AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties; The Washington Times, December 26, 2023

 Tom Howell Jr. , The Washington Times ; AI starts a music-making revolution and plenty of noise about ethics and royalties

"“Music’s important. AI is changing that relationship. We need to navigate that carefully,” said Martin Clancy, an Ireland-based expert who has worked on chart-topping songs and is the founding chairman of the IEEE Global AI Ethics Arts Committee...

The Biden administration, the European Union and other governments are rushing to catch up with AI and harness its benefits while controlling its potentially adverse societal impacts. They are also wading through copyright and other matters of law.

Even if they devise legislation now, the rules likely will not go into effect for years. The EU recently enacted a sweeping AI law, but it won’t take effect until 2025.

“That’s forever in this space, which means that all we’re left with is our ethical decision-making,” Mr. Clancy said.

For now, the AI-generated music landscape is like the Wild West. Many AI-generated songs are hokey or just not very good."

Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad; Billboard, April 20, 2023

KRISTIN ROBINSON, Billboard; Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad

"Machine-learning is exponentially faster, though; it’s usually achieved by feeding millions, even billions of so-called “inputs” into an AI model to build its musical vocabulary. Due to the sheer scale of data needed to train current systems that almost always includes the work of professionals, and to many copyright owners’ dismay, almost no one asks their permission to use it.

Countries around the world have various ways of regulating what’s allowed when it comes to what’s called the text and data mining of copyrighted material for AI training. And some territories are concluding that fewer rules will lead to more business.

China, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are among the countries that have largely positioned themselves as safe havens for AI companies in terms of industry-friendly regulation. In January, Israel’s Ministry of Justice defined its stance on the issue, saying that “lifting the copyright uncertainties that surround this issue [of training AI generators] can spur innovation and maximize the competitiveness of Israeli-based enterprises in both [machine-learning] and content creation.”"

Copyright Report Says AI-Assisted Works Can Be Protected – But Only If A Human Was Still In Charge; Billboard, March 15, 2023

BILL DONAHUE, Billboard; Copyright Report Says AI-Assisted Works Can Be Protected – But Only If A Human Was Still In Charge

"A new policy report from the U.S. Copyright Office says that songs and other artistic works created with the assistance of artificial intelligence can sometimes be eligible for copyright registration, but only if the ultimate author remains a human being.

The report, released by the federal agency on Wednesday (March 15), comes amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music by so-called generative AI tools — similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT...

Under the rules laid out in the report, the Copyright Office said that anyone submitting such works must disclose which elements were created by AI and which were created by a human. The agency said that any AI-inclusive work that was previously registered without such a disclosure must be updated — and that failure to do so could result in the cancellation of the copyright registration.

Though aimed at providing guidance, Wednesday’s report avoided hard-and-fast rules. It stressed that analyzing copyright protection for AI-assisted works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances, including “how the AI tool operates” and “how it was used to create the final work.”

And the report didn’t even touch on a potentially thornier legal question: whether the creators of AI platforms infringe the copyrights of the vast number of earlier works that are used to “train” the platforms to spit out new works."

Nicki Minaj-Tracy Chapman copyright battle sets stage for future of music recording; Marketplace, September 14, 2020

Sabri Ben-Achour, Marketplace ; Nicki Minaj-Tracy Chapman copyright battle sets stage for future of music recording

"Tracy Chapman is suing Nicki Minaj for using part of one of her songs. The case has the potential to upend the way music is written and how artists borrow from one another.

Minaj’s song “Sorry” obviously takes from Chapman’s song “Baby Can I Hold You.”Nobody disputes that. Minaj and her people asked Chapman for permission during and after production of “Sorry,” and Chapman and her reps said no, multiple times. So Minaj didn’t release the song on her 2018 album.

“What complicates it in this case is that there was further redistribution,” said Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law."

Lou Reed Archives Head to New York Public Library; New York Times, March 2, 2017

Ben Sisario, New York Times; 

Lou Reed Archives Head to New York Public Library

"Ms. Anderson said that the library’s mandate of making its collections available to the public was central to her decision to place the archive there. But she also felt that it all simply belonged in New York.

“Lou is kind of Mr. New York,” Ms. Anderson said. “This is the city he loved the most. It doesn’t make any sense for him to be anywhere else. Then, what’s the best place in New York? This is the best place in New York.”

She also giggled a little, and made a mock librarian’s shush, as she added: “I just love that somebody who is so loud is in the New York Public Library.”"

YouTube videos make people money, but songwriters rarely see any of it; Guardian, 11/13/12

Helienne Lindvall, Guardian; YouTube videos make people money, but songwriters rarely see any of it: "Naturally, songwriters prefer to concentrate on creating music instead of trying to decipher why their digital royalties are so low. But I decided to enquire further, and discovered that the deeper you look into the nature of digital licensing deals, the murkier the waters and that even people working at music companies were confused about them. To begin to understand why, first of all one needs to understand that the copyrights to each record are divided into two categories: the master rights for the recording, which belong to the record label/artist, and the rights to the composition, which belong to the publisher/songwriter. As YouTube marries video and audio, it requires both a performance licence and a mechanical synch licence for each category for each song. Many record labels I spoke to were shocked by how little the songwriters in my article got paid for YouTube videos."

The Bruce Willis dilemma? In the digital era, we own nothing; Guardian, 9/3/12

Dan Gillmor, Guardian; The Bruce Willis dilemma? In the digital era, we own nothing: "The entertainment industry is rapidly steering us all toward a stream-from-the-cloud model, in which we buy the right to watch or listen or read, but where the rights are limited in time and device. This pay-per-view world would make even Willis's dilemma moot, because he'd never own anything – which makes it the most dangerous model of all for users of digital content. I use some cloud services, but I buy and back up (legally or not) the things I want to keep. Since the publishers, record labels and movie studios are unlikely to permit sanity in the digital marketplace, and given lawmakers' propensity for following the industry's dictates in passing increasingly draconian copyright laws, it's up to the rest of us to come up with solutions."

How the internet has all but destroyed the market for films, music and newspapers; Observer via Guardian, 8/14/11

Robert Levine, Observer via Guardian; How the internet has all but destroyed the market for films, music and newspapers:

"As pressure builds to enforce copyright law online, technology companies and the activists they support have started to argue that any attempt to block pirate sites will "break the internet", as though it were an iPhone teetering on the edge of a table. The truth is that the internet is broken already: it's simply too chaotic to provide the infrastructure for a 21st-century economy. This has to change, before newspapers and film suffer declines like that of the music industry. Technology companies have long lectured creators on the need to adapt to a changing changing digital world. It would be a shame if they couldn't heed their own advice.

Robert Levine is the author of Free Ride: How the Internet is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business can Fight Back"

iTunes Music Store Finally Ditches DRM, Adds New Prices, Wired.com, 1/6/09

Via Wired.com: iTunes Music Store Finally Ditches DRM, Adds New Prices:

"After years of fits, starts, threats and ultimatums, Steve Jobs and three major labels have come to terms on a deal: Music will be available immediately on iTunes without DRM restrictions. Free of the limitations that currently restrict music playback to Apple products, the new plan will let consumers choose from three price levels instead of the 99-cent song model the store implemented on day one."

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/apple-promises.html

Culture Secretary suggests extending copyright term to 70 years, Music Week, 12/11/08

UK Cultural Secretary Andy Burnham, Via Music Week: Culture Secretary suggests extending copyright term to 70 years:

"The online revolution has changed all the rules and ever since we’ve been struggling to catch up. For creative talent like you, it’s a genuinely double-edged sword – liberating and democratising on the one side, allowing people to bypass the traditional gatekeepers to the creative system.

But on the other side, what the online revolution has done is promote a prevailing sense with the online generation that creativity is free to enjoy.

We enjoy a whole lot more choice and opportunity – which is good. And a lot of people enjoy all that for free – which is good for them but not for everyone –and not good for the long term prospects for new music and new ideas, and fresh talent coming through...

The big creative challenge now is to come up with the new ideas that keep people listening and which set a true and realistic value on talent. In short, we need to create a new business model that is fairer to everyone – music-buying public, performers, and those who have built up the industry."

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1036434&c=1

Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA, Boston Globe, 11/18/08

Via Boston Globe: Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA:

"[Charles] Nesson and his [Harvard Law School] students have decided to "litigate in the court of public opinion," as well as in the courtroom, and they are putting on quite a show. Legally, they are arguing that the RIAA is using civil litigation to punish alleged criminal activity, which they say violates the Constitution. Moreover, Nesson et al have posted all manner of fascinating materials at the CyberOne website of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society."

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/11/18/billion_dollar_charlie_vs_the_riaa/

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later - Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 2008

RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later:

"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans.1 Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals.2 These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors—a random selection from the millions of Americans who have used P2P networks. And there’s no end in sight; new lawsuits are filed monthly, and now they are supplemented by a flood of "pre-litigation" settlement letters designed to extract settlements without any need to enter a courtroom.3

But suing music fans has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits.4 And the lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma."
http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later

Research Shows Students View Music Piracy as Socially Acceptable - Idaho Examiner, 9/14/08

Research Shows Students View Music Piracy as Socially Acceptable:
"[University of Idaho researcher Darryl] Woolley said that piracy may not be perceived as an “immoral behavior” for students. They may not see it as unethical because they have no first-hand knowledge of prosecutions for piracy, and they may try to rationalize it because of financial situations. “They also view recording labels negatively and think that it does not hurt the recording artist,” he said."
http://www.idahoexaminer.com/reports/10057/research-shows-students-view-music-piracy-as-socially-acceptable