What's new
By:

Anyone concerned about getting ripped-off by AI companies?

I'm just wondering - shouldn't the accountability be at the level of music curators who are responsible for handling scores and finding songs for commercial projects?

Is there a system of legal checkpoints that identifies and prevents the use of generative AI in commercial projects that are traditionally the bread and butter of genuine authors/composers?

I can understand the appeal of using AI for visual content for personal projects (I've done it), but with music it should come with a price if someone was to clone an artist's portfolio to use in a commercial project - who gets paid and credited? It should be understood that it's a big NO NO. In other words, would a movie production company risk anathema by blatantly hijacking the job of human composers?
 
creativeforge said:
I'm just wondering - shouldn't the accountability be at the level of music curators who are responsible for handling scores and finding songs for commercial projects?

Is there a system of legal checkpoints that identifies and prevents the use of generative AI in commercial projects that are traditionally the bread and butter of genuine authors/composers?
Click to expand...
One of the libraries I write for, prominently touts on their home page, the human aspect of their music:

human.webp

Another library I write for, recently dropped from their roster, two composers who tried to submit AI-generated music.

Publishers don't want to have anything to do with AI music. Aside from potential legal entaglements and ownership issues, there seems to be, at least for now, a general distaste for generative AI among movie studios, production companies, networks, etc. This may change in the future, but at least for now, human-created content is a selling point, at least among the major players.

Besides, if a studio, ad agency, production company, etc. wanted to use AI-generated music, there's absolutely no need to go thru a publisher. They would simply hire a high-school graduate to type prompts all day long and generate the music themselves. AI-generated music completely cuts publishers out of the process.

On the surface, it seems like AI could very easily take over the production music industry, but interestingly enough, there's actually a massive barrier to entry that current AI technology is unable to surmount: the need for clean stems, alt mixes, and cutdowns.

I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but AFAIK, AI is currently incapable of delivering a nice tidy package consisting of a stereo mix, underscore mix, no vocal mix, drum and bass mix, 30 and 60-second cutdowns of each mix, plus all stems. This significantly limits the usefulness of AI music in the media world.
 
HCMarkus said:
Then, there's this:

arstechnica.com

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader

Rudderless Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Click to expand...
It's no secret the current administration is pro-AI, investing huge sums in AI companies and trying to quash state laws regulating AI. The timing of Perlmutter's dismissal shortly after the copyright office announced that copyrights basically favored human creators, is probably no coincidence.
 
Nekujak said:
It's no secret the current administration is pro-AI, investing huge sums in AI companies and trying to quash state laws regulating AI.
Click to expand...
Apparently that's in the Big Beautiful Bill, and I find it particularly odd that it wasn't the first thing chopped out of it, since I think both parties can agree that one thing that really does need to be regulated is AI. Job losses, privacy, the ultimate "big brother," all those things I assumed we all agree need to be watched carefully.

If this were a sci-fi movie, and the opening scene was Congress passing a 10-year moratorium on keeping AI in check, reviewers would say that opening scene is too preposterous to be believable.
 
Mike Greene said:
Apparently that's in the Big Beautiful Bill, and I find it particularly odd that it wasn't the first thing chopped out of it, since I think both parties can agree that one thing that really does need to be regulated is AI. Job losses, privacy, the ultimate "big brother," all those things I assumed we all agree need to be watched carefully.
Click to expand...
I think the idea that both 'parties can agree regulating AI' is negated by the current agenda of those in power, and it's not just the politicians.

Who benefits from lack of regulations, and who do they want doing their bidding?

While the tech bros and other oligarchs drain every dollar out of the economy there is an added benefit to being able to monitor opposition voices and activities. And now that privacy has been violated by Musk and his co-conspirators stealing the personal information of every American it's clear that big-brother is part of the plan.
 
Mike Greene said:
If this were a sci-fi movie, and the opening scene was Congress passing a 10-year moratorium on keeping AI in check, reviewers would say that opening scene is too preposterous to be believable.
Click to expand...
There certainly have been a preponderance of truth-is-stranger-than-fiction moments so far this year :sad:
 
The same guy (Benn Jorday) who created the video about YouTube claiming his music has been collaborating with a team to create a program that will turn music into a "poison pill" for AI:
Edit: I see this showed up in another post, so I'll just point there instead:

S

Post in thread 'Future "AI Free" Music Zones For Music Fans'

I like this post. There's a lot of good info that I need to explore.

I don't use Apple Music, Spotify, etc. I do have accounts on Youtube and Bandcamp to follow people, music, and subjects that I like.

Artists desperately need to find a way to protect digitally downloadable content, but that's been a problem since Napster days. I wish I had some ideas.

What do you think of this?
  • Like


It's still very much a work in progress, but it shows a lot of promise.
 
One of the grey areas with AI is in how we use it. For example, I use Logic drummer, I believe it's an AI program. I control what it plays and program it as I see fit. I use it just like I would a session drummer. So, if I let Logic create all my drums rather than me telling it what to do, how do we reconcile that?
 
Tim Nash said:
I use Logic drummer, I believe it's an AI program.
Click to expand...
Marketing dictates that we put an AI-badge on everything these days. Afaics, Logic Drummer is algorithmic, which has nothing to do with AI. Algorithmic composing has existed for ages, Eno has done (and still does) a lot of that. Larry Fast (Synergy) also did some incredible stuff quite early (1979, using a big computer at Bell Labs).

