Music Industry Threatens Guitar Tablature Sites

[jayfish]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060814-7498.html

The campaign has already had notable success. "Guitar Tab Universe" went dark back in July after receiving a letter from attorneys hired by the MPA and the National Music Publishers' Association. Manager Rob Balch wonders where the line should be drawn between infringement and simply figuring out how to play a song. "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?" he asks. "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?"

Now one of the largest tab respositories in the world has taken down its archive. The Online Guitar Archive (better known as OLGA) also received a letter back in June, and has recently gone dark. The site suffered a similar outage nearly a decade ago after threats from the Harry Fox Agency, but reappeared a short time later. Now the site is down again, and all visitors can access is a link to the letter.

As someone who frequently dabbles with playing the guitar, I think this is ridiculous and I rarely use tabs. What's next? A subliminal code embedded in music that prevents your brain from memorizing everything but basic melody of the song.

[leftofthedial]

1. publishers sell sheet music and books

this is copyrighted material and the sheet music is a revenue stream for songwriters and publishers.

Unfortunately, retrieving online charts and tabs is exactly like illegally sharing movies or music.

[ForrestGump]

3. The sheet music's copyrighted, as is the recording, but I was under the

impression that guitar tabs were worked out by dudes (who I imagine all look like the ones from Wayne's World), from listening to the recordings and figuring out the notes. I guess you could say that's reverse engineering but, to me, it's hardly an infringement of copyright in any meaningful sense.

Or do they work out tabs some other way and I'm laboring under a false illusion?

[leftofthedial]

5. the "dudes" have no license to reproduce copyrighted material

in any mechanical or electronic form.

It's not the "working out" of the tabs--anyone, including the "dudes," is free to do that. You also are free to perform the songs (provided you do it in a venue or medium that pays the required performance licensing fees). It is the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material without a license from the copyright holder (the publisher) and without paying the required royalties.

[jayfish]

6. To You, Does Reproduction Of Copyrighted Matrerial...

include the simple act of performing it? Are cover-bands reproducing copyrighted material? Is the act of recording yourself while you play your favorite song, reproducing copyrighted material? How far can we take this?

Jay

[IsIt1984Yet]

8. This is the most ridiculous thing ever.

The music industry is the most greedy organization just after insurance companies.

Jeesus fucking christ, next they will want royalties from me when I hum or sing poorly in an effort to earworm my cubicle neighbors! :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

15. no they want

but if you set up a distribution channel for recordings of you performing copyrighted material and you don't pay for the right to do that, you are a thief and they will call you on it.

The royalites are minimal

Record labels suck. No question, no argument. They have screwed thousands of musicians over the years. But distributing intellectual property without compensating the owners is no different than selling stolen TVs.

[KurtNYC]

36. "no different than selling stolen TVs" - yes it is

Music is more than a mass produced product from assembly lines in Asia. And not even the copyright holders consider unauthorized reproduction to be "stealing" -- it is infringment (on rights; as opposed to theft of finite possessions). To be held in violation of copyright laws the defendant must be proven to have commited acts which have denied profits to the copyright holder. I dont think tablature rises to that level because it is even more flawed than the official written versions. It is a shared guess at best about the raw materials of the recording and is far less than the recording itself.

Copyrights were originally 7 years. Now they are nearly indefinite. Shakespeare, the Bible, the National Anthem and many other cultural touchstones would not exist if modern copyright laws were applied in the past.

[leftofthedial]

56. according to current law, it is theft, period.

the copyright holder, not you, not Shakespeare, owns the rights to their intellectual property. One cannot grant oneself a mechanical license to reproduce someone else's copyrighted material. It's not my opinion. It's not my preference. But it is the law. Absolute abrogation of intellectual property protections would destroy our culture, in my opinion.

If you don't like copyright laws, your argument is with the international bodies and the US Congress who create the statutes. But as the current laws exist, appropriating a right that can only legally be granted through licensing is theft.

The concept of intellectual property is difficult, since the property in question is not plastic.

