|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 11 - 21 May 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | The melodies, rhythms, and themes used in the music likely existed before the creation of any song, maybe not in the same order as in a copyrighted recording, but the de minimus doctrine and current ownership rules are too restrictive. Right now, the person who has the historically accidental privilege of copyright over those musical elements is the arbitrary determiner of who gets sued or fined for iterating on their work. Perhaps there should be a higher bar than de minimis for copyright violations in interpolations or sampling. Artists should have the right to make a living off their work, but if someone wants to integrate significant elements of another work into theirs, they should be able to do so, provided they are not trying to profit from a direct copy (if they are, existing statutory licenses that require an artist to clear a cover may be prudent).
Alternatively, a widening of the creative commons system may achieve the same ends. Moreover, a far wider use of CC-BY-NC licensing by mainstream artists would simply give artists more dignity in processes that are happening anyway – outside the purview of copyright doctrine. Leakers, listeners, and remixers who view music as an art, or a "social process" would take advantage of the opportunity given by the expanded use of Creative Commons licenses, expanding the well of new and innovative musical ideas that may borrow from previous ones without fear of legal retribution. | |
>
> |
You can trace Creative Commons licensing back to the free software movement's use of the "copyleft" General Public License for software. (Larry Lessig, 2ho founded Creative Commons, is explicit in his description of that relationship.) Your conclusion traces forward to a transformational effect on musical creation like that which free software licensing brought to the worldwide making of software. I wrote about that process, relating free software to "share alike" music in the human past and future, at the end of the 20th century. On possible route to improvement would be to connect your analysis to that historical context.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 10 - 16 May 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Copyright owners have specific exclusive rights: usually, the right to copy and distribute the work, the right to make works based off of the original work (eg. a remix), and the right to control who and what performs the work (the right of display does not apply to music). Ownership of a sound recording, and ownership of the underlying composition, are two different concepts and the owners can oftentimes be two different people or entities, like the record label and the songwriter. The right to perform a composition is self-explanatory, but the right to performance for a sound recording only involves the right to play or transmit a digital recording. Section 203 of the copyright act provides that songwriters can reclaim their copyrighted works (read: sound recording) after thirty-five years, but the rule does not apply uniformly, as work that was made "for hire," that is, under the direction of the employer, remains in the hands of the employer. | |
<
< | According to Bridgeport Music V. Dimension Films, In terms of sampling, the original copyright holder has exclusive rights. in other words, “get a license, or do not sample.”. The industry word for getting permission from a copyright owner to sample is "clearing," and it almost always comes at a cost. However, the de minimis defense, that the use is excusable where an “average audience would not recognize the appropriation,” from VMG v. Ciccone, Applies here. For compositions, the test is similar: whether an ordinary audience or observer would notice the similarity. However, if an artist made similar music in parallel to the original work, without any exposure to the original work, it is not a violation | >
> | According to Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, In terms of sampling, the original copyright holder has exclusive rights. in other words, “get a license, or do not sample.” The industry word for getting permission from a copyright owner to sample is "clearing," and it almost always comes at a cost. However, the de minimis defense, that the use is excusable where an “average audience would not recognize the appropriation,” from VMG v. Ciccone, Applies here. For compositions, the test is similar: whether an ordinary audience or observer would notice the similarity. However, if an artist made similar music in parallel to the original work, without any exposure to the original work, it is not a violation | | | The De Facto Uneforceability of Copyright Law
The legal rights to distribution, use, and remixing of music do not reflect what is happening online. While unauthorized distribution of music has been, fully punished by law, especially when the music is unreleased by the artist, the files remain out there, and unretractable, by the internet. Leaks, and the derogatorily-termed "piracy" have only increased in the last few decades. Research and observation has indicated that modern internet technology has substantially weakened the amount of protection that copyright affords to musicians. | |
<
< | This presents an issue for artists: should they acknowledge that their music is not a commodity they truly own? With the advent of the internet, it has never been easier to access or distribute music outside the bounds of copyright law, Even though the framework of copyright does not constrain unauthorized distribution, litigation and criminal law are still used to punish specific instances. As much as people can be deterred, it is those law-abiders who want to iterate on previous songs and contribute to cultural development. The current system seems to stifle artistry while not preventing extralegal uses at all. | >
> | This presents an issue for artists: should they acknowledge that their music is not a commodity they truly own? With the advent of the internet, it has never been easier to access or distribute music outside the bounds of copyright law, Even though the framework of copyright does not constrain unauthorized distribution, litigation and criminal law are still used to punish specific instances. As much as people can be deterred, it is the law-abiders who want to iterate on previous songs and contribute to cultural development. The current system seems to stifle artistry while not preventing extralegal uses at all. | | |
The Creative Commons |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 9 - 05 May 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Fallacy of Music Ownership and its Enduring Legal Fictions.
