White Noise Video on YouTube Hit By Five Copyright Claims (bbc.com)

Chris Baraniuk, reporting for BBC: A musician who made a 10-hour long video of continuous white noise -- indistinct electronic hissing -- has said five copyright infringement claims have been made against him. Sebastian Tomczak, who is based in Australia, said he made the video in 2015 and uploaded it to YouTube. The claimants accusing him of infringement include publishers of white noise intended for sleep therapy. "I will be disputing these claims," he told the BBC. In this case, those accusing Mr Tomczak are not demanding the video's removal, but instead the reward of any revenue made from advertising associated with it. Without the claims, Mr Tomczak would receive such revenue himself. "I am intrigued and perplexed that YouTube's automated content ID system will pattern-match white noise with multiple claims," he said.

Comments

White noise can be copied too

[JoeyRox]

The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[admin7087]

Doubtful. There is no expression of a creative idea and the work is also not original. Both are requirements for copyright. Otherwise I could just copyright the word "and" and get my free income for the rest of my life.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Copied does not mean a copyright violation.

White noise is by definition random and thus cannot be protected as a creative work.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[JoeyRox]

Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".

Re:White noise can be copied too

[cirby]

He's a MIDI and electronic music guy who hand-builds his own tone sources.

He probably has several noise generators of his own already.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[sg_oneill]

If its actually proper white noise then no, no you can not. The defining feature of white noise is that its truly random and contains all frequencies simultaneously (limited of course by hardware).

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably has several noise generators of his own already.

One of them is below his nose.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Shoten]

Except there are an infinite number of permutations of Gaussian white noise, while there is only one for the word "and".

Yes, but creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song. The courts have already ruled on that concept.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[mopower70]

Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Claude Shannons information theory...white noise technically has the most information content.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[JoeyRox]

Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dunkindave]

Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.

Your logic is broken. His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work. The claims in this case though are still garbage.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[TheOuterLinux]

George Lucas gets paid every time a company uses the word "droid," TV ads or whatever.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Thelasko]

Yes, white noise is Gaussian. But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.

Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data. If so, then the algorithm is setting a false positive. However, a randomly generated set of data will be extremely unique. If it's copied, you should be able to tell.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[DickBreath]

You mean copyright infringement.

You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it. Copyright is to protect intellectual works. There is already case law that, for example, the facts present in a telephone directory cannot be copyrighted.

Someone who created white noise cannot file a claim against someone else who might actually in fact copy it all, because, the original white noise cannot be copyrighted.

In this case, I think it is automated copyright enforcement bots run amok.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful. There is no expression of a creative idea

Justin Beiber is proves that this is not a requirement.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because giant corporations hate defending against lawsuits from other well-funded corporations and there's always a risk of a stupid jury. There's exactly zero chance anyone would be likely to be confused into thinking Lucasfilm was the source of, sponsor of, or affiliated with Motorola phones. Nonetheless, Motorola licensed the mark...

Re: White noise can be copied too

[TuballoyThunder]

White noise != Gaussian White noise has a flat spectrum not shaped like a Gaussian.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations as a defense of a particular variant is like taking a recording of an existing song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming that it's a new song.

Well, no, it really isn't. Saying there are infinite numbers of permutations doesn't say anything at all about the number of differences between a particular variant and another already in existence.

creativity plays no part in creating any of those permutations.

Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality is. Selecting a specific arrangement of white noise isn't conceptually different in that regard than selecting a specific arrangement of words, musical notes, etc.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to . . .

Is that proven in court? Don't make claims based upon logic. You can only make such a claim if specifically ruled in court, and even then, only if it is ruled to apply in every circumstance. Otherwise, lawyer up, and don't make such claims.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Bengie]

What's the definition of an "author"? What's the difference between recording whitenoise and recording other parts of nature. Both are naturally occurring photons, yet somehow recording monkeys in the wild is covered by copyright?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I thought some artist copyrighted blank canvas. But found this, saying, blank space is not copyrightable. https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Rob Riggs]

The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms. [Ed: Emphasis mine.]

That is true of uncompressed audio. Once you compress the audio, the noise is going to look pretty much the same. Much of the phase information which is necessary to distinguish one sample from another is gone, and all that is left is the frequency domain which is pretty much the same from one white noise source to another.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Hal_Porter]

John Cage's estate successfully sued and got damages over someone violating the copyright on 4'33", Cage's famous silent piece.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cul...

Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement with representatives of the late avant-garde composer John Cage, for a rumoured £100,000. The man behind the Wombles' hits of the late 1970s, Batt stood accused of copyright infringement. What made his case special, though, was that he had been accused of stealing precisely nothing.

Earlier this year, on his classical/rock fusion album Classical Graffiti (played by octet the Planets), he included a self-explanatory track called A One Minute Silence. Credited to Batt/Cage, it seemed a deliberate but innocuous echo of 4'33", the four minutes and 33 seconds of silence with which Cage once outraged audiences. (First performed at a concert in Woodstock in 1952, 4'33" required the performer merely to sit motionless at any instrument for the allotted time.)

Classical Graffiti soared to the top of the classical charts, where it remained for a lucrative three months. Eight weeks into this reign, however, Cage's publishers, Peters Edition, contacted Batt and declared that he had, as it were, no right to silence. The rest is now (legal) history.

Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."

Not only was One Minute Silence not intended to be taken remotely seriously, says Batt, it in fact began life as a space-filler. "It was me taking the mickey out of John Cage - although he was probably taking the mickey in the first place. For most of the CD, the Planets play fusion music, and at the end of the album I wanted to add some purer classical tracks. So I put a minute's space between the two sections, I just thought, wouldn't it be fun if I called it One Minute Silence, and credited it to Batt/Cage?"

Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."

I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."

There are, says Riddle, precedents for this scenario - for example, Frank Zappa made a recording of 4'33" that was credited to John Cage, and for which royalties were paid. Indeed, for him the case was less about the highbrow question of whether or not silence can be copyright, but about whether or not this was actually a performace of Cage's piece. Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."

Either way, a vital part of Batt's payout was that no future money from the CD would go to the Cage camp. Batt explains: "We're going to sell more records, we've had fun with this, and I thought, I'll pay some money over to show goodwill - but of course the royalties remain mine for the future."

Given silence can by copyright, it's likely white noise can too.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can sell copies of Taylor Swift's song then?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Lije Baley]

"But they were all active in the PRNG scene and frequenters of the PRNG discussion on reddit. The infringer stole a special seed -- 123456789 -- that was known to produce the highest-quality white noise, pushing the brain into enhanced delta-wave activity sooner than noise created with less ingenious seeds."

Re:White noise can be copied too

[CrimsonAvenger]

But if you copy a white noise track created by someone else then that copy is no longer Gaussian relative to the original track - it's instead identical.

Five separate claims against him suggest either that four of the claimants also stole their white noise from the original author (whichever one of the five it was), or they're all full of crap....

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

But Gaussian. Her Gaussian!

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

>silence can be copyright
I feel the need to AKSHUALLY since that didn't technically happen.

There was some ("friendly") out-of-court settlement money, and a fee paid to use someone's name brand.

But if John Cage ever does drag out a fight, these will probably give him traction. Informal precedent is still dangerous.

John, or anyone. It's teetering enough that any of the remaining TECHNIKALLY I'm being anal about is really just a question of enough dollars and lawyers.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can sell copies of Taylor Swift's song then?

Sure, but you need a passport and you need to take her hand.
Sales only good for one weekend.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Rick Schumann]

I (and hopefully others) understand you're being funny, but (sadly) it seems to be over some people's heads. ;-)

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Midnight Thunder]

The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.

That is probably fair, but if he generated the white noise and this white noise isa far longer, non repeating sequence, then surely the others are "infringing"?

A quick look shows anyone can generate their own sequence of white noise, in less than 10 lines of code:

https://noisehack.com/generate...

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dgatwood]

Actually, works created by random selection without any contribution by a human author are not eligible for copyright protection. It is highly unlikely that white noise could be copyrighted even if you took someone else's white noise.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Dragonslicer]

Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality is.

Creativity may be the second line from the bottom, but it's still a requirement. It's the reason that the listings in a phone book aren't protected by copyright. Something that is the result of simple mechanical operations and involves no significant decisions, such as sorting names in alphabetical order, is not a creative work.

If the white noise is only random frequencies created by a computer, then there was no creative effort, and the audio is no protected by copyright. If the algorithm that creates the white noise involves selecting from certain frequencies, or selecting certain frequencies more often, in order to generate "better" white noise, then it would be an interesting discussion. Most likely, a judge would have to decide if there is enough creativity involved.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dryeo]

I think with the monkeys, it is the arrangement that is copyrighted. Much like you can't copyright a guitar playing notes, only arrangements of notes. Think of the monkeys as an instrument.
I guess under that logic, arrangements of white noise could be copyrighted.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Dragonslicer]

George Lucas gets paid every time a company uses the word "droid," TV ads or whatever.

I believe that's a trademark, not copyright.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[king neckbeard]

I'm pretty sure that merely uploading the white noise to youtube would create enough artifacts that it would be a different permutation of white noise.

More importantly, the similarity of all accurately labeled white noise is probably within the scope of Youtube's aggressive content ID system. So, the assumption of direct copying is unfounded.

Also, regarding originality in regards to copyright, it was in contrast to "effort," not "creativity." Feist v. Rural ruled that the white pages phone books were not eligible for copyright because they are not original, even though they took a lot of work. It's an uphill battle arguing that white noise is more original than the phone book.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Creativity isn't the bottom line of whether something is copyrightable -- originality is. Selecting a specific arrangement of white noise isn't conceptually different in that regard than selecting a specific arrangement of words, musical notes, etc.

Read your whole link :

As a class of subject matter, sound recordings are clearly within the scope of the “writings of an author” capable of protection under the Constitution [Const. Art. I, 8, cl. 8], and the extension of limited statutory protection to them was too long delayed. Aside from cases in which sounds are fixed by some purely mechanical means without originality of any kind, the copyright protection that would prevent the reproduction and distribution of unauthorized phonorecords of sound recordings is clearly justified.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your story does NOT confirm that the silence video is copyrighted product via the court system. There are many reason why "out-of-court settlement" is done. Often times, it is from the pressure of the plaintiff and the defendant attorney folded. Anyway, if the case was not decided by a court, it is still not proven that the video is copyrighted.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the full article on this a few days ago and if you look at YouTubes panel screenshot of this the "match" for each one is like within 3-5 seconds long at most for each match. The author just let white noise generate itself so the "matches" are probably because YouTubes algorithm allows for some wiggle room and the white noise gaps in the matching "songs" just hit it by luck.

Some possible fixes for YouTube:
- Don't let plain white noise count as a match; or
- If white noise does happen to match, make it binary identical and not allow any fuzziness to count
- Only allow white noise to match if it's identical for longer periods of time, say, at least 10 or 30 seconds

Re:White noise can be copied too

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I don't think anyone in this thread said anything about unrepeatable "random selection without any contribution by a human author" -- I certainly didn't. Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.

To be clear, I'm not taking a strong stance that something like that would be copyrightable -- just pointing out that it's not nearly as clear-cut as folks might think.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Holi]

"Last Monday, millionaire producer, arranger and songwriter Mike Batt made an out-of-court settlement " The first line states this is not a ruling, no precedence is set by an out of court settlement.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Dragonslicer]

Yes! We first have to determine if these are two independently generated sets of random data.

You can't really call that the first step, since all requirements must be met in order for someone to be liable for copyright infringement. If the first thing you do is show (i.e. convince the judge) that the original isn't eligible for copyright protection, then it doesn't matter if you copied it.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you used Monster Cables and Beats headphones.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Strider-]

It depends on intent, I think. You could argue the same thing for John Cage's 4'33" (Four Minutes, 33 seconds) which is a orchestral piece comprising completely of rests. The basic idea is that it turns the orchestra into a performance piece, with the orchestra paging through their scores, and the only sounds present are the ambient sounds within the performance venue.

The copyright over that score has been successfully defended, and rightfully so imho. The only problem is that it should have expired at some point.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[DaveV1.0]

You shoot yourself in the foot with that argument. If there are an infinite number of permutations, then all versions are either independent works OR all versions are derivative works. As white noise existed as public domain for a long time before anyone got a copyright on any particular version, the burden of proof falls on the supposed copyright holder to show that the work in question violates his work and does not derive from teh public domain work. Good luck with that.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[DaveV1.0]

More accurately, it would be like taking a public domain song, changing the pitch of a single note, and then claiming copyright over it and trying to sue anyone who also made a derivative work from the public domain song.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what confuses me more... the fact that you think that white noise (or any type of sound) has anything to do with photons, or the implicit assumption that there is such a thing as "non-naturally occurring photons"...

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The problem (copyright) is not the result of PRNG. The problem is the PRNG itself.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll notice the lawyer for Cage's estate says in this piece "not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which is difficult to regard as copyright under British law".

So, even those pursuing didn't think that silence was copyrightable, just that attributing it to John Cage is probably a bad idea. Of course, this is British law. For strange edge cases like this, every jurisdiction is likely to differ.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dgatwood]

Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.

The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible. There generally has to be at least a minimal creative component for copyright eligibility. That is, after all, the purpose of copyright—to protect creative works of authorship.

Even if someone took the time to hand-seed the PRNG with various values and compare the calming qualities, it would still be an almost laughable stretch to argue that picking that number is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection on that particular output of a commonly available algorithm, because other people's computers will randomly choose that particular number once in a while and create that output without the supposed creativity.

Now if somebody creates their own PRNG, that's a different story. Anything below that threshold seems dubious at best. That's not saying that some judge might not misinterpret the copyright act, or that somebody might not decide to sue in hopes of a pre-trial settlement, but the law is IMO pretty clear on the matter. Random noise cannot plausibly be copyrighted, and that is by design. Any abuse of the law that leads to any other interpretation is an indication of a flaw in the law rather than an intended outcome.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[q_e_t]

Pseudo-random white noise generators certainly have a human contribution and are repeatable.

The problem is that if the human component is just choosing an existing PRNG algorithm, then the whole thing is still a collection of mathematical facts like a phone book, and thus clearly ineligible.

Would that also make algorithmically-generated music not capable of copyright either? People like Brian Eno use this technique. Or is there assumed creativity in the selection of the elements of the algorithm? Or is there something copyrightable in the output. Or does creating the algorithm itself, rather than using an existing algorithm (or PRNG) make it copyrightable?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Hal_Porter]

People settle out of court because they've been advised they'll lose more if it goes to trial

Despite settling, Batt maintains that the opposition had a weak case. "I remember saying to them, look, it's very clear that you cannot copyright a piece of silence - there's too much of it about! All this payment was, was me extending a hand of friendship."

I ring Nicholas Riddle, managing director of Peters Edition, for his view. "I understand exactly what he's saying," he explains. "But I think from our point of view we thought the case to be stronger."

Of course crediting the composition to John Cage/Batt rather than "Batt/Cage" might have influenced things.

Did it even flicker across Batt's mind that there might be such a brouhaha? "It did," he says, "to the extent that when I put 'Cage', I told the record company that it wasn't John Cage, but Clint Cage, Clint being just a figment of my imagination, and a registered pseudonym for myself. What happened was that someone in the system presumed it was John Cage and put the word 'John' in."

He apparently wrote the music for The Wombles. If I were him, I'd be terrified of some slick QC reading this out in an ominous voice as evidence of my flagrant plagiaristic tendencies

https://www.songlyrics.com/the...

Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind

Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days
When he wasn't behind the times
With his map of the world
Pick up the papers and take them to Tobermory

Wombles are organised, work as a team
Wombles are tidy and Wombles are clean
Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we

People don't notice us, they never see
Under their noses a Womble may be
Womble by night and we Womble by day
Looking for litter to trundle away

We're so incredibly utterly devious
Making the most of everything
Even bottles and tins
Pick up the pieces and make them into something new
Is what we do

Underground, overground, Wombling free
The Wombles of Wimbledon Common are we
Making good use of the things that we find
Things that the everyday folks leave behind

Emphasis mine.

"The things that everyday folk - like for example John Cage - leave behind, Mr Batt?"

Also in the 80's countless British children died from HIV caught from junkie's needles attempting to 'womble' without wearing CDC approved anti infection gear - two layers of latex gloves, sterilized with bleach after use, NBC suits, gas masks and so on. Ironically children so dressed would have looked a bit like Wombles.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[danbert8]

Except that is a restriction on two-dimensional useful articles, three-dimensional works of artistic craftsmanship, and models. There are no such uncopyrightable limitations on WORKS OF THE PERFORMING ARTS AND SOUND RECORDINGS in 406 Limitations on copyrightability.

White noise probably can be copyrighted under the bullshit system in which John Cage copyrighted not creating any sound:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:White noise can be copied too

[danbert8]

I don't know how you can claim copyright over sitting still and not playing an instrument... I mean, the idea of calling that a "performance" is novel, but the act of not playing happens inadvertently and intentionally all the time and that does not make it infringing. As far as I am aware, the only "successful" litigation over 4'33" have been over a video recording of the "performance" and a settled without resolving the issue payment over a CD that included 1 minute of silence and had the name "Cage" on the CD.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Solandri]

Otherwise I could just copyright the word "and" and get my free income for the rest of my life.

In keeping with the white noise copyright claim in TFA, you should be copyrighting whitespace characters like space and tab.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[AlwinBarni]

Others already explained, however I have a new and quite an interesting comparison:
Lets imagine I published a list of English words in a random order, then (according to your logic) I could claim copyrights violation on any published book, article story etc. - just a permutation of words, right?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[swillden]

Except there are five claims against him from four different sources. If the claims are based on copying, then at least three others copied from the exact same source and have filed violation claims based on pilfered content.

I doubt anyone copied anyone. If the audio track recognition algorithm looked for exact copies, it would miss a huge percentage of actual infringement, and be trivial to work around. So it does something cleverer and looks for audio tracks that sound sufficiently alike. White noise tracks all sound alike, even if they don't have a single bit in common.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[ThanatosMinor]

His work is 10 hours long and each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it, so none of the five need contain any content from another. For example, if I took five songs from five different performers and concatenated them together, all five would have the right to make a copyright claim even though none contain another's work.

This is true, but wouldn't it be weird if that were the case? Is one minute of white noise repeated 600 times somehow worse or measurably different from five separate one-minute clips concatenated then repeated 120 times? Is the human ear+brain discriminating enough to notice that the almost-entirely-uniform static in the first example repeats with a shorter period than the second? Wouldn't that indicate poor randomness to begin with?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Solandri]

You can't infringe a copyright that does not exist. White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author

You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.

The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims. The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[AlwinBarni]

Sorry for my post above - is not correct in this context, I tried to delete, but there was no way.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Z00L00K]

Good luck with wave form identification on white noise.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dunkindave]

I wasn't trying to say the musician copied, just that the parent's assertion doesn't logically hold that this shows at least three of the four claimants must have copied their material since they all claim copyright infringement against the same piece. I understand the fuzzy matching problem that probably caused the claims.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Youtube/Google's lawyers are just being scared of their own shadow by not pushing back against these baseless claims. Sometimes "top of their class" is a meaningless term inside a corporate bureaucracy like Google:
Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices 503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dgatwood]

Creating the algorithm makes it copyrightable. The creativity is in developing an algorithm that produces an interesting output, and therefore they used significant creativity in constructing the output, albeit indirectly (but IMO no more indirectly than, for example, using an electronic synthesizer that uses algorithms to make note sounds when you press a key).

A somewhat more complicated and interesting question is whether those works are copyrightable if they publish the algorithms that created them before they publish the music. At the point where the output becomes reproducible by anyone, is the output still a creative work, or is it merely the algorithm itself that is really the creative work? Clearly you can use copyright to prevent reproducing that work by not allowing others to copy the algorithm or by deliberately preventing the use of the specific values that you used in your own work. But if you waive that right, do you also implicitly waive the right to those works that you programmatically constructed by using that algorithm? That's the point where the lines get blurry, and it becomes legally interesting, IMO. :-)

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Green Mountain Bot]

The key element in the case was this:

Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."

Had Batt not credited "Cage", Riddle himself suggests that he would not have had a case. In other words, it is Batt's intent to quote Cage that was the violation, not the silence itself.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

White noise is not eligible for copyright protection due to there not being an actual author other than a PRNG, and more importantly that there is no creativity involved in creating it.

https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...

All white noise is not the same. It has characteristics. I'm not claiming that necessarily qualifies it for copyright, but the "it's just random numbers" argument isn't going to get you anywhere.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Zero__Kelvin]

White Noise is by definition random. If there is a version of the signal that is more or less soothing, then by definition it isn't white noise. If 5 companies are claiming this recording infringes then either all or wrong or one is wrong, so unless they all go after each other they can't in good faith argue that they believe their claims. There is literally no way they can win this if he doesn't cave.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Zero__Kelvin]

Even if that happened they are either falsely marketing their product as white noise (it isn't random) which opens them up to a class action lawsuit or there is no way to prove it because it is random.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[jellomizer]

They both didn't bother creating a random seed.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[thegarbz]

each of the five claims could be for different, non-overlapping sections within it

So we're talking about a random number generator that is generating repeating set of patterns of random numbers? Or you think someone's white noise is acoustically different to someone elses?

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

You're 90% of the way there. The problem here isn't that someone filed a copyright claim against white noise - something that inherently cannot be copyrighted.

Folks keep saying that with nothing other than IANAL logic to back it up. White noise is not just random numbers. There are other characteristics. For example, the distribution of frequencies. Here's a tool that can create different "white noises" that sound very different. https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachi...

I'm not saying that makes it copyrightable, but the "you can't copyright random numbers" argument is not relevant.

The problem is that there is no disincentive, no punishment, for filing bogus copyright claims.

Of course there is.
http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/c...

The law has put the burden of proof entirely upon the purported infringer to prove he is innocent, none upon the accuser to prove an actual crime was committed.

No, it doesn't. The way it works on Youtube is that if you dispute the claim, the submitter has to respond with legal action within a given period or the claim is removed. No proof is necessary to dispute the claim.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Algorithms are also not eligible for copyright.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Moof123]

What if both sources use white noise generated using the same LFSR taps from publically available sources (i.e. match and engineering texts), or both used the same software program to generate the psuedo-random samples? Most white noise is far from truly as random as you think if you dig into the details.

Should white noise from non-novel generators even be copyrightable at all?

Re: White noise can be copied too

[serviscope_minor]

White noise != Gaussian White noise has a flat spectrum not shaped like a Gaussian.

Gaussian doesn't mean the spectrum is a Gaussian, it means the numbers are drawn from a Gaussian.

If you draw numbers at random from a Gaussian distribution, a uniform distribution or even the discrete distribution +/- 1, the result is white noise.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is eligible for copyright until it is in "fixed form" so any music made by implementing a human-written, creative algorithm would not be subject to copyright until recorded or otherwise published.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

People settle out-of-court for any number of reasons, only one of which is the risk that a higher damage amount may be awarded. Publicity, not wanting to pay lawyers, wanting to just move on, unavailability for deposition or trial, trying to sell the business that is subject to suit.... I'm tired of typing more.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, a randomly generated set of data will be extremely unique. If it's copied, you should be able to tell."

Exactly- it's why lotteries pay off- their ping-pong-ball machine has infringed on your copyright to the numbers you creatively chose several days before.

Mod parent funny, please.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Hal_Porter]

What about all the wombling deaths he caused? Surely you agree he can be hanged for those?

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to listen to some of these noise tracks on Spotify (waste of bandwidth, I know), and you know what I found? Lazy doesn't begin to describe it. It was maybe 5 seconds of noise, looped. Looped poorly, so you could hear a distinct ... noise, I guess ... when it repeated.

They had ONE JOB. How do you mess up white noise??

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Going AC to preserve moderation but to save everyone the trouble of looking up "womble" which I found has an "unpleasant" definition in Urban Dictionary I think the relevant definition is:

"to walk round picking up litter, british military 1970s 80s" (also from Urban Dictionary).

Why British children should have been wearing CDC approved gear is an interesting question. I think they have their own version of the CDC that is called something else. Public Health England maybe?

Latex gloves would certainly protect any open cuts from contacting infected blood, but doesn't seem like it would protect you from a sharp needle hidden in a bunch of other trash if you grabbed it wrong.

Interesting stuff about the Wombles though. I had to check out the song you quoted. I don't think I had ever listened to them before.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[The Grim Reefer]

Actually,Âworks created by random selection without any contribution by a human author are not eligible for copyright protection.

You'd think that, but I wouldn't be so sure. If birds singing in the background of a nature video can supposedly be, then why not white noise.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Notabadguy]

The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.

Youtube doesn't care.

I used to make songs - original compositions, written by me, sung by me, uploaded to youtube and linked around the web in places where my music was relevant. It didn't stop DMCAs or from youtube automatically taking down my work because the faggots at Warner Brothers claimed it was theirs.

The protest system is ridiculous, the assumption of guilt is ridiculous, and I stopped uploading content.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[david_thornley]

Suppose I hold the copyright to something, and you post something on YouTube. In the DMCA request, I have to hold the copyright or represent the copyright holder, and that's under pain of perjury. If I claim copyright on Frozen, for example, I'm committing perjury and that can send me to prison. I also have to claim that you've infringed on my copyright, and that's just required to be good faith, which in practice means absolutely nothing. I can legally claim copyright on this Slashdot post, which I do have copyright on, and say that your cat video on YouTube infringes. I'm completely wrong, but it isn't clear to me I've done anything illegal.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

I'm completely wrong, but it isn't clear to me I've done anything illegal.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. We are bound by laws whether we've had someone explain them to us, or not. Thank god.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

True "white" noise is actually random - something like static or between-channel noise on the radio, or maybe the cosmic microwave background. Pseudo-random noise generated by an algorithm can come close, but isn't completely "white" by definition. OTOH, why couldn't a recording of white or pseudo-white noise, taken at a particular time and place using a particular method for a particular purpose, be copyrightable? Not white noise in general, but that particular snapshot of it. Of course, that means that any other snapshot, taken at a different time using even the same method (assuming the method isn't copyrighted or patented), can't violate copyright because it's not THAT PICTURE, it's a different one.

