Majors sue AI

[Iron Keys]

Are we living in Westworld?

Major Labels Sue AI Firms Suno and Udio for Alleged Copyright Infringement

A major label lawsuit spearheaded by the RIAA targets AI firms Suno and Udio for alleged copyright infringement.

www.billboard.com

 

[Fade]

Oh no! Major labels are worried their artists will lose money!

It kills me when I see the labels argue about copyright like as if they're looking out for the artists. Both the labels and AI need to die.

 

[OGBama]

It's @Fade a double edged sword: "majors" used to be somewhat good (depending on the type of contract an artist's attorney drew up, which 9 times out of 10 ain't in favor of the artist) as they gave you contacts, promo, artist development etc, in exchange for ownership aka them owning your "masters" but nowadays? Fuck 'em unless one is trying to be a "pop star."

 

[Dusty B]

This is good; 2 big things that bring limited benefit to society fighting each other. It could be a suggestion that both have plateud so now the MBAs are running wild with the lawyers in attempt to figure out how to use the systems they are playing in to get more market share. When King Kong feels the need to fight Godzilla, the rest of the world watches as they take a beating. That gives others an opportunity to rise up and take their market share while the titans waste time/money fighting instead of creating.

 

[Iron Keys]

in exchange for ownership aka them owning your "masters"

Even indies would own your masters.
I guess there are cases where that's not the case. But generally they need to do that to make it make sense.

Otherwise they're literally paying millions to make promote you and your music for no return? Lol. Crazy.

Big labels mostly make losses on artists, they only generally make it back when they get those one few artists who break big.

 

[OGBama]

I @Iron Keys get that labels because they finance an artist’s and artists albums via “record deals” that they are to own the masters but the time of ownership before the artists get it back is what used to trip me out, e.g. 25-30 years like an artist wants to wait shit out that long as if he or she ain’t gonna die.

 

[2GooD Productions]

I @Iron Keys get that labels because they finance an artist’s and artists albums via “record deals” that they are to own the masters but the time of ownership before the artists get it back is what used to trip me out, e.g. 25-30 years like an artist wants to wait shit out that long as if he or she ain’t gonna die.

Every contract is negotiable, before signing.

 

[Iron Keys]

I @Iron Keys get that labels because they finance an artist’s and artists albums via “record deals” that they are to own the masters but the time of ownership before the artists get it back is what used to trip me out, e.g. 25-30 years like an artist wants to wait shit out that long as if he or she ain’t gonna die.

Yeah but my point still stands, reason they (labels) do that is to protect their interests and to make money - they're a business, not a charity.

You read and research a bunch of stuff so I'd be surprised if you don't already know, but there's a bunch of stuff in record deals which to anyone would sound absolutely shocking and absurd, and you wouldn't want to sign them, however, those aspects just being very standard and somewhat needed for the label to actually do what they need to.

If Artists owned their masters, as you're proposing, scenario looks like this; record label forks out tens of millions of $ on artist to develop, record, mix, master, manufacture, release, promote etc etc... then just gives the masters to the artists, to take and release elsewhere/on their own? Where the label getting their money from??? The label gets money from the sale of and exploitation* of (*exploitation not in the negative sense) the recorded material (the "masters"). If they do not own the rights to those masters, they are unable to do this (unless the artist granted exclusive license to the label to do so... which why would they then?).

Do you know, even as an independent artist (unless things have changed), you need a license to get your own stuff mastered/distributed (not sure how it works in regards to online distribution now, like i said, things may have changed). But you used to need a license, I cant remember what called like a 'no license license' or something weird, to reproduce your own material.

Gotta stop looking at all big music things as 'the evil enemy', even tho there is some undesirable stuff, a lot of it functions as it does out of a need to do so.

 

[OGBama]

Gotta stop looking at all big music things as 'the evil enemy

That’s my cynical side outing itself. Watching @Dusty B rant on YT takes the edge off!

 

[Dusty B]

Every contract is negotiable, before signing.

Yes/No. I haven't been in the music biz but from a corporate perspective, when you're the "young new" sure there is as aspect of being rebellious and innovative, but at the end of the day you don't have leverage (not until you do...). first few gigs you usually have to eat shit

 

[2GooD Productions]

Yes/No. I haven't been in the music biz but from a corporate perspective, when you're the "young new" sure there is as aspect of being rebellious and innovative, but at the end of the day you don't have leverage (not until you do...). first few gigs you usually have to eat shit

That when naive young fools full of ambition but lacking in reason end up signing shitty deals. Then blame the labels for the shitty deal that they weren't forced to sign.

 

[Iron Keys]

Yes/No. I haven't been in the music biz but from a corporate perspective, when you're the "young new" sure there is as aspect of being rebellious and innovative, but at the end of the day you don't have leverage (not until you do...). first few gigs you usually have to eat shit

Not entirely true.

Yes, with less leverage you'll have less room to make really sweet a deal...

However...

There are a tonne of unreasonable things in record contracts, that do not need to be there, and labels would have no issue in changing/removing it because they know it's absolutely unfair and unneeded. However it's thrown in there for the overeager unknowing artist to not read, not know, and sign away.

Also why it's very important to have a music lawyer, because they will have more experience knowledge and awareness of this vs a normal lawyer.

Such things could be; exclusive rights to your image, down to you being responsible for the cost of damaged product in transit (ie if your CDs get damaged on the way to the store ( a little archaic now I know), then that comes out of your net income). Both of these things being unreasonable and not needed, they absolutely wouldn't question taking them out of the contract, but if you happily sign it, hey ho.