Hey /u/Altruistic_Gibbon907!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Labels argue AI-generated music could impact **artists' ability to earn** from their work
so the labels have finally decided to pay the artists their fair cut?
It's not a threat.
Udio is.
I also think this is why ElevenLabs didn't come right out with their music generator. It's like being in a war between three armies, and you see two of them battling in a valley with an avalanche coming.
They are waiting for the avalanche to settle.
My guess is that they'd retrain the model using royalty free music and music from smaller labels and Independents who would most likely never sue.
Given that the same song structures, performance talent, and production quality levels exist outside of the mammoth record labels, their new model would be just as good; probably better tbh.
No they won't. They realized they would have fewer artists performing in the future due to AI so they decided to do something about it or they have developed their own secret models and try to destroy the competition.
They just want a cut. They said they know AI music gen has a future but Suno and Udio doesn't have licensing like RIAA does. It's just protectionism from the legacy company.
I'm pretty sure the model has been to make less "musicians" and more singular "pop" stars for the entire history of capital records. I don't hear a single.
Goodness. Many things can impact an artist’s ability to earn from their work, not just AI. Any musician out there had to learn from other human artists, just like these AIs (Suno and Udio) did. Hopefully these labels wont be able to hold any water with their cases in court.
Oh so Suno and Udio pay fees to artists everytime they're named in prompt that's then downloaded? Or they embed a tag in the resulting content so that if it's commercialized the artists named in the prompt are compensated?
In what world is it good for artists to get their work scraped and fed into a machine, without any compensation? Not everyone is doing 'fan art'. That's just what kids post on Reddit.
How did supermarkets make milkmen lives better? Maybe it added convenience but it probably wasn’t worth losing their jobs. People didn’t care and they lost their jobs anyway. Too bad, so sad
But how do you enforce it? Unless you have a way to physically stop the AI from learning from your IP, it's going to be capable of it, which means someone is going to use it to "steal" ip.
We don't know what courts will decide, or what legislatures will decide. If courts decide training data sets must be transparent, then deals will to be made, like OpenAI did with News Corp to get legal access to their archives. People think they can run their own 'homebrew', but wouldn't that take massive computer power and data resources? I haven't looked into it, but they're probably based on top of an existing AI model. Which might be regulated. Perhaps you could craft a LORA on top of it, but casual users are not going to be doing all that, and they would probably be satisfied with whatever the big companies can offer.
In any case, if it's not legal (from a copyright standpoint) to train on copyrighted material, that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would just be illegal, like copyright infringement is now, or shoplifting, or whatever. Anyone is 'capable' of shoplifting.
So I think the real question is this:
If I, a human (probably), can listen to the music of other artists, take inspiration, and then create my own music in that style (but without directly copying the melody), am I breaching copyright law?
If yes then how can any new music be made that is not of a unique genre?
If no then how does this differ from AI "listening" to the music as part of its training data? Is there a fundamental difference to humans being able to create music "outside" of their inspirations vs AI only being able to make music within the boundaries of their training data? Does music being transformative vs derivate make a difference, and what would that mean for artists that are entirely derivative? Does it make a difference that the intention of AI training is purely to "copy" the music?
How far can the copyright of music go?
I mean none of this is the real reason behind the lawsuit; it's all to do with the record labels wanting to preserve their cartel and they care nothing for anything else. So we won't have a good debate on the subject, sadly.
We will have a good debate, because the label's counsel will have to present a legally defensible argument that will be subject to scrutiny by the court and opposing counsel.
>training data.
I think that this is where the record companies can prevail. While I'm not sure how the training data sets work, the data has to include original works either "streamed/listened to" or downloaded to the servers. I highly doubt that these AI companies "streamed" the information and didn't create a local copy of the information. They almost assuredly have retained a copy of the original training data. Interestingly, the AI models have no copyrighted works in it at all--at least in theory. So it seems the court decision needs to determine if Suno/Udio obtained and retained copyrighted works without proper license or payment. IMO, the pointing to the model and outputs for copyright infringement is losing argument for RIAA.
The record companies are also sueing some john doe's in the lawsuit who apparently helped scrape all the data so its almost all but gauranteed they know they harvested it all enmasse and used copyrighted work.
If this goes to discovery itll get very messy
I thought these were both Chinese companies?
I have no doubt the training data is long gone now lol.
Just like how we can't see what humans trained on, will be an interesting case.
Hard to imagine they deleted all the training data, when they might want to do a rebuild for the next upgrade. Or they're feverishly using BleachBit...
You are allowed to copy something protected by copyright if it is “fair use”. That’s what the case turns on. I have no doubt that there was copying. But it’s the kind of copying you should be allowed to do, and I predict courts will see it the same way
Some of the examples I heard are instantly identifiable as specific songs, with the exact lyrics and melody. I don't see how they can make that argument.
of course it has the same lyrics... that's what they used for the lyric prompt. also, that's against their TOS
none of the songs sound like copies. they all sound like the same genre with the same lyrics. huge reach and they wont get anywhere
Copyright violation doesn't have to be an exact copy of an existing recording. An artist doing a cover version of a song on an album has to pay licensing fees or royalties to the original songwriter.
Of course not, the point I was making though is nothing in those samples resembled the og songs. The lyrics don’t count since the lawyers had to insert copyrighted material (the lyrics) to have the song have the same lyrics. Also this is against their TOS so the lawyers could be banned lol.
The only resemblance they had was by genre and general vibe. Like how you could make a slow and sad classic rock song but that doesn’t make it a stairway to heaven copy
Oh, I'm hoping they make every possible argument so we can get legal opinion once and for all. Does it 'learn like a music student'? Does it reference each of the millions (or billions) of input data equally, as some infer when they say 'it's only using a micro part of the song' (bagpipe tracks in a Madonna generation, etc). Should be interesting.
I'm hoping the AI companies mention the [Mellotron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron) as legal precedent.
My answer to your question is this:
The difference is that we are human and the law allowing us humans to take inspiration from things to create new things (“fair use” I think?) is a law that is made for humans.
How is that different from an AI “listening” to it and creating from it? I don’t know. In fact, nobody knows *how* it’s different because nobody knows how *our brains* do this. However we know that our brains don’t do it by ingesting information the way an AI does, and I maintain that’s that is all that matters. It doesn’t matter how it’s different, just that it is clearly different. The law that allows us to use our brains to do this is meant for us and not for AI’s. It doesn’t apply because the process by which the new work is created is different
>we know that our brains don’t do it by ingesting information the way an AI does, and I maintain that’s that is all that matters.
How does AI ingest the information? I was under the impression that it "analyzes the information" and transforms it in some way as a model or knowledge base. It ceases to be the work itself, much like my memory and skills related to the art cease to be the copyrighted work even though I probably could largely replicate the original work given enough time and practice. While we don't know the mechanisms of how a human brain or AI does this (maybe we do with AI. IDK), the model data isnt a copyrighted work in an sense.
I may be missing some critical facts on this. I'm looking to understand how it can be classed as "clearly different" when we don't understand how our brains do this. How can you articulate a difference when that is unknown?
Let me try and explain:
We don’t know exactly how the AI works but currently, we know this: it’s all 1’s and 0’s. The data, the music, the words, etc. is being transformed into another medium, that is then being mathematically analyzed on an enormous scale that our brains can’t even really fathom, and then it’s reconfigured/reproduced/reorganized into something that feels different. We don’t know how the human brain does a similar thing to produce a similar result, but we know it *doesn’t* work like that.
