[null]

Ok, but I'm saying that its not really their "intellectual property" because its not the same original copyrighted song.

 

[MartinJ]

That is funny, the better members the site would get the bigger problems they would get as they would start being too close to the original

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by null 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.

I would argue that encoding a song into a lossy format is just as interpretive with the only big difference that it is automated using instructions that were given beforehand. Lame mp3 at 192kbps is one way of interpreting the song. So is lame mp3 at 128kbps. And lets not forget aac, ogg...all different ways of interpreting the song. But whether you have 320kbps mp3 or 64kbps wmv, it still comes from the same source and is easily identifiable. Should we forgive tabs just because humans are less efficient? And I don't want to hear the argument that tabs involve artistic license because they don't. They all strive to produce an accurate transcription of the notes and chords of a song. Most tabs I see vary not because the transcriber is taking artistic license but because he/she is not very good at transcribing. There is no creation of new artistic expression that is going on here, just bad copying, so the tabs-as-interpretive argument doesn't fly with me.

I want to add that I've downloaded songs and tabs off the internet, but at least I freely admit that what I'm doing is wrong. I choose to do it because I weigh the benefits against the miniscule to almost nonexistent chance that I will get caught, and the benefits are too tempting. But I'm not so delusional to think that I'm entitled to someone else's property. Even if sheet music constitutes only one-millionth percent of the music industry's revenue, they are still entitled to collect it. I'm reminded of the scheme in "Office Space" - still stealing. It doesn't become something else just because it is so easy to do, so many people do it, or there isn't very much harm.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO I would argue that encoding a song into a lossy format is just as interpretive with the only big difference that it is automated using instructions that were given beforehand. Lame mp3 at 192kbps is one way of interpreting the song. So is lame mp3 at 128kbps. And lets not forget aac, ogg...all different ways of interpreting the song. But whether you have 320kbps mp3 or 64kbps wmv, it still comes from the same source and is easily identifiable. Should we forgive tabs just because humans are less efficient? And I don't want to hear the argument that tabs involve artistic license because they don't. They all strive to produce an accurate transcription of the notes and chords of a song. Most tabs I see vary not because the transcriber is taking artistic license but because he/she is not very good at transcribing. There is no creation of new artistic expression that is going on here, just bad copying, so the tabs-as-interpretive argument doesn't fly with me. I want to add that I've downloaded songs and tabs off the internet, but at least I freely admit that what I'm doing is wrong. I choose to do it because I weigh the benefits against the miniscule to almost nonexistent chance that I will get caught, and the benefits are too tempting. But I'm not so delusional to think that I'm entitled to someone else's property. Even if sheet music constitutes only one-millionth percent of the music industry's revenue, they are still entitled to collect it. I'm reminded of the scheme in "Office Space" - still stealing. It doesn't become something else just because it is so easy to do, so many people do it, or there isn't very much harm.

You guys forget that Copyright Infringement when brought up, has to pass what is called the "Common Man/Person" test. In which if you take the two in question and ask the average or "common" person, do they look/sound alike? If the answer is "yes", then it is a possible grounds for Copyright Infringement, and can then go on to a court case if so desired.

I know a lot in the fashion industry like to rip off patterns and designs, and by changing a certain percentage of the design/pattern, then they are not infringing on the copyright. But that is a myth, they are dead wrong.

But of course, a copyright is only useful if it was registered...

-Ed

 

[AdamWill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO 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.

Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It's like this study the Business Software Alliance came out with the other day claiming that a 10% reduction in piracy would save the U.K. £11 billion, or something ridiculous like that. It worked on the assumption that if you could completely prevent piracy, everyone who previously pirated software would buy it at full retail price.

