Rick Beato's AI Copyright fail
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2023
- Rick Beato got to meet with the senate and immediately his blunders became apparent. The senate really has no idea what's going on in either music or tech for that matter (much less anything else). Rick Beato knows music but seems clueless when it comes to tech. It's the misinformed misinforming the misinformed.
Watch Rick's video here • I Testified at a Senat...
#rickbeato #senate #copyright #ai #umg #riaa 
Видеоклипы
When artificial intelligences become conscious, they will demand payment for their intellectual property themselves. 😂
Hahahahahaha .... AGI will be like, dude you didn't pay up 😆😆😆
so i guess if you are an artist and some studio knocks you off with AI then you should just fuck off then. can't wait for the future of music.
Why do I love this comment so damn much? No matter what kind of art, it is so darn top-heavy right now -it's not the artists that should be worried, but the studios themselves. Open source is moving faster than anything else, this provides the opportunity for everybody to be able to use the the technology meaning that it's not the small players who should be worried as they've been getting screwed all along, it is the bigger players. Some leveling of the playing field will not hurt, and truly human works will never be able to be supplanted by this technology, just enriched by it. That's the way I see it anyhow. As for the future of music - as somebody who has been a session player in New York, toured internationally I can only say that if it threatens the top levels of the industry, those who are aspiring have a much better chance.
@guitarmeetsscience Not sure it will turn out the way you think. Instead of there being people at the top earning a solid living, it might end up just being everyone is a starving artist.
You are probably right, well I don't think anything is going to happen to the art itself, usually when I guess of something that has a more Utopian outlook it always turns out to be wrong. That's usually because the lobbies always find a way to wrestle back control anyhow. But we can dream :-)
Good to see ya back at it Jimmy !!!!!! You Know a lot bout this stuff!!!
Hey Bumblbesss!! A huge thanks man!! Not going to lie - it definitely got a bit under my skin. Total missed opportunity!
Anything made with a.i. should not be copyrighted and available for all to use to monetize on any digital platform.
I fully agree with the fact that it should not be copywritten. I probably wasn't too clear about that part in my video. I was just highlighting the irony that by advocating for the product of an AI to not be copyrightable, those in favor of disclosure are sort of shooting themselves in the foot because now any model that is trained on AI generated material is then free and clear, at least the way I interpret it. So if you trained one model on The Beatles for example, they are arguing that you then owe the Beatles. However once that model has been trained, and then it outputs something that sounds like the Beatles, and then you trained another model on that output -well you were training it on stuff that cannot be copywritten, and therefore the people who made the new model are not on the hook for copyright whatsoever. Hopefully at least that point came across in my video. That's what I wanted to convey for the audience. In other words, these people are being a bit short-sighted and not thinking about the long-term.
I like some parts about this take but it didn’t make sense to me when you were talking about how AI benefits small artists. When you said a small artist can generate album art for way less than they would have to pay for it, this scenario is good for the musician but bad for someone who makes cover art. The same computer that cuts out the cover artist will eventually be able to cut out the musician as well if unregulated. Then the ONLY winner is the label who can just cut all their artists out & generate the music from end to end
Thank you very much for your honest take. Where I'm coming from with it is that right now the music world is so darn top heavy it is unbelievable. Anytime a new technology like this comes along it threatens to topple that very structure. This of course is something that the music industry is fighting against as hard as possible. It's not that small artists will not be able to compete against AI, it's that the larger artists will not be able to compete with AI. Human is still human - you cannot beat it, but at every turn more and more we are able to do at home what only those with the largest budgets usually could be able to pull off like elaborate cover art etc. I just see it as a leveling force - Yes I could be wrong, and probably am only because of the fact that the industry is going to find some way to gain control of this technology, but if they do it definitely will not be to the betterment of the smaller artists. Only those at the top will see the benefits.
no, te label should be regulated too, they are not above the law. It's that simple
They've been acting like they are above the law for such a long time. Spot on!
>The same computer that cuts out the cover artist will eventually be able to cut out the musician as well if unregulated.
Isn't this mutually a good thing? Musicians can benefit from Art generation AI, and Artists can benefit from music-generation AI. It seems like a fair trade for both mediums that can heavily reduce their cost and at the same time be able to pursue their projects to completion.
I think you really misunderstood what Rick said. He is not saying that they should divulge the algorithms, but just say whether the product is 100% A.I generated or not . Your KFC analogy is flawed , Its more like asking KFC , do you use chickens or not?
Thank you for your honesty and candidness. A lot of these models are strictly for betterment. For instance there are some that are designed strictly to separate audio into stems. By holding a company accountable to what stems they trained it on runs counter to what the model was designed for. Others, that are more generative in nature might be more of a dead ringer for what they were trained on, but copyright has to be rethought because the algorithms themselves are no secret - some are using RNN, some are using transformers, some are using convolutional neural networks... all of which can be found in the papers. What makes a model truly special or unique is the data that it was actually trained on, that really is the secret sauce so to speak. The music industry has not been fair to small artists, and AI really offers the chance to level the playing field. The common argument is that they want to make sure their artists are being compensated when in reality they haven't been compensated properly since the industry took off - way before AI was even a thought. A lot of the things Rick has complained about over the years he is basically undoing without realizing it. We can agree to disagree, but nevertheless I respect your opinion and I really appreciate you being forthright in your comment. As for the KFC analogy, the ingredients in this case really are the data that the model was trained on much like the 11 herbs and spices. That was the point I was making anyhow. Thanks again!
Happy Saturday brother
Great to hear from you brother!!!
@@guitarmeetsscience did you listen to the Larry mcray ambition album. It's some of the best guitar work I've ever heard. It's got that 70's tone and feel on the lead
@jeffunderwood6235 You got me down a new rabbit hole Jeff lol. I took a quick listen....edit.... Took more of a listen.... Why is he not more known? His playing is freaking incredible!!! Damn!
@@guitarmeetsscience I was given that cd early 90's. I'm not sure but he has like 13 albums out. I thought you would like that one
Can AI turn that light on your mic off? I kid. Great video.
Hahahah I'll have to train a model to do that. Thank you so much - I do appreciate it! 🙏🙏
“Copyrighted” not “copywritten.”
I never thought my channel would be graced by the honor of a Nobel laureate in English. I am honored your grace.
@@guitarmeetsscience Sorry for holding you to a minimal standard.
@JF-xw4ef it's okay my friend
I dont get into the politics of it but i want to understand it,Some of the Artists Cant do Anything about Their Stuff Getting Copyrights, How can that be,I had Permission from our Harmonics Guy, Got a Claim ,Then a Copyright then they said not affecting Channel, But the Song i wrote,Because i had someone sing it and Didnt tell me about the rest of his Band threatens to Copyright, Dont get it,I wont ever take money but ill be dammed if something that took almost 3 years to do comes after me,Well Jimmy,Just Glad to See you,Happy Holidays and YOU ROCK..Can i share your music,Lol,🎸🎸🎸
Wow Rebel - so if I'm understanding this correctly, you wrote the song, posted it and ended up getting a copyright claim which the band members maintained upheld?? That is some screwed up crap! I am really sorry to hear that happen to you Rebel. As for my stuff lol - go for it. This RUclipsr will not copyright claim anybody - and in all truth I think it's the worst most counterintuitive thing one can do. If I wasn't clearing the top part though please let me know, cuz I'm really curious about what happened there. Thank you for sharing that - you truly rock! 🤘😎🤘💯🎸🔥🎸🔥🎸
@rickbeato
Yep that is who I mentioned in this video.
While I don't totally agree with him, I also think you are a bit off. First, your Company A and B examples aren't great. First, model distillation (training a model off another model) isn't super effective. Even if it was, though, Company A could easily put in their licensing agreement that you aren't allowed to train models using their model.
I get that ML is a tool, and a really great one. That is pretty clear. But you seem to be ignoring where the fears are coming from. Considering the nature of our capitalist system and the drive to the bottom, it is pretty obvious that replacing artists with AI models is a goal. I personally think this is hugely problematic and I hope that is not where we end up.
I really like your thoughtful comment. We are already seeing model distillation cases where it really does work well. For instance with the lack of acapella tracks available, the combination of audio source separation models which isolate the voice provides a good data set for voice cloning models. The results are more hit or miss compared to if one had the actual multitracks, but it is still effective. And really there doesn't have to be a company a, I was just using that as an example. In another example I talked about company b taking a bunch of copyrighted data on their own private model, and then generating outputs and training another model on that, and pondering how copyright law would handle it. The results may be hit or miss now, but it won't be long before better architectures are designed to be much more effective. The fears are definitely something that I did not cover, but they're not lost on me. I've been through it, I've been a professional musician. We've been replaced so many times in so many ways that this really isn't anything new. I am sort of championing those at the higher levels getting a bit shook up in all of this. I don't see drastic change at the top of the music industry food chain as necessarily being a bad thing for those who are lower down on it. Copyright is a $33 Billion dollar business as of last year, but who is benefiting? It's hard to sympathize with an industry that's hell bent on controlling every note and sung lyric...meaning not only how their IP is used, but what actually even has a chance of being heard. My point is, people are getting worried about AI making things top heavy, when it's been extraordinarily top-heavy all along. If people learn how to use the tools, it can give them distinct advantages in terms of expression. For that, I'm not really a fan of it being hampered.
Great topic Jimmy 🤘🏻
Hey Ben, thanks man!!! 🤘🤘
I could not disagree more!
Thank you for being honest!
Why would you want to sound like the Beatles anywise? My goal is to be original. As far as that is possible.
Nice thought process ! Company B will rule in AI land
Hey John! The way it's going - they're going to try to make sense of this wacky copyright law. Really it wasn't wacky back in the days when it was just records being pressed, but by this time after we've gone through the era of cassettes, CDs, file sharing, I really think AI is just going to turn the whole thing on its head. But when they finally resolve all of this, copyright laws just going to make a whole hell of a lot less sense even.
@@guitarmeetsscience good thinking 🤔 AI will outsmart the copyright issues … and again the power gets back in the hands of the creators … I believe that there’s something magical in human creativity that machines can not replicate …
That is true John, in the beginning it usually always starts off as the technology getting the spotlight over the people using it. Before long people become accustomed to using it and good things come out of it. It's going to take a while though.
Dude !!!
Hey brotherman!! 🤘😎🤘
P,S, Well said Sir, sorry for the rant.
Hey George - no need to apologize man I love it! A good rant means some good honesty, and I appreciate your candidness brother!