Great information thank you. I’d never use AI for my song writing. When I started, I wrote songs but did t know how to create a melody. I worked hard and learned how to do it. I’m not perfect but happy with what I do.
Indeed. I'm glad this was clarified. If people want music, they'll need musicians. eal music will always have priority. Maybe not for everybody but for those of us who appreciate music
If I start writing a song and then come back to it many times over before I complete it .Then I have a bunch of different ideas moods and approaches which will create a somewhat different direction and feel which will affect the final product . In the past it used to be ,for a lot of recording artists that an album was completed when they ran out of money. l don't want or need AI to create what's already in my head . If I can remember it from MY memory then I can work it out. When AI records my brain ,then I won't lose any ideas. That's when I'll find it useful. When it tells me, I should do it another way , I hope I can turn it off. I like your videos. Very thought provoking.
Only good thing about AI. Is it pissed me off so much I cant stop writing or recording now. 100% impossible to get a writers block now. Everything human sounds good. Hearing AI Kurt & Jimi songs made my head explode.
We are rocketing past the uncanny valley...and There is no way to get the genie back in the bottle. I have a feeling There's going to be case after case of gray area usages and false claims and unprovable disclosures. This technology isn't going anywhere and it's only going to get more difficult to discern. Thanks for pointing me towards the music lawyer❤
Also, the quality of AI music has actually gone DOWN since it started because it is now also feeding it's own music into the chipper, so it is slop that is increasingly being fed slop as an input.
The main criticism people have of stuff like this has nothing to do with expression itself, but livelihood. Music as a way to survive, rather than a means of artistic expression. Competition over food. Protect my identity, my creation from being profitable to anyone but myself, because I need to eat. And fuck everyone who is curious enough to explore a different paradigm. I don't personally use AI to actually write any music, but I have no idea how many AI features have snuck their way into my production software that I use regularly. After a point, where do you draw the line? When AI becomes a part of everything, is negative criticism of the generations benefiting from it going to be seen as genuinely human, or out of touch-- you old dinosaur-- that type of thing. I think people are being held back, creatively, spiritually, physically, by the control mechanisms behind every transaction-- a desire to reduce everything to an exchange of numbers. I think there's a lot of irony to be found looking into why we really feel the way we do about AI
I'm Only Gonna use AI when it becomes a standalone software on my computer. maybe it needs a small server and that's ok. but if it's connected to the internet, I'm not gonna train it on me
I'm disappointed that's just a copyright law inconvenience argument against using AI. The argument against all use of AI should be that AI is a just an automated plagiarism machine, and the things it says or writes or draws or plays are all creepy, because it has no consciousness of whether anything is good or bad, true or false; it only has algorithms to produce randomized combinations of plagiarisms.
If I patent a neural network that actually mirrors how a human brain looks-- who would you be to say that your brain does anything different? Would it be more important for you to maintain that you created a thing all by yourself all on your own, enough to risk prison, or would you maybe think about how everything we do is on top of everything that came before, not independent from it. I think the concept of ownership is what bothers people. What's funny is you ought to know. Nothing is owned. Everything is essentially rented out. We don't really even own our bodies. We only own the experience we all share-- I own my own unique perspective. That's it. And even that is made up almost entirely of something outside of myself. I think the real question shouldn't be whose playing with AI-- but is a system that allows me to do a thing such as patent a creation of mine so that none can profit from the content of their own minds be something that persists? Should profit even persist, when it leads to situations like this?
Exactly - is the USCO going to investigate every single song and, even if they could, at what cost? The only way this works is if the AI music websites have a watermark within the music.
when regular people use AI to gen music or photo or video i call it - amazing, because more people open world of art for themself. but when musician wants to have fully generated song..... damnn...🤮🤮it's LAZY, pathetic,...and has nothing to with Talent or Skills. its a nightmare. from your example someone on the forum could not fill the gap in arrangement? if he was not lazy ass he could use AI generated part as reference OR inspiration. but when they just COPY PASTE..omg....
Pretty popular question, and I've tried to answer it in depth with my opinion elsewhere below. The kind of "help" that comes to mind for me is pretty substantive, where writers are either generating an entire song (lyrics, melody, and chord structure) with AI, or else are generating one or more of those elements in their entirety with AI (e.g., a lyricist using AI to craft all the musical elements for their pre-supplied original lyric). Most often, a writer resorting to that level of use is going to also simply supply the AI output as the demo. Most of these writers are openly declaring that their songs are AI-generated or -assisted, and as I state, they clearly believe they own the AI output (which I also assumed until now), but in point of fact, they don't. I think that changes the calculus for most of them. But let's say someone wants to use AI and not be forthcoming. Who are they fooling, why, using how much AI, and for how long? I think however you answer that, there are limits to how far it can go as a result. This is a "you can fool some of the people some of the time" situation. And for what? So I believe you're more competently mediocre than you actually are? Risking potential statutory damages. I don't see the upside.
If an AI software spits out a song for you right now, and you post it on youtube, who can claim copyright on a song that hasn't yet been posted or published or registered before? The software company/authors? How can they prove it? Even if there's a watermark in the AI's product, one can easily reproduce it from scratch.
They can tell because it'll be featured in many ai generated songs, not just yours lol. It's in the contracts that you don't hold them liable if you're sued if they've repeated the generated tracks and spat them out to others. Real songwriters aren't scared just yet
Watermarks and " glazing" can be worked around very easily if someone wanted to. . I'm sure they could try and copyright, and I'm sure it's already happening. 😢
@@Patrick-ryan-collins True but if you watch that lawyer girl, she reads the AI legal docs and they say that there is risk the algo will repeat and give the same track to many users and if you get sued you have signed over zero responsibility to the ai companies. I prefer natural talent myself but to each their own
The point I'm making isn't whether you'll get caught. Maybe, maybe not. The point is that most of these writers assume they own the output (so did I), but actually, they don't. And that matters to most songwriters, wouldn't you agree?
If you write" lyrics " but don't play an instrument then you're chasing songs cause you believe there's money at the end of that rainbow and not in the genre you should be in, which is poetry.
Why is it that artists, who SHOULD understand the crucial importance of those "10,000 hours of practice", think they can fire up AI and instantly possess the skills to effectively use it to create music? Do y'all realize just how arrogant that is? Some corpo asshole shove's a half-baked "Generate Song" button in your face, and suddenly you're a world-class AI expert because you know how to click it? Watch what happens as creators become highly proficient with AI... 10,000-hour artist-level proficient.
Generally speaking, artists and songwriters who are putting in their 10000 hours aren't very interested in AI, in my observation. I'll speak for myself as one such artist. I don't need an easy button, and I don't want a tool that does the writing for me. I'm invested in doing it myself and motivated to cultivate my own voice. The people who I notice using AI to write are by and large novices who like the shortcut, believe it levels their playing field (which I think is very debatable), and also fundamentally assume that what they generate belongs to them. I also assumed that, but as it turns out, they don't, and I think they should be aware of that. But again, even in the scenario you outline, where AI becomes a tool wielded expertly in the hands of proficient writers... the whole point of this video is it doesn't make sense to do that because as it currently stands you don't own the AI-generated content as your own intellectual property. That kills its usefulness to a serious writer.
Sure, not all songwriters are serious, and for those who aren't this revelation doesn't matter as much and won't deter them from playing around with the tool for their own amusement. But 99%? I can't agree with that. I'd venture that most people who write songs are at least serious enough about their own writing that they care about retaining ownership and establishing originality. To be told in no uncertain terms that they would be unable to own the final product would be a dealbreaker to most of them. And they should be aware that that is the case right now. Don't you think?
Who's going to know? The company with the AI generator, for one. But it's not really my point whether you'll "get caught." My point is simply that an important protection and an attribution of authorship many AI-embracing songwriters assume exists --and which I also assumed existed-- in fact does not. You would think you would own the full final product, but you don't. And that is something that these users should be aware of, don't you think?
