Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tidal AI Policy

tidal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#241

Post by ikari_pl »

oasisbob wrote: post #193
injidup wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tidal should simply ban AI generated music from upload if they are not willing to pay uploaders should the music become popular. Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

> We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated. Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?

i feel like it's going to be hard to defend whether, for example, handwriting and rewriting the lyrics and style prompts is enough to make it classified as non AI generated in the end.

it's not like they'd make the subscription free if you listen to loyalties-free music only.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#242

Post by my002 »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #91
gonzalohm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? And who draws the line? If I use a synthesizer to generate music, does that count as AI generated?

AI is not a tool, it is an oracle. Furthermore, it is an oracle built on copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference between "tool" and "oracle"?

AI is not an "oracle" no matter how much Altman and Amodei claim it is.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#243

Post by pier25 »

wakamoleguy wrote: post #32
pier25 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it won't be monetized so there's zero incentive to upload AI slop to Tidal

There is only zero incentive if the filter detects AI music reliably. It's still a race between effective detection and cost to generate content, isn't it?

Suno et al don't really have a incentive to hide the fact that their tracks are generated using AI. Quite the contrary, the only way they won't get sued to death by UMG and the other big labels is to disclose AI generated tracks.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#244

Post by Sharlin »

simonw wrote: post #207
Sharlin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You incentivize ragebait. Twitter pay you for how much "engagement" your tweets get now. If you post something that angers people you will get a ton of replies, quote-tweets etc. There are a whole lot of grifters on that platform making thousands of dollars a month winding people up.

That indeed seems like a uniquely terrible thing to do.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#245

Post by wredcoll »

TFNA wrote: post #216
giglamesh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow this rule strictly, but for most of my adult life I've limited most of my book reading to books > 10 years old. If it still seems remotely relevant and worth reading ten years later, it is far less likely to be a waste of my time. Now sure I'm a bit less prepared for water cooler conversations, but overall the policy has served me well. > having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle…

A significant amount of ebook reading now is romance/erotica or fantasy (or combined "romantasy") genres by readers for whom something a decade old won't appeal. An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), or it isn't what one's peers are reading and one wants to connect with a community of other readers online or in school/universit…

> An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time),

Or, you know, you've just read the old books already because they came out 10 years ago and that's a lot of time to read.

I doubt it has anything to do with "romantasy" as a genre, anything that has people actually reading books, on a regular basis (as opposed to the people who mean reading as consuming one "notable" novel a year).

In any case, epublishing has made a lot more books available and filtering through them was a difficult task even before AI increased the output dramatically.

I've been saying for a while now there's a large untapped market for actually effective recommendation systems (almost certainly human driven given the demonstrated limitations of computer systems so far), as mentioned it was a problem to find "the good stuff" even among just self-published pre-ai books, now it's way beyond that.

I guess to some degree it's the same basic problem as spam filtering, but considerably more nuanced and difficult.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#246

Post by Slow_Hand »

summarybot wrote: post #133
calny wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about they will apply the part saying "AI-generated music will not be monetizable." What does AI-generated music mean, exactly? What if you make an AI generated bassline but produce the rest of a track by hand? How about an AI vocal? Or a mix of AI stems and your own recordings? Tidal's terms and conditions ( https://tidal.com/terms ) say that: > “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive o…

As a musician I can definitely tell when a song has been arranged by AI but performed by humans. There are a couple of chart-toppers done this way. I won't give up the ghost, though ;)

It would be far more interesting if you did. Not sure why you feel need to keep it secret.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#247

Post by maxdo »

I do have a music recommendation from a live person. After check was not a real person, it was quite a popular ai artist doing funk music.

Here we are. music is great, people do not suspect it's ai, artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy. It's just the voice and instruments are not real. How is it different from club music made in fruity loops? This music is just more complicated, hence no fruity loop. With AI you don't need to assemble the entire band do to funk music. Isn't that democratize access to music production?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#248

Post by wredcoll »

rvnx wrote: post #92
VladVladikoff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flood of AI music on their platform is becuase people can make money off it. If you turn off that faucet you stop the flooding.

The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it. Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ? > 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...

People do listen to it and enjoy it but to some degree it becomes a marketing problem. I don't know how to weight the moral issue of someone missing out on a song they would love and instead getting a one they merely like because the ai stuff is flooding the market, but it would be nice to tip the scales a bit in the other way.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#249

Post by disposition2 »

I commend Tidal for at least trying.

I wish Youtube Music would offer some relief from the flood of AI music on their platform. My frustrations with YTM are exacerbated by the fact that it has the absolute minimum in functionality when it comes to browsing or searching.

I don't understand the user hostile nature of so many services these days when it comes to content discovery. We all know the data is there, but making it available for the user to actually browse or god forbid a modicum of search filters is like some forbidden fruit.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#250

Post by gruez »

thewebguyd wrote: post #230
gruez wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain). I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin trying to clamp down on AI scrapers, even though they don't own the copyright to the UGC that they're preventing the bots from accessing.

The difference is in licensing. Those platforms are protecting (or rather, monetizing) a database of human authored assets which those humans have given them a license to exploit. Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.

I don't see how that's relevant. They have a license to redistribute my comments, but that's the extent of their legal rights with respect to my work. They're not my agent or my publisher. Moreover I don't have any say in the matter. If I'm pro AI scraping, I can't tell them "yeah it's fine to scrape my comment, don't put up any captcha walls". Finally, what if I dedicate my comments to the public domain? Does that mean they're in the wrong to put up scraping walls?
Post reply on HN