But then you'd make a distinction in the license based not on the usage (learning), but on the recipient. A human listening to a song and "learn" composition =>

But then you'd make a distinction in the license based not on the usage (learning), but on the recipient. A human listening to a song and "learn" composition => fine. A machine doing the same => not fine. That's going to be totally impossible to apply. Imagine a sound processing software than "learned" mixing based on a collection of popular records, and provide you, the composer, with presets => wrong, copyright. Ok, now imagine an ai that learned how to configure a sound processing software based on records. It only outputs numbers and presets for the software. => wrong, copyright. Now, imagine an ai that learned those settings, by asking hundreds of human what they like in some kind of A/B testing. The humans will judge based on the songs they've heard in their lives, and the end-result (the settings) will basically be the same as in the previous example. But somehow, this will be fine. Honestly, i don't see how this can fly.