Interest poll: music transcription exchange
David A. Roth
In article <1993Aug12....@fel.tno.nl> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.compose,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), js...@fel.tno.nl (Jos Groot) writes:
>
>
> A week or so ago I transcribed the tune "Arubian Nights" as
> played by the guitarists Larry Coryell/Emily Remler from their
> duo CD "Together". Any one who has done a transcription once knows
> that this can take quite some time. Therefore I thought it might be a
> good idea to share/exchange those "home made" transcriptions with
> other Internet users. The purpose of this posting is threefold:
>
> 1. to check whether there is anyone interested in this.
> 2. to get ideas for the format in which such transcriptions
> could be distributed most easy and efficient.
> 3. which distribution type (anonymous FTP site, mailing list, ...)
> is preferred and feasible.
>
> I propose that the transcriptions should fulfil the following
> conditions:
>
> - home made (i.e., transcribed of a CD or so, not scanned from
> copyrighted material). It may be handwritten (which needs to
> be scanned), or generated with a computer program like Notator.
> So the transcription is not an ASCII text file, but rather
> a graphics file.
> - uses standard musical notation (e.g., no guitarist-only
> tabulature).
> - distribution in a format which permits printing on a HP Laserjet
> series or PostScript printer, although it might be necessary
> to do a conversion with (a) public domain program(s), like
> the ARJ compression program.
>
> My major concern was the storage space needed for a transcription,
> so I used my 1 A4 size, 40 bar, single voice (chord symbols above
> the staff) transcription of "Arubian Nights" as a test case.
> Scanning it at 100 DPI with a HP Scanjet IIC resulted in a
> 850*1061 8-bit pixel PCX file of 1.2 Mb. Of course, a transcription
> needs no grey values, so I converted this to a 48 Kb "Black and
> white line art" PCX file (1 bit per pixel). ARJ was able to compress
> this to 21 Kb, in my opinion small enough to be distributed via the
> network, or to be stored at an anonymous FTP site.
>
> If you are interested in this transcription idea I would like
> to answer you (some of) the following questions, and e-mail
> your response to me (or post a follow-up if you think your
> point is of general interest). I will summarize the responses,
> and propose a way to proceed (if any).
>
> 1. what is a common and efficient graphics format (I used PCX) ?
> 2. if necessary, what compression program should be used ?
> 3. can you contribute any transcriptions (at the end of this posting
> is a list of what I have to offer) ?
> 4. what kind of distribution scheme is to be preferred ?
> 5. any anonymous FTP site administrators which are willing to offer
> some disk space ?
>
> Additional comments (copyright issues ?) not covered by these
> questions are of course also welcome.
>
> -------
> Transcriptions I can contribute are mostly from jazz CD's:
>
> "Arubian Nights" & "Ill Wind" from "Together", Larry Coryell/
> Emily Remler
> "Born to To Be Blue" from "Born 2B Blue", Steve Miller
> "I Remember Wes" from "CTI Master Of The Guitar", George Benson
> "Softly As In A Morning Sunrise" from "East To Wes", Emily Remler
> "Little Train Of The Caipria" from "The Viking", Niels-Henning
> Orsted Pedersen/Philip Catherine
> "Cheers", "Family Ties" and "Who's The Boss" TV series themes
> "I'm Not In Love" from a live CD, 10 CC
>
> A friend of mine has some more by Chick Corea, Tom Harrell etc.
> -------
>
> --
> Jos Groot (jos....@fel.tno.nl)
> Physics and Electronics Laboratory TNO-FEL
> P.O.box 96864
> 2509 JG The Hague, The Netherlands
>
As someone who makes their living composing music, I can tell you
that making copies available of copyrighted works without the permission of
the owner(s) of the copyright is considered an infringement and would
expose whoever was involved hosting this activity to legal action.
David
da...@roth-music.com
Robert Mah
>As someone who makes their living composing music, I can tell you
>that making copies available of copyrighted works without the permission of
>the owner(s) of the copyright is considered an infringement and would
>expose whoever was involved hosting this activity to legal action.
While what you write is true, the original poster was talking about
listening to the music, and then transcribing his impression of the music.
And while I'm not _absolutely_ sure, I'm pretty sure that this sort of
transcription is not copyright violation. Seems to me that it's sort of
like painting a picture of a photograph. Copying published sheet music
into electronic form is, of course, an infringement, but that's not what
was being discussed.
Finally, I don't mean imply that your (or any other artist's) work is not
valuable or should not be protected. I'm just commenting on the current
state of copyright law.
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Matthew H. Fields
>da...@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>While what you write is true, the original poster was talking about
>listening to the music, and then transcribing his impression of the music.
>And while I'm not _absolutely_ sure, I'm pretty sure that this sort of
>transcription is not copyright violation.
I'm absolutely sure it is.
> Seems to me that it's sort of
>like painting a picture of a photograph.
It's like hearing a modern poet on the radio, transcribing their words
onto paper "as you heard them", and distributing that without permission.
Matthew H. Fields
Received: from zippy.Telcom.Arizona.EDU by zip.eecs.umich.edu with SMTP id AA12939 ; Wed, 25 Aug 1993 14:33:44 -0400
Received: from lully.biosci.arizona.edu by zippy.telcom.arizona.edu (4.1/zippy-MX-1.4)
id AA23454; Wed, 25 Aug 93 11:34:29 MST
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 11:34:29 MST
Message-Id: <930825183...@zippy.telcom.arizona.edu>
From: basi...@biosci.arizona.edu (Mark Basinski)
To: fie...@eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields)
Subject: Re: Interest poll: music transcription exchange
References: <0105009...@david.roth-music.com> <25ecaj$m...@panix.com> <25ef69$n...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
Organization: Univ. of Arizona
Status: R
In article <25ef69$n...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, you wrote:
> > Seems to me that it's sort of
> >like painting a picture of a photograph.
>
> It's like hearing a modern poet on the radio, transcribing their words
> onto paper "as you heard them", and distributing that without permission.
you tell'em! Could you be so kind as to post my $.02 (as our news server
is refusing to post; his disks are full, the person that takes care of
maintaining it is on vacation,etc..) Thanks...
Copyright applies to the original work, and making "your version" does not
exempt you from respecting the copyright.
In the case of transcriptions, the original poster was wanting to
distribute
his transcriptions of music by Larry Coryell, Emily Remler, etc. i.e. music
created by well-known artists. The point of copyright is that if someone
wants to make a trancription and distribute it, they *must* consult the
the copyright holder to arrange permission and possibly compensation.
Note that this even applies if you "copy" a tune and give it new lyrics
and claim you wrote it - Remember, George Harrison *lost* his case, and
was found guilty of copyright violation for the "My Sweet Lord/He's So
Fine" debacle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Basinski Internet: basi...@biosci.arizona.edu
Matthew H. Fields
Matthew H. Fields <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <25ecaj$m...@panix.com>, Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Seems to me that it's sort of
>>like painting a picture of a photograph.
Umm, if I painted my own rendition of melting wrist watches from
a legitimate photo of Dali's painting, then publicly displayed my
"version" or scanned it and put it on the network, I WOULD be letting
myself in for a suit from Dali's heirs. On the other hand, if I
proposed such a project as "enlarging the public mind while promoting
awareness of Dali", and they bought that enough to give me written
permission for the project, that'd be safe.
But USENET is routinely used to distribute materials in violation of
copyright. The monthly Arbitron listings show the exchange of
pornography (mostly in violation of copyright, I bet) as the most
expensive, space-consuming use of USENET. I wouldn't expect it to
last: In the US, the Internet is tax-subsidized, and I suspect a lot
of voters would like to move that stuff into the private sector. I'm
just afraid that if we have too many other questionable uses of the
network, the Feds will throw the whole net to the phone companies. Then,
many current users won't be able to afford net access, and rural colleges
may not be able to afford to tie in.
Robert Mah
>Copyright applies to the original work, and making "your version" does not
>exempt you from respecting the copyright.
Yes, but transcribers are not making a "version" of the song. No music is
being played.
> The point of copyright is that if someone wants to make a trancription
> and distribute it, they *must* consult the the copyright holder to
> arrange permission and possibly compensation.
No, the point of copyright is to encourage artistic and creative endevours
by providing protection to the creator(s).
>Note that this even applies if you "copy" a tune and give it new lyrics
>and claim you wrote it - Remember, George Harrison *lost* his case, and
>was found guilty of copyright violation for the "My Sweet Lord/He's So
>Fine" debacle.
Well of course, that would be covered under "derivative works" clauses.
The problem arrises...what if the posted transcription isn't correct? Is
the person still liable? The very real and very likely possibility of
error is one of the reasons that leads me to suspect that transcription of
the sort first mentioned may not fall under current copyright statutes.
Copyright does not protect a certain sequence of notes. It cannot, if so,
then someone could theoretically copyright a large majority of possible
songs using automated techniques and that would be at odds with the
original purpose of copyright. That is also why sheet music must be
copyrighted seperately from recorded music.
Finally, what about the "this is how I play XYZ" transcriptions? Are
they in violation as well? I just don't think the issue is as cut and
dry as you make it out to be.
Thomas Ford Brown
In article <25gi7l$s...@panix.com> rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>basi...@biosci.arizona.edu (Mark Basinski) writes:
>
>>Copyright applies to the original work, and making "your version" does not
>>exempt you from respecting the copyright.
>
>> and distribute it, they *must* consult the the copyright holder to
>> arrange permission and possibly compensation.
>
>No, the point of copyright is to encourage artistic and creative endevours
>by providing protection to the creator(s).
>
>
>then someone could theoretically copyright a large majority of possible
>songs using automated techniques and that would be at odds with the
>original purpose of copyright. That is also why sheet music must be
>copyrighted seperately from recorded music.
>
put out a transcription for no profit unless it's
competing withe the artist's own book?
Anyone who bothers to read through the transcription and
play it becomes a customer for the original album. It
seems to me like free advertising.
David A. Roth
In article <25ecaj$m...@panix.com> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.compose,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
> da...@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>
> >that making copies available of copyrighted works without the permission of
> >the owner(s) of the copyright is considered an infringement and would
> >expose whoever was involved hosting this activity to legal action.
>
> listening to the music, and then transcribing his impression of the music.
He could have been talking about taking a hike in the woods, but his
lengthy and detailed proposal would be a copyright infringement.
>
> And while I'm not _absolutely_ sure, I'm pretty sure that this sort of
> transcription is not copyright violation. Seems to me that it's sort of
> like painting a picture of a photograph. Copying published sheet music
> into electronic form is, of course, an infringement, but that's not what
> was being discussed.
Setting up a database to make available copyrighted works available
without permission is copyright infringement. Period.
>
> Finally, I don't mean imply that your (or any other artist's) work is not
> valuable or should not be protected. I'm just commenting on the current
> state of copyright law.
You should contact the Copyright Office in DC and request a free copy
of Title 17. What you are commenting on is not the current state of
the copyright law. Perhaps the bitheads on the net will understand
this better...this is *NO* different than taking copyrighted software
sold by your company and people giving away illegal pirated copies.
David
Dan Newcombe
> > And while I'm not _absolutely_ sure, I'm pretty sure that this sort of
> > transcription is not copyright violation. Seems to me that it's sort of
> > like painting a picture of a photograph. Copying published sheet music
> > into electronic form is, of course, an infringement, but that's not what
> > was being discussed.
>
> Setting up a database to make available copyrighted works available
> without permission is copyright infringement. Period.
