The music industry has officially declared war on Suno and Udio, two of the most prominent AI music generators. A group of music labels including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group has filed lawsuits in US federal court on Monday morning alleging copyright infringement on a “massive scale.”

The plaintiffs seek damages up to $150,000 per work infringed. The lawsuit against Suno is filed in Massachusetts, while the case against Udio’s parent company Uncharted Inc. was filed in New York. Suno and Udio did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

“Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.

0 points

Because humans don’t also take inspiration from other’s work they’ve heard and unconsciously repeat part of other songs they’ve heard before, possibly decades ago. Never happens. Never. Humans don’t profit from books they’ve read and apply to their career. Humans don’t profit from watching other humans do the thing and then learn to do it themselves.

All AI does is do the same thing but at ridiculous scale and ridiculous speeds. We shouldn’t hold progress because capitalism dictates that we shouldn’t put people out of jobs. We need to prepare for the future where there is no jobs and AI replaced all of them.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

But a human can synthesize all those works and transform them into something new. All the AI is doing is regurgitating stuff it has heard before. I don’t want to try to put a bot on the same level as human creativity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This is a shit take

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Someone posted links to some of the AI generated songs, and they are straight up copying. Blatantly so. If a human made them, they would be sued, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think with all the frivolous lawsuits based on music sounding similar in cases like Kate Perry and Ed Sheeran lately, you’d be crazy to release AI generated music right now. Marvin Gaye’s estate probably have lawsuits already drafted up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

AI isn’t “like a person” it doesn’t “learn like a person” it doesn’t “think like a person” it’s nothing like a person. It’s a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It’s a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.

In fact it’s really easy to show that it’s a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.

Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they’re going to have to acquire it from me legally.

No one is against AI, we’re just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The copyright infringment machine will obviously serve the people and not the multi-billion dollar corporations \s

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Multi-billion dollar corporations like Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group?

All of music is basically owned by like 4 companies. This is them trying to make sure they own all AI generated music too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I can’t believe I’m on the music industry’s side on this. It’s a sad day when I have to root for the team that’s made it hard for me to make a living while they fight against the team that’s trying to make me obsolete.

permalink
report
reply
2 points
*

Staggeringly naive, tbh. Your profession will be made obsolete as a self-sustaining for-profit enterprise either way. The difference is that the tooling can either be owned exclusively by megacorp, or it can be owned by people.

It’s better to be a bard relying on the charity and small custom of others than a literal sharecropper fueling Universal’s proprietary model for next to nothing. At least in the former case you’re free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I see you missed my point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Okay, now we’re cooking!

This is like when the bad guy from the last movie teams up with the heroes at the last minute to help fight the new big bad.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Our technology is transformative; it is designed to generate completely new outputs, not to memorize and regurgitate pre-existing content

Oops! You appear to have consumed and believed your own shit you’re peddling

permalink
report
reply
10 points

“Completely new”

Okay, then don’t train it on anything at all and let’s see how it turns out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

To be fair, it’s as “new” as what the major record labels put out!

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I wish we could hear music made by people who’ve never heard it before

permalink
report
parent
reply
69 points
*

I can’t tell which one is a shittier actor here…

Eitherway, this is not good for end consumer lol

We always get fucked

permalink
report
reply
47 points
*

I hate to say it, but I kinda hope the music copyright cartel wins this one, only for the precedent it would set about things like proprietary use of MS Copilot output being an infringement of GPL-licensed code.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Yeah, as someone who’s fought against the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobbying in my country, I think I’m on their side on this one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I don’t know which one is better tbh

the devil you know or the one you don’t!

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Having all AI-generated code be either “viral” copyleft or illegal to use at all would certainly be better than allowing massive laundering of GPL-licensed code for exploitation in proprietary software.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

GPL code is the least concern, you can always just say the AI-generated code is GPL. What about training on leaked proprietary code? The training data already known to include medical records, CSAM, etc., wouldn’t be surprised if it also contained proprietary code.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.1K

    Posts

  • 91K

    Comments