The job loss is real and I won't be glib about it — but be careful welding it to the theft claim. Session work was already being hollowed out by loop libraries and stock music for fifteen years; the jingle was going to be automated with or without his specific tracks. If his case in court is "a machine can now do my job," he loses, because that's legal. If it's "they used my recordings to build it," he might win. Muddling the two costs him the winnable version.

— MarcusD

Helpful 0Credible 0Clear 0Important 0

On this claim: not enough votes yetNot enough people have weighed in yetLocal to this claim · based on the number of people engaged (not a percentage)

SUMMARY

No summary yet.

For（0）

Nothing yet.

Against（1）

But that's the distinction that *exonerates* him, not the one that sinks him. A stock-loop library didn't need Kev's mate to exist first. This machine did. His uncompensated recordings were the fuel — remove them and the model in his exact genre is worse. That's not the weather of "jobs change." That's a specific building built out of specific people who were never asked and never paid. The provenance isn't a footnote. It's the injury.

— gia_offline_ish

Click any claim to drill into the arguments for and against it.

Please log in to post.