This is absurd. I’ve heard of 4’33 before, and it seems to me that the only copyrightable thing about it is the length - it’s precisely 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Otherwise, every single human being would be plagiarizing this “song” whenever they stop speaking for any length of time, right? A baseball announcer between plays is broadcasting silence to thousands of fans; surely the lawyers should be all over him!
How can Batt’s “A One Minute Silence” possibly be a ripoff of Cage’s “4’33”?
Is a copyright on silence even legitimate to begin with?
I heard a programme on BBC R4 about this (Front Line). It seems that it is the actual performance element that makes this copyrightable. Just having silence is ok, but ‘performing’ it - or including it as a track on an album (ie. recording a performance) is not.
I asked my company lawyer about this. Here’s his response:
Since Cage’s original work (IIRC) comprised a pianist sitting at a piano for 4’33", then, according to Mr. Lawyer, “you could argue that it is a dramatic work - again though, the stage directions, effectively the wording of the “play”, would need to be written down before copyright could kick in”.
This must just be a UK thing then because there is one minute of silence, a 9-11 tribute thing, on Soulfly’s “3” which was released earlier this year. Its in the middle of the disc, not at the end. There is a title to the track as well. One or 9-11 or something to that effect. Ill have to dig it out. I know it is there though so it must not be totally illegal.
I think Mangetout has a point, IIRC from an NPR broadcast on this, it may have been the Cage “credit” that set in motion the whole trainwreck. Putting Cage in as the putative co-author probably triggered an automatic report from BMI/ASCAP/whoever the publishing-royalites clearinghouse is to the Cage Trust agents, which then triggered a specific response, etc., etc…
Though that doesn’t really sound like a “copyright” issue at first, rather more lika a “trademark dilution” issue (associating Cage with a different silence than “his”).
Just wanted to pop in and note that “non-obviousness” is one of the three criteria for obtaining a patent, not for producing a copyrighted work. The other two, if you’re interested, are “novelty” and “utility”.
Doesn’t there have to be a certain degree of complexity for something to be copyrighted? Or could I copyright a white rectangle and get a royalty from every piece of blank paper made?
Are y’all overlooking the word “agreed”? He caved. This wasn’t a judgment, it was a settlement. He decided to pay thousands now rather than risk paying millions later. This is not an act of government, and it doesn’t mean that “silence can be copyrighted”, it means that this one guy decided not to argue about it. Some people just can’t deal with risk.
Well Max, there is “agreed”, and then there is “agree to this, or we, who have infinitely greater legal resources and time to spend, will sue you into the Stone Age”. Which one was it most likely?
It seems to me that anyone who questions whether the spirit of copyright has been completely destroyed by the interference of disreputable business (such as the RIAA, who are not involved in this case, out of fairness) need only look at this example.
Did Cage’s original published work actually consist of somebody having recorded a non-piano-playing pianist sitting at a piano in a given room? Or was what made it through the mastering process just a mastering desk with the faders down?
In other words, was it really silence? The quietest concert hall, given sophisticated enough recording gear, is not only not completely silent, but any incoming noise - albeit at a low level - will be subject to that particular room’s ambience.
Granted, this may be at a low enough level not to make a difference on consumer hi-fi gear, but …
To get complete (live) silence, you’d need a well-built anechoic chamber, it seems to me.
It sounds like you could copyright a blank piece of paper as a finished piece, and then collect from anybody who also tried to market a blank piece of paper as a finished piece. Somebody could publish a ream of paper as variations on a theme of your piece if they gave you credit for it, though.
That other people buy blank paper and write stuff on it has nothing to do with your copyright, just as other people buy tapes and record onto them, or staff paper and write music on it.
4’33 is the only John Cage piece I can stand. I can listen to it over and over again . . . In fact, I am humming it right now. “Good beat, and you can dance to it!”
Anthracite, I think that is correct – it’s not so much that the performer “cannot deal with risk” of losing a lawsuit over whether incorporating the Cage/silence association in his work was a fair use, but that he could not deal with the near-certainty of going broke defending the lawsuit, regardless of eventual outcome.
Max is still right in that this does not “resolve” that you can copyright silence. But unless you can afford fighting the case to the end for the principle of it, the bigger guns carry the day.
jrd
[Another example: in the 80s, there was this Filipino restaurateur in Baltimore named Sony Florendo. Her place was named, naturally, “Sony’s”. Guess what Japanese Media/Technology MegaCorp decided that this required legal action. Florendo never stood a chance and eventually gave up in face of escalating cost.]