Key Players:

• • RIAA: Trade group representing major record labels, advocates for artists’ rights and sues infringers on labels’ behalf.
  • Major Labels (Sony, Universal, Warner): Music giants who have invested in and promoted artists for decades, own vast catalogs of copyrighted sound recordings.
  • Suno: Founded by former Kensho execs in 2023, has over 10M users generating AI music, partnered with Microsoft. Valued at $500M.
  • Udio: Launched by ex-Googlers in 2024 backed by VCs and artists, touts 10 songs per second generation.

Why Labels Are Suing:

• • Labels allege Suno and Udio trained their AI models on copyrighted music without permission, payment or transparency.
  • Startups churning out song imitations at scale risks flooding market, devaluing human artists’ work, upending music ecosystem.
  • Industry wants AI firms to license music, compensate creators, share training data, not infringe or clone artists without consent.
  • Goal is responsible AI innovation centered on human artistry, not tech trampling rights for profit as music becomes “free for taking.”

Potential Stakes & Implications:

• • Damages: If Suno & Udio found liable, could owe up to $150K per infringed work, potentially millions in statutory damages alone.
  • Halting Unlicensed AI Music: Injunction could shut down or severely limit infringing AI music models and spur wave of licensing.
  • Precedent on AI Training: First major rulings on whether training AI on copyrighted music is fair use or infringement under law.
  • Chilling Effect on Music AI: Loss for Suno/Udio may deter investment, slow sector until clarity on legality/cost of training models.
  • Fueling Regulation: Cases may boost support for music industry proposals on governing AI to protect rights and spur Congress to act.

What Copying Was Allegedly Done:

• • Labels believe Suno/Udio copied “vast troves” of popular recordings to train AI to make “convincing imitations” of music.
  • “Scraped” song files from internet, “ingested” copies into AI models, processed data further for machine learning.
  • Targeted world’s “most commercially valuable” songs across genres, eras for maximum quality and variety in training data.
  • Ongoing infringement as AI constantly feeds on copyrighted material to improve and generate more songs for users.

How Labels Built Their Case:

• • Suno investor admitted “if they had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it.”
  • Udio execs said AI trained on “large amount of publicly-available, high-quality music” that’s the “best quality out there.”
  • Prompted AI with song details (lyrics, genre, year, etc.), generated soundalikes of specific hits – shows training on those tracks.
  • AI outputs include producer/artist “tags” only found in copyrighted recordings, like “CashMoneyAP” or Jason Derulo intros.
  • Udio dodged labels’ questions about copying, claimed training data “trade secrets” despite being “publicly available.”

Labels’ Arguments on Harms:

• • Competing with Human Artists: AI music meant to “entertain, evoke emotion, stoke passion” just like genuine songs, flooding market with bot art.
  • Interfering with Licensing: Why pay for music sync when you can spawn infinite free soundalikes, costing artists income?
  • Displacing the Original: Users may stream AI imitations that divert plays, dollars from real deal – every Suno song equals one not streamed on Spotify.
  • Degrading Artistry: Machines imitating music at scale “devalues,” “cheapens” human creativity and “risks overrunning” industry.
  • Undermining Incentives: Mass uncompensated copying of music to train AI “erodes” copyright’s purpose to reward innovation.

Business Model:

• • Both Suno and Udio offer free/low-cost tiers ($10-30/month), letting users spawn music with prompts or “seeds.”
  • Training better models requires expensive computing power, engineering talent, music data – funded by VC cash.
  • Suno valued at $500M after raising $125M; Udio has “millions” from Andreessen Horowitz, artists behind it.
  • Goal is to get massive user base hooked, then gradually charge more to to make/remix more songs as AI improves.
  • More songs made = more listens on streaming platforms and social media = more ads, subs, “virality” to propel growth.

