Music industry takes artificial intelligence to court

Three key demands were made by Riaa to the courts: they ask for a declaration that the two services have infringed copyright; injunctions preventing the services from infringing the plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings in the future; and damages for infringements that have already occurred.

The claims concern recordings by artists of different genres, styles and eras.

"The music community has embraced AI and we are already working with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools, focused on human creativity, that put artists and songwriters in charge," said RIAA president and CEO Mitch Glazier. 'But we can only succeed if developers are willing to collaborate with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio, which claim it is 'OK' to copy an artist's life's work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or remuneration, delay the promise of truly innovative AI for all of us."

Ken Doroshow, Chief Legal Officer of the RIAA, added: "These are simple copyright infringement cases involving the unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a large scale. Suno and Udio are trying to hide the full extent of their violations instead of putting their services on a solid, legal footing. These lawsuits are necessary to strengthen the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical and legal development of generative artificial intelligence systems and to put an end to Suno and Udio's blatant infringement.

The two reported companies admitted that the only way to create a good music generation model is to ingest a large amount of high quality music. It is simply a necessary step to create such machine learning models. And they also said they did it without permission from the music labels, using the rather nebulous American principle of fair use, which by the way has no precise equivalent in Europe . Where therefore any lawsuits by copyright holders might have even greater force.

It is recalled that many large book and newspaper publishers (including the New York Times) and individual authors (of books and graphic products) have denounced the AI bigwigs, OpenAi in the lead.

It is unclear when the first sentences will be handed down and whether they will come; it is possible that some proceedings will end in plea bargains.

The music industry, however, according to some experts, has better cards to play to defend its interests. Both because of its greater economic strength to enforce in lawsuits, and because it would be easier to prove plagiarism in a musical environment than in a literary or journalistic one.

A victory for the music industry would put the current AI companies out of business and perhaps even set a useful precedent in ongoing lawsuits in other industries. But it could also foster the emergence of a healthier relationship between AI, the market and authors. It is a concept that also emerged at Medimex in June, in Taranto, at a table with representatives of Fimi, Sony, Siae and artists. And which also appears against the light in the Riaa complaint.

"AI is both promising and dangerous," it reads. "With the emergence of increasingly powerful and sophisticated AI tools, the ability of AI to insert itself into the processes of music creation, production and distribution is growing. If developed with the permission and participation of copyright holders, generative AI tools will be able to assist humans in the creation and production of new and innovative music." "But if developed irresponsibly, without regard for fundamental copyright protections, these same tools threaten lasting and irreparable harm to recording artists, record labels and the music industry, inevitably reducing the quality of new music available to consumers and diminishing our shared culture."

"Every new technology has been a valuable tool used by generations of music creators, and there is no reason why generative artificial intelligence should be any different," confirms Enzo Mazza, president of Fimi. 'However, artificial intelligence companies must obtain the necessary licences and compensate creators when they use their works for training. This is a cardinal principle of digital innovation and I don't see why it should be any different today with generative AI."

The benefits of a healthier relationship between AI, authors and industry, as mentioned at Medimex, can be numerous. Artists, authors, and publishers are already beginning to exploit the opportunities of AI (generative and non-generative) for the purposes of conception and creation, as well as to get to know their audience better (thanks to the analysis of big data on the consumption of their works).

Making the most of these advantages and healing the legal distortions that characterise this phase of AI are two sides of the same coin.