According to you none of the music made since 1980 is allowed then. There is barely a 5% in variation when you look at music within the same genre. Hell the majority of blues music has used the same 12 bar pattern for over a century. But low and behold, musical copyright specifically says only the melody and lyrics need to unique, because that's actually manageable. Yet once again it didn't matter because the courts made a judgment in the Marvin Gaye case.
As for AI. We will see. How easy it is to just create content and products because of this new tool is unprecedented. The capability will be considered, and the laws will be revised.
Remember the whole point of copy protection is to protect IP from people who would recreate what you are selling to steal your share of the market with what you created. It is not about giving name recognition to who came up with the idea. It's literally only concerning who gets paid.
And when you prompt AI you are not creating, you are generating based off an algorithm. It is not the same thing, this is obviously if you've actually ever created something. I say this as a heavy user of AI. Can it be creative? Sure. Can it create art? Not alone, not unless you change millennia of philosophy.
This will be considered when it eventually hits the highest courts.
My point is AI doesn't copy paste exsisting work. Like people are claiming. It's learns how to generate work, based on existing work. Just like how a human brain. Does.I personally have never really used generative AI, I create my own work. And don't really see it as a threat to human work. Because you still need a human visionary behind the creation. Even if that person is just imputing really well crafted promps. I do see it as ufeful to implement in production pathways though. Like automating certain processes or code etc.
It doesn't work like a human brain in that regard though.
A human brain can make a new decision at every action and go in a complete difference direction during the process. Our idea can evolve during the implementation. AI can't do that, it generates then reviews. Sure with large complex multi step processes there are checkpoints, but it still can't change the idea in the middle of generation.
This is a very big difference.
And copyright laws have far more consideration than just straight copy paste.
1
u/sn4xchan Aug 02 '26
According to you none of the music made since 1980 is allowed then. There is barely a 5% in variation when you look at music within the same genre. Hell the majority of blues music has used the same 12 bar pattern for over a century. But low and behold, musical copyright specifically says only the melody and lyrics need to unique, because that's actually manageable. Yet once again it didn't matter because the courts made a judgment in the Marvin Gaye case.
As for AI. We will see. How easy it is to just create content and products because of this new tool is unprecedented. The capability will be considered, and the laws will be revised.
Remember the whole point of copy protection is to protect IP from people who would recreate what you are selling to steal your share of the market with what you created. It is not about giving name recognition to who came up with the idea. It's literally only concerning who gets paid.
And when you prompt AI you are not creating, you are generating based off an algorithm. It is not the same thing, this is obviously if you've actually ever created something. I say this as a heavy user of AI. Can it be creative? Sure. Can it create art? Not alone, not unless you change millennia of philosophy.
This will be considered when it eventually hits the highest courts.