MAMPA Petition

[Freyr]

The Musicians Against the Music Publishers' Association Petition
http://new.petitiononline.com/mvmpa05/petition.html

Seeing as this is a guitarist forum, I highly doubt you haven't heard the news, but if you haven't check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm

I can't belive they would try such a low act on music fans... soon you won't even by able to play other bands music without buying a licence.

[sully]

Re: MAMPA Petition

like it or not, it's copywritten material. there's a reason that tabs and lyrics have statements like "all rights reserved" and are "printed with permission." yeah, i understand that a lot of the tab sites (if not all of the ones i've seen) are not for profit, but this kinda thing was a long time coming.

[khabibissell]

Re: MAMPA Petition

Well, they had better start locking up guitar teachers then. I remember back in the day my teacher used to learn and tab out any song that I brought in to my lessons.

I can see that it is a violation when someone scans transcriptions from magazines/tab books, but I don't understand how someone's posted "interpretation" can be considered a copywrite violation.

Also, I've heard people mention that bar owners pay ASCAP a fee so cover bands can play in their establishments. I'm going to ask a few that I know about that because I'll bet that is an internet rumor. I find it hard to believe.

Anyway, I don't think signing that is going to do any good. Its all about the money.

[noodlesatf]

Re: MAMPA Petition

I think there is a difference between the illegal copy of someone else's work (what you're suggesting, Sully), and figuring out yourself and posting it.

This stuff grows out of need. If a band isn't on a major label, there aren't going to be tab books available. So, I can't buy Nevermore tabs, and if the MPA gets their way, I won't be able to download or buy them? [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]

[sully]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I've heard people mention that bar owners pay ASCAP a fee so cover bands can play in their establishments. I'm going to ask a few that I know about that because I'll bet that is an internet rumor. I find it hard to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, that is true. a bar in chicago has recently been sued for not paying royalty money to the publishing companies. i believe it was over this past summer.

sully

[Chrisb]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I've heard people mention that bar owners pay ASCAP a fee so cover bands can play in their establishments. I'm going to ask a few that I know about that because I'll bet that is an internet rumor. I find it hard to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its true. Jaxx actually couldn't let people play some songs for awhile because of a fight with ASCAP or something like that. But its definitely true.

[khabibissell]

Re: MAMPA Petition

Wow. That is something! I suppose if you are getting paid... well then again, you are getting paid for your performance, not for writing the song. Hmmm... What about jukeboxes? Sure as a bar owner you pay for the records in there, but not for each time that the song is played (the bar that is, not the consumer/listener). You could look at a cover band as a jukebox, but in human form. I have every cover song I play on CD, and paid full price for it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I definitely agree that artists should be entitled to every penny that is available to them for their works. Having said that, I feel there is ALOT of gray area there. The posted tab interpretations are one of those gray areas IMO.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: MAMPA Petition

Jukebox owners pay a few hundred bucks per year for the right to play music in public places through their juke boxes. I forget who administers it (maybe the Harry Fox Agency) but I have a copy of the license in a file somewhere.

If you hear music in public it's almost a slam dunk that the establishment playing the music has either paid a licensing fee or they're infringing the copyright in the music. It's that simple in the US.

Tabs you work out yourself and post aren't a gray area at all. They're infringements, period. There's not even a small question about it.

[semagic]

Re: MAMPA Petition

IMO the labels created this mess. They sign gimmicks to big money to catch the "fad happening at the moment". It's no differant than the late eighties, except technology has caught up with them. Just look at this board's MP3 submissions... sooner or later the musicians will figure out the RIAA and other organizations are the middle men now. The industry knows this and they can't do much about it, so they will take as much legal action as they can to recoup as much money as they can before they lose the upper hand. [img]/images/graemlins/idea2.gif[/img]

[khabibissell]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]
Jukebox owners pay a few hundred bucks per year for the right to play music in public places through their juke boxes. I forget who administers it (maybe the Harry Fox Agency) but I have a copy of the license in a file somewhere.

If you hear music in public it's almost a slam dunk that the establishment playing the music has either paid a licensing fee or they're infringing the copyright in the music. It's that simple in the US.

Tabs you work out yourself and post aren't a gray area at all. They're infringements, period. There's not even a small question about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was joking, but I'll take your word for it.

The thing of it is, these lawyers are being selective... Every guitar teacher should be fined... every one that has posted a cover on the internet should be fined... hell, every time I play a riff or song that I didn't write while practicing is a violation going by that logic. Why doesn't it happen? Because there is no money in it. This whole thing is driven by greed plain and simple. Its not to protect artists... that's why I don't agree with it.

