ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- The world’s biggest record labels are teaming up to take two prominent AI music-making companies to court, a move that comes as generative artificial intelligence continues to infiltrate the music industry.
» Subscribe to NBC News: / nbcnews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.c...
Visit NBCNews.Com: www.nbcnews.com/
Find NBC News on Facebook: / nbcnews
Follow NBC News on Twitter: / nbcnews
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#RecordLabel #AI #ArtificialIntelligence
How ridiculous. It's not about the music is about money
It's always about money! Everything is about money. There is no such thing as "LIFE" anymore, only money.
@@sci-fi.tsunamii hate how it always about money and its stupid
Sad, isn't it.
Just one look at that last name and you know it's all about the money.
Tell me you understand nothing about intellectual property without saying it.
2 common trends in America 1) Greed 2) Corruption
If read carefully, it's in our Constitution.🤔
@@mybachhertzbaud3074 My fault must of been in the small print
I don't disagree, but personally, I like to believe the founding fathers had loftier goals and we haven't lost sight of it yet
What about laziness..as in genz is now even too lazy to make music...not just too lazy to work.
@@stoneneils Modern tech is meant for efficiency and Gen Z is beyond lazy, more like lazy and entitled lol
Record labels own nothing, and they will be happy.
"This Is It"
Based
My entire channel is music I've been making with AI. I'm just glad copyright law protects fair use and creating new works of art :)
I don't like music labels but don't think artists themselves can take on Ai copying their voice and sound. This is all capitalism vrs capitalism now ai people will charge us soon even more they pretend open blah blah is a lie. Everything is a subscription and nobody owns anything
@@Scuor2 Give it some time soon you will have an entire generation of people creating Ai music. The AI musician artists will outnumber the actual musicians.
This is the same company that continued to insist that one could not sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties
They're an American company it's a for profit country. they'll sue the dead in USA lol
“Happy Birthday” is owned by no one. The copyright expired and it is in the “public domain” - meaning, anyone can sing it and record it without violating any copyright laws.
@@rupertpupkin2493 Interestingly it was the music industry that started the trend of extending copyright with the Sonny Bonno Act **IF I RECALL correctly**
The irony of the RIAA saying that it all for the artists when record companies own much of the artists' music. If these corporations were truly for the artists, they would return the ownership of the music to the actual artists.
You win some, you lose some. In this case theyre helping artists.
@@ttt5205 Helping themselves to own their music. Watch as they say no one can "Make music that sounds like this, even if it was real." You get fined or sued for singing or making a song that "sounds" similar to other music. Shitstorm be a brewing. Watch for videos next.
@@CPB4444 That's nothing new, this new law applies only to AI.
If they did that, none of the records would be worth anything.
@@ttt5205 For now
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that i can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that i can do my laundry and dishes"
- Joanna Maciejewska
It needs to be able to do art and writing to be able to do your laundry and dishes, thats the point.
@@shutinalley"The Not Like Us" They Don't Get It Bro Everyone Wants A Slave 🤨 Why Can't Ai Do Both Right Clean And Be An Artist 🤔
@@shutinalley my washing machine and dishwasher can't do my art and writing though, yet 😆
We already have washer and dryer, dish washer invented
@@shutinalley Literally not. It's like saying AGI is needed to replace jobs. There's already jobs being replaced. I don't even know how you came to that logic 💀
Just think if you generated a actor without there permission from a movie scene and in the exact same scene That’s illegal, AI is going to be a nightmare You cannot do things like copy someone else work
They want to use the AI for themselves obviously
They need to significantly improve the garbage they are putting out on radio, AI is way superior.
Not even. Just money.
First lawsuits, then adoption and integration. We know how the story goes.
If there is anything that is making musicians broke it's Spotify and Tidal and similar streaming services. It's good for us, but the artists make very little on it. Nobody is complaining about this.
Why complain? Join the organizations that are taking Spotify to court OR 🔁 your own Spotify playlists to generate income.
You can do both of these things while getting ready for Web3 Music Retail which is decentralized direct to consumer transactions with secure payments and more protection for your digital assets (aka more protection for your music).
@@SugarMilk99Yeah and where you plan to store everything? Web3 uses blockchain technology and storage is not cheap at all good luck storing flac files there 👀
Web3 is just another crypto thing doomed to fail / be forgotten like the NFT's
Spotify app is much more expensive than TH-cam premium and Music
AI will also make musicians broke.
@@markwells79 Don't be so sure, it's relatively new technology. We have plugins that can emulate orchestras to the point that a regular person can't tell the difference. People still pay for orchestras and rightfully so even though they can be expensive.
Generating a song that sounds EXACTLY like another with the SAME voice is one thing, but you CANT stop a song that “sounds like” another. That already exists in every medium of art. You can’t stop that.
Oh yes you can.
Incorrect. Back when sampling first got started a bunch of people sued because their playing was ripped off from them. A musician's tone and their sound takes decades to perfect and is absolutely part of their identity and it has already been established that you can't just sample somebody without compensating them.