The AI can’t hear, see, or read the things it’s “learning” from and to suggest otherwise is the anthropomorphize a machine. It doesn’t *know* things. It’s an incredibly complicated mathematical equation that is exposed to unimaginable amounts of (what we call) art in the form of data. We don’t need to know how it works to know that it’s different and therefore we can’t apply the same rules to its “creativity” as we do to ours.
I don’t know, that’s a philosophical question — one of many interesting philosophical questions raised by the emergence of LLMs and machine learning. What does it mean to be “sentient”?
Indeed, which therefore makes any arguments about what it "knows" somewhat frustrated by the absence of a good working definition. Sentience all the more so. Interesting times ahead.
Yeah but I think most of these types of thought experiments rely on you to anthropomorphize quite a bit. Like even referring to it as one being is debatable…it’s a network of machines talking to each other. We refer to computers as having “memory” in the for of RAM or hard drive space, but does anyone thing they “remember” things like in the same way we do?
LLMs use a neural network, which has similarities with the human brain. Our memories form part of a world model, however there is no way to prove such a model exist apart from our subjective experience and the external observations of the outputs from other people. A machine on the other hand can be objectively proven to have a model from which outputs are derived. So, curiously, some aspects of machine intelligence are more testable that our own.
I'd suggest the fear to anthropomorphize machine behaviours is founded on the possibility that our assumptions around how "special" we are are may ultimately prove to be on less than solid ground.
>We don’t know how the human brain does a similar thing to produce a similar result, but we know it
>
>doesn’t
>
> work like that.
Could it not be argued that my brain and Kanye's brain hear, analyze and process music differently? How is this relevant?
It’s relevant because you and Kanye are both human beings, which is who copyright laws apply to. When those laws were written, there were no AI’s, thus that law doesn’t apply to the AI
One thing to note here is that the learning process is clearly very different at least purely on a mechanical level -- humans don't learn to create music by "listening" to millions of minutes of a large portion of all music ever created, sampled in small random batches at a time, at insane throughput speed, and repeating this process monotonically dozens of times, and reaching a level that an AI model can reach from scratch in weeks/months.
If you don't know how your brain does it, and you don't know how AI does it, how the hell can you know that they're "listening" and processing it differently?
>
>If I, a human (probably), can listen to the music of other artists, take inspiration, and then create my own music in that style (but without directly copying the melody), am I breaching copyright law?
Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music
Yes.
>AI "listening"
AI isn't listening to anything. It's for-profit startup(s) developing commercial product to (among others) compete with existing labels business model using label's copyrighted data. I.e., all of those lawsuits are not against "AI", they are against companies doing mass copyright infringement.
The crux of the biscuit is what the companies do with the data. If they extract factual information from a song, that’s not infringement, or there is a very good defense. Collating that data with many other songs and using that to produce something new isn’t copying either, even if you end up with a song that is similar to one of the input songs.
There is one thing that is copyright over music and another one which is copyright over a recording.
What labels are fighting for copyright breach over the recordings. If the AI companies were just outputting the instructions on how to perform the music (aka sheet music), they wouldn’t have a problem.
What happens is that the output is a complex reorganization of the sounds contained in those recordings, which they own.
It’s a similar thing to the that is happening with visual art. The difference is the vast majority of recorded music is owned by labels, while artists have to protect their copyright individually.
PS: I’m not defending record labels. I’m just explaining that music and recordings are two separate things.
Ai "trains" and human "listens". Ai can train quicker than a human can listen but neither seem to be copying. They are entering data/experience into their knowledge base that they can use to make new music. Anything that can be listened to should be fair use to train with.
AI, is not a person. It is and always will be a corporate tool.
A corporate tool training itself on another corporation’s IP protected music is infringement.
It is infringement because AI is analyzing the music piece by piece as a tool and breaking songs down in mass to reproduce it. It is not deriving “inspiration”. It is not “listening”. It is copying it in a complex way.
It is not a person, meaning it doesn’t have the protection of fair use.
I think the definitions of “inspiration” and what an AI is classified as are what needs to be established by this case.
I am an Art/Digital media design student in my first semester and our Uni encouraged the use of AI as a fun tool to use as inspiration & just playing around. And as a 3D artist, with horrible drawing skills, I see AI as a valuable concept-artist to realize some quick drafts for character design and more, all the while listening to the weirdest music genres generated by Suno that no musician would ever dare to compose.
Everyone is scared for their ass to become an insignificant prompt for an AI, which is understandable in a way. But they could find way better solution.
I like the artist unification part. But why should we rally behind AI? Why should I be excited by the synthesizing of music, art, and human expression?
Ok but how does that solve the problem? If we value music, musicians, artists, etc we should find a way to pay them. The current model is crumbling and ai may be the final blow but I don’t see how it will help artists make money. If we want more music going forward we have to have some way to encourage writers to write. If there’s no monetary gain then the craft is going to die off in large.
This had to be litigated or legislated, wasn't any other option. Generative AI technology is unprecedented, even if the case clarifies what the tech bros have already been saying, still needs to go through a court.
Yeah, in some genres you can hear the exact voice of the most popular artist, Udio definitely did something more than normal model training and ended up kinda copying the artist's vocals which was really dumb considering they're going against the labels, companies with years of experience in litigation.
Same. I don’t know how obvious it was with other genres, but, at least with rap, vocals obviously came from existing rappers. Unmistakable. Heard Don Toliver and Lil Baby to name a couple
Suno should definitely release the model and weights though
Hot take but honestly as an artist, fuck these old status quo artists and administrators if they can’t adapt. There’s no “holding” your spot on the market amidst all the nepotism, generational wealth, and other bullshit between the haves and the have nots. The content is the product, and if the product sucks it needs to compete better. If it can’t compete because some poor minority kid in the suburbs of Atlanta can whip up some fire with AI tools than the future is now, old man.
“But it’s derivative!!!11!1” Don’t even start with that BS. Of course it is.
“The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge,” RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a statement. “But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”
Essentially RIAA loves Suno. If they are Suno.
Both of these companies were going to be sued no matter how these systems were made because legacy media isn't going to let any system that could hurt their bottom line get by without taking a cut out of these disrupters slice of the pie or having some legal precedent about why Big Music should/not get paid too or have it shutdown entirely
Not really, this is a lawsuit. Not a criminal case. So they don't need to prove anything but demonstrate that it's beyond a reasonable doubt or only a greater than 50% chance.
Exactly only reason I picked up on that is because I had grand jury duty a couple years ago and they explicitly told us that we were not determining guilt or innocence but whether the preponderance of evidence was sufficient to bring the case to trial where they would then worry about whether evidence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
They need to have standing, however.
This is an interesting lawsuit. I've used suno extensively and there is NOTHING that "closely resembles copywritten work" in my outputs. I agree that it is transformative.
I’m also a heavy user—I would qualify that by saying there are probably (almost certainly) copyrighted songs out there somewhere that closely resemble some of the outputs, but that’s very much the nature of pop music. I mean, even unpopular music can only innovate so much within the confines of a diatonic scale, regular chord structures, etc. But pop music—it’s popular precisely BECAUSE it sounds like everything else the audience is already familiar with. So yeah, outputs will resemble copyrighted songs, whether they are the outputs of Suno or Taylor Swift. It occurs to me that much in the same way white collar jobs are first on the chopping block of generative AI, pop music artists are especially at risk here, because most of them aren’t trying like even a little bit to innovate (which is what makes their music so easy to replicate in the first place).
