JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Problem I foresee with ai

I wanna wait till it's worth doing it, cause if you spend a lot of time doing it, 6 months later a much better version of ai comes around and your like fack,.

My guess is the fascination of this for non musicians or non songwriters will quickly fade, realizing like .. so what i have a song on my phone. .m

And I believe ai creation software makers will target heavily, people who actually do write , cause for us the habit doesn't die easily

And the better artists will still find ways to stand out.

So my prediction is it will lose popularity overall, but will be a part of every songwriters life from now on, just like pro tools was

Only now ai can record and mix for you...

Some people enjoy that part of it, which is fine too

For me i like creating songs more than producing them

ha ha ha right like Pro-tools , damn now its outdated, Well lets buy more toys ... If your in music for the money , Your out of luck , Freudian slip really , I'm talking to myself.

Just what I guessed they're fighting it

https://bit.ly/45vmzTs

Michael August – Pro Publisher wrote:



Hey Bennett,



Very interesting conversation we're having. Actually funny because Clay Mills and I were having the same discussion. There's no doubt that the music and track sound decent here and the melody created is modern.



That being said, we are not accepting AI generated songs (even if it is track and melody) at this point because the copyright laws are not defined enough on the matter. Also, taking into consideration the artists thoughts, ideas and stance on AI, we would never want to pitch an AI song because this could hinder our chances as well as end up not being the best look for our company.



Excited to talk more about this!



there ya go , Nashville does not like them

Oh right like they really care about the artists, they care about themselves

The bottom line is if you re do it in your own style, it's no longer an ai generated song

Of course they will say that.

They don't care if band in a box created a track fur you, and creates musical motifs and riffs, and played parts that you did not write?

Most country songs are stolen from other country songs, there's a limit to how many songs there can be, it's the same thing over and over again.

I agree nobody should be using the actual track and performance, as their product.

I'm american i don't want to sound English

Whatever that's the ( Real music business world ) , You can assume all you want , Don't kill the messenger . I was curious on what they'd say .

No the real world contains ai.. facts

But it doesn't matter your not going to make any money either way.

You should be so lucky to be sued for 15 million.

You're not in their world F , You break their rules your gone . Whatever I gave you a professional viewpoint . I doubt you'll be pitching to majors , so no concern to you.

Gone where? You mean you might end up on a forum?

In the world of the (Real music business world ) Yes if you break their rules your on a Fidel Castro site . Banned for life .

Have you asked them...what have you done for me lately?

Dude I know some amazingly talented composers who struggle to get a gig playing piano in a restaurant.

Pitching songs is dead.

Be Your own artist.

Pitching songs is not dead for professionals , Its happening day in and day out in Nashville.
Yes its a tuff biz , have a little fun being the artist , and fish. Correct if your not knocking on prodigy's door, You're not going to make any money .

But why are you professional?

I'm not : or I'd have my own talk show . Rednecks In Trailers : hosted by Elvis Nash , Elvis Knows, Let him give you a tour of his Single wide on a lake . Professionals in Nashville are pitching songs . Watch the credits on songs .

You're gonna stand there and tell me you're not a professional?

WTF , I just said no . professionals have songs on radio . I gave up that dream , to combative. if you can't make it in 10 years trying , Its time to take up catfishing

Actually, professional networkers, and many people with no talent have songs on the radio.

As rare as it is for anyone.

It's not about great songwriting.

I wouldn't mind getting paid for writing THE, AND, and Love...

But since it won't happen, why not do the best you you can do and live with the consequences?

I pitched a little back in the songwriters market book days. But not much really, it's a dead ehd

consequences? of 10 years trying ? don't get me started , I won't bore you like Pablo Escobar was hero to Columbia on Net flix I'm watching.
I need xanc to do my next song . I'm sure it will be hit in Trailer park heaven. Actually it was 25 years trying , I have memory loss .

You have to be young and talented and move to Nashville ( Before you knew better) Then (Maybe ) you'll have a few on radio.

Baby ducks are less serious then the rigors of Nashville

Lawsuits are coming... Glad to see it happening.

John

Yes , it is very interesting. $150,000 doesn't sound like much. Monetary Damage. Is there any money in music except at the very top?

It may hurt udio and suno, but it won't change that ai will be used. They just have to change how they do it.

I have no problem with the law suit it's obvious they steal.

But so does anybody who ever wrote anything

150k per work stolen could amount to billions .

The real question is if the users are not making money , how is it stealing.
It's similar to singing a song in the shower

Imitation is a sincere form of flattery. If Fd puts up a a song in the MP3 forum that sounds like Springsteen, I don't send money to Fd...I go buy a Springsteen cassette, cd, album, spotify....hell not even that....search youtube for it.

Well if you do it right , They send money to you , Its not much , But better then nothing , I'm surprised people even buy my cds.
not much you can do with a AI song on monetary value , but a forum post. Yes i'm sure law-suits will flying with the big boys , Keep the lawyers busy

I agree I know Springsteen would not like it, he's one of the artists that won't let Rick beato use his songs to discuss . Don Henley too.

