“Typically when something is available to “buy,” ownership of that good or access to that service is offered in exchange for money,” writes Ars Technica.
“That’s not really the case, though, when it comes to digital content.”

Often, streaming services like Amazon Prime Video offer customers the options to “rent” digital content for a few days or to “buy” it. Some might think that picking “buy” means that they can view the content indefinitely. But these purchases are really just long-term licenses to watch the content for as long as the streaming service has the right to distribute it — which could be for years, months, or days after the transaction. A lawsuit recently filed against Prime Video challenges this practice and accuses the streaming service of misleading customers by labeling long-term rentals as purchases. The conclusion of the case could have implications for how streaming services frame digital content…

[The plaintiff’s] complaint stands a better chance due to a California law that took effect in January banning the selling of a “digital good to a purchaser with the terms ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,’ or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental.” There are some instances where the law allows digital content providers to use words like “buy.” One example is if, at the time of transaction, the seller receives acknowledgement from the customer that the customer is receiving a license to access the digital content; that they received a complete list of the license’s conditions; and that they know that access to the digital content may be “unilaterally revoked….”

The case is likely to hinge on whether or not fine print and lengthy terms of use are appropriate and sufficient communication. [The plaintiff]’s complaint acknowledges that Prime Video shows relevant fine print below its “buy” buttons but says that the notice is “far below the ‘buy movie’ button, buried at the very bottom” of the page and is not visible until “the very last stage of the transaction,” after a user has already clicked “buy.”

Amazon is sure to argue that “If plaintiff didn’t want to read her contract, including the small print, that’s on her,” says consumer attorney Danny Karon. But he tells Ars Technica “I like plaintiff’s chances. A normal consumer, after whom the California statute at issue is fashioned, would consider ‘buy’ or ‘purchase’ to involve a permanent transaction, not a mere rental… If the facts are as plaintiff alleges, Amazon’s behavior would likely constitute a breach of contract or statutory fraud.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“I have no musical talent at all,” says Oliver McCann. “I can’t sing, I can’t play instruments, and I have no musical background at all!”

But the Associated Press describes 37-year-old McCann as a British “AI music creator” — and last month McCann signed with an independent record label “after one of his tracks racked up 3 million streams, in what’s billed as the first time a music label has inked a contract with an AI music creator.”

McCann is an example of how ChatGPT-style AI song generation tools like Suno and Udio have spawned a wave of synthetic music, a movement most notably highlighted by a fictitious group, Velvet Sundown, that went viral even though all its songs, lyrics and album art were created by AI. Experts say generative AI is set to transform the music world. However, there are scant details, so far, on how it’s impacting the $29.6 billion global recorded music market, which includes about $20 billion from streaming.
The most reliable figures come from music streaming service Deezer, which estimates that 18% of songs uploaded to its platform every day are purely AI generated, though they only account for a tiny amount of total streams, hinting that few people are actually listening. Other, bigger streaming platforms like Spotify haven’t released any figures on AI music… “It’s a total boom. It’s a tsunami,” said Josh Antonuccio, director of Ohio University’s School of Media Arts and Studies. The amount of AI generated music “is just going to only exponentially increase” as young people grow up with AI and become more comfortable with it, he said. [Antonuccio says later the cost of making a hit record “just keeps winnowing down from a major studio to a laptop to a bedroom. And now it’s like a text prompt — several text prompts.” Though there’s a lack of legal clarity over copyright issues.]

Generative AI, with its ability to spit out seemingly unique content, has divided the music world, with musicians and industry groups complaining that recorded works are being exploited to train AI models that power song generation tools… Three major record companies, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Records, filed lawsuits last year against Suno and Udio for copyright infringement. In June, the two sides also reportedly entered negotiations that could go beyond settling the lawsuits and set rules for how artists are paid when AI is used to remix their songs.
GEMA, a German royalty collection society, has sued Suno, accusing it of generating music similar to songs like “Mambo No. 5” by Lou Bega and “Forever Young” by Alphaville. More than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush, Annie Lennox and Damon Albarn, released a silent album to protest proposed changes to U.K. laws on AI they fear would erode their creative control.
Meanwhile, other artists, such as will.i.am, Timbaland and Imogen Heap, have embraced the technology. Some users say the debate is just a rehash of old arguments about once-new technology that eventually became widely used, such as AutoTune, drum machines and synthesizers.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.