Any guitarists following the "tab wars"?

Not to threadjack but this is semi related in regards to copyright laws.

My company recently produced a figure of Johnny Cash, legally licensed through the Cash Estate. The figure had him walking with his black guitar slung over his back...which he is known to do.

At some point during the development Time Life Inc heard about the figure and sent us a legal warning that THEY owed that image of Johnny Cash walking with a guitar across his back. He was in a similar, though not exact, pose on an album cover they own the rights to.

My reaction was ' how can you own a man walking with a guitar on his back ? Are you trying to say that he never walked with a guitar other than on this particular album cover? "

Obviously they have huge legal resources and since I had orders that needed to be filled, and i cant afford the legal bills or time to fight Time Life Inc, I paid them. The Cash Estate tried to help but they werent about to get involved in a legal battle with Time Life.

But truthfully I found the entire experience an ugly abuse of copyright laws.

I just wonder how this kind of overzealous copyright protection will affect many of our freedoms. I keep going back to an amatuer auto mechanic posting diagrams on how to change a timing belt. Obviously there are authorized technical books for all car brands already illustrating this. Is he going to get sued ? Are we going to end up in a situation where we cant share any kind of information without having a lawyer check the legalities?

I understand copyright laws..trust me..my company is constantly dealing with people bootlegging our legally licensed products. But it seems like theres a whole new form of 'ambulance chasers' out there looking to score a quick buck through outdated copyright laws.

Eh now Im just ranting..lol

 

I know of a site with over 1,500 spanish guitar pieces for in tablature notation, some of them even with midi. From baroque to classical, some Paco De Lucia, etudes from Villalobos, Chopin, Beethoven, Bach of course, Tarrega, Paganini, Handel, Mozart, just to name a few of the popular ones, etc. One can just go and download all the tabs in a few seconds, but now I'm afraid of typing the site.

 

Check out The Pirate Bay. They get threated all the time. In fact, they got raided, all their equipment was confiscated and they are back in operation.

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Hilarious reading.

Subject: Re: Illegal Dissemination of Apple Intellectual Property
From: anakata
To: [email protected]

> April 21, 2005
>
> VIA EMAIL
>
> NOT FOR POSTING
>
> Fredrik Neij
> Registrant of www.piratebay.org
>
> Re: Apple Intellectual Property Disseminated by
> www.piratebay.org
>
> Dear Mr. Neij:
>
> We represent Apple Computer, Inc. On or before April 21, 2005, the
> site www.piratebay.org was in the process of distributing and/or
> facilitating the distribution of a misappropriated copy of an
> unreleased version of Apple's operating system software, Tiger 10.4,
> Build 8A428. The software constitutes an Apple trade secret and is
> copyrighted.

Awh, come on, I've heard the expression "a few bad apples", but this is
just ridiculous.

> Apple has a well-known, longstanding policy of closely guarding
> information about its unreleased products as trade secrets.

I've heard that before somewhere. I just can't remember where...

> We demand that you immediately disable the torrent and/or tracker and
> prevent further distribution of Apple's trade secret and copyrighted
> material.

We demand that you provide us with entertainment by sending more legal
threats. Please?

> Apple further demands that you provide us with all information
> relating to the posting of torrents enabling the distribution of Mac
> OS X Tiger, Build 8A428, including all log files and tracker files
> associated with such torrents. Apple also demands all information
> related to the identity of the persons who created such torrent files
> and/or who uploaded the software referenced by those torrent files, as
> well as the identities of all individuals who participated in the
> uploading and downloading of Apple's software. If you fail to
> maintain the evidence of this illegal activity, you will be subject to
> severe sanctions. In particular, if you destroy or hide any evidence,
> you will be subject to civil and criminal penalties. Please produce
> all requested information by the end of the day, Friday, April 22,
> 2005.

Even if we had that information, which we don't, do you really think we
would provide it to you?

> Builds of unreleased Apple software are distributed under strict
> confidentiality agreements. Your torrent site appears to be engaged
> in a practice of soliciting and disseminating Apple trade secrets.
> This practice is grounds for both civil and criminal liability. To
> avoid further liability, you must refrain from inducing the breach of
> any Apple confidentiality agreements, soliciting Apple trade secrets,
> and distributing Apple trade secrets on your site.

...Or what? You and Hans Brix will send us angry letters? Fortunately
for you, we don't keep sharks as pets.

> Apple is prepared to take further actions to stop the sites illegal
> activities, and Apple expressly reserves its rights. I am available
> to discuss this matter at any time. If you are represented by counsel
> in this matter, please provide me with the identity of that counsel.

Instead of simply recommending that you sodomize yourself with a
retractable baton, let me recommend a specific model - the ASP 21". The
previous lawyers tried to use a cheaper brand, but it broke during the
action.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ian Ramage
> OMelveny & Myers LLP
> Embarcadero Center West
> 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
> (415) 984-8783 (direct)
> (415) 984-8701 (fax)
> [email protected]
>
> This message and any attached documents contain information from the
> law firm of OMelveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential and/or
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read,
> copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this
> transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message.

It's OK with you that we post this message on
http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/ ? Because I just did, and I'm so
afraid of you and your nice titles and shiny offices :-(.

RMX

 

Where do you draw the line on saying that something represented in different notation is infringement? There are infinite way in which you can express things... put through a certain algorithm a series of colors, letters, shapes (or evens 1s and 0s as we now know) could possibly reproduce any sort of "copyrighted" material. If I hand someone a piece of paper with the machine code or binary printed out for "Snakes on a Plane", is that infringement even though the information that was exchanged possessed zero similarity to what people see and experience in the theater? The MPAA says that that series of 1s and 0s is a copy of their movie, but if you put that series of 1s and 0s through Microsoft Word, it's could only be some squares, ampersands, exclamation points and such.

