tabs being banned

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

This has been discussed already here.

Oh, and if you think tabs being banned is crazy, have a stiff drink in your hand before you read this.

Smell of Lars Ulrich of that.

Niall - Dahlia

I've no problem with more regulation of tab sites; there's alot of tabs submitted that are just a straight copy of tab books, and they even state that fact sometimes ("dis iz 110% rite coz i got it from the official tab book"). Fair enough, they should be taken down and not allowed. But I don't think it's right that somebody's interpretation of a song should be banned.

I find it frustrating that a couple of company executives can decide on a whim that a whole decades worth of work by guitarists who wanted nothing only to help out fellow guitarists can be just nullified so quickly. Just another case of the power in the hands of the few I guess. I feel sorry for the people who dedicated themselves to submitting hundreds and hundreds of tabs. I feel bad enough that my only tab, Cruising In The Lizzymobile, is all but gone!

MrJoeSoap

Niall - Dahlia wrote:

I've no problem with more regulation of tab sites; there's alot of tabs submitted that are just a straight copy of tab books, and they even state that fact sometimes ("dis iz 110% rite coz i got it from the official tab book"). Fair enough, they should be taken down and not allowed. But I don't think it's right that somebody's interpretation of a song should be banned.

What if someones interpretation happens to be correct and therefore matches the tab provided in the tab book?

Doctor J

Niall - Dahlia wrote:

But I don't think it's right that somebody's interpretation of a song should be banned.

I find it frustrating that a couple of company executives can decide on a whim that a whole decades worth of work by guitarists who wanted nothing only to help out fellow guitarists can be just nullified so quickly. Just another case of the power in the hands of the few I guess. I feel sorry for the people who dedicated themselves to submitting hundreds and hundreds of tabs.

At the end of the day, regardless of how accurate the transcriber was, they are publishing a copyrighted work without permission, that is the issue. Just because it is in a printed format, rather than a recorded format, it is still the same piece of music. The song and the recording of the song are entirely different things, the record company owns the recording of the song, the artist/publishing company own the song itself. Every time the song is reproduced the artist/publisher is entitled to a royalty. The artist created the song and is entitled to be re-imbursed for their creative efforts, no? It's not just about guitarists, it's about any sort of transcription, this affects all forms of music on every instrument and proper transcriptions too, not just tabs. It covers unlicenced classical transcriptions, not just fast rock guitar. It's about protecting intellectual copyright and seeing that the people who get continually screwed by the industry and their "fans", the artists, finally get their interests looked after and I, for one, agree with it.

I'm just surprised it took this long for the publishers to get their **** together.

senordingdong

God..you make it sound like some sinister plot.

The people doing this are not doing it for financial gain or to rip off an artists work...infact, we all know that Joe Soap doesn't get paid for tabbing songs so it's not like those who do it are funding terrorism or drug lords.

It's simply a case of musicians wanting to help other musicians.

John

It's not a matter of tabbers being paid when they shouldn't, it's a matter of the artist not being paid when they should. It's like if I translated a book into French tomorrow, it's my interpretation of the book en francais but the author still needs to get paid.

I think a cheap itunes type thing of powertab would be perfect. Get some decent music notation chappies, pay them for their trouble and pay the artist for each download.

Niall - Dahlia

I wouldn't argue with that, legally they have every right to make every last penny they can out of their property. I just really can't see how the situation is so bad for sales of official tab books that they have to try and shut down every tab site. I don't think any artist is gonna see a change in his bank balance thanks to this move. They're just ticking off the boxes, it'll be something else in a few months time.

But I guess the music industry is always slow to react to how things develop on the internet, so was only a matter of time. Won't make me buy tab books anyway. Some of them "official" books do be complete ****e...

John

I wouldn't buy tab books either but this is the perfect oppertunity for powertabs to go legit and set up a proper pay per download site and act as a real threat to the **** tab book companies.

Doctor J

senordingdong wrote:

God..you make it sound like some sinister plot.

The people doing this are not doing it for financial gain or to rip off an artists work...infact, we all know that Joe Soap doesn't get paid for tabbing songs so it's not like those who do it are funding terrorism or drug lords.

It's simply a case of musicians wanting to help other musicians.

