Will probably turn out that when distributed to Spotify you gave them the right to sell it to AI without benefits passing to you in any way shape or form.
Seems like the kind of dick move old Ek would play.
Your agreement is with your distributor, not the platform.
The Distrokid agreement states that
> Without limiting the foregoing, you agree that DistroKid shall have the right to grant UGC Services the following related rights:
>
> to reproduce, distribute, and **prepare derivative works**
Emphasis mine.
That's a very grey area, legally speaking, to me. It's likely going to take a class action lawsuit or something crowdfunded to get it even seen in court. The big labels' case *may* set a precedent, but they don't have our interests at heart; they just want the monopoly on AI-generated content.
But you're absolutely right that we need to be cognisant of terms.
Musicians shouldn't be so quick to support the labels in their suits against the AI companies.
Not only because the labels are not doing it as a favor to musicians.
But because any ruling against those companies could eventually be applied against musicians.
For example, the AI produces a song. It sounds a little too much like one that an artist made. The labels win their lawsuit. Then that case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer.
And think about the lawsuits regarding AI training on music catalogs. How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music? After all, human musicians train on music, too.
So always remember. The labels exploit musicians and cheat them. We are not on the same team with them. And any actions they take against AI could eventually be turned against musicians as well.
My understanding is that at least part of the reason for the lawsuit is that the major labels want to be doing this, themselves.
>**So always remember. The labels exploit musicians and cheat them. We are not on the same team with them. And any actions they take against AI could eventually be turned against musicians as well.**
Absolutely. This should be burned into every musician's brain.
Yep. It's another example of big corporations squeezing out competitors.
And in big tech, they also like to do this because it can push the smaller company into bankruptcy and completely eliminate the competitor. Or, the expensive legal battles can turn them into a cheap buy.
>My understanding is that at least part of the reason for the lawsuit is that the major labels want to be doing this, themselves.
And they will stop exploiting musicians.
The alternative is labels siding WITH AI and completely phasing people out of the section of the music industry that actually makes money. I understand what you're getting at here, but I still like my odds better in a court of law with a jury of my peers than I do as a number on a spreadsheet against what is essentially free labor.
What you CAN do is follow those cases and watch where you can differentiate between human and AI behavior to distance future cases away from the precedent being set.
Exactly. AI is so new there's no legal presedence to it, one can't hosta blanket statement that whatever that apply to AI they will apply to humans. Can't think that. That's what laws are for, what courts are for, and lawyers. If anything we need to use Reddit to inform each other what our rights are so we have legally actionable options.
And yes, I know we're not lawyers on this sub.
I think there is and we will see those Labels winning.
Training model is very similar in it's essence to mp3 compression and using samples in creating new music. If I use matrix multiplication to create mp3 from wav and use it in my new song, there would be no question if it is infringement or not.
If I use matrix multiplication to rearrange samples of your work into my work and call it "training" it doesn't change much the essence of the process. Matrix multiplication.
You're getting at exactly what I'm getting at, except you seem to have the proper vocabulary for it, lol. A language learning model's thought process isn't just definable, it's traceable, and therefore makes it much mire susceptible to copyright law. We barely understand how the human brain works, much less have a reliable, quantifiable model with which to trace and predict its behavior.
I fully believe that any legislation/rulings against AI will be used against musicians as well, I just think we can also make a more robust case.
>The alternative is labels siding WITH AI and completely phasing people out of the section of the music industry that actually makes money.
AI is just a tool. They are not "siding" with it.
But of course. The big labels and Spotify want to move to using AI for music, instead of musicians. It's cheaper for them in the long run.
>I understand what you're getting at here, but I still like my odds better in a court of law with a jury of my peers than I do as a number on a spreadsheet against what is essentially free labor.
I don't know what court case you're talking about.
Sorry, let me be overly specific so you can't intentionally misread or ignore what I'm saying.
I'd rather major labels go very deep in litigating against AI copyright infringement. I'll gladly welcome it. It's better protection for intellectual property that, in my mind, strengthens an artist's ownership over their work. You can mathematically determine an AI's behavior because all it IS is numbers. You can't mathematically determine and prove out human intuition or inspiration, or if you can we're a long ways off because we barely understand the human brain to begin with. Much less enough to model out how it works reliably.
I would rather be in your proposed slippery-slope hypothetical of indie artists being hunted down like rats in copyright infringement cases, because I feel confident standing in front of a jury of my peers and proving my case is different than the precedent used to rule against AI infringement.
Besides that, harsh ruling against AI makes an AI product riskier to use and better protects human artists' place in music. There's something to be said for making risk-averse major labels choose between free(ish) art that is likely to be struck down or more expensive art that might last long enough to turn a profit. In the other situation, unrestrained AI WILL replace people and it's not an eventuality - it's the near future, because there's no longer an added risk that balances out the decrease in cost.
It's not a pretzel. But it definitely is crazy this is how it works in our society.
Historically, intellectual property case law (and legislative IP law) has always been used to benefit the big intellectual property holders far more than it has individual creators and the general public. They have always used it to maintain their dominance over their respective media industries.
And there is a lot of well documented history of music labels and distributors exploiting and cheating musicians. This has been going on since the first days of vinyl recording. Whenever they can figure out how to pay less to musicians, or charge them a fee, they always do.
There are lots of books written about these things if you want to look into it.
I mean maybe, but ultimately "AI" is simply the largest and most complex plagiarism machine ever created by mankind, so far.
Just because the Labels are bad, doesn't imply that anything the labels against is good. AI based on large language models that need to be trained on copyrighted work is a cancer, and it should be vivisected out of any good and functional society. But the Labels are bad too, and they definitely steal from artists as well. Both are pretty shitty, but I do think there's an argument that AI is even worse than the Labels, and that's *saying something.*
>I mean maybe, but ultimately "AI" is simply the largest and most complex plagiarism machine ever created by mankind, so far.
Music AI is not a lot different from humans. You have likely listened to thousands of songs, and many of them multiple times, in order to be able to make music. As a music creator you are either intuitively or actively drawing on the patterns and individual sounds in your memory, and the connections your brain made between them, from listening to those songs.
So I guess all human musicians are plagiarists as well?
>Just because the Labels are bad, doesn't imply that anything the labels against is good.
The labels aren't suing AI companies because they are against AI. The labels are suing them because they don't want new players in the music industry. They want to be the ones that own and control the AI.
The labels want to either force the new AI companies into bankruptcy and out of the music industry, while they develop their own. Or weaken them enough with expensive lawsuits so that they can buy them up. It's the same pattern that big tech has repeatedly used with new innovations by smaller companies.
So yeah. They're not doing anything good here.
>Both are pretty shitty, but I do think there's an argument that AI is even worse than the Labels, and that's saying something.
AI is going to replace many musicians, whether we like it or not, and it will change music forever. These legal battles are only about which corporations positions themselves best to dominate music with AI.
>Music AI is not a lot different from humans
It is very different. Humans listen to understand and then learn how play / create music with tools . "AI" algorithm is creating tensors that is able to copy parts of the listened music and rearange it. It doesn't "recreate" the music with tools, it recreates the whole spectral spectrum at once form bits of information it averaged.
>
The labels aren't suing AI companies because they are against AI. The labels are suing them because they don't want new players in the music industry. They want to be the ones that own and control the AI.
No, they are suing because their legal right were infringed and they are searching for damages. When someone steals you car you act on it. You don't need second motivation.
AI is going to replace many musicians, whether we like it or not, and it will change music forever.
It won't change much. It's like making music today was a significant cost to anyone. The only players on the market that might see some real saving with use of AI are companies holding catalogs for music for commercial use for syndication etc. But for those companies potential legal problems would be a show stopper. So either Udio/Suno will be able to lobby changes in copyright laws (improbable) or AI music company start using legal data for training (but then the effects won't be so impressive
>No, they are suing because their legal right were infringed and they are searching for damages.
You're very naive if you think that's the primary motivation.
Big tech has repeatedly done the same thing to quash new competitors with different kinds of legal entanglement.
All the record labels really care about is that they end up owning and controlling the primary AI production services in the industry.
You are calling me naive even though I just presented the obvious really and then assume a lot of things based on basically nothing.
If labels where really into tech they would create their own streaming services. They didn’t. Are they hiring AI specialists now? Are they buying up GPU servers? Are they willing to pour millions into costs of training? I haven’t heard about it
But do they litigate every time they see money in it? Yes they do and do it aggressively. And this one is just another example.
> case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer.
This problem already exists and is basically part of the copyright bargain. It isn't going to get worse because copyright is enforced vs bot trainers.
> musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers
We already make at least some distinctions in the law between human beings and automated processes that happen at scale, and if we lose the distinction to do that, then our biggest problem would be the fact that the law would no longer exist to serve human beings.
If there wasn't a huge difference between individuals experiencing or even studying a music catalog versus an automated process being deliberately trained on a catalog for the purpose of automated production, nobody would even *care* about this issue (or making bots). We can and should get the law to care about this distinction.
First of all there is no parallel between them two. The process of training AI is just called that -training. In fact is is matrix multiplication and gradient computing operation. Humans don't learn like that. There is no similarity other than human sounding names.
>This problem already exists and is basically part of the copyright bargain. It isn't going to get worse because copyright is enforced vs bot trainers.
Sure it is. The more copyright case law, the more it can be abused.
>The more copyright case law, the more it can be abused.
But only to certain degree. Copyright laws are global. There is Copyright Convention and and countries that signed it need to have their laws harmonized to some degree. USA is deviating probably the most form the average but still can't deviate to much.
>Then that case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer.
The lawsuit is not about if it's similar or not but if they used copyrighted material without permission. Different think entirely.
