Originally Posted by Sunset Poet
Originally Posted by JAPOV
I thought this was all more about voices/instruments/tones being duplicated...?

I think that it is. Think "Blurred Lines." That was a stylistic copy and the plaintiff won.
Bunch of voices in the background and somebody whacking a cow bell.

But...Thicke made a specific public reference.

Actually, JAPOV, it's not about duplicating anything...the suit is about AI using the music of others to train their AI datasets to create new music....


The complaints allege the companies are unlawfully training their AI models on massive amounts of copyrighted sound recordings.

That has been going on for decades by everyone
In the end AI is actually creating new music, not duplicating and I'm not sure there is any copyright law protection that prevents them from doing it
If i want to write songs like Dylan, I'll listen to all of his songs to create new songs that have a flavour of Dylan but do not duplicate his work...I think that's what AI is doing
IMO RIAA wants to have new copyright law enacted because they see themselves as being vulnerable to what AI is doing and they need to sue now to see what their exposure is going forward...they are not doing this to protect artists
The suit also want AI to reveal its training methods, which is really at the core of the suit...
The owners of AI have spent millions on legal fees to ensure that what they are doing is not covered by copyright law because they want to assure investors that their investments are not at risk
In the end AI music will be bought out by the music industry and that IMO is what this is all about

Last edited by VNORTH2; 07/01/24 10:19 PM.
Creators of music have a responsibility to their craft. When they have finished using all the notes and words, they must pass them down to the next generation with a simple request. “Use these to create new music.”...Steven McDonald