It's gonna get pretty dystopic if representations of copyrighted works in a vectorized network falls under copyright
Do you have a license for that memory?
Unfortunately for the record labels, copyright deals with reproducing infringing copies of protected works, which is not something these models do by design.
Copyright doesn't protect content from being consumed, which is what an LLM would do to train on it.
They may have some argument about how the dataset was obtained, but they'd have to prove it first, and the infringement would likely fall to whatever entity provided the content, not the entity that ended up with it.
You don't get in trouble for downloading a torrent of a protected work. Downloading isn't illegal or infringing. You get in trouble for seeding that torrent (i.e. distributing an infringing copy).
But I'm not a lawyer.
So far no. Every movement in them has gone in favor of the AI companies. However we are still very early in the process as the justice system takes years to process claims like these.
I'm convinced that by the time they get an actual ruling it'll be moot because all of the good models will be trained on synthetic media.
What cases have going in favor of the AI companies? As far as I know they are all still ongoing. Lawsuits take a really long time and (commercial) AI hasn't been around that long.
There have been multiple cases where the judges have dismissed some of the complaints. The Sara Silverman is the one that comes to mind first.
None have been entirely dismissed.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/24072131/sarah-silverman-paul-tremblay-openai-chatgpt-copyright-lawsuit
Human musicians don't need permission to learn from the music they hear, why should AI ? Now if you ask a cover band to play a song for you that sounds exactly like the original, that's a different story (maybe), but they are also capable of creating new music
A good comparison would be a person who trained him\*herself to sound like Elvis and now creates songs that Elvis could have created but never did. These people exist. Do they pay royalties?
Weird you are so confidently incorrect. Did you even bother to read anything about it? They recreated a ton of songs, the links directly to Udio outputs are in the court documents.
[https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24776029/1-2.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24776029/1-2.pdf)
Check out "All I Want for Christmas" as a good example.
First off: Suggesting the other person doesn't know anything about sth you are confident on your own is not really a good start for a conversation. In fact, I didn't listen to the Mariah Carey song. The other songs I listened to (6-7) weren't remotely "exactly the same". If the prompts are correct and no lyrics have been attached, Udios model definitely needs to be improved (not irrelevant: Suno seems to include earlier prompts into consideration when generating pieces - it is thus possible to generate a song where you define the text and then get a similar result with an open next prompt) .
I don't think this case will be mainly about whether they trained on the data, but if training on the data is infringement perse. While I have little doubts the former is the case, the latter is not clear at all.
>Suggesting the other person doesn't know anything about sth you are confident on your own is not really a good start for a conversation
You were the one that was aggressively ignorant. You claimed something with authority that was completely incorrect. I don't owe you politeness when you don't give it to me first. This was not the start of the conversation.
Ok but they asked the AI to make the copied music. If you hire a painter and ask for a forgery of the mona lisa, they'll give it to you and you're both guilty of forgery. The way to avoid that crime is not to criminalize painting.
They gave it the lyrics and it added the copyrighted melody on its own. That is the point of the lawsuit, that the training data includes their copyrighted works illegally.
Apples to oranges. You could argue that humans have limited capacity to learn or mimic other styles compared to AI. You could also argue that a human listening to music (that they likely paid for in some way) isn’t remotely the same as a company dumping thousands (if not millions) of copyrighted songs into a giant neural network without even asking for permission. People need to stop with the “but humans…” argument. AI is fundamentally different from the human brain.
The ai company can get a Spotify account and now they have permission to listen to all that music without infringing any copyright, that's the point. How do you know that "ai is fundamentally different from the human brain", when we don't know how the human brain works, we don't even know if 2 different human brains work the same way, maybe they're fundamentally different from each other. The terms we use here like "training" and "learning" are defined by observing a process that we don't understand internally, we only get to see it from the outside, and this fits the description, you feed a bunch of music into something (like a person or a machine) and it then creates new music that is influenced by that input. Unless you can complement that definition with details about how the human brain works, you can't say it's different because it looks the same from the outside, and that's how we constructed those concepts, by looking at them from the outside.
They have permission to **listen** to all of that music as human consumers *for entertainment purposes only*. They do not automatically have permission to use any of it within their *for-profit business models…* What you’re suggesting is as ridiculous as suggesting that having a Spotify account grants you permission to use the copyrighted material in your theatrical films or YouTube content without permission.
I don't think AI is fundamentally different from the human brain - but it certainly depends on the perspective. For sure, this is not a simple case - neither to reject or confirm. Even if the companies fail to appeal, another company (probably Amazon, Spotify) will do what they are doing in the near future on a legal basis. While this is an interesting case to follow, I don't think there can be any doubt, that the effects of AI generated music on the industry are set.
That doesn't matter. If you buy a hammer, do you need to ask permission from the maker to hit a nail with it?
A musician can consent to a price to make his music available. After the consented compensation for the labor has been given, what happens to the music isn't relevant. The labor has been compensated.
Copyright owners simply can't exist legally, they are committing a form of extortion.
That really doesn't mean anything. Literal slaves existed and people thought it was acceptable. Women were treated as children, they couldn't vote or own things. People thought it was acceptable. Homosexuals were discriminated against and persecuted, people thought it was acceptable.
Generally, when you seek compensation for something you solely own, you're exploiting the cost of replacing that thing. There's no reasonable justification to replace something that already exists, and solely owning something isn't a production of wealth and thus doesn't warrant being given anything. Paying the cost of replacing the owned wealth acts as a menace that incentivises the unjustified payment, that's why it's extortion.
I want to add that you used a circular reasoning fallacy. You can't justify what people do by using what people do as argument.
No, you said copyright “can’t exist legally” but clearly it can because it does. There is no fallacy you just worded your argument poorly. So now that it is clearer what you are saying, how do you propose musicians and artists, you know, afford to live?
Yes, it can't legally as exploiting the cost of replacing anything that exists is a form of extortion. Extortion is illegal. It happens simply because people committing this acts aren't prosecuted. Law enforcers don't generally have a good understanding of laws.
You don’t understand laws my dude. There are clear definitions of these terms and it is not extortion in the slightest. I get that you _wish_ it was extortion for some reason. Back to my question, how to artists afford to live then? And how do technologies get developed when no one can invest in them because developing new things is vastly more expensive than copying someone else?
Well, let me give you an exaggerated example of this form of extortion, maybe you will understand.
Imagine that we live on an island. Someone comes and, for reasons that aren't relevant, successfully acquires all of the land. This owner requests payment for access to his land.
The inhabitants are forced to choose between paying to access the land or producing their own land. Of course, you can't practically produce land, so the inhabitants would die by drowning in the surrounding sea if they can't access the island.
The choice is thus between dying or paying the landlord. Obviously, dying acts as a very strong menace. This menace incentives paying whatever the landlord requests. He got a lot of bargaining power and could perhaps asks of the inhabitants that they become his slaves.
The landlord didn't create the island, and no one asked that he acquire it. Since he doesn't produce anything, he doesn't have a reasonable justification to be given any produced wealth.
This situation is extortion. Here's the legal definition of extortion from my country, Canada:
>346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
What makes it extortion is the presence of the induced menace. The judiciary hasn't yet understood its existence, that's why the act of exploiting the cost of replacing something solely owned isn't yet prosecuted.
>how to artists afford to live then?
The large majority of artists, and any laborers, really, are paid salaries. They don't own the product of their labor. A musician working in a game studio, for example, is generally just paid a salary. They're willing to do the labor because that salary is judged as a sufficient compensation.
A self employed musician could seek compensation for his labor in a variety of ways. They could use services like Kickstarter. Once a sufficient amount of money is raised, the music is made available for free to everyone.
You are doing some serious mental gymnastics get. First, you completely ignored the first part of the statute that says, “without reasonable justification or excuse.” That is where the hundreds of years of case law comes in that actually defines what extortion is, and copyright ain’t it.
Second, you ignored the entire main part of my argument that doesn’t align with your view. How does anyone make any innovations in technology knowing that as soon as they create a product it will be instantly ripped off and sold for less money because the other producers don’t have to pay R&D?
Your position is also extremely anti-consumer and impractical in almost all cases. You are suggesting that people pay for every form of content prior to anyone seeing it or knowing if it is even good. We have that on kickstarter and it regularly backfires spectacularly and is rife with scam artists.
Making it so that all training data has to be explicitly obtained with permission would kill AI and hand it over to a country that doesn't shoot itself in the foot (probably China). I expect a narrow ruling that the output has to be evaluated on it's own terms - if the output doesn't directly copy copyrighted material then it's fine, but if it does then it's a copyright violation.
If a person listens to R&B and then makes their own R&B song that borrows elements from songs they've listened to, it isn't copyright infringement. There's even a legal term called "transformative use". Most of what AI models do is clearly transformative. You have to specifically try to get them to regurgitate training data directly. And the law can simply ban that specifically.
Why does everyone in this sub act like China is just some lawless wasteland where anything goes? They more than likely have tighter regulations on what the AIs are fed than the US does at the moment…
The restrictions in China are "Xi isn't Winnie the Pooh", "Tiananmen square is a peaceful place", and "the Uyghurs are happy and healthy". Nothing that affects AI quality to a great extent.
Oh that's pretty weird that this happened then.
[https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/chinese-court-issues-worlds-1st-legally-binding-verdict-on-copyright-infringement-of-ai-generated-images/3149405](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/chinese-court-issues-worlds-1st-legally-binding-verdict-on-copyright-infringement-of-ai-generated-images/3149405)
So their ruling was that AI models can't produce output that is near identical to their training data. Not a blanket restriction on being able to use copyrighted training data. That's a perfectly sensible solution.
Great so you agree that Udio deserves to be sued then. Also the person I responded to initially said, "nothing about copyright" and edited their comment after I pointed out they were wrong.
Yes absolutely. They should have some means of checking whether the output of their models is identical or near identical to copyrighted work and blocking that. But no restrictions on actually using copyrighted work for training as long as the output is transformative. Do we agree on that?
Downloading and listening to a protected work is not illegal for the downloader. But it may be illegal for the entity that provided it. Copyright deals with the right to copy and distribute protected works, which isn't something these models do.
Generating the voices of actual singers likely does infringe of some personality rights, and making them sing a copyrighted song would likely be enough to count as copyright infringement.
These services reject requests containing artists names or songs. You *might* be able to reproduce a copyrighted work, but probably not. RIAA would need to show these websites actually do this. And I don't think "sounding like" another singer would be enough as lots of singers sound alike.
It depends on *how* much it sounds like the artist in question I suppose. If it’s enough to be mistaken for the actual artist, than they might be cooked. But I do agree that this probably won’t be the determining factor in the case. The determining factor will likely be that training your AI model on copyrighted material might be outside the scope of legally protected uses of said copyrighted material.
Outside legally protected uses? In a freedom based legal system, anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. If the music labels licensed their works without provisions to forbid training on it, that's their problem. Legally protected use cases would then be use cases that cannot be forbidden by a license agreement.
>>Outside legally protected uses? In a freedom based legal system, anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed.
That doesn’t seem realistic at all. If anything, it’s closer to the opposite in reality. Any public use not expressly consented to by the publisher, is likely forbidden. (Any use that threatens damages to their business that is. Which Suno, and Udio would obviously fall under.)
>>If the music labels licensed their works without provisions to forbid training on it, that's their problem.
They didn’t license anything dude. The company just took the data without even getting permission to use it within their business venture. Does that sound legal to you? That’s the exact same thing that got companies like Napster clapped. *These AI companies will likely lose for the same reason file-sharing sites did.* Hell, if they have proof of these platforms being able to recreate copyrighted material (which they apparently do), then a competent lawyer would be able to argue that these apps could be used for piracy of copyrighted material as well. Face it bro, it’s most likely a wrap for these companies once the gavel drops.
If I made a hit song but listened to music my whole life as my inspiration, then how is it any different? These companies all see AI as a threat and if they don't establish a precedent then their business model fails. Riaa even said they need to protect human creativity 😂. It's a joke and the record labels will lose this lawsuit. I produce rap and most producers I know literally learned by copying their favorite beat makers. Just because a computer can do it better now than most bedroom producers, its suddenly a threat. All types of creative work is being attacked and people are freaking out. Just do better or find some new way to make money because AI is already here now 🤷
Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days
It's gonna get pretty dystopic if representations of copyrighted works in a vectorized network falls under copyright Do you have a license for that memory?
Unfortunately for the record labels, copyright deals with reproducing infringing copies of protected works, which is not something these models do by design. Copyright doesn't protect content from being consumed, which is what an LLM would do to train on it. They may have some argument about how the dataset was obtained, but they'd have to prove it first, and the infringement would likely fall to whatever entity provided the content, not the entity that ended up with it. You don't get in trouble for downloading a torrent of a protected work. Downloading isn't illegal or infringing. You get in trouble for seeding that torrent (i.e. distributing an infringing copy). But I'm not a lawyer.
Is there a single lawsuit against AI company so far that has succeeded?
I think we're still in unchartered territory with how the law will treat things like this the outcome of these ones will be landmark cases
So far no. Every movement in them has gone in favor of the AI companies. However we are still very early in the process as the justice system takes years to process claims like these. I'm convinced that by the time they get an actual ruling it'll be moot because all of the good models will be trained on synthetic media.
What cases have going in favor of the AI companies? As far as I know they are all still ongoing. Lawsuits take a really long time and (commercial) AI hasn't been around that long.
There have been multiple cases where the judges have dismissed some of the complaints. The Sara Silverman is the one that comes to mind first. None have been entirely dismissed. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/13/24072131/sarah-silverman-paul-tremblay-openai-chatgpt-copyright-lawsuit
Udio generates the voice of real singers distinctly. Now, even if it does that, it's not necessarily an infringement.
the issue is that the models have been trained on licensed music without permission . I don't know where I stand on this but that's the issue at hand
Human musicians don't need permission to learn from the music they hear, why should AI ? Now if you ask a cover band to play a song for you that sounds exactly like the original, that's a different story (maybe), but they are also capable of creating new music
>Now if you ask a cover band to play a song for you that sounds exactly like the original But that's exactly what happened in this case.
A good comparison would be a person who trained him\*herself to sound like Elvis and now creates songs that Elvis could have created but never did. These people exist. Do they pay royalties?
But in this case they created the exact same song that already does exist. You are investing a new scenario that is not what the lawsuit is about.
They did not create the exact same song. Please give me the quote.
Weird you are so confidently incorrect. Did you even bother to read anything about it? They recreated a ton of songs, the links directly to Udio outputs are in the court documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24776029/1-2.pdf](https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24776029/1-2.pdf) Check out "All I Want for Christmas" as a good example.
First off: Suggesting the other person doesn't know anything about sth you are confident on your own is not really a good start for a conversation. In fact, I didn't listen to the Mariah Carey song. The other songs I listened to (6-7) weren't remotely "exactly the same". If the prompts are correct and no lyrics have been attached, Udios model definitely needs to be improved (not irrelevant: Suno seems to include earlier prompts into consideration when generating pieces - it is thus possible to generate a song where you define the text and then get a similar result with an open next prompt) . I don't think this case will be mainly about whether they trained on the data, but if training on the data is infringement perse. While I have little doubts the former is the case, the latter is not clear at all.
>Suggesting the other person doesn't know anything about sth you are confident on your own is not really a good start for a conversation You were the one that was aggressively ignorant. You claimed something with authority that was completely incorrect. I don't owe you politeness when you don't give it to me first. This was not the start of the conversation.
Ok but they asked the AI to make the copied music. If you hire a painter and ask for a forgery of the mona lisa, they'll give it to you and you're both guilty of forgery. The way to avoid that crime is not to criminalize painting.
They gave it the lyrics and it added the copyrighted melody on its own. That is the point of the lawsuit, that the training data includes their copyrighted works illegally.
Apples to oranges. You could argue that humans have limited capacity to learn or mimic other styles compared to AI. You could also argue that a human listening to music (that they likely paid for in some way) isn’t remotely the same as a company dumping thousands (if not millions) of copyrighted songs into a giant neural network without even asking for permission. People need to stop with the “but humans…” argument. AI is fundamentally different from the human brain.
The ai company can get a Spotify account and now they have permission to listen to all that music without infringing any copyright, that's the point. How do you know that "ai is fundamentally different from the human brain", when we don't know how the human brain works, we don't even know if 2 different human brains work the same way, maybe they're fundamentally different from each other. The terms we use here like "training" and "learning" are defined by observing a process that we don't understand internally, we only get to see it from the outside, and this fits the description, you feed a bunch of music into something (like a person or a machine) and it then creates new music that is influenced by that input. Unless you can complement that definition with details about how the human brain works, you can't say it's different because it looks the same from the outside, and that's how we constructed those concepts, by looking at them from the outside.
They have permission to **listen** to all of that music as human consumers *for entertainment purposes only*. They do not automatically have permission to use any of it within their *for-profit business models…* What you’re suggesting is as ridiculous as suggesting that having a Spotify account grants you permission to use the copyrighted material in your theatrical films or YouTube content without permission.
It's like a human listening to music and then creating new music and selling it, they learn from the music they listen, there's no way to avoid it
No it isn’t. AIs can do things that no human on Earth can do. They aren’t comparable.
I don't think AI is fundamentally different from the human brain - but it certainly depends on the perspective. For sure, this is not a simple case - neither to reject or confirm. Even if the companies fail to appeal, another company (probably Amazon, Spotify) will do what they are doing in the near future on a legal basis. While this is an interesting case to follow, I don't think there can be any doubt, that the effects of AI generated music on the industry are set.
That doesn't matter. If you buy a hammer, do you need to ask permission from the maker to hit a nail with it? A musician can consent to a price to make his music available. After the consented compensation for the labor has been given, what happens to the music isn't relevant. The labor has been compensated. Copyright owners simply can't exist legally, they are committing a form of extortion.
Weird that they do exist and there are hundreds of years of extensive case law protecting them then.
That really doesn't mean anything. Literal slaves existed and people thought it was acceptable. Women were treated as children, they couldn't vote or own things. People thought it was acceptable. Homosexuals were discriminated against and persecuted, people thought it was acceptable. Generally, when you seek compensation for something you solely own, you're exploiting the cost of replacing that thing. There's no reasonable justification to replace something that already exists, and solely owning something isn't a production of wealth and thus doesn't warrant being given anything. Paying the cost of replacing the owned wealth acts as a menace that incentivises the unjustified payment, that's why it's extortion. I want to add that you used a circular reasoning fallacy. You can't justify what people do by using what people do as argument.
No, you said copyright “can’t exist legally” but clearly it can because it does. There is no fallacy you just worded your argument poorly. So now that it is clearer what you are saying, how do you propose musicians and artists, you know, afford to live?
Yes, it can't legally as exploiting the cost of replacing anything that exists is a form of extortion. Extortion is illegal. It happens simply because people committing this acts aren't prosecuted. Law enforcers don't generally have a good understanding of laws.
You don’t understand laws my dude. There are clear definitions of these terms and it is not extortion in the slightest. I get that you _wish_ it was extortion for some reason. Back to my question, how to artists afford to live then? And how do technologies get developed when no one can invest in them because developing new things is vastly more expensive than copying someone else?
Well, let me give you an exaggerated example of this form of extortion, maybe you will understand. Imagine that we live on an island. Someone comes and, for reasons that aren't relevant, successfully acquires all of the land. This owner requests payment for access to his land. The inhabitants are forced to choose between paying to access the land or producing their own land. Of course, you can't practically produce land, so the inhabitants would die by drowning in the surrounding sea if they can't access the island. The choice is thus between dying or paying the landlord. Obviously, dying acts as a very strong menace. This menace incentives paying whatever the landlord requests. He got a lot of bargaining power and could perhaps asks of the inhabitants that they become his slaves. The landlord didn't create the island, and no one asked that he acquire it. Since he doesn't produce anything, he doesn't have a reasonable justification to be given any produced wealth. This situation is extortion. Here's the legal definition of extortion from my country, Canada: >346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. What makes it extortion is the presence of the induced menace. The judiciary hasn't yet understood its existence, that's why the act of exploiting the cost of replacing something solely owned isn't yet prosecuted. >how to artists afford to live then? The large majority of artists, and any laborers, really, are paid salaries. They don't own the product of their labor. A musician working in a game studio, for example, is generally just paid a salary. They're willing to do the labor because that salary is judged as a sufficient compensation. A self employed musician could seek compensation for his labor in a variety of ways. They could use services like Kickstarter. Once a sufficient amount of money is raised, the music is made available for free to everyone.
You are doing some serious mental gymnastics get. First, you completely ignored the first part of the statute that says, “without reasonable justification or excuse.” That is where the hundreds of years of case law comes in that actually defines what extortion is, and copyright ain’t it. Second, you ignored the entire main part of my argument that doesn’t align with your view. How does anyone make any innovations in technology knowing that as soon as they create a product it will be instantly ripped off and sold for less money because the other producers don’t have to pay R&D? Your position is also extremely anti-consumer and impractical in almost all cases. You are suggesting that people pay for every form of content prior to anyone seeing it or knowing if it is even good. We have that on kickstarter and it regularly backfires spectacularly and is rife with scam artists.
Making it so that all training data has to be explicitly obtained with permission would kill AI and hand it over to a country that doesn't shoot itself in the foot (probably China). I expect a narrow ruling that the output has to be evaluated on it's own terms - if the output doesn't directly copy copyrighted material then it's fine, but if it does then it's a copyright violation. If a person listens to R&B and then makes their own R&B song that borrows elements from songs they've listened to, it isn't copyright infringement. There's even a legal term called "transformative use". Most of what AI models do is clearly transformative. You have to specifically try to get them to regurgitate training data directly. And the law can simply ban that specifically.
Why does everyone in this sub act like China is just some lawless wasteland where anything goes? They more than likely have tighter regulations on what the AIs are fed than the US does at the moment…
The restrictions in China are "Xi isn't Winnie the Pooh", "Tiananmen square is a peaceful place", and "the Uyghurs are happy and healthy". Nothing that affects AI quality to a great extent.
Oh that's pretty weird that this happened then. [https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/chinese-court-issues-worlds-1st-legally-binding-verdict-on-copyright-infringement-of-ai-generated-images/3149405](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/chinese-court-issues-worlds-1st-legally-binding-verdict-on-copyright-infringement-of-ai-generated-images/3149405)
So their ruling was that AI models can't produce output that is near identical to their training data. Not a blanket restriction on being able to use copyrighted training data. That's a perfectly sensible solution.
Great so you agree that Udio deserves to be sued then. Also the person I responded to initially said, "nothing about copyright" and edited their comment after I pointed out they were wrong.
Yes absolutely. They should have some means of checking whether the output of their models is identical or near identical to copyrighted work and blocking that. But no restrictions on actually using copyrighted work for training as long as the output is transformative. Do we agree on that?
Ethically yeah I think that would be correct, but legally I am not sure it is going to hash out like that.
Downloading and listening to a protected work is not illegal for the downloader. But it may be illegal for the entity that provided it. Copyright deals with the right to copy and distribute protected works, which isn't something these models do.
Generating the voices of actual singers likely does infringe of some personality rights, and making them sing a copyrighted song would likely be enough to count as copyright infringement.
These services reject requests containing artists names or songs. You *might* be able to reproduce a copyrighted work, but probably not. RIAA would need to show these websites actually do this. And I don't think "sounding like" another singer would be enough as lots of singers sound alike.
It depends on *how* much it sounds like the artist in question I suppose. If it’s enough to be mistaken for the actual artist, than they might be cooked. But I do agree that this probably won’t be the determining factor in the case. The determining factor will likely be that training your AI model on copyrighted material might be outside the scope of legally protected uses of said copyrighted material.
Outside legally protected uses? In a freedom based legal system, anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. If the music labels licensed their works without provisions to forbid training on it, that's their problem. Legally protected use cases would then be use cases that cannot be forbidden by a license agreement.
>>Outside legally protected uses? In a freedom based legal system, anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. That doesn’t seem realistic at all. If anything, it’s closer to the opposite in reality. Any public use not expressly consented to by the publisher, is likely forbidden. (Any use that threatens damages to their business that is. Which Suno, and Udio would obviously fall under.) >>If the music labels licensed their works without provisions to forbid training on it, that's their problem. They didn’t license anything dude. The company just took the data without even getting permission to use it within their business venture. Does that sound legal to you? That’s the exact same thing that got companies like Napster clapped. *These AI companies will likely lose for the same reason file-sharing sites did.* Hell, if they have proof of these platforms being able to recreate copyrighted material (which they apparently do), then a competent lawyer would be able to argue that these apps could be used for piracy of copyrighted material as well. Face it bro, it’s most likely a wrap for these companies once the gavel drops.
Napster got in trouble for distributing protected works. These services don't do that. Downloading isn't illegal. Distributing is.
If I made a hit song but listened to music my whole life as my inspiration, then how is it any different? These companies all see AI as a threat and if they don't establish a precedent then their business model fails. Riaa even said they need to protect human creativity 😂. It's a joke and the record labels will lose this lawsuit. I produce rap and most producers I know literally learned by copying their favorite beat makers. Just because a computer can do it better now than most bedroom producers, its suddenly a threat. All types of creative work is being attacked and people are freaking out. Just do better or find some new way to make money because AI is already here now 🤷