Gregory's Server@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 But a “silent” performance in one movement, or four movements, would clearly not be 4′33″, not would a digital audio file consisting of a flat line be a recording of it.
With my musicologist hat on, I do agree that copyright law is often ontologically incoherent. Even so, 4′33″ is specific piece of music—one I deeply love—not a catch-all for silence. It was neither the first nor the last piece of “silent” music: see e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions
@TheRealPomax @Viss @molly0xfff But a “silent” performance in one movement, or four movements, would clearly not be 4′33″, not would a digital audio file consisting of a flat line be a recording of it.
With my musicologist hat on, I do agree that copyright law is often ontologically incoherent. Even so, 4′33″ is specific piece of music—one I deeply love—not a catch-all for silence. It was neither the first nor the last piece of “silent” music: see e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...