This May Be Generative AI Music's Killer App: Extend Your Clips

[Drew Stephenson]

That doesn't sound right.
Surely it is the venue that needs the licenses not individual visitors. So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that an LLM is a venue rather than a 'listener'.

The venue needs a licence if the music is being performed - no performance, no licence required, so an LLM doesn't need a PRS or similar licence.

[BJG145]

I take the point about copyright and using the right law for the job. It’ll be interesting to see which way it goes in this battle of titans. Suno/Udio better make sure they covered their asses when it comes to mechanical copies.

[merlyn]

Drew, do you have shares in Open AI? Other than that I can see no reason why you would side with corporations who are using human's work to make a profit without any money flowing back to the creators.

The technical sophistry used above is predicated on the faulty assumption that the law is fixed and never changes. It would be sensible to have new laws to deal with new technology. A few years ago you put forward a similar defence of Spotify, who then took away your pennies. Didn't you learn anything from that?

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I cannot help wonder if people have not got better things to do with their time?

Nothing beats making a piece of music yourself, the process, the learning, the heart and soul, doscovery with each track, the enjoyment and a result at the end, and a stepping stone in a process moving forwards, it's an investment in yourself.

I am so glad I won't be giving any time to any of this. One must work out what priorities in life are. It's short, make good decisions.

[Forum Admin]

And if not, why can people only upload their own material, while the company can upload whatever they like?

Probably because the companies know that if they allowed people to load up copyrighted music then they would (because most people don't understand copyright) and then there'd be a very real risk of them retaining, for however short a period of time, a copyrighted file.

This is exactly the legal reason why SOS does not allow uploading of images directly into this SOS Forum. It only takes one copyright image and you're screwed. Especially nowadays with AI algorithms being used by many companies to hunt down their copyright content.

[sonics]

I cannot help wonder if people have not got better things to do with their time?

I understand your stance, but if a composer's income (or any part of it) is reduced by machine-generated music then they should be interested in this. Turning a blind eye (ear?) is not a good move, IMO.

If you write a tune that closely resembles another copywritten piece, you risk being sued, even if the melody is not completely identical but the style and arrangement are. The case against you is even stronger if it can be shown that you knew the music it's suggested you have copied. If the machines have heard all the popular stuff, let's just wait for the infringements to arrive and then the lawyers can enjoy "taking 'em down"! Perhaps...or will the machines get wise to that and know just what adjustments need to be made to keep their output legal?

P.S.
I believe I have recently lost a composing gig as a result of the video creator using AI music. It was "just cheaper and easier". I'm sure they could have used library music, too. I can say for certain that the music they used doesn't have the resonance and correlation to the visuals that I could have provided, so the end result is of lower quality. The standards do seem to be going down even further. If I were a young composer I'd be very concerned about this indeed.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I read this and took it at face value :

"upload a piece of original music. You specify what you'd like it sound like (that's your 'prompt') and hit enter. The AI will generate multiple possible takes. If you specify vocals it will add a vocalist."

Maybe this is just me but I have absolutely no need for that at all, whatever that is.

I make what I want it to sound like myself through knowledge, real intelligence.

If standards are going to drop, ultimately it will put high quality in a good position to stand out. Rather than drop down, step up.

As a case in question my experience, knowledge and equipment is at probably approaching the top of my game yet my rates are at a level anyone can afford. (Almost anyone)

I am 100pct certain I have lost some mastering jobs to many apps and online finalizing services. Those things have been about 10 years - a decade !

Though not that many though as far as I can tell. When people want the job done correctly with diligence they come to me. When they want a half baked pretend server mastering with DIY tweaks on cheap monitors they use those apps/websites.

Maybe as a composer it is a different kettle of fish, especially for sync licensing jobs/library music. Though that has never been a walk in the park the last decade or so. And yes composers for custom jobs are always competing against superb quality library music.

When this stuff stops sounding like a robotic, soulless 11kHz sample rate aliasing load of sonic trash I will maybe listen again.

Does ay aye make people go deaf as well as frenzied for whatever this is ?

[muzines]

I'm not particularly interested in getting AI to make something so I don't have to.

I *am* interesting in using it as a tool to help me do more, or faster, or better - in the way I've always been attracted to computers for - as a way to empower me to do more than I otherwise could. The whole "bicycle for the mind" thing.

I've found various AI stuff great and super-useful in a number of circumstances (not so much for music, although I guess stem separation is a tool that wouldn't be practically possible otherwise) - as an ideas-generating tool it's pretty awesome - but as ever with new powerful technologies, we have to as a society work out how to use these tools responsibly and protect against their abuse with laws etc, just as we always have before. We haven't even figured out how to social network yet, and the rate of technology growth is to a certain degree outpacing our ability to adapt to it as a society. (And it doesn't even come with a manual!)

There will always be people who are afraid of the new thing, only see the downsides, and want the technology to be "uninvented" or not-used, and other people who are excited about the new opportunities the technology makes possible. Of course, it's certainly important to be wise about the possible abuses and move forward cautiously, rather than ignoring the downsides as too inconvenient to bother with, because any powerful technology can be powerfully abused.

