SoundCloud updates AI policy after backlash: ‘AI should support artists, not replace them'
Following controversy over a quiet update to the terms of use that seemed to permit the content uploaded to the streamer being used to train AI, SoundCloud has updated its AI policy.
Futurism had previously reported that SoundCloud 'quietly' updated its terms and conditions in February 2024 in which users were 'explicitly agreeing' by using the platform to have their content used to train AI.
The policy read: 'You explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop, or serve as input to artificial intelligence technologies as part of and for providing the services.'
Users were understandably upset and now, following backlash, SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton has responded regarding the platform's stance on AI and 'how content may interact with AI technologies within SoundCloud's own platform'.
The letter, titled 'A Letter from our CEO: Clarifying our Terms of Use', states: 'SoundCloud has never used artist content to train AI models. Not for music creation. Not for large language models. Not for anything that tries to mimic or replace your work.'
It also states: 'We don't build generative AI tools, and we don't allow third parties to scrape or use artist content from SoundCloud to train them either.'
'Our position is simple: AI should support artists, not replace them.'
Seton went on to explain the updates to the Terms Of Use last February were meant to clarify how 'we may use AI internally' to improve SoundCloud for its users, including 'powering smarter recommendations, search, playlisting, content tagging, and tools that help prevent fraud'.
Now, SoundCloud has changed its Terms Of Use, and it will only use AI-training on content uploaded to the platform with users' consent.
The new policy reads: 'We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness without your explicit consent, which must be affirmatively provided through an opt-in mechanism.'
Today, the Data (Use and Access) Bill returns to the UK House of Lords for consideration, in order to address how the government's desire to foster a British AI industry could allow technology companies to circumvent copyright laws and use creative content to train their models – all without the permission of the creators.
Chi Onwurah, the chair of the cross-party committee, has previously urged the government to bring forward the AI safety bill.
Onwurah told the Guardian: 'It's absolutely critical that the government shows it is on the side of people when it comes to technology, particularly when it comes to the tech platforms and the impact technology is going to have in their lives.'
This also comes at a time when artists have been speaking out against companies exploiting copyrighted works and warning against 'predatory' use of AI in music.
Earlier this year, more than 200 artists featured on an open letter submitted by the Artist Rights Alliance non-profit, calling on artificial intelligence tech companies, developers, platforms, digital music services and platforms to stop using AI "to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists.'
Amongst those names were Stevie Wonder, Robert Smith, Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, R.E.M., Peter Frampton, Jon Batiste, Katy Perry, Sheryl Crow, Smokey Robinson, and the estates of Bob Marley and Frank Sinatra.
The letter, while acknowledging the creative possibilities of new AI technology, addressed some of its threats to human artistry. Those include using preexisting work to train AI models - without permissions - in an attempt to replace artists and therefore 'substantially dilute the royalty pools that are paid out to artists.'
The letter stated: 'Make no mistake: we believe that, when used responsibly, AI has enormous potential to advance human creativity and in a manner that enables the development and growth of new and exciting experiences for music fans everywhere. Unfortunately, some platforms and developers are employing AI to sabotage creativity and undermine artists, songwriters, musicians and rightsholders. When used irresponsibly, AI poses enormous threats to our ability to protect our privacy, our identities, our music and our livelihoods.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
41 minutes ago
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK -- As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The US commemorates 250th anniversary of the 'great American battle,' the Battle of Bunker Hill
NEW YORK (AP) — As the U.S. marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes," which came out in 2011. "But they can say that Gettysburg,D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. "The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Florian Wirtz joins list of most expensive soccer signings in history
Florian Wirtz became one of the most expensive players in soccer history when the Germany playmaker joined Liverpool from Bayer Leverkusen on Friday for a fee of up to 116 million pounds ($156 million). Neymar: $262 million (222 million euros) Paris Saint-Germain shattered the world-record transfer fee by signing the Brazil superstar from Barcelona in August 2017. It was more than double the outlay of Manchester United to sign Paul Pogba from Juventus for $116 million a year earlier. It remains the record transfer fee. ___ Kylian Mbappé: $216 million (180 million euros) A few weeks after buying Neymar, PSG also secured a loan deal for Mbappé — then the rising star of French soccer playing for Monaco — that included the option to make the move permanent in 2018. PSG did so, making it an outlay of nearly $500 million on two players. ___ Flush with cash after selling Neymar a year earlier, Barcelona spent most of it in a deal to buy Brazil playmaker Coutinho from Liverpool for a Spanish record fee. ___ Moises Caicedo: $146 million (115 million pounds) The Ecuador midfielder's move was previously the most expensive deal by a British club, with Chelsea buying him from Brighton in August 2023. ___ João Félix: $140 million (126 million euros) Atletico Madrid triggered a buyout clause in Félix's contract to sign the Portugal forward from Benfica in August 2019. ___ Jude Bellingham: $139 million (128.5 million euros) The England star got his big move to Real Madrid from Borussia Dortmund in June 2023, for an initial up-front fee of 103 million euros plus add-ons linked to performance. ___ Antoine Griezmann: $134 million (120 million euros) Atletico could afford to sign Félix after selling France forward Griezmann to Barcelona for a similar fee a few weeks earlier. ___ Neymar: $98 million (90 million euros) Outside from Europe, the biggest transfer deal also involved Neymar when he joined Al Hilal, a team in the Saudi Pro League, from Paris Saint-Germain in August 2023. That came at the height of Saudi Arabia's push to sign high-end soccer talent to ignite the oil-rich state's domestic league. ___
