Can you copyright music of pi? Judge says no
Pi Day this year was special for Michael John Blake. On that day, March 14 (3/14, like the number 3.14), a judge dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit against his song, which is based on the number pi.
Let's back up: Pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. Its digits go on infinitely in an apparently random fashion: 3.1415926535897932 ...
And while this sounds preposterously geeky, multiple musicians have seen this as an opportunity to create songs based on these numbers. If you look at a piano and say that the musical note C is 1, D is 2, E is 3, and so on, you can create an interesting melody, and then add other elements to compose a full song with pi as the fundamental musical core.
Blake launched a musical video called "What Pi Sounds Like" based on this idea last year, quickly becoming a YouTube sensation. (The original was removed from YouTube, but New Scientist repackaged it.) But Lars Erickson had already created music based on pi decades before, called "The Pi Symphony." Erickson sued Blake, claiming that he had taken an idea that was already copyrighted.
Erickson also used the digits of pi (as well as the constant e) as the basis for the melody of his "Pi Symphony," which was performed by the Omaha Symphony Orchestra Chamber group and by Ruse Philharmonic of Bulgaria in 2010.
Erickson had alleged that Blake's pi song "sounded substantially similar," and therefore infringes the copyrighted melody that Erickson registered in 1992. He told CNN last year that "nobody can copyright pi," but that he "copyrighted the melody of pi to protect my work, just like anybody would copyright their work."
Judge Michael H. Simon, of the U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, agreed with the plaintiff on the point about the number itself: "Pi is a non-copyrightable fact," Simon wrote in his legal opinion.
Still, Simon continued, "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 putting pi to music: assigning digits to musical notes and playing those notes in the sequence of pi is an idea that can only be expressed in a finite number of ways."
That doesn't mean Erickson's copyright is invalid, "only that Mr. Erickson may not use his copyright to stop others from employing this particular pattern of musical notes," Simon continued. Erickson's work is protected from "virtually identical" copying by others, but Blake's song is not sufficiently similar - for instance, its harmonies, structure and cadence are all different.
Erickson said in an e-mail to CNN on Tuesday that he would simply urge people to watch his video and Blake's video and draw their own conclusions.
"I wrote 'Pi Symphony' 20 years ago, I am thrilled to have presented it first," Erickson said. "It was my gift to the world, no strings attached. Life goes on."
Blake told CNN in an e-mail that he's happy and relieved about the outcome, but not entirely surprised.
"I have felt fairly confident of my legal position from the beginning, but to find out on Pi Day was a perfect end to all of this," he said.
@CNNLightYears on Twitter
People in Orbit
Expedition 36 Commander
Expedition 36 Flight Engineer
Expedition 36 Flight Engineer
Contributors
-
Elizabeth Landau
Writer/Producer -
Sophia Dengo
Senior Designer
Hi, I do think this is an excellent site. I stumbledupon it 😉
I'm going to revisit yet again since I book marked it. Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.
this is a melody...just like rodgers and hammerstein copyrighting the major scale..or the jackson five copyrighting the alphabet...the judge doesn't understand the difference between a melody and a math constant....if you look at lars explanation and john michael blake version that came out a few months later....they are almost identical....any intelligent person viewing the two identical versions would come to the logical conclusion that blake stole lars idea
I had an infinite amount of fabones, but no more.
If you had an infinite number of monkeys, it would not take an infinite amount of time to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. In fact, an infinite number of those infinite monkeys would manage to bang it out on their very first attempt, along with every other possible combination of words.
You are right, and I stand corrected. It's been a while since I thought of that. It's one monkey. I still find it fascinating that the probability isn't zero.
The infinite monkey theorem states that given enough time an infinite number of monkeys typing on typewriters, random strokes, they would reproduce works such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. While highly improbable, the chance of it happening is not zero, and might take longer then our universes complete existence. My question is, Would they get sued?
Tyrone violated a copyright law. Which goo should I choose to chew sir? If I chew sir, do dee do sir, I build brick houses out of cardboard. I also still cannot find my fabone.
loser, do you feel as though your every mindless, thoughtless, yawn-inducing rant is the most creative, original, and intelligent utterance ever?
awwwww. Did I actually hurt your feelings, or is it just an aura of forbodding mmmmmmm? Consider this chilling challenge if you will. Did my mindless rant actually get your goat or did the violation of several copyrights kick it over the edge for you? Did my words hurt or offend you in any way or did you just choose to post a negative response due to you inability to find comedy where ever you can? Or if your responding just to respond and keep it interesting for all, then I can see it, but why violate the copyright as you see fit? Rocks, box, clocks, docks. Rocks in box, box on docks, clock on rock in box on dock. Look sir, look sir, I can write a whole bunch of stuff sir. I can say such silly stuff sir. But can, you can choose to say stuff too sir, if you can sir, please sir do sir.
I want to be beaten about the face with copyright law. Or ohms law, or maybe even ulaw. Could I copyright myself as a work of fiction? Could my comments be copyrighted as a form of art. If I spilled spaghetti on my new white suit, and the stain resembled Pete's Dragon, would I be in violation of dismemberment, or a complete disregard to good dry cleaning? I'll let you decide. I have made a decision to build a violation machine. Every time I commit a violation, the bell rings. If I whislted Dixie while consuming dioxides, which laws would I be breaking. Do you know what time it is? It's funny Fabone time. After years of wrangling around the issue, I can finally say I am complete in my decision to swallow whole gallons of mercury to quantenstate the exact moment of the violation in which I, Joe Fabone, would have had to have had better eyesight to see that I was drinking molten lava. I danced on hot coals to feel my feet bing heat violated.
man some people have a lot of time on their hands.
And some people don't. In fact some are already gone. What does time or hands have to do with pi?
I hear voices in my head that are plagiarizing my own thoughts. If that's not a true copyright violation, I'll eat myself. Then I can wrestle while I eat. I'm know as a really big burrito. I walk the malls with that stickered to my body. I also have my name tattooed underneath my eyelids for easy identification. I can't understand the relationship between sad and sadder, but there's a strong bet I fall into the category of dielectric tonic. I will open my mind to free myself of the thoughts that run widely through it. But if somebody copies them, I'll sue them for failure to transmit copies back to me. I understand completely, yet I'm forever banished into the prison of the unselfish seafood eaters. I'm allergic to pi. I will go inhale hexamethylhydride. I'm almost aluminum.
I huffed, and I puffed, and somebody threw pi in my face!
We looked and there's nothing there.
"I wrote 'Pi Symphony' 20 years ago, I am thrilled to have presented it first," Erickson said. "It was my gift to the world, no strings attached. Life goes on."
...only don't try to play it because he'll try and sue you.
I drank what?
The immortal words of Socrates! What do I win? Or did I just violate the copyright of Real Genius by quoting it?
I cannot recover the contents of my brain.
Im reasonably positive you do not have a fabone. I'm selling my last sca-la-la. I bought a Lasalle set and stole the rest blindly from the guy with the no one finger. I love chicken. I used to park under the trees and pull at my fabone all the time. I loved lime on my injuries. I can't wait to feel the alcohol rub on my giant gaping wound that was caused by the act of ripping my fabone from my flesh. I am the fabone master, while I cannot find it, I will never forget it. I lost my pants in a rummage sale, and finally, I might just be a relic in an antique shop. I rust easy cause I'm made of metal, I have no rust to call my own. I'm a lost cause. I MISS MY FABONE!!!!!!!!
I can't find my fabone. I lost my ballaine! I'm a comedy of errors that contradict my reasons to live. I'm reasonably sure that I won't be coming into a fabone at any time soon. I loved my fabone. Went everywhere with it. I shared it with others who went on to get their own fabones
My gosh, they removed the posts of RON, HERO OF THE NEW AGE! also of Tiesha my loyal fan. Bravo to CNN censors, you are showing some balls! I salute you.
Ron that is really sad what the censors did to our posts. I mean, admittedly they weren't really relevant to the article or anything, but at least they were interesting, not like some of the other on here. Please persevere Ron and carry on, my hero.
I just wrote a new song – "2 + 2 = 4". So, from now on, anytime teachers say those words in a classroom, someone owes me a quarter.