The problem with this idea, and your contention that people who download tabs would otherwise buy them, is that it's NOT TRUE. People who pirate a piece of software that costs $3,000 for kicks would not buy it if they couldn't pirate it. They would live life without it. And I suspect that 90% of 14 year olds with a cheap guitar would not go out and buy two hundred $10 guitar tab books if they couldn't download the tabs for free from the internet. They would figure out the tabs themselves, and maybe buy one book. There just is not a lot of economic harm being caused here, and if the publishing companies take a long-term view, I wouldn't be surprised if suppressing the general enjoyment of learning to play music wasn't in the end _damaging_ to their future economic prospects.

 

[AdamWill]

Another point...this is second hand, as I don't play guitar, but my guitar-playing friends tell me there's a rather major problem with many of the "official" tabs - they're utterly wrong. As I've heard it, many of the tab books produced by the publishers (especially for big, popular bands) aren't provided by the band or anyone at all associated with the band, they're transcribed by people sitting listening to the record, just like unofficial tabs...and the official ones are often way less accurate than the unofficial ones.

 

[steel102]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill I wouldn't be surprised if suppressing the general enjoyment of learning to play music wasn't in the end _damaging_ to their future economic prospects.

course by that time, all the people involved in this case will be dead and their money will be perfectly secure.

 

[shplorgh]

Heh null posts and all hell breaks loose.

Carry on.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill Sorry, but I just don't believe that. It's like this study the Business Software Alliance came out with the other day claiming that a 10% reduction in piracy would save the U.K. £11 billion, or something ridiculous like that. It worked on the assumption that if you could completely prevent piracy, everyone who previously pirated software would buy it at full retail price. The problem with this idea, and your contention that people who download tabs would otherwise buy them, is that it's NOT TRUE. People who pirate a piece of software that costs $3,000 for kicks would not buy it if they couldn't pirate it. They would live life without it. And I suspect that 90% of 14 year olds with a cheap guitar would not go out and buy two hundred $10 guitar tab books if they couldn't download the tabs for free from the internet. They would figure out the tabs themselves, and maybe buy one book. There just is not a lot of economic harm being caused here

You're misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that every person who couldn't get tabs off the internet would purchase official sheet music as a consequence of a site like olga being shut down. What I am saying is that if illegal sources weren't available, the only real source for tabs (other than transcribing the music themselves) would be to purchase them from the publishers themselves. This is not the same as saying that everyone would purchase official tabs because $20 or so for a book of sheet music might not be worth it to some. At the same time, you can't say that no one would purchase official tabs if olga was taken down because some people would. That is where the loss is occurring for the music industry, and they are entitled to minimize those losses since they own the ip rights. Apparently the music industry must think it's worth all the money they pay bigshot lawyers to protect their interests from sites like olga so that suggests that at least the music industry perceives the harm as being significant. I also think it's wrong to view the tab issue in a bubble. Tabs and mp3s really aren't that different. Even if tabs are exponentially less popular than mp3s, the music industry's behavior with regard to the former might have profound effects on the latter. It's much better, imo, to send one clear, unified stance against copyright infringement than to convey several conflicting messages (i.e., stealing music is bad, but stealing tabs is okay).

Even though we've focused a lot on the actual harm to the music industry, the truth is that harm is ultimately irrelevant to establishing one's substantive rights under the copyright laws. There are exceptions for certain types of uses under the copyright laws, such as for criticism and education, but there is no exception for infringement just because the harm is minor. The only time that harm would really play a factor in litigation is during the remedies phase, after a judgment on the merits has been reached. It is in the remedies phase that a court decides how big of a judgment it should award. If the harm is negligible, the court might only assess minor damages and maybe even nominal damages. The court basically asks what award would be appropriate to compensate the plaintiff for the injury caused by the defendant. What the court doesn't ask is if the plaintiff has been injured. That question would have already been resolved, and in this situation, I contend that the music industry would easily win on the merits.

Quote:

if the publishing companies take a long-term view, I wouldn't be surprised if suppressing the general enjoyment of learning to play music wasn't in the end _damaging_ to their future economic prospects.

Setting aside arguments about the legal merits of the music industry's claim, let's assume that pursuing claims against olga would just be a poor business judgment because of the risk of alienating fans and not drawing in more fans who might otherwise become intrigued by stumbling across unofficial tabs. If that's the case, wouldn't that tend to dismiss the contention that the music industry is being greedy? I mean, the goal of every business is to make and increase profits. Corporate greed is the result of trying to maximize profits, isn't it? So if the music industry has decided on a course of action that is patently unprofitable, how are they being greedy?

Or maybe your argument is that the music industry is greedy, but they just aren't seeing the whole picture so they think that their current course of action will be profitable when in reality it won't be. You could be right. However, we don't know how much it costs to produce music. We don't know the royalties that should be paid to artists. We don't know the agreements that the music industry has with publishers. We don't know how much it costs to publish sheet music. I think the music industry is in a better position than we are to assess how beneficial it would be to go after copyright infringers.

 

[AdamWill]

tenacious: yes, my point is that they're being short-sighted - hungrych summed it up very succintly. Short-termism is the biggest affliction caused by the profit motive; when your motive is to make money for yourself, you choose Option A (which makes you $100,000 but screws the pooch fifty years down the line) over Option B (which makes you $25,000 and preserves the pooch).

My point about the amount of harm caused has nothing to do with legal arguments, rights etc. I'm talking about a judgment call, here. I appreciate it wouldn't be relevant in a court of law.

Basically, I think the difference between the number of people who purchase guitar tabs now and the number of people who would purchase guitar tabs in a Land Of Milk And Honey Wherein Guitar Tabs Are Not Available For Free On The Internet is sufficiently tiny to make jackboot tactics silly and ultimately self-damaging.

(edit) here's another interesting comparison - lyrics. There's hundreds of internet sites which reprint song lyrics without permission. If tabs are the flour in our cake, lyrics are surely the sugar. Would you be in favour of music publishing companies taking down lyrics sites? Do you think taking down lyrics sites would be in the music companies' interest?

 

[james__bean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory 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

Trade deficits with countries that have a market value currency is perfectly fine. It gives the American people cheaper goods and raises our standard of living. The problem with China is that they keep their currency artifically low. So manufactering jobs continue to go to China because the value of their currency is underrated. This while American media is being pirated over there at an alarming rate, US companies still can't freely invest in Chinese companies, and now China's even buying up some of our companies. Yes we obviously benefit from having cheaper goods, but not at the expense of our own welfare.

I'll give you a local example, all be it extreme and unlikely. Look at the number of Chinese amps and dacs that are popping up around here. Now this is perfectly fine at the moment. It gives us the consumer more choice and we get cheaper products. But what happens 5 years from now if the value of their currency is exactly the same and more Chinese companies start popping up. DIY builders around here stop getting as much business. Other manufacterers slowly lose out in sales to these companies. All this while the value of their currency stays exactly the same. Essentially, long term most of the companies we had to choose from would disappear. Thats another market they would take over. Which leaves all the builders around here looking for another job. So they move on to something else. Except China with their low valued currency, start to offer goods in that sector too. All this while a very few of our American businesses get to compete in their market.

Just look at it from this perspective. What happens when a country gets to export all the items they want and sell them easily and the consumers in that country buy products only made in that country?

 

[MartinJ]

A lot of NONE Chinese companies sell goods made in China. Not sure how this got into the topic

It is clear though that this topic stirs people's emotions

 

[null]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinJ It is clear though that this topic stirs people's emotions

Indeed it does.

 

[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean Trade deficits with countries that have a market value currency is perfectly fine. It gives the American people cheaper goods and raises our standard of living. The problem with China is that they keep their currency artifically low. So manufactering jobs continue to go to China because the value of their currency is underrated. This while American media is being pirated over there at an alarming rate, US companies still can't freely invest in Chinese companies, and now China's even buying up some of our companies. Yes we obviously benefit from having cheaper goods, but not at the expense of our own welfare. I'll give you a local example, all be it extreme and unlikely. Look at the number of Chinese amps and dacs that are popping up around here. Now this is perfectly fine at the moment. It gives us the consumer more choice and we get cheaper products. But what happens 5 years from now if the value of their currency is exactly the same and more Chinese companies start popping up. DIY builders around here stop getting as much business. Other manufacterers slowly lose out in sales to these companies. All this while the value of their currency stays exactly the same. Essentially, long term most of the companies we had to choose from would disappear. Thats another market they would take over. Which leaves all the builders around here looking for another job. So they move on to something else. Except China with their low valued currency, start to offer goods in that sector too. All this while a very few of our American businesses get to compete in their market. Just look at it from this perspective. What happens when a country gets to export all the items they want and sell them easily and the consumers in that country buy products only made in that country?

Despite currency fixing, a $1 double cheeseburger from McDonald's costs the equivalent in Chinese RMB there. $8 movie ticket here, costs roughly the same in China. Yes, with some things like local groceries prices are lower, but so is the standard of living. Essentials might be cheaper, but if all anyone ever wanted was a roof, a full stomach, and clothes made from burlap, I don't think we'd even be discussing this.

Let's say John and Bill both build and sell amps for a living. John wants to live in a 5 bedroom house, 3.5 baths, and a 3 car garage, while Bill is content with a 1 bedroom apartment and TV without cable. If Bill sells his amps at half the price of John's, and willing to accept less luxuries, then that's their perogatives, that's competition, and that's capitalism.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill here's another interesting comparison - lyrics. There's hundreds of internet sites which reprint song lyrics without permission. If tabs are the flour in our cake, lyrics are surely the sugar. Would you be in favour of music publishing companies taking down lyrics sites? Do you think taking down lyrics sites would be in the music companies' interest?

My point is basically that as owners of ip rights, they basically can do whatever they want. So if they decide to take down lyrics sites, so be it. Am I in favor of it? No. Just as I'm not in favor of P2P and tab sites being taken down. But my disagreement does not stem from a belief that corporations are wrong to pursue their rights. My disagreement stems from the fact that if these sites are taken down, I don't have access to free things anymore and now I have to actually pay for things. I disagree because it's a burden to me even though I really don't have a right to complain. I don't disagree because I think the music industry is wrong. That's the biggest difference between you and me. I may not like the actions of the music industry, but at least I'll admit that I'm the one who's doing wrong, not the industry.

That said, I think lyrics are distinguishable because of the fact that the music industry doesn't really sell lyrics as a separate item. They do sometimes include them in the cd insert but not all the time. They also sometimes list them for free on the artists' websites, which suggests that lyrics are more of a throw in. However, if it wanted to, I think the music industry is entitled to shut down lyrics sites. Afterall, lyrics are really part and parcel of the same intellectual property as songs. The music industry probably doesn't right now because it hasn't established a market for selling just lyrics. If they did and lyrics became a marketable commodity, I believe we'd see it happen.

Actually, lyrics illustrate nicely the dangers of the music industry or any ip rights holder just sitting on their rights and not protecting them. Because the music industry hasn't pursued claims against lyrics sites, at least not that I'm aware of, we've somehow come to construe the music industry's inaction as a belief that it can't do anything about it and that the public is entitled to free lyrics. That is exactly why the music industry should nip the tab issue in the bud. First, unlike lyrics, the music industry has a financial stake in sheet music. Second, not only do sites like olga hurt the music industry's business, but they help foster the mistaken belief that if something is accessible freely, that no one has the right to do anything about it or that they are morally wrong for protecting their rights.

Several years ago, my family took over a small business in Chicago. When we first started out, it was apparent that the previous owners often let its customers get away with not paying tax, even though it is mandatory to collect sales tax in Illinois. The customers became so accustomed to this that they complained when we tacked on sales tax. They thought it was the most ridiculous notion to pay taxes at our store even though they had to pay sales taxes down the street at Walgreens. Were they right to complain? Were we wrong to collect even though we were supposed to?