Page: 2
Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store — the same issue that went to trial in another case that could result in even bigger changes.
Although Google struck the deal with state attorneys general in September, the settlement’s terms weren’t revealed until late Monday in documents filed in San Francisco federal court. The disclosure came a week after a federal court jury rebuked Google for deploying anticompetitive tactics in its Play Store for Android apps.
The settlement with the states includes $630 million to compensate U.S. consumers funneled into a payment processing system that state attorneys general alleged drove up the prices for digital transactions within apps downloaded from the Play Store. That store caters to the Android software that powers most of the world’s smartphones.
Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. Those commissions generated billions of dollars in profit annually for Google, according to evidence presented in the recent trial focused on its Play Store.
Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. The estimated 102 million U.S. consumers who made in-app purchases during that time frame are supposed to be automatically notified about various options for how they can receive their cut of the money.
Another $70 million of the pre-trial settlement will cover the penalties and other costs that Google is being forced to pay to the states.
Although Google is forking over a sizeable sum, it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling.
Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used.
The makers of Android apps will also gain more flexibility to offer alternative payment choices to consumers instead of having transactions automatically processed through the Play Store and its commission system. Apps will also be able to promote lower prices available to consumers who choose an alternate to the Play Store’s payment processing.
Investors seemed unfazed by the settlement as shares in Google’s corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., rose slightly in Tuesday’s midday trading.
The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech — attorneys general across the country are unified, and we are prepared to use the full weight of our collective authority to ensure free and fair access to the digital marketplace,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Wilson White, Google’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, framed the deal as a positive for the company, despite the money and concessions it entails. The settlement “builds on Android’s choice and flexibility, maintains strong security protections, and retains Google’s ability to compete with other (software) makers, and invest in the Android ecosystem for users and developers,” White wrote in a blog post.
Although the state attorneys general hailed the settlement as a huge win for consumers, it didn’t go far enough for Epic Games, which spearheaded the attack on Google’s app store practices with an antitrust lawsuit filed in August 2020.
Epic, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, rebuffed the settlement in September and instead chose to take its case to trial, even though it had already lost on most of its key claims in a similar trial targeting Apple and its iPhone app store in 2021.
The Apple trial, though, was decided by a federal judge instead of the jury that vindicated Epic with a unanimous verdict that Google had built anticompetitive barriers around the Play Store. Google has vowed to appeal the verdict.
Corie Wright, Epic’s vice president of public policy, derided the states’ settlement as little more than a one-time payout that provides “no true relief for consumers or developers,” in a blog post.
In court documents, the attorneys general said they decided to settle because of significant risks posed by a trial, including the possibility that a jury may have thought their plan to seek $10.5 billion in damages was exorbitant. The attorneys general also cited for the potential of jurors becoming confused had their case been presented alongside Epic’s claims in the trial, as had been the original plan.
But now the Epic trial’s outcome nevertheless raises the specter of Google potentially being ordered to pay even more money as punishment for its past practices and making even more dramatic changes to its lucrative Android app ecosystem.
Those changes will be determined next year by U.S. District Judge James Donato, who presided over the Epic Games trial. Donato also still must approve Google’s Play Store settlement with the states.
“In the next phase of the case, Epic will seek meaningful remedies to truly open up the Android ecosystem so consumers and developers will genuinely benefit from the competition that U.S. antitrust laws were designed to promote,” Wright pledged.
Google faces an even bigger legal threat in another antitrust case targeting its dominant search engine that serves as the centerpiece of a digital ad empire that generates more than $200 billion in sales annually. Closing arguments in a trial pitting Google against the Justice Department are scheduled for early May before a federal judge in Washington D.C.
Google released its list of the biggest trending searches of 2023 and when it comes to music, Jason Aldean‘s controversial “Try That in a Small Town” led the list of search inquiries for songs, with Aldean also hitting No. 1 as the top trending musician.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a year when Taylor Swift and Beyoncé were perpetually in the news thanks to their massive tours and the live concert films, the high placement for Aldean was not totally surprising given the weeks of attention he got for “Small Town,” which was pulled from CMT and labeled by some detractors as being pro-gun, pro-violence and akin to a “modern lynching song” after the release of the track’s video.
