General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEvery possible melody has just been copyrighted and released to the public domain
http://www.openculture.com/2020/03/every-melody-has-been-copyrighted-and-theyre-now-released-into-the-public-domain.htmlMaybe what the law has not considered, says Riehl, is that since the beginning of time, the number of melodies is remarkably finite. Rather than inventing out of whole cloth, artists choose melodies from an already extant melodic dataset to which everyone potentially has mental access. Now, everyone could potentially have legal access. By committing melodic data to a tangible format, Samantha Cole reports at Vice, its considered copyrighted. Or as Riehl explains:
Under copyright law, numbers are facts, and under copyright law, facts either have thin copyright, almost no copyright, or no copyright at all. So maybe if these numbers have existed since the beginning of time and we're just plucking them out, maybe melodies are just math, which is just facts, which is not copyrightable.
Riehl and Rubin have released their billions of melodies under a Creative Commons Zero license, meaning they have no rights reserved and are similar to public domain. Available as open-source downloads on Github and the Internet Archive, along with the code for the algorithm the artists used to make them, the dataset might actually have sidestepped the problem of musical copyright infringement with technology, though whether the law, writes Cole, with its complicated and often nonsensical application, will agree is another issue entirely.
msongs
(67,433 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)msongs
(67,433 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)lame54
(35,313 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The copyright is asserted by the release
lapfog_1
(29,219 posts)so I am pretty sure that is what they did.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)If the melodies are truly "every possible melody," they already infringe all of the melodies in existence. While it is possible that the rights holders to those melodies could sue Riehl and Rubin, what is more likely is that a person claiming license to a particular melody that is part of an earlier copyrighted melody will sue and the license will be worth what the user paid for it. I.e. nothing.
hunter
(38,323 posts)The algorithm works much like mp3 and other music compression algorithms do. It discards the stuff humans (in general) don't like, along with the stuff we don't notice.
Personally I think melodies are a lot like book titles. It's what you do with them that counts.
Maybe I don't think melodies are anything special because I can never get them out of my head. They just come to me. I can even bang them out on the piano, guitar, or computer. But that doesn't make me a composer or a musician.
It's like writing. Some of the saddest people on the internet spew out "ideas" for movie scripts or books they never get around to producing. They don't even get around to writing slash or other fan fiction. Nobody is going pay for that. Nobody is even going to look at it.
Oh! Oh! I have this great idea where Spock and Kirk are LOVERS!
I was witness to some of the first slash being written and posted to the internet. It's utterly astonishing to me how many people have claimed it as their own...
I also have seen bits of my own ancient software turning up. It's maybe 70% parallel evolution, and 30% deplorables.
My parents are artists. They do the hard work and sometimes get paid for it. They are now retired and can be artists full time but they always had day jobs. Same with a few of my siblings. My wife is an artist with a day job.
Copyright and patent law gets a lot right, but it gets more wrong and sometimes this impedes human progress.
I always respect copyrights but if someone is charging a price I'm not willing to pay (Apple, Microsoft...), or making demands of me I'm not willing to accept (the military-industrial complex...), then I simply avoid them.
The walls in our house our covered with art we've bought directly from artists. Our CD collection is similar. My computers run Linux.
It amuses me that some of the most pirated intellectual property on earth is crap.
erronis
(15,326 posts)Seriously, what you say rings true to me.
Most of art is perspiration and a bit of inspiration. Most of us daydream our way to the ends of our lives without trying to create something that is meaningful, at least to ourselves.
Anything that stands in the way of lawyers making money off of everything they can is OK by me!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Nope.
Unlike patents, wherein independent creation is irrelevant, copyright infringement requires copying. Access and similarity can be evidence of copying.
However, if these melodies were generated as the output of an algorithm, then they were independently created and not copied.
As long as they can prove the paper trail of independent creation, there is no infringement.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)But as long as you can prove the paper trail, of independent creation you don't need this collection. You have your own individual copyright on the tune you created (independent of an earlier author and independent of this collection).
Artists who are truly innovating aren't copying - so they have no reason to seek a license to use tunes from this new collection, unless they had heard an earlier artist and wanted a license from somewhere else to establish they had a right to use it.
Generation by an algorithm may also invalidate the copyright because of the lack of creative spark - which is another layer of issues.
lapfog_1
(29,219 posts)and then released them into the public domain.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Also, "copyright" is a noun, not a verb and "copyrighted" and "copyrightable" are not words.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)For what that's worth:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/copyright?s=t
Dr. Strange
(25,922 posts)If you pronounce it in just the right way.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Copyright is the "right to copy." People have misused the word for so long that it is common to be used as a verb or adjective. But it's not either of those things and those words have no legal meaning, even if dictionaries have given in to the common usage.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)As a legal term, I have no doubt that you're correct.
But common usage is language, and in common usage "copyrighted" and "copyrightable" are certainly words. Not with any legal weight, but words nonetheless.
I'm also quite confident that, in some courtroom somewhere, some lawyer has uttered the word "copyrightable" without getting blasted upside the head by the judge's gavel.
Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)Recording studios, musicians, songwriters, engineers, producers, distributors and marketers are what cost $$$.
This is a very interesting development.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)Edited.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)Thats what Im saying.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)but obviously failed, so never mind.
msongs
(67,433 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,322 posts)docgee
(870 posts)Given the spacing between notes can be of infinite variations. Also, they probability violated the copyright of existing copyrighted music.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)maxrandb
(15,347 posts)"I don't mind, other guys ripping off my song,
I'd be a liar, if I said I never done no wrong.
All this sound that we share, has already been played,
And it hangs in the air.
All this music must fade
Who gives a fuck"
https://m.
Goodheart
(5,335 posts)Plagiarism of melodies is for the most part bullshit.
Arthur_Frain
(1,855 posts)nt
hunter
(38,323 posts)http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html