To me the blog post feels as though AI has had significant input in the writing. Whether it's entirely AI written or AI ideated with some human input on the writing I don't know. So it's not really a surprise to see this sort of statement.
I’m sure I read something about NEW SIRI somewhere. Siri isn’t just falling short, it seems to be getting actively and progressively more useless. My HomePod speakers take about 10 seconds to respond now and often get things wrong.
Does anyone use their phone “like an actual phone” anymore, as in held to their ear?
Most people I see out and about are either using face time, or inexplicably speaking in speakerphone and holding the flat, face up, with the bottom of the phone towards to their mouth in a weird awkward way, or they are using headphones, wired or wireless.
Knowledge diffusion was definitely crippled in the UK after 1710, and significantly restricted innovation.
Most of the things that were invented after 1710 were pretty trivial. Things like the spinning jenny, the steam engine, water powered weaving, wrought iron, steam locomotion, the electric telegraph, the lightbulb, waterproof fabric, the hydraulic press, the telephone. Imagine what else could have been achieved if copyright didn't incentivise authors and publishers to disseminate knowledge by allowing them to sell books, magazines and news sheets.
So actually, your remixed music you could play live, as a DJ.
But to SELL it you’d need the permission of the songwriters and record labels, and probably agree some sort of split on the royalties. But is that actually so unreasonable, given it is their work you’re using? Have you sent them your remixes and asked if you can release them?
> So actually, your remixed music you could play live, as a DJ.
No, you can't. You have to procure a license to DJ publicly. A Public Performance License is offered by most of the major music conglomerates, or you have to find a venue that has or will pay for such a license. Profiting off infringement worsens your situation legally, but any copying and distribution by any means of copyrighted material is illegal without a license.
Yes - sorry, I should have been more precise and said "in a licensed venue".
One additional point, in response to your comment: public performance licences are for events or venues, not DJs.
So if you are DJing in club, you are covered. Indeed, there are even specific technologies that log what DJs are playing, built into DJ hardware, and report back to collective licensing bodies so that the rights holders in the tracks played and mixed are properly compensated.
However, my point was less about the intricacies of licensing, and more about the ability to play the music to people under a "blanket" licence. There is no equivalent licensing framework for releasing remixes as recordings.
> Have you sent them your remixes and asked if you can release them?
You have no idea what you are talking about. If something’s technically possible, it doesn’t mean that it is possible in reality or that people haven’t tried what you propose.
But I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking.
YouTube is a directly negotiated licence - ie it doesn’t fall under any of the statutory blankets, and is licensed territory by territory. Most rights holders are able to license for multiplied territories and often globally. But if soemthing was not licensed for a particular territory in which you were based you would not be able to watch the music video.
The recording and publishing need to be separately licensed by the record label and publisher(s), with the performance and mechanicals handled differently, and potentially flowing via a CMO or mechanical licensing society. The video will be provided by the record label - and they generally own the copyright in the video as a work for hire. If there are sample in the recording they will have been cleared by the label for both the recording and publishing. If there’s an interpolation of a song that will be negotiated and licensed with the publisher(s) or writers as a derivative work.
YouTube uses Content ID to identify the works being exploited, and uses that to account to rights holders.
I didn’t say it was a perfect system. I often say, professionally, that the infrastructure around music rights and licensing is insanely complicated - and as you have personally experienced it can be very frustrating, confusing and dispiriting for creators. But I’m not really sure what the alternative would look like.
But what does “available on the market” mean? Let’s say I own the copyright to something of cultural significance. I make it “available on the market” but at a very high price. Or are you saying that the price would be enforced?
1. “Curated” implies human oversight but this is written by AI
2. “Work during internet blackout” implies “can communicate with others if the internet is blacked out” and yet your AI has a whole section about tools which “evade filtering on a functioning internet connection — none of them work during a full shutdown”.
Inclusion and exclusion are my decisions, made by hand.
AI tooling assists with drafting text and cross-checking licenses, audit citations, and project status. I've added a note on this to the README.
On the second point: censorship and shutdowns are listed as separate scopes, and the circumvention section states up front that those tools don't work in a full shutdown.
Thanks for the critique, it helps me improve the list.
reply