A key feature of AI is the ability for the technology to be generative, meaning it can give you a response or even a product. “Talk” to you, if you will (I won’t). Looking for a doppelganger to attend a meeting in your place and take notes? AI can help with that. Looking to draw up marketing for an excursion you don’t have the time/funds/intention to build in the real world? AI can help with that. Looking to impersonate a late, beloved comedian despite the departed’s family wishes? AI can help with that too! What it can’t do, apparently, is learn how to perform all these tasks without first being trained on copyrighted material. We’ve seen writers and visual artists sue AI companies for infringing on their protected works, and this week the music industry’s heavy hitters entered the fray. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed two lawsuits against Suno AI and Udio AI, respectively, for mass copyright infringement of their artists’ sound recordings:
The blockbuster lawsuits have been filed by the music companies that hold the rights to recordings allegedly infringed upon including Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings and Warner Records. The case against Suno, Inc., the developer of Suno AI, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the other was filed against Uncharted Labs, Inc., the developer of Udio AI, in the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs argue that the AI firms have “flouted the rights of copyright owners in the music industry as part of a mad dash to become the dominant AI music generation service. Neither [these services] nor any other generative AI company, can be allowed to advance toward this goal by trampling the rights of copyright owners.”
“We can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us,” RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a statement. “Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”
“Suno and Udio are attempting to hide the full scope of their infringement rather than putting their services on a sound and lawful footing,” RIAA chief legal officer Ken Doroshow added. “These lawsuits are necessary to reinforce the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical, and lawful development of generative AI systems and to bring Suno’s and Udio’s blatant infringement to an end.”
The two lawsuits are seeking for the AI firms to admit that they infringed upon copyrighted sound recordings owned by the plaintiffs, injunctions barring the organizations from infringing on copyrighted material in the future, and damages of up to $150,000 per work, along with other fees.
AI models that generate music, based on copyrighted content, could “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which [the services were] built,” the suits claim.
The lawsuits follow previous legal action filed by UMG, Concord and ABKCO in Oct. against Antropic, which focused more on copied lyrics.
Sony, UMG, and Warner… that should just about cover all popular music, what with this being the land of monopolies in the age of catalog sales. If I were Suno or Udio, my circuits would be vibrating with apprehension. Now, do I think the big companies have purely altruistic goals in protecting their artists through these lawsuits? Hell no. They want their money! And I say that as someone who has experience processing royalties for a music artist whose catalog is with one of those big three. I’ve seen payments be collected of $0.01. Perhaps I’m being overly cynical (I’m not), but it strikes me as just a lucky bit of good PR the music conglomerates get to boast about here… in the pursuit of their money! At least with the suits from writers, and actors too, it feels like they’re advocating for themselves. Whereas Sony, UMG, and Warner are advocating for the people whose work makes them rich. That rant being said, these lawsuits to protect sound recordings are the right thing to do against AI, whatever the innermost motives may be. AI is running into glitches in its development of generative technology, but what it’s really gangbusters at generating is a whole new field of law.
Pictured are Lucian Grange, CEO of UMG, with Lionel Richie, Sony Music Group Chairman Rob Stringer nd Columbia Chairman & CEO Ron Perry with Diplo, and Warner Records co-chairmen, Aaron Bay-Schuck and Tom Corson (He is also shown with Meryl Streep, Cher and Clive Davis). Credit: Getty and Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
Depressingly, if AI doesn’t impinge but helps their bottom line, the music behemoths will flip, right? We had no clue when companies like FB tagged pictures of our friends that they were training AI back in the day with images. And now it’s just moved so far beyond that.
I always found the tags suspicious. Now I know why.
Never thought I’d be cheering for the big music labels but… here we are.
Can’t wait to see what we learn about these AI companies in discovery.
I can’t help but be reminded of Tupac’s estate threatening Drake recently for using his voice on a diss track. It really is so disrespectful and he used Snoop’s too which I wondered at the time if Snoop threatened a suit as well. It’s disgusting someone could use AI to mislead listeners to an artists viewpoint or avoid paying them.
I keep hearing Denzels voice on TikTok, saying things I’m sure he didn’t say
Reading articles by people who specialise in A.I. they say it should be really called a scholastic parrot. It doesn’t understand what it reads it just mimics. This is why most A.I.s have to be trained on many many inputs to be able to mimic things properly.
Unfortunately because it is being trained on unchecked information, most A.I.s are exagerating societies issues so most of them are sexist, racisist and every other ist that society currently is suffering from.
If you treat it as a parrot that can memorise everything then you won’t be disappointed or fooled by it.
AI is plagiarism. And environmental devastation. And exploited, underpaid workforces in “developing countries”.
Also I’m tired of the devaluing of genuine art and creativity.
Last week, I drove a young man who allegedly works for an AI company. He told me a story about their AI program being tested and the program “lied” and everyone was freaking out because “no one programmed lying into the system” and “do you know what this means? It is *thinking*!”
I just umm-hmm and wowed and gollyed until the ride was over and he could get out. But what I was thinking was 1. either he’s a damn liar or 2. he’s gullible af if he really believes that bullsh!t or 3. he thinks I’m stupid.
Anyway, effe that guy and his no tipping self. And effe the AI industry for abusing what could be an interesting concept.
Kismet’s got their number, but this is also a good piece of analysis: https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/
Thanks for this!
Wonder how long it will be before the big book publishers sue.