Welcome to my channel! My name is SumnSumnSumn HTK and on this channel we do plugin reviews, gear reviews, tutorials, live streams, collabs and music reviews/critiques. Join the family!
My affiliate links (Help support the channel with no additional cost to you!) -Equipment I Use Every Single Day: www.zzounds.com/share--sumn_sumn_sumn_htk_gearlist -Sweetwater: imp.i114863.net/Zdvo9g -Zzounds.Com: www.zzounds.com/a--3979267 -Amazon: www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08NYLP33B/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=sumnsumnsumn-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B08NYLP33B&linkId=7301ed4791c70a5d5dca6964082400be -Plugin Boutique: www.pluginboutique.com/?a_aid=61fdde98c87cd -ADSR Sounds: www.adsrsounds.com/#a_aid=Sumnsumnsumn -Waves: waves.alzt.net/9Wqxr0 -Baby Audio: babyaudioaffiliateprogram.sjv.io/jWDgXZ
I’m going to disagree with some of the stuff you’re saying I’m not gonna say it because I’m a nice guy and I’m not rude because I’m not rude but if I was being honest, I’m sure somebody would get butt hurt so I’m a disagree with some of the stuff you say you say you don’t like AI but use AI I don’t get that but I get what you’re coming from😊
See now we get to the "nitty gritty" of this whole A.i. thing. It's NOT actually "Artificial Intelligence" because it Not intelligent at all. The Process is as follows, 1 feed the machine (anything they can find) in this case, it was fed Copyrighted Music (which is what those companies are being sued for). 2 run what it was fed thru a process using prompts as the directions (zeros and ones), and spit out the best match using the Copyrighted material (parts and pieces). Now where this gets interesting is when people start to realize the prompts they were working so hard to come up with for what they were getting is also being used to feed the machine, not to mention Everything that is being posted on All platforms (Damn a copyright). By the way, Don't think for one minute UDIO and Suno are not snooping around your Hard Drive the whole time you are using their so called "A.I."! It's a fact that a whole bunch of companies are putting the "A.I." tag on their products to make money when what they are selling/marketing is the same Shytt we have been using the whole time.......Algorithms based on 0's and 1's. Still trying to Play in our Faces and now it's time for the players to PAY! This is just a prelude to Round One. If you didn't know this was coming, Now you know.
You nailed it. Most people use AI to enhance their work not to solely rely on it as just one tool. And even with most composers have days when the AI just doesn't work good enough.
AI should not be allowed to make derivative works. That is what humans should do. Put AI to work on jobs that humans don’t want to do, like repetitive boring work.
What must folks are not thinking is that if a user uses a artist name in their prompt, that person should be liable, just as a sampler, anymore can use any DAW and steal any music, but you can't sue FLStudio, or IMusic etc, you sue the person Music using the tech, this is how all of these guys will be able to do it. Also any Music on RU-vid, Facebook, Instagram, any social media platform, most folks don't know they have these companies the right to use your data as they see fit, I told people this 15 years ago.
I've had problems installing from IK Multimedia and I've given up trying after I've paid good money. I avoid IK nowadays. Maybe I'm an outlier and others have been successful.
I always loved your channel, but with that Spotify comment at around 6:10 you got my heart completely 😁 I'm not defending anyone here, but will I get a copyright claim cause I learned playing music instruments on popular songs from their catalogues? It's TRAINING as well, right? 😁
I am a little confused why we need to license to listen to music to learn from it? Like if it was copyright infringement suit it would make sense but if it isn't copyright infringement how is it against the law? Its really not clear, what law is being violated? Like I am pretty sure it is legal to analyze other peoples music to learn from it? How is that in anyway a civil violation? I can understand actually copying protected works is a copyright violation but simply learning from them doesn't seem to be against the law. Reverse engineering is 100% lawful in the US. Reverse engineering is generally considered to be legal in US and Canada if the product has been legitimately obtained. Reverse engineering is considered an allowable method to discover a trade secret. Are they accusing them of pirating the music they used for training? It just seems like they are trying to invent a tort that really has no basis in law. They seem to want to be creating a " right" to learn from music which is ridiculous. I think it is valid for them to sue copyright infringements arising from the learning as we all would be liable if we learned the notes of something then reproduced those notes to imitate another work to the point of an infringing act but simply learning isn't as far as I am aware illegal or a tort. I would throw it out without some valid cause of action. That is not to say there wouldnt' be grounds for case by case infringement suits arising from not safegaurding reproduction of works that may be deemed infringing, but simply learning doesn't seem to be a tort -- now if they are saying that the music used was pirated and not obtained legally that is a whole different matter.
I definitely don't like the idea of AI-made music, largely because, as you said, the "creator" didn't "create" the music, (granted for this reason I haven't tried sampling in years & rarely use loops & MIDI clips). But the training of AI SHOULD be that it's just learning the sounds used, song structure, themes, etc, learning how to construct a similarly styled track. So an AI being trained on copyrighted music is really kind of like an artist listening to copyrighted music then going to make something in a similar style. I definitely see why the big labels (& individual artists) feel threatened by AI music & want to put up roadblocks, I'd also like for AI music to not be a thing, but this just seems like a cheap way to try to accomplish that. I mean what's next, an artist mentions another artist as one of their influences, & because that other artist's style's influence is evident in the first artist's music, should the influencing artist sue them for training on their copyrighted music?
@@WilliamAshleyOnline This is kind of my point. I'm not enthused about AI created music flooding the market, but the idea of tech that CAN make original music IS impressive. And how else would you teach an AI HOW to make music without letting it hear a bunch. Sure if it makes things where parts of copywritten songs are clearly audible that becomes like sampling, and that's a different story. But I ASSUME the whole point is for it to study things like common rhythms, arpeggiator patterns, riff styles, the combo of instruments used in a genre, etc. So I'm apprehensive about AI competing with real artists, but unless its product is like a collage of copywritten work, I don't know if the labels have a logical basis for their lawsuit. Really depends on the end product.
@@danatello8489 I really don't think it is "sampling" it is still processual and not actually copying BUT it is infringing on protected ideas when it is produced, broadcast etc.. publicly. That is why I think they need to just insure that content ID etc.. is used on services with mechanisms to dispute it, there is no actual copyright infringement simply by analyzing something, in reproducing protected ideas even innocently there is still grounds for infringement if they are published but each case would need to be adjudicated just because you can infringe a protected idea doesn't mean that all technology that allows it is somehow infringing technology, you can do that with a piano or a voice its not the tech it is the actual use of those infringing ideas either innocently or intentionally. Again you arn't really understanding how LLMs work they don't copy and save or copy and paste the ideas, they analyse the patterns in the data, then take all that information and create an algorithm that when prompted will make sense of the prompt and associate that prompt with the outcome that is most likely the desired outcome with some other aspects. So when you hae all these instances of songs being made that sound like another song its because people asked for a song that sounded like that. They just store associations they don't save the source data or copy and paste from that source data. The market is already flooded with a billion songs it really doesn't matter. Its 99% marketing anyway as far as access goes. People simply won't see music unless it is marketed to people these days or an established branded artist. It is incredibly difficult to break into the market on the merit of music alone these days, music is more or less buried unless it is pushed by a marketting engine. IMO music is music whether you are making that in a studio or by prompting it is what it is. IMO whatever enhances the human experience is what is better. While people do matter the issues of poverty associated with music is a societal values issue because it doesn't actually value art universally it picks and chooses who to provide compensation for the time and effort they put into create of that content. Again I am not a capitalist, I am not driven by money I am a humanist I am driven by the human condition. Personally I will never support impairment or depriving rights to people to financially benefit a group at the cost of another class persons freedom and liberty. IMO as a music production tool, it isn't infringing, but if it were marketed as a music listening service then yes I think there would be grounds for infringement on each provision of a protected idea. However the person doing the generating is the person making that but I don't think it should be infringing unless it is publicly shared. Potential fro infringement doesn't equal infringement, a piano or guitar is potential for infringement it doesn't make the piano unlicensed because it has the capability to copy a song expression. This case is all about the right to analyze music... through technological means. Without knowing what methods were used to analyze the songs it is hard to say... but AI should be able to listen to any freely available source of music IMO if it is available to a human to use it should be available for a human to use a tool.. however recording or backing up that music would be a mechanical reproduction ... so it would cause that to be infringement not the actual act of analyzing. I don't think a license is required to listen to music I can play music on my computer all the time from youtube for example I don't need a license to do that.
