Any guitarists following the "tab wars"?

I notice that as well...It sucks, it was awesome with all those sites. Now i have to look around for more tab sites that havent been shut down.

 

Theres still plenty of sites up like ultimate-guitar.com and metaltabs to name a couple..

I think its ridiculous. Posting tabs that someone else spent the time figuring out is not copyright infrigment. If people are posting scans of sheetmusic then fine..but for the most part some fan spent the time to transcribe these tabs...ive done a few myself.

If posting tabs is copyright infrigment then posting lyrics is as well. Its not like downloading a song at all. Its more like someone posting pics and instructions on how to disassemble/reassemble an engine,etc...

 

Correcto!

 

Who else knows some good tab links that HAVEN'T been shut down yet?

 

I havent been looking for tabs in a while. I used www.tabcrawler.com.

That site was amazing.

 

I didn't even realize OLGA was still up. I remember in the 90s when they first got shut down by legal threats. I always went to harmony-central, which kept an archive of the OLGA tabs and seemed to add new ones fairly frequently...

 

Another good tab site is www.guitaretab.com. Sometimes I just type the name of the song and the word 'tab' in Google and I am able to find the tab. If I can't find anything, I just do it the old fashioned way...play the song and figure out the chords/melody myself.

 

Haha, yea old school harmony central. That was such a great site. Tabcrawler.com works well and basstabarchive.com has a little bit of everything that is pretty accurate.

 

www.guitarnotes.com

 

I wasen't even awear this was happening (haven't played my guitar in months now, no time unfortunatly). I have been meaning to check out my old tab sights for awhile now and learn some new stuff. This really sucks, and stinks of sombody wanting to get rich quick.

 

If researching how to play a song on a guitar and posting your discovery isn't covered under "Fair Use" doctrine, I don't know what is...

Unfortunately, the tab-sites haven't the legal muscle to defend their legal rights, so it's another case of the legal system failing the people as it boils down to "he that can cover the expensive attorneys, wins".... A travesty, pure and simple.

 

If you guys can explain to me a little bit about these 'tabs' perhaps I can help you with the copyright law. If the tabs are depictions of fingerings to play copyrighted songs, the form of notation is simply another way of communicating the song; classically, that is regarded as infringement. By way of example, Laban notation is used to represent choreographic movement- dances are copyrightable, and if someone were to watch a videotaped performance of a dance, and then convert it into notation, it would infringe, despite the effort and added 'value' created by the notation. (As a practical matter, this is probably not a very good example because, from what I understand, that form of notation is not terribly popular these days, but technically, the analogy holds). Take another example that may be less obscure. A sheet music book of popular songs for organ (the instrument, not the thing between your ears). Let's assume that its one of those organs that had a series of buttons to add harmonies, drum sounds and the like. (You remember those things, right? Before the advent of the synthesizer? Christ, even Hammond made 'em). Anyway, picture the book- it contains fingerings, button settings, probably footpedal notations if it is more complete- and at the same time, contains notes depicting the melody and perhaps the left hand (unless it was one of those cheesy organs where the left hand was replaced altogether by electronic buttons for chords). The song is effectively conveyed through the notation. No question that the added information is of great assistance to the neophyte organist. But, why shouldn't the publisher of the folio license the underlying music, if it is still in copyright? It is a normal practice to do so.
The notion that the added value should transform this unlicensed use into a 'fair' use is not farfetched- it has certainly been argued many, many times. In fact, the Supreme Court's endorsement of a 'transformative use' inquiry muddles the issue by suggesting that if enough of the original work has been transformed, or added to, that should be sufficient to avoid infringement. But that, in my view, is misleading. A second work can add a considerable amount to the material copied without authority and still infringe. That is the law (although the fair use area is very fact sensitive).
I do not know how these Internet sites work- let's assume that they accept and post submissions by users and make no revenue at all. That doesn't make it any less infringing under US law, since there is no 'for profit' requirement to infringe. That is precisely why file sharing activity- which may be undertaken by users with no intention of financial profit- but only the desire to 'share' and obtain copyrighted material from other, like-minded users, is considered infringement.
If you want to argue about who gets hurt here, keep in
mind that the songwriters of these compositions earn money from their licensing, and are no less entitled (and, in my view, more entitled) than someone else to reap some profit from their efforts. The fact that adding an extra dimension to the work by supplying fingering, phrasing, or other aspects to the work's performance does not change that.
The most humorous case in this area is the EC Berlin case, involving MAD magazine and its old feature, 'Songs Sung to the Tune of.' I can try to find you a link to that case cite if you are interested.
For full disclosure, I do work for various music publishers and personally know the lawyer that signed the demand letter in this case. The position being taken is not off the wall, and in my view, the publishers are not taking an extreme or unfair position on this issue. FWIW.

