Will Suno Destroy The Music Industry? Hell no...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- This is a deeper walkthrough of the music examples listed in the Suno Copyright Infringement lawsuit. You will quickly hear why Suno is NOT being sued for creating copies of copyrighted music. Short version: it stinks.
We all know that Suno trained its AI generation model using copyrighted works. The real question for the courts is whether or not this is considered fair use. Lots of other issues around this topic, but the case is specifically about the use of copyrighted material.
MUSIC INSPIRATION BOOKS
Songwriters On Songwriting - Paul Zollo - amzn.to/3IB6fXQ
More Songwriters On Songwriting - Paul Zollo - amzn.to/3CtpL4W
The Song Machine - John Seabrook - amzn.to/3VOx2TJ
Anatomy Of A Song - Marc Myers - amzn.to/3Gi7EzT
Always Magic In The Air - Ken Emerson - amzn.to/3Gi7EzT
The B Side - Ben Yagoda - amzn.to/3CuzUym
Tunesmith - Jimmy Webb - amzn.to/3jSz6wE
SAXOPHONE BOOKS
The Practice Notebooks of Michael Brecker - amzn.to/494Dq05
Adolphe Sax Biography (kindle) Adolphe Sax Biography amzn.to/3WG1JLk
Michael Brecker: Ode To A Tenor Titan: amzn.to/4082sbc
Every Night’s A Saturday Night - Bobby Keys - amzn.to/3ijx4VO
That Moaning Saxophone - Bruce Vermazen - amzn.to/3CqTMlT
The Devil’s Horn - Michael Segell - amzn.to/3jX0w4o - เพลง
CONTEXT: This video is looking at the musical examples in the lawsuit. I have issued many warnings and explanations that AI is in its infancy and will ABSOLUTELY get better, very, very soon. That's not the point of this video. Here's my first video on the topci back in May... th-cam.com/video/w2WUr-UN8nY/w-d-xo.html
The music industry are trying to equate training as sampling. I hope Suno's attorneys don't let them get away with that.
It's the same thing every time.
Blame the instrument instead of the user.
Songs that use original lyrics should be kept private & not public. If parts of it sound exactly the same as the original they should warn or sue the user, not Suno.
---How about all the street musicians... are they going to sue all of them as well for playing their songs in public?
That's my humble opinion.
@@4DeFord I don't see the RIAA limiting themselves. After they sued Napter, they went after end users to make examples out of them. Hopefully Suno wins, but I don't see the RIAA limiting who they'll sue.
@@jerrogance So true.
In my country a woman just got fined €443 at her office, for putting her smartphone on speaker whilst there were more than 7 ppl around that could hear the music.
They love big fines these days.
I don't think they can even spell the word 'warning'.
Labels seem to be greedy and afraid for their future. If they could produce better music today, there will be no problem. The problem is that the actual level is very low and people have more fun with AI than to listen to what those labels propose.
Ingesting works is what every artist/creator does. This is not copyright violation. Producing new works based on what was ingested over a lifetime is what every artist/creator does. This is not copyright infringement.
But forcing/coercing an artist/creator to produce a work that is a forgery or copy of an existing work is illegal. This is what the record companies have done, using exact lyrics and artists' names when using the AI tools to accuse AI of copying their music. They are the criminals here, not the AI tools. They are misusing the tools for illegal purposes, just like any criminal can misuse tools.
If you 3D print a Star Wars figure and try to sell it, you will be prosecuted, not the 3D printer company. Sony is the one trying to break the law here.
EXACTLY!
This.
I know musicians that have created what they call "sound-alikes" for films where the director had used unlicensed temp music that they didn't want to license for release so they hired musicians to create "sound-alikes". Humans have been legally doing this with tools forever. If that tool is Udio or Suno or whatever, that shouldn't make any difference. This is Sony and their ilk gasping for air, breaking the law to stay relevant.
These are also referred to in the industry as "in the style of" tracks. They were quite popular, until recent court cases where clueless juries reached horrible legal decisions. So now, music libraries and music editors avert the issue with zero tolerance polices... not because they necessarily agree with the concept, but because they don't want the legal headache.
Remember though, Suno and Udio aren't even a year old. Covid was 4 years ago, and look at how much things have changed since then. Now imagine (assuming the big 3 labels aren't successful in their long game strategy of shutting down these 2 companies) where things will go in the Ai Music industry 4 years from now.
Yep... I've been saying this exact thing for quite a while. It will only get better.
@YoPaulieMusic I had something to say about it too... Still do, of course: th-cam.com/video/hMwWxjbWi50/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4ctk70HwRNS87sM1
The appearance of producer tags in Suno generations is similar to the reproduction of watermarks by image generators such as MidJourney, Dall-E and Stable Diffusion. The training data used by image generators contain a great deal of stock photos with watermarks for various stock photography sites. These watermarks will sometimes appear in generated images.
