This Will Destroy AI Music...

👉🏼patreon - / weaverbeats
👉🏼merch - weaver-beats.creator-spring.com/
👉🏼2nd channel - / weaverbeats2lol
👉🏼stream weaver raps vol 2. remixes - open.spotify.com/album/24550Z...
#musicproducer #musicproduction #musicproducers

[@miksteduzeltiriz]

you guys are being naive. The major record companies are not doing this to protect human musicians. They will train their own AI models and use that to release commercial songs. This is not a move to stop AI generated music, its a move to stop us peasants from accessing it so easily.

[@NewMateo]

Atleast the would train it on their owned signed artists. I didnt distribute on spotify to be scrapped by some random company and atleast the labels will stay within their own lane.

[@flysworddd]

@@NewMateo those artists signed to predatory deals that remove any ownership of their own work from them, so i wouldn't necessarily call this a win.

[@kojoefante]

@@flyswordddthese people don’t think

[@BartvanderHorst]

I think you are very righ. Udio/Suno were just faster.

[@notnoaintno5134]

Im fine with that. Maybe if major labels are putting it out theyll touch it up some before releasing it and there wont be so much of it? Im already running into the problem of people sharing songs with me, and they cant tell that theyre ai generated, which is annoying bc i can tell pretty quickly and hate it

[@Torah411]

So AI companies will sell their souls to the record companies who will monopolize AI going forward???

[@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69]

Right? Queens catalog was sold for 1.? Billion dollars.

[@dankeplace]

@@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69 1 Billion dollars isn't even real, that was proven in the documentary "Goldmember".

[@DarkMetaOFFICIAL]

they don't have souls so no

[@renosance8941]

😂😂😂

[@NewMateo]

Umg warner and sony are working on their own in house models. Better they stick to their own music catalogues than wholesale taking from people not even signed with them.

[@royalcities]

Regarding the comment about "cant copyrighr a voice" while technically correct singers voices are actually protected by personality rights - its basically the same thing and protects their voices from being used in any commercial product without consent. So if suno / udio was found to have processed their voices they would be violating that.

[@goigle]

Plus, you can copyright a recording of a voice, so if they were using an unlicensed to recording to train their AI that's still an issue

[@XHALE303]

Music itself was already destroyed before AI & was reduced to fastfood with downloading.

[@Bthelick]

Trust me, you don't want major of corporations to be the one setting precedence regarding art.

[@drdubious2432]

This isn’t going to destroy AI music. The corporate objective here is to destroy independent musicians and return the industry to the “good old days” when they controlled everything. Soon hedge funds will produce and copyright all AI music and will be able to eliminate the “middleman” (human musicians) who take too much of their profits (anything over zero). At the same time, AI auditors will listen to everything created by people and then automatically generate copyright claims to prevent them from being paid on the basis that the human music is a copy of something the AI already thought up. If you don’t like that, you can fight their million-dollar lawyers in court.

[@lukapogo]

yep, this is the play

[@flysworddd]

we're in the darkest timeline for sure. there's no way this scenario exists in any other reality than a simulation that runs on suffering

[@svenmify]

@@flyswordddoh come on. You’re probably being hyperbolic, but have you heard of the Middle Ages? Or countries right now that are at war? All this means is that you’ll need to find ways to make your music have some personality. If you’re making generic trap with autotuned voices and 808s, or run of the mill pop songs, sure, you’ll be redundant. If you do something unique, where your personality shines through, you’ll find an audience. The main problem with music for the last two decades has been that it’s too easy to make. I don’t like gatekeeping, but if everyone can make music easily, the overall quality will go down. That’s why we get nothing but cookie cutter songs. And AI will have no issue replicating that, but maybe that will force people to actually make some interesting music again, to set themselves apart.

[@djerikfox]

agree 100 percent!

[@notnoaintno5134]

I think mainstream music was better back then? The biggest classic rock bands are way better than the biggest acts of today. The indie stuff is what i listen to now, and i think itll be largely unaffected

[@jamessderby]

Corporations are fighting for exclusive liceness of 'their data' so they can make their own models to get you pay them instead, this isn't any kind of threat to AI in general.

[@PocinTheTech]

I mean... I don't like AI junk music. But I definitely do not want the big 3 to be the only ones who can generate AI junk music...

[@kevinsturges6957]

All that utter crap on the radio sounds exactly the same anyways! The irony.