 

No place is more complete than this.
http://www.powertabs.net/

 

I did not know that!

Basically, tabs are to guitar what sheet music is to piano. These sites contain user submitted transcriptions. The majority of the time, this is accomplished by a guitarist "reverse engineering" the notes by listening to the song, figuring out the notes on the guitar, and transcribing what they hear.

Questions for you:
1. As you can imagine, the tabs vary significantly in quality; a beginner guitarist trying to transcribe a very complicated solo is a recipe for an error-ridden tab. What if the notation does *not* communicate the song accurately? I'd venture to say that most of the tabs I read online only give me a starting point, as they are extremely prone to error.

2. Do lyric sites also fall under the category of "communicating the song"?

I'm genuinely interested; I'm not looking to start a copyright debate.

 

You could be ( and probably are ) correct in that tab files are copyright infrigement but that begs the question as to the following:

- Lyrics to songs - I cant see any difference here

- Hobbyist diagrams showing any kind of mechanical breakdown for something in which they are not the copyright holder.

As with the above poster Im interested in Wharts opinions as you seem to have a lot of knowledge of copyright law.

Its an amazing waste of resources on the part of the copyright holder as these sites are mostly non profit and unlike illegal music downloading arent taking money out of the copyright holders pockets.

To me the question becomes a 'where do you draw the line' thing... as there are thousands of websites depicting step by step hobbyist diagrams reverse engineering any kind of mechanical device you can imagine...For the life of me , I really cant see any difference between that and someone diagraming the fingerings on a guitar.

 

Happy to respond- just give me a little time today ~ a bit hectic. Will be back.

 

That's not entirely true - as whart mentions in his first post, the artist has the option and right to license this material. Lots of artists make money selling songbooks, etc. Why should a tab site be making money off of the artists' work?

That being said, I personally feel that learning the music gives you a better appreciation for the band. Why would you want to alienate your fans by banning tabs if you have no intention of licensing the material anyway? Moreover, why would you want to alienate your fans by licensing the material to begin with? With mp3 file sharing, if the illegal downloads are stopped, the users need to purchase the music. With tabs, on the other hand, if illegal tab sharing is stopped, the users aren't forced to accept the licensing - they will just figure out the song themselves, the same way they did before the Internet was around. I tend to think, judging from the musicians I've followed, that they are all for the fans learning their music -- this is just another way that the *industry* sees a tehnological threat that they can exploit for more money.

To quote the music of Bob Dylan, in the form of a tab:

 

Also, the above post wasn't meant to argue that the copyright law is wrong or unfair necessarily. I just challenge the motives behind enforcing it. The Internet is making things possible that weren't before, and the recording industry is very quick to stifle progress, unless it's lining their pockets.

Tab sharing was done prior to the Internet, it just wasn't on a large scale, and the industry had no way of going after people scribbling notes in a notebook and copying them for friends. That DOESN'T make it more legal, I understand. Assuming someone could find the "tab sharers" in the pre-Internet days, would they legally go after them? Seems like it would have been PR nightmare back then; why isn't it now?

 

As a matter of fact, industry lawyers are going after lyric sites as well. That's right, writing down what you hear is now considered infringement. I can understand (barely) forbidding copying the lyrics from the album material, but a transcription should be non-infringing.

Can you image a politician filing copyright on all his speech so that opponents aren't allowed to use his words against him, under threat of JAIL TIME? That's where this is leading...

