4 ms·

At least until they setup their own AI music division, which they will totally do.

• lukeh 4y ago
  I’ll trust the majors to compensate rightsholders more than I’d trust tech bros.
  • jacknews 4y ago
    define 'rightsholders' Oh right, in most cases, it's actually the majors themselves. lol
    • lukeh 4y ago
      I’m signed to Universal and I own my masters. Substitute artist for rightsholder if you prefer.
      • jacknews 4y ago
        Good for you, but it's definitely not always the case. What's your take on AI training? To me, there's this new thing in the world. Are you going to try and stop it (unlikely), drop out (barely possible in a networked world), or try to make it work for you?
        • lukeh 4y ago
          A good summary of the available options :) I simply don't know at this point.
  • InCityDreams 4y ago
    >the majors to compensate rightsholders Ie themselves.
• mtillman 4y ago
  Reminds me of Jamie Dimon telling congress that BTC was a scam and should be banned while paying an entire team of people to work on a BTC play for customers.
  • garyfirestorm 4y ago
    fiduciary duty /s
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• soylentcola 4y ago
  Right? How much of these labels' music is focus grouped? Or from performers signed by scouts looking for stuff that sounds like what's already selling? Or tweaked and sweetened with software to optimize based on play statistics? It's not that they have a problem with derivative work. It's a huge part of their catalog. They'd just rather train software on their digital assets and use it to further optimize their own product. Why would they want to help others do the same? I doubt popular music fans are going to consciously prefer "JamBot69" over "Band of Hot and Interesting People", but will they know if the latter had their songs penned or "improved" by the former?