So, will this project end music copyright cases? Pros and Cons?

stevieboy

Clouds yell at me
Gold Supporting Member
Messages
37,615
There are two sides to every case. Musicians getting sued are being sued by musicians who think they've been stolen from. While there can be a lot of abuse in that, I'm not sure why I'd want to see musicians lose the ability to protect their work.
 

Grimace

Member
Messages
672
Actually sounds like they should be liable for millions of copyright infringements since they blanketed all melodies, even those already copyrighted.
Interesting question. They generated the melody database via an algorithm. It combines all possible note sequences out of one full octave. Write a program, press a button, and there you go.

Copyright violation requires some form of copying, proving the accused had access to the protected work is an element of the case.

Is running an algorithm copying? Nobody accessed any prior work to create the melodies, the same group of melodies would be spit out no matter what. Is there even a person to point to as the plagiarist here?
 
Last edited:

Duffy Pratt

Member
Messages
2,921
For something to be copyright infringement, it has to copy something. The brute force algorithm didn’t copy any existing music, even if it ends up with the same melody as lots of music. Conversely, unless a person took his melody from this brute force archive, there would be no infringement.

There might have to be some rethinking about what access is, and how it relates to copying.
 
Messages
1,264
Interesting question. They generated the melody database via an algorithm. It combines all possible note sequences out of one full octave. Write a program, press a button, and there you go.

Copyright violation requires some form of copying, proving the accused had access to the protected work is an element of the case.

Is running an algorithm copying? Nobody accessed any prior work to create the melodies, the same group of melodies would be spit out no matter what. Is there even a person to point to as the plagiarist here?
Plagiarist is the Lawyer who is pulling this idiotic stunt. He accessed the prior work by knowingly not including already copyrighted material.
 

DRS

Member
Messages
11,653
OK, you create a melody - wholly original. Put it on an instrumental and out it into the market place.
You register the song and are a member of ASCAP, BMI. Are Riehl and Rubin going to come after you as their algorithm songwriter already created it in its digital world. Probably not. Chances are that R&R have not listened to all or even a few of these melodies. They're bits on a drive.

So a year after you put your melody out into the world - and you have had modest success with it - another guys just takes your melody, writes some lyrics on top and claims the whole song as his creation and puts it on his album. He also has success and the song is a minor hit. You are outraged and demand 50% as you registered and copyrighted the song. Can the other guy just whip out R&R's Creative Commons Zero License and say, "it's for everyone's use for free?" Is that fair?
 

Neverwhere

Member
Messages
637
I can just see these guys coming up with a licensing scheme for this down the line.

Also, if this is just computer generated, there will be melodies on there that have already been copyrighted, so does that do damage to validity of copyright processes since they are shown here in contradicting positions?
 
Messages
3,446
Well, if every possible melody has already been "written" now, I guess there's no point in my trying to write anything.;)
 




Trending Topics

Top