>
Ah, but we are not making the copyrighted works available. If we were
to sample them in on, say a Sun, and make the resulting .au file available
for free, then I'm sure we would be, as that is the work that is
copyrighted.
-Dan (I'm gonna copyright the word "The" and sue like mad :)
Matthew H. Fields
>>basi...@biosci.arizona.edu (Mark Basinski) writes:
>>Copyright applies to the original work, and making "your version" does not
>>exempt you from respecting the copyright.
>Yes, but transcribers are not making a "version" of the song. No music is
>being played.
Copyright, by the 1978 Berne Convention, applies not only to performance
but also to any method of transmission of the creative work.
>> The point of copyright is that if someone wants to make a trancription
>> and distribute it, they *must* consult the the copyright holder to
>> arrange permission and possibly compensation.
>No, the point of copyright is to encourage artistic and creative endevours
>by providing protection to the creator(s).
All of the above.
>>Note that this even applies if you "copy" a tune and give it new lyrics
>>and claim you wrote it - Remember, George Harrison *lost* his case, and
>>was found guilty of copyright violation for the "My Sweet Lord/He's So
>>Fine" debacle.
>Well of course, that would be covered under "derivative works" clauses.
For which you must have permission. Else I could make MY transcription
(which, guess what, would be note-accurate for most music) of everything
under the sun and publish it as The Everything Songbook, Only $19.95, But
Wait, There's More--and thus undercut the rights of thousands of people.
>The problem arrises...what if the posted transcription isn't correct? Is
>the person still liable? The very real and very likely possibility of
>error is one of the reasons that leads me to suspect that transcription of
>the sort first mentioned may not fall under current copyright statutes.
If that which you distribute gets its appeal primarily from being what
humans in a court of law would recognize as a "version" of the source
work, you need permsission. Transcriptions of the sort first mentioned
are very clear violations of copyright. If I print sheet music to "Beat
It" with one note wrong, and Michael Jackson sues me, and I point to the
one wrong note and say "no, see, it's a different piece", do you really
think a jury would let me off without a fine?
>Copyright does not protect a certain sequence of notes.
If that sequence of notes is deemed the result of a person's creative
work, then it does protect them, indeed. It may not protect UNALTERED
sounds of natural phenomena, like beach surf, the wind, or the overtone
series of a long thin wire (cf. the appropriate case of Alvin Lucier's
recordings of long thin wires).
> It cannot, if so,
>then someone could theoretically copyright a large majority of possible
>songs using automated techniques and that would be at odds with the
>original purpose of copyright.
Sounds like computer-aided composition. The problem is, of course, to
develop a computer program that actually finds compositions that you'd
actually want to hear, and this is extremely difficult.
> That is also why sheet music must be
>copyrighted seperately from recorded music.
No, the difference is between copyrighting a composition, which
represents a class of possible performances, and copyrighting the
sound of a specific performance---and by US law, the SR copyright
automatically protects the score as well.
>Finally, what about the "this is how I play XYZ" transcriptions? Are
>they in violation as well?
Yessir.
> I just don't think the issue is as cut and
>dry as you make it out to be.
What IS cut and dry is this: if you DO have written permission from the
authors, you're fine. If you don't, you take your chances, and some
of us won't stick around and subsidize or support your efforts. Some
of us who really compose music will consider you a nuisance and may even
consider reporting you.
Matthew H. Fields
Thomas Ford Brown <tomb...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
:More practically, why would anyone refuse permission to
:put out a transcription for no profit unless it's
:competing withe the artist's own book?
:Anyone who bothers to read through the transcription and
:play it becomes a customer for the original album. It
:seems to me like free advertising.
All the more reason to get permission.
Richard Darsie
>
> >Finally, what about the "this is how I play XYZ" transcriptions? Are
> >they in violation as well?
>
> Yessir.
If that is true, then the alt.guitar.tab and
rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature newsgroups have no legal basis
for existence and should be removed from the net, seeing as how
90% of their traffic violates the condition described above.
Richard Darsie
Michael Pelz-Sherman
important question, namely: how should the availability of new
technology for music creation and distribution be dealt with
by the legal system? By implying that distribution of digital data
over the Internet constitutes Publication/Broadcast, you are agreeing with
the copyright zealots who are attempting to subject the flow of
information over the 'net to the same regulation/censorship as the FCC does to
radio stations. Do we really want that? I thought the whole idea of
Internet was to share information freely. As long as the person posting
these music transcriptions credits the original artists and doesn't
ask people for money, I see nothing ethically wrong with it.
Likewise, if I want to post a transcription of a lecture or a poem,
I should have the right to do that too. (Obviously, I should give
credit to the originator of the ideas.) It's the person who downloads
that posting, prints out hardcopy or whatever, and tries to sell it,
that is breaking the law.
-Michael
Matthew H. Fields
Michael Pelz-Sherman <mpel...@man104-1.ucsd.edu< wrote:
<I feel that the postings on this thread are failing to address an
<important question, namely: how should the availability of new
<technology for music creation and distribution be dealt with
<by the legal system?
That question was addressed long ago by the legal system.
<By implying that distribution of digital data
<over the Internet constitutes Publication/Broadcast, you are agreeing with
<the copyright zealots who are attempting to subject the flow of
<information over the 'net to the same regulation/censorship as the FCC does to
<radio stations. Do we really want that? I thought the whole idea of
<Internet was to share information freely.
You make it sound like you advocate the elimination of property
altogether. All it takes is one thief to ruin a property-less society.
You can share YOUR information freely. But if you post the uuencoded
binary to a program I wrote that I'm trying to sell, I WILL sue you, and
I WILL win. You WILL pay substantial damages.
< As long as the person posting
<these music transcriptions credits the original artists and doesn't
<ask people for money, I see nothing ethically wrong with it.
If you post one of my compositions without permission, credited or
not, I WILL sue you and I WILL win. So you'd better sell all your
belongings and get dirt poor before you do that.
<Likewise, if I want to post a transcription of a lecture or a poem,
<I should have the right to do that too. (Obviously, I should give
<credit to the originator of the ideas.) It's the person who downloads
<that posting, prints out hardcopy or whatever, and tries to sell it,
<that is breaking the law.
The person who posts the illegal copy is breaking the law too, whether
they charge for it or not, and whether they credit the creator or not.
Please, before posting such disinformation, talk to a copyright lawyer
or at least read the circulars from the copyright office.
Register of Copyrights
Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20559
Ben Scott
music on the network is illegal, then I'd imagine that transferring song words
and guitar tabs is illegal too?!
As someone who dabbles in music composition, to be able to transfer actual
written music is quite exiting. People could collaborate in writing a piece, ask opinions etc. I am interested in any comments on this, and the legality of
transferring non original material.
Ben Scott
(bsc...@neumann.une.edu.au)
,
Alan B Saul
: In article <53...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu<,
: Michael Pelz-Sherman <mpel...@man104-1.ucsd.edu< wrote:
: <I feel that the postings on this thread are failing to address an
: <important question, namely: how should the availability of new
: <technology for music creation and distribution be dealt with
: <by the legal system?
: That question was addressed long ago by the legal system.
: <By implying that distribution of digital data
: <over the Internet constitutes Publication/Broadcast, you are agreeing with
: <the copyright zealots who are attempting to subject the flow of
: <information over the 'net to the same regulation/censorship as the FCC does to
: <radio stations. Do we really want that? I thought the whole idea of
: <Internet was to share information freely.
I'm very naive about these questions, but I'm wondering if people
involved with Internet could make an effort to achieve some enlightened
contract with BMI/ASCAP that would pay royalties but still make
things accessible. If a poster of copyrighted material paid a fee
that she could recoup in some form from those who used it (shareware?)
could some scheme be workable?
I have my doubts about the practicality of it all, but in fact there
seem to be models to base things on (and hopefully improve upon),
such as radio. Isn't the purpose of BMI and ASCAP to facilitate
the dissemination of music while protecting the composers? Would they
not have an interest in electronic publishing?
Alan Saul
sa...@pitt.edu
Robert Mah
>Setting up a database to make available copyrighted works available
>without permission is copyright infringement. Period.
Agreed. But that's not what we're discussing. The question at hand is:
Are original transcriptions of copyrighted songs a violation of the
copyright on the song. Are they a violation of the copyright on the sheet
music for that song?
>You should contact the Copyright Office in DC and request a free copy
>of Title 17. What you are commenting on is not the current state of
>the copyright law.
When I said "commenting on the current state" I meant that I was
expressing my point of view on this above issue. I feel that the issue is
not clear cut.
For example...
>Perhaps the bitheads on the net will understand this better...this is
>*NO* different than taking copyrighted software sold by your company and
>people giving away illegal pirated copies.
No. If one sampled a song and gave it away. That would be the same. If
one scanned in sheet music (or even typed it in) and gave that away, that
would be the same.
However, in my opinion, creating an original transcription is more like
fully evaluating a piece of software, then writing your own version and
releasing the source code to the public domain. Most of the legal
community feels that this process is legal.
Later,
Robert Mah
>Copyright, by the 1978 Berne Convention, applies not only to performance
>but also to any method of transmission of the creative work.
Yes, but my argument is that original transcriptions may not be
"transmissions" of the work in question.
>>>Note that this even applies if you "copy" a tune and give it new lyrics
>>>and claim you wrote it - Remember, George Harrison *lost* his case, and
>>>was found guilty of copyright violation for the "My Sweet Lord/He's So
>>>Fine" debacle.
>>
>>Well of course, that would be covered under "derivative works" clauses.
>For which you must have permission.
Really? Wow!! What a revelation! I'm sure glad you cleared that up for
me.
> Else I could make MY transcription (which, guess what, would be
> note-accurate for most music) of everything under the sun and publish it
> as The Everything Songbook, Only $19.95, But Wait, There's More--and thus
> undercut the rights of thousands of people.
Ever hear of the "Fake Book"? Such things already exist you know. But
that doesn't prove anything, and has no relation to your original point
about creating songs based on existing songs (e.g. Harrison).
>> It cannot, if so, then someone could theoretically copyright a large
>> majority of possible songs using automated techniques and that would be
>> at odds with the original purpose of copyright.
>Sounds like computer-aided composition. The problem is, of course, to
>develop a computer program that actually finds compositions that you'd
>actually want to hear, and this is extremely difficult.
It doesn't have to sound good. Re-read. I said "theorectically". I
meant that given a fast enough computer, and with decently smart software
you could output a substantial portion of the measures used in
contemporary music. Probably not possible today, but what about in 20
years, 50 years? If you can copyright a certain sequence of notes then
this process would allow someone to copyright vast quantities of music.
But to take a more practicle view, many songs use the same chord
progressions, scales, etc. They can do so, because copyright does not
protect the sequence of notes themselves.
>>Finally, what about the "this is how I play XYZ" transcriptions? Are
>>they in violation as well?
>Yessir.
Well, if that's true (though I think it may not be), the law should be
changed.
> Some of us who really compose music will consider you a nuisance and may
> even consider reporting you.
Well all you gotta do is browse these newsgroups for a few weeks and I'm
sure you could come up with hundreds of "criminals", with evidence even.
You might even want to send the authorities might even send the FBI after
the archives that store song lyrics, album song lists, and tabs.
Cheers,
Robert Mah
One problem is that the copyright for the sheet music is often not held
by the same entity that holds the copyright for the song. And what if
you just put together the transcription after hearing it on the radio?
It would be nice, but let's face it, for this medium, it's just not that
practical.
