Remix.run Logo
fxwin 3 hours ago

> Tidal will accept AI-generated music.

> Tidal will hold AI-generated music to a higher standard of content integrity. We will not tolerate AI-generated music that exploits an individual’s or group’s music, name or likeness, deceives listeners, or diminishes the quality of our service.

I think this is a very reasonable approach, and probably also the best way to treat AI-powered copyright infringement as a whole. Just like we don't penalize artists for consuming content unless they produce actually infringing content, we should set the same focus for AI systems.

> Starting today, AI-generated music will not be monetizable. We are only in the beginning of the era of AI-generated music.

Don't really agree that this follows from the stated principle here ("... ensuring royalties go to original works produced, written and performed by people"), but will definitely help with spam etc.

VladVladikoff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The flood of AI music on their platform is becuase people can make money off it. If you turn off that faucet you stop the flooding.

bko 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I think the flood is also due to people in general finding AI generated music passable.

I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective or curate my playlist, but it's just work. I would love a stream of AI generated music in a particular style I can work to.

atrus 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You see that a lot in AI (and honestly, other discussions) where people with differing requirements are talking past each other.

Some people are listening to music as an experience, internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing turns into a mess.

tedajax 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

gross

bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the flood really is overwhelming. This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited. I mentioned that the relative lack of slop is one of the major reasons I chose Kobo over Kindle. Even before this latest AI boom I was already starting to view less content as a feature, not a bug, because it seems that on subscription services “more” is increasingly just a polite way of saying “more crap.”

Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.

AlecSchueler 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I really wanted to like Kobo but the no refunds policy really burned me. I bought a book listed as being in English, with an English title and English on the cover page, but the contents were entirely in French and they wouldn't refund it because of the general no refund policy. I just felt ripped off because what I bought, as advertised, just wasn't what I received.

giglamesh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't follow this rule strictly, but for most of my adult life I've limited most of my book reading to books > 10 years old. If it still seems remotely relevant and worth reading ten years later, it is far less likely to be a waste of my time. Now sure I'm a bit less prepared for water cooler conversations, but overall the policy has served me well.

> having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle

because of AI slop is new benefit of sticking to older texts that I hadn't anticipated.

TFNA an hour ago | parent [-]

A significant amount of ebook reading now is romance/erotica or fantasy (or combined "romantasy") genres by readers for whom something a decade old won't appeal. An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), or it isn't what one's peers are reading and one wants to connect with a community of other readers online or in school/university, etc.

Obviously if one doesn't read these genres, this is a whole foreign world, but it is increasingly the state of mainstream fiction reading, and AI slop is a problem for them that you may be asked to help avoid if you are the nerdy loved one of such a reader.

obloid 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.

Cthulhu_ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But that's not a new issue per se, low effort "covers" / "remixes" of songs has been an issue for a long time. Bonus point if said low-effort remix includes the original artist in the artist fields, so it shows up in the recommendations of fans of the original artist for a lot of accidental listens.

But AI does seem to make it easier.

runarberg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When low effort goes to no effort one can expect the problem to worsen by several orders of magnitude.

Also not that it takes skill to come up with a remix/cover/homage of a song that is close enough to the original that people can enjoy it like the original, but not so close that you are just plagiarizing it. So this problem before AI is limited to talented musicians who for some reason would rather copy somebody else then to make their own music.

dawnerd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s really bad on smaller artists that had moderate vitality on TikTok. Or at least it’s easier to spot since they have smaller catalogs. Encountered some on Apple Music the other day that outright had the artist listed and according to Apple it was from the artist.

IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.

paxys 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?

lubujackson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, but how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? This is new frontier of spam.

So begins the Clone Wars...

addaon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music?

Is this their responsibility? Just restrict payment to the registered copyright holder or their delegate, require registration of copyright for music to be payment-eligible, and escalate the problem to a federal crime with (presumedly) federal enforcement, no? Sure, some people will commit federal crimes to get a payout, but it's gotta reduce the problem massively.

rvnx 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it.

Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ?

> 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music

https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...

sarjann 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.

Sharlin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

jdiff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mechahitler sure isn't helping.

TightFibre 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

@slop put Twitter in SS bikini.

dcrazy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I haven’t been on Twitter since before Elon took over. Do most users ever interact with Grok?

jdiff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It waxes and it wanes, but people breathlessly asking Grok "IS THIS TRUE??" is prevalent. People often call on Grok to argue their points for them. The interaction is inflicted.

freakynit 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Meme context: https://x.com/BrunoCendon/status/1926883516890898637

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then they get upset when grok doesn’t agree with Trump/musk and call a computer “woke”

simonw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You incentivize ragebait.

Twitter pay you for how much "engagement" your tweets get now. If you post something that angers people you will get a ton of replies, quote-tweets etc.

There are a whole lot of grifters on that platform making thousands of dollars a month winding people up.

nkozyra 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Provide financial incentives to make it worse.

hack1312 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

By turning it into a monetized /b/

virgildotcodes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure if you actually haven't checked it since, but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Accounts pushing white supremacy, the reversion of women's rights, hatred towards other on the basis of their race or religion, climate change denial, denial of science and promotion of pseudoscience, etc etc. are heavily promoted across the platform and get millions of engagements.

