There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

AI Music Generator Suno Admits It Was Trained on ‘Essentially All Music Files on the Internet’

“Suno’s training data includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet.”

“Rather than trying to argue that Suno was not trained on copyrighted songs, the company is instead making a Fair Use argument to say that the law should allow for AI training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation.”

Archived (also bypass paywall): https://archive.ph/ivTGs

mikwee ,
@mikwee@thebrainbin.org avatar

If you post stuff online for people to view it, don’t be surprised when computer see it too.

DarkThoughts ,

Why would the "AI" know about it and not just make that up though?
But also, if companies can use everything on the internet as a "fair use" thing, then so should people. No more bullying of people making stuff you don't like / agree with.

Hildegarde ,

One of the four fair use factors is the portion of the copyrighted work that was taken. For a finding of fair use under this factor, the infringing work must only take the amount of copyrighted material needed for the infringing work’s purpose.

If they ripped every single file they have access to, there’s no way to be found as fair use under this factor. If they argue they were using a curated list of only the works they needed to develop their model it could be fair use, but admitting to taking every possible work in their entirety is a surefire way to fail a fair use defense.

can , (edited )

It’s pretty obvious if you get specific with the tags. Especially with older styles where there’s less available trianing data.

Blackdoomax ,

Imagine the amount of data that is used to train facial recognition ia.

Fubarberry ,
@Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz avatar

There’s nothing stopping you from going to youtube, listening to a bunch of hit country songs there, and using that inspiration to write a “hit country song about getting your balls caught in a screen door”. That music was free to access, and your ability to create derivative works is fully protected by copyright law.

So if that’s what the AI is doing, then it would be fully legal if it was a person. The question courts are trying to figure out is if AI should be treated like people when it comes to “learning” and creating derivative works.

I think there are good arguments to both sides of that issue. The big advantage of ruling against AI having those rights is that it means that record labels and other rights holders can get compensation for their content being used. The main disadvantage is that high cost barriers to training material will kill off open-source and small company AI, guaranteeing that generative AI is fully controlled by tech giant companies like Google, Microsoft, and Adobe.

I think the best legal outcome is one that attempts to protect both: companies and individuals below a certain revenue threshold (or other scale metrics) can freely train on the open web, but are required to track what was used for training. As they grow, there will be different tiers where they’re required to start paying for the content their model was trained on. Obviously this solution needs a lot of work before being a viable option, but I think something similar to this is the best way to both have competition in the AI space and make sure people get compensated.

moonlight ,

I think the solution is just that anything AI generated should be public domain.

MrSoup ,

If you use a tool, let’s say photoshop, to make an image, should it be of public domain?
Even if the user effort here is just the prompt, it’s still a tool used by an user.

moonlight ,

If you roll a set of dice, do you own the number?

I don't think it is a tool in the same sense that image editing software is.

But if for example you use a LLM to write an outline for something and you heavily edit it, then that's transformative, and it's owned by you.

The raw output isn't yours, even though the prompt and final edited version are.

Fubarberry ,
@Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz avatar

If you snap a photo of something, you own the photo (at least in the US).

There’s a solid argument that someone doing complex AI image generation has done way more to create the final product than someone snapping a quick pic with their phone.

admin ,
@admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

One could also say that building a camera from first principles is a lot more work than entering a prompt in DALL-E, but using false equivalents isn’t going up get us very far.

Fubarberry , (edited )
@Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz avatar

I think a fairer comparison in that case would be the difficulty of building a camera vs the difficulty of building and programming an AI capable computer.

That doesn’t really make sense either way though, no one is building their camera/computer from raw materials and then arguing that gives them better intellectual rights.

LodeMike ,

That’s the current status quo.

Cagi , (edited )

Taking other people’s creative works to create your own for-profit product is illegal in every way except when AI does it. AI is not a person watching videos. AI is a product using others’ content as its bricks and mortar. Thousands of hours of work on a project you completed being used by someone else to turn a profit, maybe even used in some way you vehemently disagree with, without giving you a dime is unethical and needs regulation from that perspective.

Fubarberry , (edited )
@Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz avatar

That’s covered by section 107 of the US copyright law, and is actually fine and protected as free use in most cases. As long as the work isn’t a direct copy and instead changes the result to be something different.

All parody type music is protected in this way, whether it’s new lyrics to a song, or even something less “creative” like performing the lyrics of song A to the melody and style of song B.

