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?"
This is just dumb. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
obviously not copyright infringement (Score:2, Informative)
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
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]
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.
Re:Still dumb, but I'll answer, anyway. (Score:1, Informative)
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:Already Slashdotted (Score:3, Informative)
For now.
Mike Watt (Score:2, Informative)
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.)
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:Precedent (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow Compression (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA's new tactic. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the problem is probably even worse than just
Re:Precedent (Score:2, Informative)
An analogy which compares the violation of one to the violation of the other will always be inherently flawed.
According to the US Copyright Office at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
Since silence is not music, it is not protected by #2. Since silence is, by definition, the absence of sound, it cannot be a "sound recording", and therefore cannot be protected by #7.
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 gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited. "
What the article talked about was using JHymn to modify the file, "circumventing a technological measure in order to gain (unauthorized) access" to the iTunes file and allowing the file to be played on a different mp3 player. Apple does not authorize such access, nor does the contract Apple signed with Ciconne Youth's record company.
Re:the flipside (Score:4, Informative)
It's a cute story though. I could see why you would want it to be true.
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: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.
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.
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's 4'33" isn't actually silence...OK? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
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.
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:Well (Score:3, Informative)