-- By KieranSingh2001 - 29 Apr 2024 | >
> | Free Artistry and the Pitfalls of Music Copyright
-- By KieranSingh2001 - 5 May 2024 | | | History of Music Ownership | |
<
< | Music, as a cultural and social phenomenon, was not commodified for much of human history. Music was a shared "social process," without a rigid producer-consumer relationship between those who composed the music and those who listened. With the advent of recording machines, music became commodified and corporatized. At the same time,
History of Sampling
Arbitrary line drawing | >
> | Music, as a cultural and social phenomenon, was not commodified for much of human history. Music was a shared "social process," without a rigid producer-consumer relationship between those who composed the music and those who listened. It was not created for profit so much as for engaging in group artistry. With the advent of recording machines, music became commodified and corporatized. At the same time, recorded digital music allowed for "sampling"-- the taking of a certain part of a song recording and using it for another song -- to be used as an incredibly versatile musical tool. Beginning largely in the hip-hop community, sampling allowed for the creation of new sounds, and the advancement of music as a medium. Commodification, of course, began to encroach on this new iterative system for music, enabled by stringent copyright protections for compositions and recordings. | | |
Modern Copyright Law | |
<
< | Ownership of a sound recording, and ownership of the underlying composition, are two different concepts and the owners can oftentimes be two different people or entities, like the record label and the songwriter. Section 203 of the copyright act provides that songwriters can reclaim their copyrighted works (read: sound recording) after thirty-five years, but the rule does not apply uniformly, | >
> | Copyright owners have specific exclusive rights: usually, the right to copy and distribute the work, the right to make works based off of the original work (eg. a remix), and the right to control who and what performs the work (the right of display does not apply to music). Ownership of a sound recording, and ownership of the underlying composition, are two different concepts and the owners can oftentimes be two different people or entities, like the record label and the songwriter. The right to perform a composition is self-explanatory, but the right to performance for a sound recording only involves the right to play or transmit a digital recording. Section 203 of the copyright act provides that songwriters can reclaim their copyrighted works (read: sound recording) after thirty-five years, but the rule does not apply uniformly, as work that was made "for hire," that is, under the direction of the employer, remains in the hands of the employer. | | | | |
<
< | Composition
Sampling
In terms of sampling -- the taking of a certain part of a song recording and using it for another song -- the original copyright holder has exclusive rights. in other words, “get a license, or do not sample.” Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005). However, the de minimis defense, that the use is excusable where an “average audience would not recognize the appropriation,” VMG Salsoul, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2016), Applies here, id.,at 874. | | | | |
>
> | According to Bridgeport Music V. Dimension Films, In terms of sampling, the original copyright holder has exclusive rights. in other words, “get a license, or do not sample.”. The industry word for getting permission from a copyright owner to sample is "clearing," and it almost always comes at a cost. However, the de minimis defense, that the use is excusable where an “average audience would not recognize the appropriation,” from VMG v. Ciccone, Applies here. For compositions, the test is similar: whether an ordinary audience or observer would notice the similarity. However, if an artist made similar music in parallel to the original work, without any exposure to the original work, it is not a violation | | | The De Facto Uneforceability of Copyright Law | |
<
< | The legal rights to distribution, use, and remixing of music do not reflect what is happening online. While unauthorized distribution of music is, and has been, fully punished by law, especially when the music is unreleased by the artist, the files remain out there, and unretractable, by the internet. | >
> | The legal rights to distribution, use, and remixing of music do not reflect what is happening online. While unauthorized distribution of music has been, fully punished by law, especially when the music is unreleased by the artist, the files remain out there, and unretractable, by the internet. Leaks, and the derogatorily-termed "piracy" have only increased in the last few decades. Research and observation has indicated that modern internet technology has substantially weakened the amount of protection that copyright affords to musicians.
This presents an issue for artists: should they acknowledge that their music is not a commodity they truly own? With the advent of the internet, it has never been easier to access or distribute music outside the bounds of copyright law, Even though the framework of copyright does not constrain unauthorized distribution, litigation and criminal law are still used to punish specific instances. As much as people can be deterred, it is those law-abiders who want to iterate on previous songs and contribute to cultural development. The current system seems to stifle artistry while not preventing extralegal uses at all. | | | | |
<
< | the Creative Commons | >
> | The Creative Commons | | | | |
<
< | Creative Commons, founded in the early 2000s by legal and internet leaders, sought to provide artists with the option of less restrictive copyrights on their works. The founders wanted to find a middle ground between stringent copyright and the public domain. While not official licenses based on statutes, creative commons are legal tools that allow the original copyright holders of a work to enable others to use it (under certain conditions) more freely, without the aforementioned complicated litigation issues. Additionally, according to the organization, they have never been declared unenforceable. All Creative Commons licenses require attribution to the original work, and some require more stringent conditions, like not remixing the work or not relying on the work for profit | >
> | Creative Commons, founded in the early 2000s by legal and internet leaders, sought to provide artists with the option of less restrictive copyrights on their works. The founders wanted to find a middle ground between stringent copyright and the public domain. While not official licenses based on statutes, creative commons are legal tools that allow the original copyright holders of a work to enable others to use it (under certain conditions) more freely, without the aforementioned complicated litigation issues. Additionally, according to the organization, they have never been declared unenforceable. All Creative Commons licenses require attribution to the original work, and some require more stringent conditions, like not remixing the work or not relying on the work for profit (also known as a CC-BY-NC license). | | | | |
