![It's funny. Laugh. It's funny. Laugh.](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/humor_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
DRM for 1'3" of Silence 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?"
Well (Score:5, Funny)
Or do you think they mught just be committing quiet obscenities? Better ban it anyway just in case.
thoughtcrime (Score:5, Funny)
sum.zero
Re:thoughtcrime (Score:5, Funny)
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:thoughtcrime (Score:3, Funny)
account suspended
Your account has been suspended. We have sent you an email explaining why. This email should also contain information on how you can unsuspend your account.
Re:thoughtcrime (Score:3, Insightful)
i should add... (Score:5, Funny)
sum.zero
Re:i should add... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? They went after The Kingsmen for "Louie Louie", taking its unintelligibility as "proof" that it has nasties in it...
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I want a silent MP3! (Score:5, Funny)
Use it as your ringtone. Piss off everyone who tries to call you when you never, ever answer.
Re:Well (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're mistaking "absence" for "silence" - as in, the absence of anything new in the public domain because of perpetual copyright.
If you've listened to the public domain recently, you would also clearly realize that silence is not a part of it, with particular thanks to car alarms and cell phones.
=)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to Simon and Garfunkel...
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
I think that the John Lennon & Yoko Ono song itself was just stolen out of John Cage's 4'33 [classicalnotes.net] from 1952.
Re:Well (Score:3, Funny)
John Cage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:John Cage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:John Cage (Score:4, Funny)
Re:John Cage (Score:3, Informative)
You are correct, however, that the point of the Cage piece is environmental noise, a concept I'm sick of explaining.
Re:John Cage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:John Cage (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the courts found no such thing, because they were never consulted. It was settled out of court.
Rather a pity, IMHO. It might have been useful to have an actual decision.
Re:John Cage (Score:4, Funny)
Guy In The Audience: "Whipping Post"!
FZ: Say that again please
GITA: "Whipping Post"!
FZ: "Whipping Post"? Ok, just a second . . . (Do you know that?) Oh sorry, we don't know that one. Anything else? Hum me a few bars of it, please, just show me how it goes, please. Just sing, sing me "Whipping Post" and then maybe we'll play it with you
GITA: Ooh-ooh-ooh . .
FZ: Thank you very much. And now . . . Judging from the way you sang it, it must be a John Cage composition, right? Here we go, "Montana."
Re:John Cage (Score:4, Informative)
Moreover, John Cage would explain that 4'33" is not simply 4'33" of silence. He did actually write a score for this piece, note by note, and comprised of three movements. He then made all the notes tacet, and added up their time at a tempo of his choice to come up with the durations for the movements. If you knew what the original notes are, however, you could imagine the piece while it is performed.
In addition, the three movements are punctuated by the performer closing and then reopening the piano lid.
Re:John Cage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:John Cage (Score:5, Funny)
Is that 4'33" of silence, your own creative work, or a picture of an invisible galaxy?
Re:John Cage (Score:5, Informative)
As with any dispute of fact, it's Google to the rescue:
So there you go. No notes. The process of composition being described as "note for note" was just Cage's overcompensation due to his worry about his work being taken as a joke if he did not go out of his way to put effort into creating it.
Re:John Cage (Score:3, Insightful)
You're confusing the manuscript with the writing process. As with a number of Cage's pieces, the actual notes were chosen using chance operations. The fact that the manuscript had no notes written on it is due to the notes' already having been rendered tacet. No doubt there is a page somewhere in the world where Cage wrote down the operations and their result before producing the manuscript you are referring to.
Similarly, Cage once made a film of a chess game he played with Marcel Duchamp, wherein the exp
Re:John Cage (Score:3, Funny)
This is just dumb. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is just dumb. (Score:2)
Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
But it may be a DCMA violation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But it may be a DCMA violation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think about it, DRM is like a privatized turbo version of copyright. Copyright infringement is a civil matter between two parties. DRM breakage is a federal crime involving fines and jail time. Pretty sweet deal to have the government investigate and prosecute your lawsuits for you for free! How did we let the entertainment industry get away with this?
DMCA does not have jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
Not so. The DMCA forbids circumventing technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. In this case, since silence does not qualify for copyright, you'd be circumventing technological measures that control access to uncopyrighted works, which would not fall under the DMCA.
The circumvention *device* (Score:4, Informative)
since silence does not qualify for copyright, you'd be circumventing technological measures that control access to uncopyrighted works
Except for the fact that the same circumvention device that cracks uncopyrighted works can also be used to crack copyrighted works in violation of 17 USC 1201(a)(2) and (b).
Re:This is just dumb. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is just dumb. (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:This is just dumb. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:the flipside (Score:5, Insightful)
it is dumb to sell "songs" that are actually nothing more than silence. i think that is pretty ridiculous.
Not at all! Have you never been talking in a bar when the jukebox starts blaring? I would have loved to been able to buy a minute of silence!
Re:the flipside (Score:4, Informative)
It's a cute story though. I could see why you would want it to be true.
