The Rant Thread/My Life Sucks Topic [Don't be pricks]

[FireArrow]

I'm pretty certain what we do is legal as long as we don't accept money.

[FierceDeity]

Nope. That's like saying that people who torrent from piratebay aren't breaking the law, because they're not getting paid for the files that they upload. They are still aiding others in illegally acquiring licensed content, whether or not they benefit from it (aside from receiving the ability to reciprocally download in the process). The fact is, this is licensed music, to which we do not have arrangement rights. If video game companies or the composers who work for them (the arrangement rights, depending on the contract, can belong to one or both of these entities) wanted to start selling piano arrangements of their music (and some already do!), they have every right to prosecute for our illegal usage of their property. The only reason that they don't is either that they are unaware, or choose not to. The latter is generally more likely, both because it is complicated and costly to pursue a multi-national website like this, and because they don't really give a fuck. The amount of actual loss in revenue that occurs because of our site is fairly minimal, and certainly not worth the legal costs, nor the bad publicity associated with prosecuting minor intellectual theft. I also like to think that the composers and publishers view our arrangements as an act of appreciation toward their work, so that they don't even have motive to prosecute us based on principle.

TL;DR, what we do is very definitively illegal, as we do not have arranger rights. It's like underage college drinking; a lot of people do it with no problems, and it can be good fun as long as nothing gets too out of hand, but if by some horrible luck and/or decision-making we actually came into a confrontation with the law, it would definitely not be on our side. And since we have no rights to these arrangements, we certainly have no legal standing to have anything more than an informal confrontation with those who steal them.

[FireArrow]

"While you are free to create a new arrangement of an existing song, generally speaking you cannot commercially exploit that arrangement (e.g., on records, sheet music, etc.) without a license from the music publisher, or other copyright owner.

Sheet Music. If you create a new arrangement and you want to exploit it by selling sheet music, you need to contact and negotiate with the music publisher, or other copyright owner, directly. There is no "Mechanical License" for creating new arrangements and selling the sheet music. To find the music publisher for a particular song, you can look on existing sheet music for a song, through one of the performing rights organizations (see below), or through the National Association of Music Publishers."

Google search, source: http://www.saffordbaker.com/2008/10/the-law-of-music-arrangements/

I'm not sure how accurate that is though, and I'm not sure if making sheet music (without charging) is considered commercial or not. I was just always under the impression that because these are piano arrangements, not direct copies of the music, it's considered fair use.

[SlowPokemon]

^You're correct and we are crediting composers so we aren't claiming we created the music. However if Nintendo contacted us and made a stink about it we wouldn't have much of a case.

[FierceDeity]

"While you are free to create a new arrangement of an existing song, generally speaking you cannot commercially exploit that arrangement (e.g., on records, sheet music, etc.) without a license from the music publisher, or other copyright owner.

Sheet Music. If you create a new arrangement and you want to exploit it by selling sheet music, you need to contact and negotiate with the music publisher, or other copyright owner, directly. There is no "Mechanical License" for creating new arrangements and selling the sheet music. To find the music publisher for a particular song, you can look on existing sheet music for a song, through one of the performing rights organizations (see below), or through the National Association of Music Publishers."

Google search, source: http://www.saffordbaker.com/2008/10/the-law-of-music-arrangements/

I'm not sure how accurate that is though, and I'm not sure if making sheet music (without charging) is considered commercial or not. I was just always under the impression that because these are piano arrangements, not direct copies of the music, it's considered fair use.

See, the only two things that this confirms are that A: it is legal to CREATE the arrangement, and B: that it is illegal to profit from it. It does not address free circulation of those arrangements, which is (obviously) what we do.

If you buy software legally, but then put it up on a torrent website for others to obtain freely, then you are still breaking the law, the principle being that the original developer is not profiting from the distribution of that product, or a similar product. Similarly, the composers and/or publishers have the right to make money by distributing arrangements of their own pieces. Sure, they might not actually do or even want to do this, and your arrangement will likely differ from one that they would produce, but it's still their right to prevent others from circulating any arrangement, under the pretext that it is unlawful competition. So, whether or not Nintendo has actually released a piano songbook for a game, our freely available arrangements are still inhibiting their ability to do so profitably. Like a patent holder, they are allowed to sit on these arrangement rights without actually utilizing them as much as they please.

I've had copyright lawyers come in as guest lecturers before, and this is essentially the answer that they've given me when I ask afterward about a situation like ours.

[FireArrow]

See, the only two things that this confirms are that A: it is legal to CREATE the arrangement, and B: that it is illegal to profit from it. It does not address free circulation of those arrangements, which is (obviously) what we do.

If you buy software legally, but then put it up on a torrent website for others to obtain freely, then you are still breaking the law, the principle being that the original developer is not profiting from the distribution of that product, or a similar product. Similarly, the composers and/or publishers have the right to make money by distributing arrangements of their own pieces. Sure, they might not actually do or even want to do this, and your arrangement will likely differ from one that they would produce, but it's still their right to prevent others from circulating any arrangement, under the pretext that it is unlawful competition. So, whether or not Nintendo has actually released a piano songbook for a game, our freely available arrangements are still inhibiting their ability to do so profitably. Like a patent holder, they are allowed to sit on these arrangement rights without actually utilizing them as much as they please.

That's like saying we can't draw pictures of Mario and post them on the internet because Nintendo might want to sell picture of Mario. I'm pretty sure there's some creative fair use thingamajiggy. How else do fan made spin off games survive, unless it's just the companies not caring.

I've had copyright lawyers come in as guest lecturers before, and this is essentially the answer that they've given me when I ask afterward about a situation like ours.

Ehh, I won't go against his word, I'm in no position to debate this any further. I'm probably basing my argument off of some BS statement I heard once upon a time.

[Dudeman]

While Fierce makes a valid point, it's important to remember that it all points back to profits. A pirater takes an original product which is not theirs, makes NO changes to it, maybe credits the original creator, and then either sells it for their own profit or posts it for free download. Either way, the original creators are not receiving any profit from a product which is clearly theirs with no changes made to it.

We, on the other hand, take video game music, which is not ours (and which, on its own, is controversial in terms of copyright), make an arrangement of said piece (thus making it not exactly what the creator made and simultaneously an original "product"), give explicit credit to the creators, and then post it for free download and print without any sort of payment. It's comparable to the thousands of people who do covers or remixes of video game pieces (like OCRemix and ZREO, apart from individual artists) and then provide them as free downloads while also crediting the original game and creator. As for people who gain ad revenue from said pieces OR make YouTube videos of said pieces, that's a different argument.

I really don't see how we're profiting from this/breaking copyright law.

[MaestroUGC]

This ste falls under a legal gray area with fair use laws. At any rate Jamaha would get a cease and desist before any major legal action was taken by any of the publishers who are the ones who woukd typically hold the copyrights to the music, not the composers themselves.

[FierceDeity]

That's like saying we can't draw pictures of Mario and post them on the internet because Nintendo might want to sell picture of Mario. I'm pretty sure there's some creative fair use thingamajiggy. How else do fan made spin off games survive, unless it's just the companies not caring.

Have you seen the kind of shit Disney gets away with? How about the removal of Dennis Oppenheim's sculpture featuring Disney characters (from what I understand was private property)? Granted, this was a commission. Technically he profited from their IP! But the concept is the same; he didn't actually cost them any revenue, yet they still succeeded in its removal. Disney took legal action despite their lack of presence in a "slightly Disney-related sculpting" business. They are (by what I will admit is a ridiculous facet of our copyright law) allowed to do this. The fine line between this and things like online listicles featuring Disney characters (which generate money for the uploader using ads, USING THE SAME IP AS DENNIS OPPENHEIM) would be very arbitrary, if it actually existed. The reason that Disney takes no action is, essentially,

just the companies not caring.

It'd be foolish for them, both in terms of legal fees and in terms of popularity, to attack Buzzfeed every time they publish a new series of gifs about Frozen. Are these gifs somehow further removed from the source material than was Daniel Oppenheim's sculpture? No. No, they aren't, they are literally the source material put into a different format. Companies have legal precedent to pursue these things, but they don't, because they would have to pay outstanding legal fees, and all they'd really get in return would be a publicity nightmare.

I really don't see how we're profiting from this/breaking copyright law.

We aren't. But the composers/publishers are potentially losing profit (by Disney logic, anyways). Again, arranging rights are a thing. Not "making money off of arranging" rights, just arranging rights. Let's just pretend for a moment that our arrangements are something more than simplified transcriptions. Even if they can truly be considered arrangements, so can piano songbooks released by the actual publishers (which, once again, do exist). Even if our arrangements differ significantly from theirs, they are still potentially losing revenue from the availability of a free alternative based on their work. Does an official songbook exist for each and every game we post sheets for? No. Is anybody actually losing any amount of revenue worth risking legal fees and popularity loss over? No, of course not. But the point is, they have legal precedent to pursue us anyways. They just choose not to.

This ste falls under a legal gray area with fair use laws. At any rate Jamaha would get a cease and desist before any major legal action was taken by any of the publishers who are the ones who woukd typically hold the copyrights to the music, not the composers themselves.

No yeah, the chances that significant legal action, let alone action harmful to anything but the existence of this site/certain sheets, are super negligible. Because companies like Nintendo don't give two fucks. And yeah, it's typically the publishers, but ownership of the arranging rights can sometimes vary based on individual contracts.

[FireArrow]

Really guys, the only way to settle this is to get the facts from a lawyer, which Fierce already has. Debating over facts gets silly after a certain point, because, surprise, it's a fact! No amount of analytical analysis can change that.

[KefkaticFanatic]

The DL is that we will continue to do what we do until some rando Nintendo lawyer goes "hey those guys r not gud" and throws a C&D at us.  This seems highly unlikely given that piano arrangement blogs/sites/archives/whatever have existed for a very long time with no issues, and Nintendo seems to be actually trying to do better in their public outreach.

So, we probably gud and that's that

[SlowPokemon]

Not to mention most of this music isn't making them any profit anyway considering most of it isn't available for commercial purchase (except the Pokémon soundtracks and some random others).

[SlowPokemon]

sobs help me i have had so much work to do this week when will it be over

[Dude]

are you crying, or calling us sons of bitches and want us to help you

[SlowPokemon]

plot twist both *continues sobbing at you sons of bitches*