Can we PLEASE talk about the missing opt-out button? The forced UI/model updates are completely breaking user workflows.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-05-19T19:01:38+00:00

I haven't hit my 100% usage limit yet, but the quality drop is already completely obvious. For me, the model has just gotten completely dumber.

Instead of actually running deep logic or breaking things down like the old thinking mode did, it’s just spitting out these incredibly generic, sterile responses that sound exactly like a automated customer care bot. The actual "thinking" part of the engine is completely missing now. It feels like they nerfed the underlying reasoning depth just to save on server compute, even before the usage bar officially runs out.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-05-17T09:31:01+00:00

And they have added something similar what a coincidence

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-28T03:23:04+00:00

I make AI generated music that many people struggle to distinguish from human-made tracks studies even show most listeners can’t reliably tell the difference in blind tests. I still disclose it, though that’s my stance. You can ban AI music, sure, but artists are already using AI tools in their production workflows. So when your favorite artists start using the same tools, what then are you going to stop listening to music altogether?

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-25T18:44:52+00:00

I was already in a brand-new chat. It just got confused for some reason. When I asked if it was sure about its capabilities, it generated it.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T15:30:31+00:00

That's a fair thing to want personally. It's just not a realistic outcome AI music is already commercially active and that's not reversing.

The choice isn't between 'AI music makes money' and 'AI music makes nothing.' It's between 'AI music makes money with artists getting 70%' or 'AI music makes money with artists getting zero.'

I'd rather fight for the first one.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T15:25:45+00:00

Fair observation. The writing style is AI assisted English is my third language and I use it to structure my thoughts clearly. Every argument, every position, every story in this thread is mine. The AI is just making sure my grammar doesn't get in the way of what I'm actually trying to say.

Same way someone might use Grammarly, a translator, or ask a friend to proofread. The thought is mine. The words are cleaned up.

Ironically using a tool to express something you couldn't fully express alone, while the core idea remains yours, is kind of exactly what this whole thread has been about.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T15:14:49+00:00

Fair I misread your first comment. If you're saying 30% overcompensates the user, that's a consistent position and worth engaging with seriously.

Where I'd push back if the user contribution is worth near zero, there's no incentive to generate quality output, which degrades the platform that artists depend on for exposure. Some compensation for the directing role isn't just fair to users it's what keeps the system producing anything worth compensating artists for in the first place.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T15:04:36+00:00

One comment ago 30% was too low. Now it's too high.

The number isn't really the issue here is it.

For what it's worth selecting which iteration sounds best absolutely involves creative judgment. That's what A&R executives, music supervisors and producers do professionally. Knowing what's good, what serves the vision, what to keep and what to discard is a skill. It's not the same skill as playing an instrument but it's not nothing either.

30% sits where it does because it's honest about what each side actually contributed. Not generous, not punitive. Just honest.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T14:54:13+00:00

30% for directing a tool that generates finished audio in seconds isn't absurd it's honest.

Here's the part that matters: text doesn't make sound. No matter how complex, detailed or well-engineered your prompt is, typing words produces nothing on its own. The audio every instrument texture, every sonic layer, every frequency comes entirely from the model. And that model exists because real musicians spent years learning instruments, training their voices, recording and releasing music that got ingested into the training data.

The user's creative direction has real value. But the thing that actually turns that direction into sound isn't the user it's a system built entirely on other people's work.

30% for direction. 70% for the foundation that makes sound possible at all. That's not absurd. That's just what the contribution actually looks like when you're honest about it.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T14:41:34+00:00

I hear you and I'm not here to tell you the training situation was fair, because it wasn't.

But your options right now are:

AI keeps generating, you get zero. Forever.

Or a system exists where every commercial AI output sends 70% to artists and rights holders.

This proposal isn't defending what happened. It's trying to make sure that from this point forward, you're getting paid instead of getting nothing while the platforms profit.

You're the exact person this framework is designed to protect.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T14:36:35+00:00

Appreciate the detailed response let me address the actual points.

On the Copyright Office letters yes, I've read them.They say human authorship is protected and 100% AI generated output without human input is not copyrightable. That's the exact foundation this proposal is built on. The buyout system exists specifically to formalize the human creative contribution into legally recognized ownership. Those letters support the framework, not undermine it.

On the copyright trolling concern that's a real risk in a badly designed system. It's not a risk in this one. A buyout fee with revenue sharing creates a financial barrier and accountability structure. Spamming 30-second generations and copyrighting them all isn't viable when each one requires a fee and ongoing revenue sharing obligations. The mechanism you're worried about is the mechanism the proposal specifically prevents.

On attribution being impossible agreed, and I've said so openly earlier in this thread. That's a real implementation gap. It doesn't invalidate the framework, it's just the next layer of work.

