
Judge Chooses Pi Day To Reject Lawsuit Over Attempt To Copyright Pi As A Song - llambda
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
======
grellas
For those who are not categorically opposed to the idea of copyright (I am
not), this case illustrates both the good and the bad of the current system.

Copyright when properly applied ultimately protects creative forms of
expression (see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3479959>). It does so by
giving the originator of a creative work (the "author") a monopoly on it for a
limited time, the effect of which is to allow that person to control who can
copy it, alter it, etc. Because the goal is to protect creativity, copyright
cannot legitimately be used to give anyone a monopoly over ideas themselves
(such as the idea of transposing pi to musical notes), or over expressions of
ideas that are indistinguishable from the underlying ideas themselves, or over
standard or stock elements (e.g., stock character types in plays), or over
facts. Even if a work itself is properly copyrighted, that protection extends
_only_ to the elements of that work that are sufficiently original as to be
protectible and not to other elements. Thus, if someone claims infringement
and the only concrete similarities between two works relate to elements not
protected by copyright (e.g., facts or ideas), there can be no infringement.
Applying these rules here, a judge well-versed in copyright law held that pi
is a non-copyrightable fact, the transcription of pi to music is a non-
copyrightable idea, the resulting pattern of notes is an expression that
merges with the non-copyrightable idea of transcribing pi to music, and the
remaining elements of similarity in the two works are so incidental and
scattered that there is no way it can be said that the works are
_substantially_ similar - hence, no infringement can be found even if the
works might be found to sound similar in certain ways. In focusing strongly on
the underlying principle of what copyright is all about (to protect original
forms of creative expression), the judge held that the "Pi Symphony" creator,
though possibly holding a valid copyright on his overall work, was entitled to
protect that work against only virtually identical copying because any broader
form of legal protection would allow that creator to overreach and to claim
what would amount essentially to a monopoly over the very concept of
transposing pi to music. This is what older generations would have called a
"felicitous result" - one that allows creative work to be legally protected
within the strict limits justified by the purpose of the copyright law and no
more. The result comports with both law and common sense and is well-
articulated by this judge in a solid opinion. That is the good part.

The bad part is that an Oregon resident had to fight a federal lawsuit, first
in the distant forum of Nebraska in order to challenge jurisdiction and venue,
and then through what was undoubtedly a set of motions in Oregon that had to
cost at least tens of thousands of dollars. For big companies, maybe this is
reasonable but, for an average person trying to defend against this sort of
attack, the process itself becomes obnoxious. This is a big reason that IP
bullying can be so easily practiced and why so many have to cave to it - even
if they are in the right. In a digital age, such bullying has become even more
obnoxious, driving many to the point of despising copyright altogether in
spite of its historic purposes and merits.

~~~
slowpoke
_> the goal [of copyright] is to protect creativity_

Except that's not true. It never was, ever since its inception in the 16th
century. Copyright has _always_ been about protecting _publishers and
middlemen_ (or in other words, a business model), and not creativity or
creators. That's a historical fact, and one that hasn't changed to the present
day. Copyright might be a nice idea on paper (I beg to differ), but in reality
its just legal fiction that's been nothing but abused to hell and back for
imposing artificial scarcity on a non-scarce good and locking up information,
art and culture - to the detriment of society as a whole.

People need to _stop_ believing this myth about the historical origins and
purpose of copyright, which is spread and propagated by the very same people
who invented and depend on copyright to protect their business model.

~~~
Joakal
To be fair, the earliest form of copyright was a tool of government and church
oppression in order to restrict access to information (including bibles).

------
pilif
So of course the logical conclusion to the judge saying that " _Copyright is
thus intended to protect the original work of authors without granting
monopolies over facts or ideas that would hinder further progress_ " will be
for Mr. Erickson to apply for a patent for a "method or apparatus for
transposing numbers into musical notes".

Then he could sue the other guy again on patent grounds.

Because, as we all know, patents are made precisely for granting monopolies
"in order not to hinder further progress", to reuse the judges original
wording.

~~~
nextparadigms
It would be really funny (in a bad way) when we'll discover that a law that we
use with the intent to "further progress", actually does the opposite and
hinders it.

Unfortunately this won't happen unless the patent law goes to the Supreme
Court over this or a bunch of companies lobby Congress with hard data showing
them that patents hinder progress.

~~~
Danieru
Or if the next iPhone gets blocked...

------
joelrunyon
The song in question - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOQb_mtkEEE>

~~~
DennisP
Awesome, thank you. It was a sad day when the copyright claim made it
disappear, and it's made my day to see it back. Kudos to the judge.

------
mhartl
I'm thrilled to see this. Michael Blake is an amazing talent, and this case
was total BS. It did have a cool side-effect, though: partially as a result of
these legal pi problems, Michael made an even more awesome composition based
on the digits of tau = 6.283185..., which you can see here:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q>

As the author of _The Tau Manifesto_ , that warms the cockles of my heart.

------
jedberg
Couldn't each artist copyright their individual performance though?

I know that wouldn't make a difference here, just a tangential question.

~~~
brlewis
Yes, they can. The title is misleading; the song itself is copyrighted. Read
the article for a more thorough treatment of what is/isn't copyrighted.

------
sophacles
On the one hand, I really respect the judge for being reasonable in this.
Kudos to him.

On the other hand, there is a perverse part of me wishing it had gone the
other way -- what a great way to highlight what is broken about copyright it
would be to quote this case.

~~~
lotharbot
This case shows one of the few things that's _not_ broken about copyright: you
can't copyright facts, or the idea of setting those facts to music.

For example, you can't copyright a list of the names of all of the presidents
of the US, nor can you copyright the idea of putting all of those names to
music, though you can copyright your specific musical arrangement.

------
mindslight
Argh, declaring Pi day as 3-14 is straight up cargo cult numerology. I will
ask, what then is "pi time" ? Is it 1:59:26... AM? But the range of hours is
greater than 10 and daytime wouldn't be bad, so maybe we want to put it
15:92:65... . Oops, now our fundamental problem is revealed - we're taking a
base 10 decimal and cramming it into a base 12/30.?/24/60/60/10 format digit
by digit.

Pi is a ratio, and we'd do much better service to its meaning by declaring 'pi
time' as when 1/pi of the year is over. In leap years, this happens on April
26 at 12:02:01... PM. At this point, the Earth will have moved twice the
distance that it is from the sun (tau day might be cooler in this regard, but
would happen in dreary February)

(I swear I'm more fun at parties, just not necessarily "pi day" parties)

~~~
MSexton
"Cargo-cult numerology"? It's a fun excuse to eat pie. Most semi-educated
people have an idea what pi is, and can easily make the connection.