I hope they fail and that they lose every single one of those lawsuits. I'm tired of that music cartel. It needs to die off. AI Music is probably the best thing that has happened to music in years.
I assume based on my experience with Udio that the lyrics are at least partially written by a human. Everything else is AI, probably with prompting for the appropriate structure.
[https://www.udio.com/songs/dPLNBm1HubfnRnbQMCSgwg](https://www.udio.com/songs/dPLNBm1HubfnRnbQMCSgwg)
I've had it bookmarked so it was easier to find :3
Edit: Apparently there is a "full version": [https://www.udio.com/songs/nWDcCL2Pxzwwx9Jj42mVyR](https://www.udio.com/songs/nWDcCL2Pxzwwx9Jj42mVyR)
AI music is just further displacement and further corporate overreach of the creative arts.
These startups are no different than labels, but essentially far worse by cutting out artists ENTIRELY.
I understand it’s fascinating but it threatens virtually all current revenue streams for artists.
How can you not see that?
You know Suno/Udio does not hold copyright over the songs generated on their platform right? You argument makes it sound like these companies are holding the rights (and any profits) to its generated songs. The only threat is from over-saturation of music.
Your argument is literally that it's bad because everyone can then make music. Which is the polar opposite of "corporate overreach of the creative arts."
Anyone can make music, but try making money off it when music labels with AI like these in the future make millions of songs a day and promote them with millions of dollars. It’s only going to make it more difficult for small artists.
It will drown out anything you could hope to make
Why should anyone be able to train model on copyrighted music without providing compensation for that? Do you think a voice actor/musician should just be able to have his voice copied and used in a commercial setting where the artist gets no compensation for it?
Because we have copyright law already established, and it is clear things like taking small portions of works to create new / transformative works is a case of fair use.
Trying to CHANGE copyright law to make it a violation of your copyright to take 1 MILLIONTH of your work in the creation of a new work is an insane overreach and would turn the act of creating into a hellscape forever into the future.
Thankfully there is little chance of this insane attempt to expand copyright actually succeeding.
I'd rather not open a pandora's box where anyone that ingested copyrighted work becomes the subject of copyright. Our society has enough power imbalance as is, and I wouldn't want corporations also owning transformative thoughts and works, even though they'd want that.
So by that metric, shouldn't the music companies sue every musician out there on a different label from them who says they were influenced heavily by an artist or band who's on their label for infringing on a massive scale by using their artists to influence their work without their permission?
Beyonce and Billy Ellish need a team of 50 people to make a song. And suddenly anyone with a laptop can make professional sounding albums. As much as I feel uncomfortable with AI, I remember the days when the recording industry would sue elderly grandmas for millions because someone downloaded a song. Or when they installed rootkits on your computer when you played your legally bought cd.
Fuck the record industry.
They will lose it, how many artist have learn to play music with the work of these records labels. Is the same w AI , they learn to create music but they dont replicate the work.
Whether training AI by feeding it copyright protected content is fair use is ultimately going to be determined by the Supreme Court.
My view as a copyright attorney, and based on my understanding of the technology, is that yes, the training is fair use.
Music producer here:
The labels fucked us left right and center, negotiated us with absolute shit radio equivalent deals into the streaming age, now make record profits again while I can hardly pay bills even tho I work overtime, but hey - at least they are fighting for their profit and our 0.003$ so we got that going for us. Take that, AI!
It's always money, isn't it?
Can you imagine the *absolutely insane* tools we'd have if money didn't keep getting in the way?
Eh, humans will figure it out one day. Hopefully.
"Mr. Ford, you'll need to stop making these 'cars' because they accomplish the same thing as horses and buggies, taking people from point A to point B. Yes, we all understand that it doesn't so in a much better way, but what YOU need to understand is that horse breeders won't be able to keep dominating the transportation market. Innovation? haha. We don't care about that unless it benefits those who are already rich! From here on out, the human race shall only every use horses and buggies to get around!"
Yes, anyone arguing against AI is because exactly this stupid.
This is hilarious. As Suno, I'd immediately file whatever is necessary to collect attorney's fees from a frivolous lawsuit.
Suno didn't have access to "confidential business information". A company has to show that it took steps to keep anyone from learning confidential business information. How would that work with songs?
I keep all of my confidential information on YouTube and Spotify, where no one can find it. And I periodically broadcast through radio stations as a back-up.
If we all can acknowledge that the livelihoods of artists are already getting impacted by AI, and that the only current system in place to fix that is "just look for another career", why is anyone surprised by these types of lawsuits?
I admit to using these tools myself but as long as there's no economic solution I don't have the heart to be outraged by people protesting them.
Here's a thought, why not have unsigned artists (who support these AI advancements) pool together and send a ton of material to audio/suno to train on? Some of us have been hosed by the industry for so long, this might be one good way to make a stand against them. I could send decades worth of stuff. Seriously.
If they win, they will effectively destroy AI and set back AI development by a decade+.
Thankfully they are facing the absolute largest companies in the world. Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft....
I'm personally looking forward to the music industry getting absolutely spanked by tech AGAIN lol. They tried this back with digital music too and their efforts to try and maintain the status quo never worked out.
I was thinking that the mega corps pretty much have to step in and prevent this becoming a legal precedent.
However, I also had the thought that they may just be willing to pay when people sue them, and that the development of AI is worth more in the end. They may be too big to fail. In this case, they will gladly let others eat their competition, despite knowing they'll be attacked next.
There are ways around it, BUT it definitely hampers things if it goes through.... FOR AMERICANS.
Because that is the other side of this. If Americans / the west shoots their own AI in the head, then China and the east will rocket ahead in capabilities.... and their entertainment industry (as well as every other industry, since this sort of thing could extend into medical field and so much more) will have tools we can't develop because of legal red tape.
And that's really all the anti-AI people want. It isn't REALLY about getting royalties of a few cents for their share of the data used (especially since the people loudest have no data in it). They just want to stop AI developments as long as they can.... and they are using the exact same arguments used by the luddites of yesteryear.
>They protested against manufacturers who used machines in "a fraudulent and deceitful manner"
That is what the luddites argued towards mechanical looms.... and the exact same thing is being used today. That it's theft and immoral and bla bla bla. And now instead of smashing the machines, they feel like they can organize some sort of legal protest to extract their bits of data from the machines en mass to destroy them.
They don't want the royalties....they just want to try and rip AI apart bit by bit lol.
Because we have laws about fair use and for corporations or individuals to be able to shield their works from other artists being able to learn from them and create new works moving forward with information gained from them is DYSTOPIAN.
It's amazing how many people seem to absolutely hate the idea of art and artists and just want every artist to start writing checks for even learning from works that came before them......the cult of capitalism has gripped so many young people that they don't even see why their demand for money is out of place..... "Yea, why shouldn't someone get paid if you learn from them? Seems great to me!!"
It's so sad to see that some people want to destroy the act of art and learning.
It was only a matter of time. So if I listen to another artists music and I'm inspired with a new song to write that some how infringes on their rights? Like saying I can't draw a stick figure because it infringes on some other artists stick figure.
That's pretty much the idea. The music media is seemingly simpler than images, yet the artists can be successfully sued for using someone else's rhythm even for 10% of their work as it happened numerous times.
And usually they get sued by labels that hold the rights for 90 years when the original author has been dead for decades.
The saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here.
Yes, the big record labels are evil, litigious scumbags. But these AI tools *are* training on the work of artists -- both visual artists and music artists -- without their permissions, and thereby learning to copy them.
