BS: Copyright on Silence

Subject: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,Barry T
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 03:55 PM

We've discussed copyright a hundred times here at the 'Cat, but this story takes the cake...

Music Publisher claims copyright on silence

Based on this logic, I hope you'll all honour my new one-note composition titled Concert C! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 03:58 PM

Quite absurd.

The only certainty is that some lawyers will get richer...

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:00 PM

That's hillarious!

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: MudGuard
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 04:04 PM

Be careful if you do NOT post!
I claim the copyright on "absence of text"

Similar to the copyright on silence which is the absence of sound...

MudGuard

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Naemanson
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 05:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Naemanson
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 05:43 PM

I challenge you, Mudguard! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 06:05 PM

How would you prove it's the SAME silence?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 06:06 PM

You know, so many classical composers incorporated silence into their works that I'd think Batt would have no problem proving "prior art."

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: C-flat
Date: 02 Jul 02 - 06:12 PM

Naemanson, I have posted the exact same absence of text on other threads and am frankly shocked to find you claiming this absence as your own!
This is a clear case of blatant plagiarism and you will be hearing from my lawyers!
C-flat(pat.pending)

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:09 AM

As the uncle for whom I was named used to say,"The Universe is an incredibley stupid place in which to live!"

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:09 AM

How do you know it's one silence? It could be two short silences joined together

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:29 AM

I think the publisher and Cage, when he was alive, should have copyrighted the absence of a brain! I never could stand his pretentious crap, anyway.

Do you suppose they will now go after any group that calls for a "Moment of Silence?" Or, maybe WE should copyright that, quick!

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,ozmacca
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:38 AM

... or would it be just the first (or other) part of the same very long silence broken into two or more parts by onr or more periods of noise..... Anyway, what I want to patent is the deliberately inadvertant wrong note - as opposed to the deliberate wrong note or inadvertant wrong note, or even the inadvertant deliberate wrong note, which is so often featured in much flok music.

Having just read this, I think I might also try to patent the inadvertant mis-spelt word....

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Bert
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:29 AM

There's just gotta be a song challenge here!

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: C-flat
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:32 AM

Here's some lyrics,

"......................................................................................................................................................................................."
I only got the first verse, maybe someone else can pick it up?

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Bert
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:35 AM

And didn't our own Seamus Kennedy have some silence for his narcoleptic pig in "Old MacDonald's Deformed Farm"

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Hrothgar
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:08 AM

Stuck his neck out with the attribution, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:13 AM

I think The British Legion should claim prior rights, on the basis of one (or two) minutes silence being an announced feature of November 11th since the end of WWI .
As to a song challenge, it's too late. "Hello darkness my old friend..."

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 06:31 AM

IIRC somebody recorded a 'single' which was just silence. It was included on numerous Juke boxes and often selected just to get a break in the "Music"

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: mooman
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 07:00 AM

Ohmygod! I've infringed copyright!

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: mooman
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 07:01 AM

Oh no it's alright! The post got through...

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,T-boy
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 07:59 AM

Didn't John Lennon once do a 'two minutes silence' on one of his albums? Maybe Yoko should cough up some royalties too.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:41 AM

Obviously, Batt's composition is very different.

First off, Cage wrote in 4/4 time; the score of the first 5 bars are (all rests):

Whole Note
Whole note
Quarter note, eighth note, eighth note, half note
Whole note
Whole note

But Batt's composition, although it is also written entirely with rests, is clearly in 3/4 time, and begins:

Quarter note, eighth note, quarter note, eighth note
Dotted half
eighth note, eighth note, half
eighth note, eighth note, quarter, quarter Dotted half

How the lawyers could confust the two is beyond me!!

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Wincing Devil
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:28 AM

I'm reminded of an old Batman TV episode in which the Joker claimed a copyright on the alphabet...

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: MMario
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 11:41 AM

c-flat.

Please! Punctuation!

That should have read...

"...............,.............;
................,..............
................,........................,
.............,...............,........................;
.............,....................!"

I believe the second verse is:

"...............,.............
................,..............;
................,........................
.............,...............!........................:
.............,....................!"

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Bardford
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:06 PM

The CBC interviewed Batt on Monday night. A couple of points- he registered the composition as co-written by Batt/Cage, but it was Clint Cage who was the collaborator, not John. (Clint Cage=Batt, of course.)

Also, Batt pointed out that Cage's piece was an analog recording, whilst his was digital. They played an excerpt from Batt's piece, but I didn't hear it as I had turned my radio down.

Frankly, I would like to see Milli Vanilli perform either of the pieces, maybe with Marcel Marceau.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: C-flat
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:13 PM

Apologies MMario, As usual I got carried away with the lyrical flow and missed the punctuation.
Here's a bunch to add in where appropriate,
("!,?;.`:")

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,Ernest C
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:40 PM

On Rhymes and Reasons, John Denver sang "The Ballad of Spiro Agnew" (Tom Paxton) "I'll sing you a song of Spiro Agnew, and all the things he's done.", followed by an appropriate silence. Then he did "The Ballad of Richard Nixon" which was just seven seconds of silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Noreen
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 12:57 PM

Thanks for putting the line breaks in, MMario...

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 01:16 PM

Let me get the copyright on gaseous efflusive flatulence. My ass is a wind instrument and a fart is a whole note.........

BBRRAAAWWWMMPP

Copyright that!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Bardford
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 01:40 PM

Uh, Spaw, shouldn't that be hole note?

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: C-flat
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 01:54 PM

Was that the opening line of "Blowing in the wind"?

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:42 PM

You cannot copyright on punctuation. The estate of Victor Borge will get into the act.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 02:56 PM

ROTFLMAO ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________!

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 03:23 PM

whatever that means

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:44 PM

EBarnacle, I think what Just Amy means is "Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Arse Off!!!) I agree with her this has provided me with an evening full of chuckles........you can't copyright chuckling.......can you???

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 05:52 PM

i think they are taking the piss.john

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Bradypus
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 06:15 PM

Mike Batt's 'One minute silence' is a musical joke. It's a much better joke tan 4'33", but mostly because 4'33" got there first. When I first saw the Planets album, the Batt / Cage attribution had me laughing out loud. (and not because of images of vampires behind bars).It seems to me that Cage certainly contributes to the effectiveness of the work.

Perhaps they could come to an agreement based on royalties for the number of notes played ...

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 06:25 PM

George Fox and the Seekers - 1652 have some claim to precede Cage. Silence must therefore be in the public domain.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 07:29 PM

Silent orders of monks - notably Cistercians and Carthusians, got in there long before the Quakers. (The difference being that the main time the Silent Orders break their silence is in church, while the only time some Friends hold their tongues is in Meeting.)

Maybe there could be a CD put out some time as an enumenical gesture. One side would be a Carthusian or Cistercian silence, and the other would be a Quaker silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: little john cameron
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 08:06 PM

CBC interview HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,Sonja
Date: 03 Jul 02 - 10:49 PM

LOL, Capri!
 
 

Aw, Spaw, I wanted to take out the copyright on farting, but ya beat me to it.  OK, I'll just copyright not farting!
 

Sonja

~SWO~

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 02:58 AM

Spaw, you've copyrighted the huge botty trumpets, what about the girly little poots? Can I have them??

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 05:55 AM

Liz - you can hardly claim to have a little Botty.

Why don't we start playing 4' 33" in music sessions - we could play it like "Speed the Plough" and get faster and faster - I wonder just how short we could make the last one ?

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: CapriUni
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 08:09 AM

Besides, isn't a Botty Trumpet an instrument, just the same as a regular brass trumpet?

I figure, you can copyright a tune played on and instrument, but not the instrument itself.

(Especially if everyone has one. Doesn't matter if they choose not to play it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: GUEST,ozmacca
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:28 PM

However, you could patent a new device to be used with an existing commonly available apparatus, such as a revolutionary new concept of mouthpiece, for example...... Hmmm - No, come to think of it, forget I spoke..........

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jul 02 - 06:31 PM

Did I say I had a little botty? No. I said, can I have the girly poots?

Obviously, after the vegeburgers for supper, this is not possible. Spaw, I'm sorry, I've infringed your copyright.... when would you like to collect?

As for the 'revolutionary new concept of mouthpiece, for example' - ever tried farting through a thong? Bit like that thing some people can do with their thumbs and a blade of grass.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 05:42 AM

Without getting too personal, Liz, most instruments go down in pitch as they increase in size. I would therefore think that you've got a bass base - and "poots" are defintely scored in the treble clef. By the time you've had the vegeburgers I would also expect a powerful fortissimo - I hope that poor thong has carbon fibre or tungsten steel reinforcements - perhaps it's that which produces the higher overtones.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 10:35 AM

This opens up a whole new field of music as long as you copyright it first. Consider pressing one note on a key-board and letting the electrical system vary the intensity at 60 cycles. It could be called the music of the cosmos, or at least ConEd.

Subject: RE: BS: Copyright on Silence
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Jul 02 - 11:59 PM

Dave - in the strident tones of Brian's mother "how much more personal can you get?" The size of the container does not always correspond with the size of the opening.... Big bottles have the same size mouths as little bottles...... understand whatI'm getting at here?

If you go the Science Museum (UK) there is an exhibition on at the moment called 'Grossology' which will explain why we get girly toots and Spaw-like braaarmps. This is possibly the only genuine case where size really doesn't matter.

LTS