Should Tab Sites Be Legal?

[dgatwood]

Agreed. The RIAA should roll over and die already. They've done more to harm the music industry in the past ten years than all the piracy, illegal downloads, payola scandals, car accidents, plane crashes, crack addictions, and warehouse fires over the last hundred years put together.

As for tab site, couldn't care less, but I think tabs should be illegal. Every guitar player should have to learn how to play from sheet music.

 

[Zarathustra]

Why? Sure, you'll give a more accurate sense of rhythm, but sheet music was created for keyboard players. Tabs have been around for thousands of years because string instruments generally have more than one string (ie, it doesn't all move chromatically left to right), and so it's more in-step with how you actually play a stringed instrument. Also, people passing down songs and sharing them was the standard, rather than the exception, for most of human history. It's only recently that people decided they owned songs.

 

[Light]

No, for two reasons. First, you should be learning shit by ear. You learn a lot more about being a musician that way. And second, because everyone I've ever seen is so fucking inaccurate it's a joke. Why would you bother?


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[faderbug]

does it even matter?

 

[rayc]

Isn't it some sort of diet cola?
Or is it blotter soaked in LSD?

 

[Milnoque]

I am a firm believer that artists and their agents should have control of their output. Any artist should be allowed to ask that unauthorized material be removed from sites Free or otherwise.

That said, the inclination to restrict such uses as free tabs on the internet is an act of self defeating stupidity on the part of artists and record labels. They've tried this many times over the years, It doesn't work and costs them sales.

 

[famous beagle]

Look, whether people like it or not, artists and/or publishers do own rights to their works. That's a fact.


This applies not only to the mechanical work (the recording), but also to the printed version (the sheet music), as well as other incarnations.

If you think it's right that you should be able to download someone's sheet music for free (whether it's expressed in tab, standard notation, or whatever), then you must also think it should be legal to download novels or short stories for free. Because that's the same exact concept. It's a copyrighted written work.

It doesn't matter if I hand-type War and Peace all by myself; that doesn't make it ok for me to post it on the website for mass distribution.

When you buy a piece of media (music CD, sheet music, book, whatever), it's for home personal use. When you place that on a website, that's no longer personal use; that's mass distribution.

Downloading tab from the web is basically the same thing as walking into a sheet music store and tearing out a page from a tab book.

It's the same concept as napster; only it's in written form instead of audio.


I know some people will say, "But I didn't buy this ... this is my own transcription." But it's your transcription of someone else's copyrighted work. If you want to post tabs of your own songs online, then that's fine. But if the work is copyrighted, the artist is entitled to his share of publishing royalties, and that's the bottom line.

 

[IronFlippy]

If you think it's right that you should be able to download someone's sheet music for free (whether it's expressed in tab, standard notation, or whatever), then you must also think it should be legal to download novels or short stories for free. Because that's the same exact concept. It's a copyrighted written work.

I'm sorry, but there's a large difference here. A tab is an interpretation of a publication, a novel IS the publication. The only circumstance in which your statement is true is when people post the official transcription. That's copyright infringement. Using your logic, you'd also want to take sites down that summarize novels, and discussions about them. That's just plain wrong.

 

[danny.guitar]

I'm sorry, but there's a large difference here. A tab is an interpretation of a publication, a novel IS the publication. The only circumstance in which your statement is true is when people post the official transcription. That's copyright infringement. Using your logic, you'd also want to take sites down that summarize novels, and discussions about them. That's just plain wrong.

+1

Also, there are a lot of great, accurate tabs out there. Sometimes you just want to learn a song for fun or to record it and want to learn it quickly instead of sitting down and figuring everything out.

 

[famous beagle]

I'm sorry, but there's a large difference here. A tab is an interpretation of a publication, a novel IS the publication. The only circumstance in which your statement is true is when people post the official transcription. That's copyright infringement. Using your logic, you'd also want to take sites down that summarize novels, and discussions about them. That's just plain wrong.

It's absolutely not that simple. Music can be represented in many more ways than a novel can.

Have you ever seen "Lyrics reprinted by permission" in anything? This is because those lyrics are copyrighted, and you're supposed to obtain permission to use them.

Where do you draw the line? What if I post a published version of sheet music, but I alter one note to a wrong note? Is that legal then all of the sudden? No, of course not. So there's lots of shades of gray. Just because someone's intrepretation of a song may not be spot on, it doesn't mean it's not a copyright infringement.

You don't have to have exactly the same melody, lyrics, chords, and rhythm to be sued for copyright infringement when it comes to songwriting. It just has to be similar enough that a judge rules that it is copyright infringement. It's the same thing here, except that, whereas a composer being sued can say "I've never heard that song before," there's no question that a tab is supposed to be that exact song (because it says so right on the title).

