Then, each time a new piece of music appears from a major label, they do the lookup and generate a DMCA takedown request.
"Diceware is a method for creating passphrases, passwords, and other cryptographic variables using ordinary dice as a hardware random number generator. For each word in the passphrase, five rolls of the dice are required. The numbers from 1 to 6 that come up in the rolls are assembled as a five-digit number, e.g. 43146. That number is then used to look up a word in a word list. In the English list 43146 corresponds to munch. By generating several words in sequence, a lengthy passphrase can be constructed."
B2B, by X Ambassadors (feat. MØ, Alex Clare, Lido, FUSE) .
Saturday Night, by Dot Genesis.
Saturday Night, by Above & Beyond.
Thanks for the Wrecking Ball, by Black Moon.
Best Regards, by Florence + The Machine.
"Fuck You All," by RBE.
Birthday Love, by Notoriously Morbid.
Welcome to the jungle, by Rogue (feat. Mosca).
Nobody and Nobody, by
Stunna (feat. Q-Tip).
Feels Like Summer, by Public Enemy (feat. Public Enemy).
Critical, by Mobb Deep (feat. X-Clan).
Electric, by Josh Wink.
Down, by Aaliyah.
Hip Hop 4 Life, by Quad City DJ's.
Post-9/11, by The Notorious B.I.G.
The Oneness, by 99 Problems (feat. AK-47).
Where Are Ü Now, by Too
All These Things That I've Done, by The 1975.
Triple Poison, by Weezer (feat. Weezer/Beck).
Lionheart, by Usher.
In time, we've come so far
I feel like this approach ought to work well for generating names. Also, lyrics:
Pull me up like you be makin' an '80s comeback
The devil, he stole your soul and he's back like it ain't no fuckin' thing
I'ma turn you on my side with another trend, boom
Heard they wanted to make a video and they could only get me
When they heard I could do and write and everything was under control
Hey, you could say, just listen to this hit I made
Twist the straw, pull the switch and wrap this napkin around it
All I hear is "ice-nine"
It takes a 'dub to make this work, your stage is a den of thieves
Big Ugly gave me a coupon for a high-paying job
I'm not having any luck getting it to write rhyming lyrics yet, but maybe http://wry.me/sonnetron/ would be enough — less evocative, perhaps, but in flawless iambic pentameter with a standard rhyming scheme.
Regarding David Slater's "Monkey Selfies", as far as I can tell, no court decided the question of whether the photo was copyrightable or whether the copyright belonged to Slater, only that it could not belong to the monkey.
Was there a reason you mentioned this? I don't see the relevance to the surrounding discussion.
Algorithmically generated music is not such a list, and does not involve publishing such a list, as no one would want that. They typically involve a lot of selection and choices by the author. They’re only algorithm-generated on the sense that the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling was “brush-generated”.
The video shows that the authors wrote a program to enumerate every possible melody up to a certain size, possibly narrowed by some criteria. A list like that should be as entitled to copyright protection as a list of the first million prime numbers.
Where an algorithm is used as a tool for creativity, I agree that the resulting work should be copyrightable because an algorithm can be like a brush in the hands of an artist. Here, however, that is not the case because the algorithm used simply lists all melodic possibilities and there is no creative input whatsoever.
Your comment was replying to this one:
which makes no mention of any of those points, so I’m not sure I understand why you thought that was the right place to put your comment, or why the connection would have been clear. I think that would have been better as a top level reply, with the relevant part quoted, as you’ve done here.
And yes, I know, "you should watch the video/read the article before commenting and then you'd know the context", but usually it's much easier on everyone for the commenter to just take three seconds to indicate what they're addressing, rather than expect everyone else to blow the ten minutes of their life just for a chance to guess at it.
(For that matter, the title would have been better as "Copyrighting every possible melody...".)
In any case, it was especially confusing since it seemingly had nothing to do with your comment, about algorithmically generated music, which generally refers to something else besides publishing an entire domain (rather than the composer-selected best elements).
As far as I can tell, that's not always true. For now it seems largely context-specific, provided that a human wrote the software generating the output. There's a relatively well-known legal case of someone writing numerological software to generate eschatological texts, where the texts themselves were found to be copyrightable.
The USPTO is currently soliciting comments on whether and under what circumstances AI-generated outputs should be copyrightable .
There is also a long history of generative art and as far as I know, the author of the code retains full copyright to the works produced by the program.
What about CGI in movie scenes? Also algorithmically generated.
It's harder to argue that brute force generating every single possible sequence of musical notes is creative.
I guess music that is made by programming is just as copyrightable as "normal" music. With Ableton/Max Live and similar, programming and music production is getting closer and closer to each other anyways.
A list of all possible permutations of anything isn't creative, regardless of how it was generated.
They unambiguously have a copyright to whatever software they wrote to create this output. You do not in general get copyright to the output of software, though. (You may in specific. I'm not getting too detailed here. But you definitely do not in general.)
(Edit: that’s assuming you’re asking about a derivative work, which I may have misunderstood)
I think where we're going here is that mere melodies are no longer copyrightable. I also think that was the point, because there was some high profile lawsuit not too long ago where some popular musician sued another for copyright infringement on a centuries old melody. And won.
Any GIS tool with satellite images (Google earth/maps, Bing maps, etc...) will show a copyright logo on the screen specific to the satellite images.
Law review articles, like legal briefs, are primarily attempts to advocate a certain point of view by presenting the best available arguments for it, in the hopes of influencing future jurisprudence or legislation. The positions they advocate are thus not reliable guides to reality, although they are more persuasive to the extent that their arguments are based on reality and thus not easily demolished.
The other two https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1027166 and https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1292646 not only aren't jurisprudence, they aren't even law review articles, nor do they reference any jurisprudence or make any legal arguments. Also, they are both from Singapore. Actually they are papers about steganography, not copyright.
Did you... did you just google [satellite image copyright] and paste the first few links you saw without reading them, hoping you could waste a bunch of my time for a minimal amount of effort on your part?
Bridgeman is specifically about imaging artworks. You're taking it way out of context. Here's the summary from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel...:
"...exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality."
That has nothing to do with satellite images. If you disagree I would ask you to cite jurisprudence or legislation.
You haven't addressed the fact that google/bing/any other GIS tool specifically put copyrights on their satellite images.
From the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth:
"Every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides"
If this is not correct you should edit it accordingly.
Google Maps and Google Earth output are not on-nadir satellite photos. They are composite images produced by an elaborate production pipeline drawing on many sets of data and possibly enough human creativity to produce a copyrightable work. That's a question for a court to decide, not Google or Wikipedia. It seems clear that if their results are found to be copyrightable, it will not be due to the satellite photos that some of them draw on.
If it were "crystal clear" you'd be able to find a more specific example, which you can't.
But a claim that a raw, uncreative, unprocessed, mechanically produced photo is subject to copyright would be a major exemption from the requirement that anything copyrightatlbe be significantly creative. Unless you have an actual case involving an unprocessed satellite image, it's pretty safe to assume they are not copyrighted.
You don’t really get any music made by humans these days, the sound of hitting them against each other just isn’t that popular. So we get music made by guitars, pianos, trumpets ect. But of cause all that music is still “made by humans using those instruments” just like this was made by a human using a computer.
Here's how they did it: https://github.com/allthemusicllc/atm-cli
So considering a court case where party A wins a claim against party B for having the same sequence of four descending notes in roughly similar rhythms, is that really sufficient? These lawyers are essentially creating a thought experiment to help highlight flaws with the existing wording of court rulings concerning music.
The threshold for copyrightability appears to be zero notes. Mike Batt was sued by the estate of John Cage over his zero-note composition; the claim was that it infringed on Cage's copyright to his composition 4'33", which consists of four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence. Batt ultimately paid six figures' worth of damages in an out-of-court settlement.
Silence is copyrightable.
