How Do You Feel About AI In Music? 🟡 Become your Own Record Label: Use discount code LABEL30 to get 30% off our "Become Your Own Record Label" course. (This offer is valid for the one-time payment option only.) www.topmusicattorney.com/becomeyourownrecordlabel 💻 #1 Resource For Artists And Producers: www.topmusicattorney.com ⚖ Hire An Attorney: www.delgadoentertainmentlaw.com 📰 Get My Newsletter: www.topmusicattorney.com/newsletter/ 🎧 Listen To The TMA Podcast On All Streaming: www.topmusicattorney.com/podcast
machines do not learn in the same way humans do. machines have no life experience. if you taught this supposed intelligence in the same manner as a human and play music on actual instruments with robots what would it come up with? i don't care what anyone says it's not easy to write a good song. AI music always sounds like something else... in the 80s drummer Bill Bruford was asked about how he felt about the rising popularity of the Linn Drum and drum machines and sequencers. he said he liked it because it made him think in a manner of 'what can i do that a machine can't' i think ultimately AI will make live performance and improvisational skills more valuable in the long term ... then again i tend to be overly optimistic 😄 thanks for the excellent vids o7
I have been creating music with Suno AI but I have no real idea what to do wit it. I made 75 songs and videos but music seems so controlled and dominated that my music has no chance against that. Just a hobby for my 50s i guess, I always wanted to be a singer and songwriter, Suno gave me the voice to do it with. love your channel, I would love to see you work it inside a courtroom.
nobody has copyright over language and how its used be it in speech or song , and as far as cadance goes , it can be mathematically broken down to a sort of code similar to morse code , so the only way your song can be copyright infringed is through verbatim, just saying a phrase like , three little birds sit by my doorstep , "bob marley" can not be infringement because no matter what genre u say or sing this in it will still sound familiar.
Ai is everywhere now. Music mastering, creating songs, ai videos, ai photos, etc. I think Ai is a cool tool for moms, serious songwriters and people just looking to create a birthday song or shoutout to a family member, etc, however I do see the unfairness aspect to real musicians, singers and songwriters. If someone who isn't a songwriter prompts ai to make them a song and tries to claim it as their song, I don't think that is a songwriter and they should not be getting paid for it or flooding the market with ai songs just to make a buck. I think If someone who is writing 100% of their own lyrics but using ai to help create a music backing track/demo and editing that track to fit what they are hearing in their head, that is a songwriter. There is a difference, the people who use it that do nothing but prompt ai song like a google search is not a songwriter nor should they be able to get paid to use it as there work . That kind of ai song/photo/video should automatically be tagged as fair use sharing but not for profit. Then you have people that play an instrument, write their own lyrics and create a demo of their songs but can't afford to pay for producers and musicians, using ai as a tool to create backing tracks or better demos is also a songwriter. As well as someone who writes a song and plays an instrument and pays studio musicians to do the demos is also a songwriter. In the end you have legit songwriters and I guess we can call them "google songwriters" that don't have talent but want to pretend they do but ai is doing 100% of the work. I think the only regulation that needs to be passed on ai is, if ai is doing all of the lyrics and all the music and the person prompting the ai isn't doing any changes to it and have no part of writing all of the lyrics and picking out all the aspects of how the backing track sounds in the final product, then they should not be able to claim it as their work period. That is not their work but a fair use version that shouldn't be able to be used for profit by anyone. That is the fine line between the two. Also I think the ai companies shouldn't be liable but the persons trying to profit off of songs that are ripping off someones else work as their own. People that purposefully know they are copying lyrics of someones song and then trying to get the ai to make it sound almost identical (Mariah Carey songs, etc) which is already against copyright law and is even stated on sites like suno, udio, etc to not use copyrighted lyrics/music that you do not own, those people that brake those rules/laws should be able to be sued by the copyright owner(s). Ai is only the tool, the user is the one that should be responsible on if they use it.
Also I'm sure that millions of rap songs, rnb songs, pop songs, etc all recorded in the past 40 decades have been created using synth electronic instrument loops, and auto tune, to create tracks/songs, So not using real musicians but synth instruments. This is pretty much the same as ai (A Keyboard, synth board/ synth drums, Digital synth music/auto tune adjusted the vocal notes to a certain pitch) Synth music/loops have been used since the 60's. Ai is just the newer modern version of that.
Orko’s conment said it best at the end, they only have a problem with ai because its competition- they are NEVER concerned about the artist or copyright per se in the artistic context because they ALREADY copy each other (other label artists from theirs and get away with it)…they will one day - if these lawsuits are lost - monopolize their “already monopoly” in to include ai in their pipeline and potentially removed their “own human artists” because its easier to develop music on the ai platform than in the studio…the record biz WILL change behind the advent of Suno-Udio, regardless of the outcome…this is the digital camera of music, deal with it and learn how to master it. It’s inevitable
I’ve seen comments about how we shouldn’t fear new technology; arguments that AI is simply a tool, and resisting change only leads to obsolescence. While I agree that technological advances in music-like synthesizers and autotune-have been incredible innovations, I see some critical differences with AI-driven music platforms. The issue for me is that many of these AI music generators don’t seem designed to serve creators. Companies like Suno and Udio seem primarily profit-driven, and anything created with their tools isn’t fully owned by the user. If an AI-generated track gains real traction, the company’s “fingerprints” are all over it. Imagine a platform that truly empowered creators-producing unique sounds to sample, re-sample, and build into something original. That would be transformative. Legal restrictions around AI-generated music make it a far less useful tool than autotune or synthesizers ever were. Those technologies supported artists by lowering entry barriers and expanding creative possibilities, without claiming ownership of the work produced. With AI, it feels more like a shortcut to mass production, with companies seeking to profit from vast amounts of music generated under their terms and control. Some argue that AI companies are just like artists drawing inspiration from other works, but I don’t see this as a fair comparison. AI companies prioritize their profit margins, relying on user prompts to mass-produce music they own and monetize. This isn’t the same as a human artist channeling the sound of their influences into something uniquely personal. If AI music companies truly wanted to support creators, they’d let users fully own their work. In a way, it’s good that these companies operate as they do-it reminds us that if we want to truly own our art, we still need to make it ourselves. The challenge is ensuring that audiences recognize the difference and continue valuing human-created music. AI may offer cheaper sync options for ads and TV, but there’s a real risk to composers and production musicians. Saying, “AI will never replace what a human can do” reminds me of what film stock companies probably said about digital cameras. Godspeed my friends!
Wrong, if your on a paid plan everything you create is yours. Labels are just worried they ate finished, even artists are leaving labels and going it alone
since suno and udio there are now hundreds of ai music sites, I think its bigger than the record labels now and they can't stop it unless try bribe congress. I think in the end the record companies will lock all their signed artist into contracts where the record labels will own there masters with their voice likeness to use in ai voice models.
I agree Ai is a tool, just like Auto tune. Actually auto tune is ai. It's just got so advanced now that it can clone anything it sees and hears (music, voices, photos, videos, etc) I think its already being accepted and pretty soon will be the new normal.
Those are my concerns as well. I have a son who can play anything and a son who can sing anything. So we are modifying and converting my music to reality.
If there is no direct copy of someone's melody or voice, there is no copying happening. What AI is doing is copying the musical art-form. That is not illegal, that is still art.
Exactly, they sue AI but they don't SUE YAMAHA which has the entire WORLD styles. It's just hate towards AI's LEGAL TRANSFORMATION ART law that exists to protect AI and people from this sorta of HIJACKING that TIMBA and the record labels are attempting to do. If we sound like, we are sued. It's that simple. SOUND LIKE. It's disgusting. If SUNO loses, TAKE ALLLLLLLLLLL computer music down. SMASH ALL YAMAHA styles synthesizers too ebcause you don't even create. It generates. SUE VPS Avenger because it generates too. It is the end. SOUND LIKE.
TIMBALAND is a sellout. He was able to be a producer in the Golden Era of R&B and was charging $400K a beat. He made his money and was able to be a true artist/producer and hone his craft. Now he's pulling the ladder up.
He is a sellout. They FORMED this communist team to HIJACK music. Once they can sue anyone for SOUND LIKE, its game over for future artists. AI generation is an art and it transforms. "SOUND like" isn't even legal to sue off of. It's not the same song. Like a person that inspired and uses TOP hits, they transforms and created their own too. It's GAME OVER if SUNO loses. For all of us. AI or NOT.
I have always wanted to make music, but life happens and I have had to devote my time to crummy jobs to get by. When I started making music using AI I never once considered myself an artist. The word I used was "producer". Because through my intelligence I told the "artist" to make the production sound a certain way. It reminded me of the time I watched "a Year and a half in the life of Metallica. The producer has a lot of influence in their final sound. After watching this video, I agree that we're also curators. We are music techs, producers and curators. Music techs because I still have to do some heavy post-processing. The original draft was good but not great. Then we do the mixing to get it to sound close to top quality as we can then, we look through our collection and decide "which of these sound the best?"
Exactly. WIthout your creative prompt, your instructions and your IDEAS, the AI cannot generate the ART. Nobody could have generated YOUR results if they didn't give your beautiful prompt and IDEA. THis is serious. I tested this with my sons. We all challenged each other to who could generate the best song. I won. Why???? Because I actually spent 5 hours. I gave a huge prompt with exact details and I even ADDED my own drums.
As a Writer who isn't very musically inclined, I can tell you that Suno has helped me create songs that i've written in the past, and the songs that live in my heart. I can't speak to the legality of it, but what I've experienced in my own life is that it's made Live Performances by real Artists more valuable to me. Sometimes it's so good, unless the creator is forthcoming in using AI, it's difficult to tell the difference. It's enhanced my enjoyment of the real Artists who have mastered their craft, because it has a certain Soul to Soul quality that AI has yet to replicate. You can feel the passion in it. I think ultimately, we know many Artists won't be forthcoming about using AI as I've been. That uncertainty is what bothers me... so the Value of finding new Band that have mastered their craft has gone up on a personal level. It is my hope that others feel the same way, in that the value of finding an actual Artist has gone up. My hope is also that my fellow AI music creators will be forthcoming in that their music is made with AI. I see a lot of AI music ending up on Spotify, without any mention of AI creation. That is the part that bothers me in all of this. Being honest doesn't lessen the value of what you've written, so I'd like to see more transparency from AI music creators moving forward. Through learning music theory on my music creation journey and all of the intricate peices i've heard along the way from real artists from Beethoven to Bjork, I've grown to appreciate them so much more. For instance, did you know that Bjork's single "Army of Me" is the only song in Locrian Mode to top the charts? My appreciation for masterful human artists and what they can create has increased 10 fold through all of this. Yet, I have an appreciation for AI Musicians as well. There are many talented writers that have taken to platforms like Suno who's words may never have been heard. For myself personally, It has been a journey of Catharsis, Therapy, and Healing. Releasing things from my past, as I had with my latest release. I don't allow myself to get a big head about it, and know that what I am doing is not the same as someone who is a Musician. Yet, it is still Theraputic and Cathartic. I can't speak to the legalities. I can only trust that the legal system is fair and just. But what i can say is that after having lost my home to flooding, being able to create AI music is one of the only things that keep me going during an extremely difficult period. I've lost my home, my possesions... but the one thing I haven't lost is the ability to write, and create. Wishing everyone well, -DD
Important point that creators should be open about when they've used AI. Some won't listen to it on principal, but they should be given that choice. To me, I can listen to each. If I like the product, I like it. I wouldn't buy a physical record of AI generated music though, except if it's only composed with AI and performed by a real band. Then maybe. And coming from Wings Of Pegaus' latest video, if they'd stop pitch correcting human singers voices, there would be a big difference between computer generated and human made music.
How does Suno help you create? It does all the creation. You may have written words, but the craft of songwriting is making words fit music. You can have the best words in the world but if you cant make it into a song it isn't any good. Imagine Lennon and McCartney in their pomp used your words to write a tune to. The tune is what gets into people;s heads not the words. All you have to do is listen to the words of today's music. There is nothing in there. It is the tune people remember and if AI is coming up with the music then actually it was you that helps SUNO write the songs, not the other way around. And people remember the guy who wrote the tune not the words - you would recognize Elton John walking past you, but would you know Bernie Taupin?
@@Juststartingout768 One issue with your statement is that you're speaking from an assumption that the AI is doing all the writing, which ignores the fact that we can upload OUR OWN MUSIC that we have ALREADY WRITTEN OURSELVES, and simply have the AI generate an extension or alternate take, adding or changing elements and giving us other directions and ideas to work with in our own hands-on writing... That's an incredibly useful tool for breaking through creative blocks and discovering new ways to improve our own art, without necessarily surrendering your entire writing process to robotic sound regurgitation. I've had lots of unfinished songs that felt like they were simply "missing something," and after throwing them into the AI, it showed me some possibilities that hadn't occurred to me before -- yet they're still essentially MY songs: My chords, my melodies, my arrangements, but with an added sound, note, chord, idea or technique that makes me see my own work in a new light, sometimes inspiring me to finally turn it into a finished production. Not everybody is using it that way, of course... But in my opinion that's more like an extension of my own creativity, rather than a replacement of it, and isn't quite as unethical as some other ways of using it. Still have to be really careful with it though.
@@Juststartingout768 Yes, Udio (and I'm pretty sure Sudio as well) all you to upload your own audio -- as long as it's something you have the rights to -- and then you can use the "extend" function to generate new sections that are [almost] seemlessly tacked on to your song. The one thing you need to be aware of when doing that, though, is that your audio will then be used to help train the AI even further... Which means there's a possibility that pieces of your music could end up influencing someone else's generated audio. But you never lose the rights to your own work... So it comes down to a question of whether you feel safe with having AI trained on your work that you probably haven't even released yet. I don't really see much chance of making a lot of money off of my own music by itself, so personally I see it as a fair trade; I'm receiving inspiration from the rest of the musical world, and they're getting a wee bit of data from me in return. Kind of like being assimilated into a musical Borg collective, lol. But that's not necessarily a bad thing -- as long as it's just music!
It's a really blury topic, cause the way Suno and other use music to build their model is kind of a similar use that some company like iZotope or Landr did with their AI mastering or stems spliting tools. They analyse music in deep to be able to recognize some charateristic. A software that is able to isolate an ultra processed voice on a commercial track only know that because they analyse a lot of other track. It's the same kind of fair use here. Also the "inspiration" part is exactly the same with sample pack, most of them are sold with the argument that they sound like famous artist, often directly using their name in the description. Inspiration has always been there, and it's sometime complicated to see where is the line before copy, but it shouldn't be an argument for a copyright claim either. The only part where they can eventually claim something is the track recreated by the AI, if it's perfectly the same, but even there, it should depend on how it was recreated (like that journal who claim ChatGPT sort of randomly quote an entire article from their website, when the prompt was in reality just asking for that specificaly. I think it also happen the same way with a book, when it was the "copyright claim on chatGPT" era)
Notes: Suno got the cadance from the lyrics. It doesn't space on its own. Not usually. If he hears it spacing, it's because he skipped or combined a line in his lyrics. If you look at the lyrics for Love Again, you can see him doing this fairly intentionally. That's because Suno is sensitive to the way a document is spaced out, and it's always been that way. At least since V2 of the model. Where'd you get that from? You should check out some of my process playlists on suno and udio. Udio's cut off at 100 tracks, so they're not as involved as some of the ones I've posted on suno. But you can listen to all the main and partial iterations of everything I do, like 12 versions of a drop, or 30 versions of a particular verse or arrangement. When you're listening to this stuff, you gotta understand that there's a craft here. Even if you're not starting from handmade recordings (which I also do). Average production time on a finished song that sounds like a finished song on Suno or Udio, is 32 hours.' If doing it well was as easy as everybody keeps telling me it is, I wouldn't be interested. As far as the barrier to entry. I had very little musical background before Suno. Now I play half a dozen instruments. That number's higher every time I leave one of these long comments, but it's been a minute. Also I've become obsessed with daw plugins and midis. They're so flexible. AI tools are inspirational and powerful for dipping in your toes and getting a taste of what this kind of creativity feels like. At least on the entry level. On the advanced level, it's a set of musical skills unto itself, which is also interesting. But... selling them as a panacea, like most people who dislike AI tend to do, is a HUGE mistake. They have have some pretty massive limitations, and they still can't write lyrics worth a damn, which is good. Also, songwriting is still art. I feel like, when people make these arguments in music, they're always throwing songwriters under the bus. Why do all yall keep doing that? Honestly, I would love to have an ai where you press a couple of buttons and get a perfect flawless piece of music. Please stop spreading the "It's just a few words, and you get something!" lie. It's not true. I mean, yeah, you might get something. But unless you have no taste at all, it's going to be awful. (Oh boy, watch someone get mad for hearing me say that again, lol) Good sounding music still takes work, even with ai.
I use AI the past 2 month for mixing my EDM and instrumental music along with Singers (Including me) to make a LOT more Music~ Fully self distributor.. No more Record labels "grabbing" 90% of earnings.........!
THAT is why they want to END us. We are now, skipping them. It's all about greed. Even the end guy in this interview is anti AI it seems. I can feel it.
Two thoughts: (1) Transparency could fix this. When I partner with AI technologies (like ChatGPT), I can ask the AI to list the sources used to help me in our collaborative work. That way I can look at the original material used to influence it and decide if it’s original from our partnership or just a copy. I think way too many people see AI as a cheat, which for professionals that use AI it’s not. We put a lot of work into our creative expressions, but use smarter technologies to help in that creative process. (2) AI is doing the same thing that humans do, but doing it far more efficiently. It is influenced by things it hears and replicates things it’s learned while using its own style and message. So if in fact it’s just acting like a human, what is wrong with that? I personally believe Leonardo da Vinci would use such tools if they had them in his time. He used many tools and techniques to push his art further as he explored the art of the possible.
I think it’s wonderful. It will force you to be different regardless of AI and anything else.. the competition was there before with all the different groups and the different bands. A lot of them made it and a lot of them didn’t. The only thing different that you have to be aggressive, and you have to build a following.
It's a "Money Grab". The points are good on both sides...but there's no turning back...so accept it and find a way to assimilate it into what you do. "Photographs" and "Recorded Music" were considered "The Devil" when they first came out because of the disruption level. Sampling, sequencing, drum machines etc...ALL were hugely disruptive to the traditional way music was created. We already have gone through this numerous times. This one is a quantum leap yes, but all the same issues, challenges and consequences apply here as well.
At the rate that Suno and Udio are generating songs the record companies will soon be releasing music that infringes 16:3616:3616:36 on Suno and Udio's property. Whilst A.I. compositions currently aren't copywritable if a Suno song has been infringed by an established artist who isn't paying for Suno's service there are legal ramifications!
@@Vroomfondle1066 Not true at all, if it wasn't for capitalism you wouldn't even have the technology to reply to my comment. There is a bigger agenda at play. Wait til regular jobs are taken over by AI, then we'll see who still loves AI
I will say this about AI music, people need to stop going on about how AI generates a fully generated song in 10 seconds with the click of a button. It really doesn't create anything of any high quality. It's great for generating inspiration and ideas, but you will not be able to use AI and just create a top tier song without any understanding of music. Hence why AI music is notably worse. I have used Suno for a while, and use it for inspiration, I can download the stems and work with it, stripping out the garbage parts, and produced some far better songs than any AI could ever manage. Not to mention that most modern music that these record labels produce are taking either direct or indirect inspiration as they are, so they have no reason to be mad that an AI model is doing the same thing. I am happy with the idea that AI is great for inspiration, but under no circumstances can it be used as a replacement successfully.
"but under no circumstances can it be used as a replacement successfully." Not Yet!! But once they upgrade it, again and again, and then give you clear and clean stems of all the instruments, then all you would need is a good singer and you can be a hit maker pretty easily!!
@@vizionaryrecords see that's what people are worried about, but I don't believe that it is possible. Like most things in the creative space, there are some things that are just not able to be copied and become the original's quality. AI trained off existing work cannot output the stylistic expression of human work because it only copies some of the elements and tries to Frankenstein a new idea but does it infinitely worse.
@@RibombeeTeacher the strides AI art generators have made in short time cast your skepticism into more complete denialism. There are no inherent limitations precluding the possible success of future models, or you would have named it.
Many people criticize AI for allegedly stealing from traditional music while they themselves rely on AI to quickly obtain and adapt compositional inspiration. Not to mention, some have engaged in similar acts of direct adaptation from various music sources even before the advent of AI. Therefore, we should not conflate moral, technical, and legal issues, but rather discuss them independently. For professional musicians, collaborating with AI to explore musical boundaries is indeed a positive direction. They can also create their own lyrics and compositions and then use AI to experiment with various styles to find the right creative direction, much like trying on different outfits before going out. Thus, AI can serve as both an exploratory tool and an efficiency tool, which is very beneficial.
Pre-AI days, I created a song and thought it was good. I published it on music platforms hoping for it to be a hit, but people say it's garbage. Now I tried AI generated songs and I thought I made reaaaallly good songs. Posted it on UA-cam but no... it ain't still a hit. I've also seen other AI generated music and thought they were good... but... nevermind. So, do you guys think that anyone can automatically be a musician just because he created music on AI? will he threaten existing musicians?
It has been three or four months since I last participated in the discussion on AI music copyright lawsuits in this channel and the Sync My Music channel. I have remained active in the AI creation community, where I have seen many people unleash unprecedented creativity with the help of AI-people who were just ordinary engineers, teachers, workers, farmers, etc. They may not have made money through AI, but they found something new, attempted many things that were previously impossible, including myself. When a new thing is born, there are always those who fear it, embrace it, use it for evil, or chase dreams with it. If we focus on the positive aspects, AI can help us discover unprecedented opportunities. If people cling to outdated concepts, they will only be failing themselves. Returning to the topic of AI music creation, pressing a button to generate music might seem simple, but in reality, 99.9% of what is generated is meaningless by most people’s standards. Tens of thousands of songs are uploaded to Spotify daily, and the number wasn’t much smaller even before AI. How many of these songs, created by whatever means, are actually good enough to be heard? It’s hard to judge complaints about AI music diluting one’s rightful share. In fact, as long as songs are created for people to listen to, musicians will never be out of work. For musicians, using AI tools can make their work much more efficient. They have professional aesthetics and audio processing skills. A piece of AI-generated music, even if only 10% usable, can be completely transformed in their hands into a song that showcases their technical abilities. Thus, the threshold for music creation will not be lowered; it will only get higher with the involvement of professional musicians, who will continuously explore the boundaries of music with AI. For ordinary people with no musical training, achieving this by pressing a few buttons and entering a few prompts is still a fantasy. In summary, discussing copyrights is necessary, but copyright is not everything. Copyright laws cannot ensure perpetual well-being. The challenges we face always come from humans, not AI. When your opponent utilizes AI tools, remember, you are facing a professional plus an intelligent entity endowed with human knowledge, not just one person, but a team.
When I was younger, I was in bands and we learned other bands (Major label) songs and developed our style by taking bit and pieces that we loved and made it our own. Which we then recorded. The only difference sadly is an AI is learning instead of us. Great channel btw! Lol
Yeah. Very rare for anything really new music (as in nothing like that has been made before) coming out nowadays. Everyone are using patterns and stuff based on what they've heard before. Biggest difference is that AI can put out a complete song much faster.
first of all, thank you for creating this content and keep up the good work with your channel. Secondly , Prompting (throwing dices) with stolen goods ( the data of the LLMs) paying 10 dollars a month to Suno/Udio whaterver calling it "art" ...feels so sad. ( you can of course in a conceptual white box way pretend its intersting but it will be intersting for about 24 hours ) Its a tool as people say but its not "your" Tool its someone elses tools. The comparison to a digital camera i saw here is a joke. Its more like the user of these services becomes a tool for the services. Its really hard to see a reason to be a part of this weird trap of a devaulation system (thats not even necessary as I can see it at least atm) which I guess means theres no reason for anyone to put up anything of real interest online anymore. Will the new sport 2025 be to avoid giving away data to stupid people? :)
Micheal Jackson was heavily inspired by James Brown, he was not sued by James Brown or his label. It’s a robot vs human thing, if it was a human, record labels cannot not accuse a person of”we think you listened to 3 of our songs on Spotify during your music production therefore you owe us money” that would be ridiculous. AI apps that create music are not a threat to me being able to make music using what I learnt. I’m still able to express myself in addition to AI. There’s already so much music being released before AI, if your music doesn’t beat it out, make better music, do better promotion. 😊
As of 2012, there are only three labels that can be referred to as "major labels": Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. In 2014, AIM estimated that the majors had a collective global market share of some 65-70%.[2]
Here's the problem: EVERY Artist is influenced, learns, copies, emulates other Artists throughout their career. EVERYBODY has "trained" on ALL the music they have been exposed to throughout their lives. What's the differences in ai training on the same music we all have enjoyed throughout their lives? There is NO difference. There is no "Blanket Copyright" case here. Period. Case by case is all there is, as it has always been. Toughen up, open your mind and find a way to "assimilate" the tech within your workflow. God bless.
These AI formats can be analogous to the Linn Drum. Drummers were like: “They’re trying to destroy me😮” couple years later we’re budgeting for the latest Linn Drum updates. The addition of AI into the mix just excites the technological evolutionary process; a natural progression.
Been using SUNO for a while now .. I still have NO IDEA who owns the final product. My lyrics, my musical prompts but the final product belongs to WHO? Nobody knows.
Let's imagine your song suddenly went viral. Here's my understanding of ownership at this point. Firstly, yes you do always own the lyrics you wrote (contrast if you used their prompts to write the lyrics, then you don't own them but you do have a royalty free licence to use them if you paid to use the platform). Secondly, you never own the music, but have a royalty free licence to use this as long as you paid for credits, not if you used the free ones. So let's say you have made a hit song and it's generating loads of traffic on your social media channels. If this traffic generates income for you, then you get to keep this money entirely under the licence. But say then Suno notices you have made a big hit... this is where it swings entirely in their favour. They could make your song available as a stem on their site and they would not have to pay you (as they have a licence from you to use your lyrics for free in perpetuity). Say the song catches on and Disney want to use it for a new movie... who do Disney approach, you or Suno? I imagine Suno as the music rights rest with them. You could try asking for money for the lyrics you wrote, and I would hope that an agreement would be reached. But actually Suno has a perpetual licence over these, so you are at their grace and favour. So all things considered, as far as I can see, the best anyone will ever be able to do out of their Suno created music, is to monetise it on their own social media platforms, and bathe in the glory of their songs becomes popular. I think you have to see it as an opportunity to be heard, rather than to be rich. My one concern however, is that if (like me) you are a librettist writing a musical score for a play that your wrote, and your song words act as bridges between your spoken words, it leaves you in a bit of a no-man's land.... but that said, in musical theatre things area always collaborative, and seldom all that lucrative, so it's still as risk I'm willing to take. I also would query, if I ended up using my own lyrics with traditionally written music, would it be open to Suno to say "actually you previously used these lyrics on our platform and therefore we have a perpetual licence over them that we want to exercise".... I really doubt it as this would be them publicly undermining the value of AI generated music.
I’ve had similar questions and looked into it. From what I have read, a person, or human in this case, who uses AI to create music would have to had contributed a “significant” portion of creativity to the finished product in order for it to be copyrighted. Not sure if this valid, but I am also looking into what the US Copyright office says about it.
@@mazmakesmusic That's not how it works... Simply going to Suno's Help Section outlines all of this as well as reading via the TOS. Quoted from the help page on Rights and Ownership "If you are a paying subscriber to Suno, then you own the songs you generate while subscribed to Pro or Premier, subject to your compliance with Suno’s Terms of Service. If you are using the Basic (free) version of Suno, we retain ownership of the songs you generate, but you are allowed to use those songs for non-commercial purposes, subject to your compliance with Suno’s Terms of Service." Also direct quote "If you created the songs while subscribed, you remain the owner of the song after you cancel your subscription. You will retain the commercial use license as well, so you can distribute the song(s) after you end a subscription." Also, they don't have a license from you to use your lyrics for whatever they want, if YOU wrote them. That's handled pretty easily, go get a copyright on the lyrics themselves. Suno is pretty clear on this. Even if you use your own lyrics while generating a song on the free plan, YOU retain ALL rights to those lyrics. Suno would still need to seek your permission to use them and pay you accordingly however, they do have the right to use your output in whatever way they deem fit, be it to further train the model or future models or any other ways that Suno see's fit to use the output to further the goals of the service. Does that mean they could take your hit track and turn it into Stems and let others play with it? Sure. However, if those people used your lyrics in their new songs, they would need to seek a license from you to commercialize their output using your lyrics, and, from what the TOS reads, this seems like something that would go against their TOS as I'm sure there is some roundabout way where it could possibly end up requiring Suno to pay a licensing fee for your lyrics to you Pretty straight forward: if you are paying for or paid for a Pro or Premier plan when you generated the song, then it belongs to you. Even if you cancel, you still own the rights to the song. The TOS goes way deeper into it, but not worth going that deep in a comment on UA-cam.
@@mazmakesmusic In certain circumstances, you may be correct. If users of Udio/Suno use their own copyrighted material to generate songs containing their own lyrics, vocals and/or instrumentation and melodies via uploading of their copyrighted recordings as prompts... this is where true legal battles will explode. And, kindly, I read your post, but please double space between some paragraphs in future.
@@mazmakesmusic You can only “bathe in the glory” of one thing, (original lyrics) because that is the one and only thing that a human can contribute to a suno created song in its present platform Your not creating music, your not even creating the vocal melody for your own lyrics You can’t “compare creative content generation” to “creative assistance to content” in other words suno is not a supportive Ai tool like auto tune or Melodyne as these products are fed human constructed content with intention of outcome, you sing in A minor and your off (because you’re only human )so the program moves the notes the the correct scale, even then you can alter the tuned notes from the ones chosen by the Ai to the ones you intended to hit or ones that just sound better in post (Side note; I also believe the way Antares Auto Tune is used as an effect is a fortunate, yet accidental by product, the stepped glissando first employed in Chers “Believe” 1998) You feed it the key and usually the “voice type” tenor, soprano, ect.. Of course some algorithms can follow a backing track and use that as a pitch and scale guide, think of the great old app “La La La” that oddly disappeared years ago I hear the ownership argument considering Ai generated songs from many perspectives Logically, Ethically it’s a no-brainer, but legally it can be challenging because the law is often times very far removed from both logic and ethics as the rules of law are malleable to how clever a lawyer can argue, that is what distinguishes a good lawyer from a poor one, These judgments will come from human-made law and as we witness time and time again Human-made anything is innately flawed
So, I have created all my lyrics, and I am using AI to do the music, and I am doing an Album of 12 - 17 song's. I am using Fivverr to re-create the song, musicians that are real. I asked this question before and never got an answer, but if you would be kind enough to answer that would be great. But, if I have the music re-created can I then get a copyright on this? I guess I will try. But any of your insight would be great. There is also another feature where you can record a small snippet of your voice singing your own original tune. So, if it is your own song, lyrics and tune, using AI would that be copyrightable since your using your own voice as a model, and your own tune? I use Suno.
If you are subscribed to Suno and create a song, you own the song in perpuity according to their terms of service. You can't copyright ANY partially of fully AI generated music though! BUT if you re-created your original composition that you generated on Suno, used human musicians that you can credit if you want, and got a singer to sing your lyrics, or yourself, you OWN the song, music and lyrics and you can copyright it and release it commercially for profit!!
@@vizionaryrecords Thank you for answering my question. I really appreciate it. I am just doing this process. I am having the music re-created, and I am going to be the one singing it. The person that is re-creating the music for me is just doing it as a work for hire. He has no interest in the copyright.
@@Musicmanbutte If you just copyright the lyrics/melody you own it, no one can copyright an arrangement of a song. The only thing you can't copy right are the same lyrics and melody of someone else's songs. So all the music tracks on suno should be fine to use and copyright as long as you know those tracks aren't ripping off someone's copyrighted lyrics/melody. Which I think would be highly unlikely if you have really customized the lyrics, melody and music by editing, extending, cropping, splicing, uploading the vocal/music original samples created by you and working it into a creative way etc.
Also I'm sure that millions of rap songs, rnb songs, pop songs, etc all recorded in the past 40 decades have been created using synth electronic instrument loops, and auto tune, to create tracks/songs, So not using real musicians but synth instruments. This is pretty much the same as ai (A Keyboard, synth board/ synth drums, Digital synth music/auto tune adjusted the vocal notes to a certain pitch) Synth music/loops have been used since the 60's. Ai is just the newer modern version of that.
People watching videos or reading articles discussing AI should know, some people using Udio or Suno (me) are uploading their own copyrighted vocals or instrumentation with their own copyrighted lyrics and melodies to prompt the AI. I don't pretend to know how, in that situation, the legality of it all will pan out, but it certainly will be interesting to watch unfold. If you are using the apps to generate everything from lyrics to instrumentation to vocals and melody, without any personal input, you simply will not ever own the copyright to any of it.
@@EXCAELIS_net So much this. I'm a live and let live kind of person. But, I've run across a bunch of channels where the owners have used the simplest and most obvious aspect of song AI (quickly developing a few prompts that always produce usable songs within the first few generations). Slap an image on. Upload to stream. Five months in and they've got 600 two minute songs posted. Typically electric, hip hop, EDM, dance stuff. The songs themselves are not terrible, some are even good. Clearly doing it to try and make money. Do they understand the very act of what they're doing will kill the ability to make more than a few dollars? I can't help but think about things like the prison and school industries. It's not the same, but similar. Private equity gets involved. The people who actually do all the work, prison staff, guards, etc get paid less, worse benefits, shittier work environment. Same with private schools. Teachers, coaches and admins get paid less, worse benefits, everything. And the new private owners of it all are not held to any kind of decent standard. It's just baffling. All the normal, average working people get screwed, prison population gets screwed, which comes back to haunt all of us. And yet, tons of average people take great pleasure out seeing their fellow average humans get fucked over. It's so painful to watch happen.
@@EXCAELIS_net Yeah I wish suno/udio would get rid of the free options and instead focus on serious songwriters/singers in the music business or who want to be taken serious with commercial releases/demos to get into the door. All those other ai music cites that do satire cartoon/celebrities voices / silly songs, and that use ai generated lyrics should be used for normal people who want to make a singing grams for fun but not profit.
@@EXCAELIS_net that is why they have that agreement clause that the lyrics you type in or audio you upload is your own copyrighted material. I can't imagine they would have their ai set up to use copyright lyrics when someone prompts it to recreated Mariah Carey song as that would bring up the red box say sorry we can not do that.
I think that the training of the song should be a canard since in the past only the expression was questioned. Copywrite usually only addressed the actual expression. otherwise any song author should have to pay royalties based on any song they heard
DJ’s have made full beats out of breakdowns , intros and outros on vinyl records > which they did this same thing with sampling , but what I like about sampling is you still get permission for the most part to use it , but also one can break a sample completely down and just use the drum sounds , snare , hi hat, bass drum , and play them totally different with a new melody and it becomes a new song 😊
If the lawsuits crush music AI apps, I dearly hope the same happens to writing AI and art generation sites that have decimated the livelihoods of real writers and artists.
Great break-down as always...Thank you for bringing the value-content. 💯%....I believe in the end AI will lose this battle in regards to commercial purposes, and maybe its existence will just be allowed for personal and customized request for the general public use, which still will be viable financially to the company. For those artist/professionals, who are marketing music commercially, AI will be a part of their team for creativity, to enhance their work-production to bring us a plethora of new creative material, that we will enjoy and praise in the end...And as far as the Record Industry, they will still continue to very slowly lose their grip, as Artist Independence continue to flourish, and thrive. So this will actually be win, win, win situations, but for the "greedy" (i.e. Those Select Labels), they will continue to never ever see the [Square-Root] increases of their investment like in the good ole days of the past. 💣🎶👀🤓
I would say that the weight of the lawsuit depends on the ultimate usage. If it's for commercial use, then it's clear copyright infringement. Given that the copyright holder can sufficiently prove that their music was used to train the AI. But, here's where the lawsuit loses ground, if a user of their service creates a musical piece by way of a prompt that is clearly copyrighted material and uses it commercially, that is not the provider's liability. The most likely commercial usage would be Spotify, so the label would have to sue both the "artist" and Spotify, but Suno or Odio.. They need a way to identify when a piece generated by their service may be infringing on a copyright and issue a warning. Should the user download the piece anyway, then they would have waived Suno or Odio of any liability. Timabalnd is probably there to help them with public relations, nothing more.. What the label has to do is make adjustments for this new technology because it is here to stay and will eventually put the old guard to rest. Adapt, survive, or die.
