Lawyer: Udio & Suno Likely Lose AI Music Copyright Lawsuits [And Rick Beato Is Right]

[@GhostWriter_Music]

imagine that, the 3 big record companies who have been ripping off artists for years feeling violated.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

You don’t think they’re primarily concerned about the musicians??? They’re so nice.

[@GhostWriter_Music]

@@LawLaughsMusic if it was then they wouldn’t be interested in another ai company for profit.

[@Chesterton7]

@@LawLaughsMusic HAHAHA!

[@AnonAdderlan]

If the record companies win independent artists will be replaced on a scale never seen before. And if training is considered to be protected by copyright , and an AI is considered to be making copies, then the output is _also_ protected by copyright, at which point the record companies _will_ go after the generated content. This is their ultimate goal, and why I’m a proponent for everyone having access to the technology despite the moral gray areas. Because the alternative is so much worse.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Courts that have dealt with this in the AI art space (and it’s just a handful of cases in the early stages of litigation) have so far assumed that copyright infringement in the training phase doesn’t automatically make the output infringing. But, anyway, there are so many big policy considerations here and possible unintended consequences that Congress needs to act and not leave this to judges to base the outcomes on distinctions with older technologies.

[@jjjohnson4177]

@AnonAdderlan i dont think A-i is making copies, I think it is thinking and creating original music. I have heard some that appear to be stealing others songs and making virtually identical songs of famous songs, but that is obvious stuff that gets immediately spotted and copyright claimed. If music is out there that is an obvious rip-off, they won't be out there for long. Doesn't matter if it's A-i created or human made, fakes are fakes and should be shut down. So from my perspective, the only difference is one creator is a biological intelligence and the other is artificially created intelligence. I think people are prejudiced. Sometimes I think I'd rather be an android anyway... just call me Data

[@Chesterton7]

Interesting discussion. I like your channel and hope you will continue to discuss this issue in greater depth.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Thank you, I appreciate it. It’s always a question for me how deep to go.

[@jesslovesjdm]

To my knowledge, training an AI of this sort does not involve storing copies the data. The program learns from the data (music/songs in this case) i.e., it breaks the data down into noise (not noise as in sound, but noise as in data) and processes it. The training phase is completely separate from the generation (production) phase. Once the training is done, the program can use the patterns in the noise (again, noise as in data) to generate slightly different versions of that original data, modified based on user prompts. The programs in question are not open source so it's hard for me to speak on this specific instance, but I have worked with similar generation models and at no point do they store the original training data in its pure form. It remembers patterns in the data/noise in a way similar to how human brains learn and remember data, often known as an engram.

[@jesslovesjdm]

correction: i meant copies of the data in the first line.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Very good post. To me worrying about these kinds of technical distinctions is silly. Congress needs to address using copyrighted material to train or produce AI models regardless of whether copies are made. If Congress doesn’t, then unfortunately judges are forced to worry about these distinctions.

[@jesslovesjdm]

@@LawLaughsMusic Noted. I was responding to the fact that you mentioned storing the data in the first part of your video. A lot of people make the same misconception about storing the raw data used to train, I just thought I'll point out the technical bit. I'm not sure about the legal aspects, I'm just a technician/researcher.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

At some point would audio files have to be copied? Even if very early on in the training process? Everyone seems to assume this. I used to do a bit of coding, but this is beyond me.

[@jesslovesjdm]

@@LawLaughsMusic Converted is a better term. The training songs would be converted to raw data, if that helps clarify things. Then the raw data is fed to the application and it 'learns' the patterns in the data. It then has/stores a memory of the patterns, not the song or even the raw data.

[@manuhernz60]

AI is like any brain memory or a book. AI learns and keeps a memory like any person who feeds the memory with info, knowledge and experience. Learnig is not plagiarizing. Otherwise, all the people, conservatories, universities, books, etc. would be violating copyrights. Plagiarism is a horse of another color and it´s easy to demonstrate.

[@michellekross1292]

Keep Suno and Udio alive

[@LawLaughsMusic]

The cases are moving slowly.

[@kingofalldashcams7380]

The AI is not making a copy of copyrighted works. That's not how the tech works. It learns patterns, structures, and relationships from the data during its training process.

[@Gr8Passion4Music]

I'm also a lawyer and also a music enthusiast, so are both of these Udio and Suno defunct for the time being under some stay order? Their sites are not opening.

