I have a question - I’m also an artist - what’s the difference between a language model and being Influenced? Aren’t we all an amalgamation of all the music and art that inspires us? So does every Lo-Fi producer with off kilter drums owe Dilla? Genuine question - I’m all about intellectual property as I’ve been a full time creative for 20 years. But I find this a hugely philosophical issue - I agree we need regulation - but let’s not make the same mistakes we did with samples. Philosophically - isn’t the idea of owning a set of vibrations (chord progressions) a wild concept? Do you also own the water? It’s a deep convo.
Like 'digital artists'? I mean come on the computer does all the work. Use a DAW? Use Photoshop? Better put that down and grab a guitar/brush because the computer did all the work. What no? Why? Your input amounted to tapping your fingers and waiving your hand.
@@tru2thastyle Yeah really they are. What does it take to make a song in a DAW? Experience. Taste. Time. Trial and Error. Discernment. Tapping at the keyboard, tapping at the mouse, waving a hand. All the same elements that go into an AI created song. Yeah the AI can definitely do a lot more in a lot less time but the human input to output ratio is similar. In fact without the human no output would occur. Same for AI or a DAW. I wonder if you consider it absurd, that those of us who actually code AI and have developed image generators since GauGAN, those who have developed custom and unique processes from Centipede to Stable Diffusion and beyond - or those of us who have been at the forefront of voice generation and TTS technologies - could ever possibly called an AI Artist? I mean think about it, really, you don't know what level of involvement people have. I have been composing music from sheet to FLStudio and now in AI over 30 years. Am I suddenly not a composer because I used an AI to produce a song?
If you just spend 30 years glueing premade loops then yeah, in that case using DAW or AI is no different. Based on your comments I doubt you ever made anything truly yours in DAW or put real work in it. Otherwise you would understand that making music in DAW and with AI are two completely different worlds.
@@BattleAngelSound I actually released an entire album. Have 6 more in the works. I have been writing classical sheet music since 1995 and music for games for over 20 years. Maybe you could spend more time making music and less time hating on other artists? Seems more productive yeah? It's like an acoustic guitar guy telling the electric guitar guy his music isn't real music because the pedals and the amp do all the hard work. It's like the sheet music guy saying a DJ using a scratch table isn't real music.
If consumers play Ai tracks and buy them, they will not have real music. And it would be hateful and degradation to the original artist. I refuse to do a track with Ai. I am completely against it. People can use your voice on a track and have you in court.
Average consumer makes up the bulk of listeners and they don't care. There's nothing stoping a person from creating a fake artist and making an Ai album right now lol if the music is dope and they have the resources to keep the fake artist present online and such they'll make bank. Unknown arist who don't tour or do shows are making multiple 6 figures a year to millions. There's Ai "Adult" Instagram accounts already producing 11k-14k a month off Ai adult pics soooooo
I think its time we all start having verbal passwords with relatives. If u get a call from a relative, tell them say the password so u kno they real 😂 sounds crazy but that's where we at now. Idgaf if the password ooga Booga, u better say that shit before I send this money 🤣
These Tech companies motto is "create and release it first, then apologize later" because they know that to get approval and to thoroughly test something that has never been done before may stop the product from (maybe) ever being released to the public
Music creators need to wake up and demand legal action which would enforce Ai training to pay the artist x100 more in a form of royalties. Would you agree?
What happens to the people who “trained” by listening to certain music all their life and start making similar music to what they listened to… should they pay royalties to the artists they listened to growing up?
@@onemoney2show Thank you for bringing this up. Where do humans get it from? Is inspiration same as Ai training? Musicians pay the price for their magic, a big price and now Ai just going to freeload? To me Ai seems like for people who only want to get and don't want to give or have nothing to give.
@@bkxt I agree, I don't think AI is going to be using anything in a vacuum on its own. It will be creators that will use the AI to enhance their own work. Just like any other tech tool that has come up and changed the industries when they were first introduced. From auto manufacturing to food science, change is inevitable.
The Hip Hop that birthed me as an Emcee would not accept anything but hard work and effort as source material for the end result. AI is a cheat code for ones not willing to put in the hard work and effort in my opinion. But then I am a relic from a bygone era. I relate to very few of the rules that the game is playing by today.
In your opinion, at what stage of evolution for lack of a better word took it in the wrong direction? I have a hard time pinpointing when that would've been
AI may be a cheat code as much as musicians using the Internet to gain popularity, marketing and capital gains. The Internet has given everyone an opportunity to harness the power of social media and e-commerce to enrich themselves. Now that AI is accessible to all, it's suddenly a problem for some. It's just the next evolutionary step no different from producers and arist adapting synthesisers, vst plugins and autotune technology. To me those are all cheat codes too.
Unless you're selling 10 thousand copies in the same country of origin to the song that holds the copyright, it will cost more for the record labels to hire lawyers and chase you around the world than they could ever financially squeeze out of you. The worst they can do is send a cease & desist. (But they need a home address or a reliable contact number to accomplish that) If you haven't made a dime off the song at all, it's even a bigger waste of their time to chase you. Rights, shmights. They can't take away from you what you never had.
ikr. You can tell which producers don't know shit and it's the ones that think their little bedroom hobby will earn them a multi-million dollar lawsuit when they barely make $50 for a beat lol All this fear mongering is too much.
Most folks don't really understand our feelings about this. it has nothing to do with it, now the people who will get hit with lawsuits will be people who use these tools to purposely use this technology to recreate someone else like any song. If you're a true artist, you are influenced by all kinds of art. Once you redo someone else's music you owe that artist, but if you do a new song that was influenced by that same artist, that's not illegal. It's gonna get crazy emotional vs actual legality. Now since I have used this technology years ago with Playstation and since folks are just realizing this is a thing, art never had laws until big rich people wanted to profit on Artist.
True, but The Major labels have PACs that spend millions each year to keep government and laws in they favor, which I'm sure is the reason for this. But like I said it's usually to have thing in they favor. Cause they still trying to do business with these companies at the same time.
i think they're just slow to regulate it because they want to use it themselves for narratives, propaganda etc and writing policy will still curtail their own sneaky power
Why don’t they do something more productive and pass an actual relevant law requiring full disclosure on ghost writers, define the difference between plagiarism and sampling/referencing songs, protocol on sampling and penalties, crackdown on white collar crime within the industry etc sheesh AI is so urgent and of international importance
People will always accept the easier route/option much more quickly. People want hacks, shortcuts etc, they don't want the hassle and work of actually having to learn to song write or learn or an instrument, to do the hard yards. AI is a gift to them.
If a song copy sells for $1 then why would it cost more? People go to libraries and take out CD's, that one copy could be listened to by 1,000 people. How much do those people owe the author? Does the library need to be taken to court for letting people learn?
AI’s role in music composition is a blend of learning from existing works and generating new compositions. Here’s how it operates: Learning from Existing Music: AI systems often train on large datasets that include existing music. This helps them learn patterns, structures, and styles1. Creating New Compositions: After training, AI can generate new music by applying the learned patterns in novel ways. The compositions are typically original, though they may be influenced by the data the AI was trained on2. The question of whether AI “steals” from artists is complex. AI-generated music is not created by a human, so it’s debated whether it can be considered copyright-free. However, the use of copyrighted material in AI training datasets raises legal and ethical concerns3. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that only works with “sufficient human creative input” can be copyrighted. This means that AI on its own cannot be an “author.” If a human collaborates with AI, adding significant creative input, the resulting work could potentially be copyrighted1. In summary, while AI can generate new music compositions, the legalities around copyright and ownership are still being navigated as the technology evolves3.
Congratulations, you used an AI (either Copilot or Bing) for your post and you didn't give AI credit. Your annotations, which do not link, betray you. Note that AI, on it's interface, says 'AI can produce false information'. Did you fact check?
I'm a visual artist and I know for a fact that some of my work has been used- without my consent- to train AI Art machines- and I also know that nothing will be done about it- there's just too much money and power and influence behind this technology- it's not just about art or music it's also about military power and economic survival. The powers that be are not going to put a muzzle on the AI developers by passing laws that slow them down, because they are being sold the idea that they are in a race with other nations and powers to get the biggest and best AI. Throwing creatives under the bus is just collatoral damage to these people- we are just roadkill on the highway to the future.
So what’s up with having to clear samples and pay the original creators then? If their AI’s training material isn’t credited and financially compensated that’s a helluva double standard.
You have to think about your own legal liability. They have a legal department, you don't. I would say sampling any track is fair use up to a point, but the truth is you only have the rights you can pay to litigate. 🤣 It isn't any clearer on the other side if it makes you feel better. AI music generation services offer indemnity if you pay, but what IP rights you have to the work is a huge undefined grey area legally, so if you are honest you can't sell the music for now.
If you hear a song on the radio, how much of your income do you need to pay them for that training data? Learning isn't theft. A sample is a copy. Hearing a sample and learning from it doesn't mean you need to then buy the sample. You can however sample from AI music, as it hasn't been made a legal person, and can't alone create a copywrite. Only with human involvement can it be copywritten. If the person wrote the lyrics then that is covered. If they mastered it then that is a feature, or even if they use AI of a real person's voice who authorized it. But purely prompt driven songs as outputted can't have a copywrite, and that is what most people do. You can do it and then sample your own songs, resulting in songs that can have a copywrite. The prompt is the idea for the song and you can't copywrite an idea. Also AI not being a person means no UBI and not being able to file a lawsuit against it for stealing a melody, rather you need to go after the person who prompted it who probably has jack shh for money. A corporation is an artificial person so it can be taxed, regulated, and required to follow laws and regulations, at least in theory.
Write your own lyrics, train your voice, and make music, now if you use someone’s voice also using ChatGPT to write lyrics for your song then pay up because you don’t own the song. I already adapted. Ai can be used for song writers making reference tracks for artists or make your own music as long as it’s you and not someone else’s voice
There's an ethical way to use these services. Samples. Most people cant afford those really good oldschool or high quality samples, but Ai can create an all new sample for you to chop up and flip into your own beat. A sample that hasn't been used by anybody else, like sites like splice. Don't have to worry about obtaining permission or anything. Just dont take the art out of music. Be a creater. Don't let it do all the work, but utilize it as a tool. Now, the site the clip points out is not what im talking about. I mean the sites that make new song clips for you. Great for samples.
Yes, but many of those samples created by Suno or Udio are being trained on copyrighted songs and it is going to get difficult to use becuase some of these samples are almost alike.
@usachef5777 i see what you mean, but you cannot copywrite a melody, so it's all free game. People can say what they want, but it's perfectly legally obtained fresh samples. Honestly if anybody has a problem with that, they should have a problem with any kind of sampling at all. Most samples don't pay out to the original creater as it is, so it's really no different.
I once put "90's grimmy nyc hip hop" in the prompt. It was clear it drew inspiration from Royal Flush, but what was weird that I couldn't make out any of the words it was saying. It sounded like English but it wasn't . The only word it was clearly saying was the N-word.
Great content here as always, Curtis. Legislation coming from people like Adam Schiff, who may be well intentioned but are completely ignorant of what the tech actually does (how it works) present a bigger threat to rights holders than A.I. itself. This is going to be a long drawn-out disaster, and A.I. is not going to go away regardless of what laws we try to pass. But DIY'ers will keep right on with DIY no matter what!
In copyright law, the operative word is, is the new thing 'transformative'? That's subjective, and if you are sued, your fate will be in the hands of musicologists called in to testify. The question is, can you afford to defend yourself? I wouldn't even try, in the event I wrote a hit song, and we all are trying to do that.
In this case it's learning. Is learning theft? The AI doesn't interpolate or sample. It's a neural net that learns. It has some patterns in the first layer of the Convolutional Neural Net, but that just recognizes sound patters, and our brains do the same thing. Higher levels have the abstracts that understand the patterns of pattern that form speech and music.
Could you make a basic video on the process of copyrighting music in today's age? Especially from the perspective of someone who isn't prioritizing streaming services and old forms of consuming music? I think that'd be really valuable and eye-opening.
@ when a human creates works of art, they aren’t putting their inspirations behind a paywall. The generate new works from the catalogs that have inspired them. These companies are taking the works of artists, putting them behind a paywall and building multi million dollar companies without consent.
@@isnarddupoux7253 if one song is significantly similar to another a lawsuit can be filed but you can't file a lawsuit based on the use of training data it has to be the actual song itself that steals a melody line.
