A Modern Tribute to Dire Straits – AI Creates an Original Track with Knopfler’s

[Chris W]

I agree with you 100%, mate. My point is it’s inevitable, there’s no stopping it.

Nothing in life is 'inevitable'.
We are learning over time how factory farming is damaging to the environment and to our health. So farmer's markets and organics have emerged.
In Italy and France (just for example), they have retained the buy locally grown, eat meals cooked from scratch lifestyle and their citizens live many years longer than the British and Americans.
So my point is, don't ignore the threat to the arts of AI. If you value human creativity, don't just roll over and accept what you are given by the tech industry. Support human made art and don't publicise the AI version, even if it's just to laugh at it.
I don't use streaming at all and I almost always buy my music from the artist themselves, contributing to their financial survival.If you are passive, you lose what you cherish.

[Eddie Fox]

Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.

https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00

[Rolo]

Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.

https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00

Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.

Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?

Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.

[Chris W]

Having said that, real music was doomed before AI.

So negative.
Real music is still around, in quite plentiful supply actually.
We're talking about tech training AI to replace real artists. Which is happening, but far from complete at this time.

[Eddie Fox]

Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.

https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00

Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.

Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?

Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.

That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.

[Rolo]

Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.

https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00

Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.

Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?

Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.

That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.

Dear Eddie,

Brazilian funk is, as you well know, a product of ghetto culture. It's not shit culture, it's culture whether you like it or not. It is, in part, a reflection of people's lives. Some of this culture is maximized for shock value. And this "despicable" effect you feel is part of the product itself. The fact that it's not recorded by real musicians doesn't change the final product at all. If that were the case, electronic music would just be a scam.

The so-called quality education you speak of, in the format you imagine, wouldn't affect the culture and its subcultures in any way. And don't tell me that things were better during the military era, or our conversation will end here.

Sertaneja music (mainstream) is indeed money laundering. If several small towns with barely any tax revenue can afford to pay $200,000 for a concert in a public square, don't tell me that's not money laundering.

Similarly, MC shows that cost thousands of Brazilian Reais, where there's clearly no return from the client, are very common, and everyone fulfills their "role."
Not to mention the artists "sponsored" by evangelical churches.

More simply, people are exposed to the products of this money laundering (which must be extremely high) and consume it all.

If you don't like it, do as Chris recommends. Don't spread the word.

There are people who don't understand what Brazil is like and advocate an impossible radicalization without any basis.

Even if there were the "application of this quality education" you speak of, what you attacked would never die. Not even if it were shot.

Just don't consume it and enjoy good music.

[Eddie Fox]

Of course many things in life are inevitable, death being one of them. Having said that, real music was doomed before AI. Check the link below, that’s probably the most popular ‘artist’ in Brazil at the moment.

https://youtu.be/yx_yQuQjOIo?si=W2riYP1Wn6fH3v00

Come on, Eddie.
I am sorry, but don't be naive.
Brazilian Funk and Sertanejo are money laundering mainly from huge pecuarists (aka Agro) and organized crime.

Did you ever knew how much countryside cities pays for a Sertanejo concert?

Those artists are "popular" because money and exposition. People eat shit because it is trend.

That was a funny one… most Brazilians like shitty music because we have one of the very worst educational systems in the world. Ignorant people consume shallow music, period. Do I like sertanejo? Hell I do not, but at least those songs are recorded and played live by professional musicians. Can’t say the same about rap and hip hop. Now saying the ‘agro’ (those evil capitalists 🤡) uses sertanejo artists for money laundering is a very naive statement. Is it the same in the US with country music? That’s simply the local culture, either you like it or not. Now are Rio and São Paulo rap scenes linked to drug trafficking? Most likely, but sadly people truly like it. I just hope you’re not implying that the agro and drug cartels are the same, that would be extremely disturbing.

Dear Eddie,

Brazilian funk is, as you well know, a product of ghetto culture. It's not shit culture, it's culture whether you like it or not. It is, in part, a reflection of people's lives. Some of this culture is maximized for shock value. And this "despicable" effect you feel is part of the product itself. The fact that it's not recorded by real musicians doesn't change the final product at all. If that were the case, electronic music would just be a scam.

