611–620 of 686 posts
Anyone else thinks destroying books for any reason is wrong ? Or is it perhaps not an universal cultural/moral aspect ? I guess for example in Europe people could be more sensitive to it.
I have purposefully destroyed one book in my life, in order to prevent anyone from reading it: Man of Two Worlds by Brian Herbert. ...and I did the world a favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The restaurant is not responsible for E. coli if it’s found, are they? Just cooking it out of the food Suno can’t prevent humans from copying other humans, it can only make sure that the direct output of its system isn’t infringing.
You may be reaching the limits of the metaphor here, but restaurants are absolutely responsible for the e coli if it's found in significant quantities whether it's in the initial ingredients or the cooked end product. A restaurant is required to vet its suppliers and ensure food safety protocols throughout the entire process with several independent checks at many points, and is ultimately directly responsible if a c…
Anything remotely beyond that and we have teams of humans adjudicating specific cases: https://library.mi.edu/musiccopyright/currentcases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you are comparing machines with humans. We're built for depth, not scale. Machines are built for scale, not depth. I also play the guitar, and it took me 10 years to learn 30 or 40 songs. So I don't see how anyone can learn 7 million songs in a couple of minutes.
I have learned 100s of songs in a summer for various fill in gigs. Most music is extremely similar. You don't need to learn every song in existence to write suno pop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you make a good point, but there is some irony in pointing out the distinction between colloquial and legal use of the term “stealing” while also misusing the term “piracy” to describe legal matters. It would be more clear if you stick to either legal or colloquial variants, instead of switching back and forth. (Tbf, the judge in this case also used the term “piracy” colloquially).
I'm not sure that's irony. Just an plain error on my part, which you're right to point out. Piracy is also a pejorative label for copyright infringement.
In this case it seemed like you were making a point about the strict legal sense of a word, but misusing a different legal term to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that Suno does not sell music , but instead makes a tool for musicians to generate music and sells access to this tool . The law doesn't distinguish between basement and cloud – it's a service. You can sell access to the service without selling songs to consumers.
They charge you by the amount of music you get from them. That's selling music. Selling a tool would be if they charge you once, you download the tool, and you can use it on your computer to generate as much music as you want to pay electricity for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that Suno does not sell music , but instead makes a tool for musicians to generate music and sells access to this tool . The law doesn't distinguish between basement and cloud – it's a service. You can sell access to the service without selling songs to consumers.
Sure, but if you are just essentially making a copyright infringement tool, and then selling it to people so they can use it to infringe, and then they go and use it to infringe, you're a contributory infringer. Not saying this is exactly what Suno is doing, but just pointing out that you can be an infringer without "selling songs to consumers"
When a general computer using agent recreates songs in Logic Pro in high fidelity, then what?
It’s called Fair Use for a reason – we let humans Use things generally and ask them to be Fair.
Or we can go in the direction of movies and TV where screenshots of protected content show up blank on my iPhone. Just in case someone wanted to, god forbid, clip the show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
poverty mindset. We can make more books, and now these copies contribute to a corpus of knowledge that far more people benefit from
People who pay Anthropic you mean. There is no benefit. And only the owner can make more books. Fake altruistic mindset. Super sociopathic.
And "And only the owner can make more books" is trivially false
Keep crying about this nothingburger
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The way you've presented this, the evidence is just "common sense", which isn't much evidence at all.
Apparently it's a common business practice. Spotify (even though I can't find any proof) seems to have build their software and business on pirated music. There is some more in this Article [0]. https://torrentfreak.com/spotifys-beta-used-pirate-mp3-files... Funky quote: > Rumors that early versions of Spotify used ‘pirate’ MP3s have been floating around the Internet for years. People who had access to the service in…
Facebook's "pivot to video" similarly relied on user-uploaded unlicensed video content, now not just pulling from television and film, but from content creators on platforms like YouTube.
Today, every "social" platform is now littered with "no copyright infringement intended" and "all credit to the original" copy-and-paste junk. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of remix culture – but I believe appropriating and monetizing the work of others without sharing the reward is a destructive cycle. And while there are avenues for addressing this, they're designed for the likes of Universal, Sony, Disney, etc. (I've had original recordings of original music flagged by megacorps because the applause triggered ContentID.)
AI slop further poisons the well. It's rough going out there.
"Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library...Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic's piracy." --- the ruling
If they committed piracy 7 million times and the minimum fine for each instance is $750 million then the law says that anthropic is liable for $5.25 billion. I just want it to be out there that they definitely broke the law and the penalty is a minimum $5.25 billion in fines according to the law, this way when none of this actually happens we at least can't pretend we didn't know.