[@donatellonabotti2299]

I love Rick Beato. He's from Rochester, that's cool because he's probably eaten a garbage plate or two. I like mine hamburger, potato, mac, and beans, warm the beans, no onion and Jimmy knows that I know that the beans are extra and he also knows I'm gonna buy a bumper sticker and a couple double extra large tshirts so most times he don't charge me for the beans unless there's custies behind me in line and he'll say loud enough for everyone to hear it and it's a 50 50 shot that he let's me slide on the sweet legumes. And hey most times he knows I'm getting the double extra large t shirts before I do because he's almost always out of the ones that fit a non competitive eater. Sorry. I know this video covered pertinent information concerning serious issues that will have life altering affects on all of the people that entertain us with their creativeness. So, I apologize for the game of 3 degrees of nick tahous

[@jjjohnson4177]

Why is A-i learning how to create songs from listening to copyrighted songs any different than what people do, other than humans are biological lifeforms? Did the Beatles not learn how to write songs by listening to copyrighted songs by Buddy Holly, Elvis, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry and others? Seems to me there is prejudice going on here. We all learn from somebody. I'm a poet, so have I just been stealing from William Shakespeare for the past 44 years? Why cant A-i songs be copyrighted if someone paid for the A-i to create a song? If i use A-i to put music to my poetry, is that not copyrightable? Every songwriter has learned from other songwriters copyrighted material. Does this mean all music made in the past 65 years is just stolen music from Johnny Cash? This is crazy! JJ

[@danieldimarinomusic7754]

I think the biggest aspect of this case that Suno and Udio need to point out is that their songs are being tangibly stolen. The difference between a machine and a human mind is that a machine stores material data that is owned and managed BY human persons, whereas human beings are free to have their own memories and ideas. I wonder if they can argue that the conversion of their songs into a new type of data as the AI analyzes it is a form of “recording”. This is especially true in my view because they have been able to nearly reproduce their own records using the AI, which presumably has its own data stored after listening to their songs. Since digital recording is defined as the registration of sound on a device then converted into digital data, I think they can make the case that this is a form of illicit recording. Also, isn’t it illegal to download copyrighted music in the first place, even if the recording is later destroyed?

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Thank you. Good post. It’s pretty clear if there is no fair use defense, there was infringement. And I think fair use is tough. That said, they may have initially obtained copies legally (although may not have). But even if they did, if a file is copied at any point during the training process, a court would likely find that infringing unless there is fair use.

[@martinroosjen]

What is the difference between a person listening to a song and learning from it, and a computer listening to a song and learning from it? You cant copyright learning from music

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Good post. This is a tough area that needs to be dealt with thoughtfully, ideally by Congress if it can function. On the one hand, there's obviously nothing wrong with a person listening to a song to learn how to create their own competing music. But on the other hand, computers digesting songs to learn how to create competing music on a very wide scale seems different. But good point.

[@jjjohnson4177]

@martinroosjen exactly my original point. A-i does not copy. It learns like people do, then it uses intelligence to create something original. That's no different than what people do. Should we lock up Paul McCaertney for stealing from Buddy Holly? Oh wait, you can't do that, Paul bought the rights to Buddies songs back 8n the 70s. Perhaps he foresaw this happening... Lol

[@Inus.Corner]

I would love to talk to you and ask for your opinion on more of this topic🙏

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Feel free to email me.

[@pracnac]

This is absurd. These three major record companies are trying to protect their empire in the most ridiculous way, arguing that AI was trained with copyrighted music. For God's sake! Any artist who creates music from their catalog has already used one or many musical pieces to train or inspire themselves in order to develop their own style. As always, the powerful defending their 'rights'

[@LawLaughsMusic]

What concerns me is their potential for monopoly power over AI music if the big three work together on AI, especially in shutting out competitors.

[@sammyfromsydney]

Copyright law is broken and stands in the way of innovation and competition rather than protecting and facilitating it. I sincerely hope that the record companies do not manage to monopolize AI regardless of other outcomes.

[@J0vile]

Agreed, this laissez-faire approach to business created ripe ground for corporate endeavors to flourish. Less regulations by the people, for the people translates to more regulations by corporations, for corporations.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Definitely agree. Some type of compulsory license scheme is probably a good idea like in the case of cover songs.

[@WillisZzz]

Interesting, thanks for the info. What I'm wondering is if I use AI to help me finish one of my own songs, can they legally use parts of my music to generate AI music for others? And if I used AI to help me write a song and that song ends up making a lot of money, does the AI platform have rights to demand royalties from me?

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Very interesting question the status of works that combine human created elements and AI created elements is either unclear or very fact specific. The human created parts should not be an issue. They should be eligible for copyright. The question is whether the AI created parts are part of the copyright or not.

[@brambledemon1232]

Won't that take down all the major AI companies? They all scrape copyrighted material. Are they making copies when they're training, or are they learning the principles behind what makes music music?

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Good question, I assume all the AI music sites are going to need to purchase licenses or go out of business, assuming I’m correct and the record companies win in court.

[@brambledemon1232]

@ I guess so, but my understanding of the tech is that there are no copies of copyrighted material in their systems. Instead, an image generator LLM understands the concepts behind what makes say a dog a dog. There's no copies of a dog in the training data as I understand it. This leads to weird things happening in images because sometimes these LLM are paying attention to unexpected parts of an image. It seems to me that it will come down to whether or not the judge views the process of encoding data as copyright infringement. Large language models do not understand the world in anything approaching the way we see the world, and that's what makes them useful and dangerous at the same time.

[@martinroosjen]

If I learn to play an song on an instrument, is that also copying it? Or only if I bring out the same exact song? And use what I learned to play only as knowledge on how to play, and create other songs with the knowledge on how to play some songs

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Good post. So learning a song in order to be able to create your own music is obviously fine. The only issue would be if you then create music that is substantially similar to someone else's song. Good point.

[@LikaLaruku]

No matter who says it, I keep hearing Yugioh AI. Pretty fresh of them to send out copyright DMCAs when they are trained on stolen music & AI can't be copyrighted. Hope they lose more money than they made.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

AI music companies sending out takedown notices??

[@GeneralFailureMajorError]

Is listening to (and 'save') the music in our brain also a copyright infringement?

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Luckily not!

[@GeneralFailureMajorError]

@@LawLaughsMusic Why should a machine that is listening and learning from music be a copyright infringement? What is the difference?

[@danieldimarinomusic7754]

@@GeneralFailureMajorErrorThe data is in a tangible format, not simply an idea within human consciousness. It becomes material property. You are fully within your right to remember a painting in your head. You’re not allowed to take a photo of it on your phone.

[@jjjohnson4177]

@@GeneralFailureMajorError exactly!

[@jjjohnson4177]

@@danieldimarinomusic7754 is that actually written in law? Pictures and cell phones have not existed as long as copyright laws. When did the update this? Where can I read that new law? Can painters paint their own renditions of other's paintings? Are there paint police peeking in my windows?

[@the_jawker]

Great content, thanks for your insights!

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Thank you very much for the support. It’s much appreciated.

[@teachertrx1204]

I hope the record labels lose. I look at it this way: my brain is like a computer that has listened to lots and lots of songs from record labels. My brain is like an AI that has been trained by all their songs. Then I write a song in the style of someone I like from one of the record labels. Do I have to pay a licensing fee for training my brain with the record label songs? As a professional songwriter when people ask me to write a particular type of song, I listen to lots of pre-recorded songs in that style. Then I write a song in that style. My brain has put all the sound information together and out pops a song. I mean doesn't Suno do the same thing as a human brain but super duper fast?

[@PhilAndersonOutside]

This is almost laughable. Let's play this out for a second. The record companies win, and Suno and Udio are shut down, file bankruptcy. Suno and Udio sell their assets and tech to a company in China who hires their founders, and they immediately picks right up where they left off, and quickly release a new app with the same tech. Then the record companies try to block those companies from being used by US citizens. But tech people and users, are far smarter than that, so they quickly figure out ways around it, and the new apps, and newer clones that appear in China and elsewhere, becomes widespread. The industry tries to block and sue them, which drags out for months and months, while it grows. It's sort of like music sharing. Good thing the RIAA killed Napster, and forced everyone to keep buying CDs, right? No, what the industry execs really wants is to keep ALL the money for themselves. They don't give a damn about the artists, today or in the past. Beatto is right, if they could just release their own AI music, control all sales, and keep all the profit for themselves, they would.

[@NoidoDev]

They should loose, and I think they will. AI is not a database of music. Compensation also doesn't work, and it's not justified if something isn't very close to some original.

[@LawLaughsMusic]

I think there are tough questions here and that it’s best if it’s not a judge having to deal with a completely new technology with old legal analogies.

[@jefffoxguitar2565]

So if a person says to another make up a riff that sounds a little like Van Halen…….’🤡🥸🤣

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Good point, obviously fine unless it’s too close to a specific riff

[@lyndafayesmusic]

Thanks for simplifying this for a number of us who are busy "making" the music, who need advice; Wow! this can be extremely time-consuming! Glad YOU"RE there to help us figure it all out! LyndaFayeSoriginals

[@LawLaughsMusic]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the support, and I’m glad I can help even in a little way.