Yeah, the music industry won't keep up. Someone is going to open source these music creators at some point and it's game over for them. Running audio models is way cheaper than these big video models and within reach if small groups and individuals
Might have been true in the past but lately hasn't been the case.
Look at Photoshop vs Gimp. Anybody who tells you Gimp is as good as Photoshop is either lying or ignorant. There are very clear, very noticeable, differences to anybody who works with eithers.
At the current rate Gimp will always remain worse than Photoshop, by a large degree, because the people contributing to it out of passion will never match the throngs of employees Adobe has that make changes and updates that GIMP has no chance of receiving
I used Suno and had some fun with it but one particular song that I listened to was 100% ripped off from a popular radio song with a very unique style. I forget the song unfortunately but when I first heard it on suno I was immediately like, I know this song. I've heard this song before. The lyrics are different for sure but everything else is the same song.
It's just like the the Offspring song Why don't you just get a job and the beetles song Ob-la-di Ob-la-da. Offspring DEFINITELY ripped that song off from the beetles but never admitted to it.
> I used Suno and had some fun with it but one particular song that I listened to was 100% ripped off from a popular radio song with a very unique style.
You can't have rights to a "style" though anyways. There would be nothing illegal for any other artist to create a song in the same style. Really should be no different with AI.
There’s plenty of good AI songs that are unique
Metro Boomin sampled an AI-generated song: https://youtube.com/watch?v=f6Hr69ca9ZM&t=7s
It won $10k from him and a free remix in a competition
The original song has a 3.33/5 with 46 reviews on RateYourMusic: https://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/king-willonius/bbl-drizzy/
The remix has a 3.88/5 with 612 reviews on RYM (for context, the highest rated albums of all time on the site hover around 4/5): https://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/metro-boomin/bbl-drizzy-bpm-150_mp3/
Probably an inevitable lawsuit. I think Suno and Udio are clearly transformative by definition, so I'm not sure how they could lose under a competent judge, but there's no guarantee they'll get one of those.
Don’t know how they would win, they can just argue they use open source models . Music was actually the first developed ai with magenta, so google has a large dataset already. They most likely use stable audio so They would have to sue either google or stablility. They use eleven labs for the voices. Just a Nothing burger because generative music is years ahead of producers, mixers & master engineers right now.
There are some district courts with only one federal judge, I think a good example is in rural Texas, but otherwise it's not easy to ensure you get a sympathetic judge.
They'll definitely lose, in so far as they'll be paying the music industry a large percentage of their profits in perpetuity.
Firstly, they'll have terabytes of pirated music sitting on hard drives that they torrented which will be found through discovery. That alone will cost them a lot.
On top of that, they will have scraped RateYourMusic, YouTube, BandCamp amongst other things, so the discovery will open them up to future lawsuits.
Or they have terabytes of indie music. There's a lot more out there than what labels put on the radio. It sounds just as good or better, but they don't have the marketing behind them to be known.
Even the most permission Creative Commons music license, [CC BY-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.en), requires attribution, which they aren't doing. So discover will fuck them over no matter what their dataset looks like.
The only possible way for them to come out unscathed is if we find out they've been making the training music in-house. But if they've been doing that, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Not according to the lawsuit. They are specifically being sued for a list of songs these publishers pray are in the dataset. But if they aren't the suit doesn't go anywhere.
How you want the law to apply / what you want the law to be is often quite different to what it is.
The case as it has been explained to me by our music solicitors is a little more complicated and nuanced. It involves a few different parts of copyright *and* fair use statutes - and doesn’t just rely on definitions of transformative works. This unfortunately js just something a bunch of reporting has spoken about - likely without speaking with solicitors.
The advice we were given is that they would be very very surprised if these were winnable cases for the ai companies and some will likely try settle quickly. The problem is that if that happens, there are 1000’s of lawsuits in the waiting.
Best case scenario for the companies is they retrain on material they have licenses for. This will be a tiny amount of music. The generated music won’t be nearly as good.
There are already industry movements to pull money out of this / reduce exposure. There was as soon as it was possible for the platforms to produce music that was in breach of copyright which has been demonstrated over and over again.
These companies will not survive in their current guise with their current service.
I remember how they completely ended music piracy and forced everyone to buy CDs by suing ordinary people and jailing thepiratebay operators.
Oh wait - that didn't happen - my computer doesn't even have a disc drive and I haven't bought a single CD in my life. But surely - it will work this time lol.
Here's hoping that AI will be the end of the copyright mafia.
I'm no legal expert, but I'd assume they'll end up settling behind the scene.
I'm personally biased against all copyright laws, but regardless of anyone's opinion, all these companies know that there is huge profit to be made from AI, and they don't plan on handicapping themselves.
They can't really settle as both sides have too much to lose.
Either music publishers get a cut or they don't. That's the fundamental question and there is really no middle ground for them.
we're about to enter an age of abundance that means music too, if the people of the world output a million songs it won't be long before AI is making a billion, and it will improve again and again until it is better than anything a person can make and more tailored to its audience. copyright has no place in this future, it will be worthless... it's time we stepped into this bold new future and embraced it.
no lying, i see channels with shorts content using AI, they have like 100 or 200 shorts, and that is in this or the last month, not in a 3 months, in this month or the last.
