|
|
Post by GuitarAttack Forum on Sept 5, 2024 11:03:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by antares on Sept 6, 2024 2:11:01 GMT -6
Fascinating. It was AI generated so to some extent or another it wasn't direct plagiarism. It was *content* and the streaming services are set up to charge for downloading "songs" (whether you stream or save on a local fixed disk, it is all downloading.)
There is no insistence that the person actually has to listen to what he or she has paid for, so what difference does it make if the bots are not actually anthropomorphised? Spotify et-al have been paid (in the form of their rake-off) for the streaming they have facilitated. We know that if your track is streamed say 1000 times then the streaming services pay you something pathetic like 13 cents. Instinctively I smell a racket but I'm struggling to understand how this isn't simply egg on the faces of the extraordinarily profligate streaming services. They've had their cosy apple cart turned over and they don't like it.
Going forward, they will adjust their Ts 'n' Cs to prevent this recurring and carry on shafting sentient artists with bare faced and copper-bottomed hubris.
I think that unless money laundering offences are proven, suggestions of 20 year sentences are ridiculous and as usual the legal beagles will don their laughable wigs and have a field day arguing points of view. What I'm saying is that the alleged offences have little to do with the problem faced by true artists which is something that the streaming services are content to perpetuate as long as they keep hoovering up the cash. He was just playing them at their own game and they just didn't anticipate it. It's crocodile tears.
|
|
|
|
Post by dnic on Sept 7, 2024 10:01:58 GMT -6
This AI stuff is kind of weird. From the stand point of people with no actual artistic talent for music or art or literature. Just put an idea into the AI program and then claim what ever comes out as theirs. IDK maybe over simplifying the process. I wonder if the politicians are using this to write their speeches yet?
I'm stumped on how this money laundering. Outright fraud yes and some copyright stuff if they were using someone else's work. I'm up for an explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by antares on Sept 10, 2024 1:34:42 GMT -6
We shouldn't conflate the actual AI generated content with what he then went on to do with it. The morals or otherwise of AI is for another discussion. I can't see what difference it makes whether the accounts were fake or not *for the purposes of streaming* in this case.
What I have distinct reservations about is that he used stolen personal data in the form of eMail addresses to create those accounts (so he facilitated creation of those accounts by exploiting that stolen data) but I didn't see that on the charge sheet.
I have issues with what he did first because I wonder how those accounts actually funded their "listening" (you have to pay to stream don't you?), secondly because of the privacy issue for the genuine holders of those appropriated eMail addresses, and thirdly because of the basic legal nature of buying and selling any personal data without the IP owners' knowledge, far less their permission, even though corporations do it routinely by burying acceptance clauses deep down in the terms and conditions that we routinely accept without reading.
None of the foregoing has anything to do with the moral discussion about AI. Nor is it related to the questionable nature of the level of remuneration paid out to ordinary uploaders for subsequently streamed downloads of their content. Once you open that can of worms you go down Dane's rabbit hole. For example, YouTube (that is a streaming service) serving up advertisements when your account is not monetised and you then dare to view your own uploaded content.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuitarAttack Forum on Sept 11, 2024 8:47:58 GMT -6
I'm guessing that if this guy figured it out, a bunch of other people are doing the same thing! It is amazing how resourceful criminals can be.
Concerning payment on Spotify, you can sign up for Spotify Free without a credit card. I guess that Spotify covers the cost of all of those streams because they figure (rightly or wrongly) that the Freeloader will finally pay up lol.
It would be interesting to see how many of their accounts are really bots operating out of a Bot Farm in some cellar (or pristine data center) somewhere. I do know it is possible to buy likes and followers for the various socials.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by stratpurist on Sept 14, 2024 10:04:24 GMT -6
My reaction to elaborate criminal schemes like this is--imagine if they used their talent and energy for good.
Meanwhile, I have to be curious to hear some of the AI created music.
It occurs to me that there is this continuum starting with recording live in studio to multi tracking to using ProTools tweaking every note to perfection (i.e., Steve Winwood's first solo effort) to autotuned performances and now AI generated music.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuitarAttack Forum on Sept 25, 2024 11:52:02 GMT -6
I recently heard an AI-generated Justin Bieber song on X. I couldn't believe how great it sounded (if you are a Bieber fan) and it would probably fool just about everybody.
I believe your assessment of the continuum is correct - Mary Ford's stacked/overdubbed vocals on "How High the Moon" was really groundbreaking back in 1951, and the cut and paste style of recording now is a direct descendant of that. Along with that, Les Paul and Mary Ford played live gigs using tape "backing tracks" before anyone else...kind of like the pop stars we see now!
My concern about AI is that it is the next revolution and that there is a real possibility that musicians won't be necessary for making music!
I'll be here with my guitar...
John
|
|
|
|
Post by antares on Sept 27, 2024 8:51:07 GMT -6
The lemmings (and they are legion) who either don't care or wouldn't notice the distinction whatever you pour down their throats are not your target audiences anyway John.
But I share your concerns.
|
|
