Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Is it legal to sell advanced transcriptions of songs?

Maybe so. But my response was about the legality of the situation, not the ethics or the business justification.

In the UK (and I suspect elsewhere), there is an element of 'don't ask, don't tell' about the way copyrights are enforced. There are certain circumstances in which copyrights are routinely infringed, but it's not in anybody's interest to pursue the infringer.

The copyright agencies don't go after churches, for example. I imagine that wedding bands benefit from the same kind of amnesty, even though what they do is probably unlawful. It remains unlawful in the UK to copy your CDs to an ipod, but (so far as I know) no action has ever been taken.

I doubt that any of this is done out of generosity to the consumer. Rather, the copyright owners don't want to do anything that will promote a Girlscout-style backlash, and possibly get the law changed in a way that doesn't suit them. The CD-copying thing is a good example -- the law in this area is so stupid that, if matters ever came to a head, it's hard to imagine there not being substantial changes in favour of the consumer.

I'm in favor of the transcription site as I've often been annoyed by the fact that a typical guitarist has a multitude of websites offering tabs. A guitarist wants to learn the chord voicings and solo for one of this favorite songs and they're there for him to learn from. I often thought how nice it would be to have a website for keyboardists that would allow the same. As MathTeacher has alluded to; I've seen some pretty lame arrangements of good songs that have been "dumbed down" with a bare minimum of authenticity to the recording. How is it that these guitar tab websites have been able to survive in spite of copyright concerns from some people?

Believe me, in my lifetime I've spent a lot of money for sheet music. Before the internet I would be at the mercy of our local music store for ordering sheet music and then have to wait for what seemed an interminable amount of time to receive it if the music was even available. Yes, I will still buy music if I need to but access to transcribed music seems like a wonderful situation for us. I supposed one could assume a dogmatic stance on this about copyrights but if a person does, one could also ask; have you ever viewed a burned copy of a movie that a friend had made for you? Have you ever listened to a burned CD of music a friend has made for you to listen to? Have you ever burned a CD of music that you did not purchase? If you have refused to do this due to a conscious decision not to violate copyright laws, my hat's off to you for your integrity. You're a better person than me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a person can't have it both ways. I hope I'm not coming across as being too critical or as a person with absolutely no morals but perhaps this issue as pertaining to learning more music isn't always a black and white matter.

And some churches do have licenses - I don't think there's a blanket kind of "we don't enforce."

The original question here, I think, was "is it legal" and some of us have addressed that. Is it enforceable, is it enforced, is it ethical, are different, tho related, questions.

Cathy

They haven't, necessarily. Look what happened to OLGA. In practice, these sites disappear and reappear quite a bit, for various reasons. I suspect that guitarists are better-served in this respect because there are more of them than pianists.




I've spent a lot of money on food over the decades, but I don't expect I'll get away with shop-lifting groceries next time I'm hungry Sorry, but I couldn't resist that



I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I'm only dogmatic about the legal position. The ethics of the situation are complex, and there's room for reasonable people to disagree.

I do think, however, that people often don't think the ethical issues through that carefully. Many people and organizations are campaigning for a more consumer-oriented approach to intellectual property law. But the key word in 'intellectual property' is _property_. Any argument for a change to IP law that is founded on a lack of respect for, or understanding of, property has no credibility and, in the end, weakens the cause.

I doubt it's in anybody's charter, no. And the MPA specifically issues copyright guidance for churches. Nevertheless, I'm unaware of any action being taken against a place of worship, and I've seen tangential references from agencies like the MPA to an unwillingness to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean that they won't change their stance tomorrow.

In practice, a vast number of infringements are tolerated, either as a matter of (unpublished) policy or simple expediency.

Thank you, kevinb. I'm still mulling all this over. You're right; as far as the absolute letter of the law, it's black and white. As Cathy stated, the ethics involved are a separate issue and on that point everyone has to make their own decision.

It would be interesting see a correlation on whether a person is able to trancribe or not and which side of the fence they'd be on concerning the ethics.

I would guess that the school, or the school district, has a license. There are too many opportunities to play music in school for it to go unnoticed.

