this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
401 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

83963 readers
3368 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org -4 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

There are also good reasons for people to use AI music. If you just want some music as background in a video you want to post somewhere, that totally is a legal nightmare here where I live. If you're some small business, that is even more nightmarish. Licensing songs is expensive and hard to do, so just generating some ok tune is the best way forward

[–] FG_3479@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

There are music libraries dedicated to that like the YT Audio Library for YouTube.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think people should be very careful about how dependent they become on such things, because inevitably if adoption ever does creep up the spike in prices of accessing those models is going to be astronomically more than having some jingle writer slap something together. Right now they're desperate for adoption but those servers aren't free to run. If they're ever going to turn a profit the fees for accessing these tools are going to be orders of magnitude more than any small business owner can afford, and by then, there won't be any aspiring new artists to take a cash job; they'll have either starved to death or moved on. You're basically Wille E. Coyote-ing yourself off an advertising cliff using AI like that, and same for other similar uses.

And the sooner this happens, the better.

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Music doesn't stay under copywrite, forever. You could use anything that's aged out of copywrite, too. And then you, as a business won't alienate people who choose not to consume ai for ethical reasons.

[–] RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca 1 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago)

Music recorded before 1923 has a distinct vibe to it that most businesses probably dont want

Especially since thats before the microphone so its all acoustically recorded

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

I hear that, but it really depends on the service and prompt (including services' internal prompt that is hidden) and result, which are many times black boxes.

I personally think artists & labels will have a tough time proving infringement for non-infringing outputs based purely on training data. But there's really no way of being sure that the "generated" and "uncopyrightable" AI track that's distilled from unlicensed source music is not itself infringing as a pure substantial similarity (or whatever your locality's infringement legal test is) question.