What's the legal principle that distinguishes methods of generation? Even if enumeration is definitely on one side, there is an infinite gradation from there to human generation.
The line between enumeration and a very prolific artist is blurry. What if someone instead of just enumerating them created actual songs featuring them as themata? And what if those songs were tool-assisted? But still catchy?
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.
> a very real dilemma and either decision will have drawbacks
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.
Again, there is a gradation and you've not answered the question.
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?
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.