They're just musicians helping other musicians by offering free reproductions of other musicians work. Personally, I like to see musicians get paid for their work, which isn't the case here. This may only mean another ivory back scratcher for Phil Collins, but it might mean the difference between having to work full time jobs in between touring for the likes of Nevermore, Opeth and a plethora of other excellent bands who don't actually make a living out of the music industry. Is it wrong to think they're entitled to be rewarded for their work or is it wrong for people to expect all sorts of free hand outs and not pay for someone else's work which they derive a benefit from? This is finally a move where smaller sized artists might actually see a benefit and yet there is much whining and bitching.

Yep, itunes for tabs is what is required and what I'd love to see happen, where the artists can have some contol in the reproduction of their work and, perhaps, play some part in the accuracy of a licenced tab too. That way the likes of Opeth and other bands, who realisitaclly aren't going to have a dedicated tab book any time soon, can rightfully make some income out of an aspect of their work for which there is a demand. I think that is a very good thing and anyone who says otherwise really needs to take a long look at themselves abd how they arrive at their value system IMO.

I ****ing despise this downloading culture where folks seem to think they're entitled to take from musicians for free. It's theft and I think its apalling. If you want to use someone's graft for your own benefit, be it listening enjoyment or becoming a better musician, you should not think the idea of paying those people for their work, which makes your life a better place, is such a bad thing.

projectmayhem

John2 wrote:

It's not a matter of tabbers being paid when they shouldn't, it's a matter of the artist not being paid when they should. It's like if I translated a book into French tomorrow, it's my interpretation of the book en francais but the author still needs to get paid.

good point but these tabs aren't being put online for money or musical broadcast. it's so people like you and me can sit in our bedroom's with our new fender strats and belt out some songs you like for the first time ever.

while it's true to say an artist should make money from their work, it's also fair to say they'd make next to no money from tabs. the labels and publishers of tab books would/do.

i've yet to hear a quote from some artist saying "we're being ripped off by these scumbag fans trying to copy our work". it's all the labels and money men. that's why this is a fewkin joke.

senordingdong

Doctor J wrote:

They're just musicians helping other musicians by offering free reproductions of other musicians work. Personally, I like to see musicians get paid for their work, which isn't the case here. This may only mean another ivory back scratcher for Phil Collins, but it might mean the difference between having to work full time jobs in between touring for the likes of Nevermore, Opeth and a plethora of other excellent bands who don't actually make a living out of the music industry. Is it wrong to think they're entitled to be rewarded for their work or is it wrong for people to expect all sorts of free hand outs and not pay for someone else's work which they derive a benefit from? This is finally a move where smaller sized artists might actually see a benefit and yet there is much whining and bitching.

Yep, itunes for tabs is what is required and what I'd love to see happen, where the artists can have some contol in the reproduction of their work and, perhaps, play some part in the accuracy of a licenced tab too. That way the likes of Opeth and other bands, who realisitaclly aren't going to have a dedicated tab book any time soon, can rightfully make some income out of an aspect of their work for which there is a demand. I think that is a very good thing and anyone who says otherwise really needs to take a long look at themselves abd how they arrive at their value system IMO.

I ****ing despise this downloading culture where folks seem to think they're entitled to take from musicians for free. It's theft and I think its apalling. If you want to use someone's graft for your own benefit, be it listening enjoyment or becoming a better musician, you should not think the idea of paying those people for their work, which makes your life a better place, is such a bad thing.

Ofcourse I think musicians should be paid for their work, I just don't think they should be paid as much as they are.
Your idea of helping out the smaller bands is noble, but I think you're taking a rather slanted view point on it. And the 'bitching and whinning' here is simply because it's becoming a matter of greed.

As for the iTunes type service...I personally wouldn't see it getting off the ground.

Doctor J

senordingdong wrote:

Ofcourse I think musicians should be paid for their work, I just don't think they should be paid as much as they are.

Perhaps you should try to find out just how much regular* musicians actually earn and you might re-evaluate that comment :rolleyes:







* for the sake of arguement, lets say regular is anything less than 50,000 album sales, which would encompass about 99.9% of the musicians out there. This might be an eye-opener.

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

* for the sake of arguement, lets say regular is anything less than 50,000 album sales, which would encompass about 99.9% of the musicians out there. This might be an eye-opener.

Right... So the record companies are making an inextraordinate amount of money out of it a band's record sales, and the poor band aren't getting enough money, the obvious solution is for this problem is paying for tabs, thus giving the record companies that much more money?

Sorry to say it, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm all for bands making more money, but the problem certainly isn't with bands not getting payed for their music (Eg, via illegal mp3s/tabs), but rather the problem lies solely with the structure of the music industry, and the sheer amount of middle men taking such a large cut of the profits.

Bottom line, if you're getting on a high horse about mp3s "Stealing" from bands, it's a whisper in a crowd compared to how much the companies are stealing from bands.

senordingdong

That may be an 'eye-opener' on one level.

But that's still alot of money to make for your hobby, something you do for fun.
And this wasn't about mis-placed profits.

You're making it out as though musicians are losing money out of their own pocket and are lashing out about it.
Nobody is profiting out of it (other peoples work), and now the record companies want to envelope the whole thing to make sure they do.

The end result will be all musicians (good and bad) losing out on this great, shared thing in which all musicians try to help each other out for no reason other than a shared love of playing music.
And for what...so the record companies can make more money out of us?
(if people actually paid for tabs)

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

it's a whisper in a crowd compared to how much the companies are stealing from bands.

And how much they are stealing frome the consumers (fans) by making us pay their extortionate prices.

Doctor J

Gentlemen, let's clear this up right now: record companies have **** all to do with tabs. As I said before, the record company owns the recordings, the musicians own the songs, they are very different things. The musicians alone are being screwed when you get unlicenced tabs, not the record companies. Musicians make money from mechanical royalties (record sales) and publishing royalties (song usage). The issue here is directly related to musicians and songwriters, there is no record company bull**** here, which is why I think it's a step forward, a good thing, it is the artists who stand to benefit from this, not the industry. Publishing is realistically the only way most musicians will ever see a royalty check. Personally, I think if a musician can get even a little more reward for their work then that's a very good thing, and I cannot fathom for the life of me, how people can justify whinging at these guys making too much money when the facts of life are there if anyone could be arsed too look hard enough. Jimmy Page may not notice if he sells a few hundred licenced tabs a month but I'll guarantee the likes of Opeth would, Cynic would, Nevermore would, Sepultura would, in fact most of the musicians in all of your cd collections would. So, why is there such resistance to these talented people getting a little bit of money for the sacrifices they all made to get some life enhancing music into your cd player? I really don't understand that. If a baker makes bread and gets paid then why shouldn't an artist who composes? This has **** all to do with the price of CDs in this country too, so bear in mind it's not the musicians who are ripping you off, they're getting screwed harder than you are. These are people who put up with all kinds of bull**** just out of a passion to play music.

senordingdong wrote:

That may be an 'eye-opener' on one level.

But that's still alot of money to make for your hobby, something you do for fun.

Come back to the real world, please and stop watching MTV Cribs. Do some reading up on royalties because you don't appear to fully understand how the royalty system works. Any band who spend a few months touring aren't exactly holding down a regular job. The figure in Albini's essay is their total earning for their work over a period of about a year (ie - time in the studio, time promoting and time on the road). Any touring they do is usually at the expense of their emplyment and since they're not getting paid by a job and getting **** all from their music, maybe some royalties from tabs, no matter how small, might actually help them. When you've got **** all, a little can seem like a whole lot. Albini also refers to selling 250,000 records, which is very much the exception for the vast majority of all records released. Do you really think four grand (before tax) is getting paid too much for a year's work? Most of the bands who play up to Ambassador level are making a living from music and nothing more. They can afford to eat. No fancy mansion, no Bentley in the drive, no gold plated swimming pool. Just enough to survive until they stop touring and then they get a "proper" job until the cycle begins again.

Here's a statement from Eric A.K. of Flotsam & Jetsam, a quite successful band, released 8 records or so, did a fair bit of touring.

There are many reasons for me to retire from the metal industry. So lets start off with the facts. I've been in FLOTSAM AND JETSAM, for almost 20 years. I've put my heart and soul into 8 albums and I'm really proud of almost every song on those records. My first thought every morning and my last thought every night has been about how lucky I am to be where I am and how cool it is to be able to sing for Flotsam and Jetsam. I have always believed that Flots was good enough to at least make a modest living by selling records and performing live shows but this is not the case. We've done approximately one tour per album. Thats eight, maybe nine, tours since 1985. On each tour I've been paid enough to survive which is fine. No complaints about that. However, these "tours" are so very small and far between. I have spent 9 or 10 months out of each of those 19 years digging ditches, setting tile, hooking up cable, plumbing, bartending, working at Taco Bell, and whatever it takes to stay alive because this industry, that I'm told is so great, has failed me and it has failed my brothers.

