Rob Abelow’s Post

Being an AI company in the music industry is incredibly challenging. 1) Every musical note you interact with is copyrighted. 2) Access to training data is expensive. 3) Most musicians cannot afford to pay for costly tools, even if developed legally. Our focus should be to augment revenues for musicians, not steal their work or replace them with AI-generated content. At Kena AI, we have created a FREE platform for students, practitioners, musicians, composers, tutors, educators, and everyone in the industry. Our platform is entirely free, and we charge zero commissions. Kena's AI teaches students on behalf of musicians, creating a source of passive income for them. It's simple and straightforward. People often ask, "But what is your business model? How do you fund this?" I have invested millions of my personal funds into this passion project. I do not have expectations of returns. I just want to see a significant portion of the community benefit from our marketplace. Passion projects are marathons. Price discovery can always happen at scale. #AI #startup #music

Major labels take legal action against AI music generators (Suno & Udio) The music industry is hitting back. Sony, Warner, and UMG, with the RIAA's support, have launched lawsuits against AI music generators Suno and Udio. The cases are filed in Massachusetts and the Southern District of New York, respectively. Why the lawsuits? Suno and Udio are accused of training their AI models on copyrighted material without proper licensing or compensation. The RIAA describes this as "mass infringement of copyrighted sound recordings copied and exploited without permission." What does the RIAA say? "AI companies, like all enterprises, must abide by the laws that protect human creativity and ingenuity. There is nothing that exempts AI companies from playing by the rules." The right way to do it: 1. Train on licensed catalogs 2. Compensate artists and songwriters 3. Maintain full transparency Music is not against AI but against theft. Responsible AI development can coexist with creativity, ensuring fair compensation and recognition for artists. Evidence against Suno & Udio: 1. Statements from an early Suno investor implied the company needed to operate without constraints from labels to develop their product. 2. Udio executives admitted to using a large amount of publicly available music from the internet, highlighting the lack of proper licensing. 3. Producer tags were left on some AI-generated tracks. 4. Many generated tracks closely resembled existing copyrighted music. The big question: Who will prevail? The outcome hinges on interpretations of fair use. This case will set a significant precedent for the future of AI in the music industry. Let's hope for a resolution that upholds the rights of artists while fostering innovation.

“Earlier this week, the “big three” record labels in the U.S. …brought separate copyright infringement claims against two generative AI music startups, Suno and Udio (whose AI model was recently used to create the song sampled by Metro Boomin in the viral “BBL Drizzy” Drake diss). According to the complaints, both defendants’ AI models allow users to generate “digital music files that sound like genuine human sound recordings in response to basic inputs” like text. The plaintiffs allege that both defendants copied “decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings” to train their AI models to generate similar outputs. As proof, they claim that both AI services “repeatedly generated outputs that closely matched” the copyrighted sound recordings referenced in certain inputs—including ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” and Jerry Lee Lewis’ “Great Balls of Fire”—when plaintiffs referenced "specific subject matter, genres, artists, instruments, vocal styles, and the like” in their written prompts. … the record companies are seeking an injunction to prevent the unauthorized use …, including to train defendants’ AI models and generate infringing outputs. The plaintiffs also seek statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) in amounts up to $150,000 per work infringed, …”

How the Music Business Works - it started as a blog post...then it became a book...and now its going to be also be a podcast! When Rene Merideth and I co-founded Exploration 10 years ago, a large part of what we did, and still do, to grow the business was to share how a lot of the parts of the business worked, independently and together. How the Music Business Works covers these topics, such that folks can put their best foot forward. Here is a list of the topics we cover in the book (plus 200+ pages in the new edition): + Music Industry Basics - What is a composition - What is a sound recording - What is a songwriter - What is a producer/audio engineer - What is a music publisher - What is a record label - Major vs Indie - What are the exclusive rights in copyright law - Types of music releases - The Team - Independent Artist Start Pack + Your rights - Mechanical License - Performance License - Synchronization License - Master Use License - Lyric rights - Print rights - What is rights management and copyright administration - How are taxes affected by royalties - What is an audit - What are the implications of canceling or changing service providers + Music Industry Organizations - YouTube - Organizations and Advocacy Groups of the music business - What is Harry Fox Agency or HFA - What is Music Reports or MRI - What is SoundExchange - What is LyricFind - What is SONA - What to expect from the Mechanical Licensing Collective or MLC + Live Music and Touring Basics - What is a booking agent - What is a promoter - What is a tour manager - What is a tour cycle - Tour financing essentials - The guide to opening and operating a music venue + Advanced Concepts and Other Resources - What is an ISRC - What is an ISWC - What is work for hire - What is a digital download - What is Non-interactive music streaming - What is On-demand music streaming - Music Industry Contracts - What are the Music Industry Consent Decrees - Investing in Music - Merchandise economics - What is an IPI number - How to work remotely in the music business - A glossary of terms Jeepers!! That covers a lot :) I'm going to get in the weeds on each of these topics and attempt to weave them together through the How the Music Business Works Podcast 🎙️ I'll also be joined by a host of colorful characters as we dive in. Thanks a lot for following along. We'll see you down the road.

Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music have thrown a bombshell at the AI music industry by filing a landmark lawsuit against Suno and Udio, AI music generators accused of mass copyright infringement. This case could redefine the legal landscape for AI-generated content. Both platforms have been lauded for their ability to create high-quality, genre-specific music from text prompts. However, the heart of the controversy lies in whether these AI models were trained on copyrighted music without the necessary licenses, an allegation that could spell significant financial and operational repercussions for these startups. Interestingly, Ed Newton-Rex, a well-known figure in AI and music, highlighted the uncanny similarities between Suno's generated music and existing copyrighted tracks, suggesting unauthorized use of copyrighted material in their training datasets. Despite the impressive funding and user base, Suno and Udio now face intense scrutiny not just from the music industry but also from their own user communities, who question the ethics and legality of their AI models. For those following this saga, the lawsuit underscores the urgent need for transparency in how AI models are trained and the necessity for clear legal frameworks to govern AI-generated content. https://lnkd.in/dCUc67c5

AI music startup Suno claims training model on copyrighted music is ‘fair use’ https://ift.tt/FoWaIZR Following the recent lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against music generation startups Udio and Suno, Suno admitted in a court filing on Thursday that it did, in fact, train its AI model using copyrighted songs. But it claimed that doing so was legal under the fair-use doctrine. The RIAA filed the lawsuit against Udio and Suno on June 24, alleging that the companies trained their models using copyrighted music. While Suno’s investors have previously hinted that the startup didn’t have permission from the music labels to use the copyrighted material, it hasn’t been so directly stated as it was in today’s filing.  “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case,” the filing states. Suno CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulman continued on in a blog post published the same day as the legal filing, saying “We train our models on medium- and high-quality music we can find on the open internet… Much of the open internet indeed contains copyrighted materials, and some of it is owned by major record labels.” Shulman also argued that training its AI model from data on the “open internet” is no different than a “kid writing their own rock songs after listening to the genre.”  “Learning is not infringing. It never has been, and it is now now,” Shulman added.  The RIAA clapped back with this response: “It’s a major concession of facts they spent months trying to hide and acknowledged only when forced by a lawsuit. Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals…Their vision of the ‘future of music’ is apparently one in which fans will no longer enjoy music by their favorite artists because those artists can no longer earn a living.” The question of fair use was never simple, but with AI model training even established doctrine may not be applicable. The outcome of this case, still in its early stages, will likely establish an influential precedent that could define the future of more than just the two startups named in it. Business News via TechCrunch https://techcrunch.com/ August 1, 2024 at 02:52PM

This is a follow-up Part 2 post on the key-takeaways from All About Music a 3-day music conference: a) Today, an artist has multiple ways to earn revenue, few of which are through the exploitation of their works; live performances; merchandising; licensing deals (which includes licensing their works for training AI tools); and artist-led startups. b) Additionally, a number of brands (from Heineken, Kingfisher, Redbull, and even banks such as HSBC) are showing increasing interest in collaborating and associating with musicians for promoting their brands. This is also one of the great sources of revenue for an artist. However, while entering into any brand-sponsorship agreement an artist should be very clear on the terms of such agreement i.e. what is the period of contract; exclusivity provisions; deliverables (number of photo-shoots; ad-campaigns etc.); how the name and likeness of the artist will be exploited by the brand; what are the payment terms and schedules; how can the artist exit from the agreement incase of disagreements etc. c) It may sound counterintuitive considering the recent Suno AI and Udio AI copyright infringement controversy, but the music industry is actively promoting and engaging in AI led technology [where AI models are trained on the vocals, compositions and lyrics created by various artists], provided the following factors are considered: - Ownership: AI tools cannot be trained or continue to exploit the works without the consent of the concerned artists and/or record labels. - Approval and control of the output: If the output generated by the AI tool is similar or identical to copyrighted works then the concerned artists and/or record labels should have the negative right to restrict the use of such AI tools. d) There was also emphasis was on music research and academics. One of the reasons was to identify infringement matters. Courts are not well-equipped in understanding the subtle nuances of a musical work that may make all the difference in identifying whether a work is an infringement or not. As seen in the case of Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan, one of the factors that the Bombay High Court relied on, to see if any prima facie case of infringement was made out, was a report by a music expert, in detail, sets out the similarities and dissimilarities between two alleged similar musical works. This report by the music expert shows that without proper training, education and understating of music, it is difficult to truly judge whether or not a work infringes another or not. #musicconference #musiclaw #musiclawyers #musicindustry #mediaandentertainmentlaw #mediaandentertainmentindustry

