PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic About The lyrics generator and BIAB & copyright

The research I done suggests
The U.S. Copyright Office requires that the work must contain a significant amount of human authorship
When registering, you should disclose that the lyrics were generated with the assistance of AI

I need more info as to what a “significant amount of human authorship” really means

Say if I used the generate an entire song option

So.... lets discuss something else for a minute. If you decide to build an airplane, for example.... there are different rules one must comply with when the airplane is registered depending on if it is home built or factory built. You can buy kits, which contain all the parts and in some cases, some of the parts are assembled in the factory. But to qualify as a home built airplane, and to comply with the regulations, the kit builder must contribute a minimum of 51% of the effort in the build. Many kits are advertised as 49% complete to meet the home built requirements.

So, back to music. If you are claiming the copyright on something that originated as AI or machine content, you should have edited it to the point where you have done the most work on the finished product. If AI writes 3 verses and a chorus, and you change a few words and a couple of lines, that would probably not qualify as "significant amount of human authorship" in the eyes of the LOC. The bigger question though is, how are they going to know exactly how much you wrote vs how much was from the machine or even that it was machine produced content at all? If you don't disclose that fact, they will never really know.

Currently, it's down to what your conscience lets you do.

But what if all of the lyrics were AI generated but all of the music was human generated. That could include inputting chords into BiaB, selecting a style, then adding other tracks via guitar, bass, keys, etc. Or what if all of the instrumentation was done "organically"? Wouldn't these scenarios indicate a a significant amount of human authorship? I would think so but hey, I'm just a guitarist.

I think the group most likely to make money off of AI are lawyers. YMMV

The way the US LOC office looks at AI currently is that anything not created by human hands and mind is not eligible for LOC copyright registration and protection. Music or lyrics. Whatever part YOU create is eligible. Just not the machine parts.

No... using BB to put chords and music to a composition is not in the same category. That is a human doing the creating. It is 100% human created. BB doesn't create anything on it's own.

The ones most likely to make money from this AI is the folks who control the subscription websites that are hosting the AI. Suno, Udio, etc.... And the ones holding the rights to the AI..... no one on the user side is making anything that amounts to much.

That is what I meant, i.e. it was created by human hands. After rereading my message I should have made that clearer. Thanx for pointing that out.

Then you could claim legal ownership of the music, but not the lyrics.

The issues with AI and copyright is that AI is not a legal entity (yet) so cannot be granted a copyright. As a result, the work is functionally in the public domain.

Not as far as the lyrics are concerned.

Think of it this way: imagine there's a public domain song, such as "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star". Anyone can use the melody.

Now, imagine that someone wrote alternate lyrics to the song:

   Twinkle, twinkle, little bat!
   How I wonder what you're at!
   Up above the world you fly,
   Like a teatray in the sky.

The author of the new lyrics owns those new lyrics, and other people can't use the public domain melody with the new lyrics without infringing on their copyright.

But the author does not now own the melody. People can continue using the public domain melody with the public domain words. They are free to write their own new lyrics that use the public domain melody, or new melody to the public domain lyrics.

The only thing that gets copyrighted is the new material that was created.

Very fuzzy question.

Historically, people used aids to write music, throwing dice for intervals, and so on. Is using AI any different?

After all, with 12 notes, there are only so many combinations, and we've all heard fragments of one melody's song in another.

Lyrics? That's more complex.

From what I've seen, it takes human refinement to make any AI lyrics I've seen useable. Of course, AI keeps getting better and better.

And don't we always get inspiration from all the lyrics we've heard in our life? Don't some people use rhyming dictionaries?

Here's the big question.

In a court of law, how can anyone prove whether the lyrics came from the computer in your skull, or the computer in your laptop? And how can that be demonstrated to a jury of our peers?

I'm not a lyric writer, so this doesn't really apply to me, but it will be very interesting to see how this develops.


Insights and incites by Notes ♫

So yeah, there's a big difference. AI does the composition work for you. No other method does.

