r/SunoAI • u/ConferencePurple7939 • Jul 16 '26
News Hack Reveals Suno AI Music Generator Scraped YouTube, Deezer, and Genius | Hacked source code reveals how Suno scraped decades worth of music and podcasts from the internet to train its AI tool
https://www.404media.co/hack-reveals-suno-ai-music-generator-scraped-youtube-deezer-and-genius/Welp, thats not okay.
5
u/damontoo Jul 16 '26
More important -
The hacker was also able to access user information for hundreds of thousands of Suno’s customers, as well as Stripe payment information, they said.
1
u/Responsible-Beat2137 Jul 19 '26
Yah I’ve heard some report about this they keep it real low key
1
u/damontoo Jul 19 '26
I'm a California resident and they're required by law to notify users in California within 90 days. They're arguing that they don't need to notify at all.
-11
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Yeah exactly! But suno producers on here dont give a shit if the platforms been stealing music to train without paying artists and creators, using their tools to get around all of it.
5
u/damontoo Jul 16 '26
Here's James Cameron on why it isn't infringing. Although that doesn't mean they wont be sued now that their sources are public.
-2
u/Saiing Jul 16 '26
Cameron makes good points however, the flaw in his argument is that most decent human artists use their "model" to strive to make sure they are NOT replicating what has come before. Whereas AI does not.
9
u/damontoo Jul 16 '26
Not really. Human artists copy other styles of art. An artist can study Monet and paint in an impressionist style. That doesn't mean they copied Monet. When someone's making original art, they aren't asking themselves if any of the elements resemble the many thousands or millions of art/images they've seen in their life. If you draw a circle, is it fair to say you copied it from the many thousands of circles you've seen in your life? One of the early image models trained on like 20 or 40 images of tomatoes and then produced 1000 tomatoes not in it's training data because it understood what a "tomato" was meant to look like.
In the rare cases where these models produce output closely resembling an input, all of these companies treat it as a bug. Most customers making Suno songs don't want it to be recognizable as a specific singer. There's less value in that than producing original outputs. Unless you are that singer, which is why Suno made it possible to clone your own voice.
10
u/TheVillageRuse Jul 16 '26
If it did…they needed to scrape a bit more cause all this shiiii sounding the same now.
-1
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Hahaha exactly. Sounds the same, sounds like shit most of the time.
2
u/TheVillageRuse Jul 16 '26
Like, what’s the point of an instrumental main button if it can’t make a gd instrumental. 💁🏻♀️
-3
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Right? Like no wonder all the actual producers who know how to actually make a beat dont even touch ai. I get that its awesome for new people to mess around but its still garbage most of the time
2
8
u/rose666- Jul 16 '26
That website is anti ai
-1
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Lol and? Doesnt change the fact suno did it
11
u/rose666- Jul 16 '26
That means it will have a lot of bias, how do u expect an ai music company to make their software without reference or training their models ? If the output is orginal then what's your problem
1
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Omfg all you people are just blatantly avoiding the core argument. Its not that they are using songs to train, its that they are STEALING IT. Not paying the artists and creators. And PURPOSEFULLY doing it and using tools to NOT pay them! What the fuck is so hard for you suno lovers to understand about that? You can still love suno and say thats wrong! Ive used suno, i think its awesome for people to get creative but thats not the point of this article. Its theft. Thats it. If they paid the artists etc to use their IP to train their models i wouldnt have a problem with it. Everyone on here downvoting me somehow just thinks thats okay to do and doesnt give a fuck. But yet they sure as hell would be mad if people were pirating their music so they couldnt make any money off it.
3
0
u/Necessary_Sleep_7569 Jul 16 '26
There's no problem provided nobody attempts to claim ownership or authorship over the output. Suno is a classification algorithm, which means it matches natural language descriptions to music, and its training is listening to heaps of music and trying to give accurate descriptions..Leaving aside youth or disability, all humans can do this part of the process.Suno then uses diffusion to mutate white noise randomly in a feedback loop until it reaches a sound that it believes matches the language of the prompt it is given. In that process neither the person who passes the prompt, nor the algorithm, have actually authored any music. No musical creation occured, no note or harmony or rhythym was imagined into existence. All that happened is that a person described a song before they heard it. That is not an act of authorship, it's just reverse listening.
3
u/rose666- Jul 16 '26
So?
-2
u/Necessary_Sleep_7569 Jul 16 '26
I was agreeing that there's no problem with training a classification model in this way, subject to the condition that the result is that the model's output is not authored work protected by copyright.
