What about when a style IS the copyright holder’s (the artist’s) personal style and voice likeness?
I see this as a major loss and just another way for capitalists to cheat artists and outcompete out them using their effectively free labor. It is disgusting and I hate copyright because it only works to benefit the rich and powerful, and never protects smaller artists.
There is a line somewhere between copying a style (which seems to be fine) and copying a song. I suppose that has to be judged on a case by case basis. And it’s not something new. We’ve had Red Hot Chili Peppers cover bands who need to pay them to use their songs. And bands who play original songs in the style of RHCP. I’ve been to such a concert in some pub like 7 years ago and it was awesome. I don’t think that’s copyright infringement. But they had a very very similar style, a name that was a pun on the original and even the vocalist did a good job of sounding similar to Anthony Kiedis.
I’m not sure what kinds of laws there are. But if that’s okay, I think same should apply to AI.
I’m a bit split on the whole topic. Artists get ripped off anyways. Look at what Spotify pays them, and we can skip arguing about other things. They take 15€ from me and forward next to nothing to smaller artists. And I’ve rarely heard original songs in the radio. I think 99% of music is dull pop songs made for radio and to appease. Always a similar set of instruments, one of the common chord progressions, not too adventurous so it can be played on radio, same small set of topics they sing about. It’s not my music and I don’t feel anything when listening to that kind of music. I don’t mind at all if that gets replaced by AI.
My thinking is: If that’s the level of creativity the artists are able to come up with, they deserve to get replaced by AI. And if the audience wants dull, canned pop made in a factory (as it’s been for some time already), they, too, don’t deserve any better.
That being said judges generally have difficulty siding against their all inclusive vacations that come with making the ‘right’ choice in court
Correct. And the RIAA and Sony Music Entertainment etc have lots of money for expensive lawyers. Small artists, companies and people don’t have that and start with a big disadvantage per default. It’s always like that. I have some limited faith in the judiciary. Sometimes there is a David vs Goliath moment. But we all know in reality there are many stunts available for rich entities to pull, and win against someone, despite being in the wrong.
It isn’t that artists are “less creative” and that is why they are being out-competed. What I was saying is AI can do it so much quicker and at such a low cost to companies. Music making is a long and (often) tedious processes.
I’m not sure if we’re going for the same thing or have different views. I think especially with art there is a difference between mass produced and good things. And it’s the same thing with other topics. You can buy a domestic made brand name electric drill that’ll last you some time or a cheap one from china for $30. Nice clothes or the cheap ones from Primark. You can buy a deep-frozen pizza and eat that or go to the nice italian restaurant…
I don’t think I have any issue with that concept. (At least in general… Sewing t-shirts in horrible conditions somewhere in Bangladesh isn’t moral. But it’s a stretch to apply that analogy to AI.) I mean what’s the issue with that? If I want some super cheap food that is easy to prepare, I’m glad that we have frozen pizza. And if someone invents a way to mass produce frozen pizza even cheaper… I have more options available to decide which quality I like and what I can afford.
And sticking with that crude analogy… I’m not sure if we should ban frozen pizza so the italian restaurant can make more profit… In the end I think it’s supply and demand and how capitalism works. I like original and creative music. There might be a demand for mass produced and cheap music, too.
Being out-competed at producing some low-quality, cheap products isn’t necessarily a bad thing (in my eyes). And it doesn’t really take away from the quality products. Also if someone is doing lots of tedious work and ends up with something low-quality, I’m not sure who is at fault. As far as I know there are a lot of studios and writers who pump out pop song lyrics and melodies en masse. It’s not the same process as what a proper band does. And that’s also something AI can’t do, so I don’t see any issue there.
It’s also that marketing and distribution channels are increasingly important to get a “hit” making creativity less and less important. So there would also be a push to make music less “risky” and more predictable.
“displace the genuine human artistry that is at the heart of copyright protection.”
Please someone think of the poor humans… says the soulless corporate robot haha
There is a significant antipathy against AI at the moment and I fear that these emotions will lead to AI or the “tools of generation” being owned by big copyright holders forever and ever. Basically the common person won’t be able to use these tools really. This makes all things AI much worse.
Of course, AI generated music will ultimately lead to the majority of the music business being entirely about marketing and capital, not about creative musical talent. Ultimately you’ll have completely artificial “stars” that are simply IP and fully owned and controlled by capital. Which is not what we want, but that outcome is unavoidable. We see the start of this will this hololive stuff (which I’m too old to understand lol).
What is preferable though is that secondary artwork (movies, video, computer games) could use AI generated music without having to pay the music industry. Or that public domain “stars” that anybody can use.
EDIT: This argument assumes that AI will continue to improve and lets say in 10 years it will surpass the quality of music of 90% of human composers… basically that the quality of music will continue to rise until at some point in the future it will surpass the ability of any human composer.
