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

321–330 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#321

Post by nerdsniper »

greggsy wrote: post #283
AlecSchueler wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Much, much more difficult to enforce / obtain remedy, but it’s also against the law in the USA as well.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#322

Post by mapontosevenths »

brookst wrote: post #192
keiferski wrote: post #30

I really hope someone makes a music platform in the future that is verified as human-made. Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it. Tie it to in-person concerts and it might actually work as a business, as well as logistically – maybe the company can be a record producer in disguise and physically meet every musician they host.

Perhaps. But just how human made? We already had the “Depeche Mode isn’t real music because they just push play on a sequencer” debate 40 years ago. And lots of composers can’t play the stuff they write. But the composition is human. Then there’s emerging AI-supported music, since AI can come up with and test harmonic ideas far more sophisticated than most people. If a human’s saying “no, not that, try using an augme…

Art is the expression of a person's unique perspective. The tool you use to do that isn't the important part, the communication of the perspective is.

When AI makes that communication better it is good, when it produces perspective free noise, or steals someone elses perspective and paraphrases it then its' bad.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#323

Post by smithoc »

lelanthran wrote: post #280
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.

> 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. Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get an…

By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.

An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#324

Post by lelanthran »

smithoc wrote: post #323
lelanthran wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get an…

By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play. An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar. Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetiz…

> An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

This is a nonsense argument. The drum, the synthesiser, piano and guitar exists without the need for millions of other peoples music to exist first.

The AI model cannot exist without being fed with other people's music.

> Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

The argument is not "we should demonetise new technology", it's "this new technology cannot exist without existing art".

If you can create an AI that does not need to slurp up existing art (possible), then sure, you'd have a point. All you have now is a strawman.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#325

Post by a_bonobo »

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...

Why would I pay 10 dollars per month for music I can AI-generate myself for free?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#326

Post by make3 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #287
make3 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

AI cost companies billions of dollars to make the time of hundreds of expert researchers. You're saying that my tool became too good so I can't make money from it anymore?

What about protein language models that create new protein drugs, can pharmaceutical companies not protect them too? That's straight up the same time of model as LLMs and image models.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#327

Post by ggm »

Not hard to imagine some kind of legal risk in this, but it would be great foundational case law for music/IPR.

(tidal subscriber)

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#328

Post by ozzmotik »

Foreignborn wrote: post #196
summarybot wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;)

are there tells beyond the lyrics? I swear there are a number of songs using out of “human distribution” words, trigrams, etc. Is it overall song structure?

as someone who extensively uses generative AI in my creative process, I personally have not found any reliable tells in my output to distinguish it from traditionally produced music, with the exception of when suno goes off the rails and just generates a 7:59 piece that is just randomly averaging across latent space. but even that sounds less like AI generated slop and more like a plunderphonics adjacent sound collage.

now granted: I don't use AI to write my lyrics (with the exception of pieces framed as involving AI, eg. rap battles against AI), and furthermore beyond that, I also use my own musical productions from the past as audio uploads alongside my lyrics and my prompting strategy, so by definition I'd say my output is inherently going to be exploring sonic space that is not typically explored by most users, and as such if I am using my own output as the mechanism by which I'm evaluating this argument, then naturally it's probably going to be understandable as to why I find it so difficult to distinguish between AI and organic human effort.

but either way. I've had people express some level of intrigue at the level of variation and such present in my output artifacts, which to me suggests that this might be a relevant dimension within which to evaluate this specific character or quality of music as machine generated or human generated...

just some (admittedly not super well structured) thoughts it occurred to me to share.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#329

Post by ozzmotik »

giglamesh wrote: post #165
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Tool was a kind of metal/funk band (or something like that) and Oracle is a database (management system) that somehow made a lot of money for a lot of consultants (and the oligarch owners) even though open source alternatives were far superior.

I know this is perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek but it's still astounding just how suspiciously accurate the implied parallel here is... lol

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#330

Post by Alien1Being »

AI generated articles, books, software and code are going to be the next targets.

Why pay for AI slop when there is no copyright.

Many of the articles posted to HN are now AI slop. The posters should realise that they have no copyright to it.

Post reply on HN