Slashdot Mirror


What Counts as Music and Why?

The Importance of writes "There has been much discussion about compulsory licensing schemes. Most of the debate has been about music. But what happens when any file can easily be converted into a sound file and back again? Can shareware authors convert their software to digital music and get paid for sharing it? Can pornographers get paid for turning images into sound? Scott Matthews has written a program (Ka-Blamo) that does the conversion. LawMeme looks at some of the issues. This raises the question, what should count as music and why?"

13 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Transacting the undefined by Empiric · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IMHO, this is a fundamental problem with this kind of non-transactional pricing scheme. Our categories such as "music", "noise", "data", "spam" are fundamentally perceptual definitions. Once you try to divy up a share of profits among a variety of things that people are accessing with their bandwidth, there are no objective criteria by which to separate one from another. It becomes an issue of who is making the most noise and can muscle their way into greater (non)-market-share, which is why this issue is being discussed in relation to music in the first place. The determination of who gets what share becomes a contest of politics, rather than quality. It becomes rather like the attempts of socialist governments to control pricing; even with the best of intentions there is no way to make this fair. Either we vote with our dollars or let someone else vote with them, based on their perceptions.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  2. A Challenge by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he can convert the new Metallica album into music, I'll be impressed.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  3. Music is Music by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Anything created with the purpose of being listened to should qualify as "music" - yes I know that this also would include radio broadcasts of news and whatnot that's just ppl talking, but as far as it goes audio is audio.

    Making a software program and converting it into an audio file is idiotic. If the purpose of the file is not to listen to, don't even try to argue its consideration in any kind of licensing scheme...

    1. Re:Music is Music by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, media type is (and should be) defined by content, not by encoding. The type reflects the manner in which the author intends the content to be enjoyed, and the manner in which the consumer intends to enjoy it.

      If I take a photograph of a tree and encode it into bits, those bits will always represent the content of an image, even if some stupid Baudio-like program presents those bits as though they were some other sort of media. Even if I'm the one pretending it's a .wav file, I intended it to be an image, and you probably intend to view it as an image. If you honestly intend to listen to my image file (which I suspect don't even follow the appropriate standards of the file formats they purport), then maybe we can talk about it's merits as music/line noise.

      This is crucially different from some of the examples he gives, which don't really apply to his "codec" at all.

      In steganography, two different works are combined into a single encoding. This does -not- make the resulting file a single work, nor does it make the included image a song, or the included song an image.

      The DeCSS song is a little more complicated, depending on whether you believe it is intended to (and can be) enjoyed as pure music, or whether it is merely intended as a vector for code. In any case, there is real audio content that's been provided.

      4'33" was meant to be enjoyed as audio content, so it is, even though the 'art' is actually in the lack of audio content. It's not like the silence (or in Baudio's case, noise) is really meant to be pornography.

      Hmm... I think a key differentiator might be what -analog- formats the content exists as. We live in an analog world and digital encoding can really only exist as a means of temporarily storing something inherently analog. Content is analog.

      This whole argument just seems... stupid.
      Stupid enough to make me actually post...

    2. Re:Music is Music by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this light I might point out that copyright law does not refer to "music."

      It refers to sound recordings (that's how Shatner "got away with it").

      The story's question is phrased somewhat improperly improperly.

      Nor is the issue new. It's just more pressing now than before. Without using a computer at all I can convert light (and therefore photoimages) into sound and vice versa. I can turn mathmatics into music and music into mathmatics (Mozart was fond of doing this and developed a method using dice to develop themes). I can turn text into images, sound ( no, that's not a degenerate statement. I can turn text into arbitrarty sound. It's called "reading music" and any text can be used for such).

      What is needlepoint other than a set of Cartesian Coordinates with a color code translated into an image?

      How about this piece of paper I have here with some symbols on it? Is it my copywritable intellectual property, or is it a chess game? And if I can copywrite it what rights do the players have to it? It was their game, and thus their creation, after all.

      Computers just make the process faster, easier and more ubiquitous, but artists, scientists and home experimenters. . .and even some lawyers, have been dealing with all of this stuff for decades.

      And then there was Dr. Leary. Think about it.

      KFG

  4. Okay, I'll Bite On This... by tds67 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Can pornographers get paid for turning images into sound?

    Yes, but just remember, it's not the size of the song that counts. Even a short song like this could deeply penetrate P2P networks.