Your logic is flawed, for everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4
the copyright on that expired centuries ago.
16a12b352c0hello there and thank you for your information e28093 I have ritcaenly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical issues using this web site, as I experienced to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your high-quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway Ie28099m adding this RSS to my email and could look out for a lot more of your respective intriguing content. Make sure you update this again very soon.. 187
Soylant Green is People!
Mmmm...I prefer mine with hot sauce and a hint of lime.
I like mine with Franks RedHot Sauce. I put that sh it on everything.
Ever tried Texas Pete's...it's really good.
I wish I was a wafer
I jumped through hoops bringing my gold to the surface. I was robbed by Eddie Poopa. He ran through my house yelling about how my gold was fake, then sold some on eBay making him an instant millionaire. He offered me a kidney pie with gold trim, but my Dr. Peppa machine was out of juice. I couldn't compress the injury he made when he extracted my liver through the use of La Machine. He still ran around screaming about pyrite and how the pyramids were made out of plastic. Then he hurled himself into my imaginary gold mine and we haven't seen him since. Why did all that have to happen. I'm telling you Eddies not a nice guy. Don't trust him. Boyette will tell you the truth every time and he weighs his product correctly. Troy ounces instead of metric tonsz.
Eddies not a nice guy, whereas Boyette is my best friend. I copyright my gold so no one can get a foothold on my mine. I me mine!!!
Gold
Can I copyright a musical score that is based on a chromatic scale and the representation of pi in base 12? Or based on some diatonic mode and pi in base 8? How about a pentatonic scale and base 5, or a whole tone scale in base 6? It seems to me that there are many ways to set pi to music, and that each of them is a legitimate basis for a copyright.
No, not as such. All of your proposed methods are "merely" formulaic conversions of Pi into sound. That, as this case shows, is not eligible for copyright protection, since you didn't come up with Pi.
However, say you do use one of your methods to create music. What you could get protection in is the specific combination of the instrument you use, the cadence you use, any artistic pauses at various points, etc. If you have a video camera on you (as opposed to just a microphone), perhaps the outfit you wear and the visuals you depict could all be worked into some sort of copyright protection.
But you would not be protecting the underlying conversion of Pi into sound via copyright.
The art you've posted in these leatst entries tell such stories. This blog has become such an eye opener.ThanksRebeccaPS your scriblettes are out of this world
Enjoy my scops. Liken it to the next breed of idiots.
Ron also drunk!
Let's see....this er, question, tied up the court system for God knows how many days......the judge must have spent at *least* several hours writing out his opinion.....not to mention the cost of judicial clerks, court officers and so on.......YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK OVER COMPLETE IDIOCY!
Then again, so what else is new, I guess.......
+1
It's called "The Justice System". A wildly popular concept were people bring grievances against each other for judgement by a neutral party, often by individuals specifically selected for these types of civil cases, leaving others available for judging criminal cases. You should look into it sometime. It solves a lot of problems. Without it we have a lawless society where people can gun down unarmed individuals going about their business.....
Point goes to Scott.
First of all, if you independently come up with an idea, you can actually create the exact same work as another. There was no showing (in this article at least), that Blake was influenced by Erickson. Furthermore, you can't get a copyright based on something that has no creative aspect to it. See Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987) for another example – there, it was held that you can't copyright a bicycle rack design that was basically nothing more than an implementation of an underlying engineering formula. Here, the judge properly found that you can't copyright the mechanical conversion of a set of numbers that you didn't create into musical tones. However, the judge did leave room for the artistic expression of that conversion ("Blake's song is not sufficiently similar – for instance, its harmonies, structure and cadence are all different.").
All in all, a sound legal ruling as far as I can tell.
"First of all, if you independently come up with an idea, you can actually create the exact same work as another."
Didn't Newton and Leibniz independently come up with differential calculus?
Newton and Leibniz both predated the current U.S. Copyright system, so your question is inherently flawed. That issue aside ...
Think of it like this though: even if they were alive today and came up with their theories today, they would not be able to get a copyright on the mathematical formulas they created. However, they COULD get copyrights in their particular write-ups, articles, publications, etc.
So, for example, if I say "y = mx + b", the standard algebraic formula for a straight line in Euclidean space, I am not infringing upon anyone's copyrights. However, if I copied-and-pasted the exact explanation of what this is, what it means, etc., from a book on algebra? That could be an infringement of copyrights.
Oh, and to further clarify what I meant by independent creation ... if you and I are independently inspired to paint the exact same portrait, or take the exact same picture, or write the exact same novel, yes, we would each be allowed to get a copyright in our own works. However, the more similar two works are, it goes to the question of proof of copying. Do we really think someone could independently, off-the-top-of-their-head write a children's story that was word-for-word identical to a Dr. Seuss book? Probably not.
Hasn't Pi already been copyrighted by God?
No, god does not subscribe to math or science.
God doesn't have to subscribe to it, He created math & science. duh.
So you can't copywrite Pi, a number which was conceived of by humans, but MONSANTO can claim ownership of some species of plants that they DID NOT CREATE THEMSELVES. This is part of an evil corporation's plan to control all food. Wait for the day when you are prosecuted for growing tomatoes in your own yard. Monsanto drives small farmers out of business by suing them if Monsanto pollen blows onto a farm from nearby farms using Monsanato seed. This is an issue that will affect every human on the planet eventually. Soylant Green is only a few years away.
This post is hilariously irrelevant. Good job!
This post almost makes me ashamed of my name.
You made my day! Monsanto is a company that most people have probably never heard of but which has a huge impact on our daily lives. We take for granted that our food supply is safe, but if everyone knew what horrible practices Monsanto gets away with every day they would be shocked. The problems caused by "big oil" and the "government" are small potatoes compared to Monsanto. We're all sitting around wondering why food allergies and other problems are on the rise. Look at where your food actually comes from and you'll figure it out.
Seriously, you think most people haven't heard of Monsanto?
He should have just gone in a more original direction and found the sound of cake.
Hey! I like that Band.
Argh. I can't decide between "The cake is a lie" or "It's never there."
"I wrote 'Pi Symphony' 20 years ago, I am thrilled to have presented it first," Erickson said. "It was my gift to the world, no strings attached. Life goes on."
Okay – then why did he sue?
Because, like all musicians, he's a dick.
Talk about getting it all wrong, CNN. Yes you CAN copyright the "music of Pi" From your own article:
"That doesn't mean Erickson's copyright is invalid, "only that Mr. Erickson may not use his copyright to stop others from employing this particular pattern of musical notes," "
The decision was an infringement decision, not a validity one. The copyright of the EXPRESSION is valid, but, you cannot copyright the underlying idea (and this has always been the law). So unless the two songs are nearly identical, there is no infringement.
This Erikson fellow thought he could copyright an idea. You cannot.
Actually, you can copy an idea. That is why there are patents. What you can't copy are facts. Especially facts that have been around for ever. If you discover the fact, you can name it but that is about it. Unless the fact you discovered is through some process. then you can copyright the process, not the fact.
Patents and Copyrights are two distinct protectable intellectual properties.
As if the courts didn't have enough to do .
i hope they find touch screens and related objects when atlantis is discovered. prior art can wipe out all these ridiculous protections
Given that the Babylonians were aware of it, I'd say that pi has pretty much passed into the public domain. But if Disney discovered it, they'd probably ruled differently–even after 3,000 years.
This really isn't anything new. Musicians have been setting names, numbers, etc to music for hundreds of years. J.S. Bach was fond of putting his family name in compositions: BACH = B flat – A – C – B natural. The golden ratio has been a fixture of art and music for centuries. Most art "innovations" have been done before many times in some form or another. I'm not saying you shouldn't protect your work if is warranted. I am saying get over yourself.
From KARP's song, Scientifantastic: "Have a slice of piiiiiiiii!"
Neither of these guys were first to do this, Elgar wrote the Enigma Variations in 1898 which is based off of Pi. So this isn't a new idea
There are many more factors than just using the number PI to pick the notes. There's the duration and the phrasing of each note and series of notes that make a distinctive song and subject to a copyright.
What's this about a duplicate comment. Something is seriously broken in your system
Exactly. The judge boiling the issue down to "you can't copyright Pi" was disingenuous. Or he doesn't know copyright law.
You can copyright your expression of any fact or idea, so long as the idea and expression don't "merge".
Here there's a distinct difference between copyrighting Pi and copyrighting some musical expression using Pi.
Which is exactly what the judge ruled had you read more carefully. Erickson's copyright is valid but Blake's work is not sufficently similar to have violated Erickson's copyright. His stating that you can't copyright the natural phenomenae of Pi iitself s just background.
Why read when you can rush to insult someone instead?
Nah,
Uh, I think that was Jkhur's point to you. Read the article next time before you comment.
There are many more factors than just using the number PI to pick the notes. There's the duration and the phrasing of each note and series of notes that make a distinctive song and subject to a copyright.
Talk about a bunch of nerds!
That's irrational.
Prime response.
Transcendental even.
Mmmmmmmm.... pie !
Each and every goldigging diddler and corporate lawyer out there who attempts to copyright a natural phenomena such as numerical recurrence or DNA should be caned 30 times across the gluteus maximus with a 36" slide rule, HARD.
Nah.
You can copyright your expression of facts. Why? Because every expression - whether in the written word, music, art, etc. - are based on "facts" and "ideas", both of which are uncopyrightable in themselves. Hence, you can copyright your expression of Pi if your expression is separate from the idea itself.
It has nothing to do with corporate lawyers.
Pi as a song sounds like a cool idea. How about the natural logarithym "e"? It starts as 2.7182818. I guess imaginary numbers (square root of -1) are out of the question,
Oh but if they were playable I imagine they'd be grand. 🙂
Imaginary numbers can be handled, but only on an air guitar.
This post wins. *lol*
Well _ played_ sir.
The judge should throw it out because the argument would by definition be irrational.
sigh.
sigh.
"... because the argument would by definition be irrational."
Brilliant. I love it.
groan (rolling my eyes)
16a13735f2I like the valuable info you orvpide in your articles. Ie28099ll bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I am quite sure Ie28099ll learn many new stuff right here! Good luck for the next! 18d
Pi has been known for quite a long time. And historically quite a few mathematicians and scientists have been musicians as well. The claim that the first time this was ever done was 20 years ago is unrealistic. hell using number patterns to play with melodies is something I did while still learning to play guitar when I was eleven years old.
and I'm no revolutionary or even creative musician.
He could be right. While Pi as an abstract concept may have been known since antiquity, it's only recently that a large numbers of Pi's digits could be calculated. In 1873, only 707 digits were calculated (of which only 527 were correct) and it took the mathematician 20 years to calculate it. This was the first time that an approximate number of digits were known as are needed for a song to be made from them.
true, but most songs are three notes repeated so 707 digits would be overkill to say the least. even 50 digits is probably enough and it doesn't take a mathematician to approximate pi to 50 digits by hand. even without correct digits, the idea has no doubt been played with and that's what this guy seems to be claiming.
My point is not that someone wrote that exact song once before, simply that he's not somehow innovative by trying this like he seems to think. anybody can do what they're told (i.e. be given notes). it takes creativity to come up with something out of nothing.
Sounds pretty dissonant however you slice it.
Like a slice of pi?
FIRST!
Wow some people seriously still do the "FIRST" posts? In that case I will answer your comment with another equally juvenile and outdated comment "Hey PhantomGoat, 1990 called they want their comment back."
Bobington, the sad thing is, PhantomGoat thinks that was clever. But, please, don't take away that from him as that is apparently the only thing in his pathetic life that means something to him.
Bobington, the fact that you made this comment indicates you are an insecure, jealous, mama's boy living in her basement.
Don't reply. Anything you say will only prove my point further.
I think I'll sue PhantomGhost. I was the FIRST to copyright the FIRST post as an initial post in a comments section
I'm sorry, but I am more firster than you.
In fact, I'm Firstest. I'll even go so far as to say I'm more firstester than anybody ever could be.
And I just copyrighted Firstest and Firstester, too, so don't get any funny ideas.
Well, you didn't get to say it on your honeymoon, you may as well say it now.
Com'on, got be the "first" of the day.
good for you, want a cookie?