The visual found Aldean performing the song in front of the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, TN, the site of the 1927 lynching and hanging of 18-year-old Henry Choate over allegations that he sexually assaulted a white girl, as well as the spot of a 1946 race riot in which two Black men were killed. Aldean rejected detractors’ claims about the song whose video featured images of an American flag burning, protesters clashing with police, looters breaking a display case and thieves robbing a convenience store; the video was later seemingly edited to remove images of a Black Lives Matter protest following the backlash.
Right behind Aldean was buzzy rapper Ice Spice, followed by “Rich Men North of Richmond” country singer Oliver Anthony, Peso Pluma, Joe Jonas, Sam Smith, The 1975’s Matty Healy, Kellie Pickler, Kim Petras and Sexxy Red.
Google’s data shows the top trending searches in the U.S., referring to trending queries as searches that had a major spike in traffic over a sustained period in 2023 versus 2022, which is why despite being a near-ubiquitous search term who has a consistently high search interest, TIME‘s Person of the Year Swift (and Beyoncé) didn’t top the ranking for musicians; click here for Gizmodo‘s explanation.
The year’s most buzzed-about movies, Barbie and Oppenheimer (combined as Barbenheimer by fans) came out on top, followed by the controversial anti-trafficking movie Sound of Freedom and Oscar-winner Everything Everywhere All At Once, as well as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Creed III, John Wick: Chapter 4, Five Nights at Freddy’s and Cocaine Bear. The No. 1 trending actor was Jeremy Renner, who suffered serious injuries in a snowplow incident in January.
Jamie Foxx, who was sidelined most of this year after an unexplained “medical complication” in April, was just behind Renner, followed by disgraced That 70’s Show actor Danny Masterson, comedian Matt Rife, Pedro Pascal, Jonathan Majors, Sophie Turner, Russell Brand, Ke Huy Quan and Josh Hutcherson.
The trending people list had Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin at No. 1 following his scary on-field cardiac incident during a Cincinnati Bengals game in January, followed by Renner and Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, likely due to his romance with Taylor Swift; Kelce was also among the top five most-searched athletes.
The TV tally featured mostly Netflix projects, including its originals Ginny & Georgia, Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, Wednesday, That 90’s Show, Kaleidoscope, Beef and The Fall of the House of Usher. Other shows that got in the mix included Daisy Jones & the Six (No. 4) and The Weeknd’s one-and-done HBO series The Idol (No. 9).
Late Friends star Matthew Perry was No. 1 on searches for celebrity deaths, followed by Tina Turner, Jerry Springer, Jimmy Buffett and Sinead O’Connor, with Lisa Marie Presley coming in at No. 8. The news headlines that we searched the most were those related to the war between Israel and Hamas, followed by the sinking of the Titanic tourist submarine, Hurricanes Hilary, Idalia and Lee, as well as a mass shootings in Maine and Nashville, the Maui wildfire, the Idaho college campus murder trail and the Canadian wildfires.
A federal court jury has decided that Google’s Android app store has been protected by anticompetitive barriers that have damaged smartphone consumers and software developers, dealing a blow to a major pillar of a technology empire.
The unanimous verdict reached Monday came after just three hours of deliberation following a four-week trial revolving around a lucrative payment system within Google’s Play Store. The store is the main place where hundreds of millions of people around the world download and install apps that work on smartphones powered by Google’s Android software.
Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, filed a lawsuit against Google three years ago, alleging that the internet search giant has been abusing its power to shield its Play Store from competition in order to protect a gold mine that makes billions of dollars annually. Just as Apple does for its iPhone app store, Google collects a commission ranging from 15% to 30% on digital transactions completed within apps.
Apple prevailed in a similar case that Epic brought against the iPhone app store. But that 2021 trial was decided by a federal judge in a ruling that is under appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nine-person jury in the Play Store case apparently saw things through a different lens, even though Google technically allows Android apps to be downloaded from different stores — an option that Apple prohibits on the iPhone.
