Posting lyrics and scores online is a crime!

[[wcip]Angel]

I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Here is my handle, here is my spout
When I get all steamed up, hear me shout
Just tip me over and pour me out!

-----

Throw me in jail! I just committed a crime!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," he said.

"Unauthorised use of lyrics". These words are making me cringe. Seriously, what's next for the MPA? (Music Publisher's Association)? Restraints on campfire singalongs, singing your child a lullaby without a written contract from the original artist?

I realise that the world is slowly heading for the gaping jaws of hell. It's unavoidable; human stupidity, ignorance and egomania is slowly killing us all, but what's really ticking me off is certain people's eagerness in jamming the gas-pedal to the floor.

[Yrrek]

certain people's
[right][snapback]96799[/snapback][/right]

Who is that guy?

[Occhidiangela]

I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Here is my handle, here is my spout
When I get all steamed up, hear me shout
Just tip me over and pour me out!

-----

Throw me in jail! I just committed a crime!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," he said.

"Unauthorised use of lyrics". These words are making me cringe. Seriously, what's next for the MPA? (Music Publisher's Association)? Restraints on campfire singalongs, singing your child a lullaby without a written contract from the original artist?

I realise that the world is slowly heading for the gaping jaws of hell. It's unavoidable; human stupidity, ignorance and egomania is slowly killing us all, but what's really ticking me off is certain people's eagerness in jamming the gas-pedal to the floor.
[right][snapback]96799[/snapback][/right]

Hmmm, I'd argue that the lyrics you cited are in the public domain, in the US. Also, the matter of "for profit," "not for profit" "correct attribution" and "fair public use" is not as cut and dried as some folks are trying to paint it.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Throw me in jail! I just committed a crime!
[right][snapback]96799[/snapback][/right]

OK, let's start by cutting out the hyperbole. As far as I can tell, no one is going after web sites that are publishing music or lyrics that are in the public domain. Greensleeves is still safe :)

As to the rest, I never could understand why the theft of literature, software (including games), and other intellectual properties is wrong, but the theft of musical intellectual properties is right. The way I see it, the creator of the work owns it. If he wants to give it away (e.g., freeware and copyleft-ed material), that's his choice. If someone else gives it away without his permission, then that's theft. People who engage in large scale theft belong in jail.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
==snip==

People who engage in large scale theft belong in jail.

--Pete
[right][snapback]96823[/snapback][/right]

Keemo Sabe need heap big jail to hold Chinamen pirating CD's and DVD's. *scratches head* And Californians. And Indonesians. And Texans. And . . .

Keemo Sabe, you call big chief Haliburton. He build you heap big jail and hire contractors to run it good. No cameras. :shuriken:

Tanto

[Doc]

Keemo Sabe need heap big jail to hold Chinamen pirating CD's and DVD's.  *scratches head*  And Californians.  And Indonesians.  And Texans.  And  . . .

Keemo Sabe, you call big chief Haliburton.  He build you heap big jail and hire contractors to run it good.  No cameras.  :shuriken: 

Tanto
[right][snapback]96831[/snapback][/right]

Haliburton belongs in jail.

And so does Microsoft for that matter.

[Doc]

Oh. And I suppose that all the people that engage in large scale theft... The devils that stole an entire nation of land away from the people living there are not included in that number.

Remember kids, those guys were patriots and heros, STEALING land away from the undeserving savages.

[[wcip]Angel]

Hi,
OK, let's start by cutting out the hyperbole.

But how can I make my threads fun and interesting without it? :)

As to the rest, I never could understand why the theft of literature, software (including games), and other intellectual properties is wrong, but the theft of musical intellectual properties is right.  The way I see it, the creator of the work owns it.  If he wants to give it away (e.g., freeware and copyleft-ed material), that's his choice.  If someone else gives it away without his permission, then that's theft.  People who engage in large scale theft belong in jail.

We could debate the issue of piracy till the cows come home. And then we could discuss it with the cows, but the issue of music piracy (the actual music) is beside the point. (Personally, I understand that piracy is a crime, but at the same time I also recognise the benefits of it.) As far as I understand this article, websites providing people the lyrics from songs are apparently breaking the law. That, to me, spells w-r-o-n-g.

A few years ago, I registered a free domain (20MB) to host some pictures 'n stuff. Meanwhile, (through piracy), I developed a fascination with American prog-rock band "Dream Theater" and attempted to 'tab' the drum part of one of their songs.. What I did, was to open a notepad-file, sit down and listen, bar by bar, write down in notepad what I had just heard. I then put this piece of work (took me a few hours to do, so I call it "work", even though it was great fun!) on The Internet®. Now, somewhere along the line, I committed a crime. I just don't see the reasoning in this. *I* did the work. I'm not ripping off someone else's. Sure, I didn't compose the drum score, but I certainly made the notation for it. Obviously, I'm not acquainted with the law, so I hope you'll forgive a certain degree of naïvité, but to me, this sounds completely ridiculous. (<-- Not hyperbole. :P)

[channel1]

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday, dear (Time/Warner/AOL)
Happy Birthday to you-ooo!