Later,
mathias thallmayer
If making transcriptions available is a violation of copyrights, why are
there archive sites with lyrics and tablature available? In fact, why are
there tablature groups at all? Both of these seem to be clear copyright
violations according to some posters. Yet, we not only have these
but audio and video clips of copyrighted material. So, it seems to me,
that we have ample precedent for the kind of action the original poster
was suggesting.
--
Mathias
Robert Mah
>In article <53...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu<,
>Michael Pelz-Sherman <mpel...@man104-1.ucsd.edu< wrote:
><I feel that the postings on this thread are failing to address an
><important question, namely: how should the availability of new
><technology for music creation and distribution be dealt with
><by the legal system?
>That question was addressed long ago by the legal system.
I disagree. The question under discussion is one example. While you may
think the issue is cut and dry, many others do not. Very little in
copyright law is actually about absolutes.
For example...
It is clearly not a copyright voiolation to hum a copyrighted song to
yourself. Or even to sing it. Even with musical accompanyment.
Most would agree that performing the song for a few friends in the privacy
of one's own home is also not in violation. Even in the park would be OK,
don't you think?
But how about if a few strangers that happen to listen in? How about if you
drew a crowd.
What if you did this at a music festival but you weren't on the agenda?
What if you were, but were doing this during your "off time"?
What if you were on the agenda and performed the song on stage? What if
there was an award for the winner?
What if...
I think you get my point. There is a wide variety of situations where
even something as seemingly simple as copyright of musical performances
may or may not apply. It is obvious that a major performer that regularly
performs a cover on a tour should not only give credit, but also pay
royalties. However there are other areas that are not quite as clear.
>You make it sound like you advocate the elimination of property
>altogether. All it takes is one thief to ruin a property-less society.
>If you post one of my compositions without permission, credited or
>not, I WILL sue you and I WILL win. So you'd better sell all your
>belongings and get dirt poor before you do that.
Finally, I'd like to ask you to lessen the confrontational tone of your
posts. I broke down and replied to one of them with a bit of sarcasm, and
I appologize for it -- if you stop blasting others who happen to disagree
with you.
Robert Mah
>I'm very naive about these questions, but I'm wondering if people
>involved with Internet could make an effort to achieve some enlightened
>contract with BMI/ASCAP that would pay royalties but still make
>things accessible.
Problem is (or not problem if you ask me) that no one controls the
Internet anymore. It's basically a free for all jumble of connected
networks that use the same protocols. USENET is widely associated with
Internet but it is on systems not directly connected to the net, and the
net reaches place where USENET news does not.
> Isn't the purpose of BMI and ASCAP to facilitate the dissemination of
> music while protecting the composers? Would they not have an interest in
> electronic publishing?
Personally, I'd be thrilled if music companies started offering
compositions on-line (with a fee of course). Strangely enough, Penthouse
decided to combat fire with fire. With the high volume of pirated
Penthouse pictures on the net and BBS, they decided to offer their own
on-line service to provide a legitimate electronic distribution channel.
A forward thinking move, in my opinion.
Matthew H. Fields
>fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>Yes, but my argument is that original transcriptions may not be
>"transmissions" of the work in question.
All they'll do in a court of law is play the two. You have to convince
the jury that what you transmitted wasn't a rip-off of the original work.
Remove this protection, and when YOUR little band writes a tune,
somebody will post THEIR transcription of it, Time-Life-Warner will
snatch that up, and they'll issue a recording of somebody famous singing
it. And you won't get diddly for it.
>Ever hear of the "Fake Book"? Such things already exist you know. But
>that doesn't prove anything, and has no relation to your original point
>about creating songs based on existing songs (e.g. Harrison).
The point about Harrison was made by Mr. Basinsky. Fake books are
illegal. The suits have been sued, settlements have been paid. By
backformation, legitimate lead sheet books are now called Real Books.
>It doesn't have to sound good. Re-read. I said "theorectically". I
>meant that given a fast enough computer, and with decently smart software
>you could output a substantial portion of the measures used in
>contemporary music. Probably not possible today, but what about in 20
>years, 50 years? If you can copyright a certain sequence of notes then
>this process would allow someone to copyright vast quantities of music.
If I had an infinite number of monkeys banging randomly on teletype
keyboards, eventually they would "theoretically" bang out all the works
of Shakespeare, Stephen King, etc. These works are just certain
sequences of characters. But this mathematical fact does not have
any bearing on the copyright of text. In no way does any analogous
argument have any bearing on the copyright of music. Otherwise, there
would be no such thing as copyright on music.
>But to take a more practicle view, many songs use the same chord
>progressions, scales, etc. They can do so, because copyright does not
>protect the sequence of notes themselves.
No, because the social contract on intellectual property just happens
not to extend that far.
>Well, if that's true (though I think it may not be), the law should be
>changed.
Read the circulars from Library of Congress. Talk to a lawyer. Agitate
for copyright reform, if you will.
>Well all you gotta do is browse these newsgroups for a few weeks and I'm
>sure you could come up with hundreds of "criminals", with evidence even.
>
>You might even want to send the authorities might even send the FBI after
>the archives that store song lyrics, album song lists, and tabs.
Alert. Congress is considering selling USNet to the phone companies
precisely to stop subsidizing this kind of criminal activity.
Matthew H. Fields
>
>I disagree. The question under discussion is one example. While you may
>think the issue is cut and dry, many others do not. Very little in
>copyright law is actually about absolutes.
>
>For example...
If your distribution interferes with the creator's right to make money
off their creative activity, and they find out about it and sue you,
good luck trying to prove that your ignorance of the law exempts you
from it.
Matthew H. Fields
Ben Scott <bsc...@neumann.une.edu.au> wrote:
>
>As someone who dabbles in music composition, to be able to transfer actual
>written music is quite exiting. People could collaborate in writing a piece, ask opinions etc. I am interested in any comments on this, and the legality of
>transferring non original material.
As long as the original author retains the rights to determine exactly
how the stuff is distributed, it's ok. The net is not any different from
xerox machines, the telephone, the radio, or any other means of moving
creative work around.
Matthew H. Fields
>Agreed. But that's not what we're discussing. The question at hand is:
>
>Are original transcriptions of copyrighted songs a violation of the
>copyright on the song. Are they a violation of the copyright on the sheet
>music for that song?
Your answer was "no", or at least "it's not clear cut." Tell that
to a jury.
Gary Paisley
Reader tarkus.ocis.temple.edu!mathias suggests that:
I propose that you consider the following parallel argument:
If stealing is against the law, why are there criminals doing it today ?
In fact , why are there "fences" ? Both of these activities appear to violate the law
according to some posters. Yet, stolen property exists. So it seems to me,
that we have ample precedent for the kind of action the original poster
was suggesting ( e.g. stealing ).
Rationalizing what is going on does not make it right...
Gary
Dan Newcombe
> >copyright on the song. Are they a violation of the copyright on the sheet
> >music for that song?
>
> Your answer was "no", or at least "it's not clear cut." Tell that
> to a jury.
They may or may not be a violation of the copyright on the song. That is
what most of this discussion is about. But they can't be a violation of
the copyright of the sheet music. Unless:
1) You blatently state that this is from xxx sheet music and
you typed it in.
2) See the Plush gifs. They were scanned directly from Guitar
Magazine.
But anything else would be like Company A geting the rights to print
music to, say "Stairway to Heaven." A month later company B comes along
and prints "Stairway to Heaven" becuase they have also obtained the
rights (from whatever record company.) There is not way that Company A
should then be able to sue company B. But then again, this is the US
where stupid lawsuits like the Look - and -feel one (Apple vs. Mircosoft)
and the "intellectual property" (AT&T vs. BSD) can exist.
-Dan
Ben Weiner
the cross-posting? Thank you.
Michael Pelz-Sherman
to present the following "copyright lame list". Please feel free to
add to this list, or to present a counter-list exposing abuses in
the other direction.
---------------------
-Michael Jackson selling out John Lennon's "Revolution No. 1" to
Nike, which precipitated a flood of commercialization of rock
classics. (NB: there are those who claim it was not Jackson, but
Yoko, who sold the rights. Can anyone clear this up?)
-Country singer Billy Ray Cyrus of "Achy Brakey Heart" infamy
refusing to let the Wherehouse chain of music retail outlets carry
his albums because of the chain's practice of trading in used CD's.
Apparently, Cyrus feels he should be given a cut of every transaction,
even if the CD was already paid for legitimately once.
-Composer/Programmer Laurie Spiegel claiming to own the rights to
any music produced using her "Music Mouse" program. (Anybody
remember that one?)
-Peddlers of "Natural" sound recordings who demand outrageous fees
for use of their tapes of ocean waves, bird songs, rain, etc.
-Software vendors who cripple their product by installing copy
protection, claiming that they must do it to keep prices down, then
proceed to charge through the nose for their product anyway.
-Bo Diddley's attemps to copyright the "Bo Diddley Beat". (How'd
that case come out, anyway?)
-Yamaha's patenting of the FM algorithm, which prevents other synth
manufacturers from implementing it on their machines. (The K2000,
for example, has no FM for this reason alone.)
So what's the point of this, you may well ask? Merely to demonstrate
the failures of the system to cope with the changing times. (I won't
even touch the question of _sampling_; if anyone's interested, there
was a long thread on sampling in the Keyboard letters to the editor
several years ago.) High-speed, high-bandwidth computer networks demand a
massive paradigm shift in the way we reward the content providers. I
for one can't wait for it to happen. If it means Billy Ray doesn't
make his however-many millions of dollars off his next hit, well, my
achy, brakey heart goes out to him ...NOT!!! -copyright Mike Meyers,
1992, used without permission. :)
-Michael
Marc Sabatella
> >Copyright applies to the original work, and making "your version" does not
> >exempt you from respecting the copyright.
> Yes, but transcribers are not making a "version" of the song. No music is
> being played.
Once upon a time, David Richards posted something called "The Copyright Law And
The Musician". I wish I still had it online; while he wasn't specific, I
believe he intended to grant permission to redistribute it.
I do still have a printed version in front of me, I can tell you that a
physical, visually perceptible copy is just as much an infringement as an aural
one.
> >Note that this even applies if you "copy" a tune and give it new lyrics
> >and claim you wrote it - Remember, George Harrison *lost* his case, and
> >was found guilty of copyright violation for the "My Sweet Lord/He's So
> >Fine" debacle.
> Well of course, that would be covered under "derivative works" clauses.
> The problem arrises...what if the posted transcription isn't correct?
Same answer, obviously. A few off-by-one note errors, or even a totally new
arrangement, ie, "this is the way *I* play it", is most definitely still a
derivative work.
> That is also why sheet music must be
> copyrighted seperately from recorded music.
This sentence is nonsense. Nothing must be "copyrighted". Every expression of
a copyrightable idea you ever put down into human perceptible form is
automatically protected. You can at your leisure *register* the copyright, but
if the song is yours, both the recording and the sheet music are covered by the
same copyright.
The only distinction here is that separate permissions must be obtained to
produce sheet music (ie, a transcription) versus a recording of someone else's
composition.
--
Marc Sabatella
ma...@fc.sde.hp.com
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Marc Sabatella
> > >Finally, what about the "this is how I play XYZ" transcriptions? Are
> > >they in violation as well?
> >
> > Yessir.
> If that is true, then the alt.guitar.tab and
> rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature newsgroups have no legal basis
> for existence and should be removed from the net, seeing as how
> 90% of their traffic violates the condition described above.