If you create a new account, the majority of the accounts you are shown and suggested to follow will be those pushing the above.

They've switched to a model of paying their users for engagement, which naturally encourages users to post the most engagement bait they can, which tends to be inflammatory and utterly lacking in depth or nuance.

Lerc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a counterpoint to that, I encountered a conversation where people were lamenting the toxic nature of communication and someone described being told to kill themselves for expressing what they felt was a compassionate statement.

Someone asked where that happened and they said "On X" and the response was "Holy shit, That's the kind of thing you expect to see on Bluesky, not X"

The thing is, The comments were terrible, and the average user of either platform would probably wholeheartedly agree that they were terrible.

If you exist in your own little community on these platforms then you don't see those bits. Those hideous extreme elements are there though. I don't know how representative they are of their respective populations, or even how much of it is automated stirring. I'm not sure anyone does. it seems quite difficult to find an analysis that is not pushing an agenda. The nature of agenda driven research over truth driven research makes it much easier to find the agenda driven stuff, because it's only reason to exist is to be found. The hard working people who try and find the nuance are too busy doing that to run a PR operation for their work.

There's a dark irony that with the decline of platforms like Twitter and Reddit descending into places of astroturf and brigading, there are fewer places to find conversations where informed people are discussing things publicly. A person searching for what an informed individual would say on the matter cannot find it. There's not really even any bots pretending to be those informed individuals. The bot game is more basic. Throw so much obviously fake crap around that nobody trusts anything.

tzs an hour ago | parent [-]

This is older than the public internet. My parents got a CB radio circa 1967 and I watched my Mom make the first transmission on the new radio. She promptly received a reply, which told her to take a long walk on a short pier.

graemep 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So much the same as Facebook?

hiyfsch an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Honestly same as most socials.

Unless people control their own algorithm, forget about it.

Imagine buying a cooking magazine and it was full of political ads. Who wants that shit?

jdiff 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Facebook has their own sins crawling on their backs, yes.

andai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interesting. Kinda sounds like they should be paying for lack of engagement.

MengerSponge 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

CSAM?

stronglikedan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> X has gotten worse

It's actually gotten better for those of us that value all sides of a given story so we can come to our own conclusions, instead of parroting stuff we hear in bubbles. I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself.

13hunteo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

X pays you for engagement if you have the premium subscription. Anyone with a verification symbol will be earning money from significant engagement, hence the rise of engagement bait on the platform.

Cthulhu_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you know / ensure you're getting all sides of the story? For one, many people have left the platform already because of its owner and policies, so you're not hearing those sides anymore.

> I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself.

Anecdotal; people get paid / pay to post and promote certain content. But that's nothing new on social media.

That said, escaping or avoiding bubbles is good, just be sure you're actually out.

fg137 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They don't.

What they actually mean by "all sides" is "my side" (that is not typically allowed/supported on other platforms, for reasons they don't want to go into)

plagiarist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As soon as they find the side of the story they already agree with they know that the platform is a marketplace of ideas instead of a bubble.

selectodude 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You get both the white nationalist and the antisemite sides, yes.

vlian2088 2 hours ago | parent [-]

as opposed to ye olde twitter where only wholesome racism was allowed

https://web.archive.org/web/20181130015402/https://pasteboar...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011518/https://pasteboar...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011519/https://pasteboar...

selectodude 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have this magical ability to think lots of people can suck simultaneously. I’m also able to separate the power and ability to inflict damage of a bunch of shitheads on twitter from the White House and the first ever trillionaire.

vlian2088 an hour ago | parent [-]

don't you think it's fair that all people who suck can express their views now?

andai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well they defined racism as "you can only be racist if you have power" and they defined having power as being white, so this is totally kosher.

virgildotcodes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you think it will be a net social benefit for people to be taught 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 with equal weight, and let them come to their own conclusions?

How about if the person who owns the educational institution puts their thumb on the 2 + 2 = 5 side of the balance for their own ends?

mcintyre1994 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Assuming you already pay for 'verification' on X, you just need to get more followers/impressions and then you'll start being paid based on your impressions. If you know/follow anyone with the 'verified' checkmark who has a lot of followers, they'll be getting paid for impressions.

palmotea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's actually gotten better for those of us that value all sides of a given story so we can come to our own conclusions, instead of parroting stuff we hear in bubbles.

1. A different bubble is still a bubble.

2. Regardless of political leanings, paying for engagement is a really bad sign.

> I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself.

So? You don't have to know anyone being paid for it to be happening. The people who are really motivated by that are often poor by western standards and living on the other side of the world from you.

Facebook also pays for engagement, and what that's lead to is stuff like AI-generated shrimp Jesus and fake "I made this" memes, created by guys in India that don't even know English and don't own a computer. They throw crap at the wall from their cell phones to see what sticks, then do more of that.

IIRC the same thing happens for politics. Just the other day I read that a lot of popular "Alberta separatist" accounts are run by people who don't even live in Canada. They just use AI and shamelessly copy posts made by other accounts.

jdiff 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Paid to engage is a reference to the creator revenue sharing that encourages mass-appeal and ragebait content.

