Surprise: MSN article pokes fun at iTunes

[Kid Red]

Because some sounds on albums are silence containing no music but are sold as songs.

Even more humorously, three of the tracks -- all titled "Silent" and all by hip-hop group Slum Village -- are labeled as explicit, even though there is only silence. For those who worry that the lack of sound will be too racy, iTunes offers "clean versions" as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4185911/

So i guess Apple should instead individually label the one track silence as neither clean or explicit? Ah genius, it's label is based on the album's language as a whole, not as a individual track. But of course, since he works for M$ I can't expect much in the way of insightful and detailed investigative reporting involving anything Apple.

 

[zapp]

At the very least you get the thirty second preview of the silence before you choose to buy it. Imagine all the poor fools that will buy the cd, they don't have a choice, they have to pay for the silence. But you are right, they are very nit picky. Kinda like napster bashing itunes for the way they sell music, then sell music for .99 cents a download. Wonder if napster sells silence too.

But of course don't forget, silence is golden.

 

[idkew]

you, stupid itms bashing.

as a part of the album, apple is offering the track. apple did not tell the artist to put a silent track in their LP.

i doubt apple is even expecting anyone to buy the Silence track alone, it is just part of the album, and the artist's creative intent.

 

[Makosuke]

The funny thing is, I think the tracks of silence for sale are really cool--the artist orignally put a chunk of silence into their album for an artistic reason, so why shouldn't that be for sale too?

You're figureatively buying the same chunk of nothing on the CD, except now you have the option of not paying for it if you don't feel like it.

Go artistic weirdness!

(Incidentally, this was originally reported on As the Apple Turns as a humorous remark, and several Mac news outlets picked it up; the MSN writer probably saw it there.)

 

[7on]

Hmmm, I wonder if the silence would only be playable on 3 computers as well? Can someone really copyright silence?

 

[acj]

When you take offense to fun-making you are insecure.

 

[Le Big Mac]

Originally posted by 7on
Hmmm, I wonder if the silence would only be playable on 3 computers as well? Can someone really copyright silence?

Well, you could probably make your own silence track if it becomes a problem.

 

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by acj
When you take offense to fun-making you are insecure.

Insecure..ah..umm..about what? I take offense when someone ridiculous pokes fun at something I respect or support. If it was a valid argument, I would've kept my mouth shut (like someone else should have) but when they crack on Apple for following a common procedure (labeling a song based on it's explicit or non explicit nature) and selling songs as songs even tho those songs are silent. I don't see the validity of their biased argument other then a reason to say something negative about so a growingly poplar service on a rival platform.

What's to be insecure of? Your statement isn't even relevant to this discussion.

 

[Makosuke]

I agree that it's really nothing to take offense at; it was clearly written as a humor piece (including a well known and very amusing quote toward the end that's completely unrelated to the iTMS), and they did also point out that the labels gave Apple the tracks to sell that way.

Besides, it's taken nearly verbatim (with credit) from As the Apple Turns, which is about as humorously rabid a Mac-supporting site as exists. It was also reported similarly in MacNN, I believe MacMinute, and elsewhere (in fact, MacNN's blurb sounded somewhat more derogatory since it wasn't as clearly humorous).

The article also implicitly points out an interesting, and equally humorous, offshoot of this: Were Apple to offer the same tracks of nothing for free, they could actually be sued by the owners of that particular block of silence. The article notes that a man who "preformed" a silence and gave credit to an earlier composer who "composed" a silent song was successfully sued for copyright infringement in 2002. Therefore, by offering a specific band's silence outside of the terms of the rest of the iTMS, they'd be violating their agreement with that label/group.

Unless, of course, they set up their software to not only handle silence, but also designed their contracts so silent tracks were free. That's a lot of work for nine bits of nothing out of 500,000.

I personally found this quite amusing, but entirely understandable from a tecnhical standpoint.

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by 7on
Can someone really copyright silence?

Although Apple was unable to say how many silent songs have sold, historically there has been a market for inaudible music. Most famously, composer John Cage composed 4'33"" -- a 1952 song that features just over four and a half minutes without sound. The BBC broadcast a live performance of the song earlier this year -- featuring the BBC Symphony Orchestra, no less.

Cage's estate even managed to win a copyright fight in 2002, getting Mike Batt to pay a six-figure settlement because a Batt recording included a silent track that he credited to Cage.

Batt had initially vowed to fight the copyright claims and was quoted in press reports saying, "Mine is a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds."

Unfortunately, neither Batt's piece nor Cage's is available on iTunes.

 

[solvs]

You gotta admit, it is kinda funny.