what will guitarists do? tab outlawed

[The Hand of Poo]

You can't find standard notation sheet music for free on the Internet, either, can you?

Yes.

It's being pursued because it's being published FREE on the Internet without the consent of the people who actually own the right to publish the material.

It's been available online for 15 years now, and to be honest, I've not heard one band complain. Maybe you have, but the fact that I haven't makes me wonder how many artists are truly concerned about tab.

Nobody is trying to "outlaw" tab, they are simply trying to stop illegal publishing of their work.

Nobody doubts your legal standpoint, and books of tab shouldn't be copied. I'm not trying to justify copyright violations, that's another conversation.

But it just seems fickle to stop amateur tab. I do not see, nor has anyone else attempted to show me exactly what damage is done from using or creating amateur tab. Please do so in place of verifying it's illegality for the umpteenth time.

[The Hand of Poo]

My "learn to read music" comment was probably off-topic somewhat. This discussion is about illegal activity not the merits of tablature.

Jonesy, if nothing else you've got some integrity. I don't think one other person would've posted that. Kudos and stuff.

[Silencio]

Your argument that damage needs to be proven is a straw man. Nobody needs to prove to you that there is any actual damage. Copyright gives the holder the right to decide how their work is distributed. It is there to give the copyright holder that power, not to make sure that nobody "hurts" them.

"Hey, you, that's my chain saw, one of hundreds and hundreds of copies of that chain saw I own! Bring that back!"
"Well, I can use it! I'm not hurting it, or you, or anybody! You still have all the other chain saws!"
"Yeah, but they're mine and I get to decide whether or not you use 'em."

This is basic property law. Don't like it? Start a freakin'' commune.

[Aero]

Your argument that damage needs to be proven is a straw man. Nobody needs to prove to you that there is any actual damage. Copyright gives the holder the right to decide how their work is distributed. It is there to give the copyright holder that power, not to make sure that nobody "hurts" them.

"Hey, you, that's my chain saw, one of hundreds and hundreds of copies of that chain saw I own! Bring that back!"
"Well, I can use it! I'm not hurting it, or you, or anybody! You still have all the other chain saws!"
"Yeah, but they're mine and I get to decide whether or not you use 'em."

This is basic property law. Don't like it? Start a freakin'' commune.

That example almost seems more like theft. If the person didn't pay to use the chainsaw or was not given permission, then it would be wrong. Chain saws are physical items which are a lot harder to copy than guitar tab. Would it be wrong to copy a chain saw by building your own from materials you bought?

[bassjones]

Your argument that damage needs to be proven is a straw man. Nobody needs to prove to you that there is any actual damage. Copyright gives the holder the right to decide how their work is distributed. It is there to give the copyright holder that power, not to make sure that nobody "hurts" them.

"Hey, you, that's my chain saw, one of hundreds and hundreds of copies of that chain saw I own! Bring that back!"
"Well, I can use it! I'm not hurting it, or you, or anybody! You still have all the other chain saws!"
"Yeah, but they're mine and I get to decide whether or not you use 'em."

This is basic property law. Don't like it? Start a freakin'' commune.

That example almost seems more like theft. If the person didn't pay to use the chainsaw or was not given permission, then it would be wrong. Chain saws are physical items which are a lot harder to copy than guitar tab. Would it be wrong to copy a chain saw by building your own from materials you bought?

Yes, it would - if the design was patented. It's like the Fender headstock which they've sued people over countless times. It's the EXACT same principle as the illegal tab issue.

[G Fresh]

Here's a perhaps not-so-hypothetical situation in regards to this that I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts are.

It is my understanding that any coffee shop/bar/church/live music venue of any kind is required to pay regular fees to RIAA/ASCAP/BMI/Whatever in order to have live music performances at their venues. If this is true, than it should make no difference if a cover band has learned all of their songs by tablature or by ear, either way, the artist who wrote the song is getting a percentage no matter how small for the performance of the piece.

I guess I'm wondering, if the performance of any copyrighted music material (whether learned by ear or by tablature or by bought and paid for sheet music) without the express written consent of the artist is considered copyright violation as has been stated before in this thread, ("for the private use of the individual and not for public performance") then why are cover bands legal at all?

Please understand, I'm not trying to stir up anymore sh*t in this thread than is already floating around, but I'm honestly curious about this. Please correct me if I'm wrong or have not fully understood what someone else has written.

[Garr]

no, you're correct. legally, venues are required to obtain set lists from musicians covering copyrighted material and make regular payments to ASCAP, BMI, etc.

From my understanding, though, the monies earned this way are so insignificant that they are not actively pursued because proof is nearly possible to obtain unless they have reps at every bar listening to the songs that have been played. There is electronic evidence that can be used in the case of publishing tablature or sheet music online, which makes it a more viable target for litigation.

[The Hand of Poo]

Your argument that damage needs to be proven is a straw man. Nobody needs to prove to you that there is any actual damage. Copyright gives the holder the right to decide how their work is distributed. It is there to give the copyright holder that power, not to make sure that nobody "hurts" them.

"Hey, you, that's my chain saw, one of hundreds and hundreds of copies of that chain saw I own! Bring that back!"
"Well, I can use it! I'm not hurting it, or you, or anybody! You still have all the other chain saws!"
"Yeah, but they're mine and I get to decide whether or not you use 'em."

This is basic property law. Don't like it? Start a freakin'' commune.

Meh.

I'm not saying it *needs* to be proven to anybody. I'm asking you to show me an *real* example, or at the least, progress the conversation by adding insight or arguing the practicality of tab violations - for the sake of conversation and debate.

Also, I think there's a marginal difference between "basic property" law and intellectual property law. I'd like to see you respond to my earlier comment regarding how questionable practices and outright copyright violations have greatly helped to bring the internet media's global explosion to bear: YouTube, Myspace, Flickr, and even the foundation for Itunes and the Ipod.

Maybe that could lead into your thoughts on how these proven trends should be considered in the face of copyright law. IMHO this is something that needs to be met with adaptation instead of subpoenas. I don't think the digital copyright act could've forcasted what effects these trends would have.

Anyway, care to debate that? Because I gotta tell you, being told to start a commune because I don't think copyright laws are all that practical anymore doesn't do much for my respect of your opinion. Granted, I've said some things that you could say the same for. But that was then.

[Oliver's Army]

So its okay for a kid to learn a song by ear and paper, to then play it out in front of others. But NOT if he finds tabs and learns it faster or correctly?

Would you offer a $.99 download for your tabs as a TAB copyright paid in full?

Where does MIDI sequences and software like FINALE fall into all of this?

[Garr]

any public performance of the piece, regardless of how it was learned, is subject to royalties to the copyright owner.

I would pay $99 a piece for REAL transcriptions. . .not amateur tabs.

Most amateur tabs are interpretations of a song and are CHOCK FULL of errors and just plain nonsense. So much so that I often question if the person was even listening to the song. It's not tab that's illegal, it's the distro of it without permission of the copyright owner that is.

[The Hand of Poo]

Would you offer a $.99 download for your tabs as a TAB copyright paid in full?

Yes, my thoughts EXACTLY. This worked miracles for apple and I-tunes. If you can't beat them, offer them a service for the ethically minded and make money where you can instead of paying for ultimately pointless litigation.

[paradox now]

So, as you can see, you can't explain how I'm wrong, because it is YOU that is wrong.

Do you mind if I borrow that some time? It's gold.

[Recordstar]

Royalty payment for performance (Performance License) is the fee paid by venues for songs played. I think what is being missed here is the "Mechanical License" issue (reproduction via electronic device, CD's or printed media). Unauthorized printed tabs come under copyright infringement of mechanical license. The content of tab material, correct or erroneous, is irrelevant. Someone takes it upon himself to delve into a piece of work (copywritten) and post the chords...etc...(as he sees/hears them) on the internet without the owners permission is in violation of U.S. Copyright Law. Go to your local music store, buy the chart (most with tabs) and play your heart out. If you're going to indulge in this business as a hobbyist or professional, take a little time and learn about copyright law and learn to read music. You'll be a better musician in the long run.

[bassjones]

Go buy all the tab whitepages books if you must. They're more likely to be accurate anyway, plus they're all authorized. That or use the tabs out of guitar player, guitar world, bass player, etc... those are also authorized by the artists. Better yet, buy a bunch of real books and learn to read a lead sheet.

[Jeff]

..