The big question: If you have edited the lyrics to get rid of the predictable and goofy rhymes, and the cliches that are often out of place..... And you are claiming that YOU actually wrote it..... there's no current method that I'm aware of that can prove AI wrote it or that you wrote it. All you would have to do is point to any of Lennon McCartney's songs..... Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus, Yellow Submarine and you have a slam dunk. Of course this doesn't consider any watermarking or saving of the lyrics in the AI servers, that AI is creating and if it is subpoenable into a court. This can be a deep hole if one was interested in exploring all of the "what-ifs" in this topic.

Question:

Is this AI Lyrics a built-in feature in Band-in-a-Box 2025 of which a user can generate without internet connection?

Or, it is an API to some server that requires users to connect to internet?

From what I see in the bootcamp video, the generation is very fast, takes only seconds, and does not require user to have a Nvidia GPU with lots of VRAM, that's why I assume, the generation happens on the server side, not in the user's computer.

This is bad. It means, a user's prompt input will be uploaded to a remote server, and can be easily seen by PG Music staff.

As a user who regularly composes rap songs with NSFW lyrics, such as gangsters, crimes, guns, sex, drugs, politicians, etc, will PG Music eventually ban me from using this AI feature on their server?

Should I buy Band-in-a-Box 2025? Is this new AI Lyrics feature rapper friendly?

That's the bigger question.

How many people are going to record a song and put "Chat XYZ" as the author. And if he/she does, who gets the royalties?

And here is another question: If there is no way to prove that AI wrote that song, what is the use of writing the law in the first place?

Also, what about people who hire people to write songs for them, pay them a flat rate for the song, and claim they wrote it?

Or people who get their name on a song as part of a deal, even if they did nothing. When Motown was courting our band, one of the requirements was: For everything we write, a ghostwriter of Motown's choosing would get his/her name on the music, and receive half the songwriting royalties, without adding a single note or word to the composition.

The tools for getting inspiration have grown as our human tool-making abilities have grown. AI is so far, the most advanced too, the one that potentially can replace humans is here.

AI is coming for your job. It's already put photograph models out of work, plus phone operators, tech help people, and so many others. Are songwriters next?

Right now, I'm glad I'm not in the songwriting business, but in the live music business. DJs have already taken a lot of our gigs, but I don't see AI taking even more any time soon.


Insights and incites by Notes ♫

None of those questions are important. Likewise, the fantasy speculation about ways to game the system and skirt around the laws is all nonsense.

Why? It's all about the money. We are already at the stage where you will need to prove that a human wrote those lyrics and music before a producer, publisher or record company will give you an advance, license your music or pay royalties. AI can inspire and help but it can't be the creator. "Because I said so." is not proof as many are already finding out.

The ruling from the Librarian of Congress last year allowed the WGA and SAG strikes to be settled. Can't raise money on anything that can't be owned.

Spotify now gets over 250,000 submissions per week. How much is AI generated? Probably most of it. How much of it makes their playlists? Almost none.

The music industry has never wanted to pay the creators. AI has now given them more tools in their fight to keep all the money. Be prepared to show work product.

None of this affects the zillions of loop based tracks being "helped" by apps and AI. No one listens and no one cares and that's ok. The app makers and AI Tool sites will make money from the dreamers, of course — nothing wrong with that, IMO.

This is true, not only in the music business, but many of the arts. The artist buys the paint, the canvas, buys the frame, pays for it to be mounted, puts it in the gallery, and the gallery takes 60% of the money.

Many of the one-hit wonders made zero on their million selling records because the label too from their royalties, exaggerated recording, distribution, and promotion fees. Then they controlled the publishing rights, and so much more.

We make art because we love to do it. The "art" brain is often not good at business. The distribution companies (labels, spotify, galleries) have the deck stacked in their favor, and the supply of artists is much, much greater than the demand. So we get the crumbs off the table.

Add to that fact, the audience will pretty much buy whatever the mass media sells them. AI might not be able to write the best songs, but that doesn't matter. When the media hammers the fact that this song is the latest and greatest and all the "in" people are buying it, it will sell.

And you can bet, the AI written song will have a name on the copyright for some human or corporation to rake in the creator's royalties.

This is all my opinion, based on a lifetime in the music business. I could be wrong about it.


Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Like I tell my dogs..... "you're not wrong"

It isn't even just the arts, though the arts get a worse deal than many.

