Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Battle Over Nothing

Posted by chrisd on from the sound-of-one-hand-clapping dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes: "In this story reported at The Independent is "one of the more curious copyright disputes of modern times." It appears that the key question is "which part of the silence was stolen." If only this was April First. This is a lawsuit suing over the sound of nothing, no sound, silence, nada, zilch, bupkiss.

3 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Re:John Cage and 4'33" by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As such, this piece can never really be recorded (unless you actually record an audience listening to it, and even then, it's not the same thing; once the sound is recorded, it is no longer the same kind of performance), and claiming that a recording of silence is even close to being the same thing as 4'33" is ludicrous.

    I find it interesting that this is coming up, if only because I happened to be at a performance of 4'33" on Friday, and that performance most certainly was recorded! (4'33" was actually just a warm up for the main work, a masterful performance of "Sontas and Interludes for Prepared Piano", and it worked very well as a warm up.)

    If anything, I'd say that an absolute blank on the disk is closer to Cage's original intent than a recording of a live performance. It forces the listener to strain his ears trying to figure out what's going on, resulting in him listening to ambient sounds. Since that was Cage's exact intent, it seems to me that it really is a copy of his work. It certainly isn't a ridiculous thing to argue about.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  2. Re:Don't be an idiot... by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You don't get it all. The problem is this -
    "which I credit Batt/Cage just for a laugh"
    The estate of John Cage is upset that the composition in question is credited to John Cage.
    There is an assertion in the notes that:
    1. John Cage is the author.
    2. John Cage or his estate approved of this "performance"
    3. John Cage or his estate approved of shortening 4'33" down to just a bit more than a fifth its original length ( or playing it five times as fast I guess )

    Imagine for a moment how much lawyer exhaust you would land in if you claimed to have a previously unrecorded collaboration between yourself and John Lennon.

    From the sounds of this article I take it that this is all taking place in the UK. Mike Batt is lucky he isn't getting sued for libel and maybe fraud.

    I don't think the silence itself has anything to do with this case.

  3. Re:John Cage and 4'33" and The Bloodhound Gang by Bazman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And the reason John Cage's piece is 4'33" is because that is 273 seconds, and absolute zero is -273C (near as makes no odds). It all makes sense now...

    Oh yeah, didn't the Bloudhound Gang do a track called "The Ten Best Things About New Jersey" which was 10 seconds of silence?

    Baz