<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;pi&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Happy Pi Day</title>
<dc:creator>Joyce Hung</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/09254012231/dailydirt-happy-pi-day.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/09254012231/dailydirt-happy-pi-day.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Math geeks rejoice! It's Pi Day again! Why is the number pi so awesome? Because, as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H20cKjz-bjw">Mr. Spock</a> once explained, "the value of pi is a transcendental figure without resolution." Here are a few more cool pi-related links.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.thesfegotist.com/news/local/2013/february/28/exploratoriums-pi-sky" href="http://bit.ly/XTQYUO">On March 14, 1:59 pm, the Exploratorium in San Francisco (which invented Pi Day in 1988) will be featuring an art installation called "Pi In The Sky."</a> Created by artist ISHKY with the help of a team of artists, designers, and scientists, "Pi In The Sky" will be visible in the sky at more than 10,000 feet over San Francisco. Five synchronized planes equipped with dot matrix technology will <a href="http://press.exploratorium.edu/pi-in-the-sky-%E2%80%93-aerial-tribute-set-for-exploratoriums-25th-annual-pi-day/">skywrite</a> the first 314 numbers of pi, with each number measuring over a quarter-mile in height. [<a href="http://www.thesfegotist.com/news/local/2013/february/28/exploratoriums-pi-sky">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/overview.html" href="http://bit.ly/YO7vWt">How "old" is pi?</a> The ancient Babylonians were able to come up with a close approximation of pi (3.125) around 2000 B.C. [<a href="http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/overview.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://okthisisawesome.com/2013/02/21/pi-transcendental-numbers-are-awesome/" href="http://bit.ly/169OPI1">How many digits of pi are required to be able to measure the circumference of the observable universe, with an accuracy of less than the width of a hydrogen atom?</a>  The answer is... 39. [<a href="http://okthisisawesome.com/2013/02/21/pi-transcendental-numbers-are-awesome/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/09254012231/dailydirt-happy-pi-day.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/09254012231/dailydirt-happy-pi-day.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101210/09254012231/dailydirt-happy-pi-day.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101210/09254012231</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Pi Math</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10455611686/dailydirt-pi-math.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10455611686/dailydirt-pi-math.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ National Pie Day is <a href="http://www.piecouncil.org/Events/NationalPieDay/">not</a> actually March 14th (although it really should be, if only to make it more memorable). But here's to the number, not the delicious dessert.

<ul>
 
<li> <a title="http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/11/since-pi-is-infinite-can-i-draw-any-random-number-sequence-and-be-certain-that-it-exists-somewhere-in-the-digits-of-pi/" href="http://bit.ly/WsYFkL">Does pi contain every set of finite number sequences?</a> The answer to that question may not be known, but the first trillion or so digits of pi appear to be statistically random -- with 0-9 appearing with even distributed frequency. [<a href="http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/11/since-pi-is-infinite-can-i-draw-any-random-number-sequence-and-be-certain-that-it-exists-somewhere-in-the-digits-of-pi/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://bellard.org/pi/pi_n2/pi_n2.html" href="http://bit.ly/WsYIgl">It's possible to calculate the nth digit of pi without calculating every previous digit.</a> So the gazillionth digit of pi can be verified, if you really need to know it. [<a href="http://bellard.org/pi/pi_n2/pi_n2.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14283270/how-to-determine-whether-my-calculation-of-pi-is-accurate/14283481#14283481" href="http://bit.ly/UvGFr6">If you're thinking about coming up with a new way to calculate pi, you can check your work for the first several trillion digits.</a> Beyond about 10 trillion digits, you're into record breaking territory, and you'll need to adopt some other strategies. [<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14283270/how-to-determine-whether-my-calculation-of-pi-is-accurate/14283481#14283481">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10455611686/dailydirt-pi-math.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10455611686/dailydirt-pi-math.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10455611686/dailydirt-pi-math.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101102/10455611686</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:25:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Chooses Pi Day To Reject Lawsuit Over Attempt To Copyright Pi As A Song</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about a dispute between two guys who had both recorded <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml">songs based on the number pi</a>.  A guy named Lars Erickson had recorded <i>The Pi Symphony</i> back in 1992 and registered a copyright on the output.  It was based on assigning notes to the numbers 0 to 9, then playing them according to the sequence of pi.  On March 14th, 2011 -- also known as Pi Day, since the 3/14 date matches the 3.14 beginning of pi -- musician Michael Blake came up with a similar idea.  According to <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134492882/how-to-transform-the-number-pi-into-a-song" target="_blank">NPR's report</a> on the song:
<blockquote><i>
He decided the song would be in C, then assigned each note a number: C=1, D=2 and so on up through 9. Using those assignments, he played the sequence of pi: 3.14159 through 31 decimal places. He assigned numbers to chords, too, but could only play the chords every other note and still make it sound vaguely musical. 