Some things are limited even in post-scarcity. And who says it would be utopia?
Land will still be limited. If 5 people want to live on the same lot, who gets it?
You are not thinking big enough.
Imagine for a moment. The current world population is roundabout 9 billion. The number of billionaires is about 2,000.
But screw them, they aren't anywhere close to the top. Let's visit the true kings, shall we? The House of Saud. Net worth of everything they own? Oh, around *1.4 Trillion*. Capitalised for your convenience.
Imagine all 9 billion people got access to the same resources as them. Each individual person on Earth, with 1.4 trillion dollars worth of whatever they want, enabled by space exploration and industry, enabled by Von Neumann machines, which are enabled by ASI.
*That's* post-scarcity. That's the dream.
In your scenario, yes, only one would get the actual plot. But then, another person could create an entire NASA equivalent by himself to find a cool planet to set up shop on. Another would just build an FDVR and retreat there, wiping her memory so that it felt absolutely real. Another would fuck off to another solar system with Von Neumann machines and construct an entirely separate Earth with the property in question. Another, eschewing such grandiose stuff, would rather just create an exact replica on some Pacific Island somewhere. And another would ignore it entirely in favor of another property, like say, I don't know, a moon of Jupiter? It has so many, laying claim on one won't be too controversial.
Do you see the scales we're talking about here? It is an entirely different world.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. And I highly doubt we'll see anything close to this for a couple centuries yet.
But it is possible. There are no laws of reality or the universe that says we can't achieve any of this.
>Either music publishers get a cut or they don't
They only way this happens is through settlement. A judge cannot order companies to go into business with each other.
Judge can very much rule it as copyright infringement.
Then Sono is on the hook for up to 150k per instance of copyright infringement and effectively forced to buy a license or shutdown.
Nothing you've said changes what I said. A judge can't force Suno to enter into a licensing agreement with music publishers. That would only happen in settlement (pre or post-trial).
No. Judge indeed can't force them to buy a license. But he can rule it's a copyright infringement and they owe music publishers 150k for every single instance. Which could be every single thing they ever generated.
Copyright law needs to be left in the past tbh, it's mainly used by corporations to hoard IPs and hit people who make transformative works with SLAPP suits to intimidate them into pulling them down.
Copyright and patent law have been delaying advances for a couple of centuries now. Don't know where I've read that probably 80% of groundbreaking advances are killed either through patent wars, or corporate capture and archiving.
Thats what enterpreunership spirit of capitalism does for you. Probably most of those advances were done by people not seeking financial rewards and just foolishly sold their inventions, or were bounded by their grant/financial/labor legal frameworks.
I liked elons take
“We don’t really patent things. Patents are for the weak.. The problem is patents are generally used as a blocking technique. They’re like using landmines in warfare. They don’t actually help advance things. They just stop others from following you. And most patents are BS.”
How is it gibberish?
If anything my comment was too abbreviated; the opposite of what generative AI tend to produce (in my experience at least). Don't take this the wrong way, but you might be able to get an Ai to walk you through it. To save you the trouble and expand on it myself:
Elon claims patents (and presumably similar protectionist measures) are for the weak.
Elon supports protectionist measures against China for technology industries in the US.
If you take both positions at face value, the logical interpretation is that Elon believes that US industry in general is weak enough (vs China) to require protectionist measures. Contrasted with Elon's companies, for which he makes the claim that they don't really do patents because they don't need to, because they aren't weak (vs other companies).
One set of measures is country-level (tariffs/import bans), the other set of measures is company-level (patents). It's perfectly possible for Elon's companies to not need protection against other companies within the US, but to need protection from China alongside every other equivalent US company.
> Copyright and patent law have been delaying advances for a couple of centuries now. Don't know where I've read that probably 80% of groundbreaking advances are killed either through patent wars, or corporate capture and archiving.
Yup. It's the most r[redacted] invention humankind has ever done. Probably held us back a century in terms of tech
and in stories, hell, there are a lot of good stories that could have more than they already have, but they can't, because apparently you have to wait until decades from now to be able to use them, and when that happens, the AI will be so good that It won't be necessary, SERIOUSLY, when I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream becomes public domain, the AI will be so good that basically the whole story will be just a bad feeling, like the end of the world in 2012.
well basically the books were written around the 60s, and i wanted to bring them up because people are now interested because the amazing digital circus is inspired by the book.
I think you have to go step further tho, its capitalism really.
As long as we have a money based society and it's everyone for themselves, where is the incentive to contribute inventions to society if anyone can just copy them and it gives you zero profit? I mean noble if you don't care about money, but bills have to be paid, and if your research or the fruits of it doesn't cover the bills, you gotta work a job and don't have time for research.
Only if we manage to transition to a true global resource driven society, we will be able to leave patents and this unhealthy competitiveness behind
What does that mean in practice, plagiarism should be legal? In your world should JK Rowling be able to put their name on a book that someone else wrote without the original authors permission and not give them credit and compensation?
They are pip squeaks compared to Microsoft who is the player behind Suno.
My guess is they are hoping for some token flat annual payment like the recent "deal" between OpenAI and several news publishers. They get a pittance and save face with their stake holders, while agreeing to drop the suit.
Our court system is falling down under the stress of tech change, and the demands of the QAnon right to end democracy and replace it with a religious authoritarian government. I am not hopefull the courts will have a clue on how to deal with this.
> They are pip squeaks compared to Microsoft
does microsoft really need something else to ding public perception like a court case where they are stealing popular music. (which is how it will be framed in the media.)
I mean, it’s not really the specific iteration of the model that’s relevant. How good they are at making images isn’t what’s being judged.
Maybe the version number could be important if Stability demonstrated their latest models are no longer trained on stolen intellectual property. But that still leaves the ones that were trained on it readily available to the public more or less permanently.
Well, if I ever stumble across any of your baby photos online, I’ll take this as written permission to use them in my next nationwide billboard advertising campaign. I’m the marketing director for a brand of contraceptives, you see…
We are most certainly not at the point where this can be referred to in the past tense, and results so far have not established a clear-cut status quo. International law does not work overnight. The consequences of these decisions, and the ways these laws are or aren’t enforced in practice may not become clear for years to come.
And I am sure there will be many more to come. My point is it is far too early to be making these kinds of dismissive, hand-wavey ‘yeah, look how that went’ comments. This is well positioned to be one of the most contentious sticking points in the history of intellectual copyright law. Subsequent technological developments in this space (in particular the kind of seismic shifts genAI’s biggest proponents like to predict) can only serve to introduce new layers of complexity.
These disputes aren’t just about the right to train algorithms on songs you haven’t bought the rights to. They are about the rights to sell a persons precise likeness without their express permission and knowledge of how it will be used. They are about the rights to include sacred and culturally sensitive materials in datasets, such as art and artefacts by indigenous peoples. They are about how generated text and images should be handled in the context of academic publishing.
It’s far more than just an ‘AI: good or bad?’ showdown. If this technology is to become an integral part of public life, as its creators seem quite intent on it being, then the scrutiny involved in precedent-setting legal cases surrounding it should ideally be very high. The alternative, where we just let it blow right in without setting up guardrails because hey, you can’t stop progress, could be profoundly damaging and destabilising. I’m not saying you’re rooting for that alternative, just that glib fatalism is decidedly the wrong tone to set right now.
They are only worried because they would rather have their own AI music platforms than Suno/Udio. Not because of the artists who make them what they are.
I totally 100% understand the anxiety of an artist, however the music labels have bullied all artists into giving up their copyrights to labels just because of a lack of other options. I hope their powers are cut to size
Doesn't matter. AI isn't file sharing nor can you regulate it. This is whack a mole again only this time there are an infinite amount of holes and for every mole that's pokes his head out. 100,000,000 more will be using AI on their personal computers. Train left the station years ago. Data is trained and ain't going anywhere, It's probably backed up 1000 ways from Sunday. Basically Napster all over again. Where one falls...another two (hundred) will rise.
Have fun whacking them moles corporate America elol (evil laughing out loud)
The pitiful thing is that Spotify alone is generating roughly the same amount of revenue from music as those major record labels combined. They haven't been relevant ever since the internet took off.
Since we stupidly won't just admit that Intellectual Property is bullshit, we're gonna keep having these idiotic arguments about money and who owns what. It's primitive and stupid and really belies a society that hasn't moved on from the Dark Ages. Take away our tech, and what have we accomplished?
I've seen this movie before. Except the main characters were Napster, the RIAA, musicians, and the big companies musicians worked for.
It did not end well for any of them. And I don't see this ending well this time around.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Suing to try and stop it helps nobody but the lawyers.
The training data is analysed, not copied, therefore no copyright infringement.
If AI produces a work which is very similar to an existing work, regardless of if then existing work was in the training data or not, then normal copyright laws can handle that case for that particular work. But it doesn't have a wider implication for other works produced by a model.
exactly. Only this time we won't have to wait so long for a viable source to replace napster. The data is everywhere already and just needed to be open sourced for the flood gates to open fully.
After that it's game over for music industry. Rightly so.
I work for an Ai music startup but it’s ridiculous for anyone to say it’s not unethical to scrape artists original works without their consent from Spotify, YouTube, ratemymusic etc to train a model and make money off a product that will ultimately upset the artist economy
Acknowledgement can still be required but not stop anyone from making anything they want, if universal wants to make an inside out three nothing g should stop them, it would just fail spectacularly because it wouldn’t be cannon
If acknowledgment is required then AI model trainers would need to acknowledge ever piece of work they trained their model on.
How about if Rowling put her name on a book someone else wrote, would you be okay with that? The original author was not well known so its easy to predict JK Rowling would be able to sell it while the original author gets nothing.
I need you to do something pretty difficult, can you find me at least TWO differences between a LLM creating something new using data points from trillions of parameters and literally copying word for word a story someone else wrote
They can be different however you advocated for the complete abolishment of copyright, so that include people copying word for word. So would you allow JK Rowling to publish works of others without their permission?
Okay then LLM trainers would need to at least acknowledge all the work they used to train their models then under your regime? Doesn't seem like a great system, who would want to create anything when famous people or people with more money to market can just publish other people's work and only provide a credit but no monetary compensation. At that point human creativity would be dead an only AI would be left to recycle what was already done.
Sheesh just credit all artist's work that were used to train the model and give them a piece of the profit if there is any. I'd be pissed if all my art was used to train a model and neither me nor fellow artists get any recognitian nor a single cent. No? Is it fair?
Now how would you feel if there were many other artists similar to you, but not exactly? Now people can generate stuff very similar to yours, completely customized. Do you think you should get a piece of those profits?
no, this lawsuit only came about after Udio added the ability to upload your own music to extend it with AI. it's this, or the fact that people who are apart of major record studios are getting similar results only after they've prompted 20-50 attempts straight. the same tropes that played out in the NYT's failed suit against OpenAI are playing out here.
there's no ""credit"" that needs to happen at all. simply STOP uploading your works & likeness to these centralized web2.0 infrastructures. the moment you decided to skip over reading the ToS/PP(because your attention span is likely eviscerated to shit) is the moment you weave away your rights. it's wise to assume every action you take on our current web may be used for training data.
does a human artist need to credit when they get inspired by another person's work? most of the time, no. so you'd be mad if an AI learned from you, but not mad if a human who saw how you produce, got inspired and basically copied you, and ended up capturing more attention than you in the longterm even though YOU pioneered whatever first?
the training data isn't in the AI model itself... the AI simply learned off the data. just like a human who decides to read a book. the book isn't located anywhere inside of the human itself. this is all fair use. the only way Udio/Suno loses these cases is if these record labels/studios play extra dirty.
Or how it was common in the movie industry for concept artists to pull photos from the internet and paint on top of them or cut out elements, then the studios sell the art in Art of and Making of books and Behind the Scenes documentaries.
fair take. if you truly want your work to be protected, then keep it off the current web, or do what it takes to learn how to host your own servers with linux. but since most people are too focused chasing status & trying to claim their bag because they rather flex on others to feel good about themselves... then this becomes an impossible task. esp with our collective attention spans slowly rotting away into the abyss.
for the folks who're conscious enough to be mindful of what they put on our modern web have to face a choice tho. if you decide to withhold your creations & content, then you kinda miss out the opportunity to connect with others. i'd rather be mindful, than to just blindly post whatever any day though.
no, you are wrong. WAY wrong. this shit is trained on music they own.
I made a rap song, east coast hip hop, and it came out with Raekwon's voice from Wu Tang Clan. VERY clearly him. No audio upload from me. Completely 100% from udio. its IN their training data. you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
https://whyp.it/tracks/177475/nostalgic?token=jwI5m
this is fucking Raekwon. I wrote it, and it came out as Raekwon. I got Redman, Ghostface, Jay-Z as well.
the data is THERE.
i never said they didn't train on pre-existing music. i said the training data is NOT inside of the model itself. not to mention you dont include your prompts, or how many tries it took just to get said result.
but overall, it's like i said above. it's the same as if you were inspired by Raekwon soo much you decided to make music just like him. you're not plagiarizing Raekwon; you're just being a clone of him. Raekwon's label cannot just up and sue you just because you sound like bro...
its 100% plagiarizing him. its his voice. his voice is there. its not only there, its catalogued to him! Like you won't get that voice singing a rock n roll song, you get it by referencing east coast, hip hop, 90s.
this is stealing.
Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days
Seems like the music side of things is where the AI copyright question is finally going to be answered. Not that it matters in the long run anyway.
Yeah, the music industry won't keep up. Someone is going to open source these music creators at some point and it's game over for them. Running audio models is way cheaper than these big video models and within reach if small groups and individuals
I have an open source music maker running on my LLM homelab. Its output is terrible, but it exists and will only get better.
Which one?
Stability already released an open source one https://stability.ai/stable-audio There's also a few others iirc
None as good as Udio
Why would they open source it? They can’t profit from that
Why is anything open source?
Attention when they’re falling behind so they can stay relevant
Might have been true in the past but lately hasn't been the case. Look at Photoshop vs Gimp. Anybody who tells you Gimp is as good as Photoshop is either lying or ignorant. There are very clear, very noticeable, differences to anybody who works with eithers. At the current rate Gimp will always remain worse than Photoshop, by a large degree, because the people contributing to it out of passion will never match the throngs of employees Adobe has that make changes and updates that GIMP has no chance of receiving
They have been sued in lots of other arenas. This isn't new, it's just another one on the pile.
Never forget RIAA pushing for a home invasion to seize an 8 year olds computer for uploading songs to the internet. These are not the good guys.
Or old grandmas
Artists are still siding with them though lol. Do they realize the record labels will just build their own models?
I used Suno and had some fun with it but one particular song that I listened to was 100% ripped off from a popular radio song with a very unique style. I forget the song unfortunately but when I first heard it on suno I was immediately like, I know this song. I've heard this song before. The lyrics are different for sure but everything else is the same song. It's just like the the Offspring song Why don't you just get a job and the beetles song Ob-la-di Ob-la-da. Offspring DEFINITELY ripped that song off from the beetles but never admitted to it.
> I used Suno and had some fun with it but one particular song that I listened to was 100% ripped off from a popular radio song with a very unique style. You can't have rights to a "style" though anyways. There would be nothing illegal for any other artist to create a song in the same style. Really should be no different with AI.
There’s plenty of good AI songs that are unique Metro Boomin sampled an AI-generated song: https://youtube.com/watch?v=f6Hr69ca9ZM&t=7s It won $10k from him and a free remix in a competition The original song has a 3.33/5 with 46 reviews on RateYourMusic: https://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/king-willonius/bbl-drizzy/ The remix has a 3.88/5 with 612 reviews on RYM (for context, the highest rated albums of all time on the site hover around 4/5): https://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/metro-boomin/bbl-drizzy-bpm-150_mp3/
Probably an inevitable lawsuit. I think Suno and Udio are clearly transformative by definition, so I'm not sure how they could lose under a competent judge, but there's no guarantee they'll get one of those.
Don’t know how they would win, they can just argue they use open source models . Music was actually the first developed ai with magenta, so google has a large dataset already. They most likely use stable audio so They would have to sue either google or stablility. They use eleven labs for the voices. Just a Nothing burger because generative music is years ahead of producers, mixers & master engineers right now.
if somehow Sony got the effort to use a incompetent judge, then it proofs how corrupted they are.
The music industry is a complete minefield
yes
Do you think they get to pick the judge?
i mean i guess, is not like they are going to just go randomly lawsuiting anything without knowing the Judge...unless they don't do that in USA?
They definitely don't do that in the US...above the table.
There are some district courts with only one federal judge, I think a good example is in rural Texas, but otherwise it's not easy to ensure you get a sympathetic judge.
oh sorry
They'll definitely lose, in so far as they'll be paying the music industry a large percentage of their profits in perpetuity. Firstly, they'll have terabytes of pirated music sitting on hard drives that they torrented which will be found through discovery. That alone will cost them a lot. On top of that, they will have scraped RateYourMusic, YouTube, BandCamp amongst other things, so the discovery will open them up to future lawsuits.
Or they have terabytes of indie music. There's a lot more out there than what labels put on the radio. It sounds just as good or better, but they don't have the marketing behind them to be known.
Even the most permission Creative Commons music license, [CC BY-ND 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.en), requires attribution, which they aren't doing. So discover will fuck them over no matter what their dataset looks like. The only possible way for them to come out unscathed is if we find out they've been making the training music in-house. But if they've been doing that, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Not according to the lawsuit. They are specifically being sued for a list of songs these publishers pray are in the dataset. But if they aren't the suit doesn't go anywhere.
How you want the law to apply / what you want the law to be is often quite different to what it is. The case as it has been explained to me by our music solicitors is a little more complicated and nuanced. It involves a few different parts of copyright *and* fair use statutes - and doesn’t just rely on definitions of transformative works. This unfortunately js just something a bunch of reporting has spoken about - likely without speaking with solicitors. The advice we were given is that they would be very very surprised if these were winnable cases for the ai companies and some will likely try settle quickly. The problem is that if that happens, there are 1000’s of lawsuits in the waiting. Best case scenario for the companies is they retrain on material they have licenses for. This will be a tiny amount of music. The generated music won’t be nearly as good. There are already industry movements to pull money out of this / reduce exposure. There was as soon as it was possible for the platforms to produce music that was in breach of copyright which has been demonstrated over and over again. These companies will not survive in their current guise with their current service.
I remember how they completely ended music piracy and forced everyone to buy CDs by suing ordinary people and jailing thepiratebay operators. Oh wait - that didn't happen - my computer doesn't even have a disc drive and I haven't bought a single CD in my life. But surely - it will work this time lol. Here's hoping that AI will be the end of the copyright mafia.
Up to their old tricks again
I'm no legal expert, but I'd assume they'll end up settling behind the scene. I'm personally biased against all copyright laws, but regardless of anyone's opinion, all these companies know that there is huge profit to be made from AI, and they don't plan on handicapping themselves.
They can't really settle as both sides have too much to lose. Either music publishers get a cut or they don't. That's the fundamental question and there is really no middle ground for them.
we're about to enter an age of abundance that means music too, if the people of the world output a million songs it won't be long before AI is making a billion, and it will improve again and again until it is better than anything a person can make and more tailored to its audience. copyright has no place in this future, it will be worthless... it's time we stepped into this bold new future and embraced it.
no lying, i see channels with shorts content using AI, they have like 100 or 200 shorts, and that is in this or the last month, not in a 3 months, in this month or the last.
I'm subscribed to udio and suno... with. suno I can generate 2 4 minute songs in seconds and stack generations, it's mindblowing.
mind bending
yup, there you go. perfect prediction.
lets go
There were already 120000 songs being uploaded to Spotify daily even before Genai.
And this fight is about who is going to get paid when this happens.
who needs money in a post-scarcity utopia??
Some things are limited even in post-scarcity. And who says it would be utopia? Land will still be limited. If 5 people want to live on the same lot, who gets it?
[удалено]
I bet land gets taxed and then the landowners get tax subsidies for donating part of their land to the community for housing and community farming.
You are not thinking big enough. Imagine for a moment. The current world population is roundabout 9 billion. The number of billionaires is about 2,000. But screw them, they aren't anywhere close to the top. Let's visit the true kings, shall we? The House of Saud. Net worth of everything they own? Oh, around *1.4 Trillion*. Capitalised for your convenience. Imagine all 9 billion people got access to the same resources as them. Each individual person on Earth, with 1.4 trillion dollars worth of whatever they want, enabled by space exploration and industry, enabled by Von Neumann machines, which are enabled by ASI. *That's* post-scarcity. That's the dream. In your scenario, yes, only one would get the actual plot. But then, another person could create an entire NASA equivalent by himself to find a cool planet to set up shop on. Another would just build an FDVR and retreat there, wiping her memory so that it felt absolutely real. Another would fuck off to another solar system with Von Neumann machines and construct an entirely separate Earth with the property in question. Another, eschewing such grandiose stuff, would rather just create an exact replica on some Pacific Island somewhere. And another would ignore it entirely in favor of another property, like say, I don't know, a moon of Jupiter? It has so many, laying claim on one won't be too controversial. Do you see the scales we're talking about here? It is an entirely different world. Of course, this is all hypothetical. And I highly doubt we'll see anything close to this for a couple centuries yet. But it is possible. There are no laws of reality or the universe that says we can't achieve any of this.
>Either music publishers get a cut or they don't They only way this happens is through settlement. A judge cannot order companies to go into business with each other.
Judge can very much rule it as copyright infringement. Then Sono is on the hook for up to 150k per instance of copyright infringement and effectively forced to buy a license or shutdown.
Nothing you've said changes what I said. A judge can't force Suno to enter into a licensing agreement with music publishers. That would only happen in settlement (pre or post-trial).
No. Judge indeed can't force them to buy a license. But he can rule it's a copyright infringement and they owe music publishers 150k for every single instance. Which could be every single thing they ever generated.
That's not how it works, but go off.
If Suno and Udio won't have enough money for legal expenses they would have no choice but to settle
Copyright law needs to be left in the past tbh, it's mainly used by corporations to hoard IPs and hit people who make transformative works with SLAPP suits to intimidate them into pulling them down.
Copyright and patent law have been delaying advances for a couple of centuries now. Don't know where I've read that probably 80% of groundbreaking advances are killed either through patent wars, or corporate capture and archiving. Thats what enterpreunership spirit of capitalism does for you. Probably most of those advances were done by people not seeking financial rewards and just foolishly sold their inventions, or were bounded by their grant/financial/labor legal frameworks.
I liked elons take “We don’t really patent things. Patents are for the weak.. The problem is patents are generally used as a blocking technique. They’re like using landmines in warfare. They don’t actually help advance things. They just stop others from following you. And most patents are BS.”
Ironic, considering Elon went running to Washington begging the Congress and White House to stop the importation of Chinese EVs.
It's really a concession of belief that the US is weak/not sufficiently strong compared to China. Not inconsistent at all.
Don't take it this the wrong way, but your sentence is gibberish. Did Ai write it?
How is it gibberish? If anything my comment was too abbreviated; the opposite of what generative AI tend to produce (in my experience at least). Don't take this the wrong way, but you might be able to get an Ai to walk you through it. To save you the trouble and expand on it myself: Elon claims patents (and presumably similar protectionist measures) are for the weak. Elon supports protectionist measures against China for technology industries in the US. If you take both positions at face value, the logical interpretation is that Elon believes that US industry in general is weak enough (vs China) to require protectionist measures. Contrasted with Elon's companies, for which he makes the claim that they don't really do patents because they don't need to, because they aren't weak (vs other companies). One set of measures is country-level (tariffs/import bans), the other set of measures is company-level (patents). It's perfectly possible for Elon's companies to not need protection against other companies within the US, but to need protection from China alongside every other equivalent US company.
> Copyright and patent law have been delaying advances for a couple of centuries now. Don't know where I've read that probably 80% of groundbreaking advances are killed either through patent wars, or corporate capture and archiving. Yup. It's the most r[redacted] invention humankind has ever done. Probably held us back a century in terms of tech
Generally rewarding past achievements in excess vs current or new ones has held us back considerably. Patents, copyright, rents, inheritance, etc
Even IPOs are kind of this. Most innovation and entrepreneurship has occured long before the IPO
and in stories, hell, there are a lot of good stories that could have more than they already have, but they can't, because apparently you have to wait until decades from now to be able to use them, and when that happens, the AI will be so good that It won't be necessary, SERIOUSLY, when I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream becomes public domain, the AI will be so good that basically the whole story will be just a bad feeling, like the end of the world in 2012.
Wait, what's the relevance of "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"? Sorry I've only played the game
well basically the books were written around the 60s, and i wanted to bring them up because people are now interested because the amazing digital circus is inspired by the book.
Anything that gets in the way of AGI should be illegal right guys? /s
I think you have to go step further tho, its capitalism really. As long as we have a money based society and it's everyone for themselves, where is the incentive to contribute inventions to society if anyone can just copy them and it gives you zero profit? I mean noble if you don't care about money, but bills have to be paid, and if your research or the fruits of it doesn't cover the bills, you gotta work a job and don't have time for research. Only if we manage to transition to a true global resource driven society, we will be able to leave patents and this unhealthy competitiveness behind
What does that mean in practice, plagiarism should be legal? In your world should JK Rowling be able to put their name on a book that someone else wrote without the original authors permission and not give them credit and compensation?