Not necessarily - it has been ruled that a chord progression is not
copyrightable. If the tablatures generally contain only information about the
chords and the way they are played, and do not contain any of the "melody" of
the song (yes, I realize this is not always a musically useful distinction, but
then, the courts generally are not musicians), it may not be considered
derivative. I don't know of any specific ruling on tablature, though.
Marc Sabatella
>Are original transcriptions of copyrighted songs a violation of the
>copyright on the song.
Absolutely. This is indeed perfectly clear to anyone who has read the
applicable laws. The holder of a copyright has exlusive rights to prepare
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. This is spelled out in black
and white in the law. The only grey area is in what exactly constitutes a
derivative work, but all available evidence indicates that an "original
transcription" is indeed a derivative work if it is recognizably the same
melody.
>However, in my opinion, creating an original transcription is more like
>fully evaluating a piece of software, then writing your own version and
>releasing the source code to the public domain. Most of the legal
>community feels that this process is legal.
This analogy has not proved to be valid. Software "look and feel" is indeed a
grey area in the legal community. Trnascriptions quite simply are not. You
may argue they *should* be considered the same, but the simple fact is,
currently, they are not.
>> Else I could make MY transcription (which, guess what, would be
>> note-accurate for most music) of everything under the sun and publish it
>> as The Everything Songbook, Only $19.95, But Wait, There's More--and thus
>> undercut the rights of thousands of people.
>
>Ever hear of the "Fake Book"? Such things already exist you know.
Fake books are illegal unless permission is granted and royalties are paid.
No reputable publisher would put out any illegal fakebook. This is in fact an
excellent example of proof that "original transcriptions" are indeed considered
to be copyright violations: fakebooks *are* illegal.
>Well all you gotta do is browse these newsgroups for a few weeks and I'm
>sure you could come up with hundreds of "criminals", with evidence even.
Not necessarily; as I've oberserved elsewhere, tablature may or may not be
considered derivative. The courts seem to have an obsession with melody and
lyrics as the identifying traits of a copyrighted work; mere chord progressions
have specifically been ruled not copyrightable. Tabs may fall into a grey
area.
>You might even want to send the authorities might even send the FBI after
>the archives that store song lyrics, album song lists, and tabs.
Transcribing song lyrics is most definitely a violation, so yes, the
authorities would probably be interested in any such archive.
>One problem is that the copyright for the sheet music is often not held
>by the same entity that holds the copyright for the song.
This statement again confuses me. I have seen the "This arrangement
copyright ..." notices before, but I am not sure how this comes to pass;
normally, even if you obtain permission to produce an arrangement, the
arrangement still belongs to the original copyright holder. In any case, if
you perform an arrangement of a song, the only copyright holder you need to be
concerned with is the holder for the tune itself.
>Very little in
>copyright law is actually about absolutes.
>
>For example...
>
>It is clearly not a copyright voiolation to hum a copyrighted song to
>yourself. Or even to sing it. Even with musical accompanyment.
>
>Most would agree that performing the song for a few friends in the privacy
>of one's own home is also not in violation. Even in the park would be OK,
>don't you think?
>
>But how about if a few strangers that happen to listen in? How about if you
>drew a crowd.
>
>What if you did this at a music festival but you weren't on the agenda?
>What if you were, but were doing this during your "off time"?
>
>What if you were on the agenda and performed the song on stage? What if
>there was an award for the winner?
>
>What if...
The law defines a public performance as one "at a place open to the public or
at any place where a substantial number of persons outside the normal circle of
a family and its social acquaintances is gathered". This seems to answer your
question nicely; the cutoff line would appear to be where you grew a crowd, if
it was considered "substantial". The other issues you mention - being on the
agenda or not, being paid or not, being on a stage or not, have absolutely no
bearing on the matter. However, if the performance takes place at an
establishment that regularly books music, it is they, not you, who are
responsible for obtaining permission - usually if not always done by purchasing
a blanket license fromn ASCAP and BMI.
Look, Robert, before you continue to go on about how vague everything is, and
how in your opinion this is OK while that is not, I'd strongly suggest you
actually read up on the subject; had you done so, you could have answered many
of your own questions, which you supposed were rhetoric and not answerable.
Hal Laurent
In article <53...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, mpel...@man104-1.ucsd.edu (Michael Pelz-Sherman) writes...
>
>-Country singer Billy Ray Cyrus of "Achy Brakey Heart" infamy
>refusing to let the Wherehouse chain of music retail outlets carry
>his albums because of the chain's practice of trading in used CD's.
>Apparently, Cyrus feels he should be given a cut of every transaction,
>even if the CD was already paid for legitimately once.
>
Wasn't it Garth Brooks? Perhaps they both did. I do agree that it's
lame, though.
Hal Laurent
Baltimore Maryland USA
Bwana Greg Nessinger
weeks to Wherehouse because they sell used CDs. BUT, he was quoted as saying
last year or the year before, that he didn't think anyone should pay 16.99 for
a CD, yet that is what his new CD is selling for.
Robert Mah
As you well know, making money has nothing to do with determination
of copyright violation. And of course, neither does ignorance.
I presented my example to demonstrate that there is no clear cut boundry
that delinates non-infringing "fair use" and infringing copyright violations.
It is a matter of judgement. I was trying to show that some people's
assertion that, because original transcriptions make use of existing
copyrighted material, it is "clearly in volation of copyright" may not hold.
Cheers,
Robert Mah
>1. A friend calls you on the phone, asks you if you know the chords
> to Louie, Louie, and you give him the names of the three chords.
>2. You are taking guitar lessons and the instructor shows you how to
> play Van Halen's "Eruption" solo (as s/he, the instructor, learned it
> from the record).
>3. After your instructor teaches you the solo that they figured out on
> their own, s/he writes the tab for the solo in your notebook.
According to some (like Matthew Fields), yes, these three would be in
violation of copyright law. I disagree and feel that they would not be
in violation. Note that in each of these examples the "music" is being
distributed in one form or another. The scale of distribution is
irrelevant.
>4. You buy a CD, play it, figure out the guitar parts on your own, and
> write down the tab notation so that you won't forget.
Most likely, since this is not considered "distribution" most people
wouldn't consider this a violation. But who knows.
>5. A friend comes to visit, sees the notation for the guitar parts that
> you figured out, and copies it for himself.
Again, some would say YES, this is a violation of the law. I think they
are extremist and absolutist in their interpretation of copyright law.
>6. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they saw Mr. X in concert
> using a capo on the fifth fret to play a certain song.
Not enough original content to be considered a violation.
>7. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they saw Mr. X in concert
> using a capo on the fifth fret AND using standard E, A, and D chords
> to play a certain song.
The courts have held that chord progressions cannot be copyrighted.
Therefore, not a violation.
>8. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they found an easier
> way to play a certain solo (easier than how they saw the original
> guitarist play it) and they post the tab of the easier way.
Again, many seem to feel that this would be a violation. I'd put this
under the catagory of "original transcription" and feel that this is not.
Robert Mah
>The only distinction here is that separate permissions must be obtained to
>produce sheet music (ie, a transcription) versus a recording of someone
>else's composition.
Thus, obviously, the copyrights are two seperate entities that must be
treated seperately.
This leads to the question of, why? I feel that law does not feel that
composition is equivalent to performance or recording. Thus, copyrights
on performance or recordings do not grant protection over _all_ forms of
composition of that performance. Otherwise, there would be no need for
this seperation of copyrights.
Robert Mah
>In article <25kfnh$i...@panix.com>, Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>>Yes, but my argument is that original transcriptions may not be
>>"transmissions" of the work in question.
>All they'll do in a court of law is play the two. You have to convince
>the jury that what you transmitted wasn't a rip-off of the original work.
So now your not only the prosecuting attorney, but also judge and jury
huh? Pre-deciding the issue at hand with blanket statements about a cases
outcome is not an argument supporting your position.
>Remove this protection, and when YOUR little band writes a tune,
>somebody will post THEIR transcription of it, Time-Life-Warner will
>snatch that up, and they'll issue a recording of somebody famous
>singing it. And you won't get diddly for it.
Again, I think your mixing up the performance and recording and original
transcriptions. Obviously, another group recording the same song would be
in volation of the original copyrights on the song. However, that is very
different from distributing one's own interpretations of how that song
should or might be played.
>Alert. Congress is considering selling USNet to the phone companies
>precisely to stop subsidizing this kind of criminal activity.
I assume you mean the so-called "privatization" of the NSFNet backbone.
That issue is, has and will be discussed in much depth on other
newsgroups. I haven't ever heard that stopping copyright violations was
one of the reasons behind the inniative.
Mike Healy
I think the whole point of this thread is that these are probably
indeed in violation of copyrights and might have to be eventually
removed, with perhaps further negative ramifications on sharing
information via usenet.
Mike Healy
Shannon Atkins
>>In article <25kfnh$i...@panix.com>, Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Yes, but my argument is that original transcriptions may not be
>>"transmissions" of the work in question.
>All they'll do in a court of law is play the two. You have to convince
>the jury that what you transmitted wasn't a rip-off of the original work.
Whoa! I thought it was innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution
should have to prove that what you transmitted *was* a rip-off. If
they can't do that, you don't have to prove the opposite.
S. Atkins
Matthew H. Fields
Shannon Atkins <sat...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>Whoa! I thought it was innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution
>should have to prove that what you transmitted *was* a rip-off. If
>they can't do that, you don't have to prove the opposite.
Good point. But if you post a message starting "Here is my chart for
Beat It", you've sort of lost the case from the start. And if you omit
the tag line, the jury may still buy it even if you have musicological
proof that yours is _different_, or that you had never heard the original.
Shannon Atkins
Knowing how easy it is to fake mail sources, I would think that the
really fun part would be proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I
ever actually transcribed something and distributed it over the net.
For instance, was it me, or did I leave my account logged on and somebody
used it to post some tab? Was it me, or did someone fake their source
as my account and post some tab? Was it me, or did someone hack my account
and post some tab? If some admins "staked out" my account before anything
happened they might be able to say I did it, but those kinds of records
can be falsified or hacked too I would imagine, and this kind of monitoring
would likely be after the fact anyway. Just seeing somebody's name on a
post or even their address does not mean it came from their account or
that they even posted it. Unless my account contents and transfers were
being monitored and recorded and kept long enough, proving that tab ever
actually came from my account would be impossible, and even then proving
that it was actually me who posted it would be impossible, unless there
exists some method of ASCII handwriting or fingerprint analysis. If
I post a message stating "Here is my chart for Beat It" and put your name
on it and fake the correct path, it will look like you did it. Maybe
we have not seen any suits because of the great difficulty involved in
proving one's guilt.
S. Atkins
Arthur Levine
I'm sure glad I never actually published my transcription of "House
Party Starting" by Herbie Nichols on the net. It's a tricky piece, and
I just wanted to share my enjoyment of it. Too bad. I sometimes think
the letter of the law has killed the spirit of many things.
I was teaching the tune "Tangerine" to a musicianship class last year.
I taught the tune be ear, without reference to notation at any point.
By the end of the class, the students could, of course, ahve
transcribed it, but that was immaterial to me. I also gave them a page
which contained a simple 3-voice arrangement of the changes -- but no
tune. We went through that, and even sang it with one of those
music-minus-one things. They loved the mediant modulation in it: F
major to A major and back. Fun to sing.
Now, would you say that any aspect of what I did was of dubious legality?
ONe reason for asking is that I may well do it again this year. I
would appreciate the feedback of the copyright-gurus and near-gurus.
Art Levine
ale...@epas.utoronto.ca
Robert J. Brown
I can't understand why most country artist even worry about it. I don't
think K-Mart or Wall Mart sell "used" CDs!
