![]() ![]() It could be even technically possible for artists to be able to flag their own work from being sampled by artists that exploit certain themes, or even any artists at all. maybe, maaaybe it would be somewhat less than they could earn with current system, but really it depends. And if the track gets a lot of recognition, well, then sampled artists get a lot of money. If it gets some recognition, the sampled artists get some small(er) earnings which they are not getting now. If the resulting track doesn't get recognition, doesn't get monetized - it's basically fair use, like today's fair use. It would use the AI inspected data and percentage (so Daft Punk in a system like that would recieve only about 20-25 percent of the earnings for their tracks like "One More Time". monetization would be passed through PFOs (kinda like it's done today with movie soundtracks) which would split earnings between authors of the original samples and the creator who did the sampling.prior to any monetization some AI like the one in the original post would inspect the said music for derivative work/samples/etc and calculate the usage percentage/impact/creativity value (as a machine-learning enthusiast I'm quite sure this is more or less possible today). ![]() artists would sample other artists and be able to instantly monetize the resulting music through PFOs (imagine services like Youtube, Spotify etc being part of a PFO too).For example, let's imagine a rough draft of a monetization system that would go something like this: I'm pretty certain at this point in time we have the tech to do all this better. Learn some synthesis so you understand how to make different sounds. Stop copying and using other people's shit and make something original for once. Make you own sounds, create your own samples, or use things around you or instruments/synths/vsts to create your own samples, loops, progressions, chords, melodies, basslines etc. I don't understand why this is an issue for you. Does that require a cost outside of me owning the drum stick and frying pan or a DAW into which I can add midi? No. ![]() I can record that sound, or I can just load up a synth and add some midi. I can take my drum stick and bang it against my frying pan and guess what?, I got a sound. It is absolutely free expression and sharing of art. What you are saying is complete and utter bs. Making music does not require any type of cost. I think my main irritation about this is the idea that making music requires a 'cost' and can't simply be the free expression and sharing of art. Like, how far do you think we're off from patenting a vaccine, and suing other companies for infringing their creation? On a side note, I've always been curious what the laws are in the graphic world about duplication? For example, if I took a picture of the Eiffel tower that looked exactly like another photographer's picture of the Eiffel tower would I be infringing on their copyright? I suppose you could go one further and say should the designer of the Eiffel tower be credited in every iteration of the Eiffel tower in media? These are obviously massive reaches but I think that conversations about our concept of ownership, commercialisation, and intellectual property need to be had before we shoot ourselves in the foot ![]() I get that humans like to be recognised for their work, and I'm not against laws that protect duplicate works, but I've always been against the idea that everything needs to be priced, especially when it comes to art. I have a similar irritation about scientific articles being behind paywalls, because it feels like we as a species have chosen accumulation of wealth over sharing of creativity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |