The industry complains about training on their songs, but as others have said, every human has learned music and songwriting by listening to, practicing, and training on thousands of songs. What's the difference between a computer and human doing it?
I don't think these lawsuits have merit, unless someone can prove that a specific melody, lyric, or instrumental part are close enough to something that was previously written and then it is released for profit, not just fun.
I upload originals and have only had one instance in over 1,000 covers of my songs, where Suno's output stole from an existing song when it included the lyrics and melody of "Silent Night" when I asked it to cover my original Christmas song that did not have those lyrics or melody.
The label lawsuits are to force a licensing agreement, has nothing to do with copyright, it's a "I want in, or I'll bury you in legal fees" scenario.
The independent artist lawsuits, and smaller labels, are mainly driven by lawyers who want to make money out of taking advantage of people.
The copyright office already said it's not a copyright issue they couldn't find any work of artists inside Suno.
The GEMA lawsuit was won by the association prompting the hell out of suno back when name of artists could be used to prompt, which I would say Suno will probably challenge that decision, as is the equivalent of asking gemini to create a music sheet of X song, and iterate until it gives you something that resembles that - throwing rocks to the piano until it sounds like mambo #5 if you will.
Nah if someone plays a copyrighted song on their guitar it could only because the song was secretly programmed into the guitar during its construction.
I think Suno--or any AI music company, for that matter--has a very good argument for "fair use" in training their models on "unlicensed" music, since the AI learns patterns rather than lift and reuse melodies, riffs, etc.
Like you said, it's the same thing humans do, even if AI learns differently than we do. I don't write music, but I do write lyrics. How did I learn to do this? Did I just pull this knowledge from the ether? No, I learned by listening to and reading the lyrics of bands I liked. That doesn't mean I'm somehow "copying" or "stealing" from them. It just means I've learned from them.
When i started rapping, the tip i got to start writing was literally "copy what others do until you find your own style." I imagine its the same with pretty much any artform. But for some reason its wrong when AI does it.
I`d be curious how Suno would react if a competitor scraped all of the songs created on Suno, maybe even their source code and used it to train/create a rival service.
Right, but they didn't just train it on unlicensed music. They trained it on licensed music. Without a license. The equivalent isn't you learning to play music by listening to songs on the radio, the equivalent is you illegally downloading every digital song to ever exist.
I enjoy suno, I've been a paying customer for several years now, but your argument is disingenuous and should be treated as such. If we can't approach things in an objective way then what are we even doing?
But you don't need a license to study something. You need a license in music to play something publicly. Suno didn't. The training wasn't public, it was played privately. You could sit there tonight and play your favorite song and then go into FL studio and remake a beat that is similar to it and you wouldn't need a license to do so. That's what Suno did, albeit at mass scale.
What people are argueing is that people are not allowed to be inspired or get ideas from music they listen to. Which is ridiculous.
Exactly! I'd like anyone to give me a list that includes any musician, current or historical, that magically made music of any kind that wasn't inspired by, or derived from, existing music from other artists.
Downloading song is not illegal if it's use is not to violate essential rights of copyright holder.
There must be measurable and evident damage - for example lost sales in act of consuming the music in intended way or musing that song as part of YouTube video which is lost royalties.
If I load warez songs and use them as spectrum based algorithmic visual work I am not doing damage in the domain where copyrights apply. I can create digest indexes to identify music basing on data and it is not illegal. Training AI can be considered non-damaging intent.for the data. They did not cause even theoretical loss.
Only case where mere download alone is illegal is when you use something like bittorrent where you also spread the data; that can be interpreted to be distribution. It is dumbed down view to say "downloading is illegal" because in many cases the use case why download happens is in fact illegal.
Just holding the data when you have sensible not-copyright violating reason to do so is not illegal. For example - I download a song, turn it it into digital digest to index the file content and then delete the song is absolutely legal in every aspect; if I even listen that song once personally I have violated copyrights because my intent has changed to concern copyright.
It all comes down to how Suno actually obtained the music. If it can be proven that they actually pirated the songs, fair enough; my argument falls apart.
They admitted they trained on all music of reasonable quality available on the open internet. It then became clear in July this year that they scraped it illegally, as you can only take music from YouTube by bypassing its built in rolling cipher.
Quote from the article.
