I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...in case any of them are asking 😬 New FREE Instrument ► bit.ly/vtvolts Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/patrons Get the Music from this video ► venustheory.bandcamp.com/
good thing AI is ridiculously easy to trick and it rarely comes up with a actionable answer on its own anyhow...it can just copy and process, copy and process, copy and process, all according to its ruleset. Super predictable for most humans if you watch one for a few seconds.
@@russellzauner Agreed. I don't even capitalize the i in Ai, as it hasn't earned that yet, nor do I expect it to-- but here's to the convincing the world, right!? Autonomic intelligence still.
AI is just a tool that allows for instant sampling and collaboration, everyone sampled and the people who programmed the musicality into the AI and the "prompter" should all be given song writing credits...but good luck enforcing that when you guys already let everyone download & stream for free.
I’ve been copyright claimed several times on videos of recorded livestreams of me creating the actual tracks that i’m being claimed with. it’s a disaster.
@@frajeeli yeah I hear you. but if Native Instruments / Black Octopus / Loopmasters / Vengeance are out there copyright striking under shell company names then boy are we f*cked 😂 (I avoid Splice and similar platforms like the plague and avoid using melodic/harmonic loops without extensive manipulation).
@turtletheorytv I would watch out for Vengeance packs, I heard that they used copyrighted material ripped from old record for certain packs. Apparently this is fine under German law but not anywhere else. Same reason to never use Rave Generator vst
@@M2Texas yeah I never started out recording and live streaming with the intent to use it as copyright defense but it’s serendipitously evolved into that. one would hope being able to produce dated recordings of the creation process and the actual project file is enough ammo to shoot down any future claims
Last week I had a track taken down for third party copyright infringement! The third party claimant was myself for a track I uploaded to stores, I appealed, explained it was me, also gave them a link to a screen recording of me creating the track from scratch, and still lost the appeal? I now have a community guidelines warning for creating and uploading my own music..
I feel you hard on that one. I fought with RUclips for YEARS because Venus Theory was claiming Venus Theory for using music by Venus Theory and RUclips said 'stop using music by Venus Theory, Venus Theory'.
Not sure if this applies to you but it worked for me so I figured I'd share: Depending on what platform you released the track through, you need to either contact that platform or check your settings on their site for how/where they enforce your copyright to get them to stop claiming your music on RUclips. When I released through CDBaby, they would flag my music in my own videos until I updated my preferences after which it stopped entirely.
RUclips isn't the one who confirms or denies the appeals, whoever made the claim in the first place is. RUclips just enforces the claim. It's a terrible system.
@KaiBurley for the time being i dont mind the distributor claiming my youtube content, because those royalties still go to me, whereas being my profile is not big enough for monitisation i would not otherwise be paid for my content.
Write a cool song without AI Song is added to an AI training set without your consent AI model spits out something similar enough to your song to flag the original in a contentID system Some jerk uploads the AI generated song to a streaming service/contentID database You end up in a copyright fight with the people and technology that stole your own work The future is very good and cool
One of the only ways I can see this getting any better is requiring evidence of human creation with manual review if you want to put something in ContentID. If you're going to claim that a piece of media is yours and you should have exclusive rights to it, prove that you made it
It ends with live performances becoming the only way to stop the a.i. from sucking up your work..oh wait people and phones....it ends with enjoying your own performances alone in the woods so that your not stolen from. None one hears your work and your satisfied.
I got a copyright claim on a 500-year old piece I played on the lute! YT said I nicked a recording from a CD that was made 30 years ago. It wasn't even in the same key! They withdrew the claim but it's all greed and silliness.
I had a claim on the engine sound of a Fendt tractor working a hillside with a plow in Farming Simulator 19. Something literally illegal to claim that also wasn't music. RUclips exists to enable fraud.
I've gotten a "denied for publishing" thing few times as well from Spotify, as their "Content ID" system flagged my 140-145 bpm trance tracks, also in a different key and with a totally different melody, against some ambient/downtempo tracks and there was pretty much nothing I could do (their support was pretty abysmal on the matter, they basically didn't give af). I ended up just releasing the tracks on other platforms. This just as a reminder that it's not just YT, it can happen pretty much on any platform nowadays, in different ways, and it can also be totally up to luck and doesn't even need to have anything to do with AI or anyone being a dick.
This has been going on with some classical music for well over 10 years. There were videos of people playing Chopin's piano music - which is public domain everywhere in the world - getting flagged as copies of copyrighted recordings.
> steal data from artists > feed them to slop model to generate more slops > claim original artists for sounding like their tracks ThAt'S HoW ThE LaW "WoRkS".
"because RUclips, a literal multi billion dollar corporation" Slight addendum, not correction: "because RUclips, a literal multi billion dollar corporation *_under the umbrella of a literal multi trillion dollar umbrella company_* " There we go.
Thank you! This is the comment I was looking for. The problem is not AI or laws. The problem is YT and it's stupid, opaque censorship knee-jerk reaction
Man...the number of sponsorship offers I've been getting to promote these AI music "tools" has been crazy. Thank you for covering such an important topic Cameron!
People have been using my music to train AI and extend it just to have a few extra minutes of listening, cuz they won’t wait for me Now I’m getting copyright claimed for my game OST releases An AI generated channel by the name “Sonic Forge - topic” redistributed my same music under AI generated titles and images, and they released them on both RUclips under a topic channel, and on Amazon music. I’ve striked the AI channel 29 times for each reupload but the channel hasn’t been taken down even tho the videos are down, it still copyright claims me and everyone who used my music in their videos RUclips told me they can’t do anything, that this is legal matter I’m so fed up and I don’t know what to do anymore I want it gone from my life
@@joshhickson7551 In this case a lawyer would eat up serious amount of money and the process will be torturously slow. RUclips is an extremely hostile environment for artists
@@PatrizzaEatsApizza i think hiring someone to find the identity of the thief and sending them a cease and desist letter might do something, but I couldn't afford that either
@@joshhickson7551 Getting the name and address of a copyright claimant is easy, barely an inconvenience. The claimant already needs to put down their legal address for a disputed copyright claim. If you dispute a claim, youtube gives you the adress, because at that point it's a legal matter outside of google's hand. Also, don't you people have legal protection insurance?
0:18 - The answer to this question is "Whoever is most skilled at gaming the legal system, or whoever hires the attorneys most skilled at gaming the legal system, owns that copyright".
If RUclips supposedly doesn't have the resources (i.e too lazy) to enforce or verify Copyright infringement, then WHY IN THE FK DO THEY HAVE A COPYRIGHT SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Thanks for saying this. It was a question forming in my head. Like what kind of country would have laws without verification of a crime or enforcement? Wild west indeed.
@@dsnodgrass4843 Yes but do you realize how asinine it is? It's like having police in a city because you have to deal with criminals, but then not having any court system to actually prosecute them. So the police chief just arbitrarily decides who gets put in prison and who gets released.
Went to conservatory for violin performance . Ended up in IT because classical music wants you to play stuff The Correct Way and not bring ideas into it. Slid into electronic music for something entirely different just to let that fire roar again, and maybe make music for my own videos. Just canceled my licensed music service last week since I felt ready to make my own stuff for future videos and…god damn this is disheartening. I don’t even care about money, I just don’t want other people making money off my stuff. Sorry for the rant. Fantastic video, as all of yours are. 💞
I went to a conservatorium for French Horn. Hop-skipped over to become a jazz singer after a year, because creativity and improvisation are the lifeblood of music, not performing by rote. If you ever wanted to pick up your instrument again, jazz violin is really damn cool.
Why not play Baroque then, if you like classical? Improvisation and interpretation are a large part of Baroque music. Ever heard of figured bass? In any baroque ensemble at least one musician is improvising over a bass line. There's no "correct way" because the pieces aren't even written out note for note. The ornaments are all meant to be improvised, and the symbols are merely suggestions. Bach's organ improvisation is well known, and there are still people today improvising in that style. I'm a harpsichordist, and when people talk about classical music being inflexible, I have no idea what they're talking about. I didn't go to conservatory though, I learned privately as an adult, so maybe it's just a problem with conservatory.
This was already a problem even before AI people have been cutting the audio off of RUclipsr music production livestreams and uploading that to contant match even before there life stream has finished. The only solution is to not do those stream live and just show a pre made or pre planned recording or set up of music you have already registered to content ID before the stream. The bad thing is the better sounding aand unique your music is them the more its gona be a target to be ripped off of especially if your a small RUclipsr they know you don't have the money or resources to stop it. I have had people copy and rip off My music 15 years ago some guy I was supposed to be making custom music for told Me He is just going to get his friend to copy My music so He doesn't have to pay Me anything. I threatened him with Legal action and He stopped but most people who rip you off are not actually going to tell you to your face. One of My pieces of music was ripped off of My RUclips and has over a billion played and 100k downloads on a Chinese Royalty free music site. That music was never Royalty free and I haven't been payed a penny, I only found the website by accident.
Cameron you should talk to Rick Beato. We all know who he is but his channel has a lot of influence in the music industry and he has so many connections, hes testified before congress. I think it would be worth you guys working on a legislative solution. That would be amazing I would help in any way that I can, I have some connections to other various media organizations like the Washington Post and some other online media as well. Lets do this or we can just watch it crash around us
15:09 - As somebody just listening to this video without watching, I literally had no idea that the song had even changed. I was sitting there like, "Okay... when's he going to play the second clip?" Had to stop what I was doing to make sure I didn't miss something. Crazy.
I think that's why it isn't that big of a problem yet, i tried it and its basically exactly the same as the original, definitely not "different enough to where its technically a new ID".
@@qinng4350 But it is, by all means. Audio fingerprinting technology works by analysing different parameters on the phonogram: frequency content, amplitude, and all that. Thus, two versions of the exact same song with the exact same notes and chords, length, etc, but different mastering (i.e.) will yield a different fingerprint, because the frequency content is different, although they are the same composition. Also, technically that would be a different phonogram, but that's another story. And that's the key here: if you pick up a song by anyone and just process it by detuning it, most automatic content recognition systems will catalogue it as a different phonogram than the original. This has been a problem for copyright owners for a while, as it is impossible to manually review the insane amount of tracks that are uploaded everyday to streaming services, and pirates use this tricks a lot to steal revenues. Now, on top of that we have generative AI, making it even harder to fight this problem.
There's been people who have had copyright claims from people who did covers of other works, copyrighted and with permission or not under copyright protection. And their work was a legal cover of the original work. There's a video that exists/existed (not sure which now, but I assume still exists) of a guy who had to insert a break/silence into one long note they played on an instrument because it got a copyright claim. $$$ influenced the changes in copyright, and still does, usually because, and in favor of, some huge deep pocket entity/corporation who wants to milk it for all they can.
I am convinced that these mega corporations are all engaging in collision to protect AI even while breaking every law to do it simply because they know no one else has the money to challenge... Except them of course, hence the need for collusion.
It's absolutely disgusting that someone could take a sample of our audio and throw it into an AI generator. Then file a copyright claim against us and claim credit for our work they stole from.