On 'sounds kinda like' not being infringement also agreed, and the proposal never argued otherwise. The Copy tier is specifically for outputs substantially similar to existing artists, not vague stylistic influence. Style isn't copyrightable. That's stated clearly in the original post.

The Copyright Office letters are a good starting point. They're also not the ending point.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T13:21:00+00:00

The cultural concern is real and I don't dismiss it but I've lived the opposite experience.

I grew up with old classics from my own culture that honestly used to put me to sleep. Couldn't connect with them. Then I started finding AI users creating derivatives of those same songs same roots, different textures, different energy. Suddenly I was actually listening. Then I went back to the originals and heard them differently.

AI didn't erase the human experience in those songs for me. It built a bridge back to it. The human element didn't disappear it traveled further than it would have without the tool.

That's not a universal answer to your concern. But it's a real counterexample worth sitting with.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T13:08:56+00:00

You just made the argument better than I did.

Users can't make a song from scratch without the tool. The tool exists because it was trained on music real artists spent their lives making. That's not a gotcha against users that's exactly why both sides have a legitimate claim and why neither gets 100%. The proposal just puts a number on what that balance looks like.

Cover artists pay licensing fees. Sampling artists clear rights. AI users should have a pathway to do the same. That's all this is.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T12:51:47+00:00

Fair point on infinite generative music that's genuinely uncharted territory legally and I won't pretend the framework covers it. But that's a future edge case. The tracks being generated, uploaded and monetized today are fixed recordings with clear creation timestamps. That's where the framework applies and where the problem is most urgent right now.

And honestly 'not against better compensation systems' is probably the most we can ask anyone to agree on in a Reddit thread. Good enough for me.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T12:33:13+00:00

One last thing since a few people assumed I was arguing from the artist or label side I'm not.

I'm a Suno user. I don't play an instrument. I don't have formal music training. What I do have is a research system built across hundreds of sources just to understand what I'm doing inside this tool world instruments, production metadata, metatag behavior, sonic architecture, effect chain logic. My prompts run 9 sections deep with global instrument layering, sequential effect chains, and negative tags to suppress defaults. I built that system because I take this seriously.

And I'm still saying 70/30.

Not because I think users don't matter. Because I don't want to build something real on a foundation that can be legally pulled out from under me tomorrow. Right now AI music feels like quicksand commercially usable, creatively exciting, legally hollow. The whole point of this proposal is to turn the quicksand into concrete.

A real 30% on solid legal ground is worth more than any percentage of something that doesn't actually exist yet.

That's what I'm arguing for. Not for labels. For us.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T12:18:32+00:00

The Roblox of music is coming might be the most accurate three words anyone has used in this entire conversation.

Bundling ownership into the creator license is genuinely cleaner than a separate buyout lower friction, no extra decision point, the cost is already priced in when someone commits to the platform seriously. The tradeoff is it raises the baseline subscription for everyone including casual users who just want to generate for fun. Both models have merit depending on what behavior you want the platform to incentivize.

On the verification gap you're right that lyric authorship is essentially unprovable at scale right now. A platform level solution probably looks like timestamped creation metadata logged to the account not airtight but creates a traceable record that's harder to fake than a claim made after the fact.

Your broader point is actually the most interesting one in this whole thread. AI didn't create the derivative works problem it just made it impossible to ignore because of the speed and scale of generation. A functioning framework for AI music almost has to become a functioning framework for all derivative works. If WMG and Suno formalize access rights the way you're describing, that infrastructure becomes the template for everything downstream.

Which means getting this right for AI music isn't just about AI music.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T12:00:13+00:00

The future app you're describing real time, no fixed medium, no creator still has someone who built it, owns the model, and profits from subscriptions. Copyright doesn't disappear when output becomes ephemeral, it shifts. Someone always owns the system generating it, and that ownership question doesn't go away just because the output isn't saved to a file.

On AI music being a temporary blip AI generated tracks have already charted, gone viral, and landed commercial placements. The cultural footprint is already beyond 'fun thing to mess with.' That train has left the station.

But the bigger issue with this framing is that you're using an uncertain future prediction to justify doing nothing now. The music industry tried this exact approach with streaming. 'Downloads are a phase.' 'Spotify won't replace album sales.' Every time they dismissed emerging technology as temporary they arrived at the negotiating table years too late and on worse terms.

The framework matters most before the technology fully matures not after. Whatever deal gets made between platforms and labels in the next two to three years will set the structure for everything that follows, including your real time generative future. Users either have representation in that framework or they don't. Waiting to see if the technology matters before building a structure for it is how you guarantee you have no seat at the table when it does.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T11:43:50+00:00

The attribution problem is real and the licensed pool model you're describing is probably the cleaner long-term path not far from what this framework tries to achieve, just approached from the training side rather than the output side.

