Correct analysis, as always.. In case of news, there is neither competition nor replacement, because ChatGPT is not a journalist nor can use the past news to produce present news. But in music, there is competition in all domains: recording artist (who needs vocals anymore, or guitars etc), music for media (why paying a composer and players for soundtracks etc.), streaming (every cent going to AI doesn't go to human artist). So the case in music is pretty straightforward to make against fair use.
For many mediums, I think it will require a class action lawsuit as claimants are going to have a tough time quantifying direct harm done to them individually. I think it will be easier to show trends affecting an entire industry.
They are only liable if: A. They are redistributing exact copyrighted material or B. There is sufficient evidence of significant material harm due to the usage of AI music, which is highly unlikely Most of the AI generated music that I see online is either transformative parody songs of old styles with outrageous lyrics, or completely new songs that are merely designed to sound like songs that have come before, which make them inherently transformative because copyrighted music has to have the same structure, chord progression and rhythm signature… it has to be nearly identical musically. In instances where there are outputs that have replicated copyrighted training data, those outputs merely need to be deleted. As long as they are not being intentionally distributed or generated for profit, and the AI companies comply with the removal of unintended reproductions, then there’s really not any leg to stand on. 🤷
If Artists aren't protected then you could see everybody just giving up the digital world. I will just sit in the garden, grow some vegetables and tend to my flowers, whilst playing my guitar. They won't get me participating anymore. The big tech companies, lawyers and the government need to take the artists/composers with them.
David, I respectfully have to disagree with you. Nobody is going to give up the digital world. It's too ingrained in the human experience now. For many people, giving up the digital world would be like giving up electricity.
It’s important to remember that whether it is individuals or large music conglomerates, this is a fight over intellectual property, not the ability to make art. Protecting the concept of musical restriction due to intellectual property is already damaging to the free expression of musical ideas, expanding on that to try to limit people‘s ability to utilize AI tools to shorten the amount of time it takes for them to be able to produce musical output is a fool’s errand. There is already too much restriction as it is. The last thing we need is more copyright strikes on user media forums, and social media platforms.
it doesn't look good Jesse, because I can't imagine those two companies going against OpenAI didn't try hard to position themselves harmed. but even if they couldn't, this case creates a precedent for getty images to lose against stability on the same grounds. it also doesn't look well for copyright protection in general, given it is ruled that training off of copyrighted material with commercial purposes is not de facto illegal. and finally - OpenAI is under Microsoft... like Suno 🤔
I am catiously optimistic about the long term benefits AI will have across all aspects of life including our industry. However I do understand the worry people have and the fear AI brings with the actual real world disruption that is happening.
Correct analysis, as always.. In case of news, there is neither competition nor replacement, because ChatGPT is not a journalist nor can use the past news to produce present news. But in music, there is competition in all domains: recording artist (who needs vocals anymore, or guitars etc), music for media (why paying a composer and players for soundtracks etc.), streaming (every cent going to AI doesn't go to human artist). So the case in music is pretty straightforward to make against fair use.
Great reflection
For many mediums, I think it will require a class action lawsuit as claimants are going to have a tough time quantifying direct harm done to them individually. I think it will be easier to show trends affecting an entire industry.
They are only liable if:
A. They are redistributing exact copyrighted material
or
B. There is sufficient evidence of significant material harm due to the usage of AI music, which is highly unlikely
Most of the AI generated music that I see online is either transformative parody songs of old styles with outrageous lyrics, or completely new songs that are merely designed to sound like songs that have come before, which make them inherently transformative because copyrighted music has to have the same structure, chord progression and rhythm signature… it has to be nearly identical musically.
In instances where there are outputs that have replicated copyrighted training data, those outputs merely need to be deleted. As long as they are not being intentionally distributed or generated for profit, and the AI companies comply with the removal of unintended reproductions, then there’s really not any leg to stand on. 🤷
If Artists aren't protected then you could see everybody just giving up the digital world. I will just sit in the garden, grow some vegetables and tend to my flowers, whilst playing my guitar. They won't get me participating anymore. The big tech companies, lawyers and the government need to take the artists/composers with them.
David, I respectfully have to disagree with you. Nobody is going to give up the digital world. It's too ingrained in the human experience now. For many people, giving up the digital world would be like giving up electricity.
@@jessmithmusician Amish don't need it.
@@DavidJohnAshman The Amish use electricity more than people realize.
@@deadrockstar49 Yes, but there Internet access is minimal. Which is what we are talking about.
It’s important to remember that whether it is individuals or large music conglomerates, this is a fight over intellectual property, not the ability to make art. Protecting the concept of musical restriction due to intellectual property is already damaging to the free expression of musical ideas, expanding on that to try to limit people‘s ability to utilize AI tools to shorten the amount of time it takes for them to be able to produce musical output is a fool’s errand. There is already too much restriction as it is. The last thing we need is more copyright strikes on user media forums, and social media platforms.
Thanks Jesse Reminds me of Napster Not exactly promising
Which part reminds you of Napster?
@@SyncMyMusic People finding ways to minimize our monies and maximize theirs as Napster did to many writers
it doesn't look good Jesse, because I can't imagine those two companies going against OpenAI didn't try hard to position themselves harmed. but even if they couldn't, this case creates a precedent for getty images to lose against stability on the same grounds. it also doesn't look well for copyright protection in general, given it is ruled that training off of copyrighted material with commercial purposes is not de facto illegal. and finally - OpenAI is under Microsoft... like Suno 🤔
I am catiously optimistic about the long term benefits AI will have across all aspects of life including our industry. However I do understand the worry people have and the fear AI brings with the actual real world disruption that is happening.
I think music will been seen differently to articles. Plus, the major labels will be able to hire better lawyers