4 ms·
> What's wrong with copyrighting a particular concrete example of white noise? It would be functionally impossible for a start. Copyright does not cover ideas
by abritinthebay 9y ago
> What's wrong with copyrighting a particular concrete example of white noise?
It would be functionally impossible for a start. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
Given white noise is a random signal having equal intensity at different frequencies it's basically like saying "what's wrong with copyrighting a particular number?" it is nonsensical.
- FartyMcFarter 9y ago> "what's wrong with copyrighting a particular number?" We do it all the time - a file on a hard drive is basically a number, and files are definitely copyrightable.
- reificator 9y agoWhen you're dealing with copyrighted files, every single one is just a very large number.
- kbenson 9y agoI'll see your large number and raise you an army of monkeys on typewriters, which if I follow the pseudo-intellectual logic going on in this thread correctly, means I own the copyright of everything that will ever be created in the future. Or maybe we can all agree that just being able to describe, view, feel, smell or listen to something doesn't necessarily make it something that we can copyright or patent. We can walk back from the brink of madness towards sanity, it just takes the first few steps. :)
- chowells 9y agoIt's not the number that's copyrighted. It's the content that number represents that's copyrighted.
- reificator 9y agoBut when it's on a computer, the two are indistinguishable.
- Pulcinella 9y agoA cam recording of a movie is still copyright violation even though the cinema movie and the cam recording are different numbers.
- reificator 9y ago> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Clearly I didn't mean that the copyrighted work is only associated with a single number. The "two" in the "two are indistinguishable" was in response the the comment above: > It's not the number that's copyrighted. It's the content that number represents that's copyrighted.
- adrianN 9y agoThis classic essay is ever relevant http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- vinceguidry 9y agoIt's not possession that constitutes copyright violation, it's distribution. And that's up to a court of law to decide whether your actions constitute it.
- abritinthebay 9y agoRight, but as - I repeat - Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves but only the form or manner in which they are expressed then the computers information isn't the point - the expression of that information is. Which is why it is not actually in violation to have a mp3 but only to upload or play it - as that is the expression. The digital data is not actually copyrighted. Which is, again, why white noise makes no sense to copyright - it's random noise.
- mywittyname 9y agoActually, it's more like a function that maps a huge (maybe infinite) vector of very large numbers to a single concept in a human brain when interpreted in a very specific manner. Think about how many ways you can encode a single song: there are dozens of formats, each with varying bitrates and other attributes. But no matter which "number" of that song you play, a human will hear interpret them all the same.
- reificator 9y agoA copyrighted work has dozens of different encodings that would map to different files. A copyrighted file is just a large number.
- brooklyn_ashey 9y agopseudo random