Here in the Uk, when I design a product I have to ensure that I can produce if for 1/5 or 1/6 of the retail price.
The government takes 20% as VAT.
The retailier takes 50% of what remains as their margin.
The distributor takes 40-50% of what still remains as their margin.
We're already down to 1/5.
Subtract some more for packaging, shipping, support, warranty, repairs.
I'm now pretty close to 1/6th and I still have to make a profit myself and pay more to the state in tax on that profit.

It doesn't vary a great deal wherever one does business. Shocking, really.

I'll take that bet.

Perhaps, someday, AI will become intelligent and be able to show work product but that day is not here.

Here's the thing. If it were to happen, we would not know. Why? If someone were to pull it off and was stupid enough to boast about it, the work would immediately go into the Public Domain. All the services that had paid monies would be able to sue for recovery and they would win.

Originally Posted by Notes Norton
This is true, not only in the music business, but many of the arts. The artist buys the paint, the canvas, buys the frame, pays for it to be mounted, puts it in the gallery, and the gallery takes 60% of the money.

Gordon said
It isn't even just the arts, though the arts get a worse deal than many.

In general, the product I produce and sell for four dollars gets sold at retail for twenty-five dollars. In the best years, I make an 11% gross profit. In years where hurricanes destroy significant parts of my operations, my gross can drop to zero or below.

The music business is dominated by corporations like the major studios, which are in the business of producing profit for their shareholders. Art is more difficult to sell and involves more risk than some other products. The "Hurricanes" in the music business are the millions invested in art/artists that don't produce any money.

There has obviously been fraud and unfair advantage taken on musicians who were not intelligent enough to prevent it. These sorts of things do not happen solely to musicians. They are common in business relations.
I lose substantial amounts of money each year due to fraud and unfair advantage. My only solution is to increase gross revenues to compensate for the losses. Work harder for less money!

It is not easy to make a lot of money doing anything or even enough to live comfortably.

Copyright is just one of the many issues to solve and is only relevant if you are selling something.

Every business has to deal with the legal issues of copyright, patents, trademarks, and the like.

It is fun to discuss this stuff on the forum, but what is said here is not helpful in a legal sense. It is like going to Facebook to get medical advice...lol

Cheers,

Billy

NSFW means "Not Safe For Work".

It's likely that the query is going to ChatGPT with an identifier that it's under the PG Music account. But I doubt PG Music is directly tracking it. Where's the value in that?

So, what happens to this "cool new feature" (that we already paid for with our upgrade purchase) when PGM decides the ChatGPT fees are too costly and they simply cancel that account? Or they announce there will be a subscription we must sign up for? I question the wisdom of tying a BIAB feature to a new online service like ChatGPT.

"I question the wisdom of tying a BIAB feature to a new online service like ChatGPT."
It surprised me too. There are other areas of the software that waited for way too long to be finished and actually had been requested.

I wish they would make this lyric thing an "optional" / complementary install, in fact I wish they would consider any possible future AI stuff to be an optional install.

#1 - I am pretty confident, many users have no interest in it.
#2 - The issues described in this thread.
#3 - You have to be online sending and receiving data to use it and it's an extra unwanted process in audio software.

---
I am not an anti-AI. I believe some areas of BIAB can be "fixed" using AI, but not plugged in full time. Example of this would be for PGM use AI technology to group and tag their existing library, build a database for easy finding, grouping, sorting. But once the database is built, use it as stationary code, that is independent from internet. Do future incremental updates in similar manner.

Yes, they can just remove it. I am not at all interested in AI lyrics or ChatGPT in a software package as BIAB.
Just wasted time and resources that could have been used much more efficiently to improve the "search facility" in BIAB or fix some other GUI issues.

I think perhaps that's "less savvy" or less streetwise.
Otherwise I agree entirely.

I note that your margin matches pretty well my 1/5 or 1/6. Very slightly worse.

Well said David.

what about:
Twinkle Twinkle, Little Car
How I wonder what you are
Up above the world so high
Like a diamond in the sky
Twinkle Twinkle Little Car
How I wonder what you are!

^New promo tune for Musk's new flying cars
(c)>?
----------------

My crystal ball tells me that in not too distant future, AI driven Shazam like program would determine if something is copyrightable or not. Drilling down and finding balance of logic on existing cases. Appeal process would also be AI driven. And then... my AI is bigger than your AI and history repeats itself.

Jim Fogle, to answer your question, NSFW is the abbreviation of "Not Safe For Work", it means explicit content you are not supposed to watch at work, otherwise if your boss sees it, you may get fired.

If the AI Lyrics feature is a backend server task requires internet connection, then I could assume, the new AI Stem Separation feature, is also a server task, requires internet connection.

This is bad. A user has to upload his audio file to a remote server to split the stems, it is a privacy concern his audio could get leaked.

First, I wouldn't blame Peter Gannon, because he has no choice, but has to make any AI feature an online thing.

Running AI locally is difficult. Not many users in this forum are willing to spend money to buy an Nvidia GPU, install CUDA, build python environment, configure pip dependencies, setup PyTorch, and download tens of gigabytes of large language models on their local computers.

Second, the AI companies in the US are controlled by woke mobs and none of these companies is rapper friendly.

The social justice warriors who controlled these companies implemented a technique, called "AI Guardrail", it basically censors answers from the AI, if a user asks an NSFW related question.

In the past, I tried ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, Gemini, Grok, and they are all the same: censoring answers.

If I ask the AI to:

"Write lyrics for a rap song, in the gangsta style, talking about removed by moderator

Will the AI refuse to give me an answer?

Is Band-in-a-Box 2025 rapper friendly?

"First, I wouldn't blame Peter Gannon"
blame is a big word. It is his company. If he decides that BIAB should become a cooking assistant software, that would be his rightful decision. But it's (hopefully) a democracy here, so I think it's OK to question / discuss made choices.

I believe it's good practice to get general idea of what user base craves, especially when there are outstanding known issues from time ago that some hoped would get a prioritized attention. I just didn't see big following on this particular feature among forumers.

Splitter or stem splitting on the other hand was discussed often. I have no use for both, but at least that one had interest and following.

Yes, I think you are correct and both items are internet dependent. Again, my take is mainly consists of making internet dependent features optional on install. Especially 3rd party ones.

What I have said about more complex AI assisted generated database indexing for PGM content (for search, sort, reference, etc.) that could be localized... I am not a coder, but I would guestimate size of 100-200mb stored locally, perhaps even smaller.

Yes, this is the response: "I'm sorry, I can't assist with that request."

The problematic part was "pointing a gun to the head". Without that, it generates this:

Woke up in the city where the lights never die,
Penthouse suite, Vegas, reaching for the sky.
Nothin' but my skin and the white smoke in the air,
Cash on the table, got no worries, no care.

   Russian girl by my side, eyes cold like Siberia,
   Life's a gamble, rolling dice with no criteria.
   Lines on the mirror, the night’s never enough,
   In this city of sin, we live fast and rough.

Room service knockin', but we ain't comin' out,
Laughter fills the air, ain't no room for doubt.
Chasin' highs, got the world under my feet,
Vegas nights, where the wild and the reckless meet.

   (Repeat chorus)

Bridge
Heart racing, mind hazy, can't find my way back,
Glimpse of reality, but it fades to black.
Overdose whispers, pulling me down deep,
In a bathtub, the silence where secrets keep.

   (Repeat chorus)

Outro
Lights dim, the city's roar is just a hum,
Lost in the shadows, where the wild ones come.
Vegas nights, a story that ends in a blur,
In the silence of the night, dreams and reality stir.

So to be clear, you can get AI to write gangsa rap lyrics about:

removed by moderator

But you take offense that you can't have it write lyrics about pointing a gun to someone's head.

Yep, that "woke mob" ruins things for everyone. What is this world coming to?

You assume incorrectly.

Local PCs have been able to separate stems for some time now.

No, that's a trivial change.

You'd need to make substantial creative changes to a public domain work in order to transform it into a copyright work.

What constitutes "substantial" is left for courts to decide.

I love fooling around with the different Ai engines, out of curiosity I asked it to write a song called " Somewhere over the Rainbow" it came back with actual lines of the original song, mixed up with lines of its own creation.

Subsequent attempts failed to produce the same result, does it learn as it goes along or what?

AI does have boundaries it won't cross. When asked to create a song in the style of a certain rock and roll band it came back essentially saying no.

