagally dl'ed the music. That's another issue.

When you go to play the music live, the venue is paying fixed fees to BMI and ASCAP to cover royalty fees. You're in compliance there. Sure, you might play some promited gigs at non-regular venues where they don't get paid, but you as a player can assume the promoter's doing what's right and legal.

So the starving cover band thing doesn't fly. Very few songs you'd play at regularly paying gigs are at all difficulot to plkay by ear. You might need a little practice. You might need a phrase trainer, too, which a $50 Digitech RP50 has, or for $149 Tascam has a great one.

The point is, your need for tab as opposed for ear training is not the record companies' problem - until you steal their
copyrighted material. Then they can make it your problem. Whether anyone likes it or not, those are the simple facts of the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would require people to be able to play by ear in order to play guitar. Thats [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]. Every time you add an additional hurdle for aspiring musicians to jump over you decrease the chance. We want to ENCOURAGE people to play music not to run away from it because now they have to get "ear training".

And must be different where you are but every cover band I know and every band we knew when I was in one in high school used tabs. Some of us could play by ear, my friend Will had a real gift in that regard, but tab was easier because your already dividing your time between school and other activities as well as practice, its just much quicker to not have to sit down and figure it out for yourself.

I believe alot of bands understand this, which is why they don't support it. Sure they aren't going to turn down the money. Hell I wouldn't turn down the money. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

It depends on the type of music you play as a cover band you can't assume how easy the material is. They could be playing Linkin Park or they could be playing Dream Theater. I'd want a tab for Dream Theater (though admittedly I would want their tab probably, its hard enough to pick out what they are doing sometimes. Depends on what style of music you play. Its much tougher for progressive bands. I haven't visited DT's site recently but they used to have a section on their own website with submitted tabs by their fans. They weren't guaranteed accurate but they were there, so obviously DT isn't to concerned about it.

The point is Rich, while its not maybe gonna be a huge effect in the industry any time soon, the last thing the music industry should be doing is anything no matter how small to drive away aspiring musicians. Its not as if I don't have any tab books myself. I do in fact. I have one for Scenes from a Memory, some Metallica and Megadeth collection ones I used when I was in a band in high school and an Iron Maiden one. The Iron Maiden on is interesting in that they don't tab the solos. I kind of like that actually.

Just because its legally right doesn't mean thats the way it should be.

I respect your opinion Rich, you know that. But I can't agree with you on this one and I don't think I ever will, its like some other issues where you can just go around and around and in the end people have their own opinion and its not likely to change. This is one those issues in particular that I feel strongly about.
[ QUOTE ]
When Iced Earth released the Dark Saga album based on the Spawn comic book character, did they have to pay for the right to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]
McFarlane did the cover art for Dark Saga, its safe to say he was involved in the process. In fact he wanted them to do the soundtrack for the movie but the studio wanted "bigger names".

[quadperson]

Re: The end of tabs?

powertabs.net is down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is fucking stupid. Lars needs his ass kicked. I will never buy another tab book anyway, so they can kiss my ass. [img]/images/graemlins/eviltongue.gif[/img]

[quadperson]

Re: The end of tabs?

Ok, so I read the article, Lauren Keiser needs to get a life. I look at it like this, file sharing, of any kind, is no different than when we were kids dubbing a cassette tape from a friend. Or recording a song from the radio. Music was meant to be shared. Powertab's content usually isn't that accurate anyway, but it helps me remember the correct way to play my favorites from the 80's, which by the way, I learned from the books. This is getting ridiculous. What's next? Paying for the air we breathe? Sorry for the rant, but this really pisses me off. Let's put a bunch of petty shit in the courts so that people with real legal issues have to wait months to get in. Ya know, I really dig Metallica, but I will never buy anything from them again. Ever. Will my little stance hurt them? No, but that's how I feel. Artists are getting too greedy, I mean, I suppose Mr. Keiser will go after cover bands next. Or kids in school walking down the hall won't be able to sing their favorite songs. And I'm usually so mellow [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Oogadee Boogadee]

Re: The end of tabs?

so what if tab books become obsolete?
better modes have arrived.
if ptab came first, and books came second, only to flop and not sell, this wouldn't be a problem. the courts would say "duh, you had a stupid business idea. get lost"

like newc, I'd like to see which artists are actually complaining about tabs.

