qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;)
pit klong wrote:
qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;)
in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius.
I think Ligeti did it already with 0'00" (not to be confused with the Cage piece of the same name). Depends on how you feel about Zeno's paradoxes. --Stefan
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM, marius schebella < marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
pit klong wrote:
qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;)
in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I once thought that, "Hey, if I take a two-by-four that is long enough to cover all the keys on a piano, and slam it down on all the keys at one time, that I would thus create every other piece ever written, or that will be written"... I have since grown up...
I don't think any court would allow you to even consider this possibility, as there is an issue of context. A single sample by itself, has absolutely no relationship to another sample, and as such, would make each of these 65536 "piece" NON-unique. I think this would be like trying to create a piece with a single sound that is continuous, but never changes. Something, in my opinion, has to be unique to the piece to be able to claim copyright.
Now, if you wanted to create a sample file with TWO samples in it, you would need to create 65536 * 65536 sound files... That would be 4,294,967,296 sound files. And if played end to end in a single pass, it would last about 55 hours... I don't think I would mind missing that concert.
Mike
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, marius schebella < marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
pit klong wrote:
qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;)
in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Mike McGonagle wrote:
I once thought that, "Hey, if I take a two-by-four that is long enough to cover all the keys on a piano, and slam it down on all the keys at one time, that I would thus create every other piece ever written, or that will be written"... I have since grown up...
I don't think any court would allow you to even consider this possibility, as there is an issue of context. A single sample by itself, has absolutely no relationship to another sample, and as such, would make each of these 65536 "piece" NON-unique. I think this would be like trying to create a piece with a single sound that is continuous, but never changes. Something, in my opinion, has to be unique to the piece to be able to claim copyright.
but that is exactly what the record industry is neglecting: that taking samples and putting them together for a new piece is really creating something new. they think they can own a series of samples as property and if you include that into a piece you have to pay them money.
there is no rule or limit for the length, the whole copyright system is based on vague assumptions, rather based on intimidation than on legal thoughts. marius.
Now, if you wanted to create a sample file with TWO samples in it, you would need to create 65536 * 65536 sound files... That would be 4,294,967,296 sound files. And if played end to end in a single pass, it would last about 55 hours... I don't think I would mind missing that concert.
Mike
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, marius schebella <marius.schebella@gmail.com mailto:marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
pit klong wrote: >> http://www.kreidler-net.de/productplacements-e.html > > qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;) > in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list-- Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:44 AM, marius schebella < marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike McGonagle wrote:
I once thought that, "Hey, if I take a two-by-four that is long enough to cover all the keys on a piano, and slam it down on all the keys at one time, that I would thus create every other piece ever written, or that will be written"... I have since grown up...
I don't think any court would allow you to even consider this possibility, as there is an issue of context. A single sample by itself, has absolutely no relationship to another sample, and as such, would make each of these 65536 "piece" NON-unique. I think this would be like trying to create a piece with a single sound that is continuous, but never changes. Something, in my opinion, has to be unique to the piece to be able to claim copyright.
but that is exactly what the record industry is neglecting: that taking samples and putting them together for a new piece is really creating something new. they think they can own a series of samples as property and if you include that into a piece you have to pay them money.
there is no rule or limit for the length, the whole copyright system is based on vague assumptions, rather based on intimidation than on legal thoughts. marius.
Well, I wonder how much that argument stems from back in the 80's when people really started to take pre-recorded music (ie a riff from some pre-existing song, etc.) and then use that as the basis for their "song", which really was just a variation of the original, and THEN not even credit the source of the original sample.
I seem to remember Frank Zappa making a statement to the effect "If you take even just one sample from my work, then you are stealing from me". On the one hand, I agree with him on that (in so much as you are using his work, and most likely uncredited), but at the same time, I would challenge even him to be able to tell that ONE sample was lifted from his work. In other words, that one sample has been removed from the context of the original Zappa recording.
But yeah, you are right, once the lawyers got involved with the Record Industry, they just look for people to be ripping them off, which I can understand, but only to a point.
Mike
Now, if you wanted to create a sample file with TWO samples in it, you would need to create 65536 * 65536 sound files... That would be 4,294,967,296 sound files. And if played end to end in a single pass, it would last about 55 hours... I don't think I would mind missing that concert.
Mike
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, marius schebella < marius.schebella@gmail.com mailto:marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
pit klong wrote: >> http://www.kreidler-net.de/productplacements-e.html > > qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;) >
in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius.
Pd-list@iem.at mailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician
You're conflating logic with human laws. They share nothing.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:44:13 -0400 marius schebella marius.schebella@gmail.com wrote:
Mike McGonagle wrote:
I once thought that, "Hey, if I take a two-by-four that is long enough to cover all the keys on a piano, and slam it down on all the keys at one time, that I would thus create every other piece ever written, or that will be written"... I have since grown up...
I don't think any court would allow you to even consider this possibility, as there is an issue of context. A single sample by itself, has absolutely no relationship to another sample, and as such, would make each of these 65536 "piece" NON-unique. I think this would be like trying to create a piece with a single sound that is continuous, but never changes. Something, in my opinion, has to be unique to the piece to be able to claim copyright.
but that is exactly what the record industry is neglecting: that taking samples and putting them together for a new piece is really creating something new. they think they can own a series of samples as property and if you include that into a piece you have to pay them money.
there is no rule or limit for the length, the whole copyright system is based on vague assumptions, rather based on intimidation than on legal thoughts. marius.
Now, if you wanted to create a sample file with TWO samples in it, you would need to create 65536 * 65536 sound files... That would be 4,294,967,296 sound files. And if played end to end in a single pass, it would last about 55 hours... I don't think I would mind missing that concert.
Mike
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM, marius schebella <marius.schebella@gmail.com mailto:marius.schebella@gmail.com> wrote:
pit klong wrote: >> http://www.kreidler-net.de/productplacements-e.html > > qewl. he could give us his patch and we'd make the same.. ;) > in theory there are only 65536 different possibilites for amplitudes of one sample, so if you register 65536 pieces of music, each 1 sample long, then you you should be able to claim copyright from everyone who's music is based on amplitudes. maybe you can also register one sample of 0, then you could even make money from people who don't make music. just imagine: you can claim copyright for every sample of every piece of music. marius. _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list-- Peace may sound simple_one beautiful word_ but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. _Yehudi Menuhin (1916_1999), musician
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Andy Farnell -
Ichabod -
marius schebella -
Mike McGonagle -
pit klong