We never asked for limos or big houses, or even lots of money. All we wanted was to make a modest living so we could continue making records and performing live. And we have been able to perform all we want and record at least once a year but only at the cost of having no life other than the three months a year on the road. It's pretty hard to keep life in a waiting position. Having 10 months at home with nothing to do except struggling to make enough to feed a family will lead you to one of two places: either you become a talented but worthless drug addict or you accumulate an actual life. I have created over the years a very nice little family life for myself and for my wife and children which has become extremely more important than playing metal and partying on the road. I have always wanted to spend my life on a tour bus. I have never wanted to be responsible for an entire family. But now that I've had both, I can see what is truly important in life. (And ####in' stupid chicks on the back of the bus just doesn't hold a candle to hearing the phrase, "Daddy, will you play with me?")

The Metal Industry, has beaten me. I'm screaming "uncle." But the Music Industry, has not even met me yet and they'd all better look the #### out. Eric AK is on a mission. On to bigger and better things. In my opinion, there is no better metal band than Flotsam and Jetsam. That is why this whole thing is so damn frustrating. Why couldn't it just pay off once or twice? Anyway, I have no worries about the rest of the band; they are without a doubt some of the most talented musicians I have ever met. I'm sure they will do just fine on their own. I would like to thank all the fans who have bought records, even though there aren't very many of you. You are die hard and loyal and appreciated. I'd also like to thank Flots for the school of hard knocks education and the years of more fun than any five men should have.

and Flots bass player Jason Ward

We all do many things, I am a computer tech by trade and have done tech support for the last few years. The rest of the guys work day jobs as well as other musical ventures. I used to worry about people knowing, now its more like "who the **** are you kidding."

Here's Sean Reinert from Cynic, whose Focus album was the most requested re-release in the history of Roadrunner Records (which means they sold every copy that Roadrunner initially pressed, so they must have done alright, yeah?

Thanks to everyone here on this post for understanding our situation. No to rant, but RR was going to put our the re-issue w/ the 3 song demo they payed for and that's it...no remastering...no new artwork. Obviously there was a demand for the music, yet they still say we owe them monies "un-recouped". This is absurd!
Cynic was always an outlet of uncompromised passion and musical expression. Over time the responsibilities, shady business dealings and unrealistic expectations of "the music business" can become a heavy weight on ones creative shoulders. We all tried our hardest to not let those burdens affect our output. Unfortunately in the end it did just that.
So in the end...we owe RR $ yet had to spend our own cash to better the product that they will indeed make a profit off on...if you ask me...somethings wrong here!!!

Do some research and you'll see most musicians who aren't in Coldplay or U2 sing the same song. Do you really think it sounds like those guys earn too much? Really?

Nick_oliveri

Quote http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/industry_news/tab_sites_under_pressure.html

The US Music Publishers' Association (MPA), which represents sheet music companies, will launch its first campaign against websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics in 2006. What is more, MPA president Lauren Keiser said he wanted site owners to be jailed.


Quoted by the BBC, he said the Xerox machine used to be "the big usurper of our potential income," but these days, "the internet is taking more of a bite out of sheet music and printed music sales so we're taking a more proactive stance".


Keiser said the MPA would target "very big sites that people would think are legitimate and very, very popular".


Guitar licks and song scores are widely available on the internet but are "completely illegal", he said, which adds: "The campaign comes after lyric-finding software PearLyrics was forced off the internet by a leading music publishing company, Warner Chappell. PearLyrics worked with Apple's iTunes, searching the internet to find lyrics for songs in a user's collection.
"I just don't see why PearLyrics should infringe the copyright of Warner Chappell because all I'm doing is searching publicly-available websites," the story has PearLyrics developer Walter Ritter saying. It would be different if they had an alternative service that also provided lyrics online and also integrated [with iTunes] like PearLyrics did. But they don't offer anything like that at all."
Thanks for the info to p2pnet.net.

