At this moment, there is no investor thinking, "I should invest in a record label," so we already know that the lawsuit will not proceed. Suno and Udio will make record labels disappear, or they will have to cede copyright to Suno and Udio to survive in some way. Because even if Suno did not use copyrighted material as the record labels claim, the ability to create thousands of songs per second makes it impossible for record labels with their artists to compete with even 0.1% of the market. Right now, there are companies, even advertising campaigns, already using AI-created music at zero cost.

Don't make too much popcorn, though, this is probably the labels pushing for a settlement where they get access to data or models in exchange for some set fee per work trained on.

Thanks for the look at the lawsuit. Was cool seeing/hearing the actual bits of music referenced in the suit. I'd be interested in your opinion on what I've done with my lyrics/melodies in conjunction with Udio. I've been a serious writer for almost 20yrs. I'm a novelist (four), short story writer (lots for family/friends), and a writer of 5-600 songs/poems (mostly for family and friends). I'm old, health's not good. Decided I wanted to hear my songs in more than my crappy a cappella. Spent the last two years going to bars, open mics, smaller gigs, talking with a lot of really nice, talented people and trying to get someone to collaborate with me and my lyrics, while also sending stuff to more recognized artists and their reps. Nothing. Not spending my last few years trying to learn to play music, dying and never hearing my stuff in a more robust world of sound. So, after purposely staying away from AI (as an artist in the world of writing, I'm conflicted), I jumped into Udio a couple weeks ago. I take a lot of time, 20-30 prompts to find thirty seconds of something that comes close to the world I've created in my lyrics/songs and what bit of melody I came up with a cappella: the feel, sound, taste, emotion, plot, multi-layered meanings, etc. I've been stunned by some of the resulting music, as have friends who've been tortured with my a cappella versions the last 6 years. Most of my lyrics/melodies find a comfortable home in anything from folk to country, old time blues to electric blues, Chicago/London 60's blues. I can hear some of what the app was trained on, but because they're my lyrics, they are pretty unique. I think? Again, would love an opinion on if you think Udio is spitting out obviously derivative music. Edit* I took all but one of my 160 a cappella songs private on my U Tube when I decided to use AI. Cheers! David

The other thing is... since when has it been illegal for a tool to create a cover song? If you sing a song EXACTLY like the original and comp it all together in your DAW, the music industry can't sue the daw creator... lol If you distribute it, THEN you need to get the cover license. But other than that, it isn't illegal to produce....

I think the debate whether or not a photo (or recording) is real is an interesting one. It illustrates how much of reality is based on imagination, and how policing our imagination is wrapped up in a billion dollar industry

Thanks for this video. I asked the question online: Can song styles be copyrighted? No, styles of music, like genres, cannot be copyrighted. This is because of several limitations on copyright, including fair use, the idea/expression dichotomy, and the fact that not all original expression is copyrightable. For example, many bands in the same genre have similar sounds, and genres are defined by stylistic similarities.

I wonder how many of those examples of copyrighted song someone else did were cherry picked. And how long it took.

TBH, some record companies’ man created (copyrighted) songs are also sound like other copyrighted song ( lyric and melody) because Man also use other songs as reference.

You are starting with copyrighted lyrics. The Suno song is already not yours clearly. If you use your own lyrics like I do, you own the lyrics without any argument.

Suno also says in the agreement that you sign that you are not allowed to put in lyrics of already copyrighted material. So, obviously this rule is being broken by the record companies since they logged in with an account and proceeded to put in copyrighted material. hmmm.. try putting in original expression of who you are and it will create original music around your words.

You think they've trained the neural network to not sample, but if that was the case the voice they created would exist separate from the lyrics. Will it have Frank Sinatra singing delta Blues? No. These are not exact copies, but are no different than a cover band doing their version, which is also copyrighted for commercial use.

They recently removed these audio files from the platform.

Personally, I don't see any legal difference between training humans and training AI. No one creates art from a vacuum, they all learn from past masters and successful artists. Copyright has an explicit exemption for education. As for outlawing creating music that learns from a hit and duplicates the style, wouldn't that put all the bar bands out of business?

The lawsuit is the first step towards copyright extinction; the record labels have already lost, and the only thing they are doing is publicly passing the torch to Suno and Udio. By filing the lawsuit, they gave Suno and Udio international publicity. If there were any doubts from people about these two, the record labels have brought them to the forefront. The lawsuit is really irrelevant, as nothing will come of it. At the end of the day, 2024 is when the great shift towards AI and the AI economy is taking place. Everything is going to change, and copyright will become public domain. Just as there is no copyright in AI art, it will not exist in any artistic aspect of the future.

Thank you for your input. You are one with a clear thinking mind on the topic. I have been with UDIO for about two months now, and you cannot duplicate a singer's voice or their music exactly - who would really want to? And anyone that's worked with AI knows it's tricky to get a particular sound or image. And, like you said, any artist or performer or singer has learned from copyrighted material. To me, it's just a joke that they are going to these kinds of extremes in trying to stop AI music generators. Maybe, just maybe, it will push them to a new level of creativity of music and sound.

for like 170(maybe a bit more) songs it did take me like 230 pages in total of generated crap :D(the picked worked out songs included)

When I went to two music schools, we were given material to learn. Rarely was there examples of authentic sheet music of commercial music being taught. Most music had to be cleared for use or was designed by the school. Why the AI companies cut corners to train without proper consent? Fair use is an ambiguous concept when applied to teaching. The results are, of course, going to be a copy of what the AI learned. Distributing the output of its music to the public should have been stopped. In all fairness. It is a new and potentially innovative technology, I would use my discretion passing judgment against the AI companies. Perhaps it music is just a demonstration of its abilities. Not for sale, but for show.

I thought the whole deal with Suno was that the devs were also musicians so they could train the thing on their own, disappointing

Funny the labels aren’t suing for reproduction, Suno is still micro sampling, whether it’s model generated output or not. Suno does not play any instruments. So the only way Suno can create a track is reproduce learnt recording data and piece together a new track. Surely the labels would investigate this angle, Suno would have to prove it’s ai is actuallt playing the instruments and recording the output..

I tend to not agree with Suno on that particular prospect. Parody won't hurt financial bottom line of the original art. Educational content won't hurt financial bottom line of the original art. But if you train a machine on sync music and then offer that machine for free, it will hurt earnings of authors of that sync music. Hence there's nothing fair about this use. You want a model capable of creating metal music? License tracks from metal bands or make your own metal music. Everything else is stealing, sorry.

It also doesn't help how many people are intentionally trying to poison the well with regard to AI because they see it as competition. Just SUPER dishonest takes and trying to frame it as "plagiarism with some extra steps" to get audiences to judge the music before they even hear it. Of course they won't win. As people find more music they like that was created with AI, they will slowly get over the dirty tactics.... but it will take a while for that to happen now.

So the music industry wants us to listen to their music, but if we do they could sue us for copyright infringement..?