Such as school dances and proms, music at sports events and rallies, music played by the school band, battle of the bands, talent shows, plays, etc.

At my son's high school, they charge for every music production. Multiply that by the 30 or more schools in just this district alone, and I am sure that the powers that be have come knocking for a license.

Remember, there's copyright on the playing of the music and
there's copyright on the "source code" - the sheet music (or midi file).
(Or are these the same copyright? I think they're different?)

I'd think it likely that schools pay a place like ASCAP for the right
to PLAY music. (And, mmm, SOMEhow the original artist gets money for
this even though I find it hard to believe every song is recorded so
ASCAP knows who to pay.)

But when my son was taking trumpet, I never had to pay for the sheet
music he'd come home with. I bought the "intro to trumpet" book.
But I saw plenty of photocopied sheets and was never asked to pay
for em...

So although the law states otherwise,
my opinion (which counts for nothin) is that
if the sheets/midi aren't for sale, then
learning to play and compose trumps copyright.
if they are for sale, of course, buy em.

In the case of the public school trumpet teacher, though,
I think he (ideally) should have charged the parents for
the sheets. As most looked pretty professionally published.

In my view, the ethical question is complicated by practical concerns that are hard to assess. My own ethical views are pretty Benthamite -- if it helps me and hurts nobody, it's probably OK. If it helps somebody else and hurts nobody, it's definitely OK

But where intellectual property is concerned, whether it 'hurts nobody' is extrememly hard to assess.

The OP for this thread started off asking about _selling_ transcriptions. It seems to me that if something can be sold, then it could (in principle) be sold by the original rights-holder, and that puts the activity on ethically shaky ground. If it's something that couldn't economically be sold, then perhaps nobody is losing out if somebody makes it available free of charge.

My gut feeling is that privately circulating piano transcriptions of pop songs, particularly those not available for sale, does very little harm to anybody. If I had nothing worse than this to answer for on Judgement Day, I would be happy.

FWIW I can make piano arrangements of pop songs and the like, if nobody is in any hurry. I'm not hugely efficient at it and, as time is money, I'd rather buy it if I can and save myself the hassle.

"It would be interesting see a correlation on whether a person is able to trancribe or not and which side of the fence they'd be on concerning the ethics.", jasperkeys

It would be interesting see a correlation on whether a person is able to compose commercially successful music and which side of the fence they'd be on concerning the ethics of someone selling transcriptions of their work without honoring the copyright and paying royalties to the composer.

I just paid for the licenses for 12 songs on a new CD of ours - all covers. There are companies who handle such matters and we went through one of them. I am at a loss why musicians want to rip-off songwriters just to sell bootleg scores, that may or may not be successful, that they cook up.

Well daviel, this is just speculation on my part but I believe that if there was money to be made from a composition of mine, I would feel entitled to share in the profit in some way. If there was no money involved and if people wanted to transcribe and share my music free of charge, I think I'd feel flattered and would want to see what they'd done with my music. But like I said this is just speculation but I think this is how'd I'd feel.

Then that is your prerogative; handle your songs as you wish. Just don't assume anyone else handles theirs the same way. If you ask them they might just give you the right to do what you want. You really ought to get permission first, though.

Thats right. When I did my recent CD, I did the same for the three covers . . . jumped thru the hoops and paid the cost.

Bottom line, when a person writes a song, it is their intellectual property.

Using it in any form without compensation is stealing their intellectual property.

Unless they give you permission to do so.

Also, think about this: Suppose you do a transcription of a song by an obscure songwriter, and distribute it.

Later, someone else, such as a known artist, picks up the song and has a big hit with it. It has happened.

You can bet that you will be contacted by the lawyers for that artist, demanding money, and even suing you.

Just do the right thing, which is what you would want people to do with your intellectual property.

I am inclined to argue the opposite - that the longer we pervert the idea of property by extending it to the intangible, the more inappropriate and harmful laws we are likely to make.

Hang on a minute...

We didn't extend property law to the intangible. English law has recognized intangible property since medieval times. A lease, for example, is intangible property, as is a debt.

Recognizing the product of your mind as your property as much as the product of your hands is an entirely natural application of existing law. When you buy intellectual property you are buying a bundle of rights, just as when you buy a lease or a debt.