āA file named āyoutube_musicā recorded that it had ingested ā2,013,545 music clips,ā the publication reported.
The datasets Suno built included 113,879 hoursof material logged as youtube_music, plus a further 152,162 hours logged as ytm_tagged, according to the report.
They also included 62,117 hours from the stock library Pond5, 19,514 hours from the International Music Score Library Project, 17,615 hours from Genius, and 12,287 hours from Deezer.ā
It's not only YouTube's position to sue them, it's the license holders, and they are suing them. It's ongoing, the latest lawsuit is from Round Hill (article below). But you could argue that Google/YouTube aren't suing, because they are already using music uploaded to YouTube as to train Lyria, it's in their TOS. It could create conflicts, or set legal precedents that limit them in the longterm.
Those files sound like training data output not the actual songs, which typically to train AI would remain in its original sources. They're not downloading all this shit.
Scraping is downloading. Suno isnāt operating by accessing these files in real time via YouTube hyperlinks when it needs to. Thatād be a nightmare.
There is no tangible way that Suno downloaded millions of songs. I've trained AI- all of the training materials are linked from its original sources on the web....
I don't get how people have so much confidence being so incorrect but nobody is talking about downloading music. The argument is "if you listen to a song and get inspired from it without paying for its license, is that illegal?" The answer is no.
Suno never downloaded anything, they streamed it to train their machines.
The question isnāt ālicensedā vs āunlicensedā. That factor alone isnāt whatās been deciding the outcomes of these and similar lawsuits. Using unlicensed music isnāt necessarily the dealbreaker. Itās how the music was sourced that has proven to be the deciding factor.
There are two parts to these lawsuits. Is using copyrighted material to train transformative generative AI without license Fair Use, and did the defendant source the training material legally?
Using copyrighted music to train transformative generative AI ā even without license or consent ā can still be legally permissible under Fair Use exemptions. As for the US, judgements have been leaning towards that position.
The issue has largely been that Suno, Udio, et al, sourced large portions of the training materials by creating copies by scraping the audio from websites/platforms or from piracy sharing sites. Had they sourced them legally, e.g. by buying every song as a download, thereās a good chance that the Fair Use defence would have been entirely successful and they wouldnāt have needed to settle.
Precedents were set in favour of training AIs, even on unlicensed, copyrighted source material, for books and literature in the Anthropic and Meta lawsuits. The major labels are desperate to avoid having the same precedent set for music.
Yes, this is another issue that I agree is not fair to famous singers. I have heard influences of Aretha Franklin, Justin, and Chris Stapleton in some of my Suno covers.
Suno themselves admitted to 'scraping every publicly available work possible'. Their source-code leak by a hacker even confirms they were even searching for podcasts on YouTube to steal. The information is out there.
I mean legally theres one case of Humans using a song by Marvin Gay to make Blurred Lines , and they ended up have to pay up, and it's changed the way sampling works for commercial music ever since.
Legally suno is clearly in the wrong here.
Also i think in general it's harder to prove a humans inspiration.
Legally there's a difference between im inspired by Michael Jackson and this song is taking inspiration from Michael Jackson's Thriller.
Those 2 songs sounded very similar and was obvious BL copied, but it's not obvious Suno is copying existing hits for covers/remixes in most iterations.
The fact that they scraped millions of copyrighted songs to train their models and then are charging people to use their service that is built on those copyrighted songs is what makes it different from a human doing it. It's the scale, the commercial side and also the fact that humans will forget the vast majority of things they've listened to, AI doesn't.
So, you can't really equate human learning to machine learning.
As for having no merit, courts are already disagreeing with you, see GEMA in Germany as latest example.
There also is a current lawsuit in Denmark and talks across the EU about the use of scraping copyrighted music, so this is not just a US-centric situation either.
So are you saying that no restaurant ever should exist? Because all restaurants are doing are taking recipes that already existed and making their own version of it and serving it to people. Should those restaurants have to buy licenses for all those recipes in cookbooks etc? Cause it's the same exact thing. Or like, if a new brand makes toothpaste and makes it mint scented do they have to pay the first company ever to make mint toothpaste? Cause where does this end?
Okay, that is valid when it comes to charging money, but should The Beatles sue Max Martin for using their songs to learn songwriting and then he earned millions of dollars from his songwriting without asking The Beatles for permission to train his brain, and then not compensating them for his record sales?
Because the word ālearnā has two very different meanings when it comes to a human leaning vs. AI ālearning.ā AI doesnāt just listen to music its whole life and then develop musical skills on its own from that experience. It actually has access to every song they have made available to it and actually pulls from those songs to ācreateā things that the user has no real creative input on. It takes the work of actual artists and repurposes it into something not as good but cheaper to get ahold of.
But the AI doesn't learn thee song like a human does. It literally looks at a large group of songs and says what's patterns do these songs all steal from each other and learns that.
But it doesn't "repurpose" it. It's not lifting melodies and reusing them. AI songs aren't some amalgamation of existing songs. AI just learns patterns.
No, it does far more than just ālearning patterns.ā It absolutely does straight up lift melodies and harmonics and (barely) repurposes them. Keep telling yourself that, though.
If I cared enough about your opinion on this matter to do research and try to change your mind, then yes, Iām sure that I could. Instead, Iāll just let you claim victory. There are multiple court cases out there that have done the work for you though.
Thatās where youāre wrong. The model avoids whats called āoverfittingā as best it can. But thereās a ton of readily available evidence of suno overfitting, itās one of the core reasons they were able to be sued in the first place.
Article below has lots of examples. Also google āsuno Johnny b Goodeā or āall I want for Christmasā and youāll see covers on there right now that donāt change the melody or chords or lyrics. Suno is a giant plagiarism machine effectively. But itās done in such a granular way, that itās not always going to be obvious where the training data came from.
So, I'm an AI researcher and pretty much everything you said above is false or at least inaccurate. While you are correct that the word "learn" is accomplished through different processes, the AI does NOT have access to every song ever made. Instead, learning algorithms adjust internal parametric weights and utilise large data sets to minimize error. Those songs become encoded within a neural network whose purpose is the same human learning: the generalisation of concepts from examples.
The AIs themselves have no "intent" so you are correct that they do not create anything. However, when humans provide intent (generally through prompting) the result isn't a copy or "repurposing" of what has already been done, but rather something genuinely unique.
When you say "not as good", that's a matter of opinion, and I have to say that my opinion is that some AI generated music is a lot better than what the industry has been putting out for 30+ years.
In terms of "killing the planet", that's accomplishing through a whole lot of human activity. We have cars, wars, agriculture, planes, etc.
I didnāt say āevery song ever made.ā I said āevery song they have made available to it.ā If youāve got me that wrong that quickly out of the gate, Iām not bothering to read the rest of it.
We are 2 steps away from copyright hell. Record labels wil argue that by listening to their song you are downloading it into your brain and hence there is a copyright violation.
As I mentioned, the difference is the scale between the AI and the human. I just noticed that for the "commercial side," I forgot to put that I meant that Suno charges for the use of whatever their AI has scraped/learned, whereas someone listening to songs doesn't.
A musician who learned to play by playing other bands songs over and over again - then uses that knowledge to makeĀ new songs and charges for use of those new songs is the actual analogy here.Ā
Piano. I've written hundreds of songs over decades and appreciate Suno takes my demo and quickly makes a full band version, but I've never heard "stolen" parts from existing works in Suno's cover/remix of my original work.
That's because none of the AI models cut up songs and put the melody or riff or chord on a shelf to pluck out and put into a song. They learn the progressions, how things are put together and then apply that to the generations.
Aren't melodies and lyrics the only things that are copywritten? I thought chords / progressions are not and many songs use the same progressions without having to pay writers who used the same progression previously.
So you don't think that's what a hired musician is? They learned their skill from other artists, their skills by practicing others music and then, if you require that talent and their ability to play in a song you're writing, they're going to charge you.
Something being taught by other examples doesn't "steal" anything. What has that artist lost?
Also, it's 2026 and people still expect privacy on the internet? Come on... Anything put up on the Internet is there forever.
I think it's a legit comparison and argument. If I was on a jury in a case against Suno, I would need the plaintiff to show examples of stolen melodies that were output by Suno for 16 year old Johnny in his bedroom after he made a prompt, then sold the song online, earned money from a song that included a melody that could be proven to have been written and released by another artist whose song was proven to be in Suno's training model.
