i think that is a very important observation. people want to gloss over that when it might be the most important thing to talk about.

I’m wondering when i go to the library and read a book, does this mean i can never become an author as I’m tainted? Or am I only tainted if I stole the book?

To me this is only a theft case.

That sounds like a setup to only go after those you can make money from and not actually protecting IP.

By definition if your song is a hit it is heard by everyone. How do we show my new song is a direct consequence of hearing X song while your new song isn’t due to you hearing X song?

I can see an easy lawsuit by putting out a song and then claiming that anyone who heard it “learned” how to play their new album this way. The fact AI can output something that sounds different than any individual song it learned from means we can claim nearly all works derivative.

So then anyone who uses a computer to make music would be in violation?

Or is it some amount of computer generated content? How many notes? If its not a sample of a song, how does one know how much of those notes are attributed to which artist being stolen from?

What if I have someone else listen to a song and they generate a few bars of a song for me? Is it different that a computer listened and then generated output?

To me it sounds like artists were open to some types of violations but not others. If an AI model listened to the radio most of these issues go away unless we are saying that humans who listen to music and write similar songs are OK but people who write music using computers who calculate the statistically most common song are breaking the law.

the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I’m sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone’s music without being tainted.