>
How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music
Music is published to be listen to. It is permitted use of the content. You are inventing no existing laws for.. what?
The labels exploit musicians and cheat them
Some do, some don't. There is a lot of artists that have good deal and probably way more with bad deals. But there are artists who don't deliver on promises given to labels when being signed. It's a gross oversimplification and generalization. Labels are businesses. They are in this for profit.
Especially, when the core problem is morally and legally pretty simple - those AI companies are using copyrighted material without permission and are breaking not only the literal sence of the copyright law but also - even more importantly - the spirit of it, ie. protecting economic rights of the copyright holders and not letting third parties to proffit from intellectual work without permission.
Honestly it is a NET GOOD to have majors going against AI Companies sourcing data by using all of the music streaming platforms WITHOUT permission.
It's a gross practice.
And it's something that should be stopped immediately.
It’s a bullshit lawsuit, because they are creating their own generative music ai models utilizing their own catalogs and IP. They are behind.
suno and udio are also using already pre-trained models by either google or stability ai. They are basically customized skins.
I wouldn't call it a "bullshit lawsuit." But I completely agree.
Their goal is to stop Suno and Udio from becoming major players in the music industry. They want to control AI music.
And you're right. It could be they want to create their own AI. It could also be that they hope to put enough financial pressure on Suno and/or Udio to force them to sell to the big labels.
At least, this is what big tech has repeatedly done with lawsuits against smaller competitors entering the market with major disruptive technologies. They either bankrupt them while they create their own competitive technology. Or buy them.
"*Musicians shouldn't be so quick to support the labels in their suits against the AI companies. Not only because the labels are not doing it as a favor to musicians. But because any ruling against those companies could eventually be applied against musicians*."
Sorry, but this is just a theory and I don't buy it.
There's a saying, "shoot the alligator closest to the boat". Well, the giant fucking gator trying to take us all under are these AI companies. They are hoovering up every piece of music they can get their hands on without: 1) the knowledge of, 2) authorization from, or 3) payment to the owners. They are using our hard work to enrich themselves and devalue our product even further.
As someone said, what's the alternative? Sit by and let it happen? No fucking way! The record labels are the only ones with pockets deep enough to stop this. I wish them godspeed!
Does that mean I trust the big labels? Of course not. But let's deal with the immediate threat. Just letting it happen is foolish beyond words.
"How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music?"
I'm surprised this is news to you but people already pay to listen to music, legally at least.
THIS PART! I hate the idea of AI in music but you’re right, I’m not siding and championing for the major labels either. The only silver lining in this is the major labels are getting a taste of their own medicine. If anything this is a time for the indie musicians and producers to rise up and level the playing field.
That's true. It should also be noted that those labels simply want their own AIs to flood the market. That's the main reason for suing OpenAI and Microsoft. If the labels win, things might get even worse.
>If the labels win, things might get even worse.
I think it definitely will.
If the big labels aren't the dominant AI music producers, then they are likely to continue to work with musicians. And value human-created music.
But if they are the ones who come up with the AI that can replace musicians, they will eventually get rid of musicians as their clients. And they'll use their weight to push music created by musicians out of distribution markets.
Because that's what big corporations always do.
At least they will try to do that. The question is how competent their attempts will be and how much money they can put into their own systems and how accessible they will be (to poison them, for example).
Also if you have music online other humans are ripping you off
I don’t like AI music as much as the next guy here, but the concern that is a “rip off” is a bit silly as far as music goes
Other humans don’t have multi billion dollar companies being built off other peoples work . There’s a difference between a human listening to a song and being inspired and a company proffering off music that it makes using other peoples songs
Well, if another human rips me off, they risk litigation. The way that AI and humans work in this regard is fundamentally different, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you
Sure, and to the millions of songs that are rip off with no issue… I don’t remember that case much. I do remember the same estate trying to sue for “thinking out loud” chord progression so i wouldn’t be surprised if it was dumb
If another human extracts statistical data from songs, including yours, no, they don't risk litigation. That's what AI training is, and you are inadvertently doing this too when listening to songs, that's why you can recognize styles and compose music in one of those or a combination of several.
If that other human then uses that data to create a new composition, they don't face litigation either. Why would they?
The difference with AI is the speed and scale that can be achieved through automation, which is what makes it an unfair competitor (like any other automation).
>The difference with AI is the speed and scale that can be achieved through automation, which is what makes it an unfair competitor (like any other automation).
The difference is the law only recognizes human creativity. An AI is not able to copyright its outputs, in the same way a monkey doesn't get copyright if it takes a selfie.
It's just a computer system like any other, the question is whether the humans at the company infringed on the copyright while feeding copyrighted data to that computer system for commercial use, or if it's considered fair use.
> The difference is the law only recognizes human creativity. An AI is not able to copyright its outputs, in the same way a monkey doesn't get copyright if it takes a selfie.
That too, which is a good thing in order to prevent automated copyright hoarding, because of that speed and scale.
Right, if infringement is happening it's the person (either human or corporation) that's responsible, not the computer.
The [monkey selfie case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute) is a good one for this 'only people interact with copyright' thing.
Yep. And people REFUSE to admit this. In all forms of art ive said this and people will not admit it about themselves. Everyone is doing and has done what generative ai models do just not as consistently and at varying levels of quality.
And they will say "But it's different if a machine does jt"!!! ....
Lol these anti-AI people have gone so far down an echo chamber of arguments they are just a joke now. They aren't arguing with reality anymore.... it's sad.
AI is going to analyze everything about you, and your musical identity will disappear.
Why would a human being devote their life to creating music, if as soon as they create anything worthwhile AI will steal it?
No human will be able to create anything new and profit from it.
It's just going to be machines. This will kill the artform.
Although humans playing actual instruments will probably still be safe, as long as there's a way to differentiate real humans playing instruments from AI fake humans. Which, there won't be, so, art of music will die, and you're supporting it.
>Why would a human being devote their life to creating music, if as soon as they create anything worthwhile AI will steal it?
Because people that love making music *need* to make music.
It doesn't matter if I don't make any money, in fact I actively lose money by making music from buying equipment and paying subscription fees, yet I still do it whenever I have the free time to because I love the process and outlet.
AI might change the business, but as long as humans exist, so will music.
Artists will not die out. If you love music you will keep making it. Even if music as we know it ends, the urge for humans to express creativity would not.
When photography first became a thing, lots of artists argued about painting becoming obsolete. Instead what happened was painting moved into places that photography couldn't, and both evolved into newer forms of art like film and animation.
The most likely form of music to be killed off by AI is royalty free commercial muzak, but people will always create and seek music that is meaningful to them.
No, it takes so much effort to be a great artist. If there is no money in it, they can't exist. People who suck will be able to suck, sure.
But the profession will die.
Hopefully people will still enjoy instrumentalists. Orchestra players will be ok.
Most everything else will suck
It's so fucking sad to me how the people that should love the artform the most, and wish for it to thrive, are all here siding with AI.
Bunch of fucking traitors.
It's shit like this that makes me want to take all my music away, and not let a single soul experience it.
You disappoint me immensely
Lol I really don't give a shit whether I disapoint a rando on the internet or not, especially one that sounds way more concerned about making money than music like you do.
I will continue to make my music whether the robots take over or not. I believe that good music will last forever, that the need to create beautiful art is an inherent part of being human.
>It's shit like this that makes me want to take all my music away, and not let a single soul experience it.
Go ahead no one fucking cares lol
You don't know shit about me. I'm way more concerned about making music, but to do it at the highest level, I need to work at it all day every day.
In order to be able to do that, I need a place to live, and food to eat.
Ya, no one fucking cares. Exactly. That's a shame. You care about fucking around as a hobby, but you have no appreciation for the artform. No appreciation for what a human being can do if their dedicate their life to making it.
Maybe the artform has already died I guess.
I hope you never hear my music.
Yes, exactly, but in that kind of case it doesn't matter at all whether the song was created by AI. The copyright infringement, as always, lies in the similarity of the output and not in the references used.
I don’t really think that’s true, or at least I think if a person does what AI does it wouldn’t be considered ripping off in the sense you are suggesting
If you take the top 1000 songs in a genre, and by your own hand, compile a list of the most popular chords and voicings used, then compile where they most typically sit within those songs, then write out a chord progression using those averages to make a song that is the average of all those songs, then roll some dice to impartially add some randomness to the voicing… have you stolen from anyone in a legal sense? Your chord progression would be extremely derivative and uninspired but is it literally stealing from a song?
What if you applied this logic to the tone of 1000 songs, mapping out the synths on wave tables and finding some average tone that sits between the most popular ones? If you map out on what beat on average accents go, and the average timbre for the bridge chorus and verse of popular songs, and then apply that to your boring chord progression and roll some dice to decide where to randomly add some color. That’s a soulless process but did you “rip off” anyone to the point where they can sue you?
The idea that AI in any meaningful way “steals” ideas doesn’t really add up imo. The only argument I can see making sense is that given that it uses **quantifiable data**, you could argue that counts as sampling, even if it’s sampling hundreds of thousands of songs. But then does any given fraction of a second of a song using diffusion even contain an *actual* 1:1 moment of audio lifted directly from any of the songs “sampled”?
And if that’s stealing then groups like Justice are stealing when they get 1000 tiny samples of instruments from obscure records to “build” a new instrument for a song
The smaller scale matters. The fact it is AI and not people matters.
What you're saying is like somebody complaining that digital media is going to destroy the value of music, and then you're like "ya, but if I listen to your song, I can play the same song on my instrument, so what's the difference!".
The differences you're mentioning are not negligible. The are the details that make all the difference.
>The smaller scale matters. The fact it is AI and not people matters.
Legally, maybe not. It depends upon whatever EULA the music service has if they are training AI using digital streaming of some kind. If they are using CDs and vinyl, there may be no such restrictions on physical media.
And how big is the difference in scale?
>What you're saying is like somebody complaining
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out that people train on music to create music. It's not just an AI thing.
You have likely listened to thousands of songs, and many of them multiple times, in order to be able to make music. As a music creator you are either intuitively or actively drawing on the patterns and individual sounds in your memory, and the connections your brain made between them, from listening to those songs.
You being hostile towards AI because you fear what it will do to the music industry doesn't make that less true.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a lawyer with current laws. I'm looking at it philosophically, as in what's good for humanity.
>Legally, maybe not. It depends upon whatever EULA the music service has if they are training AI using digital streaming of some kind. If they are using CDs and vinyl, there may be no such restrictions on physical media
None of those permmited use of copyrigted material for model training. The licence you get alows you for listening to only. But there is a deeper meaning of copyright laws, they were made to protect the economic value of intellectual property and portect copyright owner (implicitly the creator, but in practice, especially in USA, copyright owners are in many cases not creators themselves) the right to gain from its creations. Using your own creation to create machine that will compete directly with your creations is against the spirit of copyright laws.
>None of those permmited use of copyrigted material for model training. The licence you get alows you for listening to only.
Ummm... Unless something has changed, CDs and vinyl don't come with licenses. They are protected under standard copyright law.
I also don't know if the streaming service licenses specifically forbid AI model training.
>But there is a deeper meaning of copyright laws, they were made to protect the economic value of intellectual property and portect copyright owner (implicitly the creator, but in practice, especially in USA, copyright owners are in many cases not creators themselves) the right to gain from its creations.
Actually, under US copyright law, the purpose of intellectual property rights is to promote progress as expressed in the US Constitution. If you are used to EU IP law, for example, it is rooted more in the notions of property and rights of the creator. There's historical documentation about how the writers of the Constitution purposely moved away from that notion of copyright when writing it.
But anyway, that's getting off track. In the US, there are specific copyright law statutes. And I have not read them lately, but in the past, there didn't seem to be anything that would have restricted someone from using their physical media to train an AI.
Of course they where. There is no “ protected under standard copyright law” about CD’s explicitly. Every time you buy content, the owner of the copyrights grants you a licence for use it within certain restrictions. The licnece can be implicit (however in my country the prrmited use is printend in the CD booklet, I don’t have US CD nearby to check if it’s the same).
Copyright law is based on international law, ie Copyright Convention. What you wrote about constitution is also true - the progress comes with having creators paid and their work protected.
We will see what courts say, but I am convinced that labels have very strong case here and will probably win. If not, I am starting company that would stream AI movies “trained” on copyrighted material, that would be 99% the same as the original.
>Of course they where. There is no “ protected under standard copyright law” about CD’s explicitly. Every time you buy content, the owner of the copyrights grants you a licence for use it within certain restrictions.
No. That is not true for physical media in the US.
Physical books do not come with a license. Vinyl does not come with a license. And I just have not checked in the last several years, but CDs did not used to come with a license.
They may have a copyright notice. But that is not a license.
And a copyright notice is not required under US law. Because copyright is granted to a creator when a creative work is fixed in a medium. So if you purchase a photograph, it does not necessarily have a copyright notice on it. If you buy a piece of artwork, it will typically not have a copyright notice on it. But they are copyrighted unless they are old enough they are in the public domain.
There is an exception where licenses may be included with physical works, where Creative Commons licenses are granted. But that is a rare thing.
It's funny tho, because if you look into the lawsuit and their proof, they used these programs in ways that you're very specifically not allowed to use according to the TOS (like uploading copyrighted material and lyrics), and they used them to produce things that are just kinda close.
I'm sure the big corps will win, but not because of any legal merit.
This is classic billionaires trying to destroy smaller companies because they have their own version coming type shit, anti-competition, it's got nothing to do with protecting artists, and will only be used to make things harder for regular artists in the end.
Anyways, scraping a song for parameter data and stealing from an artist/ripping you off are two different things, so, idrc.
>This is classic billionaires trying to destroy smaller companies because they have their own version coming type shit, anti-competition,
Yep. Or force the startups to realize that if they don't sell to the mega corporations, the corporations are just going to run them into financial ruin.
One way or other, the big labels will win in the end.
While you aren't wrong, they're still young startup companies vs some of the largest and most anti-fair play corps on earth. Even if I wasn't biased because I'm a user of said programs, I know who's side I'd rather be on, at least from a "moral" standpoint.
To me, the better analogy is something like a couple of street ruffians being targeted by organized gang/mob crime because they moved in on the wrong territory.
I don’t know if I would stand on the side of thieves but it’s just me perhaps. Those tools are stealing from anyone publishing music. Big labels just have long enough knives. We all should sue in class action lawsuit to be honest
I don't agree that it's as simple as theft, and what they do likely is a fair use transformation at the very least, or something with a similar legal argument. The programs are designed specifically not to "copy", every generation is unique, it's not sampling/supersampling like I've seen some people accuse it of, and you really have to go out of your way (and break TOS) to get something that sounds in the neighborhood of someone's original work. In many cases actual artists are doing a hell of a lot more copying and theft than the AI is capable of...
But if you think that measuring the mathematical parameters of a song for training an AI is theft, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I just feel like it's an argument that's coming from a place of ignorance or snobbery, and for a lot of people that I've argued with about the topic, that's been a fair assessment.
I see these tools as being great for actual musicians, especially underground/smaller ones and the ones that like to experiment and push the boundaries of what's seemingly possible. Of course, like I said, I'm using them, so I'm biased. I started using Suno by trolling it, I did NOT take it seriously and regarded it as a toy, but then I realized pretty quickly exactly what you could do with it and what it did and didn't do. I mostly just use suno as a drummer and for vocals, because I can play a number of other instruments other than drums, and I hate my own voice. It lets me explore genres that my irl band doesn't play, is a great platform for testing out lyrics, hooks, and ideas, creating reference work to send to my band, and a million other things. I see it as a highly valuable tool, not a nonstop theft machine.
Maybe I'd agree if I was hearing it shit out parts of famous songs or something, but that's just not what it does, and I've been thru tens of thousands of generations putting together various things.
And then there is the issue that reproducing a song that is kind of close to an existing song isn't even illegal or a violation.... it is just called a cover song....
So you have to pay the 10 bucks or whatever to get the cover license if you distribute it. But it would be like them trying to sue audacity for someone intentionally putting together a song that sounds like one of their IP.... it's just ridiculous haha.
I'm playing around with AI, trying to confuse it with psychoacoustic phenomenons. It seems AI has trouble with stuff like panning based on interaural time delay gap, lateral inhibition based on high-order highpass/lowpass IIR filtering, beats based on ring modulation, pseudorandom vibrato and other things. Humans can still decode and understand such manipulated signals but AIs like Suno have trouble with reproducing it, resulting in plenty of ugly artifacts. I will keep experimenting, maybe I find a configuration that creates artifacts to a degree that makes feeding my stuff pointless to any AI.
I suggest learning more about advanced mixing/mastering and synthesis. Not just to poison AIs but it gives you an advantage over human competitors as well. You'll be able to do some wild stuff. It also brings back the fun into production.
I'll never understand how, if I wanted to use a 0.25 second sample of someone else's work, I'd need to obtain permission and pay a licensing fee, but an AI training dataset can use millions of copyrighted works without so much as acknowledging the source material.
hey, thanks for sharing our story! here's a bit from the article:
>AI music is suddenly in a make-or-break moment. On June 24, Suno and Udio, two leading AI music startups that make tools to generate complete songs from a prompt in seconds, were sued by major record labels. Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group claim the companies made use of copyrighted music in their training data “at an almost unimaginable scale,” allowing the AI models to generate songs that “imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings.”
>Two days later, the Financial Times [reported](https://www.ft.com/content/e2d9472d-32e0-43f5-8109-efb753fac330) that YouTube is pursuing a comparatively aboveboard approach. Rather than training AI music models on secret data sets, the company is reportedly offering unspecified lump sums to top record labels in exchange for licenses to use their catalogues for training.
>In response to the lawsuits, both Suno and Udio released statements mentioning efforts to ensure that their models don’t imitate copyrighted works, but neither company has specified whether their training sets contain them. Udio said its model “has ‘listened’ to and learned from a large collection of recorded music,” and two weeks before the lawsuits, Suno CEO Mikey Shulman told me its training set is “both industry standard and legal” but the exact recipe is proprietary.
>While the ground here is changing fast, none of these moves should be all that surprising: litigious training-data battles have become something like a rite of passage for generative AI companies. The trend has led many of those companies, including OpenAI, to pay for licensing deals while the cases unfold.
Correct. It's the AI equivalent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. There is no cure, no fix, all you can do is to start the entire learning process from zero which costs a *lot* of money, meaning that the AI bubble is guaranteed to pop. Altman knows this very much, that's why he tries to use OpenAI to get funding for his Helion side-hustle as long as OpenAI is still able to impress investors.
I'm sure, there are snapshots and some kind of background semantic analysis (or will be). But yeah, it's surely more hyped, than is should be, on the other other hand, we shouldn't downplay it.
OpenAI already had issues and used snapshots to revert to a former state. That's all they could do. But this also means that their models are stuck and can't make any progress without getting worse. And no semantic analysis helps. Nothing helps because no model can differentiate between garbage and non-garbage. That's why supervised learning is needed. But no company has the manpower to do that.
It doesn't have to be about well known, it's about collecting data that represents human creation. And would be easy to scrape spotify, SC or bandcamp on a huge scale.
Absolutely useful...
To your first point, bitrate:
128kbps are a decent enough bitrate for millions of people to enjoy music at that bitrate, so that means it's useful to an algorithm that is collecting the entire corpus of human output to use in generating music. If a human can make sense of it, an algorithm can use it.
To your second point, content:
These algorithms are collecting everything humans have created, so that also means all the Satanic Glitch PolkaDjent available as well. It will form a proportionate amount of the entire corpus that exists, so when someone wants to generate that, it will be possible for the algorithm to take a decent stab at it.
Got it.
Let's say it scrapes 128 bitrate tracks for track generation. It is impossible to upcycle the bitrate / format / quality just by conversion. 128 mp3 converted to flac is just same crappy 128 in flac format. But yea, people have definite right to enjoy 94 bitrate tracks as well.
If it's just creating a corpus of statistical likelihoods, not really 'sampling' in the usual sense, so audio quality of individual tracks isn't that important because it's all ingested along with all the great recordings we can imagine.
Scratchy shellac masters are in there as well, along with home recordings, phone messages, sound effects, and everything else.
Don’t worry. If you post on instagram “I don’t consent to my content being used to train ai” then all the ai dies and no one has to worry ever again.
Or at least that seems to be what people think haha
Will be an interesting case, since there’s exactly zero legal precedent.
‘Training data’ is a new use case… but is awful close to just a normal performance (i.e. some dude streaming the song), but with a hyper-intelligent listener.
Just a reminder that every musician gets influenced by what they listen to, copies, and steals in their music whether they know it or not. It’s literally how our creative brains work.
@u/Artephank: I'm not talking about random labels but Warner, Universal, Sony. The major players.
>Nah, Labels are good at dealing with people, not technology.
I suggest to take a look at what those labels actually do with technology. Remember what Universal did with SoundCloud?
Your premises are wrong. Just take a look at thr history of those companies, both labels and OpenAI. OpenAI didn't invent the large language model nor do they host anything, they just consolidate. Sony, Warner and Universal were involved in a *lot* more technical innovations than OpenAI, especially Sony.
> OpenAI didn't invent the large language model nor do they host anything,
Actually they have and they hire the best AI specialists on the market. They also pay billions in compute fees.
>Sony, Warner and Universal were involved in a *lot* more technical innovations
Debatable, but ok. Still I doubt they are working on their own music generating AI.
https://toloka.ai/blog/history-of-llms/
I highly doubt that the people of OpenAI are the best experts considering that they make the biggest mistakes when it comes to training. A good example is image processing. To train an AI you have to use linear light instead of gamma-corrected light, otherwise you end up with the exact same ultra-soft shadows which give all AI-generated images this particular AI look. So you need to convert image data found on the web to linear light, then train the AI with it, let it output images based on linear light and then apply gamma correction afterwards. This is such a ridiculous mistake only people make who have no idea how image processing works. And an example of how stupid booksmart people can be.
i think were past that. its not copywriting anymore. see this. i wrote and played the first 30 seconds (or until the lyrics start), i wrote the lyrics, but AI did everything else, its amazing, it took the acoustic guitar part and broke it down. Honestly i could just learn it on guitar and perform and no one would know any better. who is this copying when its your own sample Just imagine in a year when it gives completely mixed and mastered quality
[https://youtu.be/8-OzXufWMuY?si=2SHIj6zGs8fRyXPG](https://youtu.be/8-OzXufWMuY?si=2SHIj6zGs8fRyXPG)
Oh great so I thought I can release my music now I got this shit to worry about just as I was getting everything situated! I sure hope there's some sort of protection in there but how can you protect from that it's a listener just like everyone else!
True, they are 100% ripping you off and so are other people who have personal AIs on their music laptops scouring sites for unknown or songs with very little views. My advice to anybody wanting to get into music production or become a star in the music industry... you won't get in unless you are wealthy or related to somebody in the business. Save your self some time and energy and find something else in life that you can actually make a living at.
If anyone's take on this is "record companies fighting for artists" I've got some news for you. Record companies are creating their own AI- they're suing to eliminate competition so that THEY can produce music based off of artists and dead artists in their catalogs.
The whole path of the music industry for the last few decades is how much can they mass produce for how cheap.
Autotune and quantization software and all of that digital production tools are to turn music into a mass production factory. And the less they require of talented musicians (that have to be paid) the better.
Copyrights and Patents are important to incentivize novel ideas but more often than not they'e used to create monopolies and funnel money back to the rich.
Look at how streaming services treat artists and all the "middle men" in the pipeline getting their cut *(like spotify for example)
Look at hollywood and how they want to be able to use digital likeness to artists.
The whole starwars Leia thing (Rogue One) was proof of concept of what they'd love to do in the future.
Look at the money they all make after an artist dies as well. (they've been milking Tupac for decades)
This whole lawsuit is just about shutting down competition for things they intend to do themselves.
The LAST thing record labels want you doing is creating unlimited music where they aren't the central distributor and profit maker. And that's exactly what AI threatens to them.
1 or 2 of the larger companies that are sueing are also in the process of creating and training their own AI voice/singing apps featuring their artists and trained on their catalogues
I know they rip off my music and writings. I am a prolific writer for many music websites, and I am seeing lots of plagiarism of stuff including mine.
I’m to the point where I do not react kindly to the AI grift people. It isn’t cool and it isn’t real music. Please everyone learn to play music right, shortcuts are always theft. And when I find the people stealing my stuff I will sink their business.
If it’s true then good. Let them get sued. Tbh AI should be used in music. We seem to already have enough tools to create music.
Only good thing I see for AI and music is for general public to make meme song:, stuff thats silly, for personal use, and just for fun. Not to use as something to make money with or use as a tool for a music production career. Further use will just create laziness in creativity and innovation. In the extreme cases, major labels will use it, monopolize it, and phased out the need for human producers, composers, and songwriters.
Also, using genre conventions as a reductive way to say "Hurr Durr everyone rips off each other" is stupid full stop.
Yeah, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix play the same six notes but they managed to carve out their own unique VOICE within their NICHE.
I feel like whenever this topic comes out, you find out who're the blandest, no taste having ass people.
No wonder you advocate for AI Songs so hard you fucking talentless hacks.
lol.
Is there a way to poison the audio yet, like Nightshade for images?
I'm about 90% sure this is why Epic bought bandcamp and then sold it to Songtradr, they just want it all for AI training.
>Is there a way to poison the audio yet, like Nightshade for images?
Yes. See my other comment in this thread. The principle is completely different from watermarking though.
To make a good AI you need good data, my music is so bad that it would corrupt the neural network
Please keep producing, you're an unsung hero
Would be interesting movement of just making shit music to prove it's human and not machine
So, change nothing in my productions? Got it.
tag it all the wrong genre. Every week we all pick a random genre and just upload a bunch of harsh noise/ power electronics shit.
So you're saying my circuit bent cat keyboard finally will have its calling
0p0àdĺ
Hmm. Human music! I like it.
I’m doing my part!
It’s how we fight the AI. With out-of-tune slightly off tempo melodies.
Who is singing only to be unsung!
If you add vocals then a sung hero!
Hey what about me??! Finally a chance to be recognised because of my music...
Came to say the same thing. I now consider myself a service to musicians
UNLESS they tag yours as "bad music" so then you will be the training data for the prompts "low/bad quality music" O.o
That was my intention all along.
We need to flood the database with CBAT remixes
God-awful musician, reporting for duty! Imdoingmypart.gif
We’re doing god‘s work by sabotaging these companies
So you’re saying my music can save the world. Got it, I will be releasing 7 albums in the next two weeks.
let's take them down together.
Agreed. AI is welcome to my music. There's a chance it might improve it.
Lol exactly
Hah, joke’s on them! I never released them and keep them safe on my computer in its unfinished state. 😬
Same, except the songs are finished lol
You could use Suno to finish them
It’s so good for inspiration!
Damn I feel seen
Lmfao sameeee
Will probably turn out that when distributed to Spotify you gave them the right to sell it to AI without benefits passing to you in any way shape or form. Seems like the kind of dick move old Ek would play.
Can we get facts on this rather than circle jerked speculations? We as artists have to read the fine print and know what we're getting into.
Your agreement is with your distributor, not the platform. The Distrokid agreement states that > Without limiting the foregoing, you agree that DistroKid shall have the right to grant UGC Services the following related rights: >
> to reproduce, distribute, and **prepare derivative works**
Emphasis mine.
That's a very grey area, legally speaking, to me. It's likely going to take a class action lawsuit or something crowdfunded to get it even seen in court. The big labels' case *may* set a precedent, but they don't have our interests at heart; they just want the monopoly on AI-generated content.
But you're absolutely right that we need to be cognisant of terms.
Until udio and suno are forced to give up where they got their data sets. No. No we can’t.
The key is not to post music online. Only perform it live, and then Men in Black nuralizer them after the show.
Well, we know what this means. Start releasing shit projects!
Way ahead of you.
What's it like finishing songs?
Same as everyone else, only they're bad.
What this means is that if all the SoundCloud artists joined forces with each other they could destroy AI overnight.
Musicians shouldn't be so quick to support the labels in their suits against the AI companies. Not only because the labels are not doing it as a favor to musicians. But because any ruling against those companies could eventually be applied against musicians. For example, the AI produces a song. It sounds a little too much like one that an artist made. The labels win their lawsuit. Then that case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer. And think about the lawsuits regarding AI training on music catalogs. How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music? After all, human musicians train on music, too. So always remember. The labels exploit musicians and cheat them. We are not on the same team with them. And any actions they take against AI could eventually be turned against musicians as well.
My understanding is that at least part of the reason for the lawsuit is that the major labels want to be doing this, themselves. >**So always remember. The labels exploit musicians and cheat them. We are not on the same team with them. And any actions they take against AI could eventually be turned against musicians as well.** Absolutely. This should be burned into every musician's brain.
Yep. It's another example of big corporations squeezing out competitors. And in big tech, they also like to do this because it can push the smaller company into bankruptcy and completely eliminate the competitor. Or, the expensive legal battles can turn them into a cheap buy.
>My understanding is that at least part of the reason for the lawsuit is that the major labels want to be doing this, themselves. And they will stop exploiting musicians.
The alternative is labels siding WITH AI and completely phasing people out of the section of the music industry that actually makes money. I understand what you're getting at here, but I still like my odds better in a court of law with a jury of my peers than I do as a number on a spreadsheet against what is essentially free labor. What you CAN do is follow those cases and watch where you can differentiate between human and AI behavior to distance future cases away from the precedent being set.
Exactly. AI is so new there's no legal presedence to it, one can't hosta blanket statement that whatever that apply to AI they will apply to humans. Can't think that. That's what laws are for, what courts are for, and lawyers. If anything we need to use Reddit to inform each other what our rights are so we have legally actionable options. And yes, I know we're not lawyers on this sub.
I think there is and we will see those Labels winning. Training model is very similar in it's essence to mp3 compression and using samples in creating new music. If I use matrix multiplication to create mp3 from wav and use it in my new song, there would be no question if it is infringement or not. If I use matrix multiplication to rearrange samples of your work into my work and call it "training" it doesn't change much the essence of the process. Matrix multiplication.
You're getting at exactly what I'm getting at, except you seem to have the proper vocabulary for it, lol. A language learning model's thought process isn't just definable, it's traceable, and therefore makes it much mire susceptible to copyright law. We barely understand how the human brain works, much less have a reliable, quantifiable model with which to trace and predict its behavior. I fully believe that any legislation/rulings against AI will be used against musicians as well, I just think we can also make a more robust case.
>The alternative is labels siding WITH AI and completely phasing people out of the section of the music industry that actually makes money. AI is just a tool. They are not "siding" with it. But of course. The big labels and Spotify want to move to using AI for music, instead of musicians. It's cheaper for them in the long run. >I understand what you're getting at here, but I still like my odds better in a court of law with a jury of my peers than I do as a number on a spreadsheet against what is essentially free labor. I don't know what court case you're talking about.
Sorry, let me be overly specific so you can't intentionally misread or ignore what I'm saying. I'd rather major labels go very deep in litigating against AI copyright infringement. I'll gladly welcome it. It's better protection for intellectual property that, in my mind, strengthens an artist's ownership over their work. You can mathematically determine an AI's behavior because all it IS is numbers. You can't mathematically determine and prove out human intuition or inspiration, or if you can we're a long ways off because we barely understand the human brain to begin with. Much less enough to model out how it works reliably. I would rather be in your proposed slippery-slope hypothetical of indie artists being hunted down like rats in copyright infringement cases, because I feel confident standing in front of a jury of my peers and proving my case is different than the precedent used to rule against AI infringement. Besides that, harsh ruling against AI makes an AI product riskier to use and better protects human artists' place in music. There's something to be said for making risk-averse major labels choose between free(ish) art that is likely to be struck down or more expensive art that might last long enough to turn a profit. In the other situation, unrestrained AI WILL replace people and it's not an eventuality - it's the near future, because there's no longer an added risk that balances out the decrease in cost.
Dude you way slippery sloped yourself into a crazy pretzel.
It's not a pretzel. But it definitely is crazy this is how it works in our society. Historically, intellectual property case law (and legislative IP law) has always been used to benefit the big intellectual property holders far more than it has individual creators and the general public. They have always used it to maintain their dominance over their respective media industries. And there is a lot of well documented history of music labels and distributors exploiting and cheating musicians. This has been going on since the first days of vinyl recording. Whenever they can figure out how to pay less to musicians, or charge them a fee, they always do. There are lots of books written about these things if you want to look into it.
I mean maybe, but ultimately "AI" is simply the largest and most complex plagiarism machine ever created by mankind, so far. Just because the Labels are bad, doesn't imply that anything the labels against is good. AI based on large language models that need to be trained on copyrighted work is a cancer, and it should be vivisected out of any good and functional society. But the Labels are bad too, and they definitely steal from artists as well. Both are pretty shitty, but I do think there's an argument that AI is even worse than the Labels, and that's *saying something.*
>I mean maybe, but ultimately "AI" is simply the largest and most complex plagiarism machine ever created by mankind, so far. Music AI is not a lot different from humans. You have likely listened to thousands of songs, and many of them multiple times, in order to be able to make music. As a music creator you are either intuitively or actively drawing on the patterns and individual sounds in your memory, and the connections your brain made between them, from listening to those songs. So I guess all human musicians are plagiarists as well? >Just because the Labels are bad, doesn't imply that anything the labels against is good. The labels aren't suing AI companies because they are against AI. The labels are suing them because they don't want new players in the music industry. They want to be the ones that own and control the AI. The labels want to either force the new AI companies into bankruptcy and out of the music industry, while they develop their own. Or weaken them enough with expensive lawsuits so that they can buy them up. It's the same pattern that big tech has repeatedly used with new innovations by smaller companies. So yeah. They're not doing anything good here. >Both are pretty shitty, but I do think there's an argument that AI is even worse than the Labels, and that's saying something. AI is going to replace many musicians, whether we like it or not, and it will change music forever. These legal battles are only about which corporations positions themselves best to dominate music with AI.
>Music AI is not a lot different from humans It is very different. Humans listen to understand and then learn how play / create music with tools . "AI" algorithm is creating tensors that is able to copy parts of the listened music and rearange it. It doesn't "recreate" the music with tools, it recreates the whole spectral spectrum at once form bits of information it averaged. > The labels aren't suing AI companies because they are against AI. The labels are suing them because they don't want new players in the music industry. They want to be the ones that own and control the AI. No, they are suing because their legal right were infringed and they are searching for damages. When someone steals you car you act on it. You don't need second motivation. AI is going to replace many musicians, whether we like it or not, and it will change music forever. It won't change much. It's like making music today was a significant cost to anyone. The only players on the market that might see some real saving with use of AI are companies holding catalogs for music for commercial use for syndication etc. But for those companies potential legal problems would be a show stopper. So either Udio/Suno will be able to lobby changes in copyright laws (improbable) or AI music company start using legal data for training (but then the effects won't be so impressive
>No, they are suing because their legal right were infringed and they are searching for damages. You're very naive if you think that's the primary motivation. Big tech has repeatedly done the same thing to quash new competitors with different kinds of legal entanglement. All the record labels really care about is that they end up owning and controlling the primary AI production services in the industry.
You are calling me naive even though I just presented the obvious really and then assume a lot of things based on basically nothing. If labels where really into tech they would create their own streaming services. They didn’t. Are they hiring AI specialists now? Are they buying up GPU servers? Are they willing to pour millions into costs of training? I haven’t heard about it But do they litigate every time they see money in it? Yes they do and do it aggressively. And this one is just another example.
>Are they hiring AI specialists now? Yes. https://musictech.com/news/industry/universal-signs-deal-to-train-ai-to-model-artists-voices/
Did you read the article? They are planning to use other people’s tech.
Do you read what you write? You asked if they are hiring AI specialists???
> case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer. This problem already exists and is basically part of the copyright bargain. It isn't going to get worse because copyright is enforced vs bot trainers. > musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers We already make at least some distinctions in the law between human beings and automated processes that happen at scale, and if we lose the distinction to do that, then our biggest problem would be the fact that the law would no longer exist to serve human beings. If there wasn't a huge difference between individuals experiencing or even studying a music catalog versus an automated process being deliberately trained on a catalog for the purpose of automated production, nobody would even *care* about this issue (or making bots). We can and should get the law to care about this distinction.
First of all there is no parallel between them two. The process of training AI is just called that -training. In fact is is matrix multiplication and gradient computing operation. Humans don't learn like that. There is no similarity other than human sounding names.
[https://www.artistsresist.org/debunking-the-ai-vs-human-learning-comparison/](https://www.artistsresist.org/debunking-the-ai-vs-human-learning-comparison/)
Great read, thanks!
>This problem already exists and is basically part of the copyright bargain. It isn't going to get worse because copyright is enforced vs bot trainers. Sure it is. The more copyright case law, the more it can be abused.
>The more copyright case law, the more it can be abused. But only to certain degree. Copyright laws are global. There is Copyright Convention and and countries that signed it need to have their laws harmonized to some degree. USA is deviating probably the most form the average but still can't deviate to much.
>Then that case law is later applied to a copyright lawsuit against a human music producer. The lawsuit is not about if it's similar or not but if they used copyrighted material without permission. Different think entirely. > How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music Music is published to be listen to. It is permitted use of the content. You are inventing no existing laws for.. what? The labels exploit musicians and cheat them Some do, some don't. There is a lot of artists that have good deal and probably way more with bad deals. But there are artists who don't deliver on promises given to labels when being signed. It's a gross oversimplification and generalization. Labels are businesses. They are in this for profit. Especially, when the core problem is morally and legally pretty simple - those AI companies are using copyrighted material without permission and are breaking not only the literal sence of the copyright law but also - even more importantly - the spirit of it, ie. protecting economic rights of the copyright holders and not letting third parties to proffit from intellectual work without permission.
Honestly it is a NET GOOD to have majors going against AI Companies sourcing data by using all of the music streaming platforms WITHOUT permission. It's a gross practice. And it's something that should be stopped immediately.
It’s a bullshit lawsuit, because they are creating their own generative music ai models utilizing their own catalogs and IP. They are behind. suno and udio are also using already pre-trained models by either google or stability ai. They are basically customized skins.
I wouldn't call it a "bullshit lawsuit." But I completely agree. Their goal is to stop Suno and Udio from becoming major players in the music industry. They want to control AI music. And you're right. It could be they want to create their own AI. It could also be that they hope to put enough financial pressure on Suno and/or Udio to force them to sell to the big labels. At least, this is what big tech has repeatedly done with lawsuits against smaller competitors entering the market with major disruptive technologies. They either bankrupt them while they create their own competitive technology. Or buy them.
"*Musicians shouldn't be so quick to support the labels in their suits against the AI companies. Not only because the labels are not doing it as a favor to musicians. But because any ruling against those companies could eventually be applied against musicians*." Sorry, but this is just a theory and I don't buy it. There's a saying, "shoot the alligator closest to the boat". Well, the giant fucking gator trying to take us all under are these AI companies. They are hoovering up every piece of music they can get their hands on without: 1) the knowledge of, 2) authorization from, or 3) payment to the owners. They are using our hard work to enrich themselves and devalue our product even further. As someone said, what's the alternative? Sit by and let it happen? No fucking way! The record labels are the only ones with pockets deep enough to stop this. I wish them godspeed! Does that mean I trust the big labels? Of course not. But let's deal with the immediate threat. Just letting it happen is foolish beyond words.
"How long before the labels decide that musicians who want to produce music, and are thus listening to music to become better music producers, need to pay an additional fee for listening to music?" I'm surprised this is news to you but people already pay to listen to music, legally at least.
THIS PART! I hate the idea of AI in music but you’re right, I’m not siding and championing for the major labels either. The only silver lining in this is the major labels are getting a taste of their own medicine. If anything this is a time for the indie musicians and producers to rise up and level the playing field.
That's true. It should also be noted that those labels simply want their own AIs to flood the market. That's the main reason for suing OpenAI and Microsoft. If the labels win, things might get even worse.
>If the labels win, things might get even worse. I think it definitely will. If the big labels aren't the dominant AI music producers, then they are likely to continue to work with musicians. And value human-created music. But if they are the ones who come up with the AI that can replace musicians, they will eventually get rid of musicians as their clients. And they'll use their weight to push music created by musicians out of distribution markets. Because that's what big corporations always do.
At least they will try to do that. The question is how competent their attempts will be and how much money they can put into their own systems and how accessible they will be (to poison them, for example).
Also if you have music online other humans are ripping you off I don’t like AI music as much as the next guy here, but the concern that is a “rip off” is a bit silly as far as music goes
I INVENTED FOUR ON THE FLOOR
White noise riser was my idea!
Wow, you must be a millionaire!
He made it using the Amen break 👀
I have the original copyright of the I V vi IV chord progression, im about to sue millions of musicians!!
Other humans don’t have multi billion dollar companies being built off other peoples work . There’s a difference between a human listening to a song and being inspired and a company proffering off music that it makes using other peoples songs
Well, if another human rips me off, they risk litigation. The way that AI and humans work in this regard is fundamentally different, and if you can’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you
No, they really don’t. You can blatantly rip someone off with no repercussions, assuming you quite literally don’t steal their exact composition
Tell that to Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams
Sure, and to the millions of songs that are rip off with no issue… I don’t remember that case much. I do remember the same estate trying to sue for “thinking out loud” chord progression so i wouldn’t be surprised if it was dumb
Oh! A whole 2? What an enormous and compelling data set.
If another human extracts statistical data from songs, including yours, no, they don't risk litigation. That's what AI training is, and you are inadvertently doing this too when listening to songs, that's why you can recognize styles and compose music in one of those or a combination of several. If that other human then uses that data to create a new composition, they don't face litigation either. Why would they? The difference with AI is the speed and scale that can be achieved through automation, which is what makes it an unfair competitor (like any other automation).
>The difference with AI is the speed and scale that can be achieved through automation, which is what makes it an unfair competitor (like any other automation). The difference is the law only recognizes human creativity. An AI is not able to copyright its outputs, in the same way a monkey doesn't get copyright if it takes a selfie. It's just a computer system like any other, the question is whether the humans at the company infringed on the copyright while feeding copyrighted data to that computer system for commercial use, or if it's considered fair use.
> The difference is the law only recognizes human creativity. An AI is not able to copyright its outputs, in the same way a monkey doesn't get copyright if it takes a selfie. That too, which is a good thing in order to prevent automated copyright hoarding, because of that speed and scale.
The law doesn't change if a machine being controlled by a human does it....lol
Right, if infringement is happening it's the person (either human or corporation) that's responsible, not the computer. The [monkey selfie case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute) is a good one for this 'only people interact with copyright' thing.
Yep. And people REFUSE to admit this. In all forms of art ive said this and people will not admit it about themselves. Everyone is doing and has done what generative ai models do just not as consistently and at varying levels of quality.
And they will say "But it's different if a machine does jt"!!! .... Lol these anti-AI people have gone so far down an echo chamber of arguments they are just a joke now. They aren't arguing with reality anymore.... it's sad.
It IS different if a machine does it! Wtf. I fucking hate humanity. The way the world is becoming is so fucking horrendous.
It’s literally insecurity showing, the people who are going the direction they want finally have an “excuse” in ai.
AI is going to analyze everything about you, and your musical identity will disappear. Why would a human being devote their life to creating music, if as soon as they create anything worthwhile AI will steal it? No human will be able to create anything new and profit from it. It's just going to be machines. This will kill the artform. Although humans playing actual instruments will probably still be safe, as long as there's a way to differentiate real humans playing instruments from AI fake humans. Which, there won't be, so, art of music will die, and you're supporting it.
>Why would a human being devote their life to creating music, if as soon as they create anything worthwhile AI will steal it? Because people that love making music *need* to make music. It doesn't matter if I don't make any money, in fact I actively lose money by making music from buying equipment and paying subscription fees, yet I still do it whenever I have the free time to because I love the process and outlet. AI might change the business, but as long as humans exist, so will music.
Yes, but artists will die out, not hobbyists. Obviously. Nobody gives a shit about hobbyist music, or AI stealing it anyway.
Artists will not die out. If you love music you will keep making it. Even if music as we know it ends, the urge for humans to express creativity would not. When photography first became a thing, lots of artists argued about painting becoming obsolete. Instead what happened was painting moved into places that photography couldn't, and both evolved into newer forms of art like film and animation. The most likely form of music to be killed off by AI is royalty free commercial muzak, but people will always create and seek music that is meaningful to them.
No, it takes so much effort to be a great artist. If there is no money in it, they can't exist. People who suck will be able to suck, sure. But the profession will die. Hopefully people will still enjoy instrumentalists. Orchestra players will be ok. Most everything else will suck It's so fucking sad to me how the people that should love the artform the most, and wish for it to thrive, are all here siding with AI. Bunch of fucking traitors. It's shit like this that makes me want to take all my music away, and not let a single soul experience it. You disappoint me immensely
Lol I really don't give a shit whether I disapoint a rando on the internet or not, especially one that sounds way more concerned about making money than music like you do. I will continue to make my music whether the robots take over or not. I believe that good music will last forever, that the need to create beautiful art is an inherent part of being human. >It's shit like this that makes me want to take all my music away, and not let a single soul experience it. Go ahead no one fucking cares lol
You don't know shit about me. I'm way more concerned about making music, but to do it at the highest level, I need to work at it all day every day. In order to be able to do that, I need a place to live, and food to eat. Ya, no one fucking cares. Exactly. That's a shame. You care about fucking around as a hobby, but you have no appreciation for the artform. No appreciation for what a human being can do if their dedicate their life to making it. Maybe the artform has already died I guess. I hope you never hear my music.
[удалено]
Yes, exactly, but in that kind of case it doesn't matter at all whether the song was created by AI. The copyright infringement, as always, lies in the similarity of the output and not in the references used.
I don’t really think that’s true, or at least I think if a person does what AI does it wouldn’t be considered ripping off in the sense you are suggesting If you take the top 1000 songs in a genre, and by your own hand, compile a list of the most popular chords and voicings used, then compile where they most typically sit within those songs, then write out a chord progression using those averages to make a song that is the average of all those songs, then roll some dice to impartially add some randomness to the voicing… have you stolen from anyone in a legal sense? Your chord progression would be extremely derivative and uninspired but is it literally stealing from a song? What if you applied this logic to the tone of 1000 songs, mapping out the synths on wave tables and finding some average tone that sits between the most popular ones? If you map out on what beat on average accents go, and the average timbre for the bridge chorus and verse of popular songs, and then apply that to your boring chord progression and roll some dice to decide where to randomly add some color. That’s a soulless process but did you “rip off” anyone to the point where they can sue you? The idea that AI in any meaningful way “steals” ideas doesn’t really add up imo. The only argument I can see making sense is that given that it uses **quantifiable data**, you could argue that counts as sampling, even if it’s sampling hundreds of thousands of songs. But then does any given fraction of a second of a song using diffusion even contain an *actual* 1:1 moment of audio lifted directly from any of the songs “sampled”? And if that’s stealing then groups like Justice are stealing when they get 1000 tiny samples of instruments from obscure records to “build” a new instrument for a song
The difference is that artists generally consent to other people using their music as inspiration but don’t want it to be used the same way by AI.
Yep. And everyone should remember that all human music producers "train" by listening to music. It's just a smaller scale than AI.