Human beings can’t even get the legal issues right on *human* intellectual ‘property.’ I quit releasing my music and pivoted to other kinds of music income, after Spotify and the other streaming services destroyed my quarterly publishing and royalty revenue (i used to make money quarterly on my music, for about 15 years, which all came to a grinding halt around 2008). The thing is, there’s no easy solution for this because a vast majority of people simply will not pay creatives for their work. The same people who claim they support human artists over AI are fine paying Spotify, who *doesn’t pay human artists.* Everybody loves the idea of paying human creatives… as long as it’s someone else who’s paying. To all you wonderful folks out there supporting artists on Patreon, and actually buying music on Bandcamp: bless you.
In my time with musicians and in music, anyone that wasn't super famous made money with live performances and selling music directly at the performances and merch. I met almost no artist that wasn't super famous that made decent money just off track or record sales unless they were a very talented studio musician. That was in the 90s, was there some kind of golden age after that where artists were making all their money off digital tracks and thought that would last forever? Not trying to be snarky, just putting my experience and my uncles experience and my mothers experience and every garage band I knew and every band trying to break out and every rapper I knew and trying to figure out what I guess we all missed?
@@liwojenkinsPlenty of non super famous musicians earned decent income … television is riddled with songs created nearly exclusively by non super famous artists… as an example.
@@liwojenkins I wasn’t super famous, but I made a living with my music before 2008. Had an international cult following who bought my music on vinyl and download. Gigged internationally. After 2008, it simply wasn’t worth doing. So, are you actually supporting the status quo of Spotify and Apple Music?? 🤢 Question for you: How long is your ‘time with musicians and in music?’ Anybody who doesn’t remember what the world was like before Spotify and Apple Music took the value of the work of all musicians for themselves, has no concept of the true value of music, before tech corporations owned music culture. When things were stacked against the musicians, but still somewhat equitable if the musician was willing to work hard and own their own publishing. This nonsense of ‘you just aren’t willing to tour 99% of the year, so you don’t deserve to be picked up by a major and get famous enough to be upper-class’ has to go. We don’t demand that accountants destroy their mental and physical health to do their job. We pay them for their skills. The problem is, everyone wants music and art, but absolutely nobody wants to pay for it. Same problem as always, for human creatives who have historically never been appreciated or respected. The difference is, now Spotify is in there, digitally c@£k-blocking every musician on the planet.
@@sub-jec-tiv Unless an alternative comes to light that offers the wide catalogue of music and cheap cost of entry. Spotify nor Apple Music or any platform of the sort isn't going anywhere. Of course it sucks to the musicians and creators of music, but the reality is that the sentiment of supporting artists isn't ever going to be enough on its own to get people off those platforms. It's just not realistic to ask people to pay more for less. The consumer cares about themselves first and foremost after all.
The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed. People copied each other and started selling of said copies to the point where the fakes became more popular than the originals. AI just made an old issue worse. We still need a real solution tho.
"The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed" - And once Google came around, governments (specifically, the U.S. government) effectively legalized copyright violation when it was done by large corporations.
I think the solution is that the arts need to be treated like engineering. Software engineers don't bank on bodies of work and its copyright, they get hired for their knowledge and expertise, and they're thriving in a world where AI can do a large portion of their job. Artists need to start selling their skills, not their output.
@@Dave-rd6spLOL we software engineers are just lucky that AI sucks at our job so far. That's the only difference. You can make passable-though-shitty music and it will still be music-ish enough to work. Passable-though-shitty code just doesn't work.
I'm in all four categories: music, photography, visual art, and writing. In principle, you're right: the problem is a problem for many artists and creative endeavors. In reality, the issues covered by Cameron in this video are infinitely less problematic for non-music creative content because there is no overarching "art industry" equivalent to the "music industry." Think about that for a minute. The lawyers and bean counters (i.e. PEOPLE) running big money music corporations have found lawmakers and policy police (more PEOPLE) who are completely willing to prostitute themselves for a quick buck. Nothing new there, some people just want to see the world burn; but THAT is what enabled and created this entire mess - and it ALL goes back to the industry's complete ignorance about switching to digital-music, and the subsequent total cluster-F'k mishandling of music file sharing back in the day. JM2C
@@TheImageDoctor Yep. You can also be sure that a ton of the music industry artists affected by this are also currently using AI generated image content for their thumbnails, album art, music videos, etc. Everyone is affected. Creativity is tokenized! The technology is very cool but the problem still is a human problem. It just makes it that much easier for bad actors at the top to fuck over the creators.
There are so many problems with the Internet and in society such as copyright, and still politicians and corporations don't even want to address the issues... "Sad to be you"
It is beyond time for the US (and others) to update and clarify their copyright laws for the modern internet. The DMCA turned 26 this year, and the internet it was designed to protect copyright in no longer exists. For the first time in human history, art can be created that is impossible to attribute to a single person or distinct group of people. It's become abundantly clear that "modern" copyright law is wholly incapable of dealing with the modern internet, let alone the introduction of AI generation. We're so cooked, but that won't stop me from continuing to create.
Modern copyright law has been detrimental for ages down to the fact that the period of time copyright subsists in a work keeps increasing. The ridiculously long times (70 or 90 years after the death of the author) helps no-one and just creates many orphaned works - work where the copyright holder is no longer known. But such is the nature of corporate greed that we now have this situation (Disney and others, who would love copyright to never expire).
I once got copyright claimed by the most random artist/song ever and when I checked what it was, it was basically just a very simple track made with samples and loops made from very common sample packs. I suspect the intent was mass upload a bunch of low effort tracks using common samples and then copyright strike any other song that also uses those samples.
I've already learned that people offering "copyright free" music are scam artists and grifters. The way the scam works is they offer up supposedly free to use music, and then copyright claim on any video that uses that music. And they aren't just doing this with AI generated music, they are claiming music that is open source and copyright free.
I made a gaming video before with music from a "royalty free" music channel in the background. Their channel had at least 300 songs that were "royalty free" and "free for commercial use", yet my video got flagged for using the music. You're right, most of them are probably just scammers.
Haha god no. Except the portion used to demo Suno ripping me off this is all music made of the flesh o' venus. What flesh, I'll leave for you to imagine.
Recently I did a drum cover of a Celine Dion song. I posted the cover and the drum only version. The drum only version got a copyright claim from another artist for a song that isn't remotely close to the groove I was playing... I hope it's not Content ID doing stupid stuff because I don't see how a normal artist could try to claim this... it's just drums! There is no melody, chords or any melodic instruments... just a drum groove and I'm pretty sure there is no copyright on drums at this moment. If there were, Clyde Stubblefield would be millionaire with his drum groove on "The Funky Drummer" by James Brown...
Aren't some drum riffs when you're learning even named after artists and songs they're from (like funky drummer)? When it comes to a riff it's attributed to the person who popularized it, you can't even say they 'invented' it to begin with - but if we can claim down to that level, every part of every musical piece is going to be 'owned' by someone, somewhere. --By definition, capitalists would love that though - turning everything into capital that generates money. I can imagine they wouldn't see any reason NOT to do that. Why NOT parcel out each chord progression and beat to those who had the most success with it? If you can have every piece of music generating money based on each of its parts, isn't that more efficient than trying to write whole songs originally every time and just leave its money-generation to hoping it's popular? All you'd have to do is push the button, and music with a certain amount of value-per-play will come out. Then you could probably min/max the value of compositions over time. This feels like what they're trying to do, ultimately. I don't want to be that guy, but this is the logical endpoint to unrestrained capital. I'm never saying we have to abolish capitalism, but we've definitely passed a certain reasonable threshold where it's still compatible with human beings. And I'm thinking that may have been a while ago...
@danielgraham6610 well for now there is no copyright on drum groove that I'm aware of. That would be kind of silly. The guy who created the first ever disco beat would also be billionaire by this point haha! Same with chord progression. How many blues does have the same chord progression in the same tonality? But I've seen some video from Adam Neely talking about copyright case for songs having similar chord progression and that's clearly a dangerous thing! I think it was about an Ed Sheeran song? Clearly capitalism and Art in general doesn't go well together...
your drumsticks are also copyright striked! You're using the same sticks as that drummer as well! And the same app that you used to capture the audio. you're a cheater!
Wanna hit back at their AI systems? Look for any youtube videos by youtube, google, or affiliates (also large revenue streams for google) - Generate audio that could flag them in their own system - upload it - and start trying to copyright striking their work - make sure to list the work as an act of protest... You could also do this for platforms like Suno that promote AI generated content. Will it work? who knows... but worth a try.
Doesn't work that way. You can't just upload any audio to ContentID, it has to be music, and if it's too similar to any other song already in ContentID it gets rejected. RUclips can't do anything because that's part of the DMCA act, every copyright dispute has be solved between the 2 parties, RUclips can't intervene by law. Also this channel says that his own music is getting claimed by himself, that's totally normal, he uploaded his music to ContentID and now it gets claimed, all the revenue still goes to him but is paid by his music distributor, and a claim is not a strike, it doesn't affect the RUclips account. The big problem is scammers registering free songs to ContentID, the only solution for musicians is to really do it themselves first. If you are releasing your music to the internet and you didn't register it to ContentID you just open yourself to get your own music stolen, but still you can fight back, you can dispute every claim and usually the scammer account will just get banned from whatever music distributer they used, the problem is that the next guy can do the same and the next and the next... so really just register your stuff first to avoid all this trouble
nah, what would have to happen is you kinda have to piss off tailor swift or something. A lot of places ban NSFW image generation not because they hated that, but because it was making generations of the ELITE... >.>
This was already happening. There were already scam artists uploading sounds from free sample packs to copyright claim people. This just makes it even MORE simple. I hope RUclips just stops all of these copyright claims for small "indie labels"
@@GidarGaming probably just an all ranging, in general bias pick. It's basically like the phrase you'd hear when in reference to Muslim and terrorists; “all Muslims are Terrorists”. (INB4 it got taken out of context, *NO*. “Terrorists” classified in the news just happened to be mostly Muslims in recent years.)
That is scary. and here was I feeling bad for a mate of mine. His story is back in the 90s he and a DJ mate of his wrote an album (Using an Ensoniq EPS and a Juno106) which would now fit the genre of Drum & Bass in a time before it really existed. As he couldn't find a record company who would touch it at the time. They decided to have it mastered and paid for a small run on Vinyl (500-1000). And then found a distributor. They eventually sold all the copies just about broke even and chalked it down to experience. Rolling on 30 odd years he was watching you tube and his music was being used. After some searching he discovered that there were several channels using his music as incidental music whilst others were playing the tracks in full and titling name and artist. This turned out to also be happening overseas. He managed to track down the distributor who eventually admitted that he may have done a couple of reruns a few years later ( around 10K copies). When he tried to claim the music he was told that he couldn't as it was listed as royalty free and wasn't his music.
This absolutely makes me want to quit being an artist entirely. What the fk can we even do to stop culture, law, and livelihoods being ripped to shreds when I cant even afford groceries as an artist anymore. Fk dude
At some point, do you not begin to question: Is there anything we won't do to undermine ourselves and our reality with this, video game, simulation, matrix mentality ? everything seems geared towards one end. Literally. It's not like reverse engineering to understand and rebuild something* it's quite literally the systematic effort to replace something* with something else* That's virtually nothing. Is that, abstract?
My solution: When the copyright system first started getting abused, I deleted all of my content off of RUclips, and I refuse to upload anything else there ever again. I do recognize that this isn't a solution for most people, but I wasn't making any money. Why expose myself to legal shenanigans when I'm not making so much as a cent?
