4 ms·
Legally, that's probably correct. And yet, it points out the absurdity of allowing melodies to be copyrighted in the first place. There just aren't that many
by downerending 7y ago
Legally, that's probably correct. And yet, it points out the absurdity of allowing melodies to be copyrighted in the first place. There just aren't that many of them, especially when one limits to the musically plausible set.
- bdowling 7y agoThe opposing argument would be that there are millions (billions?) of possible melodies, so selecting ones that are particularly pleasing is a significant creative act.
- downerending 7y agoThere's probably a ML for that, or will be. Will it's output count as a significant creative act?
- Dylan16807 7y agoPicking out of millions/billions is way too little input to be a creative act. That would let you get a meaningful copyright on a sequence of two words.
- juiyout 7y agoIs being pleasing a requirement of copyrighted material?
- TheOtherHobbes 7y agoMelodies aren't copyrighted. Music publishing is complicated, but in essence song = non-trivial melody + lyrics. "Non-trivial" doesn't have a formal definition, but it's guaranteed to be more complex than the 12^8 "melodies" generated here. Actual plagiarism cases get much more complex, because lawyers will argue that specific features of the song, including the arrangement, combination of instruments, and so on, all contribute. So the entire premise of this action is stupid. Nothing of value or interest has been copyrighted, and there is no chance the contents of that famous hard drive would stand up in a copyright claim against a commercial music release. IMO this is basically a PR stunt.
- rebuilder 7y agoIncluding lyrics in the definition of 'song' probably muddies the waters here, given the loose colloquial usage of the word 'song' appears to include instrumental compositions