But music royalty collection companies don't even disclose which artists' works they represent. (Not in my country anyway.) So disclosure is already not working. Even if AI companies file a huge list of sources to an authority of some sort, it doesn't necessarily follow that artists will be able to search through that list to look for their own works, especially when copyright laws differ between countries.
Anti AI people just are trying to whatever they can to stop AI.... it isn't about copyright, it's just about trying to throw crap in the wheels of progress.
Progress is one thing, justice is another. You can't patent 'car', but you can patent 'cadillac', and if you steal 'cadillac' but not 'car', you can be sued, and expect it. Stealing 'cadillac' is not 'progress' it's theft. Make a flappadoodlemobile car, something new, patent it, and THAT is progress. now the question remains, will it sell? Well, that's on you.
As someone who has been writing and producing music since the late 80's. All musicians/artists have been influenced by artists who have come before them, and you can hear those influences in their work. So to act like AI is breaking some sacred rule about how it's "learning" to produce it's output, is not being intellectually honest.
When you make a song that sounds like every other song in the genre (think of emo or punk), is that copy right infringement too? If so, every single band is guilty. You learn what music sounds like, and then you make something different. Copyright infringement should only occur when the lyrics and actual sound are identical. This isn't happening. AI does exactly what humans do. It learns what music sounds like from listening to millions of songs, then it makes something similar. That's what every emo and punk band has done since the beginning of time. Are they all guilty?
You seem to be focused mostly on how AI is making different versions of existing songs. I think it goes deeper than that. AI is making music in the likeness of artists. They've obviously used these artist's work to train their models. The problem I see is that you don't need those artists once you have trained the AI to be that artist. You can make a track that sound exactly like something a the artist might have produced. The AI company owes the artist nothing, because the new song doesn't exist. I've been messing with Udio lately, and every song I have made can be traced to an artist's likeness. Its so obvious too.
Plagiarism laws are already in place and they pertain to every songwriter, even if the song is being created by AI. Trends are proof that we all copy each other! If a person or AI creates a song that breaks the plagiarism laws then it’s illegal. Case closed. As a matter of fact, AI is probably better at NOT plagiarizing because of its vast ability to make comparisons and deep mechanical logic. Yeah it’s a little weird that a machine alone is doing the work but hey, if I can do a little collaborating with AI and not have to share the royalties I’m in lol. I remember how people thought that samplers would do away with real instruments. That didn’t happen. We all copy each other and we all sound a little like our favorite songwriters, etc. etc. John Lennon said it best “There are only a few notes. Just variations on a theme.”
They should pass a law requiring all AI related development to be open, public, fully transparent. So no business can abuse the system without being spotted
❓️🤔Now I just listen to the instrumental of "Am I Wrong' remade on classical instruments in the chic fa la bathroom. Help me understand the difference, because I don't see how the publishing want still generate income...
This will apply video also , at start of 2007-2015 Up everything that I have cataloged online for sale in content use sites I have a separate addendum for thatpurpose all works when saw AI / API modules separate of any copyright use as always in the meta of the original file which you can add meta copyright into every camera. which is one thing I learned while consulting with livestream , justin tv aka Twitch , Roku youtube as a Vendor behind-the-scenes when there’s no laws in place.
i APOLOGIZE, i AM STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU TYPED BUT I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THE INFORMATION YOU ARE TRYING TO PASS. can you be kind enough to explain it in simpler terms. Thank you.
I knew this was coming. I’ve played around with it knowing that it would eventually be shut down. It’s just a toy. It’s not real music. It can’t innovate, it can only copy.
This puts the power back to labels, not the artist. Labels are going to use AI to build and promote artist that dont exist based off the sound of artist that do.
A big problem I have with AI generated content, is that some of them are made with training data from CP sites. I don't know why nobody is talking about that!
I think it’s hypocritical if a person samples to complain about the training of ai music. It’s all built on other people’s work. - Same discussion, different form
Its giving... That episode of Black Morror with Miley Cyrus...& They made the AI-Bot version of her & took her Music & kept her trapped in this house that kept her body barely alive 😳
If someone claims they wrote a song in the 1960's for example and you are ripping them off demand the master tape or a 45 single, etc. Even if they have a digital copy of the song they had to have had an analog version because that's all that would have existed prior to mp3s and so one. If they can't produce an analog copy then they are full of shit and should be counter sued for defimation.
From the vantage point of a civil suit, all that is relevant is the date of the copyright registration, NOT the claim of 'when it was actually written'.
I def think AI companies should have to li$t and compen$ate (Visual) Artist and Musicians (not just "music" companies) each time Art/Music is produced by training the AI on existing Art/Music. In fact it's Amazing to me that this was allowed to come out without these guards and boundaries in place. It just shows how much our Society will rush towards making Money without "doing the right thing"
I don't get it, what does it matter if they create new remix versions of the same song for various genres ? Isn't that what DJ's do legally ? If it's not an issue for DJ's why should it matter if AI does the same ? AI is just more efficient at it.
When you compose a song based on a genre you like, you will always be influenced from other artist, specially the ones you like. Don’t say that the music from the 80”s dont have similaritys, influences and so on from one another, the 90’s, rap, dance music..everybody copy everybody. Fashion, music, food, influencers for that matters. One influencers starts talking about something and then others influences talk about the same things. How many channels are similars among them?
Specious reasoning. Humans build on humans, that's authorship. Whether a creative work is protected by copyright, though similar to another work, depends on the transformative nature of the work, and that's determined only if you are sued and musicologists called to testify either agree with you, or the plaintiff. Machines building on human creativity is not 'authorship' per title 17 of US copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but I own some 40 copyrights, and have studied the law for a long time. Please consult an attorney and do not rely on my information, it's just based on my lay interpretation of the law, as I have experienced it over the years.
Eventually AI won't need any direct inputs to train itself. While some of these sites might be trained on copyrighted music, AI will be able to learn like humans, it's just a matter of time. If i want to make a Motown style sample, I didn't just magically know how to do that one day. I've listened to hundreds of hours of old records that I learned from and learned the music theory behind it. If I make a sample pack does that mean my work is breaking copyright because I learned from old records I listened to and the theory behind it? It may matter now, but AI is only going to get much more powerful and a lot of these laws will become obsolete. AI will become indistinguishable from humans in our lifetime, it will learn just like we do but MUCH faster.