I guess we should all warm up to the realization that eventually, there will be no "free" sites on the internet either. I wouldn't be surprised that in the future, you will be charged for internet usage just like you are for cable TV. Different rates being changed for standard or premium packages.

[SeventhSon]

Re: MAMPA Petition

You can't have your actors sing "happy birthday" in a movie without paying time warner $10,000 for the right to do so.

[Soap]

Re: MAMPA Petition

Well, I quess I might as well give up playing and teaching guitar. Sell all my gear, equipment and etc, because lawyers and idiot artists are whining and crying so the mpa steps up. Greed, thats all it is. They claim is about being fair.
Riiigght. [img]/images/graemlins/bs.gif[/img]

Keep it up mpa, riaa, these sort of things have a huge back lash effect. Should know better, don't bite the hand that feeds you, you idiots.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]
The thing of it is, these lawyers are being selective... This whole thing is driven by greed plain and simple. Its not to protect artists... that's why I don't agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the lawyers that are being selective, it's their *clients* who are being selective. This isn't a lawyer-driven thing, it's a copyright-owner driven thing. Big difference.

Since you seem to be OK with stealing from artists because what you want to steal probably isn't the biggest part of their revenue stream you should, if your logic is consistent and you're not just being hypocritical, be OK with these situations as well: 1) if you're paid by the hour it would be fine with you if your employer only paid you for, say, 75% of the hours you work because after all, they're letting you have most of what you've earned and are just keeping a little bit; 2) if you're salaried you'd obvously be fine with your employer paying you for, say, the first 9 months of the year but witholding your salary for October - December because they're giving you most of what you've worked for and that hit you'll take is relatively small compared to what you've been paid; 3) someone breaking into your home and stealing only 20% of what you own because they're leaving you the majority of your possessions; etc. There's NO difference in logic between any of those situations and your assertion that illegal tabs are OK because they don't primarily harm artists. When you steal from artists and justify the theft by convincing yourself that it's OK because you're only taking a little bit of what the artist is entitled to it's *precisely* analagous to those situations.

[khabibissell]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing of it is, these lawyers are being selective... This whole thing is driven by greed plain and simple. Its not to protect artists... that's why I don't agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the lawyers that are being selective, it's their *clients* who are being selective. This isn't a lawyer-driven thing, it's a copyright-owner driven thing. Big difference.

Since you seem to be OK with stealing from artists because what you want to steal probably isn't the biggest part of their revenue stream you should, if your logic is consistent and you're not just being hypocritical, be OK with these situations as well: 1) if you're paid by the hour it would be fine with you if your employer only paid you for, say, 75% of the hours you work because after all, they're letting you have most of what you've earned and are just keeping a little bit; 2) if you're salaried you'd obvously be fine with your employer paying you for, say, the first 9 months of the year but witholding your salary for October - December because they're giving you most of what you've worked for and that hit you'll take is relatively small compared to what you've been paid; 3) someone breaking into your home and stealing only 20% of what you own because they're leaving you the majority of your possessions; etc. There's NO difference in logic between any of those situations and your assertion that illegal tabs are OK because they don't primarily harm artists. When you steal from artists and justify the theft by convincing yourself that it's OK because you're only taking a little bit of what the artist is entitled to it's *precisely* analagous to those situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obvious that you are a lawyer from your posts. I mean no disrespect at all towards you, or lawyers in general. After all, a lawyer is only doing what they are paid to do. I used the term "lawyers" to describe the body that has started this process.

BUT I never said that the artists are not due their just rewards for their creations. My point to all this is, that using the logic defined in the suit and your posts, EVERYONE that posts a tab, cover song, etc... should be prosecuted. Do you disagree? Why aren't ALL violators prosecuted? Simple, there is no money in it. They are only going after the most easily accessible and public violators... the ones that will recoup them the most return. Talk about hypocrisy...

[Soap]

Re: MAMPA Petition

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that the artists are not due their just rewards for their creations. My point to all this is, that using the logic defined in the suit and your posts, EVERYONE that posts a tab, cover song, etc... should be prosecuted. Do you disagree? Why aren't ALL violators prosecuted? Simple, there is no money in it. They are only going after the most easily accessible and public violators... the ones that will recoup them the most return. Talk about hypocrisy...

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said.