I remember I think an old SOS article, bemoaning the simplicity of computer error messages. To paraphrase: "Why does the computer tell me something didn't work, and give me an OK button to press? Why isn't there also a 'So Fix It' button?"

If these kinds of tools help turn computers into more useful, pro-active, assistant types who can learn how you work and be genuinely helpful to do the tedious stuff for you, that's a pretty cool future in my book. I remain cautiously optimistic about technology generally.

As far as all the harvesting the world's free data to provide AI services - I guess the lawyers will argue it out, for now...

[BWC]

It would be sensible to have new laws to deal with new technology.

Totally agree! ...but for that, we'd need sensible lawmakers who understand the technology, both new and old.

...or will the machines get wise to that and know just what adjustments need to be made to keep their output legal?

That shouldn't be too hard, since the practice of making such adjustments, for just that reason, is well established. There's a local TV commercial running 'round here lately that uses a "not quite Jumpin' Jack Flash" loop. I doubt it was "AI" created, but I don't see why it couldn't be.

Maybe this is just me but I have absolutely no need for that at all, whatever that is.

It's not just you.

standards are going to drop, ultimately it will put high quality in a good position to stand out. Rather than drop down, step up.

I am 100pct certain I have lost some mastering jobs to many apps and online finalizing services. Those things have been about 10 years - a decade !

I was taught early on that the only way to consistently make a living with music for any length of time is to be as versatile and flexible as possible. Exactly what's "needed" will vary with new technologies and trends, but the fundamental skills and concepts can be applied widely. While I feel Sonics' pain, I applaud your "stepping up".

When this stuff stops sounding like a robotic, soulless 11kHz sample rate aliasing load of sonic trash I will maybe listen again.

...although I guess stem separation is a tool that wouldn't be practically possible otherwise

Several "separation" tools, that've been around a while, only recently started saying anything about "AI".

There will always be people who are afraid of the new thing, only see the downsides, and want the technology to be "uninvented" or not-used, and other people who are excited about the new opportunities the technology makes possible. Of course, it's certainly important to be wise about the possible abuses and move forward cautiously, rather than ignoring the downsides as too inconvenient to bother with, because any powerful technology can be powerfully abused.

...but that Jobs guy (and others) told everyone not to worry about how anything works ("Get the machine out of the way."), just jump on in there and start using those powerful tools (with no understanding of them and an endless source of misinformation to "help" you). What could go wrong?

I remain cautiously optimistic about technology generally.

Me too! It's some of the users that worry me. Problems will continue to exist between KB & chair.

[muzines]

Several "separation" tools, that've been around a while, only recently started saying anything about "AI".

Yes, but they *all* use Machine Learning models to do this, that hasn't changed. It's just the "ML" term was fashionable for a while and "AI" wasn't, now AI is the buzzword de jour. (Although the techniques differ, there are various flavours of "AI" of course)

The reason ML is necessary is because with conventional, non-AI techniques, the process has no knowledge about, say, what a "piano" sounds like, and while it can guess at what frequencies a piano might be at, it can't get at the other frequencies that are overlapping with other stuff. In short, it can only do a bad job, because unlike a human, it can't really tell what frequency energy corresponds to what musical part. This is why back in the day "un-mixing" to any degree of quality was considered more or less impossible (for most of my life, for instance).

Where ML/AI made progress is that now, ML training means that the process now knows, or at least has some understanding of, eg, what a piano typically sounds like, and can thus make a much better attempt at pulling out "piano-like" stuff.

While we're still a way from perfection (if that is ever possible), it's really only because of these AI techniques that current stem separators are as good as they are.

So the technology of these hasn't changed, just the marketing has.

[BWC]

So the technology of these hasn't changed, just the marketing has.

Yes, my point exactly! I own a license for RipX, and until recently, it was all about "the algorithm", no mentions of "AI" or "ML". ...but I suppose I've already objected enough elsewhere about the terminology that the marketing folks have decided on. Source separation was possible before that decision was made, so your statement tweaked that nerve a bit.

[OneWorld]

..........I was taught early on that the only way to consistently make a living with music for any length of time is to be as versatile and flexible as possible...............

Even Sir Paul has had to dust off his plectrum at such a ripe old age

[Martin Walker]

An interesting development on behalf of independent musicians:

"Entertainment Attorney, Miss Krystle discusses a major public statement uniting independent music creators, attorneys, and industry leaders in response to how corporations Suno & Udio are using music without consent.

This video explores where things stand, why lawsuits have been filed, and what it could mean for musicians everywhere.

The conversation digs into the broader impact of AI, copyright law, and how independent creators are fighting back to protect their work. From class action lawsuits to growing industry support, MK shares the latest updates on this battle shaping the music industry. Stay tuned as we break down why this moment is bigger than AI itself, and how artists worldwide are coming together to defend their future."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tanGIjxDs44