img rendered with https://deepai.org
Hi everyone, hope all of you are having a great week. Just a couple updates here of what we’re working on and some personal opinions on some topics.
I’ll start with the posted pic of President Trump as Pope. I get why he did it, and I think the population remains largely ignorant as to the “why” and it was a clear message, comedy really, by the President about who the Pope is or is not, or has not been. I understand in general people really do believe the facades put in front of their faces – thespians doing a job. I think it’s abit much to engage in comedy, when a billion people really have no idea what it’s all about, so in that regard the comedy just becomes an insult “all in good fun” to those who simply don’t know any better.
Offense is offense regardless if a joke and besides the majority of the population have no idea what it’s all about anyway, so they’re (the people) getting alienated by the carelessness of it. But I suppose politicians and businessmen have had enough of the theater and would like to move on from it.
Ok that being said, after examining and recommending on logistics and defensive systems, we have moved on over into the music industry and have been quite busy with that. Some major changes are in place so we’re helping with the integration here a bit. I’m personally testing avenues of trademark infringement case by case and using numerous platforms to test net stream outcomes, P&L, and LLM systems providing modelling and automated integration.
I’ve never been one for this business model, due to the heavily monopolized distribution networks, with terrible low-end royalty earnings on some of these platforms. Outrageous based on the data I have already examined. Whether a forced balanced atmosphere, perhaps through new platform collaborations that directly compete with systems such as Spotify, who commands a whopping part of the market compared to Apple Music and staple distrbution platforms. The intention is to move these entity into better paying royalty shares, or other technical legal action, for compliance to pay artists their fair share and dues for (studios, actors, musician) hard work in an industry where original work will be extremely valuable in the near future.
For example,
a Youtube video designed by you, an original lyric song produced by you, a copywritten work, beyond the confines of the Library of Congress paid protection are all scenarions being re-examined through LLM and industry input. I would say the progress is going well and you might ask what does this have to do with religion?
Well, everything really.
Some don’t like to hear this, but freedom to exert yourself into the community about what you believe, whether a song from Bruno Mars, to Elvis, or any religious song of worship we’d like to see collaborative work get paid equally as the “record producing agent” of the past generally used legal precedent to dominate an artists legal works, abuse for their own profit sharing schemes, and mitigate what the artist could expect as royalty. That’s been the way for decades and that time is about over.
Ok so the ability to make a religious or secular song SHOULD NOT determine the output royalty, which of course it can be argued with most platforms that the choice of the music has no bearing on the stream industry standard revenue which is similar for cover positions, (making a song cover for a band) or penning your original lyrics through a platform to be placed on Spotify like Distrokid. I think these platforms work, they allow access to all content, but there are of course changes we would like to see to avoid alot of LLM litigation we’re seeing now.
It’s more than just about profits for the large studios, which quite frankly no longer matters if you examine the creative flow of stamping out AI voices and clones of other artists. So your personal work as an artist, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, or Frank from New Jersey who just loaded his precious work on spotify with no following and no fans – all the work should receive equal stream pay, DISCOVERABILITY is the key phrase here we would like to see changed.
Ok I’ll be honest. We don’t like the fact a large studio can pay influencers and a bot army to promote a new title track that was AI made and then dropped by a known artist claiming it’s their track and having a fake backing to drive stream revenue through these platforms, while actual artists, who are not financing fake bot armies, don’t have a huge label behind them, get smashed and trounced by the algorithm to make way for the fake bot army tsunami.
Ok we don’t like it. How is the changes going to effect some of these platforms? Well for the better. The platforms will still be receiving adjusted royalty rates, the only difference is we want the induction of robot armies pushing AI rendered music to drive revenue to be “capped.” That the algorithms will punish abusers of any labels utilizing these methods to achieve domination in the field.
So if Frank from New Jersey just loaded his stuff on Spotify, and is building followers through Garageband, TikTok, X, Facebook, or other sopcial media, we don’t want to see some label guy with an army of lawyers determining customer and revenue flow on these platforms by employing influencers to drive revenue “away from” other users. Ok yes there are alot of arguments here and laughably Ai points out some fairly obvious solutions the industry people don’t want to happen.
An example would include that if Frank made a pop-rap song that was say, competing with Drake or any known musician who commands a large audience, if we have bot influence driving revenue, (picked up by the algorithm) then we want Frank’s song to be boosted accordingly with stream outcome. It could be stated ” how is it fair for Frank to get a boost for what Drakes, or whoever’s studio is paying for?”
Simple, you’re manipulating the stream with bot pushing influence armies, thereby abusing the stream (traffic flow) for profit through that influence directing traffic. Frank had a chance that his music was being played, but not after cemented over by bot influence. To mitigate this loss, Frank gets boosted accordingly. If you want to abuse stream revenue through AI and cloned influence, then you get to pay for royalty stream boosting for likewise candidates in the same genre that are not using these methods. Sound fair? Well the big boys like the fact you pay the same fees for the mechanical license as everyone else but the fact they can hijack the stream whenever it fits their fancy they don’t want fiddled with.
The only answer I have for this is – get with the times or be left behind.
So the outcomes we’re seeing is simply development – architecture. If compliance is not met, then simple; new competing structures will be produced in certain time frames, within 18 months of non-conformance. This is two fold:
- allows for competitor systems to unroll new royalty paid systems in transparent conditions where bot armies cannot be employed and will likely (according to consultants) be VERY VERY popular with cultures and disrupt the market.
- allow for an adjustment time for current platforms to become compliant while beta testing scenarios.
So either way we have it the music industry has changed and is an amorphic state for the future currently. Companies who release royalty programs which denigrate large studio bot flows are showing to be quite lucrative and could cause a dramatic shift in the industry away from established studios and publicly traded entity.
On a final note, to be able to express yourself as a voice about what you believe should not be cemented over with bot armies destroying your stream revenue. And it’s not my call to make these changes. I am merely seeing what are solutions by either sanctions or new products released that basically make theses current systems obsolete or better. I think its doable and if there is pushback to keep the bot army order in place, I can imagine within the next two years the new products will be released to market, the current competitors will not be able to keep pace (it will take two years legally to do anything) and market share will shift. If big money players decide they want to help disrupt, well, I think you can forecast some pretty dire outcomes for those who are currently leaders in the industry, at least in market share revenue.