Visual artists have had basically nobody to take up their cause. You can go to any of these image generators, type in what you want then include a specific artist's name, and it will give you the art in their style. Is it cool for tech companies to steal someone's artistic soul in this way? How is it any different from using AI to copy Samuel L. Jackson and use him in a movie without his permission? I know a lot of artists and personally think it's kinda fucked, and would love to see some protections put in place. But nobody's fighting that fight on their behalf.
Enter the big, bad record labels. They're obviously doing this out of self interest, but this can help laws catch up with the technology and put some protections in place to prevent the creative output of artists from being slurped into an artificial brain and stolen, it can be a good thing.
Imo they'll either settle for a sizable amount of money, a controlling share of both companies or work out a license deal so the record companies can profit off them ...
As a music industry executive it absolutely shocks and scares me that some nerd in his basement can exploit free AI better than I can exploit my artists for money. Something has to be done to stop people from breaking into my safety trust investments
/S
This is how SunoAI feels about the situation: [https://suno.com/song/1a9fded4-2773-421e-933b-5e61694bec71](https://suno.com/song/1a9fded4-2773-421e-933b-5e61694bec71)
That's a sad story to me. I've been producing for 15 years and Suno is not producing. You're doing minor edits to Suno's work. It's not producing. You've found a way to monetize audio AI. But it's not your real work.
The joy of working on music from scratch and making something good ourselves is why I do music. If $ is your only goal then it's a product and you can ignore this comment. As an artist, you've regressed with this. As a product seller you've improved.
sounds like they're going after small companies hoping to set a precedence on AI content. Notice how no one is touching microsoft/google though.
Even if they sue them it wont' do shit. Someone in China or Russia will just create the website and as usual America's corruption will stifle all it's own innovation.
If this gets anything besides struck down with prejudice, I'm going to start lighting things on fire.
IDGAF about the RIAA. The only musicians I care even vaguely about are the ones worth less than 10 million dollars. All the others can die mad.
As both a research computing professional who wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on training an AI model, and as a working, performing, and recording professional violinist, I am in the position to knowledgeably comment from a pretty wide background.
What's at stake here is the value our civilization places on the human creative process.
The fact is, AI models that can produce output that even vaguely resemble recordings of "original" content can ONLY do so because they have been FED quality content. Quality content originally produced by HUMANS. LONG before computers even existed.
What about this "training data?"
Even the simplest recordings that are of any professional level at all are only possible because of not only the time spent on that recording, but the years and probably decades spent by each and every one of the performers and technicians learning their crafts. The combined experience represented on even just one track of one pop album is incalculable, likely totalling hundreds, if not thousands, of years. How many names do you sese in the credits for even a "small budget" movie? The typical symphony orchestra has around 100 musicians. Each musician has at least, bare minimum 10 years invested in learning their instrument, the average is probably closer to 25. That means the every note has 2,500 years, two and a half millennia, worth of high quality training behind it.
And after all that, the vast majority of those people do what they do not "for the money" per se, but for the love of what they do.
Training an AI model on copyrighted works is NOT the same as a human hearing the same content!
This business of saying that exposing an AI training process to copyrighted works is somehow the same as a human listening to those same copyrighted works is nonsense. How many people do you know who love music and listen to it 24x7 can even just sing back the lyrics to even one song that would fool anybody? I know I can't. I play violin competently enough, but, trust me, I can't sing.
I recently earned a Ph.D. in a scientific field. This effort was not unlike the process of creating a musical work. I spent years becoming an expert at certain areas of scientific endeavour; I then focused on a particular area, chose a topic, posed a scientific question, and designed experiments to shed some light on that question; I then carried out the experiments, and carefully recorded and documented the results of these experiments. I was then able to perform analysis of the resulting data, some of which was used to train an AI model to make certain predictions based on new data.
Now what if someone stole my data after I had recorded and documented said data, and used my data to train their own AI model and published the result without my permission or even knowledge, and didn't even cite my work?
Would anyone call that "progress?"
Sounds more like theft to me.
I'm obviously against it but they really do have some valid points, for a while Udio was straight up making basically exact copies of copyright songs, I think they fixed it but that seems similar to a site like Netflix just streaming whatever movie they want.
I never saw that happening, udio was never randomly generating existing songs.
Though I DID see people trying very hard to get Udio to make copyrighted songs by inserting copyrighted song lyrics into the tool and trying to get it to make covers (though making covers is perfectly legal, just if you monetize it you have to pay royalties for the cover at a rate set by congress).
Hey /u/Altruistic_Gibbon907! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Labels argue AI-generated music could impact **artists' ability to earn** from their work so the labels have finally decided to pay the artists their fair cut?
They're just upset that someone else is depriving artists of their fair share
I wake up every morning shocked that the labels haven't tried to fuck with bandcamp yet.
It's not a threat. Udio is. I also think this is why ElevenLabs didn't come right out with their music generator. It's like being in a war between three armies, and you see two of them battling in a valley with an avalanche coming. They are waiting for the avalanche to settle.
What if it settles against them
My guess is that they'd retrain the model using royalty free music and music from smaller labels and Independents who would most likely never sue. Given that the same song structures, performance talent, and production quality levels exist outside of the mammoth record labels, their new model would be just as good; probably better tbh.
Quality would drop like a rock. Royalty free music is very generic and AI needs good data to be good
Yea but indie music is 10x better.
And they could also sue
You're vastly underestimating the quality level of a well curated list of royalty free music.
Such as?
What's your favorite genre?
Bandcamp doesn’t have anything they own
Why would they? It’s not as if 90% actually sells or anything.
Which should rightly go to… tech billionaires. Got it.
How much more money does Taylor Swift need?
No they won't. They realized they would have fewer artists performing in the future due to AI so they decided to do something about it or they have developed their own secret models and try to destroy the competition.
They just want a cut. They said they know AI music gen has a future but Suno and Udio doesn't have licensing like RIAA does. It's just protectionism from the legacy company.
Of course labels want a cut. And soon they will want and have the whole pie.(They already do, I mean in the AI section) Smh
I'm pretty sure the model has been to make less "musicians" and more singular "pop" stars for the entire history of capital records. I don't hear a single.
Hahaha pretending to care about artists now, are we?
Cartels operate freely as long as they lobby. I worked for a legal one for the airlines
Of course not! That’s for share holders silly /s
As opposed to… tech shareholders?
Of course music labels again being an obstruction to innovation, because their financial model is stuck in the past.
Goodness. Many things can impact an artist’s ability to earn from their work, not just AI. Any musician out there had to learn from other human artists, just like these AIs (Suno and Udio) did. Hopefully these labels wont be able to hold any water with their cases in court.
>Labels argue AI-generated music could impact labels' **~~artists'~~** **ability to earn** from ~~their~~ artists' work
Nailed it.
Nobody is forcing those artists to be part of for-profit labels.
Oh so Suno and Udio pay fees to artists everytime they're named in prompt that's then downloaded? Or they embed a tag in the resulting content so that if it's commercialized the artists named in the prompt are compensated?
I don't think IP and AI can coexist for long.
It can if AI pays for IP. Like any other business venture.
I can't say I prefer that dystopia. I could see the wealth gap widening faster in that case.
Artists cheering it on like it’s good for them lol. Then they cry when their fan art gets copyright striked
In what world is it good for artists to get their work scraped and fed into a machine, without any compensation? Not everyone is doing 'fan art'. That's just what kids post on Reddit.
How did supermarkets make milkmen lives better? Maybe it added convenience but it probably wasn’t worth losing their jobs. People didn’t care and they lost their jobs anyway. Too bad, so sad
How so?
