4 ms·

> Just waiting to be sued for copyright infringement... I mean the estate of John Cage sues people for including silence in audio tracks, so why not. https://

• klyrs 5y ago
  That's not an accurate description. They didn't have 'silence in audio tracks', they had a silent track, named One Minute of Silence. Significant silence in music isn't Cage's invention, and if that silent minute was embedded in a track, there's enough prior art that Cage's estate wouldn't have a claim. https://stringsmagazine.com/silence-the-way-in-which-great-composers-use-the-absence-of-sound-has-a-profound-impact-on-their-music/ https://stringsmagazine.com/silence-the-way-in-which-great-c...
  • SahAssar 5y ago
    That's still absurd. Theoretically I could infringe on Cage's track by just not plugging in my headphones. Absence of work/product should not be copyrightable.
    • klyrs 5y ago
      Nonsense. Failing to plug in your headphones is no more infringing than practicing a copyrighted piece of music without an audience. Infringement occurs when a work is performed or produced for sale. Also, the name of the track was almost certainly a factor in the decision.
      • SahAssar 5y ago
        So if I charged someone to listen to my unplugged headphones then it would be infringement? As for the names how is "A One Minute Silence" and "4'33" not different enough?