 

Some interesting observations here, but in some ways, I think you guys are making this too complicated. Here's why:
First, I'm not sure why you think lyrics are uncopyrightable or why reprinting them is permissible. Think of the lyrics as a poem, or even a prosaic piece of text (in most cases, I think lyrics are more like the former, not the latter since they involve more creativity than the mere communication of the idea, but let's not get bogged down with that- assume they are copyrightable, because they are). Why do you think reprinting them is OK? Is it any different than reproducing a piece of creative writing for which the writer ordinarily gets compensated? Perhaps the thinking is that if the person offering the reprint, on the Internet, is not doing it for profit, but merely to 'share' with others, it should be OK. But, see my earlier post about the fact that there is no 'for profit' element to copyright infringement:- otherwise, all the copyrighted stuff that gets 'shared' via the Internet, like music and movies, would be permissible. It is not.
OK, so is it that the purpose of the lyric reprint is simply to enable others to perform and sing the song themselves? Put this into historical context. I know it seems like a long time ago, but until the beginning of the 20th century, there was very little mechanical reproduction of music- other than music boxes which were not, for the most part, designed to accept a continuing supply of new and different tunes. The commercial reality of mechanical reproduction did not occur until after Edison invented and productized the wax cylinder. Why should we care?
Because prior to that time, the only viable means of exploiting songs- getting the songwriter/lyricist paid for use- was by means of sheet music. People had instruments in the home, or bands played live in venues- remember, no recorded music. All of this depended on printed sheet music, for amateur and professional, alike. That was the real essence of 'music publishing' in its infancy.

The fact that people now largely enjoy music through prerecorded media does not change the copyrightability or the value of the printed score. So, reproducing that score, either in the form of notation, or reprint of lyrics, is considered copyright infringement absent a license. The industry has very well established mechanisms to license the print versions of music.
Tillman's notion that you are merely writing down what you hear, and therefore, enforcing copyright in these works is offensive, does not withstand scrutiny. (Sorry, Tillman). Let's take a simple example. There is a book reading by an author. (Yes, these still occur). You attend, and diligently transcribe every word. You then reprint and distribute copies of your transcription. Why is this any different than copying the book itself?

As to pre-Internet activities, I did a study with a colleague recently, which I am happy to make available. It delved into the personal copying issue historically, and among other things, addressed the issue whether tolerating a certain amount of unauthorized copying by more primitive means, eg longhand transcription, foreclosed legal action once technology made the copying easy, cheap and commonplace. I found a fair amount of support for the proposition that they law does not require the copyright owner to act until the threat becomes significant. Take for example, the copying of books before the advent of commercial photocopying- which is a relatively recent technology. Sure, scholars might have transcribed books long-hand for reference purposes, and assuming that such copying was not done for personal research, but instead to avoid paying the price of buying the book- eg, borrowing it from the library and copying the entirety of it by hand- that would be infringement. But, realistically, the practical impediments to doing this, the time and effort involved, made it a very small threat. Ditto, personal use of transcriptions by musicians, done by hand, and shared in physical copies among friends. Pretty difficult to police. 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?
One concern is obviously the displacement of sales of authorized sheet music and transcriptions. I suppose if there were some noted guitarist who had arranged and performed a copyrighted song in a stylistically interesting way, there would be plenty of interest in learning how that guitarist accomplished that. But, in the process of 'reverse engineering' the sounds created by the guitarist, and creating a map to each move of his finger, you are necessarily reproducing the music itself. Granted, a savvy publisher might work a deal with that performer to offer sheet music reflecting that performer's particular arrangement. And, I suppose some could argue that if this were not commercially available what's the harm in doing it yourself and 'sharing' it with others? But, we come back to some of the same premises that were used to justify file sharing of recordings and movies. The fact that you cannot go out right now and buy a copy of 'Snakes on a Plane' does not entitle you to camcord it in the theatre and distribute compressed copies of it via the Internet. Likewise, the arguments about the (un)availability of singles, forcing you to buy the entire album. Not, in my mind, a legal justification for infringement. In all events, it will be interesting to watch the course of this-