Wants site owners to be jailed. Im sorry but this guy must be mentally retarded. Must get his e-mail addy.

projectmayhem

with regard to small bands who sell under 50,000 records... they don't count here, as their music tends not to be the music that's downloaded, or put up on tab music sites. tab sites are generally populated by metallica, slipknot and what not, not the small starving artist types.

also, and this is a point i've yet to see be brought up, i think musicians entering the industry should already be aware of the perils that arise from making music. you make media for the masses, some of them are going to rip you off in one way or another. someone from microsoft (i feel dirty mentioning them, sorry) once said, "we have to accept pirates, but at least they're pirating our stuff"...

and if you're truly an artist, you should be happy people are listening to your stuff. sure, you need to live, and if you're not able to live - get a job or go where the ACTUAL money is - touring.

John

projectmayhem wrote:

with regard to small bands who sell under 50,000 records... they don't count here, as their music tends not to be the music that's downloaded, or put up on tab music sites. tab sites are generally populated by metallica, slipknot and what not, not the small starving artist types.

I think it affects the smaller band far more than the big band. A thousand people downloading the latest Metallica release barely makes a dent on overall sales. A thousand people downloading a Current 93 release could outnumber the people who buy the CD. Downloading is slightly beside the point here anyway. Opeth are a band who don't sell albums by the bucketload but are well represented on tab sites. Do you not think that they should get their money from these sites? I'm sure there are more examples but the tab sites are all gone so I can't check .

Con_316

Oeneus wrote:

I think you've misunderstood the terms of that article a bit. The law isn't about playing copyrighted music on the shops instruments.
It's about them playing musical instruments in a public building, which infringes the laws regarding public performance/entertainment licences, like they have in pubs. He's basically being accused of putting on Live entertainment without a licence.

But yeah, it is a complete load of pants. I reckon this kind of nit-picking could cause a rebellion if it keeps going on.

Is a music shop a public place in as much of a way as a pub? Im not so sure it even is, i mean it's owned by the owner and he could in theory stand at the door and pick and choose who cames in, he wouldnt be serving alcohol or food, no one is really getting much entertainment out of trying a giutar other than the potential buyer and no one is being charged money to listen to what is basically someone Fu*kin around with an instrument to see if they like it.

I hate when companie and bands get all in your face and greedy and commercial about playing their music. The days of eople just playing because they love it and want people to hear them play, and are subsequently delighted by being able to make a living doing that are numbered. Hardly anyone letf like teh now in terms of reasonably well known people.

Stix

We dont need to buy the music we love to keep it alive - we just need to get tabs and play it ourselves !

Besides, the record companies have plenty of vehicles and moneyspinners for bringing in revenue to keep good music alive. Those vehicles are known as the Top 20 Charts !!!



QUOTE: The MPA would target "very big sites that people would think are legitimate and very, very popular", Mr Keiser said.

"The Xerox machine was the big usurper of our potential income," he said. "But now the internet is taking more of a bite out of sheet music and printed music sales so we're taking a more proactive stance."


Is he allowed to victimise and slanderise a particular company like that ? Surely he should generalise and use the generic term !

Doctor J

projectmayhem wrote:

with regard to small bands who sell under 50,000 records... they don't count here, as their music tends not to be the music that's downloaded, or put up on tab music sites. tab sites are generally populated by metallica, slipknot and what not, not the small starving artist types.

Ehhh, maybe that's what you look for, but I've seen plenty of Nevermore, Cynic, Death, Morbid Angel, Opeth, etc etc etc, bands who don't sell lots of records, so I don't accept that point at all, sorry. You're suggesting only mainstream bands get downloaded which is nonsense tbh. In terms of tabs (and again I make the point that tabs are only a small part of what is being discussed here - why must everything be about guitar players?) players of the calibre of Jeff Loomis, Jeff Waters, Marty Friedman, Tony McAlpine, Greg Howe are recognised as excellent players and any guitarist who is actually really trying to learn their instrument knows they will learn more from them than Kirk Hammett. Technical Rock and Metal is not an easily absorbed form of music, even though the musicians involved are most skilful and their techniques sought after, in the same way as jazz and classical musicians and composers get hit by the downloading too. This isn't only about rock and metal guitar tabs, don't forget that.

senordingdong

Doctor J wrote:

The musicians alone are being screwed when you get unlicenced tabs, not the record companies.

I disagree. Not every band have tab books released so it's not like they have the ability to make money through this.

Doctor J wrote:

Musicians make money from mechanical royalties (record sales) and publishing royalties (song usage). The issue here is directly related to musicians and songwriters, there is no record company bull**** here, which is why I think it's a step forward, a good thing, it is the artists who stand to benefit from this, not the industry.

No record company bul****...yet
As I recall, the first line of the story in the link talks of how it's the record company looking to shut down the sites. It's as though they're trying to protect their own interests. Well I doubht they'd go to any trouble if there wasn't anything for them to gain.
So basically they would take something that was once free, monopolise it and make us pay for it*. If they are lucky, the bands will see some money from it, but realisticaly, the record company will make the most...with more money being squandered left right and centre on un-necesary crap...as per the bill in Steve Albini's essay.
This then brings us back to what Karl Hungus said; it is, in fact, not us who are ripping off the musicians we admire and respect, but the record companies.

*This is why we dislike your way of looking at this matter.
It's a dangerous way of thinking and it is these type of people that would charge you for oxygen if they could.

Doctor J wrote:

Publishing is realistically the only way most musicians will ever see a royalty check.

I think touring and making good albums would be a good way too. Also, they could always consider 'selling out.'

Doctor J wrote:

Jimmy Page may not notice if he sells a few hundred licenced tabs a month but I'll guarantee the likes of Opeth would, Cynic would, Nevermore would, Sepultura would, in fact most of the musicians in all of your cd collections would.

What makes you so sure people would actually use this stuff if they had to pay for it?
What makes you think those bands could sell a few hundred tabs a month?
If your idea was succesful.
These bands would be lucky to sell a few hundred albums a month.

Doctor J wrote:

So, why is there such resistance to these talented people getting a little bit of money for the sacrifices they all made to get some life enhancing music into your cd player?

Because their little extra will very much come from our large expense.

Doctor J wrote:

I really don't understand that. If a baker makes bread and gets paid then why shouldn't an artist who composes?

They do...they get it in the composition of their music, when we buy their albums.
A baker would lose money if I stole his bread. Marty Friedman would lose money if I stole his song and sold it as my own.
The baker wouldn't lose money if I used the internet to teach me how the make bread.

Doctor J wrote:

Come back to the real world, please and stop watching MTV Cribs. Do some reading up on royalties because you don't appear to fully understand how the royalty system works. Any band who spend a few months touring aren't exactly holding down a regular job.

OH! You implied I was basing my arguement on something I may have seen on Cribs...you crafty fecker.

Doctor J wrote:

The figure in Albini's essay is their total earning for their work over a period of about a year (ie - time in the studio, time promoting and time on the road). Any touring they do is usually at the expense of their emplyment and since they're not getting paid by a job and getting **** all from their music,

Why don't you step back from Steve Albini's essay (as great as it is).
No musician enters that business expecting to become a millionare.
Infact the reason they all surrender their full time jobs etc...is because it isn't about the money for them, it is about the music.

Yours (and FLOTSAM AND JETSAM's) gripe is not with amateur musicians like me...it is with the record company that ripped them off.
Also...that is who I am aiming my grief at, not at musicians who need more money.

Do you really think four grand (before tax) is getting paid too much for a year's work?

Oh heck no! But I do think it's a great amount to get paid for pursuing your favourite hobby. I'd be chuffed if someone offered me that for my music...or any of my hobbies or past-times.

Doctor J

So by your logic all good albums are successful and make money? Every band who tours a lot gets well paid. Is it that easy? Wow, someone should spread the word because I know of loads of bands who've released fantastic albums and toured relentlessly for years and got **** all but the satisfaction of playing.

Again, I urge you to read up on royalties and how they work because, again, you have strayed from the point. You need to understand royalties before oyu can understand what is going on.

Again, I make the point that when you give up a job to go on a tour, it stops being a hobby, so I struggle to see how earning pittance would make you chuffed.

Again, I make the point which is the crux of the issue:

Record companies own the recordings.

Artists own the songs.

Again, I point out that the action taken is directly to do with use of the song, not the recording.

Again, I point out that this isn't just guitar tabs for rock and metal bands.

Therefore, please stop invoking some sort of doom prophecies of record company nonsense. They are separate entities to publishing organisations. Your continual dragging up of the evil record industry in this matter is not an issue. These people who would charge for oxygen... oh please. The conspiracy forum is here, it's more suited to your arguement of the big bad record companies coming to take us away.

Just because something hasn't existed (let's say a tab book for band x) in a free market doesn't mean it wouldn't exist in a market where that bands interests have been looked after appropriately. Sure, a lot of bands wouldn't sell many tab books, certainly not at €20 or whatever they cost here. But, there is a market for downloadable, accurate and affordable transcriptions for many of these bands. I know of many people who have downloaded some Nevermore tabs, specifically to learn some of Jeff Loomis' work. There isn't a Nevermore tab book I know of, yet his playing is respected and his transcriptions have been downloaded a lot. You can't say that there wouldn't be a demand for his tabs just because a book hasn't been printed. Why would they print a book if you can get it for free?

You say you (plural) dislike my way of looking at this matter. That's fine. As I see it, basically, you have been getting something for free, without the permission of the person who created it and you don't like me saying "Actually, they have a point, they have a right to get paid for their work" which you find beneficial. So please stick to that point, that is the issue, not this record company mumbo jumbo nonsense which is clouding the issue, nothing more.

The US Music Publishers' Association (MPA), which represents sheet music companies, will launch its first campaign against such sites in 2006.

"Music publishers and songwriters will consider all tools under the law to stop this illegal behaviour."

There is no mention of any record company in the article so I fail to see why you keep mentioning them

Doctor J

And another example to try to help you understand the difference... let's take songwriters, for example. A guy who writes a song but doesn't play on any album, doesn't sing it at a gig, a guy who just writes songs for a living. He earns his living from publishing royalties, since he does not qualify for mechanical royalties. Are you suggesting he shouldn't get paid, even if he writes the greatest song ever which sells millions of copies sung by someone else, for his part in the song? You're saying you should be able to do what you want with it for free?

A practical example in the world of metal would be Kurt Vanderhoof of Metal Church. He wrote a lot of their songs during the late 80's early 90's even though, at that time he wasn't a member of the band and he didn't play on the albums. He shouldn't get paid, right?

It's all about intellectual copyright. You are entitled to get paid for something non-physical which you created, should there be sufficient demand. Just because it's not something physical which you have to actually swipe form a shop, it doesn't mean you're not a thief when you take something which you don't own, even in the digital age. If you think something up, it is yours, you own it and the rights to it and you are entitled to do with it as you see fit even though it is not a physical entity you can touch. That is the law. It's a good law.

Just to be clear, I'm not having a go, I just don't think you're aware of the bigger picture here. It's not about record companies, it's not about touring, it's not about selling cds in HMV, it's about protecting someone's intellectual property. If someone invents something they are entitled to a reward if it enhances the lives of the likes of you and I. These people have their rights protected by patent laws. I don't think musicians and songwriters should be exempt from that protection and I feel very strongly about it.

Edit -> This is an informative read on the subject. It shows how the artist si the main beneficiary from publishing royalties, there is nothing for the record companies in there.

weeder

right im setting up a tab site just to p!ss of artists providing you put a disclaimer they cant do **** same as on the rom sites the thing they are trying to nail is the artists who release song books should have them bought rather than taken off the net take example my site
http://seancullen.5gigs.com/TABMAN/index.htm
read the disclaimer nobodys gonna bother following those rules and i mean they could print it before they delete it anyway

senordingdong

Doctor J wrote:

So by your logic all good albums are successful and make money? Every band who tours a lot gets well paid. Is it that easy? Wow, someone should spread the word because I know of loads of bands who've released fantastic albums and toured relentlessly for years and got **** all but the satisfaction of playing.

No, first things first, you should calm down. Then you should stop acting like you are infallable. Then stop trying to turn this into a bitch fest.
Yes, good albums make money, tours make money.
These bands you know of obviously made money from what they do.
And no, I didn't say all good albums are succesful, though that really depends on your perception of succes is.

Doctor J wrote:

Again, I urge you to read up on royalties and how they work because, again, you have strayed from the point. You need to understand royalties before oyu can understand what is going on.

Wow! Downsizing my points...you're even craftier then I gave you credit for in the last round.
Where did I stray from the point?

Doctor J wrote:

Again, I make the point that when you give up a job to go on a tour, it stops being a hobby, so I struggle to see how earning pittance would make you chuffed.

And who's fault is it that they gave up their job?

Doctor J wrote:

Again, I make the point which is the crux of the issue:

Record companies own the recordings.

Artists own the songs.

And do you really think any record company is going to sit by an let the artists make 100% profit out of tab sales?

Therefore, please stop invoking some sort of doom prophecies of record company nonsense.

Would you point out the 'nonsense' you speak of?

They are separate entities to publishing organisations.

And if bands have not had their music published by a publishing company, how exaclty are people like me ripping them off by getting tabs online?

