So then I guess I can learn the song, write down the notes from memory, and play that cover. It’s all gone through a neural network and so it’s all fine, right?
So, I memorized all the binary digits in the waveform of a Metallica song and wrote it down from memory.
Unfortunately I’ve got a bad memory so I had to do them one digit at a time, but technically I didn’t copy anything, I only wrote down my own memories, right? Also, my handwriting is worse than my doctor’s so I chose to write it on a computer.
The funniest thing happened when I accidentally opened this text file in Winamp. It almost sounded like music, except that the drums were played like shit.
I’m not an AI fanboy, but this is kinda a lame take. If the AI produced the same song it heard it would be a cover, sure, and subject to copyright, yes. But most of the time the AIs produce something that is similar to but different from its input.
So yeah, if you listened to a bunch of AC/DC and then wrote a song that sounded like it could be an AC/DC song but isn’t an AC/DC song, that wouldn’t be copyright infringement.
7 notes (2 different ones) were enough for copyright infringement.
The bar for copyright infringement my humans is incredibly low. All you need to infringe on copyright is that your work is “derived” from a copyrighted source work. If you take an original song and change it so that in the end every single note is different, it’s technically still a derived work and still copyright infringement (though it becomes hard to prove that at that point).
If you use the same rule for AI, everything an AI ever outputs is derived works. If you removed all original works from the AI training sets, the AI would do nothing at all.
But for some reason even if the AI outputs whole chapters of books word for word (which most good LLMs can), it’s for some reason not a copyright infringement.
The only reason that’s the case is that the involved judges have no technical understanding and let themselves be bamboozled by fancy new tech. Or because of money exchanged between AI corporations and judges.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
No, but you can learn it
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So then I guess I can learn the song, write down the notes from memory, and play that cover. It’s all gone through a neural network and so it’s all fine, right?
bstix@feddit.dk 2 months ago
So, I memorized all the binary digits in the waveform of a Metallica song and wrote it down from memory.
Unfortunately I’ve got a bad memory so I had to do them one digit at a time, but technically I didn’t copy anything, I only wrote down my own memories, right? Also, my handwriting is worse than my doctor’s so I chose to write it on a computer.
The funniest thing happened when I accidentally opened this text file in Winamp. It almost sounded like music, except that the drums were played like shit.
psycotica0@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I’m not an AI fanboy, but this is kinda a lame take. If the AI produced the same song it heard it would be a cover, sure, and subject to copyright, yes. But most of the time the AIs produce something that is similar to but different from its input.
So yeah, if you listened to a bunch of AC/DC and then wrote a song that sounded like it could be an AC/DC song but isn’t an AC/DC song, that wouldn’t be copyright infringement.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Can I bring to mind Vanilla Ice vs Queen?
7 notes (2 different ones) were enough for copyright infringement.
The bar for copyright infringement my humans is incredibly low. All you need to infringe on copyright is that your work is “derived” from a copyrighted source work. If you take an original song and change it so that in the end every single note is different, it’s technically still a derived work and still copyright infringement (though it becomes hard to prove that at that point).
If you use the same rule for AI, everything an AI ever outputs is derived works. If you removed all original works from the AI training sets, the AI would do nothing at all.
But for some reason even if the AI outputs whole chapters of books word for word (which most good LLMs can), it’s for some reason not a copyright infringement.
The only reason that’s the case is that the involved judges have no technical understanding and let themselves be bamboozled by fancy new tech. Or because of money exchanged between AI corporations and judges.
TomArrr@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So, don’t release albums, release tutorials?