But bottom line 20 people heard it, and it's not going to make a dime it's designed to be a demo.

Releasing it would be a different story entirely

A crime is a crime. Stealing is stealing whether they're smart enough to make any money or not.

Fd and Bennash:

I like some of your stuff, but some is meh too my temperment only. If either of you took the absolute best of your best made cds, then came to my town w your band, played in my town for a reasonable concert price, then sold your cds and chatted with the fans after the concert, I would buy a cd from you, because you have some good stuff. But what a rigamaroll one has to go through to make a buck!

Lawsuits are a about money. If you think this is anything but a money grab....

Since artists don't make money on recorded music any more,law suits are a nice way to supplement that income.

Law suits over songs heated up ironically once music became free, and no money made on it

Theres no money in music , only value is that you did it and endulged your passion.

But I appreciate ud buy some of it lol.

Btw,v I've bought music from dozens of former members of this site.

Something I kept quiet and asked nothing in return for

But I'm the bad guy

meh too , Not sure what that means , I put a lot of work in music and promotion , You can make some money on cd sales , Not much , AdSense money ? not much .
Few shows , not much . I'm sure Bruce Springsteen cares less on AI , net worth 700 mil and touring over seas in 24. You can bet Sony cares about AI , Their going to sue anybody that really matters that threatens their assets.

Could be defamation lawsuits. Someone releasing a sound-alike song/ artist using AI tech, where an audience actually thinks it’s the real artist. This could hurt the artist, publicity-wise. Especially because it’s an inferior production.

John

I guess there's also non monetary things like hey, that's not me, I didn't authorize that. I get it.

But live music is where u make money. From small bar to colliseums

John. I think these lawsuits are the first step in the music labels owning the AI creators...the settlement will probably be in the form of investments, by the industry, into AI, which is happening now...
The only question, IMO, is...how close to actual will AI come and will the public accept it?
They could also be testing, through the courts, copyright laws now to determine what they want to do and how they can make money...I don't see this as protecting artists....but then what do I know anyway?...

Steve

Yes follow the money. the music labels have it so they want in on a good thing. AI.

If I had a million dollars, I might go around and purchase the music catalogs of really good but never quite made bands and artist.....give the music to my AI techs, then allow people to fill their boots and have fun creating amateur music....free. There would be so much traffic I'd make my ROI with advertising wanting in on all the amateur musician and hobby traffic.

Well with all the good and bad about AI , they had to be like Elon Musk to invent that , Like all genius's they're a bit crazy

Music is like sex , the both last for 3 minutes , Unless your a robot. Youtube says you can load AI assisted songs . But if it blantly rips off a artist, Its flagged. So human session players and you sing it , I'm sure YT knows the difference on a AI song and a real one .

I like what he said about tangible ownership... I had to mow a lot of yards when I was a kid lol.
Now, everything is about a monthly fee for access... but you own nothing.

I wonder... Is AI actually stealing from the major labels, or stealing from the millions of amateurs posting to the net every second?

I've posted several of these videos from Beato about music getting worse, I've said it since home recording became a huge thing.

Only when I said it, I was always attacked.

Yes pro tool, drum software, piano software, vocal enhancing, pitch tunning, metronomes and click tracks.

I mean really online, when was the last online song you heard that wasn't linked to a metronome.?

Why are all songs same tempo all the way through? Because it's hard to do tempo changes by yourself regardless of tools

Not only is it easier to make music now, but you don't have to be a musician any more to do it, and if you want to throw ai in there it's the same thing as all the stuff before it.

But, I have yet to hear an online song that was as good as any if my favorite records or albums.

So music is not better because it.

From majors or law lawsuits would not be pending, I imagine also how did they mine all the data ? From where ? How did they do it ?

The leading theory is right off the records, off Spotify etc

Well there ya go , But what's the ects ? I'm sure they'll find out . What house what window , finger prints , Did majors have watch dogs ? Apparently not

I think they will likely try generating stuff themselves and look for one that sounds alot like so and so . And then say look at this

If I wanted to help the record companies I could submit my Springsteen style song with his voice, and any reasonable person would have to say yes that's clearly his likeness.

Well follow the money , hard to say. There's a writer for George Strait , I forgot his name and song . But he told his cowriter , This guitar line sounds just like willie Nelson
Well Willie won't mind , I got him a publishing deal. There's only 12 notes , your bound to sound like someone or some song , but the robot mess is more complicated , obviously

We all act like we have record deals , why would I give a damn about major labels and robots, What has a major label done for me?
what poor ass me is on a crusade to save Sony ? Nashville has been robbing me for 30 years , So i steal a melody . Let me cry for them.
Unless I'm giving somebody in Nashville some money , they don't give a damn about me,

Well that's one way to look at it , robbing Nashville blind instead of the other way around . ha ha turn of the coin

https://bit.ly/45Etfic

Steal a melody like Jessie James , get killed by the Younger gang , hired by Sony.
If some one mentions I stole a melody to the sheriff , I'll have no choice but to burn down your house . like William Munny I will resort back to my murderous ways.