What if we said no to RUclips and all went to a new video platform? But I guess it would take a real behemoth to be able to compete at this point... and unfortunately most of them would run things the same way. edit: I highly recommend uploading video content to multiple websites so you aren't just relying on RUclips for distributing your videos. This also encourages people to actually use alternative platforms, because there will be more content there to view instead of... basically crickets.
i bought a royalty stock music track off Envato (AudioJungle) a few years ago, to be used in a RUclips video. 3 years pass without any issues. This year, I get a copyright claim for that same jingle I purchased. So what the hell did I pay $20 for this "royalty free" stock music for? Ridiculous.
Many have had the same experience with Envato, me included. But you can contest it, upload your Envato license for the track to the dispute form, and it will eventually be sorted out. I've done it multiple times and it works, although it's always a hassle.
The best analogy for me is copyright laundering, by example of money laundering, there is no reason why it should be legal. But the process is very similar, much like with money you are trying to mix dirty money with a bunch of legit money and take out the same amount of it afterward. AI just mixes a bunch of other people's music together and claims that it's mixed enough that the result is "clean unique music" Then using tags you can "take out" someone else's music as your own.
Also, some people dont understand how art is created, they argue well thats the same things people do, but no it is not. Humans can and do reference other art and artists, and blend things together to create a new work. But this is not how AI works, it literally just rips an exact song, and makes it as different as it needs to be soley by making the song worse. So the AI music is not a new creation, just like you said with the laundering, its just the same song as someone else but made just enough worse that it counts as a different song. And there is no way AI is gonna figure out how to create popular original works, hell, we as a collective have no idea what we will like before it comes out, humans are constantly changing and evolving, especially in art. The only truly original music AI creates is either garbage, or just some random arpeggiator with a drum loop ( which the tech has already existed since before the digital era)
I disagree with your final reflection: to me, it’s not about stopping or continuing to make our music or our art. It’s about no longer participating or uploading content on these platforms. It’s an action with a collective impact, and that’s why it’s difficult-we live in an individualistic world that has lost its sense of community. Of course, we will all die someday-that’s the only thing we’re assured of. But we can die in less ridiculous ways.
I made some AI songs, they came out good. I did it because there is no longer any money or meaningful movements in rock music. If we want the old days back we need to not allow free downloading or streaming at all. Then we need to create unions of musicians, so all the real artists are in 2 or 3 places making real money again and using lawyers to go after pirates and streamers. That's just reality.
@@battokizu I'm aware that record labels want in on the AI, they are right, however those are the corporate giant artists. However they already let everyone steal & stream, and that gutted everything for the new non corporate musicians. You can't let people steal, it is really that simple.
there are copyright claims of people just talking for 2 hours with only their voice in an isolated room and still get a copyright claim or strike. And most of the time its some shady chinese company without contact details
Yeah unless I misunderstood the experiment, it didn't have anything to do with AI. If you use the same audio for the video and the streaming service upload, it literally is a proof that the copyright takedown system is working - even if the copyright is claimed by wrong party.
@@conrad3kHe took existing songs that he wrote and recorded and then made similar sounding AI versions and uploaded them under a second account, going around all safeguards. His originals got a copyright strike by the AI song.
@@conrad3k it's half-and-half. It's working, but working for the wrong things. AI should never have copyright. Original in-the-flesh artists should have the only copyright rights.
This very problem struck illustrators first two years ago and nobody gave a flying... All of the insane implications of AI generative tools existing in a modern copyright environment were extensively discussed way before music AIs evolved enough to be useful and again, nobody cared enough to stop this madness. Since the very beginning generative AIs were nothing else than an unprecedented copyright theft due to how those models work and again, nobody cares because large enough money can be made. There are only two ways out if this - accept that copyright law has become obsolete or ban generative AIs. Nothing in between can work in practice, because at the end of this path the only difference between human made and AI made art will be origin history.
The problem is no one seems to approach the debate honestly. AI training retains very little from individual works in the dataset, often as little as a single byte. This can be proven mathematically and is a key piece of information that needs to be considered when discussing this topic, but it's often dismissed or buried, and people are insulted or accused of lying when the point is raised (despite the math being simple enough for grade school kids). Even this video slipped a few times into spreading the misinformation that the models retain most of the original work.
@@Dave-rd6splargely agreed, though there's the noteworthy exception of midjourney 6, which was finetuned on a small enough dataset that it did (does?) near-replicate several well-known images (look up "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - IEEE Spectrum")
one thing I don't get.. how can a third party copyright strike me if my content was uploaded first? If they upload something that was based on my content, how can they claim copyright if their content never existed until mine was made first?
Because it's about who registers theirs first - and then the legal obligation to prove being the original creator falls on the victim - including all the insane legal fees and time required for a lawsuit. Copyright is not a protection service - it just validates whether you can sue, or not.
@@warchildsilver copyright requires no registration, it attaches upon creation. but the US decided to be weird about it, and require registration to file a lawsuit.
We have cleared over 1,000 copyright claims on the videos on my channel. I would say we have more experience with handling copyright claims and working within the confines of Fair Use than almost any other channel on RUclips. It's still frustrating sometimes, and there are definitely some bad actors out there. RUclips has made a LOT of positive changes in the past couple years to protect creators, many just never see or know what's been done.
I knew AI would break the current copyright system: If you follow the copy aspect of copyright AI can work around it. If you broaden the scope so that copyright extends to match everything having even seemingly similar vibe could help to fight against AI but you'll end up copyrighting whole styles of music (which could even extend to some instruments) in the process. Both these scenarios are a disaster: there's just no winning here with the current model of copyright.
i once got copyrighted on yt for me literally saying "well then" without any music in the bg, because somebody content ID'd some bollywood movie, vocals only version - apparently i either just happened to say the same sentence as their guy, or my voice sounds simmilar... but its scary that this voiceclip was labelled as copyrighted melody and one small word / phrase singlehandedly wouldve made the entire 9 hour vod ineligible for monetization, if i monetized vods...
22:00 man, I needed that reminder. I started following my music dream later in life than I'd hoped too and it was just in tome for all this AI and copyright trash, and it's been stalling my desire to dive in. But you're so right. We only have a limited time, and I dont want to leave the planet not having backed myself enough to give it a red hot try. Thankyou
Seriously, It might be worth not putting music up online anymore. Just play live and sell vinyl. This is what I don't get. The tech companies will destroy their own businesses with AI. Why?
Most of this video isn't specific to AI. For example, a real human making real human music could do the exact same thing - put the music on a "royalty free" background music website, and then copyright claim people who use it. The solution is that Content ID needs the ability for someone to upload a song and say "this song is free". Maybe it already has that. And it needs to ability to check whether a given song is in the database and marked as free. Maybe it already has that. Then you simply check that the song is free before using it. Problem pretty much entirely solved. Obviously Content ID needs to prevent duplicates being uploaded (surely it already does that or it wouldn't function at all), and marking a song as free needs to be irrevocable.
@@edh615that might be true, but the example given in the video was contrived and in essence nothing to do with AI per se. Using same soundtrack for a RUclips video and then (somebody else) uploading it to a streaming service to do copyright claim is just an example that the Content ID system is working as expected.
The pleasure to say "first" and the sadness of already knowing why we are fucked after just one minute. So many emotions and I didn't watched the video yet.
I haven't used AI or any AI tools in my music. In the end I will continue to create what I love. Keeping my head in the sand for now seems like the best creative option.
They also argue that you might face liability if your song is too similar to some other artist's music, in other words they tell you NOT to copy other musicians' works.
Which in the US should contradict the courts decision that anything AI generated isn't a subject of copyright because mostly it wasn't made by humans. So, Suno can say anything, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. I think the best solution for now is that AI outputs are basically public domain, you shouldn't be able to claim you exclusively own an AI generated something but you are free to use it, including commercially
@@Grigoriy1996 let's be real here. Is there any AI generator with true public domain / open access dataset available, that is capable to some level of the top in class AI generators? Pretty sure the answer is no... there are some projects that tried to build an OSS AI Generator, but it's still an infant and barely working.
5:18 That's the error. Copyright is not a good thing. It should all be recipes and chefs, period. This tech and this ideology gave rise to big pharma and has killing millions if not billions through opportunity cost alone, but also shorter life spans and lives that are much more painful than they needed to be.
Is copyright itself the problem? Or the way the laws are written and the way they are enforced (i.e. often unevenly and unfairly)? Same problems with trademarks, patents, etc. Like patent stealers who filed the patent first even though they clearly didn't invent the invention... trademarks on common generic words and phrases... etc... Where is the reasonable threshold that should be there before deciding these things? Why is it always some slimy lawyer who is deciding these things instead of a panel of common everyday creative people, randomly picked from a pool of creatives?
Get a real job and keep music as a hobby and you won't be squeezed. 90% of internet artists of all sorts are just people who stubbornly try to keep their hobby as their job. Remove the financial incentive and 99% of arguments against AI break down.
@@xn4pl I was an artist. Ai came and took my place. Used my skills, I've gathered for 17 years, to create music, now ai is here for it as well. Creative stuff is important
Thank you for bringing awareness to this. RUclips, please address this. This is critical to the integrity of the platform. Why would creators continue to invest their efforts into making content for a platform that leaves the door wide open for their monetization to be flat out stolen by bad actors exploiting the very system that’s supposed to protect their work?
Your comment at about 21:00 is going to be further exacerbated, at least here in the US, by the direction our government and courts are taking -- leaning more and more to protecting the rich and/or large corporate interests at the expense of those of use with shallow pockets.
That thing you're describing about people providing free audio strategically to pull the rug later - that's not an AI issue. That exploit has existed for years.
Thank you so much for this in-deep analysis of the situation. BigTech is killing everything and we can't do anything against it. Its frustrating. I am a musician for more than 40 years now, but my fear of running into legal problems is getting bigger every day. This at least kills motivation and creativity. Besides of the fact that other than in the 80s/90s , for composers and performing musicians there is NO money left in this big business. Just listen to Spotify`s CEO stating that "everyone may produce music without any cost" (full stop, bullshit!). These Private Equity driven "Entrepreneurs" are no disruptors anymore, they kill all humanity in any kind of arts. The race is already lost. I'm sorry.
0:08 - I almost went for this Volt thing, but when I saw the small print that said "No strings attached" I balked. It should have violins, violas, cellos, and string basses, or I'm not interested.
17:17 you dont need ai generated music for this scam, just copy the file and claim you created it first. Boom, copyright claim, this is done for years, AI plays no role in this
Might be a way to bring attention to the situation. If big artists under million dollar contracts were getting struck maybe people would start to pay attention?
there is one thing you can do: just not using youtube if people are leaving youtube for other platforms, then that will either force youtube to get better, or to die
@@Hellmiauz Yeah but some of the competitors aren't as arbitrary and uncaring as RUclips when it comes to their creators, because they don't have many high value creators in the first place and they'd really like them to stick around.
I've always been on a very rocky relationship with AI in general. I personally believe inspiration (such as generating something to give ideas for something else without using the ai generated content in the actual art piece) is the only truly moral way to use AI with art. A lot of people get really pissed off saying they can use AI however tf they want and this is the very kind of thing I've been trying to put together to explain *why* i dont like this sorta thing.
