Discussion:
State: California.
When something, say a Music CD, is copyrighted, what is actually copyrighted? Is it the analog sound made from the interpretation of the binary data, the binary data itself, or both?
Answer:
When something, say a Music CD, is copyrighted, what is actually copyrighted? Is it the analog sound made from the interpretation of the binary data, the binary data itself, or both? In a sense, both. A music CD actually has two copyrights associated with it: one for the "sound recording" and the other for the "musical work." The "musical work" copyright covers the song itself, while the "sound recording" covers that particular performance of the song. If I put out a CD of Beatles covers, Paul McCartney will own the copyrights to the "musical works" but I will own the copyright to the "sound recordings" of my particular rendition of the songs.
However, getting back to your original question, in a sense both the digital representaion and the associated analog output are covered by the copyright. When you copy a CD, you are copying bits -- and copying is covered by copyright. When you play a CD in a jukebox, you are playing the analog output through the speakers -- and the public performance of a copyrighted work is also covered under copyright.
There is some caselaw, mostly dealing with software, that goes into some of this dichotomy in more detail (cases dealing with machine code, etc.), btu the names escape me at the present. You could probably use Google, I think Atari was one case, and so on, cases back in the 80's and early 90's.
Answer:
Then what about mp3's, then? I mean, technically an Mp3 file doesn't have the same bits as the original CD, nor is the analog output exactly the same. I'm sure that this defense won't hold up in court, but I have to ask.
Answer:
Then what about mp3's, then? I mean, technically an Mp3 file doesn't have the same bits as the original CD, nor is the analog output exactly the same. I'm sure that this defense won't hold up in court, but I have to ask. Copyright infringement does not require an exact duplicate. Making photocopies of a book is infringement, even though the photocopies may be of lesser quality or a different size than the original book. Black and white photocopies of a color work are likewise infringing. There does not have to be literal bit-by-bit copying for infringement to exist.
Answer:
OK, that's what I thought.
Then, what about the "interpretation problem"? An Mp3 file can be interpreted differently to produce a different, non-copyrighted sound. Or if a book is copied to a .txt file, a different program could interpret the data as different characters, again producing a non-copyrighted text.
Again, I'm sure it won't work, but I have to ask.
Thanks for all of your help!
Answer:
Then, what about the "interpretation problem"? An Mp3 file can be interpreted differently to produce a different, non-copyrighted sound. Or if a book is copied to a .txt file, a different program could interpret the data as different characters, again producing a non-copyrighted text. I'm not quite sure at what you are driving at, but one could argue that taking, say, an MP3 file of a copyrighted sound recording, then running it through a program that creates a whole new sound is creating a "derivative work," which is also covered by copyright. However, like I said, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. If you are looking for a way to circumvent copyright laws, then how does creating, say, a random sound file from an MP3 help you?
Answer:
No, not create a random sound file.
Here, lets say that we have a string of bits from an Mp3 file
10101010101111010101
(whatever).
When interpreted through a normal Mp3 player, a sound is produced.
Now, lets say that we take that same series of bits, and put it through a program that interprets it differently than Mp3, and the output sound is completely different.
So, because the same data can be interpreted in two different ways, does the copyright holder of the original sound also have a copyright to sounds made through different interpretations of that data?
Answer:
So, because the same data can be interpreted in two different ways, does the copyright holder of the original sound also have a copyright to sounds made through different interpretations of that data? Good question -- I'm not sure that there is any caselaw on this. Maybe the best analogy would be to translation -- it is legal to translate a work (like a book) that you buy for your own personal use, but it would be infringement to sell the translated book without a license.
Answer:
If I put out a CD of Beatles covers, Paul McCartney will own the copyrights to the "musical works" Well, Micheal Jackson will, but the same logic holds up.