Pervasively broadcast pop music functions as de-facto public property even when legally restricted

Oswald’s closing argument is that popular music — broadcast ubiquitously through apartment walls, boomboxes, and radio — effectively enters the commons whether copyright law permits it or not. You cannot choose not to hear it; it is environmentally imposed. If cultural material is pervasive and non-refusable, the legal framework that restricts its reuse becomes harder to justify on the grounds of protecting private property, because the ‘property’ has already been forced into public consciousness. This argument anticipates debates about the right to remix cultural material that one has involuntarily absorbed. The question Oswald poses: if pop music is unavoidable public noise, how does one respond to it other than passively?

Examples

Bass lines audible through apartment walls without consent. Jingles that persist in memory for decades after a single involuntary exposure. Oswald’s response: make active compositional use of this involuntary accumulation.

Assessment

Is Oswald’s argument that pop music is ‘de-facto public domain’ a legal argument, an ethical argument, or an aesthetic argument? Distinguish the three readings and evaluate each.