BS: Intellectual property run amok

Subject: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Scoville
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:58 AM

I got this from my archivists' listserv.

Intellectual Property Run Amok

"FOR INCLUDING a 60-second piece of silence on their album, the Planets were threatened with a lawsuit by the estate of composer John Cage, which said they'd ripped off his silent work 4'33". The Planets countered that the estate failed to specify which 60 of the 273 seconds in Cage's piece had been pilfered."

Link is here.

And for those of you who are Snopes fiends:

BBC link

CNN link




Funny, but I would have thought that silence would be public domain by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM

What will Cage do about the Simon and Garfunkel hit?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Think it's too late to get some kind of copyright on the note C?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Scoville
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

I was wondering about the Nixon tapes. I'm not sure I'd want to take those people on in a lawsuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Mooh
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:25 AM

Suppose he's got rights to the minutes of silence held for the dead, too. Those royalty cheques are gonna pile up. In fact I'm considering being silent after I "submit message", who do I pay?

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears, does anyone get paid?

Oh brother...

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

From the news articles I get the impression that it wasn't merely the 60 seconds of silence which posed the problem, but that the composer tongue-in-cheekedly attributed John Cage as co-composer. In so doing, he openly admitted that his inspiration for the "piece" was Mr. Cage's own work. I don't think the issue was the silence as much as it was using Cage's name without permission. Had he approached the Cage estate ahead of time, he would have probably been given permission to use the name for a reasonable donation to whatever work that estate does.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

Oh dear, oh dear..... Well I guess it souldn't come as a supprise that some afficianado's of "serious" music have little sense of humour. Many years ago we attended a friend's performance of Schwitters' Ursonate or Sonate in Urlauten, which is sort of a very long tone poem. We giggled and laughed at times during his performance and received some rather dark looks from other audience members. However, our friend thought our take OK by him.

I wonder if Tchaikovsky's estate or the US military would come afer you for using a canon in a piece and citing them?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:41 AM

oh yeah, I was impressed that he could remember the whole f*#king thing. Quite a feat.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:43 AM

And what does this do for rests?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:58 AM

exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Scoville
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Very small royalty checks, I guess. The paperwork must be Hell ("Hmm, let's see--how many quarter rests did you use this month?").

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

Yeah, but think of the size of the checks they'll get whenever somebody shuts off a TV or stereo or iPod or.... Why, libraries alone are going to make they wealthy beyond the dreams of Croesus!

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Scoville
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:07 PM

Can we sue acoustic tile manufacturers if we end up paying royalties on silence we didn't mean to use?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Windsinger
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:02 PM

How about suing Tom Paxton while he's at it? :/

I'll sing you a song of
Spiro Agnew
And all the things he's done ....

(stony, crypt-like silence)

Well, it was probably a hoot in 1969.

Slán,

~Fionn

www.geocities.com/children_of_lir

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:54 PM

I understand that the University of California, through a spinoff company is suing Microsoft for royalties over their patent for:

"JavaScript that runs when you click on it."

This appears similar to a patent on "things that turn on when you turn on the turn-on switch."

As a result Microsoft plans to change IE and virtually all associated programs so that you will have to click to enable JavaScript and then click again to run the script. A "video conference" with affected "Partner" organizations within the past couple of days explained that all web pages using JavaScript or XML "active function" coding will need to be rewritten to permit individual users to access them as before, once the "fix" is issued to users.

An example given was that in Real Player when your mouse approaches the volume control you'll be shown a "hint" flag that says "Click here to adjust volume," which you will have to do before you can click there to adjust the volume.

The French apparently also have passed their prohibition on proprietary formats for music downloads, thus forcing Apple to withdraw all French marketing of iPods and iPod content. Details remain vague...

Maybe I could patent my idea about equipping vehicles with wheels that rotate when the vehicle moves. (?).

John

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:29 PM

I long ago copyrighted and patented all 1's and 0's. Program at your own risk!

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM

All he has to do is find ONE sound anywhere in that 60 seconds and BOOM, he's off the hook. Even the tiniest little sound. Wee, wee, sound. Any little 'click' of any sort.

What a bullshit lawsuit.

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:04 PM

Maybe not off the hook Peace, I think Cage's intention with 4'33" was that the audience and any ambient noise in the theatre were to provide the "music" in the composition. Then again, if Batt recorded absolute silence, how could it possibly be the same piece?

Subject: RE: BS: Intellectual property run amok
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:21 PM

Good thought.