The Fake Books I've seen are NOT simply copies of the original sheet music, but instead are nothing but the melody, sometimes with chords shown above. I have several I got from my dad's estate. I think these fake books are exactly like the tab sites in that someone actually has to write down the notes and chords -- which sometimes are not correct. Since they are never exact, and since the complexities of the actual chord structures are never captured, you would never use them if you are serious about playing the music.

The problem that we are now facing is that the copyright holders are doing everything they can to restrict the use of their property. The idea of "owning" music or video or even printed matter seems to be, at the root of all this, under attack. Certainly in the software business, which is the one thing where I actually know what I'm talking about, the holy grail has for years been to rent the software and to collect an annual toll for its usage. This is certainly how software in the business world is licensed (technically ALL software is licensed, and you never actually own the software, but up until now it has been just that: a technicality).

It will take a major revolt to stop this trend. I don't see this revolt happening, and therefore what may happen instead is that many of us will find ourselves continuing to do things that we've always done, and which used to be legal, but now we'll be breaking the law. The larger problem is that when large numbers of people feel it is OK to break one law, that begins to erode the respect for the rule of law, and this is not a good thing.

Back when I used to play guitar, I used those tab sites a lot. I've been to each one of them many times. I'm very sorry to see them go, and it only increases my considerably dislike for the people that run the music industry.

I was recently interviewed by a company representing Adobe doing research on how customers use Adobe's products. One of the big questions is how would Adobe users feel about annual subscription based licensing of their software.

I flat out told them I would stop using Adobe products if I were put in that position. Some people choose not to upgrade or purchase additional software if what they are using works for them. To be forced to upgrade every year removes personal choice and I made it very clear if Adobe went that route, they would lose me as a customer.

The research firm representing Adobe was a taken aback at my response - like somehow I needed Adobe to do what I do..

>>>But Tabs are like me writing down the chords to a song and on a napkin and passing it along to you so we can jam. <<<

Not even close to being the same, just as making a single copy of something on tape and giving it to your friend is not the same as file sharing.

Through the internet you can reach millions of people and that is called publishing , and can seriously affect business ( writing something on a napkin and giving it to your friend is far from that ) . Secondly, most of these sites get ad revenues and are making money using somebody else's copyrighted material.

They have every right to stop those cords/tabs from being published, just like they have every right to stop illegal file sharing.

You can still larn to play those songs. Do it the old fashioned way ( recommended ) , learn it yourself, or just buy from the publisher. Why are people so lazy and cheap these days and want everything instantly and free? I wouldn't really have anything against that providing rent and food were free for everybody, but they are not, so those people ( artists, publishers ) need to make a living, and not everybody affected is a big bad record label. There are many small independent artists and software publishers being ruined by this sort of thing. Instead of helping them , internet is forcing them out of business. Various software tutorial businesses are slowly going away and only piracy is to blame, because people are already used to the idea that just because they have internet everything should be free..

I just went on guitar tabs and myguitar tabs.com and they are loaded with ads. So they are making money pubishing somebody else's property. Come on, you aren't pissed about that? You wouldn't be pissed if somebody on the web was making money using your products and taking away your revenue?

You can still larn to play those songs. Do it the old fashioned way ( recommended ) , learn it yourself, or just buy from the publisher. Why are people so lazy and cheap these days and want everything instantly and free?

The old fashioned way was to listen to the song, play along with it, rewind the tape, listen again, etc. However, the music people now want to restrict the number of times I can play or listen to music (or watch a video). This has been covered in recent posts (including a recent patent which will render a disc unplayable after a certain number of views). The DivX DVD discs were a similar attempt in this direction. Now that companies are finally getting around to "selling" their music online, they often do so in ways that are highly restrictive. For instance, under one model I have to rent it, and if I no longer pay, I can no longer play. My money is gone, and if I don't fork over more money, my music is toast.

For one hundred years we have been able to own records and tapes, and have been free to tape music that came into our homes and play those tapes to our heart's content. That is rapidly changing, and it is that change that has people upset.

To suggest that people want or expect music for free is to ignore a century of behavior that suggests otherwise. Until the Internet, Tower Records and others made a huge business out of selling music and video to the public. The Internet changed the distribution model, and Tower just filed for bankruptcy. But to suggest that the problem is due to people suddenly being cheap and lazy is to suggest that we've had a complete change in moral values in the space of ten years. While the decline in moral values is an interesting debate for another time, I really don't think we've witnessed something as complete as a total breakdown in values. Instead, what happened is that the Internet provided a substantially better way for people to get the music THEY wanted -- without all the music they didn't want -- and to get that music instantly. No waiting for it to play on the radio; no need to go down to the store. In addition, they suddenly had a tremendous range of new options to play that music WHERE they wanted, and to "consume" that music in new and flexible ways.

The music industry saw all this as a threat, and rather than realizing that this new paradigm represented a business opportunity like nothing before it, they refused to get on the bandwagon and instead fought it in court.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Illegal downloading became the norm. This was NOT inevitable, any more than illegal copying of software has to be inevitable. The answer to both problems is to offer value that can only accrue to people that actually buy the legitimate item. Apple and others are starting to offer this. Thus, those that will dominate music distribution in the future will be entirely new entities.

"Free" will eventually fail, but only to the extent that the paid services offer value, and to the extent they don't gouge (like the industry did with CDs, where they introduced a HUGE step function in the price of music -- which did not in any way reflect their underlying costs -- and managed to irritate a large percentage of the buying public).

The existing paid services are only scratching the surface of what is possible. If I were running such a service (like iTunes), here is what I would offer:

1. Custom CDs, with true-quality audio. This service exists at Wal-Mart and other locations (I've used it), but they only burn the CDs using MP3s as the source. They should instead use the original WAV files. CDs do not need to be a dead medium. They can -- and should -- represent the "gold standard" in audio quality, something that still matters to a sizable percentage of the music-listening public.

2. Custom DVDs, with high quality video, menus, etc., that include not only the music, but also performance videos. While many of us know how to encode high quality video, none of it is anywhere "DVD quality," and most people that are ripping off MP3s would have a tough time getting this quality.

3. Licensed access to special web content. If you put a CD or DVD in your computer, it often links to a web site. The content is usually lame. It doesn't need to be that way. Imagine a DVD that had a unique ID embedded that would allow you to log on and participate in live chats with, and perhaps private performances by the artists. Basically, the DVD or CD becomes your "ticket" to future entertainment.

4. Hard-copy artwork, available via mail.

5. Set up a "club" where everyone in the club can LEGALLY share music between themselves, so long as that music comes from a legal source.

6. Joint ventures with companies that naturally collect a monthly fee, and which are already associated with music and video (such as ISPs and cell phone companies). For an extra $5/month, you get "x" number of songs. I'm sure there are hundreds of other programs that would make even more sense.

I can go on, but the point is that VALUE is the thing to emphasize.

One final obvious point to make. Which do you think will be more successful: A company that sues and threatens its potential customers, and only offers them products and services that the COMPANY wants; or, a company that understands what their customers want, and eagerly and enthusiastically delivers it to them? The answer is obvious, and so is the reason that so many people feel ZERO sympathy for the music companies.

Yet *so* many people forget or are unaware that the "music companies" don't hold all the cards. Publishers, mulitple artists, producers, distributors (in some cases) co-writers, writers, etc all have a share, and can't always, and in fact rarely can be, administered by the record label or licensee of a piece of music.
I'm not defending, merely expressing that it's not so cut and dried as most folks think.
My recorded music with Windham Hill is published by 5 Fingers Music. Print version of same is Makai Music. Sync is by Robinson Associates. All for the same musical works. My Virgin-controlled recordings have a total of 6 different publishers/administrators.
Major PITA sometimes. It would be sweet to rip down the structure and rebuild it if someone could maintain the old while building the new.

I suspect the future for a chunk of that could be "assisted self-publishing," similar to how Amazon.com does it for small print publishers.

When it becomes too inconvenient to buy something the way the vendor wants to sell it, then even normally honest people will be tempted to bypass it.

I bought an audio program on CD recently, that came with a separate code that locks it to a particular PC only (which was not disclosed upfront). Well, I'll never buy from this vendor again, and I suspect there are a few others who feel the same way. And the funny thing is that this program is not one that is likely to be stolen at all.

So the end result is likely to be a net loss for the vendor.

>>I was recently interviewed by a company representing Adobe...

I was actually interviewed by the project manager of Adobe Encore DVD for various DVD issues and how their software is used.

The "renting software" issue sure didn't pop up! I would have answered the exact same as you.

I wonder if anyone remembers, this same scenario was leaked during one of the investigations of Microsoft a few years ago; that Microsoft considered having "license subscriptions" for Windows (read "renting software"), and they, MS, received huge heat for this in the computing press.

Microsoft stated that they had no plan to do it, but just "considered" it. I guess they're not alone.

I remember seeing a really good file recovery program; the best I had ever seen, but they only "leased" it to you; you couldn't buy it (I asked them). I did not buy (or lease) the program.

Now they just dribble the users with annual upgrades. Same business results, different execution model.

Now they just dribble the users with annual upgrades. Same business results, different execution model.

Except most of the time, as is increasingly the case with Vegas, you don't really need any of the "new" stuff, and you can continue to use the older version for as long as you want. I can't remember the last time I bothered to upgrade Microsoft Office. I have nine computers and I regularly use versions from the most recent (which came with the computer) back to a 1997 version. There is virtually no difference, and I use a LOT of the features, including macros, mail merge, user-created dialogs, multivariate regression analysis, linear programming (Excel) and more.

Amen to that, and if I had to, I would even pay $100 extra to get Office 2002 (XP) rather than the newer 2003.

The latter messes up so much stuff I refuse to have it installed on any machine I use full time.

Back to the music industry: there is a very interesting set of articles in the September issue of Wired that underline what I suggested above. That the performers have a lot more freedom to go outside the labels etc. now Very interesting reading, not just the obvious.

The times they are a'changin'....

You touched on an interesting point there. About being able to use older versions of Vegas if you wish to.

My non-HDV work requires no upgrade after Vegas 5 and I gotta say, I'm very impressed that Vegas didn't force me to upgrade to 6 because I didn't require any of the new features....

Strike another plus for our favorite software.....

Stan