Warner/Chappell cracks down on fan websites!

Check this out:

http://www.internet-magazine.com/news/view.asp?id=3462

The record label is contacting websites that display lyrics and tabs of Radiohead songs, and ordering them removed.

"Its emails claimed the websites constituted “an infringement of our rights under US Copyright Law” and had a “direct impact on our ability to market and sell our musical arrangements and songbooks, and that adversely affects the royalities that we are able to generate and pay to the band."

“Radiohead or their record company [EMI] have nothing to do with all of this,” Pels said. “I know that people are trying to contact the band about this. I’m sure they don’t approve of Warner Chappell’s actions. Only last week, bassist Colin Greenwood recommended ateaseweb.com on UK radio.”

. . . .

Is the label nuts? Don't these websites bring in more revenue by promoting these songs than they might reduce through lowered songbook sales ? ?

Probably not. If you're looking for song lyrics, do you just search the web and download them for free, or do you go looking all over hell's half acre for books to buy which contain them? And if you can get the songs for nothing, who in their right mind is going to go out and buy them? It's not like test driving a car, where you go out and drive for 20 minutes and then decide if you want to buy it. It's more like once you test drive it, i.e. download it, you own it. What is the point then of going out and buying it? In addition, there isn't a record store in America which won't let you hear the record before you buy it. Other than for the purpose of piracy, there is no need to have full-length song clips posted on the internet, especially if the person posting it does not own the rights to do that.

Good argument, you make some very valid points. I have to admit I am guilty of downloading music, however, I do find I purchase the majority of stuff I do download. No, I know I am not the norm, however I think a lot of people are like me. I believe I have been exposed to many more bands in a non-confrontational (hope I am not blowing $15) way. I would put my (original) cd collection against anyone's here... hehe, but I know the whole mp3 argument is old and tired.

Anyway, as for the Radiohead tabs, its sad, since I know a lot of kids use tabs to learn, and... well, losing that always sucks... Not that I think it is right, I just think it is grey, since most of this tabs are interpretations anyway, and not really accurate, but close. I mean, is it still illegal to make and distribute a mp3 if I have re-recorded it and re-interpreted it? Grey area I know, cause the material is still copyright, but is not 100% accurate... Ah well, interesting to say the least,

-Nick

There aren't any songs posted on these websites. Just tabs and lyrics. Chords aren't even copyrightable. Lyrics are, but again I suggest: posting the lyrics on a fan website is a means of promoting the song, which translates into revenue of all kinds.

Posting lyrics and tabs might reduce the songbook revenue, or then again it might increase the songbook revenue. This is because most people would rather have a nice glossy bound book than some inaccurate printout, and seeing the tabs and lyrics makes them want to have the song, want to have the CD, want to go hear the band play.

Bottom line to me is, the band likes these websites because they promote the band and its music.

Read the article again. Their record label, EMI, (who sell records) has nothing to do with it. The site owners are contacted by Warner/Chappell Music, who is the publishing company (who sell songbooks). Two totally different animals.

For the record label and the band, yes. But not for the publisher, who is writing the emails to the site's owners. And here, once again, the issue is not wether site owners should illegally decide for the publisher what's right or wrong for them, it's about the publisher's right to protect its copyrights.

Just wanted to clear things up

the radiohead site greenplastic.com was told to take off tab + lyrics. it seems they want to publish these in books to make profit, not just "it's ours, we own it, we can do whatever we want!"

it DOES suck, and there is an online petitition with 6000 or so names, but it is legal, even though some of us may disagree. personally, there have been cases where tabs and lyrics have prompted me to BUY cd's, but this is not the case with everyone.

I think it's BS to say, "Hey...you can't show other people how to play a certain song without buying our book!"

That's wrong.

Well wake up and smell the coffee. That's how musicians have made money for centuries, way before the record industry even existed. Selling scores.

. . . unless the publisher actually makes money from increased songbook sales as a result of publicity generated by the site.

You know, we want to make the publisher the bad guys here, but if Radiohead really wants the fans to have free access to the music, they simply need to make the songs public domain and there is no problem.

Oh but wait, Radiohead wants to make money, so they license their publishing rights (or more likely a percentage of them) to a company like this one. So in other words, this company PAID RADIOHEAD for the rights to publish these songs.

Then fans come along and publish the songs for free. Now can you at least understand why the publishing company is feeling a bit screwed here? They paid a chunk of cash for the exclusive right to publish Radiohead's work, and they're losing sales because others who haven't paid for that right are doing it and publishing it for free.

Before we act like these companies are just big jerks who want to capitalize on poor little Radiohead's music that they just want to bring to the world, let's have a little more appreciation for how business works, eh? Like I said, if radiohead wants to make these songs free to the world, it's up to them to relinquish the works to the public domain. Otherwise, I'm sorry, they aren't being victimized by their publisher.

