Headline should read "Tidal will not pay royalties to AI music"
arjie 4 hours ago||
Cool stuff. I love AI music. Listen to it all day while writing code or whatever. Most of the time it’s the outrun or vaporwave like 1 hr playlists on YouTube and then I have a few Suno songs I’m fond of when I feel a specific mood strike me.
It’s pretty cool technology. You just ask for a certain feeling to be evoked and you can have it done. Magical.
pbronez 4 hours ago|
Same, although I prefer Endel. It’s a paid subscription, but their objective-focused playlists work really well for me. Relax, Focus, Deep Focus… very effective.
cush 6 hours ago||
This is so surprising coming from Tidal - their entire business was built on high-fidelity, crediting artists, and paying them more
recursive 3 hours ago|
It seems consistent to me. I'm not sure if suno represents the state of the art, but the output I've heard from there seems to be noticeably lower fidelity than a skilled amateur recording. In many cases, it's still more than good enough. But Tidal advertises things like "lossless", which is a much higher fidelity threshold than anything suno can produce, at least that I've heard. Crediting artists might be taken to mean crediting human artists whose creative output is represented by the music. Sending royalties to "AI musicians" displaces some of those potential payments.
cush 2 hours ago||
I suppose. To me, Tidal was always on the side of artists rather than big faceless studios. Now there's an even bigger, even more faceless entity - and it's surprising to me that Tidal is giving them a platform rather than blocking it entirely
waffletower 2 hours ago||
Given that Tidal will likely, and ironically, utilize AI to determine what music is considered AI, the decision to block monetization of AI categorized music is likely also unfair to artists who use spectral DSP and/or sample from AI generated sources though largely compose music in a manner similar to other common computer mediated music studio workflows. Such music may very well land in the realm of false positives. This is another step by streaming platforms which funnels and restricts musical creativity.
Grombobulous 6 hours ago||
The policy seems a lot more reasonable than the straight up dystopian scam that Spotify runs, but I am surprised that there isn’t any streaming service that’s marketing heavy on “no AI allowed” considering the percentage of people who are against AI. Seems like small players like Tidal could make some headway with marketing like that.
6thbit 5 hours ago||
Isn’t it subjective what “substantially” may mean to them.
If you use ai tools not for full generation of a song but perhaps a bass track would they allow monetizing?
PierceJoy 5 hours ago||
I have serious doubts that their detection will be good enough, especially in cases where it's not 100% AI generated. The EDM and hip hop genres relies heavily on samples, and I guarantee all the sample services all being pumped full of AI generated creations. Many artists using the sample won't even know they using things that are AI generated.
poppafuze 5 hours ago||
Tidal has declared that AI music will now be more profitable to them .
romanovcode 3 hours ago||
> Tidal will accept AI-generated music.
Okey, that's all I needed to know. They could just put this one sentence in the doc and be done with it.
RFC 3514 is being repurposed as an "AI Bit", all AI-generated content will be required to set this bit during transfers.
swingboy 6 hours ago|||
How is this enforceable?
jdiff 6 hours ago||
That's the joke of RFC 3514. Setting the evil bit of a packet to 0 means it is harmless and no defensive action should be taken. Secure systems should defend against packets with the evil bit set to 1. Insecure systems may choose to crash, be penetrated, etc.