Comments on: New Recordings Without the Hum(ming) http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sat, 26 May 2012 17:40:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: jfl http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50442 jfl Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:55:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50442 <p>Zenph (Senf = Mustard) works on this together with Sony/BMG/RCA and licenses the performances, which either makes this discussion highly theoretical, or answers it.<br><br>jens</p> Zenph (Senf = Mustard) works on this together with Sony/BMG/RCA and licenses the performances, which either makes this discussion highly theoretical, or answers it.

jens

]]> By: jfl http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38309 jfl Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:55:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38309 <p>Zenph (Senf = Mustard) works on this together with Sony/BMG/RCA and licenses the performances, which either makes this discussion highly theoretical, or answers it.</p> <p>jens</p> Zenph (Senf = Mustard) works on this together with Sony/BMG/RCA and licenses the performances, which either makes this discussion highly theoretical, or answers it.

jens

]]> By: Yves http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50441 Yves Sat, 19 May 2007 15:57:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50441 <p>One can not protect his/her creations. Once set free, they are born into our world, and like any other living system in a competitive environment, our art will either thrive or dwindle. Our art does not need our protection. I also does not seek to reward us, creators, not any more than any of our biological offsprings do. Art competes with the creator. Money and property are illusions, and so are the schemes used to attach value to an Art.</p> One can not protect his/her creations. Once set free, they are born into our world, and like any other living system in a competitive environment, our art will either thrive or dwindle. Our art does not need our protection. I also does not seek to reward us, creators, not any more than any of our biological offsprings do. Art competes with the creator. Money and property are illusions, and so are the schemes used to attach value to an Art.

]]> By: Yves http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38308 Yves Sat, 19 May 2007 14:57:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38308 <p>One can not protect his/her creations. Once set free, they are born into our world, and like any other living system in a competitive environment, our art will either thrive or dwindle. Our art does not need our protection. I also does not seek to reward us, creators, not any more than any of our biological offsprings do. Art competes with the creator. Money and property are illusions, and so are the schemes used to attach value to an Art.</p> One can not protect his/her creations. Once set free, they are born into our world, and like any other living system in a competitive environment, our art will either thrive or dwindle. Our art does not need our protection. I also does not seek to reward us, creators, not any more than any of our biological offsprings do. Art competes with the creator. Money and property are illusions, and so are the schemes used to attach value to an Art.

]]> By: Joe Gratz http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50440 Joe Gratz Thu, 17 May 2007 03:11:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50440 <p>Don't forget <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000114----000-.html" rel="nofollow">17 USC 114(b)</a> -- a copyright holder's rights in a sound recording "do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording"</p> Don’t forget 17 USC 114(b) — a copyright holder’s rights in a sound recording “do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording”

]]> By: Joe Gratz http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38307 Joe Gratz Thu, 17 May 2007 02:11:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38307 <p>Don't forget <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000114----000-.html" rel="nofollow">17 USC 114(b)</a> -- a copyright holder's rights in a sound recording "do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording"</p> Don’t forget 17 USC 114(b) — a copyright holder’s rights in a sound recording “do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording”

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50439 Jim Harper Thu, 17 May 2007 01:47:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50439 <p>@Brian - The concept of "tangible medium of expression" may fall apart as a distinction as the functioning of the brain is better understood, but its the distinction the law currently makes. It's objectively verifiable that there is a copy made when it's embodied in a tangible medium of expression. When it's in the brain, it's not a copy for purposes of copyright.</p> @Brian – The concept of “tangible medium of expression” may fall apart as a distinction as the functioning of the brain is better understood, but its the distinction the law currently makes. It’s objectively verifiable that there is a copy made when it’s embodied in a tangible medium of expression. When it’s in the brain, it’s not a copy for purposes of copyright.

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38306 Jim Harper Thu, 17 May 2007 00:47:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38306 <p>@Brian - The concept of "tangible medium of expression" may fall apart as a distinction as the functioning of the brain is better understood, but its the distinction the law currently makes. It's objectively verifiable that there is a copy made when it's embodied in a tangible medium of expression. When it's in the brain, it's not a copy for purposes of copyright.</p> @Brian – The concept of “tangible medium of expression” may fall apart as a distinction as the functioning of the brain is better understood, but its the distinction the law currently makes. It’s objectively verifiable that there is a copy made when it’s embodied in a tangible medium of expression. When it’s in the brain, it’s not a copy for purposes of copyright.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50438 Tim Lee Wed, 16 May 2007 21:41:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50438 <p>I agree with Jim. It seems like a derivative work, and I'm having trouble thinking of a plausible fair use defense.</p> I agree with Jim. It seems like a derivative work, and I’m having trouble thinking of a plausible fair use defense.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38305 Tim Lee Wed, 16 May 2007 20:41:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38305 <p>I agree with Jim. It seems like a derivative work, and I'm having trouble thinking of a plausible fair use defense.</p> I agree with Jim. It seems like a derivative work, and I’m having trouble thinking of a plausible fair use defense.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50437 Brian Moore Wed, 16 May 2007 19:21:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50437 <p>""Remembering" doesn't count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression"<br><br>But what if I have a really, really good memory, and flawless, precise fingering technique?<br><br>I guess it would be infringement, especially if they are marketing it as "Gould's 1955 performance."</p> “”Remembering” doesn’t count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression”

But what if I have a really, really good memory, and flawless, precise fingering technique?

I guess it would be infringement, especially if they are marketing it as “Gould’s 1955 performance.”

]]> By: Brian Moore http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38304 Brian Moore Wed, 16 May 2007 18:21:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38304 <p>""Remembering" doesn't count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression"</p> <p>But what if I have a really, really good memory, and flawless, precise fingering technique?</p> <p>I guess it would be infringement, especially if they are marketing it as "Gould's 1955 performance."</p> “”Remembering” doesn’t count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression”

But what if I have a really, really good memory, and flawless, precise fingering technique?

I guess it would be infringement, especially if they are marketing it as “Gould’s 1955 performance.”

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50436 Gary McGath Wed, 16 May 2007 18:11:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50436 <p>It's a high-tech piano roll!</p> It’s a high-tech piano roll!

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50435 Jim Harper Wed, 16 May 2007 18:00:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50435 <p>"Remembering" doesn't count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression, so a performer who remembers the way the Gould recording sounds has not made a derivative work. This breaks the analogy to the Zenph thing.<br></br><br>The remaining interesting question is whether the performance of a piece in a way that mimics Gould's techniques violates Gould's copyright in the prior recording. I don't think doing so is a public performance of the earlier recording, which would violate Gould's rights. It's a public performance of the public domain work.</br><br></br><br>But making a recording of a piece (remember the "fixation" requirement) that mimics Gould techniques - techniques distinctive enough to the Gould recording and not dictated by the score, common fingering techniques, etc. - might violate Gould's copyright in the prior recording. I think it could be a derivative work.</br><br></br><br>(Just going on my faded recollection of copyright law - happy to hear from more people who are more current on the law and more insighgtful.)<br></br></p> “Remembering” doesn’t count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression, so a performer who remembers the way the Gould recording sounds has not made a derivative work. This breaks the analogy to the Zenph thing.

The remaining interesting question is whether the performance of a piece in a way that mimics Gould’s techniques violates Gould’s copyright in the prior recording. I don’t think doing so is a public performance of the earlier recording, which would violate Gould’s rights. It’s a public performance of the public domain work.

But making a recording of a piece (remember the “fixation” requirement) that mimics Gould techniques – techniques distinctive enough to the Gould recording and not dictated by the score, common fingering techniques, etc. – might violate Gould’s copyright in the prior recording. I think it could be a derivative work.

(Just going on my faded recollection of copyright law – happy to hear from more people who are more current on the law and more insighgtful.)

]]> By: PJ Doland http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50434 PJ Doland Wed, 16 May 2007 17:36:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50434 <p>Would you apply the same standard to another performer's rendition if it was influenced by Gould's 1955 recording?</p> Would you apply the same standard to another performer’s rendition if it was influenced by Gould’s 1955 recording?

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-50433 Jim Harper Wed, 16 May 2007 17:33:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-50433 <p>I'm going to take a stab at it, just to get the conversation started. The issue is whether the copyright in Gould's recording is violated - not, obviously, the public domain <em>Goldberg Variations</em>.<br></br><br>I think the digital "tracing" of it is the creation of a derivative work, something like would be created if you watched a television show and wrote down the movements of the actors to create a "movement script" of the show. The execution of the "tracing" on a piano is a performance of the derivative work, which becomes another copyrightable work when fixed in a tangible medium of expression by recording.</br><br></br><br>Given the creation of the derivative "tracing," I think Zenph owes Gould. I don't see how fair use would apply to Zenph's sales of recordings which compete fairly directly with Gould's recording - though it certainly could apply in other cases.<br></br></p> I’m going to take a stab at it, just to get the conversation started. The issue is whether the copyright in Gould’s recording is violated – not, obviously, the public domain Goldberg Variations.

I think the digital “tracing” of it is the creation of a derivative work, something like would be created if you watched a television show and wrote down the movements of the actors to create a “movement script” of the show. The execution of the “tracing” on a piano is a performance of the derivative work, which becomes another copyrightable work when fixed in a tangible medium of expression by recording.

Given the creation of the derivative “tracing,” I think Zenph owes Gould. I don’t see how fair use would apply to Zenph’s sales of recordings which compete fairly directly with Gould’s recording – though it certainly could apply in other cases.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38303 Gary McGath Wed, 16 May 2007 17:11:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38303 <p>It's a high-tech piano roll!</p> It’s a high-tech piano roll!

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38302 Jim Harper Wed, 16 May 2007 17:00:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38302 <p>"Remembering" doesn't count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression, so a performer who remembers the way the Gould recording sounds has not made a derivative work. This breaks the analogy to the Zenph thing.<br /><br />The remaining interesting question is whether the performance of a piece in a way that mimics Gould's techniques violates Gould's copyright in the prior recording. I don't think doing so is a public performance of the earlier recording, which would violate Gould's rights. It's a public performance of the public domain work.<br /><br />But making a recording of a piece (remember the "fixation" requirement) that mimics Gould techniques - techniques distinctive enough to the Gould recording and not dictated by the score, common fingering techniques, etc. - might violate Gould's copyright in the prior recording. I think it could be a derivative work.<br /><br />(Just going on my faded recollection of copyright law - happy to hear from more people who are more current on the law and more insighgtful.)</p> “Remembering” doesn’t count as fixation in a tangible medium of expression, so a performer who remembers the way the Gould recording sounds has not made a derivative work. This breaks the analogy to the Zenph thing.

The remaining interesting question is whether the performance of a piece in a way that mimics Gould’s techniques violates Gould’s copyright in the prior recording. I don’t think doing so is a public performance of the earlier recording, which would violate Gould’s rights. It’s a public performance of the public domain work.

But making a recording of a piece (remember the “fixation” requirement) that mimics Gould techniques – techniques distinctive enough to the Gould recording and not dictated by the score, common fingering techniques, etc. – might violate Gould’s copyright in the prior recording. I think it could be a derivative work.

(Just going on my faded recollection of copyright law – happy to hear from more people who are more current on the law and more insighgtful.)

]]> By: PJ Doland http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38301 PJ Doland Wed, 16 May 2007 16:36:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38301 <p>Would you apply the same standard to another performer's rendition if it was influenced by Gould's 1955 recording?</p> Would you apply the same standard to another performer’s rendition if it was influenced by Gould’s 1955 recording?

]]> By: Jim Harper http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/comment-page-1/#comment-38300 Jim Harper Wed, 16 May 2007 16:33:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/05/16/new-recordings-without-the-humming/#comment-38300 <p>I'm going to take a stab at it, just to get the conversation started. The issue is whether the copyright in Gould's recording is violated - not, obviously, the public domain <em>Goldberg Variations</em>.<br /><br />I think the digital "tracing" of it is the creation of a derivative work, something like would be created if you watched a television show and wrote down the movements of the actors to create a "movement script" of the show. The execution of the "tracing" on a piano is a performance of the derivative work, which becomes another copyrightable work when fixed in a tangible medium of expression by recording.<br /><br />Given the creation of the derivative "tracing," I think Zenph owes Gould. I don't see how fair use would apply to Zenph's sales of recordings which compete fairly directly with Gould's recording - though it certainly could apply in other cases.</p> I’m going to take a stab at it, just to get the conversation started. The issue is whether the copyright in Gould’s recording is violated – not, obviously, the public domain Goldberg Variations.

I think the digital “tracing” of it is the creation of a derivative work, something like would be created if you watched a television show and wrote down the movements of the actors to create a “movement script” of the show. The execution of the “tracing” on a piano is a performance of the derivative work, which becomes another copyrightable work when fixed in a tangible medium of expression by recording.

Given the creation of the derivative “tracing,” I think Zenph owes Gould. I don’t see how fair use would apply to Zenph’s sales of recordings which compete fairly directly with Gould’s recording – though it certainly could apply in other cases.

]]>