[gavman]

> MusicGen, which was trained with Meta-owned and specifically licensed music, generates music from text-based user inputs, while AudioGen, which was trained on public sound effects, generates audio from text-based user inputs.

Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own".

[kmeisthax]

This is purely a function of everyone remembering the RIAA's decade-long campaign to prevent people from taking the music they had rightfully stolen. As far as I'm aware LLaMA was trained on "publicly available data"[0], not "licensed data".

Furthermore, MusicGen's weights are licensed CC-BY-NC, which is effectively a nonlicense as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator[1]. This is not only a 'weights-available' license, but it's significantly more restrictive than the morality clause bearing OpenRAIL license that Stability likes to use[2].

[0] https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/MODEL_CA...

[1] https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LIC...

[2] These are also very much Not Open Source™ but the morality clauses in OpenRAIL are at least non-onerous enough to collaborate over.

[ericpauley]

My understanding (IANAL) [1] is that copyright licenses have no say on the output of software. Further, CC licenses don't say anything about running or using software (or model weights). It's therefore questionable whether the CC-BY-NC license actually prevents commercial use of the model.

[1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12070/allowed...

[cosmojg]

You're correct, but no one has had the balls (or the lawyers) to clarify this in court yet. Expect to see hosting providers complying with takedown requests for the foreseeable future.

[indymike]

Hosting providers *have* to comply with takedown requests to maintain safe harbor.

[mcbits]

I don't remember the details (or outcome) but there was a lawsuit a few years ago involving CAD or architecture software and whether they could limit how the output images were used because they were assemblages of clipart that the company asserted were still protected by copyright. Something like that. A lot of "AI" output potentially poses a similar issue, just at a far more granular level.

[Tepix]

You're wrong because software, as you describe it, includes the "cp" command which creates a perfect copy.

[ericpauley]

As sibling noted, we’re talking about the impact of a software’s license on use of its output.

I suppose your point would stand if the software were a quine?

[tikhonj]

The copyright license of the cp code itself has no bearing on the copyright of what you produce (well, copy) with cp.

[robertlagrant]

That's not the point they're making. They're replying to their parent comment.

[eropple]

> MusicGen's weights are licensed CC-BY-NC, which is effectively a nonlicense as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator

How do you figure? Have you never just...made stuff to make stuff?

[kmeisthax]

In copyright law the use of the work itself is considered a commercial benefit, so "noncommercial use" is an oxymoron. Consider these situations:

- If I use AudioCraft to post freely-downloadable tracks on my SoundCloud, I still get the benefit of having a large audio catalog in my name, even if I'm not selling the individual tracks. I could later compose tracks on my own and ride off the exposure I got from posting "noncommercially".

- If I run AudioCraft as a background music generator in my store, I save money by not having to license music for public performance.

- If I host AudioCraft on a website and put ads on it, I'm making money by making the work available, even though I'm not charging a fee for entry.

I suspect that a lot of people reading this are going to have different arguments for each. My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license.

If you're angry at the logic on display here, keep in mind that this is how judges will construe the license, and probably also how Facebook will if you find a way to make any use of their AI. The only thing that stops them from rugpulling you later is explicit guidance in CC-BY-NC. Unfortunately, the only such guidance is that they don't consider P2P filesharing to be a commercial use.

So, absent any other clarifications from Facebook, all you can do without risking a lawsuit is share the weights on BitTorrent.

EDIT: And yes, I have made stuff just to make stuff. I license all of that under copyleft licenses because they express the underlying idea of 'noncommercial' better than actual noncommercial clauses do.

[stale2002]

This is a weird comment.

Do you think that non commercial use simply doesn't exist or something?

Because non commercial use isn't some crazy concept. It is a well established one, that doesnt disclude literally everything.

Also, you are ignoring the idea that Facebook will almost certainly not sue anyone for using this for any reason, except possibly Google or Apple.

So if you aren't literally one of those companies you could probably just use it anyway, ignore the license completely, and have zero risk of being sued.

[elondaits]

The issue with “non commercial” is that no, it’s not well established. Licenses with a NC clause are so problematic to be practically useless. If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… a CC license is for use and redistribution.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4559

[robertlagrant]

What about playing the music in a government building as elevator music, for example?

[pbhjpbhj]

>If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… //

I presume you mean in USA, because in UK you don't have a general private right to copy. Our "Fair Dealing" is super restrictive compared to Fair Use.

[Tao3300]

I miss that blog. It was a little crazy and the comments were a flame war shitshow, but man it was fun to read sometimes. Even if I vehemently disagreed, it got me thinking.

Whatever happened to esr? Did he just get too paranoid and clam up?

[kmeisthax]

Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters. I know other forms of law actually do establish noncommercial and commercial use standards, but copyright does not recognize them.

As for "Facebook won't sue"? Sure, except we don't have to worry about just Facebook. We have to worry about anyone with a derivative model. There's an entire industry of copyleft trolls[0] that could construct copyright traps with them.

Individuals can practically ignore NC mainly because individuals can practically ignore most copyright enforcement. This is for the same reason why you can drive 55 in a 30mph zone and not get a citation. It's not that speeding is now suddenly legal, it's that nobody wants to enforce speed limits - but you can still get nailed. The moment you have to worry about NC, there is no practical way for you to fit within its limits.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/20/beware-copyleft-trolls/

[tiahura]

Commercial vs Noncommercial use is well established in copyright law - in everything from Final Rule Regarding the Noncommercial Use Exception to Unauthorized Uses of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/pre1972-soundrecordings... to Noncommercial webcasters https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/114#f_4 to Fair Use.

Noncommercial licenses are taken up in "GREAT MINDS v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC 886 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 2018). Thé court explains they are enforceable and are basically just a category of contract. So, as long as the contract is clear, it’s probably enforceable.

[dragonwriter]

> Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters.

No, for “NonCommercial”, what actually matters is the explicit definition in the license.

[dragonwriter]

> My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not.

What “NonCommercial” means in the license is explictly defined in the license, and if you think either those examples, or more to the point, every possible use ever so as to render ‘NonCommercial’ into ‘no use’ as you have claimed, you need to make that argument, based on the definition in the license, not some concept of what might be construed as commercial use by general legal principles if the license used the term without its own explicit definition.

[NegativeK]

Is listening at home a violation of NC? That's what I've interpreted as its intent.

[Tao3300]

> if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license.

You're right: those are all equally infringing CC-BY-NC. I don't see a problem.

[wpietri]

What's your evidence for this bit?

> this is how judges will construe the license

[analognoise]

I think the key word there is "noncommercial".

[dragonwriter]

Yes, but you can easily make noncommercial use of an art generator.

Obviously, you can't host a commercial art generation service with a noncommercial-use license, and (insofar as art produced by a generator is a derivative work of the model weights, which is a controversial and untested legal theory) you can’t make commercial art with a noncommercial license, but not all art is commercial.

[kmeisthax]

"Noncommercial art" is not a thing in the eyes of the law. Even if you don't intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial. That's why CC-BY-NC has to have a special "filesharing is non-commercial" statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is.

You're probably thinking of "not charging a fee to use", which is a subset of all the ways you can monetize a creative work. You can still make money off of AudioCraft by just hosting it with banner ads next to the output. Even a "no monetization" clause[0] would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only", because it'd at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.

[0] Which already precludes the use of AudioCraft music on YouTube since you can't do unmonetized uploads anymore

[dragonwriter]

> “Noncommercial art” is not a thing in the eyes of the law

The definition of “NonCommercial”, the oddly capitalized term of art in the license, is not a matter of general law, it is a matter of the license, which defines it as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.”

> Even if you don’t intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial.

Even if you do make money, if the use is “not primarily intended” for that purpose, it is "NonCommercial" in the terms of the license.

> That’s why CC-BY-NC has to have a special “filesharing is non-commercial” statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is.

It has the filesharing term in it because it permits that particular exchange-of-value as a primary purpose.

> Even a “no monetization” clause would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only"

How would a clause that prohibits monetization entirely be less onerous than one which prohibits it only as the primary intent of use?

> it’d at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.

It is legal to use it for that purpose (in a for-profit enterprise, I suppose, one might make an argument that any activity was ultimately primarily directed at “commercial advantage”, but in a government or many nonprofit environments, that wouldn’t be the case.)

[Blahah]

Yes it is. Art that I make for my own enjoyment is noncommercial. Art that I make to explain concepts to my son is noncommercial.

[schleck8]

> as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator

r/stablediffusion gives you a hundred examples daily of people just having fun and not thinking of monetizing their generations

[Blackthorn]

> there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator

I'm sorry, what?

[rvnx]

Google is running on "publicly available data", not "licensed data"

[JeremyNT]

The fact that Meta is able to lie and call their restrictive licensing open source is nearly as misleading as "OpenAI."

We need to do better than to repeat these claims uncritically. The weight licenses are not "open source" by any useful definition, and we should not give Meta kudos for their misleading PR (especially considering that they almost surely ignored any copyright when training these things - rules for thee, but not for me).

"Not as closed as OpenAI" is accurate, but also damning with faint praise.

[j_maffe]

Just some general piece of advice: it's not productive to constantly be giving out the worst criticism you possibly can when someone does something that's not terrible but still unacceptable. Doing so just tells the companies that nothing satisfies the community and that they should stop trying. Instead, it's better to mention what they did right and point to how they can make it better.

[voz_]

Can you chill? It’s def open source

[mkl]

The source code is, as it's MIT, but the weights are not, as they're CC-BY-NC: https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license

[version_five]

  about: pytorch @ fb.

[Filligree]

So I can build a business on it, then?

[__loam]

I believe Meta has explicitly said that you can, but that's not what open source means and the model isn't open source.

[mkl]

Meta says to imagine you can: "Imagine a professional musician being able to explore new compositions without having to play a single note on an instrument. Or an indie game developer populating virtual worlds with realistic sound effects and ambient noise on a shoestring budget. Or a small business owner adding a soundtrack to their latest Instagram post with ease."

In reality, you can't, as they licensed the weights for noncommercial use only: https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license

[chaxor]

Research does exist you know. This is immensely helpful for a huge number of people in academia.

If you want to build a company, perhaps you should do what everyone in the industry has done for millennia, copy the movements performed and optimize them while doing so.

[archontes]

You don't own data. You can sometimes copyright data.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/public...

[ChildOfChaos]

It's likely partly a PR/branding exercise as well.

In the new world that Meta sees, of VR/AR and AI, Meta is in a position already were people don't want them to have much power in this world, because they don't trust them over privacy etc, meta is trying to pivot to become more trustworthy so they make genuine moves in this space.

[smoldesu]

That, or this is an ongoing research lab (FAIR) that has existed for ~half a decade and has advanced the state-of-the-art in AI further than Apple, Microsoft and Google combined.

[__loam]

I would be pretty shocked if meta were that far ahead of all 3 of those companies, all of which are also spending a fuck load on internal AI research.

[polygamous_bat]

> all of which are also spending a fuck load on internal AI research.

But their internal research stays internal. Sometimes, they put out "papers" which are glorified advertisements, often going as far as hiding the model architecture just to keep their competitive advantage.

[__loam]

I get that, I'm just saying the original statement, that meta is further along than all of those companies combined, is a pretty wild claim.

[smoldesu]

If all three of those companies have something to show for their research, none of it is at the scale or level of accessibility Pytorch, Llama and now Audiocraft offer.

[scrum-treats]

> "Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own"."

Isn't Meta settling lawsuits for this right now? In addition to violating user privacy (another lawsuit)...

Meta is attempting to destroy competition; that's it. Similar to how they paid a fortune to lobby against Tiktok for the exact reasons Meta is under active investigation (again). The irony.

[croes]

"If we don't win here, then at least we'll kick their lawn to pieces."

[itsyaboi]

Bully "Open"AI into rebranding.

[samstave]

They are doing PR damage control with an influx of AI stuffs due to the ridicule of metaverse and the recent revelations of threads (for which they are playing the long AI game) -- [are not concrened about all threads and IG and other accounts being linked via their internal LLMs we will never hear about?

[jstummbillig]

Yes. Meta is in the business of commanding as much of peoples time as possible. AI is more or less the biggest danger to this model (apart from legislation, theoretically, but let's not kid ourselves). Making AI a commodity is in their very interest.

[agilob]

Goddamn, Facebook being the good guy...

[deepvibrations]

Nah, this is just the modern tech playbook: First you open source stuff, then you can monitor all the related development happening and whenever you see areas of interest/popularity, you simply clone the functionality or buy out whatever entity is building that interesting stuff.

[version_five]

They're not, they're playing a longer Microsoft style game to corrupt the meaning of open source, and releasing models under their terms to undermine competitors.

[agilob]

Sounds like they're good enough. Enemy of Microsoft is my friend