The smaller scale matters. The fact it is AI and not people matters. What you're saying is like somebody complaining that digital media is going to destroy the value of music, and then you're like "ya, but if I listen to your song, I can play the same song on my instrument, so what's the difference!". The differences you're mentioning are not negligible. The are the details that make all the difference.
>The smaller scale matters. The fact it is AI and not people matters. Legally, maybe not. It depends upon whatever EULA the music service has if they are training AI using digital streaming of some kind. If they are using CDs and vinyl, there may be no such restrictions on physical media. And how big is the difference in scale? >What you're saying is like somebody complaining I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just pointing out that people train on music to create music. It's not just an AI thing. You have likely listened to thousands of songs, and many of them multiple times, in order to be able to make music. As a music creator you are either intuitively or actively drawing on the patterns and individual sounds in your memory, and the connections your brain made between them, from listening to those songs. You being hostile towards AI because you fear what it will do to the music industry doesn't make that less true.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a lawyer with current laws. I'm looking at it philosophically, as in what's good for humanity.
>Legally, maybe not. It depends upon whatever EULA the music service has if they are training AI using digital streaming of some kind. If they are using CDs and vinyl, there may be no such restrictions on physical media None of those permmited use of copyrigted material for model training. The licence you get alows you for listening to only. But there is a deeper meaning of copyright laws, they were made to protect the economic value of intellectual property and portect copyright owner (implicitly the creator, but in practice, especially in USA, copyright owners are in many cases not creators themselves) the right to gain from its creations. Using your own creation to create machine that will compete directly with your creations is against the spirit of copyright laws.
>None of those permmited use of copyrigted material for model training. The licence you get alows you for listening to only. Ummm... Unless something has changed, CDs and vinyl don't come with licenses. They are protected under standard copyright law. I also don't know if the streaming service licenses specifically forbid AI model training. >But there is a deeper meaning of copyright laws, they were made to protect the economic value of intellectual property and portect copyright owner (implicitly the creator, but in practice, especially in USA, copyright owners are in many cases not creators themselves) the right to gain from its creations. Actually, under US copyright law, the purpose of intellectual property rights is to promote progress as expressed in the US Constitution. If you are used to EU IP law, for example, it is rooted more in the notions of property and rights of the creator. There's historical documentation about how the writers of the Constitution purposely moved away from that notion of copyright when writing it. But anyway, that's getting off track. In the US, there are specific copyright law statutes. And I have not read them lately, but in the past, there didn't seem to be anything that would have restricted someone from using their physical media to train an AI.
Of course they where. There is no “ protected under standard copyright law” about CD’s explicitly. Every time you buy content, the owner of the copyrights grants you a licence for use it within certain restrictions. The licnece can be implicit (however in my country the prrmited use is printend in the CD booklet, I don’t have US CD nearby to check if it’s the same). Copyright law is based on international law, ie Copyright Convention. What you wrote about constitution is also true - the progress comes with having creators paid and their work protected. We will see what courts say, but I am convinced that labels have very strong case here and will probably win. If not, I am starting company that would stream AI movies “trained” on copyrighted material, that would be 99% the same as the original.
>Of course they where. There is no “ protected under standard copyright law” about CD’s explicitly. Every time you buy content, the owner of the copyrights grants you a licence for use it within certain restrictions. No. That is not true for physical media in the US. Physical books do not come with a license. Vinyl does not come with a license. And I just have not checked in the last several years, but CDs did not used to come with a license. They may have a copyright notice. But that is not a license. And a copyright notice is not required under US law. Because copyright is granted to a creator when a creative work is fixed in a medium. So if you purchase a photograph, it does not necessarily have a copyright notice on it. If you buy a piece of artwork, it will typically not have a copyright notice on it. But they are copyrighted unless they are old enough they are in the public domain. There is an exception where licenses may be included with physical works, where Creative Commons licenses are granted. But that is a rare thing.
[https://www.artistsresist.org/debunking-the-ai-vs-human-learning-comparison/](https://www.artistsresist.org/debunking-the-ai-vs-human-learning-comparison/)
Interesting. That looks like a link. Does it make some specific point you think is relevant to what I posted?
yes
Too bad you don't want to share that with anyone else
You absolutely do no dislike AI music as much as I do.
Universal, Sony and Warner have been doing that for quite a bit, both to producers and listeners
It's funny tho, because if you look into the lawsuit and their proof, they used these programs in ways that you're very specifically not allowed to use according to the TOS (like uploading copyrighted material and lyrics), and they used them to produce things that are just kinda close. I'm sure the big corps will win, but not because of any legal merit. This is classic billionaires trying to destroy smaller companies because they have their own version coming type shit, anti-competition, it's got nothing to do with protecting artists, and will only be used to make things harder for regular artists in the end. Anyways, scraping a song for parameter data and stealing from an artist/ripping you off are two different things, so, idrc.
>This is classic billionaires trying to destroy smaller companies because they have their own version coming type shit, anti-competition, Yep. Or force the startups to realize that if they don't sell to the mega corporations, the corporations are just going to run them into financial ruin. One way or other, the big labels will win in the end.
Those startups are funded by biggest VC on earth. It's not like David vs Goliath, rather like two thieves fighting with knives in dark alley.
While you aren't wrong, they're still young startup companies vs some of the largest and most anti-fair play corps on earth. Even if I wasn't biased because I'm a user of said programs, I know who's side I'd rather be on, at least from a "moral" standpoint. To me, the better analogy is something like a couple of street ruffians being targeted by organized gang/mob crime because they moved in on the wrong territory.
I don’t know if I would stand on the side of thieves but it’s just me perhaps. Those tools are stealing from anyone publishing music. Big labels just have long enough knives. We all should sue in class action lawsuit to be honest
I don't agree that it's as simple as theft, and what they do likely is a fair use transformation at the very least, or something with a similar legal argument. The programs are designed specifically not to "copy", every generation is unique, it's not sampling/supersampling like I've seen some people accuse it of, and you really have to go out of your way (and break TOS) to get something that sounds in the neighborhood of someone's original work. In many cases actual artists are doing a hell of a lot more copying and theft than the AI is capable of... But if you think that measuring the mathematical parameters of a song for training an AI is theft, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I just feel like it's an argument that's coming from a place of ignorance or snobbery, and for a lot of people that I've argued with about the topic, that's been a fair assessment. I see these tools as being great for actual musicians, especially underground/smaller ones and the ones that like to experiment and push the boundaries of what's seemingly possible. Of course, like I said, I'm using them, so I'm biased. I started using Suno by trolling it, I did NOT take it seriously and regarded it as a toy, but then I realized pretty quickly exactly what you could do with it and what it did and didn't do. I mostly just use suno as a drummer and for vocals, because I can play a number of other instruments other than drums, and I hate my own voice. It lets me explore genres that my irl band doesn't play, is a great platform for testing out lyrics, hooks, and ideas, creating reference work to send to my band, and a million other things. I see it as a highly valuable tool, not a nonstop theft machine. Maybe I'd agree if I was hearing it shit out parts of famous songs or something, but that's just not what it does, and I've been thru tens of thousands of generations putting together various things.
And then there is the issue that reproducing a song that is kind of close to an existing song isn't even illegal or a violation.... it is just called a cover song.... So you have to pay the 10 bucks or whatever to get the cover license if you distribute it. But it would be like them trying to sue audacity for someone intentionally putting together a song that sounds like one of their IP.... it's just ridiculous haha.
> a cover song... To make a cover you need copyright holder permission, too.
Jokes on them! Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
Jokes on them, because my music is awful.
I'm playing around with AI, trying to confuse it with psychoacoustic phenomenons. It seems AI has trouble with stuff like panning based on interaural time delay gap, lateral inhibition based on high-order highpass/lowpass IIR filtering, beats based on ring modulation, pseudorandom vibrato and other things. Humans can still decode and understand such manipulated signals but AIs like Suno have trouble with reproducing it, resulting in plenty of ugly artifacts. I will keep experimenting, maybe I find a configuration that creates artifacts to a degree that makes feeding my stuff pointless to any AI.
Very interesting, I'm glad someone is experimenting with finding ways to essentially poison it.
I suggest learning more about advanced mixing/mastering and synthesis. Not just to poison AIs but it gives you an advantage over human competitors as well. You'll be able to do some wild stuff. It also brings back the fun into production.
I'll never understand how, if I wanted to use a 0.25 second sample of someone else's work, I'd need to obtain permission and pay a licensing fee, but an AI training dataset can use millions of copyrighted works without so much as acknowledging the source material.
Well, you not having hundreds of millions in VC funding probably has something to do with it.
You're right. If you have enough money you can get away with anything.
Because the tech industry moves faster than government regulation can keep up with
even child knows that stealing is always stealing, regardless of regulations and politics
hey, thanks for sharing our story! here's a bit from the article: >AI music is suddenly in a make-or-break moment. On June 24, Suno and Udio, two leading AI music startups that make tools to generate complete songs from a prompt in seconds, were sued by major record labels. Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and Universal Music Group claim the companies made use of copyrighted music in their training data “at an almost unimaginable scale,” allowing the AI models to generate songs that “imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings.” >Two days later, the Financial Times [reported](https://www.ft.com/content/e2d9472d-32e0-43f5-8109-efb753fac330) that YouTube is pursuing a comparatively aboveboard approach. Rather than training AI music models on secret data sets, the company is reportedly offering unspecified lump sums to top record labels in exchange for licenses to use their catalogues for training. >In response to the lawsuits, both Suno and Udio released statements mentioning efforts to ensure that their models don’t imitate copyrighted works, but neither company has specified whether their training sets contain them. Udio said its model “has ‘listened’ to and learned from a large collection of recorded music,” and two weeks before the lawsuits, Suno CEO Mikey Shulman told me its training set is “both industry standard and legal” but the exact recipe is proprietary. >While the ground here is changing fast, none of these moves should be all that surprising: litigious training-data battles have become something like a rite of passage for generative AI companies. The trend has led many of those companies, including OpenAI, to pay for licensing deals while the cases unfold.
Joke's on them: All my published music is AI-generated.
This is the way. Feed AI with its own garbage!
That's gonna infect them, just like humans, when they do the same.
Correct. It's the AI equivalent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. There is no cure, no fix, all you can do is to start the entire learning process from zero which costs a *lot* of money, meaning that the AI bubble is guaranteed to pop. Altman knows this very much, that's why he tries to use OpenAI to get funding for his Helion side-hustle as long as OpenAI is still able to impress investors.
I'm sure, there are snapshots and some kind of background semantic analysis (or will be). But yeah, it's surely more hyped, than is should be, on the other other hand, we shouldn't downplay it.
OpenAI already had issues and used snapshots to revert to a former state. That's all they could do. But this also means that their models are stuck and can't make any progress without getting worse. And no semantic analysis helps. Nothing helps because no model can differentiate between garbage and non-garbage. That's why supervised learning is needed. But no company has the manpower to do that.
None of us are big enough or well known enough for AI companies to rip us off
It doesn't have to be about well known, it's about collecting data that represents human creation. And would be easy to scrape spotify, SC or bandcamp on a huge scale.
Genuine question. How useful are 128 or 192 kbps mp3s in obscure genres?
Absolutely useful... To your first point, bitrate: 128kbps are a decent enough bitrate for millions of people to enjoy music at that bitrate, so that means it's useful to an algorithm that is collecting the entire corpus of human output to use in generating music. If a human can make sense of it, an algorithm can use it. To your second point, content: These algorithms are collecting everything humans have created, so that also means all the Satanic Glitch PolkaDjent available as well. It will form a proportionate amount of the entire corpus that exists, so when someone wants to generate that, it will be possible for the algorithm to take a decent stab at it.
Got it. Let's say it scrapes 128 bitrate tracks for track generation. It is impossible to upcycle the bitrate / format / quality just by conversion. 128 mp3 converted to flac is just same crappy 128 in flac format. But yea, people have definite right to enjoy 94 bitrate tracks as well.
If it's just creating a corpus of statistical likelihoods, not really 'sampling' in the usual sense, so audio quality of individual tracks isn't that important because it's all ingested along with all the great recordings we can imagine. Scratchy shellac masters are in there as well, along with home recordings, phone messages, sound effects, and everything else.
Don’t worry. If you post on instagram “I don’t consent to my content being used to train ai” then all the ai dies and no one has to worry ever again. Or at least that seems to be what people think haha
My music is so derivative anyway they're not getting anything valuable!
I've already proven that my music doesn't make money
Will be an interesting case, since there’s exactly zero legal precedent. ‘Training data’ is a new use case… but is awful close to just a normal performance (i.e. some dude streaming the song), but with a hyper-intelligent listener. Just a reminder that every musician gets influenced by what they listen to, copies, and steals in their music whether they know it or not. It’s literally how our creative brains work.
Copying is not creative.
I actively WANT my music to be assimilated by AI.
The cookie / tracking options ( or lack of them ) in that link can kiss my ass… All websites should have a Reject All option. Always
Are you breathing? Doesn’t matter. AI companies are talking advantage of you.
I'm almost certain a good number of the people in the chat are bots.
Jokes on them! My music sucks.
well gang, we have our lifes purpose finally set before us: to make millions of mashups of rick astley songs and danny devito lines!
They can't replicate this genius
@u/Artephank: I'm not talking about random labels but Warner, Universal, Sony. The major players. >Nah, Labels are good at dealing with people, not technology. I suggest to take a look at what those labels actually do with technology. Remember what Universal did with SoundCloud?
Did they create their own or just litigate?. My point is big labels are good at working with people ( incl. litigation) but not with technology.
Your premises are wrong. Just take a look at thr history of those companies, both labels and OpenAI. OpenAI didn't invent the large language model nor do they host anything, they just consolidate. Sony, Warner and Universal were involved in a *lot* more technical innovations than OpenAI, especially Sony.
> OpenAI didn't invent the large language model nor do they host anything, Actually they have and they hire the best AI specialists on the market. They also pay billions in compute fees. >Sony, Warner and Universal were involved in a *lot* more technical innovations Debatable, but ok. Still I doubt they are working on their own music generating AI.
https://toloka.ai/blog/history-of-llms/ I highly doubt that the people of OpenAI are the best experts considering that they make the biggest mistakes when it comes to training. A good example is image processing. To train an AI you have to use linear light instead of gamma-corrected light, otherwise you end up with the exact same ultra-soft shadows which give all AI-generated images this particular AI look. So you need to convert image data found on the web to linear light, then train the AI with it, let it output images based on linear light and then apply gamma correction afterwards. This is such a ridiculous mistake only people make who have no idea how image processing works. And an example of how stupid booksmart people can be.
Ai needs to be more regulated. Before it’s too late, it’s probably late.
Is anyone surprised? Just keep making human music bc organic is better than artificial intelligence.
i think were past that. its not copywriting anymore. see this. i wrote and played the first 30 seconds (or until the lyrics start), i wrote the lyrics, but AI did everything else, its amazing, it took the acoustic guitar part and broke it down. Honestly i could just learn it on guitar and perform and no one would know any better. who is this copying when its your own sample Just imagine in a year when it gives completely mixed and mastered quality [https://youtu.be/8-OzXufWMuY?si=2SHIj6zGs8fRyXPG](https://youtu.be/8-OzXufWMuY?si=2SHIj6zGs8fRyXPG)
Oh great so I thought I can release my music now I got this shit to worry about just as I was getting everything situated! I sure hope there's some sort of protection in there but how can you protect from that it's a listener just like everyone else!
True, they are 100% ripping you off and so are other people who have personal AIs on their music laptops scouring sites for unknown or songs with very little views. My advice to anybody wanting to get into music production or become a star in the music industry... you won't get in unless you are wealthy or related to somebody in the business. Save your self some time and energy and find something else in life that you can actually make a living at.
I feel so lifted....my music is uniquely human !!!
If anyone's take on this is "record companies fighting for artists" I've got some news for you. Record companies are creating their own AI- they're suing to eliminate competition so that THEY can produce music based off of artists and dead artists in their catalogs. The whole path of the music industry for the last few decades is how much can they mass produce for how cheap. Autotune and quantization software and all of that digital production tools are to turn music into a mass production factory. And the less they require of talented musicians (that have to be paid) the better. Copyrights and Patents are important to incentivize novel ideas but more often than not they'e used to create monopolies and funnel money back to the rich. Look at how streaming services treat artists and all the "middle men" in the pipeline getting their cut *(like spotify for example) Look at hollywood and how they want to be able to use digital likeness to artists. The whole starwars Leia thing (Rogue One) was proof of concept of what they'd love to do in the future. Look at the money they all make after an artist dies as well. (they've been milking Tupac for decades) This whole lawsuit is just about shutting down competition for things they intend to do themselves. The LAST thing record labels want you doing is creating unlimited music where they aren't the central distributor and profit maker. And that's exactly what AI threatens to them.
ALL composers use "copyrighted" music as "training data."
1 or 2 of the larger companies that are sueing are also in the process of creating and training their own AI voice/singing apps featuring their artists and trained on their catalogues
I know they rip off my music and writings. I am a prolific writer for many music websites, and I am seeing lots of plagiarism of stuff including mine. I’m to the point where I do not react kindly to the AI grift people. It isn’t cool and it isn’t real music. Please everyone learn to play music right, shortcuts are always theft. And when I find the people stealing my stuff I will sink their business.
So let's make it a thing to ALWAYS say your name in the song!
Pfff, don't care, all my music is free of copyright coz copywriter is destroying music and should be scrapped
This
I live very well off my royalties…
Great news man, so do I, but not about to rinse someone who takes a bit of my music to make new music
If you get rid of copyrights, you get rid of royalties.
I'm fine with that
…then I guess you must have rich parents or something. About 80% of my income is royalties. The rest is composing fees.
You live off royalties but you're fine with getting rid of them? Ok
If it’s true then good. Let them get sued. Tbh AI should be used in music. We seem to already have enough tools to create music. Only good thing I see for AI and music is for general public to make meme song:, stuff thats silly, for personal use, and just for fun. Not to use as something to make money with or use as a tool for a music production career. Further use will just create laziness in creativity and innovation. In the extreme cases, major labels will use it, monopolize it, and phased out the need for human producers, composers, and songwriters.
Also, using genre conventions as a reductive way to say "Hurr Durr everyone rips off each other" is stupid full stop. Yeah, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix play the same six notes but they managed to carve out their own unique VOICE within their NICHE. I feel like whenever this topic comes out, you find out who're the blandest, no taste having ass people. No wonder you advocate for AI Songs so hard you fucking talentless hacks. lol.
Is there a way to poison the audio yet, like Nightshade for images? I'm about 90% sure this is why Epic bought bandcamp and then sold it to Songtradr, they just want it all for AI training.
>Is there a way to poison the audio yet, like Nightshade for images? Yes. See my other comment in this thread. The principle is completely different from watermarking though.
TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt.TrApBeAt. - A.I.
Out of knowing my enemy, I played with Suno. It is boring music. Just te average of everything that goes in.
All of you outraged by this- are you using AI generated art to promote your music?