- x NeonPulse | Future Blueprint
- Posts
- Google & YouTube wants to have it both ways with AI
Good morning and welcome to the latest edition of neonpulse!
Today, we’re talking about the potential role of AI in sick and elderly care, because a new prototype shows potential…
Google & YouTube wants to have it both ways with AI
Google has recently taken a stance on copyright issues related to AI-generated content. The tech giant has partnered with Universal Music Group (UMG) to develop an AI framework that ensures music artists, especially those under UMG, are compensated for AI versions of their songs on platforms like YouTube. This move comes after an AI-generated track featuring the voices of Drake and the Weeknd, both UMG artists, went viral, leading to copyright concerns.
While streaming platforms like Apple and Spotify quickly removed such content, YouTube's open nature posed challenges. Voices aren't legally copyrightable, but the music used to train AI models is. UMG leveraged this by pointing out copyrighted elements in the AI-generated tracks, forcing YouTube to take them down.
This situation presents a dilemma for Google, which uses web data to train its AI without compensating content creators. Google's reliance on the "fair use" defense in copyright law is shaky, as it requires admitting to copying and is determined on a case-by-case basis in courts.
To maintain a good relationship with the music industry, YouTube is now looking to expand its Content ID system to cover AI-generated content. This could lead to a new royalty system where artists are paid when their AI-generated voices are used. UMG's stance is clear: if AI is trained using their intellectual property, they should be compensated.
However, this approach could have broader implications. For instance, how will YouTube differentiate between an AI-generated voice and someone imitating a celebrity? And if this extends to political figures, could it be used to suppress impersonations or parodies?
While YouTube is accommodating the music industry, Google continues to extract web data for AI training without compensating publishers. As Google aims to answer search queries directly using AI, publishers face dwindling traffic and revenue. The New York Times, for example, has updated its terms to prohibit AI training using its content but hasn't blocked Google's crawlers, highlighting the power imbalance.
The upcoming AI copyright lawsuits could redefine internet and copyright norms. The current era of remixing and sharing might shift towards a more restrictive "pay-to-use" model. Google's slow approach to these changes, like delaying the removal of cookies from Chrome, suggests a strategic play to maintain its data access.
In the future, the web might be dominated by AI-generated content, making platforms like Google more like traditional cable networks with licensed content. This could transform the open web into a series of walled gardens, ironically the very model companies like Google once aimed to disrupt.
Cool AI Tools
🔗 AI’s Impact On Content Creation: What you need to know to stay ahead when anyone can now create content with AI
🔗 debunkD: An AI Fact checker and AI image Detector
🔗 Lily: Your personal AI therapist
🔗 Texthub AI: The Ultimate productivity tool - Free
And now your moment of zen
That’s all for today folks!
If you’re enjoying neonpulse, we would really appreciate it if you would consider sharing our newsletter with a friend by sending them this link:
https://neonpulse.beehiiv.com/subscribe?ref=PLACEHOLDER