Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DRM for 1'3" of Silence

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the wierd-forms-of-protest dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 637

jc42 writes "In the latest entry in the battle over Digital Rights Management, a fellow has blatantly ripped off a "tune" from the iTunes Store. "Tune" is 1 minute 3 seconds of silence. To compound his crime, he has posted the tune on his web site for anyone to download. I downloaded it to iTunes, and it played just fine (but now I suppose I'm a criminal, too). I wonder what John Cage and Mike Batt would have to say about this? Will lawyers for Apple or Ciccone Youth send a C&D letter? If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?"

cancel ×

637 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well (5, Funny)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770125)

At least that's one song who's lyrics won't offend the FCC.

Or do you think they mught just be committing quiet obscenities? Better ban it anyway just in case.

thoughtcrime (5, Funny)

sum.zero (807087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770186)

it doesn't matter if they vocalize the words, we all know they are THINKING them.

sum.zero

Re:thoughtcrime (4, Funny)

TheViffer (128272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770299)

Thoughtcrime? Dont think so.

This is clearly a copyright matter. You just can't take Ashlee Simpson's works and post them freely on the internet. She needs to eat too.

Re:Well (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770192)

Or do you think they mught just be committing quiet obscenities? Better ban it anyway just in case.

Why not? They went after The Kingsmen for "Louie Louie", taking its unintelligibility as "proof" that it has nasties in it...

Re:Well (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770296)

Yeah. They didn't even write the thing!

Re:Well (3, Funny)

Dr.Zap (141528) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770220)

What's this going to do to samplers? Any pause in a song will open it for lawsuits!

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770249)

I hear that if you play it backwards you hear satanic messages...

That would offend the FCC.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770252)

Best wait until you see the video to be sure.

John Cage (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770130)

Actually, if it was John Cage, you would hear the performer turning the page.

Re:John Cage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770162)

I fail to see how you can copyright simple beats which is all the page turning would be. You can't copyright chord progressions, how can you copyright beats?

Re:John Cage (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770171)

No, if it was John Cage he would shadow-kick your ass.

Re:John Cage (1)

Proney (823793) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770232)

And, if a live recording, the murmurs of the audience.

This is just dumb. (4, Informative)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770131)

Sorry, but no. As I seem to recall, there is a minimum number of notes required in order to copyright something. As a corallary, you could not write a "book" with the contents being the word "the", and then sue everyone for breach of copyright. In other words, raw, unadulturated silence cannot be copyrighted; it needs content.

Re:This is just dumb. (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770183)

What about white noise?

Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (4, Interesting)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770216)

White noise has content. So, sure, go ahead and copyright -your- white noise. But, so long as someone else didn't mimic yours (which wouldn't be too hard -- or even desired, what with white noise being essentially random), they'd be fine. In other words, as Hunter S. Thompson would say, "Just put your TV between channels, pump up the volume, and listen to the wonderful white noise." And not sweat the copyright.

Re:Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770240)

Darn those inbetween channels violating my copyright. I will sue them!

Ok, so I write a book called "33 pages" and consists of 33 blank pages. If you duplicate my title and contents, can I sue?

Re:Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770298)

No.

But Rolling Rock will sue you.

Re:This is just dumb. (2, Interesting)

shurikt (734896) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770235)

I haven't tested it, but there's a pretty good chance that the digitally encoded silence actually contains some white noise or other artifact of the digitizing process. Would that be copyrightable?

But it may be a DCMA violation. (5, Interesting)

L-Train8 (70991) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770237)

Well, it may not be copyright infringement, but if he cracked the DRM to access the silence, it is indeed a crime under the DCMA. Which is one of the big problems with the DCMA. Even if you have a legal right to the material that is copy protected, you cannot crack the copy protection without committing a crime.

Re:But it may be a DCMA violation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770302)

What is the DCMA? The Digital Copyright Millenium Act?

Or maybe you meant to type "DMCA," a.k.a. the Ditital Millenium Copyright Act?

Re:This is just dumb. (1)

ruxxell (819349) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770241)

i'm prety sure 'rests' count as 'notes', don't they?

Re:This is just dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770268)

What is the tempo?

Re:This is just dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770255)

talk about dumb and not containing content.

"as I seem to recall" wtf? there is no minimum requirement.

besides, the lack of content IS content -- that's the entire basis of information theory and compression

so go read a book and get off your high horse, fartibartfast

the flipside (1)

sum.zero (807087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770257)

it is dumb to sell "songs" that are actually nothing more than silence. i think that is pretty ridiculous.

sum.zero

But this doesn't apply to drm, does it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770262)

You can put drm on anything, even silence or a book consisting of the word the.

Don't you think that this evil action could teach us something about just how absurd drm is?

Re:This is just dumb. (1)

Evil_Timmy (658737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770269)

If all else fails, I'm sure someone can claim prior art. "Well, occasionally, between playing things, I don't play things."

Re:This is just dumb. (4, Interesting)

Pionar (620916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770272)

It has nothing to do with how many notes. It's whether it's marginally creative. In this case, I think it'd be up to a judge. A consumer would argue that silence is inherently not creative. A copyright holder would argue that it's not just the silence, it's the position of it on the album, the significance of the length, the "innovativeness" of silence as an expression of art, and so forth. Frankly, since the threshold for creativity is quite low (hell, you can copyright a directory of people just because you've ordered it in a certain way), I think Apple's got a pretty good case.

Re:This is just dumb. (5, Informative)

milgr (726027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770285)

If you have ever seen the score, it has several pages of rests of various lengths. Recordings of performances of this piece include the background noise - including the pianist turning pages of the score, frequently people coughing or shifting restlessly in their seats.

By the way, Cage's piece is "4'33" of silence" (and it does last 4 minutes and 33 seconds).

Not only does it bring up the question of what is Art, but what is copyrightable. There was a suit about this (The suit was settled with John Cage's estate getting a 6 figure settlement). See http://www.billboard.com/bb/article_display.jsp?vn u_content_id=1710115 [billboard.com]

OMFG (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770132)

You people waste so much time and thought finding new ways to split hairs. Get back to work.

Re:OMFG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770247)

I'm glad someone said it.

the sound of a silent (-1, Offtopic)

jsin (141879) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770133)

first post

First Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Phleg (523632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770134)

...and Slashdotted already.

Quality (2, Funny)

theantipop (803016) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770136)

That song has still got to be better than most of the music on iTunes.

Re:Quality (2, Funny)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770179)

Yes, it's running at a superior bitrate of 2Gbit/s, I played it on my 6+1 and it was flawless.

There's Something About Mary (1)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770138)

If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?

YES! If you market a "8 Minute Abs [amazon.com] " program, you'll be in trouble, but "7 Minute Abs" is probably okay, and BETTER!

Don't tell anybody (2, Funny)

serutan (259622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770180)

I'm about to break the exercise video market wide open.

Six.
Minute.
Abs!

Re:Don't tell anybody (2, Funny)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770233)

6 minutes? Why spend that long? I am happy to announce my new line of products under the brand name of... Instant* Abs!

*Notice: Results may vary

Re:Don't tell anybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770293)

just get strongbad's new AB ABBER!

Re:Don't tell anybody (1)

Dr.Zap (141528) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770303)

Who has 6 minutes these days?

You need Jose Canseco's Instant Abs !

Re:There's Something About Mary (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770198)

I've already got 0 minute abs, that must be way way better, right?

Re:There's Something About Mary (1)

Asprin (545477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770217)


But then, couldn't someone just come out with "6 minute abs"?

I love that movie.

No posts, and already /.'ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770139)

Damn!

You're Under Arrest! (5, Funny)

serutan (259622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770141)

You have the right to remain silent.

Re:You're Under Arrest! (5, Funny)

rookworm (822550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770178)

You have the right to remain silent.

But you must pay royalties to the copyright holder(s).

Silence is a beautiful sound (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770145)

I can see why the don't want it there are a lot of reasons why people would want to protect the "Sound of Silence"

People who would:
Simon
Garfunkel
Neon God

Also Society of Friends

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770147)

I guess the RIAA has Slashdotted their site to protect their copyrighted silence.

Infringing on the copyright? (4, Funny)

Corporate Drone (316880) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770148)

If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?

Well... you could always claim that your MP3 was a collection of 5 seconds snippets of the "tune", and plead Fair Use...

Re:Infringing on the copyright? (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770205)

"But your honor I didn't reproduce all 1 minute 3 seconds of 'Tune' I simply played a fair-use sample - the first 3 seconds - 21 times"

Depeche Mode Remix (1)

pjh3000 (583652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770152)

Is it a really obscure remix of "Enjoy The Silence"?

I looked into the RIAA's stance on this. (5, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770154)

But only got the message,

"Nothing to hear here. Move along."

You wouldn't be infringing their copyright (2, Insightful)

Toutatis (652446) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770155)

At least in some countries there is a right to make a parody.

Speaking of which (2, Funny)

MostlyHarmless (75501) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770159)

I wanted to find an mp3 of 4'33'' the other day. I searched all the filesharing networks... there wasn't one *anywhere*!

I will copyright the empty space below. (0)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770160)



The above is copright 2005 wolrahnaes

Already Slashdotted (5, Informative)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770163)

Article is already slashdotted, here's the google cache:

I'm gonna preface this by saying that I love Apple and their products and I hate the RIAA and their shortsightedness. My only complaint with Apple is the restrictive DRM built into iTunes Music Store songs (also, those new G5s could be a little cheaper).

In protest, I've committed a real crime and documented the entire process. But it shouldn't be that way and that's why I've done it. Come and get me, Apple! Come and get me, RIAA!

It all started with a free song code from the Pepsi iTunes promotion. I tilted several Pepsi bottles at the local Ralphs (just look for random letters under the cap), found me a winner and scored a free song.

You may not know this, but there are several tracks that you can buy from that iTunes Music Store that consist of nothing more than total silence.

Here's one from Ciccone Youth (a Sonic Youth side project):

So I bought it.

Then, I wanted to play this song on another device other than my iPod (I own a Creative MuVo TX MP3 Player). No go. The Digital Rights Management (DRM) makes it impossible to transfer the song to my other MP3 player unless I go through some ridiculous steps which involve burning the purchased song to a CD and then ripping it. This causes a noticeable loss of sound quality due to the song being recompressed. Totally unacceptable. I want pure silence.

So I stripped the DRM using JHymn, a cross-platform application that unlocks your DRM'ed songs and keeps the original's sound quality. This is absolutely, positively illegal according to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

One law broken, one to go.

One file is legal, the other one is definitely not. Can you spot the one that'll get me in trouble? I'll give you a hint: it's the one without the little lock over its icon.

There's just one law left to break. I'm offering this very file for download here on my website. So go ahead, download it (1.1 MB) and break the law with me. Right click, save as, and crank it up on your favorite portable electronic music player.

If this little stunt gets me in trouble, you'll be the first to know.

You can help stop the RIAA and their nonsense at Downhill Battle.

Find out more about protecting your digital rights online at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website.

Silence is golden. Get involved.

|_ (4, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770165)

Re:|_ (1)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770234)

Copyright Infringer!!!

Die you evil scum, die!

Apple doesn't have to stop them (2, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770166)

Lack of bandwidth appears to have stopped him already. Here's Google's cache:

Google Cache [64.233.161.104]

Is there something more to this than an uninteresting thought experiment in regard to IP and DRM?

Ha (0, Troll)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770168)

If I copyright the sound of my fart, will anyone else's recording of a fart be infringement or parody?.

Did you hear that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770169)

That is the sound of one hand clapping.

Would you? (1)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770173)

"If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?"

Umm no, tell me: What exactly are you copying?

more about that here [com.com]

Re:Would you? (1)

swordfishBob (536640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770301)

You'd be clear on copyright of the performance (mechanical copyright), as you did your own performance.

You may have the administrators of your country's performing rights association on your back though, for performing someone else's work without permission and without paying royalty.

Dang, I'm violating that one right now by not singing! And so is anyone who has "a minute's silence" in memory of whatever...

Down for the count (2, Funny)

endtwist (862499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770175)

Go figure, we silenced a clip of silence.

Ahh, yes but... (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770176)

...it's digitally encoded silence!

Re:Ahh, yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770282)


And we all know that lacks the warmth and depth of analog silence.

Ciccone Youth == Sonic Youth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770181)

FYI - Ciccone Youth is actually Sonic Youth doing a strange album of Madonna covers.

Re:Ciccone Youth == Sonic Youth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770274)

Technically it's Sonic Youth with Mike Watt (ex-Minutemen, ex-fIREHOSE). They do more than Madonna covers (although there were two of those on "The Whitey Album"). Their cover of "Addicted to Love" rocks pretty hard.

And the lawers say... (1)

StriderA (60512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770182)

"Can you hear me now?"

