Technology

59587 readers

2940 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

AI Music Generator Suno Admits It Was Trained on ‘Essentially All Music Files on the Internet’ (www.404media.co)

submitted 3 months ago by hotpot8toe@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

163 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Suno’s training data includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet."

"Rather than trying to argue that Suno was not trained on copyrighted songs, the company is instead making a Fair Use argument to say that the law should allow for AI training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation."

Archived (also bypass paywall): https://archive.ph/ivTGs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I just don't get how we can't just sue them. You'd think the big copyright holders, record labels in this case, would be all over that.

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you could use a fuckin lamp

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why, are they a moth?

[–] shinratdr@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I can only assume they see it as a double edged sword. Rights-holders (read: publishers, labels & studios) would have the power to sue here, not creators (read: artists, musicians and filmmakers).

These rights-holders also want to use AI so they don’t have to pay or deal with creators, so while they don’t love that other companies are making money off their content, they’re more just mad that someone else did it first before they could exploit their own content in the same way.

Sue and set precedent, and they might accidentally make it impossible for them to turn around and do the exact same thing once they have the technical know-how.

Entirely speculation, but it’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

With corps, assume malice and you'll be right more often than not.

[–] JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Uhm, this came out as part of a law suit against them by the record industry? So they are in the process of being sued.

While not surprising, the admission, which was made as part of court proceedings responding to a massive recording industry lawsuit against the company, shows yet again that many AI tools are trained on, essentially, anything that companies can get their hands on.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Thank you. I‘m honestly baffled at the amount of comments talking out of their ass in this thread as if the legal system has made 0 progress or effort to deal with anything AI related by now. It‘s reminiscent of how cryptobros talked about NFTs not so long ago and how all the scammers are untouchable because laws don‘t mention NFTs directly or something. AI is the largest case of copyright infringement ever committed and labels do not give a damn about subjective and debatable „but it’s transformative“ arguments. Again, it‘s baffling.