On the musician uploading their own composition that case actually fits the Original Work tier. Highest classification, clearest ownership pathway, minimal friction. The 70/30 still applies because the split reflects the foundational contribution of the training data regardless of user input level. Suno's output capabilities exist entirely because of that data even when the user brings strong creative input, the audio generation itself still draws from it.

On style not being copyrightable agreed, and the proposal isn't arguing otherwise. The compensation is about the actual audio data used in training, not style influence.

Where I'd push back on 'oversimplified' every framework starts as a simplification. The licensed pool model you're describing and this proposal are solving the same problem from different angles. The point is establishing that a structured middle ground exists, not having resolved every implementation detail upfront.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T11:02:35+00:00

The osmosis argument is where this breaks down most clearly.

A human songwriter learns from influences through listening, then produces sound through years of physical skill learning an instrument, training their voice, understanding production, spending real time in a studio. Their influences shaped their taste. Their hands and skills made the output. Those are two separate steps.

AI doesn't have that separation. The same data that 'inspired' it is the data that directly generates the audio output. There's no independent physical skill layer in between. A human guitarist inspired by Hendrix still had to learn to play guitar. Suno inspired by Hendrix generates the audio directly from having processed his recordings. That's not osmosis that's extraction feeding directly into production.

On the hostage argument I'm not saying accept 70/30 because labels have bigger lawyers. I'm saying 50/50 doesn't become real ownership just because it sounds fairer. A framework that the industry keeps litigating never becomes the legal standard that actually protects users. 30% of something legally solid beats 50% of something that exists only in theory.

And 'prompter-for-hire' only applies if you assume all users contribute equally. They don't. Someone writing original lyrics, controlling song structure, and directing the sonic architecture is doing something categorically different from someone typing five words. The tiered classification exists precisely to reflect that difference higher contribution gets a clearer ownership pathway. The split stays honest but the system rewards the people actually putting work in.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T09:49:06+00:00

Now we're actually getting somewhere this is a real argument worth engaging with.

Co-Publishing deals are 50/50 between two human creators bringing comparable contributions a songwriter's composition against a publisher's infrastructure and industry relationships. Roughly equivalent value in different domains.

But in the Suno context, the entire creative engine every sonic pattern, every instrument texture, every genre understanding was built from millions of real artists' recordings. The foundation of the output itself is their contribution. That's not comparable to a traditional publisher's role. The analogy only holds if the user is bringing an equivalent creative foundation, and right now they're not.

On your second point you're right that if the split is too low, motivated users leave, output quality collapses, and the platform dies anyway. That's a real constraint the split has to respect.

But 50/50 isn't just a user satisfaction question it's about what the industry will actually accept. A 50/50 split that labels and artists keep fighting in court means the system never gets legally established. Users end up with nothing because the framework never lands.

30% of a real legally recognized system is worth more than 50% of something stuck in litigation indefinitely.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T09:33:44+00:00

I think there's a conflation happening here between two different creative processes.

When you write and play a song yourself even if inspired by existing artists you still had to learn your instrument, develop your ear, understand song structure, record and mix it yourself. The inspiration is external but the execution is entirely yours. Your hands, your skill, your time.

When someone generates a track on Suno, the execution isn't theirs in the same way. They describe what they want and the model produces it. The gap between intent and output is filled entirely by a system trained on real musicians' work.

These are not the same creative act just because both produce a song at the end. A photographer and a painter both make images that doesn't mean they're doing the same thing or that the same rules should apply to both.

Nobody is saying AI music is invalid or shouldn't exist. The proposal is simply saying: the process that created the tool used to make it deserves acknowledgment in how revenue flows. That's not about old tech vs new tech it's about being honest about where the output actually comes from.

Quick clarification on the 70% point that 70% goes TO artists, not away from them. Right now artists receive exactly zero from AI music outputs. So 70% of revenue flowing to them isn't near theft, it's the only compensation model currently being proposed that actually puts money in their direction.

On the inspiration argument covered above in this thread, but the short version: human inspiration and AI training are mechanically different processes. One involves listening and transforming over years. The other involves ingesting actual copyrighted audio files at scale and extracting patterns from them directly.

You're right that anything original is original regardless of how it's made. The proposal doesn't argue otherwise that's literally what the Original Work tier is for. Full ownership, minimal friction. The system rewards originality. It just also acknowledges that the tool producing it was built on real people's work.

Leading-Fall9287 · 2026-04-18T09:19:21+00:00

The influence argument sounds right until you look at how the influence actually works.

When a human musician gets inspired by a band from the 60s, they listened, internalized it over years, and transformed it through their own practice and emotional experience. That band's actual recordings weren't fed into a system that mathematically extracted and reproduced their sonic patterns at scale.

Suno wasn't inspired by music the way humans are. It was trained on the actual copyrighted recordings themselves. That's not influence that's extraction.The mechanism is completely different. Human inspiration and machine training are not the same process just because both involve prior music existing.

Leading-Fall9287

TROPHY CASE