David Israelite, President & CEO of the National Music Publishers' Association. He talks about where songwriters are pushed to the margin as recording artists take centre stage in licensing debates and revenue splits, what is happening with the Twitter/X lawsuit and why the subscription market can absolutely take more price increases. --------------------- All hell has been breaking loose in recent weeks between Universal Music Group and TikTok over licensing rights, royalty rates and which side needs the other the most. The fight, argues David Israelite of the NMPA, has predominantly been viewed through the lens of the recording artist rather than the lens of the songwriter. As such, it reveals a pernicious “bias” in the music industry where publishing, the primary right, is treated as a secondary concern. He diplomatically says he cannot comment on the specifics of the UMG/TikTok impasse, beyond pointing out that it is being framed in the wrong way. “When Universal’s record arm removed its sound recordings from TikTok about a month ago, there was not a single mention of how it might impact songwriters that are not at Universal or who wrote songs recorded by Universal artists,” he says. “Now, a month later, when Universal Music Publishing is removing its rights from TikTok, because they were in a different contractual term, you see all of this discussion about the [recording] artists who will be impacted by the removal of the Universal songs.” This is all, he feels, back to front. Read The Full Story Here: https://lnkd.in/eeprxdTZ #MusicPublishing #SongwritersRights #IndustryBias #musically #musicnews #readmore

New Post: Major Labels Weighing Lawsuit Against AI Firms Suno and Udio for Alleged Unlicensed Training - https://lnkd.in/gaCna6sY - The three major music companies are weighing a lawsuit against AI startups Suno and Udio for allegedly training on copyrighted sound recordings, according to multiple sources. The potential lawsuit, which would include Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music, would target a pair of companies that have quickly become two of the most important players in the emerging field of generative AI music. While many of its competitors focus on generating either music or lyrics or vocals, Suno and Udio both allow users to generate all three in the click of a button. Two sources said the lawsuit could come as soon as next week. Reps for the three majors, as well as Suno and Udio, did not respond to requests for comment. Music companies, including UMG, have already filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, another major AI firm, over the use of copyrighted materials to train models. But that case dealt only with lyrics, which in many ways are legally similar to written subject matter. The new suit would deal with music and sound itself.  Just a few months from its launch, Udio has already produced what could be considered an AI-generated hit song with “BBL Drizzy,” a parody track created by comedian King Willonius and popularized via a remix by super producer Metro Boomin. Later, the song reached new heights when it was sampled in Sexyy Red and Drake‘s song “U My Everything,” becoming the first major example of sampling an AI-generated song.   Suno has also achieved early success since its launch in December 2023. In May, the company announced via a blog post that it had raised a total of $125 million in funding from a group of notable investors, including Lightspeed Venture Partners and Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross.  Both companies, however, have drawn criticism from many members of the music business who believe that the models train on vast swathes of copyrighted material, including hit songs, without consent, compensation or credit to rights holders. Representatives for Suno and Udio have previously declined to comment on whether or not they train on protected copyrights, with Udio’s co-founders telling Billboard they simply train on “good music.”  In a recent Rolling Stone story about Suno, investor Antonio Rodriguez admitted that Suno does not have licenses for whatever music it has trained on, but he said that was not a concern to him, adding that this lack of such licenses is “the risk we had to underwrite when we invested in the company, because we’re the fat wallet that will get sued right behind these guys… Honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think that they needed to make

Great to have commented on the cases brought against Suno and Udio by the major labels for Music Business Worldwide (MBW) and WIPR - World IP Review (after speed-reading them on the train). My general thoughts on the cases including both defendants' responses are below: 🔊 First off, the lawsuits are a big deal - they're the first major cases brought by the recorded music industry in relation to AI after a noticeable lag in relation to other areas (such as publishing and software). 📯 The initial question is whether the AI tools trained on copyrighted recordings in the first place? The labels have presented compelling evidence showing the similarity between outputs and original works, including digital watermarks such as Jason Derulo’s infamous self-referential vocal trade mark. Notably, neither companies' response denies that they have trained on recordings, with Udio's response impliedly confirming that they have done so (when they state that the model has "listened" to recorded music presumably copies were made?). 💻 If training has occurred, then does it constitute fair use? This is a US defence to copyright infringement which is far more flexible than in the UK and include considerations such as whether the use was “transformative”. This could potentially become a philosophical question about the creative role of AI encompassing its economic and social impact. The cases will likely be one of a number across the creative industries that are eventually decided by a US Supreme Court decision - although whether one decision can be applicable to every case isn't clear. 👩⚖️ Udio has already laid the groundwork for a potential defence which relies on the fact that the outputs it creates are not simple reproductions but instead are creative (read "transformative"). They also note that AI just continues in a long line of music tech including the sound recording (whose rights are being used to sue them) which are simply "tools". 💿 I think that there is a fundamental contradiction in this position. How can AI be so original that it produces entirely new creations, but simultaneously be "just a tool" to empower creators? Other tools simply allow or facilitate reproduction (e.g. the musical score, the player piano, streaming services, samplers) or sonic transformation (e.g. a harpsichord or a synthesiser) or a bit of both (e.g. a drum machine or a DAW). Whilst some technologies have undoubtedly stimulated the development of new creative and cultural practices (e.g. sampling and multi-track recordings), I'm unaware of any other technology which has so fundamentally outsourced human creativity - in copyright terms the expression of ideas in an original (albeit non-human) way. Saying that AI is simply a tool appears to miss that and contradict their entire business strategy!💡 #suno #udio #musicai #copyright #intellectualproperty #ai #artificialintelligence