Legal Dept: Music industry frets over Guitar Tablature

[Garritan]

The Chicago Tribune reports (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0612080156dec08,0,4410158.story):

Rob Balch sees himself as a music educator of sorts, and the thousands of guitarists who have flocked to his Web site would no doubt agree. At Balch's Guitar Tab Universe, he posted the chords and finger positions for rock songs--all the information needed to crank out a version of anything from the Rolling Stones' "Wild Horses" to the latest U2 single.

Music publishers, though, see Balch very differently: He's helping people steal the copyrighted sheet music they sell. So over the past several months, they effectively shut down Guitar Tab Universe and several other sites like it.

The tussle over the online guitar tab, which is short for tablature, is another manifestation of the great clash between the freewheeling Internet and the cold reality of business law. It pits an industry struggling to combat what it sees as piracy against the Web ethos of swapping information for free. A similar battle played out in the much bigger recorded music business, with the industry scoring significant victories. But just as the record industry still struggles to contain illegal song swapping, guitarists can still easily find free tabs online.

"I think we've made a noble effort, but it's somewhat of a drop in the bucket," said Larry Morton, president of Milwaukee-based Hal Leonard Corp., regarded by many as the world's largest printed music publisher.

Sheet music is a $1 billion a year business globally, Morton said. It's not clear how much revenue the industry is losing because of free tab sites. "But [tablature] is a significant part of the print music business," he said. "We produce hundreds and hundreds of guitar books with tabs." Until the Web came along, the sheet music industry's biggest enemy was the photocopier, Morton said. Free tab sites, which allow musicians to post and share song structures, "are the photocopier on steroids." So earlier this year, the Music Publishers' Association and the National Music Publishers' Association, which respectively represent print music and recorded music publishers, went on the offensive. They sent letters to nearly 20 tab sites, ones believed to be the largest, threatening legal action. Balch's site was one of them, and he acquiesced.

...Belfor and other guitarists said the idea that tab sites are illegal seems absurd. "If I write out tabs for a song I've heard by ear and then share with other people, it doesn't seem like I am infringing on intellectual property."

Lawyers say there may be an argument to be made for a sheet music exemption for educational purposes, though usually that applies to song excerpts only. Music publishers, though, are adamant: Tablature incorporates elements of an original work, and the law protects such "derivative" uses of copyrighted material.

What's next? I hope they leave harp pedaling charts alone.

[nikolas]

Gary thanks for posting.

Now my thoughts:

I've not been to the site that's been shut down, but I think it's a disgrace!

Let's think of it in another way:

I play the piano, and since I'm dealing with music for the past 24 years now, I've developed quite an ear (and the ability to play almost anything in the piano).

How difficult is it for me to grasp the chords of 95% of the songs? Especially songs that CAN sound right in the piano. And some of them in the guitar, since I can play chords in the guitar (<-but I generally suck, which is qutie enough for the company I hang out with).

I've never ever bought any tab, or rock/pop tab book (excpet 1 for the greatest hits of Queen...).

If I decide and share my thoughts on how a track is played, am I breaking any laws? Becasue I can honestly come up with 300-400 songs, just like that... (played also in a piano bar (and lousy greek restaurant as well in the past) for a couple of years).

So? What is going on. There IS no copyright breach whatsoever, is there? What about me humming a song that's too catchy? Is that wrong? Maybe I could shape it in the piano for my own pleasure since I'm a pianist. Is that wrong? Maybe I can gether some friends along... Is that wrong? Unless they would like to shut down every person who plays music for a living in any bar in any part for the world, and shut down all covers.

Music industry sometimes sucks big time I think!

[falcon1]

Chord progression can't be copyrighted!!!!!

So those publishing houses have no case because chord tabs are just progressions which can't be copyrighted.

Btw. it's maybe worth pointing out that some of the pop/rock songs are rip-off from the classical literature so it's questionable if it's possible to copyright rip-offs.

Also, most pop/rock songs fall into 3-4 chords catagory so if chord progression could be copyrighted then those publishing houses would not get any new music because all variants of 3-4 chords have been done before. So talking about shooting themselves in the foot. :D

[Larry G. Alexander]

A thief is a thief is a thief.

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned morality. If you illegally copy someone else's property then you are a thief, pure and simple and no amount of "justifications" will make it otherwise.

I suppose that I am biased because I see my original compositions all over the internet that thieves have stolen. They even remove my name and brazenly put their names on them.

A thief is a thief is a thief.

(A crotchety old codger is a crotchety old codger is a crotchety old codger). ;) :D

LGA

[Wheat Williams]

Just a few thoughts.

The music publishers all create their tab books in Finale or Sibelius. So they are in a sense Garritan customers as well.