@@badpuppy3Oh wow, you explained that really well. Well done 😂
@@SugarMilk99🤣😭😂
@@SugarMilk99I Know You Are But What Am I 🙃
remember when you burned you dvd collection back in the day and it was a waste of time .
But when artists are not able to release their own music… labels are often not friendly
...or own their work...or be paid for it.
Your data is valuable for these companies. There should be a data dividend and it should be transparent how it is distributed.
Tooo late, not only is the cat out of the bag, it’s had kittens already.
Precisely lol
Record labels allow producers to copy beats and chords from others. What's the difference?
How is that different from artists copying/getting inspired by others’ beats?
Centralization and monitization.
The difference you don’t know about is copyright and licensing. When an artists “copies” (the technical word is “samples”) other artists’ work, they’re required to pay royalties/fees to the original artist for using that work in their own music. An artist would knowingly use copyrighted work and pay accordingly, AI does not.
You are so ignorant on how these models work.
@@FlyBoyMTno you are wrong . They train the ai on copyrighted materia I.e. the master recording. You need permission to use the master. Training involves sampling thousands of songs . If you train ai only on drake it will sound like drake cause you literally sampled drake into the computer you need permission for that. It will rap like drake cause it sampled drake in to millions of pieces and the algorithm put those pieces back in different ways. This video was irresponsible it made it seem like ai thinks on it’s own it does not.
THIS VIDEO WAS SO BAD! They train the ai on copyrighted materia I.e. the master recording. You need permission to use the master. Training involves sampling thousands of songs . If you train ai only on drake it will sound like drake cause you literally sampled drake into the computer you need permission for that. It will rap like drake cause it sampled drake in to millions of pieces and the algorithm put those pieces back in different ways. This video was irresponsible it made it seem like ai thinks on it’s own it does not.
Udio, suno, are on the the irritating psychological scale, to make us remember their branding name. I hope this isn't a new corporate trend.
I have a friend that made several AI songs using suno, each with a different genre and using lyrics based on their input. They weren't great songs, but enjoyable, and they were transformative enough to not sound like a specific artist. I would say they were more original than some of the generic songs cranked out by industrial labels. I've lost count of how many country songs I've heard the last few years that sound like rip-offs of existing songs from different genres, so much so that I hear the original lyrics in my mind.
Ai music is not creative and it’s not art, justice for musicians!!!
Youre missunderstanding what it means for something to be transformative. AI generations will never fit the definition, no matter how different it looks or sounds aesthetically.
Doesn't matter what the eventual songs sound like. The lawsuit is based on them training their AI on music without permission.
Yup I I listening to AI playboy carti music and you could not tell the difference at all! This is why this is happening. It was on Spotify I was so sad it got taken down. THE whole AI album😂 older people will hate this
Same. My coworkers have been making AI songs with Suno for fun & just having a heck of a good time curating songs that are likeable toward their own personal preferences. I honestly dont see the label(s) winning this lawsuit because it's hard to identify & pinpoint which songs, which artists, and which source Suno is using to generate each unique song output based on specified user input. And what elements the AI is mixing together to make these songs sound individually varied by some margin.
These labels are out here acting like you can just ask ChatGPT to play Usher. 🥴
Not chatgpt but other ai software can
@@Zemboy01 You're stupid beyond believe if you actually believe that. They tweaked Udio/suno as much as they could to make it sound like the original and it's still different actually. If they can't even do it with all this intentional tweaking, you'll never do it by just plainly asking simply.
Actually you can. The prompt will be rejected for violations and you will need to modify it. Have you used it?
@@2CSST2 No, you are.
If you put usher in, it just replaces it with a few genres that are similar, “male vocalist, dance-pop, r&b, southern hip hop” so it just kind of plays a similar genre to an artist and that’s the closest it gets. That’s not to say if you get specific enough with a genre, an artists voice won’t come out. I have gotten The Beach Boys, weird Al, David Bowie, Louie Armstrong, Johnny Cash, just by describing their genre and style close enough.
omg that AI guitar solo was so amazing.
Who’s going to pay to see that live?
AI music and the rights of corporations to cannibalize all copywritten music is a direct path to a 2 class economy.
Yes should be played live!
Lol honestly they downplayed what their A.I can actually generate. I laughed when I heard the song play, because I’ve used suno and made some amazing songs. But down with the labels! 👊🏽
It's great and bad at the same time. Cause people can generate so many song in one hour. In 10 years creative will kind weird when some said I did that tune, melody , song with ai back x years back in time 😂
Nobody will play it Live. Its Synthetic "garbage" Intelligence 🙄😏👎
@@massapower But AI sounds human, while the humans on the radio are all robots.
Even if a melody is identical with different lyrics, how is it not a transformative parody like Weird Al?
Well you need sentience to make parody.
@@DanyTheMethis
Wow dude, you're all over this website lol.
I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote on another persons comments.
