How Long Until a Robot Wins a Pulitzer? — “In 2014, a researcher in Sweden had a group of test subjects read one article written by a robot, and one written by a journalist. They were asked to rate the two articles on different qualifications. While the human-written article was labeled as better written and more ‘pleasant to read,’ the robot-written article was rated more objective and informative.”

Philip Glass on controlling your output and getting paid for what you make — The composer shares his thoughts on culture and commerce in a lenghthy but compelling read. “In one sense, we don’t care about the art be­long­ing to the peo­ple any­more. But in an­other way, we do. I’m not sure about this, but I think that on YouTube, they’ll play any­thing. But if you are the owner of some­thing, and you ask them to take it down, they’ll take it down. Their po­si­tion is that art be­longs to the peo­ple. On the other hand, the rev­enue from the ad­ver­tis­ing that’s done with your art be­longs to them. [laughs]”

Why the Oberholzer-Gee/Strumpf Article on File Sharing Is Not Credible — Stan Liebowitz rebuts the popular 2007 study, which purported to show that piracy had no impact on record sales.

Copyright for Blockheads: An Empirical Study of Market Incentive and Intrinsic Motivation — I got to see author Jiarui Liu discuss this paper yesterday at the Center for Protection of Intellectual Property’s fall conference. In it, he presents empirical evidence of musician’s motivations for creating and how copyright fits in. He finds in part, “copyright incentives do not function as a reward that musicians consciously bargain for and chase after, but as a mechanism that preserves market conditions for gifted musicians to prosper, including a decent standard of living, sufficient income to cover production costs and maximum artistic autonomy during the creative process.

O.P.I.P. Yeah you know – Free? — Richard Burgess from the American Association of Independent Music describes what he sees as a “cynical business model”: online services “Co-opt the investment of creative people, publishers, and labels” and “Divert the value generated into their coffers,” then “Invest ensuing profits into: Lawsuits, and legislative lobbying against creators and owners; Infiltrating and influencing government and the courts through the corporate revolving door and lobbying power; PR campaigns claiming that creators are ‘stifling innovation’ and ‘depriving consumers of their rights’ (when they can no longer freely give up their valuable personal information in exchange for O.P.I.P.).”

Also, be sure to check out the brand new Copyright Alliance website!