Re:This is just dumb. (Score:5, Funny)
OMFG (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OMFG (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again...
Re:OMFG (Score:4, Funny)
Therefore, you must always listen to music to avoid fines. In this way, they will sell more music.
Quality (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quality (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quality (Score:3, Funny)
You're Under Arrest! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're Under Arrest! (Score:5, Funny)
But you must pay royalties to the copyright holder(s).
Infringing on the copyright? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:2)
It's not the same tune at all! (Score:5, Funny)
I looked into the RIAA's stance on this. (Score:5, Funny)
"Nothing to hear here. Move along."
You wouldn't be infringing their copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of which (Score:2, Funny)
Already Slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Already Slashdotted (Score:3, Informative)
For now.
Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
So I wondered how the various codecs handle silence. That seems like an easy optimization for the codec implementor. Here's what I did:
So, while the guy is right in almost every case, he picked a really bad example to make this particular argument on. If he had burned to CD and ripped, assuming is CD-ROM drive is good he'd have pure silence in the re-ripped soundfile.
There must be something in the iTMS that's public domain that would make a better example.
|_ (Score:4, Funny)
Re:|_ (Score:4, Funny)
Re:|_ (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple doesn't have to stop them (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Cache [64.233.161.104]
Is there something more to this than an uninteresting thought experiment in regard to IP and DRM?
Down for the count (Score:2, Funny)
Ahh, yes but... (Score:2)
Re:Ahh, yes but... (Score:3, Funny)
Sue 'em all (Score:2)
"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 ...
Mirror (Score:2)
Precedent (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of questions to be debated here..
Re:Precedent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Precedent (Score:3, Informative)
"This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gainin
Copyright (Score:4, Funny)
What Copyright? (Score:2)
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.
Old news (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's put this to a rest right here (Score:2)
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.
DRM vs. Copyright confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DRM vs. Copyright confusion (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. However, it is highly likely that Cage would not have given permission to record his piece being "played," so the point is moot.
Could I record what I hear at the Mall, and sell it?
Yes.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Listen to it backwards... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Listen to it backwards... (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA's new tactic. (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:RIAA's new tactic. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the problem is probably even worse than just
John Cage (Score:3, Informative)
Cage's estate won that case - or rather, recieved a large settlement out of it.
This is a bit of a commentary [kconline.com] on the ordeal.
Um ... okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um ... okay? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a fantastic example of just how nonsensical DRM, the RIAA, and the music industry in general are. Kudos to the guy who thought of it.
Wow Compression (Score:5, Interesting)
Realy take a look, whats hard to compress, variance.
The song is the same the entire track. so realy that could be compress quite nicely. no need stereo is silence after all. no need for a bit rate, its silence.
Frankly I am a bit disapointed in the compression.
Re:Wow Compression (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow Compression (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt. Wrong. VBR schemes in formats such as OGG, MPC, and others are based on "quality" as opposed to bitrate. There's certainly a correlation between the two, but the idea is to have compression levels linked to quality as opposed to size.
Even with MP3 you can have VBR encodings that go down to 32 bps during silence. Check out LAME's "alt-preset" (just preset in recent revisions) command line options for damn good quality based settings.
See Hydrogen Audio [hydrogenaudio.org] for more information than you could ever want.
Couple Issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
Converting to a non-copyprotected format is already allowed, since they let you burn iTunes to CD. And since they already allow you to convert to one format, you could argue that point that you are just converting to another for personal use.
And the tune itself is nothing but silence, which seems flawed, as there is only 1 silence by nature itself, doesnt seem logically to be copyrightable.
Myself, I stopped using iTunes, as it doesnt carry the music I want, a few only radio stations do, so I use stream rippers, which is the same as saving off a radio. Not illegal yet, but wouldnt stop lawsuits, they can use for anything.
There is a precedence for this... (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, his minute of silence "infringed" on the late John Cage's 4'33 of silence.
No joke. No legal precedence was set, as the matter was settled out of court. (I wonder how much the trust got out of suing someone for copying silence.)
I guess the track could be worth a listen (Score:5, Funny)
John Cage's 4'33" isn't actually silence...OK? (Score:3, Informative)
Seeing as 4'33" is actually written out in music, to record the piece you must perform it, using a piano. Even a studio recording will not be perfect silence, and a live recording will have a noticeable amount of background noise, maybe with the occassional cough, giggle etc.
Missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
So it is hard to claim copyright on a recording of ambient noise, which by its nature is a "public good" (if it can be said to be any kind of good at all).
The Law... (Score:4, Funny)
The Law is silent on this issue.
No Infringement (Score:4, Informative)
> exactly the same length and put it online, would
> I be infringing their copyright?
No.
a) The work contains no protected elements.
b) Independent invention is a complete defense.
Don't tell anybody (Score:3, Funny)
Six.
Minute.
Abs!
Re:Don't tell anybody (Score:3, Funny)
*Notice: Results may vary
Re:There's Something About Mary (Score:2)