Just before the Play Store trial started, Google sought to avoid having a jury determine the outcome, only to have its request rejected by U.S. District Judge James Donato. Now it will be up to Donato to determine what steps Google will have to take to unwind its illegal behavior in the Play Store. The judge indicated he will hold hearings on the issue during the second week of January.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney broke into a wide grin after the verdict was read and slapped his lawyers on the back and also shook the hand of a Google attorney, whom he thanked for his professional attitude during the proceedings.
“Victory over Google!” Sweeney wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. In a company post, Epic hailed the verdict as “a win for all app developers and consumers around the world.”
Google plans to appeal the verdict, according to a statement from Wilson White, the company’s vice president of government affairs and public policy.
“Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” White said.
Depending on how the judge enforces the jury’s verdict, Google could lose billions of dollars in annual profit generated from its Play Store commissions. The company’s main source of revenue — digital advertising tied mostly to its search engine, Gmail and other services — won’t be directly affected by the trial’s outcome.
The jury reached its decision after listening to two hours of closing arguments from the lawyers on the opposing sides of the case.
Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein depicted Google as a ruthless bully that deploys a “bribe and block” strategy to discourage competition against its Play Store for Android apps. Google lawyer Jonathan Kravis attacked Epic as a self-interested game maker trying to use the courts to save itself money while undermining an ecosystem that has spawned billions of Android smartphones to compete against Apple and its iPhone.
Much of the lawyers’ dueling arguments touched upon the testimony from a litany of witnesses who came to court during the trial.
The key witnesses included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who sometimes seemed like a professor explaining complex topics while standing behind a lectern because of a health issue, and Sweeney, who painted himself as a video game lover on a mission to take down a greedy tech titan.
In his closing argument for Epic, Bornstein railed against Google for exploiting its power over the Android software in a way that “has led to higher prices for developers and consumers, as well as less innovation and quality.”
Google has staunchly defended the commissions as a way to help recoup the more than $40 billion that it has poured into building into the Android software that it has been giving away since 2007 to manufacturers to compete against the iPhone.
“Android phones cannot compete against the iPhone without a great app store on them,” Kravis asserted in his closing argument. “The competition between the app stores is tied to the competition between the phones.”
But Bornstein ridiculed the notion of Google and Android competing against Apple and its incompatible iPhone software system. “Apple is not the ‘get out of jail for free’ card that Google wants it to be,” Bornstein told the jury.
Google also pointed to rival Android app stores such as the one that Samsung installs on its popular smartphones as evidence of a free market. Combined with the rival app stores pre-installed on devices made by other companies, more than 60% of Android phones offer alternative outlets for Android apps.
Epic, though, presented evidence asserting the notion that Google welcomes competition as a pretense, citing the hundreds of billions of dollars it has doled out to companies, such as game maker Activision Blizzard, to discourage them from opening rival app stores. Besides making these payments, Bornstein also urged the jury to consider the Google “scare screens” that pop up, warning consumers of potential security threats when they try to download Android apps from some of the alternatives to the Play Store.
“These are classic anticompetitive strategies used by dominant firms to protect their monopolies,” Bornstein said.
Google’s empire could be further undermined by another major antitrust trial in Washington that will be decided by a federal judge after hearing final arguments in May. That trial has cast a spotlight on Google’s cozy relationship with Apple in online search, the technology that turned Google into a household word a few years after two former Stanford University graduate students started the company in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) argued that AI companies need to license material from copyright owners to train their models and that “a new federal right of publicity… is necessary to address the unprecedented scale on which AI tools facilitate the improper use of a creator’s image, likeness, and voice” in a document filed to the Copyright Office on Wednesday (Dec. 6).
The Copyright Office announced that it was studying “the copyright issues raised by generative artificial intelligence” in August and solicited written comments from relevant players in the space. Initial written comments had to be submitted by October 30, while reply comments — which give organizations like ASCAP the chance to push back against assertions made by AI companies like Anthropic and Open AI — were due December 6.
Generative AI models require training: They ingest large amounts of data to identify patterns. “AI training is a computational process of deconstructing existing works for the purpose of modeling mathematically how [they] work,” Google wrote in its reply comments for the Copyright Office. “By taking existing works apart, the algorithm develops a capacity to infer how new ones should be put together” — hence the “generative” part of this.
ASCAP represents songwriters, composers, and music publishers, and its chief concern is that AI companies will be allowed to train models on its members’ works without coming to some sort of licensing arrangement ahead of time. “Numerous comments from AI industry members raise doubts about the technical or economic feasibility of licensing as a model for the authorized use of protected content,” ASCAP writes. “But armchair speculations about the efficiency of licensing do not justify a rampant disregard for creators’ rights.”
ASCAP adds that “numerous large-scale AI tools have already been developed exclusively on the basis of fully licensed or otherwise legally obtained materials” — pointing to Boomy, Stable Audio, Generative AI by Getty Images, and Adobe Firefly — “demonstrating that the development of generative AI technologies need not come at the expense of creators’ rights.”
ASCAP also calls for the implementation of a new federal right-of-publicity law, worried that voice-cloning technology, for example, can threaten artists’ livelihood. “Generative AI technology introduces unprecedented possibilities for the unauthorized use of a creator’s image, likeness, and voice,” ASCAP argues. “The existing patchwork of state laws were not written with this technology in view, and do not adequately protect creators.”
“Without allowing the artists and creators to control their voice and likeness,” ASCAP continues, “this technology will create both consumer confusion and serious financial harm to the original music creators.”
While Google usually takes a 15% cut of customer payments for app subscriptions in its Play Store on Android devices, Spotify obtained a deal that allowed it to pay a drastically reduced commission, according to The Verge.
The details of the business arrangement were divulged by Google head of global partnerships Don Harrison on Monday (Nov. 20) in testimony during the Epic Games vs. Google trial: Spotify paid no commission if users bought subscriptions through Spotify, and 4% if users selected Google as their payment processor.
Harrison said in court that Spotify landed this “bespoke” agreement because “if we don’t have Spotify working properly across Play services and core services, people will not buy Android phones.” His testimony also indicated that the deal entailed a $50 million investment by both Google and Spotify in a “success fund.”
In a statement to The Verge, a Google spokesperson said that “a small number of developers that invest more directly in Android and Play may have different service fees as part of a broader partnership that includes substantial financial investments and product integrations across different form factors. These key investment partnerships allow us to bring more users to Android and Play by continuously improving the experience for all users and create new opportunities for all developers.”
A rep for Spotify did not respond to Billboard’s request for comment.
Epic Games, which is known for furnishing the world with the popular game Fortnite, has been battling Google since way back in 2020 over the 30% fee the search giant charges app developers for purchases made on its Play Store on Android devices. Epic tried to circumvent Google’s system by putting its own payment system into the Fortnite app and charging a reduced price; Google hit back by yanking Fortnite off the Play Store.
Epic then sued Google. “Google… is using its size to do evil upon competitors, innovators, customers and users in a slew of markets it has grown to monopolize,” Epic wrote in its complaint. The New York Times reported that Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, said in court on Monday (Nov. 20) that Google “exercises de facto control over the availability of apps on Android.”
Wilson White, a Google vp of public policy, told reporters earlier this month that “Epic wants all the benefits of Android and Google Play without having to pay for them,” according to The New York Times. “The lawsuit [from Epic] would upend a business model that has lowered prices and increased choices,” White argued.
Google had tried to avoid revealing the nature of its relationship with Spotify in court, The Verge reported earlier this month. “Disclosure of the Spotify deal would be very, very detrimental for the negotiation we’d be having with… other parties,” Google attorney Glenn Pomerantz told the judge overseeing the case.
YouTube will introduce the ability for labels and others music rights holders “to request the removal of AI-generated music content that mimics an artist’s unique singing or rapping voice,” according to a blog post published on Tuesday (Nov. 14).