The issue is not that an AI model was trained with copyrighted works.
It's the fact they did so, WITHOUT PERMISSION of the copyright holder.
The arguments that these techbros will most likely fall back on is that it is ok because of "Fair Use" or because it's "transformative" enough to be considered original.
But again the techbros don't understand that the problem is not the end result in itself, but how they got to the end result.
If I look on Facebook Marketplace and I see there are 2 people, each selling a sculpture they made from random Items,
Person #1 made their sculpture from Items they PURCHACED from Walmart.
Person #2 made their sculpture from items they STOLE from Walmart.
Guess which one of those people is going to end up in court.
Because, (and say it with me):
TAKING THINGS WITHOUT PERMISSION IS A CRIME!
(Sorry for formatting, TH-cam decided to give me the new page layout).
@@Ballpython50001 That’s an interesting analogy. TH-cam had a long era where top creators like DaveDays rushed to parody the latest Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber track. Creators parodied compositions note-for-note and it was considered “fair use.”
Your point seems to be that these creators did not steal the original song lyrics- which would have been illegal unless they paid 9 cents per sale for a statutory mechanical license. In contrast, large language Artificial Intelligence models do use copyrighted lyrics as a learning input, and this is where “theft” occurs.
The “tech bro” comparison (to borrow your caricature of the “Pro AI” crowd) would be that humans also use copyrighted lyrics as a learning input. They hear music they like on the radio and learn how to write their own songs. I am not paying for the “free” education I get from the music track playing at the grocery store, but as a human I may re-arrange words and phrasing to make my own meaning just like AI does.
Can AI sometimes perform creative tasks faster and from more learning inputs than a human brain? Yes. But neither is necessarily paying for the source inputs.
It’s worth noting that AI generated images, music and film just make AI models tangible. Predictive artificial intelligence has been “stealing” our behavioral metrics for a long time, putting those metrics in large language models and targeting us with advertisements as well as social content. That’s what recommendation engines are. This cat is so far out of the bag that it has evolved into a lion. Creative content is just an easier example for discussing policy.
@@DanyTheMebut it’s still sentient people coming up with the lyrics?
Music should become public domain earlier. This would solve a lot of copyright issues and spur innovation.
Way I see it, eventually AI will invalidate the concept of copyright all together. As well as human labor based capitalism.
Thats not how things work lol
Who will create the music?
@Teting7484f exactly, if there is no money creating music (or anything else), no body would want to be an artist
@@Teting7484f Check out the Winnie the Bear and Sherlock Holmes inspired films when they became public domain. Pretty creative stuff. Imagine that scenario for music.
Copyright is the thing that drives artists to make what they make. No no will be creating anything if they dont even get to own the fruits of their labor. I can tell youre not an artist solely by this short sighted comment.
This lawsuit appears to be an attempt by the music industry/labels to slow down the inevitable. Ai music generation is here to stay. As for how fast it evolves, only time will tell. It’s a bit ironic that labels are taking a ‘for the artist’ stance though. Especially since the music industry is infamous for playing host to a plethora of unresolved disputes between labels and their artists/acts.
For decades, many artists have been battling it out with labels and streaming companies over their music rights, royalties and the like. This is why the RIAA being part of the lawsuit seems to be an attempt to mask the audacity of labels to cry foul over a new, and possibly better, music outlet. Ai is obviously poised to be a tool that levels the music playing-field. Labels don’t want that…….
Unless they can CONTROL it.
lol no, as with anything with AI, the main factor is whether or not using the music/ book/ pictures to feed their Matrix fall under fair use.
There is also the problem of whether or nor AI generated anything can then be copyrighted
Ai Will Make Everything Even Steven Most People Don't Want That They Want To Feel As If They're Above Others 🤯
@@garf02Haters Gonna Hate
@@MichaelErnest666"AI _ is here to stay" is THE MOST AI generated saying I continue to hear 😭
@@jumpy2783 IKR 🤭🤫
This is the first step....next step the record companies assimilate the technology into their business model.remember napster?
Exactly
They're already in talks with TH-cam to start selling selling ai music subscriptions
You dont think udio didnt plan for this? This is like suing my neighbor kids for rehearsing with his band a song in his garage that i wrote in my head but never let anybody hear
OMG! That happened to you too?!?
Oh you don't know how greedy and petty the music industry can be. A couple years back they thinking or trying to sue Karaoke bars with the argument that since people are technically singing on stages, it counts as a concert and they deserve royalties.
No, its not. Its like if your neighbors have secretly recorded all your recorded music and then took different parts from those songs and made it into one or many songs and then made tons of money out of those songs. I don’t like these record labels at all but if any ai company wants to feed their ai they need to pay for what they feed it with.
Always about the money.
For years now, performers have drawn most of their income from PERFORMING their work in public, not from selling music to streaming services or in the form of CDs. The actual artists aren't being harmed by this as much as their labels may be. Too bad, so sad.