@@bjarnyg OK, but to what end? Fool their friends? Fool me and you? Have a little fun? Sure. If someone is using AI to puff up their own perceived abilities deceptively, I indeed might not realize they didn't write that mediocre song themselves ;) I'm reminded of a time about ten years ago when I belonged to a big online song critiquing community, and one day I got a song in my queue where the writer had plagiarized the entire first and second verse lyric of Annie Lennox's "Legend in My Living Room." It's not a well-known song, but it's a personal favorite of mine, and so I recognized it (and was the first and only reviewer to do so). They mostly got away with it, and I'm sure they faced no consequences besides getting their account suspended when I reported it. But that decision meant the song would never be released, never shopped, never have any chance of "making it" in any way because at that point it wouldn't pass scrutiny, and would risk statutory damages. But again, that's not the point. These writers I encounter aren't trying to fool anyone. They're openly using AI to write or assist in writing their songs. And they believe that they own the entire end product. But in the unlikely event that the song takes off in some way (which is their hope in doing this to begin with), they will be sadly disappointed to learn they don't own the material like they thought they did. It would be as if that plagiarist in the other example somehow believed it was fair use. These writers should be aware of the fact before they make whatever choice they're making.
Make you own AI software and then you'll be able to claim the product is yours :) My channel is mainly AI generated songs, sometimes it takes a long time to "assist" the AI to get something interesting and worth sharing. Its more of a producers seat : you never know what the artist is gonna do next, you can only judge and try to orient the results. I love sharing even tough I don't get the credit for the creative part, but I am somewhat involved in the audience's response. Being an artist myself, I feel my personal tastes are a big part of my (artistic) personality. If one can share its love for a band or a song, its even more satisfacting when you have the exclusivity of the material (even though you are not the creator). Making music with use of AI can be great as long as don't waste that time not making your art. And its not a waste of time if it nourishes your thirst for new stuff, as an audience.
It's new world of music too common to copyright. Nobody will pay licensing rights for music that is no better that AI-generated music. And no one will want to listen to the same licensed shit over and over when their personal AI is creating a continual fresh stream of newly created music, attuned the their likes in a way that Spotify can only dream about. Fuck copyrights. Fuck commercial music, altogether. Let the era of 'Music as Business" die and be forgotten. Welcome to the new era when music will be "too cheap to meter". The very idea of the 'business of music' is a profound perversion of music, itself. You're a victim of the Dunning/Kruger effect if you don't grok this by now.
I think I have a pretty firm handle on the limits of my own expertise, here. Who knows what the future holds, but the point stands that in the current legal climate, the writers who use AI believing that they will own the end product are mistaken. And that's a consideration I think they should be aware of.
It could never be determined if lyrics were written by AI, these are billions of parameter models using existing data which is re-sequenced for output. No one owns words. Of course you own the lyrics once you register the copyright if you choose to do so. You are in effect saying if a songwriter mixed individual words from ten different million seller novels to formulate a song they wouldn’t own the copyright. You have misunderstood the legal advice. Further any song musically has the potential to exist already in note and chord structure and be copyright claimed. AI makes this no more or less likely.
I think it's doubtful that I've misunderstood the legal conclusion of @topmusicattorney 's video. It was pretty straightforward and laid out very clearly. If you write a song using AI-generated content, you do not own and cannot claim the AI portion of the work. If you still think I'm wrong about that, feel free to cite a source in support of that, and I'll check it out. Furthermore, you should be aware that one thing you said is inaccurate: you own your original works (including lyrics) as soon as you fix them in any tangible form, be that writing it down, recording an idea on your phone, etc. You don't have to register the work or choose to register it to own it. The point of my video is simply that clearly many people believe that when they write a song with AI generation or AI assistance, they own the entire song. That's also something I assumed to be true (even though I don't use AI). However, as I learned in watching her video, that's actually not the case. You don't own the AI portion. And I think that AI users should be aware of that, and I also think that's a dealbreaker for a lot of writers. Don't you?
I keep saying that even "watermarks" and "glazing" can be worked around. You can even provide fake workflow stems if you wanted to make it look like you saved works in progress
@@Patrick-ryan-collins if they're sophisticated enough to go to all that trouble, why not just write their own material from the start? Most of these writers I come across who are using AI in this fashion are doing so because they can't write, perform, or record music themselves to begin with. They assume this is a way forward that's open to them, and they assume they're going to own the end result (as did I), but actually, they won't, and that's important to know, because it's a dealbreaker for most aspiring writers.
95% of AI songs are much more interesting than 95% of crap that humans create without AI. AI is going to completely change the nature of how humans create and experience audio. The old guard can "tsk tsk" until the time comes for them to drop dead, when they will speak their ignorance no more. AI is a tool as radically transformative and freeing as the DAW. Those of us who don't have our head up our ass grok this. The old guard lacks the conceptual vocabulary and intelligence to understand what's going on. I'm so sick of the fucking high priests of music who want to deprive the everyday musician of amazing AI tools to create music in new ways... music which is often equal to or better than anything they have ever produced. Sorry old guard. You had your time. Now it's our turn. Jus' sit down on that chair right there, and let us show you how it's done... fire in the matrix! Run child run!
