Matt Connarton Unleashed: Sony Music threatens AI companies.

A lot going on, of course, with well, we had a few

different options we were looking at as far as subjects we can discuss music industry

related, but AI continues to be a major subject. And this story really

caught my attention because this is an issue that I've actually worked on personally in

the past, protecting identities, protecting information, of course, not to this

extent of AI. Yeah, it's an aspect I didn't think about. Well,

yeah, nobody, nobody did until relatively recently. And the way AI

is impacting music. And by the way, this is not part of the

main subject. I've got a story here that I want to look at,

but involving Sony Music Group. But as kind of a side note, I

don't know if I mentioned this at all on the show. I don't think

so, but I posted on social media about this the new Motley Crue song

Dogs of War. There's these There's a website called The Metal Den that started

this that is not necessarily reputable in terms of their sourcing and whatnot, but

they started this. They put out this story claiming that that the song that

Bob Rock, the producer on the song create, actually created the song entirely

out of AI. And that it's Motley Crue isn't even on the actual song.

But I think that's just I don't think that's true. Yeah, it's

notre Yeah, I don't. I don't think it's I don't think it's true.

But it's something that this website put out there and it's been circulating.

There's there's all kinds of stories about there's a story about now. I just

saw that claiming that Scott Stapp, formerly of Creed, actually contributed vocals to

the track and that it's not really uh, it's not really Vince Neil.

Yeah, that that's a new rumor about it. I don't think any of

that's true. You don't know, but I did. I mean, I

understand the skepticism about Vince Neil's singing, but uh, even if he's terrible,

and he is, you can fix all that in the studio. You

don't need to replace him with a different singer and manipulate it to sound like

Vince Neil. But I did, you know, Vince Neil takes a lot

of crap for not being able to sing anymore basically, And I'd shared out

recently on social media of video I saw of a recent concert that they did

where they opened with Primal Scream, which is my favorite Motley Crue song,

and I click on the video and I'm like, oh cool, and then

Vince starts singing. It's so bad. It's like he's not even singing,

he's just he's just kind of blurting out the words. It's so so horrible,

and it reminded me of years ago, and it bumms me out because

you know, one of my all time favorite vinces. Years ago, I

saw Motley. It was the last time I seen Molly Crue live. It

was when they did a co headlining tour with Kiss, and I was with

Dan Randall of Dan Randall and the Randlettes. If you're a listener of Retrospectu

Radio you might be familiar with Dan. We went and saw them at in

a what was it at that point, the Comcast Center in uh some people

still call it great Woods to this day anyway, but out in Mansfield.

But we went and saw them and they played. Uh, there was a

moment. See when you're actually there live, it's much harder too, because

it's live. So if someone hits a wrong note or something, you don't

really necessarily notice it unless you go back later and watch it on somebody's YouTube

video. But there's a moment during uh, it was Don't Go Away Mad,

another one of my favorites. You know the song, Yeah, girl,

Don't go Away Mad. During that the fast part at the end,

you know how the song kind of changes at the end, Vince Neil hit

a note so sour that Dan and I actually looked at each other like,

whoa, what was that? Anyway? So he's who knows. But I'm

just saying I don't think the rumor is true about that song being created with

AIS. The thing about AI, though, it's so hard to know what's

real and what's not real these days. Well, there have been examples of

yeah, of things being put out that have fooled people. Yeah, were

AI generated some scary stuff that could actually be used to harm people? I

mean this, this technology is really invasive in many, many, many ways.

We talked on the show about that George Carlin special, Yeah, that

it was completely AI created, of course, because he's passed away. Yes,

if you were aware, AI is making the dead rise. Even that,

though, there's some skepticism because the people who created that claim that the

entire that that the whole thing was AI generated. And there's there's some people

who are saying, there's no way AI wrote some of those jokes, because

the thing is that that George Carlan thing. It actually I listen to the

whole thing. Some of it's actually really good. But there's people some people

are saying that, you know that the people who created it aren't being completely

honest when it wasn't entirely AI generated. It couldn't have been because there's no

way some of those jokes, some of those jokes are much too clever to

to and and carlin esque I dare say to have actually been AI. Well,

you really can't say that for one hundred percent certainty, because if you're

training the AI with George Carlin, Okay, now right, George Carlin jokes,

you've trained the AI to follow his history, his his cadence patterns,

then yeah, why couldn't it potentially craft a Carlin esque joke? Right right?

