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

I really think in a few years we should end copyrights lasting beyond the life of the last living author. The only exceptions I would offer is 5 years for new works discovered after death with proceeds going to immediate heirs (Spouse, Children, Siblings or Parents only). So if 1000 new Prince songs become available, his heirs would get 5 years of copyright ownership then on to public domain.

I think films should be 10 years. Images and other individual works would also be life plus 5 for new works released after death. That might cause heirs to release entire collections after someone dies. The idea is that our culture NEEDS the content added into free use for the public good. We need way more focus on the arts and we need new works by living artists as well as new works based on older works for society as a whole. I know most commercially successful people would be against this, but what we have now is a disaster. So many works become orphaned and will NEVER be released to the public because of fear of legal action should a rightful owner pop up based on our destructive and archaic laws. It isn't worth even an occasional lawsuit to make older works public domain when litigious jerks abuse the system. Disney is to blame for the unreasonable extensions. If you want all our cr5eations to be A.I., then keep human creations off limits for 70-80 or whatever number of years until they are forgotten. It happens to millions of creative works every year. They are just lost forever.

"I really think in a few years we should end copyrights lasting beyond the life of the last living author" - Brian


Terrible idea Brian! Although ASCAP will like not having to pay royalties any longer. I bet several decades ago you thought differently. Now you embrace the AI production of music. Thus, why you’ve changed. Leaving my music & royalties to my sons gives me a heartwarming feeling. A great gift to leave them. So, why cut this short Brian, why not make all one's property and savings public ownership after one dies? No different.

On a similar note, it’s sad to see so many of my old school friends changing their beliefs. Most of my friends were conservatives back then. Now I see so many of them are far left with Socialist’s views. I reckon now that they’re old, they want government to take care of them.

John

I'm with you on this one John. Leaving behind property (in what ever form) to living relatives should be a right of the one that created it

I think we are in a changing world. But I have NEVER been for the Disney created life +70 years nonsense distopia we are in now. It used to be just long enough for creators families to benefit while they move on with life. Now it is a corporatized bludgeon against everyone. Here is the scariest truth: A.I. literally creates and copyrights (under a corporate banner) every possible melodic presentation of music. THAT is what is literally happening right now. I do not believe anyone except the creator and their direct human lineage should have control of a copyright. ZERO protections for anyone other than the creator and perhaps (if written with teeth) a short time afterwards for direct family to benefit, sort of like life insurance. Meanwhile, there would also be a range of time for new works never released prior to the death of a copyright holder to be released by actual family for a set time period upon first release. That would allow inheritors of the works of a creator to properly archive, present and ensure the survival of unpublished works. But this timing should also be limited to a discovery and first publication. After X number of years, those unpublished works would automatically be public domain.

We are about to see a number of works added to the "commercial" space in amounts we can't even imagine. Literally millions of songs an hour are being created already. As it improves, there will no longer even be a point to discussing human or robot because there will be 10,000,000,000 robot works for every 1 a human creates. It will make up all the "charts" it will be used for free by other TYPES of creators who will get paid for expertise in ways we do not even yet imagine. But people will earn more on active skills than passively for prior works.

We will not see the end of artificially controlled "commercial" spaces. Things like Spotify and iTunes are 100% controlled by powers who make money, not music. When private companies control the numbers, they can tell us anything and we can't refute it. I can listen to the current Top 40 songs and find 3-5 that have true chart topping merit, and I have probably the widest music pallette of 99.99% of people and have heard more artists music than likely anyone else alive. (I would LOVE to meet any one else anywhere close to me simply to compare notes). But when I can find no true merit in the chart yet plenty of amazing songs nearly anywhere else I look, then you know it is just a money game and little else. Pay to play, sex for play, selling soul for pay, on and on. It is all fake.

SO what is VALUABLE... selling music or playing and creating music? I say it is ALL about the later. The benefit to humans is not whether Taylor Swift Inc. or Rap Artist du jour Inc. make more money, it is if more and more people can engage in the joys of creating something. That is the only golden lining in this story. And that is not a bad default.

Well, there’s really no problem here Brian. The composers, songwriters, artists, publishers, record companies, etc. well never stand for it. Well, maybe somewhere far in the future when there won’t be such a thing as property rights. It seems the only motive for such action is to make the AI people feel legit. Until then, my music will be my property. And I can leave it to my heirs.

“SO what is VALUABLE... selling music or playing and creating music?” Brian
Both, if one wants to get paid for their hard work. I knew an editor of a local paper once. He loved writing weekly commentaries. But NO ONE in the business would ever consider not paying him.

“Literally millions of songs an hour are being created already. As it improves, there will no longer even be a point to discussing human or robot because there will be 10,000,000,000 robot works for every 1 a human creates” – Brian
People who license my music want it to be cleared. My publisher takes responsibility for that. And there’s a strong market for legitimate music, without worries of lawsuits.

BTW, what a lousy world it will be when all creative minds are put to rest.

Best, John

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

Hey, Brian, wow, that’s a lot of reading. Thank goodness I have an AI summarizer. I copied & pasted your reply into the summarizer, and it gave me an audio synopsis of its content. I’m sure it was accurate.
No, of course I didn’t use a summarizer. I used my brain.

Synths, samplers, effects, electric instruments, electronic gizmos, etc., are all legitimate tools of the composer. They don’t compose for you. They still require compositional skills and a creative mind. And the technology is bought and paid for – not stolen. I know, we disagree on the meaning of “stolen”.

I read where AI is trained in creating more AI. Stalking the web and stealing intellectual property from anyone to everyone... Anyone who believes in property rights should be appalled by the way it gathers and swallows up stolen goods.

Your viewpoint was well articulated in the legendary Brian Austin Whitney style. I’m just looking at this technology from a different perspective. From a victim’s perspective – ha, ha.

Anyway, I don’t think I have anything to worry about in the short time I have left on Earth. I just feel sorry for the young, inspired composers that have less opportunities than I did.

I’ll keep doing what I’ve been doing since my teen years. Composing at the piano with pen and manuscript. And loving every moment of it.

John

A couple of things:
First: did you notice they spelled "midia" instead of "media" in the link? (cancel that I just saw the where the article got it's info)

Second: My only problem with AI is philosophical. It's like seeing a beautiful house made of stone and knowing that the stone is resin and it covers chicken wire and Styrofoam. If you don't know about the resin it looks like a solid structure that took skilled craftsman a long time to build and you would pay handsomely for it. If you do know about the resin and chicken wire you would want to pay considerably less.

Third: in the last few years I have had several friends pass away. They were all fantastic songwriters. I am keeping some of their music alive by playing covers. The thing is that many of the songs were never recorded by the writers, or submitted for copyright. I also know several "professional" songwriters who write to get published and have succeeded. I can tell the difference in the writing. AI does not have a heart and soul. When you use your mind to write but not your heart, it may sound good, but it may sound hollow. Unless AI also has a AH it will always be just a tool for people with actual minds and hearts to use. The streaming folks are betting that most people are in line with "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" or "That was good, give me more of the same" .

Lastly: If AI can (or will be able to) mash up anything that has ever been into a Frankenstein type of music or movie at the whim of users, that is not creativity. It's regurgitation. The steak might taste as good the second time around, but the third or fourth will have you out looking for a fresh piece of meat to chew. That is unless you lose your teeth or prefer steak from a blender.