The world of artificial intelligence is buzzing, and AI music generator Suno is right in the middle of a legal storm. The biggest record labels on the planet, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), have filed a massive lawsuit against Suno. They claim the AI company built its entire platform by illegally copying a huge library of copyrighted music. Initially, the fight was about whether an AI “learning” from music is fair use. But now, the labels have thrown a new punch, accusing Suno of old-school digital piracy. This case could change everything for AI and the future of music. 1
The First Fight: Is AI Learning the Same as Stealing?
The RIAA’s first lawsuit was straightforward. It accused Suno of “willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale”. The argument is simple. To create music that sounds like Mariah Carey or The Temptations, Suno’s AI had to be “trained” on their songs. The labels say Suno copied these tracks without asking for permission or paying for them. They are asking for damages up to 2 $150,000 for every single song they claim was infringed, a number that could easily reach billions. 3
Suno fired back with a defense that has become the go-to for AI companies: fair use. Suno’s CEO, Mikey Shulman, argued that the AI isn’t just copying and pasting music. Instead, it’s learning the patterns and styles to create something new. The company compared its AI to a “kid writing their own rock songs after listening to the genre”. In their view, learning isn’t a crime, whether you’re a human or a machine. 4
The Internet Is Divided
Online, the debate is raging. In forums and on Reddit, people are torn. Many AI supporters agree with Suno. They argue that all human artists learn by listening to others. One user asked, “Aren’t all artists absorbing and modeling their style from previous artists copyrighted music?”. This group sees the lawsuit as the music industry trying to kill a new technology that threatens its control.
But many artists and creators see it differently. They argue the human inspiration argument is flawed because of the sheer scale and speed of AI. A human listens and learns over a lifetime. An AI can process millions of songs for one purpose, to create a commercial product that competes with the original artists. For them, it comes down to two things: consent and compensation. Many just want a system where they get paid if their work is used to train an AI.
A third group is just cynical about the whole thing. They believe the record labels don’t really care about protecting artists. They think the labels just see a new, profitable technology and “just want a cut”.
The Game Changer: The “Stream Ripping” Accusation
Just when the debate was stuck in the gray area of fair use, the RIAA changed the game. In an updated lawsuit, they accused Suno of illegally downloading its training music from YouTube using “stream ripping”.
Stream ripping is a well-known form of piracy. It’s when you use software to save a permanent copy of audio from a streaming service that’s only meant to be listened to online. The labels claim Suno built code to get around YouTube’s security measures, specifically something called a “rolling cipher,” to download countless songs.
This is a brilliant legal move because it shifts the focus from why Suno used the music to how they got it. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), breaking digital locks to access copyrighted material is illegal. And crucially, fair use is not a defense for this kind of violation. Suddenly, the case isn’t a philosophical debate about art. It’s a much simpler question of whether Suno engaged in piracy.
A Familiar Story: The $1.5 Billion Anthropic Case
This new strategy didn’t come out of nowhere. The music industry was likely inspired by a recent case where authors sued the AI company Anthropic. The authors claimed Anthropic trained its AI, Claude, on books downloaded from pirate websites.
A judge in that case made a critical distinction. He said that training an AI on legally obtained works might be fair use. But using pirated material was like “Napster-style downloading” and a clear violation of the law. Faced with potentially trillions in damages, Anthropic settled the case for a reported $1.5 billion 5. This massive payout showed the entire AI industry that where you get your training data matters, a lot. The RIAA filed its amended complaint against Suno just weeks later.
Major Labels Invest in AI for Creative Control & Compensation
The Future of Music and AI
The lawsuit against Suno is more than just one company’s problem. It’s a battle for the future of AI and creativity. If the labels win, especially on the stream ripping claim, it could force the entire AI industry to license all of its training data. This would be a huge win for creators but could slow down AI innovation. If Suno wins, it could solidify the “train on anything public” model, but that might devalue the work of human artists. 6
The most likely outcome is a settlement. Reports suggest the labels are already in talks with Suno about licensing deals, which would give them a piece of the AI pie. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the “ask for forgiveness, not permission” era of AI development is over. This lawsuit is forcing a much-needed conversation about how to build the future of AI ethically, ensuring that human creativity is still valued and compensated.
- https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/major-record-companies-sue-ai-music-generators-suno-udio-for-mass-infringement-of-copyright/ ↩︎
- https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Suno-complaint-file-stamped20.pdf ↩︎
- https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/jun/25/record-labels-sue-ai-song-generator-apps-copyright-infringement-lawsuit ↩︎
- https://completemusicupdate.com/suno-admits-it-trained-on-major-owned-music-accuses-labels-of-misusing-copyright/ ↩︎
- https://routenote.com/blog/could-anthropics-ai-copyright-case-be-a-win-for-the-music-industry/ ↩︎
- https://www.webpronews.com/riaa-escalates-lawsuit-against-ai-startup-suno-over-youtube-copyright-claims/ ↩︎
* generate randomized username
- COMMENT_FIRST
- #1 Lord_Nikon [12]
- #2 Void_Reaper [10]
- #3 Cereal_Killer [10]
- #4 Dark_Pulse [9]
- #5 Void_Strike [8]
- #6 Phantom_Phreak [7]
- #7 Data_Drifter [7]
- #8 Cipher_Blade [6]