Copyright protects the work, not the idea. A recording of white noise may be a work. White noise itself is a rediscoverable and unprotected fact of nature, not a work produced by a human.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think it does make sense to argue that the piece intentionally was crafted in a specific manner that it would appear to be a piece of John Cage's work. Which is at least a leg to stand on in the court of law. I expect a song called Billy Gene by Micheal Jackson that sounds really similar to a particular old hit might run into trouble as well. Arguing "oh, it's an homage to a great artist I admire" may not be a great defense.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I suppose. But that seems to imply an argument that this arrangement of white noise is similar to that arrangement of white noise by specifiable nameable qualitiies, that do not devolve into a claim on all white noise.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I almost snorted my soda there. Props!

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Comrade Ogilvy]

If I were a juror, I would seriously consider an argument along the lines of "This white noise is very similar to that white noise. He are some frequency distributions. Compare to these other examples of white noise. This specific similarities are not arbitrary. This is infringement because it is purposefully close copying." But that requires naming identifiable properties beyond "I own white noise".

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance of the law did not used to be a defense because, back then, the corpus of laws was known to all: it represented the consensus of community ethics, and law-breakers were clearly in violation of the wishes of the community as a whole. Nowadays, there is so much unconstrained lawmaking that ignorance of the law is indeed a moral defense. The fact that it is not a "legal" defense tells you all you need to know about the "justice system."

Re:White noise can be copied too

[TheGratefulNet]

White noise tracks all sound alike

#whitenoisematters

Re:White noise can be copied too

[dryeo]

Yea, I could see it if they were playing a beat with white noise, but plain white noise, no. Even a straight recording of monkeys shouldn't be copyright-able. Things are insane, even this message will be protected for 50-70 years after I drop dead and it isn't exactly a creative work and I'd write it even with no copyright.
Copyright is supposed to advance learning, not be a means of collecting rent on culture for ever.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the definition of an "author"?

A human who created a work.

What's the difference between recording whitenoise and recording other parts of nature.

It would come down to things like the creativity involved. If you just push a button and a computer generates white noise, you didn't express anything. If you take recording equipment into the forest and find a spot to record a babbling brook and the calls of the rare crested warbling duckhen, that might be sufficiently creative to warrant copyright.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[freeze128]

Encrypted data is indistinguishable from white noise. Without the proper decryption key, you wouldn't even know it was data, yet encrypted data can be copyrighted. Now is the white noise you hear actually random background white noise, or is it encrypted data? YouTube's algorithm cannot tell, so it has to err on the side of caution.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[EMN13]

I think you should consider whether those guidelines are really followed in contemplative silence. Around 4'33" would do just nicely.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[AmiMoJo]

And currently they are all stealing his money. Money earned during the claim isn't returned, it stays with the people who made the fraudulent claims.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[SuricouRaven]

No. All white noise *is* the same - it has to have a uniform distribution of frequency intensity. What that site generates isn't white noise, it's colored noise. Off-white noise.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

But maybe he is parodying the "work" so he have fair use?

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Another reason you settle, _as a plaintiff_, is to avoid a precedent that's damaging to your cause. If you play it right you do so when your adversary is on the ropes, usually as the result of crippling defense attorney fees. It's all about timing in the glorified game of chicken that litigation often becomes. Juries are wildcards whose behavior is often hard to predict, even with a good judge to instruct them and a fair presentation of evidence. Add in the well known lack of judicial expertise on copywrite law, and you've got the sort of case that screams "avoid trial at all costs" to any sane lawyer.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Settlements, even in court, do not establish precedent. Neither, for that matter, do jury verdicts. Precedents are established in the official written opinions of appellate courts that address the legal issues in question.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't have an engineering degree. White noise is "special" in that ALL frequencies are present in equal probability so over time EVERY piece of music exists within it given enough time. It's exactly like how every copyrighted sequence of numbers exist within the digits of PI.

It's NOT surprising that an AI would detect match to ANY copyrighted music in a noise sequence - by definition it's inevitable. But strictly it's also bullshit. It shows the bullshit of AI. It shows the bullshit of copyright.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[joemck]

Does this mean I could upload a one second long video of silence, pay YouTube for the auto Content Match thing, and have them mass flag any videos that contain a second or longer gap of silence? It's a clear exact copy of my entire work, even if you look at the waveform.

Re: White noise can be copied too

[JoeyRox]

Sure, if you think copying a book whose pages are all empty is the same as copying a book whose pages are filled.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[david_thornley]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of the facts can be. I can legally express an opinion which is completely wrong.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

You've been trolled by the clickbait title.

There's white noise the mathematical definition, then there's white noise the commonly understood definition. White noise, to most people, means background noise. People refer to nature sounds as white noise.

Common sense would point to the fact that what's copyrighted here is a particular mix of white noise, not pure random numbers in the audible frequency range. That doesn't make the DCMA claim valid ... which by the way it wasn't. The video is still up meaning the DCMA claim was either dropped or the claimer didn't respond in time (the former is more likely since not enough time has passed).

I'm guessing what happened here is that the the white noise video was tagged by automated system, and was quickly dropped upon review. Nothing to see here. Move on folks.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

The fact that it is not a "legal" defense tells you all you need to know about the "justice system."

Sure does. It tells me that it's practical. How exactly would things work if everyone could simply claim "I didn't know that" whenever they were accused of a crime? Pretty hard in most cases to prove what's in someone's brain. Or maybe we convict people are not based on how good they can fake stupidity.

In this case, yeah, if you make a false DCMA claim, I'm good with raking you over the coals if you are too dumb to look into what you are even doing beforehand.

Re:White noise can be copied too

[farble1670]

And as a side note, no one is going to jail for filing a false DCMA claim. In practice, public apologies patch things up (for a first offense).

ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"

This Work Copyrighted by Anonymous Cowerd, Any Advertising Revenues /. Makes Should Be Shared With Me

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke's on you, that particular work was already done by Merzbow in 1997, at least give him credit for fair use.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[thegreatbob]

Ceci n'est pas une commentaire.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Nidi62]

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"

I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[DickBreath]

Infinite monkeys at the keyboard and lining up at the copyright office to register their works. Now, how to make that approach scalable.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

better than having to listen to their poetry

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Sumus Semper Una]

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"

I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.