My two cents:
Copyright and Patents are good, and limits on the period for the term of that protection is also good.

For every Mickey Mouse that still has commercial value long after the death of it's creator, there are thousands of creations that are neglected and lost because they are not perceived to be worth preserving if the property owner doesn't do it himself.
By entering the public domain in a reasonable period of time, the preservation of these works falls to the Public. Even the most obscure work will find dozens, or more likely hundreds of members of "the Public" who will work to preserve it for the future.

Today, it costs nothing for a creator to receive the protection of copyright. Part of that deal, however, was that the protected material would be turned over to the Public after a period of time.
That period has been extended over the years, especially over the last fifteen years when automatic copyright has been extended from 27 years (plus one renewal, if filed) to 95 years.
Some individuals want to do away with any limit at all, and have a perpetual copyright. In the meantime, Disney uses a stylized image of Mickey Mouse as a Trademark logo, which has no time limit, as a (weak) basis to claim perpetual ownership of Steamboat Willie.

I feel that the "Life plus 50 years" and "Creation plus 75 years" terms of copyright from the 90s was more than sufficient. Perhaps, if the good creations of the last century eventually become unprotected, there will be incentive to develop NEW works, NEW characters, instead of grave-robbing from the past.

-rcv-

[whyBish]

Keemo Sabe need heap big jail to hold Chinamen pirating CD's and DVD's.&nbsp; *scratches head*&nbsp; And Californians.&nbsp; And Indonesians.&nbsp; And Texans.&nbsp; And&nbsp; . . .

Keemo Sabe, you call big chief Haliburton.&nbsp; He build you heap big jail and hire contractors to run it good.&nbsp; No cameras.&nbsp; :shuriken:&nbsp;

Tanto
[right][snapback]96831[/snapback][/right]

Because if lots of people are breaking the law then they should change the law??

[--Pete]

Hi,

[i]Happy Birthday to you,
I feel that the "Life plus 50 years" and "Creation plus 75 years" terms of copyright from the 90s was more than sufficient.&nbsp; Perhaps, if the good creations of the last century eventually become unprotected, there will be incentive to develop NEW works, NEW characters, instead of grave-robbing from the past.
[right][snapback]96851[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I think "in print" (or the equivalent for non-text works) plus 5 years should be the law. If a work is out of print for five years, then it should be deemed 'abandoned' and in the public domain. But that might just be my "simple, easy to understand, wrong answer." ;)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

And then we could discuss it with the cows . . .
[right][snapback]96837[/snapback][/right]

Who's opinions are probably as valid as ours ;)

As far as I understand this article, websites providing people the lyrics from songs are apparently breaking the law. That, to me, spells w-r-o-n-g.

Hmm. So, if I post just the text of a book that is under copyright, that's OK? After all, I'm not posting the cover art, the illustrations, the critical blurbs, etc. Or, perhaps, since a book is a text item, then it is OK for me to make my own audio version of the book and sell that (or even distribute it for free).

Remember, even the movie rights to a book must be bought from the copyright holder, in spite that the movie will eventually share little more than the title and name of the main character with the book.

What I did, was to open a notepad-file, sit down and listen, bar by bar, write down in notepad what I had just heard. I then put this piece of work (took me a few hours to do, so I call it "work", even though it was great fun!) on The Internet®. Now, somewhere along the line, I committed a crime.

Yep. You are entitled to extract the lyrics, music, etc., for your own use. You may play and sing the song in non-commercial environments (i.e., just for yourself, at a private party, etc.). You may not distribute any part of the material while it is under copyright. Since anything posted on the Internet (which is not a registered trademark :) ) is effectively copyable by anyone in the know, posting your extraction of the material was a form of distribution. No different, in principle, from buying a copy of the sheet music and selling xerox (ex-trademark, now in the public domain (I think)) copies of it.

Once again -- it ALL belongs to the creator of the work and only he has the right to give it away.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Every piece of land in the world was stolen from someone else multiple times just within WRITTEN history. The law of possession of land is simple -- he that can hold it keeps it. So shove your bitching -- it is neither valid nor on topic. If you don't like the situation, get your fellow braves together and build a casino or go on the warpath.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Keemo Sabe need heap big jail to hold Chinamen pirating CD's and DVD's.&nbsp; *scratches head*&nbsp; And Californians.&nbsp; And Indonesians.&nbsp; And Texans.&nbsp; And&nbsp; . . .

Keemo Sabe, you call big chief Haliburton.&nbsp; He build you heap big jail and hire contractors to run it good.&nbsp; No cameras.&nbsp; :shuriken:&nbsp;

Tanto
[right][snapback]96831[/snapback][/right]

You're right. On second thought, rather than jails, let's use a solution that combines the manufacture of fertilizer with a reduction of the (over)population.

:w00t:

--Pete

[eppie]

If someone else gives it away without his permission, then that's theft.&nbsp; People who engage in large scale theft belong in jail.

--Pete
[right][snapback]96823[/snapback][/right]

Tricking the world in buying 10 milion copies of the latest album of britney spears is theft.

[eppie]

Music (lyrics) and other forms of art are made because the artist feels like making it. Well, it should be like that.
Art should not be made because of the money. And lately we even pay all kinds of talentless, drunk, doped up artist milions for some stupid record teh made, just because MTV is really good in making commercials for them. To me that is theft, it is using the ignorant youth to make money.

Mind you, when everybody was stgill taping music or borrowing it from friends we did not have these problems? Why do we have them now? If you ask me because of the increasing power of the record business and the money that goes around.


Everybody knows that books, music, lyrics, even painting can be copied. It used to take to much time to copy a book, but should it just because it is easier now, be a crimninal offense?

[Doc]

Well then, following Pete's logic, if you steal something and give it to your children, it's ok. Just tell everybody to STFU and get over it. What's done is done.

:rolleyes:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Music (lyrics) and other forms of art are made because the artist feels like making it. Well, it should be like that.
Art should not be made because of the money.
[right][snapback]96884[/snapback][/right]

From an incorrect assumption, the only valid conclusion is that the assumer is an ass.

Throughout history, art has been made because the artist needed money. Check out the 'sponsors' of art in the middle ages and the Renaissance. They didn't give the artists money for the hell of it. They paid talented people for decorations in their churches and their homes. Look at how much art is portraits -- done for he money. Shakespeare didn't give a damn about creativity, he wanted a full house because he mostly worked on shares. Dumas (father and son) wrote their plays for money and their prose at so much per word. Bach's job was to create a new organ piece for each week's mass, just as the rector's job was to come up with a new sermon. And if either failed, there was no one to pass a plate to. Scott gave us Waverly and Ivanhoe because he needed the money and that was the only thing he was capable of doing at the time.

That goes on to modern times, with RAH writing because his physical condition didn't allow him to take another job. Money is why bands perform, otherwise there wouldn't be cover charges. Movie theaters charge admission because everybody in the film food chain wants their bite.

Indeed, typically good art is made for money -- it must satisfy both the artist and the patron. Art "for its own sake" is usually worthless crap that no one but the artist likes, and often not even the artist likes it.

And lately we even pay all kinds of talentless, drunk, doped up artist milions for some stupid record teh made, just because MTV is really good in making commercials for them. To me that is theft, it is using the ignorant youth to make money.

Separating ignorant suckers from their money is a time honored tradition. If you are included in that "we" then you have my condolences for your intellectual weakness. If you are not included, then you've no right to complain.

Mind you, when everybody was stgill taping music or borrowing it from friends we did not have these problems? Why do we have them now? If you ask me because of the increasing power of the record business and the money that goes around.
Everybody knows that books, music, lyrics, even painting can be copied. It used to take to much time to copy a book, but should it just because it is easier now, be a crimninal offense?

Sorry, I have neither the time nor the energy to decipher this paragraph. But one thing I think you said is crap. You imply that intellectual theft was recently criminalized. Actually, that condition predates computers and copiers by a good long while.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Tricking the world in buying 10 milion copies of the latest album of britney spears is theft.
[right][snapback]96883[/snapback][/right]

Snort, good effort on the joke, :D but it isn't theft. Sales of junk for money is applying PT Barnum's maxim to its fullest: there is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him.

Whoever spent the money on Spears' stuff was either happy with the purchase (rubes IMO) or was dumb enough to be sheared by any huckster. :P

Did you ever read Fritz Lieber's "Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser" stories? There was a good story in one of the early collections wholse plot lampooned the selling of junk advertised as treasure. I think the evil monsters were called Consumers or something like that.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Because if lots of people are breaking the law then they should change the law??
[right][snapback]96869[/snapback][/right]

No, not making a try at that non point, rather making a joke with quite a few obscure refs, the Lone Ranger's sidekick being only part of it.

One ref is already overcrowded jails. Another is the expense of running jails. Another being Haliburton offering to contract anything, anywhere, no matter how unsavory, for a price. The no cameras refers to American contractors in Iraq in prisons being less than pristine, so the stories say, and a very veiled ref to Abu Gharib.

I will add that there are a number of prisons being run, in America, on a contract basis (allegedly to save money?) which condition appalls me. I don't think it's right for the state to sub contract out the state's punishment of citizens who have run afoul of the law.

Occhi