There is no linear relationship between machine and humanity. Machines will never have a soul, the two exist in entirely different realms and never the two will meet. Moore's law is moot. AI is SI, 'simulated intelligence'. Never can it be the real thing. Oh, it might get so good to fool people but people aren't that smart, it seems.
Wow, 8.30 is crazy. Potentially anyone can kind of take whatever track and just change the genre and claim it to be their own. 😡 If that will be allowed, world needs to delete all patents ever claimed and any copyright IP ever registered first and just allow fair usage for own profit, for whatever any big corp owns.
If you use AI, you have actually stolen MORE than a song. Money is owed times infinity, because that is how many songs they can make using it to steal other people's work for free.
Then one could argue, that the creators of AI are liable to infinity. The new legislation hints at huge fines if they don't comply. I hope 'the people', rather 'the artists', win on this. AI is a threat to the value of art.
I'm primarily an actor/voice talent (former music producer, well - music producer on a break) - I'd love to email you and talk about the things happening on this side, and the creatives fighting for legislation
THIS IS WHY THEY ARE TEARING DOWN THE RAPPERS, ACTORS, ACTRESSES, MUSIC VIDEOS, MOVIES, TV COMMERICALS YOU NAME IT. AI WILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL OF THIS AT NO COST TO THE PRODUCERS.
Learning isn't theft. Do human artists need to pay a percent of money they make to the artists who's music they listened too? A human who hasn't listened to music, can't make music. This seems like the old ban blacks from reading so they can't learn, thinking.
The reason people are adjusting to and accepting AI music is that they still have no clue as how the music business is run or how much work musicians put into a song. Go Adam Schiff. He's an ass kicker and the music business including Spotify need their asses kicked big time.
So AI was copy right free, Now that they see people making money they coming after it hard eh.. 2:53 I dont see that happening because Ai basically uses the Entirety of Copyrighted work known to man. What i would be more worried about is what is deem AI & what is deemed something else, Because Chat GPT no longer fits the definition of AI.
So one issue I see with this legislation is that it's not really enforceable. Like even for auto-tune. Sure, there are instances where it's completely apparent that something is auto-tuned like T-Pain, but then you have a bunch of other singers that use it, but it sounds very close to their natural voice some would say too close to differentiate in the court of law. What's going to keep people from saying they didn't use AI? If it's done well enough you won't be able to tell her shouldn't be able to tell made with AI. And considering anytime that we hear about politicians talk about a computer, It's usually a pretty lukewarm experience. The majority of politicians are 60 to 70 years old, The vast majority of them don't know a thing about a computer. I understand the disruption AI causes, just the sheer power of it being able to clone someone's voice, threw us for a loop and we don't have an answer for that. If we're going to be honest here, we're lacking on cyber crime legislation, but if we start legislating the Internet, people will just use a VPN and do business from geographically outside of the country where it's legal. We have to remember That this is a worldwide event. Our laws only cover how business goes down here in America. And you're just a VPN away from showing up in Korea or Argentina, literally anywhere in the world. On top of legislating things on the internet that also goes against one of our other main issues we have here. Privacy. Also, legislation itself at its bare Bones is a restriction to our freedom. So if we're going to start legislating the internet the way that we see fit to combat this AI, we are going to directly infringe on people's privacy because legislation can't be enforced without being able to tell who's breaking the law.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
Scary Hours
Ayyy Justin in the building
This also explains why they're buying everyone's catalog.
🎯🎯🎯
I have a question - I’m also an artist - what’s the difference between a language model and being Influenced? Aren’t we all an amalgamation of all the music and art that inspires us? So does every Lo-Fi producer with off kilter drums owe Dilla? Genuine question - I’m all about intellectual property as I’ve been a full time creative for 20 years. But I find this a hugely philosophical issue - I agree we need regulation - but let’s not make the same mistakes we did with samples. Philosophically - isn’t the idea of owning a set of vibrations (chord progressions) a wild concept? Do you also own the water? It’s a deep convo.
Ask jazz standards what they think
The difference is machine versus human. Copyright law does not protect the output of machines.
Smh, AI shouldn't be used for the artistic fields. I mean even the term "AI artist" is absurd
Like 'digital artists'? I mean come on the computer does all the work. Use a DAW? Use Photoshop? Better put that down and grab a guitar/brush because the computer did all the work. What no? Why? Your input amounted to tapping your fingers and waiving your hand.
@@BeyondPC Stop with the nonsense. Those things are not the same.
@@tru2thastyle Yeah really they are. What does it take to make a song in a DAW? Experience. Taste. Time. Trial and Error. Discernment. Tapping at the keyboard, tapping at the mouse, waving a hand. All the same elements that go into an AI created song. Yeah the AI can definitely do a lot more in a lot less time but the human input to output ratio is similar. In fact without the human no output would occur. Same for AI or a DAW. I wonder if you consider it absurd, that those of us who actually code AI and have developed image generators since GauGAN, those who have developed custom and unique processes from Centipede to Stable Diffusion and beyond - or those of us who have been at the forefront of voice generation and TTS technologies - could ever possibly called an AI Artist? I mean think about it, really, you don't know what level of involvement people have. I have been composing music from sheet to FLStudio and now in AI over 30 years. Am I suddenly not a composer because I used an AI to produce a song?
If you just spend 30 years glueing premade loops then yeah, in that case using DAW or AI is no different. Based on your comments I doubt you ever made anything truly yours in DAW or put real work in it. Otherwise you would understand that making music in DAW and with AI are two completely different worlds.
@@BattleAngelSound I actually released an entire album. Have 6 more in the works. I have been writing classical sheet music since 1995 and music for games for over 20 years. Maybe you could spend more time making music and less time hating on other artists? Seems more productive yeah? It's like an acoustic guitar guy telling the electric guitar guy his music isn't real music because the pedals and the amp do all the hard work. It's like the sheet music guy saying a DJ using a scratch table isn't real music.
If consumers play Ai tracks and buy them, they will not have real music. And it would be hateful and degradation to the original artist. I refuse to do a track with Ai. I am completely against it. People can use your voice on a track and have you in court.
Average consumer makes up the bulk of listeners and they don't care. There's nothing stoping a person from creating a fake artist and making an Ai album right now lol if the music is dope and they have the resources to keep the fake artist present online and such they'll make bank.
Unknown arist who don't tour or do shows are making multiple 6 figures a year to millions. There's Ai "Adult" Instagram accounts already producing 11k-14k a month off Ai adult pics soooooo
lol cope 🤣 it’s music and it’s real just not human made…
@@TheeRebel...loud and confident ignorance... sure you're right. It is real music- stolen music. What's being critiqued is real theft and real harm.
@@TheKaliMalia and has no soul literally.
I'll never use it 👍
They can steal your face and voice. It’s all dangerous for people. The problem is who is implementing it and why.
PRODUCERS SO THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY THE PEOPLE!
I think its time we all start having verbal passwords with relatives. If u get a call from a relative, tell them say the password so u kno they real 😂 sounds crazy but that's where we at now. Idgaf if the password ooga Booga, u better say that shit before I send this money 🤣
It’s literally what voodoo aka natural men do. So they created a machine that can do it. It’s the invisible hand.
🧐👍🏽 Big brain!!! People could be convicted of crimes, and/or ostracized for things they haven't done.
Thanks for sharing! Much needed and appreciated. 🎼🎤
Thanks for the heads up CK. Appreciate you fam
These Tech companies motto is "create and release it first, then apologize later" because they know that to get approval and to thoroughly test something that has never been done before may stop the product from (maybe) ever being released to the public
Music creators need to wake up and demand legal action which would enforce Ai training to pay the artist x100 more in a form of royalties. Would you agree?
What happens to the people who “trained” by listening to certain music all their life and start making similar music to what they listened to… should they pay royalties to the artists they listened to growing up?
@@onemoney2show Thank you for bringing this up. Where do humans get it from? Is inspiration same as Ai training? Musicians pay the price for their magic, a big price and now Ai just going to freeload? To me Ai seems like for people who only want to get and don't want to give or have nothing to give.
@@bkxt I agree, I don't think AI is going to be using anything in a vacuum on its own. It will be creators that will use the AI to enhance their own work. Just like any other tech tool that has come up and changed the industries when they were first introduced. From auto manufacturing to food science, change is inevitable.
@@onemoney2show A person using an AI model to imitate with precision isn't learning how to do anything and isn't the one doing the creating.
@@mittxns922It is literally a large language LEARNING model
The Hip Hop that birthed me as an Emcee would not accept anything but hard work and effort as source material for the end result. AI is a cheat code for ones not willing to put in the hard work and effort in my opinion. But then I am a relic from a bygone era. I relate to very few of the rules that the game is playing by today.
In your opinion, at what stage of evolution for lack of a better word took it in the wrong direction? I have a hard time pinpointing when that would've been
AI may be a cheat code as much as musicians using the Internet to gain popularity, marketing and capital gains. The Internet has given everyone an opportunity to harness the power of social media and e-commerce to enrich themselves. Now that AI is accessible to all, it's suddenly a problem for some. It's just the next evolutionary step no different from producers and arist adapting synthesisers, vst plugins and autotune technology. To me those are all cheat codes too.
😂 it IS hard work using AI. But its also faster than just using reason, just protools, and an mpc. Its a tool not a cop out. You still have much to do
Unless you're selling 10 thousand copies in the same country of origin
to the song that holds the copyright, it will cost more for the record
labels to hire lawyers and chase you around the world than they could
ever financially squeeze out of you. The worst they can do is send a cease
& desist. (But they need a home address or a reliable contact number to
accomplish that)
If you haven't made a dime off the song at all, it's even a bigger waste
of their time to chase you.
Rights, shmights. They can't take away from you what you never had.
ikr. You can tell which producers don't know shit and it's the ones
that think their little bedroom hobby will earn them a multi-million
dollar lawsuit when they barely make $50 for a beat lol
All this fear mongering is too much.
Most folks don't really understand our feelings about this. it has nothing to do with it, now the people who will get hit with lawsuits will be people who use these tools to purposely use this technology to recreate someone else like any song. If you're a true artist, you are influenced by all kinds of art. Once you redo someone else's music you owe that artist, but if you do a new song that was influenced by that same artist, that's not illegal. It's gonna get crazy emotional vs actual legality. Now since I have used this technology years ago with Playstation and since folks are just realizing this is a thing, art never had laws until big rich people wanted to profit on Artist.
Government really don’t care
True, but The Major labels have PACs that spend millions each year to keep government and laws in they favor, which I'm sure is the reason for this. But like I said it's usually to have thing in they favor. Cause they still trying to do business with these companies at the same time.
i think they're just slow to regulate it because they want to use it themselves for narratives, propaganda etc and writing policy will still curtail their own sneaky power
Thank you for sharing fam🤲🏾❤️💪🏿
It's not only with the music, it is in every creative industries
Why don’t they do something more productive and pass an actual relevant law requiring full disclosure on ghost writers, define the difference between plagiarism and sampling/referencing songs, protocol on sampling and penalties, crackdown on white collar crime within the industry etc sheesh AI is so urgent and of international importance
Yes because it is as it's audio visual energy goes up it'll draw us in like tiktok on meth so yes all you said is useless compared to it 💀
People will always accept the easier route/option much more quickly. People want hacks, shortcuts etc, they don't want the hassle and work of actually having to learn to song write or learn or an instrument, to do the hard yards. AI is a gift to them.
Daaamn that quantity over quality thing is wild them companies was on some 10 steps ahead type shit putting that into ppls heads.
Sheesh. This is about to be a big problem in the hands of the wrong greedy people.
Another problem is that some catalogs are selling to Ai companies and the artists are finding out after the fact
Ethically trained AI is possible. Big corps just don't want to pay people to create/license music to train their models on.
It's a technology. Music can be studied for educational purposes.
If a song copy sells for $1 then why would it cost more? People go to libraries and take out CD's, that one copy could be listened to by 1,000 people. How much do those people owe the author? Does the library need to be taken to court for letting people learn?
AI’s role in music composition is a blend of learning from existing works and generating new compositions. Here’s how it operates:
Learning from Existing Music: AI systems often train on large datasets that include existing music. This helps them learn patterns, structures, and styles1.