Access to the request system will initially be limited: “These removal requests will be available to labels or distributors who represent artists participating in YouTube’s early AI music experiments.” However, the blog, written by vice presidents of of product management Jennifer Flannery O’Connor and Emily Moxley, noted that YouTube will “continue to expand access to additional labels and distributors over the coming months.”
This marks the latest step by YouTube to try to assuage music industry fears about new AI-powered technologies — and also position itself as a leader in the space.
In August, YouTube published its “principles for partnering with the music industry on AI technology.” Chief among them: “it must include appropriate protections and unlock opportunities for music partners who decide to participate,” wrote CEO Neil Mohan.
YouTube also partnered with a slew of artists from Universal Music Group on an “AI music incubator.” “Artists must play a central role in helping to shape the future of this technology,” the Colombian star Juanes said in a statement at the time. “I’m looking forward to working with Google and YouTube… to assure that AI develops responsibly as a tool to empower artists.”
In September, at the annual Made on YouTube event, the company announced a new suite of AI-powered video and audio tools for creators. Creators can type in an idea for a backdrop, for example, and a new feature dubbed “Dream Screen” will generate it for them. Similarly, AI can assist creators in finding the right songs for their videos.
In addition to giving labels the ability to request the takedown of unauthorized imitations, YouTube promised on Tuesday to roll out enhanced labels so that viewers know they are interacting with content that “is synthetic”: “We’ll require creators to disclose when they’ve created altered or synthetic content that is realistic, including using AI tools.”
TikTok announced a similar feature in September. Of course, self disclosure has its limits — especially as it is already reported that many creators experiment with AI without admitting it.
According to YouTube, “creators who consistently choose not to disclose this information may be subject to content removal, suspension from the YouTube Partner Program, or other penalties.”
A judge has overturned a $32.5 million judgment against Google in the tech giant’s long-running case against Sonos over smart speaker patents.
In an Oct. 6 decision, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that the jury verdict from May that found Google had infringed one of Sonos’ smart speaker patents was invalid because the patents at issue in the case were “unenforceable.”
In a nutshell, Alsup claims that Sonos improperly linked its 2019 patent application, which was ultimately approved, with an earlier, rejected 2006 application for the same patents in an effort to show that its patents pre-dated Google’s products incorporating similar multi-room audio technology. The judge alleges the link is invalid because Sonos “deceptively” inserted new material into the 2019 application without alerting the patent examiner of the changes. He notes that when a continuation application for a patent — as was the case with the 2019 application, which was filed as a “continuation” of the one filed in 2006 — includes material not included in the original application, the two cannot rightly be connected.
“When new matter is added to a specification of a continuation application by way of amendment, the effective filing date should be the date of the amendment that added the new matter,” Alsup wrote. This effectively means that Sonos’ “priority date” for the patent would be Aug. 2019, when the amended application was approved — not 2006.
Alsup additionally accuses Sonos of “an unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay” in filing suit against Google. He states that in 2014, five years prior to Sonos’ 2019 patent application, Google had shared with Sonos “a plan for a product that would practice what would become [Sonos’] claimed invention” as part of an exploration of a potential collaboration. When that partnership failed to come to fruition, Alsup adds, Google began rolling out its own products that utilized the invention in 2015.
“Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line),” he writes.
“This was not a case of an inventor leading the industry to something new,” Alsup continues. “This was a case of the industry leading with something new and, only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea first — wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor’s products from an ancient application.”
“Judge Alsup’s ruling invalidating the jury’s verdict is wrong on both the facts and law, and Sonos will appeal,” a Sonos spokesperson told Billboard in a statement. “The same is true of earlier rulings narrowing our case. While an unfortunate result, it does not change the fact that Google is a serial infringer of our patent portfolio, as the International Trade Commission has already ruled with respect to five other patents. In the end, we expect this to be a temporary setback in our efforts to hold Google financially accountable for misappropriating Sonos’s patented inventions.”
Google did not respond to a request for comment at publishing time.
Sonos first sued Google in January 2020, claiming the tech giant had infringed multiple patents for its smart speaker technology after gaining access to it through a 2013 partnership under which Sonos integrated Google Play Music into its products. Just two years after that partnership was reached, Sonos alleged that Google then “flooded the market” with cheaper competing products (under the now-defunct Chromecast Audio line) that willfully infringed its patented multi-room technology. Sonos additionally claimed that Google had since expanded its use of Sonos technology in more than a dozen other products, including the Google Home, Nest and Pixel lines.
The legal battle between the two tech companies has been protracted, with both sides going on the offensive at different points. In June 2020, Google filed suit against Sonos, alleging the smart speaker maker had actually infringed several of its own patents. Sonos subsequently filed two more lawsuits alleging that Google had infringed several additional patents it held.
Sonos filed one of those two cases with the U.S. International Trade Commission, which ruled in January 2022 that Google had infringed a total of five of Sonos’ audio technology patents and barred it from importing the infringing products from China. However, the commission also found that Google had successfully redesigned its products to avoid the Sonos patents and could continue selling those reworked versions in U.S. stores — an allowance Sonos had fought to prevent.
In August 2022, Google fired another volley with two additional lawsuits, claiming the smaller company used seven different patented Google technologies to instill the so-called “magic” in Sonos software.
The Warner Music Group announced former longtime Google executive Carletta Higginson as its new executive vp/chief digital officer today (Oct. 10). Higginson, who will join the company Oct. 16, replaces outgoing evp of business development/chief digital officer Oana Ruxandra, who announced her departure Oct. 4 after five years with the label group. Higginson is the […]
Universal Music Group is in the early stages of talks with Google about licensing artists’ voices for songs created by artificial intelligence, according to The Financial Times. Warner Music Group has also discussed this possibility, The Financial Times reported.
Advances in artificial-intelligence-driven technology have made it relatively easy for a producer sitting at home to create a song involving a convincing facsimile of a superstar’s voice — without that artist’s permission. Hip-hop super-fans have been using the technology to flesh out unfinished leaks of songs from their favorite rappers.
One track in particular grabbed the industry’s attention in March: “Heart On My Sleeve,” which masqueraded as a new collaboration between Drake and the Weeknd. At the time, a Universal Music spokesperson issued a statement saying that “stakeholders in the music ecosystem” have to choose “which side of history… to be on: the side of artists, fans and human creative expression, or on the side of deep fakes, fraud and denying artists their due compensation.”
“In our conversations with the labels, we heard that the artists are really pissed about this stuff,” Geraldo Ramos, co-founder and CEO of the music technology company Moises, told Billboard recently. (Moises has developed its own AI-driven voice-cloning technology, along with the technology to detect whether a song clones someone else’s voice.) “How do you protect that artist if you’re a label?” added Matt Henninger, Moises’ vp of sales and business development.
The answer is probably licensing: Develop a system in which artists who are fine with having their voices cloned clear those rights — in exchange for some sort of compensation — while those acts who are uncomfortable with being replicated by technology can opt out. Just as there is a legal framework in place that allows producers to sample 1970s soul, for example, by clearing both the master and publishing rights, in theory there could be some sort of framework through which producers obtain permission to clone a superstar’s voice.
AI-driven technology could “enable fans to pay their heroes the ultimate compliment through a new level of user-driven content,” Warner CEO Robert Kyncl told financial analysts this week. (“There are some [artists] that may not like it,” he continued, “and that’s totally fine.”)
On the same investor call, Kyncl also singled out “one of the first official and professionally AI-generated songs featuring a deceased artist, which came through our ADA Latin division:” A new Pedro Capmany track featuring AI-generated vocals from his father Jose, who died in 2001. “After analyzing hundreds of hours of interviews, acappellas, recorded songs, and live performances from Jose’s career, every nuance and pattern of his voice was modeled using AI and machine learning,” Kyncl explained.
After the music industry’s initial wave of alarm about AI, the conversation has shifted, according to Henninger. With widely accessible voice-cloning technology available, labels can’t really stop civilians from making fake songs accurately mimicking their artists’ vocals. But maybe there’s a way they can make money from all the replicants.
Henninger is starting to hearing different questions around the music industry. “How can [AI] be additive?” he asks. “How can it help revenue? How can it build someone’s brand?”
