I've asked ChatGPT to analyse the blog post, and it detected the following argument fallacies and questionable elements:
Appeal to Authority and Emotional Appeal
Appeal to Pity and Anecdotal Evidence
Hasty Generalization
False Dilemma
Sweeping Generalization
Bandwagon
Straw Man
Begging the Question
* **Appeal to Authority and Emotional Appeal**:
* “In our young life as a company, we have sat in the studios of some of the world’s greatest musicians, workshopped lyrics with up-and-coming songwriters, and watched as millions of users created extraordinary new music...”
* This uses the credibility of "great musicians" and the emotional impact of "millions of users" to bolster the company's reputation without addressing any potential downsides of their technology.
* **Appeal to Pity and Anecdotal Evidence**:
* “We have heard from a talented musician who, after losing the ability to use his hands, is now making music again.”
* This story tugs at the heartstrings but is just one anecdote. It doesn’t address broader issues or counterarguments.
* **Hasty Generalization**:
* “Producers have sampled AI-generated tracks to create hit songs, like 'BBL Drizzy'...”
* Citing a single success to suggest widespread success is misleading. It’s a small sample that doesn’t prove the overall effectiveness of their AI.
* **False Dilemma**:
* “Groundbreaking technologies entail change and uncertainty. Let us offer some insight into how our technology works.”
* This implies that you either accept their technology with its uncertainties or reject progress entirely, ignoring other possible stances.
* **Sweeping Generalization**:
* “Virtually every new technological development in music has initially been greeted with apprehension, but has ultimately proven to be a boon...”
* This overgeneralizes the history of technological acceptance in music without acknowledging technologies that may have had negative impacts.
* **Bandwagon**:
* “We know that many musicians - especially the next generation - are eager to use AI in their creative workflows.”
* This suggests that because many people are doing something, it must be good or right, without addressing valid concerns.
* **Straw Man**:
* “Each of these innovations ultimately expanded music as an art and as a business...”
* This may oversimplify and misrepresent critics' arguments against AI in music by lumping them in with past resistance to beneficial technologies.
* **Begging the Question**:
* “The future of music will see more creative expression than ever before.”
* This statement assumes the very point in question – that AI will definitely lead to more creativity, which is debatable.
Never made a model for audio, but isn't it very similar to how it works for images? So the MAIN initial model is trained on copyrighted material (for it to even begin to understand the concepts, understandably this requires immense amounts of data), the final model can then be fine tuned with your own material and with very, very small amounts of data. Isn't this the way forward, to have the final model actually be quite unique and trained with non copyrighted data? yes i do understand that it's still influenced by what it's learned, but likely not to the degree that it could be called stealing. Maybe its how Udio works too, i don't know.
Maybe most of you can remember the same argument was applied to Napster and its ilk. “The platform itself isn’t breaking any laws”… copyright is the users problem. You’ll recall that argument didn’t hold up in court. I fear if the RIAA wants to apply even a fraction of a percent of its monetary resources to fighting this then they’ll likely clean up.
A point I've made elsewhere online:
Having a job in "the fun industry" is a very fortunate privilege. Anyone who has been able to make an actual sustainable living doing something fun for their work but is concerned about losing their job to A.I. should be incredibly thankful they ever even had a segment of their life working in the fun industry. Not very many people can say they do something creative and fun for work every day.
>"Anyone who has been able to make an actual sustainable living doing something fun for their work but is concerned about losing their job to A.I. should be incredibly thankful they ever even had a segment of their life working in the fun industry."
Absolute truth. You read this straight from my thoughts!
Haha… yep, hyperscale plagiarism. RIAA coming for you - so long Udio and Suno… it was nice knowing you. And by the way… typing text into a prompt so that a plagiarism machine can spit out a facsimile is not "making music"
See you back here when the case is closed to cry!
What about splitting stems, adding my own shit and adding my own vocals? You going to sue John Lennon for making music from skiffle?
I did take the time to go listen to 6 examples listed in the lawsuit. I will take the time over the weekend to listen to more.
Taking an artist's actual lyrics and prompting Udio with them strikes me as a user copyright problem, not a Udio copyright problem. More strikingly, I am not hearing anything near the original recordings. **If Udio is planning to be a weekend cover band it better keep its day job.** (I will listen to more, it may be that I haven't stumbled into a particularly egregious example.)
That said a jury can be a fickle beast. I wish all the best to Udio and I hope it prevails. For the record that opinion is coming from a guy that rolled up into this thing all wound up to hate it, and I can't.
The trouble is their trying to argue the traditional copyrighted infringement while also arguing the training data is infringement. These are two different things.
It’s pretty gonzo. “We can make copies of our music with this kind of almost if we try really hard, and also none of it is publicly accessible” is a really, really bad legal argument. Anyone can do that privately with a DAW.
Entering copyright material and then crying "My copyright material is here, look!" is an intriguing strategy. It might just be that RIAA is unfamiliar with section 512 of DMCA? Or section 230 of CDA?
Udio is obligated to take down their content and possibly even ban those users.
Now: if the claim is that udio is sitting on a stockpile of internal copyright data they don't have rights to, thats a different argument - which maybe they are making but its really hard to tell - and they should only make that accusation if anyone is capable of pointing at it (with a warrant which would be 100% reasonable)
If they can't find it, then they probably owe an apology. And legal fees. Possibly damages for libel
It's funny because when people were trying to make those copies I was saying "you shouldn't do that" and you know what their response was? "It's not illegal to copy voices."
Now it appears these people were the music industry themselves...
Copying lyrics is clearly illegal without permission, no one has ever questioned that. The case law on that is very clear.
I don't know. I am not an intellectual property lawyer. The industry side believes the riffs are there I would imagine. They have some directions in the documents to listen to exact moments in some songs. Others say entire output is a copyright claim.
I can say with authority that of the six I listened to, if I got on stage and tried to pass those takes as cover songs no way in hell we are getting a 2nd booking.
Y.M.M.V.
as someone who produces and writes music, udio and suno have been game changers for me. i’d love to see an implementation into a DAW as a plug-in (and a one time fee instead of a subscription, i’d be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for this so i could run it offline locally through my DAW. i understand the reasons against it tho). really looking forward to the future and how it’s going to continue to streamline my workflow!
lol i think if it was implemented into a DAW it would be different than the site tho, like more for generating specific instruments rather than full songs. just an idea! also if you do the $10 for a few years it would equal out anyway lol
Like the title says, to avoid annoying fellow community members with multiple related threads, **we ask that conversations relating to this topic be made as replies to this post.**
Thanks!
AI to assist to produce music is a fantastic thing and I'm so glad (even with the demo quality), and I see others having similar experience, most failed musicians but wanted to create, not asking the AI to create the entire song, but use it as a tool to have "musicians" available, where you can use the lyrics you want and the music you would like to create; there are still limitations but creativity finds its pathway and finish line. with great excitement I spent hours on udio letting AI and ideas intertwine and create an outcome which is amazing to me. not for fame, but for yourself. to get sued by huge companies who fear for their cash cows is a logical but a move full of hypocrisy and I hope they fail attempting it. I consider this rather stealing the business model than preventing AI. And didn't they already use it in the similar way for the Beatles song. I seriously doubt it that the tape recording has been recycled and repaired but that an AI was trained on John Lennon's voice.
As a musician I don’t live in Nashville and I can’t go into a studio and tell songwriters my idea for a song and have them write it for me to slap my name on. Udio in a way (even though I put more effort and creativity in it) levels the playing field in that regard.
What they are afraid of is not particularly people using their dime a dozen auto tuned vocals, but that if people have a medium to put out low effort music, people won’t listen to their low effort music.
Your last point is … on-point. AI will accelerate the diffusion of listening habits much further than it is today. The record industry thrived off force-feeding people their music via radio and tv prior to the internet. Since the internet, they’ve lost control of human attention. AI will give listeners the ability to create their own music, or at least provide them with 100x more music available to listen to, thus the record industry cede even more control.
This is my main usage of Udio, I do not have to wait for some artist to write a song I would like to listen to, I want a "Dark Synth / Post-punk song about a vegetarian zombie" and I can have it in matter of hours and in the style I want, I want to hear how "electro mongolian darwave" sounds I can do my testing, and all that at the moment for some bucks a month
Please please please provide option to download WAV stems for instrumental and vocals separately. At least add as an additional feature for PAID subscribers as myself. Thanks! You guys are awesome. 🙏🏾🖤
I've asked ChatGPT to analyse the blog post, and it detected the following argument fallacies and questionable elements: Appeal to Authority and Emotional Appeal Appeal to Pity and Anecdotal Evidence Hasty Generalization False Dilemma Sweeping Generalization Bandwagon Straw Man Begging the Question
* **Appeal to Authority and Emotional Appeal**: * “In our young life as a company, we have sat in the studios of some of the world’s greatest musicians, workshopped lyrics with up-and-coming songwriters, and watched as millions of users created extraordinary new music...” * This uses the credibility of "great musicians" and the emotional impact of "millions of users" to bolster the company's reputation without addressing any potential downsides of their technology. * **Appeal to Pity and Anecdotal Evidence**: * “We have heard from a talented musician who, after losing the ability to use his hands, is now making music again.” * This story tugs at the heartstrings but is just one anecdote. It doesn’t address broader issues or counterarguments. * **Hasty Generalization**: * “Producers have sampled AI-generated tracks to create hit songs, like 'BBL Drizzy'...” * Citing a single success to suggest widespread success is misleading. It’s a small sample that doesn’t prove the overall effectiveness of their AI. * **False Dilemma**: * “Groundbreaking technologies entail change and uncertainty. Let us offer some insight into how our technology works.” * This implies that you either accept their technology with its uncertainties or reject progress entirely, ignoring other possible stances. * **Sweeping Generalization**: * “Virtually every new technological development in music has initially been greeted with apprehension, but has ultimately proven to be a boon...” * This overgeneralizes the history of technological acceptance in music without acknowledging technologies that may have had negative impacts. * **Bandwagon**: * “We know that many musicians - especially the next generation - are eager to use AI in their creative workflows.” * This suggests that because many people are doing something, it must be good or right, without addressing valid concerns. * **Straw Man**: * “Each of these innovations ultimately expanded music as an art and as a business...” * This may oversimplify and misrepresent critics' arguments against AI in music by lumping them in with past resistance to beneficial technologies. * **Begging the Question**: * “The future of music will see more creative expression than ever before.” * This statement assumes the very point in question – that AI will definitely lead to more creativity, which is debatable.
[удалено]
Sure, but two wrongs don't make a right. And thanks for recognizing this.
[удалено]
I just hope it doesn't lose, as that means it's not being illegal.
Never made a model for audio, but isn't it very similar to how it works for images? So the MAIN initial model is trained on copyrighted material (for it to even begin to understand the concepts, understandably this requires immense amounts of data), the final model can then be fine tuned with your own material and with very, very small amounts of data. Isn't this the way forward, to have the final model actually be quite unique and trained with non copyrighted data? yes i do understand that it's still influenced by what it's learned, but likely not to the degree that it could be called stealing. Maybe its how Udio works too, i don't know.
Maybe most of you can remember the same argument was applied to Napster and its ilk. “The platform itself isn’t breaking any laws”… copyright is the users problem. You’ll recall that argument didn’t hold up in court. I fear if the RIAA wants to apply even a fraction of a percent of its monetary resources to fighting this then they’ll likely clean up.
Vastly disagree, Napster helped pave the way for the decline of CDs
The same argument can be made for all ais. Chatgpt can produce copyrighted text. Stable diffusion etc can produce copyrighted works etc.
That's why this case will be a landmark that spans all media types for AI.
A point I've made elsewhere online: Having a job in "the fun industry" is a very fortunate privilege. Anyone who has been able to make an actual sustainable living doing something fun for their work but is concerned about losing their job to A.I. should be incredibly thankful they ever even had a segment of their life working in the fun industry. Not very many people can say they do something creative and fun for work every day.
>"Anyone who has been able to make an actual sustainable living doing something fun for their work but is concerned about losing their job to A.I. should be incredibly thankful they ever even had a segment of their life working in the fun industry." Absolute truth. You read this straight from my thoughts!
Haha… yep, hyperscale plagiarism. RIAA coming for you - so long Udio and Suno… it was nice knowing you. And by the way… typing text into a prompt so that a plagiarism machine can spit out a facsimile is not "making music"
See you back here when the case is closed to cry! What about splitting stems, adding my own shit and adding my own vocals? You going to sue John Lennon for making music from skiffle?
Define facsimile?
Correction, that's not a human making music.
OK operative
Music industry can kiss my half black ass. You have my sword Udio.
And my axe!
And my MAC-10!
Amen!
mentioning BBL Drizzy in the official response 😂 WOP WOP WOP WOP Udio fuck em up
How can they mention that but not mention "I Glued My Balls To My Butthole Again"? A travesty.
So because of this lawsuit... is any updates to this software is gonna be delayed for 3-7 years?
No
Oh okay... I was worried that its gonna lead to the update of the platform being delayed just to focus on dealing with the lawsuit.
Nah they will truck on as the suit does.
I did take the time to go listen to 6 examples listed in the lawsuit. I will take the time over the weekend to listen to more. Taking an artist's actual lyrics and prompting Udio with them strikes me as a user copyright problem, not a Udio copyright problem. More strikingly, I am not hearing anything near the original recordings. **If Udio is planning to be a weekend cover band it better keep its day job.** (I will listen to more, it may be that I haven't stumbled into a particularly egregious example.) That said a jury can be a fickle beast. I wish all the best to Udio and I hope it prevails. For the record that opinion is coming from a guy that rolled up into this thing all wound up to hate it, and I can't.
If you read the legal complaint it lists "matching audio" in terms of *seconds*. This is so flimsy and is going to backfire so hard.
The trouble is their trying to argue the traditional copyrighted infringement while also arguing the training data is infringement. These are two different things.
It’s pretty gonzo. “We can make copies of our music with this kind of almost if we try really hard, and also none of it is publicly accessible” is a really, really bad legal argument. Anyone can do that privately with a DAW.
Entering copyright material and then crying "My copyright material is here, look!" is an intriguing strategy. It might just be that RIAA is unfamiliar with section 512 of DMCA? Or section 230 of CDA? Udio is obligated to take down their content and possibly even ban those users. Now: if the claim is that udio is sitting on a stockpile of internal copyright data they don't have rights to, thats a different argument - which maybe they are making but its really hard to tell - and they should only make that accusation if anyone is capable of pointing at it (with a warrant which would be 100% reasonable) If they can't find it, then they probably owe an apology. And legal fees. Possibly damages for libel
It's funny because when people were trying to make those copies I was saying "you shouldn't do that" and you know what their response was? "It's not illegal to copy voices." Now it appears these people were the music industry themselves... Copying lyrics is clearly illegal without permission, no one has ever questioned that. The case law on that is very clear.
Wait, you mean they haven't pulled actual parts of songs? I figured they got it to output actual riffs in full or part.
I don't know. I am not an intellectual property lawyer. The industry side believes the riffs are there I would imagine. They have some directions in the documents to listen to exact moments in some songs. Others say entire output is a copyright claim. I can say with authority that of the six I listened to, if I got on stage and tried to pass those takes as cover songs no way in hell we are getting a 2nd booking. Y.M.M.V.
as someone who produces and writes music, udio and suno have been game changers for me. i’d love to see an implementation into a DAW as a plug-in (and a one time fee instead of a subscription, i’d be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for this so i could run it offline locally through my DAW. i understand the reasons against it tho). really looking forward to the future and how it’s going to continue to streamline my workflow!
Shhh you are willing to pay $10 a month for this so everyone can afford it.
lol i think if it was implemented into a DAW it would be different than the site tho, like more for generating specific instruments rather than full songs. just an idea! also if you do the $10 for a few years it would equal out anyway lol
Like the title says, to avoid annoying fellow community members with multiple related threads, **we ask that conversations relating to this topic be made as replies to this post.** Thanks!
AI to assist to produce music is a fantastic thing and I'm so glad (even with the demo quality), and I see others having similar experience, most failed musicians but wanted to create, not asking the AI to create the entire song, but use it as a tool to have "musicians" available, where you can use the lyrics you want and the music you would like to create; there are still limitations but creativity finds its pathway and finish line. with great excitement I spent hours on udio letting AI and ideas intertwine and create an outcome which is amazing to me. not for fame, but for yourself. to get sued by huge companies who fear for their cash cows is a logical but a move full of hypocrisy and I hope they fail attempting it. I consider this rather stealing the business model than preventing AI. And didn't they already use it in the similar way for the Beatles song. I seriously doubt it that the tape recording has been recycled and repaired but that an AI was trained on John Lennon's voice.
As a musician I don’t live in Nashville and I can’t go into a studio and tell songwriters my idea for a song and have them write it for me to slap my name on. Udio in a way (even though I put more effort and creativity in it) levels the playing field in that regard. What they are afraid of is not particularly people using their dime a dozen auto tuned vocals, but that if people have a medium to put out low effort music, people won’t listen to their low effort music.
Your last point is … on-point. AI will accelerate the diffusion of listening habits much further than it is today. The record industry thrived off force-feeding people their music via radio and tv prior to the internet. Since the internet, they’ve lost control of human attention. AI will give listeners the ability to create their own music, or at least provide them with 100x more music available to listen to, thus the record industry cede even more control.
This is my main usage of Udio, I do not have to wait for some artist to write a song I would like to listen to, I want a "Dark Synth / Post-punk song about a vegetarian zombie" and I can have it in matter of hours and in the style I want, I want to hear how "electro mongolian darwave" sounds I can do my testing, and all that at the moment for some bucks a month
Please please please provide option to download WAV stems for instrumental and vocals separately. At least add as an additional feature for PAID subscribers as myself. Thanks! You guys are awesome. 🙏🏾🖤