[@velopitex]

Apparently, they filed a lawsuit to redeem them in the end and not to worry about the singers, but to generate them on their lawn literally

[@rangelcarlos53]

Waiting for an AI developer to create loops & samples with its AI. I don’t want a whole song!

[@Tejaneaux-ic8dp]

You could always download and cut.

[@Alckemy]

The people that make emergent drums have something like this

[@macrograms]

Sometimes My Arms are F___ing Stuck Like This.

[@blurtam188]

LOL - the labels just want to use AI voices for themselves!!

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

All this means is that the record labels themselves are going to do this, as they own the music so they can then train their own models.

[@angelainamarie9656]

No one is going to buy that garbage. Also they can't copyright AI generated music. So literally no one will buy it. The first person who pirates that can do so with impunity.

[@XHALE303]

@@angelainamarie9656 Not sure about not buying garbage, judging on the top 40.

[@angelainamarie9656]

@@XHALE303 you think AI is going to make better music than the slop that it samples? 😆😆😆

[@XHALE303]

@@angelainamarie9656 No i didn't say that, music was already garbage before AI ...the mainstream kind & is reduced to fastfood since downloading became a thing.

[@XHALE303]

@@angelainamarie9656 30y ago you payed 10/20bucks for an album, now you pay 10,99 a month for pretty much all music that was ever made.

[@davidmouser596]

Sigh, the real reason the labels are filing against Udio & Suno is because the labels are currently constructing their own AI service. This does not make what Udio & Suno are doing right but think about what this means if the labels win. ALL music will belong to the labels, you make anything and it automatically belongs to them, talk about a free executive lunch. And oh yeah, sure they are going to share with the origional artists, right? (Bwa ha ha ha) After this I wouldn't be surprised if owning records, tapes, CDs or DVDs eventually become illegal. There are no solutions only trade-offs.

[@Morenob1]

As a musician this could actually benefit production work, If I play some chords and ai can throw a realistic sax in it or 80's melody samples why not? Now musicians can actually sample stuff legally based on their own ideas or get their own acapellas.

[@kojoefante]

You’re not a musician if you sample

[@Morenob1]

@@kojoefante It depends how you sample, how do you think many hiphop beats are made, most of them are sampled with old live Blues music is something with todays studio gear not possible to make, if ai can produce it you basically have created your own non copyrighted sample. Same with 90's rap, Phonk music or Electro swing, if ai can produce a nice live big band melody, it's something you cannot make in a DAW. Some music Genres have to be sampled

[@Arcessitor]

@@kojoefante lmao that's cap

[@alexgrunde6682]

Tech bros be like “Our intellectual property be sacrosanct, your intellectual property be ours to pilfer.”

[@arpaddanos9416]

Very well said. That is what's up at the heart of the matter

[@igmusicandflying]

I totally agree with this, but I also have to admit most of my modest music skills were gathered by training the fatty-substrate neural network in my head on other people's intellectual property too.

[@arpaddanos9416]

@@igmusicandflying So do you really think that when an artist trains on the art of those that came before them, so that they can themselves continue the traditions of art, is really the same thing as when a tech billionaire sets up a neural net and absorbs the creativity of the artists of the past and present so that they can churn out material at millions of times the speed? The first is an artist engaging with the past so that art can have a future, the second is just full stop, a period. It undercuts and discourages human art for the future. So I don't see any reason why human artists should feel that their process of learning is somehow the same as when these giant AI projects learn. Humans learning art takes effort and love for the art, Ai learning just take a giant about of energy. The AI bros are talking about AI training taking 20 percent of US power in about 5 years from now. No joke.

[@keomg4718]

intellectual property should be abolished anyway

[@arpaddanos9416]

@@keomg4718 Right, but not physical property. So people who devote their lives to getting rich have lots to leave behind and those that devote their time to creation of arts have nothing in the end. No thanks

[@onlinescammer8291]

It's only destroyed if the industry's AI gets shut down, too. Else, they're just securing their monopoly.

[@timshady7099]

I wonder if Led Zeplin would win a case against Greta Van Fleet. I mean its obvious that they trained themselves with Led Zeplin's material.

