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

221–230 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#221

Post by fg137 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #107
stronglikedan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How do you know / ensure you're getting all sides of the story? For one, many people have left the platform already because of its owner and policies, so you're not hearing those sides anymore. > I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself. Anecdotal; people get paid / pay to post and promote certain content. But that's nothing new on social media. That said, escaping or avoiding bubbles is good, just…

They don't.

What they actually mean by "all sides" is "my side" (that is not typically allowed/supported on other platforms, for reasons they don't want to go into)

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#222

Post by laybak »

fxwin wrote: post #8

> 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…

[dead]

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#223

Post by pesus »

someguyiguess wrote: post #108
kstrauser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made (what would eventually get called) EDM in high school and a lot of what I enjoyed was dismissed as “not real music”. It’s not a musician playing it, but a computer! Unless a guitarist was plucking strings or a pianist hitting the keys, it wasn’t “real”. Doesn’t matter how carefully crafted it was: it’s only real if you couldn’t hit “play”. Sorry, Mike Oldfield. Hate to break it to you that you’re a fake musici…

I learned music production by first learning how to produce house. Because of this, I can confidently say that house is not music. You literally just copy/paste over and over. Just because a human makes something, doesn't make it good or "music" necessarily.

It's pretty clear you didn't get beyond the very basics of music production or house music if you think this. I'd love to hear your masterfully produced house track to prove me wrong, though.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#224

Post by keiferski »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #211
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.

As I stated elsewhere in the thread, the streaming platforms do not have the correct incentives to do this. It’s the labels that do releases that are correctly incentivized, as they need to build an audience that trusts them and enjoys the music that they release. Independently-released music is a huge red flag. If you can’t find a single label A&R to support you, you may have to work on the quality of your output… m…

> Independently-released music is a huge red flag.

You've never listened to anything on Soundcloud and found it good?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#225

Post by tzs »

Lerc wrote: post #175
virgildotcodes wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you actually haven't checked it since, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. Accounts pushing white supremacy, the reversion of women's rights, hatred towards other on the basis of their race or religion, climate change denial, denial of science and promotion of pseudoscience, etc etc. are heavily promoted across the platform and get millions of engagements. If you create a new account, the majo…

As a counterpoint to that, I encountered a conversation where people were lamenting the toxic nature of communication and someone described being told to kill themselves for expressing what they felt was a compassionate statement. Someone asked where that happened and they said "On X" and the response was "Holy shit, That's the kind of thing you expect to see on Bluesky, not X" The thing is, The comments were terribl…

This is older than the public internet. My parents got a CB radio circa 1967 and I watched my Mom make the first transmission on the new radio. She promptly received a reply, which told her to take a long walk on a short pier.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#226

Post by gruez »

thewebguyd wrote: post #214
Grombobulous wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable. A synthesizer is not AI.

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…

>(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.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#227

Post by Sandbag5802 »

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.

A platform like that exists. It's called Subvert. It's a cooperative that was created as a response whenever Bandcamp has changed ownership several times. The idea of Subvert is to focus on the artists instead of the interests of the founders and investors.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#228

Post by keiferski »

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…

What I had in mind was, "perform it on your instruments in our studio and we'll record the performance, record the music, and add it to our platform."

Probably too expensive to scale, but... it's an idea.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#229

Post by brookst »

someguyiguess wrote: post #108
kstrauser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made (what would eventually get called) EDM in high school and a lot of what I enjoyed was dismissed as “not real music”. It’s not a musician playing it, but a computer! Unless a guitarist was plucking strings or a pianist hitting the keys, it wasn’t “real”. Doesn’t matter how carefully crafted it was: it’s only real if you couldn’t hit “play”. Sorry, Mike Oldfield. Hate to break it to you that you’re a fake musici…

I learned music production by first learning how to produce house. Because of this, I can confidently say that house is not music. You literally just copy/paste over and over. Just because a human makes something, doesn't make it good or "music" necessarily.

And yet there are well respected composers who intentionally copy/paste. Repetition is key to minimalism, for instance.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#230

Post by thewebguyd »

gruez wrote: post #226
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…

>(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.

Post reply on HN