If AI replaces musicians, does the entire plugin industry die with them?

[whyterabbyt]

'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law.

Well it does because it determines whether or not a case is worth pursuing.

Learn to read, dummy. I said it has no impact on the law.

And I already addressed 'case worth pursuing' in my second point paragraph, idiot.

It's not about how much money they've got, it's about how much money they made from the infringement.

False.

As usual, though, you're just arguing for the sake of being a dick

Oh, the f**king irony, that's your entire reason d'etre.

[pk-1]

'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law.

I don't think you can say that. A lot of the legal debate revolves around where and how "fair use" applies to processing copyrighted material, and of course it's relevant whether or not commercial purposes are involved.

[whyterabbyt]

'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law.

I don't think you can say that.

Im talking about the actual law, eg Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. There is nothing in the law that is solely conditional on whether or not money is made in the process of breaching copyright. Non-commercial use is not a stated exemption under fair use.
There is an exemption for 'computational analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose' which is a very specific usage, but that exemption is nullified if 'the copy is transferred to any other person, except where the transfer is authorised by the copyright owner' which is very specifically the scenario in question.
There's also a specific requirement to make 'a sufficient acknowledgement' of the original copyrighted material. (The unstated context appears to be primarily written material, eg research papers)

(And before that idiot jumps on this as 'that means AI is okay', then it doesnt, you've not done you're research properly, eg https://www.bristows.com/news/the-text- ... -it-cover/)



Whether the law is adequate, or fair, or whatever, is irrelevant.

A lot of the legal debate revolves around where and how "fair use" applies to processing copyrighted material,

Im aware of that. But legal debate about a law is not the law itself.

and of course it's relevant whether or not commercial purposes are involved.

Copyright cases are civil. You can be taken to court for copyright infringement whether you are guilty or not. Any argument you want to make that you are not guilty because no commercial purpose was involved would only be relevant within the law if you were appealing to an exemption based on lack of commercial purpose. The relevance is that there's only one such exemption one could claim, as I stated above, and it would be nullified if you passed on a derived copy of the original work to someone else, ie the scenario I specifically referred to.

[pk-1]

[(And before that idiot jumps on this as 'that means AI is okay', then it doesnt, you've not done you're research properly, eg https://www.bristows.com/news/the-text- ... -it-cover/)

Exactly this article says "That is not to say that the commercial nature of the establishment is an irrelevant consideration. It is just not a determinative one."

Besides, it's specifically about UK legislation. As long as the AI industry can do as they please in the US, that's more than enough to feed the machines.

Whether the law is adequate, or fair, or whatever, is irrelevant.

No, it's not. Laws are man-made and subject to interpretation and change. Otherwise, what are all the court cases about?

I hope we can agree that, originally, copyright laws were designed to protect intellectual property. If I "steal" lyrics, a melody, or even a sound sample from you, it's an infringement. But what if this property gets atomised, blended with a bazillion of other atoms, and recombined into something "new"?

Current worldwide legislation is more a patchwork of workarounds, like looking at the lawfulness of TDM strategies in the paper you quote, which leaves the foundational questions unaddressed.

But be that as it may, courts will decide, contracts will be made, money will be paid, but none of this will change the overall course of action. "The law" will not stop AI music, although a lot of people apparently hope for this. The bigger question seems to me whether it's a viable business case. We'll see ...

[whyterabbyt]

Whether the law is adequate, or fair, or whatever, is irrelevant.

No, it's not. Laws are man-made and subject to interpretation and change. Otherwise, what are all the court cases about?

Yes it is. The court cases are quite obviously all about the individual case in court. The law itself is not changed by any court cases.

[Hipster Bales]

You didn't write about anything, it's just a piece of music, not even an actual song. There are no lyrics, no way of having the faintest idea what inspired it or what it should inspire in the listener.

Clearly you're not one of them, you don't bother writing anything. The voice is by far the most powerful tool we have for expressing emotion in music. If you have something to express, something to say, then the audience needs to see your lips moving and hear you say the words. Without that, your music has no real ability to express more than the vaguest feelings.

Hans Zimmer and Daft Punk would tell you different.

You don't always need lyrics to write music, you can use melodies, chord progressions, etc. to do that as well.

Songwriting is not just about lyrics and vocals, it's also about the chord progression, the melodies, when they are happening, etc.

[pk-1]

The law itself is not changed by any court cases.

But nobody said that it would.

Laws are made and changed by politicians and interpreted and applied in court (at least where I live).

But that wasn't the point. The point is that traditional copyright laws are inadequate to capture the "disassembly" of IP into tokens and then reuse them in an inference process. It's not even really clear what the legal asset is.

Which is why lawmakers try to accomplish something similar, i.e., the protection of IP, by regulating access to training data. And here, "fair use" comes into play, which is currently interpreted quite differently in different legislations. What quite commonly does play a role though is whether this access is for commercial purposes or not, as your own source confirms.

[hardyharrharr]

You didn't write about anything, it's just a piece of music, not even an actual song. There are no lyrics, no way of having the faintest idea what inspired it or what it should inspire in the listener.

Clearly you're not one of them, you don't bother writing anything. The voice is by far the most powerful tool we have for expressing emotion in music. If you have something to express, something to say, then the audience needs to see your lips moving and hear you say the words. Without that, your music has no real ability to express more than the vaguest feelings.

Hans Zimmer and Daft Punk would tell you different.

You don't always need lyrics to write music, you can use melodies, chord progressions, etc. to do that as well.

Songwriting is not just about lyrics and vocals, it's also about the chord progression, the melodies, when they are happening, etc.

jeff beck did a cover version of a day in the life, threw away the lyrics

you would never know someone blew his mind out in a car driving on four thousand holes in blackburn, lancashire

that's probably good to not know that, but i'm not sure

[Hipster Bales]

You didn't write about anything, it's just a piece of music, not even an actual song. There are no lyrics, no way of having the faintest idea what inspired it or what it should inspire in the listener.

Clearly you're not one of them, you don't bother writing anything. The voice is by far the most powerful tool we have for expressing emotion in music. If you have something to express, something to say, then the audience needs to see your lips moving and hear you say the words. Without that, your music has no real ability to express more than the vaguest feelings.

Hans Zimmer and Daft Punk would tell you different.

You don't always need lyrics to write music, you can use melodies, chord progressions, etc. to do that as well.

Songwriting is not just about lyrics and vocals, it's also about the chord progression, the melodies, when they are happening, etc.

jeff beck did a cover version of a day in the life, threw away the lyrics

you would never know someone blew his mind out in a car driving on four thousand holes in blackburn, lancashire

that's probably good to not know that, but i'm not sure

Another great example of music not needing lyrics to express anything, and in Jeff Beck's case, the guitar tells the story

[whyterabbyt]

But that wasn't the point. The point is that traditional copyright laws are inadequate to capture the "disassembly" of IP into tokens and then reuse them in an inference process. It's not even really clear what the legal asset is.

If that was your point, then it is unrelated to my point, and fails as any rebuttal of it.

[Hipster Bales]

Evidence? If they don't even know they are listening to AI, how can they be getting sick of it?

Google it.

[pk-1]

If that was your point, then it is unrelated to my point, and fails as any rebuttal of it.

Your point was "'Making money' has zero impact on copyright law."

But then, the 1976 Copyright Act states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright” and lists, as one of four non-exclusive factors that must be considered in determining whether a particular use is fair, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."

I recommend the US Copyright Office publication at https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ for further reading.

[pk-1]

Evidence? If they don't even know they are listening to AI, how can they be getting sick of it?

Right here: https://www.scrippsnews.com/science-and ... rvey-finds

I truly believe you should read the article before using it as a reference.

[Hipster Bales]

Evidence? If they don't even know they are listening to AI, how can they be getting sick of it?

Right here: https://www.scrippsnews.com/science-and ... rvey-finds

I truly believe you should read the article before using it as a reference.

I must have posted the wrong one, look up people getting tired of AI on Google and you'll find what you need there.

[hardyharrharr]

You didn't write about anything, it's just a piece of music, not even an actual song. There are no lyrics, no way of having the faintest idea what inspired it or what it should inspire in the listener.

Clearly you're not one of them, you don't bother writing anything. The voice is by far the most powerful tool we have for expressing emotion in music. If you have something to express, something to say, then the audience needs to see your lips moving and hear you say the words. Without that, your music has no real ability to express more than the vaguest feelings.

Hans Zimmer and Daft Punk would tell you different.

You don't always need lyrics to write music, you can use melodies, chord progressions, etc. to do that as well.

Songwriting is not just about lyrics and vocals, it's also about the chord progression, the melodies, when they are happening, etc.

jeff beck did a cover version of a day in the life, threw away the lyrics

you would never know someone blew his mind out in a car driving on four thousand holes in blackburn, lancashire

that's probably good to not know that, but i'm not sure

Another great example of music not needing lyrics to express anything, and in Jeff Beck's case, the guitar tells the story

so by listening to a day in the life without the lyrics... the listener would know what a day in the life is about?
why didn't john lennon just not bother with writing the lyrics if he can do it with just the music.
why do most songwriters even bother writing lyrics?

and if music is supposed to be subjective, then how can it be universal?
i mean if music is actually universal, then why were the beatles not so big in countries that didn't speak english, like china