Yeah AI is great if you just want some inspiration but still do the work yourself and there are some AI voices that are legit and have all the relevant rights so they're okay to use but everything else is theft
Have you considered sending this video to Rick Beato? It would likely grind his gears so much that someone in the industry wakes up and actually does something useful. Wait, what am I saying? The industry doesn't give a sh1t about musicians and creatives 🤦♂️
Is Rick Beato taken seriously at all? (I’m really not knowing about him very much but what I know seemed suspicious that he very much likes a singular topic of contemporary music being not the same and bad.)
While copyright is essential in the kind of world we live in today, i actually hate it a lot and think it would be better witout it. Copyright is krap. Nobody invents anything from nothing, lifetime exclusivity, and 3rd party ownership, the ease with which rich people and big companies screw over small creators that can't afford international litigation, etc makes it a very bad system, from which a select few benefit.
Well without it everyone could just upload the same hitsong on any streaming services and the whole thing would even become a bigger mess. But I do get what you're saying. There should be a complete overhaul on how te system works ideally.
@@mellejutte757 If it never existed in the first place, things would work pretty differently. Ofcourse removing it now from a system built around it would be chaotic.
Thanks for covering this. This is such a complicated issue. Back in the early 2000s, my songwriting partner and I worked for a production company that made commercials. They called us in for a 30-second spot for Atlanta Falcons season tickets, which was going to run for two weeks. They wanted to use P.O.D.'s Boom. P.O.D. wanted $350K. We did it for $3500 and no one in that meeting once considered copyright issues. We created our P.O.D. knockoff and that was it.
Incredible video! Your words 'Keep making your art, your music. Keep doing what you love to do' struck a deep chord with me during what is an incredibly difficult time in my close family. Same to you, Mr Venus...Keep doing what you love. It is greatly appreciated.
People have used “copyright free!” As a trap for years. It’s not just in Ai music.. the artist Ren got into a battle for using a copyright free beat that he paid to own. So, before people go claiming Ai, they should talk about how these issues have existed long before Ai and aren’t actually caused by it. All ai does is make the issue more common. All songwriters should use copyright protection through distributors and IBM on lyrics they write. If you write the lyrics, you should always own a cut and credit at minimum. Also bury your vocals somewhere into every song. In my mind working on the song in a DAW gives more protection and rights over your music because at the end of the day you can open the file/stems as proof you made it while anyone making a claim against you, can’t.
I dream of a future where music is underground again and you get patted down by the bouncer to check for any recording devices, and all that happens that night is between the artist, the audience and you :)
I get your sentiment, but there's an elitist quality to that and it makes music a privileged thing for those who can afford to get to a show like that. Most of the time people just want to hear a favorite song while driving or doing the dishes and I'm sure they're not going to talk a band into playing a special show in the dining room.
On another note... this retro, filmic, cinematic look of your video is awesome! So mega points for you for making an amazing looking video. I just hoping your comment back to me isn't " it was all a.i. generated to get that look and quality" Keep up the good work!
It's been very common in advertising for a long long time to have the creative labour done around a famous song and in the end ask a musician to create a similar song to save on rights fees.
The problem is that it's not just the swindlers exploiting these loopholes. It's also RUclips itself. They're perfectly comfortable taking food off our plates to pile up on their already full banquet table. I suppose a longshot solution would be if we could create our own alternative to RUclips, by real artists for real artists. No room whatsoever for AI BS.
Someone should start a trend of classifying their vlogs as spoken verse, so the automated systems will get trained to copyright strike speech. This has the potential of completely breaking down any ability to post videos. Maybe then, when the whole system fails, someone would be forced to look into how unsustainable this whole enforcement model is?
GREAT VIDEO!! Great insight into one of the major issues that will come with AI. 10 years ago, “Even if you’re just a human making human music for other humans” is not a set of words I would ever have thought I would hear.
Thanks, VT. FWIW, I have a Data Science->ML/AI background and am also an electronic musician looking at releasing my first EP soon-ish, thanks to the general encouragement you, Benn, Ned Rush, Red, Martin Sturtzer, State Azure, and Data Broth (sorry for the name checks, but that's all the fault of you guys!) and I'm one of your patrons. Point being (and there is one!) I have a damned good idea of the AI internals and as musicians, we're f00ked. In the U.S., our Congress is going to have to sort this. Given recent events, we can be sure this isn't on their radar in any way that could be construed as sufficient knowledge of ML/AI or in any way helpful to musicians. Just route your money to Elon Flux, Ffej Sozeb, and Sam the Sham Alt-man and save a step is the flippant course, but it sure as hell feels like it all heads that way.
This is scary shit dude! I haven't even released a finished piece of music yet, not for the want of trying like hell for over twenty years, but I have released unfinished tracks... now I'm terrified that, if and when I finally DO manage to get a band together and actually finish and release my first EP, I'll be fucked over because someone else has already ripped me off!
Human art is valid. AI is just a tool. Listen to the songs I prompted thru AI. I was able to get emotion out of it. They need to give partial writing credits to the prompter, the people who trained the AI & the musicians it was trained on. It is like really in depth & complicated sampling.
22:31 - Loved the request for Patreons at the end - it was gold! But honestly, I’m still not convinced I need to pay for any "free" content on RUclips - especially when it kinda feels like, "Support me, because, well... I don’t have a real job. But I love my play job, and I'd love you to love it too." With over 300 channels in my feed, in a world of endless choice, choosing to buy "free" content, just to get the same video a little early, feels about as tempting as paying for bottled water. Besides, in the endless RUclips buffet, if one channel dies, there’s a dozen more ready to fill (or already filling) that void - for free! It does make me wonder, though - what percentage of people actually shell out for this sort of thing (1:1000?), and of their 300+ channel subscriptions, how many do they pay for (1:100?), and have they run out of things to spend their money on?
To make the system even slightly fair, youtube needs to adopt a similar policy for claimants. As in claimants should have a three strike policy too to try and limit frivolous bogus copyright claims.
Theres only future for us in live music, where people who actually care for art made by humans gather. In this day and age we need to go back to musicians roots and offer something that AI cannot
Hello and thank you for this very smart test of how Copyright is broken. I get numerous Copyright Disputes in my RUclips videos when I create music on my computer from MIDI of ancient classics from, for instance, Handel, Bach, Beethoven. The Algorithm seems to match my music from someone else's Video using recordings of the same songs, only I created my music completely from scratch. This is the Dispute Claim Message "The melody is the words and music written by the songwriters and composers. These rights are often managed by different rights holders in each country and are separate from the rights associated with recordings of the song".
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords...in case any of them are asking 😬
New FREE Instrument ► bit.ly/vtvolts
Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/patrons
Get the Music from this video ► venustheory.bandcamp.com/
You forgot to thank Beyoncé 😢
Important questions to be asking and concepts to be considering in this age. I appreciate you doing that in front of us. Wise endings, too.
good thing AI is ridiculously easy to trick and it rarely comes up with a actionable answer on its own anyhow...it can just copy and process, copy and process, copy and process, all according to its ruleset. Super predictable for most humans if you watch one for a few seconds.
@@russellzauner Agreed. I don't even capitalize the i in Ai, as it hasn't earned that yet, nor do I expect it to-- but here's to the convincing the world, right!? Autonomic intelligence still.
AI is just a tool that allows for instant sampling and collaboration, everyone sampled and the people who programmed the musicality into the AI and the "prompter" should all be given song writing credits...but good luck enforcing that when you guys already let everyone download & stream for free.
I’ve been copyright claimed several times on videos of recorded livestreams of me creating the actual tracks that i’m being claimed with. it’s a disaster.
Not attacking here, but I'm curious if that is due to using sample packs and sound libraries specifically.
@@frajeeli yeah I hear you. but if Native Instruments / Black Octopus / Loopmasters / Vengeance are out there copyright striking under shell company names then boy are we f*cked 😂 (I avoid Splice and similar platforms like the plague and avoid using melodic/harmonic loops without extensive manipulation).
@turtletheorytv I would watch out for Vengeance packs, I heard that they used copyrighted material ripped from old record for certain packs. Apparently this is fine under German law but not anywhere else. Same reason to never use Rave Generator vst
Yet it's the only way going forward: to create live and fight this nonsense in court. Welcome to the future. Sorry about that.
@@M2Texas yeah I never started out recording and live streaming with the intent to use it as copyright defense but it’s serendipitously evolved into that. one would hope being able to produce dated recordings of the creation process and the actual project file is enough ammo to shoot down any future claims
Last week I had a track taken down for third party copyright infringement! The third party claimant was myself for a track I uploaded to stores, I appealed, explained it was me, also gave them a link to a screen recording of me creating the track from scratch, and still lost the appeal? I now have a community guidelines warning for creating and uploading my own music..
I feel you hard on that one. I fought with RUclips for YEARS because Venus Theory was claiming Venus Theory for using music by Venus Theory and RUclips said 'stop using music by Venus Theory, Venus Theory'.
@@VenusTheory This is an extremely sad state of affairs.
Not sure if this applies to you but it worked for me so I figured I'd share:
Depending on what platform you released the track through, you need to either contact that platform or check your settings on their site for how/where they enforce your copyright to get them to stop claiming your music on RUclips. When I released through CDBaby, they would flag my music in my own videos until I updated my preferences after which it stopped entirely.
RUclips isn't the one who confirms or denies the appeals, whoever made the claim in the first place is. RUclips just enforces the claim. It's a terrible system.
@KaiBurley for the time being i dont mind the distributor claiming my youtube content, because those royalties still go to me, whereas being my profile is not big enough for monitisation i would not otherwise be paid for my content.
Write a cool song without AI
Song is added to an AI training set without your consent
AI model spits out something similar enough to your song to flag the original in a contentID system
Some jerk uploads the AI generated song to a streaming service/contentID database
You end up in a copyright fight with the people and technology that stole your own work
The future is very good and cool
Wowww
You keep dreaming of an apocalypse that will never happen, if you don't control it, it will happen. But if you do. It won't.
The end isn't here.
One of the only ways I can see this getting any better is requiring evidence of human creation with manual review if you want to put something in ContentID. If you're going to claim that a piece of media is yours and you should have exclusive rights to it, prove that you made it
It ends with live performances becoming the only way to stop the a.i. from sucking up your work..oh wait people and phones....it ends with enjoying your own performances alone in the woods so that your not stolen from. None one hears your work and your satisfied.
I got a copyright claim on a 500-year old piece I played on the lute! YT said I nicked a recording from a CD that was made 30 years ago. It wasn't even in the same key! They withdrew the claim but it's all greed and silliness.
I had a claim on the engine sound of a Fendt tractor working a hillside with a plow in Farming Simulator 19. Something literally illegal to claim that also wasn't music. RUclips exists to enable fraud.
I've gotten a "denied for publishing" thing few times as well from Spotify, as their "Content ID" system flagged my 140-145 bpm trance tracks, also in a different key and with a totally different melody, against some ambient/downtempo tracks and there was pretty much nothing I could do (their support was pretty abysmal on the matter, they basically didn't give af). I ended up just releasing the tracks on other platforms. This just as a reminder that it's not just YT, it can happen pretty much on any platform nowadays, in different ways, and it can also be totally up to luck and doesn't even need to have anything to do with AI or anyone being a dick.
