A Code to Consent is a proposed framework for Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) that would give creators optional tools to define and communicate how their work may be used.
This is a technical concept only, offered for discussion across DAW communities.
What This Could Include
1. A “Do Not Train” Flag
Optional metadata at the project or export level indicating:
• not for training or imitation systems
• not for feature extraction or voice modeling
This intent travels with the audio file.
2. Inaudible Ownership Watermark
An embedded, inaudible watermark used to:
• confirm authorship
• detect unauthorized reuse
• maintain creator identity across platforms
3. Protective Anti-Scraping Processing
Optional processing that remains inaudible but reduces unauthorized analysis or feature extraction by automated systems.
A Cross-DAW Standard
The long-term idea is that major DAWs such as Cubase/Nuendo, Logic, Ableton Live, Pro Tools, FL Studio, Bitwig, Studio One, and others could support a shared metadata standard so creator intent remains visible wherever audio goes.
Closing Note
This concept is shared only to contribute to discussions about protecting human-made creativity in a rapidly changing audio landscape. I may not be able to monitor every reply, but I hope it helps spark useful technical conversation.
Yep. Or keep it as a direct communique to the manufacturers….not user forums.
Manufacturers are the guys who’d have to foot the bill to implement anyway….not the users.
Not to mention….any copy protection ever invented by a 3rd party….can be circumvented in various ways once in the hands of the masses.
Which manufacturers certainly weigh before thumbs up/down or cost outlays for any types of tech of this nature…..not to mention the dismal prospects of an all-companies consensus on approach.
I like the idea. I suppose it has to be further worked out. But it would be great if there was a way to prevent original music from being used to train AI’s to replicate that music, and if there’s a technical solution for that, I’m very much in favor. If all music is eventually created by AI, then there will never be original music ever again. AI can’t generate original music, it can only spit out music that is based on what came before. And yes, that’s what most human composers do too, certainly as they start out, but sometimes they come up with new ideas. Perhaps the most mysterious process of the mind.
AI is not capable of having ideas, it is only capable of imitating. This is still something humans can do that AI’s cannot. Most people probably won’t care if music is AI generated or produced by humans, but they should be made aware of whether what they’re listening to is made by humans or AI’s. And as far as I know, there is no development direction within AI that is succeeding at generating ideas. It is all pattern recognition, which we do really well, but AI can do at incredible speeds.
Creating a new pattern, given infinite random possibilities, should be possible with AI, but I think only a human can figure out how to make or change a pattern in a way that means something to other humans. There is something that our conscious minds are unable to comprehend about the message that music sends, but there are other parts of our mind that understand that message perfectly. Music is a method of communication that our conscious minds can’t read. You hear something, you have an emotion. You can’t write down how that happened, or even express how that happened.
