Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Cage's case is more complicated and less a violation than it may sound at first. It's not 4'33" of "mathematically true silence", that is, you don't violate it per se just by having the right number of zeros in your .wav file. It's 4'33" of performed silence, where the performance is actually the incidental noise of the auditorium it is in. Having a copyright on this particular piece specifically in a performance context may still be an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't break the system as a whole.

In the latter case, there's also no real risk of accidentally stomping on that.

The claim in this particular case is that they really have generated the entire possible melody space. Legally I think it's likely to fail on multiple levels if it is ever challenged, but part of the point is that some of those failures should also be applied to some real copyright suits that have been won.

(It is somewhat ironic that the music industry continues to be so upset about copyright even as they appear to be converging on The One True Pop Song at speed. Maybe if they acted less like some sort of bizarrely over-trained AI and cranked up the exploration constant, they'd stomp on each other less.)

> Maybe if they acted less like some sort of bizarrely over-trained AI and cranked up the exploration constant, they'd stomp on each other less.

It's not just the music industry. The whole economy starts to feel like overfitting the profit function.

>It's 4'33" of performed silence, where the performance is actually the incidental noise of the auditorium it is in.

That's an incorrect way to view it actually. 4'33" copyrightable essence is actually represented by the active production of its scoring. I.e. nothing. The background sound is not what makes it copyrightable. You can go ahead and sit at a piano for the length of the composition all you want, wherever you want, and you'll still be publically performing 4'33".

The rather humorous outcome, if one asks me, is that anyone who writes in 4 beats of silemce into a score should be violating copyright if we're going to be consistent.

Some smartass artists have actually written their silent compositions as rhythmically structured rests. That is, something like "silence in 6/4 time, as three quarter rests and three eigthth-triplet rests". It's intentionally absurd, but as the minimum-information notation would be the full-measure rest glyph and the number of measures of duration, the deviation from this is undoubtedly creative content that is copyrightable on paper.

That kind of thing is completely unenforceable with respect to performances, but in written musical notation, copying the specific notation pattern could be infringement. If you write "4/4, tempo 80, 91-measure rest", that's maybe violating the 4'33" copyright. If you write a score for a full band or orchestra that shows rests in each measure for each instrument, with key changes and tempo changes and such, you're just retelling the same joke in a different way.

> Having a copyright on this particular piece specifically in a performance context may still be an interesting thought experiment

Not even a thought experiment: it’s essentially a 4’33”-long ambient acoustic sample. There are plenty of these (though not usually that long) in sample libraries, recording e.g. traffic sounds, or diner conversation, or crickets in a marsh in summer, etc. And those are certainly copyrighted, unable to be used without license.

Yeah, it's more a thought experiment you get in copyright class. You are right, legally the matter is fairly settled.

>Not even a thought experiment: it’s essentially a 4’33”-long ambient acoustic sample.

I would question any legal professional's authoritative standing to even advise on copyright of a work of music if they miscategorize a recording of ambient sound as a performance of a musical scoring consisting entirely of silence. The copyright doesn't apply to the ambient sound, but to the long quiessence of an artist at their instrument.

It demonstrates a complete blindness of the negative space of music, and a positivistic bias that has no place being enshrined in our legal system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com