3 ms·

I don't think this is going to put a dent in cases of existing copyright holders making claims against people coming up with similar sounding works. Firstly, t

by wbhart 7y ago

I don't think this is going to put a dent in cases of existing copyright holders making claims against people coming up with similar sounding works. Firstly, there's an enormous corpus of music out there that precedes this effort, and those copyright holders can still make claims. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, how would someone prove that a musician copied the work from this algorithmically generated collection? These haven't been number one hits or in widely available collections. Someone could not conceivably argue that a musician derived their work from this due to familiarity with the melody. I wish the copyright problem would go away. But I really don't see this as a solution. A large number of musicians and software designers need to collaborate on a project that is much more permissive with regard to sampling, covers, arrangements, adaptions, etc, all the while preserving the rights of songwriters who just happen to write a number one hit song to get paid for their work. The whole thing needs to be lucrative enough that composers, performers and the tech companies involved can afford to flip the middle finger to anyone exhibiting corporate greed.

wongarsu 7y ago
>how to distinguish a solution like this from a traditional record label. It could be a traditional record label, just with a rule in its charter that all works are released into the public domain ten years after recording (instead of the regular 70+ years). This should still be profitable to run since you have a decade to profit from any song. Maybe even immediately releasing into the public domain and just operating from the profits of live performances could be a viable business model for a record label.
- wbhart 7y ago
  Release after a certain number of years is one possible way forward. The problem I see with that though is you want as much excitement as possible about your number one hit in the first few years. Covers, adaptions, arrangements, performances all add to the excitement around the thing you are trying to sell. You should want those. My personal (not very practical) opinion on it is that any derived work that is musically distinct should be considered a separate work. If it isn't the same tune, it isn't the same tune, even if it is similar. If it isn't the same performance, it isn't the same performance. In fact, the only thing that should be copyrightable by a composer is a specific arrangement of a melody, not the underlying melody itself. (The problem of course is that this is subjective, and not something the law or technology is well-equipped to decide.) As for record companies, all they should care about is people ripping off their exact CD's and putting them on YouTube for free and not paying them. In my opinion, it's greed to want a cut of a performance/arrangement/cover of a melody that someone else put all the work into.

by wbhart 7y ago

wongarsu 7y ago

>how to distinguish a solution like this from a traditional record label. It could be a traditional record label, just with a rule in its charter that all works are released into the public domain ten years after recording (instead of the regular 70+ years). This should still be profitable to run since you have a decade to profit from any song. Maybe even immediately releasing into the public domain and just operating from the profits of live performances could be a viable business model for a record label.

wbhart 7y ago
Release after a certain number of years is one possible way forward. The problem I see with that though is you want as much excitement as possible about your number one hit in the first few years. Covers, adaptions, arrangements, performances all add to the excitement around the thing you are trying to sell. You should want those. My personal (not very practical) opinion on it is that any derived work that is musically distinct should be considered a separate work. If it isn't the same tune, it isn't the same tune, even if it is similar. If it isn't the same performance, it isn't the same performance. In fact, the only thing that should be copyrightable by a composer is a specific arrangement of a melody, not the underlying melody itself. (The problem of course is that this is subjective, and not something the law or technology is well-equipped to decide.) As for record companies, all they should care about is people ripping off their exact CD's and putting them on YouTube for free and not paying them. In my opinion, it's greed to want a cut of a performance/arrangement/cover of a melody that someone else put all the work into.