What we should do is find a happy medium, or a different model, or some other approach that works for everyone. Current law is not synergistic with technology. I think tab sites probably could negotiate an annual licensing fee for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars if they wanted to. If their traffic is high enough to get the fee into the thousand-dollar range, then their site advertising revenues are certain to be enough to offset that cost.

[NashVegas]

57. All Artists Are Thieves

Whatever did we do to entertain ourselves before Thomas Edison invented the phonograph and made commercialized music possible?

[ComerPerro]

52. you should be able to be sued for giving earworms

not by the RIAA, but by your neighbors

[leftofthedial]

11. it's not according to me

there are distinctly different required legal licenses and royalties. Two of these are:

performance--this includes public performance, radio airplay, etc. (synchronization licenses are different and cover the use of music in film or TV, etc.)

mechanical--this includes translating the work into a tangible, reproducible form, such as a recording, sheet music, tablature, lyric sheets, etc.


Cover bands plying live are *performing* copyrighted material. Concert venues, bars, etc. are required legally to pay (though not all actually do) annual performance licensing fees that are collected by performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in the US). Note that this is the responsibility of the venue, not the band, although occasionally a band gets in trouble when the venue refuses to pay--lawyers sue everyone when it comes to legal action. Once the fee is collected by a performing rights organization, the money is then paid to copyright holders as performance royalties. Similarly, radio stations pay an annual fee for their right to broadcast music.

If you record your performance of a song, technically, you are creating a tangible, reproducible copy of the song. If you then manufacture multiple copies to sell (as a band might if they put a cover song on their seolf-produced CD), you are legally required to pay a mechanical royalty for every copy you manufacture. If you make a "live" recording of you playing a cover song in public, the venue (theoretically at least) pays a performance royalty and you (or whoever owns the recording) would owe a separate mechanical royalty for every copy you manufacture.


there actually is quite a bit more legally and practically to licensing, but this covers the basics in a nutshell.

[jayfish]

14. That's Good Info.

I had no clue about the performance royalty thing. What a drag. Sorry for sounding snarky, I was trying to elicit your feelings on the matter rater than a recitation of legalese. It didn't get it but I appreciate the info.

Jay

[leftofthedial]

17. my feeling is that, like many human issues, music publishing

has not adapted well to revolutionary new technology.

We are talking about an industry that still includes breakage of wax cylinders in its standard contracts. That dates from before the invention of the phonograph. It's no surprise that they can't really figure out how to handle the Internet. This is an industry based on making a few pennies everytime a song is bought or sold. You buy a CD for $10 and a publisher makes a couple of cents. If a million people buy the CD, the publisher (and more importantly IMHO the songwriter) makes enough money to live on and to keep creating songs that people like you care enough about to learn how to play or enjoy listening to. Like most of America, a very few songwriters and large corporate publishers make enormous sums of money, far in excess of what seems reasonable for the work they do, but thousands more make a little bit of money doing something that they--and you, apparently--love.

I think the industry has been excessive and heavy handed trying to protect an outmoded business model. On the other hand, people--even musicians--deserve to be rewarded for their work and deserve to have their property respected and protected from theft.

[jayfish]

18. Now We're Talk'en.

Reading some of the comments on the original story got me thinking about availability. I don't think it makes a difference in the eyes of the law, but if copyright holders are going to prohibit the posting of listener created tabs should they then have the responsibility to make the legal versions available for public consumption? I remember when I first stated to get into drumming and guitar playing that finding sheet music or tab books for anything I wanted to play was an exercise in rage. I think a good idea would be to release works that have not been actively published in a set number of years to the public domain. Don't get bogged down in the details of that thought. Just consider the concept.

Jay

[leftofthedial]

21. it is not economical to release any but the most popular songs

or those from the most popular artists in printed form.

Frankly, I'm surprised that more musicians don't offer tab on their websites. It still requires publisher permission though, and the publishers are loathe to give away their property for free.

"Obligation" to provide sheet music or tab? No. This spoken by one who has spent thousands of hours of his life charting cover songs from recordings. THey are not obligated to do anything.

