For there to be infringement, someone needs to prove that copying took place. Because of the algorithm these musicians used to generate this, they can prove mathematically that copying did not take place.
The individual writing the algorithm certainly can have access. If I copy a song, I can't say that the tool I used didn't have access as a defense because that makes no sense.
No, it's not. One that generated a specific solution is given specific parameters. And those parameters can be, in their turn, just plugged in by a loop, hence generating everything.
Usually songs are between 2 and 5 minutes long. Therefore I can, theoretically speaking, write an algorithm, that can use linear interpolation, to generate all sounds, for all octaves, using 44KHz as sampling (the most usual track these days), and you can bet your rear latest pop or rock or whatever song will be generated as well - leaving me with only showing to court "here Your Honor, after looping through, my algorithm at mark xxx gazzilion generated this awesome piece of melody that you know from Youtube as <Lana Del Rey - Blue Jeans>"
^ search that bookmarked page in the Library of Babel for “jeans” ;)
On another note, since melodies can be encoded into a text format, the Library of Babel has actually done this too.
Heck, there’s a page in the Library of Babel that reads “Your honor, Lady Gaga will one day steal this melody from the library of babel, encoded here in text format: {melody for ‘Shallow’}”
> For there to be infringement, someone needs to prove that copying took place.
The argument isn't going to help. If you are creating every permutation in the purpose of publishing, you are inherently aware that you are intentionally copying published works (and are familiar with the concepts), even without specifically choosing to reproduce in each individual permutation.
I don't believe there's an objective right and wrong answer here, we're still figuring out how our legal system should adapt to modern technologies.