X is not a meritocracy of ideas, either.

calny 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm curious about they will apply the part saying "AI-generated music will not be monetizable." What does AI-generated music mean, exactly? What if you make an AI generated bassline but produce the rest of a track by hand? How about an AI vocal? Or a mix of AI stems and your own recordings?

Tidal's terms and conditions (https://tidal.com/terms) say that:

> “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive of musical works and sound recordings, that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence, with limited or no direct human creative input beyond an initial text prompt or similar instruction. ... You acknowledge that AI detection technology may produce false positives or false negatives.

And:

> If you use TIDAL Upload, your Tracks may be scanned for the purpose of identifying whether the content is AI-Generated Content, and to label such content accordingly on the Tidal platform. You acknowledge that such scanning and labeling is performed on a best-efforts basis and that Tidal shall not be liable for any inaccuracies in AI detection or labeling. AI-Generated Content uploaded to Tidal is not eligible for monetization. If you believe your Tracks were erroneously tagged as AI-Generated, you can reach out to support@tidal.com.

summarybot 2 hours ago | parent [-]

As a musician I can definitely tell when a song has been arranged by AI but performed by humans. There are a couple of chart-toppers done this way. I won't give up the ghost, though ;)

Foreignborn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

are there tells beyond the lyrics? I swear there are a number of songs using out of “human distribution” words, trigrams, etc.

Is it overall song structure?

injidup 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Tidal should simply ban AI generated music from upload if they are not willing to pay uploaders should the music become popular. Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

oasisbob 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated.

Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
p-e-w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed. When they say that AI music can’t be monetized, they of course mean “… except by us”.

mattmatheus 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.

fxwin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The issue i have with it will depend heavily on implementation, i can see cases where songs that i would consider "produced and written" by people don't qualify for royalties under Tidal's guidelines. (I intentionally left out the "performed" part, since digital music production is way past the point where this was an easy and/or meaningful distinction)

Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn’t it true that AI generated music holds no legal copyright?

heffer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In Canada (which I assume you were referring to, as you didn't specify a jurisdiction) this claim is currently in litigation, so there is no definitive answer as to whether AI generated music is copyrightable or not. The currently accepted definition of "originality" (as required by the Copyright Act) is that it must involve the claimed author's "skill and judgment". Whatever that may mean in the context of AI is currently left for the reader to decide.

gonzalohm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is that? And who draws the line? If I use a synthesizer to generate music, does that count as AI generated?

Grombobulous 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable.

A synthesizer is not AI.

thewebguyd an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Minor correction, but in the US it's not anything that's 100% by AI, it's LLM output itself is not copyrightable. Human elements injected into LLM output are.

Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain).

Only the parts of a work that are human authored can be registered for copyright. If a work was created with AI assistance, the parts that were purely AI generated cannot be registered.

The US copyright office also ruled that prompt engineering does not count as human authorship.

So all those people using Suno to generate AI slop music and flooding the streaming services, their output is almost certainly public domain.

gruez 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

>(which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain).

I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin trying to clamp down on AI scrapers, even though they don't own the copyright to the UGC that they're preventing the bots from accessing.

thewebguyd 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

The difference is in licensing. Those platforms are protecting (or rather, monetizing) a database of human authored assets which those humans have given them a license to exploit.

Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.

p-e-w 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.

oasisbob 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How much instruction do you need though?

What if I prompt Claude to go prompt Suno? What if the same chain happens internally at Suno? Easy to imagine the human input being very dilute and a small part overall.

thewebguyd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US copyright office ruled that the instructions do not count. Prompt engineering does not constitute human authorship. Prompt is the command, but the machine determines the specific expressive elements of the output (according to the USCO).

Raw LLM output is automatically public domain.

tgv 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The prompt is yours to copyright, the algorithm belongs to Google or Suno or whoever, but not the output. It is not your creation.

otabdeveloper4 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

AI is not a tool, it is an oracle.

Furthermore, it is an oracle built on copyright infringement.

Do you understand the difference between "tool" and "oracle"?

mapontosevenths an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No. Explain.

giglamesh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tool was a kind of metal/funk band (or something like that) and Oracle is a database (management system) that somehow made a lot of money for a lot of consultants (and the oligarch owners) even though open source alternatives were far superior.

h4ny an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really don't mean any offence to your comment because you probably mean well but I have little tolerance for the "reasonable"/fence-sitting kind of comments on this kind of issues.

If they really cared to much about empowering people creating things for other people, like others have pointed out, they should just ban it.

Sure, in reality it's not so easy to just ban AI content because there is a spectrum of it and it's really not a clear-cut problem.

But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop.

Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.

vkou 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difference between AI and artists is that artists are humans, which should grant them more rights and fewer penalties than some fucking software.

Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it.

If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

fxwin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.

dawnerd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I guess you haven’t seen some of the agentic stuff?

fxwin an hour ago | parent [-]

I work with coding agents every day, I don't think they have ever started working on a project without me telling them to

laybak an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

DobarDabar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]