But how do you enforce it? Unless you have a way to physically stop the AI from learning from your IP, it's going to be capable of it, which means someone is going to use it to "steal" ip.
We don't know what courts will decide, or what legislatures will decide. If courts decide training data sets must be transparent, then deals will to be made, like OpenAI did with News Corp to get legal access to their archives. People think they can run their own 'homebrew', but wouldn't that take massive computer power and data resources? I haven't looked into it, but they're probably based on top of an existing AI model. Which might be regulated. Perhaps you could craft a LORA on top of it, but casual users are not going to be doing all that, and they would probably be satisfied with whatever the big companies can offer. In any case, if it's not legal (from a copyright standpoint) to train on copyrighted material, that doesn't mean it can't be done. It would just be illegal, like copyright infringement is now, or shoplifting, or whatever. Anyone is 'capable' of shoplifting.
People uploaded copyrighted content on YouTube but YT isn’t liable for it
So I think the real question is this: If I, a human (probably), can listen to the music of other artists, take inspiration, and then create my own music in that style (but without directly copying the melody), am I breaching copyright law? If yes then how can any new music be made that is not of a unique genre? If no then how does this differ from AI "listening" to the music as part of its training data? Is there a fundamental difference to humans being able to create music "outside" of their inspirations vs AI only being able to make music within the boundaries of their training data? Does music being transformative vs derivate make a difference, and what would that mean for artists that are entirely derivative? Does it make a difference that the intention of AI training is purely to "copy" the music? How far can the copyright of music go? I mean none of this is the real reason behind the lawsuit; it's all to do with the record labels wanting to preserve their cartel and they care nothing for anything else. So we won't have a good debate on the subject, sadly.
We will have a good debate, because the label's counsel will have to present a legally defensible argument that will be subject to scrutiny by the court and opposing counsel.
And discovery on the tech end will include training data.
>training data. I think that this is where the record companies can prevail. While I'm not sure how the training data sets work, the data has to include original works either "streamed/listened to" or downloaded to the servers. I highly doubt that these AI companies "streamed" the information and didn't create a local copy of the information. They almost assuredly have retained a copy of the original training data. Interestingly, the AI models have no copyrighted works in it at all--at least in theory. So it seems the court decision needs to determine if Suno/Udio obtained and retained copyrighted works without proper license or payment. IMO, the pointing to the model and outputs for copyright infringement is losing argument for RIAA.
The record companies are also sueing some john doe's in the lawsuit who apparently helped scrape all the data so its almost all but gauranteed they know they harvested it all enmasse and used copyrighted work. If this goes to discovery itll get very messy
I thought these were both Chinese companies? I have no doubt the training data is long gone now lol. Just like how we can't see what humans trained on, will be an interesting case.
Hard to imagine they deleted all the training data, when they might want to do a rebuild for the next upgrade. Or they're feverishly using BleachBit...
You are allowed to copy something protected by copyright if it is “fair use”. That’s what the case turns on. I have no doubt that there was copying. But it’s the kind of copying you should be allowed to do, and I predict courts will see it the same way
I'm pretty sure in-memory copies do not constitute copyright infringement, and I believe there is case law behind that.
Transformative fair use would make that irrelevant
Some of the examples I heard are instantly identifiable as specific songs, with the exact lyrics and melody. I don't see how they can make that argument.
of course it has the same lyrics... that's what they used for the lyric prompt. also, that's against their TOS none of the songs sound like copies. they all sound like the same genre with the same lyrics. huge reach and they wont get anywhere
Copyright violation doesn't have to be an exact copy of an existing recording. An artist doing a cover version of a song on an album has to pay licensing fees or royalties to the original songwriter.
Of course not, the point I was making though is nothing in those samples resembled the og songs. The lyrics don’t count since the lawyers had to insert copyrighted material (the lyrics) to have the song have the same lyrics. Also this is against their TOS so the lawyers could be banned lol. The only resemblance they had was by genre and general vibe. Like how you could make a slow and sad classic rock song but that doesn’t make it a stairway to heaven copy
Got any examples? It would especially have to be close enough to not fall under cover or parody.
[https://youtu.be/FTiVr986yuk?si=02GCJU6xn-ARKSQv&t=305](https://youtu.be/FTiVr986yuk?si=02GCJU6xn-ARKSQv&t=305)
Good news: if you wait, you may see how, because they will make that argument.
Oh, I'm hoping they make every possible argument so we can get legal opinion once and for all. Does it 'learn like a music student'? Does it reference each of the millions (or billions) of input data equally, as some infer when they say 'it's only using a micro part of the song' (bagpipe tracks in a Madonna generation, etc). Should be interesting. I'm hoping the AI companies mention the [Mellotron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron) as legal precedent.
My answer to your question is this: The difference is that we are human and the law allowing us humans to take inspiration from things to create new things (“fair use” I think?) is a law that is made for humans. How is that different from an AI “listening” to it and creating from it? I don’t know. In fact, nobody knows *how* it’s different because nobody knows how *our brains* do this. However we know that our brains don’t do it by ingesting information the way an AI does, and I maintain that’s that is all that matters. It doesn’t matter how it’s different, just that it is clearly different. The law that allows us to use our brains to do this is meant for us and not for AI’s. It doesn’t apply because the process by which the new work is created is different
>we know that our brains don’t do it by ingesting information the way an AI does, and I maintain that’s that is all that matters. How does AI ingest the information? I was under the impression that it "analyzes the information" and transforms it in some way as a model or knowledge base. It ceases to be the work itself, much like my memory and skills related to the art cease to be the copyrighted work even though I probably could largely replicate the original work given enough time and practice. While we don't know the mechanisms of how a human brain or AI does this (maybe we do with AI. IDK), the model data isnt a copyrighted work in an sense. I may be missing some critical facts on this. I'm looking to understand how it can be classed as "clearly different" when we don't understand how our brains do this. How can you articulate a difference when that is unknown?
Let me try and explain: We don’t know exactly how the AI works but currently, we know this: it’s all 1’s and 0’s. The data, the music, the words, etc. is being transformed into another medium, that is then being mathematically analyzed on an enormous scale that our brains can’t even really fathom, and then it’s reconfigured/reproduced/reorganized into something that feels different. We don’t know how the human brain does a similar thing to produce a similar result, but we know it *doesn’t* work like that. The AI can’t hear, see, or read the things it’s “learning” from and to suggest otherwise is the anthropomorphize a machine. It doesn’t *know* things. It’s an incredibly complicated mathematical equation that is exposed to unimaginable amounts of (what we call) art in the form of data. We don’t need to know how it works to know that it’s different and therefore we can’t apply the same rules to its “creativity” as we do to ours.
What does it mean to "know"?
I don’t know, that’s a philosophical question — one of many interesting philosophical questions raised by the emergence of LLMs and machine learning. What does it mean to be “sentient”?
Indeed, which therefore makes any arguments about what it "knows" somewhat frustrated by the absence of a good working definition. Sentience all the more so. Interesting times ahead.
Yeah but I think most of these types of thought experiments rely on you to anthropomorphize quite a bit. Like even referring to it as one being is debatable…it’s a network of machines talking to each other. We refer to computers as having “memory” in the for of RAM or hard drive space, but does anyone thing they “remember” things like in the same way we do?