But AI cannot get up on a stage and actually perform for an audience, so popular singers and musicians have little to fear from it.
Where AI can make real inroads - here as in the other arts - is in the production of the sort of meaningless pablum used as background in our world. Elevator music. Movie and TV soundtracks. Dentist waiting-room paintings. Bad summer novels. Crap art, in other words.
It takes a human to get up there and PERFORM.
The record companies want ownership of the AI generated songs.
American copyriting courts refuse to allow AI generated music to be copyrighted because the AI algorithm may have used copyrighted music to learn from.
By this logic absolutely no one that has listened to another artist's music or read another artist's sheet music should be able to copyright any of their own music because they learned how to play and were influenced by other's copyrighted material.
#aicopyright #ArtisticFreedom
IMPERSONATION IS NOT LEGAL GROUND FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
That’s like textbook companies suing students for learning from their books 😂
Or a record label suing an amateur band for taking inspiration from one of their signed artists.
AI is not copying the record label’s songs. They’re merely using inspiration from them. Human artists have been doing this since… forever. How many bands were inspired by the Beatles? Creating a completely different works that draw inspiration from other popular songs is largely how music is made.
Also, a voice cannot be legally copyrighted.
100%
That’s illegal period
Say it louder for the bootlickers & shills in the back.
Exactly why I've been lauhging at everyone worrying about AI..they forgot about copyright, lawers and the US courts that can't let anything go. :)
It's not illegal to sound like someone else. You can't copyright a style. Also no one owns an AI creation that has been untouched by a human. Case closed?
load of BS
It sounds like but is NOT in FACT the same music
therefore you have no claim
Any sane judge would toss the case
Nope you are wrong as usual, might want to look at some prior cases that set precedent for this lawsuit like good old Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen.
Ew you listen to that ai slop what should I expect with that belle delphine pfp 😂, justice for actual musicians!!!
Seriously. Most the evidence sounds like parody songs. lol
Frankly, creating and using AI tools to generate stuff, shouldn't be considered infringement by itself, unless you specifically create something that infringes, competes, or impersonates.
@@GrumpDogAi slop spits in the face of those who actually put in human effort to make art, you’re just a sheep who wants to bow down to the system
I don't think you're familiar with copy right law. You DO know that these record labels could request from what sources did Suno obtain their music samples?
Mozart about to sue the record labels
Mozart is public domain, AI parasites are free to "train" leechware with it. Of course, they wanted to steal from the popular music instead.
Its not the voice..its using the music without permission
Little different than an artist listening to music on the radio and taking inspiration from that. So long as the AI generated music is original, the record labels should have no claim to it.
ever heard of remix or rap "sampling" ??? literally the whole market is just copying each other. Look up "everything is a remix".
I hope new upcoming artist signed by these majors have a clause in their recording contract that their works cannot be used to teach their record labels AI.
Well, thanks to AI we have bbl drizzy which slaps hard 😅
Didn't the Music Labels learned nothing from Napster and Limewire 🤨
FUCGGK Record labels! How About That 😯🤯🙃
Well... There It Is 🤗
I like your style! 🎉
Remember back when they did all the crazy copyright strikes for using thief music? Now we don't need them :)
Guys keep minimizing A.I. until it takes your job.
According to tech giants, if AI continues improve, over the next 4 years it will replace 50 million jobs.
Guarantee your job is probably in that 50 million.
So instead of ranting “they took our jobs!” … learn how to use AI in your field. To stay on topic, the music industry is historically known to self-sabotage themselves by fighting technology instead of embracing changes.
AI music doesn’t have SOUL. And even when it does, Music Retail is still a fraction of revenue for the music industry. Their primary source of revenue is the Touring Industry.
@@SugarMilk99
And I repeat.
Everybody minimizes AI until it takes your job.
@@OrlanduHolySwordsman So you implying I minimized AI? LOL! Nah, I’m just well aware that Music Retail is constantly getting disrupted by technology. And that the Touring Industry is where most of the money comes in for music groups.
So I repeat. If you learn how to embrace technology, you’ll be alright.
Music Retail: The RIAA looks the other way when the labels utilize streaming farms for their artists - meaning their sales will be okay lol!
Touring Industry: Embrace technology, here’s a helpful formula: Zoom Workplace + ListenTo by Audiomovers + Venue IRL = ‘Moment House’ concerts for a LIVE audience
Touring music groups can livestream directly to venues on their time off from the road.
Then I'll create other jobs as well.
I would be happy for AI to replace my job, I just want my UBI and dedicate my time to my own interests.
That news reporter completely miss spoke what the creator of Suno said and took it out of context.
I've used both services for fun and they specifically block you from trying to impersonate any specific artist and instead you must use alternate descriptions to achieve a similar style. Let's also not forget that the music industry itself has always been highly derivative with countless lawsuits resulting from blatant infringement/stealing existing music without credit or licensing. TLDR: give me a break 🤦
Entertainment biz losing its monopoly...
I agree with this action, though they're focused on monetary gain and not the artist's legacy. I think there should be restrictions on AI, given how incredibly deceiving and potentially destructive it's usage could be (and perhaps already has been). But, on the other hand, I also think it's too late. Pandora's Box has been opened. What do we do now? Ban it? So common people can't use it in certain ways or only is allowed access to certain technology, while we all sit and wonder if the government or other malicious entities use it while our hands are tied? Is there any good way to go about it? If there is, I don't see an answer.
Exactly… they just want a piece of the pie (and the oven). This is not in the best interest of the artist.
Record companies don't want AI to make better music than the artists it's replicating because then they lose money. This is all that it is.
What? No way! Next you are going to tell me people don't like thieves because they want to keep their money!
🤔This is a tough call, but, if the #AIApp was #Trained using an artist's voice, musical notes, or lyrics to *learn how* to #generate "songs, or content", then, as any #Teacher, the #Artists should be compensated; at a rate *THEY* determine, not at a rate #AIDevelopers decide. 🤨
I think a lot of people don’t understand how it works. When a musical piece is written, the songwriter owns the copyright to the songwriting. When a recording is made, someone owns the copyright to that specific recording. Typically, a record company finances a quality recording, so the musician might sign a contract giving the record company ownership of that specific recording. Anyone who makes a copy of that recording outside of fair use situations must get permission from the copyright holder. The copyright holder can choose when and when not to enforce copyright. It’s fairly easy to detect when someone has made a copy of a recording. The court can then decide if the instance was fair use. It’s more difficult to prove that the copyright to songwriting was violated. However, when a company copies recording with the obvious intent to train a machine to create music based on that copyrighted music, it seems like a pretty obvious double copyright violation to me.
What if the intent were to train a _human_ to create music based on a copyrighted music? Every human music artist today has been trained on copyrighted music, often with the intent to create their own music. That isn't a copyright violation, is it?
@@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.- The copyright holder could claim a violation of the songwriting copyright if a human’s song sounded too similar and maybe win in court if a jury agreed. The holder of the copyright to the recording could claim a violation if a human reproduced the recording outside of his license. If a company copies music files onto its servers, that’s a clear violation of the rights of the holder of the copyright of the recording. If those music files are then used to create a program that automates creating derivative works, there’s a good case for copyright violation. An individual human can still be sued if he breaks the law, though there aren’t resources for that. If you are saying that a human and a data center are the same, that is erroneous. A computer is a machine that can rapidly store, reproduce and manipulate data. That is why the “AI” companies are attempting this. It creates a cheap profit from the property of others.
*it seems like a pretty obvious double copyright violation to me*
I mean, doesn't this presupposition of certain infringement contradict your other point about it being decided on a case by case basis if an alleged infringement is actually infringing or not?
@@gondoravalon7540 To me, having machines owned by a corporation, dedicated to the automated creation of derivative works is a huge piece of evidence that the company is stealing value from the intellectual property of others. An individual person, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t create such evidence and it would be more difficult to determine guilt. There is a big deference between a human and a machine, though it seems like some people half believe that these programs are sapient in some way.
If the RIAA doesn't like it, then you know it's actually good for the consumer, the listener, and terrible for the record label in that they can't monopolize music, can't claim that peoples ideas input into and receive something that a computer creates are their own.
Wrong. AI art is garbage. I've seen the AI music that people are posting on TH-cam it's absolute trash it's like some talentless 14 year old coming in and scribbling on a real musician's art. I haven't seen a single piece of AI art or heard a single piece of AI music that was worth 2 seconds of my time.
The A.I. did not create it on it's own otherwise they wouldn't need to be trained off real artists, secondly I seen a video where not only did udio steal the lyrics but also the melody.
it's good for the consumer to put human artists out of business and better that the art we consume is made by AI? What a silly notion. This only benefits lazy AI users who don't have the work ethic to learn to make music from scratch. Are you and your friends going to go to concerts headlined by AI?
@@digi3363 AI art is such superficial trash that I seriously doubt The fad will last longer than a few more months. Already people hate it so much that there are sites where if it is even hinted that you are using AI you are banned.
And also the fact that it's going to end up feeding on itself will mean that it all sounds like the same useless Sludge after a while anyway. Honestly anyone name a memorable or remarkable AI song for me. Hum me that melody.
The only AI songs I've seen float across my bow have all been absolute garbage made by immature children. They've been thoughtless little a****** jokes.
It seems obvious that if a company wants to copy copyrighted music onto its servers, it would have to get permission from the copyright holders. And if a company wants to use those copyrighted recordings to create a product for a profit, the copyright holders would definitely enforce their ownership. When the source code of those “AI” companies’ products gets hacked, we’ll see how fast they enforce their copyright.
AI is at this level is not hurting them IMO. I want non-copyrighted, legal, and unique music for my videos. The major labels won't give me them time of day to license their tracks and if they did they would charge me my life savings for a single use.
😂 Why should someone give you something for free? Secondly Udio is copying both lyrics, and the meldoy from what I have heard with my own ears.
@@asole100Who said free? I pay for services and just to be clear, you are using a free service right now so what is the point about having free stuff?
Show me where either service listed ripped off an artist since you can easily produce proof. They didn't even show a single example of the copying in this video.
Why do you juice the short leg of the music industry?
It's not hurting them at all other than people are making their own stuff vs paying them.
@@TravisDoesKayakFishing Yea for the "free" part I admit I was wrong, and realized that after I said it but I was on an old mobile tablet, and wasn't allowed to edit my comment for that I apologize, and admit I was in the wrong. As for the ripping off part look up " Udio Exposed: AI Caught Plagiarizing Hit Songs? | The Beatles, Mariah Carey, Eminem & More" by the TH-camr Top Music Attorney Lawyer. I'm not going off this video presented to us here but the one I named.
napster? what is the lady talking about. that wasn't ai. That was basically posting the copyrighted song for everyone to download for free.
Just ask AI how to win the court case.
After the record companies get their money from Suno and Udio, they should give all that money to the artists on Spotify.
This is a Talent War. Humans you just proved that you have Talent Envy. Talent Envy will make you sound generic & uninspiring.
Feels like their claim is based on "Suno won't divulge how their model is trained, therefore they must have infringed!" Meh 🙄. I'll lightly assume that they have something more than that.
"Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it's fair to copy an artist's life's work and exploit it for their own profit without consent," yet these Record Labels literally do it every day. Keeping signed artist's wondering what happened to all of their royalties must be a full time job in itself.
Oh now they are doing this?!
I thought they would have done it months ago? They are harder and faster to respond on music pirates.
UMG wants all the money
An AI trained on a large language model (LLM) cannot copy any source material verbatim. The LLM provides a framework that guides the AI's learning process, similar to how a music teacher uses existing material to teach a child how to create and play music. The AI then generates content based on what it has learned. If the output is high-quality, it indicates that the LLM is effective in guiding the AI's learning.
That said, if the LLM was trained on large amounts of pirated music, there could be grounds for a valid lawsuit. At a bare minimum the LLM's authors should be purchasing the music they use.
Most songs already sound alike. This is due to the limited amount of keys in sound. It is also why no one can trademark a style. However, Using some else's voice is a whole different situation because voices are more unique. The rights to a voice belongs to the artist though. Not a record company.
Based on what I asked, udio and suno, both used 3rd party music, which I assume have cover and sound alike.
I gotten a few sound alike even though I didn't try to get to those.
There a video comparison heee on TH-cam, they are lying to you!
@asole100 bro, I'm on both of them. I even have one as a short that sounds like Paul McCartney.
We, as a people, won't know much until it goes to court where they show the evidence.
@@tecpaocelotl No need, look up "Udio Exposed: AI Caught Plagiarizing Hit Songs? | The Beatles, Mariah Carey, Eminem & More" by Top Music Attorney here on YT there's enough evidence right there.
@asole100 I did my own research, and it is worse than what it posted. I tried to find the original video (Is Udio Reproducing Copyrighted Songs? (Audio Examples)). I found the prompt online that he mentioned. Even though he uses on udio, the prompt works on suno as well, but it's mostly lyricswise. These two companies didn't tell us the whole story.
@@tecpaocelotl I don't recall how all the other examples were like but I remember one was slowed down, it was the same melody but yea I'm not surprised.
How is using AI to generate music different from me listening to a song, being inspired from it and making my own? Music industry is being crooked & greedy as usual.
The difference is that there’s no creativity in the AI. It’s not inspired, it’s literally copying (literally as in without exaggeration) and pasting. If you were to do that, you’d very likely get sued, too.
@@strawpiglet If they are copies why don't they trigger the TH-cam copyright detection system ?
@@candidbowyer4625 I don’t know how that system works, but it’s clearly not sophisticated enough to recognize AI art lifted from other artists, so I wouldn’t expect it to work with music, either. These AI algorithms are not smart like humans, they follow certain rules. For instance, I am constantly blocked for things that couldn’t possibly be violating any rules, because the algorithm has no understanding, it’s just running routines.
@@strawpiglet You're claiming AI art is stolen now.........I'll just wait to see, so far nothing I upload made by AI has copyright claims but sometimes TH-cam says things I made myself without AI are claimed by someone else. If anything I think the copyright detection is too sensitive
Because it's being made on a MASSIVE scale by ONE entity, violating rights of human lives.
None of this would hold up in court. The AI-generated songs only mimic the voices and musical styles. These songs are essentially “pastiches” or “parodies” of actual songs, and they are protected under “Fair Use” in the Copyright Act. Only if a significant portion of an existing copyrighted song is used in these songs (word-for-word in lyrics, entire melody lines, etc) directly and exactly, can a copyright claim be made. You CANNOT claim copyright on musical styles OR anyone’s voice. The record labels need to research their laws before suing someone because all it does is make them look STUPID.
I think courts would side with record companies about not allowing AI programs to be trained on copyrighted materials. That would just be almost impossible to enforce though.
@@xuimodRight! The court certainly sided with the record labels against Napster but that didn’t stop music piracy either. Limewire, Kazaa, BitTorrent, and The Pirate Bay came out right after. Napster merged with Rhapsody, becoming the 1st music streaming service in the US and now is leading the streaming industry into Web3.
@@xuimod The courts always side with who has more money for better lawyers, which of course, is the music industry.
Rich people problems.
I’ve just heard “kind of” 10 times, what was this about?
there there, just lie back on the couch.
yellow, black, and rectangular.
it''s rough out here. be real selective about telling anyone you noticed anything. this nation is wall to wall MK from the lodge. and no, there are no advocates on youtube to hep you.
Considering how often popular artists blatanly rip-off other people's songs (*cough* Ed Sheeran *cough*) and the lawsuits leading to nowhere leads me to believe this is a fail.
I’m so glad they did this because AI HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND
Never root for the record label mafia. AI is inevitable, it will be able to create anything. It's the answer to ending broken and greedy systems, once and for all.
This will be the beginning of the AI purge.
@@GrumpDogI know a place named China where communists like you can live 😂
It's much harder to prove infringement for music because of the limited range of the media. Simply there are only so many feasible note combinations.
you would lose a debate with anyone who eg. used math to generate music
It's because the major labels want to be able to produce their OWN AI made songs off of their own catalogs and not have to pay any royalties to anyone in lufing their own artists.
This is nothing like Napster, that was clear copyright theft, this is about companies profiting of artists IP with no attribution or royalties. The AI is only as good as the source material it learns from. Currently the main AI platforms seem to be taking a do now and say sorry later approach.
My dude, when all the songs sound like Taylor swift, that’s when humanity will know they were advocating for something dumb
learning is not illegal. Libraries are not criminal.
@@Dukeofcrow *when all the songs sound like Taylor swift, that’s when humanity will know they were advocating for something dumb*
Regardless of whether this tech is problematic or not, IMO it seems like kind of a reach to assume that it is inevitable that it will all sound like TS or even close to that homogeneous (especially if one expands the scope of this discussion to not specific platforms, but to the generation of music in general).
Robots take regular peoples jobs: Some people complain.
A.I takes artists jobs: Apocalypse begins
A.I taking celebrity jobs: The death of A.I begins. They have touched upon our Hallowed heroes 🤪
Justice for musicians!!! Stop AI
Nope. This won't get musicians any "justice". AI cannot be stopped, it's the way we break the copyright system and set music, art, creativity of all kinds, free from the chains of capitalism.
😂😂
@@GrumpDogAi isn’t and never will be art 😂
@@MrBrixey-s6j I wasn't arguing that point. Tho you do not get to define what others view as art..
you isn't and never will be music :p
Isn’t it ironic that the record labels/companies will be using the same kind of AI software to generate songs for their Artists? I guess it’s OK as long as they are the ones doing it…
I know their next move. Once they realize they can't stop it they will buy them drop all artists and musicians for this. If you can't win then be friend it.
I agree with part of that. I think they’ll flex their money muscles and then they’ll be the only ones allowed to use said software to generate songs. At least at first. They may take real people out of the equation way down the road in the future if people are on board and it’s lucrative.
Suno needs to win
nearly all popular western music based around the three chords. that hasnt changed in 100 years. listen to music from any era and you will hear the songs that made it, and 1000 very similar ones that didnt.
Let me guess, you like to use AI generators.
and honestly taliesin moved to west papua sod the lot of you
Good! I can't believe it took this long. Now, it's time for the visual arts people to get their turn dealing with all these wannabe artists that are using a.i.
Funny, not even one minute in and I already know what happened.
Have you tried contacting a record company lately? As a musician, you probably know about the thick walls surrounding these folks. You can’t get through. And if you somehow do, you’re left with “no unsolicited material or else…” or you just never get any reply at all.
One of the reasons they state is that they are too busy managing their own artists.
But as soon as a startup asks for a talk about something new and exciting and they keep their doors shut, they’ll come out as soon as they think you crossed a copyright line.
This behavior exemplifies the closed and selfish nature of many major record companies. They are notorious for their lack of transparency and how they treat independent artists. According to a 2020 report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), just a handful of major companies control the vast majority of the music market, making access for independent artists even more challenging.
I hope these large corporations will go down forever and that the people who run these scam companies for decades will finally get a taste of their own medicine.
🎉
actually, it's because they're at the lodge drilling your kids holmes
it'd be all keen if you could make a note of it
say, have you been to dogiyai? you might want to investigate it as a possible vacation destination, they've got a lot of gold there, and some useless black people as well, for the past 64 years. them american boys.
Entertainment is by definition education. Is like paying rights to witness your art. If i can get inspired and make better movies and music that is not copyright infringement. That is an intelligence being. Is like " you can't let your kid listening to my music" lol ""it learnes and memorises too fast ! "
First, everything you've seen or heard is licensed/paid for, unless it was through piracy which is still a crime. And second, machines and humans are not the same. The current "AI" is not learning at all, stop anthropomorphizing software.
This is a tricky issue. Artists worry AI will hurt their income, but it also brings new ways to create music. We need to balance protecting artists with embracing tech. Flexible contracts that adapt to changes might help everyone. Just hope these AI music generators don't become the Terminators of the music industry!
The irony that record labels are suing AI companies about the rights around who actually owns the music is funny, considering all their antics with artists.
Leave my boy Bobo Bojangles alone....
You can’t build anything without the permission and payment of the artists content used to build it. AI training needs a lot of content, so it needs to pay for the use of the audio in a big way.
Saying AI is infringing on copyrights because it learned from copyrighted material is forgetting that's exactly how humans do it.
Machines =/= Humans. Your camera isn't learning the movie you are recording.
@@AlexW1495 Find me one musician who hasn't listened to music before.
@@AlexW1495 The AI learns, not records. It's a brain simulation, artificial intelligence, not artificial camera.
It doesn’t matter because you can’t copyright AI songs or video, period.
Just because you can't make money off of it, doesn't mean it's not theft.
So, AI creates a song by Barbra Streisand, but they tweek it a bit..sounds kinda like her.. tweek it more, sounds a little different... is it her or not? The paradox is like taking a heap of sugar on the table. Remove one grain at a time. When is it no longer a heap? . 🤔
Your anology would be similar to decreasing the volume. A better analogy is sugar formula C12 H22 O11, removing or adding atoms, resulting in a different formula.
CANT COPYRIGHT A VOICE. IMPERSONATORS WOULD BE HIT WITH LAWSUIT LIKE CRAZY IF THAT WAS THE CASE.
The labels are as bad as the AI, and neither of them are musicians
Yes, the music results are amazing
Why would you ask for the stupid generate problem
With AI, how can we even be sure we're watching Hallie Jackson, or if this is some sort of software generated look-alike?
Wait what, @2:28 sounds like Karen O from the Yeah Yeah Yeah's!? Yeah, Udio definitely used some YYY soungs in its training data. So messed up.
Ai music sucks. machine should not make any music or art. ai should be use for the necessities like food, shelter, keeping the peace and stability, health.
This means they know it’s a threat.
I’m not to worried about Suno. The burden of proof is on them, it’s on the accuser. They don’t have to prove that they didn’t use copyright material, the labels have to prove that they did 😊. Not to mention, and it’s been stated in many interviews, but they’ve prepared for lawsuits. Even the investors had mentioned that they’ve all been prepared for this sort of thing so
I’m pretty sure Suno has dotted their eyes and crossed their t’s long before this came. A copyright infringement lawsuit was very much anticipated.
Thanks for suing them and putting me onto this amazing music genre
One would think that they would create AI for a much grander purpose than just to steal, but that seems to be all it's made for. Thought policing on social media and stealing art from painters, illustrators, musicians, and writers.......
It's more complicated than that. Each AI output is unique it's not an actual rip off of any existing work. They just sound "like" or sound "similar". The actual songs the AI puts out are unique. There is slim chance you'll find the same song and arrangement, a carbon copy of it out there. These datas they're trained on, question is can they be used as "fair use"? People, artists do that all the time.
@@h.c4898 - Then the AI should only be trained on work that is in the public domain instead of current day works the artists or their families still hold a copyright claim to. But even then it's still unethical in so many ways. I'm an artist, I've been a professional artist for 30 years, so I'm well aware of what you're talking about but I don't entirely agree with you. All I see the AI being used for is theft. Truly untalented people who are now thinking of themselves as artists because they can put real artists, who have talent, works through an AI system and then call it their own without necessarily revealing the AI part of how it came to be.
@@AndrewSnarls
Yes. Unless, the model is trained on licensed materials it's allowed to work with or from open source materials.
@@h.c4898 - Sure, you're talking about sources they've gotten permission to use or don't require it, whereas a lot of these AI systems are being trained with material they haven't gotten permission for. Was that even worth mentioning?......
@@AndrewSnarls Now that I'm looking at it more. Actually, these labels have nothing tangible against it. It's all under "fair use" then processed and transformed into a new product.
So it's no plagiarism. I long to see these labels proving the final output belonging to them.
How do you think these producers get their inspiration from?
Look at hip hop and rap. Do you hear anything original and creative? I don't.
I've been pretty strongly against the AI generated stuff this whole time, but only in the context of it being posited as, and competing with, real human creative work. I think anything AI generated should have to be labeled as such, and optimally exist in its own segregated sphere where you can filter out anything AI generated on any site if you so choose. But beyond that, I don't think its use should be restricted at all.
The direction AI is headed seems like we are gonna leave behind insurmountable amount of problems for the future generations.