B**2
"Don't you smell my fart, my stinky, stinky fart..."
-My 4 year old doing his Billy Ray Cyrus impression-
Jason Zions
This leads to the question of, why? I feel that law does not feel that
composition is equivalent to performance or recording. Thus, copyrights
on performance or recordings do not grant protection over _all_ forms of
composition of that performance. Otherwise, there would be no need for
this seperation of copyrights.
Feelings aren't relevant to the law.
The reason for the existence of a performance copyright separate from a
composition copyright is that there is a many-to-one relationship; there can
be many copyrighted performances of a single copyrighted composition. If I
write a song but do not perform it, I can still copyright the composition.
If I perform a song, I had to have performed *something*; that *something*
is the composition, and the law and the courts hold that it is distinct from
the performance itself.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Personal beliefs about "the
way it ought to be" don't matter. Feel free to lobby your congresscritter,
but current copyright law in the US follows international agreements in this
area, which your Senator or Representative cannot change and will not
abrogate (after they finally changed US law to sync up).
Jason Zions
Jason Zions
I, for one, would certainly not want to deprive hard working musicians
and songwriters of any royalties due to them. With that said, does anyone
know if the following are legal:
1. A friend calls you on the phone, asks you if you know the chords
to Louie, Louie, and you give him the names of the three chords.
Chord progressions are not copyrightable. There is explicit case law to back
this up.
2. You are taking guitar lessons and the instructor shows you how to
play Van Halen's "Eruption" solo (as s/he, the instructor, learned it
from the record).
Almost certainly permissable under the "fair-use" doctrine which allows
limited copying of copyrighted material for purposes of scholarship and
teaching.
3. After your instructor teaches you the solo that they figured out on
their own, s/he writes the tab for the solo in your notebook.
Also fair-use. If the entire song or album goes down on the page, on the
other hand, your instructor may have gone too far. This is no different than
if the instructor had purchased a (legal) book of Van Halen transcriptions
and photocopied a page for you to study: fair use.
4. You buy a CD, play it, figure out the guitar parts on your own, and
write down the tab notation so that you won't forget.
Still strikes me as fair use; scholarship and all that.
5. A friend comes to visit, sees the notation for the guitar parts that
you figured out, and copies it for himself.
I'm uncomfortable with this one; there's no teaching going on here, and I
don't see any other way the fair-use doctrine applies. Now, if your friend
merely copied down the chord and not the exact fingerings - chord
progressions are safe. Yeah, I know, this is pretty nit-pickish, but the law
gets that way.
6. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they saw Mr. X in concert
using a capo on the fifth fret to play a certain song.
Too small; the law does not take notice of trifles. (I wish I remember the
latin expression for that...)
7. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they saw Mr. X in concert
using a capo on the fifth fret AND using standard E, A, and D chords
to play a certain song.
Still shouldn't be a problem.
8. Someone posts a note on the net saying that they found an easier
way to play a certain solo (easier than how they saw the original
guitarist play it) and they post the tab of the easier way.
The melody is still protected; if the posting is more than just chords and
contains specific sequences of notes within those chords, particular chord
voicings - you may be too close.
I am not a lawyer; I have studied this aspect of the law to a greater degree
than many laymen, but I am still a layman myself. See an attorney (i.e. a
dues-paying member of the shysters' union).
Jason
Jason Zions
However, in my opinion, creating an original transcription is more like
fully evaluating a piece of software, then writing your own version and
releasing the source code to the public domain. Most of the legal
community feels that this process is legal.
Non-parallel metaphor; the cases are not the same.
People do not buy software because of the particular pattern of bits on the
disk; they buy it because of its function. The particular pattern of
instructions is copyrighted; the functions they perform are not (modulo the
current Lotus 1-2-3 macro debacle). If you clone the software, you duplicate
the function of the original work without duplicating its expression.
What's the function of a piece of music? The emotions or images it evokes in
the listener? The fact that it evokes those emotions or images by using a
particular set of chords? A cloner may indeed duplicate that function
without infringing any copyrights. But the notes, *however expressed*,
either played or writen down, are part of the protected material; you may
not duplicate them, however expressed, without infringing copyright.
Jason
Ken Higginson
I see this type of argument a lot on the Internet, I thought I'd add my
two cents.
Legal or not, I copy music for myself. In fact, I spent $2.60 at the
local Kinko's copy center and copied an entire music book a few days ago.
I'm aware that it's not perfectly legal, but I feel what I do is pretty
harmless. I like to collect bootlegs of my favorite bands, which might be
against the law, but until Atlantic put out some decent live Dream Theater
stuff, I'll have to settle for the bootlegs.
As for music, I'm not selling the copies I make, it just doesn't make
sense to pay $18.00 for a book my friend bought, when I can copy it for $3.00.
There are people who are sticklers about this, who will say I'm breaking
the law, sinning, going to burn in hell, whatever... I'm not interested.
I know that if people were copying my stuff, bootlegging what I play, the
only restriction I'd place is that I get a copy of it. If bands are
writing music, putting out records, touring, and eventually getting their
music in books/magazines for other people to look at, I would think the
music is the issue, not the money.
I don't play to be rich, I play to make music. If people want to copy it
and share it with others, fine with me. Hell, you can use my tape deck.
--
___ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ Every day sends future to past
| \ | > |_ /\ |\/| | |_||_ /\ | |_ | > Every breath leaves me one
_|_/ | \ |_ / \ | | | | ||_ / \ | |_ | \ less to my last...
Lindon Parker
[lots of stuff deleted..]
>Not necessarily; as I've oberserved elsewhere, tablature may or may not be
>considered derivative. The courts seem to have an obsession with melody and
>lyrics as the identifying traits of a copyrighted work; mere chord progressions
>have specifically been ruled not copyrightable. Tabs may fall into a grey
>area.
Well, very interesting. It appears three things have emerged:
1) Copyright law has no clearly defined boundaries as much of it is down to a court-room interpretation..
2) Publishing Tab may or may not get you into trouble one day soon or never, it really (probably) depends on who owns the original "stuff" and what they would get from seeing you in court.
3) The Internet as a medium is covered by the law, but it appears no one has really tested out a case involving its usage(maybe because of a previous post about proving who really did the *dirty* deed).
I guess we can all sit on our hands and wait to see what happens, posting nothing to no one in order to be on the conservative safe side, or we can keep doing this TAB/CRD/LYRICS stuff and watch for the rumblings of discontent.
I will keep posting myself, if for no other reason than you if take a look in alt.binaries.sounds.music you would see whole songs/arrangement/sounds being posted in MOD and MID formats that are identified as the work of well known artists. This is definately melody[the stuff the courts appear to be obsessed by], if not lyrics so you'd realise that these guys are probably gonna get it first in any lawsuit....
sounds a bit mercennary I know, but IF it EVER happens I'd gladly contribute to their defence fund.
Lindon.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I am my employer so his opinions are the same, my clients however only pay to hear my opinions not to have me express theirs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kosovsky
>If making transcriptions available is a violation of copyrights, why are
>there archive sites with lyrics and tablature available? In fact, why are
>there tablature groups at all? Both of these seem to be clear copyright
>violations according to some posters. Yet, we not only have these
>but audio and video clips of copyrighted material. So, it seems to me,
>that we have ample precedent for the kind of action the original poster
>was suggesting.
1. To clarify: making transcriptions of "copyrighted" material is
problematic - not making transcriptions of public domain material.
2. Some day, music publishers (not to mention software makers) will
discover there are these archives containing some copyrighted material --
I would not be surprised if one day an organization files suit against
a university for having such an archive - in which case the organization
will probably bring a lawsuit of several million dollars. On that day,
I assure you, the procedures for ftp archives will greatly change!
3. Just because a majority of people break the law does not make it
legal to do so.
If you respect the laws (well, many of them at least) upon which societies
run, you would do yourself a favor by checking into the ownship problem,
and if necessary, getting the necessary permissions.
Bob Kosovsky
Graduate Center -- Ph.D. Program in Music(student)/ City University of New York
Internet: k...@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu Bitnet: k...@cunyvms1.bitnet
Music Division -- New York Public Library
Internet: koso...@nyplgate.nypl.edu
Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions.
Shannon Atkins
>Feelings aren't relevant to the law.
>You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Personal beliefs about "the
>way it ought to be" don't matter.
Bull. Beliefs write the law, beliefs interpret the law, and beliefs
change the law. Feelings and personal beliefs are the reason for law.
The group holding power arbitrarily creates laws and repeals laws
according to its beliefs and feelings. Power shifts, feelings change,
and the laws follow suit. If the whole U.S.A. woke up tomorrow and
decided that, say, abortion was totally unconscionable, how long do you
think that these beliefs would be irrelevant to the law? The laws on
the books regarding race issues like slavery, segregation, discrimination,
etc., certainly have changed, and the changing attitudes of the majority
in this country are the reason. Feelings and beliefs do matter.
S. Atkins
Marc Sabatella
> As for music, I'm not selling the copies I make, it just doesn't make
> sense to pay $18.00 for a book my friend bought, when I can copy it for $3.00.
Doesn't make sense to you. But it makes a lot of sense to someone trying to
make a living from that book.
> I don't play to be rich, I play to make music. If people want to copy it
> and share it with others, fine with me. Hell, you can use my tape deck.
However, some people do play and write music for a living - or at least, they
might be able to, if it weren't for people like you shamelessly stealing from
them. How dare you decide that since you don't mind people stealing from you,
it must be OK to steal from others.
Andrew Ford
> In article r...@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com, ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>
> [lots of stuff deleted..]
>
> >Not necessarily; as I've oberserved elsewhere, tablature may or may not be
> >considered derivative. The courts seem to have an obsession with melody and
> >lyrics as the identifying traits of a copyrighted work; mere chord progressions
> >have specifically been ruled not copyrightable. Tabs may fall into a grey
> >area.
>
> Well, very interesting. It appears three things have emerged:
>
> 1) Copyright law has no clearly defined boundaries as much of it is down to a court-room interpretation..
>
copyright holder to notify the infringer and demand that he cease and desist
(Playboy sued a bbs a couple years back, and I also remember discussions
that Playboy did write a letter to the bbs.)
You've not talked about fair use doctrine -- probably because you're not
from the US (as far as I can tell from your mail address above). But
fair use is what allows libraries to provide public copiers, and the users
be liable if they make multiple copies or copy entire books.
Basically, fair uses entitles a person to make a single copy of portions of
a work for personal research. A portion can be an entire chapter, an entire
article from a magazine, or, IMO, an entire song.
The question then becomes "what's the purpose of a MTE?" IMO, to assist
each other in researching how to play various songs would be legal.
For what it's worth, when nevada removes it's tab & chord directories
"because of legal problems," I'll refuse to post tab/chords. Until then,
nevada has deeper pockets than me, provides many more songs than me, and is
much more visible than me. If someone feels that posting tab/chords
violates his copyright, I'm fairly certain that nevada (and other ftp sites)
will be the first named in any suit.
Note that nevada has been doing this for quite a few years and nobody's
complained yet.
As a practical matter, there are two reasons for a copyright holder to sue:
(1) What you're doing is reducing their revenues (nobody needs that
explained).
(2) Failure to act on their part might put them at risk of losing their
copyright. (Basically, US courts have oft interpreted actions as carrying
legal weight. IE: I write songs. I post said songs to a.g.t. Joe takes my
songs and makes hits of them. If I do this repeatedly over a few years, I
cannot go back and sue Joe for copyright infringement because my actions
implied consent for him to perform my songs. To avoid this, I'd have to
write Joe immediately when I first noted the infringement, and then sue him
if he did not comply.)
I see nothing happening here that would produce either of (1) or (2) above.
--
Most people seem to think that trampling individual rights is OK if it is
"for the good of society as a whole." However, society is but a large number
of individuals, and how can harming the individual parts better the whole?
- Andrew Ford -- fo...@agcs.com -- (a strong INFP [>75% in all 4])
Gary Paisley
> khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Higginson) writes
>Legal or not, I copy music for myself. In fact, I spent $2.60 at the
>local Kinko's copy center and copied an entire music book a few days ago.
Real soon now we should be seeing this information reported in
the "News of the Weird" column, least_competent_criminals section.
Apparently , you haven't figured out that posting to the net your humble confession,
and those of you out there posting tab with your return addresses is admissable
evidence. Tell us, do have lawyers on retainer or what ?
g.
Marc Sabatella
> >The only distinction here is that separate permissions must be obtained to
> >produce sheet music (ie, a transcription) versus a recording of someone
> >else's composition.
> Thus, obviously, the copyrights are two seperate entities that must be
> treated seperately.
I will accept that there is some alternate reality in which your conclusion
follows from what I said.
It is not, however, the reality in which US law resides.
If I want to prevent you from making a transcription of my composition and
simulataneously prevent you from recording that composition, there is only
one copyright I need. I need only only one copyright form to register this
copyright, and I need pay only one registration fee to process that form. If
you wish to persist in calling these two separate copyrights, that is your
right, I suppose, but in every way recognized by US law, there is only one
copyright involved here.
Matthew H. Fields
Marc Sabatella <ma...@sde.hp.com> wrote:
<If I want to prevent you from making a transcription of my composition and
<simulataneously prevent you from recording that composition, there is only
<one copyright I need. I need only only one copyright form to register this
<copyright, and I need pay only one registration fee to process that form. If
<you wish to persist in calling these two separate copyrights, that is your
<right, I suppose, but in every way recognized by US law, there is only one
<copyright involved here.
Better than that, Marc. You don't need any forms or registration
fees. Nor a notice of copyright. Unless you want to sue. But since
'78 the US has been a signatory and ratifier of the Berne Convention,
and copyright exists from the moment the work is fixed in a physical
medium. And not just in the US.
Randolph B. Guess
me if I'm bringing up an old topic.
Are the songs at the nevada archive considered official transcriptions,
because I seem to remember seeing a couple of tabs or chord progressions
What is process for having something accepted there? It seems like
any submission that wasn't an exact replica of the actual written
music would be free from any copyright violations.
-Randy
Marc Sabatella
> It seems like
> any submission that wasn't an exact replica of the actual written
> music would be free from any copyright violations.
No, as long as it is recognizable by the courts as a "derivative work", it is a
violation. This generally ends up meaning you can't re-use the melody or
lyrics, but are free to transcribe chord progressions.
Ken Higginson
>Ken Higginson (khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>
>> As for music, I'm not selling the copies I make, it just doesn't make
>> sense to pay $18.00 for a book my friend bought, when I can copy it for $3.00.
>
>Doesn't make sense to you. But it makes a lot of sense to someone trying to
>make a living from that book.
They aren't making much of a living from one book.
I'm not talking about copying books on a global scale. What I, and most
other people do, is just copy stuff occasionally.
>> I don't play to be rich, I play to make music. If people want to copy it
>> and share it with others, fine with me. Hell, you can use my tape deck.
>
>However, some people do play and write music for a living - or at least, they
>might be able to, if it weren't for people like you shamelessly stealing from
>them. How dare you decide that since you don't mind people stealing from you,
>it must be OK to steal from others.
Make a living and be rich are different things. Is the issue here music,
or money? I thought most musicians were above griping about the 30 cents
lost when someone copies a CD and gives it to a friend.
Oh well, I'll never be able to convince you it's right, because it's not.
However, it doesn't bother me that I do it, and I know lots of people in
bands who feel the same way. I wish I could comply with every law and
feel superior to those who don't, but I'm just a regular guy, so I can't.
Ken Higginson
Hahaha... Please... I'm sure execs from Atlantic records are on the
Internet looking for the people who stole their $2.00...
mathias thallmayer
: Ken Higginson (khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
________________________________
At $18 I'd say we're the one being ripped off! This is more than the
price of a CD! And what do we get for our money? Most likely, a piano
reduction with vocal, and not even accurate. And how much does the
composer get? Twenty-five cents, fifty cents, maybe a dollar? The rest
of that money goes into the pockets of middle-men. I went to a concert
tonight and they were selling t-shirts. How much? $25!! A ticket in
the upper reaches of the balcony cost me $28 plus $5 for parking on
a grass lawn. And the sound quality wasn't good and they had lights
pointing right into my eyes.
I wouldn't mind paying an equitable price for a quality transcription.
I wouldn't mind, on occasion, paying more for a quality transcription
of something I REALLY wanted. But, you can't get either quality or
a fair price nowadays. The music business is a greed based, money making
machine, with virtually no concern for the consumer and no desire to
make good products.
It seems to me that a piece of music is made available for public
consumption, then the composer/publisher has a responsiblity to make
available a score for study and performance. If the music industry
does not wish to sell us the information that we need to develop as
artists, then we must acquire this information on our own.
--
Mathias
Marc Sabatella
> >> As for music, I'm not selling the copies I make, it just doesn't make
> >> sense to pay $18.00 for a book my friend bought, when I can copy it for $3.00.
> >
> >Doesn't make sense to you. But it makes a lot of sense to someone trying to
> >make a living from that book.
> They aren't making much of a living from one book.
Especially not with you stealing copies of it.
I am not arguing that one person making one copy of a book is making anyone
broke. But if there were no laws against it, and everyone made copies, it
would be completely impossible for an author to make a living, or even recoup
the expenses of producing the book. So we need copyright law, or there would
be very few people willing to write books.
> I'm not talking about copying books on a global scale. What I, and most
> other people do, is just copy stuff occasionally.
This is not unlike saying "I'm not talking about committing armed robbery on
a global scale. What I, and most other people do, is just steal an occassional
candy bar".
> I wish I could comply with every law and
> feel superior to those who don't, but I'm just a regular guy, so I can't.
This is priceless. How does being a "regular" guy prevent you from obeying the
law?
Mike Healy
>
>Oh well, I'll never be able to convince you it's right, because it's not.
>However, it doesn't bother me that I do it, and I know lots of people in
>bands who feel the same way. I wish I could comply with every law and
>feel superior to those who don't, but I'm just a regular guy, so I can't.
>
And what is your position on software piracy, by the way?
(this argument sounds depressingly familiar).
Mike Healy
Michael Czeiszperger - Sun NC Development Center
!Randolph B. Guess (rgu...@lonestar.utsa.edu) wrote:
!
!> It seems like
!> any submission that wasn't an exact replica of the actual written
!> music would be free from any copyright violations.
!
!No, as long as it is recognizable by the courts as a "derivative work", it is a
!violation. This generally ends up meaning you can't re-use the melody or
!lyrics, but are free to transcribe chord progressions.
!
I'm not sure if it is covered by copyright, but I believe that other aspects
of music are also covered. For instance, there was the case where a company
wanted to use a famous singer's voice for a commercial, she refused, and the
company hired a singer of the street to imitate the famous singer's voice.
The famous singer sued and won, I believe, on the grounds that her voice
and singing style were her's alone to control, not in the public domain.
I believe it was Bette Midler, but I'm not sure.
---
Michael Czeiszperger | "I refuse on principal to work for
Audio Software, Sun Microsystems | organized crime, companies that make
cz...@sunpix.east.sun.com | products which kill people, and companies
(919) 460-8369 | that require blood or urine tests."
Jason Zions
>Feelings aren't relevant to the law.
>You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Personal beliefs about "the
>way it ought to be" don't matter.
Bull. Beliefs write the law, beliefs interpret the law, and beliefs
change the law. Feelings and personal beliefs are the reason for law.
Etc. Quite true. But not the point.
My point was this: how you feel about the law on a given day doesn't affect
what the law actually *is* on that day; same for your belief about what the
law means or how it is interpreted.
Your point is that over time people's feelings and beliefs change laws, so
that on day now-plus-3-years the law might become more in accord with your
feelings and beliefs on day now.
Jason
Matthew H. Fields
Jason Zions <ja...@jazz.hal.com> wrote:
>My point was this: how you feel about the law on a given day doesn't affect
>what the law actually *is* on that day; same for your belief about what the
>law means or how it is interpreted.
and
My point as this: If I discover somebody out there distributing any of
my compositions for free or for charge without my permission, I will consider
my options. On the other hand, my "gems" series of articles is clearly marked
"copy freely", in its current form, and would only become the source of
problems if somebody were to distribute it for pay---because I explicitly
said so all over the articles themselves, not because of any magical
legal precedent.
Jennifer L. Archie
I'm looking for information on Cypress Records and specifically on one of
their groups, Tower of Power. The Tower of Power CD that I'm interested in
obtaining (Power) was recorded under Cypress, but they went bust some time
ago.
I would like to know if anyone could tell me if the company simply
disappeared or if they were taken over by another record company. If taken
over by another, I could perhaps write to that company to get the CD, if
not I'll have to try to track it down through the used record shops.
Thanks for any information.
jennifer archie COLORADO STATE UNIV. : je...@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
--
jennifer archie COLORADO STATE UNIV. : je...@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. These are only my opinions. If you thought
that they belonged to anyone else, you're gravely mistaken...
Robert Mah
> I'm not sure if it is covered by copyright, but I believe that other
> aspects of music are also covered. For instance, there was the case
> where a company wanted to use a famous singer's voice for a commercial,
> she refused, and the company hired a singer of the street to imitate the
> famous singer's voice. The famous singer sued and won, I believe, on the
> grounds that her voice and singing style were her's alone to control,
> not in the public domain. I believe it was Bette Midler, but I'm not sure.
Am I the only one who thinks the above is an example of the law (or
courts) gone astray? She won! So now, there's a legal precident that
no one can sing like Bette? What next? Will Clapton patent his "slow
hand" feel? Will Wynton be able to keep that tight trumpet sound to
himself? Will David Letterman be able to protect his goofy, tooth-gap,
smile?
P.S. the above is sort of a joke as the case was probably about the
contract and not some sort of copyright/trademark issue. Either that
or the judge should be hanged!
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Thomas Ford Brown
In article <262o8m$g...@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> cz...@bartok.East.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I'm not sure if it is covered by copyright, but I believe that other aspects
>of music are also covered. For instance, there was the case where a company
>wanted to use a famous singer's voice for a commercial, she refused, and the
>company hired a singer of the street to imitate the famous singer's voice.
>The famous singer sued and won, I believe, on the grounds that her voice
>and singing style were her's alone to control, not in the public domain.
>I believe it was Bette Midler, but I'm not sure.
>
Roberto Sierra
: Am I the only one who thinks the above is an example of the law (or
: courts) gone astray? She won! So now, there's a legal precident that
: no one can sing like Bette? What next? Will Clapton patent his "slow
: hand" feel? Will Wynton be able to keep that tight trumpet sound to
: himself? Will David Letterman be able to protect his goofy, tooth-gap,
: smile?