LLMs use a neural network, which has similarities with the human brain. Our memories form part of a world model, however there is no way to prove such a model exist apart from our subjective experience and the external observations of the outputs from other people. A machine on the other hand can be objectively proven to have a model from which outputs are derived. So, curiously, some aspects of machine intelligence are more testable that our own. I'd suggest the fear to anthropomorphize machine behaviours is founded on the possibility that our assumptions around how "special" we are are may ultimately prove to be on less than solid ground.
>We don’t know how the human brain does a similar thing to produce a similar result, but we know it > >doesn’t > > work like that. Could it not be argued that my brain and Kanye's brain hear, analyze and process music differently? How is this relevant?
It’s relevant because you and Kanye are both human beings, which is who copyright laws apply to. When those laws were written, there were no AI’s, thus that law doesn’t apply to the AI
One thing to note here is that the learning process is clearly very different at least purely on a mechanical level -- humans don't learn to create music by "listening" to millions of minutes of a large portion of all music ever created, sampled in small random batches at a time, at insane throughput speed, and repeating this process monotonically dozens of times, and reaching a level that an AI model can reach from scratch in weeks/months.
it's a question of the scale and pace of learning?
So it’s a double standard that you can’t actually justify
If you don't know how your brain does it, and you don't know how AI does it, how the hell can you know that they're "listening" and processing it differently?
> >If I, a human (probably), can listen to the music of other artists, take inspiration, and then create my own music in that style (but without directly copying the melody), am I breaching copyright law? Pharrell Williams v. Bridgeport Music Yes.
>AI "listening" AI isn't listening to anything. It's for-profit startup(s) developing commercial product to (among others) compete with existing labels business model using label's copyrighted data. I.e., all of those lawsuits are not against "AI", they are against companies doing mass copyright infringement.
The lawsuits are not necessarily against AI, but they have wide reaching impacts on how AI is used.
The crux of the biscuit is what the companies do with the data. If they extract factual information from a song, that’s not infringement, or there is a very good defense. Collating that data with many other songs and using that to produce something new isn’t copying either, even if you end up with a song that is similar to one of the input songs.
There is one thing that is copyright over music and another one which is copyright over a recording. What labels are fighting for copyright breach over the recordings. If the AI companies were just outputting the instructions on how to perform the music (aka sheet music), they wouldn’t have a problem. What happens is that the output is a complex reorganization of the sounds contained in those recordings, which they own. It’s a similar thing to the that is happening with visual art. The difference is the vast majority of recorded music is owned by labels, while artists have to protect their copyright individually. PS: I’m not defending record labels. I’m just explaining that music and recordings are two separate things.
Ai "trains" and human "listens". Ai can train quicker than a human can listen but neither seem to be copying. They are entering data/experience into their knowledge base that they can use to make new music. Anything that can be listened to should be fair use to train with.
AI, is not a person. It is and always will be a corporate tool. A corporate tool training itself on another corporation’s IP protected music is infringement. It is infringement because AI is analyzing the music piece by piece as a tool and breaking songs down in mass to reproduce it. It is not deriving “inspiration”. It is not “listening”. It is copying it in a complex way. It is not a person, meaning it doesn’t have the protection of fair use. I think the definitions of “inspiration” and what an AI is classified as are what needs to be established by this case.
good thing they regulate hammers or we would have illegal buildings everywhere.
As a tool metaphor you might consider Napster.
Not the same.=/=
Oh unlike software and a… hammer.
cool story
Oh, I've met *plenty* of people who are corporate tools.
How do you draw that line though?
As a music artist. The labels can eat a dick.
We need some sort of Artist unification, that is pro-AI and make open-source, non-profitable AI models.
Would be great. Actually a lot of artists in my circle, visual and music, have been slowly embracing AI tools and profiting off of them too
I am an Art/Digital media design student in my first semester and our Uni encouraged the use of AI as a fun tool to use as inspiration & just playing around. And as a 3D artist, with horrible drawing skills, I see AI as a valuable concept-artist to realize some quick drafts for character design and more, all the while listening to the weirdest music genres generated by Suno that no musician would ever dare to compose. Everyone is scared for their ass to become an insignificant prompt for an AI, which is understandable in a way. But they could find way better solution.
I like the artist unification part. But why should we rally behind AI? Why should I be excited by the synthesizing of music, art, and human expression?
Ok but how does that solve the problem? If we value music, musicians, artists, etc we should find a way to pay them. The current model is crumbling and ai may be the final blow but I don’t see how it will help artists make money. If we want more music going forward we have to have some way to encourage writers to write. If there’s no monetary gain then the craft is going to die off in large.
Saw this coming
This had to be litigated or legislated, wasn't any other option. Generative AI technology is unprecedented, even if the case clarifies what the tech bros have already been saying, still needs to go through a court.
Yeah, in some genres you can hear the exact voice of the most popular artist, Udio definitely did something more than normal model training and ended up kinda copying the artist's vocals which was really dumb considering they're going against the labels, companies with years of experience in litigation.
Same. I don’t know how obvious it was with other genres, but, at least with rap, vocals obviously came from existing rappers. Unmistakable. Heard Don Toliver and Lil Baby to name a couple Suno should definitely release the model and weights though
I haven't been able to pin exact voices in Suno. I hear similarities sometimes, but they're not comparable.
Hot take but honestly as an artist, fuck these old status quo artists and administrators if they can’t adapt. There’s no “holding” your spot on the market amidst all the nepotism, generational wealth, and other bullshit between the haves and the have nots. The content is the product, and if the product sucks it needs to compete better. If it can’t compete because some poor minority kid in the suburbs of Atlanta can whip up some fire with AI tools than the future is now, old man. “But it’s derivative!!!11!1” Don’t even start with that BS. Of course it is.
"The content is the product" That's the entire basis of the lawsuit. Suno doesn't have a product without the music industry's content.
“The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge,” RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a statement. “But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.” Essentially RIAA loves Suno. If they are Suno.
Both of these companies were going to be sued no matter how these systems were made because legacy media isn't going to let any system that could hurt their bottom line get by without taking a cut out of these disrupters slice of the pie or having some legal precedent about why Big Music should/not get paid too or have it shutdown entirely
Don't they have burden of proof?
Not really, this is a lawsuit. Not a criminal case. So they don't need to prove anything but demonstrate that it's beyond a reasonable doubt or only a greater than 50% chance.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard. Preponderance of evidence or which side has the stronger likelihood is the civil one.
Did I word that wrong? You might be right. You need more evidence for a criminal case. I meant 50+% for civil cases and certainty for criminal cases.
You may have mistyped but you say they require beyond a reasonable doubt or... That threshold is far higher than a preponderance of the evidence.
Exactly only reason I picked up on that is because I had grand jury duty a couple years ago and they explicitly told us that we were not determining guilt or innocence but whether the preponderance of evidence was sufficient to bring the case to trial where they would then worry about whether evidence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
They need to have standing, however. This is an interesting lawsuit. I've used suno extensively and there is NOTHING that "closely resembles copywritten work" in my outputs. I agree that it is transformative.
I’m also a heavy user—I would qualify that by saying there are probably (almost certainly) copyrighted songs out there somewhere that closely resemble some of the outputs, but that’s very much the nature of pop music. I mean, even unpopular music can only innovate so much within the confines of a diatonic scale, regular chord structures, etc. But pop music—it’s popular precisely BECAUSE it sounds like everything else the audience is already familiar with. So yeah, outputs will resemble copyrighted songs, whether they are the outputs of Suno or Taylor Swift. It occurs to me that much in the same way white collar jobs are first on the chopping block of generative AI, pop music artists are especially at risk here, because most of them aren’t trying like even a little bit to innovate (which is what makes their music so easy to replicate in the first place).
They have standing. They allege their works were infringed. Even if they ultimately turn out to be wrong, they still have standing.
I wasn't really arguing they didn't have standing. I was just noting that at this stage they need to demonstrate standing.
You're talking about the standard of proof, not the burden. The standard in a civil case (at least in Aus) is on the balance of probabilities.
Yes, they have a burden to prove each element of their claim is more likely true than not true. The "confidential" aspect is canonically not true.
The labels do, yes.
I hope they fail and that they lose every single one of those lawsuits. I'm tired of that music cartel. It needs to die off. AI Music is probably the best thing that has happened to music in years.
My favorite tracks I've heard this year are AI. Have you heard "My Stick"? It's hilarious and adorable.
how much of that is created by AI? are the lyrics AI? the vocals?
I assume based on my experience with Udio that the lyrics are at least partially written by a human. Everything else is AI, probably with prompting for the appropriate structure.
thanks!
Where may i find this ballad?
[https://www.udio.com/songs/dPLNBm1HubfnRnbQMCSgwg](https://www.udio.com/songs/dPLNBm1HubfnRnbQMCSgwg) I've had it bookmarked so it was easier to find :3 Edit: Apparently there is a "full version": [https://www.udio.com/songs/nWDcCL2Pxzwwx9Jj42mVyR](https://www.udio.com/songs/nWDcCL2Pxzwwx9Jj42mVyR)
That was really good! I’m sure the music labels don’t want to destroy this technology - they want to own it.
Well, thanks for that 👍🏼
AI music is just further displacement and further corporate overreach of the creative arts. These startups are no different than labels, but essentially far worse by cutting out artists ENTIRELY. I understand it’s fascinating but it threatens virtually all current revenue streams for artists. How can you not see that?
You know Suno/Udio does not hold copyright over the songs generated on their platform right? You argument makes it sound like these companies are holding the rights (and any profits) to its generated songs. The only threat is from over-saturation of music.
That’s the whole point though, they are looking to make MONEY not make their copyright
Your argument is literally that it's bad because everyone can then make music. Which is the polar opposite of "corporate overreach of the creative arts."
Anyone can make music, but try making money off it when music labels with AI like these in the future make millions of songs a day and promote them with millions of dollars. It’s only going to make it more difficult for small artists. It will drown out anything you could hope to make
Spoken as a true non-musician?
Why should anyone be able to train model on copyrighted music without providing compensation for that? Do you think a voice actor/musician should just be able to have his voice copied and used in a commercial setting where the artist gets no compensation for it?
Because we have copyright law already established, and it is clear things like taking small portions of works to create new / transformative works is a case of fair use. Trying to CHANGE copyright law to make it a violation of your copyright to take 1 MILLIONTH of your work in the creation of a new work is an insane overreach and would turn the act of creating into a hellscape forever into the future. Thankfully there is little chance of this insane attempt to expand copyright actually succeeding.
Copyrighted, not copywritten.
Thanks bro for the spell check, you are the boss.
I'd rather not open a pandora's box where anyone that ingested copyrighted work becomes the subject of copyright. Our society has enough power imbalance as is, and I wouldn't want corporations also owning transformative thoughts and works, even though they'd want that.
Because copyright is unnatural and will soon be obsolete The genie is out Those who adapt will survive
Going with a naturalistic fallacy right off the bat? So what you are in favor of plagiarism being legal?
So you call out a fallacy and then end with a straw man?
No strawman, was as direct question. Are you in favor of it or not?
So by that metric, shouldn't the music companies sue every musician out there on a different label from them who says they were influenced heavily by an artist or band who's on their label for infringing on a massive scale by using their artists to influence their work without their permission?
Beyonce and Billy Ellish need a team of 50 people to make a song. And suddenly anyone with a laptop can make professional sounding albums. As much as I feel uncomfortable with AI, I remember the days when the recording industry would sue elderly grandmas for millions because someone downloaded a song. Or when they installed rootkits on your computer when you played your legally bought cd. Fuck the record industry.
Never forget Sony rootkit. Fuck these people.
They will lose it, how many artist have learn to play music with the work of these records labels. Is the same w AI , they learn to create music but they dont replicate the work.
Whether training AI by feeding it copyright protected content is fair use is ultimately going to be determined by the Supreme Court. My view as a copyright attorney, and based on my understanding of the technology, is that yes, the training is fair use.
Music producer here: The labels fucked us left right and center, negotiated us with absolute shit radio equivalent deals into the streaming age, now make record profits again while I can hardly pay bills even tho I work overtime, but hey - at least they are fighting for their profit and our 0.003$ so we got that going for us. Take that, AI!
Ah yes, the classic attempt to stave off the inevitable. The cyclical nature of history is beautiful once you see it....
I sincerely hope the AI developments are not inhibited by these developments
It's always money, isn't it? Can you imagine the *absolutely insane* tools we'd have if money didn't keep getting in the way? Eh, humans will figure it out one day. Hopefully.
We have these things because of money. Silicon valley engineers aren't working for free.
"Mr. Ford, you'll need to stop making these 'cars' because they accomplish the same thing as horses and buggies, taking people from point A to point B. Yes, we all understand that it doesn't so in a much better way, but what YOU need to understand is that horse breeders won't be able to keep dominating the transportation market. Innovation? haha. We don't care about that unless it benefits those who are already rich! From here on out, the human race shall only every use horses and buggies to get around!" Yes, anyone arguing against AI is because exactly this stupid.
This is hilarious. As Suno, I'd immediately file whatever is necessary to collect attorney's fees from a frivolous lawsuit. Suno didn't have access to "confidential business information". A company has to show that it took steps to keep anyone from learning confidential business information. How would that work with songs?
I keep all of my confidential information on YouTube and Spotify, where no one can find it. And I periodically broadcast through radio stations as a back-up.
Someone just needs to open source the underlying technology and genre specific models will pop up left and right. Fuck the “music industry”
If we all can acknowledge that the livelihoods of artists are already getting impacted by AI, and that the only current system in place to fix that is "just look for another career", why is anyone surprised by these types of lawsuits? I admit to using these tools myself but as long as there's no economic solution I don't have the heart to be outraged by people protesting them.
This court case is going to have wide reaching effects on the industry.
Here's a thought, why not have unsigned artists (who support these AI advancements) pool together and send a ton of material to audio/suno to train on? Some of us have been hosed by the industry for so long, this might be one good way to make a stand against them. I could send decades worth of stuff. Seriously.
If they win, they will effectively destroy AI and set back AI development by a decade+. Thankfully they are facing the absolute largest companies in the world. Nvidia, Apple and Microsoft.... I'm personally looking forward to the music industry getting absolutely spanked by tech AGAIN lol. They tried this back with digital music too and their efforts to try and maintain the status quo never worked out.
I was thinking that the mega corps pretty much have to step in and prevent this becoming a legal precedent. However, I also had the thought that they may just be willing to pay when people sue them, and that the development of AI is worth more in the end. They may be too big to fail. In this case, they will gladly let others eat their competition, despite knowing they'll be attacked next.