The so-called quality education you speak of, in the format you imagine, wouldn't affect the culture and its subcultures in any way. And don't tell me that things were better during the military era, or our conversation will end here.

Sertaneja music (mainstream) is indeed money laundering. If several small towns with barely any tax revenue can afford to pay $200,000 for a concert in a public square, don't tell me that's not money laundering.

Similarly, MC shows that cost thousands of Brazilian Reais, where there's clearly no return from the client, are very common, and everyone fulfills their "role."
Not to mention the artists "sponsored" by evangelical churches.

More simply, people are exposed to the products of this money laundering (which must be extremely high) and consume it all.

If you don't like it, do as Chris recommends. Don't spread the word.

There are people who don't understand what Brazil is like and advocate an impossible radicalization without any basis.

Even if there were the "application of this quality education" you speak of, what you attacked would never die. Not even if it were shot.

Just don't consume it and enjoy good music.

Jesus Christ… ok, mate. We better move on.

[Ingrained]

I agree with you 100%, mate. My point is it’s inevitable, there’s no stopping it.

Nothing in life is 'inevitable'.
We are learning over time how factory farming is damaging to the environment and to our health. So farmer's markets and organics have emerged.
In Italy and France (just for example), they have retained the buy locally grown, eat meals cooked from scratch lifestyle and their citizens live many years longer than the British and Americans.
So my point is, don't ignore the threat to the arts of AI. If you value human creativity, don't just roll over and accept what you are given by the tech industry. Support human made art and don't publicise the AI version, even if it's just to laugh at it.
I don't use streaming at all and I almost always buy my music from the artist themselves, contributing to their financial survival.If you are passive, you lose what you cherish.

Ok, long post, I’m sorry.

I think some people are lumping all creatives in together. To generalise, in the creative industries you have two kinds, creatives who are paid to “supply” something or a service, and then you have the creatives that create a one off, totally unique piece or body of work, usually also the one’s hiring or paying the suppliers. Imagine creating something of your own that is totally unique, possibly spending years on it and then having AI use it or copy it “closely”, and you have no financial gain from it.

These things are supposedly being discussed by governments (UK) and particularly groups that represent artists and creatives with regard to how laws can be agreed on how creators can be protected in future. It’s not like everybody in the industry is just saying “AI is inevitable” and just rolling over. They know it is inevitable but are trying to plan ahead. People are looking into how to protect artists with regard to licensing and copyright. Past works and future. It’s complicated because there are so many unknowns to plan for and so many moving parts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/creative-and-ai-sectors-kick-off-next-steps-in-finding-solutions-to-ai-and-copyright

UK Music

https://www.ukmusic.org/news/what-will-the-governments-proposed-changes-to-the-rules-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-mean-for-the-uk-music-industry/

So, with this in mind, does Mark get a royalty from that AI interpretation of BIA? To think George Harrison was taken through the courts for My Sweet Lord, I’m sure it would be easy to argue the case that the AI 1960’s BIA album owes credit to Mark and/or the publisher. “Someone” must be making some money from it, whether it’s Youtube or the uploader, as Macca has also mentioned in an interview. If it was a band of real people that produced that instead of AI, surely the band would have to pay publishing to Mark for use of the songs. Does he get a cut of the Youtube monetisation? The idea that a few chords are different wouldn’t hold up in a legal situation, I’m sure. Hence people are franticly working on the laws and protection now. It’s not just an “inevitability”. It’s making sure AI has laws in place to give artists a way to push back at least, even if it may be a David and Goliath scenario. I wish people wouldn’t give up so easily. Whether AI will become overwhelmingly huge or not, it’s also about whether the real artist can have at least some protection, from those companies that run the AI essentially.

In short, for me it’s whether Mark should be getting royalties for that AI cover of BIA (in theory). Not whether it is any “good” or not. And to give some idea of perspective, as successful as Mark is, he would probably be the little guy in a few years time compared to the tech companies.

[Chris W]

Good post.
Although many of the famous artists pushing back against AI are not asking for a royalty. They are already extremely wealthy. They are motivated by protecting younger up and coming artists. The threat here is the overwhelming of human creativity by AI because tech doesn't want to pay people.
The threat isn't Mark missing out on a few thousand pounds in royalties. Famous and wealthy artists are asking that their work not be used to train AI WITHOUT their expressed permission. With the implication that they would probably not give permission.

