OLGA Tabs cannot legally be taken down
Tablature or the transcription of a piece of music from ear to pen is a protected act of free speech and is not forbidden by any form of licensing, contract, copyright, or trademark.
The reprinting of such a completely free endeavor is also completely protected as free speech.
How then did DMCA bound lawyers shutdown OLGA the largest database of user contributed guitar tablature?
Under what law and by what means do they have the right to deny anyone (however talented or not) to write down what their ear hears and provide it to others.
The individual effort to transcribe a work of art whether it be a painting or a piece of music has no connection to the original work as long as it is not claimed to be the original. A transcription can clearly not claim to be an original. Its implicit in the definition of the word transcription.
Even the paid musical performance and recording of a transcription cannot be forbidden. Not a single "cover" band in the world scratching a living in bars all over the world pays or is required to pay royalties of any kind to the originators of the works they perform.
The transcription of the work was done by the cover band and has no direct connection to the original with the exception that they listened to it and by their own skills produced a performable replica which is judged on its merits and is well known to the consuming audience not to be an original work of art. In no way does that diminish its value or potential enjoyment by the consumer. Nor should it need to be (or has it ever been) licensed or sanctioned by the government.
Perhaps the DMCA should have been named the DMPA (Digital Millenium PATENT Act) because the DMCA view of copyright is coming eerily close to the interpretation of patents and trademarks wherein any and all use or reproduction is prohibited apparently especially when in combination with a computer network.
To continue along these lines, every printed copy of song and verse of the US National Anthem has a copyright notice at the bottom of the printed page. However, if I as an experienced musician merely write it down by ear, I am now a criminal?
How many of the hundreds of transcribers of the original anthem licensed the song from anyone all the way back to Francis Scott Key?
The DMCA is not copyright law at all. It is patent law that says any creatively produced work of a person is assumed to be an invention which cannot by any non-sanctioned means be replicated (even by non-technical human means ear and pen) and transmitted to another.
If my local elementary school endeavors to do a play called Pirates of the Caribbean and post it on youtube.com they will be in big trouble.
When will this insanity stop?
The reprinting of such a completely free endeavor is also completely protected as free speech.
How then did DMCA bound lawyers shutdown OLGA the largest database of user contributed guitar tablature?
Under what law and by what means do they have the right to deny anyone (however talented or not) to write down what their ear hears and provide it to others.
The individual effort to transcribe a work of art whether it be a painting or a piece of music has no connection to the original work as long as it is not claimed to be the original. A transcription can clearly not claim to be an original. Its implicit in the definition of the word transcription.
Even the paid musical performance and recording of a transcription cannot be forbidden. Not a single "cover" band in the world scratching a living in bars all over the world pays or is required to pay royalties of any kind to the originators of the works they perform.
The transcription of the work was done by the cover band and has no direct connection to the original with the exception that they listened to it and by their own skills produced a performable replica which is judged on its merits and is well known to the consuming audience not to be an original work of art. In no way does that diminish its value or potential enjoyment by the consumer. Nor should it need to be (or has it ever been) licensed or sanctioned by the government.
Perhaps the DMCA should have been named the DMPA (Digital Millenium PATENT Act) because the DMCA view of copyright is coming eerily close to the interpretation of patents and trademarks wherein any and all use or reproduction is prohibited apparently especially when in combination with a computer network.
To continue along these lines, every printed copy of song and verse of the US National Anthem has a copyright notice at the bottom of the printed page. However, if I as an experienced musician merely write it down by ear, I am now a criminal?
How many of the hundreds of transcribers of the original anthem licensed the song from anyone all the way back to Francis Scott Key?
The DMCA is not copyright law at all. It is patent law that says any creatively produced work of a person is assumed to be an invention which cannot by any non-sanctioned means be replicated (even by non-technical human means ear and pen) and transmitted to another.
If my local elementary school endeavors to do a play called Pirates of the Caribbean and post it on youtube.com they will be in big trouble.
When will this insanity stop?
posted by tal at 10:24 PM
1 Comments:
I'm not in favour of the clampdown on tabs - for most songs it's the only way people can learn to play them because sheet music is not commercially viable (although it might be if they were prepared to market it digitally?).
I'm not so sure that tabs aren't protected by copyright law, though. Lyrics certainly are, and they often accompany tabs. And sheet music is also protected. Those copyrights are not limited to literal reproductions - they will also cover adaptations of the original work, which is what lawyers can argue tabs are. When they're in the same key, there's often no difference between a tab someone's made up from playing the record and a tab someone's made by simplifying the sheet music.
I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in the UK covers bands do not have to pay a licence to perform covers because the venue must do so. It pays a licence to the PRS, which is shared out among songwriters. So the implication that nobody is paying for people to perform covers isn't true in the UK, although it might well be in the US. It would be surprising if you could record and sell Beatles songs without paying the Beatles anything, as your story suggests you can in the US.
I don't think copyright holders have a problem with the transcription, but with the distribution of that transcription. They can't stop you from writing down lyrics and working out chords, although they would still have copyright claims on what you write down. If I make a film, I own the copyright in the script even if you choose to transcribe it. They can stop you from sharing your work - if it violates their copyright - with other people on the internet. At that point is starts threatening their commercial interest in the work (the ability to sell sheet music).
Post a Comment
<< Home