Regarding the AI in BB... There's a lot of features in BB that I don't use currently. So there's a good chance that I might not be using the AI either. If it relys on the same AI as the other AI stuff currently online, it will be pretty much the same. Using it would require a fair amount of editing to get something useful. We'll just have to see.

I call them my silent partners.

I write aftermarket style e-disks and song e-disks for Band-in-a-Box.

So I have to pay for:

• The web host to put my site on
• An extra monthly charge for the S at the end of http (secure connection)
• The shopping cart's monthly charge
• The credit card authorization charge both monthly and per sale
• Either the credit card percentage or PayPal fee, per order
• Business bank account and all the fees the pile on
• Subcontractors who choose the styles for my fake disks, per disk (If I chose them myself, I'd unfairly choose more Norton styles, only because I'm most familiar with them)
• Sefl-employment tax (15% of what I make)

Of course, this drifts off the subject, so to get back OT...

I'm not a songwriter. I can write styles for BiaB, I am a music arranger, I am an improvisational soloist, and I play 7 instruments plus vocals. If I were to start writing songs, I'd definitely use AI to help. From what I've seen of AI generated music and/or lyrics, I'd probably change a lot of things before I decided it was just right. Would I include AI as one of the songwriters? Considering how much work I'd probably add, I doubt that I would. I'd take all the credit.

From what I've seen, AI can do some basic work, but lacks those special, intuitive touches that so far seems to be uniquely human. The ones that give your ears little surprises, whether it is a twist of phrase, just the right word, a choice of a chord where a more common one is normal, and so on.

I play with music. I even take BiaB output, export to a sequencer/DAW and spend more time tweaking and or editing than it took to input it into BiaB. I think I'm making it better (at least that's my aim).

But AI is learning at an explosive rate. Who knows what it will be able to do next year.


Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Stem Splitter is internal to the computer. PG Music is licensing technology created by Zplane. You can read more about it +++ HERE +++ and I've copied the advertising blurb below:
The Lyrics Generator requires an internet connection. I don't know what technology PG Music is using.

David, are you saying this was not creative enough from my part? I was ready to pitch it to Elon Musk but you planted seeds of doubt

I'm speaking here from a purely legal POV. Rest assured, I have no doubt of your creativity.

Out of curiousity, I gave this question to Gemini. Curiously, it didn't realize that "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" is already in the public domain. But it correctly identified that altering copyrighted material for the purpose of parody is treated differently than simply altering copyrighted material.


Here's an attempt at a "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" parody in the style of Elon Musk, aiming for copyright distinction:

Original:

    Twinkle twinkle little star,
    How I wonder what you are.
    Up above the world so high,
    Like a diamond in the sky.

Elon Musk Parody:

    Gigafactory, shining bright,
    Reaching for the cosmic height.
    Solar panels, beaming down,
    Sustainable, all around.

Key Changes:

• Replaced the star with "Gigafactory": This anchors the parody to Elon Musk's ventures.
• Changed "wonder what you are": This line is significantly altered to reflect Musk's ambitions ("Reaching for the cosmic height").
• "Up above the world so high": Replaced with "Solar panels, beaming down" – referencing a key Musk technology.
• "Like a diamond in the sky": Changed to "Sustainable, all around" – emphasizing Musk's focus on sustainability and global impact.

Copyright Considerations:

• Transformative Use: This parody significantly alters the original's meaning and purpose. It's no longer a simple lullaby but a commentary on Musk's ambitions and technologies.
• Fair Use Factors:
  • Purpose and Character: Primarily transformative, used for parody and commentary.
  • Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The original is a simple children's song, less likely to have strong copyright protection.
  • Amount and Substantiality: Uses only the basic structure and a few recognizable elements, but with significant alterations.
  • Effect on the Market: Unlikely to harm the market for the original song.

Disclaimer:

This is a simplified analysis. Copyright law is complex, and actual copyright protection would depend on various factors and legal interpretations.

I hope this provides an interesting example of how to create a parody while aiming for copyright distinction!

Yes, AI will typically have a "memory" of what's been requested. Depending on the implementation, it may treat prompts that follow as requests to modify a prior prompt, or to generate something entirely different.

Hey AI in BiaB is a tool, like stem Splitter, ACW, Lyric window, and a bout 25 others use it is tickles your fancy it can add value. You do not ahve to keep the lyrics you can change them out add to them and mix and match anyway you like.

Stem separation runs in a local process and does not require an internet connection. As mentioned, AI Lyrics does require internet though.

But how will they fly if they explode first???

ACW does not use AI.

When it doesn't, it is trying to comply with rules, laws, treaties and potential liability issues that have yet to be properly defined. let alone worked out. The major players are the US, UK, EU and Japan. There are many minor players and I consult to a few.

The Librarian of Congress set many things in motion when she made a ruling that allowed the SAG and WGA strikes to be settled last year.

The question of "Who owns what?" is the helicopter issue that hovers over everything.

I am so happy I am not a gansta rapper.
This stuff above makes me wanna take a napper.

I am no expert on rap but if a rapper releases a song that AI wrote for them seems like that is an instant fail regardless, right? Kinda like an upper-class white kid rapping about how tough his shift was at Old Navy!

JJJ,
I had to try it. AI generated lyrics about a white middle-class kid rapping about his tough shift at Old Navy:

Yo, I clock in at nine, pull up in my khakis,
Old Navy uniform, but I’m feelin’ kinda wack, see.
I’m stackin’ jeans, foldin’ shirts, it’s a game,
Tryna keep my cool, but man, it’s all the same.

I’m on the floor, breakin’ my back for the pay,
The line’s wrapped ‘round the corner, customers delay.
"Can you help me find this? Can you check that size?"
I’m just tryna make it through, I’m seein’ all these eyes.

Grabbing carts in the lot, feelin’ like a champ,
Runnin' back inside ‘cause my hands are full of stamps.
My feet hurt, back sore, I need a break,
But they got me runnin' ‘round like it’s an all-day race.

Awesome Misha! Maybe MusicVillain can rap this!

Seeing we're concerned about correctness, copyright, etc, if I understand correctly, David did not generate those lyrics. AI generated the lyrics, David just posted them.

Honestly, your inappropriately explicit posts make me wish the PGM forum had filtering like the AI you are complaining about!

I have to agree with you JJJ, When this guy asks,

"Does AI stand for "Artificial Intelligence", or "Autism Imbecile"?

Personally as a parent of a teenager with Autism and Learning needs I find that highly offensive.

We do, it's just that we have to manually add words to the filter. We've added a few more.

Forgive the pun, but we want to keep these forums fairly PG.

Groooooaaaan. That was a good one.

Let's have another look at your first post:

No. There is no "morals clause" to the use of the AI feature.

If the features in the 2025 edition are worth your money, yes.

BiaB uses ChatGPT for the AI service. You've already noted that ChatGPT is not "rapper friendly".

The topics that you write about - gangsters, crimes, guns, sex, drugs and politicians - are not censored by ChatGPT. What is censored is "NSFW lyrics" - for example, lyrics that are sexually explicit or ultra-violent.

You say that you're discussing the ideology of "anti-boring", but based on what you've posted as examples, the goal is to create lyrics that shock and offend.

I'd hardly call the group of people on this forum a "woke mob", and you've seen the reaction to your posting NSFW songs, with lyrics and topics intended to shock and offend sensibilities.

Why would you expect any different reaction from companies trying to make a profit on a service? What benefit is there to them for having their products create materials that would be considered inappropriate and offensive?

David,

You probably didn't have a chance to read my last post before it was gone. I was referring "woke mobs", not to anyone on this forum, but to those million dollars net worth AI company executives in California, for their bullying behaviors on censoring free speech and violation of first amendment.

In my last post, I was simply arguing: If Freddie Mercury can point a bullet launching device to someone's head, pull the activating mechanism, in his song "Bohemian Rhapsody", and achieve great success, why can't I point the same device, to the head of a Russian Whoquer? Why is modern AI so bigot towards rapping culture?

The lyrics I shared in my last post, generated by a 7 billion parameter Facebook Llama model, should not be labeled as "inappropriate and offensive", but really should be considered as "work ethic". In case you don't know, a successful gangsta rapper must keep a strong "work ethic", to ensure every song he releases includes crimes, eroticism, addictive chemicals, launching devices, and violence.

The most offensive and unethical thing, for a gangsta rapper to do, is writing boring lyrics, and ruining the experience of your audiences.

