AI music startups say copyright violation is just rock and roll

Comments

• YeetPics@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Fuck the RIAA, and fuck these AI startups and their organizers MORE.

  source
• crime@hexbear.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  heartbreaking Heartbreaking, the worst person you just made a great point

  source
• hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Does anyone have a link to an actual song they claim is copyright violation? The article contains a link to 3 samples but only for Suno and they don't sound like Bruce Springsteen or any proper artist to me.

  source
• solrize@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  They know it’s only rock and roll, but they like it, they like it, yes they do.

  source
• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I definitely do not care enough about copyright for that to be an objection to this technology.

  On the other hand if these people expect protections for what the robot spits out, they can take a flying fuck at the moon.

  source

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    All “AI” works are public domain by default unless a person can prove that they used “AI” as part of creative workflow and just as a reference.

    source

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Right, people can claim whatever contribution they made. Redrawing a popular photo means the drawing is yours but the composition is not. Anyone else can still use or draw that photo. Same deal for cribbing off what comes out when you just type a sentence into Stable Diffusion. You could claim the sentence - except copyright doesn’t protect such minimal and trivial effort.

      These systems can take art as an input. Image-to-image really ought to be commonplace, with artists blobbing out rough thumbnails, so the machine can fill in the details and fudge the anatomy. But for some reason all that gets traction are the dinguses using plain text and going ‘I made this.’

      source
• funbreaker@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I like sample culture but not these guys.

  source