Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
If I were a betting man, my money would be on AI....is there a copyright law that says you can't use someones music to learn how to play that person's music???
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
With almost nothing Suno raised 125 million in May...that's just the start of billions being invested in AI..and Sony is going to be one of the investors...
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
right , I read that , complicated, hypocrites. Who knows , Not my world. Yes billions of dollars and majors with maid service , where's my social security check .
"The companies copied music without permission to teach their systems to create music that will "directly compete with, cheapen, and ultimately drown out" human artists' work, according to federal lawsuits filed against Udio in New York and Suno in Massachusetts."
At a microcosm level, that began to happen on this site.
Sunset Poet wrote... The companies copied music without permission to teach their systems to create music that will "directly compete with, cheapen, and ultimately drown out" human artists' work, according to federal lawsuits filed against Udio in New York and Suno in Massachusetts."
That what the lawsuit says, Marty, but what copyright law is broken?
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
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.
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; 07/01/2409:19 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
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
Exactly... You don't need a computer to analyze structure/arrangement.
So, if not for sound quality and simulated recording technique, are the "labels" just suing because they can?
AI is just a man made inferior substitution for creativity, it can't think outside of its human programming. But, if the labels win, they essentially monopolize music creation in general. You'll have to acquire a license and permit to buy a guitar... Anyone who records his/her self without permission will be guilty of plagiarism.
If anything can prove that there really isn't any new music to be created, it's AI.
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
Exactly... You don't need a computer to analyze structure/arrangement.
So, if not for sound quality and simulated recording technique, are the "labels" just suing because they can?
AI is just a man made inferior substitution for creativity, it can't think outside of its human programming. But, if the labels win, they essentially monopolize music creation in general. You'll have to acquire a license and permit to buy a guitar... Anyone who records his/her self without permission will be guilty of plagiarism.
If anything can prove that there really isn't any new music to be created, it's AI.
That's about right....
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
AI may be doing what humans have been doing for decades, but humans...are human. And therefore, their output is not totally fabricated from other sources. Humans are a "source." Machines are fabricated an entirely derivative.
It will be interesting to see what they try to prove. As the excerpt states. goal #1 seems to be uncovering the exact process and sources for the AI product.
Someone posted the following on a FB songwriter page in response to a post where another person put up a UDIO song and was gushing about how wonderful and easy it was. (not me)
"You didn't write it at all. You provided an idea and selected a style. The computer did the writing. It's no more yours than had you hired another songwriter to write it."
I just viewed the video...Beato confirms everything I said here..
The RIAA wants total control of AI...even if they lose the case, they win....if copyright law doesn't cover AI training, they will own all of AI This is 100% about investments into AI by the filthy rich..nothing to do with music
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
I was an investment banker back in the late '80's and this lawsuit and what's going on with the growth of AI has their fingerprints all over it
Last edited by VNORTH2; 07/02/2408:47 AM.
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
Beato covers this. You have to listen to the entire video
I like what he said about "sweat equity" and tangible ownership... I had to mow a lot of yards when I was a kid to grow my album collection lol. Now, everything is about a monthly fee for access/permission... but you own nothing.
I wonder... Is AI actually stealing from the major labels, or stealing from the millions of "unlicensed amateurs" posting to the net every second?
But this is all academic. The "labels" have had the music industry cornered for a long time already; Unless, you have the means to create YOUR OWN label. Some have managed to do that in the past, which is surely embarrassing to the industry...
Could be , But what I hear it's majors tracks there suing over , they could care-less on amateurs tracks. Hard to say how they mine tracks. I'm sure that will be revealed in lawsuits. Amateurs by definition are not signed to the majors. But if you listen on that thieving ( Spoitfy ) there are artists as good as majors . But that's a different topic .
Nobody thinks about occupations that have already took a hit because of tech, but suddenly musicians think its the worst thing that ever happened.
I suppose it is if youve invested your whole life to being a musician. but I dont think its going away, but the money for it might. Just as money is not there for recorded music any more.
Think about how calculators changed lives. it used to mean something to be a great mathematician, you no longer need to be one. Only job left was teaching the formulas.
Now a robot can be created and be the teacher. no more easy substitute teacher job.
tax software destroyed the tax business professionals, they still exist, but not really needed unless you have alot of loopholes
you can soon buy robots to be your party guests. Your girlfriend. Your fans.
Robot Preachers, Robot police and firemen...i can imagine tha argument...why risk lives when a robot can do it.
robot weathermen, robot journalists, robot camera men.
Imagine being dumped or rejected by a robot? Sorry ...you're not my type.
do you come here often?
lol thats where i think humans cant be replaced. Were are individuals with unique tastes and pov that nobody exactly has, thats what songwriting is suppose to bring out.
will a robot REALLY have a sense of wow..."shes hot".... we can program them to say that, but does it or will it mean the same thing it does to us.
This is only a assumption. Nashviile session players might be scared on losing their jobs to robots , There is no doubt in my mind AI will be more advanced . This kinda reminds me everything made in China... by teenagers in sweat shops for a fraction of the cost.
This is only a assumption. Nashviile session players might be scared on losing their jobs to robots , There is no doubt in my mind AI will be more advanced . This kinda reminds me everything made in China... by teenagers in sweat shops for a fraction of the cost.
I guess you can say you still need people to mind the robots, but then what if they make robots to repair the robots.
I guess the robots have to be made somehow, so thats the job space u wanna be. Every big Business guru says that if your not in AI already you're done
Perhaps , But how many session players will lose their job , watching over guitar robots ? I don't know what Guitar Gods that master tone and attack think of AI licks . I don't think Lindsey Buckingham is going to put down the guitar cuz of robots.
Perhaps , But how many session players will lose their job , watching over guitar robots ? I don't know what Guitar Gods that master tone and attack think of AI licks . I don't think Lindsey Buckingham is going to put down the guitar cuz of robots.
Well i dont see the electric guitar player going anywhere. It doesnt change over night like that. Theres millions of guitar players in the world today, so at least this generation will continue. Plus music programs still exist in school.
I dont want to see real musicians fade into oblivion.
First electric guitar was in the 1930's. They ain't goin' nowhere. Keep strumming! However, the first piano, the type of which is in use today, goes back to the 1700's. The most popular of all instruments. What was this topic about?
Yes using AI or session players, you’re paying child support. Either the robots kids or Nashville players kids . Let’s hope they graduate . They should be able to afford Harvard . These stars are always suing each other inbetween photo shoots in their underaware . When do they have time to practice ?
Interesting... I just got paid for AI generated usage. Apparently, if my acoustic music is used in AI generated images, videos or ads, I receive AI royalties for such usage.
John
Last edited by John Lawrence Schick; 07/12/2405:13 PM.
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.
I think Thicke would have won that suit if he hadn't admitted that copied part of the song.
Nobody thinks about occupations that have already took a hit because of tech, but suddenly musicians think its the worst thing that ever happened.
I suppose it is if youve invested your whole life to being a musician. but I dont think its going away, but the money for it might. Just as money is not there for recorded music any more.
Think about how calculators changed lives. it used to mean something to be a great mathematician, you no longer need to be one. Only job left was teaching the formulas.
Now a robot can be created and be the teacher. no more easy substitute teacher job.
tax software destroyed the tax business professionals, they still exist, but not really needed unless you have alot of loopholes
you can soon buy robots to be your party guests. Your girlfriend. Your fans.
Robot Preachers, Robot police and firemen...i can imagine tha argument...why risk lives when a robot can do it.
robot weathermen, robot journalists, robot camera men.
Imagine being dumped or rejected by a robot? Sorry ...you're not my type.
do you come here often?
lol thats where i think humans cant be replaced. Were are individuals with unique tastes and pov that nobody exactly has, thats what songwriting is suppose to bring out.
will a robot REALLY have a sense of wow..."shes hot".... we can program them to say that, but does it or will it mean the same thing it does to us.
weird to think about.
There's a difference between technological advances to make life easier, and technology stealing art in order to cheapen it.
If anyone can push a button and make a song, then songs become worthless.
if society deems that acceptable, society gets what it deserves.
I'd prefer to relegate art to human artists, not machines, but that's just me.
I used software in the creation of music, but the music was ALL my idea, the software enabled me to make a demo that saved me a lot of money, that I would have never been able to afford and no demo would have ever been made, or much fewer demos anyway. Now, when it comes to the released product, all the tracks will be human.
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
"Defeatist Pessimists and Rose Colored Glasses Optimists are lonely companions, victims even. Both ideologies imply predestined outcomes, and therefore breed inactivity in its victims. Inaction is the only sure way to lose at anything in life. All positive action guarantees at least a fighting chance." -Brian Austin Whitney