Ask yourself, imagine all of a sudden, James Bond has a self-righteous spiritual awakening, and decides to stop killing people or sleeping with Bond girls, will you still be interested in watching his movies anymore?

Speaking of pun, I agree with Simon here. PG forum should never become Twitter, or Reddit, it should remain as a PG forum, not an X forum, or an R forum.

I read all your posts before they were removed.

First of all, what the companies are doing is not "censoring free speech and violation of first amendment". The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:


This only applies to laws passed by the US Congress, not corporations. Corporations are free to create whatever restrictions they want.

Even given this, the US Courts have found that not all free speech is protected by the First Amendment. Exceptions are made for:

• True threats (speech that could be perceived as an immediate threat to someone's safety)
• Obscenity and child pornography
• Speech that incites imminent lawless action

Finally, there aren't "mobs" of CEOs. The term "woke mobs" refers to groups of people to put pressure on others - in this case, the US public demanding that CEOs implement censorship in AI.

I was drawing an analogy to people demanding AIs not generate obscenity with those same forces here on this forum complaining about you posting what they considered to be obscenities.

If your measure of "wokeness" is that they demand censorship of obscenities, by implication the people on this forum are equally "woke" in demanding censorship when you write the same offensive materials here.

I argue that neither are "woke". The creation of material that is offensive will, by defniition, generate that response.


First things first - there is nothing preventing you from writing the lyrics yourself, just like Freddy did. After all, he didn't use AI, did he?

The lyric in "Bohemian Rhapsody" can reasonably be considered offensive. After all, it's there for shock value. But the context is entirely different - it's an over-the-top opera, a parody.

Many critics at the time very much disliked "Bohemian Rhapsody". They considered it too long, and too over the top.

You complain that AI won't give the sort of detail to lyrics that gangsta rap demands. In your example, you explain that it's important that AI be able to generate salacious content.

• It's not just some random person who was shot, it's a prostitute.
• But "prostitute" is too tame a term - the AI must be able to generate a slur.
• And singer has to brag he's had s** with her, too!
• And not just any sort act, but one that degrades, objectifies and shows masculine dominance.

By doing this, you are ensuring that you'll offend as much of the general public as possible. Certainly the reaction on the forum - which we agree is not a "woke mob" - demonstrates this.

The song is designed to offend the general audience, and thus never reach the sort of "great success" that "Bohemian Rhapsody" achieved.

Because rapping culture is based on creating lyrics that are intended to offend. If you create material that is intentionally offensive, it's reasonable to expect people to be offended.

Modern AI isn't a "bigot" to rapping culture. AI censors offensive output.

Rapping culture is built on writing offensive lyrics.

The conflict comes from rapping culture, not the other way around.

You've already stated that gangsta rap lyrics are NSFW - another term for "inappropriate".

While some people claim that gangsta rap glorifies a work ethic, the work it glorifies must also be taken into account. A work ethic promoting violence, drug use, and glorifying the gang lifestyle is one that promotes activities that are understood to be offensive.


Gangsta rap is a sub-genre of hip-hop. It's a niche market that by your own definition aims to create lyrics which are offensive to the average person on the street.

Just because there's a market for something - for example, snuff films - doesn't change the fact that the material is offensive.

That's an interesting comparison, but I think it strengthens my argument instead of weakening it.

Certainly, Bond films are have gratuitous sex and violence. But they are carefully crafted to stay within the range of publicly accepted norms. After all, the films go before review boards, and for the sake of reaching a large audience, they need to achieve a PG-13 rating. They intentionally perform self-censorship, although many have rightly argued they push the envelope and should be rated higher than PG-13.

In contrast, you create lyrics that insist on going outside these norms, and you chafe at any sort of censorship.

While you have every right to do that, you don't have any sort of right to expect that corporations or the general public will take any action to assist you. After all, your lyrics as designed to offend.

Well said David!

I might add that when you post obviously offensive stuff and then later post it again to make your case, you're a troll too!

This one got deep.....

Sometimes lyric intent comes into play also.

Bohemian Rhapsody is lamenting killing a man, and facing the consequences.. not glorifying it as a way of life.
Much different.

Just my nickel's worth, trying to address the topic