Creating New Compositions: After training, AI can generate new music by applying the learned patterns in novel ways. The compositions are typically original, though they may be influenced by the data the AI was trained on2.
The question of whether AI “steals” from artists is complex. AI-generated music is not created by a human, so it’s debated whether it can be considered copyright-free. However, the use of copyrighted material in AI training datasets raises legal and ethical concerns3.
The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that only works with “sufficient human creative input” can be copyrighted. This means that AI on its own cannot be an “author.” If a human collaborates with AI, adding significant creative input, the resulting work could potentially be copyrighted1.
In summary, while AI can generate new music compositions, the legalities around copyright and ownership are still being navigated as the technology evolves3.
Congratulations, you used an AI (either Copilot or Bing) for your post and you didn't give AI credit. Your annotations, which do not link, betray you. Note that AI, on it's interface, says 'AI can produce false information'. Did you fact check?
I'm a visual artist and I know for a fact that some of my work has been used- without my consent- to train AI Art machines- and I also know that nothing will be done about it- there's just too much money and power and influence behind this technology- it's not just about art or music it's also about military power and economic survival. The powers that be are not going to put a muzzle on the AI developers by passing laws that slow them down, because they are being sold the idea that they are in a race with other nations and powers to get the biggest and best AI. Throwing creatives under the bus is just collatoral damage to these people- we are just roadkill on the highway to the future.
I agree A I is not
about just The Music
Its about WORLD POWER
The Music is just
Collateral Damage.
So what’s up with having to clear samples and pay the original creators then? If their AI’s training material isn’t credited and financially compensated that’s a helluva double standard.
You have to think about your own legal liability. They have a legal department, you don't.
I would say sampling any track is fair use up to a point, but the truth is you only have the rights you can pay to litigate. 🤣
It isn't any clearer on the other side if it makes you feel better. AI music generation services offer indemnity if you pay, but what IP rights you have to the work is a huge undefined grey area legally, so if you are honest you can't sell the music for now.
If you hear a song on the radio, how much of your income do you need to pay them for that training data?
Learning isn't theft. A sample is a copy. Hearing a sample and learning from it doesn't mean you need to then buy the sample.
You can however sample from AI music, as it hasn't been made a legal person, and can't alone create a copywrite. Only with human involvement can it be copywritten. If the person wrote the lyrics then that is covered. If they mastered it then that is a feature, or even if they use AI of a real person's voice who authorized it. But purely prompt driven songs as outputted can't have a copywrite, and that is what most people do. You can do it and then sample your own songs, resulting in songs that can have a copywrite.
The prompt is the idea for the song and you can't copywrite an idea.
Also AI not being a person means no UBI and not being able to file a lawsuit against it for stealing a melody, rather you need to go after the person who prompted it who probably has jack shh for money.
A corporation is an artificial person so it can be taxed, regulated, and required to follow laws and regulations, at least in theory.
Meta AI is example of this. Love the ✝️❤ btw.
Dude you hit the nail right on the head 9:52, and that punchline at 10:41 = EPIC!
Write your own lyrics, train your voice, and make music, now if you use someone’s voice also using ChatGPT to write lyrics for your song then pay up because you don’t own the song. I already adapted. Ai can be used for song writers making reference tracks for artists or make your own music as long as it’s you and not someone else’s voice
🎶 BBL DRIZZY 🎶
There's an ethical way to use these services. Samples. Most people cant afford those really good oldschool or high quality samples, but Ai can create an all new sample for you to chop up and flip into your own beat. A sample that hasn't been used by anybody else, like sites like splice. Don't have to worry about obtaining permission or anything. Just dont take the art out of music. Be a creater. Don't let it do all the work, but utilize it as a tool. Now, the site the clip points out is not what im talking about. I mean the sites that make new song clips for you. Great for samples.
Yes, but many of those samples created by Suno or Udio are being trained on copyrighted songs and it is going to get difficult to use becuase some of these samples are almost alike.
@usachef5777 i see what you mean, but you cannot copywrite a melody, so it's all free game. People can say what they want, but it's perfectly legally obtained fresh samples. Honestly if anybody has a problem with that, they should have a problem with any kind of sampling at all. Most samples don't pay out to the original creater as it is, so it's really no different.
Real spit 💯
I once put "90's grimmy nyc hip hop" in the prompt. It was clear it drew inspiration from Royal Flush, but what was weird that I couldn't make out any of the words it was saying. It sounded like English but it wasn't . The only word it was clearly saying was the N-word.
🤔 this IS why music from 1904 and earlier WILL make a huge comeback.
It's free to use now.
Great content here as always, Curtis. Legislation coming from people like Adam Schiff, who may be well intentioned but are completely ignorant of what the tech actually does (how it works) present a bigger threat to rights holders than A.I. itself. This is going to be a long drawn-out disaster, and A.I. is not going to go away regardless of what laws we try to pass. But DIY'ers will keep right on with DIY no matter what!
Somebody gonna have to tell the truth!!!!
Is interpolation stealing? Is sampling stealing? This is a very slippery slope.
Yep
In copyright law, the operative word is, is the new thing 'transformative'? That's subjective, and if you are sued, your fate will be in the hands of musicologists called in to testify. The question is, can you afford to defend yourself? I wouldn't even try, in the event I wrote a hit song, and we all are trying to do that.
In this case it's learning. Is learning theft? The AI doesn't interpolate or sample. It's a neural net that learns. It has some patterns in the first layer of the Convolutional Neural Net, but that just recognizes sound patters, and our brains do the same thing. Higher levels have the abstracts that understand the patterns of pattern that form speech and music.
Them Robot sounds on the intro LOL Toothless at it Again HaHa, Curtiss the Comedic force is with you, LOL! I had to pull that back!
Ai will rewrite bad tracks, and subliminals if they ban it or not it should exist
Anybody Remember when all them artists where selling their masters
I sure do
Streaming ain't s**t, artists are broke
Like what you did with that voice and youre hand gestures! LMFAO, keep doing the good work!!! I just subscribed!!!
Could you make a basic video on the process of copyrighting music in today's age? Especially from the perspective of someone who isn't prioritizing streaming services and old forms of consuming music? I think that'd be really valuable and eye-opening.
