You just had to say ‘Candyman’ and summon it, didn’t you… 
3 Likes
I’m not sure I agree that one excludes the other in the black & white manner you see it Deborah.
The announcement I wrote yesterday was placed due to a copyright infringement of Justin’s material posted in the JustinGuitar Community.
It is specific and it is direct and it is concerned only with Justin’s work. But, in having only that tight focus, it is not granting permission for copyright infringement of anything that is not of Justin’s work.
9 Likes
We’re all thievin’ scoundrels in one way or another. Its all been said, its all been done, and none of us are gettin’ out of here alive anyway.
I just play my Blues, and wait for the inevitable zombie apocalypse to come for us all…
Happy New Year
© All rights unreserved…
7 Likes
Hehe, I spent a couple of hours yesterday, cutting and pasting a musicians voice for a song, to give it a completely unintended meaning… 
I will come clean of course, but do hope he doesn’t sue 
1 Like
Ai was built on stolen material from thousands of artists ( and keeps on doing it )
its just turning a blind eye on it and being concerned only on your own issue
Dont ask for respect ( of copyrights ) if you do no respect the copyright infrigement of others
Issue aside, what AI are you referring to (that is on this site)?
That issue isn’t quite as settled as you make it seem. Yes, a lot of copyright material goes into the training data that large models are trained upon. But that doesn’t automatically make it copyright infringement, there is the (unsettled) argument of whether this constitutes fair use (or not).
For example, all modern language translation implementations use large natural language models, trained on huge corpus of texts, including (copyrighted) news articles and books. I haven’t heard anyone claiming copyright infringement just because copyrighted text was fed in as training data.
What you’re saying starts making more sense in the specific case of generative models, where the algorithm produces a seemingly novel piece of text / image / audio. But that’s a very specific application of AI.
So why is Disney then investing heavily in AI initiatives? Do they plan on stealing material from thousands of artists? There is more than one shade of blue.
This topic is about taking material from a premium course and sharing it publicly not about AI.
1 Like
Actually, IMO, yes. To be precise, they want to be the ones (and ideally the only one) doing the “stealing”. It’s just a matter of time (probably when generative art / music becomes commercially viable) before they start suing other AI companies, using their intellectual property portfolio as a weapon.
Anyway, let’s not get too far into the weeds. I don’t see any use of generative AI on this site (apart from the paid for portions which I have no access to), but do let me know if I’ve missed something.
I can think of only one realistically controversial situation—if a BLIM student records a video of himself performing some of Justin’s materials (where the focus is on their performance of a specific piece of Justin’s music, and not a wholesale upload of all of Justin’s materials in video form) and uploads it for public viewing… technically (but IANAL) that’s also copyright infringement, but one that I would personally feel somewhat uncomfortable seeing enforced. Maybe @Richard_close2u can clarify.
You ve clearly missed things
its not because you ve not heard of it that it doesnt exists
Where on this site is generative AI used? You say I’ve missed something, so where is it?
If you read what I said in context, I was specifically talking about the application of AI in language translation. Let me repeat: I haven’t heard of any successful copyright infringement lawsuit against any machine translation implementation. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but the links you’ve provided do not refer to machine translation models.
The reason I brought up language translation is simply to provide an example to prove the point that merely using copyrighted data as training data does not in itself constitute copyright infringement.
My health does not allow me to debate …; muted topic since anyway it will go nowhere
I just marvel at your brilliance and creativity, Brian, and how you use it 
1 Like
Haha, the ‘marveling’ might stop when you hear it…
A target audience of two and quite possibly will upset both
1 Like
fwiw,
I’ve written two long comments on this thread. They were kinda negative responses. I’ve erased my comments and will leave it at this.
I think I’ll lay low over this.
The fun for me at this point is diminishing. I will have to think long and hard as to whether I will post up any music I play as it is all likely copyright infringement. Let alone posting any question about written music by someone else.
This isn’t what I thought I’d get from this website. But it does seem to be where I’m landing at.
HappyCat is vanishing before my eyes.
@Richard_close2u Can I suggest this thread gets closed now, as it has no real context since being extracted from your original post. Especially with the opening post and has little to do with the original subject.
6 Likes
Take a week or two off from the community forum. It will be restorative. I’ve been practicing that with United States daily news for 8 weeks now and my mental health is decidedly improved.
4 Likes
Can this be the concluding word and the fractious debate simmer down please.
This was not about AI. There is a discussion on that here. I have initiated a discussion with Justin and the team on whether we need a Community approach to AI content. Nothing is decided yet. But the discussion continues.
This conversation started because of a simple and single occurrence.
A Community member - not a Blues Immersion subscriber - started a new topic in the Community in which they asked for some help with harmonic analysis of a piece of music. In doing so they copy / pasted multiple screenshots of tab.
The music shared came from an original study exercise created by Justin. It is one of many made exclusively available to people who had paid to subscribe to the Blues Immersion course. The pdfs released in that course have this on them:
Justin had requested that BLIM students do not share the exclusive materials with others. Clearly, one of the BLIM subscribers acted against that request and shared one or more of the resources with one or more people, including the person who started that topic.
I made an announcement alerting the whole Community to this and restating the inappropriateness of sharing content from Justin’s premium courses.
And that is it.
When I look at this topic and all of its AI discussion (strong opinion and disagreement) I wonder where the leap was made to think that the announcement implied anything about AI. Or why a very specific request about Justin’s content on Justin’s site expanded to become a heated debate on all artistic content ever created.
When I see this comment - which makes me think that people are reading far more into this than there actually is - I become unhappy and confused at the misinterpretations that may be sitting in people’s thoughts.
This Community will not, ever, prevent people from sharing AVOYP recordings of our members playing songs and music. Never. Lawyers employed by certain musicians might ban their music being shared (which is why Justin had to remove songs such as Hotel California etc.) but the JustinGuitar Community will never ban cover versions of songs.
How was that thought even arrived at? If there was something in the announcement I wrote that gave any hint of that then I apologise. I am trying now to be as explicit, plain and categorical as I can. Your AVOYP covers of copyrighted music are welcome here.
Nobody will you be banned, or have topics deleted, if they ask questions about copyrighted music. All we ask in those circumstances is that no tab or sheet music is shared (screenshots or other images). That has always been the policy of this Community - and the old JG forum before it. Because sharing copyrighted written music is problematic for Justin. This site is run by JustinGuitar - who would be seen as ‘publishing’ or ‘distributing’ copyrighted material if it was shared publicly on its pages. I’m not a lawyer so I may not have my legal phraseology exactly right but I hope I am giving a clear meaning there.
That is about the sum of it.
Now - back to the happy sounds of making music.
20 Likes