You're clearly not trying hard enough. Get back in the Delorian and nick something older ffs.
This has been going on with some classical music for well over 10 years. There were videos of people playing Chopin's piano music - which is public domain everywhere in the world - getting flagged as copies of copyrighted recordings.
UMG copyright claimed me on dropping the needle on to a vinyl record. And would not release the claim 😆 so i just nuked the whole video.
> steal data from artists
> feed them to slop model to generate more slops
> claim original artists for sounding like their tracks
ThAt'S HoW ThE LaW "WoRkS".
There is NO STEAL !
AI "steals" music/art about as much as ChatGPT steals words.
@@avalerionbassChat GPT does steal words. Was that your point?
I’m going to try this,
"because RUclips, a literal multi billion dollar corporation"
Slight addendum, not correction:
"because RUclips, a literal multi billion dollar corporation *_under the umbrella of a literal multi trillion dollar umbrella company_* "
There we go.
Thank you! This is the comment I was looking for.
The problem is not AI or laws. The problem is YT and it's stupid, opaque censorship knee-jerk reaction
Man...the number of sponsorship offers I've been getting to promote these AI music "tools" has been crazy. Thank you for covering such an important topic Cameron!
Gotta get that tax writeoff from grifting money from venture capital firms somehow.
Thanks for not covering them
People have been using my music to train AI and extend it just to have a few extra minutes of listening, cuz they won’t wait for me
Now I’m getting copyright claimed for my game OST releases
An AI generated channel by the name “Sonic Forge - topic” redistributed my same music under AI generated titles and images, and they released them on both RUclips under a topic channel, and on Amazon music.
I’ve striked the AI channel 29 times for each reupload but the channel hasn’t been taken down even tho the videos are down, it still copyright claims me and everyone who used my music in their videos
RUclips told me they can’t do anything, that this is legal matter
I’m so fed up and I don’t know what to do anymore
I want it gone from my life
Sadly gotta say you should lawyer up, it will be worth it in the long run
@@joshhickson7551 In this case a lawyer would eat up serious amount of money and the process will be torturously slow. RUclips is an extremely hostile environment for artists
@@PatrizzaEatsApizza i think hiring someone to find the identity of the thief and sending them a cease and desist letter might do something, but I couldn't afford that either
@@joshhickson7551 Getting the name and address of a copyright claimant is easy, barely an inconvenience. The claimant already needs to put down their legal address for a disputed copyright claim. If you dispute a claim, youtube gives you the adress, because at that point it's a legal matter outside of google's hand.
Also, don't you people have legal protection insurance?
@@joshhickson7551 imagine the person sits in China ;.;
0:18 - The answer to this question is "Whoever is most skilled at gaming the legal system, or whoever hires the attorneys most skilled at gaming the legal system, owns that copyright".
Our legal system needs a massive overhaul.
If RUclips supposedly doesn't have the resources (i.e too lazy) to enforce or verify Copyright infringement, then WHY IN THE FK DO THEY HAVE A COPYRIGHT SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
One more time for the people in the back 📢
Thanks for saying this. It was a question forming in my head. Like what kind of country would have laws without verification of a crime or enforcement? Wild west indeed.
They're legally required to.
Because the major record labels require them to, as a condition for allowing their music properties to be uploaded here?
@@dsnodgrass4843 Yes but do you realize how asinine it is? It's like having police in a city because you have to deal with criminals, but then not having any court system to actually prosecute them. So the police chief just arbitrarily decides who gets put in prison and who gets released.
Went to conservatory for violin performance . Ended up in IT because classical music wants you to play stuff The Correct Way and not bring ideas into it. Slid into electronic music for something entirely different just to let that fire roar again, and maybe make music for my own videos. Just canceled my licensed music service last week since I felt ready to make my own stuff for future videos and…god damn this is disheartening. I don’t even care about money, I just don’t want other people making money off my stuff. Sorry for the rant. Fantastic video, as all of yours are. 💞
I went to a conservatorium for French Horn. Hop-skipped over to become a jazz singer after a year, because creativity and improvisation are the lifeblood of music, not performing by rote. If you ever wanted to pick up your instrument again, jazz violin is really damn cool.
Disheartening, exactly.
I want to share but not throw everything up for grabs.
It's a blow to beauty.
Please don't use God's name to cuss.
Why not play Baroque then, if you like classical? Improvisation and interpretation are a large part of Baroque music. Ever heard of figured bass? In any baroque ensemble at least one musician is improvising over a bass line. There's no "correct way" because the pieces aren't even written out note for note. The ornaments are all meant to be improvised, and the symbols are merely suggestions. Bach's organ improvisation is well known, and there are still people today improvising in that style.
I'm a harpsichordist, and when people talk about classical music being inflexible, I have no idea what they're talking about. I didn't go to conservatory though, I learned privately as an adult, so maybe it's just a problem with conservatory.
This was already a problem even before AI people have been cutting the audio off of RUclipsr music production livestreams and uploading that to contant match even before there life stream has finished. The only solution is to not do those stream live and just show a pre made or pre planned recording or set up of music you have already registered to content ID before the stream. The bad thing is the better sounding aand unique your music is them the more its gona be a target to be ripped off of especially if your a small RUclipsr they know you don't have the money or resources to stop it. I have had people copy and rip off My music 15 years ago some guy I was supposed to be making custom music for told Me He is just going to get his friend to copy My music so He doesn't have to pay Me anything. I threatened him with Legal action and He stopped but most people who rip you off are not actually going to tell you to your face. One of My pieces of music was ripped off of My RUclips and has over a billion played and 100k downloads on a Chinese Royalty free music site. That music was never Royalty free and I haven't been payed a penny, I only found the website by accident.
Cameron you should talk to Rick Beato. We all know who he is but his channel has a lot of influence in the music industry and he has so many connections, hes testified before congress. I think it would be worth you guys working on a legislative solution. That would be amazing I would help in any way that I can, I have some connections to other various media organizations like the Washington Post and some other online media as well. Lets do this or we can just watch it crash around us
I hope he listens to this.
Unfortunately, Rick's turned into the old man shouting at pop music shaped clouds these days
@drdoom8793 I disagree
@@drdoom8793 Check out this band called the Beatles and get back to us.
@@drdoom8793this isn’t true:(
15:09 - As somebody just listening to this video without watching, I literally had no idea that the song had even changed. I was sitting there like, "Okay... when's he going to play the second clip?" Had to stop what I was doing to make sure I didn't miss something. Crazy.
I think that's why it isn't that big of a problem yet, i tried it and its basically exactly the same as the original, definitely not "different enough to where its technically a new ID".
@@qinng4350 But it is, by all means. Audio fingerprinting technology works by analysing different parameters on the phonogram: frequency content, amplitude, and all that. Thus, two versions of the exact same song with the exact same notes and chords, length, etc, but different mastering (i.e.) will yield a different fingerprint, because the frequency content is different, although they are the same composition. Also, technically that would be a different phonogram, but that's another story.
And that's the key here: if you pick up a song by anyone and just process it by detuning it, most automatic content recognition systems will catalogue it as a different phonogram than the original. This has been a problem for copyright owners for a while, as it is impossible to manually review the insane amount of tracks that are uploaded everyday to streaming services, and pirates use this tricks a lot to steal revenues. Now, on top of that we have generative AI, making it even harder to fight this problem.
Ai got that sub right
How can a thing that steals copyighted work flag others for copyright infringement. What in the actual fu*k???!!
That's to protect itself and make the owner more money.
There's been people who have had copyright claims from people who did covers of other works, copyrighted and with permission or not under copyright protection. And their work was a legal cover of the original work.
There's a video that exists/existed (not sure which now, but I assume still exists) of a guy who had to insert a break/silence into one long note they played on an instrument because it got a copyright claim.
$$$ influenced the changes in copyright, and still does, usually because, and in favor of, some huge deep pocket entity/corporation who wants to milk it for all they can.
I am convinced that these mega corporations are all engaging in collision to protect AI even while breaking every law to do it simply because they know no one else has the money to challenge... Except them of course, hence the need for collusion.
Basically stupid people who don't understand Content ID and enable it, not realizing it sends out copyright claims.
It's absolutely disgusting that someone could take a sample of our audio and throw it into an AI generator. Then file a copyright claim against us and claim credit for our work they stole from.
Music needs a way to poison it just like images.
No art should get abused like this
Human beings can’t even get the legal issues right on *human* intellectual ‘property.’ I quit releasing my music and pivoted to other kinds of music income, after Spotify and the other streaming services destroyed my quarterly publishing and royalty revenue (i used to make money quarterly on my music, for about 15 years, which all came to a grinding halt around 2008). The thing is, there’s no easy solution for this because a vast majority of people simply will not pay creatives for their work. The same people who claim they support human artists over AI are fine paying Spotify, who *doesn’t pay human artists.* Everybody loves the idea of paying human creatives… as long as it’s someone else who’s paying. To all you wonderful folks out there supporting artists on Patreon, and actually buying music on Bandcamp: bless you.
Yup Bandcamp is where you can still respect musicians.
In my time with musicians and in music, anyone that wasn't super famous made money with live performances and selling music directly at the performances and merch. I met almost no artist that wasn't super famous that made decent money just off track or record sales unless they were a very talented studio musician. That was in the 90s, was there some kind of golden age after that where artists were making all their money off digital tracks and thought that would last forever? Not trying to be snarky, just putting my experience and my uncles experience and my mothers experience and every garage band I knew and every band trying to break out and every rapper I knew and trying to figure out what I guess we all missed?
@@liwojenkinsPlenty of non super famous musicians earned decent income … television is riddled with songs created nearly exclusively by non super famous artists… as an example.
@@liwojenkins I wasn’t super famous, but I made a living with my music before 2008. Had an international cult following who bought my music on vinyl and download. Gigged internationally. After 2008, it simply wasn’t worth doing.
So, are you actually supporting the status quo of Spotify and Apple Music?? 🤢 Question for you: How long is your ‘time with musicians and in music?’ Anybody who doesn’t remember what the world was like before Spotify and Apple Music took the value of the work of all musicians for themselves, has no concept of the true value of music, before tech corporations owned music culture. When things were stacked against the musicians, but still somewhat equitable if the musician was willing to work hard and own their own publishing.
This nonsense of ‘you just aren’t willing to tour 99% of the year, so you don’t deserve to be picked up by a major and get famous enough to be upper-class’ has to go. We don’t demand that accountants destroy their mental and physical health to do their job. We pay them for their skills. The problem is, everyone wants music and art, but absolutely nobody wants to pay for it. Same problem as always, for human creatives who have historically never been appreciated or respected. The difference is, now Spotify is in there, digitally c@£k-blocking every musician on the planet.
@@sub-jec-tiv Unless an alternative comes to light that offers the wide catalogue of music and cheap cost of entry. Spotify nor Apple Music or any platform of the sort isn't going anywhere. Of course it sucks to the musicians and creators of music, but the reality is that the sentiment of supporting artists isn't ever going to be enough on its own to get people off those platforms.
It's just not realistic to ask people to pay more for less. The consumer cares about themselves first and foremost after all.