 

great post hartster!

go-forward, this is the crux of the situation imo:

i concur it's gonna be interesting!

there's a (purely manufactured, imo) tension regarding medium and time as it concerns entertainment product. all the tools exist today to solve these tensions, but the relevant industries aren't being intellecutally honest.

either you create "art" (and i use the term very broadly here) as an exercise of commerce or you do not.

the latter folks obviously don't care about any of this - they release whole albums for free as a marketing exercise to get folks to their live shows; painters paint their paintings on public sidewalks; etc.

the former crew, represents the challenge. commerce is a two-variable equation: producer and consumer. the consumer is clearly driving the bus at this point. they want what they want, when they want it, and how they want it. the majority of consumers (imo) are and would be HAPPY to pay for it, but the producers have played their (tired) hand (ad nauseum). the consumer is sick of it. the producers can work with or against the consumer and technology. they have a choice.

i have friends with teenage kids who have never known anything other than stealing music. it pains me to see it (i have a gigantic digital music collection myself - 99%+ fully legal). by fighting music sharing over the years, the RIAA et. al. have created a problematic GENERATION. how they overcome that marketing hurdle on a go-forward basis is way beyond me (and i'm a pretty smart guy, if i may say so myself!).

and movies are just starting, but it's going to be even worse for the producers because the cost to create a movie is a lot higher than the cost to create a CD. it's also perhaps where the consumer will really come to understand the impact of their unreasonable (stealing) actions.

copyright law is a great thing (and i certainly don't mean to besmirch whart's profession!) but the future is clear, and there's no way US copyright law going to be able to stand as-is. imo, US copyright law is going to end up like all those anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books: "a quaint and unenforced throwback to an earlier time".

personally, i'd like to see things FIXED rather than just FOUGHT ABOUT. this is not a battle that the producers, lawyers, and government can win.

and sorry for the thread hijack!

doody.

 

Nice to see you, Dood. We still have to figure out how to finally meet. It's been what, 4 years of 'chatting' here?

 

Whart, explain to me how Disney was able to indefinitely extend the copyrights of most of the work they controlled. This was something that angered me when I heard about it back in - what, the 90's? Seems like, because they were this huge company, they were able to have copyright laws rewritten in their favor.

What really irks me is most of what they "control" was derived from other sources, such as nursery thymes, fairy tales, etc. Is that technically considered "fair use"? Seems like they got an exception because of who they are.

One more example of big business rewriting policy, at least to me.

RMX

 

Dunno why Disney gets all the 'credit' for the extension bill- which was named after Sonny Bono. Fact is, US copyright law has been far behind other, more 'enlightened' jurisdictions in many respects: for along time, we had copyright notice and renewal requirements which resulted in works going public domain in the US for the simple failure to place a copyright notice on all copies, or the failure to file a renewal application in the US Copyright Office before the end of the 28th year.
Duration of copyright has in most other countries, been way longer; when we finally acceded to the Berne Convention in 1989- the US was the only major country that couldn't sign it because of some of the more draconian formalties our law imposed- we agreed to stay with more author-friendly norms for protection. No hidden obstacles or traps which could cause the loss of protection. In addition, we signed on to a host of other IP related conventions which made us part of the international community, and among them was a recognition of extended protection.
The first fallacy about this is that it is not perpetual protection- it added another twenty years to the term of protection. Second, as to its constitutionality, that was tested and claims that Congress did not have authority to extend duration of existing copyrights were rejected. The issue is often put in the guise of 'public interest,' ie, freeing up works from protection so that the public may enjoy them without cost, but the reality is, the proponents of more limited copyright protection offer little in return-
many are academics with little real involvement in the process of creation, but lots to say about how any barriers to copying and use of creative works should be removed.
Fact is, if there weren't something of value in the works they want for free, they wouldn't want them. So, in my estimation, pay for the privilege, or go out and create your own.
Ultimately, it has little to do with Disney's agenda since the characters are protected by trademark and that protection is perpetual.