Aww, leave off. He seems to be having tremendous difficulty with his lifestyle.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you want to scale infinite monkeys? Into infinite infinite monkeys?

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spank your sister with a slice of balony."
(Futurama might not be nerdy enough for \. - sigh)

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[thegarbz]

z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"

I don't say this often but... thank god for Slashdot's lack of Unicode and emoji support.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[msk]

Someone had better feed a sandwich to that dog.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

Got a babel fish to interpret this?

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Hognoxious]

It's got to be tough - PHP and Ruby came along after he spent all those years honing his Perl skills.

Re:ghtiugupr,ujrciugdriuhdnichneiu _"rzehfr

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright registration isn't free. This puts a severe limit on scalability.

I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR

[TomR teh Pirate]

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is an excellent source of information and white noise. All you scientists need to cease and desist, or pay me money. My goodness the world is getting stupid...

Re:I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I'm going to record a CRT displaying snow, someone surely will pay for the added warmness that only a vacuum tube can recreate.

Re:I'll be putting a copyright on CMBR

[Tablizer]

Scientists didn't create CMBR, God did. I'd like to see Google and music companies sue God.

It has also happened to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I set up a new youtube page one time and ran a live stream test to it. The page ended up recording and publishing the default white noise video. Then it was automatically flagged for posting copywritten material, then the page was basically unable to upload new content for a long time due to the "strike" against a new page lol. I ended up deleting it and recreating it. This all happened in the span of a few hours but it had something to do with live streaming white noise.

Re:It has also happened to me

[tsqr]

Then it was automatically flagged for posting copywritten material

Seriously? Whose writes were you accused of violating (or was it really copyreading you were accused of)?

fool me once

[Anonymous Coward]

like I'm going to click a link to "bbc.com"
you guys used to get me all the time with the gaotse links
not this time

Re:DMCA requires this

[Anonymous Coward]

The general plebs can promote whatever they want, they'll still be bent over by Our Betters. The oligarchs know best, citizen. You should trust the studios and record companies will do the responsible thing with unchecked power and on-allegation takedowns.

Or don't trust them; it doesn't really matter.

"publishers of white noise"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that people actually still made money off this, considering white noise videos have been on Youtube for over 10 years now. It sounds a lot like copyright troll just looking to stir up attention, or at least recoup some losses for his failed business model.

Why is he concerned exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am intrigued and perplexed that YouTube's automated content ID system will pattern-match white noise with multiple claims,"

What is so "perplexing" about YouTube's automated system actually working properly and accurately identifying that his white noise is similar to other white noise sounds? It sounds like it's working properly.

Re:Why is he concerned exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

five different "MINE"s are

Whats the correlation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the 10 hour "white noise" correlate with the other "white noise"? If not, then it is unique "white noise" and certainly not any copy of anything ???

Re:Whats the correlation?

[Entrope]

Of course it correlates with the other white noise. All signals in the same domain correlate with each other. The real question is how strongly they correlate with each other, and over what duration.

Check the entropy

[cellocgw]

Shannon would be (I suspect) greatly amused by this infringement claim.
OTOH, perhaps I can write a short Adagio&Fugue, and claim infringement by anyone else who writes a piece in adagio-fugue form!

Re:Check the entropy

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Sorry, I've already copyrighted sine waves, middle C, and 3/4 time. Your fugue would infringe on my intellectual property.

Re:Check the entropy

[russotto]

I don't know about Adagio&Fugue, but I'd bet anything containing the first note, or certainly the first three bars, of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor garners many infringement notices.

Prior Art: DSN

[Anonymous Coward]

The dogbert static network was out in the mid 1990s.

Reminds me of an album of silence

[flatulus]

Google is not being helpful for me today. I have a recollection of some artist publishing an entire album consisting of silence, in an act of malicious compliance in order to fulfill a multiple album contract. Does anyone know what this might have been? I did find "Sleepify", but I don't think this was what I'm remembering.

Re:Reminds me of an album of silence

[SuiteSisterMary]

You might be thinking about 4'33.

Re:Reminds me of an album of silence

[EvilSS]

I think this is what you are thinking of: https://www.classicalmpr.org/blog/classical-notes/2015/12/02/can-silence-be-copyrighted

Re:Reminds me of an album of silence

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean if someone tells to Shut the F up, i can answer "Sorry, I can't, silence is copyrighted"?

Re:Reminds me of an album of silence

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not being helpful for me today. I have a recollection of some artist publishing an entire album consisting of silence, in an act of malicious compliance in order to fulfill a multiple album contract. Does anyone know what this might have been? I did find "Sleepify", but I don't think this was what I'm remembering.

Lou Reed reportedly recorded "Metal Machine Music" (a double album) for this reason. But it was far from silence (and far from white noise).

science is more "hmmm" than "EUREAKA!"

[Thud457]

That brings to mind chapter 3 of Lem's "His Master's Voice" where Swanson was sued because his random number tables weren't as random as he purported them to be.

Also, the estate of John Cage just took an interest...

you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.

maybe you can explain to us all how exactly you're going to line up the samples to compare them

Re:you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't need to, I claim they are different. Someone claiming infringement needs to show they are the same.

Re: you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.

maybe you can explain to us all how exactly you're going to line up the samples to compare them

It's called correlation. One of the most basic concepts in signal processing.

Please leave Slashdot and never come back again.

Re:you are an idiot

[Falos]

> claims require evidence
Not only has this been waived to shit for the oligarchs, but commoners have also stopped bothering.

Re:you are an idiot

[Shotgun]

Citation needed.

Sorry, dude. Couldn't resist.

Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Brown noise much more pleasant than white noise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_noise

Download the public domain clip and play it on a loop, e.g.

mpv --really-quiet -loop inf --gapless-audio Brownnoise.ogg

Re:Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Brown noise much more pleasant than white noise:

You racist!!!

(Yes it is sarcasm for the humor impaired)

Re:Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be confused with a Brown note, a mythical sound that causes a human to defecate upon hearing it.

Re: Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s not mythical. The animated documentary series South Park had an episode which explored it.

Re:Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, very pleasant.