Well, here is uh, this is a story that just popped up.

This is from NBC News NBC news dot com. Sony Music Group warns

more than seven hundred companies against using its content to train AI. UH.

The company said, songwriters and recording artists rights, including copyrights, still need

to be respected amid innovations and AI, which also, by the way,

this relates to some of the conversation we were having earlier with Hope the Rapper

about about music and rights and royalties and all that kind of Yeah, exactly.

AI has taken what was already a complex problem and exacerbated it quite a

bit. So it says here one of the biggest record labels in the world

is issuing notices warning hundreds of companies not to train artificial intelligence models on its

content without permission. By the way, the first thing that comes to mind

when I read that is how, I mean, so is Sony gonna start

suing these companies? How are they even going to know? Like, how

would you even how would you even be able to prove that that a company

is using your content specifically to train an AI model. I think that would

be be encoded into the AIS content as far as its own its it's memory

bank, if you will, for use of a generic terminology, whatever's been

utilized to help train it is going to be a part of its memory,

a part of its collective computing. It doesn't get erased out afterwards. I

don't think yeah, but I don't know. It has to have computer has

to have something to draw its information from. It doesn't pull it out of

thin air. It has to have places to go to pull that information.

So if you're training it, you're feeding it all of this information, then

it should, in theory be encoded into its information. So then you could

go back and say, hey, you know you were using George Thoroughgood to

train this AI. Are you using this to try and train kiss? But

if you're teaching the computer via other artists, then those artists become a part

of its persona, if you will, again trying to be generic on that,

then is it not writing from those artists? But how is Sony?

How if Sony is going to how's it gonna know that they're using Yeah?

And I'm not posing this question thinking that there's an answer out there. I'm

actually posing this question saying I don't think there's an answer out there yet,

because this is also new. But how is Sony? And that's part of

what makes it so fascinating to me? But how is Sony going to?

Yeah? How are they going to know? And then how does Sony then

approach a company and say we think, you know, we think you've been

using our artist's work to train your you know, because it's all machine learning

to train your AI systems. Uh, and you have to prove to us

that you're not doing that. And if you can't prove to us that you're

not doing that, then we're going to see you or something like how.

I don't know how this is going to work. You can't train AI without

information. And if you're going to train it on music, how do you

train music without using music to teach it what music is? Right? So,

yeah, this is pretty It's like, where's that where's that line on

AI creation? How do you tell when it's crossing over? I mean,

I still think there's going to be something inside of the computer's memory banks itself,

some kind of something that you can go, yeah, that's in there

and it's such and such artist. But how do you get into that?

How do you know? Now? The article, the NBC article shows that

Europe is ahead of us on this issue. The European Unions already created law

to try and protect artists and and kind of try and spell out what kind

of content they're allowed to use to train these AI models or these AI systems

or what you call them. Yeah, models, I suppose that works.

Chris Warrior or our friend Chrispy the comedian says, Hi, guys, can

you get a restraining order on AI? I don't think so. Yeah,

Selfie, uh, I'm sorry, Spelfie Ham said, I wish there was

an AI robot following eleanor and I through BJ's trying to play Marco Polo with

me. Well, it sounds fun, it's not all bad. So if

an AI song, like, if it's a singer, you're gonna probably write,

You're gonna recognize the voice. So I suppose if you like you're a

basis you know, certain each artist has a certain tone or intonation that's unique

onto themselves. I suppose if you pick up on something like that, then

maybe you can try and say, oh, this is my you know,

you've encroached on me. But but even that, even that, because because

even with human generated music, which it sounds strange to even say that,

but even with human generated music, everybody's in See, this is where it

gets really complicated really fast. Everybody's influenced by artists who came before them,

right, right, So you take AI out of the equation, Well,

human beings. And this is why human beings sue each other for things like

human beings are all influenced by other human beings, and every musician is influenced

by all the music that came before them. So even that gets very dicey.

Because we've done on retrospectrum radio, we've done shows, actually we've done

a bunch of them now where the theme has been musical plagiarism. Yeah,

you know, and and Paul will play a song and play another song and

say, okay, these two songs. You know, one artist sued the

other, and we all have to say, you know, do we think

the artist is guilty or not guilty of plagiarism. And I'm very lenient with

that because I believe everybody was influenced by somebody else, so I'll usually say

not guilty unless it's Led Zeppelin, the most plagiaristic musicians and history. I

think that Europe's really got something going here because they've passed a comprehensive law and

it requires these companies to make public with sufficient details, a summary of the

content that they used to train those models, So they have to give you

a this is what we used to train it. They have to make it

public. That would be something that I think would be very good to do

here in the United States to help protect artists here that you've got to make

public what you're doing to train this stuff, so when music comes out of

you, we know whether or not you're plagiarizing another artist. I guess that's

I mean, there has to be a way to control what AI is doing,

or it's just going to railroad artists and artists aren't going to be making

money off of their music at all. They're not gonna be able to control

their likeness. They're not going to be able to control their music. On

the other hand, though, and maybe I'm consider this plain Devil's advocate,

because obviously I want to advocate for artists always it's so hard to make money

with music as it is. But on the other hand, I'm not sure,

and on a practical sense, going back to you know, if you're

a human, you're learning from everything you were influenced by, from all the

music you've heard, So why then would it be any different for an AI

model. You're regardless, I mean, all music that is being created,

is being created based on music that's already been created, because I think AI

can sometimes it can be almost a carbon copy, and it has the ability

to take in an artist and then spit it back out with different words and

it's the same artist, but it's reutilizing that. You know what I'm saying.

I do. It's like a it's almost it's like memorycks in a way.

It's taking it in and it's it back out, making it sound a

little different. But it's that artist. That's what people are worried about.

That's what people are saying. You know, I don't want to see AI

using this one's voice or taking this one's specific guitar style and duplicating it into

its own creation. It's it's not a human creation. It's a machine creation.

Not that that makes it bad machine creation, but when it's utilizing,

when it's sucking in all that data and spitting it out making it sound a

little different, that's bad. That to me is is that's that's plagiarism,

and we can't let AI do that. And it's so hard to protect musicians

as it is now. Artists have a very hard time getting paid for what

they do everybody else makes money off of them. Wait a minute, though,

so this is important, But so if an AI model learns an artist's

style and you know, whether it be writing, how they write, or

production, whatever it is, their sound, their vibe, whatever it is,

and then creates a work based on that style that sounds like that artist

but doesn't sound like any specific song by that artist, just sounds like their

style. That's not plagiarism, is it. How can that be plagiarism if

if it creates and we're just talking their intellectual property, and because ging it

back out a slightly different But here's the problem though. By that logic,

you could say, like the band Greta van Fleet, who sounds exactly a

young newer Yeah they've been around for a little bit now, maybe a decade,

but a newer band, younger band that sounds exactly like and I don't

mean influenced by, I don't mean kind of like that sounds exactly like led

Zeppelin. So should we call that plagiarism? Just LEDs up will allow it?

Well, they have no choice because Greta van Fleet. See here's the

thing. This is where it gets tricker. So they sound like them,

but they but they're all original songs. They don't plagiarize any of Zeppelin's songs.

They sound exactly like led Zeppelin. If if you put on a Greta

Van Fleet song and you didn't know who it was, and someone told you,

hey, I found an unreleased led Zeppelin track that that never came out,

and they played it for you, you would you would think it was

led Zeppelin. I mean, I don't know if you've ever listened to Greta

van Fleet, but they have not. I have exactly like led Zeppelin.

You're caught, Yeah, but I think you're dirting my pool because you're mixing

apples orthonages. You're taking human beings that are here in the now that are

doing one specific thing that the other person does have the option to maybe go

to court or have a claim that it that it's tangible that they can deal

with. AI is a completely different animal. AI is accept is taking everything

in and spitting out that it's not it's to me. It's best different when

you're taking everybody else's information and you're using it to create something. You're stealing

all these people's data, all these people's personality information, and then trying to

spit it back out as your own. It's kind of like having somebody else

take the test for you and then you put your name on it. Here's

your own. But how is that any different from how a human being operating?

