Maybe:
1) Some copyrighted music has a period of noise that closely matched the segment of noise of the video.
2) There is adversarial pattern in the noise in the video that confused the hunting algorithm.
However in this case it does seem to be youtube's content matching algorithm that is finding the match (as far as I can tell, but it's hard to know for sure). My guess is that their matching algorithm just doesn't work well for white noise.
I could imagine, it's a stretch, a specific "arrangement" of white noise being copyrightable. But in general it is wrong to think you can copyright white noise.
> I'm thinking particularly of 4'33".
I read that using Apple's Text to Speech (macOS High Sierra) like:
> I'm thinking particularly of 4 feet 33 inches.
LOL Apple. You haven't heard of Classical Music yet, have you?
It would be functionally impossible for a start. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.
Given white noise is a random signal having equal intensity at different frequencies it's basically like saying "what's wrong with copyrighting a particular number?" it is nonsensical.
Or maybe we can all agree that just being able to describe, view, feel, smell or listen to something doesn't necessarily make it something that we can copyright or patent. We can walk back from the brink of madness towards sanity, it just takes the first few steps. :)
Clearly I didn't mean that the copyrighted work is only associated with a single number. The "two" in the "two are indistinguishable" was in response the the comment above:
> It's not the number that's copyrighted. It's the content that number represents that's copyrighted.
Which is why it is not actually in violation to have a mp3 but only to upload or play it - as that is the expression. The digital data is not actually copyrighted.
Which is, again, why white noise makes no sense to copyright - it's random noise.
Think about how many ways you can encode a single song: there are dozens of formats, each with varying bitrates and other attributes. But no matter which "number" of that song you play, a human will hear interpret them all the same.
A copyrighted file is just a large number.
Isn't anything that can be converted into bits and compared recognizable and distinctive?
You could sit there in court with a hex editor and show how every byte of two noise files in different, but nobody procures or pays for audio recordings for the aesthetic pleasure of hex dumping them. Law isn't a competition to see whether you can figure out a way to articulate what the difference is.
"must have been created independently and contain a sufficient amount of creativity"
from : https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
US copyright of course, ymmv but I doubt other countries are going to be more likely to allow white noise / PN sequences.
https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyr...
It's likely that your "creative work" will need to be similar to other forms of creative work in order to enjoy that status. Either that, or you need to earn a reputation within a creative community as a person how pushes the conventional boundaries.
In other words, randomly generated sounds are not widely considered to be creative in the conventional sense. So, unless you become the next deadmau5, it's unlikely that a court would rule that your random noise is considered art.
We're not saying that some people should be allowed to confuse consumers by trying to pass off their products as someone else's products (those are trademarks) or that people shouldn't disclose all of the details of their inventions in exchange for a short monopoly on those inventions (that's patents), or that anyone should be allowed to say that their sparkling wine was prepared in Champagne, France (that's regional designation).
"IP" is a broad, vague term that describes different laws, with different purposes. Laws that are so different that it hardly makes sense to discuss them in the same breath.
Copyright and patent are both intended to encourage innovation by providing the originator with a temporary monopoly on the use of works/processes/etc. Both are frequently discussed here in the context of large corporations/publishers using them to stifle the innovation they were designed to encourage.
Trademarks are often used in tandem with copyrights to protect a body of work in different ways - while "Steamboat Willy"s copyright will eventually expire (if it hasn't already), the trademark of the Mickey Mouse character will last indefinitely (so long as Disney protects it).
Distinctive trademarks are also commonly protected by design patents. Yes, they protect the work in different ways, but the two are related in their use and concept.
If you're so against collective terms, I hereby insist that you no longer refer to the "United States", or "European" culture. But I digress.
that is being reductive. sufficiently so that you're basically straw-manning their point.
i would wager that, for example, extremely few people who view patents as negative (at least in this era), also view trademarks as negative.
If the trademark on Mickey Mouse were used forever, this doesn't mean we can't pass Steamboat Willie around. If its copyright expires, we can copy it, we can reproduce it, we can exhibit it, we can remix it; we just can't confuse the public into thinking we're Disney while we're doing any of this. If Disney thought it could prevent people from copying Steamboat Willie without copyrights, it wouldn't be lobbying for infinite copyright on it. The best Disney could do is make us state, in no ambiguous terms, "Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company" somewhere very prominent while we do whatever we want with Mickey.
A trademark doesn't mean that the trademarked thing is Lord Voldemort. Otherwise, every time we said "Microsoft" or "Apple" we'd be infringing. It just means that we might have trouble calling our OS "Hackintosh" or "Lindows", and even that's debatable in court (Microsoft was about to lose the Lindows case).
It would be very interesting to live in a society where once a product is available on the market any trade secret on it is illegal and the only option is to have patents that you receive royalties for but you can not restrict their use.
(could you really abolish copyright without bringing down the rest of IP protections with it?)
It'd be like John Cage claiming that, since he 'wrote' c4′33″ (consisting of 4 minutes 33 seconds of silence), any powered-off music-playing device is infringing on his copyright and must pay royalties.
You were saying?
So my guess is your turned off hi-fi system wouldn't infringe their copyright - but if you produced an audio file containing nothing but silence and marketed it as a song, you would be infringing.
At least that's my try to find a spec of sanity in this.
(IANAL)
He was silly enough to explicitly give Cage a songwriting credit. That's the entire reason the case exists.