I don't doubt that tab sites on the Net do negatively affect sheet music sales.

I must admit that I have used tab sites a few times to learn complex chord progressions in songs by Steely Dan, for instance. Yet I would never obtain pirated recordings.

I think in most cases the tabs you get on tab sites were independently created by somebody who was transcribing by ear--not directly copied from a published, copyrighted edition. They are often of dreadful quality and full of inaccuracies and are, in my opinion, often times no threat or detriment to the publishers.

If you want something that's completely accurate and authentic, you'll be purchasing a copy of "Victor Wooten's Bass Solos Transcribed by Victor Wooten" for instance.

[wst3ae]

I must admit that I have used tab sites a few times to learn complex chord progressions in songs by Steely Dan, for instance. Yet I would never obtain pirated recordings.

I think in most cases the tabs you get on tab sites were independently created by somebody who was transcribing by ear--not directly copied from a published, copyrighted edition. They are often of dreadful quality and full of inaccuracies and are, in my opinion, often times no threat or detriment to the publishers.

If you want something that's completely accurate and authentic, you'll be purchasing a copy of "Victor Wooten's Bass Solos Transcribed by Victor Wooten" for instance.

A voice of reason!

I've looked at tab sites from time to time, and every once in a while I'll grab the lyrics to spare myself the typing... so I guess that makes me a thief.

However, except for the simplest of songs I've rarely come across accurate transcriptions unless they were done by the original artist or a real pro (and real professionals seldom give away other folks intellectual property, much less their own!)

I teach guitar, and a number of my students are of the teen-ager persuasion. Needless to say they bring in tabs they've downloaded and ask me why they don't sound right. And I have to break the news that the tab is wrong!

Now this brings up a very interesting legal question... am I breaking the law if I:
1) transcribe a piece for my own ear training?
2) transcribe a piece for my own enjoyment?
3) transcribe a piece to play out at casual gigs?
4) transcribe a piece for a student?
5) transcribe a piece so that I or some other musician can perform the piece for renumeration or distribute the transcription, with or without compensation, without having to pay the rights?

I think we'd all agree that #5 is in clear violation of all intellectual property laws and ethics in general. But what about the other cases?

#4 is especially troubling because in cases where my students have purchased sheet music legally there is no better than even odds that the music is correct. And that's bad!

The first two fall, I believe, under fair use, and I suspect that #4 can also be considered fair use if certain restrictions are met.

#3 is just the way things are, and while I will agree that it is technically illegal, cover bands have been learning songs off the radio or CDs for as long as I've been aware, and the odds of the practice going away are so remote as to be laughable. This is one instance where the law really does need to catch up with reality.

I'm not sure how, but part of the problem is solved by the performing arts societies who charge the clubs. The rest is beyond me.

And, so to is the solution to the various tab sites. If I knew the solution I'd be a very wealthy man<G>! In the mean time, I think that any site that charges for illegally obtained tabs should be punished, but the folks that are simply sharing their knowledge raise a much more complex question.

When I was younger it was quite common for us to teach each other songs... it was almost a competition, who could come up with the best version of "Mood for a Day" or "Little Martha"?

Anyway, for all the reasons mentioned above I think that closing down OLGA and TAB Universe is pointless, and I do wish the music industry would pick their battles wisely.

[dbudde]

So? What is going on. There IS no copyright breach whatsoever, is there? What about me humming a song that's too catchy? Is that wrong? Maybe I could shape it in the piano for my own pleasure since I'm a pianist. Is that wrong? Maybe I can gether some friends along... Is that wrong? Unless they would like to shut down every person who plays music for a living in any bar in any part for the world, and shut down all covers.


Most music venues (bars that host live music, schools, concert venues, etc.) pay a fee for performance rights so that anyone using that venue can play cover songs. So its generally not illegal to do so. Most performers aren't aware of these fees since they don't have to pay them.

[dbudde]

However, except for the simplest of songs I've rarely come across accurate transcriptions unless they were done by the original artist or a real pro (and real professionals seldom give away other folks intellectual property, much less their own!)


I take it you haven't looked at any of the powertab sites. There are some amazing transcriptions out there. All for educational purposes only, of course.

[wst3ae]

I take it you haven't looked at any of the powertab sites. There are some amazing transcriptions out there. All for educational purposes only, of course.

I guessed I missed that one... there is one site that I sometimes check out, it is associated with the TablEdit program, but the tabs there are extremely advanced for the most part, and at least for the ones I checked, the material is in the public domain or the original artist has provided it, with rights.

I would not be surprised to find accurate tabs somewhere, there are enough folks that can do a good transcription, and at least some of them must also be willing to share their work.

I've thought about posting some of my transcriptions, but all the legal aspects are daunting, and as Larry points out, I'd be more than a little miffed if someone took credit for one of my compositions or arrangements<G>!

