JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Songwriter payouts - Vanity article

John,

The same talent that writes a song today will be using advanced tools to make new music tomorrow. There is very little purely man made music already. Synths, Samplers, Effects, Electric Instruments, Electronic gizmos used in every aspect. Digital editing and mixing and EQ and spatial editing on and on and on. How is any of that "man made?" The answer is that it is ALL man made because man created all the tools in the firt place. No one will stop anyone from composing exactly like Mozart did using the same tools and nothing more. Is that man made music? People rave about the Beatles but they used multi track recording which allowed them to record parts, mix parts, punch in to fix parts, reverse parts, add crazy effects and arrangement tricks and so on. That is a world different than the original recordings where a microphone picked up all the players and vocals in one take all at the same time all playing acoustic instruments. Now we have DAWs and midi Keyboards and plugins that automate every aspect of music creation. Need a violin solo? No problem, that is patch 119. Need a woodwind section? No problem that is patch 83 of the sampled BBC Orchestra. How is that better or more "real" than me telling an A.I. to play a C chord or a melody I supply? How about when rich artists and labels hire the same session players to play on nearly every song on the radio? How is that legit creation by the named artist who did very little themselves. Why can't we make those tracks using our technology rather than paying a hired gun who isn't even mentioned on the recording? Now someone will still get paid each step of the way for their human ingenuity, it will just be a different learned skills. The most talented and creative people will still make the most interesting music and make the money that comes with it. The smartest programmers who make the best tools will also make money. How is this any different? No one will stop people from doing it like the Beatles, or Mozart or Nine Inch Nails. But if people like the results of new technology more than those using old technology, are we supposed to draw a red line and prevent anyone from using more advanced tools than they already use now? Why?

Covered wagons had their day. Then cars. Something will replace those eventually and life goes on. How can we accept the very advanced music creation tools used now but reject the new ones and not be hypocrites? In the end, it doesn't matter what we think. We will soon be gone from earth and they will do as they please regardless of our objections just like we ignore the objections of previous generations.

I think you are against someone just pushing a button and music coming out. I understand, but that is not what A.I. music creation will be. Someone will still write a melody and lyrics and have a copyright. So who is harmed? If you use A.I. created words AND music, then you own nothing. That music cannot receive a copyright without human intervention. The laws will catch up to the technology, but we already have the model. Words plus Melody equals a composition. Melody alone also constitutes a composition. For that matter, words alone are also protected. No rights will be lost. The problem is that corporation already do not pay fairly and when they can automate ANY job out of existence, they will. So we can kick and scream, but they will inevitably create compositions only the corporation owns without writers involved to use for their projects. It will start unfortunately with music that hits your specialty. Incidental background music will likely be the first hit Then top 40 radio/streaming Artists who can perform will continue to be in demand, but fully automated music with automated video and A.I. generate humanoids will likely compete directly with humans. In our lifetime, humans will still be around, but once they perfect artistic replication, A.I. will be able to create unlimited new music "in the production style, voice and play style" of any artist who licenses themselves for it. Kiss is the first major artist to fully embrace artistic immortality. Some will decline, but ironically, their heir will eventually license their work. Here is why I think we should limit Copyright duration. Currently, over 90% of ALL books, music compositions and many films are being lost forever by not entering the Public Domain quickly enough. Unless complete proof of eligibility for public domain exists, those works become orphaned and if they are not placed in the public domain, they essentially disappear forever. It is a tragedy and loss of human ingenuity and creativity that SHOULD be enriching all future generations. If your music isn't cleared because they cannot verify for sure no one will have a claim to it, it is simply discarded and lost. And as we enter into mass market music and books eras for public domain, we are seeing tremendous losses that are staggering. These Disney extended copyright dates that they bought off politicians to adopt, are destroying our history and once a work is orphaned, and no living person has 100% knowledge and PROOF of its history and ownership, it is gone forever. Look into it. It is an epidemic