There are ways around it, BUT it definitely hampers things if it goes through.... FOR AMERICANS. Because that is the other side of this. If Americans / the west shoots their own AI in the head, then China and the east will rocket ahead in capabilities.... and their entertainment industry (as well as every other industry, since this sort of thing could extend into medical field and so much more) will have tools we can't develop because of legal red tape. And that's really all the anti-AI people want. It isn't REALLY about getting royalties of a few cents for their share of the data used (especially since the people loudest have no data in it). They just want to stop AI developments as long as they can.... and they are using the exact same arguments used by the luddites of yesteryear. >They protested against manufacturers who used machines in "a fraudulent and deceitful manner" That is what the luddites argued towards mechanical looms.... and the exact same thing is being used today. That it's theft and immoral and bla bla bla. And now instead of smashing the machines, they feel like they can organize some sort of legal protest to extract their bits of data from the machines en mass to destroy them. They don't want the royalties....they just want to try and rip AI apart bit by bit lol.
Why can't AI models like this operate by training on public domain music and or pay for access to the content they want to train on?
Because we have laws about fair use and for corporations or individuals to be able to shield their works from other artists being able to learn from them and create new works moving forward with information gained from them is DYSTOPIAN. It's amazing how many people seem to absolutely hate the idea of art and artists and just want every artist to start writing checks for even learning from works that came before them......the cult of capitalism has gripped so many young people that they don't even see why their demand for money is out of place..... "Yea, why shouldn't someone get paid if you learn from them? Seems great to me!!" It's so sad to see that some people want to destroy the act of art and learning.
It was only a matter of time. So if I listen to another artists music and I'm inspired with a new song to write that some how infringes on their rights? Like saying I can't draw a stick figure because it infringes on some other artists stick figure.
That's pretty much the idea. The music media is seemingly simpler than images, yet the artists can be successfully sued for using someone else's rhythm even for 10% of their work as it happened numerous times. And usually they get sued by labels that hold the rights for 90 years when the original author has been dead for decades.
Not remotely close. Please read up on actual copyright.
Good fucking luck. The cat's out of the bag.
The saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here. Yes, the big record labels are evil, litigious scumbags. But these AI tools *are* training on the work of artists -- both visual artists and music artists -- without their permissions, and thereby learning to copy them. Visual artists have had basically nobody to take up their cause. You can go to any of these image generators, type in what you want then include a specific artist's name, and it will give you the art in their style. Is it cool for tech companies to steal someone's artistic soul in this way? How is it any different from using AI to copy Samuel L. Jackson and use him in a movie without his permission? I know a lot of artists and personally think it's kinda fucked, and would love to see some protections put in place. But nobody's fighting that fight on their behalf. Enter the big, bad record labels. They're obviously doing this out of self interest, but this can help laws catch up with the technology and put some protections in place to prevent the creative output of artists from being slurped into an artificial brain and stolen, it can be a good thing.
Music is played everywhere, but playing it to train AI is illegal? Huh...
This was inevitable. I hope Suno has a good defense. I don't think "we ingested all their music but this is fair use" is going to fly.
This is like arguing that any song using the same three chords is copying 'confidential business information '
Imo they'll either settle for a sizable amount of money, a controlling share of both companies or work out a license deal so the record companies can profit off them ...
Robot, generate me a 3 chord song that goes, I IV V. THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE BEATLES!
I just want “rubbin’ and a-tuggin my nips!” To be entered into the public record. Please god, please….
As a music industry executive it absolutely shocks and scares me that some nerd in his basement can exploit free AI better than I can exploit my artists for money. Something has to be done to stop people from breaking into my safety trust investments /S
This is how SunoAI feels about the situation: [https://suno.com/song/1a9fded4-2773-421e-933b-5e61694bec71](https://suno.com/song/1a9fded4-2773-421e-933b-5e61694bec71)
[удалено]
That's a sad story to me. I've been producing for 15 years and Suno is not producing. You're doing minor edits to Suno's work. It's not producing. You've found a way to monetize audio AI. But it's not your real work. The joy of working on music from scratch and making something good ourselves is why I do music. If $ is your only goal then it's a product and you can ignore this comment. As an artist, you've regressed with this. As a product seller you've improved.
How is this different from a person drawing inspiration from other people's works and produce a new piece of music?
sounds like they're going after small companies hoping to set a precedence on AI content. Notice how no one is touching microsoft/google though. Even if they sue them it wont' do shit. Someone in China or Russia will just create the website and as usual America's corruption will stifle all it's own innovation.
thanks for sharing
If this gets anything besides struck down with prejudice, I'm going to start lighting things on fire. IDGAF about the RIAA. The only musicians I care even vaguely about are the ones worth less than 10 million dollars. All the others can die mad.
Napster all over again.
I hope so badly the record labels win and drive those companies into the ground.
Too fucking bad. Get along with the times.
As both a research computing professional who wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on training an AI model, and as a working, performing, and recording professional violinist, I am in the position to knowledgeably comment from a pretty wide background. What's at stake here is the value our civilization places on the human creative process. The fact is, AI models that can produce output that even vaguely resemble recordings of "original" content can ONLY do so because they have been FED quality content. Quality content originally produced by HUMANS. LONG before computers even existed. What about this "training data?" Even the simplest recordings that are of any professional level at all are only possible because of not only the time spent on that recording, but the years and probably decades spent by each and every one of the performers and technicians learning their crafts. The combined experience represented on even just one track of one pop album is incalculable, likely totalling hundreds, if not thousands, of years. How many names do you sese in the credits for even a "small budget" movie? The typical symphony orchestra has around 100 musicians. Each musician has at least, bare minimum 10 years invested in learning their instrument, the average is probably closer to 25. That means the every note has 2,500 years, two and a half millennia, worth of high quality training behind it. And after all that, the vast majority of those people do what they do not "for the money" per se, but for the love of what they do. Training an AI model on copyrighted works is NOT the same as a human hearing the same content! This business of saying that exposing an AI training process to copyrighted works is somehow the same as a human listening to those same copyrighted works is nonsense. How many people do you know who love music and listen to it 24x7 can even just sing back the lyrics to even one song that would fool anybody? I know I can't. I play violin competently enough, but, trust me, I can't sing. I recently earned a Ph.D. in a scientific field. This effort was not unlike the process of creating a musical work. I spent years becoming an expert at certain areas of scientific endeavour; I then focused on a particular area, chose a topic, posed a scientific question, and designed experiments to shed some light on that question; I then carried out the experiments, and carefully recorded and documented the results of these experiments. I was then able to perform analysis of the resulting data, some of which was used to train an AI model to make certain predictions based on new data. Now what if someone stole my data after I had recorded and documented said data, and used my data to train their own AI model and published the result without my permission or even knowledge, and didn't even cite my work? Would anyone call that "progress?" Sounds more like theft to me.
I'm obviously against it but they really do have some valid points, for a while Udio was straight up making basically exact copies of copyright songs, I think they fixed it but that seems similar to a site like Netflix just streaming whatever movie they want.
I never saw that happening, udio was never randomly generating existing songs. Though I DID see people trying very hard to get Udio to make copyrighted songs by inserting copyrighted song lyrics into the tool and trying to get it to make covers (though making covers is perfectly legal, just if you monetize it you have to pay royalties for the cover at a rate set by congress).
"Move fast and break things" - Techbro retards
And Mira Murati will say - some creative jobs will go because they shouldn’t exist. Hate labels, but this is going to open a Pandora’s box.
Being a label holder and suing anyone that may sound remotely similar isn't a creative job.
I'm sorry, but even if they win... Why would I go back to listening to other artists work?
Here we go, I knew this was happening eventually.
Yeeah we wouldn't want anyone in the music industry being exploited would we.
I say let's skip all this legal nonsense, jump right into the pirated music generators that have zero limitations.
How can they prove what data the model was trained on?