[jayfish]

24. Yer Getting Legal On me Again.

I know that no such obligation exists, but should it. If I can't but it and I can't read someone else's transcription, whats my recourse? I don't buy the economics argument either. 10-15 years ago, sure. But today? They could put a simple kiosk in music stores and have tabs or sheet music printed, for a fee, on demand with very high-quality. Hell if they were worried about proliferation they could charge a smaller fee, copy-proof the paper and have the ink fade after a set time period.

Jay

[leftofthedial]

44. your kiosk idea is a great one

manyindie labels use that kind of model for retail point of sale downloads of recordings

web downloads of lyrics and tabs provided virtually free by publishers would also be a cool thing

those are exactly the kinds of things I meant when I said the industry had failed to embrace new technologies.

[jayfish]

45. It Would Be Relatively Simple For The Industry To Control Too.

The system could store content on a central server and use the kiosk simply as a means of delivery and payment collection. The operation that hosts the kiosk would get a chunk of the money just like they would if they had a pop-machine on the premises. Another thing that would be cool is to let the community submit tabs for resale as well. Their chunk of change could be distributed via a system similar to Pay-Pal. The technology is pretty simple and everyone could get paid.

Jay

[leftofthedial]

46. here are reasons why "the industry" does not embrace that kind of idea

1. "the industry," or at least the publishing industry, is far less monolithic than the major labels. It would require cooperation of thousands of publishing companies.

2. there is no repository anywhere in any form of lyrics or sheet music or tab for 99.99% of songs.

3. the music that is popular enough for people to want sheet music or tabs for it already has books and sheet music available, often through exclusive agreemeents with book publishers. The music publishers would view this online alternative channel as competition or might specifically be prohibited from participating.

4. 99.99% (not necessarily the same 99.99% as above) of all song titles would never be downloaded, even if tab were available. Who would invest the time and money to chart all the songs, enter them into a database and build the kisk technology infrastructure when the likely return would be so selective and small? We are talking millions of songs.



Still, I think it is farsighted to make one's music as available in as many media as possible.

[SacredCow]

28. I think that sums up the recording industry pretty well.....

And I agree that musicians deserve to be rewarded for their work- even to be filthy, stinking rich, if their work is that popular. What I can't get on board with is the notion that by posting the statement "The opening chords to 'All along the watchtower' are B-minor, A-Major and G-Major" I am committing an act of theft. Hell, it's not even correct- but if you strum it on a guitar it kinda-sorta sounds right to the kid who's trying to learn how to play an instrument. I just don't really see the harm in that.

[leftofthedial]

32. their "logic" is that if there is no tab available for free

you will go down to the music store and plop down $15 for your own copy of "Hendrix Does Dylan" music book.

Nothing prevents you from sitting there, guitar in hand, and figuring out the first three chords (which are Am, G and F BTW). Oh shit. Now I'm in trouble . . .

[Radical Activist]

20. If most of the money was going to artists then I would buy that argument.

But its the recording companies that are really robbing the artists. Why not do something about that instead?

[leftofthedial]

23. recordings and record labels have nothing to do with this particular issue

it is strictly a songwriter-publisher issue.

record labels (setting aside for a moment the conglomeratization that has mega-corporations involved in all facets of the business) do not own copyrights. They own licenses to manufacture and distribute recordings.

This is a copyright issue.

Historically (and currently), most record labels do suck and rob artists and consumers alike.

[SacredCow]

39. Agreed....

And I think they should be hugely nervous about the proliferation of online music swapping, as people will be able to decide for themselves who to listen to. Surely it'll be better than the industry forcing clone after clone of Britney Spears down our collective throats....

[leftofthedial]

55. support independent music

and independent musicians

[ForrestGump]

2. That is petty and insane

I have never used tabs -- don't even know what to do with them -- but, yes, the action's absolutely lacking any logical basis for argument. Are they going to ban sheet music next? Or, at least, make it a fineable offense to lend anyone sheet music or for libraries and the like to carry music portfolios?

It's not like anyone's sampling the songs, or burning them to CD and pirating the things...to play the music via tabs (or at all) requires a certain level of skill and I find it hard to believe that an epidemic of copycatting guitarists is hurting anybody.

Greedy, litigious f***ers.

That does it. I'm going to learn how to play from tabs now, just to -- and, yes, I recently rewatched School of Rock -- Stick It To The Man. :grr:

[Chan790]

4. When I was in college

there was a sign stuck on the wall outside the music school's library to inform people that anybody caught making a photocopy of sheet music or tabs would have their borrowing privileges revoked and be prosecuted. That's f'ed up. They don't prosecute people or revoke borrowing privileges for photocopying a single page out of any other book in the library.

[leftofthedial]

29. they absolutely won't ban sheet music

but they will bring charges against anyone who prints up sheet music and sells it without paying applicable royalties

which is the same thing as distributing unlicensed tabs.

[ZombieNixon]

7. As a guitarist this fucking pisses me off!

:grr:

Tabs are an approximate reproduction done by ear by some dude like me with a word processor, an instrument and a sound system. There's no guarantee that your reproduction is even right. Hell, I've seen tabs that are purported to be the real thing that are completely fucking off and don't even sound like the melody. :crazy:

Bastards. Fucking music industry. x(

[jayfish]

9. What About Tabs That Are Sonically Correct But...

are played at completely different positions on the fretboard. I do that quite a bit for different tunings. I try to play a song for the way my guitar is tuned rather than how it was really played. It usually sounds authentic but I know it's not even close.

Jay

[ZombieNixon]

13. That's the thing.

What you tab might sound 100% correct, but might be technically completely different from how the band plays the song in concert. I tab things according to what's easiest for me to play and sounds right. :shrug:

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

12. My sentiments exactly

Tabs are what I have, because I never learned to read sheet music. If they shut Ulitmate-Guitar down, I'll be very unhappy.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

10. Bastards. I don't know what I'll do if UG goes down, I get all my tabs

there. . .

[Ariana Celeste]

40. Same here!

And also from http://www.mxtabs.net/basstabs.php (mxtabs also has drum tabs and guitar tabs)

Usually compare and contrast tabs from both sites until I figure what sounds best and is easier for me to play. ;)

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

42. I've never been to that site

thanks for the link! :hi:

[SacredCow]

16. Oh, yeah... I forgot to tell all of you fellow guitarists....

I copyrighted all variations of the chords G, D, and C (Major, Minor, Augmented, etc...).

So you can't play them anymore! Nyah Nyah Nyah!

I can (almost) understand their beef with posting lyrics, but to say that you can't make an interpretation of a song and share that interpretation with others is just ridiculous.

[ComerPerro]

53. I own the copyright on the progression ii-V-I, so don't use it, EVER

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. It's all property of the muse.

Personally, I hope they're all driven out of business.

[leftofthedial]

22. yeah. let's put all professional musicians out of business

make it so their life's work MUST be given away for free on the Internet.

Greedy bastards. Who do they think they are?

[jayfish]

26. I Know You Have To make It, But...

I don't like that argument. Musicians are getting shafted the way it is now. Stopping people from posting tabs isn't going to put another penny in the pocket of a musician.

Jay

[leftofthedial]

37. Not to be a jerk, but speaking as a professional songwriter

(definitely not rich, definitely not famous)

(and I do not intend to out my "real" identity here . . .)

I have probably a couple dozen songs in tab archives somewhere. Technically, these are not currently available in print titles, BUT, if you bought books instead of downloading tabs, I'd make a couple of bucks. If there were thousands of you learning my songs, the royalty could represent a decent chunk of my income. The organizations in this suit, like most of the industry organizations, really represent the top .01% of the population. The reality is that a handful of publishers and a relative handful of songwriters theoretically stand to lose significant revenues if you look up tab online instead of buying a book legally. Still, a few hundred or a few thousand bucks means alot to folks like me. A few thousand bucks to a publisher means that they can afford to record demos for more of their songwriters' songs. I know from firsthand experience that if people buy sheet music instead of looking up a tab, it DOES put pennies in the pockets of songwriters.

Personally, I think it's shortsighted. Tab sites undoubtedly help to ensure the ongoing popularity of songs and likely extend the productive royalty life of a title. Especially considering the limited availability of titles in sheet music, I think it would be better in the long run for everyone if the industry was more progressive in its embrace of the Internet. I have argued (with mixed results) for my publisher--and with cowriters--to allow me to post tabs of my own songs on my own site.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. What have professional musicians got to do with it?

We're talking about music industry executives, and their whole income relies on ripping off professional musicians.

And as for the musicians, if their music's popular enough that people are falling over themselves to listen to their music, reinterpret it, and post it again on the web, well that's reward enough.

[leftofthedial]

43. no, we're not talking about music executives

some publishing executives may be involved, but this has nothing to do with the record labels

you are confusing this with downloads of recordings, which is NOT the same thing at all.

labels do not own copyrights on songs, which is the legal issue here

copyrights belong to publishers, and more than 50% of all royalties that accrue from sheet music or tab sales accrue to songwriters, not executives.

as for your final point, like I said, your opinion is that musicians should work for free and take their reward from your "adulation." I think you should work for the rest of your life for free, content with the knowledge that your boss and your boss' customers appreciate your efforts.

[billyskank]

48. Actually, if I may add my 2c

You said: "your opinion is that musicians should work for free and take their reward from your 'adulation.'"

That's preposterous. Nobody is suggesting that you should work for nothing. Only the wealthy can work for free. The question is over what constitutes "work."

Consider my position - I am a computer programmer. There is a controversy raging in my field that is very analogous to yours. To wit; is the writer of a computer program owed royalties on the use of any program they write? You see I hope that this is identical to the argument you find yourself in. What you and people who argue for software rights seem to want is to work once and then sit back forever and earn from the repeated distribution of their work. But this has no justification in nature. Your work and mine are both of subtle nature; once created, they both have a near-zero cost of reproduction. It is not like manufacturing widgets.

I take the opposite position. I think I should be paid for writing software, which I am by my employer, but not that writing something once entitles me to an income in the future. To apply this to your case, I think a musician should be paid for playing. But I do not think that you or I have any natural right to the works we create.

This notion of copyright is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Through most of history it has not existed. Those who are pushing for the extension of copyright laws are mostly the big and powerful, yet they always invoke the "little guy" when asked to justify what they want. Needless to say, they do not have our interests at heart. They will screw us just like they screw their customers.

The notion that we will all starve were it not for copyright is a myth, I think.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Well, I was talking about music executives...

and while I don't think musicians should work for free, I don't think that the musicians who are raking in the big bucks these days contribute much more to society than, say, cab drivers.

[KurtNYC]

25. Art is not a commodity

to be brokered and sold like corn futures.

Behavior like that of the recording industry seeks to make us all spectators to our own culture.

Our national anthem is new words written to an existing (British) tune. Making something new out of something old is the American way.

[johnnie]

27. Good!

Now all you young punks can sit for hours and hours trying to learn tunes like we did when I was a kid!!

Kidding :)
I never sat around listening, I just had other people do it and then show me what to play. I wish I had tabs and the net when I was starting out. I would then have people learn songs faster and print it out for me to use.

[ghostsofgiants]

30. Thus making it harder for burgeoning musicians to learn to play.

Tabs are a realy good way to learn to play guitar or bass. They're how I learned to play, and they're how all of my friends learned to play. Fuck that shit. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Music and capitalism do not mix.

[Tsiyu]

31. This totally sucks

I am the owner of about 100 songbooks, all bought and paid for at 15-30 bucks a pop ( and about 50 that have been borrowed and never returned.) I own sheet music and songbooks for everyone from Bob Marley to Nirvana to Bonnie Raitt to Elton John to the Dixie Chicks. I have paid the publishers very well.

However, there are songs that are just not available in sheet music. One has to figure the song out on one's own (sometimes i can do that - like with a simple Gillian Welch tune) and other times the arrangements are a mystery and I need some help.

It seems the songwriters would want more exposure for their songs. I have heard songs played on stage that were never played on mainstream radio and as a result, have gone out and bought those artists' CDs, so the artist/songwriter actually got free advertising out of the crooner on stage, who often learned the song from TAB he or she got off the internet.

Without TAB, many songs would be lost forever and never played by anybody. It's kind of like that old, "if I can't have her, nobody can have her" rationale. Except it's "if I can't squeeze every last dime out of every last sucker who likes my song, nobody can ever hear that song again."

I hope some artists start their own tab sites. Their songs will be remembered and played around the campfire for years. The obscure writers, with no published scores and no legal tab online, will see their songs forgotten and never played.

It's never about the music, always about the money. oh, well.....

[lizziegrace]

33. Most of the tabs I look up

aren't available in sheet music, anywhere. :shrug:

[ComerPerro]

54. and they are usually wrong

[Reverend_Smitty]

34. I remember the big dust up the music industry made about this 10 years ago

I was just starting out playing guitar and getting on the internet, OLGA and sites like that were a godsend. I don't know how many times I was sitting around trying to play a song and was just not getting it right so I went online and within 5 minutes I was able to play something that would have taken me all day or all week to figure out on my own. These sites are around a decade later, so I doubt they are going anywhere soon

[jpgray]

35. Tabs are rarely a meaningful transcription, and therefore don't compete

With professionally published versions of a song/musical piece. It's comparing apples and oranges (the most popular tab for that Syd Barrett tune is completely wrong, incidentally).

[sendero]

41. Those of you..

... who have high-speed internet access can download a program called HTTrack Website Copier http://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html and download whole tab sites while there are still some out there.

Just a thought.

[SteppingRazor]

47. There's a million tab sites, so good luck music publishers...

it'll be a lot tougher to shut this down than it was Napster.

Damn shame about OLGA, though. That was far and away the best site.

[Ezlivin]

49. My guitar teacher showed me some Frampton and Sabbath licks

Is that illegal?

I'm in my late 40s but a new guitar player (3 years). My instructor, also in his 40s, was into Frampton "back in the day" and we were discussing his music one day. I commented that I could not find the sheet music for any of Frampton's stuff and he said he'd show me some of the licks he'd worked out. (Turns out that he did a complete Frampton act back in the 70s-80s, with the VoxBox and all. He was known in the DFW area for his guitar work.)

I also couldn't find any sheet music for Black Sabbath's "Sabotage" album, either. So he showed me some good licks there, as well.

I read music and have no problem purchasing sheet music or books, but when there is nothing available I'll always use tabs.

So what do the powers that be think of guitar teachers "giving" tabs of music to their students via one-on-one instruction?

[NashVegas]

58. Going By the Logic Exhibited By the Music (and its Supporting Industries)

The answer would be: yes. Your teacher is stealing from the industry when he/she profits from teaching you how to play music.

[arwalden]

50. How Do They Feel About The LYRICS Sites?

Have the sites with searchable lyrics databases been targeted yet?

[NashVegas]

59. NYT Article 4/24: Music's Hottest Star: The Publisher

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/business/media/24music.html?ex=1303531200&en=e915e3ab3e576302&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Music's Hottest Star: The Publisher

By ANDREW JACOBS
Published: April 24, 2006
....

After years of being overshadowed by the recording business, the music publishing business is finally being widely recognized as a lucrative one, largely because of the financial travails of Michael Jackson. Hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, Mr. Jackson recently agreed to sell half his share in Sony-ATV Music Publishing, a song catalog that includes many Beatles hits and is worth an estimated $1 billion, at some point in the future.
...

As a result, music publishing is also getting attention on Wall Street. In recent years, venture capitalists and investment banks have engaged in aggressive bidding wars for lucrative music catalogues. EMI too has snatched up catalogues whenever it can.

In 2004, it spent $80 million to buy the 20 percent it did not already own of the Motown catalogue of Berry Gordy, who founded the label.
....

Although music pirating has taken a sizable chunk out of publishing's bottom line, most publishers continue to make money, something that is rarely highlighted in the headlines about the music industry.

Of course we will see song-writers, usually non-performing songwriters, be the loudest complainers of how artists are getting ripped off. In this very thread. The larger reality is Wall St. is doing the driving.