The Rise of Music AI:

• • Recent breakthroughs in deep learning and music tech have enabled more lifelike AI music generation
  • VC money pouring in as firms see music/audio as untapped frontier vs. crowded text/image AI field, lower-hanging fruit
  • Popularity of apps like TikTok, explosion of user-generated content fueling demand for cheap, custom music clips
  • Aspiring artists using AI to spark ideas or create online content in hopes of getting discovered, but most streams go to AI
  • Some tech experts predict personalized AI music that matches your taste/mood will disrupt streaming within 5-10 years

Streaming’s Impact:

• • Music Data Troves: Millions of tracks on Spotify, Apple Music offer free, vast training data sets for AI if scraped
  • Plummeting Payouts: As catalogs grow and streams spread thinner, artists make less per stream, driving some to embrace AI
  • Genre Bias: Streaming algorithms favor pop, rap, viral hits while niche artists struggle – will AI learn the same skew?
  • Bot Potential: If streaming lets AI music flourish, bots could inflate plays, siphon royalties from humans if unchecked
  • Promotion Tool: Rising acts might use AI tracks to juice streams and “hack” discovery like some scammers do now

Why Fair Use Is Key:

• • If training AI on copyrighted music is “fair use,” could open floodgates to train on anything: books, code, films…
  • Suno, Udio likely to lean heavily into fair use as it’s a hazy doctrine still being shaped for AI era, could set precedent
  • Labels see fair use as a smokescreen – training AI clearly requires mass copying, Suno/Udio must know it’s infringement
  • Lawsuits will look to 4 fair use factors: 1) purpose of use, 2) nature of work, 3) amount used, 4) market harm
  • Expect a battle of expert witnesses and academics opining on whether AI training is more like creative remix or plagiarism

Pushing Back on Harm:

• • Suno, Udio may downplay risks to music industry, argue AI expands the pie vs. fighting over slices
  • Could frame tech as empowering creation, discovery, not replacing artists – a “tool” like drum machines or Auto-Tune
  • Might say AI music is a gateway drug to fandom – if you like the fake Drake, may stream the real one too
  • Expect examples of small artists gaining exposure via AI remixes or “seeds” as evidence of mutual benefit
  • Could even paint labels as Luddites holding back innovation that could make the music biz more accessible, equitable

The ‘Training’ vs. ‘Output’ Distinction:

• • Different Legal Standards: Even if training is fair use, AI music that copies original too closely could still infringe
  • Blurred Lines: Hard to draw bright line between learning “style” from copyrighted music and copying “substance”
  • How Much Is Too Much? Does AI cross line if it repros a few iconic notes, whole melodies, signature artist tics?
  • Human vs. Machine Ears: AI detects/imitates statistical patterns in music our brains don’t consciously perceive
  • Uncharted Legal Waters: No clear precedent on how traditional infringement tests apply to complex AI systems

Lobbying Battle Ahead:

• • Music groups like RIAA, NMPA want laws requiring AI firms to license training data, share outputs, limit artist voice cloning
  • Seeking “transparency” into AI catalogs, updates as terms of licenses; startups loathe to reveal “secret sauce”
  • Tech giants like Google, Microsoft back minimal AI music regs, warn over-regulation could “chill” innovation
  • Expect labels to push for EU-style “upload filter” that could auto-block potential AI infringement before it spreads

Industry Divide on AI:

• • Major labels investing in AI music startups, building own AI tools as they fight unlicensed training in court
  • Publishers wary of member artists, songwriters losing out to AI after finally getting more streaming revenue via MMA
  • Managers, lawyers split on AI as boon for finding talent or bane that could replace some non-star artist/writer clients
  • Tech-savvy artists embracing AI remixes, tools as avant-garde; others see inhuman threat to creativity and careers
  • Streaming services walking tightrope between label demands and flood of UGC, AI tracks that could boost engagement

Potential Legislative & Regulatory Moves:

• • Defining AI Authorship: Clarifying scope of machine-generated work copyrights or letting humans claim them
  • Harmonizing AI Training Rules: Standardizing permitted uses of copyrighted data to train AI across industries
  • Modernizing DMCA: Updating takedown rules, safe harbors for AI era where anyone can mass-generate potential infringement
  • Codifying AI Fair Use: Amending law to specify how fair use factors apply to key AI uses like training and outputs
  • New Disclosure Mandates: Making AI music services log and share training data and outputs with owners to spot infringement

Questions: Music AI Basics

• • 1. What does the “AI” in “AI music” typically refer to?
    • A) Artificial instruments
    • B) Analog integration
    • C) Automated improvisation
    • D) Artificial intelligence
  • 2. Which machine learning approach do most AI music generators use?
    • A) Deep learning neural networks
    • B) Evolutionary algorithms
    • C) Markov models
    • D) Rule-based expert systems
  • 3. What does it mean when an AI music model is “overfitted” to its training data?
    • A) It replicates the data too closely
    • B) It ignores the data completely
    • C) It learns the wrong patterns
    • D) It crashes from too much data
  • 4. Which of the following is an example of a music AI generating a derivative work?
    • A) Outputting a clip of white noise
    • B) Composing a random sequence of notes
    • C) Auto-tuning a human vocal take
    • D) Producing a track in the style of a famous song
  • 5. What is the primary goal of most commercial AI music startups?
    • A) To replace all human musicians
    • B) To help listeners discover new artists
    • C) To make music creation accessible to all
    • D) To automatically classify songs by genre

Answers: Music AI Basics

• • 1. D) AI music refers to music generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence algorithms and models.
  • 2. A) Most cutting-edge AI music generators use deep learning, a subset of machine learning that utilizes multi-layered neural networks.
  • 3. A) An overfitted AI model replicates its training data too closely, risking direct copying vs. learning abstract patterns.
  • 4. D) If an AI produces a track highly similar to copyrighted songs it was trained on, that could be considered a derivative work.
  • 5. C) Many AI music startups pitch their tech as democratizing tools that let anyone create and express themselves musically.

Questions: AI Copyright & Lawsuits

• • 1. What exclusive rights do copyright owners have that AI could potentially infringe?
    • A) Reproduction and derivative works
    • B) Public performance and display
    • C) Distribution and transmission
    • D) All of the above
  • 2. What is the key fair use factor that Suno and Udio may argue in their defense?
    • A) Amount and substantiality used
    • B) Effect on potential market
    • C) Purpose and character of use
    • D) Nature of copyrighted work
  • 3. Which music law was not written with AI considerations in mind?
    • A) Music Modernization Act
    • B) ASCAP consent decree
    • C) Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    • D) All of the above
  • 4. Which music AI company is not currently being sued by major labels?
    • A) Udio
    • B) Suno
    • C) Aiva
    • D) Endel
  • 5. What is the maximum statutory damages possible per infringed work?
    • A) $30,000
    • B) $150,000
    • C) $500,000
    • D) Unlimited

Answers: AI Copyright & Lawsuits

• • 1. D) Copyright holders have the exclusive right to make and permit reproductions, derivative works, distributions, public performances and displays.
  • 2. C) Suno and Udio argue their use of copyrighted music to train AI is “transformative” and thus fair use, but labels disagree.
  • 3. D) The MMA, DMCA and consent decrees all predate the current AI music boom, creating uncertainty over how the law applies.
  • 4. C) Aiva and Endel are AI music startups not currently facing lawsuits, but they’ve secured licenses from some major labels and publishers.
  • 5. B) If a court finds willful infringement, the max statutory damages are $150,000 per work infringed, even if actual damages are lower.

Disclaimer

The legal information provided in this article discussing the Suno and Udio AI music copyright lawsuits is for general informational purposes only. It is not intended as formal legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Laws and court cases involving artificial intelligence, machine learning and intellectual property are still developing, and how existing copyright frameworks apply to novel AI music tools remains unsettled. The RIAA lawsuits against Suno and Udio will be important test cases to watch, but their outcome and impact is not yet known.

For personalized legal guidance on navigating AI music and copyright issues, please consult an experienced intellectual property attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Most reputable law firms specializing in copyright and technology offer initial consultations to discuss your specific situation and legal needs.