What's going to kill them is the slowest server since AOL 2003.
dave
· 1 year ago
it's outstanding - just turned my son on to it...a bit slow loading but once it's there it's totally solid
BUT it's missing the single most important thing a learning player requires from a site like this: a PRINT TAB button! duh...
Denis
· 1 year ago
@dave: Thanks for comment. Print Tab and Full Screen Mode will be added really soon. Stay tuned!
LocalBandNetwork
· 1 year ago
A lot of guitar tab sites have gotten shut down by the RIAA (I think). There are definite copyright/publisher rights issues. How is Songsterr going to get past that?
Matthew
· 1 year ago
It's not the RIAA shutting down tab sites (recording institute artists of america), it is BMI and ASCAP, the music publishing arm of the industry. They are the one who makes money off of published songs and the derivative works, like tablature. Good point, tho.
Denis
· 1 year ago
Songsterr is a Russian company. It operates in full conformity with the legislation of the Russian Federation. We'll see what happen, but Ultimate Guitar and friends are still alive and kicking...
LocalBandNetwork
· 1 year ago
Matthew, thanks for the correction. I was too hazy to remember and I was too lazy to look it up...
Denis, good luck. I think it's great to help people learn to play their favorite songs. ASCAP and BMI (and the RIAA) seem to have their hand in people's pockets all the time. It's almost "double dipping" to expect royalties from displaying how to play a song then expect royalties if that song is performed or recorded. Lots of smaller artists get screwed, sure, but what is the exposure worth. And lots of big artists don't need to minimal extra income... IMHO
arie
· 1 year ago
wat does it do
barie
· 1 year ago
what
Denis
· 1 year ago
@LocalBandNetwork: Couldn't agree more. Thanks!
@arie: it plays a guitar tab online. Wikipedia has a good article on guitar tabs.
mwilton13
· 1 year ago
I'll definitely be checking this one out when I get home. I already passed word on to my guitar playing cohorts.
me123
· 1 year ago
Denis, did you guys make the flash for the tabs yourself?
Denis
· 1 year ago
Yes, we did
Sara
· 1 year ago
I really like it so far. Up til now, I was teaching myself out of guitar ebooks, which actually worked surprisingly well. This is a really great application though.
Constantine - Music.us
· 1 year ago
Great site but it is lacking what I see as the biggest obstacle: rewarding the publishers and rights holders.
The RIAA will certainly not be after these kind of sites because they are concerned with the record industry not publishing. ASCAP and BMI are concerned with the performance.
Publishers such as the MPA (Music Publishers Association)- mpa.org and the NMPA (National Publishers Association (nmpa.org) will have issues and are known to have gone after tab sites.
My suggestion is to figure out a way to include a system of compensation for rightsholders. Again they will only come after you if the site has enough traction and they see they can make be compensated or make something out of it. The issue is always about copyrights in the end. To be successful you need to address the legal and economic implications of copyrights within your business model despite the reality being that not many people are buying sheet music and most go to free tab sites. What is the business model by the way?
Great idea by the way. Question now is how do you monetize it and spread the love to the rightsholders. These are not the record labels by the way and not performance rights organizations (even though they could say that since you are playing the song, that could be regarded as a performance).
I suggest you look into karaoke because they are into a lot of trouble lately since the publishers are only demanding the mechanical rate, they are asking for a sync rate (since you are synchronizing audio with visual) and a performance rate (since you are playing the song). Print rights? Maybe they can demand that too.
I understand you are in Russia but almost most of the songs you have on your site are controlled by Publishers from the USA.
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing, 512 F3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008), the court addressed a matter of first impression in the Circuit: How does the Copyright Act apply to karaoke devices? Plaintiff Leadsinger is a karaoke device manufacturer. The device it manufactures is “an all-in-one microphone player†that connects directly to a television and has recorded songs imbedded in a microchip in the microphone. While playing, the Leadsinger device, like most karaoke devices, plays music and projects the song lyrics visually on the screen synchronized with the music.
Copyright law grants the copyright owner the exclusive rights reproduce and distribute the copyrighted work in “phonorecords.†However, as the Leadsinger court noted these exclusive rights are subject to a compulsory license under section 115, which “subjects phonorecords to a compulsory licensing scheme that authorizes any person who complies with its provisions to obtain a license to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work.†If, as Leadsinger argued, its karaoke device was a “phonorecord,†then the compulsory license under section 115 would allow the use of the songs and lyrics.