[@bw2937]

But the difference is, they aren’t literally re-realising pieces of the original sound recordings

[@bobby4f]

Ive been saying this would happen. Music labels are going to intentionally generate music that sound to close and sue these companies into non existence

[@GracefulBeast]

Written multiple novels, lots of short stories, covered soccer for internet sites and blogs, and I've written 5-600 songs/poems in the last 18yr. Somewhere between 25-30,000 hours of writing. Recorded nearly 200 songs a cappella in 5yrs. Spent two years in the wild looking for pro musicians/singers to work with. Sent works to many artists. No takers. Took all the a cappella recordings off my U tube but one. Putting them back up one by one using AI. Didn't want to use AI, but I'm old and have significant health issues. Don't want to die waiting for a good musician to work with. And, this is going to sound pompous (I don't care about that anymore), I've worked hard to be an exceptional writer. My stuff's not simple love songs or diss tracks or whatever, it's got a lot of depth and breadth, with extremely good structure, plot, hidden meanings. Just started with AI two weeks ago. I prompt the AI typically twenty to thirty times to find a sound, feel, emotion, taste, smell of my lyrics/story that incorporates at least a little bit of my a cappella melody/hooks. The handful I've done are on my U tube. I'm up front about the use, take no credit for the music; but, being a dedicated writer of complex, multi-layered content, I would argue the songs Ai have helped me produce are quite unique and quite good. Sorry this was long. Cheers!

[@notnoaintno5134]

I tried to listen to it. I cant. Why didnt you put some of that time into learning how to play guitar or something? Sounds like you want to be a writer more than you want to be a musician. This is why i dont like ai music, its mainly made by people who dont spend any time making music

[@mandalaman9695]

Major Labels Working together: "Hey! You can't make slaves out of our slaves! Not on our watch!"

[@djsusan00]

It's kinda fucked up. Everytime someone writes a song it takes away an opportunity from AI to make good music.

[@muzy8768]

I think he messed up at 3:54 It was Udio not SUNO. But ye it doesnt matter tho. Nobody cried with midjourney and I doubt they used copyright free material. Big Labels are just greedy and want money. Honestly fuck the music industry. Nothing about it is good. At least with AI smaller artists can get more ideas and release more tracks.

[@igmusicandflying]

There are 4 things I really enjoy in this world: music, computers, games, and movies. You stick the word "industry" on the end of all those things, they become some of the shittiest things out there short of the horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[@THA-REAPER]

Im glad. Its like back in the day With games you bought at the store and try to get the worth out of it by fully playing it through. Then ya boy come over with gameshark. Enabling level skip, all weapons, infinite ammo...that game spanned like 5 hours and you already seen all the ins and outs.

[@MoopEPoom0]

Riaa = fun police

[@gooshie3]

Record company executives standing up for their artists work? I don't think so....

[@BartvanderHorst]

I think it is funny when you talk about Blade's voice while it is completely over autotuned...and obviously unrecognizable when it comes to his real voice.

[@nuttob]

It depends on if the fair use argument holds or not. Remember that you took copyrighted footage from Venus Theory and made new videos from it. That is considered fair use. If you take a little bit from every song and make something new with it, it may very well be fair use. Everyone needs to curb their enthusiasm until we see what happens in court. This isn't necessarily a slam dunk. Also it would almost be impossible decide who gets paid if they go for some kind of licensing agreement, so it looks like either they shut them down or not...I doubt there is an in between.

[@vitaliivostrykov5173]

don't worry :) they will find a way to make money together, as usual :)))

[@themetrovibe]

I wish I could like your videos 10 million times brother... Keep doing what you're doing. You're a gem! Thank you for what you do.

[@sunnysmilesmusic8375]

Cheers brother

[@merlinswaifu]

Good work 🕵‍♀

[@zainwolf92]

damnnnnn that was AI generated MC - All I want for chrissmas? wow

[@josephpaul8911]

She is AI as well, that’s why it was so similar.

[@reformadois1626]

Napster all over again.

[@johnviera3884]

Yep I agree. The record labels screwing musicians once again

[@Iron_Void]

Yeah Napster but way worse.

[@danceswith7wolves]

That similarity did come to mind

[@DavidMorley]

My prediction - The major labels will make a deal with the AI companies that enriches both of them and they will choose not to pass it on to the artists (sorry "content creators"), just like they did with streaming. Capitalism will eat itself.

[@NoidoDev]

What about the next few companies? Or if the first open source model is released?

[@TeeCee-qq4ev]

My prediction is the same genius mindset that give us linux and opensorce alternatives to every app is going to give us this same ability that Udio does without using a single song from a label. Gonna shut their asses all the way out. And we are gpoing to be able to use it locally on our own computers

[@cstoomey]

I think the majors are going to lose. Suno and Udio will argue that anyone with ears can listen to and learn from copywritten music, so why require a computer to get permission especially if the product from the computer is not the original work. This is called fair use and it protects us all from having to give credit to every copywritten song we've listened to that inspired us to create a new work. However in the cases where the AI has generated a very similar work, the majors will have to show actual damages from this produced work in terms of lost money, etc. They won't be able to show that. And Suno and Udio will show they discourage their trained model from producing copywritten work by not allowing users to use artist or band prompts. The hackers around that they will blame them for attempting to recreate copywritten work with their product which will shift the blame to the prompters and not them. In general, listening to copyrighted music for educational purposes is not illegal. However, copyright law grants the creator or owner exclusive rights to reproduce their work. Suno and Udio are not in the business of allowing their product/code to produce copywritten works. Using copyrighted material without permission to learn is allowed. Always has been. Its when a work is infringed upon thats the issue. Remember copyright protects the owner from having their music reproduced and sold by someone else that they own. Really nothing more. And Suno and Udio have not ever refused to take down a work produced that sounds like a copywritten work. There's no way the majors win in this case.

[@timshady7099]

Yes, but going forward I could see laws being written to address this.

[@donaldlang4152]

Yeh but the AI is not truly being "trained", it's literally *sampling* the *copyrighted sound recordings*. No way the AI companies will win this, it's too clear.

[@rhythmcollect]

Tags from what? Radio something?

[@dc9662]

The labels will likely use Tom Waits vs the Frito Lays company, and also Tom Waits and Bette Midler vs Grandma's Burgers (IIRC). I think the first one went to the Supreme Court, but don't quote me - too lazy to bother looking it up. Most of you probably are as well.

[@CeemPlay]

Welcome to the opera

[@bridgesbeats9950]

im hoping that the big overused and profit driven ai companies that have sprung up will soon have their datasets filled with other ai creations and will, like that one clone episode of rick and morty -become derivative trash

[@Rolanoid]

Pretty sure this will go the same way that Spotify did and the majors will be given shareholding in the AI companies.

[@dondraperbeats]

Weaver cleaned up his beard. He is up to something shady.

[@JamesRamboPearce]

Maybe he’s been used transformatively

[@Desirsar]

This just makes it so only the labels have access to the tool, which they're already developing their own version of. It's also possible they're just trying to strong arm a settlement where they get access to data from Suno and Udio, plus some licensing fees. AI is still taking every job it was going to take, this just means an underpaid employee of a record label is pushing the button and then they're not telling you when your favorite artist is using it on their albums.

[@Weaverbeats]

Still preferable to sites like udio training anyone and everyone's music

[@stay.in.school.]

good video bro

[@frankcoronabeats]

The Terminator Movie looking real Legit 😂

[@jefffoxguitar2565]

F the record companies, they are going to lose

[@audionic_music]

So far the best news in AI music for real artists! 😅🙌 Thanks pal

Unpopular opinion: All musicians "train" on licenced music.

[@Nathan47223]

This isn't an opinion it's a fact. Nothing is new, every piece of art is a collection of elements a person has been exposed to. The same way AI learns, except people call it stealing when an AI does it but 'inspiration' when a human does it.

[@notnoaintno5134]

Ai doesnt learn. It doesnt incorporate a songs meaning and intentions into its worldview. It collects data, and churns out data, almost always of lower quality than the originals, bc it sucks

[@Nathan47223]

@@notnoaintno5134 not true sadly

[@marcomir27]

I bet the owners of the catalogs will generate their own cheap knockoffs of the « classics » while selling the originals at a premium.

[@ericahanes2009]

This is all about the big three gaining control over every aspect of the music. Artists are dealing with these new 360 contracts; now, the artists will have no control over the labels licensing out their likeness, their voice, and their vibe. Always suspect that something is up when the big three are working together; it is not about the artist or the art, it is about control over another aspect of music. They will license their data and their libraries, and they will create their own tools. This will also create limitations on what we, as artists, will be able to do with AI ourselves. As an artist, I would love to train these AI tools in my own library and help me create more of my own music. It would allow me to do a lot faster and experiment more. Also, KZbinrs' copyright blocks and "fair use" are YT's version of what those are, not the legal interpretation. We are used to YT dictating what is allowed and not allowed. It is also based on how they can make money off of our content. They say they do it in the interest of the artists, but it really is about making money for YT. The way they control it is to limit it. Independent artists and the next generation of artists will suffer the most. And don't get confused... there are no licenses to train data for music. Doesn't exist yet.

[@DerDanko]

Oh boy, The other day, Tunecore's algorithm decided to take down some 40+ of my tracks from their publishing because of using unliceensed samples. Word was, I had FIVE DAYS to respond, or else they would terminate my entire publishing account. Kid you not. I spent two hours on an email explaining how those tracks were not using unlicensed samples, because I made them on the old computers back in the days myself. TL;DR: VP of Tunecore sent me a PDF: OK you good, for now.

[@davidstair9657]

I simply will not "on purpose" listen to AI music... except to examine it... Once this becomes more difficult to distinguish will only make me work harder to find human made music.

[@biggsly]

I don't know who I hate more, AI companies or record labels...

[@samw1778]

There’s fx racks that can make you sound like bladee and many yt channels who show you how to make a song exactly like one that already exists.

[@VarsityBeats]

rare music industry W

[@johnviera3884]

do you have no idea about anything to be making that statement.

[@arpaddanos9416]

This could have (and still could) go an entire different direction where the industry teams up with Udio and then uses their massive catalog in collab with Udio to make new music that they all "own". Then the music industry can cut out the artist entirely and just sell AI music and keep more profit for themselves. So don't rely on the industry to do this, it is still worth doing things like writing your representatives and raising awareness to get laws passed that require consent from artists before their art is used in training sets for these AIs.

[@_loss_]

@@johnviera3884 cry

[@pasmurnotowa]

@@johnviera3884 I bet he knows about it more then you do...

[@thisathema]

​@@pasmurnotowano. Universal just want to do what Getty and Shutterstock and Adobe did. Sue the Image models and then scrape their own creators work and release their own models. They did this immediately as they were starting their cases! Ideally they want to sell the rights to the Third party AI companies like OpenAI and Facebook. Either way this isn’t going to end up like the artists and music producers and crossing their fingers about. Universal will be doing the same stuff as Getty and Shutterstock and Adobe first chance they get. They say they’ll pay creators, but they won’t, because you can’t. There’s no way to pay them.

[@lotusblack7535]

I'm not exactly happy about this, it's cool for there to be a precedent for companies to have to pay creators to use their content in this way, but remember every time a really big corporation does something good, it's never for good reason. They are 100% looking to lock shit down so they can train their own AI and drop music without competition. That and possibly just create similar AI music services.

[@MoopEPoom0]

I hope it's not the beginning of the end for AI music, AI music is fun. I don't want the RIAA (fun police) to swoop in and take our fun away.

[@NoidoDev]

1:49 - Oh, here it sounds it's just one more frivolous lawsuit. Training on copyrighted material should not be illegal, and right now it isn't. If anything, then they can complain if the output is too similar, and maybe that needs to be regulated.

[@TheTrumanZoo]

ai company could accept to remove certain voice profiles from the final results, that the music rights companies provide of their artists. so if they match a know artist too much they wont get displayed in the results...

[@fftunes]

But lesser known artists are ok to rip off? No. Either everyone has rights, or nobody does.

[@TheTrumanZoo]

​@@fftunes dude, we in the digital age, a voice is just like a synth.

[@roymoxley2587]

Goodbye Ai cause not only music but think about coping a actor and a scene from a movie That Ai is going to be a nusaunce

[@danceswith7wolves]

Remember when apple took out napster

[@flysworddd]

We all know the way this is going to end is with the 3 majors assimilating the tools and staff of Udio/Suno and using them to fuck over smaller artists even more

[@Kkidzz]

Huuuge fan of Pariah Scary, Jailer Quiff, Biley Gyrus AND Bouncesay'....Heckles Fo' Shekels

[@Tejaneaux-ic8dp]

Bouncesay lol

[@MotleySchu]

My question is...without AI, I, as a musician, will inevitably have influences and attempt to recreate things that I hear that I'm interested in...I'll take a riff from David Bowie's Andy Warhol and create a new Metallica song called Master of Puppets...I'll take disco drums from The Gap Band and use it for Smells Like Teen Spirit...That's how any band ever has been created, some end up becoming a parody of the genre it attempted to copy which ultimately kills said genre, but that's a whole nother convo...but what honestly is the difference between You or I listening to The Cure and trying to start a post punk goth rock alt band that sounds exactly like The Cure versus an AI system that aims to do exactly that? I tend to think it's the idea of the complete excommunication of the human element here rather than "oh it's gonna copy my songs!" We're already copying your songs...we're already stealing your art.

[@angelainamarie9656]

You have to earn the skills to do that and therefore you have to understand music well enough to make it worth listening to. AI is again just stealing without even asking permission.

[@henryhill92]

I think the difference is whether the AI has the taste and skill to make those combinations greater than the sum of their parts (it doesn't)

[@angelainamarie9656]

@@henryhill92 because AI has to sample a large number of inputs in order to generate a focused result, it is most often going to give you the lowest common denominator of skill or performance or listenability. If you ask it to focus too sharply you will commit copyright violation so obviously that everyone will be able to tell. especially if it's scraping the entire internet for all of the amateur musicians in the world it's going to get a lot of pretty mediocre results. I mean anyone using it to help them write or anything can already tell how it's going to work if you have any writing skill above average at all you know that the autocomplete is half the time just a pain in the ass. The same it's going to be true of anything that AI attempts to imitate it's always going to skew towards the mediocre. When people who can't discern what is a good music or not because they're so superficial they have to use AI to generate it aren't going to really know if they've gotten a great result and they aren't going to understand why they can't get people to sing their song, or even listen to it for more than a few seconds.

[@qtrax100]

F the audio news, the humour is off the chain

[@Nenko_Music]

yea he s good

[@Nicolasin-yn9mu]

This is what happens with the images as well then, they're just stealing peoples likenesses, a great make believe trick?

[@glennfordsolinap8606]

well, i mean, we feed data to AI....

[@Arcessitor]

TL;DR: "We must sue these AI devs because we are developing our own AI to exploit you, and they got theirs first."

[@Bthelick]

The problem is taking influence from other material is what artists do every single day. It's not possible to be truly original in one area of copyright when there's only 12 notes. The precedent is already set, "musical interpolation". And you already just proved when it's not interpolated properly. It will be copyright struck. So the system works. Fair use is not applicable. Interpolation is what's going on here.

[@notnoaintno5134]

Embrace microtonality (any number of notes you like)

[@Bthelick]

@@notnoaintno5134 hmmmmm, true there is that. But do you want music to pay your bills? 🤣

[@amva3455]

Like share music when napster? Like any ppl are a TV host without TV channel? Like Spotify a Radio? 😅 Yes... Is only a New level.

[@alexadigitalradio]

They will settle in exchange for a share of the profits to kill their competition in their own AI efforts. AI music isn’t going away. This is just greed and that’s it. Udio and Suno will make a deal and become part of the corporate machine by coercion.

[@brianbergmusic5288]

I hope you're right. Otherwise, this looks more like Godzilla vs. Mecha King Ghidorah. No matter who wins... we lose.

[@periurban]

I'm not sure you are seeing the full implications. It isn't about stopping AI, it's about who controls it. If ordinary musicians cannot get access to AI, but the record companies can (which is a possible outcome), it will spell the end for us (musicians). We will simply be unable to compete with the latest "Pink Floyd" AI album. It is possible that we are living in a golden age of AI, and the bright/horrifying future will be litigated out of existence. Pop stars will truly live forever. Leaving no room for new ones. No-one will care.

[@keomg4718]

bedroom producers when people are stealing others people sounds with plant synth: :D bedroom producers when people are stealing others people sounds with AI: :(

[@digitaltrash_]

FINALLY! 2025 will strike us with amazing music.

[@xray2785]

King Canute

[@Ewoof]

Not really. They just want a cut but ideally to shut them down and make the service themselves. Business as usual.

[@LaghimaMusic]

You can’t copyright rhythm and chord progressions so in that regard there’s no case BUT you can copyright someone’s likeness such as voice etc personally don’t think there’s a case

[@LaghimaMusic]

@@peebrayen6564 yah that’s also what i expected to hear the case I really don’t know why they would train models with license Music you’re just asking me to get sued

[@torblixa7760]

its over...

[@wmpx34]

AI = Associates in India

[@TigasHyper]

Or, more recently, Apple Intelligence or whatever it is

[@hillblocksview]

*The Real Reason Why Music Is Getting Worse* is Rick Beato's latest video of a similar topic, definitely do a *Reaction Video* to it, because he shares a more informed perspective on AI that you may agree with, _eventhough we know you can't stand Rick the Boomer_ 😂😎

[@periurban]

Fair use cannot be determined outside of a judicial or litigious process. So many people add "fair use" to their use of copyrighted material, as if simply making that statement will prevent a copyright owner from expressing their right. That's not the way it works. It's something you invoke as part of your defense, either as part of opening salvos or in the courtroom. It has no application elsewhere, and it provides zero protection.

[@igmusicandflying]

Mostly right, but with respect to the DMCA, see Lenz v. Universal Music. The 9th circuit court said DMCA takedown requests must consider fair use exemptions before filing the takedown. Now, there's a whole conversation as to how that plays out in the real world, especially on this site, where a lot of DMCA requests are pretty fast and loose and YT does little to discourage it.

[@periurban]

@@igmusicandflying Good to know! Thank you.

[@frallorfrallor3410]

👍

[@LoserDub]

Spotify is gonna buy suno or one of em, and then just use artists they have ip for and create their own music

[@shapeshifter8986]

All of a sudden the gangsters form the music industry are the good guys now according to this creep.

[@igmusicandflying]

The thing that's missed is that "fair use" is an affirmative defense. In other words, it exists, but you don't just get to wave the "fair use" phrase and it's all sunshine and rainbows for you. It means that IF you have fair use rights, you have to demonstrate it in court. There's a difference in DMCA where the claimant has to state in a takedown that they in good faith believe it's not fair use and then the plaintiff has to establish a case for it not to be fair use.

[@SaccoBelmonte]

From using autotune when you can't sing to use AI when you can't compose, or play an instrument, or record etc.... In that case you're NOT a musician.

[@notnoaintno5134]

I have to agree. I cant stand the sounds of cleanly autotuned vocals or ai music. I want the imprefections of old music to return. More soul to it than the gross inaccuracies of ai music

[@drowzy2309]

So i have an honest question. Are the people against AI music upset about companies making money off of a tool trained on their work, or are they upset that this potential exists at all? Because i think at this point, artists need to take a long look in the mirror and understand that this technology just keeps getting open source versions. Meaning, even if you dont like your work being used in training data, someone in their basement can still do it. Good luck doing anything about that. I for one prefer to have better access (such as suni and udio) versus going through the trouble of making my own. You dont have to like what i said, but you know its true.

[@richardballena1450]

Ai is great for non musician and amateurs.

[@deastman2]

I’m of two minds about generative AI. Obviously I think it’s a Very Bad Thing if you can type in a few words and get new “art” that specifically rips off existing artists. On the other hand, how can we get useful AI systems which have any clue how the real world works if we don’t train them on the real world? That’s a big question which will take decades for the law and society to figure out.

[@jasonreviews]

because the labels only want to be the ones with the AI tools. Tencent has been having AI made music since 2021. Guess whose tencent. League of legends. Warner music. They own all the music in China. Possibly soon the USA.

[@Petch85]

As a user of music I don't think this matters much. This will not destroy AI, it will only change who earns the money. We will be flooded with useless AI spam music over the next years, and in 10 years we will no longer nothis it. The creators that will survive will be the ones that are good a growing a fanbase around them, influencers. Honestly I don't think it matters much. As it is now, it is super hard to find and fall in love with new music. Most people will just listen to what the algorithm serves them up, some will listen to curated playlists where the big companies pay to get there AI music on. Some artists will survive doing live music, but I see fewer musiciens in the future, just as there are fewer horse riders and seamstress today than 100 years ago. You can still have it as a hobby, especially if you are well of, but living of making music will probably be very tuff, when a pc can do it for cheap. 😥

[@jeffthompson1869]

Who NEEDS consent? People have been ripping off songs and tried to sound like other artists for centuries. And if you can listen to a song and make decisions on what chords or instruments that you want to use to imitate your favorite band - that is all the AI is doing - it is simply measuring every parameter. That is different from actually downloading copywrite material from a torrent file - which people have been doing for decades. So, who is the real criminal? I would say that AI is cleaning up a corrupt system. It looks to me like a bunch of folks don't want to compete with a new paradigm of music making - because they have been coasting along in an antiquated system - making money. And music making was never supposed to be about just making money. It was a hobby. It was a past time. And if you were good enough at it - you could play live somewhere at a club. These "producers" dropped $10s of thousands of dollars on studio equipment - and now they are left - looking like fools - because new technology allows for ANYONE to make good music on their home PC. And UDIO and SUNO sounds better than the top 10 list on Spotify.

[@notnoaintno5134]

I disagree, i can almost always tell when i hear an ai generated song. They dont sound good to me. Neither do top 10 pop songs. I hope they both destroy each other

[@notnoaintno5134]

"Good music" is debatable

[@jeffthompson1869]

@@notnoaintno5134 There is taste in music and everyone has different taste, yes, but the overall quality of the sound coming from Udio is exceptional. I have done A/B tests with music coming from the top of the charts musical artists who have top music engineering people make sure their music sparkles - and Udio. 9 time out of 10 - friends like the sound quality and balance coming from Udio. I don't know how they do it. There seems to be a different mix for each genre of music. So, "good music" is a general statement - but I was actually talking about the quality of the sound. And when it comes to taste in music - while debatable - I personally find music that it fits my own tastes better on Udio. I listen to Celtic music, acoustic guitar, 70s prog rock, surf band punk, Yacht rock, funk, soul, R and B, Blues - and many more genres. Each one of the genres has some great songs on Udio - that do not show up in the top 10 on Spotify - which is who I am comparing Udio to. My comment was in no way meant as a criticism of your taste in music. I hope this clarifies what I meant when I used the term "good music".

[@PixelSubstream]

If we are going to be surrounded by AI music crap, might as well make it free for everyone instead of a tool for the musical elite

[@ir8123]

AI == relational database,beside that you look extra crispy today.

[@DarkMetaOFFICIAL]

a.i. doesn't equal that, it's just that they say it is and people believe it.

[@renosance8941]

That's a deep subject. Technically a calculator is A.I. but that's not what people actually mean by it... so definition is up for debate... What we are dealing with though, in these recent years, are people-trained bots intended to mimic our sentience.

[@ir8123]

@@DarkMetaOFFICIAL Yes,and I would add - if one is less intelectually curious about this world ( lowering the quality of education on purpose) the more likely you will start believing.Few days ago I had seen one poetry made by so called AI;every single sentance is derived from Eastern prosaic poetry mixed in a strange unarticulated way.Cheers 🍷

[@igmusicandflying]

Relational databases make for VERY poor AI.

[@MitchMichelleOfficial]

you actually think this will affect ai music?? nope: this is the big 3 making sure they have complete control of ai music. that's all. nothing more.

[@volpir4672]

there is already a big industry that makes sound alike songs to get around copyright issues, there are also artists that will re-make sample that can't be cleared, if someone said to me make a track like ... with these tags... and these lyrics... I'd prob come up with the same track that was copyrighted, there is no difference between AI and my brain LOL, the music big boys just wanna slice it up and get their pie, I say fk them, they are leeches and destroy lives with their biz, how many artists dies when their back catalogue became more valuable than they were? grind the industry into the ground, nobody needs placements, nobody needs fake advances that need paying back like a mortgage, they even block fair use, the industry is sour, fake sht everywhere, songs written by committee based on trending words, AI is already in the industry and it's the top 100, burn it all down! go independent!!!! we have sites like insta/youtube etc.... artists can earn without the big labels, set it all on fire!

[@exileisland2675]

Ai is basically making a collage of existing stuff. It can't make anything new. It's a lot less than we make it out to be.

[@arpaddanos9416]

That's an oversimplified take. AI can generate very novel combinations of the creative styles it has learned (without the consent of those whose styles it absorbed). It is frighteningly good at this, and absolutely requires some regulation if you care about human art and artists. The fact that a tech venture capitalist can now go ahead and learn your art style and churn out 1000s of original stylistic copies of it for pennies to undercut any income you were making before really should be a point of concern for artists, and those who value what artists do.

[@ropeburn6684]

​​@@arpaddanos9416 Additionally, 99% of music is literally "a collage of existing stuff". That's how music works in general. The remaining percent is the very rare innovation and invention humans do from time to time, and then we usually call them "trendsetters" and "geniuses".

[@Nenko_Music]

artists , even the best artists started by combining what existed previously. and occasionnaly pushed it further. Ai unfortunatly, might be able to do that too

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

An artists can? All artists do is take stuff from their environment and mix it up.

[@angelainamarie9656]

Not only that but it sounds like it.

[@peterbondmusic]

I am very happy about this! Sue them into oblivion!!

[@Nenko_Music]

same, there s hope it looks.

[@leetube1985]

You can’t stop AI you might be able to slow it down, but it’s definitely gonna always be here and it’s gonna keep advancing