The lawsuits would need to establish that a human listening to songs then creating something is different than an AI model doing basically the same. I think labels will have a hard time in court, as nobody has legally challenged and won a case of "a songwriter listening to music then write a song" and won a copyright claim. You can only win based on near identical similarity. But AI generate new stuff, and similarity is "random", just like human. I can see a settlement like the cassette tape tax you paid to PRO's. FYI: By they way I have a feeling you don't fully understand how AI engines work, law suit reality, and legalities of copyright. OK, to discuss, just know, you are way off at times. No hate bro, just facts. This is to some degree unchartered legal territory and it will get figured out eventually, I think, but not go away. Create as you like, just be honest to others and yourself about what YOU actually did. Though nobody really is as people claim they worked with such and such just because they make coffee in the studio, or a remix, or put drums to a loop, and the artist got a Grammy...😮
Spot on Sum! I don't agree with all this AI garbage. But I feel that if AI companies or record companies purchase the rights of major artists music libraries for millions of $$$$ those companies will feed the machine so it spits out AI generated music based on those libraries and will probably collect royalties from anyone that makes $$$ from that platform. I hope I'm wrong but I really think the corporates of this world not only want a piece of the pie but also want to control it.
IMO (unfortunately) the end game for AI in music is the consumer creating the music they want to consume (no artist, no label, no streaming service, no studio, no studio gear, no instruments, etc.). I'm curious how the lawsuit will distinguish how AI is trained vs. how a human artist is influenced by the music they grew up listening to. Lastly, if necessary, AI developers will come up with a new method for training.
"considering" was/is the main report in that article . Filing Lawsuit means little until fix LAW finally decided . So for now Everyone still can Create -create create...
the law is already there ai generated content has no copyright protection and is considered without a creator if autogenerated. The work created by a human through AI is that humans copyrighted materials to the extent they contributed to the creation of the music. The way AI companies are trying to do things is by forcing assignment if a human uses it so basically getting humans to create works that are somehow assigned to the company which again raises the whole issue with companies holding copyright at all considering the whole point of copyright is suppose to be to benefit artists and creators, not to have companies exercise an ability to restrict creation of art due to owning 100+ years of patterns. If AI were given some right of assignment to companies you could see how the pace of AI generation could quickly created a blanketing affect on creative license. Copyright has drifted too far from protecting artists to being a product for companies to use as a tool to restrict creation --- and that commercial interest of creators and artists have largely been usurped by corporations. I think it is fair reproduction rights mechanicals and distribution of created works could be commercially licensed.. but I don't think copyright protections should extend to commercial works to restrict derivatives, samples etc. unless they are somehow directly competing with the products being offered to have a legitimate commercial interest. The whole basis of IP is being used to much to restrict activity and commodify violating acts rather than legitimately protecting artists and creators to insure they benefit from their contributions. That said --- simply learning shouldn't be illegal period. If they have a basis on actual infringing acts or pirating music that is another matter, but I don't require a license to learn from someone elses music nor should AI.
I've messed about and put my lyrics and made songs and videos with AI, honestly though I think AI is hyped up so much, it's something I think that will have it's day just like MP4 players CD's we will get sick of it, in this field anyway.
I think AI generated music would continue to improve it is currently not as good as top tier music but it is improving rapidly. Sadly most listeners of music don't really listen to much good music cause the industry makes a lot of junk in addition to the 1% that is actual quality. A lot of it is just brand imaging and selling artists on people and the music is sort of just an attachment to the artist even if it is junk.
Doing this for love of it is why I can never imagine letting AI take the process of creating and writing music from me. If its gonna take that high of writing my own stuff from me, what's even tho point? Lol
I don't think there are laws in place to prevent training AI. It's similar to be inspired to others work but AI does it way better faster. New laws are needed to cover this hole.
Yes if it is so blanantly a failed lawsuit then you might question are they intentionally making it legally to imitate other peoples music so that they can then use their own databases and all the music online on sites they own part of like spotify to learn from that stuff without a need to pay people to use their music to make new music??? It does seem like a blantantly meritless lawsuit so has me wondering if they are intentionally launching a lawsuit to establish the legal frame work to copy unsigned artists works. Has me wonder if deezer was used to train models before they purged those 25 million songs from the database?
@@WilliamAshleyOnline I think the opposite, that they know it will lead nowhere but that it would lead to a discussion in media and online. Then that the discussion trigger a movement to change the laws. But we both agree that they want to make it clear what we are allowed to do and not.
Shout out you for being able to work out something with the BM. I had a similar schedule 3 weeks or so at a time. Shit worked out. They (twins) Seniors in high school and college bound. It wasn’t easy but me and their mom worked it out👍🔥💯
They want the pie and the oven.... its not about having a piece. This is just Napster 2.0 it is about dominating the emerging market by beating down all competition and mounting them and making them their own.
If I were to write a book, I'd use phrases and words used in countless publications I have read. I wouldn't expect to get sued for that. I see generative AI as doing exactly the same, be it audio or visual. They just do it a lot more efficiently than humans.
I just don't agree. Phrases and words from the publications aren't copyrighted. These songs are all copyrighted. Maybe I'll make a follow up video to this.
@@SumnSumnSumnHTK I'm afraid I have to rebuff that. If I were to write a book about Harry Potter, I'm sure both J.K.Rowling and Warner Bros. would have something to say to me in court. But I could use the same phrases and words as are in the works.
That's kind of a poor example my g. You can't make a Harry Potter book because the name and premise is copyrighted. You get sued. Just like the a.i. companies shouldn't be able to reuse melodies for people to profit. We absolutely shouldn't be defending people stealing other people's work. If that's cool then you shouldn't have a problem with someone walking into your house and stealing your TV.
@@SumnSumnSumnHTK Slightly different circumstances. The point I was trying to make is that AI produces music by referencing countless works of music. It is very granular. I absolutely don't agree in copying other people's works and benefiting financially from that. However, there are only so many note/chords/rhythms etc. Whatever we think, I do believe AI is here to stay. It's up to us humans to use it responsibly.
Humans also learn how to sing by singing existing songs. Humans learn how to play piano by training to play already established, copyright protected music. Humans cant then be sued for singing or playing their own original music, even though they trained by using someone elses music.
The difference is you release your own music not the music you practiced to get good. We don't know if a.i. is just remixing old works and allowing people to be paid off of remixes of other peoples work. That's the problem.
@SumnSumnSumnHTK that I totally agree with. I'm not at all in favor of AI companies being able to profit from stolen material, but so far AI devs claim their AI is generating new material and the lawsuits are solely based on training mechanisms. Either way, to me AI will never be able to do what I can do and that is to perform live, have discussion about why a songs lyrics are meaningful, the story behind them, etc. AI is a tool and I'm not for or against it. Let the best man/woman/machine win.
Here is the problem I see. Let's say the copyright holders win in court. They would either have to shut them down or they would have to pay a licensing fee for all copyright owners of everything on the internet. How much does each copyright holder get paid? What about the guy with one song on Spotify? Seems to be an almost impossible/ridiculous solution to sort out. The fair use argument seems to have some merit because you are creating something new, but that's for the courts to decide. I think it's going to come down to either shutting them down or they get to do what they want.
This is likely the case and is already the stance that udio has taken. You can use the music, commercial or otherwise, but not submit it for copyright so anyone else can use your udio generated song as they like. It's yours but it's not yours. I myself will continue to use FL Studio to create music (although I'm tempted to make an AI generated album, just to see what happens).
There is no multi-billion dollar companies or governement infrastructure around images. Even if there is no llgal standing at this point, these companies and thier investors are not going to sit back and let it happen.
@@ericgriffin120 yeah, that could be the case. Still, if their fight against file sharing is any indication, they might end up losing anyway and having to adopt the tech.
Generative AI is just extremely derivative sampling. It’s iterative, not creative. When a human makes music inspired by other songs, it’s creative but if it’s too close, humans get sued too. So when AI uses thousands of songs and sample the essence of all of them to make a song, it isn’t creative. It’s just a blender full of other songs.
I agree. I feel like a lot of people defend a.i. everything because they're too lazy to learn anything. How are we seriously defending not being creative in art? Its a wild time to be alive. 😆
Great overview as always! This Q Synth looks really promising. Exactly the thing I might need right now. Thank you so much for that hint. Marko from Estonia.
Great video! Good explanation. But how are you "not making music" with Unison plugins but then somehow "you ARE making music" by using your substitutes?
Clippers don’t squash your sounds they shave off peaks only squashing would be a limiter but I get what you’re trying to say keep up the great content King !
Im young as a producer and dont know much music theory so im looking for anything that can help me progress as quickly as possible. so of course i saw the bass dragon ad and the hair on the back of my neck stood up! i couldnt wait to get it and when i got paid i didnt hesitate to purchase it. i have only had it for about a month or so and i wish id seen your video before i bought it because its not anything like the ad. and im sitting there wondering "where are all these fire basslines i was promised?" the only way i can get a fire bassline out of it is to write them myself! i feel gypped! i will never fall for their ads again! there is no intelligence in this plugin artificial or otherwise! im tired of getting the same basslines over and over again!