Actually, I think Alfred E. Newman holds the world patent rights to the
goofy, tooth-gap smile, so David Letterman better not make too much noise
about holding any rights of his own. :-)
Seriously, copyright law is an attempt to define bounds for behaviour, and
while the strict letter of the law might dictate that ridiculous suits might
be won, by in large the courts do a pretty good job in protecting peoples
rights to be paid for services rendered to the community at large, don't
you think? I can't comment on whether or not the Bette Midler suit had
obvious merit -- there may be details that were crucial in the matter,
like how Bette was approached originally, etc.
--
\\|// | "Due to the earthquake in the area you
- - | are calling, your call cannot be
o o | completed." -- N.E. Telephone, 10/89
J roberto sierra |
O tempered microdesigns | NOTICE:
\_/ san francisco, calif. | All the ideas and opinions expressed
be...@netcom.com | herein are not those of the author.
Tom Parker
>Hello everyone,
>
>I'm looking for information on Cypress Records and specifically on one of
>their groups, Tower of Power. The Tower of Power CD that I'm interested in
>obtaining (Power) was recorded under Cypress, but they went bust some time
>ago.
Not sure if this will help any, but here is the address I have for
Cypress:
CYPRESS RECORDS
C/O POLYGRAM RECORDS, INC.
825 8TH AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10019
(212) 333-8000
-- Tom
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tom Parker | National Center for Atmospheric Research |
| tpa...@ncar.ucar.edu | (303) 497-1227 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
David A. Roth
In article <25keui$i...@panix.com> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.compose,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
> da...@roth-music.com (David A. Roth) writes:
>
> >Setting up a database to make available copyrighted works available
> >without permission is copyright infringement. Period.
>
> Agreed. But that's not what we're discussing. The question at hand is:
>
> Are original transcriptions of copyrighted songs a violation of the
> copyright on the song. Are they a violation of the copyright on the sheet
> music for that song?
If I copied by hand the source code to UNIX off the screen and then
typed it back in this is still copyright infringement. It doesn't
make any difference what method is used.
>
>
> >You should contact the Copyright Office in DC and request a free copy
> >of Title 17. What you are commenting on is not the current state of
> >the copyright law.
>
> When I said "commenting on the current state" I meant that I was
> expressing my point of view on this above issue. I feel that the issue is
> not clear cut.
You are entitled to feel however you like about it but the copyright
laws over this which is why I suggested getting a free copy of Title
17.
>
> For example...
>
> >Perhaps the bitheads on the net will understand this better...this is
> >*NO* different than taking copyrighted software sold by your company and
> >people giving away illegal pirated copies.
>
> No. If one sampled a song and gave it away. That would be the same. If
> one scanned in sheet music (or even typed it in) and gave that away, that
> would be the same.
The copyright of the composition and the copyright of the recording
are both covered. Either way, distribution of copyrighted works without
permission is infringement.
>
> However, in my opinion, creating an original transcription is more like
> fully evaluating a piece of software, then writing your own version and
> releasing the source code to the public domain.
Besides having laws to protect people from these kinds of "opinions",
my opinion is that you don't understand what the creation of a musicial
work is. What you are suggesting in the music world is also called
stealing. If you listen to rock music and compose an original work
in that style, this is your own creation. If you are merely transcribing
it and calling it your own it is doubtful any sane person would consider
this your own original work.
> Most of the legal
> community feels that this process is legal.
None belonging to the Bar that is. :-)
David
David A. Roth
In article <25khaq$i...@panix.com> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.compose,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>
> For example...
>
> It is clearly not a copyright voiolation to hum a copyrighted song to
> yourself. Or even to sing it. Even with musical accompanyment.
>
> Most would agree that performing the song for a few friends in the privacy
> of one's own home is also not in violation. Even in the park would be OK,
> don't you think?
It's very clear. The keywords are "public performance".
>
> But how about if a few strangers that happen to listen in? How about if you
> drew a crowd.
>
> What if you did this at a music festival but you weren't on the agenda?
> What if you were, but were doing this during your "off time"?
If a blanket license is issued from BMI and ASCAP and the management
of the festival pay into the fee to these performance organzations
then this is not a problem.
>
> What if you were on the agenda and performed the song on stage? What if
> there was an award for the winner?
If a blanket license is issued from BMI and ASCAP and the management
of the festival pay into the fee to these performance organzations
then this is not a problem.
>
> What if...
What if you actually obtained some facts. There are dozens of sources
that cover all of this.
>
> I think you get my point. There is a wide variety of situations where
> even something as seemingly simple as copyright of musical performances
> may or may not apply. It is obvious that a major performer that regularly
> performs a cover on a tour should not only give credit, but also pay
> royalties. However there are other areas that are not quite as clear.
Again, if you read music business books, etc. you would know that
what copyright is and how this is different from a performance society.
To simply throw up your hands saying this is all too complex because
you don't want to spend time finding out leads to these
incorrect set of assumptions about how it all works.
David
Robert Mah
>rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
>>
>> Are original transcriptions of copyrighted songs a violation of the
>> copyright on the song. Are they a violation of the copyright on the
>> sheet music for that song?
>If I copied by hand the source code to UNIX off the screen and then
>typed it back in this is still copyright infringement. It doesn't
>make any difference what method is used.
Sigh. Your example is obviously flawed. Can't you see that? The
equivalent would be copying the published sheet music and posting that.
No one here is argueing that that wouldn't be copyright infringement.
To twist your example in support of my side: It is legal to examine how a
UNIX system works, and without looking at the original source, writing your
own.
To me this seems somewhat analogous to listening to music, and creating
your own transcription. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to
me that it more closely parallels the situation than your analogy.
Shannon Atkins
>My point was this: how you feel about the law on a given day doesn't affect
>what the law actually *is* on that day; same for your belief about what the
>law means or how it is interpreted.
Assuming I am not a Supreme Court Justice, this is true.
( of course, I am NOT a SCJ, ;) )
>Your point is that over time people's feelings and beliefs change laws, so
>that on day now-plus-3-years the law might become more in accord with your
>feelings and beliefs on day now.
It all depends on the time frame under examination, doesn't it. How
people feel over the course of a millenia or over the course of a few
hours on jury duty may have different impacts, but feelings *are*
relevant to the law, since the application and interpretation of laws
hinges on the beliefs of people. Average joes like myself would have
to band together and overthrow the government to change the law in the
instantaneous sense, where judges in certain cases can make decisions
that change the law immediately ( although implementation may be slow )
without having a revolution. How quickly and greatly a person's feelings
impact the law depends on who they are and how they want to make the
change.
S. Atkins
Matthew H. Fields
>Sigh. Your example is obviously flawed. Can't you see that? The
>equivalent would be copying the published sheet music and posting that.
>No one here is argueing that that wouldn't be copyright infringement.
>
>To twist your example in support of my side: It is legal to examine how a
>UNIX system works, and without looking at the original source, writing your
>own.
>
>To me this seems somewhat analogous to listening to music, and creating
>your own transcription. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to
>me that it more closely parallels the situation than your analogy.
The flaw in that is that for anyone with musical training, the "source
code" (i.e. score) of most works is manifest in the end product. The
MUSIC is copyrighted, not the feelings the listeners are thought to
go through in response to it. The copyrighted MUSIC is stolen when
a transcription is distributed free without permission. That's law,
and it's common sense.
If Karen Finley reads her new taunt on TV and I transcribe it and
distribute it free, I may not have access to the "source code" that she
read from, but pretty much everybody agrees that my transcription
embodies the original, not some creation of mine, even though I went
through all the work of re-notating it in English, spelling it perhaps
using British spellings instead of American, and exercising all the
learning I went through to be able to notate English.
I've been taking part in a 12-way tape round-robin, and so far I haven't
heard a piece that I couldn't describe in notation such that any arse
could see that I was merely showing how to perform somebody else's creative
work (bad singers' diction aside). If there are others for whom transcription
is more of a chore, that doesn't make their work more original or less
subject to my saying that they need permission to use others' creative
work. To say that it does to me merely means that I should be able to
post Finley and Woody Allen and Erma Bombeck etc. etc. freely, because I
can always claim to be illiterate, and thus claim that my transcription is
an original creation. What bunk.
David Elliott
>other people do, is just copy stuff occasionally.
Is it OK if I only "occasionally" break into peoples' houses and
steal stuff?
--
David Elliott - d...@netcom.com - (408)735-8362
Michael Pelz-Sherman
article entitled "Computer Programs and Copyright's Fair Use
Doctrine" which adresses many of these issues in respect to computer
software. I heartily recommend it as food for thought to those
interested in these issues.
-Michael
Robert Mah
> Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>To twist your example in support of my side: It is legal to examine how a
>>UNIX system works, and without looking at the original source, writing your
>>own.
>>
>>To me this seems somewhat analogous to listening to music, and creating
>>your own transcription. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to
>>me that it more closely parallels the situation than your analogy.
>The flaw in that is that for anyone with musical training, the "source
>code" (i.e. score) of most works is manifest in the end product.
[ the rest, seemingly about misrrepresentation, deleted ]
Funny, I always thougth that those two things called "skill" and "talent"
had something to do with music.
On a more serious note, I was giving this issue some thought and looking
for parallels in current copyright law. As I recall, there was a court
case a few years ago where the courts ruled copying articles and sections
of books for use in student bulk packs was considered "fair use". And,
since the transcriptions we are discussing would be used primarily by
people to learn songs and techniques, might that precident be used to
establish such transcriptions as "fair use"? Or would this hold only if
portions of a song's score were distributed?
Matthew H. Fields
In article <265uh3$j...@panix.com<, Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com< wrote:
<fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
<
<< Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com< wrote:
<<<
<<<To twist your example in support of my side: It is legal to examine how a
<<<UNIX system works, and without looking at the original source, writing your
<<<own.
<<<
<<<To me this seems somewhat analogous to listening to music, and creating
<<<your own transcription. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to
<<<me that it more closely parallels the situation than your analogy.
<
<<The flaw in that is that for anyone with musical training, the "source
<<code" (i.e. score) of most works is manifest in the end product.
<
<had something to do with music.
[indications that this was intended lightheartedly deleted]
And do you deny that the original creator of the score exercised the
"skill", "talent", and "creative labor" that creates the "identity of
the composition"? If so, this would be the "point of contention"
between "Robert Mah" and "many composers". It would also be the
"point of contention" between "Robert Mah" and "international and
national law".
<On a more serious note, I was giving this issue some thought and looking
<for parallels in current copyright law.
Protection of musical composition is explicitly described in the copyright
and needs no analysis by parallel to other things, actually.
James Jones
>In article <262o8m$g...@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> cz...@bartok.East.Sun.COM writes:
>>The famous singer sued and won, I believe, on the grounds that her voice
>>and singing style were her's alone to control, not in the public domain.
>>I believe it was Bette Midler, but I'm not sure.
>>
>Right. Happened to Tom Waits also.
I wonder how broad such claims are...could Jim Dandy Mangrum take Tom Waits
to court and win?
James Jones
Robert Mah
I am starting to get really tired of your beligerant and condesending
attitude. I have tried to be forethright and attempted to calmly present
my views without direct reference to other individuals. While I know you
disagree with me, that is no excuse for, or benefit in, constantly insulting
and belittling myself and others who happen to disagree with your viewpoint.
I ask that you take a little time out before posting to reflect on the
tone of your replies. Your personal feelings towards others is your own
business, but you might want to consider exersizing some restraint when
addressing a public forum.
Ken Higginson
>In article <1993Sep1.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Higginson) writes:
>>I'm not talking about copying books on a global scale. What I, and most
>>other people do, is just copy stuff occasionally.