[Oogadee Boogadee]

Re: The end of tabs?

also, who is fighting the fight, in court, with the different arguments that you are all providing (i'm speaking to the tab defenders here [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )? b/c their good ones, and i hope a judge hears them.

[iced_earth]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I believe the threshhold is 85% similarity for plagarism to apply. But a judge decides, so if you cleverly made it 80% the same you might still get slammed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... So basically whoever has the better lawyers wins?... Thats not so surprising. Big media companies can get away with more than the not so rich. Thanks for the clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
McFarlane did the cover art for Dark Saga, its safe to say he was involved in the process. In fact he wanted them to do the soundtrack for the movie but the studio wanted "bigger names".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I knew that, but what I meant to say that if they never mentioned names and adjusted the story just "a little" are they still copyright violaters? Actually, come to think of it, they don't really mention a lot of names in the music... just the "Hunter" and the "Violater". I don't remember hearing "Wanda" or any other details. They might have gotten away with it even without Todd's approval.

Sounds like there are a lot of grayish area still... but interesting nonetheless.

[Venomboy]

Re: The end of tabs?

McFarlane would not have allowed Iced Earth to get away with it without their blessing. He got in a HUGE court battle over the character Angela, which Neil Gaiman created.

I don't look for many tabs on the net because most are wrong. If I really want something, I'll buy the book or magainze with the tab or figure it out myself.

I'm not sure I agree with tabs disappearing from the web. I used to be a bit upset over EVH trademarking his striped pattern. Then I started to think, well, what if some Chinese company trademarked the striped pattern and EVH couldn't use it without paying a hefty fee? I bet he'd be pissed. So it now looks like tabs are going to be controlled just like the original songs. It's unlikely but what if Maiden decided to release a tab of a record and someone on the web trademarked their tab of the song...now Maiden has to pay the trademarket for it. I know it's far fetched...

In general I'm in favor of allowing the creator of content the ultimate control over it. Creative people are rarely paid enough for their efforts and I think they deserve to decide how money is made off their works.

[Fragle]

Re: The end of tabs?

well, on the one hand, this whole thing is kinda ridiculous. come on, it's just tabs, not the actual piece of music that is shared. in addition to that, tabs are only really interesting for musicians, and face it, there are many more "regular" guys who just LISTEN to the music than musicians who want to play this stuff. moreover, by deciding to release a piece of music, a band kinda allows anybody to hear what they created. now, if someone wrote that down and shared it, what's the problem? they cannot make it illegal to figure out music by listening to it. so what if most musicians decided to do this rather than using tabs? wouldn't the final result be the same? they'd all have their very own copy of a tab on their pc or whatever, so the tabs are still there, totally legal. having that said, i can't see the point of making the actual tab sharing illegal. that's like you're buying a kickass album but you're not allowed to tell your friends about it.

on the bright side however, i can see one benefit: if this is really going to be the end of tabs, the effect will be that the musicians develop a better ear. they're no longer able to just go to some tab site, download a tab, and then learn it, but they have to sit down and LISTEN to it - the old fashioned way. pair that up with the huge amount of internet lessons etc, and you might very well end up with a generation of GREAT musicians - they'll have the skill (you can see kids sweeping, tapping, shredding etc wherever you look) and the ear.....better be prepared for a generation of new guitar heroes..well, i hope so [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: The end of tabs?

[ QUOTE ]
So basically the author automatically has future rights to all derivative works... but the purchaser of the original work (ie, a book or a CD) has no right to the derivative work (ie, a movie based on a book or a tab from a CD)?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly correct. The right to produce derivative works remains with the copyright owner because it's one of the bundle of rights a copyright affords its owner. When you purchase a book, CD, or other media that contains a copyrighted work what you're paying for is the media itself, not any of the rights associated with the copyright.

[ QUOTE ]
When Iced Earth released the Dark Saga album based on the Spawn comic book character, did they have to pay for the right to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

They or more likely their record company's IP counsel probably sought and received permission but whether or not they paid anything is up to the owner of the copyrights associated with the Spawn comics.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a level of "minor changes" you can do to say the derivative work is different enough from the original that you don't need to pony up?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're beginning with someone else's copyrighted work and basing your work on that the answer is probably no. Any time you start with someone else's work and produce something derivative of the original what you've produced will be a derivative work.

[ QUOTE ]
I heard the people how produced the Owen Wilson "Behind Enemy Lines" movie changed the story just enough from the real guy who inspired the movie... So maybe tab in the future can be purposefully incorrect and "inspired by" the orignal...

[/ QUOTE ]


Different issue if the motion picture was based on someone's life and not a copyrighted work. You don't own a copyright in your life and experiences but if you write them down on paper you own the copyright in what you wrote. The difference is that you can't obtain a copyright for something until it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". Consider, for example, a fireworks display: you probably can't copyright the display itself because it's not fixed in a tangible medium of expression; a videotape of the display would certainly be eligible for protection as would photographs, drawings, paintings, etc. I don't know enough about that particular story / movie to comment but intentionally changing tabs to be incorrect wouldn't do the trick because they'd still be based on the original copyrighted works and would, therefore, be unauthorized derivative works.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the threshhold is 85% similarity for plagarism to apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If you base a work on someone else's copyrighted work without permission your new work will always (in theory) be an infringing derivative work. I'm unaware of any content-based numerical threshold for determining if something is a derivative work, rather it depends wholly on whether the work is original or derived from / based on the work of another.

Suppose the two works were both original but are similar (neither having been derived from the other so there's no question of a derivative work). In that case the standard for infringement is "access" + "substantial similarity". "Access" is almost a forgone conclusion. Everyone on the planet will be deemed to have had access to pretty much any work for which the author has registered the copyright anywhere in the world and/or anything which the author has ever attempted to commercialize in any manner no matter how trivial or unsuccessful. There are other ways for an author to satisfy the access requirement but it's normally safe to assume that this requirement will be met meaning that infringement will then turn on whether or not the works are "substantially similar". There's no numeric threshold there either though you sometimes see trial court judges applying one.

Suppose now that rather than two independently created works or a copyrighted and an unauthorized derivative work we have a situation where someone just takes all or a portion of a copyrighted work and uses it for some purpose. If the use infringes on the copyright owner’s rights, the infringer might assert the ever-popular and grossly misunderstood "fair use" *defense*. Misunderstood because most everyone believes they have the right to do certain things with the copyrighted works of others based on the idea of "fair use" while, in reality, "fair use" is a defense asserted by an infringer as a shield to liability for an infringement he has already admitted. If you reach "fair use" you're already an infringer and the only questions remaining are whether or not you will be held liable for your infringement and the extent of that liability. One of the factors considered by the court in determining whether an infringing use is a "fair use" within the meaning of the statute is how much of the original copyrighted work was taken. That’s merely one of several factors and by itself is not dispositive of liability but it’s a place where trial court judges sometimes (and pointlessly) note percentage numbers; there’s no rule that X% is an infringement while X-1% is not.

Fair use works the same way for unauthorized derivative works as it does for taking portions of the original work. The same list of factors is analyzed, among those the amount of the original work taken. For example when considering the amount of the work taken the court might ask itself whether a tabber who posted a tab on a web site tabbed only a few of the more difficult bars of the solo or the song’s entire score.

If none of that makes any sense it's late and I'm tired. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]