I believe a similar thing is happening when producer tags appear in Suno's music generations. It's due to the fact that these producer tags appeared so often in Suno's training data.
You can absolutely take an exact melody and change a few notes and timings and that's a new creation. There's only a very small finite number of combinations of notes and timing you can have in 4 or 8 bars of melody.
The examples they give definitely qualify as infringement for use of the lyrics, so I agree with "entire output", but banking on that is a bit embarrassing, the defendants could still just play the works side by side for a jury when the complaint is how the model trains rather than the output. Meanwhile, we need a ruling that establishes liability for directing a tool to creating infringing works to be with the person using the tool and not the tool itself.
When the user is inputing lyrics, is that the tool's fault? Maybe the fix is to apply AI to check to see if the lyrics are already part of another song?
@@YoPaulieMusic I'm sure they aren't already doing that since it would double their API calls to the text AI or whatever else they use to check the prompts. They're still a business, after all.
If anything, I'm listening more to music on Spotify, TH-cam & other sources than ever before since using Suno.
It also made me discover more songs & artists that I might never have found otherwise.
When will they understand that these things make ppl go back to, listen to & buy more music than they did before.
AND discover more and new artists!
2:38 its not 100 mill, its 99 mill. Like a 99c can of soda, this is designed to trick suno into thinking its a much better deal than an even 100.
Kind of funny when you add the lyrics to "Rock Around the Clock" and expect Suno not to use the lyrics. Suno just need to add a lyrics guard to prevent that, guess there is some fine print for every user that now it's up to them not using copyrighted lyrics. Anyone can create whatever music and add an already copyrighted lyrics with their own melody. 😅 Those lawyers don't get it, what a copyright includes. Thing is that Suno might never be able to allow users to add "own" melodies and chords, because that will get the final output into copyright zone. If the user eg add the chords & melody & lyrics for eg Yesterday. To get a copy of a song I guess someone should at least make 25k + attempts.
Surely lyrics are copyright? Same as poetry, surely, from a legal point of view??
@@dnisbet71 Yeah, and the lawyers associates entered the lyrics when generating songs, not Suno.
25k attempts might be a bit high. Udio has produced tunes similar to those in my head on 2 occasions, with less than 1k total. Some lyrics just suggest a melody. Then you can get part of what you want, and use inpainting (udio feature, you can make it overwrite stuff) to rewrite the bits that arent working. But it only works for fairly basic melodies, and they arent identical, just similar.
@@dnisbet71 IMHO, to prove copyright protection. Replace the lyrics with lyrics about something totally different with the same chords & melody and turn it into a totally different genre eg unplugged sing and songwriter or classical music. If you still can hear a very high similarity to the original then I guess it is a match. When is a cover from the original too far away to call it a cover of the original? Many people in the past have used "the fame" of a song as a cover version for their own song and changing eg the melody & chord progression in major ways, keeping the lyrics. If there in the future will be some kind of restriction to writing "similar melodies to previously existing, DAW programs will probably be connected to an online melody database and AI will compare the melody you add to check every new note you enter is not similar to cause copyright infringement. 🤔 Digital distributors today probably have some "limited" algorithm that checks if you track is a cover of an existing song.
@@isajoha9962 agreed its a fair standard. For my money that would invalidate the lawsuit over my sweet lord - clear similarity but not that high.
That tune at 26:20 is really nice.
They should play every one of these songs to the jury WITHOUT lyrics and ask them what song it is. They would fail every time.
All those examples I want to know if they manually put in the lyrics.... I don't think udio or suno just randomly got all of the lyrics of these songs. I think people put in the lyrics and then are using that as "evidence" of copying....
The prompting person entered the lyrics .
@@YoPaulieMusic I noticed that when watching your video. Clearly they're manufacturing the evidence.
It's funny how users think there is an outcome of this case where we benefit. This is a fight between corporations who both want to rip of artists and fill their pockets.
It's completely legal to create something that is similar to something else and in the same style. This is ridiculous. But most jurors aren't well versed in music enough to know the difference given a sneaky lawyer.
Yeah, juries are not very bright when it comes to music. The ABC song, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star all use the exact same melody, but they are completely stand alone songs.
Having spent a considerable amount of hours lately trying out Suno in various ways, probably prompting upwards of 150 tracks, I can say with some authority that 90% deal of it sounds like doo-doo, just like a lot of Chat GPT is clearly programmed doo-doo. In all of that I only found one track that sounded vaguely like something I know. And the lyrics are laughable, worse than most beginning songwriters I've ever read. (the only way you could get a music generator to use specific lyric lines is to prompt it that way, don't you think)... I doubt very much the record companies are really threatened by AI music generation. I watched another video yesterday that suggested this lawsuit is about money, and that the record companies want a cut of the Suno pie. Give them their percentage and their assertion that they are protecting artists... may disappear. Unfortunately the jury will not be made up of musicians and composers who understand music composition and production. Anyway, Who IS threatened by AI music generation is media composers who will lose opportunities to have music placed in television, film and other media as it will be cheaper to hire a music editor who prompts well and can master the final results into the soundtrack.
100% accurate.
90% is about right. When I was using Suno, I estimated that only 10% of what I generated was worth using. I moved on to Udio about 2 months ago and it's better, but I'd still say the useable generations are under 30%.
I support Suno and I think theirs're going to win
Here's the RIAA's problem with this "evidence". They indicate that the lyrics were input by the testers. They were not generated by the platforms. All music is based on patterns. These generators can probably generate all the patterns that have ever been used. So input the lyrics you want in custom mode and generate hundreds of times until you get the patterns you need with a similar enough melody and presto, there's your "evidence".
This being the case, no, this is definitely NOT obvious use of copyrighted materials for training. It's a good assumption that they used the material mainly because Suno and Udio are using "fair use" argument. That's it, because this evidence is garbage if the lyrics were input by the testers. What are the chances that the developers intentionally included titles, lyrics and artists names in all of the millions of tracks in the data if the goal was only to train on patterns? It's not likely that they did. Also, generators convert everything into digital data, not notes and chords. So the result is pulling from random data to fit a target genre, mood, etc. It did not say, "OK, I understand your prompt to mean that you want Mariah Carey's specific song even though you never said that's what you wanted." If it did, wouldn't it just spit out the full song exactly as it that was in its data? To me, that's just common sense. Not doing that would mean that Suno and Udio either didn't encode that information, intentional put filters to avoid generation of the exact song, or did both. The only leg the RIAA has to stand on is a confession from Udio and Suno and then it's all about "fair use".
What's obvious here it the ploy used to bring this to court. The RIAA knows this isn't evidence of using their music for training and they had to have consulted with AI experts who would have told them this evidence was meaningless. I think the RIAA is using the examples to bring the case to court and that will force the developers to reveal their data sources through the discovery process, which is where both sides must reveal anything that could be in favor of the other side's case.
It's all about getting that confession and then trying to blow a hole through the fair use argument. And from what I read both of their arguments, I suspect Udio and Suno could win that. But they probably don't want to risk losing and will settle out of court with a offer to give the labels a revenue share of every subscription moving forward without paying any of those penalties. And once again, the RIAA will have run a power play against their competitors to get in on the $$$$$$$$$$. That is what they have done every single time.
100%. It's all about the money. Great comment.
The problem we have is that this will come down to manipulative lawyers and a jury. History has shown how poorly that can go.
@@YoPaulieMusicThat’s definitely going to happen. I guess it will be a question of which team has the more manipulative lawyers. Bit whatever happens here, we have to adjust. I’m ready.
Great videos on your channel, BTW. They’ve got more common sense arguments than most I’ve been watching.
@@alexadigitalradio Thanks for the kind words and for watching. I think there are lots of emotions out there, this is a common reaction to most of the issues facing America today. :)
This case is pathetic. Try as they may, none of the outputs sounds like the copyrighted songs they claimed. It sounds like a bad cover at best. At worse, it's not even the same song. Also, didn't google got sued multiple times for this exact same reason? With the same logic. The court ruled that AI training is fair use. Even with copyrighted works as training, it's still fair used. That makes this case even more dumb.
You said you can't collect royalties on AI music yet. Is that from the film and tv studios? Udio and Suno's rules? The US govt copyright law?
This is based on a US court case from September 2023 about an AI-generated image. It was the first case that made a decision like this, there will surely be more. Music companies and music libraries are all jumping on the bandwagon and saying that they will not allow royalties to be paid on AI generated music. Many are taking it too far in my opinion, by also including any AI-generated samples or individual instruments.
www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/09/02/artificial-intelligence-lawsuit-decision-us-copyright-law
What you said in the beginning people do what AI Is doing now for long time. People buy or hear music they heard. People learn the flow, chords, bass, guitars drums then create music from that. Ai just does it faster on a major scale
Yeah, but AI isn't an artist. As an artist, if another human being is so inspired by what I've created that it makes them pick up an instrument, practice, learn the craft, and ultimately create something with meaning to them, I would be honored. A silicon valley nerd stealing my music to upload into a dataset to train AI so someone with zero skills can punch in a one sentence prompt and replicate my sound is not that.
Just like a human can use tools to illegally recreate music or art using their musical and artist's tools, Sony and their ilk can use Udio, etc to illegally recreate their music as well. That's not Udio's fault. That's Sony acting like a criminal.
These aren't even covers. They melody doesn't match at all. And the lyrics were fed into the tool by Sony.
Exactly. I've not heard any other people playing the examples from the case... I think because it harms the plaintiff more than helps.
Will Suno Destroy The Music Industry? Hell yes. Just wait few years more. The generated songs will be better versions of and will outcompete the originals in most contexts that generate revenue.
Should Suno destroy the music industry? I don't know... maybe?
"It sounds horrible" isn't exactly a good point to avoid a copyright claim. I'm sure they will loose because they've directed the tool. Just like I can't sue Adobe Photoshop because I've used their brushes to paint a copy of something. It was my intention, not the tools. But AI isn't "inspired" or "learned like humans learn" We're skipping a lot of steps to make that argument.
Compeltely agree, check out some of my earlier videos on the topic. I go into more detail and make the same exact point you are making. At this point I'm just mocking the lawsuit.
@@YoPaulieMusic I see. I'm a digital artist who made it in the Laion training dataset and I can "somewhat" AI replicate my style by name. And I watched 3 lawsuits against stable diffusion, OpenAI, Midjourney go nowhere.
I have a huge issue with AI and the justice system slept on it for years. "Copyright" fails every time and I can see why.
At this point, there is too much money involved to stop huge companies from training datasets based on copyrighted material.
Imagine a car built from thousand stolen parts. Somewhat impressive, Isn't "reeeally" a porsche and can't compete with the real thing.
The real issue isn't the result but me stealing original parts in the first place.
@@florianschmoldt8659 You mean like kit cars? In your example, no parts are being stolen... that would be illegal. Taking physical assets and building a new vehicle is quite different than learning how to build a car. Car manufacturers do this all the time, they buy competitor vehicles and backwards engineer them to learn new techniques, etc.
So back to music, AI tools are being taught HOW music works. To your analogy, AI tools would have to use samples of songs and combine them to make a new song. That's not what is happening. AI is learning the rules of music, then spitting out content based on instructions provided by humans.
@@YoPaulieMusic I admit "stolen" isn't 100% the right word. But so is "learning". We could easily differentiate a human brain learning and an AI by law...should have happened years ago.
As a digital artist, I already see the negative impact of AI art all around me and it's frustrating that the only reason no lawsuit sticks, is that lawmakers in the GOP still haven't figured out how facebook works.
I personally would have agreed to "sell my car parts" to openAI. I don't mind people being inspired by my stuff or use it as learning reference.
But 99% of artists have a different opinion when it comes to AI. When my art made it into the training data, nobody even thought AI art was a thing, people could protect their art or use legal disclaimer. The whole industry was steam rolled. Talented people losing jobs to "AI-artists", "Non profit" OpenAI earns a ton and nobody protects us.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for big music labels either but from the viewpoint of someone in the visual industry, they have good reasons to act.
it may not be a threat yet but it will thats why they are snuffing it out now and good on them for doing so! theirs plenty of good cases for which ai can be used to make our lives better this is not one of them.
biased examples used there .. leaving the video ..
Can you explain what you mean? These are examples from the actual lawsuit.
If these will be the counterarguments, farewell Udio and Suno 😂 AI music is in the same market of the stolen music, and that is enough to break the fourth factor of fair use. The point is that is not fair to steal and use against, it doesn’t matter if you succeed or not in hurting the original. You are very emotional for some reason when it comes to AI, and don’t understand basic law.
Training is not stealing. Learning is not stealing. Stealing requires the removal of something, and maybe the resale or transport of it. These tools are not in any way replicating pre-existing works. Yes, they can generate music obviously influenced by. pre-existing works, but they are not sampling or playing duplicates. Every musician learns from pre-existing works. Explain to me how learning is stealing, then tell me which one of us is being emotional. ;)
@@YoPaulieMusic The Ceo of Suno is stealing. It’s not the AI model which is on trial, but the Ceo of the company. You commit trivial logic mistakes.
@@federicoaschieri Tell me how the CEO is stealing. Is listening to coyrighted audio that is available online for free stealing? (just ask the 350 million non-paying Spotify members)
@@YoPaulieMusic Obviously the stealing is downloading music on their servers to train AI, which is illegal, that’s why they invoke the fair use defense. Humans *listen* to music, which is allowed, while downloading is forbidden. In which world do you live? That’s why they’re sued.
99% of this stuff is crap, just like the originals