AI and our rights as musicians

[kvotchin]

Some of this was news to me. Be careful - and possibly well-armed - homies.

[mjolnir]

That Benn Jordan video is top notch. ThankQ

[Tiles]

Surprise. When AI generates a song that violates the copyright of an existing song then it is violation of the copyright

I don't need a youtuber to explain that for me ...

[RirtualViot2013]

It is without a doubt unfair to prompt AI to create a song, release it, and then make a copyright claim on another song that was not created with any generative AI whatsoever and follow through with it (even if the author of this song does not even know the work you posted that was not created through your own effort but through a prompt, which does not qualify you as an author of a work). Since it becomes increasingly difficult for artists to not have their music contribute to AI training in any way, and separate their own music from AI since the AI gets better and the music less distinguishable from human-made music every day, I might want to post a good message here: PROs are on your side. For example, in germany, GEMA has already sued OpenAI (for ChatGPT reproducing protected song lyrics) and SunoAI (for Suno AI generating songs based on training data containing copyright protected audio). Both songwriters and composers deserve fair compensation for what they create.

[VOODOO U]

Musicians don't have rights. Just get signed to a label and you'll find out the hard way.
And A.I. isn't a problem, the problem is *you* the musician and having the need/desire to post up your music online.
Stop posting up music to the internet, problem solved. Norhing for A.I. to do (poor thing).

[VariKusBrainZ]

Surprise. When AI generates a song that violates the copyright of an existing song then it is violation of the copyright

I don't need a youtuber to explain that for me ...

So all the AI content generators will end up
Suing each other out of existence in the perfect situation

[cryophonik]

I highly doubt AI is creeping my songs, generating hits, and getting rich from them. And, if it is, meh, whatever. I'm glad it has more time and willfulness to promote its versions of my crappy songs than I do.

[eLawnMust]

Musicians don't have rights. Just get signed to a label and you'll find out the hard way.
And A.I. isn't a problem, the problem is *you* the musician and having the need/desire to post up your music online.
Stop posting up music to the internet, problem solved. Norhing for A.I. to do (poor thing).

VOODOO U is right... I have several quite good tunes that will never see the internet... The only thing I post on the net is concepts or tracker jingles, WIP or other short stuff with cursing & grunting on the tracks... Then no worries of any copyright claims nor any theft... Who...WHO gives a rat if anyone online whom you will never meet hears you?

[VOODOO U]

Apparently too many care. You've got all these hopefuls posting up their lifeless songs thinking they just might get discovered forgetting there are 600 billion others doing the same thing.
So now the question *should* be how does one stand out to "get discovered" amongst 7 trillion bedroom knob twidde wank-a-roonie noodles?
But no, instead they're concerned about AI stealing their blip bleep tune that sounds more bland than the clicking sound of a car turn signal.
Let me tell you if you get a song ripped by AI, be happy because that's all the attention that song is going to get.

Sigh. I suppose this is what happens when stupid runs the world.

[mjolnir]

...but that's not how the music industry was before the advent of AI.
why should anybody settle for the just recently arrived bogus status quo?
...just a rhetorical question.

[Tiles]

Chance to get famous before AI invention: 0%. Chance to get famous after AI invention: 0%

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[FarleyCZ]

I think AI is going to dismantle society. Field by field, one by one. It takes the social contract (if you provide value, you get paid for that value) and throws it out of the window. You guys talk too much about becoming "famous", but that's not the only value you were able to provide. You could mix for people. You could market stuff for people. You could make gigs happen for people. You could make elevator music or lo-fi beats for people. You could code or paint for people. You could teach kids of other people. You could do taxes for people. You could read laws for people. All of that is threatened now. Junior positions will become much less and less relevant while we charge kids more and more for rent. I don't see this ending well, to be quite frank.

Who's gonna buy everything AI makes when nobody earned a dime because their labour wasn't needed? It does not add up.

[cryophonik]

AI your tunes are belong to us

[elxsound]

There have been some interesting bits mentioned on business news outlets, where they mention big companies are entering agreements with AI providers that either outright prevent scraping, or allow scraping for a fee.

Apparently, this is the direction for the near future in restricting AI, or an indirect way of making it equitable for those entities with enough clout and powerful enough lawyers to make a change.

The idea is that it will take upwards of 10 years before the courts sort through copyright claims from those that have had their works scraped (not limited to music) and review of copyright claims by AI providers.

My guess is that in time, SUNO will not be allowed to claim copyright on any content. They’ll likely be relegated to a fee-for-service company, but not eligible for holding copyright.

The sad part is places like KVR and all our best of thread are likely scraped. Any user blogs are likely scraped and will no longer be relevant to their respective music communities.

Basically anyone releasing things independently on their own websites, will not have a way to protect themselves, unless their ISP offers protections when publishing content, likely using one of their paid tools.


And because it came up about self-publishing tunes one the internet… Here’s SoundCloud’s response to some recent questions raised:

SoundCloud has never used artist content to train AI models. Not for music creation. Not for large language models. Not for anything that tries to mimic or replace your work. Period. We don’t build generative AI tools, and we don’t allow third parties to scrape or use artist content from SoundCloud to train them either.

In fact, we’ve already put protections in place like a “no AI” tag that explicitly signals content on SoundCloud can’t be used for AI training. At SoundCloud, protecting artist rights isn’t new for us and being artist-first isn’t a slogan. It’s core to who we are and always will be. It’s in our DNA.

https://press.soundcloud.com/249951-a-l ... rms-of-use