Jump to content
allthumbs

Should sites like this be shut down?

Do you think sites like this should be shut down  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Do you think sites like this should be shut down

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      305


Recommended Posts

6string    81

I don't think your a plus b equals c

and IMO most of the record labels are merely money grabbing sharks, 99.9% of large corporations are, its just the nature of the beast,

they would charge you for the air you breath at a concert if they could get away with it.

They don't really care about producing good music, they produced William Hung didn't they? It's all about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clancy    36

Without the money we paid the record companies Greatful Dead would have never been able to make their great American Beauty album. The label paid for their studio time. As they have done for a lot of artists.

The other point I was trying to make was that the record labels are not merely money grabbing sharks. They do contribute a lot of time and money into making great cds for us by paying for studio time and producers and promotion. Usually they will then of course get a percentage of the sale of the cd and if it is successful they make a profit but success is not always there. Then they lose money.

Record companies are first and foremost businesses and their main priority is making money. Just like it is for any other business.

You dont yell at your butcher and steal his pork because you think he is making too much money, do you?

Have you had any first-hand experience dealing with record companies nalk?

Clancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6string    81

I don't understand this statement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fogerty[/url]]

John subsequently demanded that Stu Cook and Doug Clifford write and sing one third each of the next album, Mardi Gras. They protested, saying it wouldn't be a CCR album, and that the fans would not understand. John replied, "My voice is a unique instrument and I will not lend it to your songs." He threatened to quit the band immediately if his ultimatum was not met;

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6string,

According to the "behind the Music"episode I saw, the other members of CCR (including Tom Fogarty) were jealous of John's popularity. Even though John had written and sang all their hits. They wanted to have more "input" on the next album which is when John issued the challenge or ultimatum or whatever you call it. The album was a major flop and things went into action which broke up the band and the brothers. Really a sad thing. Apparantly, a bunch of egos caused it to happen. The way I understood the program was that the band took the side of the record company against John and to get out of the whole ordeal, John signed away the rights to all those songs he'd written. Problem was, the record company or some such ripped the band as well as John. The case went to the US supreme Court and took years to complete. John ended up winning, apparantly, according to those links.

Not saying he was right or wrong but they were his songs. he's proved time and again that he didn't need CCR to play them. Pretty lousy deal when you won't/can't associate with your own brother but who knows the real deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6string    81
6string,

According to the "behind the Music"episode I saw, the other members of CCR (including Tom Fogarty) were jealous of John's popularity. Even though John had written and sang all their hits. They wanted to have more "input" on the next album which is when John issued the challenge or ultimatum or whatever you call it. The album was a major flop and things went into action which broke up the band and the brothers. Really a sad thing. Apparantly, a bunch of egos caused it to happen. The way I understood the program was that the band took the side of the record company against John and to get out of the whole ordeal, John signed away the rights to all those songs he'd written. Problem was, the record company or some such ripped the band as well as John. The case went to the US supreme Court and took years to complete. John ended up winning, apparantly, according to those links.

Not saying he was right or wrong but they were his songs. he's proved time and again that he didn't need CCR to play them. Pretty lousy deal when you won't/can't associate with your own brother but who knows the real deal?

okay, thanks again Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nalk    0
Have you had any first-hand experience dealing with record companies nalk?

The closest I have been was having a bank pay for studio time when they needed an instrumental tune for a commercial.

My band and I composed a tune and had to sign away our rights to the bank in return for the opportunity to record the tune in an actual studio. (hey, we were very young and it was our first time in an actual studio)

I composed the rythm guitar section of the chorus and a couple of fill-in riffs. Two days it took to record the tune and the bank never used it. But they own the rights to that tune.

I never dreamed of becoming a guitar star. I only play for fun.

But I always try to see both sides of the issue before judging and mostly people forget the human angle. I try not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clancy    36
All right, my iagination got a little carried away with the label sponsoring idea, but some of the really famous guitar players just love to play and a select handful would play for free if no one wanted to pay them.

Just like some of us would.

I know I did once. It was for a good cause but still I did it for free. ( but then again I never made any money of my guitar. I did get a gift certificate once for playing at a birthday though.)

And you wouldnt be asking the guitarists for the right to use their entire production. Just a specific song or two.

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.

I´ve been to her website and she used to have enough free mp3s there to make about a triple cd off her site which is why I´d start by asking her. The sheer volume of free songs on her site makes her a prime candidate for a query. (Nowadays shes down to eight mp3s but she used to have a lot more.)

I´d ask her if I could use one of the songs that are already on her site.

I´d probably make the lesson and email it to her so she could see it before she commited herself to saying yes. At the same time I´d make it clear that she would have no right to infringe upon this site as anything but a member like the rest of us even if she says yes to letting you use one of her songs.

All it takes is a little gaul and the nerve to ask. And if she says no then you have at least tried and the only thing you have lost is a little time and effort.

And all it takes is for one of the famous guitarists to say yes and to tell some of his/her friends about it during a tour to get the ball rolling in that community.

I´d ask some of them myself if I had the required skills as a guitar player to make a lesson but I dont, which is why I love comming to this site.

(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. :) )

Another argument for winning over some of the guiarists might be to remind them that they also had to start by learning the D and G chords and by giving a single free lesson or the right to use one of their songs they might, if but for a moment, get back to that painstaking part of their roots and learn something. Some of them might find that amusing.

And even if they are famous and all that, all we have to remember is the fact that they are still only human beings with dreams and wishes just like you and me.

This part of my idea for the site I dont find that naive.

LOL, I've never considered anyone famous to be anything other than human...

The part I think you are being naive about isn't that they (the well known artist) would consider being a part of the site (I mean, hell, why wouldn't they?) we've got some very cool members and great players here :) - the thing I think you are being naive about is not knowing that most well known artists are bound up in contracts with publishers... and that you need to approach their publisher for permission anyway... for each song... and you know, when you ask them about the Internet, they don't seem to be able to give a clear answer... they send you on a phone roundabout... anyway, it takes a lot more than as you put it "a little time and effort".

As for the label sponsoring idea I think, upon further after thought, that it would surely ruin this site because they´d take it over in a heartbeat.

No they wouldn't...

Clancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
justinthyme    3

As for not making money of tabs. Well a few of you might become great guitarists one day and make money of your music. It might be you own original music but you would not have been able to learn how to make your own music without the aid of tabs.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Of course they should! I don't think many guitarists have learnt everything they know entirely by themselves: they've watched others, listened to others and learnt from them.

So every person using the "B.B King Vibrato" for example must pay royalties to him for that. :isaynothing::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nalk    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solidwalnut    5
...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nalk    0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JayKay14    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clancy    36
(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. )
(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)

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? - http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3741 and then backtracked when you realised you hadn't got you facts right there either?

Clancy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
737blues    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nalk    0

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
737blues    0
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. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clancy    36

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×