[eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)

[Antoine Schmitt]

Hi Paul,
happy to read a more detailed argument on your part...
Actually, I don't disagree with most of what you say, except maybe on 
the point which we discussed at the beginning : I really do trust 
right management societies to bend or change (now or in the future) 
the law in order to get to manage generative music rights once 
generative music generates a significant enough flux of money. Then 
our erudite chatter about whether or not an algorithm is a written 
composition will just melt in the sun.
As for the commercial potential of generative music, I am totally 
convinced of it. That was my whole point in releasing the "infinite 
CD for unlimited music" in 1999 : it was (almost) the first time that 
a generative music system could be run on a standard PC. I naively 
thought that the music industry would jump on the concept rightaway 
;-) .. Well all is not lost yet...

And just to be clear, Alex : I don't think that generative music 
_should_ be infinite. I am actually quite sentitive to the point that 
what makes the music is its end. But even though, why not infinite 
generative music ?

Also another point : the programmer of the generative music is 
clearly the author of the music (of all the music that comes out of 
the program). The program is not the author. Since Marcel Duchamp, it 
is the intention that makes the author. And programs don't have 
intentions.


:::::::::16/10/05::::15:08 +0100::::Paul Brown:::::::::
>Hi Antoine,
>
>I take your point and apologise if you found it offensive or bullish. I
>was simply and, in hindsight, clumsily trying to end the debate about
>the copyright issue. Old habits it would appear die hard. My music
>industry background has taught me to seek the advice that best fits the
>problem or issue that you are trying to resolve, stick to it hammer and
>tooth and if challenged suggest that the challengers seek legal advice
>themselves. In many cases they would come back with advice that
>contradicted the advice that you had sought (lawyers for you!) but I can
>assure you that the responses to the same question concurred!
>
>It has a faint smell of arrogance, I know, and you may well say that I
>received positive responses from them because they were interested in
>profiting from future potential business but the issue of copyright or
>the non-existence of copyright in what I term "pure" generative works is
>an important commercial factor in driving forward the scenarios I am
>suggesting where "pure" generative music systems might be better placed
>to substitute what I term linear music systems in everyday situations.
>
>Basically, if no copyright subsists in the music generated by the
>generative music system the end user, the bar, restaurant, gym owner etc
>etc would not need to have to have a licence from either the PRS or PPL
>for his or her premises. Further benefits, that may offset the cost of
>installing a generative music system and its array of associated sensors
>in the premises, could be that you could theoretically create
>"tailor-made" music that was more appropriate for and more adaptable to
>the situation or environment for which it was intended therefore
>enhancing the clienteles' experience of the music and in turn also
>benefiting the owner financially by having more clientele through the
>door etc.
>
>Yes, it is a little bit out there and maybe I have put two and two
>together to make five and have too much confidence in the potential for
>generative music. If you do think so I would gladly like to hear from
>you and for you to tell me why. If the whole idea completely revolts you
>and you think that the ideas are yet another nail in the coffin for
>artists please let me know and let me know why. You may consider that
>thinking in such commercial or business terms is completely repugnant
>and goes against the grain of what you believe generative music, or
>generative art in general, is or is intended for. If so please tell me.
>You might think that it is completely immoral, unethical and yet another
>step towards a bland, sterile and homogeneous world and simply
>Macdonaldagapastarbucksakfcadisation in sheep's clothing. Again, please
>tell me.
>
>I, on the other hand, would like to think that (until you convince me
>otherwise!), in time, the scenarios that I am suggesting could happen
>and if so I would like to be prepared and start to build a structure in
>advance to support it so that any income generated goes in the right
>rather than the wrong direction. Technological advances after all move
>much faster than the business models created to support them and as a
>consequence businesses are always playing catch up and loosing money as
>a consequence. It would be nice to reverse, if only temporarily, this
>trend. Hence the question about the algorithms, their nature and their
>importance in generative music systems. What is your definition of an
>algorithm in the context of generative music systems?
>
>Thanks again,
>Regards,
>Paul
>
>
>p.s. and if still relevant within the thread the definition I like to
>use for generative music, in any case, is:
>
>"Generative music is commonly agreed to describe music in which a system
>or process is composed to generate music rather than the composition of
>the direct musical event which will result from that system.  The
>generative composer has only indirect control the final musical result,
>and the creativity of the compositional process is found in the
>decisions about how the system will operate and the rules inside the
>system"(Rich 2003)
>
>I would go further and say that the music created, the "pure" generative
>music, is not fixed in anyway i.e. the final output it is not recorded.
>"Pure" generative music constantly evolves, adapts and changes in
>real-time based on the rules that the composer implements and often by
>external data that combined with those rules influences its development
>further. By changing the nature of the sounds used, the rhythm, scales
>and dynamics the generative music piece could appear to pass through a
>number of distinct, separate compositions throughout the course of its
>evolution. I believe that a "pure" generative music piece simply ends
>when it is no longer relevant for purpose for which it was created, when
>it has outlived its usefulness or everybody goes home and the caretaker
>switches off the lights, and the duration of the piece is not fixed in
>the conventional sense. I believe as a generative music composer you
>have to be less precious about the ends and concentrate more on the
>means so that future pieces created by the system or new systems that
>you go on to create remain fresh, interesting and relevant for the
>purpose that it was created. As a generative music composer you also
>have to accept that you may never hear again the piece that your system
>has just created no matter how wonderful, original and groundbreaking
>you thought it was.
>
>Musicians/composers who use generative music systems as tools in the
>recording studio to make linear recordings are doing just that, using
>them as tools. As soon as generative music is recorded it becomes a
>linear recording, fixed and lifeless.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: eu-gene-bounces at generative.net
>[mailto:eu-gene-bounces at generative.net] On Behalf Of Antoine Schmitt
>Sent: 16 October 2005 02:18
>To: generative art
>Subject: RE: [eu-gene] Psst...Wanna Buy an Algorithm? (Working Title)
>
>:::::::::15/10/05::::14:23 +0100::::Paul Brown:::::::::
>>Thanks for your reply. All I can suggest regarding the copyright issue
>>is that you take a look at (you are UK based right?) the Copyright
>>Designs And Patents Act 1988, Copyright and Related Rights Regulations
>>2003 and take further advice from a lawyer if you need further
>>clarification. PRS have a legal referral service where various UK
>>lawyers have agreed to give advice to PRS members, without charge, for
>>up to one hour at the first meeting.
>>Hopefully your other questions have been answered either directly or
>>indirectly by Nick Collins' response.
>
>Hey Paul,
>so you come to a generative art mailing-list that existed long before
>you, and ask about people's ideas about generative music and rights,
>and when they, with their personal experience - and not the least,
>express point of views that don't fit yours, you just refer them to a
>lawyer... That's not a very constructive attitude I think.
>I think that your basic error is to think that law is an exact
>science. It is not : laws are always interpreted, and laws change,
>there are grey areas and your are, interestingly, adressing an issue
>right in the middle of one such grey area.
>--
>
>++ as
>
>--
>'The world is actually pear shaped'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>
>
>--
>'The world is actually pear shaped'
>To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
>http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene


-- 

++ as