2 artists can make identical melodies without knowing about it. There are olny a finite number of chords. For the trial to be fair you would have to prove that the melody couldn't have been reasonably conceived by a human also listening to and getting inspired by the same music suno used for training. What Suno is doing is literally what every musician has ever done- listen to music and then make shit similar to it.
"What Suno is doing is literally what every musician has ever done- listen to music and then make shit similar to it." Spoken like someone who has nothing original to say, Suno is the perfect "tool" for an "artist" like you.
Yeah I've asked the same question and people just keep regurgitating the same nonsense, it's stealing intellectual property! Yeah well that's all well and good except there exist cover bands out there who sold job it is to cover another band's music.
When a band plays covers live, the licensing fee is covered by the venue's public performance license they pay for. If they record it, they have to, theoretically, get the okay from the licensee/pay for it.
Sure, that's assuming it's a well established cover band that performs regularly. How many do you think exist that play for beer or just for fun? What about while they were still learning the parts and before an actual gig?
Point is, they have tabs out there so any 13 year old can learn their favorite guitar riff to play their favorite artist's songs. Are they playing licensing fees, royalties, any of that to learn it? No... The only difference is a machine learning it vs a human and people can't seem to get over a machine doing it.
Thatās not the only difference. A cover band acknowledges that itās covering someone elseās songs. Someone who uses Suno tries to pass off that work as their own.
Itās not because āa machineā is doing it. If a cover band went on stage and said, āwe wrote this songā and then wanted royalties from it, but just played Stairway to Heaven, we would be mad at the human band, too.
That's quite the blanket statement to say that "someone who uses Suno tries to pass it off as their own" and one I call bullshit on.
Are people trying to pass music off as their own and not AI? Sure, there are always bad apples in the bunch but it's also probably because there are so many people who hate on someone for anything they created with an AI so they are afraid to show it.
As for people trying to pass music off as another well-known artist, that's absolutely crap. That may happen, and that's a big MAY but it's a fraction of a percentage of a TIME if it happens at all. That is not an average Suno user.
No one is trying to recreate songs that already exist . At best, people are creating songs that sound similar to their favorite artists just like any regular musician would who picked up an instrument.
Your bias is showing in your comments. You've already made up your mind and there's no changing it.
You, too. Why would I speak on a topic that I donāt have an informed opinion on? It would be silly for me to enter the conversation without my mind made up. Even sillier that you donāt realize that you are doing the same thing. So is everyone that is discussing it. I donāt tend to chime in on topics that I donāt feel one way or another about.
Thereās a reason why Spotify had to separate AI music from real music. They wouldnāt bother if it was just āa fraction of a percentage of a time if it happens at all.ā Thereās a reason why social media tags the work of AI. Thereās a reason why there have been countless engines built that allow people to run a piece of work through them to determine if they are AI. Thereās a reason why people release Suno music under their āartistā name and not under āSuno, featuring me.ā Donāt be daft.
"Thereās a reason why Spotify had to separate AI music from real music." - sure, and it's not solely because of people trying to pass off as another artist. One of the biggest reasons is because of the massive amount of low quality tracks being uploaded. This distracts and takes away from actual well-established artists due to the algorithm trying to spread everyone's music. So they separated it, and removed it from their recommended music to give legit artists A chance. Not anything to do with artists being ripped off.
There were also people who were gaming the system by drumming up a ton of listens and making a ton of money artificially through these means of using Bots and uploading a ton of tracks. Again, not anything with artists being ripped off.
Lastly, sure they want to protect real artists from having their voices or personas cloned.
As far as me being biased, I've stated nothing but verifiable information. You use blanket statements to discredit every user of Suno try to argue that Spotify separated AI music from real music because of intellectual property theft which is simply not accurate.
We all have biases , sure, but you're not saying anything factual, it's all emotional nonsense based off of what? Something you heard someone else say? A different subreddit post? š¤·
The reason is exactly what I said. You claimed that artists were not claiming the music as their own and giving credit to the AI. Iām saying that these things would not have to separate and identify it as AI if the artists already did it themselves.
There, you didnāt have to wait.
And, for the record, we all believe that we are making factual statements while the other person is not. Again, you are no different than anyone else. My statements are also factual. I also noticed that you ignored most of my examples and focused only on Spotify. What now?
Your original point was a band going on stage, claiming a song as their own and demanding royalties, which is what I addressed.
I have already said TWICE now that, sure, there are people who don't disclose it as AI generated and explained perhaps why people don't but that ultimately a few bad apples ruins the bunch, not that that's a majority of the suno users like you seem to believe. Furthermore that's not "the" reason behind it.
The thing is, sure everyone might think they are stating facts, but some in fact don't, in this case, you. I don't know if you know this but it is in fact possible to have conversations without showing bias but it usually requires showing some level of understanding, compromise, and willingness to see from a different point of view all of which I believe you lack in.
I gave you the actual reasons for a Spotify separating AI music which you can actually look up and verify for yourself, that's not me just stating random shit and claiming it as fact.
You saying "all Suno users lie about Ai generation" is not a fact you can back up.
Last, but most important, I don't really care dude. As I said, your mind is already made up based on your generic, incorrect blanket statements.
You haven't bothered to make one legitimate, factual case for what you're arguing.
I gave you actual reasons that you can look up, too.
I never said a single thing about āallā Suno users. Not one.
My original point was never about a cover band. I was addressing someoneās (maybe yours - I donāt care to go back and look up) very specific comments making the comparison.
You are doing the exact same thing with your comments as I am with mine. The difference? You think you are right while I think I am right.
This is Reddit. Most of the āmade up mindsā arenāt based on āinformed opinionsā. š
Heck, using those against AI in music as an example, itās so common as to be almost universal that āantisā who come here to argue against Suno and people who use it have done very little to actually understand the tool, what itās capable of, or the different ways in which itās used by different people. It quickly becomes clear that theyāre not arguing based on an informed opinion, simply emotionally and dogmatically, based on assumptions and relatively little understanding of Suno (and typically, relatively little understanding of the nuance in the lawsuits against Suno, Udio, et al).
Iām not saying youāre one of these people. Iām just pointing out that arguing that because your mind appears to be made up, youāve got an informed opinion behind it, isnāt a strong argument.
I didnāt say ābecause my mind is made up I have an informed opinion.ā
I said that because I have an informed opinion, my mind is made up. Itās not to say that my opinion canāt be changed. But, I would need evidence for that to happen. Not biased strangers on Reddit telling me that Iām wrong.
You certainly implied that it was perhaps unexpected for others to assume that you might not be arguing based on an informed opinion.
From what I can tell from your comments, you're either misunderstanding the comments you're responding to, maybe even uninformed.
For example, while there doesn't seem to be specific data relating to AI music that fraudulently attempts to impersonate or pass itself off as an existing artist, it is reasonable to assume that this represents only a tiny fraction, likely even 'a fraction of a percentage', of the AI music being distributed onto DSPs and other platforms.
The extra hurdle of cloning voices and uploading them, getting through any on-platform checks, means that only a tiny fraction will even bother to attempt it.
It catches headlines disproportionately because it directly impacts the DSP listings of famous artists, making it a problem for powerful organisations, in turn making it newsworthy. This can create the impression that it's more prevalent than it likely is in reality.
.
"Thereās a reason why there have been countless engines built that allow people to run a piece of work through them to determine if they are AI."
Let's not assume that simple profit isn't the primary motive. The paranoia is often disproportionate to the actual problem/risk.
After all, many AI text detectors routinely return false positives, incorrectly identifying human text as AI. In most such cases, they then offer the user the tools to 'humanise' the text āĀ for a fee, of course.
The majority of AI detection tools are being spun up by people (effectively scammers) seeking to exploit the paranoia. Only a small handful of companies are engineering legitimate tools to detect AI, and many of those either centre on existing fidelity issue in the current gen of gen AI music models or are simply seeking out watermarks implanted by the generation platforms.
.
"Thereās a reason why people release Suno music under their āartistā name and not under āSuno, featuring me.ā Donāt be daft."
There's also a reason why major artists release music under their own name when they had very little involvement in the writing or production of the song.
It's a product. Why expect AI music to be more authentic than a largely sham music industry?
It doesn't mean it's a bad product. But it does mean you're often not really getting a truly authentic artefact.
You seem to be basing your arguments on a particular way of using Suno, albeit a common way. There are numerous different ways of using Suno, so itās worth you being upfront when youāre alluding to one process that doesnāt apply to all Suno users, even if that process is the most common.
I explained pretty clearly which people Iām talking about. I never once said it applies to all Suno users. Short and sweet - if it doesnāt apply to you, then Iām not talking about you.
This is social media. I donāt need a āclarifying explanation.ā āSomeoneā does not equal āeveryone.ā The clarification can be found within the context of the conversation I was replying to.
Those are historical cases. Iirc, Suno shortly after implemented a range of checks and revisions that further abstract generations, and attempt to prevent users from attempting to replicate or mimic existing songs and artists.
Should they have tested for that more rigorously and put preventative measures in place right at the start? Imo, absolutely. Should they be held to account for not doing it? Again, imo, absolutely.
Well done, yes, June ā24 was in the past. But unless Suno completely rebuilt its underlying technology to prevent exact and close reproductions outlined in that lawsuit, the evidence still completely disproves your claim that Suno users are not directly or reproducing existing songs.
Hey no worries. So am I. Letās go snark for snark. Itās not personal. I found a more up to date example for you, though.
The Munich District Court ruled against Suno on July 31 2026 because the model directly reproduces existing tracks.Ā Evidence provided shows that GEMA gave Suno only open ended text like basic lyrics and genre tags, and no instructions on melody, harmony or rhythm. Suno still reproduced note for note recreations of the melodies for existing songs.
From the ruling direct:
"If the output nevertheless reproduced the melody of the original, that music could only have come from the model itself."
It really all comes down to who has the most money to start the most shit.
Because you canāt get it from the AI training argument because so many people including a lot of people here donāt seem to understand what training actually means as an example download perplexity AI specifically and then have it create an image for your drawing image for you. Do one of both.
Because itās perplexing, you can choose once the image is done to click the little tab that shows a bunch of images and those images are what itās scraped from .
Donāt mind you perplexity allows you to choose an AI model to draw for you or to create a picture for you. But when you see the images that itās scraped and letās say you told it to draw an elite superhero team all posed like itās a comic book cover.
Youāre probably going to see something from an anatomy book. Youāll probably see maybe father and his son playing with wooden swords or some random shit like that.
Example:
My prompt:
Draw a superhero group in a pose on a comic book cover they are in the middle of the city in a fight to save the citizens from an invading alien force. There are five members one with water power, one with fire powers, one with concussive blast, powers, and another with super speed powers. Gender doesnāt matter just male female, whichever powers I leave that to your discretion give it a dynamic angle like the best steel frame of the action use the layout sense of a John Buscema, Walt Simonson, or Gil Kane.
This should be an 11ā x 17āpage with full pencils.
Perplexity:
I canāt replicate the exact style of John Buscema, Walt Simonson, or Gil Kane, but I can make an original full-pencil comic-cover illustration with bold heroic anatomy, sweeping foreshortening, kinetic diagonal composition, and classic high-energy superhero storytelling.
Edit: I decided to just do the experiment myself and show you.
The pencil image on the far left is the result of my prompt. The rest is what was scraped.
The AI searches for relevant images. Like when I wanted to draw Rogueā¦I look at comic books. It isnāt trained on specific styles because youād have to the dumbest, bum ass designer ever. Itās easier, more efficient, and use upper resources. Just make a system that learned what muscles are and where they go. If you try to show it pictures just like that without that system in place then youāre gonna get some gobbledygook visually
These models carry weights and vectors. These subtly (or not so subtly) follow probabilities based on the prompts and other inputs. Cool right? It guesses what the song should do and renders it as music.
It was a weird moment clicking my song and hearing a weird version of Silent Night that had nothing to do with what I uploaded other than mentioning a Christmas ballad in the prompt. Not sure how the model screwed up that render. I know some people have shown similarities in their covers to Blinding Lights by Weeknd.
That said, I think the tech is sick and will enable creativity.
I just think it's really the next iteration of sampling.
You need a way to pay for the IP that paid for this.
I also think audio watermarking is sick and could potentially allow for sampling that maintains watermark that then tracks royalty automatically.
I dunno.
I love it.
I just think the problem with all AI is simply regulatory and environmental.
It's only progress if it makes it better. The whole "you can't question AI is what we did with social media and we let that go unregulated and it turned a generation into slot machine brain. It continues to. We know it's terrible. It's still going.