It seems to me right now that copyright law/lawsuits are being determined by those who have the money (aka the copyright holders) to lobby the lawmakers, so that any new laws or lawsuits are naturally going to benefit the copyright holders, especially when artists can rely on the RIAA or MPAA to represent them instead of having to represent themselves. IP Law is such a ridiculously sensitive topic and I can't see there ever being anything but grey area. I now understand why my friend wants to be an IP Attorney: the industry will ALWAYS exist and he should have a job forever. A well paying job at that.

It would seem to me that whoever assembled the human genome a few years back could have a good case on their hands in copyrighting it and making everyone pay to be alive.

Should I copyright this post so that if someone quotes it I can make them pay me?

 

Oh no, no, no...human genes are already being patented.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html

"A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.

http://www.hgalert.org/topics/lifePatents/patent.htm

"Any company that wants to be in the business of using genes, proteins, or antibodies as drugs has a very high probability of running afoul of our patents. From a commercial point of view, they are severely constrained - and far more than they realize."1 Dr William A. Haseltine, Chairman and CEO, Human Genome Sciences.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_281/ai_30543554

"Already three patents from the cell lines of indigenous peoples have been filed. One from the cell line of a 26-year-old Guayami woman from Panama was withdrawn in 1993 after a wave of international protest."

 

They've been patented for at least 20 years or more I think.

 

Speedy: The fact that a copyrighted work is digitized does not make it any less copyrightable, or the copying of it any less of an infringement. Nor does the fact that a work is not perceptible without the aid of a machine or device detract from its copyrightability. For example, those little wavy lines that make up analog records- i doubt anybody could look at the surface of a vinyl album and discern the copyrighted content- ditto with audio or video tape. (There is an old case, White-Smith v. Apollo Music, in which the Supreme Court held that player piano rolls were not 'copies' because very few people, apart from a handful of experts, could look at the little dashes inscribed into the roll and understand the melody/harmony of the song that was punched into the roll).
As to handing someone a printout of the code to a digitized version of a copyrighted work, that could well be infringement although I doubt there would be a real issue unless, from a practical point, the printout could be easily converted back into a playable and perceptible copy. The fact that the copy itself is not readily perceptible without the aid of a machine or device does not, however, make it any less a 'copy.'
What I always find puzzling is that there is extreme criticism for copyright protection of artistic and creative works (leave aside the artistic merit of 'Snakes on a Plane' which is not the point); yet, the ultimate objective of saying copyright is 'unfair' is to be able to enjoy the works without paying for them, something that I find even more unfair. Analogies to hard goods are not perfect, but just because you want and may need a shirt on your back, and a house to live in, and food on your plate, doesn't mean that you are entitled to have those things for free. Why does someone's creative effort become any more 'free' for the taking? Our system, and most others, follow two principles in ip- first, that there is some 'moral' right (for lack of a better word) to permit the person that creates to reap the benefit (as opposed to the user/consumer, who doesn't contribute to the creative process); and second, that protecting ip by enabling creators to get paid for its use and enjoyment actually supports the creative process- in other words, if a guy who writes songs, or movie scripts, doesn't get paid for his work in some way, then he can't earn a living doing that, and must spend his time and energy doing something that does put food on the table. As a result, he has less time and energy to devote to creative efforts.
As to your observation about copyrighting your post to prevent someone from quoting it, it is already copyrighted. But, given the nature of the Internet, you also impliedly license the work for others to copy and/or quote, given the nature and context of your posting. And, of course, since the fair use doctrine does enable me to quote to make my commentary to it, to foster the debate, I may do so without risk. By contrast, there is little that verbatim copying of entertainment content for its inherent purpose does to further the process of 'commentary' or criticism- to the extent the tab makers are adding something of value, they are also communicating the underlying work without permission and making a useful substitute that could displace authorized sales of folios.
It is fine to be glib, but appreciate that this is not just a big corporate conspiracy to rob you of your entitlements. If you are that creative, go write your own songs and make your own movies. Then let's see how you react when somebody wants to take them for their own use, without paying you for the pleasure.

 

BINGO.

I recently someone make this same argument, calling the former "artists" and the latter "musicians". The "producers" and "musicians" are the ones resisting any changes - not the "artists". Two examples...

1. One of my favorite bands, Weezer. They are major recording artists that have sold tons of albums. A few years ago, they started recording a new album and posting the mp3s of the recording sessions on their website. Geffen did 2 things - they stopped the mp3 sharing, and they delayed the album release. They did not want to embrace the fact that by sharing the mp3s with the fans, the fans would actually feel like they were a part of the process and actually want to BUY the album. mp3s were still new technology back then, and they were a threat. They then delayed the album because they hadn't finished milking the prior album for every last penny by maybe releasing one more song or music video.

2. I was a co-owner and helped code one of the first music video websites that are now all over the place on the Internet. We were more than willing to pay licensing, but the licensing structure that umusic put in place was on such ridiculous terms that there was no possible way for us to sustain a business if we only played umusic videos (luckily, they weren't the only ones we played). It came down to them wanting $5 for every thousand plays, which came out to tens of thousands of dollars a month. We tried to get them to embrace the fact that if they just worked with us, doing a rev-share or something similar, we both could make a lot more money. They wanted no part of this new streaming video technology that was being shown on all the top sites like MySpace.

It's the motives that kill me.

I understand the law is very cut and dry. Whart, you mention, "But, change the equation and make it easy to allow potentially thousands or millions to have access to that copy. Doesn't that make a difference in your mind?" Of course it makes a difference - it makes it more enforcable. But it also makes me feel that the laws were written at a time when the future technology could not even be imagined, let alone become a part of the decision making process that defined the laws. Sometimes the rules don't fit as well if the playing field changes...