>
>Is it OK if I only "occasionally" break into peoples' houses and
>steal stuff?
Stay in the real world... totally different situation.
Eddie Edwards
: There are people who are sticklers about this, who will say I'm breaking
: the law, sinning, going to burn in hell, whatever... I'm not interested.
: I know that if people were copying my stuff, bootlegging what I play, the
: only restriction I'd place is that I get a copy of it. If bands are
: writing music, putting out records, touring, and eventually getting their
: music in books/magazines for other people to look at, I would think the
: music is the issue, not the money.
Have you ever spent three weeks recording a demo, duplicated it yourself,
sold it at cost price, only to discover someone's ripping you of by
copying the thing themself instead of buying it??? The money may not be
the issue (I agree) but until recording studios start giving out free
sessions I think paying for what you listen to is fair (I'm not talking
about record companies here, btw, who may or may not rip us all off).
: I don't play to be rich, I play to make music. If people want to copy it
: and share it with others, fine with me. Hell, you can use my tape deck.
If you have a twenty-four track, I'd love to.
Eddie xxx
Trond J. Stroem
> To Matthew Fields:
[letter deleted]
> Rob
To Rob, Matthew and all the other merry men in this thread:
While this subject is interesting, this is getting a bit out of hand - at
least what this newsgroup is conserned (check your crosspostings!).
How about creating your own newsgroup for this: I feel
*alt.guitar.tabs.are.they.copyright.violations.flames* would be an
appropriate name...
:->
--
Trond J. Stroem t.j.s...@ub.uio.no
Russell Kent
Keywords:
As above really, any song tab/lyrics by them.
Please post them either directly to me or to the group as I don't have ftp access
Thanks in advance,
Russ.......
Matthew H. Fields
unrelenting public statements that composers should not be asked
permission before their work is freely distributed because he
apparently feels that they don't own their work and he believes such
activities are for the greater good.
For this unseasonable outburst of sarcasm in which I publically
responded to him, naming him by name for his tireless efforts against
the legal protection of composers and other dangerous oppressive
ruffians, I hereby publically apologize.
And to meta-apologize, sorry if that wasn't quite what you wanted.
Marc Sabatella
> As I recall, there was a court
> case a few years ago where the courts ruled copying articles and sections
> of books for use in student bulk packs was considered "fair use". And,
> since the transcriptions we are discussing would be used primarily by
> people to learn songs and techniques, might that precident be used to
> establish such transcriptions as "fair use"? Or would this hold only if
> portions of a song's score were distributed?
Bingo. For educational purposes, you may make one copy copy per student of up
to 10% of a composition for class study, as long as that does not constitute
a performable unit. This kind of begs the question; what exactly is a
"performable unit", and what exactly is the composition - is it the full
score, or just the melody and lyrics? This has been defined through precedent,
though, and the answer is still unequivocably that a song transcription that
includes the melody and/or lyrics is a violation.
--
Marc Sabatella
ma...@fc.sde.hp.com
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Lazlo Nibble
> On a more serious note, I was giving this issue some thought and looking
> for parallels in current copyright law. As I recall, there was a court
> case a few years ago where the courts ruled copying articles and
> sections of books for use in student bulk packs was considered "fair
> use".
You recall incorrectly -- the decision was in fact precisely the opposite.
I'm sure your local Kinko's would be happy to confirm this for you.
I've been following this thread for a while and you as someone with a more
than passing familiarity with copyright, I can assure you that the service
as proposed *would* violate copyright law.
--
Lazlo (la...@unm.edu)
David Elliott
>Ken Higginson (khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>
>: There are people who are sticklers about this, who will say I'm breaking
>: the law, sinning, going to burn in hell, whatever... I'm not interested.
>: I know that if people were copying my stuff, bootlegging what I play, the
>: only restriction I'd place is that I get a copy of it. If bands are
>: writing music, putting out records, touring, and eventually getting their
>: music in books/magazines for other people to look at, I would think the
>: music is the issue, not the money.
>
>Have you ever spent three weeks recording a demo, duplicated it yourself,
>sold it at cost price, only to discover someone's ripping you of by
>copying the thing themself instead of buying it??? The money may not be
>the issue (I agree) but until recording studios start giving out free
>sessions I think paying for what you listen to is fair (I'm not talking
>about record companies here, btw, who may or may not rip us all off).
Maybe I'm confused here, but why isn't money the issue?
The music business is a business. People do it to make money so
they can *live*.
As I understand it, being a professional musician is a bit like being
a professional athlete. There is a limit to the time you will be able
to make enough money to live on *and* save for the future.
There are touring musicians that have to work day jobs between tours.
How many of them do you think appreciate finding their music being
given away?
Music for the sake of music isn't for professional musicians, it's for
those of us who have other means of support.
Joseph Brennan
>for parallels in current copyright law. As I recall, there was a court
>case a few years ago where the courts ruled copying articles and sections
>of books for use in student bulk packs was considered "fair use".
Ask at any Kinko's Copy Center about this. The law is exactly the
opposite. It is NOT "fair use".
Joe Brennan Columbia University in the City of New York
bre...@columbia.edu ("affiliation shown for identification only")
Matt Lindi
You may want to check out a Massachusetts outfit
called RYKOdisc. They have taken a lot of "defunct" label
stuff and re-released it. Good Luck :)
-MRL
David A. Roth
In article <1993Sep1.0...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), mat...@tarkus.ocis.temple.edu (mathias thallmayer) writes:
>
>
> It seems to me that a piece of music is made available for public
> consumption, then the composer/publisher has a responsiblity to make
> available a score for study and performance. If the music industry
> does not wish to sell us the information that we need to develop as
> artists, then we must acquire this information on our own.
>
> --
> Mathias
>
Did you ever stop to think that the reason that all scores are not
made available is because there is not enough demand for it? Same
reason everything recorded on LP has not been made available on CD.
If you want to study recordings and make transcriptions for yourself
for private use, no one has a problem with that. Permission needs
to be obtained for further use than that. Justifying that it's ok
to rip-off a publisher because you feel the composer doesn't get very
much money is still illegal. If it bothers you that the composer
isn't getting enough then send a check to them care of BMI or ASCAP
attention to Writer Relations and they will forward it to him or her.
David
David A. Roth
In article <dceCCq...@netcom.com> (comp.music,alt.guitar.tab,rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers,rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.misc), d...@netcom.com (David Elliott) writes:
>
> In article <1993Sep1.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Higginson) writes:
> >I'm not talking about copying books on a global scale. What I, and most
> >other people do, is just copy stuff occasionally.
>
> Is it OK if I only "occasionally" break into peoples' houses and
> steal stuff?
If the house belongs to David Letterman you might even get mentioned
on his show! :-)
David
Steve Lee
>
>In article <265uh3$j...@panix.com<, Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com< wrote:
><fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields) writes:
><
><< Robert Mah <rm...@panix.com< wrote:
><<<
><<<To twist your example in support of my side: It is legal to examine how a
><<<UNIX system works, and without looking at the original source, writing your
><<<own.
><<<
><<<To me this seems somewhat analogous to listening to music, and creating
><<<your own transcription. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to
><<<me that it more closely parallels the situation than your analogy.
agreed.
><
><<The flaw in that is that for anyone with musical training, the "source
><<code" (i.e. score) of most works is manifest in the end product.
so you concede now that music is different from programming? why did
you bring up the analogy in the first place?
>
>And do you deny that the original creator of the score exercised the
>"skill", "talent", and "creative labor" that creates the "identity of
>the composition"? If so, this would be the "point of contention"
>between "Robert Mah" and "many composers". It would also be the
>"point of contention" between "Robert Mah" and "international and
>national law".
>
there is no doubt that composing is work and composers should be
compensated. but we can't argue that law is absolute! law is NOT
absolute... law is merely the effort of the people to do "the greatest
good for the greatest number of people".
>
><On a more serious note, I was giving this issue some thought and looking
><for parallels in current copyright law.
>
>Protection of musical composition is explicitly described in the copyright
>and needs no analysis by parallel to other things, actually.
Robert had some valid points about usage of text out of books and
magazines as a teaching aid as valid legal use according to copyright
law ( unfortunately edited out by Matthew ). parallels are important to
understanding any problem... open your mind.
also, Jos broght up some good points in his Summary ...
first, the artist makes the bulk of the money through performances and
CD's... very few, if any, rely on transcriptions to bring in very much
money..
secondly, free transcriptions would only enhance the artists visibilty
and would logically lead to greater sales of concert tickets and CDs,
tapes, etc. and this is good for the artist.
also, the transcriptions would be used as a educational aid to those of
us who are learning and therefore unable to make our own
transcriptions... this is good for the musical community to promote
new, fresh talent...
-steve
Zannos Iannis
The tone and style speaks for the person and its cause.
Spare Rob any reply,
Iannis
Clarence Darrow
>> khig...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ken Higginson) writes
>>Legal or not, I copy music for myself. In fact, I spent $2.60 at the
>>local Kinko's copy center and copied an entire music book a few days ago.
>Real soon now we should be seeing this information reported in
>the "News of the Weird" column, least_competent_criminals section.
>Apparently , you haven't figured out that posting to the net your humble confession,
>and those of you out there posting tab with your return addresses is admissable
>evidence. Tell us, do have lawyers on retainer or what ?
>g.
Give me a break! Jesus who do ya think's gonna sue him? (-: BTW I'm going
to get right on with trying to sue the local library for letting people
read copies of *my* books for free. How dare they do this?
--
>The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme <
>Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the <
>generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. - Thomas Jefferson <
>>> Finger for armored text pgp public key. -her...@universe.digex.net<<<
Jason Zions
Give me a break! Jesus who do ya think's gonna sue him? (-: BTW I'm going
to get right on with trying to sue the local library for letting people
read copies of *my* books for free. How dare they do this?
You think you're joking. Once upon a time, this would not have been a joke,
and might have been uttered in earnest and with a significant probability of
success.
The "First Purchaser" exclusions in the copyright law are aimed directly at
permitting libraries to exist. They basically state that the owner of a
copyrighted work, when selling copies of that work, may not restrict the
first purchaser of that copy from exercising a well-defined subset of
activities with respect to that work. One of them is resale; another is
lending. These "First Purchaser" rights do not transfer when the copy is
sold.
Why do you think the record companies are kicking up such a stink about
record stores that sell used CDs? By law, the record companies cannot
prevent the sale of used CDs, since that right is explicitly granted to each
original purchaser; hence, they resort to other economic tactics, like
boycot and blackmail, to try to get more money. It'll never work, but
they're trying a PR war.
Tell you what - those of you who believe Music should be free should go
ahead and form the Free Transcription Foundation, dedicated to the notion
that knowledge should be free. Develop clone music that is legally free of
copyright and just as good as the currently non-free music. Convince others
to contribute, to use FTF music instead of licensed music, etc. Give away
stuff you own, and frown down your noses at people who continue to pay money
to those people whose music is not covered by the FTF General License and
Copyleft.
Jason
Lindon Parker
>Tell you what - those of you who believe Music should be free should go
>ahead and form the Free Transcription Foundation, dedicated to the notion
>that knowledge should be free. Develop clone music that is legally free of
>copyright and just as good as the currently non-free music. Convince others
>to contribute, to use FTF music instead of licensed music, etc. Give away
>stuff you own, and frown down your noses at people who continue to pay money
>to those people whose music is not covered by the FTF General License and
>Copyleft.
>
>Jason
OK you convinced me where do I sign and who wants a *free* transcription of my latest epic?
Lindon.
Im being serious here....