MPA wants to forbid "lyric and tab sites"

[Lethal01]

So can we get some sort of official word from Opeth/Roadrunner if they will throw us in jail for using online illegal "tabs" depicting a version of their copyrighted material?

 

[vampyrouss]

I'm one of those people that is more interested in lyrics/vocals than the music. I love the music too, but if a band has great lyrics and vocals I'll listen to it whether the music is super amazing or not. If I cant find the lyrics to a song it really bothers me, whereas I don't really look up tabs.

But I have lots of GP4's and midis anyway, because its a great way to practice without learning to play an instrument. Nightwish also have Midis on their site, made by fans. So obviously they aren't worried about it either. If anything I guess they are flattered that someone has taken the time to work out their songs and have a good connection with their fans!

Metallica have a good connection with their wallets, thats all.

 

[Dante's Inferno]

How can tablature be illegal? It's just lines with numbers that happen to follow the melody of a song. Sometimes it doesn't. And the lyrics aren't copyrighted. I can write a song just with the exact words of the Drapery Falls for example, and call it something else. They don't own the words. And I know this isn't Opeth's doing, I just used TDF as an example since we're on a Opeth board.

 

[vampyrouss]

Well, if you tried to use their lyrics as your own I am sure you would be sued.
Unless you can prove you created them first, or something like that.

Riffs are a bit easier to steal I guess, or even just a couple lines of lyrics but stealing the entire lyrics? I think you'd be pushing it a little too much!

 

[Disgustipated]

I can write a song just with the exact words of the Drapery Falls for example, and call it something else.

No you can't. Hr. Norsk som ikke er dum (or something like that). See that part on the back of your copy of Blackwater Park (I'm assuming you actually own it) where it says '© 2001 Music For Nations'. Need I say more?

They don't own the words.

No, they don't. They own this certain arrangement of the words.

Metallica have a good connection with their wallets, thats all.

If you said this because of my comment about Lars Ulrich.. then lol.. man.. I was joking.

 

[Dante's Inferno]

There's no need to get harsh.

So you say if I make a song with.. six lines from TDP, I can't use them because Opeth owns them? Or maybe you mean the entire song? So what if I use all the lyrics except one sentence? You can't measure 'how many words are allowed to use'. It's the actual recording of the songs that are copyrighted.

I don't say I would do it, hell I'd be mad if someone did that with my songs, but I don't think I could trust any lawyers to make me win that case.

 

[vampyrouss]

But yeah, if you could prove you had written the lyrics or music before Opeth I am sure you would have a case! But as we know thats never going to happen, (with Opeth I mean). I don't think Mikael would care if anyone used an Opeth line or riff though, he often takes things from bands he loves and uses them in Opeth, so as long as its a friendly nod and not a malicious rip off I am sure he would be proud more than anything.

And I just felt like saying about Metallica because I saw their name, not any reference to anything else!

 

[Disgustipated]

lol.. The whole Mikael being proud thing.. exactly what I was thinking.. but if you ripped off a fair chunk of TDF, and either Music For Nations or Zomba Publishing found out, I reckon they'd banish you, just for the hell of it. My back is itchy, and I fucking hate Microsoft PowerPoint.



Sorry for seeming harsh dude.. I'm just a very sarcastic person, more than anything else. Comes off the wrong way now and then.

 

[Dante's Inferno]

That's cool, it's just so annoying when you state an opinion and you get fagfoolnoob or something like that thrown at you.

Anyways, what kind of people do this? Do they really think they're going to win? One thing is to sue someone for calling a song 'Suicide Solution' (I don't agree with them) but just because someone wants to help others by posting their transcriptions online, they should just take it away?

Downloading and pdfs of officially licensed material can be seen as illegal, but this is just weird.

 

[Disgustipated]

There you go. I changed it for you. You are no longer a fool. And you get to call me a fool for my lame and bad attempt at speaking Norwegian.

 

[vampyrouss]

but just because someone wants to help others by posting their transcriptions online, they should just take it away?

Yes, because they don't like things being free. If you aren't making money from it try to ban it, pretty much.

 

[soundave]

Anyways, what kind of people do this? Do they really think they're going to win? One thing is to sue someone for calling a song 'Suicide Solution' (I don't agree with them) but just because someone wants to help others by posting their transcriptions online, they should just take it away?

FYI, titles can't be copyrighted. If you want to call a song "Suicide Solution", you can. Check out http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html. It's still probably a bad idea, though.

Actually, I think this is a rather interesting problem that doesn't really have a parallel. Maybe it's akin to recording yourself reading the latest Stephen King novel and then making the mp3's of it available online. But still, that's not quite right. I don't know, but my gut is that this won't hold up, but it's an intersting question about what the artist actually owns.

 

[winters epilogue]

So fucking lame...

 

[Dante's Inferno]

I didn't say the title was copyrighted. Didn't you hear about the court thingy that Ozzy had to do because some people had taken suicide while listening to that exact song?

And -Vintersorg-, your norwegian was perfect.

 

[chomps]

This reminds me of an old friend who tried (and failed) to convince me that quoting a musicians lyrics in your msn screen name is a copyright infringement The people making the case have no idea on how the law works, and are just fumbling in their own ineptitude. People like this piss me off.

 

[RDreamer]

What else do tab sites and lyric sites do, except increase knowledge and popularity of the bands in question, thus making the consumer in question more likely to purchase merchandise and/or concert tickets? I could make the same argument for mp3s, for that matter. Why do these stupid "Artist-representing" alphabet soup organizations insist on shooting themselves in the foot? The only thing they are accomplishing with this jihad against the consumer is fostering hatred of the music industry as a whole, and the very artists they claim to protect.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Why don't we just make living illegal. That'll make them happy.

 

[waz416c]

DEf. BS......I cannot belvie how ppl are moochin off of Artist's interests just so they can secure thier lil' bastard money.....!!!!!.......this is insane......lyrics are like a feckin mandatory thign to go with music.....how is it hurtin anyone's incoe but teh bastards who filed the suit...!!!!......PEAC EOUT

 

[Frostangelstorm]

Lars Ulrich AGREES!

 

[soundave]

I didn't say the title was copyrighted. Didn't you hear about the court thingy that Ozzy had to do because some people had taken suicide while listening to that exact song?

My bad for misunderstanding. And, yes, of course I've heard of that.