<
< | A freer music industry | >
> | A Freer Music Industry | | | | |
<
< | The melodies, rhythms, and themes used in the music likely existed before the creation of any song, maybe not in the same order as in a copyrighted recording, but the de minimus doctrine and current ownership rules are too restrictive. Right now, the person who has the historically accidental privilege of copyright over those musical elements is the arbitrary determiner of who can use them later, as well as who can profit from them. Perhaps there should be a higher bar than de minimis for copyright violations in interpolations or sampling. Artists should have the right to make a living off their work, but if someone wants to integrate significant elements into their work, they should be able to do so, provided they are not trying to profit from a direct copy (if they are, statutory licenses like those that already exist may be prudent). | >
> | The melodies, rhythms, and themes used in the music likely existed before the creation of any song, maybe not in the same order as in a copyrighted recording, but the de minimus doctrine and current ownership rules are too restrictive. Right now, the person who has the historically accidental privilege of copyright over those musical elements is the arbitrary determiner of who gets sued or fined for iterating on their work. Perhaps there should be a higher bar than de minimis for copyright violations in interpolations or sampling. Artists should have the right to make a living off their work, but if someone wants to integrate significant elements of another work into theirs, they should be able to do so, provided they are not trying to profit from a direct copy (if they are, existing statutory licenses that require an artist to clear a cover may be prudent). | | | | |
<
< | Alternatively, a widening of the creative commons system may achieve the same ends. Moreover, a far wider use of CC-BY-NC licensing by mainstream artists would simply give artists more dignity in processes that are happening anyway – outside the purview of copyright doctrine. Leakers, listeners, and remixers who do not have invidious intentions would. | >
> | Alternatively, a widening of the creative commons system may achieve the same ends. Moreover, a far wider use of CC-BY-NC licensing by mainstream artists would simply give artists more dignity in processes that are happening anyway – outside the purview of copyright doctrine. Leakers, listeners, and remixers who view music as an art, or a "social process" would take advantage of the opportunity given by the expanded use of Creative Commons licenses, expanding the well of new and innovative musical ideas that may borrow from previous ones without fear of legal retribution. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 8 - 29 Apr 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Open Source Pop Star: How Grimes Shows the Way Forward for Artists in the Age of AI | >
> | The Fallacy of Music Ownership and its Enduring Legal Fictions. | | | | |
<
< | -- By KieranSingh2001 - 22 Feb 2024 | >
> | -- By KieranSingh2001 - 29 Apr 2024 | | | | |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | History of Music Ownership | | | | |
<
< | We expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. We also expect music artists to be able to take down leaks when they happen, yet they still spread. Both phenomena are a result of denial: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they -- wrongly -- think it's feasible to take it down from the internet. | >
> | Music, as a cultural and social phenomenon, was not commodified for much of human history. Music was a shared "social process," without a rigid producer-consumer relationship between those who composed the music and those who listened. With the advent of recording machines, music became commodified and corporatized. At the same time, | | | | |
<
< | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | | | | |
<
< | When music leaks, | >
> | History of Sampling | | | | |
<
< |
Music is not a secret. What is a "leak"? Music is not a commodity: how can "getting to market early" matter? Much of the music I listen to every day is centuries old. Most of the rest is folk music that has never left the public domain. How can property conceptions possibly capture in any useful way the human relationship to music? All of this stuff you are quoting is just morally repugnant and intellectually indefensible neoliberal bullshit, right?
| >
> | Arbitrary line drawing | | | | |
<
< | public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI. | >
> | Modern Copyright Law | | | | |
<
< | Legal Safeguards | | | | |
<
< | Real Leaks | >
> | Ownership of a sound recording, and ownership of the underlying composition, are two different concepts and the owners can oftentimes be two different people or entities, like the record label and the songwriter. Section 203 of the copyright act provides that songwriters can reclaim their copyrighted works (read: sound recording) after thirty-five years, but the rule does not apply uniformly, | | | | |
<
< | A blogger was criminally charged for leaking unreleased Guns-N-Roses songs in 2015. He was sentenced to a year of probation and 2 months of house arrest. Yet, according to The Week, the criminal proceedings only amplified the existence of the leak -- and it caused more people to download the song themselves. [1] Even when these proceedings cross the line from civil to criminal, they do not fullt delete the music. Other artists have threatened legal action, though it's unconfirmed whether they'll follow through [2] | | | | |
<
< | AI | >
> | Composition | | | | |
<
< | According to Louis Tompros at Harvard Law, it is hard to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. Universal Media Group was only able to take an AI-facilitated Drake down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag [4]. Moreover, arguing that the act of training the AI was a copyright violation, or arguing that the output itself is copyrighted, may be legally tenuous [4]. What Tompros proposes, rather, is using the legal right of publicity, the idea that imitating a singer and presenting a piece of media as though it was a singer's work, is illegal, at least according to California and Ninth Circuit precedent [4]. Still, this takes far longer than using the DMCA, and the songs will spread through internet in the meantime. | >
> | Sampling | | | | |
<
< | On Youtube, but not Tiktok [5], an artist or label can request a takedown of any song that mimics an artist with AI [6]. Yet, without broader regulation, one site's policies will not do much to stem the spread of AI-covered music. | | | | |
<
< | What happens when they're indistinguishable? | | | | |
<
< | Debates over the authenticity of the music are fascinating, but the artists' predicament is more so. If a certain song is real, and from an upcoming album, and the artist or label decides to pursue a DMCA takedown of the song, it could prove the authenticity to the internet, "spoiling" the album and disincentivizing people from listening to it when it comes out. In other words, leaks may be more costly if people know that they have already heard the artists' coming release, which could happen with DMCA action. the uncertainty of AI might be an asset to artists, as the general public will not have their expectations set by the leak. | >
> | In terms of sampling -- the taking of a certain part of a song recording and using it for another song -- the original copyright holder has exclusive rights. in other words, “get a license, or do not sample.” Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005). However, the de minimis defense, that the use is excusable where an “average audience would not recognize the appropriation,” VMG Salsoul, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2016), Applies here, id.,at 874. | | | | |
<
< | Profiting From Artistic Misfortune | >
> | The De Facto Uneforceability of Copyright Law | | | | |
<
< | Licensing Your Voice -- GrimesAI? | >
> | The legal rights to distribution, use, and remixing of music do not reflect what is happening online. While unauthorized distribution of music is, and has been, fully punished by law, especially when the music is unreleased by the artist, the files remain out there, and unretractable, by the internet. | | | | |
<
< | Grimes, the controversial singer, came up with a way to deal with the phenomenon of AI covers without going through complicated copyright battles, or simply rolling over and allowing unauthorized use of her voice across the internet. She allows producers to use her voice, along with a specific AI trained on it, to make music, provided she gets to keep 50% of the royalties. The producers of the song can have it published on mainstream streaming platforms, and take the other 50% of the royalties, and Grimes lets the producers keep the rights to the "underlying composition" [8]. Both the singer and the producer are incentivized to use this method through profit maximization. Philosophically, though, this method is a tacit acceptance that one has lost control of their voice. Yet, it's likely impossible to un-make AI, and certainly impossible to delete AI covers of songs from everyone's computers. Thus, this method may be the best way forward, allowing artists to profit off of most uses of their voice. | | | | |
>
> | the Creative Commons | | | | |
<
< | Releasing Leaked Music | >
> | Creative Commons, founded in the early 2000s by legal and internet leaders, sought to provide artists with the option of less restrictive copyrights on their works. The founders wanted to find a middle ground between stringent copyright and the public domain. While not official licenses based on statutes, creative commons are legal tools that allow the original copyright holders of a work to enable others to use it (under certain conditions) more freely, without the aforementioned complicated litigation issues. Additionally, according to the organization, they have never been declared unenforceable. All Creative Commons licenses require attribution to the original work, and some require more stringent conditions, like not remixing the work or not relying on the work for profit | | | | |
<
< | In terms of authentic music, the solutions are unclear. If it's for a planned album, the artist can wait and hope the leaks don't harm the release and hype of the album. If it's scrapped music, and the artist has the rights to it, they should release it, riding the hype of the leak and allowing themselves to make royalties off of the music. It seems as though artists don't have possession over all of their unreleased music, however. Charli XCX, a pop star, tweeted in 2022 asking for a link to high-quality MP3s of a leaked album from years previous [9]. This could signal that artists don't own some of their leaked music, nor do they have access to it. If they do own the music, however, releasing it to platforms like Spotify will help them regain autonomy over their music. | >
> | A freer music industry | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | The melodies, rhythms, and themes used in the music likely existed before the creation of any song, maybe not in the same order as in a copyrighted recording, but the de minimus doctrine and current ownership rules are too restrictive. Right now, the person who has the historically accidental privilege of copyright over those musical elements is the arbitrary determiner of who can use them later, as well as who can profit from them. Perhaps there should be a higher bar than de minimis for copyright violations in interpolations or sampling. Artists should have the right to make a living off their work, but if someone wants to integrate significant elements into their work, they should be able to do so, provided they are not trying to profit from a direct copy (if they are, statutory licenses like those that already exist may be prudent). | | | | |
<
< | Artists must operate in a world where their music, both real and AI-generated, will be leaked, with no certain way to take it down from the internet. With that in mind, they should stop trying to resist the leaks, and instead embrace them as a way to expand the reach of their music and their career, as well as their wallets.
There are some very interesting ideas here, though they are somewhat hard to find amidst the confetti.
"I will let you play my violin if you give me half your royalties." That's the proposition this person is offering, correct? Whatever it means to "own" the instrument, we can say for sure (1) that this is not an economically viable wheeze unless there are (a) no other violins, or (b) no royalties; and therefore (2) that this will not have the anticipated effect for the person who dreamed it up. Your reference to :"open source" in the title is ironically utterly incorrect. This person, like Elon Musk, seems not to have any understanding of how the legal and creative dynamics of free software and free culture work. This person wants to use CC-BY-NC licensing, the way so many professional photographers do, so that the products of their creation can spread widely, while keeping control over commercial exploitation. An existing legal framework exists, has proven out in large-scale artistic value creation, and is being ignored by someone whose narcissism is superior to their learning.
So I think there are two independent routes to improvement, either or both of which seem promising to me. We could go back to the beginning and ask what all this "ownership of music" rubbish is about anyway, as I did in various writings from 1999-2003, including Anarchism Triumphant and the dotCommunist Manifesto, Or we could apply a little historical and legal analysis to the Creative Commons institutions, from CC Sampling to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC, to understand the interactions you are presently observing in a less People-magazine sort of way. And we can. for Heaven's sake, get this "AI" nonsense out of the picture: it obviously doesn't matter how the samples are stitched together, right?
Words:999
Cites
Why aren't these URLs just links in the text? You're making things ugly and hard for the reader when they ought to be able to click straight through to your sources from the text anchor. Look at the TextFormattingRules if you need to know how, or just use the link tool in the editor toolbar.
1. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker
2. https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html
3. https://www.complex.com/music/a/complex/the-dangers-of-leaking-music-5-cautionary-tales
4. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/
5. https://support.tiktok.com/en/using-tiktok/creating-videos/ai-generated-content
6. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/14/23959658/google-youtube-generative-ai-labels-music-copyright
7. https://www.404media.co/harry-styles-one-direction-ai-leaked-songs/
8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/06/12/grimes-helps-artists-distribute-songs-using-her-ai-voice--if-they-pay-royalties-heres-how-it-works/?sh=6600499349ae
9. https://twitter.com/charli_xcx/status/1507519982225174531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1507519982225174531%7Ctwgr%5E7b08482ed98cb5076c9895ccfca1e6566faeecfd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgagadaily.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcharli_xcx%2Fstatus%2F1507519982225174531 | >
> | Alternatively, a widening of the creative commons system may achieve the same ends. Moreover, a far wider use of CC-BY-NC licensing by mainstream artists would simply give artists more dignity in processes that are happening anyway – outside the purview of copyright doctrine. Leakers, listeners, and remixers who do not have invidious intentions would. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 7 - 24 Mar 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | |
<
< | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI. | >
> | When music leaks,
Music is not a secret. What is a "leak"? Music is not a commodity: how can "getting to market early" matter? Much of the music I listen to every day is centuries old. Most of the rest is folk music that has never left the public domain. How can property conceptions possibly capture in any useful way the human relationship to music? All of this stuff you are quoting is just morally repugnant and intellectually indefensible neoliberal bullshit, right?
public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI. | | | Legal Safeguards | | | Artists must operate in a world where their music, both real and AI-generated, will be leaked, with no certain way to take it down from the internet. With that in mind, they should stop trying to resist the leaks, and instead embrace them as a way to expand the reach of their music and their career, as well as their wallets. | |
>
> |
There are some very interesting ideas here, though they are somewhat hard to find amidst the confetti.
"I will let you play my violin if you give me half your royalties." That's the proposition this person is offering, correct? Whatever it means to "own" the instrument, we can say for sure (1) that this is not an economically viable wheeze unless there are (a) no other violins, or (b) no royalties; and therefore (2) that this will not have the anticipated effect for the person who dreamed it up. Your reference to :"open source" in the title is ironically utterly incorrect. This person, like Elon Musk, seems not to have any understanding of how the legal and creative dynamics of free software and free culture work. This person wants to use CC-BY-NC licensing, the way so many professional photographers do, so that the products of their creation can spread widely, while keeping control over commercial exploitation. An existing legal framework exists, has proven out in large-scale artistic value creation, and is being ignored by someone whose narcissism is superior to their learning.
So I think there are two independent routes to improvement, either or both of which seem promising to me. We could go back to the beginning and ask what all this "ownership of music" rubbish is about anyway, as I did in various writings from 1999-2003, including Anarchism Triumphant and the dotCommunist Manifesto, Or we could apply a little historical and legal analysis to the Creative Commons institutions, from CC Sampling to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC, to understand the interactions you are presently observing in a less People-magazine sort of way. And we can. for Heaven's sake, get this "AI" nonsense out of the picture: it obviously doesn't matter how the samples are stitched together, right?
| | | Words:999
Cites | |
>
> |
Why aren't these URLs just links in the text? You're making things ugly and hard for the reader when they ought to be able to click straight through to your sources from the text anchor. Look at the TextFormattingRules if you need to know how, or just use the link tool in the editor toolbar.
| | | 1. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker
2. https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 6 - 23 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | We expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. Second, music artists do not act when their music is leaked, rather than taking advantage of the situation by posting it to streaming platforms themselves. Both phenomena are a result of denial: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they -- wrongly -- think it's feasible to take it down from the internet. | >
> | We expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. We also expect music artists to be able to take down leaks when they happen, yet they still spread. Both phenomena are a result of denial: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they -- wrongly -- think it's feasible to take it down from the internet. | | | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | | | Artists must operate in a world where their music, both real and AI-generated, will be leaked, with no certain way to take it down from the internet. With that in mind, they should stop trying to resist the leaks, and instead embrace them as a way to expand the reach of their music and their career, as well as their wallets. | |
>
> | Words:999 | | | Cites
1. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 5 - 22 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | >
> | | | | The Open Source Pop Star: How Grimes Shows the Way Forward for Artists in the Age of AI | |
<
< | -- By KieranSingh2001 - 20 Feb 2024 | >
> | -- By KieranSingh2001 - 22 Feb 2024 | | | Introduction | |
<
< | Two things have bothered me for the last two years: First, we expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. Second, music artists often sit on their hands when their music is leaked, rather than taking advantage of the situation by posting it to streaming platforms themselves. Both phenomena are a result of a certain denial of the nature of technology: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they think it's feasible to take it down from the internet (it is not). | >
> | We expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. Second, music artists do not act when their music is leaked, rather than taking advantage of the situation by posting it to streaming platforms themselves. Both phenomena are a result of denial: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they -- wrongly -- think it's feasible to take it down from the internet. | | | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | |
<
< | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak, whether good or bad. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI. The latter camp does not believe that AI created the entire song, more so that someone created the song, and then covered it using an AI-generated replica of the artist's voice. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is a legitimate leak, and those that do not arguing that it is AI. | >
> | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI. | | | Legal Safeguards
Real Leaks | |
<
< | There are several unconfirmed reports of leakers being fined, and many threats from artists to pursue legal action against people who have leaked their unreleased music. Of the legal proceedings that have been confirmed by journalistic sources, one stands out. A blogger was criminally charged for leaking unreleased Guns-N-Roses songs in 2015. He was sentenced to a year of probation and 2 months of house arrest. Yet, according to The Week, the criminal proceedings only amplified the existence of the leak -- and it caused more people to download the song themselves. [4] At any rate, even when these proceedings cross the line from civil to criminal, they do not end up getting rid of the leaked music. | >
> | A blogger was criminally charged for leaking unreleased Guns-N-Roses songs in 2015. He was sentenced to a year of probation and 2 months of house arrest. Yet, according to The Week, the criminal proceedings only amplified the existence of the leak -- and it caused more people to download the song themselves. [1] Even when these proceedings cross the line from civil to criminal, they do not fullt delete the music. Other artists have threatened legal action, though it's unconfirmed whether they'll follow through [2] | | | AI | |
<
< | According to Louis Tompros at Harvard Law, it is not completely clear how to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. In one famous case involving the rapper and singer Drake, Universal Media Group was able to take an AI-cover song down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag (a short audio or voice track laid onto the song to give the producer credit) [1]. Moreover, arguing that the act of training the AI was a copyright violation, or arguing that the output itself is copyrighted, may be legally tenuous, according to Tompros [1]. What he proposes, rather, is using the legal right of publicity, the idea that imitating a singer and presenting a piece of media as though it was a singer's work, is illegal, at least according to California and Ninth Circuit precedent [1]. Even then, the process of taking down these songs based on the right of publicity is much lengthier than that of the DMCA, and the songs will be able to spread to all corners of the internet in the meantime. | | | | |
<
< | However, YouTube? 's own policy, unrelated to copyright law, has now stated to disallow AI covers of music. An artist or label can request a takedown of any song that mimics the artist's voice using ai [6]. Yet, Youtube is just one website, and in the absence of broader regulation, its policies will not do much to stem the spread of AI-covered music. TikTok? 's AI policy, for example, mentions only videos and photos, not music [7] | >
> | According to Louis Tompros at Harvard Law, it is hard to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. Universal Media Group was only able to take an AI-facilitated Drake down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag [4]. Moreover, arguing that the act of training the AI was a copyright violation, or arguing that the output itself is copyrighted, may be legally tenuous [4]. What Tompros proposes, rather, is using the legal right of publicity, the idea that imitating a singer and presenting a piece of media as though it was a singer's work, is illegal, at least according to California and Ninth Circuit precedent [4]. Still, this takes far longer than using the DMCA, and the songs will spread through internet in the meantime. | | | | |
<
< | What happens when they're indistinguishable?