Yea those mash-ups are insane
how is training on data different than a musician listening to music and being influenced
@@xonious9031 humans filter inspiration through lived experience, memories, emotions…ai doesnt
@@isnarddupoux7253 but those are not objective and therefore not legally relevant
@ when a human creates works of art, they aren’t putting their inspirations behind a paywall. The generate new works from the catalogs that have inspired them. These companies are taking the works of artists, putting them behind a paywall and building multi million dollar companies without consent.
To be clear I think ai is cool, but we have a problem we need to sort out, for the sake of all our stories
@@isnarddupoux7253 if one song is significantly similar to another a lawsuit can be filed but you can't file a lawsuit based on the use of training data it has to be the actual song itself that steals a melody line.
A.i owe me 20 dollars a.i. came into my house and stole my cigarettes 😢
What about me? Im european so it doesnt make sense for me to make US copyrights. What do?
This news is from April. Where have you been?
But music royalty collection companies don't even disclose which artists' works they represent. (Not in my country anyway.) So disclosure is already not working. Even if AI companies file a huge list of sources to an authority of some sort, it doesn't necessarily follow that artists will be able to search through that list to look for their own works, especially when copyright laws differ between countries.
Anti AI people just are trying to whatever they can to stop AI.... it isn't about copyright, it's just about trying to throw crap in the wheels of progress.
Progress is one thing, justice is another. You can't patent 'car', but you can patent 'cadillac', and if you steal 'cadillac' but not 'car', you can be sued, and expect it. Stealing 'cadillac' is not 'progress' it's theft. Make a flappadoodlemobile car, something new, patent it, and THAT is progress. now the question remains, will it sell? Well, that's on you.
i was always thinking this shit sound to good. what artist is the ai coping
As someone who has been writing and producing music since the late 80's. All musicians/artists have been influenced by artists who have come before them, and you can hear those influences in their work. So to act like AI is breaking some sacred rule about how it's "learning" to produce it's output, is not being intellectually honest.
Not the Axecent shade lmfaooo
Welcome to the new underground beneath AI❤ Kurtis King
When you make a song that sounds like every other song in the genre (think of emo or punk), is that copy right infringement too? If so, every single band is guilty. You learn what music sounds like, and then you make something different.
Copyright infringement should only occur when the lyrics and actual sound are identical. This isn't happening.
AI does exactly what humans do. It learns what music sounds like from listening to millions of songs, then it makes something similar. That's what every emo and punk band has done since the beginning of time.
Are they all guilty?
Being able to make all them different versions are INSANE‼️🤯🤯🤯
You seem to be focused mostly on how AI is making different versions of existing songs. I think it goes deeper than that. AI is making music in the likeness of artists. They've obviously used these artist's work to train their models. The problem I see is that you don't need those artists once you have trained the AI to be that artist. You can make a track that sound exactly like something a the artist might have produced. The AI company owes the artist nothing, because the new song doesn't exist. I've been messing with Udio lately, and every song I have made can be traced to an artist's likeness. Its so obvious too.
Plagiarism laws are already in place and they pertain to every songwriter, even if the song is being created by AI. Trends are proof that we all copy each other! If a person or AI creates a song that breaks the plagiarism laws then it’s illegal. Case closed. As a matter of fact, AI is probably better at NOT plagiarizing because of its vast ability to make comparisons and deep mechanical logic. Yeah it’s a little weird that a machine alone is doing the work but hey, if I can do a little collaborating with AI and not have to share the royalties I’m in lol. I remember how people thought that samplers would do away with real instruments. That didn’t happen. We all copy each other and we all sound a little like our favorite songwriters, etc. etc. John Lennon said it best “There are only a few notes. Just variations on a theme.”
You are Correct
There's nothing New
Under the Sun
They should pass a law requiring all AI related development to be open, public, fully transparent. So no business can abuse the system without being spotted
❓️🤔Now I just listen to the instrumental of "Am I Wrong' remade on classical instruments in the chic fa la bathroom. Help me understand the difference, because I don't see how the publishing want still generate income...
So glad I have not released any of my compositions. Good to know the poor man’s copyright is no longer sufficient. Great video
That is cool no law cause its the same song but in different genre. But ai can also remix it and generate new compositions so remember that
as an artist i felt like violated.
This will apply video also , at start of 2007-2015 Up everything that I have cataloged online for sale in content use sites I have a separate addendum for thatpurpose all works when saw AI / API modules separate of any copyright use as always in the meta of the original file which you can add meta copyright into every camera.
which is one thing I learned while consulting with livestream , justin tv aka Twitch , Roku youtube as a Vendor behind-the-scenes when there’s no laws in place.
i APOLOGIZE, i AM STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU TYPED BUT I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THE INFORMATION YOU ARE TRYING TO PASS. can you be
kind enough to explain it in simpler terms. Thank you.
lol that AI computer impression was great
Question... dont all musicians "train" on data from other musicians?
I knew this was coming. I’ve played around with it knowing that it would eventually be shut down. It’s just a toy. It’s not real music. It can’t innovate, it can only copy.
This puts the power back to labels, not the artist. Labels are going to use AI to build and promote artist that dont exist based off the sound of artist that do.
This is huge opportunity for Independent artist using their own lyrics
A big problem I have with AI generated content, is that some of them are made with training data from CP sites. I don't know why nobody is talking about that!
Cp sites?
@@77majestic77 harmful content
I think it’s hypocritical if a person samples to complain about the training of ai music. It’s all built on other people’s work. - Same discussion, different form
No, the issue is authorship. Copyright law does not consider machines to be 'authors'. End of argument.
Corporations believe they are Sovereign nations onto themselves and not accountable to any Nation's laws.
All my bands material is legitimately under copyrights. Through the Library of Congress. You should do the same if you truly value your material.
In DJing, we use "whosampled"
Its giving... That episode of Black Morror with Miley Cyrus...& They made the AI-Bot version of her & took her Music & kept her trapped in this house that kept her body barely alive 😳
That bill could save the future, it needs to be applied pre AI training, because AI can lie. How they going to prove it?
If someone claims they wrote a song in the 1960's for example and you are ripping them off demand the master tape or a 45 single, etc. Even if they have a digital copy of the song they had to have had an analog version because that's all that would have existed prior to mp3s and so one. If they can't produce an analog copy then they are full of shit and should be counter sued for defimation.
From the vantage point of a civil suit, all that is relevant is the date of the copyright registration, NOT the claim of 'when it was actually written'.
I've been stealing from Commander Data since the 90s .....catch up😂
Makes me wonder if them splice loops etc are Ai generated ?
I’m 3 mins in but BBL dizzy was sample from a comedic writer who wrote it, himself. If he mad AI make the beat idk. But I don’t think it did.
Audio watermarks are here also btw.
Wait till AGI!
I def think AI companies should have to li$t and compen$ate (Visual) Artist and Musicians (not just "music" companies) each time Art/Music is produced by training the AI on existing Art/Music. In fact it's Amazing to me that this was allowed to come out without these guards and boundaries in place. It just shows how much our Society will rush towards making Money without "doing the right thing"
I don't get it, what does it matter if they create new remix versions of the same song for various genres ? Isn't that what DJ's do legally ? If it's not an issue for DJ's why should it matter if AI does the same ? AI is just more efficient at it.
When you compose a song based on a genre you like, you will always be influenced from other artist, specially the ones you like. Don’t say that the music from the 80”s dont have similaritys, influences and so on from one another, the 90’s, rap, dance music..everybody copy everybody. Fashion, music, food, influencers for that matters. One influencers starts talking about something and then others influences talk about the same things. How many channels are similars among them?
Specious reasoning. Humans build on humans, that's authorship. Whether a creative work is protected by copyright, though similar to another work, depends on the transformative nature of the work, and that's determined only if you are sued and musicologists called to testify either agree with you, or the plaintiff. Machines building on human creativity is not 'authorship' per title 17 of US copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but I own some 40 copyrights, and have studied the law for a long time. Please consult an attorney and do not rely on my information, it's just based on my lay interpretation of the law, as I have experienced it over the years.
Eventually AI won't need any direct inputs to train itself. While some of these sites might be trained on copyrighted music, AI will be able to learn like humans, it's just a matter of time. If i want to make a Motown style sample, I didn't just magically know how to do that one day. I've listened to hundreds of hours of old records that I learned from and learned the music theory behind it. If I make a sample pack does that mean my work is breaking copyright because I learned from old records I listened to and the theory behind it? It may matter now, but AI is only going to get much more powerful and a lot of these laws will become obsolete. AI will become indistinguishable from humans in our lifetime, it will learn just like we do but MUCH faster.
There is no linear relationship between machine and humanity. Machines will never have a soul, the two exist in entirely different realms and never the two will meet. Moore's law is moot. AI is SI, 'simulated intelligence'. Never can it be the real thing. Oh, it might get so good to fool people but people aren't that smart, it seems.
Wow, 8.30 is crazy. Potentially anyone can kind of take whatever track and just change the genre and claim it to be their own. 😡 If that will be allowed, world needs to delete all patents ever claimed and any copyright IP ever registered first and just allow fair usage for own profit, for whatever any big corp owns.
Have been feeding the best since 2008.
Interesting how Shifty shift (thumbnail)went down to ascap 2yrs ago.. hmmmmmm
If you use AI, you have actually stolen MORE than a song. Money is owed times infinity, because that is how many songs they can make using it to steal other people's work for free.
Then one could argue, that the creators of AI are liable to infinity. The new legislation hints at huge fines if they don't comply. I hope 'the people', rather 'the artists', win on this. AI is a threat to the value of art.
The next step is that they offer the training model. So they don’t get any claims. DIY😉
💪🏾
I'm primarily an actor/voice talent (former music producer, well - music producer on a break) - I'd love to email you and talk about the things happening on this side, and the creatives fighting for legislation
THIS IS WHY THEY ARE TEARING DOWN THE RAPPERS, ACTORS, ACTRESSES, MUSIC VIDEOS, MOVIES, TV COMMERICALS YOU NAME IT. AI WILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL OF THIS AT NO COST TO THE PRODUCERS.
Learning isn't theft. Do human artists need to pay a percent of money they make to the artists who's music they listened too?
A human who hasn't listened to music, can't make music. This seems like the old ban blacks from reading so they can't learn, thinking.
If you wait while the law is transparent, you will be way behind. Get using it and save it for a rainy day.
The reason people are adjusting to and accepting AI music is that they still have no clue as how the music business is run or how much work musicians put into a song. Go Adam Schiff. He's an ass kicker and the music business including Spotify need their asses kicked big time.
So AI was copy right free, Now that they see people making money they coming after it hard eh.. 2:53 I dont see that happening because Ai basically uses the Entirety of Copyrighted work known to man. What i would be more worried about is what is deem AI & what is deemed something else, Because Chat GPT no longer fits the definition of AI.
Next is a.i law makers. So they can move with speed.
And what about singer who sound like the real artist, are they not allowed to sing.
Soooo… to be clear AI isn’t doing anything we don’t already do as humans. We hear things. We learn from what we hear. We create new based on it.
So one issue I see with this legislation is that it's not really enforceable. Like even for auto-tune. Sure, there are instances where it's completely apparent that something is auto-tuned like T-Pain, but then you have a bunch of other singers that use it, but it sounds very close to their natural voice some would say too close to differentiate in the court of law.
What's going to keep people from saying they didn't use AI?
If it's done well enough you won't be able to tell her shouldn't be able to tell made with AI.
And considering anytime that we hear about politicians talk about a computer, It's usually a pretty lukewarm experience. The majority of politicians are 60 to 70 years old, The vast majority of them don't know a thing about a computer.
I understand the disruption AI causes, just the sheer power of it being able to clone someone's voice, threw us for a loop and we don't have an answer for that.
If we're going to be honest here, we're lacking on cyber crime legislation, but if we start legislating the Internet, people will just use a VPN and do business from geographically outside of the country where it's legal.
We have to remember That this is a worldwide event. Our laws only cover how business goes down here in America. And you're just a VPN away from showing up in Korea or Argentina, literally anywhere in the world.
On top of legislating things on the internet that also goes against one of our other main issues we have here. Privacy.
Also, legislation itself at its bare Bones is a restriction to our freedom. So if we're going to start legislating the internet the way that we see fit to combat this AI, we are going to directly infringe on people's privacy because legislation can't be enforced without being able to tell who's breaking the law.
Auto tune is an apples to oranges comparison. What's the difference? CONSENT. Everything is okay if there is consent. .