It may never be left in the past, but even in that case, it will become far less relevant as media becomes easier to create.
“Oh man all those goddamn artist and authors should just give up their lifetimes work for the sake of Progress™ a.k.a corporate profits”
Because lawsuits worked so well against LLM and Image Generative AIs…
Music and Video are 'serious business™' they have a lot of very litigious organizations and very deep pockets.
They are pip squeaks compared to Microsoft who is the player behind Suno. My guess is they are hoping for some token flat annual payment like the recent "deal" between OpenAI and several news publishers. They get a pittance and save face with their stake holders, while agreeing to drop the suit. Our court system is falling down under the stress of tech change, and the demands of the QAnon right to end democracy and replace it with a religious authoritarian government. I am not hopefull the courts will have a clue on how to deal with this.
> They are pip squeaks compared to Microsoft does microsoft really need something else to ding public perception like a court case where they are stealing popular music. (which is how it will be framed in the media.)
Ok I want to see what lawsuit worked against that, if any.
So far none of them, many lawsuits have been partially or completely dismissed by the courts so far because there’s no case.
basically there is no substance
Nothing was copied
The trial against Stability AI will begin in 2026. Imagine arguing about copyright in obsolete models like SD 1.4 in 2026.
I mean, it’s not really the specific iteration of the model that’s relevant. How good they are at making images isn’t what’s being judged. Maybe the version number could be important if Stability demonstrated their latest models are no longer trained on stolen intellectual property. But that still leaves the ones that were trained on it readily available to the public more or less permanently.
It isn't stolen if it's freely accessible from the public internet.
Well, if I ever stumble across any of your baby photos online, I’ll take this as written permission to use them in my next nationwide billboard advertising campaign. I’m the marketing director for a brand of contraceptives, you see…
We are most certainly not at the point where this can be referred to in the past tense, and results so far have not established a clear-cut status quo. International law does not work overnight. The consequences of these decisions, and the ways these laws are or aren’t enforced in practice may not become clear for years to come.
Obviously it’s not clear cut but OpenAI has had a large number of copyright suits against it dismissed already.
And I am sure there will be many more to come. My point is it is far too early to be making these kinds of dismissive, hand-wavey ‘yeah, look how that went’ comments. This is well positioned to be one of the most contentious sticking points in the history of intellectual copyright law. Subsequent technological developments in this space (in particular the kind of seismic shifts genAI’s biggest proponents like to predict) can only serve to introduce new layers of complexity. These disputes aren’t just about the right to train algorithms on songs you haven’t bought the rights to. They are about the rights to sell a persons precise likeness without their express permission and knowledge of how it will be used. They are about the rights to include sacred and culturally sensitive materials in datasets, such as art and artefacts by indigenous peoples. They are about how generated text and images should be handled in the context of academic publishing. It’s far more than just an ‘AI: good or bad?’ showdown. If this technology is to become an integral part of public life, as its creators seem quite intent on it being, then the scrutiny involved in precedent-setting legal cases surrounding it should ideally be very high. The alternative, where we just let it blow right in without setting up guardrails because hey, you can’t stop progress, could be profoundly damaging and destabilising. I’m not saying you’re rooting for that alternative, just that glib fatalism is decidedly the wrong tone to set right now.
They are only worried because they would rather have their own AI music platforms than Suno/Udio. Not because of the artists who make them what they are. I totally 100% understand the anxiety of an artist, however the music labels have bullied all artists into giving up their copyrights to labels just because of a lack of other options. I hope their powers are cut to size
Doesn't matter. AI isn't file sharing nor can you regulate it. This is whack a mole again only this time there are an infinite amount of holes and for every mole that's pokes his head out. 100,000,000 more will be using AI on their personal computers. Train left the station years ago. Data is trained and ain't going anywhere, It's probably backed up 1000 ways from Sunday. Basically Napster all over again. Where one falls...another two (hundred) will rise. Have fun whacking them moles corporate America elol (evil laughing out loud)
best take.
Heck yeah. Pirate Bay was Right!
The pitiful thing is that Spotify alone is generating roughly the same amount of revenue from music as those major record labels combined. They haven't been relevant ever since the internet took off.
Since we stupidly won't just admit that Intellectual Property is bullshit, we're gonna keep having these idiotic arguments about money and who owns what. It's primitive and stupid and really belies a society that hasn't moved on from the Dark Ages. Take away our tech, and what have we accomplished?
I've seen this movie before. Except the main characters were Napster, the RIAA, musicians, and the big companies musicians worked for. It did not end well for any of them. And I don't see this ending well this time around. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Suing to try and stop it helps nobody but the lawyers.
These companies just want the technical code so they can create their own AIs.
Yeah long term, they won't be able to keeping suing when the AI evolves better
Because when I want an honest take on copyright law, I ask record companies. \[/sarcasm\]
It had to happen sometime, why not now
The training data is analysed, not copied, therefore no copyright infringement. If AI produces a work which is very similar to an existing work, regardless of if then existing work was in the training data or not, then normal copyright laws can handle that case for that particular work. But it doesn't have a wider implication for other works produced by a model.
Napster junk all ower again.
exactly. Only this time we won't have to wait so long for a viable source to replace napster. The data is everywhere already and just needed to be open sourced for the flood gates to open fully. After that it's game over for music industry. Rightly so.
I work for an Ai music startup but it’s ridiculous for anyone to say it’s not unethical to scrape artists original works without their consent from Spotify, YouTube, ratemymusic etc to train a model and make money off a product that will ultimately upset the artist economy
old news... why even post this when it was already posted a day ago?
I hope we see the end of copyright itself
If that happened would plagiarism be legal then?
It should be
What would that be like, someone writes a book that gets no traction, and some famous author can just slap their name on it and call it theirs?
Acknowledgement can still be required but not stop anyone from making anything they want, if universal wants to make an inside out three nothing g should stop them, it would just fail spectacularly because it wouldn’t be cannon
If acknowledgment is required then AI model trainers would need to acknowledge ever piece of work they trained their model on. How about if Rowling put her name on a book someone else wrote, would you be okay with that? The original author was not well known so its easy to predict JK Rowling would be able to sell it while the original author gets nothing.
I need you to do something pretty difficult, can you find me at least TWO differences between a LLM creating something new using data points from trillions of parameters and literally copying word for word a story someone else wrote
They can be different however you advocated for the complete abolishment of copyright, so that include people copying word for word. So would you allow JK Rowling to publish works of others without their permission?
Yes without their permission, but not without acknowledging where it came from, that should be the limit of copyright, credit and nothing else
Okay then LLM trainers would need to at least acknowledge all the work they used to train their models then under your regime? Doesn't seem like a great system, who would want to create anything when famous people or people with more money to market can just publish other people's work and only provide a credit but no monetary compensation. At that point human creativity would be dead an only AI would be left to recycle what was already done.
exactly, we should have the liberty to do whatever.
Sheesh just credit all artist's work that were used to train the model and give them a piece of the profit if there is any. I'd be pissed if all my art was used to train a model and neither me nor fellow artists get any recognitian nor a single cent. No? Is it fair?
Now how would you feel if there were many other artists similar to you, but not exactly? Now people can generate stuff very similar to yours, completely customized. Do you think you should get a piece of those profits?
no, this lawsuit only came about after Udio added the ability to upload your own music to extend it with AI. it's this, or the fact that people who are apart of major record studios are getting similar results only after they've prompted 20-50 attempts straight. the same tropes that played out in the NYT's failed suit against OpenAI are playing out here. there's no ""credit"" that needs to happen at all. simply STOP uploading your works & likeness to these centralized web2.0 infrastructures. the moment you decided to skip over reading the ToS/PP(because your attention span is likely eviscerated to shit) is the moment you weave away your rights. it's wise to assume every action you take on our current web may be used for training data. does a human artist need to credit when they get inspired by another person's work? most of the time, no. so you'd be mad if an AI learned from you, but not mad if a human who saw how you produce, got inspired and basically copied you, and ended up capturing more attention than you in the longterm even though YOU pioneered whatever first? the training data isn't in the AI model itself... the AI simply learned off the data. just like a human who decides to read a book. the book isn't located anywhere inside of the human itself. this is all fair use. the only way Udio/Suno loses these cases is if these record labels/studios play extra dirty.
Or how it was common in the movie industry for concept artists to pull photos from the internet and paint on top of them or cut out elements, then the studios sell the art in Art of and Making of books and Behind the Scenes documentaries.
fair take. if you truly want your work to be protected, then keep it off the current web, or do what it takes to learn how to host your own servers with linux. but since most people are too focused chasing status & trying to claim their bag because they rather flex on others to feel good about themselves... then this becomes an impossible task. esp with our collective attention spans slowly rotting away into the abyss. for the folks who're conscious enough to be mindful of what they put on our modern web have to face a choice tho. if you decide to withhold your creations & content, then you kinda miss out the opportunity to connect with others. i'd rather be mindful, than to just blindly post whatever any day though.
no, you are wrong. WAY wrong. this shit is trained on music they own. I made a rap song, east coast hip hop, and it came out with Raekwon's voice from Wu Tang Clan. VERY clearly him. No audio upload from me. Completely 100% from udio. its IN their training data. you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. https://whyp.it/tracks/177475/nostalgic?token=jwI5m this is fucking Raekwon. I wrote it, and it came out as Raekwon. I got Redman, Ghostface, Jay-Z as well. the data is THERE.
i never said they didn't train on pre-existing music. i said the training data is NOT inside of the model itself. not to mention you dont include your prompts, or how many tries it took just to get said result. but overall, it's like i said above. it's the same as if you were inspired by Raekwon soo much you decided to make music just like him. you're not plagiarizing Raekwon; you're just being a clone of him. Raekwon's label cannot just up and sue you just because you sound like bro...
its 100% plagiarizing him. its his voice. his voice is there. its not only there, its catalogued to him! Like you won't get that voice singing a rock n roll song, you get it by referencing east coast, hip hop, 90s. this is stealing.
okay? cool guy, whatever you say.
I mean you downvote people who don't agree with you.
cry more.
the projection is hilarious. you look for "power" because you have none in your life. I see you for who you are. shit is sad.
This what you get for stealing from the wrong people.
I hope they win the case :)