Leakers go to great lengths to prove that they have released artist-made music, as opposed to AI covers. Some leakers will admit that certain (bad) tracks are AI, to prove that the better tracks are authentic. Debates over the authenticity of the music on the internet are fascinating, but the artists' predicament is more so. If a certain song is real, and from an upcoming album, and the artist or label decides to pursue a DMCA takedown of the song, it could prove the authenticity to the internet, "spoiling" the album and disincentivizing people from listening to it when it comes out. In other words, leaks may be more costly if people know that they have already heard the artists' coming release. Trying to take down the leak could backfire, since DMCA action is relatively swift, and difficult to do with AI covers (outside of youtube). In fact, being able to claim that a leaked song is "just AI" may be an asset to artists, as the general public will not have their expectations set by the leak. | >
> | On Youtube, but not Tiktok [5], an artist or label can request a takedown of any song that mimics an artist with AI [6]. Yet, without broader regulation, one site's policies will not do much to stem the spread of AI-covered music. | | | | |
>
> | What happens when they're indistinguishable? | | | | |
<
< | Profiting From Artistic Misfortune | >
> | Debates over the authenticity of the music are fascinating, but the artists' predicament is more so. If a certain song is real, and from an upcoming album, and the artist or label decides to pursue a DMCA takedown of the song, it could prove the authenticity to the internet, "spoiling" the album and disincentivizing people from listening to it when it comes out. In other words, leaks may be more costly if people know that they have already heard the artists' coming release, which could happen with DMCA action. the uncertainty of AI might be an asset to artists, as the general public will not have their expectations set by the leak. | | | | |
>
> | Profiting From Artistic Misfortune | | | Licensing Your Voice -- GrimesAI? | |
<
< | Grimes, the controversial indie-pop artist, has come up with a way to deal with the phenomenon of AI covers without going through complicated copyright battles, or simply rolling over and allowing unauthorized use of her voice across the internet. She allows producers to use her voice, along with a specific AI trained on it, to make music, provided she gets to keep 50% of the royalties. The producers of the song can have it published on mainstream streaming platforms, and take the other 50% of the royalties. | >
> | Grimes, the controversial singer, came up with a way to deal with the phenomenon of AI covers without going through complicated copyright battles, or simply rolling over and allowing unauthorized use of her voice across the internet. She allows producers to use her voice, along with a specific AI trained on it, to make music, provided she gets to keep 50% of the royalties. The producers of the song can have it published on mainstream streaming platforms, and take the other 50% of the royalties, and Grimes lets the producers keep the rights to the "underlying composition" [8]. Both the singer and the producer are incentivized to use this method through profit maximization. Philosophically, though, this method is a tacit acceptance that one has lost control of their voice. Yet, it's likely impossible to un-make AI, and certainly impossible to delete AI covers of songs from everyone's computers. Thus, this method may be the best way forward, allowing artists to profit off of most uses of their voice. | | |
Releasing Leaked Music | |
<
< | | >
> | In terms of authentic music, the solutions are unclear. If it's for a planned album, the artist can wait and hope the leaks don't harm the release and hype of the album. If it's scrapped music, and the artist has the rights to it, they should release it, riding the hype of the leak and allowing themselves to make royalties off of the music. It seems as though artists don't have possession over all of their unreleased music, however. Charli XCX, a pop star, tweeted in 2022 asking for a link to high-quality MP3s of a leaked album from years previous [9]. This could signal that artists don't own some of their leaked music, nor do they have access to it. If they do own the music, however, releasing it to platforms like Spotify will help them regain autonomy over their music. | | | Conclusion | |
>
> | Artists must operate in a world where their music, both real and AI-generated, will be leaked, with no certain way to take it down from the internet. With that in mind, they should stop trying to resist the leaks, and instead embrace them as a way to expand the reach of their music and their career, as well as their wallets. | | | Cites | |
<
< | 1. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/ | >
> | 1. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker | | | 2. https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html
3. https://www.complex.com/music/a/complex/the-dangers-of-leaking-music-5-cautionary-tales | |
<
< | 4. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker | >
> | 4. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/
5. https://support.tiktok.com/en/using-tiktok/creating-videos/ai-generated-content
6. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/14/23959658/google-youtube-generative-ai-labels-music-copyright
7. https://www.404media.co/harry-styles-one-direction-ai-leaked-songs/
8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/06/12/grimes-helps-artists-distribute-songs-using-her-ai-voice--if-they-pay-royalties-heres-how-it-works/?sh=6600499349ae | | | | |
<
< | 5. https://www.404media.co/harry-styles-one-direction-ai-leaked-songs/ | >
> | 9. https://twitter.com/charli_xcx/status/1507519982225174531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1507519982225174531%7Ctwgr%5E7b08482ed98cb5076c9895ccfca1e6566faeecfd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgagadaily.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcharli_xcx%2Fstatus%2F1507519982225174531 | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 4 - 22 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Real Leaks | |
>
> | There are several unconfirmed reports of leakers being fined, and many threats from artists to pursue legal action against people who have leaked their unreleased music. Of the legal proceedings that have been confirmed by journalistic sources, one stands out. A blogger was criminally charged for leaking unreleased Guns-N-Roses songs in 2015. He was sentenced to a year of probation and 2 months of house arrest. Yet, according to The Week, the criminal proceedings only amplified the existence of the leak -- and it caused more people to download the song themselves. [4] At any rate, even when these proceedings cross the line from civil to criminal, they do not end up getting rid of the leaked music. | | | AI | |
<
< | According to Rachel Reed at Harvard Law, it is not completely clear how to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. In one famous case involving the rapper and singer Drake, Universal Media Group was able to take an AI-cover song down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag (a short audio or voice track laid onto the song to give the producer credit). Moreover, | >
> | According to Louis Tompros at Harvard Law, it is not completely clear how to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. In one famous case involving the rapper and singer Drake, Universal Media Group was able to take an AI-cover song down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag (a short audio or voice track laid onto the song to give the producer credit) [1]. Moreover, arguing that the act of training the AI was a copyright violation, or arguing that the output itself is copyrighted, may be legally tenuous, according to Tompros [1]. What he proposes, rather, is using the legal right of publicity, the idea that imitating a singer and presenting a piece of media as though it was a singer's work, is illegal, at least according to California and Ninth Circuit precedent [1]. Even then, the process of taking down these songs based on the right of publicity is much lengthier than that of the DMCA, and the songs will be able to spread to all corners of the internet in the meantime.
