But this will of course not work, because enumerating the bitspace does not produce bits of the right colour: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
Long ago, I enabled showdead to read Terry's comments. They didn't always make sense, but occasionally there'd be one that was worth it.
I see it as likely that someone will eventually try it not just as a legal strategy but because of a genuine curiosity in music and AI.
According to wikipedia
> There is a long tradition in classical music of writing music in sets of pieces that cover all the major and minor keys of the chromatic scale. These sets typically consist of 24 pieces, one for each of the major and minor keys (sets that comprise all the enharmonic variants include 30 pieces).
I don't think anyone would say there is any ill intent even though it is based on an enumeration.
But the future case I'm speaking of will be a very real dilemma and either decision will have drawbacks. It's not just about seeing through a hack.
That's bread and butter for the courts. You don't need judges and juries and lawyers to see through a simple hack; trying to use a trivial enumeration to defeat a copyright claim is just "ha ha, nice try, but nope" issue no reasonable layman would have a problem with. Shades of colour are of critical importance in precisely those cases that are fuzzy, where there is no obvious ruling to be made. That's what the courts are made for.
What is the intent if a human provided 1 bit of input by flipping a coin and chose all the odd numbered melodies? What if a human provided 1 bit of input by flipping an unobservable mental coin? What about 2 bits? N bits?
What if a machine generated all the "interesting" melodies via a neural network?
The point is in a world of cheap computing, intellectual property is probably moot if its cost of production is nearly zero.
IP is not moot because you have a random number generator. IP may become less relevant if computers ever learn to select useful bit patterns out of sea of randomness, but even then, the legal system will handle it just fine (somebody will own the selection algorithms after all).
> What is the basis by which jury likely decides intent here? Is it any different than "arbitrarily"?
Causality. You can't determine intent from bits, which leads people to (mistakenly) believe colour doesn't exist. To determine the colour of the bits, the courts will look at the actual chain of events surrounding their creation. Because that is what matters. Not what the bits are, but how you came into possession of them, and why.
What is the intent? You tell us. Was the person doing it to try and capitalize on someone else's creative works?
There's also a difference between copyright and patent law.
Back in the Napster days, there was a company (maybe mp3.com or something? Google tells me yes!) that would let you get high-quality encoded mp3s of your CDs by downloading their program, putting your CD into the hard drive, and it would read enough of the CD to verify that that was the CD you had, then give you access to their own encoded version of it. The idea being, you own the CD; you have a right in the US to rip it & encode it; so therefore you have a right to this mp3.
They were sued by the record labels (naturally), and lost in court; because the court made a distinction between the copy that mp3.com had of the CD and the copy that an individual could have made. mp3.com were violating copyright because they were distributing their own copy, even though the bits were identical to the copy their customers already owned.
So along the same lines: "I have this bit pattern because I copied it from mp3.com's copy of a CD" is different, legally, than "I have this bit pattern because I copied it from my own CD".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._MP3.co....
I would think that after this project is complete, at the very least arguments like those that lost the "Dark Horse" case should become not-acceptable in courts. Let Marcus Gray actually prove provenance, not infer/ speculate it - and all would be fine.
"Colour" is a term that encompasses provenance, chains of cause-effect, intent and related concepts. Bits are obviously colorless from compsci point of view, but are colorful from the legal POV. For instance, bits encoding a copyrighted video are just numbers, but for the judge it'll matter whether I got them from a lucky PRNG run or from a torrent site.
Not understanding that colour is real in legal systems is the core source of confusion people have wrt. intellectual property and illegal information (e.g. child porn).
Why in some cases colour matter and in some case, it does not ? no judge will care about the "colour" of child porn. Yet, they will care about the "colour" of a song.
(To clarify: Colour does not encode copyright information; it encodes provenance, intent and related ideas. Child porn is only a somewhat special case in the sense that laws are very insensitive about the shade of colour here. Usually, if it looks enough like CP, a possessor will end up in trouble, regardless of whether it's actual CP or whether they can prove they created it ex nihilo in MS Paint. But that's because child abuse is considered by societies worldwide a special kind of evil that needs extraordinary measures to combat. In almost all other cases, courts are very sensitive to the shades of colour.)
The original article is something about music. Then you say something about colors. And your article starts with some description of some game called Paranoia. Without already knowing the context this looks completely random.