The online tabber is saying .... "Here is the music to this song ... I'm distributing the sheet music to everyone." Even if it's not accurate, that's still illegal.

 

[castlerock]

You don't have to have exactly the same melody, lyrics, chords, and rhythm to be sued for copyright infringement when it comes to songwriting. It just has to be similar enough that a judge rules that it is copyright infringement. It's the same thing here, except that, whereas a composer being sued can say "I've never heard that song before," there's no question that a tab is supposed to be that exact song (because it says so right on the title).

The online tabber is saying .... "Here is the music to this song ... I'm distributing the sheet music to everyone." Even if it's not accurate, that's still illegal.

so by that logic you also should not be able to play covers in your band without first paying royalties to the original artists.

TABs are merely interpretations of a part. it's like telling everyone "look, this is how I play it." there is nothing wrong with you showing people how you play a piece and TAB is a good way to do that.

 

[famous beagle]

so by that logic you also should not be able to play covers in your band without first paying royalties to the original artists.

TABs are merely interpretations of a part. it's like telling everyone "look, this is how I play it." there is nothing wrong with you showing people how you play a piece and TAB is a good way to do that.

The difference again is mass distribution.

Showing a few friends how to play a song or playing cover songs in a club isn't mass distribution. Recording and selling those songs is. Or posting the music to a song on the internet is as well.

 

[IronFlippy]

It's absolutely not that simple. Music can be represented in many more ways than a novel can.

Have you ever seen "Lyrics reprinted by permission" in anything? This is because those lyrics are copyrighted, and you're supposed to obtain permission to use them.

Where do you draw the line? What if I post a published version of sheet music, but I alter one note to a wrong note? Is that legal then all of the sudden? No, of course not. So there's lots of shades of gray. Just because someone's intrepretation of a song may not be spot on, it doesn't mean it's not a copyright infringement.

You don't have to have exactly the same melody, lyrics, chords, and rhythm to be sued for copyright infringement when it comes to songwriting. It just has to be similar enough that a judge rules that it is copyright infringement. It's the same thing here, except that, whereas a composer being sued can say "I've never heard that song before," there's no question that a tab is supposed to be that exact song (because it says so right on the title).

The online tabber is saying .... "Here is the music to this song ... I'm distributing the sheet music to everyone." Even if it's not accurate, that's still illegal.

I agree, there's a HUGE gray area. But cases like that should be handled on an individual basis rather than just removing ALL tabs. However, there are about a million more important crimes to be tried, rather than doing it this way. But that's just my opinion.

 

[dgatwood]

so by that logic you also should not be able to play covers in your band without first paying royalties to the original artists.

Not the artist. The composer. If you're playing in a club, you're covered. The club is paying a flat rate to ASCAP and BMI for the right to perform music by composers and publishers that they represent. The composers and publishers usually get squat for the most part, but it theoretically is distributed proportionally based on the popularity of the song in terms of sales, radio play, etc.

If you were holding a concert in a private location, then technically you would be required to obtain a similar license.

 

[dgatwood]

I agree, there's a HUGE gray area. But cases like that should be handled on an individual basis rather than just removing ALL tabs. However, there are about a million more important crimes to be tried, rather than doing it this way. But that's just my opinion.

It's not a grey area at all. A tab posted without permission of the original composer is a copyright violation, period. It's pretty cut and dry. Most composers don't mind it, though, because:

1. The more people play the song, the more likely they are to actually get royalties when somebody plays it on a CD.
2. Most of them wrote the music because they love writing music.
3. Most of them aren't pricks.

That doesn't mean it is legal, just that composers and publishers with a clue won't sue.

 

[Zarathustra]

Just because the stuff is inaccurate doesn't mean it isn't useful, it's a step in the right direction.

Anyways, when you're just beginning it's EXTREMELY difficult to figure out something by ear on an instrument you barely understand. Particularly chords, which have such multi-layering and dissonance that even if you figure out the key signature you're not guaranteed the song.

The argument that you "own" a song is total bullshit anyways, you don't own those chords, that progression, those words, you just want a shit load of money and need to use the government and the rest of the world to bully everyone into thinking you do.

You don't "own" shit. You're given things by this planet and by the people before you, and when you die you pass it down and it's not yours anymore, it's been this way since the beginning of man, it hasn't changed because of the MPAA, RIAA, or AAA, or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves. Sure, you wrote it, and you deserve credit, maybe even alittle money, but you don't own that tune forever and all time in every medium of space and time, eventually someone else is going to play it, even if they're not making money off it.

Are you guys suggesting the only songs anyone's allowed to teach, learn, or play are "Mary Had a Little Lamb", "Jimmy Cracked Corn" and "The Streets of Laredo" before they write their own music?

Not only has popular music stolen the tunes and lyrics of countless folk songs, it then claims ownership of them, and demands royalties for their arrangements and licenses and is allowed to print songbooks in which it can even simplify and incorrectly notate the song, demand a high price, and require diligent practice using a metronome (conveniently available from the same music store), and then require people to pay for what they've learned if they want to use it, and also charge them for exposure in the music world?

This is fair how?

 

[Richard Monroe]

I have to admit, I am ambivalent about it. Copyright existed in music long before there was any kind of recording, going back to the 19th century. It was created precisely to prevent people from publishing your music and profiting from it without paying royalties. Written music was the original tablature. The thing is, in those days, publishing and distributing music required printing and paper and the cost of transportation, etc. It *cost* money to publish music, so it was most definitely being *sold- for a profit*. Today, it doesn't cost diddly to have some hack produce badly transposed music, and electronically distribute it to millions of aspiring musicians who want to learn that song.

As it turns out, I have acrually threatened an on-line distributor with legal action for posting tablature of two of my copyrighted songs, because the published version was *so bad*. And- the songs were attributed to more successful recording artists who had covered my songs, even though they were properly attributed on the CD's in question, and released with my written permission. I basically sent the turkeys better tablature, with the lyrics corrected (they really fucked up my songs), and told them to either attribute them correctly, or they could discuss it with my fucking lawyer.

Y'all can believe whatever you want, but legal precedent is real clear. You can't publish music that isn't in the public domain without the express written permission of the copyright holder or the payment of mechanical royalties.

However, in the real world, the question is- is anybody making any real money? If a hundred dollar dance band covers one of my songs, do I expect ASCAP and the Harry Fox agency to litigate their poverty-stricken asses? Hell, no. It's not that what they are doing isn't illegal- it's just that it isn't worth it. If your songs are popular enough that song books including your songs are being sold in large numbers, the free distribution of that tablature is cutting into the legitimate sale of your hard copy music, from which you do get royalties.

I'm not really arguing the point, just being the devil's advocate. Not every songwriter who gets royalty checks is a multi-millionaire rock star. As a rule the free distribution of tablature only becomes an issue when people are taking money out of pockets that are already pretty deep. It costs a lot of money to sic lawyers on somebody, so you have to be losing enough money to make it worth it, or you wouldn't generally do it. Notice that in the example above, I was quite willing to let them disribute my copyrighted music for free, but I demanded that they put my name on it, and publish the lyrics the way I wrote them. I'm fully aware that the exposure is good for me. Hell, I'm not a millionaire or a superstar, and it is my greatest dream that someone who is will cover one of my songs. And when they do, I want my fucking $.09 per copy. What the hell?-Richie

 

[famous beagle]

Just because the stuff is inaccurate doesn't mean it isn't useful, it's a step in the right direction.

Anyways, when you're just beginning it's EXTREMELY difficult to figure out something by ear on an instrument you barely understand. Particularly chords, which have such multi-layering and dissonance that even if you figure out the key signature you're not guaranteed the song.

The argument that you "own" a song is total bullshit anyways, you don't own those chords, that progression, those words, you just want a shit load of money and need to use the government and the rest of the world to bully everyone into thinking you do.

You don't "own" shit. You're given things by this planet and by the people before you, and when you die you pass it down and it's not yours anymore, it's been this way since the beginning of man, it hasn't changed because of the MPAA, RIAA, or AAA, or whatever the fuck they want to call themselves. Sure, you wrote it, and you deserve credit, maybe even alittle money, but you don't own that tune forever and all time in every medium of space and time, eventually someone else is going to play it, even if they're not making money off it.

Are you guys suggesting the only songs anyone's allowed to teach, learn, or play are "Mary Had a Little Lamb", "Jimmy Cracked Corn" and "The Streets of Laredo" before they write their own music?

Not only has popular music stolen the tunes and lyrics of countless folk songs, it then claims ownership of them, and demands royalties for their arrangements and licenses and is allowed to print songbooks in which it can even simplify and incorrectly notate the song, demand a high price, and require diligent practice using a metronome (conveniently available from the same music store), and then require people to pay for what they've learned if they want to use it, and also charge them for exposure in the music world?

This is fair how?

No, you don't own the tune forever. There is a time limit to copyrighted music. I think it's around 75 years or so. After that, it becomes public domain.

 

[surfmaster]

i can never find tabs of songs i want anyways.

 

[kubeek]

First, I am no too much aware of american copyright law, but:

When I say that this Ikea box is made of four wooden pieces and a bit of paper on the back, do I violate their rights? I don´t think so, I just state the obvious. I have the right to say what I see or hear.

If I hear some song, and say that he plays it like THIS, do I violate the player´s rights? Again no.
And is it any different if I, instead of just saying it loud, write it on some website?