I'm going back a step and suggesting that neither the publisher nor the band in fact is being victimized by these websites, either legally or financially:

-- It is not clear that much of this material is protected. Simply publishing chord tabs is certainly not a copyright violation because chords are not copyrightable.

-- Publishing lyrics is not necessarily a violation, because it could be construed as fair use on several grounds.

-- Publishing melody notes in guitar tabs may not be a violation because these tabs are more accurately called sketches and contain no indication of note lengths or rests. Note lengths/rests are an integral part of a melody.

-- In any case, the audience for these internet tabs is a different audience from those persons buying the songbooks. A bunch of computer printouts of crappy tabs doesn't necessarily compete with an official glossy bound songbook with nicely formatted and accurate tabs. In fact the presence of these websites may actually increase sales of the songbooks by publicizing the music.

...and it's ridiculous. Your recording is yours, but you don't own the right to tell some kid in his bedroom that he can't play your song for fun.

That's not what's happening. They're telling people that they can't publish written transcriptions of the songs. You can play them in your bedroom all you want; in fact you are encouraged to. Why do you think they sell the books?

6am eternal is correct; this is exactly how composers made money before recording. And it is also how a publishing house like the one in question makes its money.

Look i'm not trying to stick up for the music industry, but let's at least be accurate with our criticisms.

You've systematically debunked copyright altogether then. What is left for a person who buys publishing rights to actually own?

Setting aside the admitted uncertainty in the "fair use" of lyrics and psuedo-melody transcriptions, what you're saying is that since a person can't copyright the parts, they can't copyright the whole. In other words, Disney can't copyright Mickey Mouse because you can't copyright a species of rodents, and lots of people are named Mickey. Furthermore, he's drawn in black, white, and red, and those are public domain colors. The various circles, arcs, and lines that are used to compose him are also uncopyrightable, so therefore Disney is wrong to say they "own" Micky Mouse.

The last argument you make may have some weight to it, but it's a moral argument against a legal one. It's kind of like the "mp3 downloaders are a different crowd from CD buyers, so you aren't really losing revenue".

I just don't see how free tab constitues a published work. Someone on the internet listened to a song, typed out how to play it, and gives it to people that also want to play the song. It's his own interpretation of how to play the song, and now they are saying he can't share this with anyone. It's BS. They are saying you can play the song yourself, but you can't show anyone else how to play the song without giving the Publishing Company money...even though they had no hand in your figuring out the song and playing it. I'm not talking about law...I'm just talking about ethics. It's greed and that's all there is to it.

Originally posted by spinman

You've systematically debunked copyright altogether then. What is left for a person who buys publishing rights to actually own?

 

Sheet music in which the melodies and solos are actually notated on a staff. Probably midi files containing melodies and solos also.

 

Setting aside the admitted uncertainty in the "fair use" of lyrics and psuedo-melody transcriptions, what you're saying is that since a person can't copyright the parts, they can't copyright the whole.

 

Not what I'm saying. Accurately copied melody and solos are clearly violations. Most of the tabs in question lack meter, so I doubt that they could be considered violations. Pictures of standard guitar chords on a fret can't be copyrighted. It's ridiculous to ask that those be removed.

 

The last argument you make may have some weight to it, but it's a moral argument against a legal one. It's kind of like the "mp3 downloaders are a different crowd from CD buyers, so you aren't really losing revenue".

 

Well it's exactly the argument the Supreme Court made in the 2 Live Crew case, so I'd say it's valid. It's ridiculous to apply it to mp3 downloading though in my opinion, because clearly it's by and large the same group of people who are no longer buying CDs like they used to.

Ok, how's this for an idea -

It may be technically illegal for these sites to host the lyrics + tab, but the publishing companies are shooting themselves in the foot by fighting this.

If there's one song of a band's that I'd like to play, I'm not spending $20 on a book to learn how to play it - period. If I don't find it online or in a magazine I already have, then I don't play it.

But, if I do find it online, I'll often glance over the other songs by the same artist and check out some more of their music. If I like them, I'll buy a cd. And since most of the internet tab is pretty crappy, I'll go out and buy the book. Now everybody's happy. The publisher got its check, the label got its check, the band got its check, the web site owner got to make a site for a band he likes, I got a book, and the band got a new fan.

Had the web site not been able to exist, none of that would have happened.

Legal? Perhaps not.

Ultimately beneficial for everyone? I think so.

These companies fail to realize the long-term benefits of fan loyalty. They want their money right now. They don't want to make a long term investment. By doing this, they might be ultimatley hurting themselves - they're certainly aggravating a lot of music fans.

-Dan.