It would be the provider's liability, especially since they store and distribute the infringing material to the user. That whole idea of it not being the provider's liability died with Napster. It's called "contributory infringement". And Napster was P2P, I dont think they even directly stored copyrighted content on servers, but Suno itself stores and distributes whatever infringing material users extract from their AI model on their servers. So likely, the same infringement claim and more could be charged against Suno.
There are already services for that, e.g. Ircam AI Music Detector. Platforms could implement it. But they obviously don't want to. And it doesn't require much imagination to see why. And I agree. Suno, Udio etc. are commercial services. They make a lot of money with their technology and directly compete with those whose rights they infringe. That just can't be compatible with fair use.
@@EXCAELIS_net The basis of the lawsuit is based on the possibility that their AI application has been trained on copyrighted material. The only way to prove that is by seizing their database. Even if they did use protected intellectual property, by the time the courts allow for their database to be seized, that material is gone. In fact, it already is, if that is the case. So the lawsuit has no weight.
@@gensoustudio4703 not really if you were a drug dealer that bought the drugs from a "company" that sold them to you on the notion that you signed and agreed that you were not going to be selling the drugs legally and that you had a license to sell the drugs than the legal responsibility belongs to you. So if you go on the break that agreement and get caught by police for selling drugs and you go to jail, not the company you signed a legal agreement with that you broke that was against the law.
@@StafonSalon except in this case the drug company was given a Cease and Desist to stop distributing drugs to illegal dealers and continued. Also you have it totally backwards. in actuality the original copyright owners would be the legitimate distributors and Suno IS the drug dealer distributing to people in violation of an agreement.
How do we feel about artists like Quinten Tarantino who openly admits to stealing entire scenes shot for shot from movies he loves. Is it wrong for a guitarist to have an arpeggiator on his keyboard write him a cool random string of notes in a certain key, and then learn to play it on guitar? He didn't technically create that, a computer did. Or musicians openly stealing parts from others people songs to use for their own. You can go watch people openly admit to "stealing someone's bassline and just removing a note or 2" or just playing it faster/slower. Humans have been "stealing" from each other forever to create new art. People rip off classical musicians all the time. They just aren't around to complain. I personally feel that using AI to help you create a jumping off point for your art isn't the worst thing. To steal a riff from an AI generated song, or a melody you liked. But to just have AI spit out a song, you post it and call it your own? Now that I don't agree with. It should be a tool, not the end all be all.
I feel similar to you. AI is another creative tool just like anything else. If you mess up unintentionally and do create similar melodies to another artist you'll find out sooner or later.
@mrmikemrmike nope you don't understand how AI literally steals/scrapes other people's content without compensation to mash up and spit out its own content. It's blatant theft and should be prosecuted.
@@Jay-wk9xj how do you think every musician writes music? We draw from our influences and the music we’ve been listening to lately. Nothing is original anymore, just a variation of it’s influences. It’s all just recycled.
I’m not happy with AI-generated music because it undermines the creativity of musicians. The essence of composing music lies in the art of songwriting, melody, and rhythm-all of which require hours of hard work and dedication. Music is a deeply personal expression, and relying on AI to create it diminishes the unique human touch that comes from genuine artistic effort. True music is born from inspiration, emotion, and the countless hours spent refining each note, and that irreplaceable process cannot be replicated by algorithms.
it can and it has. just like that Industrial Revolution replaced shoemakers that spent their entire life learning a craft, only to have their effort replaced my factories and machines. It's no different and it has been happening for millennia. You adapt or you get left behind. Use the tools to make your artists works even better or be left behind. Evolve or die; it has been that way since time began
I use prompts to generate five songs on one subject. I then copy paste the lyrics to a notepad. From there I re-arrange the best verses and edit them a bit. From there I generate a somewhat decent song. Good song for D&D background anyway
It is kinda crazy, all this. Any new or even established musician has spent years listening to music from various sources, right? So, any music that they produce has influence from those years of listening. It's not that different from how the AI learned really. Where else is the AI supposed to learn from? Additionally, what about using reference tracks for mastering, we don't have, per se, permission to use the sonic characteristics of any track.
we cant coexist when with 1 billion ai tracks are made every day. imagine 1 billion new tracks every day uploaded to spotify how irrelevant music will become.
Let ai take over. F these Record labels, they just don't want competition. I use suno I write all my songs I do the album artwork and own distribution. I am an artist and my work proves it. I also use pro logic with it. It's just a different way to create music. Get used to it 😊
If you can "create" a song by prompt and get the output created by AI, then who/what actually created the composition and the recording? How would you even begin to copyright something like that?
I agree that if you prompt ai to make you a song, that should be tagged as created by ai and that no one has any rights to use it for profit, However if they created all of the lyrics and use their own music upload original samples/vocals/melody/lyrics than they can say yes its my work I created it. Ai would only be a creative tool at that point like edm, synth instrument loops, auto tune, electronic effects, etc. So there is a difference.
People who create using AI song generators are not creators. It’s that simple. If I go into a restaurant and order a hamburger and tell them no tomato, then am I the chef? There is a difference between making something and ordering something and all these people are doing is ordering it off the menu. That’s not creation.
my guess is that you haven't used one of these platforms? because otherwise you would know that in order to get anything decent out of them, hours of work is required per song. it is in no way similar to ordering a hamburger. in some areas these platforms make song creation easier, in other areas they make it harder. they add to the creative process, and they also block.
@@noisetheorem that isn’t true, you can upload your own music, (your voice), remix the song, and use your own lyrics and voice to make a better produced song. So much more than just ordering off a menu
Actually they are getting better, you can upload you playing an instrument or just singing capella and the ai will listen to it and extend on it, sometimes it will even clone your voice to sound just like you or you can use an ai singer if you can't sing but want to get the song to sound like what you want in your head. You are able to extended, edit, crop or pick how you want the track to sound and you can push/steer it in the direction that you want. It's a tool. I do agree that people that just prompt in "make me a song about..." are not creating anything that would be what I would call not a creater. So we need to have some sort of protocol between ai doing all of the work verse someone using ai as a tool in their creative process of making their own music.
Sure creativity is one of, if not THE most valuable naturally occuring human abilities. Its highly sought after in any of its many forms and rare individuals that have it are often times a mess because of it..its all great to be creative and artistic until your surrounded by the masses that dont possess a very creative ability, then jealousy, maliciousness and all the rest are that individuals fate.
I think the AI text to image generation can teach you a lot about this. You can make pictures of the most absurd things that have never been thought of before, but it can do them perfectly, not because it copies, but because it predicts. Just like an artist knows from experience what "good" and "real" looks like, and can then transpose that knowledge into the new. There is no copying going on. It is knowledge, wisdom, and prediction.
I think it's possible to train AI and get clearance from artists. Many might be happy to contribute their works, but when there's no clear consent, I see a problem. I don't have an issue with the technology, I have an issue with the ethics of training data.
Suno, Udio et cetera, are selling cars, very cheap and easy to drive cars, that were previously unavailable to the public. The great major labels are selling petrol and gas, they're fine with Ai selling cars but they're definitely not fine if the ai company start to sell petrol or gas.
People felt the same way when music went from actual bands, instruments, drums ect. To beat machines and autotunes any time something is uncomfortable and is changing the norm people are going to be mad. The thing is, it isn't going away. 🤷🏿♀️
I’d mixdown his song, but I’m cynical of the intentions and strategy involved, I’ve done work for big artists in the past and been totally screwed over, I’m not eager to revisit that past into the future! Good luck to the Ai they announce the winner!!! Suno has a feature where you can upload your original works to the ai for “restructuring” it’s hardly easy! To remix Mr. Mosley’ s song using suno is gonna take days not minutes not hours but days of nonstop tinkering and each generation wether successful or not costs money! so there is an expense involved that quickly adds up! Who’s to stop them from remixing your remix and claiming it as their own? Nobody! Unless an artist is in constant state of screen recording the entire process I guess! Even with ai assisted tracks it’s still extremely hard work to create beautiful hard won songs it might take fifty generations and sub generations to find a sound that works with your lyrics then eq level balancing vocal editing etc etc etc to say those using ai music platforms are not artists shows a lack of comprehension to artistic expression, recording process and the efforts involved of those determined to explore it! Yes anyone can generate a song, but not just anyone can next level that into something superior than ai can create! Thats Artistry! 💋
It is kind of ironic that as the Industry as a whole embraces pitch correction and auto-tune so much, the true unique sound of a real person is disappearing. Except it seems in AI generated?
I like how Suno basically admitted that they trained their AI on other artist's work, but told their AI not to copy things too closely. I can only laugh.
IF you do not mind me offering my two cents. I have songs that I have taken from my privately owned creations (Using Guitar). I wrote Christmas in Heaven, and This year Christmas is in Heaven as examples. My Uncle wrote My Heart Surrenders. All can be found on my UA-cam Channel. All of these song are so close to the original it is unbelievable. Only difference, SUNO Ai allows someone like myself to fill in the vocal and background music with professional sounds. Ai is no replacement for real singers, and is why I am looking for anyone interested in performing these songs. Hell I am not looking to make a ton of money from anyone. The fact remains, SUNO would have made it to where they are with or without using copy protected material or fair use material. Still up to the courts to determine, but sounds logical if they are only using clips. I call it the inevitable discovery of Ai(LOL Yes Have a background in Public Justice) I mean I would be more worried about Ai putting actors out of work. :) Anyway, I watch your channel all the time. You are fair and amazing my friend! I will be interested what happens to channels like mine if the courts find them in violation of copy right laws.
This is really an "INTERESTING" video, because I am using the platform "SUNO" to produce "MUSIC" myself. And, I took a paused because of "OWNERSHIP," concerns. Yet, I love the "PLATFORM," because of its ease of use. However, I am bothered by all of this because, I am able to get a "LOT" of work done with it, and a have "CONCERNS" about who owns the "COPYRIGHTS," of this type of creative expression. I am an "INDEPENDENT" artist who is very INTERESTED in the "LEGAL" aspects of what is happening. I am a very "PROLIFIC" songwriter, And, I find AI to be quite beneficial in my "CREATIVE PROCESS...! It also enhances my "MUSICAL PRODUCTION" efforts, as well as saving me, enormous amounts of time...!
Be sure to read the current terms of service as it relates to uses for a free account v. a paid account - my understanding is that Suno generally is allowing for commercial uses (with some conditions for free accounts)
Both Udio and Suno allow you to use the content you create on their platforms in a commercial sense so long as you are using one of their paid accounts. So, for instance, I'm presently working on an album and using Suno to generate the music. If I was using the free version of it, I would not be able to distribute/sell/publish outside of Suno other than for personal use, but because I pay for my account, I can post that content to UA-cam as I create it and if I wanted to, I could also sign up with a music distribution company and have it be available for streaming and purchase.
@@djslip_irie I write lyrics. Something that is very hard for gringos from matching culdesacs to do. They have shitty dialect and no real life experience anyone considers compelling. I'm sorry rappers dont need you button pushers with no culture curating our vibes anymore. Some poor kid is gonna write a song that brings down goverments soon. THINK BIGGER MY BISHES
AI has a use in the industry. For example in my case. I'm experimenting with AI just for the creation of the music either instrumental and I can write lyrics to or to create an entire song with lyrics and vocals. Which I can re-record later with my own vocals. Solely because I do not play any instruments nor have to ability to create the music to write lyrics to myself.
I don't think it's a threat really. I understand the initial perception. But I've made music for 20 years and I just don't see it doing it for you. It will spit out cookie cutter songs all day long, but to make something truly noteworthy, you still have to know your shit. I've created a song with Suno, and it's actually damn good. Now it is. I was multi-tracking, mixing, filtering, combing parts.. for 5 days! Not with Suno. With Ardour, some standalone VSTi's and Audacity. There is no "Generate Song" button that can even touch what I've done, even using a VERY minimal DAW and editing configuration. The separation between the men and the boys is no less pronounced.
Being opposed to Generative AI art/music doesn't make you anti-technology, or even anti "AI". There was a reason that the U.S. government issued meetings to discuss and differentiate between "good AI" vs. "bad AI". I would say that good AI is that which solves problems, and AI has plenty of potential for that. The primary function of generative AI art has been to cause problems rather than to solve them.
I write the chords and lyrics to my songs and I’m a singer, but I am not proficient at an instrument and have minimal technical skills when it comes to DAWs. AI opens doors for me that were slammed in my face previously. I have multiple notebooks FULL of full-on songs that may actually see the light of day now. I don’t mean to be overly dramatic, but I feel like I’ve had a huge handicap removed from me overnight.
if it's not a copy of a song arrangement or lyrics i don't think copyright should be involved. Regardless of AI or not. The real issue here is music labels want the AI profits for themselves. If Udio and Suno get shut down the labels will put their own versions out and still pay artists very little. As far as artists go, they need to embrace the tech and move out of the pre AI worldview of how music is created.
Here are some random thoughts: - We’ve moved from The Beatles to The Robots. - The internet devalues the challenges, thrills, frustrations, pain, and fear of creating. Obsessed with attention, we let computers dictate our lives. It prioritizes passive engagement with corporate agendas and tech addiction over real-life activities like composing, learning, painting, or writing. - Our attention-seeking nature lowers standards. - Why learn proper sheet music and theory for five years when $10.99 can make you feel like a great producer with easily accessible stolen ideas? You find it super cool until You’re bored after five prompts and move on. “AI is great for sampling” is true if you’re not the owner of the song the chatbox is stealing without consent. -You have no moral ground to tell anyone to pay for your music when you don’t pay for others’ creations. You complain about computer illiteracy and worry about hackers stealing your mom’s credit card, yet you consume fast, cheap, easily accessible (for a subscription fee) entertainment that replaces critical thinking and art. No excuses. Don’t point at the minority of traditional artists who do the right thing. These tools put the average consumer in the seat of a classical trained artist without experience or respect for the subject. They don’t understand anything about the process, to them, It’s just “content.” Where’s the process? Did you forget? The internet has fundamentally changed how people enjoy art for the worst. I truly hate it here.
no... I am a hip hop producer who is also Security Analytics Data Scientist [ML Engineer for Info security] ORKO's comments capturing the argument I was going to make
Regarding the claim that this lawsuit is trying to stop technology from doing great things etc. I think that for the most part, generative AI Art/music is here to create problems rather than to solve them. The reality is that there was never a necessity for Generative AI music, to begin with. We live in an age where there is so much existing human music, including much high quality music, which most people never got around to listening to. The primary function of generative AI music is to take away artistic opportunity from humans, and hand it over to machines. (I'm not saying that there's absolutely no benefit from it at all, but I think that the immense harm that it's causing to artists, by far outweighs whatever good it may be bringing)
Every songwriter in history is influenced by music they have already heard. Because a computer "listens" to other music before creating its own, this is infringement? I say it is not. I view services like Suno as useful tools for songwriting.
Agreed! Imagine Suno as a person, how would that person learn what good music is? By listening. And how would that person learn good musical technique? By emulating. And trying not to sound too close to the music we were influenced by so we don't accidentally rip someone off. Suno just does it all faster. I do think it has potential to cause over saturation of available content causing more artists to get lost in the noise. Still gonna be a minute before I see AI performing an stage though I'd guess.
Prompting (throwing dices) with stolen goods ( the data of the LLMs) paying 10 dollars a month to Suno/Udio whaterver calling it "art" ... doesnt that feel so sad? Its a tool as people say but its not "your" Tool its someone elses tools. The comparison to a digital camera I saw here somewhere is a joke. Its more like the user of these services becomes a tool for the services (collecting your data). Its really hard to see a reason to be a part of this weird trap of a devaulation system (thats not even necessary as I can see it at least atm) which I guess means theres no reason for anyone to put up anything of real interest online anymore. Will the new sport 2025 be to avoid giving away data to stupid people? :)
i create through the recording of the sound designing and engineering the sounds of instruments- tweeked in key/or synthesizing boards. Mixing is adding artist or other lisenced artists to collaborate a form of new art. Right? I mean the whole licencing is to protect the CO-OP in the Masters for changing the originals to a feature for promo to the independent contracts in working together to band support as having all parties and the fair trades in the merchandise and added services to make that song succeed to a radio and performing responsibilities to make it work. Royalties, i believe is a guarantee refection of its success or insurances . This is why the royalties come from its results of the art and its creation processing? And fair use is its regilation for distribution to all parties and contractors to make sure everyone protected from that profit distribution. Am i Right? Just concise to my understanding this side of the music writing industry. Im curious to know as because ive been needing the to know this for quite some time. Its not easy finding a music attorney, like fire assayers, HARD to find..
If a singer learns to sing with a singing teacher at a music college, will he have to pay the teacher anything if he succeeds in his career? Obviously not. And all their lives, bands have been inspired by other bands, and have made their own original songs, based on a particular musical genre. Because musical genres don't have owners. The big record companies don't own musical genres. They have to eat and shut up. Adapt to the new life. In fact, many bands are creating music with AI and then playing the music on their real instruments, having been inspired by the AIs, and making their own originals that the AIs have created for them. These are the modern IAS cover bands. Get your fucking heads out of your asses! What these big companies want is to keep manipulating people and the musicians themselves, because they have to get it into their heads that their world is going to end. Not the musicians, but the big companies are going to break up into smaller companies!!!
The same question applies to driverless cars and traditional taxi. Can they co exist? AI music give some people the freedom to create the kind of music they like. But, many will also still enjoy real musicians' work so that they can attend some gigs.
I think we also should talk about how the AI makes sound, how it recreates instruments. It's primarily using granular synthesis, or resynthesis, right? So it needs some grains of a sample to recreate the desired instrument. It is microsampling. So when they say the music is just for training and nothing is sampled, I think it's not the whole truth. That could open up a whole new legal discussion about if using millisecond long samples to create instruments can be fair use. In the case of AI, I think it's not. If I put a short sample of a song in my granular synth, probably nobody would care because it's hard to compare it to the original sample when listening to the final song. But I can't sell this granular synth preset with the sample in it. Software developers licence such samples or produce their own, because everyone could look at the the samples in their plugin. We can't follow the sound design process in Suno and Udio, they can hide what samples are in their synth and how long they are. But they are music software developers, so they should make their own Instruments and sample libraries like every renowned company does.
the foundamental problem is nobody asked creators if they wanted to opt out of the "everything-all-at-once" cultural shift. Personally I don't enjoy buffets... I'd rather eat at a good restaurant.
I was waiting to hear what you have to say about this.I think Timberland is smart because AI is going to win, what I want to know is if there was even such thing as train models a decade ago ?
AI music feels like Casper the Friendly Ghost. A benevolent and cheeky spirit that isn’t quite of this world, but sort of is. Or was. Translucent but not transparent. Made of everything that ever happened before plus a few skeletons in the closet, and that’s why we love/hate it.
I use copyrighted material to train my brain all the time and I use it to create new music that's similar to what I've learned. That's fair use. The fact that somebody has made a machine that can do that same thing does not mean that it no longer is fair use.
what you are saying, makes no sense since you use the inspiration to develop new ideas made "by yourself and with your own voice" if you tryna sound smart, you better off just not commenting at all.
Apart from cases where the similarity goes so far that it also infringes rights, there is a big difference between a human being with all the factors that transform whatever experiences it accumulates into what that being creates and an algorithm that processes input data and generates an output from it, however complicated. Besides, some new technologies simply require new laws if there is a significant potential to cause damage to humans or society. After all, that's what laws are (should) be for.
I am not a fan of stolen artistic content in any form but I do find it hilarious that musical artists had no issues with using AI for image generation for video content are now crying foul over musical ai. I say at this point, enjoy the bed you made ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What many people miss is that it's not an "either-or". We can have AI music, but tech companies have to license the music for training AI. Simple. They cannot make all profit from other people's work, and expect we are fine.
then we should all pay a fine for making music film books etc based on things we have seen/heard from other inspirations that we all as humans have based our work on for hundreds/thousands of years. That is why country, pop, rnb, etc can not be copyrighted as a style because it is used as a basis to create new works out of a style of music to our liking. Now if you straight up copy the same melody & lyrics then yes that is copyright infringement. Same as if you are coping melody using same music but changing the lyrics to become parody you have to get a license and permission from the copyright holders. However if your create a new song that has never been done before and might have a part that was inspired by another song then that is up to. the courts. I mean seems like all pop songs are starting to sound the same. Miley Cyrus is getting sued over saying flowers which was in an another song. So inspiration is being attacked now as you copied me and i'm suing for money money money, when if you look at it, nothing is truly original everyone has picked up on other peoples work that picked up on other peoples work. So it goes on and on, that is why it can be in a grey area. similar vers a true rip off vers a small rip off it all comes down to money and jealously and who copied righted what song first and if they ripped off the song fully, partly or just did a similar sound as an inspiration.
That’s the usual fallacy. The CEOs and employees of tech companies are not musicians, they are not inspired from music, they don’t learn from music, they just steal the masters and use them to set up an industrial process of software production. That has nothing to do with what artists do, as artists don't steal the digital files for commercial purposes.
I thought they would have been shut down by the record companies by now. How do you prove you're a composer when anyone can spit out a Zimmer track in a few seconds?
Our rate of technological advancement over the last 120 years has almost certainly outpaced our growth in wisdom regarding how to deal with new technologies. So my opinions below may be an indication of just how foolish I still am :). I think AI music could be considered a kind of health hazard to musicians who create music organically from within. AI music replacing human made music is different from say, the car replacing the horse and buggy, in that there are emotional/mental ties to making music the old fashioned way which can affect our health and well being, and that don't exist in a strictly material production environment. As a part-time composer, I've experienced first hand the hurt of losing gigs to AI. Those hurts were much more emotional/mental than financial since I have a good paying full time job and don't need the money from composing. These hurts were not so much because my composing skills were inferior to AI, but that I lost purpose to create more music. How do I regain that artistic purpose to help maintain my well being? Become a painter? Nope, AI is a kind of health hazard there as well. A couple possible solutions might be gleaned from looking at the tobacco industry. First, music that uses AI should be labeled as such, similar to how a pack of cigarettes is labeled as a potential health hazard. Second, use of AI could be banned in certain circumstances, like how smoking has been banned in restaurants. What those circumstances are is debatable, but copyright infringement is probably one of them. Other thoughts?
hi thanks , its going to destroy the music industry/entertainment industry as a whole people dont think 5 to 10 years down the line its here Ai will replace songwriters and demo singers as a whole and it sad.
ai is replacing everything, google search is ai, photos, videos, music, avatars, etc everything is using ai now, ai voice clones, ai avatar clones of yourself, deep fakes, etc its already here and isn't going anywhere.
This is such complicated lawsuit bc I really don’t like either party’s motives but that being said I have to get on the side of the record labels. I wish this were a class action suit of musicians v. AI music generation platforms. I think we need to protect our industry the same way the actors guild did-and I’m NOT anti-technology! I think there are definitely exciting applications for this technology BUT I absolutely hate that our content is being used to train these ai models without our consent. I think the argument that a piece of a technology learns the way a human would is absolutely invalid. An ai model does not choose to invest its limited time and resources to learn music. Fair use should not apply to an ai model. A human being is dumping copyrighted works into this model in order to make a profit. This is NOT like a kid learning to play guitar by listening to music. This is a company exploiting the lack of legal guardrails with a new technology to make a profit without any regard for copyright laws that are meant to protect the work of musicians, producers, etc. They should be required to acquire consent before using copyrighted works to train their technology.
ai is alike a person listening to all types of music and creating new music from what they heard. It just does it faster and better than us. So if you grew up listening to certain artists you loved you were influenced by them and created your own take of their music style. So honestly ai using public music to learn from falls under the fair use for education purposes to train and teach the ai on music styles. None of my songs have ever been flagged as having any part of a copyrighted part in it. So I believe the ai is writing original influence music tracks now. However the record labels that used suno to use copyright lyrics to steer the ai to make a copycat backing track/song that violated the rules of sunio/udio to not use copyright lyrics/audio clips unless they owned them. In this case if they owns all the mastered tracks but not the song copy-write then they broke the rules, even if they owned both rights it was them telling the ai to create it. If a regular person did that, the record company could sue that regular person, but since the label did it Suno/udio would win because they just provided the ai tool but didn't break the laws as the record labels or regular people brake copyright law, they were the ones driving the car so to speak.
I understand the argument on the other side, I just think it’s an irresponsible precedent to set. Ai is not autonomous and it is NOT like a human. It is software. It is a tool that is designed by human beings. It does not learn like a human precisely because of how quickly it stores and organizes data. It connects an incredible amount of information but it is a completely superficial treatment of data. It is essentially more like a calculator and a search engine. There must always be a way to trace accountability back to the people who created the software. What these generative music ai do is create a collage of sounds that it determines is the best solution to your prompt. Unless Suno can prove that its software produces sound from oscillators then it IS using a form of sampling from music that was fed into it. It just so happens that the sample processing is so granular that the resulting music is difficult to trace to the exact sources. If it is not generating sound from raw waveforms then it is sampling. The input given to it absolutely was copyrighted music if they cannot prove that they composed their own genre music to feed to this software themselves. There is no fair use exception here. They are making this software available to make a profit from the consumer-not to educate their consumers.
@@Mhmusiccc I'm taking that you haven't used suno? It has so many features that allows you to upload your own audio clips up to 2 mins now that you play an instrument, hum or sing. It allows you to edit, crop, extend, you have control over the final output. It's come so far to being a very creative tool for songwriters.
@@StafonSalon it’s okay that you like Suno. Use whatever tools you want. I’m against Suno training their music generation ai model with copyrighted music without paying royalties or getting permission from copyright holders.
@@Mhmusiccc they probably didn't have the money to, also if its considered fair use to train/educate a robot "ai" its no different than a person listing to the radio to learn the craft of singing and songwriting and then making their own music from observing the craft of music. If the ai was downloading data verses listening to data that is a factor that would have to be proved in court.
AI and Music Creation: A Tool, Not a Threat It’s understandable that some musicians feel uneasy about AI’s growing role in music creation, but it’s important to take a step back and consider the bigger picture. Technology has always played a crucial role in shaping the way we create and experience music. From the use of synthesizers to sampling, digital audio workstations (DAWs), guitar pedals, pitch correction, and even autotune, artists have long embraced technological innovations to push the boundaries of their sound. The question, then, is why is AI any different? The argument that AI-generated music somehow diminishes the value of music created by “real musicians” often comes from a place of fear-fear of competition, fear of change, and fear of the unknown. However, AI is not about replacing musicians; it’s about expanding the tools available for creative expression. Just like any other technology, AI is a tool-and like all tools, its value comes from how it is used. Critics often fail to recognize the effort and artistry that goes into AI-generated music when used by serious artists. AI is not a “one-click solution.” For those of us who use AI in music creation, it involves a deep and careful process, with hours spent shaping, refining, and perfecting both the text and the music. The idea that you simply give a command like “create a song about a dandelion in the pavement” and immediately receive a polished masterpiece is a gross oversimplification. AI requires just as much attention to detail as any other music production tool. Moreover, many of the same musicians who criticize AI for “replacing creativity” are likely using tools that also alter sound or enhance performance in their own work-whether through loops, digital effects, or advanced production techniques. Are these not also forms of technological assistance? Why is AI singled out as “bad” when it’s just another step in the evolution of music production? The reality is that technological advancements have always met resistance. Every industry has seen similar reactions throughout history. Whether it was the introduction of electric instruments, digital recording, or even word processing software replacing typewriters-people always fear what’s new. But just as we don’t expect writers to go back to carving letters into stone, we shouldn’t fear the creative potential AI brings to the table. The heart of the issue often lies in the fact that AI represents a challenge to the status quo. It levels the playing field, allowing more people to express their creativity in new ways. This, understandably, makes some musicians feel their careers or artistry are being threatened. But in truth, AI doesn’t replace creativity-it enhances it, offering more ways to bring unique artistic visions to life. For musicians who take the time to understand AI and use it as a tool rather than seeing it as a shortcut, there is vast potential. The key is not to view AI as the enemy, but to see it for what it is: a new medium for artistic expression. Just as we’ve embraced technology in so many other aspects of music production, it’s time we embrace AI and recognize it for the powerful tool it can be. Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that AI allows for greater accessibility in music creation. Not everyone has access to a full studio, a team of session musicians, or expensive equipment. AI opens the door for independent creators, giving them the tools to bring their artistic visions to life without the need for excessive resources. In this sense, AI democratizes the creative process-allowing more voices to be heard in an industry that can sometimes feel exclusive.
that's a lot of words to ignore the editors and ghost writers who have already died since the introduction of AI. What you gonna make the guitars out of when the environmental damage of AI servers is beyond repair?
@@MarsInFlight AI saves power because it eliminates jobs. Eliminating jobs is cool because it means americans consume less. American consumption is greatest cause of environmental destruction on earth. Most of the factories that pollute in china just building garbage for you to consume. Are you gonna make guitars out of cheese slice wrappers when the container ships from abroad stop being your butler?
@@andydinomoolaRight. Pure theft. Nobody in the history of music has ever been able to simply take someone else's work and spit out a replica in five seconds. Look up a new developing tech called Harmony Cloak which gives musician's a way to fight back by putting a "poison pill" frequency in their tracks which is undetectable to human ears but detetable to AI which degrades AI output. There is absolutely no reason everyone should be able to do everything. AI generation technology as it exists today without real guard rails is anti-human and anti-creativity.
In my opinion AI should be used as a reference,sketch and or inspiration idea as well as information source. Incorporating it in your projects takes the joy out of learning, creating, and networking with other talented creatives. The music or any creation you ask AI to do for you becomes soulless if you’re allowing it to do all the heavy lifting.
The powers that truly are pushing a.i are much bigger than the music industry,they will have their way,the music industry is just feeling the rumble,get with the times or get left behind, this just another case of wagon owners saying how car drivers aren’t truly “working” for their travels. 🙄,but don’t fret ,when blockchain rolls in, ai will govern this and much more.
Timberland knows a lot of people aren’t actually built to make music. He mentioned something similar in a recent interview. So if you believe he sell out! I’d say no he’s looking to make a change from artists & producers that don’t wanna do the work to make an AUTHENTIC sound
The far reaching ramifications of this court case is not just music, but machine learning as a whole. If an AI can't learn from created works and is limited by how much cash a company has to pay for every word, every image, also who sets the prices? You know who wins that this point? The countries that completely ignore copyright laws. You will see a massive amount of companies magically relocate to chinese servers or offshore chinese services. AI is here to stay. Even the Government is making AI for homeland security. I believe this is going to change the face of fair use in a massive control where you lose your freedom of fair use or everything once created can be fair use for creative means. Either we keep the right to fair use or they destroy it for means of control and pursuit for the mighty dollar. This is Napster 2.0
Not really an argument, just a funny thought I had. What if I asked Weird Al Yankovic to write me a song. And prompted him to write about peaches. (Would he go the Bieber route, or The Presidents of the United States of America route?) Obviously this is different scenario and not a great comparison, but has some similarities.
Anyone calling ai a tool is one too. If you cannot use your own intelligence, then you're your own problem and nothing is going to change it but you. Remember that a country built on colonizing the places and things of others should not be asked if taking things is art full.
where does that leave people who are capable of using both their intelligence, and also ai? Beethoven (for example) was born into a society which was a product of colonisation. I guess even his opinion on creativity should be considered irrelevant?
@@johnlacey155 yes Beethoven's opinion on this industry and the creativity it takes to be in it are irrelevant. He never had to sell records, and if someone had intelligence on top of creativity they wouldn't use ai. This era is full of "average at best" ppl trying to bully the rest of the world into accepting mediocre.
@@mgd9151Beethoven was in the music industry as it stood then, which was more fickle than it is now (and he's still in the industry as it stands now). I disagree that ai isn't useful to someone who already has significant creativity and intelligence. most great contemporary musicians value inputs from collaborators. even Prince was known for hearing things his band were playing on the sidelines and saying "what was that?". ai gives you hundreds of additional collaborators for a few bucks/month. it's pretty cheap. your last statement is the one that I do agree with. but this is true in multiple domains, not just music.
Depends how you use it. If you are telling ai "Create me a song about..." Then hell no, you did not write the song, ai did and its just a fun game for a non songwriter. If you write all of the lyrics yourself, upload your 2 min track that you sung on, providing the melody, played and instrument on, then that is when it becomes a tool to the creative song writing process. Other than that if you don't then no, you are not a songwriter and it shouldn't be claimed that yes I wrote a song when it was really not you that wrote it.
no, AI and artists can't coexist, on account of the AI destroying the planet the artists live on. Timbaland going all out knowing we'll never forgive JT is unsurprising though
@@ZacxOff conspiracies? You mean like the reality of reactivating 3-mile island just to power ONE of these many new servers? not my fault you're a willfully ignorant fuckwit with no touch on reality
@@ZacxOff conspiracy theories like his mother recounting the voicemails of chester breaking down? You're criminally uninformed, so don't bother wasting my time further.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
How Do You Feel About AI In Music?
🟡 Become your Own Record Label: Use discount code LABEL30 to get 30% off our "Become Your Own Record Label" course. (This offer is valid for the one-time payment option only.)
www.topmusicattorney.com/becomeyourownrecordlabel
💻 #1 Resource For Artists And Producers: www.topmusicattorney.com
⚖ Hire An Attorney: www.delgadoentertainmentlaw.com
📰 Get My Newsletter: www.topmusicattorney.com/newsletter/
🎧 Listen To The TMA Podcast On All Streaming: www.topmusicattorney.com/podcast
machines do not learn in the same way humans do. machines have no life experience.
if you taught this supposed intelligence in the same manner as a human and play music on actual instruments with robots what would it come up with?
i don't care what anyone says it's not easy to write a good song. AI music always sounds like something else...
in the 80s drummer Bill Bruford was asked about how he felt about the rising popularity of the Linn Drum and drum machines and sequencers. he said he liked it because it made him think in a manner of 'what can i do that a machine can't'
i think ultimately AI will make live performance and improvisational skills more valuable in the long term ...
then again i tend to be overly optimistic
😄
thanks for the excellent vids o7
I have been creating music with Suno AI but I have no real idea what to do wit it. I made 75 songs and videos but music seems so controlled and dominated that my music has no chance against that. Just a hobby for my 50s i guess, I always wanted to be a singer and songwriter, Suno gave me the voice to do it with. love your channel, I would love to see you work it inside a courtroom.
nobody has copyright over language and how its used be it in speech or song , and as far as cadance goes , it can be mathematically broken down to a sort of code similar to morse code , so the only way your song can be copyright infringed is through verbatim, just saying a phrase like , three little birds sit by my doorstep , "bob marley" can not be infringement because no matter what genre u say or sing this in it will still sound familiar.
Ai is everywhere now. Music mastering, creating songs, ai videos, ai photos, etc. I think Ai is a cool tool for moms, serious songwriters and people just looking to create a birthday song or shoutout to a family member, etc, however I do see the unfairness aspect to real musicians, singers and songwriters. If someone who isn't a songwriter prompts ai to make them a song and tries to claim it as their song, I don't think that is a songwriter and they should not be getting paid for it or flooding the market with ai songs just to make a buck. I think If someone who is writing 100% of their own lyrics but using ai to help create a music backing track/demo and editing that track to fit what they are hearing in their head, that is a songwriter. There is a difference, the people who use it that do nothing but prompt ai song like a google search is not a songwriter nor should they be able to get paid to use it as there work . That kind of ai song/photo/video should automatically be tagged as fair use sharing but not for profit. Then you have people that play an instrument, write their own lyrics and create a demo of their songs but can't afford to pay for producers and musicians, using ai as a tool to create backing tracks or better demos is also a songwriter. As well as someone who writes a song and plays an instrument and pays studio musicians to do the demos is also a songwriter. In the end you have legit songwriters and I guess we can call them "google songwriters" that don't have talent but want to pretend they do but ai is doing 100% of the work. I think the only regulation that needs to be passed on ai is, if ai is doing all of the lyrics and all the music and the person prompting the ai isn't doing any changes to it and have no part of writing all of the lyrics and picking out all the aspects of how the backing track sounds in the final product, then they should not be able to claim it as their work period. That is not their work but a fair use version that shouldn't be able to be used for profit by anyone. That is the fine line between the two. Also I think the ai companies shouldn't be liable but the persons trying to profit off of songs that are ripping off someones else work as their own. People that purposefully know they are copying lyrics of someones song and then trying to get the ai to make it sound almost identical (Mariah Carey songs, etc) which is already against copyright law and is even stated on sites like suno, udio, etc to not use copyrighted lyrics/music that you do not own, those people that brake those rules/laws should be able to be sued by the copyright owner(s). Ai is only the tool, the user is the one that should be responsible on if they use it.
Also I'm sure that millions of rap songs, rnb songs, pop songs, etc all recorded in the past 40 decades have been created using synth electronic instrument loops, and auto tune, to create tracks/songs, So not using real musicians but synth instruments. This is pretty much the same as ai (A Keyboard, synth board/ synth drums, Digital synth music/auto tune adjusted the vocal notes to a certain pitch) Synth music/loops have been used since the 60's. Ai is just the newer modern version of that.
Orko’s conment said it best at the end, they only have a problem with ai because its competition- they are NEVER concerned about the artist or copyright per se in the artistic context because they ALREADY copy each other (other label artists from theirs and get away with it)…they will one day - if these lawsuits are lost - monopolize their “already monopoly” in to include ai in their pipeline and potentially removed their “own human artists” because its easier to develop music on the ai platform than in the studio…the record biz WILL change behind the advent of Suno-Udio, regardless of the outcome…this is the digital camera of music, deal with it and learn how to master it. It’s inevitable
I’ve seen comments about how we shouldn’t fear new technology; arguments that AI is simply a tool, and resisting change only leads to obsolescence. While I agree that technological advances in music-like synthesizers and autotune-have been incredible innovations, I see some critical differences with AI-driven music platforms.
The issue for me is that many of these AI music generators don’t seem designed to serve creators. Companies like Suno and Udio seem primarily profit-driven, and anything created with their tools isn’t fully owned by the user. If an AI-generated track gains real traction, the company’s “fingerprints” are all over it. Imagine a platform that truly empowered creators-producing unique sounds to sample, re-sample, and build into something original. That would be transformative.
Legal restrictions around AI-generated music make it a far less useful tool than autotune or synthesizers ever were. Those technologies supported artists by lowering entry barriers and expanding creative possibilities, without claiming ownership of the work produced. With AI, it feels more like a shortcut to mass production, with companies seeking to profit from vast amounts of music generated under their terms and control.
Some argue that AI companies are just like artists drawing inspiration from other works, but I don’t see this as a fair comparison. AI companies prioritize their profit margins, relying on user prompts to mass-produce music they own and monetize. This isn’t the same as a human artist channeling the sound of their influences into something uniquely personal.
If AI music companies truly wanted to support creators, they’d let users fully own their work. In a way, it’s good that these companies operate as they do-it reminds us that if we want to truly own our art, we still need to make it ourselves. The challenge is ensuring that audiences recognize the difference and continue valuing human-created music. AI may offer cheaper sync options for ads and TV, but there’s a real risk to composers and production musicians. Saying, “AI will never replace what a human can do” reminds me of what film stock companies probably said about digital cameras.
Godspeed my friends!
Wrong, if your on a paid plan everything you create is yours.
Labels are just worried they ate finished, even artists are leaving labels and going it alone
Use them to make some attempts that are meaningful to you.
since suno and udio there are now hundreds of ai music sites, I think its bigger than the record labels now and they can't stop it unless try bribe congress. I think in the end the record companies will lock all their signed artist into contracts where the record labels will own there masters with their voice likeness to use in ai voice models.
I agree Ai is a tool, just like Auto tune. Actually auto tune is ai. It's just got so advanced now that it can clone anything it sees and hears (music, voices, photos, videos, etc) I think its already being accepted and pretty soon will be the new normal.
Those are my concerns as well. I have a son who can play anything and a son who can sing anything. So we are modifying and converting my music to reality.
I write my own lyrics to all my songs. I can't play an instrument and can't read music. I use suno for the music and vocals.
same it's amazing for that
If there is no direct copy of someone's melody or voice, there is no copying happening. What AI is doing is copying the musical art-form. That is not illegal, that is still art.
Exactly, they sue AI but they don't SUE YAMAHA which has the entire WORLD styles. It's just hate towards AI's LEGAL TRANSFORMATION ART law that exists to protect AI and people from this sorta of HIJACKING that TIMBA and the record labels are attempting to do. If we sound like, we are sued. It's that simple. SOUND LIKE. It's disgusting. If SUNO loses, TAKE ALLLLLLLLLLL computer music down. SMASH ALL YAMAHA styles synthesizers too ebcause you don't even create. It generates. SUE VPS Avenger because it generates too. It is the end. SOUND LIKE.
TIMBALAND is a sellout. He was able to be a producer in the Golden Era of R&B and was charging $400K a beat. He made his money and was able to be a true artist/producer and hone his craft. Now he's pulling the ladder up.
Capitalism loves a sellout.
how is he pulling the ladder up when the ladder is now accessible to EVERYONE?
He is a sellout. They FORMED this communist team to HIJACK music. Once they can sue anyone for SOUND LIKE, its game over for future artists. AI generation is an art and it transforms. "SOUND like" isn't even legal to sue off of. It's not the same song. Like a person that inspired and uses TOP hits, they transforms and created their own too. It's GAME OVER if SUNO loses. For all of us. AI or NOT.
I have always wanted to make music, but life happens and I have had to devote my time to crummy jobs to get by. When I started making music using AI I never once considered myself an artist. The word I used was "producer". Because through my intelligence I told the "artist" to make the production sound a certain way. It reminded me of the time I watched "a Year and a half in the life of Metallica. The producer has a lot of influence in their final sound.
After watching this video, I agree that we're also curators. We are music techs, producers and curators. Music techs because I still have to do some heavy post-processing. The original draft was good but not great. Then we do the mixing to get it to sound close to top quality as we can then, we look through our collection and decide "which of these sound the best?"
you are EXACTLY right!
@@TheShadowWraithCodex defo agree with you!
Exactly. WIthout your creative prompt, your instructions and your IDEAS, the AI cannot generate the ART. Nobody could have generated YOUR results if they didn't give your beautiful prompt and IDEA. THis is serious. I tested this with my sons. We all challenged each other to who could generate the best song. I won. Why???? Because I actually spent 5 hours. I gave a huge prompt with exact details and I even ADDED my own drums.
As a Writer who isn't very musically inclined, I can tell you that Suno has helped me create songs that i've written in the past, and the songs that live in my heart. I can't speak to the legality of it, but what I've experienced in my own life is that it's made Live Performances by real Artists more valuable to me. Sometimes it's so good, unless the creator is forthcoming in using AI, it's difficult to tell the difference. It's enhanced my enjoyment of the real Artists who have mastered their craft, because it has a certain Soul to Soul quality that AI has yet to replicate. You can feel the passion in it.
I think ultimately, we know many Artists won't be forthcoming about using AI as I've been. That uncertainty is what bothers me... so the Value of finding new Band that have mastered their craft has gone up on a personal level. It is my hope that others feel the same way, in that the value of finding an actual Artist has gone up.
My hope is also that my fellow AI music creators will be forthcoming in that their music is made with AI. I see a lot of AI music ending up on Spotify, without any mention of AI creation. That is the part that bothers me in all of this. Being honest doesn't lessen the value of what you've written, so I'd like to see more transparency from AI music creators moving forward.
Through learning music theory on my music creation journey and all of the intricate peices i've heard along the way from real artists from Beethoven to Bjork, I've grown to appreciate them so much more. For instance, did you know that Bjork's single "Army of Me" is the only song in Locrian Mode to top the charts? My appreciation for masterful human artists and what they can create has increased 10 fold through all of this.
Yet, I have an appreciation for AI Musicians as well. There are many talented writers that have taken to platforms like Suno who's words may never have been heard. For myself personally, It has been a journey of Catharsis, Therapy, and Healing. Releasing things from my past, as I had with my latest release. I don't allow myself to get a big head about it, and know that what I am doing is not the same as someone who is a Musician. Yet, it is still Theraputic and Cathartic.
I can't speak to the legalities. I can only trust that the legal system is fair and just. But what i can say is that after having lost my home to flooding, being able to create AI music is one of the only things that keep me going during an extremely difficult period. I've lost my home, my possesions... but the one thing I haven't lost is the ability to write, and create.
Wishing everyone well,
-DD
Important point that creators should be open about when they've used AI. Some won't listen to it on principal, but they should be given that choice.
To me, I can listen to each. If I like the product, I like it. I wouldn't buy a physical record of AI generated music though, except if it's only composed with AI and performed by a real band. Then maybe.
And coming from Wings Of Pegaus' latest video, if they'd stop pitch correcting human singers voices, there would be a big difference between computer generated and human made music.
How does Suno help you create? It does all the creation. You may have written words, but the craft of songwriting is making words fit music. You can have the best words in the world but if you cant make it into a song it isn't any good. Imagine Lennon and McCartney in their pomp used your words to write a tune to. The tune is what gets into people;s heads not the words. All you have to do is listen to the words of today's music. There is nothing in there. It is the tune people remember and if AI is coming up with the music then actually it was you that helps SUNO write the songs, not the other way around. And people remember the guy who wrote the tune not the words - you would recognize Elton John walking past you, but would you know Bernie Taupin?
@@Juststartingout768 One issue with your statement is that you're speaking from an assumption that the AI is doing all the writing, which ignores the fact that we can upload OUR OWN MUSIC that we have ALREADY WRITTEN OURSELVES, and simply have the AI generate an extension or alternate take, adding or changing elements and giving us other directions and ideas to work with in our own hands-on writing... That's an incredibly useful tool for breaking through creative blocks and discovering new ways to improve our own art, without necessarily surrendering your entire writing process to robotic sound regurgitation. I've had lots of unfinished songs that felt like they were simply "missing something," and after throwing them into the AI, it showed me some possibilities that hadn't occurred to me before -- yet they're still essentially MY songs: My chords, my melodies, my arrangements, but with an added sound, note, chord, idea or technique that makes me see my own work in a new light, sometimes inspiring me to finally turn it into a finished production. Not everybody is using it that way, of course... But in my opinion that's more like an extension of my own creativity, rather than a replacement of it, and isn't quite as unethical as some other ways of using it. Still have to be really careful with it though.
@@HyperNova137 what do you mean you upload your own song? You have it already fully recorded and upload that?
@@Juststartingout768 Yes, Udio (and I'm pretty sure Sudio as well) all you to upload your own audio -- as long as it's something you have the rights to -- and then you can use the "extend" function to generate new sections that are [almost] seemlessly tacked on to your song. The one thing you need to be aware of when doing that, though, is that your audio will then be used to help train the AI even further... Which means there's a possibility that pieces of your music could end up influencing someone else's generated audio. But you never lose the rights to your own work... So it comes down to a question of whether you feel safe with having AI trained on your work that you probably haven't even released yet. I don't really see much chance of making a lot of money off of my own music by itself, so personally I see it as a fair trade; I'm receiving inspiration from the rest of the musical world, and they're getting a wee bit of data from me in return. Kind of like being assimilated into a musical Borg collective, lol. But that's not necessarily a bad thing -- as long as it's just music!
It's a really blury topic, cause the way Suno and other use music to build their model is kind of a similar use that some company like iZotope or Landr did with their AI mastering or stems spliting tools. They analyse music in deep to be able to recognize some charateristic. A software that is able to isolate an ultra processed voice on a commercial track only know that because they analyse a lot of other track. It's the same kind of fair use here.
Also the "inspiration" part is exactly the same with sample pack, most of them are sold with the argument that they sound like famous artist, often directly using their name in the description. Inspiration has always been there, and it's sometime complicated to see where is the line before copy, but it shouldn't be an argument for a copyright claim either.
The only part where they can eventually claim something is the track recreated by the AI, if it's perfectly the same, but even there, it should depend on how it was recreated (like that journal who claim ChatGPT sort of randomly quote an entire article from their website, when the prompt was in reality just asking for that specificaly. I think it also happen the same way with a book, when it was the "copyright claim on chatGPT" era)
Notes:
Suno got the cadance from the lyrics.
It doesn't space on its own. Not usually.
If he hears it spacing, it's because he skipped or combined a line in his lyrics.
If you look at the lyrics for Love Again, you can see him doing this fairly intentionally.
That's because Suno is sensitive to the way a document is spaced out, and it's always been that way.
At least since V2 of the model.
Where'd you get that from?
You should check out some of my process playlists on suno and udio.
Udio's cut off at 100 tracks, so they're not as involved as some of the ones I've posted on suno.
But you can listen to all the main and partial iterations of everything I do, like 12 versions of a drop, or 30 versions of a particular verse or arrangement.
When you're listening to this stuff, you gotta understand that there's a craft here. Even if you're not starting from handmade recordings (which I also do).
Average production time on a finished song that sounds like a finished song on Suno or Udio, is 32 hours.'
If doing it well was as easy as everybody keeps telling me it is, I wouldn't be interested.
As far as the barrier to entry.
I had very little musical background before Suno. Now I play half a dozen instruments. That number's higher every time I leave one of these long comments, but it's been a minute.
Also I've become obsessed with daw plugins and midis.
They're so flexible.
AI tools are inspirational and powerful for dipping in your toes and getting a taste of what this kind of creativity feels like.
At least on the entry level. On the advanced level, it's a set of musical skills unto itself, which is also interesting.
But... selling them as a panacea, like most people who dislike AI tend to do, is a HUGE mistake.
They have have some pretty massive limitations, and they still can't write lyrics worth a damn, which is good.
Also, songwriting is still art.
I feel like, when people make these arguments in music, they're always throwing songwriters under the bus.
Why do all yall keep doing that?
Honestly, I would love to have an ai where you press a couple of buttons and get a perfect flawless piece of music.
Please stop spreading the "It's just a few words, and you get something!" lie. It's not true.
I mean, yeah, you might get something.
But unless you have no taste at all, it's going to be awful. (Oh boy, watch someone get mad for hearing me say that again, lol)
Good sounding music still takes work, even with ai.
I use AI the past 2 month for mixing my EDM and instrumental music along with Singers (Including me) to make a LOT more Music~ Fully self distributor.. No more Record labels "grabbing" 90% of earnings.........!
THAT is why they want to END us. We are now, skipping them. It's all about greed. Even the end guy in this interview is anti AI it seems. I can feel it.
Two thoughts:
(1) Transparency could fix this. When I partner with AI technologies (like ChatGPT), I can ask the AI to list the sources used to help me in our collaborative work. That way I can look at the original material used to influence it and decide if it’s original from our partnership or just a copy. I think way too many people see AI as a cheat, which for professionals that use AI it’s not. We put a lot of work into our creative expressions, but use smarter technologies to help in that creative process.
(2) AI is doing the same thing that humans do, but doing it far more efficiently. It is influenced by things it hears and replicates things it’s learned while using its own style and message. So if in fact it’s just acting like a human, what is wrong with that? I personally believe Leonardo da Vinci would use such tools if they had them in his time. He used many tools and techniques to push his art further as he explored the art of the possible.
I think it’s wonderful. It will force you to be different regardless of AI and anything else.. the competition was there before with all the different groups and the different bands. A lot of them made it and a lot of them didn’t. The only thing different that you have to be aggressive, and you have to build a following.
It's a "Money Grab". The points are good on both sides...but there's no turning back...so accept it and find a way to assimilate it into what you do. "Photographs" and "Recorded Music" were considered "The Devil" when they first came out because of the disruption level. Sampling, sequencing, drum machines etc...ALL were hugely disruptive to the traditional way music was created. We already have gone through this numerous times. This one is a quantum leap yes, but all the same issues, challenges and consequences apply here as well.
At the rate that Suno and Udio are generating songs the record companies will soon be releasing music that infringes 16:36 16:36 16:36 on Suno and Udio's property. Whilst A.I. compositions currently aren't copywritable if a Suno song has been infringed by an established artist who isn't paying for Suno's service there are legal ramifications!
Right!!
The problem is, there are so many talentless folk out there looking for a fast track way to becoming a 'producer' or 'songwriter'.
How's the weather way up there on your high horse?
The problem is capitalism.
YEA EVERYONE THAT LISTENS TO THE RADIO OR INTERNET AND PLAYS MUSIC IS TALLENTLESS. just like AI.
@@Vroomfondle1066 Not true at all, if it wasn't for capitalism you wouldn't even have the technology to reply to my comment. There is a bigger agenda at play. Wait til regular jobs are taken over by AI, then we'll see who still loves AI
The weather is lovely and sunny up here.
I will say this about AI music, people need to stop going on about how AI generates a fully generated song in 10 seconds with the click of a button. It really doesn't create anything of any high quality. It's great for generating inspiration and ideas, but you will not be able to use AI and just create a top tier song without any understanding of music. Hence why AI music is notably worse. I have used Suno for a while, and use it for inspiration, I can download the stems and work with it, stripping out the garbage parts, and produced some far better songs than any AI could ever manage. Not to mention that most modern music that these record labels produce are taking either direct or indirect inspiration as they are, so they have no reason to be mad that an AI model is doing the same thing. I am happy with the idea that AI is great for inspiration, but under no circumstances can it be used as a replacement successfully.
"but under no circumstances can it be used as a replacement successfully." Not Yet!! But once they upgrade it, again and again, and then give you clear and clean stems of all the instruments, then all you would need is a good singer and you can be a hit maker pretty easily!!
@@vizionaryrecords see that's what people are worried about, but I don't believe that it is possible. Like most things in the creative space, there are some things that are just not able to be copied and become the original's quality. AI trained off existing work cannot output the stylistic expression of human work because it only copies some of the elements and tries to Frankenstein a new idea but does it infinitely worse.
If you listen to the music that's made by these models, one can differentiate a shallow creation vs a individual implementing their creativity.
@@RibombeeTeacher the strides AI art generators have made in short time cast your skepticism into more complete denialism. There are no inherent limitations precluding the possible success of future models, or you would have named it.
Many people criticize AI for allegedly stealing from traditional music while they themselves rely on AI to quickly obtain and adapt compositional inspiration. Not to mention, some have engaged in similar acts of direct adaptation from various music sources even before the advent of AI. Therefore, we should not conflate moral, technical, and legal issues, but rather discuss them independently. For professional musicians, collaborating with AI to explore musical boundaries is indeed a positive direction. They can also create their own lyrics and compositions and then use AI to experiment with various styles to find the right creative direction, much like trying on different outfits before going out. Thus, AI can serve as both an exploratory tool and an efficiency tool, which is very beneficial.
Pre-AI days, I created a song and thought it was good. I published it on music platforms hoping for it to be a hit, but people say it's garbage. Now I tried AI generated songs and I thought I made reaaaallly good songs. Posted it on UA-cam but no... it ain't still a hit. I've also seen other AI generated music and thought they were good... but... nevermind. So, do you guys think that anyone can automatically be a musician just because he created music on AI? will he threaten existing musicians?
It has been three or four months since I last participated in the discussion on AI music copyright lawsuits in this channel and the Sync My Music channel. I have remained active in the AI creation community, where I have seen many people unleash unprecedented creativity with the help of AI-people who were just ordinary engineers, teachers, workers, farmers, etc. They may not have made money through AI, but they found something new, attempted many things that were previously impossible, including myself. When a new thing is born, there are always those who fear it, embrace it, use it for evil, or chase dreams with it. If we focus on the positive aspects, AI can help us discover unprecedented opportunities. If people cling to outdated concepts, they will only be failing themselves. Returning to the topic of AI music creation, pressing a button to generate music might seem simple, but in reality, 99.9% of what is generated is meaningless by most people’s standards. Tens of thousands of songs are uploaded to Spotify daily, and the number wasn’t much smaller even before AI. How many of these songs, created by whatever means, are actually good enough to be heard? It’s hard to judge complaints about AI music diluting one’s rightful share. In fact, as long as songs are created for people to listen to, musicians will never be out of work. For musicians, using AI tools can make their work much more efficient. They have professional aesthetics and audio processing skills. A piece of AI-generated music, even if only 10% usable, can be completely transformed in their hands into a song that showcases their technical abilities. Thus, the threshold for music creation will not be lowered; it will only get higher with the involvement of professional musicians, who will continuously explore the boundaries of music with AI. For ordinary people with no musical training, achieving this by pressing a few buttons and entering a few prompts is still a fantasy. In summary, discussing copyrights is necessary, but copyright is not everything. Copyright laws cannot ensure perpetual well-being. The challenges we face always come from humans, not AI. When your opponent utilizes AI tools, remember, you are facing a professional plus an intelligent entity endowed with human knowledge, not just one person, but a team.
AMAZING response! 100%
When I was younger, I was in bands and we learned other bands (Major label) songs and developed our style by taking bit and pieces that we loved and made it our own. Which we then recorded. The only difference sadly is an AI is learning instead of us.
Great channel btw! Lol
I worked with the artist Hugo. He is a melodic rock/aor years ago. Sounded alot like Journey. The works are very similar sounding but original songs.
Yeah. Very rare for anything really new music (as in nothing like that has been made before) coming out nowadays. Everyone are using patterns and stuff based on what they've heard before. Biggest difference is that AI can put out a complete song much faster.
@@Garbox80 Exactly!! And professional hit sounding too! Which is why the record labels are suing!!
first of all, thank you for creating this content and keep up the good work with your channel. Secondly , Prompting (throwing dices) with stolen goods ( the data of the LLMs) paying 10 dollars a month to Suno/Udio whaterver calling it "art" ...feels so sad. ( you can of course in a conceptual white box way pretend its intersting but it will be intersting for about 24 hours ) Its a tool as people say but its not "your" Tool its someone elses tools. The comparison to a digital camera i saw here is a joke. Its more like the user of these services becomes a tool for the services. Its really hard to see a reason to be a part of this weird trap of a devaulation system (thats not even necessary as I can see it at least atm) which I guess means theres no reason for anyone to put up anything of real interest online anymore. Will the new sport 2025 be to avoid giving away data to stupid people? :)
Micheal Jackson was heavily inspired by James Brown, he was not sued by James Brown or his label.
It’s a robot vs human thing, if it was a human, record labels cannot not accuse a person of”we think you listened to 3 of our songs on Spotify during your music production therefore you owe us money” that would be ridiculous.
AI apps that create music are not a threat to me being able to make music using what I learnt. I’m still able to express myself in addition to AI.
There’s already so much music being released before AI, if your music doesn’t beat it out, make better music, do better promotion. 😊
As of 2012, there are only three labels that can be referred to as "major labels": Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. In 2014, AIM estimated that the majors had a collective global market share of some 65-70%.[2]
Here's the problem: EVERY Artist is influenced, learns, copies, emulates other Artists throughout their career. EVERYBODY has "trained" on ALL the music they have been exposed to throughout their lives. What's the differences in ai training on the same music we all have enjoyed throughout their lives? There is NO difference. There is no "Blanket Copyright" case here. Period. Case by case is all there is, as it has always been. Toughen up, open your mind and
find a way to "assimilate" the tech within your workflow. God bless.
exactly. Suno needs to argue that
These AI formats can be analogous to the Linn Drum. Drummers were like: “They’re trying to destroy me😮” couple years later we’re budgeting for the latest Linn Drum updates. The addition of AI into the mix just excites the technological evolutionary process; a natural progression.
Been using SUNO for a while now .. I still have NO IDEA who owns the final product. My lyrics, my musical prompts but the final product belongs to WHO? Nobody knows.
Let's imagine your song suddenly went viral. Here's my understanding of ownership at this point. Firstly, yes you do always own the lyrics you wrote (contrast if you used their prompts to write the lyrics, then you don't own them but you do have a royalty free licence to use them if you paid to use the platform). Secondly, you never own the music, but have a royalty free licence to use this as long as you paid for credits, not if you used the free ones.
So let's say you have made a hit song and it's generating loads of traffic on your social media channels. If this traffic generates income for you, then you get to keep this money entirely under the licence. But say then Suno notices you have made a big hit... this is where it swings entirely in their favour. They could make your song available as a stem on their site and they would not have to pay you (as they have a licence from you to use your lyrics for free in perpetuity). Say the song catches on and Disney want to use it for a new movie... who do Disney approach, you or Suno? I imagine Suno as the music rights rest with them. You could try asking for money for the lyrics you wrote, and I would hope that an agreement would be reached. But actually Suno has a perpetual licence over these, so you are at their grace and favour. So all things considered, as far as I can see, the best anyone will ever be able to do out of their Suno created music, is to monetise it on their own social media platforms, and bathe in the glory of their songs becomes popular. I think you have to see it as an opportunity to be heard, rather than to be rich. My one concern however, is that if (like me) you are a librettist writing a musical score for a play that your wrote, and your song words act as bridges between your spoken words, it leaves you in a bit of a no-man's land.... but that said, in musical theatre things area always collaborative, and seldom all that lucrative, so it's still as risk I'm willing to take. I also would query, if I ended up using my own lyrics with traditionally written music, would it be open to Suno to say "actually you previously used these lyrics on our platform and therefore we have a perpetual licence over them that we want to exercise".... I really doubt it as this would be them publicly undermining the value of AI generated music.
I’ve had similar questions and looked into it. From what I have read, a person, or human in this case, who uses AI to create music would have to had contributed a “significant” portion of creativity to the finished product in order for it to be copyrighted. Not sure if this valid, but I am also looking into what the US Copyright office says about it.
@@mazmakesmusic That's not how it works... Simply going to Suno's Help Section outlines all of this as well as reading via the TOS.
Quoted from the help page on Rights and Ownership "If you are a paying subscriber to Suno, then you own the songs you generate while subscribed to Pro or Premier, subject to your compliance with Suno’s Terms of Service.
If you are using the Basic (free) version of Suno, we retain ownership of the songs you generate, but you are allowed to use those songs for non-commercial purposes, subject to your compliance with Suno’s Terms of Service."
Also direct quote "If you created the songs while subscribed, you remain the owner of the song after you cancel your subscription. You will retain the commercial use license as well, so you can distribute the song(s) after you end a subscription."
Also, they don't have a license from you to use your lyrics for whatever they want, if YOU wrote them. That's handled pretty easily, go get a copyright on the lyrics themselves. Suno is pretty clear on this. Even if you use your own lyrics while generating a song on the free plan, YOU retain ALL rights to those lyrics. Suno would still need to seek your permission to use them and pay you accordingly however, they do have the right to use your output in whatever way they deem fit, be it to further train the model or future models or any other ways that Suno see's fit to use the output to further the goals of the service. Does that mean they could take your hit track and turn it into Stems and let others play with it? Sure. However, if those people used your lyrics in their new songs, they would need to seek a license from you to commercialize their output using your lyrics, and, from what the TOS reads, this seems like something that would go against their TOS as I'm sure there is some roundabout way where it could possibly end up requiring Suno to pay a licensing fee for your lyrics to you
Pretty straight forward: if you are paying for or paid for a Pro or Premier plan when you generated the song, then it belongs to you. Even if you cancel, you still own the rights to the song. The TOS goes way deeper into it, but not worth going that deep in a comment on UA-cam.
@@mazmakesmusic In certain circumstances, you may be correct. If users of Udio/Suno use their own copyrighted material to generate songs containing their own lyrics, vocals and/or instrumentation and melodies via uploading of their copyrighted recordings as prompts... this is where true legal battles will explode. And, kindly, I read your post, but please double space between some paragraphs in future.
@@mazmakesmusic
You can only “bathe in the glory” of one thing, (original lyrics) because that is the one and only thing that a human can contribute to a suno created song in its present platform
Your not creating music, your not even creating the vocal melody for your own lyrics
You can’t “compare creative content generation” to “creative assistance to content” in other words suno is not a supportive Ai tool like auto tune or Melodyne as these products
are fed human constructed content with intention of outcome, you sing in A minor and your off (because you’re only human )so the program moves the notes the the correct scale, even then you can alter the tuned notes from the ones chosen by the Ai to the ones you intended to hit or ones that just sound better in post
(Side note; I also believe the way Antares Auto Tune is used as an effect is a fortunate, yet accidental by product, the stepped glissando first employed in Chers “Believe” 1998)
You feed it the key and usually the “voice type” tenor, soprano, ect..
Of course some algorithms can follow a backing track and use that as a pitch and scale guide, think of the great old app “La La La” that oddly disappeared years ago
I hear the ownership argument considering Ai generated songs from many perspectives
Logically, Ethically it’s a no-brainer, but legally it can be challenging because the law is often times very far removed from both logic and ethics as the rules of law are malleable to how clever a lawyer can argue, that is what distinguishes a good lawyer from a poor one,
These judgments will come from human-made law and as we witness time and time again
Human-made anything is innately flawed
So, I have created all my lyrics, and I am using AI to do the music, and I am doing an Album of 12 - 17 song's. I am using Fivverr to re-create the song, musicians that are real. I asked this question before and never got an answer, but if you would be kind enough to answer that would be great. But, if I have the music re-created can I then get a copyright on this? I guess I will try. But any of your insight would be great. There is also another feature where you can record a small snippet of your voice singing your own original tune. So, if it is your own song, lyrics and tune, using AI would that be copyrightable since your using your own voice as a model, and your own tune? I use Suno.
If you are subscribed to Suno and create a song, you own the song in perpuity according to their terms of service. You can't copyright ANY partially of fully AI generated music though! BUT if you re-created your original composition that you generated on Suno, used human musicians that you can credit if you want, and got a singer to sing your lyrics, or yourself, you OWN the song, music and lyrics and you can copyright it and release it commercially for profit!!
@@vizionaryrecords I'm using fiver to re-create the music, and I will be singing it myself. I created all the lyrics,.
@@vizionaryrecords Thank you for answering my question. I really appreciate it. I am just doing this process. I am having the music re-created, and I am going to be the one singing it. The person that is re-creating the music for me is just doing it as a work for hire. He has no interest in the copyright.
@@Musicmanbutte If you just copyright the lyrics/melody you own it, no one can copyright an arrangement of a song. The only thing you can't copy right are the same lyrics and melody of someone else's songs. So all the music tracks on suno should be fine to use and copyright as long as you know those tracks aren't ripping off someone's copyrighted lyrics/melody. Which I think would be highly unlikely if you have really customized the lyrics, melody and music by editing, extending, cropping, splicing, uploading the vocal/music original samples created by you and working it into a creative way etc.
Also I'm sure that millions of rap songs, rnb songs, pop songs, etc all recorded in the past 40 decades have been created using synth electronic instrument loops, and auto tune, to create tracks/songs, So not using real musicians but synth instruments. This is pretty much the same as ai (A Keyboard, synth board/ synth drums, Digital synth music/auto tune adjusted the vocal notes to a certain pitch) Synth music/loops have been used since the 60's. Ai is just the newer modern version of that.
People watching videos or reading articles discussing AI should know, some people using Udio or Suno (me) are uploading their own copyrighted vocals or instrumentation with their own copyrighted lyrics and melodies to prompt the AI. I don't pretend to know how, in that situation, the legality of it all will pan out, but it certainly will be interesting to watch unfold. If you are using the apps to generate everything from lyrics to instrumentation to vocals and melody, without any personal input, you simply will not ever own the copyright to any of it.
I agree, some people use those models in a creative and original way, and I'm mostly fine with it. Problem is: Most don't.
@@EXCAELIS_net So much this. I'm a live and let live kind of person. But, I've run across a bunch of channels where the owners have used the simplest and most obvious aspect of song AI (quickly developing a few prompts that always produce usable songs within the first few generations). Slap an image on. Upload to stream.
Five months in and they've got 600 two minute songs posted. Typically electric, hip hop, EDM, dance stuff. The songs themselves are not terrible, some are even good. Clearly doing it to try and make money. Do they understand the very act of what they're doing will kill the ability to make more than a few dollars?
I can't help but think about things like the prison and school industries. It's not the same, but similar. Private equity gets involved. The people who actually do all the work, prison staff, guards, etc get paid less, worse benefits, shittier work environment. Same with private schools. Teachers, coaches and admins get paid less, worse benefits, everything.
And the new private owners of it all are not held to any kind of decent standard. It's just baffling. All the normal, average working people get screwed, prison population gets screwed, which comes back to haunt all of us. And yet, tons of average people take great pleasure out seeing their fellow average humans get fucked over. It's so painful to watch happen.
@@EXCAELIS_net Yeah I wish suno/udio would get rid of the free options and instead focus on serious songwriters/singers in the music business or who want to be taken serious with commercial releases/demos to get into the door. All those other ai music cites that do satire cartoon/celebrities voices / silly songs, and that use ai generated lyrics should be used for normal people who want to make a singing grams for fun but not profit.
@@EXCAELIS_net that is why they have that agreement clause that the lyrics you type in or audio you upload is your own copyrighted material. I can't imagine they would have their ai set up to use copyright lyrics when someone prompts it to recreated Mariah Carey song as that would bring up the red box say sorry we can not do that.
I have my own lyrics and use beats I’ve brought the license to, the strong structure I also made I use said song as a template to help me practise
I think that the training of the song should be a canard since in the past only the expression was questioned. Copywrite usually only addressed the actual expression. otherwise any song author should have to pay royalties based on any song they heard
Anything to avoid the most difficult thing of all: creativity.
Yes, using new technology is very un-creative. Maybe it's time to retire. Yeah?
@@Rakyta_btc Understood. Use every fking new AI technology in the world and you will become the most creative person in the world. Good luck.
DJ’s have made full beats out of breakdowns , intros and outros on vinyl records > which they did this same thing with sampling , but what I like about sampling is you still get permission for the most part to use it , but also one can break a sample completely down and just use the drum sounds , snare , hi hat, bass drum , and play them totally different with a new melody and it becomes a new song 😊
If the lawsuits crush music AI apps, I dearly hope the same happens to writing AI and art generation sites that have decimated the livelihoods of real writers and artists.
Great break-down as always...Thank you for bringing the value-content. 💯%....I believe in the end AI will lose this battle in regards to commercial purposes, and maybe its existence will just be allowed for personal and customized request for the general public use, which still will be viable financially to the company. For those artist/professionals, who are marketing music commercially, AI will be a part of their team for creativity, to enhance their work-production to bring us a plethora of new creative material, that we will enjoy and praise in the end...And as far as the Record Industry, they will still continue to very slowly lose their grip, as Artist Independence continue to flourish, and thrive. So this will actually be win, win, win situations, but for the "greedy" (i.e. Those Select Labels), they will continue to never ever see the [Square-Root] increases of their investment like in the good ole days of the past. 💣🎶👀🤓
I would say that the weight of the lawsuit depends on the ultimate usage. If it's for commercial use, then it's clear copyright infringement. Given that the copyright holder can sufficiently prove that their music was used to train the AI. But, here's where the lawsuit loses ground, if a user of their service creates a musical piece by way of a prompt that is clearly copyrighted material and uses it commercially, that is not the provider's liability. The most likely commercial usage would be Spotify, so the label would have to sue both the "artist" and Spotify, but Suno or Odio.. They need a way to identify when a piece generated by their service may be infringing on a copyright and issue a warning. Should the user download the piece anyway, then they would have waived Suno or Odio of any liability. Timabalnd is probably there to help them with public relations, nothing more.. What the label has to do is make adjustments for this new technology because it is here to stay and will eventually put the old guard to rest. Adapt, survive, or die.
