Music is not a secret. What is a "leak"? Music is not a commodity: how can "getting to market early" matter? Much of the music I listen to every day is centuries old. Most of the rest is folk music that has never left the public domain. How can property conceptions possibly capture in any useful way the human relationship to music? All of this stuff you are quoting is just morally repugnant and intellectually indefensible neoliberal bullshit, right?

public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI.

There are some very interesting ideas here, though they are somewhat hard to find amidst the confetti.

"I will let you play my violin if you give me half your royalties." That's the proposition this person is offering, correct? Whatever it means to "own" the instrument, we can say for sure (1) that this is not an economically viable wheeze unless there are (a) no other violins, or (b) no royalties; and therefore (2) that this will not have the anticipated effect for the person who dreamed it up. Your reference to :"open source" in the title is ironically utterly incorrect. This person, like Elon Musk, seems not to have any understanding of how the legal and creative dynamics of free software and free culture work. This person wants to use CC-BY-NC licensing, the way so many professional photographers do, so that the products of their creation can spread widely, while keeping control over commercial exploitation. An existing legal framework exists, has proven out in large-scale artistic value creation, and is being ignored by someone whose narcissism is superior to their learning.

So I think there are two independent routes to improvement, either or both of which seem promising to me. We could go back to the beginning and ask what all this "ownership of music" rubbish is about anyway, as I did in various writings from 1999-2003, including Anarchism Triumphant and the dotCommunist Manifesto, Or we could apply a little historical and legal analysis to the Creative Commons institutions, from CC Sampling to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC, to understand the interactions you are presently observing in a less People-magazine sort of way. And we can. for Heaven's sake, get this "AI" nonsense out of the picture: it obviously doesn't matter how the samples are stitched together, right?

Why aren't these URLs just links in the text? You're making things ugly and hard for the reader when they ought to be able to click straight through to your sources from the text anchor. Look at the TextFormattingRules if you need to know how, or just use the link tool in the editor toolbar.