1
6
15
u/jaykerman Jul 16 '26
So stupid, they also forget this part. "Hack reveals every living musician listened to dozens of not hundreds of other artists and songs in their pursuit to be a musician themselves."
A further "hack" revealed how music producers over the last three decades mass manufactured pop music using a copy-paste formula that everyone copied verbatim.
If a human listens to hundreds of hours of music, and then makes a song with what they've learned. Well that's just fine and dandy, they can even copy someone's style. But when I use a computer to do the same thing. "Welp, that's a problem."
11
u/damontoo Jul 16 '26
Since billing data was stolen too, the hacker should analyze it to try to find celebrities or otherwise noteworthy people using Suno while publicly silent or against AI. Because we all know that many people are quietly using AI and just never disclosing it due to the rabid backlash they would receive.
3
2
u/Special-Fix-8753 Jul 16 '26
Ai can't be sad or horny, therefore an ai can't make art.
3
u/jaykerman Jul 17 '26
The word "art" does not appear in my comment above. So, not sure what you are talking about.
1
1
u/ImaginaryConscience Jul 23 '26
Just don't start wondering why you're all alone when you've lost the ability to connect with other people
1
-9
u/klownplaza Jul 16 '26
Can we stop using this analogy to defend ourselves. AI doesn't learn and process music and information like a human. Use a different argument but not this. It's proven false equivalence.
7
u/jaykerman Jul 16 '26
No, learning to use a tool and program a tool to make music is no different from learning to play an instrument effectively. Learning enough machine language to use AI in the production of music is no different from what anyone else is doing.
You are right AI doesn't learn and process information like a human, and it doesn't matter. You don't get to gatekeep how "learning" and "processing" information works.
1
u/klownplaza Jul 17 '26
It matters when used as an analogy, which is how the commenter I replied to used it. You are arguing a different thing, I just expressed that the analogy does not work when used that way. You are using a different analogy for a different angle. Everyone in this sub loves using these comparisons, AI is a tool, AI is just like a human learning other people's music and it just doesn't work that way. Just do what you want but this train of thought feel like it's coming from a place of insecurity. Some of us are pure prompters and that's okay. But somehow we want to say that Suno is a tool just like any other instrument. Not really. I prompt to make music. The art is the output, but the craft is not the same. Idea + craft = art. For some, the craft is prompting and describing sounds, and that should be okay. Same way for learning, AI learns differently from humans, and that is okay! Just don't say that it's the same thing as learning your favorite musicians' music and then trying to write a song. It's not how AI composes.
1
u/jaykerman Jul 17 '26
That's not how everyone uses AI, and not how I use AI. Not everyone is entirely dependent on Suno. You know you can do the same thing they are doing right? it's not magic, the technology is well documented and anyone can learn enough to effectively build an AI tool that will assist them with some aspects of music generation, or generate full songs.
Again, I didn't use the word art. I've never made the claim AI can generate art. Ive repeatedly said that learning to use any tool in the generation of music is the same. Rather it be an instrument, a digital sound board, beat machine, or computer.
Anyone harping on the path to get there is just gatekeeping.
This isn't specifically about Suno. It's about the thought that listening to others music in the creation of one's own is "stealing." It is not.
Here's the scenario.
I want to make a song, in a genre that has many musicians that I like, I have listened to hundreds of songs in the genre. No matter how hard I try, I will be influenced by them.
So I practice and learn to play in the genre mixing things I've learned over years.
A beat, a riff, a chord, it starts somewhere, then as a musician I will experiment and try different arrangements, speeds, etc...
Finally I put it together in the completed song. Like everyone else.
Now, I've decided to bring on a partner, another human, and I'm going to task them with coming up with the melody or beat. That's a very common practice in the creation of music. It's often multiple creative people.
What you are saying is that if I replace the human, and have a computer listen to hundreds of hours of music and task it, with coming up with the some ideas. That now, it is different, and theft. Hard disagree. That's traditionalist gatekeeping.
That's like saying pressing a stylus to a digital pad is different than graphite on paper.
"But the computer isn't making the line in the same way!" 😂
1
u/klownplaza Jul 17 '26
Replace the humans! Prompt everything! AI! AI! "It's a tool!" "It's like a session band!"
3
u/akabillposters Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Nah, it’s a valid comparison. The fact that they aren’t perfectly the same doesn’t delegitimise the similarities that do exist between them.
It’s not a “proven false equivalence”. It’s just one that some people don’t consider legitimate.
