Copyright Claimed on Telephone Tones 495
awful writes: "Two composers in Australia have copyrighted over 100,000,000,000 phone tone dialing sequences. They state in the article that they are lampooning copyright laws that protect big business rather than artists. Their website has more info and explains how they did it. You can check your number and make sure it hasn't been copyrighted by these guys. They have already recieved one offer of money - from a guy who wanted to purchase the copyright to his number so he could stop direct marketing firms from calling him." Somehow I don't think the inventors of DTMF envisioned this. Update: 10/04 14:11 GMT by M : There's a US mirror available.
The real question (Score:0, Insightful)
What's more is, even if the phone numbers weren't already being used, the mere fact that the phone company has a pre-existing document [eggforge.net] specifying the format and access-method for all telephones negates any further attempts to copyright.
Besides, if 2600 can lose the MPAA case -- I'm sure a judge will throw this right out the window.
btw. I love Eggplants! [eggforge.net]
--ECA Rebel Bastard!
Re:Nice idea, but won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if you were to sing the entire works of the Beatles to a friend over the phone, that's not a public performance so no licensing is required. When you dial a touch-tone number, you may be "performing" the work, but your audience is zero...again, not a public performance.
Re:Oh so close! (Score:2, Insightful)
How to get around this: (legally) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How to get around this: (legally) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jobs, Woz, and the Black Box (Score:3, Insightful)
Numbers cannot be copyrighted (Score:3, Insightful)
*However* suppose that a song is written and copyrighted. All well and good. Now it is coverted into an MP3. The MP3 is a directly derived work, and is still copyrighted similarly. If a number is a derived from that MP3 or WAV file, it is still directly derived from the original piece, and thus copyrighted just the same.
Copyrights are always about works themselves (of protected classes, of course) and their derivations. If some text/song/art/whatever is put into another form directly representing the original, the copyright works just the same.
Note: I am not a lawyer nor copyright expert. But this sure seems logical to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.