 
Tim Nash said:
One of the grey areas with AI is in how we use it. For example, I use Logic drummer, I believe it's an AI program. I control what it plays and program it as I see fit. I use it just like I would a session drummer. So, if I let Logic create all my drums rather than me telling it what to do, how do we reconcile that?
Click to expand...
For me personally, there's a vast difference between assistive AI that can help me craft an individual part versus using AI to generate an entire song by typing some words.

Generative AI, like Udio and Suno, is not aimed at musicians - it's intended for the general public, who have no musical ability. This is different from assisstive AI tools that are designed to help facilitate music creation by musicians.

What it really comes down to for me, is that I find it profoundly unrewarding and unsatisfying to have music created for me, whether it's by using loops, AI, or some plugin. I just find it really boring to make music that way, because it's the actual act of creating and exercising my musical skills that brings me joy. Otherwise, why even bother?

That said, I often use drum loops or MIDI drums simply because I'm not a drummer and don't have the chops to create effective drum parts on my own. It's like hiring a session drummer. And I'm still making all the creative decisions about which parts to use, where they should be applied, and how they need to be modified. I'm just not writing or playing every single drum hit.

Ultimately, we all need to decide for ourselves where to draw the line. For me, the tools I use must not diminish my sense of personal creative satisfaction. YMMV :thumbsup:
 
CrimsonWarlock said:
Marketing dictates that we put an AI-badge on everything these days. Afaics, Logic Drummer is algorithmic, which has nothing to do with AI. Algorithmic composing has existed for ages, Eno has done (and still does) a lot of that. Larry Fast (Synergy) also did some incredible stuff quite early (1979, using a big computer at Bell Labs).

Click to expand...


Nekujak said:
Nekujak said:
For me personally, there's a vast difference between assistive AI that can help me craft an individual part versus using AI to generate an entire song by typing some words.

Generative AI, like Udio and Suno, is not aimed at musicians - it's intended for the general public, who have no musical ability. This is different from assisstive AI tools that are designed to help facilitate music creation by musicians.

What it really comes down to for me, is that I find it profoundly unrewarding and unsatisfying to have music created for me, whether it's by using loops, AI, or some plugin. I just find it really boring to make music that way, because it's the actual act of creating and exercising my musical skills that brings me joy. Otherwise, why even bother?

That said, I often use drum loops or MIDI drums simply because I'm not a drummer and don't have the chops to create effective drum parts on my own. It's like hiring a session drummer. And I'm still making all the creative decisions about which parts to use, where they should be applied, and how they need to be modified. I'm just not writing or playing every single drum hit.

Ultimately, we all need to decide for ourselves where to draw the line. For me, the tools I use must not diminish my sense of personal creative satisfaction. YMMV :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's good to know that it's not AI. I actually really like drummer because I have so much control over it. And I can get it to do all kinds of things a drummer could never do.
 
I'm really not worried at all about AI as far as my songwriting goes. I'm telling stories, largely from my own life, but always from my perspective. And that combines with my approaches to melody and rhythm, and everything I've devoured from writing a ton of songs, studying good songs, and reading a ton of songwriting books. I'm a human being. What AI does is impressive, like a dog dancing, but it's kind of dumb the more you are exposed to it. I'm not too worried that AI is going to tell stories about my life.

If they want to put my stuff into a digital blender and spit out random crap and awful songs, go ahead. There's always been evil people in the world who will crap all over everything to make money. It's just the way they crap on the world that evolves.

The only thing that scares me is somebody getting control of my creative work and telling me I can't use it without paying them.
 
Generative AI will eventually eat itself. Mediocrity is defined by the simple given that it is "what everyone can do," in contrast to the things that only certain people (by talent or serious study) can do. The thing that everyone can do without much (or any) effort will generate more than enough of it to become mediocre in the extreme. It will be everywhere, and people will become sick of it instead of being amazed by it (that's already happening).
 
This recent article was already posted over in the "main ballroom". But I figured I would share it over here in the pool room as it is perhaps more interesting to indy artists, aspirants, and listeners who dwell outside the media music infrastructure (realizing some of the active posters here likely straddle both worlds).

I thought it was a pertinent update to the discussion in three ways:

1) "common sense predictions" became true as far as the level of inundation with AI slop on streaming platforms, but more surprisingly, how rapidly the tech has been refined where the vast majority of people cannot detect it by ear (if you buy the statistics in the article).

2) smaller streaming platforms like Deezer are at least claiming to make an effort towards tagging and introducing filters to separate out AI slop, so not all bad news.

3) Universal settled with Udio, and will soon be launching an AI music creation service trained on already licensed music, presumably from Universal's catalogue.

www.reuters.com

Are you listening to bots? Survey shows AI music is virtually undetectable

A staggering 97% of listeners cannot distinguish between artificial intelligence-generated and human-composed songs, a Deezer–Ipsos survey showed on Wednesday, underscoring growing concerns that AI could upend how music is created, consumed and monetized.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
Here's an explanation of the UMG-Udio settlement, and analysis of what it might mean for the future of AI music, at least from a music licensing perspective. For now, it seems encouraging, but I think it's still too early to tell for sure.

​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom