So ... I know there is an Udio/Suno topic already, but pls allow me to create another one. Thistime focused on one particular aspect. It kinda keeps me awake at night. Let me explain:
Who the h*ll provided data to train this? I mean ... if results of Udio and Suno were "freesound/soundcloud" level qualitty music, i'd be willing to accept that it was trained on CC-0 data. But it sounds good. Amazing at times. Nailing musical styles, vocal styles. I'm unable to believe that CC-0 music can lead to such a precise and "cool sounding" generators. It feels to me, that the chance theese have been trained on copyrighted music is quite significant. If (and I'm very well aware this is pure speculation, so I emphasize the "if" part) this is trained on actual non-CC music, there are pretty much three scenarios this dataset gathering might have gone by:
1) It's illegally scrapped and both companies are trying to hush it. In that case I'm baffled by the lack of buzz around it. Big labels are forcing Spotify to pay them huge chunks of money, they force YouTube to scan every nephew's online gaming fan video for copyright infingement, but somebody scrapes probably their complete catalog and they're like: "Whatever..." I don't know, that does not add up.
2) Some huge sync-library like Audiojungle, Epidemic Sound or Artlist provided the data. They do have the rights for the music as artists are (with some exceptions) usually forced to sign the rights off. In that case I'd be very cautious about planning with any earnings from sync music. That might end any minute now.
3) The one I fear the most: One of the actual major labels silently provided the catalog so they can test the capabilities and public adoption of this tech. If that is true, hyper-personalized music generation is around the corner. It's essentially a perfect upsell of label's old catalogue, isn't it? "Wanna custom Jay-Z song? No problem, pay for our generator. Your Universal." Also it would explain why labels seem to be ice cold about this topic. In that case I'm baffled by the lack of response from the artists themselves, because that's something their (sometimes very expansive) agreements had no way of accounting for. That would mean labels are using contractual grey area to set precedent of complete non-compensated monetization of their catalogs.
I'm kinda angry about this, If you can't tell. I'm dead-scared my whole artistic life to remix anything so label can't come and sue my butt off. ...yet somebody quite probably scrapes someone's entire catalogue to create essentially a mix'n'match remix machine and that's not problematic at all? Come on.
Is there any official stand of Performing Rights Organisations on this? BMI? ASCAP? GEMA? All the national variants across Europe and the world? Also were are the class action sniffing companies, when world actually needs them, lol?
(edits for typos)
Who the h*ll provided data to train this? I mean ... if results of Udio and Suno were "freesound/soundcloud" level qualitty music, i'd be willing to accept that it was trained on CC-0 data. But it sounds good. Amazing at times. Nailing musical styles, vocal styles. I'm unable to believe that CC-0 music can lead to such a precise and "cool sounding" generators. It feels to me, that the chance theese have been trained on copyrighted music is quite significant. If (and I'm very well aware this is pure speculation, so I emphasize the "if" part) this is trained on actual non-CC music, there are pretty much three scenarios this dataset gathering might have gone by:
1) It's illegally scrapped and both companies are trying to hush it. In that case I'm baffled by the lack of buzz around it. Big labels are forcing Spotify to pay them huge chunks of money, they force YouTube to scan every nephew's online gaming fan video for copyright infingement, but somebody scrapes probably their complete catalog and they're like: "Whatever..." I don't know, that does not add up.
2) Some huge sync-library like Audiojungle, Epidemic Sound or Artlist provided the data. They do have the rights for the music as artists are (with some exceptions) usually forced to sign the rights off. In that case I'd be very cautious about planning with any earnings from sync music. That might end any minute now.
3) The one I fear the most: One of the actual major labels silently provided the catalog so they can test the capabilities and public adoption of this tech. If that is true, hyper-personalized music generation is around the corner. It's essentially a perfect upsell of label's old catalogue, isn't it? "Wanna custom Jay-Z song? No problem, pay for our generator. Your Universal." Also it would explain why labels seem to be ice cold about this topic. In that case I'm baffled by the lack of response from the artists themselves, because that's something their (sometimes very expansive) agreements had no way of accounting for. That would mean labels are using contractual grey area to set precedent of complete non-compensated monetization of their catalogs.
I'm kinda angry about this, If you can't tell. I'm dead-scared my whole artistic life to remix anything so label can't come and sue my butt off. ...yet somebody quite probably scrapes someone's entire catalogue to create essentially a mix'n'match remix machine and that's not problematic at all? Come on.
Is there any official stand of Performing Rights Organisations on this? BMI? ASCAP? GEMA? All the national variants across Europe and the world? Also were are the class action sniffing companies, when world actually needs them, lol?
(edits for typos)
Statistics: Posted by FarleyCZ — Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:01 pm