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

281–290 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#281

Post by platevoltage »

atrus wrote: post #235
bko wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the flood is also due to people in general finding AI generated music passable. I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective…

You see that a lot in AI (and honestly, other discussions) where people with differing requirements are talking past each other. Some people are listening to music as an experience , internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing…

It's still silly. We have decades and decades of pop music, and really any kind of music you could possibly want. What AI SHOULD be used for is matching these people with some of the music made over the course of human history that they might like, not feeding them pig slop.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#282

Post by platevoltage »

bko wrote: post #233
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.

I think the flood is also due to people in general finding AI generated music passable. I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective…

Just Carpenter Brut and Gunship alone collectively have over 6 hours of music.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#283

Post by greggsy »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #232
bunderbunder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the flood really is overwhelming. This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited. I mentioned that the relative lack of slop is one of the major reasons I chose Kobo over Kindle. Even before this latest AI boom I was already starting to view less content as a feature, not a bug, because it seems that on subscription services “more” is increasing…

I really wanted to like Kobo but the no refunds policy really burned me. I bought a book listed as being in English, with an English title and English on the cover page, but the contents were entirely in French and they wouldn't refund it because of the general no refund policy. I just felt ripped off because what I bought, as advertised, just wasn't what I received.

That would be illegal in Australia, even if the policy was prominently displayed up front.

Claiming otherwise is to treat each book as a packet of Pokémon trading cards, where you know you’re getting some cards, but you don’t get to choose which ones.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#284

Post by platevoltage »

gonzalohm wrote: post #83
Grombobulous wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it true that AI generated music holds no legal copyright?

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

I don't think my Yamaha DX7 qualifies as AI in any sense of the word.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#285

Post by platevoltage »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #252
blehn wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is already recommending tons of AI-generated electronic music. It's pretty easy to spot: It will have millions of views and the "artist's" discography will only go back to 2025 or 2026. It's usually just singles. The cover art is vague atmospheric AI-generated. The "artist" will have no presence online save for a couple instagram account with a couple posts that are also AI-generated.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, I'm saying electronic music is significantly harder for AI to do than a conventional love ballad or a rock song. AI can't do "robotic" math music, it's best at sappy generic emotive stuff. (I guess this isn't at all a surprise for those that know how the musical sausage is made.)

I'd love to see AI take a stab at a Meshuggah or Dillinger Escape Plan clone.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#286

Post by totallygeeky »

rurp wrote: post #236
MisterTea wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just broke 1000 albums this past weekend. It's delightful to be able to just listen to something then hand the artist money and download the flac files. I also really like the quasi social aspect where users have simple profiles. No messages between users, no likes, no ratings, no BS. About the most you can do is leave a text review. Your profile is an image and text field so you can write a simple bio and provide li…

Do you have any recommendations for casual listening of downloaded music files? I'm pretty done with Spotify and would rather spend money on Bandcamp. The main hurdle is that I'm not enough of a music person to want to spend much time organizing a collection, I just want an easy way to put some music on while I'm working.

There are a couple different solutions, depending on where you have your music.

For organizing, as another user suggested, Picard is your friend. You point it to your collection and can have it move and correct file tags all in one go. It even has default naming scripts for folders so it will go [Album Artist]->[Album], and if that doesn't suit your fancy you can edit the script however you'd like.

If where you store the music is all local (on your machine), then there are hundreds of great local players depending on platform that you can just point towards your music collection and shuffle. I have a massive collection myself that I will usually browse through randomly ordered albums until something catches my eye.

If you're looking to stream it to your own devices, then you're looking at something like a subsonic compatible server will offer a wide variety of options and platforms for playback. I go through some of this in more detail in a blog post as well, with some specifics https://illegal.solutions/posts/streaming_sucks.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#287

Post by thewebguyd »

make3 wrote: post #277
thewebguyd wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor correction, but in the US it's not anything that's 100% by AI, it's LLM output itself is not copyrightable. Human elements injected into LLM output are. Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's out…

That's honestly so dumb, if I use a non AI computerized tool to generate orders of notes or orders of characters, I own the output. AI is just that. It's a fancy computer program that cost billions to build. This is giving weird independent moral grounding to AI as more than a computer that has never existed before. And what kind of AI does it count for ? Does it also count for image classifiers? For image quality im…

The USCO's decision hinges on whether or not a human has predictive, mechanical control over the final output. The ruling applies to Generative AI, the USCO made a separate distinction for assistive AI, which image classifiers would fall under.

> “Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. … what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression and actually formed the traditional elements of authorship.”

The USCO doesn't care what type of algorithm is used, it cares who determined the traditional elements of authorship. If a human dictates the expression, and then uses a computer to clean, translate, or refine it, it is copyrightable. If a human just provides an idea and a generative algorithm creates the specific expression, the output is public domain. One is using spellcheck, the other is telling the computer "Write me a novel" and letting the computer generate it.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#288

Post by echelon »

devmor wrote: post #259
echelon wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it. Music is about making my brain feel good. I don't care what/who makes it. If I like it, I like it.

Consumption vs. Appreciation in a single pair of comments, what a beautiful dichotomy of the human experience of art.

It's not a dichotomy anymore. With AI tools I can make for myself.

I was already a creative before AI, but now I have a lot more control in more domains than I could express myself in before.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#289

Post by totallygeeky »

I do think this is a (late to the party but) good policy overall from them. Monetization is biggest incentive, and then requiring labelling will be good for consumers making informed decisions on what they're listening to.

I have my various beefs with them personally, but I am glad to see them approaching this in a fairly responsible way.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#290

Post by gruez »

thewebguyd wrote: post #276
gruez wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The license goes beyond redistribution. You are granting a sublicensable and transferable right to your content, giving the platform the legal authority to sell or license it (or to not license it) to AI scrapers and other entities. The platform's right to block said scrapers comes from posession rights. They don't need to sublicense it because the license was already granted by you. Stackoverflow comments are licen…

Anthropic can decide who gets to use their service. They have complete control over their services and service. It still breaks down once the output has left the system though. Anthropic cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with the LLM's output, they do not own that, its public domain. Anthropic can pursue breach of contract, maybe, but they can't do anything regarding your use of the model's output. If China…

>Anthropic cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with the LLM's output, they do not own that, its public domain.

And are they actually doing this? For instance, if you read their press releases about distillation attacks[1], they're not asserting copyright over the outputs, only alleging "fraudulent accounts". So far as I can tell they're not even engaging in legal action.

[1]https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

Post reply on HN