ferrule

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.

I feel like we are slowly getting to the situation the Three Stooges were in where they all owe each other money. Bots make the numbers go up which gets investors interested giving money to the company. C levels make money which they invest in other companies who's numbers are boosted by bots and this cycle begins again.

You owe me $20. Here's $10, I'll owe you. But you owe me $20. Here' $10 I'll owe you. Here's the $10 I owe you. And here's the $10 I owe you.

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.

and knowing russians, he won't even respond to actions. they will need to remove him by force.

while i don't think it should be a moral issue, i think we need to stop trying to make this a fair argument out of some desire to be on some high ground here. what you described is fucked up and we should give them no latitude. it is theft even if they made the laws. the staggering level of difference in energy put forth versus compensation is ridiculous. When someone makes more in an hour than their least paid employee will gross over their entire lifetime...there should be no justification for the billionaire's existence.

idk man. there are a lot that i dont think will ever get it.

It wouldn't have helped. You can go online and see all of the semi reasonable convesations with trump supporters out in public and the all want to hold on to the idea he is a good, sane choice. They never accept the evidence. They just reluctantly shrug.

Nah he is just the epitome of bigotry. He hates everyone because he is a loser and everyone who has been around him knows it. There is no fixing that.

They do understand that. The problem IS "long term." Most C level types don't care about any term longer than their tenure. This is why we see layoffs before quarterly reports. There isn't an incentive for them to look any furthure into the future.

Now if a CEO could only cash out after 10 or 20 years of the company doing well then we would see change. If they made the company average untill they were a decade or two in as a vesting term then keeping happy employees would be important.