The gravamen of the dispute involved license fees that BMG demanded of Leadsinger. As the court explained, “in addition to the mechanical fee required under to secure a compulsory license, BMG has demanded that Leadsinger and other karaoke companies pay a ‘lyric reprint’ fee and a ‘synchronization fee.’ Leadsinger has refused to pay these additional fees and filed for declaratory judgment to resolve whether it has the right to visually display song lyrics in real time with song recordings….†In essence, Leadsinger believes that the compulsory mechanical license under 17 U.S.C. § 115 should cover everything, and it should not be required to pay a separate fee to show the lyrics or to synchronize the lyrics with the music.
The Copyright Act defines “phonorecords†as “material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.†17 U.S.C. § 101. “Audiovisual works†are defined as “works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any….†Id.
The Ninth Circuit found that the use of the lyrics, in projecting them on the screen synchronized with the music, met every element of an “audiovisual work,†and therefore was not a phonorecord. The court found that the “images of successive portions of song lyrics are ‘intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machine [sic] … together with accompanying sounds.’†As an audiovisual work, it was excluded from the compulsory licensing scheme in § 115.
The end result was that Leadsinger could not rely just on the compulsory license fees it paid to BMG to make and distribute copies of phonorecords, it also had to pay BMG fees for synchronization licenses and reprint licenses to display the song lyrics.
In the second case, Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp. et al., --- F3d ---, 2008 WL 509245 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit continued its apparent disdain for karaoke. In that case, Plaintiff Sybersound Records, another karaoke device manufacturer, sued several of its competitors over the same licenses that were at issue in Leadsinger. In Sybersound, however, the complaint was that the other manufacturer defendants were not paying the license fees, therefore they were able to undercut Sybersound’s prices and compete unfairly. Sybersound claimed it was injured because it did pay all required license fees, and therefore its costs were higher than his competitors.
Sybersound’s problem, however, is that they didn’t own the copyrights on which they claimed the license fees were due. Because it didn’t own the copyrights, Sybersound did not have standing to complain about the actual infringement due to failure to pay the license fees. Apparently recognizing this problem, Sybersound sued instead for violations of California’s unfair competition law, RICO violations, and intentional interference. But all of these claims rested on one alleged wrong – the infringement of the copyrights Sybersound lacked standing to address. The court held that because Sybersound lacked standing to sue for copyright infringement, it also lacked standing to sue for related claims that required the copyright claims to be decided. The court also held that the unfair competition claim was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend.
Thus, for the second time in two months, the Ninth Circuit pulled the plug on karaoke plaintiffs. However, in so doing, it left us with a few reminders of what should probably be obvious points. First, karaoke devices, and the recordings that are played on them, contain more than one copyright. Each of these rights is separate and requires a separate license. Second, a plaintiff can only complain of the infringement of rights it owns. And third, a plaintiff cannot easily plead around this standing requirement by recasting its complaint in terms of other related claims. Or perhaps it’s really as simple as the Ninth Circuit just doesn’t like karaoke.
dave
· 1 year ago
@denis - wow! that was fast, really looking forward to it...basically, my son sits there playing a nirvana song but also needs to take it ofline to practice, but if he winds up on another site with a variation in the tab it's all for naught when he returns to your site...
vizyonfilm
· 3 months ago
The themes have been unpublished, no release is visible in the project pages, and the tarball archives have been deleted.
The files in CVS still need to be deleted. Is there a quick way to delete all those files?
All Comments
BUT it's missing the single most important thing a learning player requires from a site like this: a PRINT TAB button! duh...
Good point, tho.
Denis, good luck. I think it's great to help people learn to play their favorite songs. ASCAP and BMI (and the RIAA) seem to have their hand in people's pockets all the time. It's almost "double dipping" to expect royalties from displaying how to play a song then expect royalties if that song is performed or recorded. Lots of smaller artists get screwed, sure, but what is the exposure worth. And lots of big artists don't need to minimal extra income... IMHO
@arie: it plays a guitar tab online. Wikipedia has a good article on guitar tabs.
The RIAA will certainly not be after these kind of sites because they are concerned with the record industry not publishing. ASCAP and BMI are concerned with the performance.
Publishers such as the MPA (Music Publishers Association)- mpa.org and the NMPA (National Publishers Association (nmpa.org) will have issues and are known to have gone after tab sites.
My suggestion is to figure out a way to include a system of compensation for rightsholders. Again they will only come after you if the site has enough traction and they see they can make be compensated or make something out of it. The issue is always about copyrights in the end. To be successful you need to address the legal and economic implications of copyrights within your business model despite the reality being that not many people are buying sheet music and most go to free tab sites. What is the business model by the way?