The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed. People copied each other and started selling of said copies to the point where the fakes became more popular than the originals. AI just made an old issue worse. We still need a real solution tho.
"The sad thing is: copyright fraud in the arts world always existed" - And once Google came around, governments (specifically, the U.S. government) effectively legalized copyright violation when it was done by large corporations.
$ = \sqrt{evil}
I think the solution is that the arts need to be treated like engineering. Software engineers don't bank on bodies of work and its copyright, they get hired for their knowledge and expertise, and they're thriving in a world where AI can do a large portion of their job. Artists need to start selling their skills, not their output.
Yeah it just became hundreds of times easier to do that.
@@Dave-rd6spLOL we software engineers are just lucky that AI sucks at our job so far. That's the only difference. You can make passable-though-shitty music and it will still be music-ish enough to work. Passable-though-shitty code just doesn't work.
Same problems for the photographers, illustrators, artists…😢
I'm in all four categories: music, photography, visual art, and writing. In principle, you're right: the problem is a problem for many artists and creative endeavors. In reality, the issues covered by Cameron in this video are infinitely less problematic for non-music creative content because there is no overarching "art industry" equivalent to the "music industry." Think about that for a minute. The lawyers and bean counters (i.e. PEOPLE) running big money music corporations have found lawmakers and policy police (more PEOPLE) who are completely willing to prostitute themselves for a quick buck. Nothing new there, some people just want to see the world burn; but THAT is what enabled and created this entire mess - and it ALL goes back to the industry's complete ignorance about switching to digital-music, and the subsequent total cluster-F'k mishandling of music file sharing back in the day. JM2C
If ai music was used then maybe there should be no copyright allowed.
No photographer would be able to take a group photo with a bunch of people having 3 to 6 fingers on a hand each)
@@TheImageDoctor Yep. You can also be sure that a ton of the music industry artists affected by this are also currently using AI generated image content for their thumbnails, album art, music videos, etc. Everyone is affected. Creativity is tokenized! The technology is very cool but the problem still is a human problem. It just makes it that much easier for bad actors at the top to fuck over the creators.
@@jenkem4464 exactly !!!
There are so many problems with the Internet and in society such as copyright, and still politicians and corporations don't even want to address the issues... "Sad to be you"
This is so depressing. Even hitting the like button is depressing.
I love that you make videos in widescreen, never even realised it but now that im watching on my phone it fits perfect lol
Gotta add that extra bit of spice to show people I'm serious haha.
@@VenusTheory Honestly, though... I friggin' love the custom aspect ratios. Those 16:9s have begun to feel dull after 20+ or so years..
@@atp19xxaspect ratios feel dull? Interesting.
@@atp19xxwe didn't use that aspect ratio 20 years ago...
@@VenusTheory ultrawide desktop monitor user here, the spice is nice. thanks for caring enough about your process to do things like that
This is possibly the dumbest timeline we're in, isn't it?
Idiocracy in its making.
New world order
i like money
*Best times, with downsides
Twas the best of times, twas the worst of times... Right before the fucking revolution.
It is beyond time for the US (and others) to update and clarify their copyright laws for the modern internet. The DMCA turned 26 this year, and the internet it was designed to protect copyright in no longer exists. For the first time in human history, art can be created that is impossible to attribute to a single person or distinct group of people. It's become abundantly clear that "modern" copyright law is wholly incapable of dealing with the modern internet, let alone the introduction of AI generation. We're so cooked, but that won't stop me from continuing to create.
Modern copyright law has been detrimental for ages down to the fact that the period of time copyright subsists in a work keeps increasing. The ridiculously long times (70 or 90 years after the death of the author) helps no-one and just creates many orphaned works - work where the copyright holder is no longer known. But such is the nature of corporate greed that we now have this situation (Disney and others, who would love copyright to never expire).
I once got copyright claimed by the most random artist/song ever and when I checked what it was, it was basically just a very simple track made with samples and loops made from very common sample packs. I suspect the intent was mass upload a bunch of low effort tracks using common samples and then copyright strike any other song that also uses those samples.
are you fucking serious
Did you get claimed tho... (I mean you got ID'd but how it resolved?)
I've already learned that people offering "copyright free" music are scam artists and grifters. The way the scam works is they offer up supposedly free to use music, and then copyright claim on any video that uses that music. And they aren't just doing this with AI generated music, they are claiming music that is open source and copyright free.
My music is free to use, for 6 years now.
Great generalisation based on pure vague anecdote.
I made a gaming video before with music from a "royalty free" music channel in the background. Their channel had at least 300 songs that were "royalty free" and "free for commercial use", yet my video got flagged for using the music. You're right, most of them are probably just scammers.
I like the background music in this one, I honestly hope it's not Suno's Venus theory-type beat
Haha god no. Except the portion used to demo Suno ripping me off this is all music made of the flesh o' venus. What flesh, I'll leave for you to imagine.
@@VenusTheory The wenis, obviously.
@@GabrielBlight Wenis Theory
Recently I did a drum cover of a Celine Dion song. I posted the cover and the drum only version. The drum only version got a copyright claim from another artist for a song that isn't remotely close to the groove I was playing... I hope it's not Content ID doing stupid stuff because I don't see how a normal artist could try to claim this... it's just drums! There is no melody, chords or any melodic instruments... just a drum groove and I'm pretty sure there is no copyright on drums at this moment. If there were, Clyde Stubblefield would be millionaire with his drum groove on "The Funky Drummer" by James Brown...
Aren't some drum riffs when you're learning even named after artists and songs they're from (like funky drummer)? When it comes to a riff it's attributed to the person who popularized it, you can't even say they 'invented' it to begin with - but if we can claim down to that level, every part of every musical piece is going to be 'owned' by someone, somewhere. --By definition, capitalists would love that though - turning everything into capital that generates money. I can imagine they wouldn't see any reason NOT to do that. Why NOT parcel out each chord progression and beat to those who had the most success with it? If you can have every piece of music generating money based on each of its parts, isn't that more efficient than trying to write whole songs originally every time and just leave its money-generation to hoping it's popular? All you'd have to do is push the button, and music with a certain amount of value-per-play will come out. Then you could probably min/max the value of compositions over time. This feels like what they're trying to do, ultimately. I don't want to be that guy, but this is the logical endpoint to unrestrained capital. I'm never saying we have to abolish capitalism, but we've definitely passed a certain reasonable threshold where it's still compatible with human beings. And I'm thinking that may have been a while ago...
@danielgraham6610 well for now there is no copyright on drum groove that I'm aware of. That would be kind of silly. The guy who created the first ever disco beat would also be billionaire by this point haha!
Same with chord progression. How many blues does have the same chord progression in the same tonality? But I've seen some video from Adam Neely talking about copyright case for songs having similar chord progression and that's clearly a dangerous thing! I think it was about an Ed Sheeran song?
Clearly capitalism and Art in general doesn't go well together...
your drumsticks are also copyright striked! You're using the same sticks as that drummer as well! And the same app that you used to capture the audio. you're a cheater!
Could easily be one of those people that get paid to watch videos and find copyright "infringements."
@willbarnz6960 well in that case that person should be fired 😂
Wanna hit back at their AI systems?
Look for any youtube videos by youtube, google, or affiliates (also large revenue streams for google) - Generate audio that could flag them in their own system - upload it - and start trying to copyright striking their work - make sure to list the work as an act of protest...
You could also do this for platforms like Suno that promote AI generated content. Will it work? who knows... but worth a try.
nah, youtube will just drop any claims against bigger channels and leave the smaller channel in the hell of automation.
They’ll punish u for trying
Doesn't work that way. You can't just upload any audio to ContentID, it has to be music, and if it's too similar to any other song already in ContentID it gets rejected. RUclips can't do anything because that's part of the DMCA act, every copyright dispute has be solved between the 2 parties, RUclips can't intervene by law.
Also this channel says that his own music is getting claimed by himself, that's totally normal, he uploaded his music to ContentID and now it gets claimed, all the revenue still goes to him but is paid by his music distributor, and a claim is not a strike, it doesn't affect the RUclips account.
The big problem is scammers registering free songs to ContentID, the only solution for musicians is to really do it themselves first. If you are releasing your music to the internet and you didn't register it to ContentID you just open yourself to get your own music stolen, but still you can fight back, you can dispute every claim and usually the scammer account will just get banned from whatever music distributer they used, the problem is that the next guy can do the same and the next and the next... so really just register your stuff first to avoid all this trouble
nah, what would have to happen is you kinda have to piss off tailor swift or something. A lot of places ban NSFW image generation not because they hated that, but because it was making generations of the ELITE... >.>
This was already happening. There were already scam artists uploading sounds from free sample packs to copyright claim people. This just makes it even MORE simple. I hope RUclips just stops all of these copyright claims for small "indie labels"
Why only the small labels?
@@GidarGaming probably just an all ranging, in general bias pick.
It's basically like the phrase you'd hear when in reference to Muslim and terrorists; “all Muslims are Terrorists”.
(INB4 it got taken out of context, *NO*. “Terrorists” classified in the news just happened to be mostly Muslims in recent years.)
Oh wow I was looking away during the clip comparison and didn't even realize he had transitioned between the two pieces. That was uncanny.
That is scary. and here was I feeling bad for a mate of mine.
His story is back in the 90s he and a DJ mate of his wrote an album (Using an Ensoniq EPS and a Juno106) which would now fit the genre of Drum & Bass in a time before it really existed. As he couldn't find a record company who would touch it at the time. They decided to have it mastered and paid for a small run on Vinyl (500-1000).
And then found a distributor. They eventually sold all the copies just about broke even and chalked it down to experience. Rolling on 30 odd years he was watching you tube and his music was being used. After some searching he discovered that there were several channels using his music as incidental music whilst others were playing the tracks in full and titling name and artist. This turned out to also be happening overseas.
He managed to track down the distributor who eventually admitted that he may have done a couple of reruns a few years later ( around 10K copies). When he tried to claim the music he was told that he couldn't as it was listed as royalty free and wasn't his music.
This absolutely makes me want to quit being an artist entirely. What the fk can we even do to stop culture, law, and livelihoods being ripped to shreds when I cant even afford groceries as an artist anymore. Fk dude
Sounds like he has an easy legal case.
At some point, do you not begin to question:
Is there anything we won't do to undermine ourselves and our reality with this, video game, simulation, matrix mentality ? everything seems geared towards one end.
Literally.
It's not like reverse engineering to understand and rebuild something* it's quite literally the systematic effort to replace something* with something else*
That's virtually nothing.
Is that, abstract?
Maybe... but it's super thought-provoking. You're not wrong.
@benjaminschultz6501
∆
I barely remember writing it.
Cheers.
you should've just used sneaky snitch on loop for the entire video. The old fashioned way 😌
maybe the real solution to all of this is to delete all music ever made and force everyone to only ever use kevin macleod songs for all eternity
My solution: When the copyright system first started getting abused, I deleted all of my content off of RUclips, and I refuse to upload anything else there ever again. I do recognize that this isn't a solution for most people, but I wasn't making any money. Why expose myself to legal shenanigans when I'm not making so much as a cent?
well sadly, there are alot of people who make money of youtube or somwhere else that can be effected by this
What if we said no to RUclips and all went to a new video platform? But I guess it would take a real behemoth to be able to compete at this point... and unfortunately most of them would run things the same way.
edit: I highly recommend uploading video content to multiple websites so you aren't just relying on RUclips for distributing your videos. This also encourages people to actually use alternative platforms, because there will be more content there to view instead of... basically crickets.
i bought a royalty stock music track off Envato (AudioJungle) a few years ago, to be used in a RUclips video. 3 years pass without any issues. This year, I get a copyright claim for that same jingle I purchased. So what the hell did I pay $20 for this "royalty free" stock music for? Ridiculous.
