RIAA Flags 'Artificial Intelligence' Music Mixer As Emerging Copyright Threat 45
The RIAA has submitted its most recent overview of notorious markets to the U.S. Trade Representative. As usual, the music industry group lists various torrent sites, cyberlockers and stream-ripping services as familiar suspects. In addition, several 'AI-based' music mixers and extractors are added as an emerging threat. TorrentFreak reports: "There are online services that, purportedly using artificial intelligence (AI), extract, or rather, copy, the vocals, instrumentals, or some portion of the instrumentals from a sound recording, and/or generate, master or remix a recording to be very similar to or almost as good as reference tracks by selected, well known sound recording artists," RIAA writes.
Songmastr is one of the platforms that's mentioned. The service promises to "master" any song based on the style of well-known music artists such as Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Coltrane, Bob Dylan, James Brown and many others. The site's underlying technology is powered by the open-source Matchering 2.0 code, which is freely available on GitHub. And indeed, its purported AI capabilities are prominently in the site's tagline. "This service uses artificial intelligence and is based on the open source library Matchering. The algorithm masters your track with the same RMS, FR, peak amplitude and stereo width as the reference song you choose," Songmastr explains.
Where Artificial Intelligence comes into play isn't quite clear to us. The same can be said for the Acapella-Extractor and Remove-Vocals websites, which the RIAA lists in the same category. The names of these services are pretty much self-explanatory; they can separate the vocals from the rest of a track. The RIAA logically doesn't want third parties to strip music or vocals from copyrighted tracks, particularly when these derivative works are further shared with others. While Songmastr's service is a bit more advanced, the RIAA sees it as clearly infringing. After all, the original copyrighted tracks are used by the site to create derivative works, without the necessary permission. [...] The RIAA is clearly worried about these services. Interestingly, however, the operator of Songmastr and Acapella-Extractor informs us that the music group hasn't reached out with any complaints. But perhaps they're still in the pipeline. The RIAA also lists various torrent sites, download sites, streamrippers, and bulletproof ISPs in its overview, all of which can be found in the full report (PDF) or listed at the bottom of TorrentFreak's article.
Songmastr is one of the platforms that's mentioned. The service promises to "master" any song based on the style of well-known music artists such as Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Coltrane, Bob Dylan, James Brown and many others. The site's underlying technology is powered by the open-source Matchering 2.0 code, which is freely available on GitHub. And indeed, its purported AI capabilities are prominently in the site's tagline. "This service uses artificial intelligence and is based on the open source library Matchering. The algorithm masters your track with the same RMS, FR, peak amplitude and stereo width as the reference song you choose," Songmastr explains.
Where Artificial Intelligence comes into play isn't quite clear to us. The same can be said for the Acapella-Extractor and Remove-Vocals websites, which the RIAA lists in the same category. The names of these services are pretty much self-explanatory; they can separate the vocals from the rest of a track. The RIAA logically doesn't want third parties to strip music or vocals from copyrighted tracks, particularly when these derivative works are further shared with others. While Songmastr's service is a bit more advanced, the RIAA sees it as clearly infringing. After all, the original copyrighted tracks are used by the site to create derivative works, without the necessary permission. [...] The RIAA is clearly worried about these services. Interestingly, however, the operator of Songmastr and Acapella-Extractor informs us that the music group hasn't reached out with any complaints. But perhaps they're still in the pipeline. The RIAA also lists various torrent sites, download sites, streamrippers, and bulletproof ISPs in its overview, all of which can be found in the full report (PDF) or listed at the bottom of TorrentFreak's article.
Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, using open source code and using it in closed source would be of limited value if people can still pirate it legally. Closed source might make it more difficult but not impossible.
Re: Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:1)
That being said, a clean non-360ed merch sale is generally far more profitable by the numbers than music licensing.
Which is why record labels started offering almost exclusively 360 or 360+ deals to new artists in the early 2000s.
But continuing to squeeze the financially unencumbered as punishment for (insert your reason here) is certainly a great idea, and will have zero long term ramifications. Clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA would love to own this AI stuff themselves, so they could release new music without paying the artists to actually make anything.
"This AI has deduced that this song will be popular for several months, but only if it sounds like Taylor Swift"
Re: Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:1)
Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to themselves *and* you.
Re: (Score:1)
They regularly put together groups and singers and turn them into hits. They also sign really fucking boring bands that they know are gonna suck. Like hoobastank, local h, and the beatles. Remember any of those? No.
Re: Just think about mass AI music generation (Score:1)
Go get 'em, tiger.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA would love to own this AI stuff themselves, so they could release new music without paying the artists to actually make anything.
"This AI has deduced that this song will be popular for several months, but only if it sounds like Taylor Swift"
That's not what mastering is. Mastering (which is what this product does) takes the already created song, with the already mixed version, and polishes it to make it (typically) louder, fuller, and add depth to the mix. Rarely is mastering involving more than the two track (although mastering engineers expecting stems is become more common place with Atmos Music being a thing).
I don't disagree that the RIAA would love to have AI that would do it all for them, but that's not the software they're targeting h
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, but it's going to be interesting soon when they are.
It's perfectly possible to extract the style of a piece of music, apply it to new lyrics, melody, whatever, and have a new recording that sounds like it was sung, played, produced, etc. by whoever you like, or whatever combination of them you like.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't claim copyright on works generated by AI, that would likely include beats, chords, vocals, etc.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The AI mastering stuff is even more absurd.
Mastering isn't producing, songwriting, or even mixing. Its preparing a finished track for distribution. This usually means setting volume levels to accepted standards for the various platforms, as well as adjusting equalization and compression so that what sounds good on a studio monitor doesn't blow up your $30 bluetooth speaker with excessive bass energy. In vinyl production this involves using something literally called the RIAA curve, an equalization system th
Re: (Score:1)
Some (most?) records are produced using a high pass to remove very low frequencies. The purpose is indeed to protect the speakers. But that is not a part of implementing the RIAA curve,
There is the version of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture as recorded by Telarc. The cannon fire is not high pass filtered. It is recommended to play it back at moderate volume the first time, to find out how well your system handles it.
The "aesthetic component" usually amounts to compressing the dynamic range and making the overal
Re: (Score:2)
... Rick Rubin, who had a reputation as good producer, messed up Metallica's "Death Magnetic" album. To me it sounds as if he had not only used compression, but driven the volume into outright clipping the wave form. Blergh.
It's called "The Loudness War" and it's ruined a LOT of popular music. You should look at some waveforms in Audacity, especially if you can get an original release of an 80's song and a remastered version from a decade or two after the fact. In most cases the difference is both startling and appalling. The waveforms on newer releases and newer recordings do indeed look clipped, and they sound very bad.
Re: (Score:2)
>How *ANY* of this could constititute "copyright violation" is beyond me,
It's a copyright violation if anyone else besides the copyright owner does it?
Please just stop (Score:2)
You've been trying to cram the genie back in the bottle for nearly 3 decades. The brute force approach didn't work with Napster, it won't work with this, especially this which is just code, none of their "copyright" is anywhere near it.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been trying to cram the genie back in the bottle for nearly 3 decades. The brute force approach didn't work with Napster, it won't work with this, especially this which is just code, none of their "copyright" is anywhere near it.
Why stop at music? Just patent all arrangements of atoms securing not only all of today’s technologies, but all possible futuristic and alien technologies as well. Incidentally, a computer running an algorithm to generate all possible music would fall within its patent rights.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just patent all arrangements of atoms"
Exactly what they want. The RIAA is simply an army of lawyers and thugs who have appropriated ownership of the entire music industry. Look around, how many musicians are among RIAA executives? Or reverse that; how many RIAA executives earn money as musicians?
And when you buy music, how much of your money goes to the performer and the composer? How much to the middleman (RIAA)?
Unfortunately, as I look at my creative musician friends, I see that they ain't got a lick o'
Re: Please just stop (Score:1)
So, you're either not a touring musician *or* you're in the old guard before the full scale integration of the 360 (or 360+) contract, in which case you were blissfully unaware that all label support is a buyback and were likely robbed blind.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why would a musician want to be an RIAA executive?
Because its a job in an industry they know and their time in the limelight is over?
Why does a software engineer become a CTO?
Re: Please just stop (Score:1)
I blame them for the lack of a portable rca connected device I can use to record; with a usb connection to my computer so my ai can control it.
Why does music deserve so much money? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The artists make like 1% of the profits
The labels pay the artists between 10% and 25% of revenue.
Any artist who doesn't like the deal can decline to sign with a label and keep a bigger percentage of a much smaller pie.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol if you think spotify or youtube are paying artists, or even labels, 10% or higher.
Nobody is making more than a percent or two of streaming royalties, except for the tech companies
Re: (Score:3)
Spotify pays 70% of its revenue to the artist or other rights holder.
How much does Spotify pay [dittomusic.com]
Re: Why does music deserve so much money? (Score:1)
Good question. The people who created the tcp/ip stack should get payed for every packet.
Leave it to the RIAA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enough of that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for all the links (Score:2)
Eat dust RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Torrent sites (Score:1)
Did they list any good torrent sites?
I don't think they know what this does... (Score:4, Interesting)
All they're doing (he says, skipping over a hundred steps so masterers please don't flame me) is highlighting particular frequences vs others. It's a (very) glorified EQ and and compression step.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm writing this in ultra-shorthand and it's a skilled job with lots of steps. But mastering vs reference track is current practice now. "I can make you sound like Beyonce"...they're 'just' highlighting similar frequences and similar standard volume transmissions. It's not writing music.
Any other professional musicians here? (Score:1)
Anybody else here a pro muso?
I can certainly tell which ones are *not*
RIAA Flags ... (Score:2)
Ordinary Intelligence as a threat ...
Whistle a tune in public, get dragged into court (Score:2)
The cats are out of the bag (Score:2)
The threat is the thing (Score:2)
The RIAA wants the status quo, and is comprised of lawyers who can't wrap their minds around the implications of tech. But you can't ban an AI tool like this, and the code is in the wild. Now they will have to play wack a mole on tunes in court with created works. But AI is not too much different than an artist, the other thing is how are you going to prove that the AI made it?
The RIAA doesn't need to sue every single alleged violator. They just have to make one or two successful prosecutions/persecutions, and then spam the others with "offers" to settle for a small "fee" or face the legal consequences of the supposed violation.
Wat (Score:2)
So (Score:1)