[nalk]

Sorry for the delay in replying but I had to go earn my living.

Following that logic, all famous guitarists producing original music and making money off it should be paying their former guitar teachers royalties. Is that what you mean?

No. I only meant that part of the post as a joke along the lines of the "sing along to the radio"-joke posted earlier by 6string.
The Clapton-Broonzy bit was a joke statement as well along the same line.

While I was at work I thought about some of your statements in this post. Especially the ones saying lyrics shouldn´t be copyrighted. How about texts in books then? They are also just words like the lyrics in songs.
This is not a real question you have to answer. It is more a thing to think about.

the thing I think you are being naive about is not knowing that most well known artists are bound up in contracts with publishers

You´re right. I hadn´t thought about that. I grew up in the aftermath of the hippie era and sometimes that dreamworld get´s the better of me. "In a perfect nirvana world....and all that Still sometimes you might just get lucky if you ask them.

And if you think I betrayed your ideals a little bit yesterday by siding with the MAN I can only say:

I have a business education and sometimes my tie blocks the blood flow to my brain a little.

No, this is not the first time I have read arguments like yours about copyright and I grew a little tired of hearing the same tired clichees so I decided to try and tease you a little and at the same time try to give you a business persons view of the whole thing. Reading these discussions about copyright is a bit like going to a linux forum and reading cuzzwords about microsoft and how they stole the internet. It gets tired after a while and nobody ever tries to see the other side of things.

And finally I wanted you to stop making bad excuses for yourselves when you break the copyright law. Open your eyes and see it for what i really is and if you disagree with the laws change them.
Dont just fire up the same tired old clichees that sound more like rationalisations and bad excuses for your unlawful behaviour. The guys who made the copyright laws work for you because you put them in office when you voted for them. In fact by voting for them you helped make the laws you now hate.

Anyway, be nice. Have to go...Alias is on.

[justinthyme]

You're mixing up 2 posters, Nalk. Better loosen that tie a little more

[solidwalnut]

Originally Posted by nalk

...I´d probably start of by asking someone like Janis Ian. I know that she is not famous for her guitar playing skills, more her singer/songwriting skills, but she has made some interesting songs and she does use a guitar.

That would only work if the artist owns the copyrights to their works. The majority do not. Publishing companies do. 'Owning the copyright' means that the artist has signed a contract stating that they no longer have the right to exploit the work that they've written. What happens is that not only do they sign that, but they also sign an Assignment of Rights which specifically gives the publisher the ownership of the copyright. Only the top level (famous) artists own any percentage of the publishing rights to their songs. So while this is a good suggestion, the problem remains that it's the corporate world calling the shots on song exploitation, not the artist (famous).

Steve

[nalk]

You're mixing up 2 posters, Nalk. Better loosen that tie a little more

And if you think I betrayed your ideals a little bit yesterday by siding with the MAN I can only say:

From this line and for the rest of that post "you" means "you posters". Hence the paragraph gap. Maybe I should have marked that with something like this:

------------

before beginning that part of the post.
---------
I dont wear a tie. That was a joke.
I do have the business education but I found that the ideas and the view of the world incorporated in that education tended to make me a bit of a cynic and I didn´t like the way that it changed my view of the world. It collided with my easy going hippie views and I had to make a choice. I chose blue work wear instead of a tie. That worked for me.

------------

Janis Ian did put a lot of songs up on her site so she may have the rights to some of her songs. Or maybe she had to get permission from her label to post them on her site. We cant be sure without asking her.
Anyway, it was just an idea I hadn´t thought through. Spur of the moment thing.

[JayKay14]

Perhaps a ban of the sale of musical instruments would satisfy producers and law makers. That would certainly make it impossible for any reproduction or plageristic activity in regard to exisiting copyright material. Where does it end? When lawyers want work, they know how to find it.

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by nalk

(It took me about a month of hard work to get the Vincent song to sound remotely tolerable. Thank you for that lesson btw. I love that song. )

Originally Posted by nalk

(For those left who are still in the dark as to my opinion on whether or not this site should be closed down the answer is NO)

Originally Posted by nalk

And finally I wanted you to stop making bad excuses for yourselves when you break the copyright law. Open your eyes and see it for what i really is and if you disagree with the laws change them.
Dont just fire up the same tired old clichees that sound more like rationalisations and bad excuses for your unlawful behaviour. The guys who made the copyright laws work for you because you put them in office when you voted for them. In fact by voting for them you helped make the laws you now hate.

SO why is the answer NO, Nalk? and if "you" means "you posters" then by using this site and taking advantage of the free TAB lessons, you are also contributing to as you put it this "unlawful behavior" - sounds like you should go out and buy yourself a book which includes the TAB of Vincent instead of benefitting from the free lessons here...

I know you're just out for an argument, but contradicting yourself and not getting your facts right before getting into a debate doesn't sound to me like something a good "business person" would do.

... and by the way, weren't you also the guy who tried telling us that Waltzing Matilda meant making a pot of tea? - Waltzing Matilda. and then backtracked when you realised you hadn't got you facts right there either?

Clancy

[737blues]

Seems to me that now we're debating whether publishers have the right to defend music for which they have 'purchased' copyright and paid to produce. There's never really been any real issue over that in my view. Regardless of how immorally or unfairly they might have procured that copyright in the first place, the law in most countries will favour them as the owner of the copyright, so long as they can afford the court case.

I thought the debate was about individuals posting a 'home-made' version of a piece of music for the general interest of other people. Not music which has been professionally reproduced and carries some implicit guarantee of being a correct and complete copy of an original and additionally, is not being sold for profit. This, to me, is an important distinction.

Every time I build something in my workshop corporations might say I stole the idea from their book of plans, if they could police it. Whenever my wife 'concocts' a recipe in the kitchen, she has probably breached a zillion copyrights under this sort of absurd thinking. And what about all those budget clothes we all love to buy. Wouldn't that be a case of the big corporations that contract to have this stuff made, ripping off the original designer?

In most countries the police can now fine a motorist seen using a mobile phone. One might wonder why, when there are so many other equally dangerous distractions in a car, which we can apparently utilise freely whilst driving. (unless you actually hit something, of course) Take your radio/CD player for example. Mine is pretty ordinary but is far more distracting to use than my mobile phone. Well, I think it's only because they can access the telephone records and prove it. One day, they may be able to prove you were fiddling with your stereo too and that would have been made possible because you would be paying Sony, or some other mega corporation for the right listen to whatever trash the spin doctors are feeding you and that 'airtime' would be electronically monitored and logged, just like your mobile phone. The technology for stuff like that is really just around the corner.

One could debate these issues for ever as the legal arguments become more absurd by the day, but the bottom line remains the same. Nobody who counts cares how silly we think they are, so long as they are winning in the courts.

[nalk]

Just imagine the power and money you might have had had you patented the middle C on the piano and the D - G and a chord on the guitar

[737blues]

Originally Posted by nalk

Just imagine the power and money you might have had had you patented the middle C on the piano and the D - G and a chord on the guitar

Just imagine where music would be now, if by patenting that piano middle C and D - G guitar chords you had prevented all those who could not afford the licence fee for their use, from actually using them in their music.

[allthumbs]

Blues and jazz would have died on the vine.

[Clancy]

We've decided to close this thread. It's just covering the same old ground now and I think everyone has had a chance to have their say.

Cheers

Clancy