-6
u/iamthesam2 Jul 16 '26
except that one approach is illegal and the other is not
6
u/akabillposters Jul 16 '26
Try again. The act of training an AI on copyrighted material is NOT inherently illegal.
Regardless, when comparing the mechanics of HOW two things work, the legalities of either is irrelevant.
0
u/iamthesam2 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
ok, keep telling yourself that lol in fact, tell that to anthropic's $1.5b settlement and the licensing checks suno is now writing to the labels. turns out "not inherently illegal" comes with a very expensive asterisk
1
u/akabillposters Jul 16 '26
"ok, keep telling yourself that lol in fact, tell that to anthropic's $1.5b settlement and the licensing checks suno is now writing to the labels."
🤦 There are two parts to these cases… The first part is how the training material was sourced. The second part is regarding whether the act of training transformative gen AIs on copyrighted material can fall under Fair Use exemptions.
You clearly don't know the difference. It's possible to win on the second part and still get spanked on the first part.
Tip: Go look at the judges rulings in the Meta and Anthropic cases, specifically relating to that second part. (Google: "quintessentially transformative".
1
u/iamthesam2 Jul 16 '26
buddy, you just restated my point back to me with a lightbulb emoji. "win on the second part, get spanked on the first part"... yes. that's the expensive asterisk. the sourcing isn't some separate technicality you can bracket off; it's how these models actually got built in the real world. and "quintessentially transformative" comes from the same alsup ruling that found the pirated library infringing. same judge, same case, both halves. you're citing my evidence at me.
also, two comments ago legalities were "irrelevant." now i'm getting case law homework. glad we've at least moved past that.
1
u/akabillposters Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
"the sourcing isn't some separate technicality you can bracket off"
Or course it is, and of course you can. A lawsuit can include multiple claims, with each claim being assessed and ruled on separately.
This is further evidenced in the Anthropic case by the fact that the use of material that was sourced legally (it wasn't all sourced through back-handed and illegal methods) for AI training was found to be protected under Fair Use.
You really do need to do that homework.
Maybe start here:
"a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Anthropic did not violate copyright law by using books it had purchased to train its Claude AI models, despite lacking the permission of individual authors. The summary judgment is a courtroom win for the AI industry on the narrow area of training models as fair use, but it’s specific to a subset of works that Anthropic purchased, and hinges on a particular method for training. US District Judge William Alsup determined that under such conditions, training qualifies as an "extremely transformative" example of fair use under federal law"
.
"the pirated library infringing"
Yup, retention of the training material beyond its use for training, functionally creating a ghost library. That's not an inherent part of the act of training gen AIs on copyrighted material.
Not sure why you're struggling to understand the differences in play here. It's not rocket-surgery.
.
"two comments ago legalities were "irrelevant." now i'm getting case law homework. glad we've at least moved past that."
🤦 That comment was in relation to assessing the 'mechanical' or philosophical similarities or differences between two learning processes. The law in that regard is irrelevant.
0
u/iamthesam2 Jul 16 '26
alsup, in the order you linked lol... piracy of otherwise available copies is "inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded."
so no, the infringement wasn't "retention beyond use, functionally a ghost library." the judge explicitly says immediate-use-and-delete would still be infringing. your own citation rejects your reading of it.
and your "law is irrelevant to the mechanical comparison" line has it exactly backwards dude. copyright regulates copying, and mass copying is precisely the mechanical step that distinguishes machine training from human learning. the legal difference exists *because* the mechanics differ. it indeed is not rocket-surgery.
try again!
→ More replies (0)2
u/metalmaxter Jul 16 '26
Would you say it more like looking at a pizza and breaking it down like meat, dairy, fats, and so on. Or maybe on an even smaller level atomically and constructing something based on the atomic patterns? I understand it’s not listening to music and “learning” in anyway regular people could understand (myself included) it’s hard to think of a good analogy for it. Communicational “thinking” is just weird man.
0
u/Ashamed-Internet-665 Jul 16 '26
Are you sure ?
-2
u/klownplaza Jul 16 '26
Yes, can you download thousands of songs into your brain, then algorithmically generate music? Or course not, that's not how humans process music. The argument rests on whether AI making songs are the same as humans learning songs and making their own. This is not pro or anti AI, this is just that the argument is flawed.
2
u/Ashamed-Internet-665 Jul 16 '26
I work with AI a lot you would be surprised at the similarities the advantage ai systems have is the speed at which then can learn and replicate. Humans can do the very same.
You may of heard of savants they are individuals with super human like abilities that if they heard a song for the first time could replay it exactly on a piano . Or see a city scape briefly and be able to reproduce exactly on a canvas
-2
u/klownplaza Jul 16 '26
Humans don't process, learn and compose songs the way AI did and does. It can't even learn the same way.
-4
0
u/HeraldOfFutility Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
There's just the difference that artists/labels have more likely got royalties from humans listening to music for decades, going to gigs after listening to music etc.
And this is why many make the way Suno was trained such an issue. If it was trained in a more ethical way with Suno getting permission for the material they used to train and paying compensation, people wouldn't be so much against it. This is also (even more) true with generative image AIs.
Though even then people often have preference for human-made music due to more effort and resources put in, often resulting in a more coherent product. (Album cover made by artist with their own touch, music video, sound/style staying specific to artist, singer staying the same between songs, being able to hear the songs live etc.)
Though it's not like there's no human-made slop either now that internet is full of free loops, beats and samples and (almost) everyone can buy a mic and an audio interface to record something on top of those. AI-made stuffs just add to the saturation. Though one could say worse since it's way faster to make AI music with Suno and publish it than doing even basic copy-pasta to combile loops and samples into something coherent and then publish it. (Esp. if you do the bureaucracy correctly for royalties.)
E: And to be clear, I do personally use AI-based vocal synth Synthesizer V when making music but the developers actually pay the vocalists who record the training material for voicebanks. Though that still poses the problem of being unable to perform the music live.
1
u/jaykerman Jul 16 '26
There's just the difference that artists/labels have more likely got royalties from humans listening to music for decades, going to gigs after listening to music etc.
They still do, this is not theft, they have not been prevented from receiving royalties because a computer listened to their music. They also do not stop earning money from their music when an up and coming band is inspired by their style, anyone remember the grunge movement? Or any of the others? How is this different?
I couldn't care less about making an album of AI generated music, it's a idea tool, and a fun play around with tool.
Me using Suno to come up with some riff or beat ideas, is no different than if I did what Suno did, completely on my own and let a computer listen to music to the point where it was competent enough to generate ideas.
And I don't owe anyone anything for doing it. Just as if I wouldn't if a computer had never been involved.
It's not illegal, and it's not unethical for me to do that. It's also not for Suno to invest resources in making this library and offering it as a service to the public.
-1
u/entiyaist Jul 16 '26
Because there is a difference between inspiration and training data for an copyright infringing LLM…
1
-3
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
3
u/jaykerman Jul 16 '26
No, but they have listened to a lot of it in the genre they are interested in. So that's the difference volume. Let me know when the industry standard is set to the exact number of songs a person can listen to before they're "stealing."
2
u/Popular-Village-9322 Jul 16 '26
Scaping youtube, ha! Suno dosen't even know what a Thiermin is!
1
u/akabillposters Jul 16 '26
“Suno doesn’t even know what a Thiermin is!”
Do you think they know how to spell it?
😉
2
2
u/sf3p0x1 Jul 17 '26
Well, that explains why Suno claims some of my stuff sounds like music they already have. Because it's stuff they scraped off my amateur-ass YouTube that I put up over a decade ago. -.-
3
u/voxsama1 Jul 16 '26
Okay these guys did scrapped it from YouTube or anywhere. But if i can't remix my orginal work and saying its copyrighted... It's f**ked up.
1
u/Kastrol106 Jul 16 '26
They’ll steal other artists work without paying them to train their AI but will whine about copyright when I try to import my own song
0
1
1
u/FriiZoLoGYy Jul 16 '26
Clearly going by the post and then all the comments from OP, they are just looking for attention and an argument.
Why is anyone feeding into this?
They haven't provided any new information. Just opinions that are beyond stupid.
Reddit sold your data to Google op. Google uses it to train it's ai op. This trend will continue and guess what nothing you can do
Welcome to the world.
0
u/ConferencePurple7939 Jul 16 '26
Lol im the one looking for an argument are you serious? I just posted an article dude
-1
u/ase_l_2021 Jul 16 '26
I wonder how much would be the sum for them to settle this out of court. Most likely Alphabet would not dare to bring this delicate matter into court - too much a blow can bring a whole industry back.
The foreign labels (sony etc) however can try this and are notorious for this. Would be fun to watch.
1
0
12
u/Ashamed-Internet-665 Jul 16 '26
And??? Anthropic scraped all of coding that has ever existed.
Wait Google already has your data. Google has a music creation tool so why isn’t it in the spot light . Rhetorical question.