[dustyvalentino]

In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.

I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!

It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...

[Chris W]

Tech companies largely play fast and loose with copyright. It's how Youtube and Spotify got their start.
The traditional media companies eventually got tough with Youtube and yes, they've developed software tools to identify copyright infringement.
This is really about governments worldwide being asked to waive copyright so AI can be trained. All governments, especially China,  the UK and USA, want to be global leaders in AI technology, so they have ignored the pleas of the creative community and passed legislation to allow tech companies to use anything they want to that has been published.

[JF]

In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.

I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!

It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...

yes same for me when I uplaod stuff fom jams I played on, or covers with my bands
the funny thing is that YT associates it often with specific live versions, from a specific date (bootleg)

[Ingrained]

Good post.
Although many of the famous artists pushing back against AI are not asking for a royalty. They are already extremely wealthy. They are motivated by protecting younger up and coming artists. The threat here is the overwhelming of human creativity by AI because tech doesn't want to pay people.
The threat isn't Mark missing out on a few thousand pounds in royalties. Famous and wealthy artists are asking that their work not be used to train AI WITHOUT their expressed permission. With the implication that they would probably not give permission.

Sorry Chris, I was a bit vague there. To question the royalties was almost a rhetorical question, just to highlight how unprotected things could be without updated copyright laws. Copyright should obviously apply to rich or poor. If they can afford the legal bills of course, which is why I also alluded to even Mark possibly being the little guy compared to the tech companies in future. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Mark or Paul needed the royalties. I raised the royalties question to simply highlight who actually owned the copyright or intellectual property, or if there was an infringement. If it is Mark’s intellectual property then consequently he should be part of any financial gains. The royalties are a consequence of having laws and copyright that has been fought for and put in place by people over the years. Without the right new laws in place to protect creators from AI there would be no royalties or payback, and also therefore possibly no recognition of ownership of intellectual property, or infringement either. So the royalties and copyright are linked in that way, and an indication that the work belongs to someone, at least in my mind.

I get that you are talking about how AI is taking all our data without real consent. I’m not sure that could ever be stopped to some extent now, is it not too late already to “ask” the tech companies to stop? I’m thinking what can be done in real world terms to protect artists downstream. If not copyright and law, what else? The government and tech companies may have some people that are maybe not even not the kind of people that really appreciate art in a way, or understand the creative process like some creators may. Some of them may not even mind the idea of living in a world without many (new) creators. Surely you have to work on the laws, not the feelings of some ministers. They may also just be focused on the net worth of the UK creative sector in reality.

As these different artists and creators are trying to argue their case to the UK government for protection for creators, I think it's worth remembering that the government is presumably wanting to use AI services from these tech companies for all sorts of things, healthcare, defence, agriculture, crime etc. And so if we imagine a negotiating table, where does the artist sit in terms of priorities when negotiating laws and deals with these tech companies that the government want all this other stuff from? Hopefully the government ministers clearly treat the creative sector separately from any new deals they are foreseeing in other sectors in an unbiased way. I worry that it could be easy for the ministers to be blinded or swayed by this idea that AI is going to help solve a lot of their problems in other sectors, and so they inadvertently throw the creative industry under the bus, whilst failing to picture a future with possibly not many real creators.

[Ingrained]

In my admittedly limited experience of uploading stuff to youtube, their software is VERY good at picking up even the slightest bit of copyrighted material.

I once made an unlisted video of me playing Country Roads on an acoustic guitar to show my bandmates the chords we would be using and youtube recognised the track and copyrighted it!

It also recognised MK at Boothbay when I used part of the bootleg for a video I uploaded, even though that's never been released...

Interesting. But are we too rely on the Youtube or Spotify (tech companies) AI algorithm to determine what is a “cover”, what is a new song, what infringes on other people copyright or intellectual work in future? Maybe that is the way it’s going. Maybe AI decides that as well. Seems to have potential to be a bit biased to me though. Judge, jury, and executioner?

[wayaman]