These sorts of discussions always puzzle me. Copyright is not an objective thing, it’s a contract that supports the cash flow of a creator-distributor-consumer

These sorts of discussions always puzzle me. Copyright is not an objective thing, it’s a contract that supports the cash flow of a creator-distributor-consumer chain, given the former two assumed it will work to cover their expenses and return profits they expected. If your AI produces Beatles-like or even better music based on Beatles albums and/or some more, an AI-aware judge may (or may not, depending on the lobbying activity) decide that it is a direct derivative work, and in case it is automated, all copyright rules apply as in “copy” “right”. There is no need for technical objectivity to exist in between, because this law is not about technicalities. What seems like a loophole may be closed easily by a court decision based on much higher matters than “similarity” or “reconstruction”. If anyone can take your album at the release date and “reshuffle” a free version not worse than the original with few clicks, it is obvious damage to the copyright holder and it demotivates creating it. AI couldn’t do any of that back then, and they didn’t include right terms to cover that, but now it can, and they will just add that, unless someone (MS in this case) has better lawyers, who are ready to create a wide-enough precedent and drag it through all instances.