  5. RNA as music for an example by killthiskid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From http://whozoo.org/mac/Music/Sources.htm

    Imagine the mRNA to be like a long piece of magnetic recording tape, and the ribosome to be like a tape recorder. As the tape passes through the playing head of the recorder, it is "read" and converted into music, or other sounds...When a "tape" of mRNA passes through the "playing head" of a ribosome, the "notes" produced are amino acids and the pieces of music they make up are proteins.

    They go on to say:

    Music is not a mere linear sequence of notes. Our minds perceive pieces of music on a level far higher than that. We chunk notes into phrases, phrases into melodies, melodies into movements, and movements into full pieces. similarly proteins only make sense when they act as chunked units. Although a primary structure carries all the information for the tertiary structure to be created, it still "feels" like less, for its potential is only realized when the tertiary structure is actually physically created.

    Ok, this makes sense to me but we also do the same thing with words... and words can be made into speach. Why not say the same thing of patents... Our minds take existing ideas and change them... thoughts get put into actions, actions into motion, motion in physical parts, physical parts into machines, machines into processes, processes into... well, you get the idea.

    All of our existence as humans (including our own being) is parts being put together into something greater than the whole, and this happens to include music... music has bizarre rules, and most everything else can be made into music. Does this mean the rules of music apply to the other items?

    Reminds me of the DeCss as free speach argument.

    So be it.

  6. Re:Hmmm.... by spektr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps it has to sound different if played backwards to be music?

    Nowadays that's an outlawd technique. Decrypting satanic messages by playing tracks backwards is prohibited by the DMCA (Demonic Message Comprehension Act).

  7. Re:Well, IMHO by curtlewis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I can appreciate you displeasure with the RIAA, MPAA, etc, your approach is fundamentally flawed. Not to mention your language...

    If all you pay is at the concert, you are contributing to skyrocketing ticket costs for concerts. Composing, recording and producing an album takes time, talent and money. Artists and technicians involved in that process deserve to be paid for their work just as you are paid for yours.

    I do believe the system contains massive amounts of unnecessary overheat. The meat isn't very lean, so to speak. Record executives rake in huge salaries, while most artists, which pay those execs, are lucky to make gas money. This needs to change. It will be a long, slow and painful process, but I think we are in the beginning stages of that now. Just remember, the execs won't give up their fat salaries without a fight.

    I remember when concert tickets for a major act were $20 at a major venue. Going to a concert was affordable then. And I went to a fair number of concerts. Today, the major acts are pulling in $75 for those same seats. Sure, you can go to some shows for $35, but those are generally acts from the 80s or emerging bands. Even so, it's nearly double what it was less than 20 years ago.

    If concerts were affordable, I'd go far more often. Paying your fair share at every step of the process (not just for concerts, but for the CDs, too) will help.

    Piracy only makes the problems worse and it's a lame excuse to break the law.

  8. Steganogrphic obfuscation of copyrighted works..? by jdray · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, it's a heady subject, I'll admit. I read this article in Linux Format magazine about steganography, wherein the least significant n bits of an image's pixels are hijacked for hiding data. The image changes so little that the average viewer can't detect it, and heaps of data (pardon) can be hidden there. Will the next P2P app use steganography to hide (music, et al) files in very large graphics? I'd think that courts would have a hard time determining that the original file wasn't just coincidentally the same as the encoded bits.

    --
    The Spoon
    Updated 6/28/2011
  9. Compulsory licensing is a bad idea. by geekee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This example just goes to show what a mess will be created if the govt. simply collects a pot of money from ISPs and then tries to divy it up to the recording inductry. Everybody and his lawyer will be in line for a piece of the action. In the Soviet Union people stood in lines too for similar reasons, and look how that turned out. The system is inherently unfair because the one who gets the most money will be the one with the best lawyer and the most lobbying money, instead of the person with the most talent and the ability to write something someone wants to hear.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  10. A whole new world for obfuscated code ... by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow, I think obfuscated code is pretty 1337 now (e.g. Perl code in the shape of a camel), but I'll be seriously impressed when someone writes a "Hello, World" program that converts to an audio file of them saying "Hello, World." Any takers? :)

    Cheers,
    IT

    --

    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

  11. wahoo! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Boy bands aren't musically talented, so they're music must be free! ... Wait, that doesn't help us at all!

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)