Great idea by the way. Question now is how do you monetize it and spread the love to the rightsholders. These are not the record labels by the way and not performance rights organizations (even though they could say that since you are playing the song, that could be regarded as a performance).
I suggest you look into karaoke because they are into a lot of trouble lately since the publishers are only demanding the mechanical rate, they are asking for a sync rate (since you are synchronizing audio with visual) and a performance rate (since you are playing the song). Print rights? Maybe they can demand that too.
I understand you are in Russia but almost most of the songs you have on your site are controlled by Publishers from the USA.
Constantine
Music.us / Music.mobi
Blog: http://www.entrepreneur.pro
Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing, 512 F3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008), the court addressed a matter of first impression in the Circuit: How does the Copyright Act apply to karaoke devices? Plaintiff Leadsinger is a karaoke device manufacturer. The device it manufactures is “an all-in-one microphone player†that connects directly to a television and has recorded songs imbedded in a microchip in the microphone. While playing, the Leadsinger device, like most karaoke devices, plays music and projects the song lyrics visually on the screen synchronized with the music.
Copyright law grants the copyright owner the exclusive rights reproduce and distribute the copyrighted work in “phonorecords.†However, as the Leadsinger court noted these exclusive rights are subject to a compulsory license under section 115, which “subjects phonorecords to a compulsory licensing scheme that authorizes any person who complies with its provisions to obtain a license to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work.†If, as Leadsinger argued, its karaoke device was a “phonorecord,†then the compulsory license under section 115 would allow the use of the songs and lyrics.
The gravamen of the dispute involved license fees that BMG demanded of Leadsinger. As the court explained, “in addition to the mechanical fee required under to secure a compulsory license, BMG has demanded that Leadsinger and other karaoke companies pay a ‘lyric reprint’ fee and a ‘synchronization fee.’ Leadsinger has refused to pay these additional fees and filed for declaratory judgment to resolve whether it has the right to visually display song lyrics in real time with song recordings….†In essence, Leadsinger believes that the compulsory mechanical license under 17 U.S.C. § 115 should cover everything, and it should not be required to pay a separate fee to show the lyrics or to synchronize the lyrics with the music.
The Copyright Act defines “phonorecords†as “material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.†17 U.S.C. § 101. “Audiovisual works†are defined as “works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any….†Id.
The Ninth Circuit found that the use of the lyrics, in projecting them on the screen synchronized with the music, met every element of an “audiovisual work,†and therefore was not a phonorecord. The court found that the “images of successive portions of song lyrics are ‘intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machine [sic] … together with accompanying sounds.’†As an audiovisual work, it was excluded from the compulsory licensing scheme in § 115.
The end result was that Leadsinger could not rely just on the compulsory license fees it paid to BMG to make and distribute copies of phonorecords, it also had to pay BMG fees for synchronization licenses and reprint licenses to display the song lyrics.
In the second case, Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp. et al., --- F3d ---, 2008 WL 509245 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit continued its apparent disdain for karaoke. In that case, Plaintiff Sybersound Records, another karaoke device manufacturer, sued several of its competitors over the same licenses that were at issue in Leadsinger. In Sybersound, however, the complaint was that the other manufacturer defendants were not paying the license fees, therefore they were able to undercut Sybersound’s prices and compete unfairly. Sybersound claimed it was injured because it did pay all required license fees, and therefore its costs were higher than his competitors.
Sybersound’s problem, however, is that they didn’t own the copyrights on which they claimed the license fees were due. Because it didn’t own the copyrights, Sybersound did not have standing to complain about the actual infringement due to failure to pay the license fees. Apparently recognizing this problem, Sybersound sued instead for violations of California’s unfair competition law, RICO violations, and intentional interference. But all of these claims rested on one alleged wrong – the infringement of the copyrights Sybersound lacked standing to address. The court held that because Sybersound lacked standing to sue for copyright infringement, it also lacked standing to sue for related claims that required the copyright claims to be decided. The court also held that the unfair competition claim was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend.
Thus, for the second time in two months, the Ninth Circuit pulled the plug on karaoke plaintiffs. However, in so doing, it left us with a few reminders of what should probably be obvious points. First, karaoke devices, and the recordings that are played on them, contain more than one copyright. Each of these rights is separate and requires a separate license. Second, a plaintiff can only complain of the infringement of rights it owns. And third, a plaintiff cannot easily plead around this standing requirement by recasting its complaint in terms of other related claims. Or perhaps it’s really as simple as the Ninth Circuit just doesn’t like karaoke.
The files in CVS still need to be deleted. Is there a quick way to delete all those files?
www.vizyonfilmizle.com