However, YouTube? 's own policy, unrelated to copyright law, has now stated to disallow AI covers of music. An artist or label can request a takedown of any song that mimics the artist's voice using ai [6]. Yet, Youtube is just one website, and in the absence of broader regulation, its policies will not do much to stem the spread of AI-covered music. TikTok? 's AI policy, for example, mentions only videos and photos, not music [7] | | | What happens when they're indistinguishable? | |
>
> | Leakers go to great lengths to prove that they have released artist-made music, as opposed to AI covers. Some leakers will admit that certain (bad) tracks are AI, to prove that the better tracks are authentic. Debates over the authenticity of the music on the internet are fascinating, but the artists' predicament is more so. If a certain song is real, and from an upcoming album, and the artist or label decides to pursue a DMCA takedown of the song, it could prove the authenticity to the internet, "spoiling" the album and disincentivizing people from listening to it when it comes out. In other words, leaks may be more costly if people know that they have already heard the artists' coming release. Trying to take down the leak could backfire, since DMCA action is relatively swift, and difficult to do with AI covers (outside of youtube). In fact, being able to claim that a leaked song is "just AI" may be an asset to artists, as the general public will not have their expectations set by the leak. | | | | |
<
< | Will Congress or State Legislatures Do Anything? | >
> | Profiting From Artistic Misfortune | | | | |
<
< | Profiting From Artistic Misfortune | | | Licensing Your Voice -- GrimesAI? | |
<
< | Legal Barriers and Solutions | >
> | Grimes, the controversial indie-pop artist, has come up with a way to deal with the phenomenon of AI covers without going through complicated copyright battles, or simply rolling over and allowing unauthorized use of her voice across the internet. She allows producers to use her voice, along with a specific AI trained on it, to make music, provided she gets to keep 50% of the royalties. The producers of the song can have it published on mainstream streaming platforms, and take the other 50% of the royalties. | | | Releasing Leaked Music | |
<
< | Legal Barriers and Solutions | >
> | | | | Conclusion
Cites | |
<
< | https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/ | >
> | 1. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/
2. https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html
3. https://www.complex.com/music/a/complex/the-dangers-of-leaking-music-5-cautionary-tales | | | | |
<
< | https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html | >
> | 4. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker | | | | |
>
> | 5. https://www.404media.co/harry-styles-one-direction-ai-leaked-songs/ | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 3 - 21 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | |
<
< | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak, whether good or bad. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI. The latter camp does not believe that AI created the entire song, more so that someone created the song, and then covered it using an AI-generated replica of the artist's voice. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that | >
> | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak, whether good or bad. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI. The latter camp does not believe that AI created the entire song, more so that someone created the song, and then covered it using an AI-generated replica of the artist's voice. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is a legitimate leak, and those that do not arguing that it is AI. | | | Legal Safeguards
Real Leaks
AI | |
>
> | According to Rachel Reed at Harvard Law, it is not completely clear how to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. In one famous case involving the rapper and singer Drake, Universal Media Group was able to take an AI-cover song down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag (a short audio or voice track laid onto the song to give the producer credit). Moreover, | | | What happens when they're indistinguishable? | | | Conclusion | |
>
> | Cites | | | | |
>
> | https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/ | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 2 - 21 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | -- By KieranSingh2001 - 20 Feb 2024 | |
>
> | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | Music Leaks (Real and AI)
Legal Safeguards From Leaked and AI-Generated Music | >
> | Two things have bothered me for the last two years: First, we expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. Second, music artists often sit on their hands when their music is leaked, rather than taking advantage of the situation by posting it to streaming platforms themselves. Both phenomena are a result of a certain denial of the nature of technology: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they think it's feasible to take it down from the internet (it is not). | | | | |
>
> | Music Leaks (Real and AI) | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1
Why the Law Hasn't Stopped AI and Leaked Music | >
> | When music leaks, public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak, whether good or bad. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI. The latter camp does not believe that AI created the entire song, more so that someone created the song, and then covered it using an AI-generated replica of the artist's voice. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that | | | | |
>
> | Legal Safeguards | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Real Leaks | | | | |
>
> | AI
What happens when they're indistinguishable? | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | | | Will Congress or State Legislatures Do Anything? |
|
|
KieranSingh2001FirstEssay 1 - 20 Feb 2024 - Main.KieranSingh2001
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
The Open Source Pop Star: How Grimes Shows the Way Forward for Artists in the Age of AI
-- By KieranSingh2001 - 20 Feb 2024
Music Leaks (Real and AI)
Legal Safeguards From Leaked and AI-Generated Music
Subsub 1
Why the Law Hasn't Stopped AI and Leaked Music
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Will Congress or State Legislatures Do Anything?
Profiting From Artistic Misfortune
Licensing Your Voice -- GrimesAI?
Legal Barriers and Solutions
Releasing Leaked Music
Legal Barriers and Solutions
Conclusion
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|