The contents of this post are copywrited (1, Redundant)

Dr.Zap (141528) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770184)


Sue 'em all (1)

H_Fisher (808597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770187)

They're all infringing on Paul Simon.

"The Sound of Silence" [rollingstone.com] was recorded back in '65. Just shows you how little originality is left in the American music scene today ...

Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770189)

How can you do such a terrible thing?
After all DRM is meant to protect the poor artists from pirates who steal their work.

So how can an action that makes DRM look absurd be justified?

Re:Oh come on (1)

KtHM (732769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770290)

....DRM doesn't protect artists from their labels....

Precedent (4, Interesting)

alphakappa (687189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770193)

What kind of legal precedent would this create if it ever came to court? On one hand he has probably violated the DMCA by circumventing the copy-protection on the song. On the other hand, all he has is a song that is devoid of any content. (Could you compare it to a thief who broke into a house only to find it empty - would it not be a crime, if he knew beforehand that the house was empty?)

Plenty of questions to be debated here..

Copyright (4, Funny)

ojthecat (842071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770197)

The only problem with this is that Microsoft has just been issued a patent for a method of producing no sound via a mp3 data stream.

What Copyright? (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770199)

I was always under the impression that copyright was a means of giving a temporary monopoly to the creator of creative works.

As there is nothing whatsoever creative about a minute or so of silence, I don't see there as being any copyright to infringe upon.

2 posts and the site's dead already... (1)

Soldrinero (789891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770200)

I think the RIAA posted this story to Slashdot to kill the site and thereby take the offending material off the Internet. I say we as Slashdotters should work against the RIAA's evil scheme and not read the articles.

Oh wait...

Old news (4, Interesting)

thebra (707939) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770202)

This has been done. [bbc.co.uk]

Remix (1)

pjh3000 (583652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770203)

I can't wait to hear the mashup with Paul Simon's "The Sound of Silence"

What is going on? (1)

Albio (854216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770204)

So their case is prior art or something similar? It's probably true that the fellow *is* copying... but if you record it yourself, would it not be similar to recording your own garage band version of "Hey, Jude".

Re:What is going on? (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770292)

What makes you think that a cover of Hey Jude would be free to record/distribute. After all, The girl scouts have to pay to sing Happy Birthday, what makes Hey Jude any different?

is it rediculous yet? (1)

DeusExMalex (776652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770207)

i wonder what a concert of that tune would sound like? hundreds of people all standing perfectly still, not making a sound.


seriously, though... can i breathe your patented air?

Error establishing a database connection! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770208)

This probably means that the connection information in your wp-config.php file is incorrect. Double check it and try again.

* Are you sure you have the correct user/password?
* Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
* Are you sure that the database server is running?
* Did you site get posted to Slashdot?

Let's put this to a rest right here (1)

5n3ak3rp1mp (305814) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770209)

No.

On the other hand, what if it had some very low noise? Perhaps something recorded a few hundred yards from a beach? Something subtle and minimalist? Does it become patentable then?

Anything with nearly zero information content (via compression) shouldn't be patentable, but this is such a nerdy testing-the-limits-of-the-system thing to do that I can't help but watch.

ciccone youth have lawyers?? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770219)

Although copying anything that isn't recognizable by others isn't copyright violation - I belive something like x number of notes have to be similar or identical to be an infringement, I think it is funny that we may here see more of a DCMA-type issue, where he copies something he shouldn't have.

You can dance...

huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770223)

One foot, three inches of silence?

DRM vs. Copyright confusion (5, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770227)

If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?

No. First of all, no one has a copyright on any length of pure silence. You can copyright SOUND RECORDINGS. Pure silence is the absence of sound, and is therefore not copyrightable.

However, you could record yourself sitting in front of a piano (ala Cage) and the various ambient sounds recorded would technically be a unique work, and as the original author you would own the copyright on that SOUND RECORDING.

This guy is violating the DRM agreements that Apple set forth, so Apple could pursue him.

As explained above, the pure silence is not copyrightable, so the RIAA has no beef.

If the guy forgot to remove the album artwork from the file, then he is infringing the copyright of whoever owns the album artwork copyright, and they could sue him.

What is he really trying to prove? The point is lost on me due to his ineptitude.

Great! (1)

remember_to_log-off (862450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770238)

Now I can finally get some peace and quiet.

obviously not copyright infringement (3, Informative)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770242)

this would fall under fair use - silence cannot be copyrighted.

From the US Copyright Office Website:
"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Huh? (4, Funny)

el_gordo101 (643167) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770250)

One foot three inches of music?

Copyrighted silence? (2, Insightful)

Exluddite (851324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770266)

People have been having a "moment of silence" long before the advent of recorded material. That being the case, any period of silence would just be a modern arrangement of a traditional..um, song?

Why buy when you can make your own? (2)

tuxlove (316502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770273)

Just be sure you don't use this to generate a file 1'33" in length... :)
/* Outputs a silent WAV file of whatever length desired. */
int z[44100];main(int n,char **a){int s=176400,h[]={0x46464952,0,0x45564157,0x20746d66,1 6,131073,44100,s,1048580,0x61746164,0};int t=atoi(a[1]);*(h+1)=t*s+32;*(h+10)=t*s;write(1,h,4 4);while(t--)write(1,z,s);}

Listen to it backwards... (3, Funny)

techmuse (160085) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770275)

1'3" of silence sounds very impressive when played backwards - especially the backwards lyrics. :)

A review... (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770278)

I listened to the song, but it really didn't convey any meaning to me.... all in all unoriginal .5/5

Dont Forget Pootie Tang! (2, Funny)

jwegy (775655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770280)

I'm sure pootie has his silent song copyrighted!

OMFG! There WAS a lawsuit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770284)

from the article (http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Crank+it+iTunes+sel ls+sounds+of+silence--for+real/2100-1041_3-5154202 .html [com.com] )

Most famously, composer John Cage composed "4'33""--a 1952 piece that features just over four and a half minutes without sound. The BBC broadcast a live performance of the piece earlier this year--featuring the BBC Symphony Orchestra, no less.

Cage's estate even managed to win a copyright fight in 2002, getting Mike Batt to pay a six-figure settlement because a Batt recording included a silent track that he credited to Cage.

Sound shouldn't be copyrightable (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770286)

Copyright should not apply to sound. Think about it! What the hell is a song anyway? Words, lyrics, musical notation? Sure copyright can apply to all these things. But the act of someone singing the song itself? Silence?!? Who the hell decided that should be the subject of copyright?!

If Mettalica sing a song, at a concert, and I'm at the concert, or even outside it!, and I record the song on my handy gizmo, am I libel for copyright theft? What the hell did I steal? The changes in pressure in the air? Why the hell is an acoustic waveform the subject of copyright?! The written word yes. The spoken word?

OK Mettalica walk down the street and out loud say XYZ. I take down and print what they have said XYZ in as many ways as I like. I can record them doing so and show it to as many as I like, tabloids do this all he time. Am I liable? Mettalica walk down the street and out loud sing, or hum, ABC(which is one of their songs). I record them doing so and broadcast it? Am I Liable? Yes?! Why! Why their singing is copyrighted of course! Ridiculous.

Super rich rockstars are a recent phenomenon, brough about by the application of copyright to sound itself. This is ridiculous as the "silence" track shows. A soundform is NOT the same as the written word or musical notation. What about all the takes that artists didn't use? They are completely different soundforms? What if I hear the sound through a wall. Again completely different soundform results. Does an artist have rights to every possible soundform resulting from the transformation of their music?

Copyright cannot be applied to nondefinite, unwritten material. Soundwaves should not be copyrightable.

Royalties for not speaking? (1)

potuncle (583651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770287)

So, do I have to pay royalties for not saying anything for a minute and 3 seconds in front of a large group of people?

RIAA's new tactic. (4, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770288)

I'm offering this very file for download here on my website. So go ahead, download it (1.1 MB) and break the law with me.

Letter to plasticbugs.com from the RIAA:

Dear PlasticBugs,

It has come to our attention that you are hosting copyrighted material on your website. In the past we have dispatched goons. Unfortunately this takes up to a week.

In order to more effectively destroy your ability to distribute copyrighted material, we have decided to destroy your server by providing a link to its content to a very popular website's front page.

We wish your server well in its next life.

Sincerely,

JC42

I beleive (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770295)

It would be up to a court to decide if your own recorded silence was an original work or a version of their work.

Depending on the outcome of that, you may have to pay them a licence fee per public performance.

1'3" (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11770304)

I read 1'3" at "1 foot, 3 inches" and, combining that with the Python foot icon, thought it was an article about the little-known Foot of Silence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>