Even_Adder ,

It should be fully legal because it’s still a person doing it. Like Cory Doctrow said in this article:

Break down the steps of training a model and it quickly becomes apparent why it’s technically wrong to call this a copyright infringement. First, the act of making transient copies of works – even billions of works – is unequivocally fair use. Unless you think search engines and the Internet Archive shouldn’t exist, then you should support scraping at scale: pluralistic.net/…/how-to-think-about-scraping/

Making quantitative observations about works is a longstanding, respected and important tool for criticism, analysis, archiving and new acts of creation. Measuring the steady contraction of the vocabulary in successive Agatha Christie novels turns out to offer a fascinating window into her dementia: theguardian.com/…/agatha-christie-alzheimers-rese…

The final step in training a model is publishing the conclusions of the quantitative analysis of the temporarily copied documents as software code. Code itself is a form of expressive speech – and that expressivity is key to the fight for privacy, because the fact that code is speech limits how governments can censor software: eff.org/…/remembering-case-established-code-speec…

That’s all these models are, someone’s analysis of the training data in relation to each other, not the data itself. I feel like this is where most people get tripped up. Understanding how these things work makes it all obvious.

Evotech ,

Well, Microsoft started this line of argument recently æ. Makes sense others also adopt it

Passerby6497 ,

Oh, so when a ai company wants to use copyrighted works without permission or compensation it’s “fair use” but when I do it, it’s “piracy” and “I need to leave before the cops are called”.

NocturnalMorning , (edited )

Just tried it out out of curiosity. It does a good job, but the music is still boring.

NineMileTower ,

Say what you will, but “I Glued My Balls to My Butthole (Again)” fucking slaps.

gregor ,
@gregor@gregtech.eu avatar

Link please? For research purposes, of course.

EddoWagt ,

youtu.be/wPlOYPGMRws?si=Xu094G4Ta5HfeLKS

YouTube link

NineMileTower ,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPlOYPGMRws&list=OLAK5uy_…

Listen to the rest of them too. This guy is a riot. He writes the lyrics and records parts of the music to make it better than the AI can make it.

rigatti ,
@rigatti@lemmy.world avatar

Sadly I love that song. It resonates with my lived experience.

Dasnap ,
@Dasnap@lemmy.world avatar

I prefer ‘I Stink’.

Wispy2891 ,

Imagine how many years of prison would get an individual if he admitted in court to pirate tens of millions of music files in order to make a profit

hotpot8toe OP ,

I mean Suno is being sued by the record labels right now for this. We will see how much they have to pay if they lose

sunzu ,

I don't know if corpos will allow such dangerous precedent since all mega corps are guilty of this

_sideffect ,

Lmao, fair use… Fuck off with that in this case

sunzu ,

Its fair use when they take your labour, it is gulag when you play their song.

strawberry ,

they're right, they should absolutely be allowed to use and profit off of other peoples work that they spent decades learning and perfecting

(this is sarcasm in case you can't tell they're dumb as fuck for saying that shut this company down today pls)

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

If copyright had a reasonable duration, a huge chunk of that would have been public domain and not an issue.

archomrade ,

Abolish copyright.

AdamEatsAss ,

Why?

archomrade ,

Because it manufactures scarcity and causes us to repeatedly expend energy reproducing things that could be otherwise copied and enjoyed at near-zero cost.

We keep inventing silly rules in order to put off dealing with the existential threat our mode of production represents. “Copyright” is the first and silliest of those rules.

Creat ,

Are you taking about patents? Cause a world without copyright doesn’t sound very fun to me. Or anyone in a remotely creative job.

Ever for patents: There’s a reason innovations are protected literally anywhere in the world, but the durations being ever longer is a real problem (5 years would probably be fine). The basic concept is still just straight up necessary.

Telorand ,

I’m fine with copyright, provided it’s limited to only a few years and can’t ever be extended. This “lifetime of the author plus 50 years” shit is what makes it terrible.

Quill7513 ,

I think you have to abolish hierarchical society first. Which I also think should be done. But if you get rid of rules protecting creative endeavors before getting rid of the shitheel corporations it gets rid of creative endeavor more than it gets rid of the corporate bastards. The problem with copyright as it stands is how much the corporate bastards have twisted it over time to benefit them instead of the collective us.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •