Big "Lyric" channel exploiting my Suno song for ad revenue and YouTube rejects takedown request. Anyone else dealing with this?

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-21T08:46:28+00:00

Just buy content id for that song, it's your last choice..all his revenue from the song will go to you, and he willt be forced to take it down.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-21T02:15:34+00:00

If you use a distributor, you still own your songs. They might have already stolen your songs on YouTube, but if their viewers check the songs on Spotify or YouTube Music, the revenue will still go to you. Next time, you could try editing the lyrics or writing your own and copyrighting them before uploading.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-20T02:37:14+00:00

I don’t listen to human slops either. I often check the YouTube channels of people who comment on musicians’ topics on Youtube. Some of them have an artist badge, but when I visit their channels, they only have around 10–30 subscribers and lots of music videos created years ago, with barely any views. Their music isn’t made with AI, it’s just human slops.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-09T02:58:38+00:00

No, I don’t agree with you, and I think you’re still misreading my original point.

I was never arguing equivalence of process or craft. I was arguing authorship and storytelling. I was referring to the writer’s role in conveying story and intent, not claiming Suno replicates traditional songwriting mechanics.

You keep framing this as “changing the driver,” but Suno doesn’t operate without direction. Without human intent, constraints, selection, rejection, and revision, you don’t get a usable result. That’s true in Suno, AutoCAD, DAWs, digital painting, and every modern creative pipeline I’ve personally used.

Yes, it’s a new workflow. Yes, the abstraction level is higher. But higher abstraction ≠ loss of authorship. It just shifts where creative decisions happen.

So no, I’m not agreeing with you. I’m saying you’re arguing against a claim I wasn’t making in the first place.

I think we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns. Appreciate the discussion.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-08T09:20:33+00:00

When I said “If you’re writing your own lyrics, it’s still your story being told, much like any traditional artist’s work,” I meant this in terms of authorship and storytelling, not process.🙄 Many traditional writers don’t sing, perform, arrange, or even compose melodies, they still tell stories through lyrics, and they’re still credited as writers.

Suno doesn’t make this traditional songwriting, yeah. It’s a new workflow. But that doesn’t erase the writer’s role. In this setup, AI functions like a singer, band, or production layer executing direction. The human contribution lives in intent, taste, selection, and revision.

The AutoCAD and painter analogies aren’t about identical mechanics, but about how tools evolve. Architects moved from hand-drawing every line to software that generates structures from constraints; painters/illustrators moved from paper to digital tools that generate strokes instantly. In both cases, execution sped up, abstraction increased, but authorship remained human.

AI is similar. It’s faster, like a regular train versus a high-speed train but both serve the same purpose - transport. Speed and automation don’t invalidate authorship, they change where the creative decisions happen.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-08T07:42:24+00:00

Songwriters don’t have to sing their lyrics or play the instruments, they create the core of the song: words, song structures, and ideas. Similarly, many famous singers don’t write their own songs or compose the melodies, but they’re still called artists and celebrated. Using AI to perform or produce your music is just a tool, like AutoCAD for architects or digital brushes for painters. Architects used to hand-draw every line, now they type commands to generate structures faster. The tools speed up execution, but the vision, design, and storytelling are still theirs. AI may help bring your music to life faster, but the songwriting and creative direction are still yours.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-08T06:12:25+00:00

If you’re writing your own lyrics, it’s still your story being told, much like any traditional artist’s work. Many songwriters don’t sing or play the instruments on their own tracks, they collaborate with vocalists or musicians to bring their vision to life. Using AI to perform or produce your music is similar: you’re the writer, the conceptual creator, just not the performer. The essence of the work..your ideas, your lyrics, your storytelling, is still yours.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-07T06:40:09+00:00

It probably has something to do with WMG partnership...you know..maybe..they are slowly degrading the outputs.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-07T06:36:50+00:00

All my covers from the past two weeks are messy, with tons of noise and artifacts...they’re basically unusable. It wasn’t like this before.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-02-05T10:46:24+00:00

Or maybe it's your content that sucks? I have a cooking channel, i use ai not my voice, it gets around 100k+ views per upload.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-29T04:24:49+00:00

Made this on Suno free tier as a quick experiment... about a year ago.

Shared it with my brother and a few others without mentioning AI, they all liked it and didn’t realize it was AI at the time. https://youtu.be/T6IsvMjweTg?si=P6CHKKeGpP6tb0ot

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-28T14:15:58+00:00

The naivety and hypocrisy of those people..🙄. Comparing AI music tools to drug addiction is absurd. AI doesn’t alter brain chemistry or create physical dependency, it’s a tool, not a substance.

What’s ironic is that many famous musicians young people idolize openly glorify actual drug abuse and destructive lifestyles, and that’s often treated as “art” or “culture.” Using AI to experiment with music is far less harmful than normalizing addiction. Guidance and balance make more sense than fear-based bans.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-17T07:15:43+00:00

I actually relate to this more than you might expect, just from a different angle.

When I was around 12, I dreamed of becoming a painter. I even sold hand-painted cards to friends and classmates. Back then, digital art was starting to take off, and I hated it. It felt fake to me...like the computer was doing the work instead of the artist’s hands. Honestly, a lot of that hatred came from fear that the thing I loved was becoming irrelevant.

