Quote:
Originally Posted by
btrswtluvltr
➡️
Japan added the allowed use to IP law. In my proposal, if music is released with an encumbranced codec, it can only be used legally by following that encumbrance. Think open source. Someone can't later claim they don't have to follow the license to the source code if you can only get it as open source. If you could only obtain a song via agreement to follow the 'no AI training' emcomberance, which the codec automatically attaches via it's use agreement, you are now legally encumbered under that requirement. It moves from IP law to contract law. And AI companies are going to have a hard time stripping contract law (unless they win at pitting every country against each other in a music AI war as a national security need).
Theoretically, you could release the source code of the decoder under a license that restricts the use under certain circumstances (similar to the GPL that requires you to also provide the source code of an derived code).
This wouldn’t prevent anyone from writing their own decoder that can read the files, reverse engineering them. For this, you would need to have a patent on the codec or use some form of DRM. Both are not desirable, imho. Patents expire anyway, and DRM is just restricting the buyers/users.
Also, it would be pretty much impossible in practice, at least on a bigger commercial level, as the streaming services would never agree that anyone provides them with files that deny them using those for training their own models.
(And by the way, the result of those is not necessarily always bad, e.g. stem separation, a tool that many wouldn’t want to do without any more in music production, wouldn’t have been possible without training on millions of songs).