Re: [LAU] (no subject)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:12 AM, drew Roberts<zotz@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Friday 10 July 2009 13:24:57 you wrote:
>> 2009/7/10 Burkhard Wölfel <versuchsanstalt@email-addr-hidden>:
>> > Am 10.07.2009 um 16:28 schrieb drew Roberts <zotz@email-addr-hidden>:
>> >> Just for fun:
>> >>
>> >> http://classicalconvert.com/2007/07/the-stupidest-music-lawsuit-ever-inf
>> >>ringing-on-cages-433/
>> >> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/uk.silence/
>> >
>> > Thanks for the links. I am sure Cage would have laughed about the
>> > lawsuit. Who knows if Ed. Peters would have sued if he were still alive.
>> >
>> > What the articles are missing, and I think that is an important aspect
>> > of the work, is the various reactions of the audience when 4'33 is
>> > performed. If you have the chance to listen (sic!) to such a
>> > performance, don't miss it. Bear in mind that modern audiences are
>> > usually informed about the nature of the piece and you are not likely
>> > to witness very angry reactions. The grotesque aspect of it gets far
>> > more attention today.
>> >
>> > By the way, did you know that all four movements are available on
>> > iTunes? 0,99€ each, as you would expect.
>> >
>> > Again, I am sure he'd have laughed about it, happy about the discussion.
>> >
>> > Oh yes, and did you know also that Cage did not listen to recorded
>> > music at all?
>> >
>> > - Burkhard
>> >
>> >> drew
>> >>
>> >> On Friday 10 July 2009 02:13:46 Arnold Krille wrote:
>> >>> On Thursday 09 July 2009 23:12:09 drew Roberts wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday 09 July 2009 13:10:08 you wrote:
>> >>>>> We could call it  4'33"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah but there could well be copyright issues if one person quotes
>> >>>> another person's nothing.
>> >>>
>> >>> No, until now citations are allowed if they stay within reasonable
>> >>> size
>> >>> compared to the original. So you aren't allowed to quote the full
>> >>> silence
>> >>> but quoting short extracts from empty mails is okay... (*)
>> >>>
>> >>> Arnold
>> >>>
>> >>> (*) Of course, german newspapers are working towards making citations
>> >>> non-free of charge. :-/
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>> >> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
>> >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Linux-audio-user mailing list
>> > Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
>> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>
>> The lawsuit was not stupid. They credited Cage as a composer, and
>> seeing as he had nothing to do with making the piece, they could have
>> at least gotten permission to use the composition they were
>> referencing if they were going to use his name on their work.
>
> Seems the proper thing to do might have been to demand that the credit be
> removed unless the actual silence was indeed sampled... ~;-) Rather than to
> demand payment as if he was involved with the making of the piece. Or???
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>

IIRC, they did demand the removal of the Cage credit. The damages were
for the albums sold where Cage was falsely credited / his composition
was used without prior permission (which of the two occurred is of
course ambiguous). At no point was the idea of "sampling" an issue.

If I did a track where I played ten consecutive notes from a Jimi
Hendrix solo, nobody would notice or care. If I co-credited Jimi
Hendrix as a composer on the liner notes without arranging (and most
likely paying for) prior permission, you should expect his estate's
lawyers would want to talk to me about this. And if people were buying
the album because Jimi Hendrix's name was on it, the Hendrix estate
would have every right to sue for damages. How is this case any
different?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Jul 11 00:15:03 2009