<br /><br />
Finally, he used pi as the basis for the tempo &#8212; it's 157 beats per minute, which is half of 314. He played this part on several instruments, as you can see in the video above, and layered them to make a song. The result isn't exactly catchy, but it's certainly melodic.
</i></blockquote>
Apparently Erickson got upset about this -- though he admits he was mainly upset that his own comments on the YouTube video of Blake's song were deleted.  So <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml" target="_blank">he filed a lawsuit</a> claiming copyright infringement.
<br /><br />
Blake successfully had the lawsuit transferred from Nebraska to Portland, Oregon, and has now succeeded in having the case dismissed, with the ruling itself issued on March 14 -- Pi Day once again.  The ruling is embedded below, and it's a worthwhile read, highlighting the limitations of copyright.  It actually goes into a fairly detailed description of the separation between ideas and expression, as well as questions about "substantial similarity."  The conclusion:
<blockquote><i>
The primary similarity between Pi Symphony and "What Pi Sounds Like" is the musical
pattern formed by transposing the digits of pi to a set of musical notes. That pattern is not
protected by Mr. Erickson&#8217;s copyright for Pi Symphony. Pi is a non-copyrightable fact, and the
transcription of pi to music is a non-copyrightable idea. The resulting pattern of notes is an
expression that merges with the non-copyrightable idea of putting pi to music: assigning digits to
musical notes and playing those notes in the sequence of pi is an idea that can only be expressed
in a finite number of ways. This does not mean that Mr. Erickson&#8217;s copyright is invalid, only
that Mr. Erickson may not use his copyright to stop others from employing this particular pattern
of musical notes.
<br /><br />
What may be protected by copyright is the combination of that pattern with other musical
elements: the choice of scale, rhythm, harmony, and embellishments or variation, for example.... Pi Symphony and "What Pi Sounds Like" employ different
rhythms, different phrasing, different harmonies, and different tempos. The court does not agree
with Mr. Erickson that the melodies of Pi Symphony and "What Pi Sounds Like" are sufficiently
similar in their cadence or tempo to raise a question of substantial similarity. If there are
additional similarities that relate to protectable elements of Mr. Erickson&#8217;s musical work, those
similarities are minor and scattered throughout the work. For one work to be substantially
similar to another, more than incidental and occasional similarities are required.... 
<br /><br />
Thus, after the similarities based on unprotected elements of Pi Symphony are set aside,
very few--if any--similarities remain. Mr. Erickson&#8217;s copyright is therefore &#8220;thin&#8221; and protects
his work only from virtually identical copying...
</i></blockquote>
The court also dismisses Erickson's claim of "unfair competition," noting that what appeared to be straight up jealousy is no reason for a legal claim:
<blockquote><i>
Copyright protects against the copying of original elements of an author&#8217;s work. <b>It does
not protect the copyright holder's goodwill, market status, or artistic success.</b> It does not even
protect the author's hard work in being the first to create a compilation of information otherwise
available in the public domain. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 359-360 (rejecting the &#8220;sweat of the brow&#8221;
theory of copyright protection). These limitations derive from the constitutional basis of
copyright, which is &#8220;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.&#8221; U.S. Const. art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8. Copyright is thus intended to protect the original
work of authors without granting monopolies over facts or ideas that would hinder further
progress.... Given statutory law, the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent, Mr. Erickson cannot use his
copyright to stop Mr. Blake from employing the same idea&#8212;the transcription of the digits of pi
to musical notes.
</i></blockquote>
Nice to see the court lay out the reasoning so clearly.  It's unclear if the court recognized the symbolic nature of issuing the ruling on Pi Day, but either way, it was a nice move.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/14275618144/judge-chooses-pi-day-to-reject-lawsuit-over-attempt-to-copyright-pi-as-song.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can't-copyright-facts</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120316/14275618144</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:05:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google Tried Bidding Geeky Numbers For Nortel Patents; How About $3.14159 Billion?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/23392814939/google-tried-bidding-geeky-numbers-nortel-patents-how-about-314159-billion.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/23392814939/google-tried-bidding-geeky-numbers-nortel-patents-how-about-314159-billion.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reuters has put together a nice <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/02/us-dealtalk-nortel-google-idUSTRE76104L20110702?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&dlvrit=56505" target="_blank">recap of what happened inside the Nortel patent auction</a>, which resulted in Apple, Microsoft, EMC, RIM, Ericsson & Sony getting the patents for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110701/01110214930/nortel-patents-sold-45-billion-to-apple-emc-microsoft-rim-ericsson-sony.shtml">$4.5 billion</a>.  There are a bunch of interesting bits of information in there, but one of the most bizarre is that rather than bidding round numbers, like pretty much everyone else, Google <i>bid weird numbers that only geeks would recognize</i>:
<blockquote><i>
At the auction for Nortel Networks' wireless patents this week, Google's bids were mystifying, such as $1,902,160,540 and $2,614,972,128.
<br><br>
Math whizzes might recognize these numbers as Brun's constant and Meissel-Mertens constant, but it puzzled many of the people involved in the auction, according to three people with direct knowledge of the situation on Friday.
<br><br>
"Google was bidding with numbers that were not even numbers," one of the sources said.
<br><br>
"It became clear that they were bidding with the distance between the earth and the sun. One was the sum of a famous mathematical constant, and then when it got to $3 billion, they bid pi," the source said, adding the bid was $3.14159 billion.
</i></blockquote>
Yes, they bid pi.  Really not quite sure what to make of this.  It could be Google hoped that they'd be able to "signal" to geeks their feelings about the whole process (which the company had been pretty clear about all along -- it didn't <i>want</i> to buy the patents, and seemed to think the whole process was stupid, but it felt compelled to, because it would be even worse if the patents ended up with someone else).  However, it certainly does come off as pretty damn cocky -- an attitude that Google is frequently criticized for. Still, it also suggested the level of seriousness (i.e., not much) with which Google treated this whole process.  It had to bid a lot of money, but the numbers acted as a bit of a protest for the mess which put them in a position where they felt they needed to do so.
<br><br>
The other interesting bit in the tick tock was how the groupings came about, with coalitions forming as different companies dropped out.  Apparently, Intel bid heavily, and when it dropped out, there was a fight between Apple (who put together the winning coalition) and Google over who it would team up with.  Intel eventually chose Google.
<br><br>
Of course, that setup makes the whole process seem even sillier.  Once they get down to two "teams" why not then just all join forces and set the bid lower (divided among more partners), rather than continue to use each other to drive the bid higher.  Well, there's one reason: if the winning bidder intends to use the patents against the losers... Google (with Intel's help) wasn't willing to go to $4.5 billion, but it seems likely they'll end up paying one way or another, down the road, thanks to the new "winners" of the patents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/23392814939/google-tried-bidding-geeky-numbers-nortel-patents-how-about-314159-billion.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/23392814939/google-tried-bidding-geeky-numbers-nortel-patents-how-about-314159-billion.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110701/23392814939/google-tried-bidding-geeky-numbers-nortel-patents-how-about-314159-billion.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>taking-this-seriously?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110701/23392814939</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:21:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can You Copyright Pi? Lawsuit Filed Over Copyright On Pi Symphony</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that last month, we wrote about a bizarre and silly dispute concerning two different composers who had each written a song <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml">based on the number pi</a>.  The more recent song, done by Michael Blake, was set up pretty simply:
<blockquote><i>
He decided the song would be in C, then assigned each note a number: C=1, D=2 and so on up through 9. Using those assignments, he played the sequence of pi: 3.14159 through 31 decimal places. He assigned numbers to chords, too, but could only play the chords every other note and still make it sound vaguely musical.
<br /><br />
Finally, he used pi as the basis for the tempo -- it's 157 beats per minute, which is half of 314.
</i></blockquote>
Another guy, named Lars Erickson, apparently came up with something similar back in 1992, and even went so far as to register a copyright on the output.  Blake had posted a video on YouTube of his version, and Erickson issued a takedown.  Erickson, in talking about this, admitted that he only took action because he was upset that someone removed comments about his song on the YouTube page with Blake's song.  Of course, we doubted this would ever go so far as an actual lawsuit.  We were wrong.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/BillyWM/statuses/56822816179372032" target="_blank">Billy Wenge-Murphy</a> alerts us to the news that following Blake's counternotice and YouTube's reinstatement of the video, Erickson has sued.  You can see his filing below.
<br /><br />
I'm a bit surprised Erickson's lawyers didn't talk him out of this.  It's hard to see how he has anything approaching a legitimate copyright claim.  After all, Judge Learned Hand famously explained that if two people come up with the same content independently, without copying one another, there is no copyright issue:
<blockquote><i>
... if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an "author," and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats's. 
</i></blockquote>
Assuming Blake did not copy Erickson, there's simply no issue at all.  Of course, even if he did copy Erickson, there are reasonable questions as to what in Erickson's song is actually copyrightable.  Obviously, the concept of a song based on pi is not, because you can't copyright ideas.  The actual song parts based on pi are not, because Erickson does not own pi.  The only thing that <i>might</i> qualify for a copyright could be specific creative choices that Erickson made, but it's unclear if Blake copied any of those.  And, in fact, nothing in the legal filing (embedded below) delves into that issue at all.  Erickson, instead, seems to assume (falsely) that only he can make music based on pi.
<br /><br />
The key point that Erickson seems to be relying on is the idea that he has "lost revenue" due to Blake's work.  That, of course, is silly.  First of all, writing a song based on Pi cannot and is not Erickson's exclusive idea.  And, seriously, what "revenue" was he losing here?  Erickson also complains about how Blake's work "dilutes the market," but this isn't a trademark dispute, and I don't see how competition in the market with a <i>different song</i> violates copyright law. 
<br /><br />
I can't see this lawsuit getting very far at all, and it's really quite amazing that Erickson went through with it.  Surely, someone somewhere along the way must have explained copyright law to him, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110411/01202313839/can-you-copyright-pi-lawsuit-filed-over-copyright-pi-symphony.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>copyrighting-pi</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110411/01202313839</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:47:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Copyrighting Pi: Composer Pretends Only He Can Write A Song Based On Pi</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Copyright madness continues.  March 14th is often referred to as "Pi day," because when the date is written out numerically (at least in the nonsensical way we Americans write out dates), it's written as 3/14, which is the beginning of pi.  It's a fun bit of meaningless, and someone in Portland, named Michael Blake, decided to have some fun with it and <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134492882/how-to-transform-the-number-pi-into-a-song" target="_blank">and wrote a song based on pi</a>:
<blockquote><i>
His approach? He decided the song would be in C, then assigned each note a number: C=1, D=2 and so on up through 9. Using those assignments, he played the sequence of pi: 3.14159 through 31 decimal places. He assigned numbers to chords, too, but could only play the chords every other note and still make it sound vaguely musical.
<br /><br />
Finally, he used pi as the basis for the tempo &mdash; it's 157 beats per minute, which is half of 314. He played this part on several instruments, as you can see in the video above, and layered them to make a song. The result isn't exactly catchy, but it's certainly melodic.
</i></blockquote>
Nice enough idea.  And he then took the result and uploaded it to YouTube.  But... after the song started getting some attention, people quickly noted that the video was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK7tq7L0N8E&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">taken down</a>, supposedly over a copyright claim from a guy named  Lars Erickson.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/YEdPk.png" width=560 />
</center>
Who?  Turns out that there's some guy named Lars Erickson who had a similar idea 20 years ago and composed <i>his own</i> pi symphony... and he copyrighted it.  That symphony was performed just last year.  Not surprisingly, the ridiculous copyright claim got plenty of attention and Erickson is <a href="http://oregonmusicnews.com/blog/2011/03/15/%CF%80-fight/" target="_blank">speaking up and asking for a "cease fire,"</a> but his reasoning doesn't make much sense:
<blockquote><i>
"I am not interested in suppressing the melody of Pi, or copyrighting the number, Pi. I simply filed a copyright on&#65279; the melody when I devoted a considerable amount of time writing the Pi Symphony. I have spoken to Michael Blake and his actions of removing comments referring to Pi Symphony was what spurred me to action. Heck, I am sure we can work this out, but right now, 1:59 is right around the corner, so how about a momentary cease fire."
</i></blockquote>
There are all sorts of problems with this reasoning.  First of all, even if he claims he's not trying to suppress the melody or copyrighting the number, that's effectively what he did.  He suppressed someone else who came up with the same thing independently.  And (unlike with patents) "independent" creation that is identical is allowed under copyright.  It's just incredibly rare that it happens.  On that issue, we point back to Judge Learned Hand's famous statement:
<blockquote><i>
... if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an "author," and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats's.
</i></blockquote>
So Blake's "independent" creation would bar any copyright issue.  Separately, of course, there's the question of whether or not the original work can actually be copyrighted, and there may be some copyright claim, but <i>only</i> on the creativity added by Erickson, meaning that the underlying idea and the number, clearly, could not be part of the copyright.  So Erickson's claim again falls short.  On top of that, people are saying that the two songs do have some differences as well, raising even more questions.
<br /><br />
Finally, Erickson appears to admit that his issue wasn't copyright related at all, which suggests he knows that he has purposely misused the DMCA (a no-no) and could face sanctions for doing so.  He only took it down because he was upset about Blake removing comments pointing people to his version.  Now, it should be pointed out that, if true, this seems like a pretty petty move on Blake's part.  Removing those comments is lame.  But, that doesn't make it okay to abuse copyright law to issue a false takedown.
<br /><br />
But, of course, these are the kinds of absolutely ridiculous situations we get into in today's society, where people are taught (not quite correctly) that they can "own" concepts like this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/16203013514/copyrighting-pi-composer-pretends-only-he-can-write-song-based-pi.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pi-fight</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110315/16203013514</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>