Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM for 1'3" of Silence

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wierd-forms-of-protest dept.

jc42 writes "In the latest entry in the battle over Digital Rights Management, a fellow has blatantly ripped off a "tune" from the iTunes Store. "Tune" is 1 minute 3 seconds of silence. To compound his crime, he has posted the tune on his web site for anyone to download. I downloaded it to iTunes, and it played just fine (but now I suppose I'm a criminal, too). I wonder what John Cage and Mike Batt would have to say about this? Will lawyers for Apple or Ciccone Youth send a C&D letter? If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?"

4 of 637 comments (clear)

  1. DRM vs. Copyright confusion by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I were to make my own MP3 silent tune of exactly the same length and put it online, would I be infringing their copyright?

    No. First of all, no one has a copyright on any length of pure silence. You can copyright SOUND RECORDINGS. Pure silence is the absence of sound, and is therefore not copyrightable.

    However, you could record yourself sitting in front of a piano (ala Cage) and the various ambient sounds recorded would technically be a unique work, and as the original author you would own the copyright on that SOUND RECORDING.

    This guy is violating the DRM agreements that Apple set forth, so Apple could pursue him.

    As explained above, the pure silence is not copyrightable, so the RIAA has no beef.

    If the guy forgot to remove the album artwork from the file, then he is infringing the copyright of whoever owns the album artwork copyright, and they could sue him.

    What is he really trying to prove? The point is lost on me due to his ineptitude.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  2. Um ... okay? by Durandal64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. Someone makes a "song" that's 1m 3s of silence. Some other guy makes an audio file that is 1m 3s of silence. He's daring someone to sue him, and everyone here is already screaming about it? No one's done anything! Apple hasn't sued. The artist hasn't sued. The RIAA hasn't sued. What's the big deal?

    1. Re:Um ... okay? by LesPaul75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But, the point is that because of the ridiculous copyright laws in this country, someone could sue. And they might even win, based on the precendents set by the RIAA's other lawsuits (e.g. suing 14 year olds and winning).

      I think this is a fantastic example of just how nonsensical DRM, the RIAA, and the music industry in general are. Kudos to the guy who thought of it.

  3. Re:But it may be a DCMA violation. by serutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. The issue isn't copyright per se but copy protection. It doesn't matter if the thing being protected is copyrighted or not, because the protection itself is protected. You could get in trouble for breaking DRM even if the content is public domain, because Congress says the imaginary box containing that individual copy is sacred.

    If you think about it, DRM is like a privatized turbo version of copyright. Copyright infringement is a civil matter between two parties. DRM breakage is a federal crime involving fines and jail time. Pretty sweet deal to have the government investigate and prosecute your lawsuits for you for free! How did we let the entertainment industry get away with this?