It would be the provider's liability, especially since they store and distribute the infringing material to the user. That whole idea of it not being the provider's liability died with Napster. It's called "contributory infringement".
And Napster was P2P, I dont think they even directly stored copyrighted content on servers, but Suno itself stores and distributes whatever infringing material users extract from their AI model on their servers. So likely, the same infringement claim and more could be charged against Suno.
There are already services for that, e.g. Ircam AI Music Detector. Platforms could implement it. But they obviously don't want to. And it doesn't require much imagination to see why.
And I agree. Suno, Udio etc. are commercial services. They make a lot of money with their technology and directly compete with those whose rights they infringe. That just can't be compatible with fair use.
@@EXCAELIS_net The basis of the lawsuit is based on the possibility that their AI application has been trained on copyrighted material. The only way to prove that is by seizing their database. Even if they did use protected intellectual property, by the time the courts allow for their database to be seized, that material is gone. In fact, it already is, if that is the case. So the lawsuit has no weight.
@@gensoustudio4703 not really if you were a drug dealer that bought the drugs from a "company" that sold them to you on the notion that you signed and agreed that you were not going to be selling the drugs legally and that you had a license to sell the drugs than the legal responsibility belongs to you. So if you go on the break that agreement and get caught by police for selling drugs and you go to jail, not the company you signed a legal agreement with that you broke that was against the law.
@@StafonSalon except in this case the drug company was given a Cease and Desist to stop distributing drugs to illegal dealers and continued. Also you have it totally backwards. in actuality the original copyright owners would be the legitimate distributors and Suno IS the drug dealer distributing to people in violation of an agreement.
How do we feel about artists like Quinten Tarantino who openly admits to stealing entire scenes shot for shot from movies he loves. Is it wrong for a guitarist to have an arpeggiator on his keyboard write him a cool random string of notes in a certain key, and then learn to play it on guitar? He didn't technically create that, a computer did. Or musicians openly stealing parts from others people songs to use for their own. You can go watch people openly admit to "stealing someone's bassline and just removing a note or 2" or just playing it faster/slower. Humans have been "stealing" from each other forever to create new art. People rip off classical musicians all the time. They just aren't around to complain.
I personally feel that using AI to help you create a jumping off point for your art isn't the worst thing. To steal a riff from an AI generated song, or a melody you liked. But to just have AI spit out a song, you post it and call it your own? Now that I don't agree with. It should be a tool, not the end all be all.
All American music is basically settlers singing through the cultures they ate for food.
@@GoodBaleadaMusic bullshit.
I feel similar to you. AI is another creative tool just like anything else. If you mess up unintentionally and do create similar melodies to another artist you'll find out sooner or later.
@mrmikemrmike nope you don't understand how AI literally steals/scrapes other people's content without compensation to mash up and spit out its own content. It's blatant theft and should be prosecuted.
@@Jay-wk9xj how do you think every musician writes music? We draw from our influences and the music we’ve been listening to lately. Nothing is original anymore, just a variation of it’s influences. It’s all just recycled.
Thank you both for the update!
I’m not happy with AI-generated music because it undermines the creativity of musicians. The essence of composing music lies in the art of songwriting, melody, and rhythm-all of which require hours of hard work and dedication. Music is a deeply personal expression, and relying on AI to create it diminishes the unique human touch that comes from genuine artistic effort. True music is born from inspiration, emotion, and the countless hours spent refining each note, and that irreplaceable process cannot be replicated by algorithms.
it can and it has. just like that Industrial Revolution replaced shoemakers that spent their entire life learning a craft, only to have their effort replaced my factories and machines. It's no different and it has been happening for millennia. You adapt or you get left behind. Use the tools to make your artists works even better or be left behind. Evolve or die; it has been that way since time began
I usually create the midi file myself, I also record the hooks, i upload to Suno, and I get drum and vocal stems or inspiration. Suno is amazing
It really is
I use prompts to generate five songs on one subject. I then copy paste the lyrics to a notepad. From there I re-arrange the best verses and edit them a bit. From there I generate a somewhat decent song. Good song for D&D background anyway
It is kinda crazy, all this. Any new or even established musician has spent years listening to music from various sources, right? So, any music that they produce has influence from those years of listening. It's not that different from how the AI learned really. Where else is the AI supposed to learn from?
Additionally, what about using reference tracks for mastering, we don't have, per se, permission to use the sonic characteristics of any track.
we cant coexist when with 1 billion ai tracks are made every day. imagine 1 billion new tracks every day uploaded to spotify how irrelevant music will become.
True, humans before AI.
You're assuming it was all about the music. It was never about the music. It was always about the face of the music.
We could go back to analog music.
@@UncleBenjs Now we would be on to something.
Let ai take over. F these
Record labels, they just don't want competition. I use suno I write all my songs I do the album artwork and own distribution. I am an artist and my work proves it. I also use pro logic with it. It's just a different way to create music. Get used to it 😊
If you can "create" a song by prompt and get the output created by AI, then who/what actually created the composition and the recording?
How would you even begin to copyright something like that?
I agree that if you prompt ai to make you a song, that should be tagged as created by ai and that no one has any rights to use it for profit, However if they created all of the lyrics and use their own music upload original samples/vocals/melody/lyrics than they can say yes its my work I created it. Ai would only be a creative tool at that point like edm, synth instrument loops, auto tune, electronic effects, etc. So there is a difference.
People who create using AI song generators are not creators. It’s that simple. If I go into a restaurant and order a hamburger and tell them no tomato, then am I the chef? There is a difference between making something and ordering something and all these people are doing is ordering it off the menu. That’s not creation.
my guess is that you haven't used one of these platforms? because otherwise you would know that in order to get anything decent out of them, hours of work is required per song. it is in no way similar to ordering a hamburger. in some areas these platforms make song creation easier, in other areas they make it harder. they add to the creative process, and they also block.
don't test me .... i can make sure the only song you sing this christmas is a.i. generated by a master creator like myself.
@@noisetheorem that isn’t true, you can upload your own music, (your voice), remix the song, and use your own lyrics and voice to make a better produced song. So much more than just ordering off a menu
Actually they are getting better, you can upload you playing an instrument or just singing capella and the ai will listen to it and extend on it, sometimes it will even clone your voice to sound just like you or you can use an ai singer if you can't sing but want to get the song to sound like what you want in your head. You are able to extended, edit, crop or pick how you want the track to sound and you can push/steer it in the direction that you want. It's a tool. I do agree that people that just prompt in "make me a song about..." are not creating anything that would be what I would call not a creater. So we need to have some sort of protocol between ai doing all of the work verse someone using ai as a tool in their creative process of making their own music.
@Blanko.84 get him!😂
Sure creativity is one of, if not THE most valuable naturally occuring human abilities. Its highly sought after in any of its many forms and rare individuals that have it are often times a mess because of it..its all great to be creative and artistic until your surrounded by the masses that dont possess a very creative ability, then jealousy, maliciousness and all the rest are that individuals fate.
I think the AI text to image generation can teach you a lot about this. You can make pictures of the most absurd things that have never been thought of before, but it can do them perfectly, not because it copies, but because it predicts. Just like an artist knows from experience what "good" and "real" looks like, and can then transpose that knowledge into the new. There is no copying going on. It is knowledge, wisdom, and prediction.
I think it's possible to train AI and get clearance from artists. Many might be happy to contribute their works, but when there's no clear consent, I see a problem.
I don't have an issue with the technology, I have an issue with the ethics of training data.
Suno, Udio et cetera, are selling cars, very cheap and easy to drive cars, that were previously unavailable to the public. The great major labels are selling petrol and gas, they're fine with Ai selling cars but they're definitely not fine if the ai company start to sell petrol or gas.
People felt the same way when music went from actual bands, instruments, drums ect. To beat machines and autotunes any time something is uncomfortable and is changing the norm people are going to be mad. The thing is, it isn't going away. 🤷🏿♀️
I’d mixdown his song, but I’m cynical of the intentions and strategy involved, I’ve done work for big artists in the past and been totally screwed over, I’m not eager to revisit that past into the future! Good luck to the Ai they announce the winner!!! Suno has a feature where you can upload your original works to the ai for “restructuring” it’s hardly easy! To remix Mr. Mosley’ s song using suno is gonna take days not minutes not hours but days of nonstop tinkering and each generation wether successful or not costs money! so there is an expense involved that quickly adds up! Who’s to stop them from remixing your remix and claiming it as their own? Nobody! Unless an artist is in constant state of screen recording the entire process I guess! Even with ai assisted tracks it’s still extremely hard work to create beautiful hard won songs it might take fifty generations and sub generations to find a sound that works with your lyrics then eq level balancing vocal editing etc etc etc to say those using ai music platforms are not artists shows a lack of comprehension to artistic expression, recording process and the efforts involved of those determined to explore it! Yes anyone can generate a song, but not just anyone can next level that into something superior than ai can create! Thats Artistry! 💋
5:24 ok so ai is sound designing and not music productions?
It is kind of ironic that as the Industry as a whole embraces pitch correction and auto-tune so much, the true unique sound of a real person is disappearing. Except it seems in AI generated?
I like how Suno basically admitted that they trained their AI on other artist's work, but told their AI not to copy things too closely. I can only laugh.
IF you do not mind me offering my two cents. I have songs that I have taken from my privately owned creations (Using Guitar). I wrote Christmas in Heaven, and This year Christmas is in Heaven as examples. My Uncle wrote My Heart Surrenders. All can be found on my UA-cam Channel. All of these song are so close to the original it is unbelievable. Only difference, SUNO Ai allows someone like myself to fill in the vocal and background music with professional sounds. Ai is no replacement for real singers, and is why I am looking for anyone interested in performing these songs. Hell I am not looking to make a ton of money from anyone. The fact remains, SUNO would have made it to where they are with or without using copy protected material or fair use material. Still up to the courts to determine, but sounds logical if they are only using clips. I call it the inevitable discovery of Ai(LOL Yes Have a background in Public Justice) I mean I would be more worried about Ai putting actors out of work. :) Anyway, I watch your channel all the time. You are fair and amazing my friend! I will be interested what happens to channels like mine if the courts find them in violation of copy right laws.
I google (hum to find song) the “suno song” I created, and turn out its original. So no copyright issue right?
This is really an "INTERESTING" video, because I am using the platform "SUNO" to produce "MUSIC" myself. And, I took a paused because of "OWNERSHIP," concerns. Yet, I love the "PLATFORM," because of its ease of use. However, I am bothered by all of this because, I am able to get a "LOT" of work done with it, and a have "CONCERNS" about who owns the "COPYRIGHTS," of this type of creative expression. I am an "INDEPENDENT" artist who is very INTERESTED in the "LEGAL" aspects of what is happening. I am a very "PROLIFIC" songwriter, And, I find AI to be quite beneficial in my "CREATIVE PROCESS...! It also enhances my "MUSICAL PRODUCTION" efforts, as well as saving me, enormous amounts of time...!
Can i use udio for commercial uses
In faqs they say yes
But in t&c they say no
Be sure to read the current terms of service as it relates to uses for a free account v. a paid account - my understanding is that Suno generally is allowing for commercial uses (with some conditions for free accounts)
yes, they just want credit.
Both Udio and Suno allow you to use the content you create on their platforms in a commercial sense so long as you are using one of their paid accounts. So, for instance, I'm presently working on an album and using Suno to generate the music. If I was using the free version of it, I would not be able to distribute/sell/publish outside of Suno other than for personal use, but because I pay for my account, I can post that content to UA-cam as I create it and if I wanted to, I could also sign up with a music distribution company and have it be available for streaming and purchase.
Take the song to another ai site. Generate the stems. Re mix the tune in dAW.. beef it up.. now it’s yours yours .
@@djslip_irie I write lyrics. Something that is very hard for gringos from matching culdesacs to do. They have shitty dialect and no real life experience anyone considers compelling. I'm sorry rappers dont need you button pushers with no culture curating our vibes anymore. Some poor kid is gonna write a song that brings down goverments soon. THINK BIGGER MY BISHES
AI has a use in the industry.
For example in my case.
I'm experimenting with AI just for the creation of the music either instrumental and I can write lyrics to or to create an entire song with lyrics and vocals. Which I can re-record later with my own vocals.
Solely because I do not play any instruments nor have to ability to create the music to write lyrics to myself.
I don't think it's a threat really. I understand the initial perception. But I've made music for 20 years and I just don't see it doing it for you. It will spit out cookie cutter songs all day long, but to make something truly noteworthy, you still have to know your shit. I've created a song with Suno, and it's actually damn good. Now it is. I was multi-tracking, mixing, filtering, combing parts.. for 5 days! Not with Suno. With Ardour, some standalone VSTi's and Audacity. There is no "Generate Song" button that can even touch what I've done, even using a VERY minimal DAW and editing configuration.
The separation between the men and the boys is no less pronounced.
Being opposed to Generative AI art/music doesn't make you anti-technology, or even anti "AI". There was a reason that the U.S. government issued meetings to discuss and differentiate between "good AI" vs. "bad AI". I would say that good AI is that which solves problems, and AI has plenty of potential for that. The primary function of generative AI art has been to cause problems rather than to solve them.
I write the chords and lyrics to my songs and I’m a singer, but I am not proficient at an instrument and have minimal technical skills when it comes to DAWs. AI opens doors for me that were slammed in my face previously. I have multiple notebooks FULL of full-on songs that may actually see the light of day now. I don’t mean to be overly dramatic, but I feel like I’ve had a huge handicap removed from me overnight.
Shut down the record labels, they’re crooks we don’t need them. They ruined music, that’s why the best music is independently produced .
I think they should take the approach Amazon took with Alexa. They paid people to write actual conversations inside the system to train Alexa.
if it's not a copy of a song arrangement or lyrics i don't think copyright should be involved. Regardless of AI or not. The real issue here is music labels want the AI profits for themselves. If Udio and Suno get shut down the labels will put their own versions out and still pay artists very little. As far as artists go, they need to embrace the tech and move out of the pre AI worldview of how music is created.
Exactly.This has nothing to with copyrights.
Here are some random thoughts:
- We’ve moved from The Beatles to The Robots.
- The internet devalues the challenges, thrills, frustrations, pain, and fear of creating. Obsessed with attention, we let computers dictate our lives. It prioritizes passive engagement with corporate agendas and tech addiction over real-life activities like composing, learning, painting, or writing.
- Our attention-seeking nature lowers standards.
- Why learn proper sheet music and theory for five years when $10.99 can make you feel like a great producer with easily accessible stolen ideas? You find it super cool until You’re bored after five prompts and move on.
“AI is great for sampling” is true if you’re not the owner of the song the chatbox is stealing without consent.
-You have no moral ground to tell anyone to pay for your music when you don’t pay for others’ creations.
You complain about computer illiteracy and worry about hackers stealing your mom’s credit card, yet you consume fast, cheap, easily accessible (for a subscription fee) entertainment that replaces critical thinking and art.
No excuses. Don’t point at the minority of traditional artists who do the right thing. These tools put the average consumer in the seat of a classical trained artist without experience or respect for the subject. They don’t understand anything about the process, to them, It’s just “content.” Where’s the process? Did you forget?
The internet has fundamentally changed how people enjoy art for the worst. I truly hate it here.
💯
So now there's also only one "proper" way to enjoy art forms? Wow, talk about gatekeeping.
@@Garbox80 oh, eo now everyone has to please the person that doesn't respect art or artists? You wound slow af.
@@mgd9151 I don't know whose comment you were actually replying to, because if you understand what you read, I never said what you claim.
@@Garbox80 so, yes gatekeeping is needed and anyone that says otherwise is stupid. Every industry has gatekeeping. You sir, said dumb shit.
no... I am a hip hop producer who is also Security Analytics Data Scientist [ML Engineer for Info security] ORKO's comments capturing the argument I was going to make
didnt partner with them, he is a owner of the business.
Regarding the claim that this lawsuit is trying to stop technology from doing great things etc. I think that for the most part, generative AI Art/music is here to create problems rather than to solve them. The reality is that there was never a necessity for Generative AI music, to begin with. We live in an age where there is so much existing human music, including much high quality music, which most people never got around to listening to. The primary function of generative AI music is to take away artistic opportunity from humans, and hand it over to machines. (I'm not saying that there's absolutely no benefit from it at all, but I think that the immense harm that it's causing to artists, by far outweighs whatever good it may be bringing)
Timbaland once stole a whole chiptune song, on one of Nelly Furtados songs
Every songwriter in history is influenced by music they have already heard. Because a computer "listens" to other music before creating its own, this is infringement? I say it is not. I view services like Suno as useful tools for songwriting.
I have said the same thing regarding these platforms. They should be used as a tool, not a crutch!
Agreed! Imagine Suno as a person, how would that person learn what good music is? By listening. And how would that person learn good musical technique? By emulating. And trying not to sound too close to the music we were influenced by so we don't accidentally rip someone off. Suno just does it all faster.
I do think it has potential to cause over saturation of available content causing more artists to get lost in the noise. Still gonna be a minute before I see AI performing an stage though I'd guess.
Prompting (throwing dices) with stolen goods ( the data of the LLMs) paying 10 dollars a month to Suno/Udio whaterver calling it "art" ... doesnt that feel so sad? Its a tool as people say but its not "your" Tool its someone elses tools. The comparison to a digital camera I saw here somewhere is a joke. Its more like the user of these services becomes a tool for the services (collecting your data). Its really hard to see a reason to be a part of this weird trap of a devaulation system (thats not even necessary as I can see it at least atm) which I guess means theres no reason for anyone to put up anything of real interest online anymore. Will the new sport 2025 be to avoid giving away data to stupid people? :)
i create through the recording of the sound designing and engineering the sounds of instruments- tweeked in key/or synthesizing boards. Mixing is adding artist or other lisenced artists to collaborate a form of new art. Right? I mean the whole licencing is to protect the CO-OP in the Masters for changing the originals to a feature for promo to the independent contracts in working together to band support as having all parties and the fair trades in the merchandise and added services to make that song succeed to a radio and performing responsibilities to make it work. Royalties, i believe is a guarantee refection of its success or insurances . This is why the royalties come from its results of the art and its creation processing? And fair use is its regilation for distribution to all parties and contractors to make sure everyone protected from that profit distribution. Am i Right? Just concise to my understanding this side of the music writing industry. Im curious to know as because ive been needing the to know this for quite some time. Its not easy finding a music attorney, like fire assayers, HARD to find..
If a singer learns to sing with a singing teacher at a music college, will he have to pay the teacher anything if he succeeds in his career? Obviously not. And all their lives, bands have been inspired by other bands, and have made their own original songs, based on a particular musical genre. Because musical genres don't have owners. The big record companies don't own musical genres. They have to eat and shut up. Adapt to the new life. In fact, many bands are creating music with AI and then playing the music on their real instruments, having been inspired by the AIs, and making their own originals that the AIs have created for them. These are the modern IAS cover bands. Get your fucking heads out of your asses! What these big companies want is to keep manipulating people and the musicians themselves, because they have to get it into their heads that their world is going to end. Not the musicians, but the big companies are going to break up into smaller companies!!!
Suno is fun it's like having an expensive studio with a band that does everything you want, it fun too
The same question applies to driverless cars and traditional taxi. Can they co exist? AI music give some people the freedom to create the kind of music they like. But, many will also still enjoy real musicians' work so that they can attend some gigs.
AS A PRODUCER THIS SUCKS I'M HURT
I think we also should talk about how the AI makes sound, how it recreates instruments. It's primarily using granular synthesis, or resynthesis, right? So it needs some grains of a sample to recreate the desired instrument. It is microsampling. So when they say the music is just for training and nothing is sampled, I think it's not the whole truth. That could open up a whole new legal discussion about if using millisecond long samples to create instruments can be fair use. In the case of AI, I think it's not. If I put a short sample of a song in my granular synth, probably nobody would care because it's hard to compare it to the original sample when listening to the final song. But I can't sell this granular synth preset with the sample in it. Software developers licence such samples or produce their own, because everyone could look at the the samples in their plugin. We can't follow the sound design process in Suno and Udio, they can hide what samples are in their synth and how long they are. But they are music software developers, so they should make their own Instruments and sample libraries like every renowned company does.
the foundamental problem is nobody asked creators if they wanted to opt out of the "everything-all-at-once" cultural shift. Personally I don't enjoy buffets... I'd rather eat at a good restaurant.
Whats the differences of sampling and copywriting and cover band respects in preforming?
I was waiting to hear what you have to say about this.I think Timberland is smart because AI is going to win, what I want to know is if there was even such thing as train models a decade ago ?
AI music feels like Casper the Friendly Ghost. A benevolent and cheeky spirit that isn’t quite of this world, but sort of is. Or was. Translucent but not transparent. Made of everything that ever happened before plus a few skeletons in the closet, and that’s why we love/hate it.
I use copyrighted material to train my brain all the time and I use it to create new music that's similar to what I've learned. That's fair use.
The fact that somebody has made a machine that can do that same thing does not mean that it no longer is fair use.
what you are saying, makes no sense since you use the inspiration to develop new ideas made "by yourself and with your own voice" if you tryna sound smart, you better off just not commenting at all.
@@bryson2350 too late “you tryna”
Apart from cases where the similarity goes so far that it also infringes rights, there is a big difference between a human being with all the factors that transform whatever experiences it accumulates into what that being creates and an algorithm that processes input data and generates an output from it, however complicated.
Besides, some new technologies simply require new laws if there is a significant potential to cause damage to humans or society. After all, that's what laws are (should) be for.
@@EXCAELIS_net AI generated music isn't damaging any humans and whether or not is good for society remains to be seen.
I am not a fan of stolen artistic content in any form but I do find it hilarious that musical artists had no issues with using AI for image generation for video content are now crying foul over musical ai.
I say at this point, enjoy the bed you made ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What many people miss is that it's not an "either-or". We can have AI music, but tech companies have to license the music for training AI. Simple. They cannot make all profit from other people's work, and expect we are fine.
then we should all pay a fine for making music film books etc based on things we have seen/heard from other inspirations that we all as humans have based our work on for hundreds/thousands of years. That is why country, pop, rnb, etc can not be copyrighted as a style because it is used as a basis to create new works out of a style of music to our liking. Now if you straight up copy the same melody & lyrics then yes that is copyright infringement. Same as if you are coping melody using same music but changing the lyrics to become parody you have to get a license and permission from the copyright holders. However if your create a new song that has never been done before and might have a part that was inspired by another song then that is up to. the courts. I mean seems like all pop songs are starting to sound the same. Miley Cyrus is getting sued over saying flowers which was in an another song. So inspiration is being attacked now as you copied me and i'm suing for money money money, when if you look at it, nothing is truly original everyone has picked up on other peoples work that picked up on other peoples work. So it goes on and on, that is why it can be in a grey area. similar vers a true rip off vers a small rip off it all comes down to money and jealously and who copied righted what song first and if they ripped off the song fully, partly or just did a similar sound as an inspiration.
That’s the usual fallacy. The CEOs and employees of tech companies are not musicians, they are not inspired from music, they don’t learn from music, they just steal the masters and use them to set up an industrial process of software production. That has nothing to do with what artists do, as artists don't steal the digital files for commercial purposes.
I thought they would have been shut down by the record companies by now. How do you prove you're a composer when anyone can spit out a Zimmer track in a few seconds?
Suno should be trained on royalty free
Music only … that would be the best way to this legally
Our rate of technological advancement over the last 120 years has almost certainly outpaced our growth in wisdom regarding how to deal with new technologies. So my opinions below may be an indication of just how foolish I still am :).
I think AI music could be considered a kind of health hazard to musicians who create music organically from within. AI music replacing human made music is different from say, the car replacing the horse and buggy, in that there are emotional/mental ties to making music the old fashioned way which can affect our health and well being, and that don't exist in a strictly material production environment. As a part-time composer, I've experienced first hand the hurt of losing gigs to AI. Those hurts were much more emotional/mental than financial since I have a good paying full time job and don't need the money from composing. These hurts were not so much because my composing skills were inferior to AI, but that I lost purpose to create more music. How do I regain that artistic purpose to help maintain my well being? Become a painter? Nope, AI is a kind of health hazard there as well.
A couple possible solutions might be gleaned from looking at the tobacco industry. First, music that uses AI should be labeled as such, similar to how a pack of cigarettes is labeled as a potential health hazard. Second, use of AI could be banned in certain circumstances, like how smoking has been banned in restaurants. What those circumstances are is debatable, but copyright infringement is probably one of them. Other thoughts?
hi thanks , its going to destroy the music industry/entertainment industry as a whole people dont think 5 to 10 years down the line its here Ai will replace songwriters and demo singers as a whole and it sad.
ai is replacing everything, google search is ai, photos, videos, music, avatars, etc everything is using ai now, ai voice clones, ai avatar clones of yourself, deep fakes, etc its already here and isn't going anywhere.
This is such complicated lawsuit bc I really don’t like either party’s motives but that being said I have to get on the side of the record labels. I wish this were a class action suit of musicians v. AI music generation platforms. I think we need to protect our industry the same way the actors guild did-and I’m NOT anti-technology! I think there are definitely exciting applications for this technology BUT I absolutely hate that our content is being used to train these ai models without our consent. I think the argument that a piece of a technology learns the way a human would is absolutely invalid. An ai model does not choose to invest its limited time and resources to learn music. Fair use should not apply to an ai model. A human being is dumping copyrighted works into this model in order to make a profit. This is NOT like a kid learning to play guitar by listening to music. This is a company exploiting the lack of legal guardrails with a new technology to make a profit without any regard for copyright laws that are meant to protect the work of musicians, producers, etc. They should be required to acquire consent before using copyrighted works to train their technology.
ai is alike a person listening to all types of music and creating new music from what they heard. It just does it faster and better than us. So if you grew up listening to certain artists you loved you were influenced by them and created your own take of their music style. So honestly ai using public music to learn from falls under the fair use for education purposes to train and teach the ai on music styles. None of my songs have ever been flagged as having any part of a copyrighted part in it. So I believe the ai is writing original influence music tracks now. However the record labels that used suno to use copyright lyrics to steer the ai to make a copycat backing track/song that violated the rules of sunio/udio to not use copyright lyrics/audio clips unless they owned them. In this case if they owns all the mastered tracks but not the song copy-write then they broke the rules, even if they owned both rights it was them telling the ai to create it. If a regular person did that, the record company could sue that regular person, but since the label did it Suno/udio would win because they just provided the ai tool but didn't break the laws as the record labels or regular people brake copyright law, they were the ones driving the car so to speak.
I understand the argument on the other side, I just think it’s an irresponsible precedent to set. Ai is not autonomous and it is NOT like a human. It is software. It is a tool that is designed by human beings. It does not learn like a human precisely because of how quickly it stores and organizes data. It connects an incredible amount of information but it is a completely superficial treatment of data. It is essentially more like a calculator and a search engine. There must always be a way to trace accountability back to the people who created the software. What these generative music ai do is create a collage of sounds that it determines is the best solution to your prompt. Unless Suno can prove that its software produces sound from oscillators then it IS using a form of sampling from music that was fed into it. It just so happens that the sample processing is so granular that the resulting music is difficult to trace to the exact sources. If it is not generating sound from raw waveforms then it is sampling. The input given to it absolutely was copyrighted music if they cannot prove that they composed their own genre music to feed to this software themselves. There is no fair use exception here. They are making this software available to make a profit from the consumer-not to educate their consumers.
@@Mhmusiccc I'm taking that you haven't used suno? It has so many features that allows you to upload your own audio clips up to 2 mins now that you play an instrument, hum or sing. It allows you to edit, crop, extend, you have control over the final output. It's come so far to being a very creative tool for songwriters.
@@StafonSalon it’s okay that you like Suno. Use whatever tools you want. I’m against Suno training their music generation ai model with copyrighted music without paying royalties or getting permission from copyright holders.
@@Mhmusiccc they probably didn't have the money to, also if its considered fair use to train/educate a robot "ai" its no different than a person listing to the radio to learn the craft of singing and songwriting and then making their own music from observing the craft of music. If the ai was downloading data verses listening to data that is a factor that would have to be proved in court.
AI and Music Creation: A Tool, Not a Threat
It’s understandable that some musicians feel uneasy about AI’s growing role in music creation, but it’s important to take a step back and consider the bigger picture. Technology has always played a crucial role in shaping the way we create and experience music. From the use of synthesizers to sampling, digital audio workstations (DAWs), guitar pedals, pitch correction, and even autotune, artists have long embraced technological innovations to push the boundaries of their sound.
The question, then, is why is AI any different?
The argument that AI-generated music somehow diminishes the value of music created by “real musicians” often comes from a place of fear-fear of competition, fear of change, and fear of the unknown. However, AI is not about replacing musicians; it’s about expanding the tools available for creative expression. Just like any other technology, AI is a tool-and like all tools, its value comes from how it is used.
Critics often fail to recognize the effort and artistry that goes into AI-generated music when used by serious artists. AI is not a “one-click solution.” For those of us who use AI in music creation, it involves a deep and careful process, with hours spent shaping, refining, and perfecting both the text and the music. The idea that you simply give a command like “create a song about a dandelion in the pavement” and immediately receive a polished masterpiece is a gross oversimplification. AI requires just as much attention to detail as any other music production tool.
Moreover, many of the same musicians who criticize AI for “replacing creativity” are likely using tools that also alter sound or enhance performance in their own work-whether through loops, digital effects, or advanced production techniques. Are these not also forms of technological assistance? Why is AI singled out as “bad” when it’s just another step in the evolution of music production?
The reality is that technological advancements have always met resistance. Every industry has seen similar reactions throughout history. Whether it was the introduction of electric instruments, digital recording, or even word processing software replacing typewriters-people always fear what’s new. But just as we don’t expect writers to go back to carving letters into stone, we shouldn’t fear the creative potential AI brings to the table.
The heart of the issue often lies in the fact that AI represents a challenge to the status quo. It levels the playing field, allowing more people to express their creativity in new ways. This, understandably, makes some musicians feel their careers or artistry are being threatened. But in truth, AI doesn’t replace creativity-it enhances it, offering more ways to bring unique artistic visions to life.
For musicians who take the time to understand AI and use it as a tool rather than seeing it as a shortcut, there is vast potential. The key is not to view AI as the enemy, but to see it for what it is: a new medium for artistic expression. Just as we’ve embraced technology in so many other aspects of music production, it’s time we embrace AI and recognize it for the powerful tool it can be.
Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that AI allows for greater accessibility in music creation. Not everyone has access to a full studio, a team of session musicians, or expensive equipment. AI opens the door for independent creators, giving them the tools to bring their artistic visions to life without the need for excessive resources. In this sense, AI democratizes the creative process-allowing more voices to be heard in an industry that can sometimes feel exclusive.
that's a lot of words to ignore the editors and ghost writers who have already died since the introduction of AI. What you gonna make the guitars out of when the environmental damage of AI servers is beyond repair?
@@MarsInFlight AI saves power because it eliminates jobs. Eliminating jobs is cool because it means americans consume less. American consumption is greatest cause of environmental destruction on earth. Most of the factories that pollute in china just building garbage for you to consume. Are you gonna make guitars out of cheese slice wrappers when the container ships from abroad stop being your butler?
The only “tool” is you. It’s not a tool. It’s an intelligence that is basically thieving from every piece of music that exists online.
@@andydinomoolaRight. Pure theft. Nobody in the history of music has ever been able to simply take someone else's work and spit out a replica in five seconds. Look up a new developing tech called Harmony Cloak which gives musician's a way to fight back by putting a "poison pill" frequency in their tracks which is undetectable to human ears but detetable to AI which degrades AI output. There is absolutely no reason everyone should be able to do everything. AI generation technology as it exists today without real guard rails is anti-human and anti-creativity.
@@andydinomoola so is every white guy.
In my opinion AI should be used as a reference,sketch and or inspiration idea as well as information source. Incorporating it in your projects takes the joy out of learning, creating, and networking with other talented creatives. The music or any creation you ask AI to do for you becomes soulless if you’re allowing it to do all the heavy lifting.
The powers that truly are pushing a.i are much bigger than the music industry,they will have their way,the music industry is just feeling the rumble,get with the times or get left behind, this just another case of wagon owners saying how car drivers aren’t truly “working” for their travels. 🙄,but don’t fret ,when blockchain rolls in, ai will govern this and much more.
I love Suno, helps with my production. The tool is tops.
Timberland knows a lot of people aren’t actually built to make music. He mentioned something similar in a recent interview. So if you believe he sell out! I’d say no he’s looking to make a change from artists & producers that don’t wanna do the work to make an AUTHENTIC sound
Short answer - Yes
Long Answer - Of Course
I Just Paid for a Month Subscription on Suno and am using my own voice and lyrics to generate songs
The far reaching ramifications of this court case is not just music, but machine learning as a whole. If an AI can't learn from created works and is limited by how much cash a company has to pay for every word, every image, also who sets the prices? You know who wins that this point? The countries that completely ignore copyright laws. You will see a massive amount of companies magically relocate to chinese servers or offshore chinese services. AI is here to stay. Even the Government is making AI for homeland security. I believe this is going to change the face of fair use in a massive control where you lose your freedom of fair use or everything once created can be fair use for creative means. Either we keep the right to fair use or they destroy it for means of control and pursuit for the mighty dollar. This is Napster 2.0
Not really an argument, just a funny thought I had.
What if I asked Weird Al Yankovic to write me a song. And prompted him to write about peaches. (Would he go the Bieber route, or The Presidents of the United States of America route?) Obviously this is different scenario and not a great comparison, but has some similarities.
As a rapper going to use suno to make me beats so I cna focus on rapping can make a new sound because of ai
Anyone calling ai a tool is one too.
If you cannot use your own intelligence, then you're your own problem and nothing is going to change it but you.
Remember that a country built on colonizing the places and things of others should not be asked if taking things is art full.
where does that leave people who are capable of using both their intelligence, and also ai? Beethoven (for example) was born into a society which was a product of colonisation. I guess even his opinion on creativity should be considered irrelevant?
@@johnlacey155 yes Beethoven's opinion on this industry and the creativity it takes to be in it are irrelevant. He never had to sell records, and if someone had intelligence on top of creativity they wouldn't use ai.
This era is full of "average at best" ppl trying to bully the rest of the world into accepting mediocre.
@@mgd9151Beethoven was in the music industry as it stood then, which was more fickle than it is now (and he's still in the industry as it stands now). I disagree that ai isn't useful to someone who already has significant creativity and intelligence. most great contemporary musicians value inputs from collaborators. even Prince was known for hearing things his band were playing on the sidelines and saying "what was that?". ai gives you hundreds of additional collaborators for a few bucks/month. it's pretty cheap. your last statement is the one that I do agree with. but this is true in multiple domains, not just music.
Depends how you use it. If you are telling ai "Create me a song about..." Then hell no, you did not write the song, ai did and its just a fun game for a non songwriter. If you write all of the lyrics yourself, upload your 2 min track that you sung on, providing the melody, played and instrument on, then that is when it becomes a tool to the creative song writing process. Other than that if you don't then no, you are not a songwriter and it shouldn't be claimed that yes I wrote a song when it was really not you that wrote it.
@StafonSalon right, now the problem is all of the ppl that are using it wrong. They seem to be the norm.
no, AI and artists can't coexist, on account of the AI destroying the planet the artists live on. Timbaland going all out knowing we'll never forgive JT is unsurprising though
case in point. Know who loves AI in music? scientology's newest best bud and perpetual best-friend slayer Mike Shinoda
@@MarsInFlight oohhhhhh got it, you love conspiracies. Now those borderline irrelevant responses make sense
@@ZacxOff conspiracies? You mean like the reality of reactivating 3-mile island just to power ONE of these many new servers? not my fault you're a willfully ignorant fuckwit with no touch on reality
@@ZacxOff conspiracy theories like his mother recounting the voicemails of chester breaking down? You're criminally uninformed, so don't bother wasting my time further.
@@MarsInFlight what are you even talking about dude?’ You are just rambling like you have red yarn all over your room.
you might be my favourite music content creator!! loved this entire piece end to end