> A series of notes is not an idea, it's a composition.

You're missing the nuance. You should watch Adam Neely's latest video on music and copyright.

To elaborate slightly, there's the idea of the series of notes, and there's the actual composition of the series of notes, and there's a performance by some artist of the series of notes.

1. The idea of the series of notes is not copyrightable. If it was somehow an invention it might actually be patentable, but intellectual property is not exactly what we're discussing.

2. The composition of the series of notes, written down or fixed to some media in some form, is copyrightable. And the author of the composition owns the copyright as soon as they generate the work.

3. The performance of the composition, if recorded, is copyright of the person making the recording.

Now here's my commentary.

On 1: some people think that the idea of the series of notes is what you copyright when you write the notes down. This is false. But society is incredibly confused on this topic, as the existence of multiple copyright cases regarding this topic demonstrates.

This may be the fault of outdated legal doctrine, influence from large publishing conglomerate, etc., and in reality probably all of the above. But that's besides the point.

On 2: you compose some music and print it out. This is your work. I am not entitled to take that sheet of paper and run it through a copy machine. I must obtain your permission. Even if I buy that sheet of paper from you, I am not entitled to make copies of it unless I have sufficiently licensed the work form you for that purpose.

I am allowed, however, to create an identical composition. I am even allowed to create an identical composition after having seen yours or heard a performance of it. The law doesn't say I can't plagiarize. Society generally does not value plagiarized works, though, because they lack any sort of creativity.

I am further allowed to sell the piece of paper you sold me. You don't own the item for which you hold the copyright after the first sale. This is how used book stores work and it's getting fucked up as we make things digital. I am also allowed to rent the piece of paper out, sharing your work with someone else. This is how libraries work. I own the paper.

On 3: the record of a performance is the property of the entity that recorded it. I'm sure there are plenty of clauses regarding who is allowed to record performances for popular artists and you probably waive certain rights when you purchase tickets and enter into an agreement with the venue, but that's not exactly copyright law either.

I am allowed to listen to F.U.N.'s Carry On in concert and then belt it out in the car on the way home, even if there are passengers and my windows are rolled down and I'm driving through a crowded public street. I can cover the performance of a copyrighted work. I am not generally considered to be plagiarizing because I am creating a derivative work by performing my own rendition of the song.

Now there are formal agencies that try to govern the performance rights of a composition and try to rent seek on all aspects of the copyrighted work and govern how the work may or may not be used in derivatives. And they are successful in doing so. I don't have the legal training to know how much of this is legal vs how much of it is simply "good" manners, but I do know that, to keep the machine oiled, artists generally acquire mechanical use licenses from other artists before covering one of "their" songs.

That's the extent of how the "system" is specified to work today, as I understand it.

> Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, you shouldn't be able to copyright a sequence of 3 notes, but that's a question of law.

The law deliberately does not specify where this line is. Probably because it's impossible to do so.

So the things I'm fussing over:

a) interested parties construing the idea of copyright to include the, well, idea of the copyrighted work, not just the actual manifestation. This is poisonous and the fact that people are confused is an indication to me that the current system is not clear and specific enough and needs work. As a society we cannot thrive when people have been convinced that a sequence of 8 notes is inexpressible and cannot be repeated simply because someone else did it, or simply thought of it, first. This goes against everything beautiful about creating art in the first place and it is beyond silly that we are wasting legal resources entertaining the folly of large record labels and publishing organizations.

b) it stems from (a), the idea that a copyright holder is entitled to full creative control over the use of a fairly acquired copyrighted work. Even if we conceed the unadulterated original spirit of copyright is perfectly fine and the "system works", it does not extend any sort of authority to the copyright holder to govern how their work should be derived, expressed, interpreted, etc. It is insane that the industry norm right now is such that artists feel they need to obtain a special license of some copyrighted work in order to create a derivative work that incorporates it, or even just to perform their own rendition of it. I don't personally find any reason to fundamentally or axiomatically bestow this sort of creative authority upon people who simply come up with ideas and write them down.

c) finally, an attack on copyright itself. It's a dated concept from an age where copying was hard and doing it was a meaningful function in society. We have generated all text strings and melodies that ever were and can ever possibly be. Our tools have advanced to a point where someone can actually write everything imaginable and claim copyright. Our culture has advanced beyond sheets of paper and the media we use regularly makes copies of data all the time in order to even operate. We have developed algorithms that remix content and generate new content that is at times indistinguishable from the original. Is it a copy? That's the question of the article.

I suspect we all agree that humans who pursue creative endeavors are valuable to society and should be supported. I am simply saying that copyright is a very poor implementation of how our current society might do that, not least because it doesn't actually end up supporting the content creators very well in the first place and has since been coopted by self-serving publishing companies for profit. But also because it doesn't fit with our current understanding of a digital society nor does it mesh with the technology we've developed (the web, computers, and content generating algorithms). I don't really wish to see society stifle the possibilities we unlock with "AI" generated content because of dated notions that we need to protect original creators ability to dictate the copying of their work.