28 Oct, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Hmmm, I recall having to buy sheet music, back in the day. Does it drop out of the sky now, for free?
One of the problems many people have today is confusing theft with copyright violation. With physical books/cds/etc, it's pretty clear that taking it without paying for it is wrong. With electronic media, there is no theft. Making a copy of something doesn't deprive anyone of that thing, but it does violate the copyright holder's right to control distribution. It's much harder to make a popular case that real harm is being done, when all you have is potential sales numbers, and wishful thinking estimates.
In the case of a MUD that's based off a copyrighted work, the copyright holder has the right to shut you down for any reason. They may not care about money, they may simply not want you messing with their own vision of the universe they created.
28 Oct, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'll just point you to this, and let it go. clicky!
28 Oct, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 23rd comment:
I'll just point you to this, and let it go. clicky!
I'm still not sure what you think is wrong or what you think your point is. Written music (whether it's traditional notation or tablature) is a representation of a piece of music, which is owned and under copyright. Just because the tabs are being derived from what a person hears rather than copied from another piece of paper doesn't make it theirs to give out.
Do you think it would be legal for you to buy and listen to the Harry Potter books on tape, type out what you hear, dictation-style, and give out those transcripts?
I'll just point you to this, and let it go. clicky!
Do you think it would be legal for you to buy and listen to the Harry Potter books on tape, type out what you hear, dictation-style, and give out those transcripts?
I'll just point you to this, and let it go. clicky!
Do you think it would be legal for you to buy and listen to the Harry Potter books on tape, type out what you hear, dictation-style, and give out those transcripts?
Yes, it's called a book report :P
Making a literal transcription of a book on tape isn't called a book report in any context I'm aware of. Maybe in the trying-to-be-silly-so-people-forget-I'm-wrong context?
For the purposes of learning, it is. It is a direct interpretation of one's impressions and understanding of a piece, which is no different than how music is learned. I'm sorry that you don't have a frame of reference, Crat, but that's never stopped you from trolling before.
And companies still have more legal clout than any one individual where a gray area is involved.
For the purposes of learning, it is. It is a direct interpretation of one's impressions and understanding of a piece, which is no different than how music is learned. I'm sorry that you don't have a frame of reference, Crat, but that's never stopped you from trolling before.
And companies still have more legal clout than any one individual where a gray area is involved.
It's not a gray area. There's a lot of legal precedent for this protection. Even under educational fair use this is prohibited. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pd... See page 8. I don't believe for a moment that it's not challenged for lack of money, rather lack of any legal standing.
Quote
Who holds the copyright to Hello World?
Tom Douglas, Tony Lane, and David Lee :-)
30 Oct, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 29th comment:
It is a direct interpretation of one's impressions and understanding of a piece, which is no different than how music is learned.
I don't wish to offend with my choice of wording, but that is absurd. You could argue that is how one learns to interpret and express music, but I have never learned a specific piece by someone interpreting their impressions and understandings (and that is not what tablature contains). Tablature, like other forms of notation, literally translates into specific pitches and rhythms. A book report is a faulty comparison to tablature - my transcription of a novel is an accurate one.
One of the problems many people have today is confusing theft with copyright violation. With physical books/cds/etc, it's pretty clear that taking it without paying for it is wrong. With electronic media, there is no theft. Making a copy of something doesn't deprive anyone of that thing, but it does violate the copyright holder's right to control distribution. It's much harder to make a popular case that real harm is being done, when all you have is potential sales numbers, and wishful thinking estimates.
In the case of a MUD that's based off a copyrighted work, the copyright holder has the right to shut you down for any reason. They may not care about money, they may simply not want you messing with their own vision of the universe they created.