291–300 of 359 posts
HECK YES, TIDAL!!!!!! This is exactly the right move.
I only read the first half of this policy, and I absolutely love it. I hope Apple Music follows suit. (I don't trust Spotify to do so.)
AI music has taken over small businesses like coffee shops and restaurants. AI music drives me nuts because, to me, it still is very much deep in an uncanny valley. That said, I can't blame the businesses because they are all (dis)incentive driven. The music industry has stepped up its efforts globally to crack down on small businesses that play copyrighted music. They actually hire people to go into these places and…
This is all about streaming platforms commandeering royalties away from artists. The way royalties get assigned is based on a percentage of your listening versus your monthly payment. For example, spend an entire month listening to Taylor Swift’s new album, she gets the entire royalty share. But if you listen to the album 100 times but then listen to lofi beats 900 times, Taylor only gets 10%. The “earnings per strea…
> But if you listen to the album 100 times but then listen to lofi beats 900 times, Taylor only gets 10%.
Hahaha, I wish this was how it worked, but it's not. At all.
Suppose I spend all month listening only to Fugazi. Now some miniscule tiny fraction of my (and everyone else's) monthly payment will go to Fugazi. The biggest portion of my monthly payment will go to Taylor Swift because she got the most plays on the platform. This means it actually matters very little what I listen to because I listen to only a few hours of music a week. A coffee shop running Spotify will generate 16+ hours of listening per day and this will determine who gets my subscription money far more than my actions will.
What you're describing would be like heaven for independent artists compared to the status quo.
Having said that, you're right that AI music is partially about funnelling more money to the streaming platform. Even before AI generated music, Spotify was cutting deals with "chill vibes" artists where they would receive a smaller payment per play than a "normal" artist[1]. Mysteriously those artists ended up getting placed on "chill vibes" playlists more often than you would expect. Funny how that works. I expect the same chicanery is happening with AI.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_fake_artists_...
> Tidal will accept AI-generated music. > Tidal will hold AI-generated music to a higher standard of content integrity. We will not tolerate AI-generated music that exploits an individual’s or group’s music, name or likeness, deceives listeners, or diminishes the quality of our service. I think this is a very reasonable approach, and probably also the best way to treat AI-powered copyright infringement as a whole. Ju…
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.
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 ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this magical ability to think lots of people can suck simultaneously. I’m also able to separate the power and ability to inflict damage of a bunch of shitheads on twitter from the White House and the first ever trillionaire.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 readi…
It's big business and is really not that deep. For someone who isn't part of that world(which is big business) to judge what is good or not is hard.
And now it's cheap to produce that "pulp romance" novels en masse. So people who have little clue about this genre can produce something that seems good, but doesn't appeal to the reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you really like to take action and earn less money? Morality is dead...
What connection to morality is there from taking action and earning less money? I can think of many morally positive situations that would match this odd vague phrasing you're presenting.
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…
AI generated music is also not at all original. Which scares all of the "artists" who lack originality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/dete…
They are also constantly using the word "illicit" and theft in their communications, and in their lobbying, when there nothing illicit about using model output to train another model. They are trying to create an aura of criminality where none exists.
> But distillation can also be used for illicit purposes: competitors can use it to acquire powerful capabilities from other labs in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, that it would take to develop them independently.
They do have leverage over fraudulent accounts, yes, but the resulting distillation from those is out of their control under the current legal framework. There's nothing they can do about it, for now.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims...