“Suno’s training data includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet.”

“Rather than trying to argue that Suno was not trained on copyrighted songs, the company is instead making a Fair Use argument to say that the law should allow for AI training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation.”

Archived (also bypass paywall): https://archive.ph/ivTGs

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You know art / art history is a subject of study at the majority of universities?

    Yep, and I think that’s great! Learning to make and appreciate art should be something everyone has a chance to do. Those programs at universities are great for learning principles of art. They teach you the “rules”. However, once you leave that class, you don’t have to follow any of those rules if you don’t want to. Learning the rules is great because then you know where you can break them.

    I like a lot of music that most people would despise. I am very glad that there are artists that are willing to make such music, even though the masses will not appreciate it.

    example: https://carlstone.bandcamp.com/track/sumiya

    Art is simply not a free-for-all concept where everything produced is equal, that is only what bad artists want to believe.

    I do feel that art is indeed a free-for-all. Anyone can create it, anyone can view it. Art means different things to different people and therefore it’s not productive to put certain art above other pieces of art. Even if 1000 people think a painting is horrible looking, if 1 person enjoys it, it was still worth creating that piece

    Good art is relevant, bad art is irrelevant.

    There is tons of good art that is “irrelevant”. Ever taken a stroll through Bandcamp? There is so much music there that maybe only 100 people have listened to, even if its gorgeous sounding. Relevance doesn’t have anything to do with quality.