Hasta La Gadget!

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business’ actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case.” And that’s because its training data “includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet,” which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. “It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product,” the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don’t include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn’t a problem.

Calling the defendants’ actions “evading and misleading,” the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. “Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals,” a spokesperson for the organization said. “Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases.”

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/ai-startup-argues-scraping-every-song-on-the-internet-is-fair-use-233132459.html?src=rss

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business’ actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case.” And that’s because its training data “includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet,” which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. “It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product,” the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don’t include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn’t a problem.

Calling the defendants’ actions “evading and misleading,” the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. “Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals,” a spokesperson for the organization said. “Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases.”

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/ai-startup-argues-scraping-every-song-on-the-internet-is-fair-use-233132459.html?src=rss

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business’ actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case.” And that’s because its training data “includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet,” which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. “It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product,” the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don’t include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn’t a problem.

Calling the defendants’ actions “evading and misleading,” the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. “Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals,” a spokesperson for the organization said. “Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases.”

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/ai-startup-argues-scraping-every-song-on-the-internet-is-fair-use-233132459.html?src=rss

When most tech companies are challenged with a lawsuit, the expected defense is to deny wrongdoing. To give a reasonable explanation of why the business’ actions were not breaking any laws. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have gone for a different approach: admit to doing exactly what you were sued for.

Udio and Suno were sued in June, with music labels Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group claiming they trained their AI models by scraping copyrighted materials from the Internet. In a court filing today, Suno acknowledged that its neural networks do in fact scrape copyrighted material: “It is no secret that the tens of millions of recordings that Suno’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case.” And that’s because its training data “includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet,” which likely include millions of illegal copies of songs. 

But the company is taking the line that its scraping falls under the umbrella of fair use. “It is fair use under copyright law to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product,” the statement reads. Its argument seems to be that since the AI-generated tracks it creates don’t include samples, illegally obtaining all of those tracks to train the AI model isn’t a problem.

Calling the defendants’ actions “evading and misleading,” the RIAA, which initiated the lawsuit, had an unsurprisingly harsh response to the filing. “Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals,” a spokesperson for the organization said. “Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases.”

Whatever the next phase of this litigation entails, prepare your popcorn. It should be wild.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/ai-startup-argues-scraping-every-song-on-the-internet-is-fair-use-233132459.html?src=rss

In a crushing quarterly update, Intel disclosed that it will cut more than 15 percent of its workforce. The layoffs, which could impact over 15,000 jobs, are part of the company’s $10 billion cost-reduction plan to recover financial stability. Intel posted a second-quarter net loss of $1.6 billion, plunging from the net income of $1.5 billion it reported in the same period of 2023.

CEO Pat Gelsinger addressed employees with a memo acknowledging the scope of today’s announcements. “This is painful news for me to share,” he said. “I know it will be even more difficult for you to read. This is an incredibly hard day for Intel as we are making some of the most consequential changes in our company’s history.”

As well as the job cuts, the cost-reduction plan includes creating separate financial reporting for Intel Products and Intel Foundry. The Intel Foundry branch saw an operating loss of $2.8 billion in Q2, even more than the $1.8 billion operating loss it saw during the second quarter last year. Intel has been in the process of overhauling its foundries to make them more competitive. In the interim, it has had to rely on other companies for some production. TSMC, the same manufacturer used by Apple, Qualcomm and AMD, is producing its new Lunar Lake chips.

The company took an additional hit in the public eye when its 13th- and 14th-generation desktop CPUs began experiencing instability issues. While a fix is expected this month to prevent any further problems, any damage that the microcode errors caused to CPUs appears to be permanent.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/intel-will-cut-over-15000-jobs-in-a-sweeping-cost-cutting-effort-220951016.html?src=rss