The copyright storm troopers are making things difficult for the site owners (or else Tascam is paying the sites to yank the tabs so we'll all buy Bass Trainers! LOL). In some ways this is actually good news for us as we now have to figure out the basslines by ear and transcribe them ourselves. The truth is I gave up on tab sites quite a while ago, a lot of the tabs that are posted are really inaccurate.

Try using midi files instead. The copyright nazis haven't realized yet that midi contains all the info, usually quite accurate, for a song. Chords, melody, bass etc. A program like Band in a Box will eaily convert the midi into tab or notation.

I'm sure there's lots of freeware midi software out there that'll accomplish the same thing. Just find the right software and an accurate midi version of the song you are after.

The copyright nazis Odd choice of words there Paul. I believe that intellectual property belongs to the person who created it. "Nazis" is an awfully strong word when it comes to ownership. Its up to the artist, IMO, to decide if they want their stuff out there for free.

Whew... hope we're still friends.

Pete

Pete, I should have indicated that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and refered to the over-zealous and improper enforcement of copyright law.

Before I say anything else I want to be clear that I too support the protection of intellectual property. However, I believe it is often carried too far.

For example, the publishing of tab or notation for educational purposes is specifically allowed by copyright law under the fair use provisions.

Even if the user plays the song for an assembly it doesn't generally violate the copyright law if it isn't done for profit. I know there are exceptions to this but that is the general case. That's why I take exception to attempting to charge music stores royalties because their patrons play the odd copyrighted song. I mean, take this to the extreme, should I have to pay royalties because I whistle a recognizable tune in public?

Users who take the tabbed song and play it for profit are actually charged royalties for the performance so also charging for the tab would be double dipping and IMO is unfair.

The disappearance of tab sites is simply an example where the threat of law suits, even though they are unfounded and wouldn't hold up in a competent court, is enough to scare off the site owners.

Whew... hope we're still friends

Of course. Even if you disagree with my arguments we're both adults and entitled to our own opinions. Of course we could always settle this with sabres at dawn. LOL

should I have to pay royalties because I whistle a recognizable tune in public?

YEP!

JK :)

LOL!

If you make any money from whistling it, yes!

Does my band have to pay royalties on all the covers we play in bars?!?

Apparently the answer is yes. I believe it's administered and royalties paid through the musician's union (American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada).

For many years the AF of M has worked to counteract any developments that it deems detrimental to the livelihood of its members. During the 1940s an agreement reached with the recording industry resulted in the establishment of the Music Performance Trust Fund, an attempt to offset the lack of royalties paid to recording musicians

The full text can be read here.

No, the bars get raped for that. That's why some bars only have bands that play originals, so they don't have to fork over money to ASCAP, or BMI... which to me those organizations are legalized organized crime. If I walk into a bar demading money by threatening the owner it's called extorsion. When they do it, it's called business.

Dave

I kind of thought there was a royalty 'system' at the bar level too but I wasn't sure. It seems to me that's double dipping again since the bands pay royalties through A F of M and the bars pay as well.

Yeah, it IS double dipping. They get everybody. If a bar doesn't have bands they still collect if they have TV's in the bar. Why? They claim it's because of the jingles in comercials. As a juke box operater I get raped too. $400 for the first jukebox and then a sliding scale after that for addition juke boxes. If I don't get the the jukebox license I can get fined up to $10,000 per count. THAT'S $10,000 FOR EVERY SONG ON THE JUKEBOX. Average 10 songs per disc, and 100 disc's per juke and that would be....hummm let me do the math, it would equal "Dave out of business". With the new digital jukes the license is built right into the price you pay.

Dave

Yeah, the concept of royalties is fair, it's the system of collecting and distributing them that is grossly unfair. And the big question: How much of that money ever gets to an average artist?

nobody pays royalties except ASCAP/BMI(in the states). They get this money from the bars. it's part of their licensing fees. they in turn will most likely recoup these fees by having bands play in their establishment.

-Jay

I don't have to worry about that. The only way I'd make money from whistling is if someone paid me not to. LOL

the bad thing is if you notice the complainant in the lawsuits it is usually the RECORD COMPANIES and not the band/writers making the lawsuits....most musicians are happy for their music to get played everywhere while the record company wants to rape their bucks form BOTH the musicians AND the listener. guess that all stems form the bands getting very little cash from the record sales (unless they are on independent self financed record deals)

No one is getting "raped." Contracts are signed with all knowing what is in them. If an artist signs a contract without making sure they understand everything it contains these days they are idiots. Everyone has heard the stories of the musicians from the 50's, 60's & 70's who signed over their souls because they didn't read or have someone with some smarts, read their contracts.

Oh man! I'm not a lover of nazi's but haven't any of these folks seen Seinfeld??

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!



groove on

Although I agree that intellectual property rights are due the owner, I have never understood the concept of limiting the use of user interpeted tab. I have always felt that any airtime that a song receives is going to lead to more sales of the song.

Dave Root

BTW.. Nazis was a terrible choice of words. The Nazis where a socialist dictatorship and had no respect for intellect or the property thereof so they would have never selected to pull tabs sites.

"The Nazis where a socialist dictatorship and had no respect for intellect or the property thereof"

That sounds just like my last girlfriend.

: )

Dave

Yep... just like my ex-wife as well :)

...The Nazis where a socialist dictatorship and had no respect for intellect ....

Actually they did have a great respect for intellect, like most dictatorships do. They realise that this intellect is the biggest threat to their existance yet.

That's why they exterminate great numbesr of intellectuals of 'their enemy'. Cambodia was a classic example.

Only those intellects who show party loyalty get to survive, yet they walk a tightrope too - Russia in Stalin's era for instance.

I've studdied these dictatorships at lengeth and they all have the same theme - Eliminate threats in your backyard first, cultivate compliance from those who can help by involving them in complicity, and monitor the intellects closely, being prepared to eliminate them as an example to others, and finally do not give clear lines of authority underneath - rule by division thu encouraging competition for the lower positions and reducing threats to your own.

Saddam Hussein was another classic example who got his whole country involved in this aspect of lif.

Mo

Hitler was a fascist dictator, but I guess it's doesn't matter too much in this context.

"But I guess it's"

...forgot to delete the 's.

"copyright nazis"

Bet you didn't see all the comotion that comment stirred up coming Paul. I got it, cheeky comment, didn't even think twice about it. Do you mind if I use it? I wouldn't want the copyright nazis coming after me for using your phrase.....hehehehehe!

: )

Dave

You're right Dave, I didn't see that coming. I've always maintained that the idea behind copyrights is sound, it's the system of collecting and distributing royalties that's flawed. Ultimately the only groups that profit are the big name artists and the entertainment industry. The little guy composing songs or jingles in his home studio gets the shaft every time.

As to using the phrase, I'm afraid it isn't mine to grant permission. I'm pretty sure it's considered 'public domain'. Unless the creators of 'Sienfeld' managed to get a copyright granted in which case I'm in deep s$!t. :^)

It was Paul's turn. The comment really didn't bother me either

**** evil laugh ****

:)