The function of art in a society, and for individuals, is the exchange of informational or emotional ideas between conscious entities... Unless art is purely about the dopamine release for you, in which case, feel free to dissociate from humanity as much as you please. I will agree that the use of AI assistant tools, doesn't get in the way of that connection between conscious beings, as it is not involved in the compositional phase, and can be manipulated by the user. So, I can't complain about that so much :P (Yes i've used the Izotope Ozone assistant, like everyone else)
People don't need you to assert that their intelligence is subpar, if anything that makes you sound more "high" than the "priests" you are complaining about lmao You are just so much smarter i guess
The point of art in a society and for individuals is about an exchange between individuals... an emotional or intellectual connection that is formed through symbolism. AI compositions undermine the very purpose of art, through the removal of consciousness, in the process of its creation. I guess however, if art is purely about the dopamine release for someone, this wouldn't matter for them, and they could happily dissociate from the human connection that is formed through the humanities/arts.
Video responding to some of the comments: th-cam.com/video/QKf1InlZOg8/w-d-xo.html
Great information thank you. I’d never use AI for my song writing. When I started, I wrote songs but did t know how to create a melody. I worked hard and learned how to do it. I’m not perfect but happy with what I do.
I'm with you. Take the journey, figure it out, cultivate your voice, express yourself, and what happens happens.
Indeed. I'm glad this was clarified. If people want music, they'll need musicians.
eal music will always have priority. Maybe not for everybody but for those of us who appreciate music
If I start writing a song and then come back to it many times over before I complete it .Then I have a bunch of different ideas moods and approaches which will create a somewhat different direction and feel which will affect the final product . In the past it used to be ,for a lot of recording artists that an album was completed when they ran out of money. l don't want or need AI to create what's already in my head . If I can remember it from MY memory then I can work it out. When AI records my brain ,then I won't lose any ideas. That's when I'll find it useful. When it tells me, I should do it another way , I hope I can turn it off. I like your videos. Very thought provoking.
Cody what happens when these ai companies generate so much content that literally there are no good ideas left
Only good thing about AI. Is it pissed me off so much I cant stop writing or recording now. 100% impossible to get a writers block now. Everything human sounds good. Hearing AI Kurt & Jimi songs made my head explode.
Agreed. You can totally do better than these mediocre outputs. Go for it; I'm with you on this
Yeah, a whole bunch of guys who didn't write a single song in 50 years are suddenly sporting their so called own new song. People are so full of s...
Economics is huge. People en masse prefer convenience than quality. If you want to produce quality you have to find the people who will pay for that.
We are rocketing past the uncanny valley...and There is no way to get the genie back in the bottle. I have a feeling There's going to be case after case of gray area usages and false claims and unprovable disclosures. This technology isn't going anywhere and it's only going to get more difficult to discern.
Thanks for pointing me towards the music lawyer❤
It's going to have higher sound quality, but by the built in way it works, it will always be slop.
Also, the quality of AI music has actually gone DOWN since it started because it is now also feeding it's own music into the chipper, so it is slop that is increasingly being fed slop as an input.
The main criticism people have of stuff like this has nothing to do with expression itself, but livelihood.
Music as a way to survive, rather than a means of artistic expression.
Competition over food. Protect my identity, my creation from being profitable to anyone but myself, because I need to eat.
And fuck everyone who is curious enough to explore a different paradigm.
I don't personally use AI to actually write any music, but I have no idea how many AI features have snuck their way into my production software that I use regularly. After a point, where do you draw the line?
When AI becomes a part of everything, is negative criticism of the generations benefiting from it going to be seen as genuinely human, or out of touch-- you old dinosaur-- that type of thing.
I think people are being held back, creatively, spiritually, physically, by the control mechanisms behind every transaction-- a desire to reduce everything to an exchange of numbers.