Doctor J wrote:

Your continual dragging up of the evil record industry in this matter is not an issue. These people who would charge for oxygen... oh please. The conspiracy forum is here, it's more suited to your arguement of the big bad record companies coming to take us away.

It's about as much an issue as your talk of the baker.

Doctor J wrote:

Just because something hasn't existed (let's say a tab book for band x) in a free market doesn't mean it wouldn't exist in a market where that bands interests have been looked after appropriately.

And since when are bands interests properly looked after...in any way? They're not, and it was you who brought this to our attention.

Doctor J wrote:

But, there is a market for downloadable, accurate and affordable transcriptions for many of these bands.

I don't. I feel that if once people have to start paying for this, they will stop using it.

You say you (plural) dislike my way of looking at this matter. That's fine. As I see it, basically, you have been getting something for free, without the permission of the person who created it

Yes, that's true.
But unlike the downloading of their music, I don't think artists have lost money from my downloading free tabs. Nor do I think your proposed solution will solve the problems you highlighted.

Doctor J wrote:

"Actually, they have a point, they have a right to get paid for their work"

Like I said above, you seem intent on protecting the musicians rights, but this action won't really be to protect musicians, it will be to protect the record companies profits.

So please stick to that point, that is the issue, not this record company mumbo jumbo nonsense which is clouding the issue, nothing more.

I will, if you stop with the mumbo jumbo about ivory back scratchers, peoples value systems, MTV cribs, bakers, prophecies and conspiracy forums.

Doctor J wrote:

There is no mention of any record company in the article so I fail to see why you keep mentioning them

Well you see in the first line, where it says 'the music industry'?
Record companies being the core of the music industry, I think they fit into this bracket.

Doctor J

senordingdong wrote:

And do you really think any record company is going to sit by an let the artists make 100% profit out of tab sales?

Yes. They have absolutely no right to the songs. Please read my posts.

senordingdong

Yes, I did.
And I know what intellectual property is (thanks for the lecture) but like I said earlier, you are taking a very slanted look at this.

No-one does this for money.
Downloading music was different, that is stealing IMO because you were getting to hear the music without paying for it.

For tablature to be theft I believe one would have print the song tablature and try to pass it off as their own work.
I don't believe this is the case.

The tabs in question in that article are there for us all to help one another better ourselves...nothing more than good intentions.
Do you think you should pay everytime you play a Cynic song?
Do you think a band of kids should have to pay Metallica if they play Enter Sandman at a battle of the bands?

And on that note, no artists seem to be protesting about these tabs.

Doctor J

It's about more than tabs. It's about more than metal bands. If you deem a Cynic song worth learning but can't figure it out by ear then yes I think the guys from Cynic have every right to expect some money for providing me with a written version of the song, to go with your audio version of the song. The song is the issue. I think composers should get paid when their works are performed, whether it's a classical composer whose work is being played by an orchestra or a rock composer whose song is being covered. I think the Colonel should get paid if someone wants to know what this secret recipie is and can't figure out the ingredients by themself, same for Coca Cola. If you create something, you are entitled to be paid when your work is reproduced in whatever format. The publishers have been slow to act on this matter, since there is already a culture of free transcription downloads, but that doesn't mean they are wrong in what they are doing. A song in written, audio, or midi format is still the same song. It is someone elses property. They are entitled to payment for reproduction, it's that simple. You say it's only theft if the transcriber tries to pass it off as their own work, well what about that Jamie Oliver book that was emailed around a while back? It was clearly Jamie Oliver's work, his recipies, nobody made any claims to it being anything other than his, so was it theft that it was scanned and reproduced? Yes. Of course. How many non-sales occurred because of the transcribed version? Hey, maybe the transcriber was only trying to help people become better cooks, yeah, great. How many non sales of transcriptions took place because of freely available transcriptions/interpretations/whatever all across the net?

Apologies if I seemed a little forceful with my points, but I've presented links and information to you which you've either not bothered to read or chosen to disregard, which is quite frustrating. You continually reply with spiels about record companies which, while certainly a large part of the music industry, are nothing to do with music publishing and you've yet to back up any of these claims. A songwriter may have a publishing contract without having a recording contract. They are mutually exclusive entities. Publishing is a very viable form of income for artists, as I've already stated and, as is rare in the music industry, the artist gets treated appropriately by the publishers and has nothing to do with record companies who we all can agree are scum.