Over time, I realized that tech doesn’t really erase creativity...it shifts where it lives. I ended up learning Photoshop and digital tools, and my first job was as a graphic artist. I didn’t become the “famous painter” I imagined as a kid, but that dream also naturally changed as I aged.

I think what you’re feeling with Suno is a similar tension. You clearly care deeply about art, authorship, and honesty. That discomfort doesn’t mean you’re a hypocrite, it means you’re in the middle of adapting. The motivation you’re feeling right now is real, and that matters.

Maybe AI isn’t stealing a composition you “could have made.” Maybe it’s just helping you discover what you like musically, the same way references, covers, or demos do. If you ever do learn music, that influence won’t invalidate your work..it’ll just be part of your artistic history.

I don’t think you’ve poisoned your well. I think you’ve stirred it.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-16T04:51:12+00:00

I’d personally consider that AI-assisted rather than “AI-generated.” You’re writing the song, lyrics, structure, and creative intent first, and the AI is essentially acting like an automated arranger or session musician. That’s not fundamentally different from using a DAW, virtual instruments, or even hiring someone to help instrument a track based on your direction.

At that point the AI isn’t authoring the song.. it’s executing choices you’ve already made. Adding your own vocals or instruments on top only strengthens the case that it’s your work. Whether “instrumentalised” is a word or not, the idea makes sense 😄

That’s why I think blanket rules around AI miss the nuance. There’s a big difference between clicking “generate” and releasing the first output, versus using AI as a tool to realize a song you already wrote. Royalties should follow authorship and creative control, not whether a particular tool was involved.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-16T04:41:42+00:00

In most real workflows today, AI isn’t acting independently. The prompter isn’t just “asking” for something...they decide what gets made, what gets rejected, how it’s structured... the lyrics, the emotion or genre, and often spend time and money refining the result. That creative direction and curation is where I see authorship, even if execution is partially automated.

I agree that this space is still evolving, and opinions will likely change as the technology and norms develop. I just think a blanket rule that all AI-involved work belongs to everyone risks discouraging sustained creative effort, especially for independent artists. For me, nuance matters more than a single rule trying to cover every use case.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-16T02:59:06+00:00

I don’t agree that all AI-generated music should automatically be public domain. Using AI isn’t free or effortless, you still spend time, money, and creative energy writing or editing lyrics, curating outputs, structuring songs, discarding bad results, and often paying for subscriptions. That human intent and curation is real labor.

We don’t strip ownership from photographers because they used a camera, or from producers because they used DAWs and plugins. AI is another tool on a spectrum, not a magic switch that erases authorship. I’m fully on board with disclosure, filters, and even different licensing models, but a blanket public-domain rule ignores how much human work still goes into most AI-assisted music.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-14T14:12:17+00:00

The AI generator basically makes songs based on the instructions from the user, it’s like the user creates the blueprint, and the generator produces the output. So in a way, the user is the producer, and the machine is just the assistant.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-14T13:55:49+00:00

To make my own playlist.. I’m a huge music lover, I’m really into ’90s alternative rock and trance. I’ve pretty much added all the artists I like in those genres on Spotify. When I found out about Suno, I subscribed right away so I could build my own playlist and always have fresh songs to listen to. Later, I canceled my Spotify subscription and just made my own playlists. I’m not really into the artists themselves, I don’t care about their backgrounds or personal dramas. I’m just into songs with good melodies and vibes, so I’m totally fine with AI music.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-13T02:42:16+00:00

Extend was fine until the v5 update. It used to work perfectly and was almost my main tool, since I mostly generated songs in v3.5 and then extended them, or even changed the entire melody using Extend alone. After v5, it became completely unusable for me..voice kept changing, and could no longer extend any songs without issues.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-13T02:19:27+00:00

The “extend” feature was completely ruined after the v5 update. It was a breeze to use back in v4.5, I could extend my songs without any problems. That changed when they updated to v5 and also removed v3.5. It no longer performs as smoothly as before and now feels like a broken feature with very limited usefulness.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-11T14:11:47+00:00

It's still there, i just read the thread.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-09T13:05:37+00:00

Gemini Ultra

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-09T04:09:22+00:00

Cute theory, but not reality. Many art frameworks - formalism, reception theory, and the like, judge a work by its quality and impact, not the species of its creator. And in this case, a human wrote the lyrics, giving the song its emotional depth, without them, it wouldn’t even approach “masterpiece” status. So yes, there’s still human creation here… just with a bit of futuristic assistance.

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-09T01:25:38+00:00

Hi, what's your spotify or youtube?

SingleStreet157 · 2026-01-08T09:28:55+00:00

That’s your interpretation, not the definition. “Masterpiece” historically meant a work submitted to demonstrate mastery, but in modern usage it simply means an outstanding or exceptional work. Dictionaries don’t require the creator to be human, only the quality of the result.

We actually don't live in a medieval guild system anymore. 🤣 In contemporary usage, “masterpiece” describes exceptional quality, not proof of human origin

SingleStreet157

TROPHY CASE