I think there's a lot of irony to be found looking into why we really feel the way we do about AI
I'm Only Gonna use AI when it becomes a standalone software on my computer. maybe it needs a small server and that's ok. but if it's connected to the internet, I'm not gonna train it on me
I'm disappointed that's just a copyright law inconvenience argument against using AI. The argument against all use of AI should be that AI is a just an automated plagiarism machine, and the things it says or writes or draws or plays are all creepy, because it has no consciousness of whether anything is good or bad, true or false; it only has algorithms to produce randomized combinations of plagiarisms.
The counter argument is that people do the same thing. First we imitate, then we create something different but very similar
If I patent a neural network that actually mirrors how a human brain looks-- who would you be to say that your brain does anything different?
Would it be more important for you to maintain that you created a thing all by yourself all on your own, enough to risk prison, or would you maybe think about how everything we do is on top of everything that came before, not independent from it.
I think the concept of ownership is what bothers people.
What's funny is you ought to know. Nothing is owned. Everything is essentially rented out. We don't really even own our bodies. We only own the experience we all share-- I own my own unique perspective. That's it. And even that is made up almost entirely of something outside of myself.
I think the real question shouldn't be whose playing with AI-- but is a system that allows me to do a thing such as patent a creation of mine so that none can profit from the content of their own minds be something that persists? Should profit even persist, when it leads to situations like this?
If you don't disclose that you used AI to write the song, how will people know?
Exactly - is the USCO going to investigate every single song and, even if they could, at what cost? The only way this works is if the AI music websites have a watermark within the music.
when regular people use AI to gen music or photo or video i call it - amazing, because more people open world of art for themself.
but when musician wants to have fully generated song..... damnn...🤮🤮it's LAZY, pathetic,...and has nothing to with Talent or Skills. its a nightmare.
from your example someone on the forum could not fill the gap in arrangement? if he was not lazy ass he could use AI generated part as reference OR inspiration. but when they just COPY PASTE..omg....
If a "Songwriter" WERE to use A.I. to help write a song, how would anyone definitively KNOW they did?
Pretty popular question, and I've tried to answer it in depth with my opinion elsewhere below. The kind of "help" that comes to mind for me is pretty substantive, where writers are either generating an entire song (lyrics, melody, and chord structure) with AI, or else are generating one or more of those elements in their entirety with AI (e.g., a lyricist using AI to craft all the musical elements for their pre-supplied original lyric). Most often, a writer resorting to that level of use is going to also simply supply the AI output as the demo.
Most of these writers are openly declaring that their songs are AI-generated or -assisted, and as I state, they clearly believe they own the AI output (which I also assumed until now), but in point of fact, they don't. I think that changes the calculus for most of them.
But let's say someone wants to use AI and not be forthcoming. Who are they fooling, why, using how much AI, and for how long? I think however you answer that, there are limits to how far it can go as a result. This is a "you can fool some of the people some of the time" situation. And for what? So I believe you're more competently mediocre than you actually are? Risking potential statutory damages. I don't see the upside.
If an AI software spits out a song for you right now, and you post it on youtube, who can claim copyright on a song that hasn't yet been posted or published or registered before? The software company/authors? How can they prove it? Even if there's a watermark in the AI's product, one can easily reproduce it from scratch.
They can tell because it'll be featured in many ai generated songs, not just yours lol. It's in the contracts that you don't hold them liable if you're sued if they've repeated the generated tracks and spat them out to others. Real songwriters aren't scared just yet
Watermarks and " glazing" can be worked around very easily if someone wanted to.
. I'm sure they could try and copyright, and I'm sure it's already happening. 😢
@@Patrick-ryan-collins True but if you watch that lawyer girl, she reads the AI legal docs and they say that there is risk the algo will repeat and give the same track to many users and if you get sued you have signed over zero responsibility to the ai companies. I prefer natural talent myself but to each their own
The point I'm making isn't whether you'll get caught. Maybe, maybe not. The point is that most of these writers assume they own the output (so did I), but actually, they don't. And that matters to most songwriters, wouldn't you agree?
Use it mainly as a rhyming dictionary, or you could ask it if a phrase makes grammatical sense, but don’t use it to actually write lyrics.
If you write" lyrics " but don't play an instrument then you're chasing songs cause you believe there's money at the end of that rainbow and not in the genre you should be in, which is poetry.
Why is it that artists, who SHOULD understand the crucial importance of those "10,000 hours of practice", think they can fire up AI and instantly possess the skills to effectively use it to create music? Do y'all realize just how arrogant that is? Some corpo asshole shove's a half-baked "Generate Song" button in your face, and suddenly you're a world-class AI expert because you know how to click it?
Watch what happens as creators become highly proficient with AI... 10,000-hour artist-level proficient.
Generally speaking, artists and songwriters who are putting in their 10000 hours aren't very interested in AI, in my observation. I'll speak for myself as one such artist. I don't need an easy button, and I don't want a tool that does the writing for me. I'm invested in doing it myself and motivated to cultivate my own voice. The people who I notice using AI to write are by and large novices who like the shortcut, believe it levels their playing field (which I think is very debatable), and also fundamentally assume that what they generate belongs to them. I also assumed that, but as it turns out, they don't, and I think they should be aware of that.
But again, even in the scenario you outline, where AI becomes a tool wielded expertly in the hands of proficient writers... the whole point of this video is it doesn't make sense to do that because as it currently stands you don't own the AI-generated content as your own intellectual property. That kills its usefulness to a serious writer.
The thing is, 99% of songwriters are not serious. They just want to make some money.
Sure, not all songwriters are serious, and for those who aren't this revelation doesn't matter as much and won't deter them from playing around with the tool for their own amusement. But 99%? I can't agree with that. I'd venture that most people who write songs are at least serious enough about their own writing that they care about retaining ownership and establishing originality. To be told in no uncertain terms that they would be unable to own the final product would be a dealbreaker to most of them. And they should be aware that that is the case right now. Don't you think?
how will anybody know that you used ai unless you admit to it?
Who's going to know? The company with the AI generator, for one.
But it's not really my point whether you'll "get caught." My point is simply that an important protection and an attribution of authorship many AI-embracing songwriters assume exists --and which I also assumed existed-- in fact does not. You would think you would own the full final product, but you don't. And that is something that these users should be aware of, don't you think?
@@CodyWeathers well, as long as people think they can get away with it, they will try.
@@bjarnyg OK, but to what end? Fool their friends? Fool me and you? Have a little fun? Sure. If someone is using AI to puff up their own perceived abilities deceptively, I indeed might not realize they didn't write that mediocre song themselves ;)
I'm reminded of a time about ten years ago when I belonged to a big online song critiquing community, and one day I got a song in my queue where the writer had plagiarized the entire first and second verse lyric of Annie Lennox's "Legend in My Living Room." It's not a well-known song, but it's a personal favorite of mine, and so I recognized it (and was the first and only reviewer to do so). They mostly got away with it, and I'm sure they faced no consequences besides getting their account suspended when I reported it. But that decision meant the song would never be released, never shopped, never have any chance of "making it" in any way because at that point it wouldn't pass scrutiny, and would risk statutory damages.
But again, that's not the point. These writers I encounter aren't trying to fool anyone. They're openly using AI to write or assist in writing their songs. And they believe that they own the entire end product. But in the unlikely event that the song takes off in some way (which is their hope in doing this to begin with), they will be sadly disappointed to learn they don't own the material like they thought they did. It would be as if that plagiarist in the other example somehow believed it was fair use. These writers should be aware of the fact before they make whatever choice they're making.
Make you own AI software and then you'll be able to claim the product is yours :)
My channel is mainly AI generated songs, sometimes it takes a long time to "assist" the AI to get something interesting and worth sharing.
Its more of a producers seat : you never know what the artist is gonna do next, you can only judge and try to orient the results.
I love sharing even tough I don't get the credit for the creative part, but I am somewhat involved in the audience's response.
Being an artist myself, I feel my personal tastes are a big part of my (artistic) personality. If one can share its love for a band or a song, its even more satisfacting when you have the exclusivity of the material (even though you are not the creator).
Making music with use of AI can be great as long as don't waste that time not making your art. And its not a waste of time if it nourishes your thirst for new stuff, as an audience.
It strikes me that it's probably easier to write a song than your own AI software ;)
It's new world of music too common to copyright. Nobody will pay licensing rights for music that is no better that AI-generated music. And no one will want to listen to the same licensed shit over and over when their personal AI is creating a continual fresh stream of newly created music, attuned the their likes in a way that Spotify can only dream about. Fuck copyrights. Fuck commercial music, altogether. Let the era of 'Music as Business" die and be forgotten. Welcome to the new era when music will be "too cheap to meter". The very idea of the 'business of music' is a profound perversion of music, itself. You're a victim of the Dunning/Kruger effect if you don't grok this by now.
Thank you. I literally clapped. Open source everything just because it's becoming impossible to police❤😢😂
I think I have a pretty firm handle on the limits of my own expertise, here. Who knows what the future holds, but the point stands that in the current legal climate, the writers who use AI believing that they will own the end product are mistaken. And that's a consideration I think they should be aware of.
It could never be determined if lyrics were written by AI, these are billions of parameter models using existing data which is re-sequenced for output. No one owns words. Of course you own the lyrics once you register the copyright if you choose to do so. You are in effect saying if a songwriter mixed individual words from ten different million seller novels to formulate a song they wouldn’t own the copyright. You have misunderstood the legal advice. Further any song musically has the potential to exist already in note and chord structure and be copyright claimed. AI makes this no more or less likely.
I think it's doubtful that I've misunderstood the legal conclusion of @topmusicattorney 's video. It was pretty straightforward and laid out very clearly. If you write a song using AI-generated content, you do not own and cannot claim the AI portion of the work. If you still think I'm wrong about that, feel free to cite a source in support of that, and I'll check it out.
Furthermore, you should be aware that one thing you said is inaccurate: you own your original works (including lyrics) as soon as you fix them in any tangible form, be that writing it down, recording an idea on your phone, etc. You don't have to register the work or choose to register it to own it.
The point of my video is simply that clearly many people believe that when they write a song with AI generation or AI assistance, they own the entire song. That's also something I assumed to be true (even though I don't use AI). However, as I learned in watching her video, that's actually not the case. You don't own the AI portion. And I think that AI users should be aware of that, and I also think that's a dealbreaker for a lot of writers. Don't you?
The thing is: Nobody will ever know, that you used AI if you don’t want them to know.
Unless it turns out that the AI plagiarized another song, or the AI company has a record of having generated a song for you.
I keep saying that even "watermarks" and "glazing" can be worked around. You can even provide fake workflow stems if you wanted to make it look like you saved works in progress
@@Patrick-ryan-collins if they're sophisticated enough to go to all that trouble, why not just write their own material from the start? Most of these writers I come across who are using AI in this fashion are doing so because they can't write, perform, or record music themselves to begin with. They assume this is a way forward that's open to them, and they assume they're going to own the end result (as did I), but actually, they won't, and that's important to know, because it's a dealbreaker for most aspiring writers.
95% of AI songs are much more interesting than 95% of crap that humans create without AI.
AI is going to completely change the nature of how humans create and experience audio.
The old guard can "tsk tsk" until the time comes for them to drop dead, when they will speak their ignorance no more. AI is a tool as radically transformative and freeing as the DAW. Those of us who don't have our head up our ass grok this. The old guard lacks the conceptual vocabulary and intelligence to understand what's going on. I'm so sick of the fucking high priests of music who want to deprive the everyday musician of amazing AI tools to create music in new ways... music which is often equal to or better than anything they have ever produced. Sorry old guard. You had your time. Now it's our turn. Jus' sit down on that chair right there, and let us show you how it's done... fire in the matrix! Run child run!
The function of art in a society, and for individuals, is the exchange of informational or emotional ideas between conscious entities...
Unless art is purely about the dopamine release for you, in which case, feel free to dissociate from humanity as much as you please.
I will agree that the use of AI assistant tools, doesn't get in the way of that connection between conscious beings, as it is not involved in the compositional phase, and can be manipulated by the user. So, I can't complain about that so much :P
(Yes i've used the Izotope Ozone assistant, like everyone else)
People don't need you to assert that their intelligence is subpar, if anything that makes you sound more "high" than the "priests" you are complaining about lmao
You are just so much smarter i guess
The point of art in a society and for individuals is about an exchange between individuals... an emotional or intellectual connection that is formed through symbolism.
AI compositions undermine the very purpose of art, through the removal of consciousness, in the process of its creation.
I guess however, if art is purely about the dopamine release for someone, this wouldn't matter for them, and they could happily dissociate from the human connection that is formed through the humanities/arts.
Some people are new and actually want to write their own songs
More interesting? Says who? Besides, that's not an argument for using a.i.