> monthly fee for access to a loop library. Except all the loops are rip-offs of other peoples hard work and there's no effort to compensate them.

the analogy works if there were an open access library of music (restricted licenses tho they may be…) that was available to search and browse without the tool

then an auto-composer could suggest music to fill in gaps in my own composition, using snippets of audio from the otherwise freely available library

that's a plug-in I would pay for too, but yea if my "no commercial use allowed" melody made it into someone else's composition, I would want my license terms to be surfaced to them as well

except I personally wouldn't want to live in a future where every line of code has to have some claim of "who authored this function first" or "who wrote this melody and rhythm first", pursuant to licensing terms in perpetuity. that sounds terrible.

I'm all here for openness and tools you own, so there could be a FOSS implementation. Microsoft could just open it up and still charge the $10/mo for hosting the model, and I hope that happens.

Making the tool better without verbatim copying and making it more effective should be the priority, IMO. Trying to control it too much would be missing the point of the tool.

"Except all the loops are rip-offs of other peoples hard work and there's no effort to compensate them."

Except all the loops are smaller pieces of larger loops which you as the developer than mix together in new ways to create your application. FTFY.

Even if the sample was one snare hit. Someone worked hard to tune that snare, mic it, record it and process that sound.

They should be compensated.