It has been mentioned several times throughout these AI/Udio threads about a comparison between past technology such as synths, drum machines, sample packages like Native Instruments, East West Orch, Ivory piano, and applications like Logic, Cubase, etc. One significant difference in past technologies was that these companies used cleared samples or created their own. AI/ Udio, however, used uncleared samples from artists and musicians without their permission. Which Is Stealing. I could accept apps like udio easier if they were honest and used cleared samples.

One other problem I have with AI technology is that it can hinder young minds in developing skills that require a great amount of time, study, knowledge, and a true sense of accomplishment – not to mention creativity.

So, you can rationalize anyway you want, to convince yourself this is legitimate, but the bottom-line is it’s stealing.

John

It's brand new terrain, it often takes the law time to catch up. Internet laws took time to catch up and get established

Till we define what ai music is, we can't make laws.for now it's a free for all .

Some people think creating an AI naked photo of your teacher is illegal, others contend it's not her so it's legal

That makes sense , that's why they're being sued and not logic ect ect. So instead of picking up the guitar for a melody and using session players( That You Pay) , You push a button and steal the tracks . Makes sense . Here's how I look at it ( minus the stealing ) How are you going to promote yourself as a artist using a robot ? Its not you . Back to topic . Hit writers have insurance on their hits . So I'm assuming all tracks are covered by that . They'll sue the hell out of them , is my guess .

Sorry John but that is factually untrue. A.I. learns much like humans. It evaluates music, learns lessons from it, and then uses not just a single "sample" like a rapper, but it writes parts like someone who graduated with an advanced masters of music. Guess what those people did? They listened and read a wide array of music, learned from it, then used the knowledge to produce new music. Copyright law is 100% still in effect. If someone can make a case for infringement, they have the exact same protections they always have. If there are similarities, then a jury trial might have to decide, just like it did when George Harrison lost the My Sweet Lord case. Ironically, many think the human jury got it wrong. But guess what? They are now training A.I. to find similarities to enforce copyright!

I think everyone is worrying about the wrong things. The REAL danger is that is will raise the bar for nearly ALL musicians to be, at worst, sonically competent. But the good far outweighs the bad. More people will get to engage in music and the joy it brings to all of humanity long before people started selling anything! A.I. hasn't shown an ability to write hits yet, but with minimal human guidance, it soon will. And those humans who guided it will own it, unless it infringes. Nothing has changed. Instead of a rich label or artist hiring the best of everything to make them sound great, EVERYONE will have the same floor. It will ALL sound great without a huge budget! Poor people with talent will have the same access as the rich people for the first time ever. The biggest losers will be Corporations who scam humans. Music already has negligible commercial value, it is only when big corporations promote it that it has value. Now, the market will be so segmented that Corporations will not be able to corner the market or access. But humans will be able to cobble together fans directly and make more money with total freedom than every before. It will be like you have 100 musicians and engineers working for you free. It won't make you creative. Those who are most creative will still have the same upper hand as every before.

Encyclopedias have always gathered info from existing sources, put them in a manageable product you could read and use for further work. This has done the same with music. If you republished a protected work, you get sued, if not, fair game. It is no different here.

Brian

Being sued is not a verdict. If they win and shut down A.I. from learning because it infringes, the lawyers will start suing every artist who ever listened to any artists who came before them. We have copyright laws and they are still in effect. As long as the A.I. is learning and not copying lyrics or melody or sampling, they have infringed on nothing. In reality, these filed lawsuits are simply big corporations saying "we want our cut" just like they did with Spotify. And guess what? They got "their" backdoor partial ownership, the artists and writers got horrible royalty rates and ZERO cut of the ownership deal and these lawsuits, if successful, will do the exact same thing. A pyric victory in name only for creators, and a back door money/ownership deal for the same scumbag corporations. There is no way to pay "royalties" from a settlement to creators because if A.I. has listened to every single song ever recorded in any database, then you would need to prove exactly what original work of YOURS was actually used in the offending music. Your court case alone would cost so much you couldn't win unless it was so clear cut that existing copyright law would have covered it anyway. So go ahead and root for big corporations to screw everyone once again on the way out the door of relevance, but you or John will never see a benefit from the sham lawsuits that have been filed in an obvious money grab.

P.S. Even if they wanted to pay everyone a share of their income, if a billion songs have been learned from (it may be many billions) then your minimum barrier to get a penny would likely be more songs than anyone has ever written. If you want your 1/10000000 of a penny, good luck cashing the check.
"

"Being sued is not a verdict. If they win and shut down A.I. from learning because it infringes, the lawyers will start suing every artist who ever listened to any artists who came before them." Brian

Not even close to the same thing Brian.

John