|
Top-level
@Viss @molly0xfff there are two types of musical copyright. Recordings, and compositions. Even if the composition is silent, e.g. "4:33" by John Cage, there *is* a composition and it counts. You would lose the argument that a 3 minute video is "4:33" though. (but if someone releases a video that's exactly 4:33 long and is just silence, anyone with any sort of musical education would know that's a direct reference to Cage's work, and so would constitute a composition copyright violation) 5 comments
@LiberalArtist @Viss @molly0xfff Copyright doesn't care about the underlying intent, only whether the work will reasonably be assumed to "be" another work. It's why derivative works can still be copyright violation. And yes, that's idiotic. It'd be lovely if we could abolish all the nonsense around modern copyright law. @TheRealPomax @Viss @molly0xfff Not necessarily. As Eric Morecambe pointed out, he was playing all the right notes though not necessarily in the right order... @PhilipCJames @Viss @molly0xfff There are some delightful defenses for this very specific case, and it's truly ridiculous that companies are allowed to use computers can both automatically flag works as violations, and be made to do so without scrutiny of the reporter, when they can't equally be given evidence or even case law that disproves a claim. |
Gregory's Server
@TheRealPomax @Viss @molly0xfff But 4′33″ isn’t just silence! For one thing, it’s divided into three movements, which performers must communicate somehow. At a deeper level, 4′33″ is about the *impossibility* of silence.
(Also, the usual score specified that 4′33″ may “last any length of time.” Any attempt to raise a copyright issue would run into the compulsory license for music recordings, for one thing.)