Technology

59466 readers

3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

226

US Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators Suno and Udio for Copyright Infringement (www.wired.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The music industry has officially declared war on Suno and Udio, two of the most prominent AI music generators. A group of music labels including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group has filed lawsuits in US federal court on Monday morning alleging copyright infringement on a “massive scale.”

The plaintiffs seek damages up to $150,000 per work infringed. The lawsuit against Suno is filed in Massachusetts, while the case against Udio’s parent company Uncharted Inc. was filed in New York. Suno and Udio did not immediately respond to a request to comment.

“Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all,” Recording Industry Association of America chair and CEO Mitch Glazier said in a press release.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

I hate to say it, but I kinda hope the music copyright cartel wins this one, only for the precedent it would set about things like proprietary use of MS Copilot output being an infringement of GPL-licensed code.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I don't know which one is better tbh

the devil you know or the one you don't!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Having all AI-generated code be either "viral" copyleft or illegal to use at all would certainly be better than allowing massive laundering of GPL-licensed code for exploitation in proprietary software.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If they are using GPL code, shouldn't they also release their source code?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's the argument I would be making, but it certainly isn't Microsoft's (Copilot), OpenAI's (Codex), etc's position: they think the output is sufficiently laundered from the GPL training data so as not to constitute a derivative work (which means none of the original licenses -- "open source" or otherwise -- would apply, and the recipient could do whatever they want).

Edit: actually, to be more clear, I would take either of two positions:

That the presence of GPL (or in general, copyleft) code in the training dataset requires all output to be GPL (or in general, copyleft).
That the presence of both GPL code and code under incompatible licenses in the training dataset means that the AI output cannot legally be used at all.

(Position #2 seems more likely, as the license for proprietary code would be violated, too. It's just that I don't care about that; I only care about protecting the copyleft parts.)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)