Many have had the same experience with Envato, me included. But you can contest it, upload your Envato license for the track to the dispute form, and it will eventually be sorted out. I've done it multiple times and it works, although it's always a hassle.
@dailyphilosophy thanks. I will try that!
ROFL might want to search for what royalty free is.
The best analogy for me is copyright laundering, by example of money laundering, there is no reason why it should be legal. But the process is very similar, much like with money you are trying to mix dirty money with a bunch of legit money and take out the same amount of it afterward. AI just mixes a bunch of other people's music together and claims that it's mixed enough that the result is "clean unique music" Then using tags you can "take out" someone else's music as your own.
Also, some people dont understand how art is created, they argue well thats the same things people do, but no it is not. Humans can and do reference other art and artists, and blend things together to create a new work. But this is not how AI works, it literally just rips an exact song, and makes it as different as it needs to be soley by making the song worse. So the AI music is not a new creation, just like you said with the laundering, its just the same song as someone else but made just enough worse that it counts as a different song. And there is no way AI is gonna figure out how to create popular original works, hell, we as a collective have no idea what we will like before it comes out, humans are constantly changing and evolving, especially in art. The only truly original music AI creates is either garbage, or just some random arpeggiator with a drum loop ( which the tech has already existed since before the digital era)
I disagree with your final reflection: to me, it’s not about stopping or continuing to make our music or our art. It’s about no longer participating or uploading content on these platforms. It’s an action with a collective impact, and that’s why it’s difficult-we live in an individualistic world that has lost its sense of community. Of course, we will all die someday-that’s the only thing we’re assured of. But we can die in less ridiculous ways.
This is what I was thinking too. The answer is to wake up and act as a community. We owe these platforms nothing.
I made some AI songs, they came out good. I did it because there is no longer any money or meaningful movements in rock music. If we want the old days back we need to not allow free downloading or streaming at all. Then we need to create unions of musicians, so all the real artists are in 2 or 3 places making real money again and using lawyers to go after pirates and streamers. That's just reality.
@@RoryElis Guess the RIAA's legal fights never happened.
@@battokizu I'm aware that record labels want in on the AI, they are right, however those are the corporate giant artists. However they already let everyone steal & stream, and that gutted everything for the new non corporate musicians. You can't let people steal, it is really that simple.
@@RoryElis they all did this by creating streaming and not really producing physical media, which people still want.
Thanks for all the great videos!
woah thats a lot of clams
When the AI starts paying YOU for music 🤣
there are copyright claims of people just talking for 2 hours with only their voice in an isolated room and still get a copyright claim or strike. And most of the time its some shady chinese company without contact details
The problem isn’t AI, the problem is copyright
Yeah unless I misunderstood the experiment, it didn't have anything to do with AI. If you use the same audio for the video and the streaming service upload, it literally is a proof that the copyright takedown system is working - even if the copyright is claimed by wrong party.
@conrad3k weird but you have a point...
@@conrad3kHe took existing songs that he wrote and recorded and then made similar sounding AI versions and uploaded them under a second account, going around all safeguards.
His originals got a copyright strike by the AI song.
No the problem is AI.
@@conrad3k it's half-and-half. It's working, but working for the wrong things.
AI should never have copyright. Original in-the-flesh artists should have the only copyright rights.
This very problem struck illustrators first two years ago and nobody gave a flying... All of the insane implications of AI generative tools existing in a modern copyright environment were extensively discussed way before music AIs evolved enough to be useful and again, nobody cared enough to stop this madness. Since the very beginning generative AIs were nothing else than an unprecedented copyright theft due to how those models work and again, nobody cares because large enough money can be made. There are only two ways out if this - accept that copyright law has become obsolete or ban generative AIs. Nothing in between can work in practice, because at the end of this path the only difference between human made and AI made art will be origin history.
Dang. That’s depressing.
I don't know. Sounds beautiful to me.
The problem is no one seems to approach the debate honestly. AI training retains very little from individual works in the dataset, often as little as a single byte. This can be proven mathematically and is a key piece of information that needs to be considered when discussing this topic, but it's often dismissed or buried, and people are insulted or accused of lying when the point is raised (despite the math being simple enough for grade school kids).
Even this video slipped a few times into spreading the misinformation that the models retain most of the original work.
copyright law did become obsolete - the moment internet was designed as a tool that shares data by copying it
@@Dave-rd6splargely agreed, though there's the noteworthy exception of midjourney 6, which was finetuned on a small enough dataset that it did (does?) near-replicate several well-known images (look up "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - IEEE Spectrum")
On AI RUclips, Copyright Claims You!
one thing I don't get.. how can a third party copyright strike me if my content was uploaded first? If they upload something that was based on my content, how can they claim copyright if their content never existed until mine was made first?
Because it's about who registers theirs first - and then the legal obligation to prove being the original creator falls on the victim - including all the insane legal fees and time required for a lawsuit.
Copyright is not a protection service - it just validates whether you can sue, or not.
@@warchildsilver copyright requires no registration, it attaches upon creation.
but the US decided to be weird about it, and require registration to file a lawsuit.
The only group that profits the most from this is attorneys. 😂😂😂
We have cleared over 1,000 copyright claims on the videos on my channel. I would say we have more experience with handling copyright claims and working within the confines of Fair Use than almost any other channel on RUclips. It's still frustrating sometimes, and there are definitely some bad actors out there. RUclips has made a LOT of positive changes in the past couple years to protect creators, many just never see or know what's been done.
I knew AI would break the current copyright system:
If you follow the copy aspect of copyright AI can work around it. If you broaden the scope so that copyright extends to match everything having even seemingly similar vibe could help to fight against AI but you'll end up copyrighting whole styles of music (which could even extend to some instruments) in the process.
Both these scenarios are a disaster: there's just no winning here with the current model of copyright.
"Buckle in. This is pretty bad" Wonderful lol
And the good news is: it might just keep getting worse!
@@VenusTheory Yeah, seems like it will be a real shit show before proper guard rails are in place
genuinely scary
😬
there's nothing scary, just the copyright system that will change in the coming years. Music is not about money in the first place ...
Love your beard, hope nobody copyright-claims it
i once got copyrighted on yt for me literally saying "well then" without any music in the bg, because somebody content ID'd some bollywood movie, vocals only version - apparently i either just happened to say the same sentence as their guy, or my voice sounds simmilar... but its scary that this voiceclip was labelled as copyrighted melody and one small word / phrase singlehandedly wouldve made the entire 9 hour vod ineligible for monetization, if i monetized vods...
22:00 man, I needed that reminder. I started following my music dream later in life than I'd hoped too and it was just in tome for all this AI and copyright trash, and it's been stalling my desire to dive in. But you're so right. We only have a limited time, and I dont want to leave the planet not having backed myself enough to give it a red hot try.
Thankyou
Next thing you know, musicians will go back to distributing their work on cassette.
Oh yeah, they already are.😅
@@YerUnclePhil hahaha. How did you know that I was literally looking up cassette recorders today
"and did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it riding the gravy train."
Seriously, It might be worth not putting music up online anymore. Just play live and sell vinyl. This is what I don't get. The tech companies will destroy their own businesses with AI. Why?
Quick profit.
dollar bills $$
"Whoever has the most money to throw at the problem"
I guess we do live in cyberpunk distopia...
Most of this video isn't specific to AI. For example, a real human making real human music could do the exact same thing - put the music on a "royalty free" background music website, and then copyright claim people who use it.
The solution is that Content ID needs the ability for someone to upload a song and say "this song is free". Maybe it already has that. And it needs to ability to check whether a given song is in the database and marked as free. Maybe it already has that. Then you simply check that the song is free before using it. Problem pretty much entirely solved. Obviously Content ID needs to prevent duplicates being uploaded (surely it already does that or it wouldn't function at all), and marking a song as free needs to be irrevocable.
No, AI just makes any unskilled idiot have the ability to do it at a mass scale.
@@edh615that might be true, but the example given in the video was contrived and in essence nothing to do with AI per se. Using same soundtrack for a RUclips video and then (somebody else) uploading it to a streaming service to do copyright claim is just an example that the Content ID system is working as expected.
The pleasure to say "first" and the sadness of already knowing why we are fucked after just one minute. So many emotions and I didn't watched the video yet.
Cmon, I'm sure they will fix it after realizing what a mess this is. Don't overthink, we just happened to be early into AI regulations.
I’m only 1min in and I already feel victimised by the “red arrow shocked face” thumbnail comment haha….😭😭😭
do better
do better
Good!
I haven't used AI or any AI tools in my music. In the end I will continue to create what I love. Keeping my head in the sand for now seems like the best creative option.
Suno officially says that YOU own the rights of you have a PAID account, and they own the rights if you have a free account.
They also argue that you might face liability if your song is too similar to some other artist's music, in other words they tell you NOT to copy other musicians' works.
Which in the US should contradict the courts decision that anything AI generated isn't a subject of copyright because mostly it wasn't made by humans. So, Suno can say anything, but it doesn't mean it is lawful. I think the best solution for now is that AI outputs are basically public domain, you shouldn't be able to claim you exclusively own an AI generated something but you are free to use it, including commercially
@@Grigoriy1996 let's be real here.
Is there any AI generator with true public domain / open access dataset available, that is capable to some level of the top in class AI generators? Pretty sure the answer is no... there are some projects that tried to build an OSS AI Generator, but it's still an infant and barely working.
5:18 That's the error. Copyright is not a good thing. It should all be recipes and chefs, period. This tech and this ideology gave rise to big pharma and has killing millions if not billions through opportunity cost alone, but also shorter life spans and lives that are much more painful than they needed to be.
Is copyright itself the problem? Or the way the laws are written and the way they are enforced (i.e. often unevenly and unfairly)? Same problems with trademarks, patents, etc. Like patent stealers who filed the patent first even though they clearly didn't invent the invention... trademarks on common generic words and phrases... etc...
Where is the reasonable threshold that should be there before deciding these things? Why is it always some slimy lawyer who is deciding these things instead of a panel of common everyday creative people, randomly picked from a pool of creatives?
Jesus christ man isnt there a group more fortunate than musicians that you could exploit, tech bros? We have been squeezed quite enough already.
this is just the natural progression of centralized technologies. The real winner is greed,lust of men.
Get a real job and keep music as a hobby and you won't be squeezed. 90% of internet artists of all sorts are just people who stubbornly try to keep their hobby as their job. Remove the financial incentive and 99% of arguments against AI break down.
@@xn4plhis point still stands though
@@xn4pl "a real job" like what? coding AI? programmers and suits squeeze the life out of anything interesting.
@@xn4pl I was an artist. Ai came and took my place. Used my skills, I've gathered for 17 years, to create music, now ai is here for it as well. Creative stuff is important
Thank you for bringing awareness to this. RUclips, please address this. This is critical to the integrity of the platform. Why would creators continue to invest their efforts into making content for a platform that leaves the door wide open for their monetization to be flat out stolen by bad actors exploiting the very system that’s supposed to protect their work?