Human being is one individual entity that a person can actually see, touch,

take to court. We can control this. AI is something that is

international worldwide. If you don't control it at the start, you cannot control

it at the other end. Well, at least with a human being,

I have the ability to put a stop to that human being. I can

take them to court, I can do something with them. But if I'm

a human being as a human being, which I am, by the way,

for anyone who doesn't know, there's a rumor that I'm some sort of

android. Yeah, I shouldn't even go there. But it's very complicated.

But but if I as a human being, so if I write a song,

I'm what informs me, and my ability to create music is all the

music that I've heard over the course of my life. That's different. Why

though, Because I think it's different because, well, for one thing,

you're a human being. You're absorbing information from multiple entities, and you're you're

doing that as a human differently with the AI system. Individuals are with intent

loading this computer with your specifics, with the intent of it spitting out something

in return that is similar to or identical to that's entirely different. This is

intentional. I'm going to use my computer to steal every ounce of what makes

you you and spit it back out to the world in every way that I

possibly can. And you're the horses out of the bond. You can't control

that. So we have to have it on the front end that we control

what is allowed to be fed into these AI systems, right, because there's

a difference there. Human beings absorb everything around them and spit that back out

in their own way. But if I intentionally load a computer with all of

you with the intent of its spitting you back out, but for me without

you see what I'm saying. But if that computer spits something out that is

a completely original work. In other words, if if you but it's not

original, if you train the AI model but to absorb all of this work

that's already been created, but then to create an original work. I'm gonna

correct you there. You cannot say a computer absorbs well, however, you

you absorb information and spit it back out a certain way. But a computer

is fed and that's the only information it has to go by, is what

it's fed. Sure, well, that's also true for all of us.

So I mean, if I'm no, no, no, no, no,

no, I don't think so well. If I'm if I'm a kid

riding in a car and one of my parents is playing the radio, They're

they're feeding me whatever that station is planned. I don't control the radio.

The adult in the car controls the radio. No, no, nice,

try red herring, red having I mean, seriously, you are You're a

human being taking information in multiple facets. Nobody's in control of that, not

your Give me a break, you year, You're a human. You're getting

You're getting your senses all at the same time. You know, the men

is something, your ears are hearing something. There's so many influences around you

that conflate or compound what it is that's in your environment. This is a

difference. This is a box if you will, that is given card of

information, then that's all the information it gets. And I, as a

human being, intentionally feed that in and I intentionally tell it give it to

me with something new. I am totally ripping you off. But there's something

new part though, isn't that what changes that? But that's not new when

I'm doing it off of all of you. I take your body of work

and go, hey, I twisted it a bit, and here this is

new. So I get to have it and you can go pound sand that's

that's no, No, it's not it's I did uh huh. No.

I here's the thing. I agree with you in principle. But but there's

also the practical application of all of this, and that's what I'm skeptical about.

Practical in other words, how to Sony, how does Sony pursuit They'll

mix practical with legal? Well, how does Sony? Well? Legally fine,

how does Sony? How does Sony follow up on their threat? They're

threatening these companies, they will have to look for if they hear their artist's

voice coming out, that would be an easy one, I guess. But

if and that's the thing. Europe is addressing this issue. We have an

address this issue in Europe. The law is very specific. I've been sitting

here reading some of the law that was passed in the European Union. So

this is across the entire European Union the EU, and that they're required to

keep one hundred percent up to date all the information and documentation that they use

to teach these AI models. They're not allowed. It says they cannot.

It says they have to supply this information without prejudice to the need to observe

and protect intellectual property rights and confidential business information or trade secrets in accordance with

the Union. YadA, YadA, YadA. They have to give them everything

they've got to keep records and turn over everything that they've used to train that

AI. And when I look at your AI records and see that you've got

you all over the place, you didn't approve that, then yes, I

get to step in and say, hey, you're ripping off my artists,

So I get to do that. We need something like that here in the

United States to protect American artists so they're not ripped off by these companies.

And that's where you come into the laws that control how much you get to

control your own image and your own work. And that's what I meant by

talking about that earlier. There's a writer here in New Hampshire. Oh my

gosh, it was Schallenger. Yes, Sallenger. The family wanted to control

the identity, and depending on when you live in the world depends on how

much you can control your identity inellctual property. So if you die in New

Hampshire, you live in New Hampshire, you're only allowed to control your identity

until you're dead, and then your family has no control over it. You

should go to California, your family gets to control your identity for one hundred

years or essentially trying to be one generation. So that's where this stuff comes

in too. Now we're making this situation war compounded because now we have AI.

