[AdamWill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Hello, earth to Mark, we're talking about GUITAR TABS. GUITAR TABS. Kids in bedrooms learning to play guitar. Not the end of civilization as we know it. Message ends.

And yes, you're quite right. As everyone knows, nothing important has ever been invented in China.

 

[AdamWill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO Thanks for refuting my statements with just about the worst analogy ever. It should have been implicit in my statements that the music industry is entitled to enforce their ip rights through legal means. Did I ever say that a corporation is allowed to shoot and kill someone who steals their ip? No, but they are entitled to threaten legal action and bring their claims to court if necessary. Let's use your pet analogy. If my neighbor's pet trespasses onto my yard, that doesn't entitle me to kill that pet or to commit any illegal action for that matter. However, nothing prevents me from asking the pet owner to keep his pet off my land. Moreover, where actual harm exists, such as if that pet continually craps on my yard and the neighbor does nothing about it, I'm entitled to claim to the court that the pet constitutes a nuisance just as the music industry is entitled to claim that a person who publishes tabs to thousands or even millions of people via the internet is violating copyright laws.

Well done on missing the point, which was that most people aren't actually as anal about their property rights as they sometimes like to argue that they are. If you sit down and think calmly about what actually goes on on your land - e.g. other people's pets walking across it - you will realise that quite a lot of other people, animals, biological processes etc etc use it with no negative effect to you. (edit) Sure, IN LAW, you have the right to ask your neighbour to keep his cat off your land. My point was that IN PRACTICE most people don't ask. They realise that the "infringing" use of their land causes no actual harm to them and are content to let it happen. (/edit)

(The whole idea of property, and especially _land_, rights as being vitally important underpinnings of society is a very recent historical development. In Western societies private ownership of land was very unusual outside of the aristocracy as little as 500 years ago, and until much more recently there were huge public use rights reserved on private land by both statue and customary law.)

 

[james__bean]

Wow, I completely forgot about this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman 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.

You're talking about essentially software companies fighting copyright cases. This is a website with user submitted music notes. The cases aren't really the same. Regardless, there's only a handful of copyright cases in general that have been fought when there are tens of thousands of lawsuits out there. When I'm saying people aren't fighting the cases, I'm talking about individuals and small websites.

In regards to the uncertainy I was speaking of, I actually had no idea that the companies actually sold the music charts. That would obviously change everything. I guess its hard for me to understand why a company would sell the music charts if they don't want anyone playing the music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory 1) If trade with China is equivalent to, "China just vacuuming up dollars out of our economy," then why is the US and Europe so eager to trade with China?

China is sort of going through an industrial revolution at the moment. People are moving to the cities and becoming more consumer oriented. The number of Chinese who own cars is increasing dramatically. The US and Europe simply want a piece of that pie. They've been allowing China this massive trade surplus in hopes of them opening up their markets to foreign business and investment. But the US trade deficit is just getting out of hand now. Recently I believe they put some rather soft trade restrictions on textiles, but the treasury department declined to charge them with currency manipulation. Its just us rolling over backwards for them while all our jobs go over there. So quarterly profits will grow, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean In regards to the uncertainy I was speaking of, I actually had no idea that the companies actually sold the music charts. That would obviously change everything. I guess its hard for me to understand why a company would sell the music charts if they don't want anyone playing the music.

This is not without prescedent. Paramount sued Trekkies for making replicas of props and showing them off at conventions (they weren't selling them), and they cited them for violating a potential copyright infringement for a product they did not even have for sale. They were using legal action against potential loss of income. Even though they did not offer a comparable product of any kind. I suppose the high quality replicas the Trekkies made robbed Paramount of the a sale of a cheap plastic toy. Way to go, Paramount, talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 Not completely off topic... Thanks Blip for the link in your sig regarding the Sony/BMG discs... I'll be on the look out... All this crap makes me want to buy less and less mucic.

There's been a recall of all those discs (supposedly), and a lawsuit in process over it already probably.

But fortunate for us new music is sucking more and more lately, no need to buy new music then. Yay.

-Ed

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill Well done on missing the point, which was that most people aren't actually as anal about their property rights as they sometimes like to argue that they are. If you sit down and think calmly about what actually goes on on your land - e.g. other people's pets walking across it - you will realise that quite a lot of other people, animals, biological processes etc etc use it with no negative effect to you. (edit) Sure, IN LAW, you have the right to ask your neighbour to keep his cat off your land. My point was that IN PRACTICE most people don't ask. They realise that the "infringing" use of their land causes no actual harm to them and are content to let it happen. (/edit) (The whole idea of property, and especially _land_, rights as being vitally important underpinnings of society is a very recent historical development. In Western societies private ownership of land was very unusual outside of the aristocracy as little as 500 years ago, and until much more recently there were huge public use rights reserved on private land by both statue and customary law.)

I have a problem with the mentality that just because a person is willing to put up with a minor burden in practice that that somehow divests that person of any right, morally, to enforce his/her legal rights. A person who owns ip rights holds those rights whether any harm accrues to that person or not, and they shouldn't be criticized for taking a stance. These rights don't magically disappear just because an infringement is minor. That said, I'm dumbfounded by how so many people here think that disseminating unofficial tabs is a negligible infraction. Thousands of people access tab sites to learn how to play tunes. If those sites weren't available, all those people would be forced to buy official tabs from the publishers. That is a lot of money that the music industry is losing right now. Some of you say it's corporate greed. I say it's good business judgment, especially when the corporations owe fiduciary duties to their shareholders.

Actually, analogizing to a situation where only one neighbor's pet trespasses on your land is downplaying the harm because of how easy it is to copy and disseminate ip on the internet. Because the internet is in play here, this whole tab situation is more akin to living next to one of those creepy, old cat-ladies who live with hundreds of cats. If she let all those cats roam free and you had hundreds of cats on your property leaving nice surprises, I'd be willing to bet that even you wouldn't sit idly by. Again, thousands of people who otherwise would have to pay for tabs aren't because of these tab sites. Let's not downplay the degree of harm that is happening here.

 

[MartinJ]

If so many see it as a minor infraction why does the law not reflect that? I guess money rules or people are not too bothered if it is seen as a major thing even though they view it as a minor thing.

 

[ken36]

Greed is inherent. We are human. Greed is inherent.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Hello, earth to Mark, we're talking about GUITAR TABS. GUITAR TABS

No, we're talking about the original poster's (seemingly) inherent sense of entitlement to everything he can download for free off the web. As I pointed out, that attitude is something new and has consequences.

The reason those sites exist is to give that stuff away for free. If publishing companies were giving the actual sheet music away for free, those sites would disappear. No one would need to spend hours trying to figure out the tabs on their own to get it for free and pass it on for to others. That would be a waste of time as they could just go on the publishing company web site and get the actual sheet music for free. But they don't give it away, because that's a good portion of their *business*-- selling sheet music! It's about not paying for something that you would otherwise have to buy, and then being outraged that someone wants to protect their business and stop your "free lunch".

 

[MartinJ]

Could we get more detailed? What is a good portion? Could anyone find out from a reliable source how much they do earn from score sheets?

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJ Could we get more detailed? What is a good portion? Could anyone find out from a reliable source how much they do earn from score sheets?

IMO I think this line of discussion only serves to cloud the issue. Asking how much they make leads to discussion of value which is very personal. Having been in the business world for a long time I can not imagine anyone wanting to give up a profitable line. It is like walking into a store and taking gum without paying. Can that be justified as they don't make much off of that either?

I think business as a whole was very slow in reacting to the Internet and all that goes along with it. People got the idea that anything posted as free should be free.

 

[null]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl No, we're talking about the original poster's (seemingly) inherent sense of entitlement to everything he can download for free off the web. As I pointed out, that attitude is something new and has consequences.

If you had read a bit more carefully, I said that it feels like there is some ludicrous censorship of something that is totally interpretive. Guitar tabs ARE interpretive, and as such, unless they are the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED WORK, then I don't see how they would be illegal, nor do I agree with anybody having to pay royalties. This argument has nothing to do with how much crap I or someone else can download off of the internet, nor if an individual believes that everything that is public access should be free; you're missing the point my friend.

 

[MartinJ]

..

 

[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean China is sort of going through an industrial revolution at the moment. People are moving to the cities and becoming more consumer oriented. The number of Chinese who own cars is increasing dramatically. The US and Europe simply want a piece of that pie. They've been allowing China this massive trade surplus in hopes of them opening up their markets to foreign business and investment. But the US trade deficit is just getting out of hand now. Recently I believe they put some rather soft trade restrictions on textiles, but the treasury department declined to charge them with currency manipulation. Its just us rolling over backwards for them while all our jobs go over there. So quarterly profits will grow, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you make it seem as if we (and Europe) are getting nothing in return for our trade with China other than promises of some vague, future gain. However a look around your own home, much less a trip down to your local shopping mall, will prove you otherwise.
I also question the use of the trade deficit as a definition of who is getting richer, and who is getting poorer. The U.S. ran a "trade deficit," in almost every year of the 19th century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.

Trade deficit related reading: http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-002.html

 

[markl]

Quote:

Guitar tabs ARE interpretive, and as such, unless they are the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTED WORK, then I don't see how they would be illegal, nor do I agree with anybody having to pay royalties.

Well, IMO, referring back to my analogy of typing up the new Harry Potter book and giving it away, it's still illegal, even if your version contains type-os.


Quote:

This argument has nothing to do with how much crap I or someone else can download off of the internet, nor if an individual believes that everything that is public access should be free; you're missing the point my friend.

Well, it's only "public access" because some dude put it up on the Web. To me, it's like blaming the merchant for one's theivery of his goods, I mean, he just left them right there on the shelf for me to grab and stuff in my coat, so it's clearly his fault. I also don't sympathize with the argument (not that you've made it just speaking broadly) that because I feel something is too expensive or I feel it should be free, I have a right to just take it.

null, I don't want to get into a personal battle (it's not to me, just a lively discussion), and you're right, I have no idea of what your personal downloading habits might be, but I will still make the point that I don't think it's outrageous for publishing companies to want to protect their intellectual property WRT these guitar tab sites.

I've said what I wanted to say, so I'm bowing out. Cheers.