The fallacy in all of these arguments is the inability to distinguish between the defining properties of a specific cultural object, and the cultural field - the set of relationships - it's embedded in.
Batt wasn't sued for a minute of silence, but for using the minute of silence as a cultural signifier. And the Cage estate doesn't own the copyright on silence - it owns the copyright on silence framed within certain applications in certain cultural contexts.
Amateurs and consumers tend to think of cultural artefacts as self-contained objects. So when you sample something you are making a copy of an object - exactly like copying a data structure.
It's just data, isn't it?
No, it isn't. That is 100% not how it works. You're actually sampling a reference to a location inside a global data structure called "culture". The sound is a pointer to that reference, and the reference has a financial value which is related to its cultural notability and influence.
There's more - much more - to it than that, but that's the level at which this issue really operates.
From a purely moral perspective this argument just makes the entire situation even worse. Individuals should not be able to own culture. Culture is collective, and culture ought to have the freedom to build on top of itself.
I have never had anyone explain copyright to me in a way that made internally consistent sense, and I have come to believe that the reason for that is because it doesn't make internally consistent sense. People either give explanations that don't stand up to mechanical scrutiny, or they give explanations that don't stand up to moral scrutiny. Usually both.
Copyright does make sense from the perspective of, "we want to incentivize a behavior, so we have arbitrarily decided to artificially monopolize certain things to incentivize it." When you try to break copyright down into something more inherent or natural, the structure falls apart because (I'm convinced) there's nothing there to examine. It's just an incentive structure, and that's the only level we should be discussing it on. It's absurd to claim that any individual has an inherent, moral property right over culture; their only moral right to culture is to participate within it -- ironically, the very right that copyright restricts!
Hacks like music databases don't get around copyright by exploiting its inner mechanisms. The point isn't to out-argue judges, it's to showcase that copyright isn't an internally consistent, naturally occurring right.
> And the Cage estate doesn't own the copyright on silence - it owns the copyright on silence framed within certain applications in certain cultural contexts.
Which is similarly bonkers, just with more words added. The Cage estate doesn't own anything: we have temporarily granted them an unnatural monopoly over a certain kind of cultural expression in the hopes that it will somehow posthumously encourage John Cage to write more.
Any piece of digital data can be converted to a number, and if we apply their argument then you can be "creative" by just counting numbers.
But we all know that's not true. Once the search space becomes that big, you can't actually "enjoy" any of these melodies. Because you can't listen to all of them in your lifetime, the ones that you WILL hear are going to be awful 99.999 percent of the time.
Hence, the "creative" process is navigating this search space, and figuring out which melodies are catchy. Better yet, trying to figure out how or why our brain decides to like or not like a melody.
Them “copyrighting” every possible melody using a purely numerical method is just a way of showing how absurd some copyrights are. They’re abusing the mechanics of the copyright system to demonstrate its flaws.
Their argument in front of a court boils down to - "counting from 1 to 68 billion is creative effort worthy of copyright". My counter argument is that its not. And that its obviously so.
I am not saying copyright law is great in it's current state. I am sure the LETTER OF THE LAW is ambiguous and ever changing for the worse (see Disney). And I am sure THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW has been arbitrary in a lot of court cases.
BUT, if you believe in THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW - that a person can reap financial benefits for a certain period of time if they have produced something "uniquely creative".
Then you should agree that this legal stunt doesn't contribute much of anything to the legal debate.
Pages and pages of permutations of characters that contains every lyric that's existed, every novel, every poem, every word you've said to your mother in correct order.. (amoungst a whole bunch of gibberish)
All this exists here with a url that you can share to re display to book and page to anyone else.
This is brilliant.
Perhaps there will be only two ways to handle it: 1) Case by case when people file lawsuits or 2) no more copyrightable music? No idea, but we're going to have to figure it out soon...
I think that there can be a partially objective measure of song similarity, and that melody is an important component.
"Non-trivial" doesn't have a formal definition, but it's guaranteed to be more complex than the 12^8 "melodies" generated here.
Actual plagiarism cases get much more complex, because lawyers will argue that specific features of the song, including the arrangement, combination of instruments, and so on, all contribute.
So the entire premise of this action is stupid. Nothing of value or interest has been copyrighted, and there is no chance the contents of that famous hard drive would stand up in a copyright claim against a commercial music release.
IMO this is basically a PR stunt.
I can’t wait until the day comes when we as a species no longer feel the need to claim intellectual property. This shit is so stupid.
But naturally in those cases there was actual and obvious theft, not just similar melodies.
But why is this a problem, though? Why does it matter if someone else makes money on something they copied? Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work? The idea that nothing would be created unless there is financial incentive is silly - people create things all the time with the expectation (and hope!) that they will be copied and that others can enrich themselves on the basis of that.
And I think the point OP is making is that it would be great as a species to have less interest in who makes the most money, and more interest in other things, like maybe the art itself.
When the copy competes with the original. The original required investment of effort and resources, the copy is near-zero effort.
This is the case for certain original content video channels, where their content is literally copied and monetized, competing for the same viral links and diverting traffic from the original.
Without copyright, competition would not be for the ability to create -it would be for the ability to distribute. The end result would be much the same as we have now - an oligopoly of distribution channels, only they'd pay the artists less, if anything.
Hindsight is 20/20, but to me, copyright law looks a bit like an ass-backwards, cart-before-horse approach. It's the legal equivalent of "solving" SQL injection by adding a client-side validation that prevents users from entering ' and the word "DROP" in their form fields. All it does is inviting exploitation.
Instead of making ridiculous kludges that end up benefiting those they were meant to curtail, perhaps we need to figure out a proper solution.
Somewhat separate from that, the idea of somebody making life-changing sacrifices to pursue art in the gaps between their soul-crushing job only to have a BigCorp claim that art as their own and profit off it without the actual creator getting anything for it is what I'd call fundamentally unjust and broken.
In sum, if good artists can't make a living off their art then we will enjoy less good art as a result. A lot of great artists don't care about money, but they need it to live and keep making art, and it's naive to suggest they should be "above" that.
Problem: Artists need to make money!
Solution: We'll make unauthorized use of certain material illegal for a fixed period.
It's certainly one approach, and it does mesh with the intuitive sense of "hey, it's fucked up to take somebody else's work and call it your own"- but it's not the only, or, in my view, the best approach.
edit: I guess I should also clarify that I believe artists are entitled to total control over something they've created until they say otherwise. If they want to license it as creative commons and go live in a wine cask, great. If they want to milk it for all (the money) it's worth, also great, at least for as long as we're living under the capitalist ethic that celebrates such exploitation of intellectual property and provides no safety net for those who are unwilling or unable to extract value from what they have available to them.
Like, a tax designed to be distributed to creators according to market principles in a manner that supports a vibrant and robust media society.
And while it is easy to imagine versions of that post-scarcity media market that would not work well, I think we really need to consider the possibility that it's just a matter of the right design.
As is the implication that financial incentive doesn't work.
That time investment is time you take away from other things. If that is also time that translates into money that actually enables you to live, the copier stands to benefit from your work, while you struggle for your livelihood.
That's why that is a problem. If there is no IP at all, you've limited the set of creators to people who are essentially independently wealthy and simultaneously want to actually invest time to master that domain. That's a small set.
Sure, once you fix the basic livelihood problem, copying might be good. Capitalism doesn't let you fix the livelihood problem. (Because it does attach value to your time)
This is a really fruitless way to take the discussion in and it misses the point entirely. I could argue that the way things are now, you've limited the set of artists to people who happen to get chosen by "the algorithm" for whatever reason, which is a similarly small set. We could then go and compare sizes of these small sets just to try and rationalize things. But that doesn't really advance the discussion does it? Groups who want to do bigger things still need to do fundraising to fix the "livelihood problem" and then they need to spend big on marketing in order to recoup the costs. What that means is the same as always: applying for grants, going to investors, running a crowdfunding campaign, etc. It really has nothing to do with copying at that point.
Where do you think that return on investment will come from if the product is free?
For better or worse this is literally what record labels and publishers do - invest in new talent, handle marketing and promotion, spread the investment around and hope to win big on a handful of hits which pay for the misses.
Do you really think tech VCs invented this model?
Publisher/investors/labels/agents/promoters have been doing it since at least the 19th century.
Anyway this is why I didn't want to discuss things in that direction, because it always leads to people attacking the argument with totally nonsensical conclusions. Of course the concept of patronage wasn't invented by tech VCs or kickstarter or whatever you're thinking of. Can we try to think about this constructively?
You asked " Why does it matter if someone else makes money on something they copied? Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?"
And I answered that question. It matters, because in the context of capitalism, no, you can't abandon the idea of making money for the original creator, because there's investment. Very few people are interested in investments that don't stand a good chance of recouping the costs.
Investors aren't going to give you money if creation is expensive, and copying is zero cost. (See also: Open source business models)
People aren't going to invest time (on the order of many years) in learning skills if there isn't a chance to recoup that cost.
Sorry if the answer to your question doesn't take the discussion where you want it to be. That doesn't make it a less valid answer. If you want a different discussion, maybe you're asking the wrong question?
>Investors aren't going to give you money if creation is expensive, and copying is zero cost.
Yes, they will. The trick is to make each copy generate you money in some other way. Additionally sometimes it isn't even directly about the money -- if the good becomes public and simultaneously brings up the value of all of their other investments, then the amount of copying really doesn't matter.
All while making platforms richer.
And the simple fix to 'eternal lock' is cutting copyright duration back toward 14+14.
The problem is capitalism and the greed/ability to hoard wealth. The problem isn't that creators are having their work copied; art is going to be copied, that's what art is in the first place - inspiration, modification, creation from something else that already exists.
There ought not to be such capitalism that creates the 'need' for the copyright protections.
No. Capitalism works when people are equals, which is why we need a strong Democracy and brakes on unchecked money-earning optimisation. We must maximise people's freedom to create.
Personally the form of copyright I would support would be something like
1. Sharing without direct monetary gain is allowed. The reason I don't see a problem with this is because we already have a vibrant piracy culture and yet people want to pay creators. As long as you're not getting paid for warez it doesn't seem like it would be a problem in itself. Ad-supported torrent index sites would also be OK because they're not profiting off the warez themselves, they're just providing a search index. This is basically updating libraries to the 21st century.
2. As a creator you own an exclusive right to your creations and you cannot give that right away. So if you write a song as a "work for hire", you can still sample the song you wrote. You can change it and release it on your own. If you are a programmer, you cannot have your code taken away. If you write e.g. a UI component and then decide you want to make your own site, you can still use that UI component freely. Of course you can give a permanent non-exclusive license to your employer to do whatever they want with your code/song/dance/performance/etc.
This will maximise the freedom to create, minimise exploitation of artists and knowledge workers, and maximise the freedom to share culture, while still affording creators enough protection to make sure others aren't unduly profiting from their creations.
I'm not sure about the length of copyright though. The easy thing would be to say it should be 10 years, with exponentially increasing renewal fees, but I'm not sure that's the best idea. Another option is compulsory licensing, where someone who profits from your work has to pay you a fee proportional to how much of his creation uses how much of your creation. That idea has some gnarly enforcement problems however, and I suspect big companies will just tread over little guys who can't litigate anyway.
I would be a bit conscious about the "sharing without direct monetary gain" part, I'd like it to explicitly exclude "sharing for free in exchange for viewing ads (and accepting tracking)". I think "free with ads" business models are fundamentally anticompetitive and poisonous to our society; you can find them at the center of a lot of problems currently afflicting the western world. I would like to see these business models gone.
"Please stop giving my personal information to everyone!"
I don't think anyone is claiming that composers should be forced to publish their songs against their will.