Of course, intangibles are different kinds of property from physical objects, and need a different kind of law.

But to remove intangibles from the scope of propery would be the most radical thing to happen to English law since the Norman Conquest.

It's not just music -- many people's livelihoods depend on intellectual property being respected. Writers, computer programmers, architects, photographers, painters....

One thing that's always somewhat surprised me is that people who work in those lines of business seem to be no more averse to casual bootlegging than anybody else.

An argument I often hear from my colleagues is "Well, everybody's ripped off my program. Why shouldn't I rip off a bunch of movies?" Ethically, this is pretty self-serving and doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. But, at the same time, it's easy enough to understand why people think that way.

Add this tit-for-tat ethic to the rapacity of the recording industry and the ham-fisted, ill-judged campaigns of the copyright agencies, and you've got ideal conditions for widespread law-breaking.

I would like to think (hope?) that if the law more accurately reflected the consensus of ethical views on this subject, we'd all be more likely to respect it. Of course, there will always be some people who prefer theft over honest toil, but when large numbers of decent, mostly law-abiding folks find a law almost impossible to comply with, then it's time to have a good hard think about what can be done.

Everybody knows what a patent is, right? Well, a copyright is a patent for your ideas that are published. I guarantee that if many posters here had a dog in that fight they would do an opinion 180. Just ask a songwriter who depends on his craft to make a living what he thinks.

Well, I am one of those people whose livelihood depends on IP rights being respected. So I most certainly have a dog in this pile.

I think you over-simplify an ethically very complicated and contentious situation. On the one hand, we (in the West) live in a society where the concept of ownership is well-established, and almost everybody agrees in principle that a person is entitled to exercise his or her rights of ownership. Almost everybody agrees that rights of property can, and should, apply to intellectual property as well as to physical objects. To be fair, not everybody does -- but most people do.

But most people's ideas about ethics are fairly utilitarian -- mine certainly are. If IP law causes somebody hardship without a corresponding benefit to anybody else, then it's understandable that people won't respect it.

Now, of course, some forms of IP violation are clearly harmful. Passing around bootleg movies or copies of CD clearly violates somebody's legitimate interests (although not necessarily the interests of the rights-owner). It's pretty hard to make a convincing ethical justification for that sort of thing, unless you're prepared to argue for the complete dismantling of IP rights (and all that would follow from that).

But there are many situations where the harm is not obvious, and may not even exist. Passing around private copies of transcriptions of music is, I think, a borderline case. While I accept that, in principle, you're depriving the original owner of a potential source of income, it's far from clear to me that this would happen in practice. Of course, done on a large scale it might be more likely.

It's not clear to me that the BBC, for example, suffered any loss or harm because fans of 'Teletubbies' put drawings of the characters on their Web sites. It's not clear to me that the company Orange suffers any loss or harm any time anybody else uses an orange square in their publicity materials. It's not clear to me that record companies lose money if I buy a CD so I can copy it to my iPod. I could go on, but there are just so many similar examples that it's hard to know which ones to pick.

The ethics of intellectual property is complicated, and it does the cause of those of us who want to see better compliance absolutely no good at all to pretend otherwise.

The problem is that even if you decide to share it for free, it may affect the composer's ability to make profit with that piece of music.. Let's say the composer actually has an arrangement... why would you buy an arrangement from the composer if you can download one for free? I mentioned earlier how this guy published a transcription of Robert Glasper's arrangement's on youtube and received a warning from the agent... Either way it's important to notify the composer.

But I do agree that copyright issue isn't all that black and white. People share jazz transcriptions online all the time, and that doesn't seem to be a problem(well it's not like there is much money in jazz anyways). The original fakebook did violate copyright laws, but musicians didn't find problems using them, and it would cost a fortune if you buy those charts from the composers individually..A lot of great accomplished jazz musicians do feel the same way as you do about their own music too.. I know Aaron Parks has all his charts on his websites, and most musicians will give the charts to you if you just ask them. Of course things may be different for commercial music compositions/arrangement, where the composers actually expects to profit from their music.

Here's just an example of how copyright laws actually do more harm than good for creativity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac