Rob;

I love the idea, but you might be trolling for a lawsuit -- I gather that the THX folks are sensitive about protecting their copyright.

Actually; nothing is being copied so copyright doesn't apply. It is a trademark though; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Note It's kinda weird to me, Whenever I encounter anything written about this sound it's always described as being "distinctive" and "recognisable", sometimes even "famous" but I only ever heard it in the context of computer music. I suppose it's still a good marketing device; without that sound I would've never heard of THX. Anyway, with different choices for the initial distribution and the final chord it should be fine, I think. Kas.

2009/4/27 Robert Poor :

Well, at least one entity got permission to use the copyri, er, trademark:

I take that back. Apparently they transcribed the thing to music notation so they could get copyright. That would possibly also cover your version. http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/05/tiny-music-makers-pt-3-thx-sound.html Now I'd really like to see what something like this would look like in traditional musical notation. I don't really understand how musical notation makes it more copyrightable than code but I'd still like to see it anyway. Oh, and yours was a enjoyable piece of code as well, Rob! Kas.

On 27 Apr 2009, at 22:59, Kassen wrote:

I take that back. Apparently they transcribed the thing to music notation so they could get copyright. That would possibly also cover your version.

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/05/tiny-music-makers-pt-3-thx-sound.html

Now I'd really like to see what something like this would look like in traditional musical notation. I don't really understand how musical notation makes it more copyrightable than code but I'd still like to see it anyway.

At the time, it may have made a difference, but according to the WIPO copyright treaty, article 4 <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html

: Computer programs are protected as literary works within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention. Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.

These are treaties, meaning that contracting parties agree to adjust local law, but are not laws themselves. So local legislation applies, and may violate these treaties. The Beastie Boys flute sample case*) suggests that it is human work that is creatively unique that is what is copyrighted. When the DOS specs were released, one could make clones and ensure surviving any lawsuit by hiring "virgin programmers", i.e., those that had absolutely no experience of writing such an OS, letting them writing a new one from the specs alone. The information in the specs are not copyrighted, just as math formulas are not (and algorithms can only be patented in some countries) - the code of the OS is (and the document with the specs). From the description above, the original piece had same random variables in it making it distinctively different form playing to playing. The new one was written to reproduce one of those playings. So the human creativity of the final piece consists in part of choosing one from a selection of random pieces. Anyway, if one writes wholly new code, which in addition may be different from the original pieces, then it seems me that is a new piece from the copyright point of view. In addition, one might write a computer program containing some variables, and the sound-alike is only when choosing some specific variables - that seems me would also be a new literary work, as the WIPO treaty puts it. Just my guesses. Contact your local copyright law expert lawyer for details. :-) Hans *) There were a few notes played in the sample, for which the flute performer was granted copyright, but not the composer (same person as the flutist), because there were too few notes, which any composer could have produced.