3 ms·
Technically you need to copy to infringe copyright, so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not hav
by staticman2 5y ago
Technically you need to copy to infringe copyright, so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright.
The issue is one of credibility. Nobody would believe me if I said I had cooincidentally recreated Nowhere Man but with a randomly generated library perhaps you could credibly show it was a coincidence.
That said people could be intimidated by legal fees and the possibility of losing and settle with a bad actor running this sort of scam.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> so if I had never heard the song "Nowhere Man" and recreated Nowhere Man by pure coincidence I would not have infringed the Beatles's copyright. You would need to prove that you had never heard it. This is non-trivial. Most recent high-profile music copyright cases do not center on precise reproductions, but on music that "contains elements of" another piece of music.
- greiskul 5y agoYes, but with existing music, current lawsuits use the fact that the music under dispute was playing on radios, nightclubs, tv, etc. So there is the possibility of the other artist having heard of it. If the music is stuck inside of a gigantic database that nobody has accessed, it becomes much easier to prove that you in fact never heard it.
- nnvvhh 5y agoYou're mistaken about who has the burden to prove actual copying. The person alleging infringement has to show that the defendant copied the work.
- autoexec 5y agoMaybe in the courts, but you can get your youtube channel shutdown or even be permanently kicked off your ISP (and the internet, unless you have more than one option) based on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations that you've violated copyright
- hedora 5y agoTrue, but then it doesn't matter if you produced any content or not.
- autoexec 5y agoIt can, depending on the nature of the content and how creators distribute it. Anyone can find themselves forced to defend their innocence after being hit with DMCA notices, but content creators are especially vulnerable because they depend on their works being publicly available. They have a lot more at stake (including the ability to eat and pay rent) if they are hit with accusations. They are the ones who'll be hit by poorly implemented algorithms (like Google's notoriously terrible content ID or the many even worse imitations created by companies without the talent/money/data google has at their disposal) or can be targeted specifically because their creative works are perceived as a threat to some company. The DMCA is often abused to silence criticism, to hide unpleasant information about a company or individual from the public, or to attack competitors. It costs very little to fire off accusations that have real-world consequences and as far as I know, no major company has ever been held accountable for doing so inappropriately, even when it's been brought to the attention of courts.
- djur 5y agoThe standard in a US civil trial is preponderance of evidence, though, so all you have to do is convince the judge that it is more likely than not that the defendant copied the work.
- nnvvhh 5y agoSure, but where the burden lies still matters. The plaintiff needing to prove copying is a lot more defendant-friendly than the defendant needing to disprove copying.
- slingnow 5y agoActually this is logically impossible, since you can't prove a negative.
- drusepth 5y agoIt's difficult, but not impossible. I could reasonably prove to a court I've never been to Jupiter, or that I've never been President of the USA, etc. I can definitely think of situations where someone could likewise reasonably prove to a court they've never heard a song (e.g. they're deaf) or their "AI" had never heard a song (e.g. showing the training data).