5 ms·
> buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use So Suno would only really need to buy the physical albums
by pier25 1y ago
> buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use
So Suno would only really need to buy the physical albums and rip them to be able to generate music at an industrial scale?
- theteapot 1y agoYes.
- pier25 1y agoActually it remains to be seen. If you read the ruling, training was considered fair use in part because Claude is not a book generation tool. Hence it was deemed transformative. Definitely not what Suno and Udio are doing.
- ohdeargodno 1y agoOnly if the physical albums don't have copy protection, otherwise you're circumenventing it and that's illegal. Or is it, against the right to private copy? If anything, AI at least shows that all of the existing copyright laws are utter bullshit made to make Disney happy. Do keep in mind though: this is only for the wealthy. They're still going to send the Pinkertons at your house if you dare copy a Blu-ray.
- zerocrates 1y agoWith some minor exceptions, CDs don't have copy protection.
- FateOfNations 1y agoMinor exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- nilamo 1y ago> They're still going to send the Pinkertons at your house if you dare copy a Blu-ray. Hey woah now, that's a Hasbro play, not a Disney one.
- kbelder 1y agoNo, because they can just play the album for the AI to learn. AI training can be set up to exploit the analog hole. Same with images/movies
- itronitron 1y agoIf it's fair use to train a model, that doesn't necessarily imply that the model can be legally used to generate anything.
- pier25 1y agoI've been reading a bit more about this. The training might not be considered fair use if it's not considered transformative. Claude has been considered transformative given it's not really meant to generate books but Suno or Midjourney are absolutely in another category.
- markhahn 1y agoreally? so Suno or Midjourney can produce literal copies of works they were trained on?
- bongodongobob 1y agoWell I've been able to get Suno to do Beatles covers. It only works maybe 1/20 times, but you can do it. It's not an exact replica either, but you can get the same chords and melodies as the original.
- make3 1y agothis is funny and potentially accurate
- protocolture 1y agoWell there was that legal company who trained an LLM on their oppositions legal documents and then generated their own. I dont think inputs or outputs were ruled legal in that regard. But as long as the model isnt outputting infringing works theres not really any issue there either.
- jbverschoor 1y agoSame how it works in the Netherlands.
- conradev 1y agoYes! Training and generation are fair use. You are free to train and generate whatever you want in your basement for whatever purpose you see fit. Build a music collection, go ham. If the output from said model uses the voice of another person, for example, we already have a legal framework in place for determining if it is infringing on their rights, independent of AI. Courts have heard cases of individual artists copying melodies, because melodies themselves are copyrightable: https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2020/02/every-possible-melody-has-been-copyrighted-stored-on-a-single-hard-drive.html https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2020/02/every-possible-melod... Copyright law is a lot more nuanced than anyone seems to have the attention span for.
- pier25 1y ago> Yes! But Suno is definitely not training models in their basement for fun. They are a private company selling music, using music made by humans to train their models, to replace human musicians and artists. We'll see what the courts say but that doesn't sound like fair use.
- conradev 1y agoMy understanding is that Suno does not sell music, but instead makes a tool for musicians to generate music and sells access to this tool. The law doesn't distinguish between basement and cloud – it's a service. You can sell access to the service without selling songs to consumers.
- pier25 1y agoThat's like arguing that a restaurant doesn't sell food because it sells the service of cooking it.
- conradev 1y agoThe restaurant is not responsible for E. coli if it’s found, are they? Just cooking it out of the food Suno can’t prevent humans from copying other humans, it can only make sure that the direct output of its system isn’t infringing.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoSo not only did they pirate works but they destroyed possibly collectible physical copies too. Kafkaesque.
- bigyabai 1y agoGoogle set the precedent for this with an even less transformative use case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
- kelnos 1y agoNot sure we can infer that (or anything) about Suno from this ruling. The judge here said that Anthropic's usage was extremely transformative. Would Suno's also be considered that way? Anthropic doesn't take books and use them to train a model that is intended to generate new books. (Perhaps it could do that, to some extent, but that's no its [sole] purpose.) But Suno would be taking music to train a model in order to generate new music. Is that transformative enough? We don't know what a judge thinks, at least not yet.