Reps for Universal and Warner did not respond to requests for comment.
President Joe Biden said Friday that new commitments by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other companies that are leading the development of artificial intelligence technology to meet a set of AI safeguards brokered by his White House are an important step toward managing the “enormous” promise and risks posed by the technology.
Biden announced that his administration has secured voluntary commitments from seven U.S. companies meant to ensure their AI products are safe before they release them. Some of the commitments call for third-party oversight of the workings of commercial AI systems, though they don’t detail who will audit the technology or hold the companies accountable.
“We must be clear eyed and vigilant about the threats emerging technologies can pose,” Biden said, adding that the companies have a “fundamental obligation” to ensure their products are safe.
“Social media has shown us the harm that powerful technology can do without the right safeguards in place,” Biden added. “These commitments are a promising step, but we have a lot more work to do together.”
A surge of commercial investment in generative AI tools that can write convincingly human-like text and churn out new images and other media has brought public fascination as well as concern about their ability to trick people and spread disinformation, among other dangers.
The four tech giants, along with ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and startups Anthropic and Inflection, have committed to security testing “carried out in part by independent experts” to guard against major risks, such as to biosecurity and cybersecurity, the White House said in a statement.
That testing will also examine the potential for societal harms, such as bias and discrimination, and more theoretical dangers about advanced AI systems that could gain control of physical systems or “self-replicate” by making copies of themselves.
The companies have also committed to methods for reporting vulnerabilities to their systems and to using digital watermarking to help distinguish between real and AI-generated images known as deepfakes.
They will also publicly report flaws and risks in their technology, including effects on fairness and bias, the White House said.
The voluntary commitments are meant to be an immediate way of addressing risks ahead of a longer-term push to get Congress to pass laws regulating the technology. Company executives plan to gather with Biden at the White House on Friday as they pledge to follow the standards.
Some advocates for AI regulations said Biden’s move is a start but more needs to be done to hold the companies and their products accountable.
“A closed-door deliberation with corporate actors resulting in voluntary safeguards isn’t enough,” said Amba Kak, executive director of the AI Now Institute. “We need a much more wide-ranging public deliberation, and that’s going to bring up issues that companies almost certainly won’t voluntarily commit to because it would lead to substantively different results, ones that may more directly impact their business models.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said he will introduce legislation to regulate AI. He said in a statement that he will work closely with the Biden administration “and our bipartisan colleagues” to build upon the pledges made Friday.
A number of technology executives have called for regulation, and several went to the White House in May to speak with Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other officials.
Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a blog post Friday that his company is making some commitments that go beyond the White House pledge, including support for regulation that would create a “licensing regime for highly capable models.”
But some experts and upstart competitors worry that the type of regulation being floated could be a boon for deep-pocketed first-movers led by OpenAI, Google and Microsoft as smaller players are elbowed out by the high cost of making their AI systems known as large language models adhere to regulatory strictures.
The White House pledge notes that it mostly only applies to models that “are overall more powerful than the current industry frontier,” set by currently available models such as OpenAI’s GPT-4 and image generator DALL-E 2 and similar releases from Anthropic, Google and Amazon.
A number of countries have been looking at ways to regulate AI, including European Union lawmakers who have been negotiating sweeping AI rules for the 27-nation bloc that could restrict applications deemed to have the highest risks.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently said the United Nations is “the ideal place” to adopt global standards and appointed a board that will report back on options for global AI governance by the end of the year.
Guterres also said he welcomed calls from some countries for the creation of a new U.N. body to support global efforts to govern AI, inspired by such models as the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The White House said Friday that it has already consulted on the voluntary commitments with a number of countries.
The pledge is heavily focused on safety risks but doesn’t address other worries about the latest AI technology, including the effect on jobs and market competition, the environmental resources required to build the models, and copyright concerns about the writings, art and other human handiwork being used to teach AI systems how to produce human-like content.
Last week, OpenAI and The Associated Press announced a deal for the AI company to license AP’s archive of news stories. The amount it will pay for that content was not disclosed.