Photo: sonar.es
Photo: sonar.es

DJs must be knowledgeable about copyright licence. The very fact that, as a DJ, you’re playing, and playing around with, other people’s music and earning money from doing so means that you potentially put yourself in the crosshairs of copyright law every time you do your job.

With so much available for free over the internet, creators find themselves having to resort to basic arguments, like “I made this, so it belongs to me, and I get to decide whether I give it away from free or not.”

It’s a no-brainer, right. You create something, you deserve to paid for it.

But, here’s a question. What if what you’re using is silence? Huh? Yeah.

In 1952, John Cage composed 4’33”. The piece consists entirely of silence. The musicians are there on stage, but they don’t play. Cage believed that any sound can be thought of as music. In the case of this “song”, the music came from the environment – birds, cars, the audience shifting in its seats. Do you think that piece by Cage should be covered under copyright law?

Although the courts have ruled that you can’t copyright silence, SoundCloud apparently has. It has removed DJ Detweiler’s remix entitled “John Cage – 4’33”.

I think, though, that we’re asking the wrong question. It’s not silence that’s copyrighted, or at least shouldn’t be. It’s Cage’s idea of a performance made up of alternate sounds coming from the natural environment and which might include silence. So, it’s the idea that might fall under copyright law as intellectual property.

There’s also the question of copying the “instruments”. Where does copyright law draw the line? If one person starts using an instrument never before imagined, does that mean that everyone else who follows that person’s example is infringing copyright?

What do you think?