# Fighting copyright lawsuits by brute-force-creating "every melody"



## ReelToLogic (Mar 4, 2020)

I just watched an interesting YouTube video about a lawyer/composer named Damien Riehl who used an algorithm to "brute-force-create" every combination of 8 notes in a 1-octave range for a 12-note long melody. He and his colaborator created about 68 billion melodies that he then put on a hard drive to "copyright". He realizes that there are limitations to this work, so it's not actually "every" melody, but he's made the results of his work and the algorythm used available to the public so that others could build on it.

His hope is that it helps smaller composers fight against lawsuits of copyright infringement. Damien has a TED talk about this that I haven't listened to yet, but plan to do so. Don't know if this approach will help, but it's an interesting approach and worth a listen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfXn_ecH5Rw

EDIT: I've now watched Damien's TED talk (also available on YouTube - see below) and it gives more info than the interview linked above.


----------



## Ben H (Mar 4, 2020)

__





This guy is doing wonderful work


Loops - the legal headache




vi-control.net


----------



## nolotrippen (Mar 4, 2020)

Sounds like a musical and legal Trojan horse, not an asset to composers. Me: that sounds just like my song Mister Original. Court: no, it sounds generic to an already existing melody posted on YouTube by lawyers, er, musicians.


----------



## ReelToLogic (Mar 4, 2020)

I guess it all depends on your perspective. It won't help someone trying to sue for copyright infringement, but it could possibly help someone who was being sued. It seems like that has been the bigger concern in the news lately - infringement cases like Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” that many in the industry (and on this forum) were not happy about. I think that Damien's heart is in the right place, but it remains to be seen how this approach plays out.


----------



## Fredeke (Mar 4, 2020)

ReelToLogic said:


> I guess it all depends on your perspective. It won't help someone trying to sue for copyright infringement, but it could possibly help someone who was being sued. It seems like that has been the bigger concern in the news lately - infringement cases like Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” that many in the industry (and on this forum) were not happy about. I think that Damien's heart is in the right place, but it remains to be seen how this approach plays out.


That's exactly right.

Adam Neely made a video about it too.

The idea is: When you're sued by Big Music for copyright infringement, you can assert that they don't own the copyright because the copyright is already owned by Damien or someone else who's run a slightly different algorythm. Of course the algorythm-generated melody must be prior to the alleged infringed work, so that's a limitation. We should all start generating melodies with Damien's algo right now. And we'll need a database of these batches so any sued muscian can easily locate the relevant batch where a generation of the concerned melody is.

Then we must do this for grooves too.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 4, 2020)

If every song composed henceforth is in the public domain, this will eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but won't this also eliminate the composer royalty stream since no one can own a public domain song?


----------



## d.healey (Mar 4, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> but won't this also eliminate the composer royalty stream since no one can own a public domain song?


But you can own the mechanical and publishing rights to a particular sound recording of the public domain work.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 4, 2020)

Fredeke said:


> We should all start generating melodies with Damien's algo right now. (...) Then we must do this for grooves too.



You are joking, I hope.

I mean, you would honestly feel happier and safer, as a composer, because some _algorithmically created_ database of billions of tunes and rhythms can vouch for the unoriginality and blandness of your music?

Dear me.

I don't care if Riehl's heart is in the right place or not. That idea of his — the most preposterously weak-minded thing I've read in quite some time — is rather offensive, I find, to anyone who loves making music, particularly those who have talent and passion and who take pride in their work.

_


----------



## Fredeke (Mar 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> You are joking, I hope.
> 
> I mean, you would honestly feel happier and safer, as a composer, because some _algorithmically created_ database of billions of tunes and rhythms can vouch for the unoriginality and blandness of your music?
> 
> ...


It's a ironic/cynical response, for sure.
But maybe an efficient one?

I don't see why it would make my music bland. The goal is to generate all melodies that can exist, the bland and the moving alike. I'm not shocked that my music resembles music that can exist. The contrary would be impossible.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 4, 2020)

Not such an 'ironic' response after all, then.

Sigh.

And I wasn’t saying that it would make your music bland. I am saying that if you agree (and appear even willing to contribute) to an algorithmically created database of musical ideas to protect yourself (and fellow composers) a priori against possible accusations — rightful or wrongful — of musical tort or misdemeanor, if not actual creative barratry or socage in fief, then you don’t seem to take too much pride in the individuality of your work to begin with, it seems to me. Nor do you seem to care much for whatever it is that defines you as a musician and distinguishes you from others. Which I find regrettable to a degree, but not as offensively so as the fact that it also betrays a complete absence of respect for the creative aspirations and efforts of your colleagues, if not a total lack of love for Music itself.

Mind-bogglingly sad, if find all this. I really don’t get how any musician could ever go along with this demeaning imbecility.

Ah well, I guess that anyone who’s prepared to say ‘yes’ to something as humiliating and idiotic as Riehl’s idea, deserves to be considered, treated and valued algorithmically.

By the way, that goal you mention: only a lawyer, I suppose, could come up with such an unmusical, unintelligent, ignorant, vulgar, shameful and braindead concept as “let's collect all melodies than can exist”.

_


----------



## averystemmler (Mar 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> it also betrays a complete absence of respect for the creative aspirations and efforts of your colleagues, if not a total lack of love for Music itself.