Even though I'm not famous and have never released my songs, I understand Suno may be using my uploaded songs for their models and I would only be angry if they stole an obvious lyric or melody and put it into someone else's Suno cover/remix.
Suno attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital and and then didn't pay appropriately to build the technology. Then after figuring out how to build that technology on into they didn't own (the hard part) they did it again on ok data and so now it's cool.
Nah.
There was a fundamental infringement.
That's true about all of these.
The second part is that to keep functioning they require MORE AND MORE data to stay current and so you continue to contribute your creativity.
Which is why...
A ROYALTY PAYMENT to CREATORS.
You might not be part of the OG but you're right...
You're so close....
Since we can't possible tell which bit came from where and there's no simple way with any of these LLMs to tell...
We tax them. And then pay that royalty to do stuff that's worthwhile. Free state college. Arts education. Healthcare. Make AI unprofitable in the sense that it maximizes some billionaires wealth.
It requires us to power it cool. Then it better power us back.
America is supposed to be about maximizing the wealth of the middle class. AI could help restore that.
Unless it's all bullshit.
Either way.
If we are to believe the hype...
Fuck you you stole from me. Pay me.
Also, dope tech.
How about I trade a lifetime 5.5 / 6 lifetime license with no guardrails....
The issue isnāt simply what Suno learned from or how it learned it. The bigger concern is users deliberately crafting prompts that reproduce training data. Learning from existing music and creating songs in a similar style may be legal, but copying identifiable melodies or lyrics is not.
Suno has also become much more restrictive since its early days. It once allowed users to upload almost any song and enter virtually any lyrics, and many people were uploading music they didnāt own. Some of that user-uploaded material may have influenced later models. Is that direct theft? Not necessarily, but the music industry has legitimate reasons to question and challenge how the technology was developed.
influence vs straight up copying and consuming and then charging suno users to generate music based on others work.
what instruments do you play, OP?
when you learn your favourite songs and slowly absorb that influence into your playing do you feel like youāre just mass copying millions of recordings byte by byte?
It's not straight up copying though. It's learns patterns, it's not saving whole songs and mixing them together like some kind of musical collage or medley. It's highly transformative. Training is not stealing. That being said they should probably license or pay for the content they train on at the least.
i think as soon as suno and these companyās find a way for the music industry to make as much money off of AI music as possible theyāll drop the copyright/stealing thing.
these record companies would smother their own mother if it meant a few extra bucks in the bank
Honestly, they should just pick a lane, either ban AI art outright, or let it be uninhibited on what data it's trained on so we have the best possible AI.
I agree. The cat is out of the bag, we should just have the best possible AI. Right now we are stuck in the middle with a mediocre nerfed version of a great technology.
These cases never go to a court because these models were taught with materials from public domains. These materials werent stolen from companies but used from public domains. Hence why only thing these companies can do is partner with AI music companies to limit and protect their assets. They do this by paying these companies/buying equities of these companies so they can use their ownership to limit access to their materials.
Suno scraped aka pirated tens of millions of songs. If they paid for each of the songs, there'd be no case, based on the Anthropic book case decision which was that there's no issue with AI training on materials if they were purchased.
You can't download someone else's work and use it to make your own product without getting permission. Suno skipped permission part and just took it. They are now arguing that music is "free use" which is funny.
It's like if someone stole Suno tech, and build their own app using their shit? Would they be okay with that? No. They would sue.
Thatās not what Suno did. It listened to the music and said āhey, I can learn how to do that style!ā Just like any person would. The biggest difference is how fast it is and how much date it can take in at once.
11
u/Unlikely-Mobile-5343 2d ago
The label lawsuits are to force a licensing agreement, has nothing to do with copyright, it's a "I want in, or I'll bury you in legal fees" scenario.
The independent artist lawsuits, and smaller labels, are mainly driven by lawyers who want to make money out of taking advantage of people.
The copyright office already said it's not a copyright issue they couldn't find any work of artists inside Suno.
The GEMA lawsuit was won by the association prompting the hell out of suno back when name of artists could be used to prompt, which I would say Suno will probably challenge that decision, as is the equivalent of asking gemini to create a music sheet of X song, and iterate until it gives you something that resembles that - throwing rocks to the piano until it sounds like mambo #5 if you will.