RIAA Takes on Suno and Udio: AI Copyright Clash

Unpacking the Core of the Dispute

‍

At the center of this storm is the claim that Suno and Udio have swiped and ingested huge amounts of copyrighted music to train their AI systems. The RIAA, which represents big guns like Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, argues that this practice is a blatant violation of copyright laws on a mind-blowing scale.

Udio insists their system is "explicitly designed to create music reflecting new musical ideas" and that they are "completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set." Other AI music firms contend that the rapid pace of innovation leaves no room for ethical deliberations, viewing such pauses as an unaffordable indulgence.

   
‍

The Stakes

‍

The RIAA isn't playing around—they're seeking declaratory judgments to confirm the infringement, injunctions to stop further unauthorized use of copyrighted material, and a hefty sum in damages. They're gunning for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed work, which could rack up to billions of dollars given the alleged scale of the infringement.

‍

RIAA Defends Their Turf

‍

The Act also proposes that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, and tech companies should ensure that their systems are designed in a way that prevents them from infringing on copyright laws. Here's the kicker: AI companies now have to check themselves before deciding to train their models on copy-written material without permission. By putting their cards on the table about their training data, it helps music creators figure out if their work's being used without permission in AI tunes.

‍

RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier:

“... we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”

‍

The cases seek:

• (1) declarations that the two services infringed plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings;
• (2) injunctions barring the services from infringing plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings in the future; and
• (3) damages for the infringements that have already occurred.

‍

RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow added:

“These lawsuits are necessary to reinforce the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical, and lawful development of generative AI systems and to bring Suno’s and Udio’s blatant infringement to an end.”

‍

SUNO & Udio Step Up

‍

Suno and Udio have called in the heavy hitters from Latham & Watkins to rep them in this legal throwdown. While specific details of their legal strategy have not been made public, it's likely that Suno and Udio will rely on the fair use doctrine of copyright law as a key part of their defense. This principle has been used by AI companies to argue that the 'intermediate' use of numerous works to train AI models that produce entirely new content falls under fair use.

‍

Suno's CEO Mikey Shulman:

"Our technology is engineered to produce original content and not replicate existing material. We're disappointed that despite our efforts to clarify this to the labels, they've resorted to legal action rather than engaging in a constructive conversation."

‍

Defending AI companies in copyright beefs: Andrew Gass, Steve Feldman, Sy Damle, Britt Lovejoy, and Nate Taylor are a dream team, ready to go hard in the paint for Suno and Udio.

‍

Udio has responded to the RIAA's lawsuit through a blog post, though they didn't explicitly mention the litigation. Here are the key points from their statement:

• Udio claims their AI model "listens" to existing recordings rather than copying them directly. They stated: "Just as students listen to music and study scores, our model has 'listened' to and learned from a large collection of recorded music."
• They emphasize that their goal is to "develop an understanding of musical ideas - the basic building blocks of musical expression that are owned by no one."
• They position themselves as champions of artists, stating: "We know that many musicians - especially the next generation - are eager to use AI in their creative workflows."
• Udio draws parallels between AI and past disruptive music technologies like synthesizers and drum machines, suggesting that AI will ultimately benefit the music industry.

‍

The AI Music Scene: A High-Stakes Rap Battle

‍

Tech companies are engaged in a fierce competition reminiscent of the early days of the digital music revolution. The pace of development is breakneck, with new models and features being released at an astonishing rate trying to outdo each other with every release.

But here's the rub - taking time to address all these copyright and transparency concerns? That's like stopping mid-verse to check your rhyme dictionary. The pressing issues of copyright infringement and lack of transparency are often sidelined in the rush to be first to market. These AI firms are essentially gambling that the rewards of being industry leaders will outweigh the potential legal and ethical pitfalls.

Antonio Rodriguez, an early investor in Suno said:

"Honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn't have invested in it. I think they needed to make this product without the constraints."

‍

‍

How Could This Play With the EU AI ACT?

‍

Its possible Suno and Udio's practices may violate the EU AI Act, especially on transparency and copyright. Here’s why:

• The EU AI Act stresses transparency: Udio's vague claim of their model learning from "a large collection of recorded music" without clear sources or permissions may violate these provisions, especially for copyrighted music.
• Disclosure requirements: The Act requires AI companies to disclose their training data sources. The RIAA's statement that Suno "refuses to address the fact that its service has literally been caught on tape... memorizing and regurgitating the art made by humans" suggests a lack of transparency that could violate the Act's disclosure provisions.
• Potential fines: If found in violation, these companies could face significant fines under the Act, up to €35 million or 7% of global yearly turnover for larger companies.
• Risk categorization: While the Act doesn't explicitly categorize music or generative audio models, AI systems that potentially infringe on fundamental rights (including copyright) could be classified as high-risk, subjecting them to stricter regulations.

‍

The Ripple Effect

‍

The outcome of these lawsuits could send shockwaves through the AI industry and its intersection with creative arts. A win for the RIAA could set new ground rules for how AI companies develop and use their models, potentially rewriting the playbook for AI-generated content across various sectors. This case really highlights the need for ethical AI in music, ensuring that artist rights are respected and that AI innovations do not come at the cost of copyright infringement.

‍

Who Gets the Cash?

‍

Who stands to gain from any potential compensation? While the RIAA is fighting the good fight for major record labels, it's unclear if songwriters, artists, and music publishers will see any of that money. The resolution of this lawsuit could pave the way for a more inclusive model in the AI era.

‍

‍

Looking Ahead

‍

‍As these cases unfold, both the music industry and the tech world are on the edge of their seats. The final verdict could significantly shape the future of AI in creative fields, possibly leading to new licensing models, tighter regulations on AI training data, or even a new understanding of copyright in the age of AI. The role of music dataset licensing will become increasingly crucial, as it will determine how AI models are trained in an ethical and legal manner.

Whatever happens, these lawsuits are a major crossroads in the ongoing dance between tech innovation and artistic rights. The music industry’s response to AI technologies will be crucial in determining whether AI becomes a tool for innovation or a battleground for copyright wars. The stakes are sky-high, and the outcomes will echo across the industry and beyond.

‍

Conclusion

‍

‍As AI continues to revolutionize music creation and consumption, this landmark battle between the RIAA and AI music companies Suno and Udio could set the tone for the future of AI in the creative arts. Defining how tech innovation can coexist with artist rights and AI in our digital age will be essential. The resolution of this case could pave the way for new standards in ethical AI in music, ensuring that artists' rights are protected while allowing for technological advancements.

‍

View/download the original filed complaints from the RIAA site:

Original Suno complaint link

Original Udio complaint link

‍

See the RIAA Press Release:

ORIGINAL RIAA PRESS RELEASE 6/24/24

‍

Read Udio's blog post referenced:

https://www.udio.com/blog/ai-and-the-future-of-music

‍