[nikolas]

A thief is a thief is a thief.
So indeed you believe that I personally am a thief because I played a song by ABBA (for example) in the piano 10 minutes ago? Well done for that then!

In Greece, no one ever pays royalties and stuff like that in live venues. Not unless it's the top 20 night clubs or so. Believe it or not Radio stations don't pay royalties... So sorry but I've never ever payed anything for playing the Beatles, or whatever else...

There is a big difference between composition and arrangment or tab...

I wouldn't mind someone taking my tabs (which I've never done but anyways...) and claim it's theirs. I would certainly mind taking one of my compositions.

I can surely understand the loss of revenues for the publishing companies (which either way are rather rich becasue of the copyright laws and so on... back in 1990, had anyone checked how much was a Ravel Score? Huge ammounts of money...;) but anyways let's not get off track here...

But honestly why is it wrong to say to someone "Here: Let it be: C, G, Am, F, C, G, F etc...). There you go! Arrest me now! You think it's completly right? Nope it's not! you think I mind? Nope! You think I found that info anywhere? Nope again! so... what's the big deal?

I have a right to listen to the radio!
I have a right to listen all day to the same song, since I've bought the CD
I have a right to watch the video through youtube... ;)
I have a right to hum it! (don't I?)
Do I have a right to play it in the piano, or it's illegal? (Honestly is it illegal?)
Do I have a right to show it to my best friend, because he's my best friend? Or even better, is it right someone watching me play for purely entertainment reasons, learns the song?

Come on!

The trouble lies that most songs are easy to make out. at least for the very basics. (Either way when you're playing solo, you can't reproduce the sound of any group realisticly...). It's not a difficult score by Boulez, which is impossible to make out by ear. It's silly (or not silly, but certainly not so complicated as Stravisnky) songs!

Anyone coming my way to claim that I found the chords from a site, I'll tell them the truth: I'm an amazing musician, and thus learned the songs from the radio! and never ever performed them (an obvious lie of course...)!

Oh btw, my piano student asked me to play to him the LOTR theme, in the piano. It sounds awful, but he loves it! He's 12, and he persuaded his mother and went ot buy the soundtrack. True story! Come now and speak to me about old fashioned morality. ;)

[Larry G. Alexander]

You are using the old "justification" crapola to excuse illegal and immoral behaviour. It doesn't fly with me.

I don't have the time or the inclination to get into a flame war with you. I stand by my earlier contentions.

LGA

[nikolas]

I can see that this is not going to go anywhere.

First of all thank you for your respect by mentioning my post as crapola. Second thanks for saying I'm illegal. Third What flame war? I really can't understand this. Because I quoted you?

Honestly one question, if you would like to answer (without this meaning that this by any means would mean it's a flame war of any sense...):

You're saying that you have NEVER EVER played any music other than your own or the stuff you legally bought in stores? You're saying that you NEVER EVER played a track because you fancied it and heard it on the radio and was easy enough (or challenging enough), to learn in your instrument?

I really can't buy that you haven't done the above. Even if it was when you were 10 and playing "Fur Elise" for fun.

I usually refer to this as discussions, or maybe debates...

???

[wst3ae]

You are using the old "justification" crapola to excuse illegal and immoral behaviour. It doesn't fly with me.

I don't have the time or the inclination to get into a flame war with you. I stand by my earlier contentions.

LGA

Call me an optimist, but I'd prefer to think that perhaps it is an issue of semantics, and possibly local laws.

In the US every facility that plays copyrighted music pays fees for the privilege of doing so. This includes bars, restaurants, shopping malls, radio and TV, etc. Some of these folks have no idea that they pay the fees, because they are (ever more frequently) rolled into the cost of a subscription music service.

None-the-less, bar bands playing in bars, or even lounge piano players are all covered.

It wasn't that long ago that this was not the case, and in the extreme any musician playing a copyrighted piece would have to be able to demonstrate that they had a legally purchased copy of the sheet music.

It isn't that simple of course (it requires a law degree to really suss it out), and there are many instances of a public performance that are not covered. The one that I am all too familiar with is the use of music in a stage play. That requires special rights, called synchronization rights, same goes for film.

We won't even go to the whole YouTube thing... there is so much pirated material there it makes me cringe.

As far as how the laws are enforced in other countries, well, I have no idea. Perhaps in Greece they do not enforce intellectual property protection? It's possible I suppose, I don't have the energy to look it up<G>!

And then there is fair use, an aspect of copyright law that confuses almost everyone. My understanding of fair use is that I can figure out a tune from the radio or a CD for my own enjoyment, or for educational purposes. I think most of us figured out at least a few arranging tricks by trying to emulate our favorite pieces.

There are a few claims in that post that might be interesting to explore - for example not caring if someone else took credit for one of your arrangements? - but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume it was poorly worded.

I would suggest that in a forum where people either make their livings, or hope to make their livings from composition and arrangement I wouldn't be so blase about ignoring the intellectual property rights of others. It is a topic that many here take very seriously!

Larry is right, by the way, a thief by any other name is still a thief. Doesn't matter if you are pirating sample libraries, software, or a musical composition or arrangement. Respect is due the creator of the work!!!

[dbudde]

Wow, Nikolas. Get a grip. All Larry said was if you download something illegally, then you're a thief. He didn't define what was a legal download. Only that if you do it illegally, that is stealing. He is right about that. You incorrectly interpreted what he meant by that.

Look up the copyright laws and intepret what is a legal download and what is not.

[Wheat Williams]

:|:Peace, my friends. Peace. It is the season of Christmas. Peace on Earth and peace on the forum.

We are all on the same side of this argument. We are musicians trying to earn a living. We are friends.

This is a complex issue. The old ways do not work as well as they used to. New practices are evolving. No one has an absolutely correct answer to these problems.

Sign off of the forum and go decorate your Christmas tree for awhile, everybody!

[dbudde]

For information about US copyright laws, go here (http://www.copyright.gov/).

For information about mechanical licenses go here (http://www.harryfox.com/public/index.jsp).

For information about performing rights you need to contact ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Performing rights are separate and apart from mechanical rights, and are necessary to obtain for public performance of copyrighted music, such as at concerts, radio and television broadcasts, and the like.

The venue is responsible for obtaining performing rights, not the performer.

[nikolas]

Before I go to my already decorated Christams tree and my kids, let me sing off with some final thoughts.

I find Ls' post offensive to me. "crapola" cannot mean something nice. immoral and illegal are not nice words, but accusations. Plainly put! So how am I supposed to take his post? Flame war for what exactly?

I've never ever downloaded anything, and I'm the one who initiated the thread about pirated software, remember?

"Get a grip" is not nice either!

Check my posts and find the word "download" in there! It's simply not there!

I simply said that tabs, or no tabs, I CAN play songs. And I can't see this as illegal.

I need no lectures on copyrighted material (which I find a little offensive as well). I am earning half (not full) a living as a composer. Really I do!

Maybe you interpreted my posts incorrectly?

guys, in all honesty I'm looking forward to going home in Greece, where there is a piano. There we gather all old (and new) friends and play along songs we like. I will certainly not stop. Can somebody in here tell me that they've not done such a thing (or my question to my previous post which went unanswered...). If you can find some reasoning that playing a song that my mother (for example) loves to her is illegal then great! I'll stop playing! I doubt that Radiohead or any other group are expecting any royalties from simple folks for trying out songs in their guitars or pianos, or keyboards. Could be wrong here but I seriously doubt it.

We are talking about 2 different things.

I'm saying that tabs no tabs, books no books, songs are songs and can be played for meer pleasure, which I can never see as wrong! you're tlaking about downloads of scores or "info" or such of scores. It is illegal! (I personaly can't find it extremely wrong, exactly cause I can do it ,there is no copying involved...). BUT: It is illegal! It is thievery!

Now to clear this up: I've worked in Greece, and I really doubt anybody payed any royalties. I'm sorry for that. Maybe the owner of the store had payed without me knowing... Who knows really... For that I can aknowldge that it was wrong. What else to say really

[dbudde]

With regard to copyright law (in the US at least) the following is pertinent to the discussion in this thread:

"Fair Use" is a limitation on the rights granted under U.S. Copyright Law that allows reproduction of a copyrighted work for certain purposes, such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. (http://www.harryfox.com/public/infoFAQLimitedQuantity.jsp)

In other words, downloading for educational purposes falls under fair use (for the person doing the downloading).

[thesoundsmith]

...bar bands playing in bars, or even lounge piano players are all covered.

It wasn't that long ago that this was not the case, and in the extreme any musician playing a copyrighted piece would have to be able to demonstrate that they had a legally purchased copy of the sheet music.

I've been playing in bars and other public venues for over 50 years - WTF are you talking about? If some ASCAP weenie had ever approached me on my gig and demanded to see a 'legal' piece of sheet music for 'New York, New York' he would have left wearing my piano for a hat. When and where are you referring to?

I listen to the radio. I hear a piece of music and decide I'll add it to the repertiore. Do I run out and buy the music? I suppose if I were strictly a play-by-the-sheet-music player that I would, but I just listen to the piece once or twice more and I'm done. Why would I buy the music? The publisher will get their share when ASCAP does their club surveys and compiles the current playlist.

Now if I taped the piece to learn it, rather than just heard it in the car on the way to the gig, then the territory is somewhat more questionable, but I feel it would come down on the side of fair use. If nothing else, I am creating income for the author/copyright holder by performing the piece in the restaraunt where the ASCAP guy is trolling for titles.

If I gave the tape to my bass player, I believe this is now a clear violation. But again, IMHO, no foul. Now we BOTH can play the song.

OTOH, if I recorded the piece from the radio with no intention of performing it, but just to listen to in the car, then have I indeed stolen the song, or is that fair use? (Going to the question of "What can you legally do with an audio recorder"?)

If I record and release my own version of the song (still never having seen a copy of the music), assuming I pay the appropriate licensing fees, the author now has two sources of income from the piece, and I still have not seen the music. Where's the theft?

What I think I am getting to is the way I see the record companies' position is "if you're humming it, I want royalties." And the way I see it is if I need sheet music for a piece, I can either buy it or write it out myself. If I download it, I agree it is illegal, no question - unless it was with the permission of the copyright holder. But I can write it myself just from hearing the piece on the radio on oin my head, and I don't owe nobody nothin'...

As a composer I want to be paid for my work. But I also need to see it being performed by other artists as well as the original recordings. In some ways, a cover is the nicest compliment a composer can get.

[falcon1]

We are talking about sites providing Tabs or chords over the lyrics. Not downloading stuff!

[nikolas]

btw... now that I think of it.

Aren't lyrics copyrighted as well? Dunno about royalties, but what about lyrics? should there be sites that provide lyrcis? Maybe not... But: Lyrics are far easier to grasp, plus there is no industry on the back to be loosing money... ;)

I'm honestly asking: Is it illegal to reproduce lyrics? I mean in the CDs you alwasy see "Lyrics kindly reproduced by the permission of blah blah...". This must mean that other wise they wouldn't have put it there, no? But then again... :-/

[dbudde]

Aren't lyrics copyrighted as well?

Yes...from the copyright page I referenced earlier.

"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. "

[nikolas]

Thanks. :)

Well if it's illegal, it's illegal. But as it appears there was a case against it and a court, so things are certainly not black and white. Of course we won't decide anything and so on, but I like and am interested in this discussion.

There is no copying (in the manner that you actually are listening to songs all day long, it's not hard to get stuck with lyrics or tunes...)and all that happens is that someone, is able to make out the lyrics from a song (big deal...) and then type them on a computer (big deal again), and give them to all his (online maybe) friends. Can't say I find it wrong. Same with tabs, or chords as well.

Not checking if it's illegal or not, this is for the court to (already have) decide(d). I'm checking some logic behind the whole thing. And can't really see something wrong.

Now someone making the tabs to songs, then making a book, and then selling them, this is certainly wrong, immoral, thievery and so fourth (cause it involves profit). A site maintained by a couple of google ads (which everybody knows that it takes A LOT to make decent money), seems more like a serving to a community starving for a little more, than immoral to me. (I've not been to any tab sites, but if these sites are ful of ads and making money, then again it falls down to immoral and so on...)

Anyways, good night everybody.

[dbudde]

Well if it's illegal, it's illegal.

I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was copyrighted. The legality (or lack thereof) is a function of the intended use.

[qccowboy]

I've noticd a few people mention playing in bars and never being approached to pay royalties.

This stems form a misunderstanding about whom the responsibility for those payments falls to.

The venue pays the royalties in a sort of yearly licence fee, covering the performances in that single place. The musician never needs to deal with it himself. The bar owner(s) are solely responsible for the payments and arrangements for the licences.

I know this from having been on the board of administration of a public dance club. We had to pay a yearly stipend to cover royalties for the CDs that were used as entertainment and during the dance classes offered there.

[qccowboy]

Now someone making the tabs to songs, then making a book, and then selling them, this is certainly wrong, immoral, thievery and so fourth (cause it involves profit). A site maintained by a couple of google ads (which everybody knows that it takes A LOT to make decent money), seems more like a serving to a community starving for a little more, than immoral to me. (I've not been to any tab sites, but if these sites are ful of ads and making money, then again it falls down to immoral and so on...)


copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, does not make a difference between distribution for profit, and distribution without profit.

If I steal a car and sell the parts to a chop-shop, we all agree that this is theft.
If I go out and steal someone's car, to then give it away to friends for free, I still "stole" the car.

[SeanHannifin]

copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, does not make a difference between distribution for profit, and distribution without profit.

If I steal a car and sell the parts to a chop-shop, we all agree that this is theft.
If I go out and steal someone's car, to then give it away to friends for free, I still "stole" the car.

A physical car, however, cannot be copied or copyrighted, so it's not exactly the same thing... (though, of course, the design could)

Profit and effect on the market is a factor considered when arguing between whether or not something is being used as "fair use" ...

"Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. As we indicated previously, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work."

Source : http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Thus, you're right, it's not a difference between whether or not the distribution is for profit, but whether or not it affects profit; that is the important thing.

[Leaf]

What I think is a shame is when you go looking for very old works that are in the public domain and all you can find on the internet is some places selling those scores, which are really supposed to be free. Those people need to repent.

[Karl Garrett]

What's all the fuss? Real guitar players don't use tab anyway. :D Oops! :samurai:

Maybe if the greedy publishers would come into the 21st century, and give us an on-line preview of some of the music they sell we might be more obliged to purchase their stuff. I have wasted literally many thousands of dollars, in buying music that I've not heard or seen, in order to play something different. The crap with which they rip off musicians that is supposed to pass for guitar music should be illegal.

Just last month I ordered some music from Warner brothers of some standards that I'd like the play. Nowhere does the publisher or the on-line store give the difficulty level or state that this music is worthless except to the most beginning guitarist.

Besides the stupid tab they insert between the real music just uses up space, so that a piece that should be only 2 pages long becomes 4 pages. Boy, what a concept, we can make the book twice as thick and charge more.

For some of you who might be piano players, violinists and such, I think we might be talking about two things in this thread.

We are all familiar with the little chords that are often written above piano sheet music in popular and jazz music. Symbols, like G7 Ami7 etc. Often the guitar part in a jazz arrangement (chart) consists of these chords (changes) with slash marks below them representing the beats that the guitar player is supposed to strum before proceeding to the next chord. I don't believe that distributing these by themselves is illegal as long as the words or melody are not along for the ride. But this is not tab.

Tablature is as old as the guitar itself. Lute players many hundreds of years ago used "tab" to write lute music. Most of us have seen it, but in case someone hasn't, it is a simple concept in theory. Six horizontal lines are drawn representing the six strings of the guitar. A small number is place on one of these lines representing the fret number where the note is to be played. Then stems, flags or beams are added to the little numbers indicating the rhythms. Oops, it's beginning to look a little like real music isn't it?

The most difficult part of sight reading is rhythmic anyway. And oh dear, if you just have a number, how are you going to tell the difference between a half note and a quarter note. Tab is almost impossible to sight read, it takes up far too much space on the paper, and it is almost useless in all but the simplest music. The big thing in the past ten years or so is for companies who publish classical guitar music to also place a line of tab under the traditional (or is tab the traditional) music. As I mentioned before, this, in my opinion is a total waste of space.

Oh, there are various ways that folk have tried to write tab to compete with notes, but these are almost, if not more complex than reading the real music.

Chord changes are fine, although I get so many students that come for lessons who know ten-million chords but have no idea how to use them. Guitarists can easily get lost in the chord jungle, with no concept of voice leading and such. Since a lot of music written for guitar in jazz is rhythmic in nature, writing the part with just the chords and rhythms is a simple and clean way to give the guitarist a clue as to what he/she should be playing. You won’t see any tab in jazz however. If the part is to be well defined, it will be written in standard notation.

Here is my plea. Come on guitar players; learn how to read music for your instrument. It's not that hard. With a little practice you can learn. I’ve seen folk who do not read guitar music, but play some, become somewhat competent in one summer. It's amazing. You don't have to be a great sight reader, but if we all demanded real notes from these publishers they might just start putting out music for guitar that wasn’t juvenile in complexity, and take guitarists seriously as real musicians.

And to the publishers, and you know who you are, I am sick and tired of wasting my very hard-earned money on crap. And as long as you keep treating the guitar as nothing more than a toy, and those of us who play one as just scum with large amounts of disposable income to throw away on your trash, this guitar player couldn't care less if your pop, rock and folk garbage you try to sell us gets stolen.

Karl :|:

[Aziraphal]

Myself, as an amateur guitarist (very amateurish: 5 minutes / week) would pay for a QUALITY tablature. But most of the examples I find on the Net seem to be done by tone-deaf folks who would play the whole Bohemian Rhapsody just using the G chord with a straight face. If you call those awful arrangements copyrighted material, you might as well forbid whistling on the streets or singing in the shower. I'm not sure what standard the tabs on that page that got shut down were...
Cheers Matt

[Tony Monaghan]

What's all the fuss? Real guitar players don't use tab anyway.

Correct. Nuff said...

[falcon1]

This discussion is just funny.

How about people who play by the ear, they must be automaticly breaking some stupid copyright laws because they learned it by ear and imagine if those wrote the chords down for later reference. Damn they are in trouble!

If those pop/rock songs weren't so stupendiously easy (specially on the harmonic side) then I would maybe understand the fuzz but that isn't the case so I don't understand all this fuzz. :D

Like I said before, harmonic progression can't be copyrighted but melody can - even though it is sometimes debatable wether basic melodies which has been heard before many times over the centuries should be copyrightable.

In my oppinion all this copyright this and that is gona way to far. You shouldn't be able to copyright for example short basic melody (for example 12 bars in 4/4) which uses maybe 2 or 3 chords because it's certain that it has been done before.
However, combine that melody with lyric and arrangement then it could maybe be copyrighted as a whole. But that basic/simple melody should still be in public domain.

[musicpete]

How about people who play by the ear[...]
Well, don't you remember? A few years ago started with "Copying music is killing music!", but nowadays were in the 2nd stage where it is "Playing music is killing music!". Don't worry! Soon we will progress to phase 3, where every musician will be sued because "Composing music is killing music!" and someone someday already used the harmonic progression/motiv fragment you came up with...


This discussion is just funny.
I think not. Makes me cringe, to be honest.

To come back on topic: As with software copying we should start differentiating (as was done above!) between real copying and transcriptions. THEN we could start discussing the topic.

Furthermore: A few years ago I created a website which featured reviews of sheet-music (tons of CD-review website but none reviewing sheet music) but unfortunately it became a victim of my limited time... My verdict on 90% of the published sheetmusic: Bad quality, hight amount of content in the songbooks was recycled from previous songbooks, transcriptions lacked greatly in authenticity to the original, ridiculously high prices (especially in books which feature 70% recycled material), ...

To be honest: I think the printed-music-industry is ripping off their customers as the movie/music industry does. And when that stops working, they start crying and blaming others....

[wst3ae]

This discussion is just funny.
actually, I find it a bit frightening that a community of musicians demonstrates a marked misunderstanding of intellectual property rights. Not that they are simple by any means, but I'd have really expected more folks here to have some grasp...


How about people who play by the ear, they must be automaticly breaking some stupid copyright laws because they learned it by ear and imagine if those wrote the chords down for later reference. Damn they are in trouble!
I hope you are being facetious, but in case you aren't... intellectual property protection is subject to certain exceptions, not the least of which is research and education.

A problem crops up when people start "testing" these exceptions!


If those pop/rock songs weren't so stupendiously easy (specially on the harmonic side) then I would maybe understand the fuzz but that isn't the case so I don't understand all this fuzz. :D
WHY does it matter if the progression is easy or hard? Some of the most popular songs of all time were based on very basic progressions. That is not the point, the point is that the composer is entitled to some protection, specifically, it must be up to the composer to determine how the music will be distributed.


Like I said before, harmonic progression can't be copyrighted but melody can - even though it is sometimes debatable wether basic melodies which has been heard before many times over the centuries should be copyrightable.
Why? If you compose something and manage to license it to someone don't you want to be rewarded for your creativity?


In my oppinion all this copyright this and that is gona way to far. You shouldn't be able to copyright for example short basic melody (for example 12 bars in 4/4) which uses maybe 2 or 3 chords because it's certain that it has been done before.
However, combine that melody with lyric and arrangement then it could maybe be copyrighted as a whole. But that basic/simple melody should still be in public domain.
Well I have to admit, I think that's insane. Since when does the length of a piece have anything to do with it's quality or value? For that matter, since when has quality or value have anything to do with whether or not you are entitled to protection?

Copyrights are VERY different from patents. Patents require that the subject provide some substantial improvement on the current art, and be a non-trivial solution (that one makes people crazy<G>), and be implementable. (actually it's even more convoluted than that...) Copyright only requires that it be original.

And really, none of this has anything to do with the original question, which is whether or not copyright protection is violated by the publishing, on the web, of tablature transcriptions of popular music.

There is a fairly large contingent that believes that this falls under fair use, and it certainly can, but it does not follow that it always does.

IF, for example, you download a tab and use that information to perform or record the music for profit you've probably stepped over the line.

NOWHERE has it ever been suggested, that I am aware of, that it is unlawful to listen to and transcribe music for educational or even private entertainment purposes. With the advent of the web that concept has been extended to suggest that if I transcribe a piece you are entitled to the results of that work, or even that I am entitled to share the results, whether or not it is for profit.

The entire intellectual property law will have to be revisited, and revised as a result of things that the world wide web makes possible. Information does want to be free (not as in free beer necessarily), and the means to do that now exist.

That does not mean that the only way to reshape the laws is to ignore the rights provided to our fellow musicians under the current laws.

And please, can we dispense with the silly arguments that so-and-so is already too rich, or such-and-such a piece is not worthy of protection. These are, at best, red herrings, and they do nothing to advance the debate.

Similarly, the quality of published sheet music is often on a par with the tabs one can download for free... however, if an artist has provided permission to a publisher to publish the sheet music then one should respect that arrangement. If the sheet music is inaccurate then don't buy it. Really, it seldom takes but a few seconds to determine if the sheet music looks like it is in the ballpark.

(and, I have to say that my most recent purchases, transcriptions of older Chicago and BS&T songs, proved to be quite accurate. I've learned a lot from studying them!)

[wst3ae]

I've noticd a few people mention playing in bars and never being approached to pay royalties.

This stems form a misunderstanding about whom the responsibility for those payments falls to.

The venue pays the royalties in a sort of yearly licence fee, covering the performances in that single place. The musician never needs to deal with it himself. The bar owner(s) are solely responsible for the payments and arrangements for the licences.

That is true today. It is always possible that I received bad information, but 30 plus years ago my band was told by several local club owners that they were being pressured to insure that bands had legitimate copies of the charts they played. This may have been a result of the way that big bands operated, licensing the song but creating their own arrangements, or it could have been flat out wrong. I have no idea, and no time right now to dig out the answer.

Today ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC cover the music performed in various public spaces. The owner of the venue is responsible for paying these license fees. At least that's how it works where I live. (And I have enough trouble keeping up with various interpretations of IP law here, I don't even bother with anything else<G>!)

[dbudde]

That is true today. It is always possible that I received bad information, but 30 plus years ago my band was told by several local club owners that they were being pressured to insure that bands had legitimate copies of the charts they played. This may have been a result of the way that big bands operated, licensing the song but creating their own arrangements, or it could have been flat out wrong. I have no idea, and no time right now to dig out the answer.


Maybe the clubs were trying to recoup their performing rights costs from unknowledgeable musicians.

[GDG]

That is true today. It is always possible that I received bad information, but 30 plus years ago my band was told by several local club owners that they were being pressured to insure that bands had legitimate copies of the charts they played. This may have been a result of the way that big bands operated, licensing the song but creating their own arrangements, or it could have been flat out wrong. I have no idea, and no time right now to dig out the answer.

Today ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC cover the music performed in various public spaces. The owner of the venue is responsible for paying these license fees. At least that's how it works where I live. (And I have enough trouble keeping up with various interpretations of IP law here, I don't even bother with anything else<G>!)

Sounds like publishers trying to crack down on fake book usage.

AFAIK, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC cover everything pretty much anywhere copyrights are enforceable...

Grant

[GDG]

What's all the fuss? Real guitar players don't use tab anyway. :D Oops! :samurai:

***
Here is my plea. Come on guitar players; learn how to read music for your instrument. It's not that hard. With a little practice you can learn. I’ve seen folk who do not read guitar music, but play some, become somewhat competent in one summer. It's amazing. You don't have to be a great sight reader, but if we all demanded real notes from these publishers they might just start putting out music for guitar that wasn’t juvenile in complexity, and take guitarists seriously as real musicians.
***
Karl :|:

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: How do you get an electric guitarist to play softer?






A: Put a piece of sheet music in front of him ;)



Grant
(a guitarist who actually does read music...)

[wst3ae]

Maybe the clubs were trying to recoup their performing rights costs from unknowledgeable musicians.
I thought about that, but since the clubs weren't getting any money from us I don't think that was it. It is entirely possible that everyone involved was misinformed...

It was, after all, the 70's<G>!

[wst3ae]

Sounds like publishers trying to crack down on fake book usage.

AFAIK, ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC cover everything pretty much anywhere copyrights are enforceable...

Grant

Could be... some folks do take a dim view on fake books!

The Performing Rights societies handle performances of music, but they don't cover sync or mechanical rights.

Bill

[wst3ae]

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: How do you get an electric guitarist to play softer?






A: Put a piece of sheet music in front of him ;)



Grant
(a guitarist who actually does read music...)

I do love that joke!!!
(another guitarist who can, when he has to, read music!)

[dbudde]

I thought about that, but since the clubs weren't getting any money from us I don't think that was it. It is entirely possible that everyone involved was misinformed...

It was, after all, the 70's<G>!

But it's not like the club owners have a lock on integrity. Maybe they didn't get any money from your group...

[wst3ae]

But it's not like the club owners have a lock on integrity. Maybe they didn't get any money from your group...
THATS what we forgot!!!!!

[Richard Berg]

What I think is a shame is when you go looking for very old works that are in the public domain and all you can find on the internet is some places selling those scores, which are really supposed to be free. Those people need to repent.
I disagree completely. The whole point of the public domain is that you're free to do whatever you want with it, including using it for commercial gain. If you feel that the market price for a public domain score is too high, you're completely free to copy it and undercut them -- that's how competition works. It's only with works under copyright that the publisher is given an artificial monopoly.