So now I could theoretically feed Sallenger books into AI and come out with

a new Sallenger book because I gave it all of Salinger's works to train.

So isn't that theft? I don't know. I mean because again, if

what if JD. Salinger is your favorite author and you decide I'm going to

write a book based on the style of JD. Salinger, that's you writing

a book based on the style of JD. Salinger, not you feeding a

computer all of his books and then say, hey, spit me out a

new book. So that's that's the thing. That's why we have to start

at the beginning of where they're training these things and control that if we're going

to have any kind of hope of protecting the artists. Yeah, a little

bit, a little bit more to this, Yeah, says Sony Music Group,

which owns well known labels as Columbia, RCAA and Epic, has started

sending formal letters to more than seven hundred generative AI company. There's a lot

of companies doing this and streaming platforms prohibiting them from mining text or data,

webscraping, or otherwise using any SMG content without explicit licensing agreements. That covers

a wide variety of content, including audio recordings, musical compositions including lyrics,

cover artwork, and metada. According to a copy of the letter obtained by

NBC News. In its letter, SMG said it recognizes the significant potential and

advancement of AI. It wrote, quote, However, on authorized use of

SMG content in the trading, development, or commercialization of AI systems deprives SMG

companies and SMG talent of control over and appropriate compensation for the users of SMG

content. Conflicts with the normal exploitation of those works unreasonably prejudices our legitimate interests

and infringes our intellectual property and other rights. Unquote. Such activity quote conflicts

with the normal exploitation of these works unreasonably prejudices our legitimate interests and infringes our

intellectual property and other rights unquote. Asks for comment. A spokesperson for SMG

referred NBC News to a declaration the company posted online on Thursday. It wrote

in the post, quote, evolutions and technology have frequently shifted the course of

creative industries. I will likely continue that long standing trend. However, that

innovation must ensure that songwriters and recording artists rights, including copyrights, are respected,

unquote. The letter asks companies who either confirm that they have not used

SMG content without permission or if they have to provide details about how the content

was used in AI training. And I think that's excellent that they literally went

to them and said, listen, you need to tell us if you've done

this or not. But you know, I mean a lot of these companies

are gonna say, pound Sand, we don't have to tell you anything,

not necessarily because depending on the state there and there may be laws that what's

the word I'm looking for compel them, Yeah, to release the information there

may be, but there have already been issues. There's ones here that there

has been incidences of AI used and when it was found out, it was

forced to be removed. So we're already seeing it happen. Drake released Taylor

Mayd freestyle that has an IP generated voice of the late wrapper two bucks Core

Yeah now and that, But that track ended up being removed from Drake's x

and his Instagram accounts after shakurz Estate threatened to sue him. Yeah, we

do know. History tells us that government UH is generally very poor at keeping

up with technology. Sure, yeah, it says here. While regulators protecting

human made works still lag in the US, regulations rather many companies have begun

to negotiate their own agreements around the licensing of their content for AI model training.

Some have also used A Some have also sued rather AI companies, claiming

their AI models were trained on copyrighted materials. Some tracks that appear oh sorry,

some tracks that appear to use AI generated vocals have already popped up online.

Last year, a viral song called Heart on My Sleeve, created by

an an anonymous musician who goes by Ghostwriter, featured vocals that sound like those

of Drake and The Weekend. Yeah, I remember that it was quickly taken

down from streaming services because of the copyright claim by Universal Music Group. In

April, Drake released Tailor Made Freestyle. Yep, you talked about that talking

about that, Yeah, yeah, yeah, And it's interesting at least something

has been getting done in the fact that there was a recent hearing where the

CEO of Warner Music Group, Robert how do you say his name? Connects?

Not sure? It's k y and cl for our listeners, I apologize

for not pronouncing it correctly where he's asking for the United States to put laws

in place to protect artists. I like his quote, he said. Quote.

Our fundamental position on AI is simple. Everyone should have the right to

decide how their own name, likeness, and voice is used, he said

in preparing his remarks, These characteristics are the very foundation of our individuality.

They are not simply data to be taken and used by others. Each person's

identity must not be used in ways that they would never condone or wish to

participate in, and that you know, you think about deep fakes, and

that's taking somebody else's will away from them as they're not consenting to how they're

being used in this computer model. So we do need to have and we

need to hurry up because, like you said, we're pretty bad at keeping

up with technology, because you know, this is going to undermine artists everywhere

and we can't have that. You know, we can't have that. We

can't allow artists don't make a lot as is. I mean, let's talk

about the fact that musicians really get very little of the money that they generate.

Right, the venue does, their manager does, everybody else gets a

piece of the pie. By the time it gets down to the individual artists,

it's not usually a whole heck of a lot. Most artists make most

of their money off of their merchandise. Right. But if you're taking what

little makes not my music, and you're taking that and feeding it into a

computer, and now that computer is spitting out songs that you are going to

make money on. But it's my likeness, it's my style, it's my

music. I think that's theft. I really think that's theft. Well,

Oh, by the way, a Spelfy said in the chat room the first

time sheared Greta van Fleet she thought it was led Zeppelin. Yeah, well,

it'll be so interesting to see where all this goes. And of course,

technology does often really alter the course of the music industry. Your favorite

bandit Kiss. There's mini Kiss, but Kiss approves of many kiss right,

Yeah, are there some kind of a thing there. This is an individual

that that Kiss can look at and say, yeah, we approve our Yeah,

we don't like you. Don't do this anymore. We can sue you.

You can't do that when you're used to train an entire system. By

the way, you mentioned deep fakes. And before we get to a break

and bring in our next guests, do you remember do you remember this?

A classic moment from Matt Connorton Unleashed Matt Connorton, Unleashed? Do is this?

Hey? Matt, this is actually you calling in. Thanks for taking

my call. Wow, this is wonderful. I always dreamt of the day

where I'd get to talk to myself. I'm curious if you remembered to pick

up toilet paper or if you plan to do it on the way home.

We needed to wipe our little bottom. Oh my goodness. Wow, I

did not know that we were out, but I'm really glad that you told

or I'm really glad that I told me. Our little bottom can get a

bit messy. Sometimes it feels like we use too much of that dang stuff

toilet pape, I mean right right, toilet pape. I've never actually called

it. John Hopwood, Oh John, I'm always thought of him as a

father figure, mostly because he always tries to spank my little bottom. I

never let him, but he keeps asking, this must be an AI thing.

Yeah he does, he does. How did I know that? I

just mostly wanted to say that I am very nice and very much a sweet

little boy, and even though my bottom gets a bit messy, I am

a nice guy and someone that people love. Ah, that's very nice.

Thanks you. And one more thing. Hopwood looks like an eighty six year

old toddler and he makes us mush up bananas for him for lunch. Well,

yes, yes that is uh goodbye, Matt, you at home in

the mirror? Thank you? Yes, well, very sud I'll tell you

what. That's a first for me. I've never gotten to uh speak to

myself. Now, is it possible that someone so? Anyway? Yeah,

that was sure. That wasn't a time. I mean, you guys have

that time machine Friday night. That's true, that's true. No, we

should give him a plug. That's actually from not even a show, our

friend Chris James, one of my favorite Canadians. Uh, not even a

show. That was Yes, that that happened live on my show, but

that was him calling my show with a prank and we we love Chris.

Yeah, that was really that was pretty cool. That was pretty cool.

But I did also upload it to my YouTube channel as well. But yeah,

Spelfie said in the chat room, I say please and thank you when

I talk to AI. I hope when AI takes over the world, maybe

if I'm polite, they will remember that and spare me because I was nice

to them. Maybe, you know, it's war against the machine. You

know. It's funny about that though, Honestly, and this is true.

When I'm using chat GPT and I ask it to do something for me,

I I do have a tendency to type please, just out of habit because

I'm just I'm unfailingly polite, and I just because if I know, because

if I'm writing, like if I'm writing an email to someone, you know,

I'm going to say please if I'm asking them to do something for me,

I do just out of habit. I do that with chat GPT,

even though I'm I'm communicating with a Sometimes I think I've heard you do that.

Yeah, I mean, hey, that's I was raised. I knew

my please and thank you. Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. Well,

anyway, it's an interesting subject and uh, it will be fascinating to

watch as we move forward into this this brave new world of AI, which

in some ways isn't that as new as people perceive it to be. But

that's okay, But but it will be very interesting