YT doesn't care...
Tom Scott did a video on copyright and had a good teardown on the content ID, nothing changed for good...
Your comment at about 21:00 is going to be further exacerbated, at least here in the US, by the direction our government and courts are taking -- leaning more and more to protecting the rich and/or large corporate interests at the expense of those of use with shallow pockets.
160 hours of work is evident. An exceptional production. I just learned a lot from this video! Thank you.
Me: Alexa generate every possible melody in B minor and copyright them for me. Alexa: ok would you like me find a nearby copyright lawyer as well.
This is symptomatic of a much greater issue. People need to wake up and fight the exceedingly pervasive marriage of lawmakers and the tech oligarchy.
That thing you're describing about people providing free audio strategically to pull the rug later - that's not an AI issue. That exploit has existed for years.
Yeah but it's not drama-ish enough for the storytelling you know
Except AI makes it 10000x faster and abundant.
Thank you so much for this in-deep analysis of the situation. BigTech is killing everything and we can't do anything against it. Its frustrating. I am a musician for more than 40 years now, but my fear of running into legal problems is getting bigger every day. This at least kills motivation and creativity. Besides of the fact that other than in the 80s/90s , for composers and performing musicians there is NO money left in this big business. Just listen to Spotify`s CEO stating that "everyone may produce music without any cost" (full stop, bullshit!). These Private Equity driven "Entrepreneurs" are no disruptors anymore, they kill all humanity in any kind of arts. The race is already lost. I'm sorry.
0:08 - I almost went for this Volt thing, but when I saw the small print that said "No strings attached" I balked. It should have violins, violas, cellos, and string basses, or I'm not interested.
17:17 you dont need ai generated music for this scam, just copy the file and claim you created it first. Boom, copyright claim, this is done for years, AI plays no role in this
So... I need to do my part to flood the internet with extremely bad music to break AI training?
Your bad music will blend perfectly with the bad music they already produce in great quantity
And hopefully the AI trains itself on the bad music and breaks the AI model.
RUclips keeps asking me which brand of AI I like and trust. I choose "none of the above" because "I'll see you at the Flesh Fair" isn't an option.
Though it would be a terrible precedent, I wouldn't mind somebody making AI Don Henley music and copyright strike him
That would be awesome 😂
Might be a way to bring attention to the situation. If big artists under million dollar contracts were getting struck maybe people would start to pay attention?
Soundcloud copyright has been so bad lately, multiple orginal tracks have been taken down recently, so frustrating.
there is one thing you can do: just not using youtube
if people are leaving youtube for other platforms, then that will either force youtube to get better, or to die
Those other platforms will eventually have to implement something similar to content ID or get sued out of business.
@@Hellmiauz Yeah but some of the competitors aren't as arbitrary and uncaring as RUclips when it comes to their creators, because they don't have many high value creators in the first place and they'd really like them to stick around.
I've always been on a very rocky relationship with AI in general. I personally believe inspiration (such as generating something to give ideas for something else without using the ai generated content in the actual art piece) is the only truly moral way to use AI with art. A lot of people get really pissed off saying they can use AI however tf they want and this is the very kind of thing I've been trying to put together to explain *why* i dont like this sorta thing.
Yeah AI is great if you just want some inspiration but still do the work yourself and there are some AI voices that are legit and have all the relevant rights so they're okay to use but everything else is theft
AI for finished products should be made illegal. AI as a helper should be encouraged and should be fine.
Have you considered sending this video to Rick Beato? It would likely grind his gears so much that someone in the industry wakes up and actually does something useful.
Wait, what am I saying? The industry doesn't give a sh1t about musicians and creatives 🤦♂️
Is Rick Beato taken seriously at all? (I’m really not knowing about him very much but what I know seemed suspicious that he very much likes a singular topic of contemporary music being not the same and bad.)
LMAO BASED
What power does Beato have???
He has an audience of millions of people interested in real music?
@@wietzejohanneskrikke1910 What do you mean by "real music"? Just curious.
While copyright is essential in the kind of world we live in today, i actually hate it a lot and think it would be better witout it. Copyright is krap. Nobody invents anything from nothing, lifetime exclusivity, and 3rd party ownership, the ease with which rich people and big companies screw over small creators that can't afford international litigation, etc makes it a very bad system, from which a select few benefit.
its not, its just drilled into your brain that we need it.
Well without it everyone could just upload the same hitsong on any streaming services and the whole thing would even become a bigger mess. But I do get what you're saying. There should be a complete overhaul on how te system works ideally.
@@mellejutte757 If it never existed in the first place, things would work pretty differently. Ofcourse removing it now from a system built around it would be chaotic.
Thanks for covering this. This is such a complicated issue. Back in the early 2000s, my songwriting partner and I worked for a production company that made commercials. They called us in for a 30-second spot for Atlanta Falcons season tickets, which was going to run for two weeks. They wanted to use P.O.D.'s Boom. P.O.D. wanted $350K. We did it for $3500 and no one in that meeting once considered copyright issues. We created our P.O.D. knockoff and that was it.
Incredible video! Your words 'Keep making your art, your music. Keep doing what you love to do' struck a deep chord with me during what is an incredibly difficult time in my close family. Same to you, Mr Venus...Keep doing what you love. It is greatly appreciated.
People have used “copyright free!” As a trap for years. It’s not just in Ai music.. the artist Ren got into a battle for using a copyright free beat that he paid to own. So, before people go claiming Ai, they should talk about how these issues have existed long before Ai and aren’t actually caused by it. All ai does is make the issue more common.
All songwriters should use copyright protection through distributors and IBM on lyrics they write. If you write the lyrics, you should always own a cut and credit at minimum. Also bury your vocals somewhere into every song. In my mind working on the song in a DAW gives more protection and rights over your music because at the end of the day you can open the file/stems as proof you made it while anyone making a claim against you, can’t.
I dream of a future where music is underground again and you get patted down by the bouncer to check for any recording devices, and all that happens that night is between the artist, the audience and you :)
Put me on the guest list please 🤜🏼
Is it an orgy? Wtf?
Might be nice, but lots of luck getting everybody to cough up their phones.
I get your sentiment, but there's an elitist quality to that and it makes music a privileged thing for those who can afford to get to a show like that. Most of the time people just want to hear a favorite song while driving or doing the dishes and I'm sure they're not going to talk a band into playing a special show in the dining room.
On another note... this retro, filmic, cinematic look of your video is awesome! So mega points for you for making an amazing looking video. I just hoping your comment back to me isn't " it was all a.i. generated to get that look and quality" Keep up the good work!
It's been very common in advertising for a long long time to have the creative labour done around a famous song and in the end ask a musician to create a similar song to save on rights fees.
This is why I only make covers of John Cage's 4'33"...
😂 The only song I can cover flawlessly.
This isn't really an AI issue, it's a RUclips/ContentID issue.
Absolutely. The AI angle of people filing sham claims using AI music is a new threat that simply exploits an already exploitable system.
The problem is that it's not just the swindlers exploiting these loopholes. It's also RUclips itself. They're perfectly comfortable taking food off our plates to pile up on their already full banquet table.
I suppose a longshot solution would be if we could create our own alternative to RUclips, by real artists for real artists. No room whatsoever for AI BS.
PeerTube is one example of such a platform, it is Open Source(not owned by a company, and developed by a community)
That actually sounds like a great idea. Humans need to take back the internet from the tech giants.
Someone should start a trend of classifying their vlogs as spoken verse, so the automated systems will get trained to copyright strike speech. This has the potential of completely breaking down any ability to post videos. Maybe then, when the whole system fails, someone would be forced to look into how unsustainable this whole enforcement model is?
GREAT VIDEO!! Great insight into one of the major issues that will come with AI. 10 years ago, “Even if you’re just a human making human music for other humans” is not a set of words I would ever have thought I would hear.
Thanks, VT. FWIW, I have a Data Science->ML/AI background and am also an electronic musician looking at releasing my first EP soon-ish, thanks to the general encouragement you, Benn, Ned Rush, Red, Martin Sturtzer, State Azure, and Data Broth (sorry for the name checks, but that's all the fault of you guys!) and I'm one of your patrons.
Point being (and there is one!) I have a damned good idea of the AI internals and as musicians, we're f00ked. In the U.S., our Congress is going to have to sort this. Given recent events, we can be sure this isn't on their radar in any way that could be construed as sufficient knowledge of ML/AI or in any way helpful to musicians. Just route your money to Elon Flux, Ffej Sozeb, and Sam the Sham Alt-man and save a step is the flippant course, but it sure as hell feels like it all heads that way.
This is scary shit dude! I haven't even released a finished piece of music yet, not for the want of trying like hell for over twenty years, but I have released unfinished tracks... now I'm terrified that, if and when I finally DO manage to get a band together and actually finish and release my first EP, I'll be fucked over because someone else has already ripped me off!
Its so fucked up that the AI is now replacing us with the skills it stole from us, like the student murdering the teacher.
getting rid of artist is the main feature of AI for investors
Nothing was stolen from you calm down..
Welcome to capitalism. It is and always has been a dog eat dog world
Human art is valid. AI is just a tool. Listen to the songs I prompted thru AI. I was able to get emotion out of it. They need to give partial writing credits to the prompter, the people who trained the AI & the musicians it was trained on. It is like really in depth & complicated sampling.
@@RoryElis it is NOT really in-depth and complicated sampling. That's just not how it works.. 😒
22:31 - Loved the request for Patreons at the end - it was gold! But honestly, I’m still not convinced I need to pay for any "free" content on RUclips - especially when it kinda feels like, "Support me, because, well... I don’t have a real job. But I love my play job, and I'd love you to love it too." With over 300 channels in my feed, in a world of endless choice, choosing to buy "free" content, just to get the same video a little early, feels about as tempting as paying for bottled water. Besides, in the endless RUclips buffet, if one channel dies, there’s a dozen more ready to fill (or already filling) that void - for free! It does make me wonder, though - what percentage of people actually shell out for this sort of thing (1:1000?), and of their 300+ channel subscriptions, how many do they pay for (1:100?), and have they run out of things to spend their money on?
To make the system even slightly fair, youtube needs to adopt a similar policy for claimants. As in claimants should have a three strike policy too to try and limit frivolous bogus copyright claims.
this planet is hell
Yes but only 7 days a week.
Lol classic, happy post bday too.
Ayyy thank you!
Theres only future for us in live music, where people who actually care for art made by humans gather. In this day and age we need to go back to musicians roots and offer something that AI cannot
*cough* live vocaloid concert *cough*
@ youre right, were doomed
Hello and thank you for this very smart test of how Copyright is broken. I get numerous Copyright Disputes in my RUclips videos when I create music on my computer from MIDI of ancient classics from, for instance, Handel, Bach, Beethoven. The Algorithm seems to match my music from someone else's Video using recordings of the same songs, only I created my music completely from scratch. This is the Dispute Claim Message "The melody is the words and music written by the songwriters and composers. These rights are often managed by different rights holders in each country and are separate from the rights associated with recordings of the song".
Thanks for the great information and all the time and effort it required.