Much like the frivolous lawsuits that inspired this. If they'd been laughed out of court as they should have been, we wouldn't be seeing (admittedly ridiculous) measures like Riehl's. I think he's the lesser of the two evils.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 4, 2020)

averystemmler said:


> (...) if they'd been laughed out of court as they should have been (...)



Entirely with you on that point, Avery. As I wrote some years ago, when the topic was discussed: if the utter insanity which made the Page and Pharrell/Thicke trials possible, had been rampant throughout music history, we wouldn't have _anything _to listen to today. Except some primeval drumming and a bit of lustful grunting.

_


----------



## averystemmler (Mar 4, 2020)

re-peat said:


> Except some primeval drumming and a bit of lustful grunting



Which have been making a comeback lately.


----------



## Sub3OneDay (Mar 4, 2020)

So disappointed.

I’ve spent a lot of my adult my life so far hoping that I’ve crafted my ability to a point where maybe I can create a tune that will tease out some emotional response in a listener only to learn that a computer algorithm has probably already put that onto tape.

Doubly disappointed that in the very unlikely event that a big studio comes after me (flattering though it maybe) telling me that I’ve already ripped off a classic tune, that I could defend my position by the give enough monkeys a typewriter eventually they’ll write Shakespeare argument.
Equally concerned that at some point some clever guy with an algorithm could come after pretty much all of us at some point saying he wrote it already.

May as well delete my ssd now and grow back to busking in the subway for a few quid a day.


----------



## Kony (Mar 4, 2020)

Some of this thread reads like:
"Lawyer tries to help musicians getting sued for copyright over generic melodies - lawyer gets attacked by musicians he's trying to help"


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2020)

Wasn’t there several high profile lawsuits that specifically the whole issue was that it was close enough to the original even though the Melody was not the same? One Marvin gaye
Another with happy.... remember?

Also that whole thing with the score of 300 that the men choir was a rip-off of the one in Titus even though the Melody was not the same? 

The whole premise was on intent. Not Melody


----------



## d.healey (Mar 4, 2020)

The US constitution allows a copyright system for the purpose of promoting the progress or art and science. Ultimately this is for the benefit of all citizens. Large publishers have twisted the system into one that promotes financial gain for themselves at the expense of progress.

The constitution also implies an exclusion for non-humans having a copyright, so this would include computers. I don't know how that would affect public domain works created by a computer though.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 4, 2020)

d.healey said:


> But you can own the mechanical and publishing rights to a particular sound recording of the public domain work.



You'd still be able to collect master recording owner royalties and artist performance royalties, but, since the song itself would be in the public domain, you would not be eligible to claim full composer or any publisher royalties.

This is all hypothetical of course. I'd think that if this music project took hold and actually placed every future melody in the public domain, the change to the music industry would be so earth-shattering that PROs would restructure royalties for all songs created after a specific date.


----------



## Fredeke (Mar 5, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> If every song composed henceforth is in the public domain, this will eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but won't this also eliminate the composer royalty stream since no one can own a public domain song?





re-peat said:


> Not such an 'ironic' response after all, then.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> ...


I don't see it that way, but you both have a point.

Like @re-peat , I find this an imbecility. But an imbecility to fight another imbecility. I understand not everybody likes that. I do. It triggers the mischievous in me - and rest assured I aim my mischief at copyright claim abusers, not at follow musicians or myself.

Anyway, the real world benefit remains to be seen... I suppose the idea was more prompting discussions like this one, than providing us with a working legal weapon.

So, if you want a more serious opinion from me:

A preferable, less cynical, and probably more effective strategy would be to constitute *a musicians' union against frivolous copyright claims*, so we could all fight along a colleague when (s)he is unfairly sued. Big Copyright would think twice before suing if they knew they'll get all musicians to unite means against them every time.

I would actually like that, much better than this. But we haven't done that yet, and meanwhile this lawyer has done this - and I'm not going to blame him for at least trying something.

All we musicians have been doing is rant, so far.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 5, 2020)

ReelToLogic said:


> every combination of 8 notes in a 1-octave range for a 12-note long melody



... seems to be the right time to concentrate on quarter tone scales, from now on.


----------



## GdT (Mar 5, 2020)

Sub3OneDay said:


> May as well delete my ssd now and grow back to busking in the subway for a few quid a day.


 I was very happy busking in the subway all those years ago. And nobody asked to to pay any royalties on the songs I sung 🐬


----------



## ReelToLogic (Mar 6, 2020)

I finally got around to watching Damien's TED talk (available on YouTube - link below) and it reinforced to me that he has good intentions, is NOT a copyright troll, and is trying to look out for song writers. He makes some very interesting points, but it remains to be seen how this plays out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 6, 2020)

GdT said:


> I was very happy busking in the subway all those years ago. And nobody asked to to pay any royalties on the songs I sung 🐬




anywhere theres music the establishment pays a blanket fee. not the artist. subway not sure though. some have or used to have speakers w music.


----------



## mac4d (Mar 17, 2020)

Judge Wipes Out $2.8M Copyright Verdict Against Katy Perry, Capitol Records


More than a half a year after a California jury stunned the music world by punishing Katy Perry for ripping off a Christian rapper’s song, a judge finds there was nothing protectable to infri…




www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------