Re:Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not mythical, and it's not something that's heard. It's a frequency that's below the range of human hearing (20Hz) that, when played at a volume high enough, will resonate within a human's bowels and cause them to relieve themselves if the force passes through them. However, such a device capable of creating a frequency with the necessary force would be expensive and would have to be specially made since subwoofers don't reach that low of a frequency. If subs were capable of playing the brown note, chances are that the signal would cause them to destroy themselves before it could be used to see its intended effect

Re: Brown noise

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rotarywoofer.com is your shit fan...

and the brown note is bullshit

Computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Article after article every week about a computer not knowing something intuitive to a human being. No shit. It's not news.

I was hit too

[Anonymous Coward]

I was hit with copyright claims too, the music I was using was Youtube's own royalty free music!

The particularly shitty bits:
- There was no notification email to let me know they were stealing all my revenue.
- The link to report back to contact Youtube about it was 404 not found.

Re:DMCA requires this

[Entrope]

The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.

what is next - silence?

[kiviQr]

please tell me there are no patents on 10h of silence!

Re:what is next - silence?

[Anonymous Coward]

John Cage's lawyers would like to have a talk with you...

Re:what is next - silence?

[TheFakeTimCook]

John Cage's lawyers would like to have a talk with you...

Exactly!

Re:what is next - silence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about 10 hours, but there's a copyright on 4'33" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:what is next - silence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're safe.
As long as you don't copy someone elses silence and claim it's your own.

  - Peder

Re:what is next - silence?

[Anonymous Coward]

depends, are you going to just put the John Cage composition "Four Minutes 33 Seconds" on a loop?

White Noise the Album...

[Anonymous Coward]

White Noise" by Pvris is pretty good.

Looks like basic run-of-the-mill criminal fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

those accusing Mr Tomczak are not demanding the video's removal, but instead the reward of any revenue made from advertising associated with it.

It sounds like the main motivation for their fraudulent claim is profit. DMCA-counter-claim issues aside, this looks like a situation where law enforcement should probably get involved and those making the deliberate fraudulent claims for criminal gain need to get prosecuted and spend a few months or years in prison. Don't settle for fines! I mean, sure, fine them and also seize 100% of their revenue to-date, but there should be time too.

Remember: DMCA is no good until fraudulent claims carry a personal risk on the part of the criminal making the fraudulent claim. Don't let those soft-on-crime Hollywood types persuade you otherwise. The purpose of the law they bought was to commit crimes, here we have a plain example, and we need to make an example of them.

He needs to fight the claims

[eclectro]

The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.

Here is an expired patent describing such a device. And there were a number of devices before that. And schematic diagrams and circuits in magazines for white noise/sleep generators long ago.

It's a shame that people are so full of themselves that they think they are truly that special that they somehow made a unique creation here. But actually it's likely worse in that people think they found an easy target and want to take what they can with a bad faith claim.

This is a time where counter claims under the DMCA need to be filed against these bad faith claims and collect damages to help prevent further abuse.

Maybe even make google a co-defendant.

Re:He needs to fight the claims

[Anonymous Coward]

The real shame is that their lawyer didn't explain this to them, and took their money instead.

Re:He needs to fight the claims

[DRJlaw]

The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.

I'd like to see that alleged ruling, particularly since "patentable" and "patented" mean two quite different things, you've linked to prior art that would show that any subsequent devices producing those sounds may not be "patentable," and you haven't shown that the sounds were produced by a device that was "patented."

That's even before reaching the problem that a particular recording of sound is not a patentable item.

Re:He needs to fight the claims

[swillden]

The supreme court of the United States has definitively ruled that patentable items can no longer be protected by copyright once the patent has been expired.

I understand these words, but they make no legal sense when strung together this way. Patent and copyright are two entirely different things. Patents cover ideas, copyrights cover expressions fixed in a tangible medium. I see no way that any patentable item could ever be covered by copyright, or how expiration of any patent could in any way be relevant to any copyright.

The case in question is a copyright issue. Assuming he made the white noise himself (whatever sort of machine he used to make it), and assuming that white noise is copyrightable at all (which I strongly doubt), then he owns the copyright in his recording. The fact that Google's algorithm found that it is highly similar to tracks owned by others (again, assuming they actually can be copyrighted) does not mean that his track is an infringing copy, just that it sounds similar.

Anyway, yes, he should file a dispute and explain the situation.

Re:He needs to fight the claims

[Anonymous Coward]

One bad faith claim for damages. Three and your copyright privileges are revoked. Permanently. And retroactive, meaning everything you copyrighted is automatically in the public domain.

That'll make sure that these 'automated takedowns' are very carefully screened by a human.

Youtube own provided music

[slazzy]

I was hit with a copyright claim using Youtube own provided music! What really sucks: - I got no notification email to let me know they started stealing all my revenue - The link to contest the action was 404 not found

Re:Youtube own provided music

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the search company!

Re:Youtube own provided music

[swillden]

Did YouTube give you a license to copy and distribute the music they provided for you to use in your video?

Re:Youtube own provided music

[Z00L00K]

I just tells you to not add any music to your videos. Many videos that have music added is actually pretty annoying.

Re:Youtube own provided music

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure wish that all the people complaining about youtube would post a list of alternatives instead. It's very easy to pick one or another to find which will serve. I mean, if you're going to make the effort to post, make it worth something.

Re:Youtube own provided music

[misnohmer]

Are you sure it wasn't a phishing attempt to get you to click on the link (maybe 404 was after loading a malicious script in your browser, or maybe the hacker's site was down by the time you clicked it)?

Re:Youtube own provided music

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming he was using the music provided by the youtube audiolibrary, then no one other than Google should be able to make a claim on the music.

Here are the terms provided for the audiolibrary songs provided by Google (From https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/music)

Additional terms and conditions
Your use of this music library (including the music files in this library) is subject to the YouTube Terms of Service. Music from this library is intended solely for use by you in videos and other content that you create. You may use music files from this library in videos that you monetize on YouTube.

By downloading music from this library, you agree that you will not:

Make available, distribute or perform the music files from this library separately from videos and other content into which you have incorporated these music files (e.g., standalone distribution of these files is not permitted).
Use music files from this library in an illegal manner or in connection with any illegal content.
Additionally, some music files from this library may be subject to additional requirements as set forth in the library (e.g., attribution requirements). You agree to comply with such requirements when you use music from this library.

If more than one person claims a video

[rsilvergun]

Nobody gets it and all adverts are removed. Jim Sterling useless this trick to prevent Konami and Nintendo from claiming his vids (which don't have ads) and putting ads on them.

Copyrighting the Big Bang

[TheFakeTimCook]

Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.

If that is true in the TV frequency bands, then I would assume that the same is true of the audio band as well.

So, essentially, these yay-hoos are attempting to "Copyright" a naturally-occurring (or Divinely-Created) phenomona; which I am pretty damned sure is not allowed, even under the brain-dead DMCA.

Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang

[wonkey_monkey]

Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.

Only a small percentage of it.

Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang

[TheFakeTimCook]

Growing up, I had always heard that the "white noise" that analog TVs would display when not tuned to an active channel was actually leftover thermal noise caused by the Big Bang.

Only a small percentage of it.

So, does "God" get at least co-author credit?

Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang

[asylumx]

He gets a 10% royalty....

Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang

[TheFakeTimCook]

He gets a 10% royalty....

I see what you did there. ;-)

Re:Copyrighting the Big Bang

[Moof123]

Background noise of the universe is 3 Kelvin (K). Your TV antenna sees the ground as much as the air, so sees about 150 K (half from the 300 K ground and half from the 3 K sky). The first amplifier is probably 5-6 dB NF, so it has a noise temperature of about 800 K. So out of the total noise temperature of 950 K, about 0.15% is the background noise of the universe.

Re: DMCA requires this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the advertisers require this because Pewdiguy.
For more info google YouTube Adpocalypse.

Further info needed

[forrie]

I surmise they used a digital signature to determine whether it was a clip from something they published. For example, they could have embedded something inaudible to mark the track. Barring that, it would be interesting to see where they got their sample(s) from, too. White noise is such a generic term -- how can they define and differentiate how their "white noise" is different from any other? For that matter, is there even a legal definition of "white noise"? LOL

It sounds frivolous to me, akin to copyrighting the sound of wind blowing through a tree.

Absolutely absurd

[Rick Schumann]

You can't possibly 'copyright' a block of pseudorandom numbers. That's what white noise is, in the digital sense. ANYONE can generate white noise digitally, it's easy. I suppose you could claim someone copied your file full of random numbers, but spectrally it's going to be exactly the same regardless of whether you copied it or generated it yourself.

Re:Absolutely absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably has the same harmonic content. Ergo, it matches.

Re:Absolutely absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, kill yourself.

Re:DMCA requires this

[Anonymous Coward]

that wouldnt maga. greed maga.

Re:DMCA requires this

[swillden]

The DMCA does not require this. It requires services like YouTube to implement a takedown process with particular criteria. Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are its own creations, unmoored from the law's requirements.

More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners. The strict DMCA process would be a pain for content owners (but the big ones would still do it!) and would result in Google taking videos down completely, rather than just reassigning revenue. The system isn't perfect, not only because the automated matching is imperfect, but also because it doesn't serve small content owners as well as big ones. But for the majority of cases it's a better solution than merely following the law.

Fart.

[Anonymous Coward]

What next, people issue DMCA claims if I record my own fart because someone thinks it's similar to their own "Trump Dump?"

another profound idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please leave Slashdot and never come back again.

wow, clueless about DSP and clueless about human nature, both in the same posting

Bah!

[Excelcia]

By the definition of copyright law in the US this can't possibly infringe in the first place. It sounds exactly like Trump's speeches and tweets, and by law as works of the federal government those are in the public domain.

Re: Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

used to be, you could just tune a radio/tv to an unused channel. this is what we call progress?

No claim on pre-origin

[TheHawke]

The creation of white noise precedes everyone in this room, even their ancestors, hell even the ancestors of the dinosaurs heard it. White noise was created at time 0.1 of the universe as we know it when one atom of matter met one atom of antimatter. There's no claim on naturally created noise, there can't be.

Re:DMCA requires this

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA doesn't allow for take downs to occur without actual evidence. They are attempting to commit fraud by submitting false claims and should be sued or jailed.

I LIKE SHORT SONGS

[Thud457]

I much prefer the arrangement 2'33" , not recorded by Black Flag in 1983.

Re:I LIKE SHORT SONGS

[Hal_Porter]

Punk rock songs seem to work best under three minutes.

Re:I LIKE SHORT SONGS

[Hognoxious]

I have that as my ringtone when my phone is in silent mode.

Re:DMCA requires this

[Hognoxious]

The strict DMCA process would be a pain for content owners

I'm playing a really tiny violin.

My own composition, before you ask. Not that it's stopped them before.

Re:DMCA requires this

[farble1670]

More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.

To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.

The Living End

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we truly are living the end, and all that I hear is whitenoise.

Bizzare

[Ol Olsoc]

I can generate white noise easily, and it has been doable for a long, long time. Back in the 1970's I used white noise generators. Now I just use a computer software program to get close, and if I need something better, a card would do.

I think these folks trying to demand that they have the sole ability to utilize white noise might think twice about trying to assert that theory, because they will be set upon like wildebeests crossing a crocodile filled river.

It's pretty much a signal with zero mean and statistically uncorrelated finite variance. If these people can prove that he somehow infringed upon any rights they have they will have to prove that their signal isn't white noise, and prove that he used their non-white noise signal.

This is right up there with the time that Harley Davidson tried to copyright the sound their motorcycles make. They lost that case http://articles.latimes.com/20...

White/Pink Noise generator projects in magazines

[Traf-O-Data-Hater]

Back in the 70s electronics magazines such as Practical Electronics used to run project articles on building simple white and pink noise generators, I recall they only used two or three transistors, a 9V battery and were built in little project boxes with a switch for white/pink and a headphone jack.
One could find or build one of those original circuits, record its output and put it on Youtube.

Re:DMCA requires this

[slashrio]

populace, you idiot

Re:DMCA requires this

[swillden]

More precisely, Google's demonetization and reassignment of ad revenue are a kindler and gentler approach that Google negotiated with big content owners.

To be clear, it's a way for Google to keep collecting their cut regardless of who owns the content.

Sure, it works better for everyone, including Google.

Re:DMCA requires this

[swillden]

The DMCA doesn't allow for take downs to occur without actual evidence.

Go read the law. The DMCA requires takedowns to occur without evidence. If a host receives a DMCA takedown notice, which is nothing more than a letter asserting ownership, the host is required to take the material down. Of course, the uploader can file a counter-notice, in which case the host can (but is not required to) put the material back up. And then the claimant and the uploader go to court, where actual evidence comes into play.

Re:DMCA requires this

[swillden]

You ignored the rest of the sentence you quoted. You should read it, since it's the real point.

Re: DMCA requires this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious, how does one file a counternotice to Googletube? I'll go to court all day. Fuck it I'm bored.

Re: DMCA requires this

[swillden]

I'm curious, how does one file a counternotice to Googletube? I'll go to court all day. Fuck it I'm bored.

Same as anywhere else. Registered letter from your attorney.

First thing we do is hang all the lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

--Shakespeare