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

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.

archomrade ,

No, i’m talking about all intellectual works (copyrights and patents being some of the categories commonly used)

Humans need no incentive to create new works, but the way we distribute resources requires us to make these rules so that those creators fit within our ‘work for food’ production model.

Even a modest UBI would support most creative endeavors, but instead of that we have a “monetize your work or starve” arrangement.

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.

commie ,

rules protecting creative endeavors

that’s not what copyright does.

archomrade ,

You don’t have to abolish hierarchy, you just have to de-tangle work from sustenance-level resource distribution. A UBI sufficient for living would be enough. Even providing universal housing and reducing the workweek would help.

Copyright simply makes creative work profitable, but profit isn’t necessarily a prerequisite for creative work.

Quill7513 ,

Oh my desire to abolish hierarchical society is… Pretty core to who I am lol. So there was some bias in that. Yeah there’s ways to make get rid of copyright, still have professions, and still have a hierarchy, but at a certain point you’re building a gentler form of capitalism instead of treating people with the true respect and dignity they deserve. I’m willing to accept I’m pretty radical on this particular set of views.

Also yes. Everyone should get UBI and the billionaires pockets should be where we get the money from

tehWrapper ,
@tehWrapper@lemmy.world avatar

Great AI gets more rights than us too!

drmoose ,

You’re free to learn from any piece of music too. Whether AI is actually learning is still debatable but you have the same rights right now.

I’m still on the edge tbh I feel like it is learning and it is transformative but it’s just too powerful for our current copyright framework.

Either way, that’ll be such a headache for the transformative work clause of copyright for years to come. Also policing training would be completely unenforcable so any decision here would be rather moot in real world practice either way.

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

Also policing training would be completely unenforcable

That’s where laws would come in. Obviously it would have civil law, not criminal law, but making sure it would be enforceable would have to be part of such laws. For example, forcing model makers to disclose their training dataset in one way or another.

drmoose ,

But you can already train models at home also you can just extend existing models with new training data. Will that be regulated too? How?

Willy ,

I think you’re allowed to listen to every song on the open internet too.

mrfriki ,

But not making business out of them.

Willy ,

You can make a business as soon as you’re done listening to them all.

credo ,

If you get an idea from a song, you are 1000% free to turn that into new art. This is the fair use argument.

Telorand ,

I agree with the logic, but I don’t think it should apply to LLMs—a humans-only law, if you will.

Quill7513 ,

I think the key is that an LLM can’t have ideas. Its creative endeavors aren’t creative. Art is about the craft and the message and an LLM lacks that context. Like. The best an LLM can do is produce the kinds of music Drake does that is meant to pacify people into continuous consumption

Telorand ,

I had a similar thought after I wrote this. LLMs aren’t creating anything so much as style-copying. They’re unique productions, insomuch as rearranging notes or pixels makes something unique, but I think creativity requires conscious agency, which LLMs definitely do not have.

Also, I don’t need to copy the entirety of Drake’s discography to produce music like his, which is an aspect of human creativity that LLMs currently lack.

Quill7513 ,

But I’m not allowed to remix them. That’s the point that’s being made

Willy ,

It can’t remix either so that’s not an issue

Quill7513 ,

That’s the only thing it does.

pyr0ball ,

woosh

commie ,

no, it doesn’t.

PerogiBoi ,
@PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca avatar

One has to pay a very high cost to do this. These AI companies did not pay. Why do AI companies get a pass on copyrighted material that the rest of us are getting sued, imprisoned, and fined for accessing?

Quill7513 ,

Lot of people flying in this thread to down vote people saying that these media companies live by a different set of rules than the rest of us without understanding that this AI model is basically a huge automated record scratching DJ that can only regurgitate things its heard before reassembled and presented as new. If any of us tried to do this same thing they’d sue our pants off for piracy and plagiarism. But when they do it it’s fine.

commie ,

plagiarism isn’t a tort.

General_Effort ,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

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