[null]

This speaks for itself...

It sounds like we're entering some sort of futuristic apocolyptic setting where every aspect of creativity is governed by money-hungry corporate ***holes. How could they shut down a tablature site when mostly every single tab that is submitted is intrepreted by the tabber?

 

[markl]

I disagree.

Quote:

"I have devoted countless hours of my time learning songs and tabbing them out for others. I'm appalled that I cannot share my own work with others.

It's like arguing that since you manually typed up a Word document of the new Harry Potter book, that copy is "yours" and yours to post on the internet so people can read the book for free.

There are people who work at those publishing companies, regular middle-class folks and the people who are employed to service their operation (not wealthy people, janitors, etc.). Their jobs are certainly threatened if their employer is driven out of business because their product has been essentially pirated and is being given away for free on the net.

 

[james__bean]

Its not the music industry I'm mad at anymore. They've been filing lawsuits for years now. Their actions here shouldn't really surprise anyone. Ultimately what allows them to do this is people's willingness to concede to them. No one ever fights these lawsuits, which just gives them more incentive to continue doing what they're doing. Furthermore, the laws as they are written right now are too unclear about these types of situations, which just means the recording industry will always win because they are the ones willing to fight for it.

 

[splaz]

Quote:

It's like arguing that since you manually typed up a Word document of the new Harry Potter book, that copy is "yours" and yours to post on the internet so people can read the book for free.

It's not quite the same though.

That written work you can just read and enjoy in written form.

I mean there may be people that enjoy reading a tab... but I'd say they'd be few and far between.

I think a tab would be more equivalent to early drafts, storyboards and little post it notes if you're referring to a book.

I'm kinda split on it, I think that what OGLAs done is fine in principle but could be abused.

 

[TenaciousO]

There is a strong fair use argument since tabs are dispersed mostly as an educational tool, but the problem is that part of the music industry's business is selling official tabs. No matter how you cut it, these unofficial tabs take business away from the music industry. Maybe you think the music industry is being greedy, but I think that stems from the inability of many people to realize that intellectual property is still property. Would you like it if some stranger trespassed on your land, even if there were neither harm in his presence nor an impediment to your enjoyment of your property? I think most of us wouldn't take too kind to any kind of trespasser, even a harmless one. Same type of thing here. The music industry owns the intellectual property and has the power to dictate how much trespassing he's willing to put up with. Actually, I think the music industry is more justified here since there is actual harm.

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean No one ever fights these lawsuits, which just gives them more incentive to continue doing what they're doing. Furthermore, the laws as they are written right now are too unclear about these types of situations, which just means the recording industry will always win because they are the ones willing to fight for it.

1. Yes the defendants do fight these lawsuits. I have used both the Napster v. A&M Records case and the MGM v. Grokster case in my law classes. In both instances, the defendants vigorously defended the allegations of copyright infringement (actually contributory copyright infringement).

2. No, the law is not at all unclear. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to make copies and distribute his/her copyrighted work. The only defense is "fair use". Whether the defendant's use constitutes a fair use depends upon a number of factors. Were you to read the courts' analysis of these factors, you would be pursuaded that there was at least a strong basis for rejecting the fair use defense.

 

[MD1032]

Guitar tabs are really just a derivation of what someone hears, they're not the original music. It's like the difference between singing a hymn in the original SATB format and having a praise band play the chords that approximate the music. I think it's dumb, the sites are basically completely harmless.

 

[Snake]

I hate to be rude but where have you been?? Corporate greed and selfishness by the bigwigs has been the standard since the move to our current political climate.

For instance AT&T, one year - 2001, laid off 10,000 workers

http://www.thestreet.com/tech/scottmoritz/1465352.html

yet in the meantime Armstrong - AT&T's CEO - was getting bonuses for laying off the 10,000 workers, along with pay raises

http://www.keepphillycompetitive.com...EOGotMore.html
http://att.nac.net/att_website_edit/armstrong040202.htm

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/sha...at&t_2001.html
http://www.jwj.org/Grinch/2001National.htm
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/pre...t_2000_pr.html

and in 2003 received 2.3 million to leave

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech.../10077503.html

Does anybody bother to add 2 (the layoff of 10,000) and 2 (Armstrong's bonus and parachute package) together???

It's the same across the entire corporate field

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-cover-cms.htm

I'm sorry, but you haven't been paying attention.

Welcome to 1893. You'll like it here.

 

[AdamWill]

"Would you like it if some stranger trespassed on your land, even if there were neither harm in his presence nor an impediment to your enjoyment of your property?"

I wouldn't give a damn, and in many countries people actually have the right to do this, at least in some areas. See the recently passed "right to roam" legislation in the U.K. To take the analogy the other way, do you shoot the neighbour's cat if it walks through your yard?

 

[viator122]

That article was from 1998, but OLGA is still up. I just looked up tabs for Sould Coughing and Nirvana.

 

[blip]

With record labels it is all about control. Control of the distribution framework. Control of artists. And now control of derrivative speech. Soon enough it will be illegal to post lyrics on-line.

Yeah, they probably do have a right to do this but we should ask ourselves whether or not this and other corporate moves are really creating the kind of future that we want for ourselves or for our children.

 

[markl]

Call me old-school, but I came from a time (and not that long ago

), when we had to like, you know... pay for stuff.

I'm not sure where this idea came from that because I can pirate it, because it's easy for me to steal by clicking a mouse so it doesn't *feel* like stealing, I'm therefore entitled to everything I can lay my hands on. You are *not* entitled to free music, free software, or free anything else. You will one day be a worker in this economy, and the existence of your job could easily be threatened by this kind of thievery.

Chances are, in some form or another, *right now* your family's income relies on the intellectual property rights of the companies they work for. This is not just rights to reproduced images, words, or music, but *patents*. Look at the way China is stealing our intellectual property and pirating everything from music to *automobiles* and *medicines*, then turning around and selling all this stuff back to Americans at a discount. Our native companies can't compete, they spend all those dollars developing these innovations only to have them stolen by fly-by-night companies in China who incur none of these development costs. We have an enormous and growing trade deficit, and it's the equivalent of China just vacuuming up dollars out of our economy. They are stealing our national wealth, "cheating" on the rules of international trade, and our very way of life is threatened. All because we refuse to get tough and put our foot down to force China to respect our intellectual property rights.

Who's the "greedy" one-- the kid with a modem who wants everything for free, or the evil corporation who wants to preserve itself and thus provide income for its employees (only 1% of which would qualify as "bigwigs")? Those employees may just be your parents, and even you one day.

 

[Oski]

Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person. A company is owned by the tens or hundreds of thousand shareholders. A corporation has the fiduciary responsibility to be profitable for its various owners. Every single one of you is perpetuating the "greed" of the corporation by virtue of you owning stocks directly or indirectly through a retirement account, pension, etc. If you don't want to be a part of this, tell your work not to invest towards your pension, don't put a cent into a 401(k), and then don't even buy a thing made, sold, or distributed by a company.

Look around you...most every thing you own is bought from a "greedy" corporation, including the computer you are staring at. Either forego all of it or you are just encouraging them. Also, unless you are self employed, you are likly working for one of these "evil" corporations and helping them to their greedy ends.

 

[markl]

Amen Oski.

 

[mjg]

Well, since when do you need to pay to sing a song in privacy? To strum a lick from a popular song? Artists cover each others songs all the time, if they aren't overtly sampling stuff, how is it illegal? Since when can they copy right songs lyrics and "music" (not the physical recording)? Is this new? Or where have i been, i'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with that.


Privacy to media is one thing, having licenses to use it... well thats when you "pay" for things, how would you like it if you had to pay everytime you used the english language, because england copywrited it?

Your really not seeing the bigger picture, it's not ok for big rich people to take away what normally would be free like the liberty to communicate and share ideas for non-profit. I mean sure they can copywrite a book, yet if i'd like to quote the book should i need to pay for the quote (so long as it's not plagarism?).

What's wrong with people learning how to play a song and sharing that knowledge? If he claims he wrote the tabature which wasn't published by the artist and it's his work (not someone elses), then how is it not ok to publish it?