Suno argues that copying songs from the internet to train models is fair use

Record companies producing music with artificial intelligence sun ve Sharefiled a lawsuit against for copyright infringement. We conveyed it to you. Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) The lawsuits, filed in New York and Boston in coordination with , allege that both companies copied songs and recordings, often without permission from the record companies, and ultimately distributed similar versions. in court application, Suno, which admitted that it actually trained its artificial intelligence model using copyrighted songs, claimed that doing so was legal under the fair use doctrine.

According to the statements in the application; The tens of millions of records on which Suno’s model was trained likely include records whose rights belong to the Plaintiffs in this case. The same day the legal application is made Suno CEO and co-founder Mikey Shulmantried to explain the situation by publishing a blog post titled The Future of Music.

Stating that they trained their models on medium and high quality music they can find on the open internet, Shulman stated that most of the open internet actually contains copyrighted materials. Shulman stated that some of them belong to major record companies.

According to Shulman; Training an artificial intelligence model from data on the open internet is no different than a child writing his own rock songs after listening to the genre. Shulman uses the following statements on this subject:

“Learning is not a violation of rights. It never was and it is not now.”

The statement notes that under copyright law, it is fair use to make a copy of a protected work as part of a publicly invisible back-end technological process in the service of creating a new, ultimately non-infringing product.

The RIAA, for its part, interpreted Suno’s statement as a major concession to facts the company tried to hide for months, but admitted when forced by a lawsuit. Stating that the company’s industrial-scale violations cannot be described as ‘fair use’, the institution made the following statements in its statement:

There is nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, stripping it of its essential value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals.

The RIAA stated that their vision of the future of music points to a future where artists can no longer earn a living. According to the statement made by the spokesperson of the institution; Defendants had a ready legal path to bring their products and vehicles to market. And this; was to obtain permission before using his work, as many of his competitors had already done. However, the initiative did not choose this.

This case, which is currently in its early stages, actually concerns artificial intelligence initiatives. So that; The outcome of the case will affect the future of artificial intelligence initiatives.