SoundCloud updates AI policy following backlash
Following controversy over a quiet update to the terms of use that seemed to permit the content uploaded to the streamer being used to train AI, SoundCloud has updated its AI policy.
Futurism had previously reported that SoundCloud 'quietly' updated its terms and conditions in February 2024 in which users were 'explicitly agreeing' by using the platform to have their content used to train AI.
The policy read: 'You explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop, or serve as input to artificial intelligence technologies as part of and for providing the services.'
Users were understandably upset and now, following backlash, SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton has responded regarding the platform's stance on AI and 'how content may interact with AI technologies within SoundCloud's own platform'.
The letter, titled 'A Letter from our CEO: Clarifying our Terms of Use', states: 'SoundCloud has never used artist content to train AI models. Not for music creation. Not for large language models. Not for anything that tries to mimic or replace your work.'
It also states: 'We don't build generative AI tools, and we don't allow third parties to scrape or use artist content from SoundCloud to train them either.'
'Our position is simple: AI should support artists, not replace them.'
Seton went on to explain the updates to the Terms Of Use last February were meant to clarify how 'we may use AI internally' to improve SoundCloud for its users, including 'powering smarter recommendations, search, playlisting, content tagging, and tools that help prevent fraud'.
Now, SoundCloud has changed its Terms Of Use, and it will only use AI-training on content uploaded to the platform with users' consent.
The new policy reads: 'We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness without your explicit consent, which must be affirmatively provided through an opt-in mechanism.'
Today, the Data (Use and Access) Bill returns to the UK House of Lords for consideration, in order to address how the government's desire to foster a British AI industry could allow technology companies to circumvent copyright laws and use creative content to train their models – all without the permission of the creators.
Chi Onwurah, the chair of the cross-party committee, has previously urged the government to bring forward the AI safety bill.
Onwurah told the Guardian: 'It's absolutely critical that the government shows it is on the side of people when it comes to technology, particularly when it comes to the tech platforms and the impact technology is going to have in their lives.'
This also comes at a time when artists have been speaking out against companies exploiting copyrighted works and warning against 'predatory' use of AI in music.
Earlier this year, more than 200 artists featured on an open letter submitted by the Artist Rights Alliance non-profit, calling on artificial intelligence tech companies, developers, platforms, digital music services and platforms to stop using AI "to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists.'
Amongst those names were Stevie Wonder, Robert Smith, Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, R.E.M., Peter Frampton, Jon Batiste, Katy Perry, Sheryl Crow, Smokey Robinson, and the estates of Bob Marley and Frank Sinatra.
The letter, while acknowledging the creative possibilities of new AI technology, addressed some of its threats to human artistry. Those include using preexisting work to train AI models - without permissions - in an attempt to replace artists and therefore 'substantially dilute the royalty pools that are paid out to artists.'
The letter stated: 'Make no mistake: we believe that, when used responsibly, AI has enormous potential to advance human creativity and in a manner that enables the development and growth of new and exciting experiences for music fans everywhere. Unfortunately, some platforms and developers are employing AI to sabotage creativity and undermine artists, songwriters, musicians and rightsholders. When used irresponsibly, AI poses enormous threats to our ability to protect our privacy, our identities, our music and our livelihoods.'
First, Donald Trump lashed out at one music icon... Now, Elon Musk is following suit and making his own rock star enemy.
Bono was on the Joe Rogan podcast on Friday (30 May) to talk about the release of his documentary Bono: Stories Of Surrender.
During the three-hour conversation, the U2 frontman took the opportunity to critise the Trump administration and singled out Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which oversaw the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Bono, who has been a campaigner for humanitarian aid for decades, criticised the cuts to international aid and cited a Boston University study that estimated that the cuts will cause more than 300,000 deaths around the world.
'There's food rotting in boats, in warehouses – 50,000 tons of it,' Bono said. 'The people who knew the codes, who were responsible for distributing that aid, were fired. That's not America, is it?'
Unsurprisingly, considering Rogan voted for Trump, his audience were quick to react – and not in a happy way.
One wrote: 'That guy's about as evil as they come Joe', while others stated they would be skipping the episode altogether and that it would be 'the first time I look forward to commercials'.
Then came Elon Musk's reaction, who took to X to say brand the singer 'such a liar/idiot', before adding that 'zero people have died' as a result of the USAID cuts.
In a later exchange, he said: 'South Park lampooned Bono as the biggest shit in the world. They were right.'
Musk stepped down from his wildly unpopular role at DOGE last week after serving the maximum 130-day term as a special government employee without Senate confirmation.
During his time at DOGE, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the "Hands Off" protests across all 50 states of the US to express their opposition to the policies of the Trump administration and cuts made by Musk's DOGE.
"Hands Off" event organizers said: "They're taking everything they can get their hands on — our healthcare, our data, our jobs, our services — and daring the world to stop them. This is a crisis, and the time to act is now."
Check out some of the best signs seen during these nation-wide protests.
Bono: Stories Of Surrender is a hybrid of concert movie and visual memoir, featuring spoken word passages from the singer's 2022 autobiography, 'Surrender.' It is streaming on Apple TV+ now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Can the EU lower the cap on Russian oil without the US?
The European Union is readying a new round of sanctions against Russia to pile extra pressure on the Kremlin and pressure it to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, a step that Western allies consider indispensable for serious peace negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen has already provided an outline of what that package, the 18th since February 2022, is supposed to target: Russia's financial sector, the "shadow fleet" and the Nord Stream pipelines, which are currently non-operational. On top of that, the president of the European Commission has pitched a downward revision of the price cap on Russian oil to further squeeze profits from worldwide sales, a crucial cash flow to sustain the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. "We need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war. Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," von der Leyen said earlier this week after meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham. But there's a catch: unlike other sanctions the bloc has imposed on Russia, such as the multiple export and import bans, the price cap has a political and practical dimension that exceeds the institutional sphere of Brussels and stretches across the ocean. More specifically, to Washington, DC. The price cap on Russian oil was introduced in December 2022 by the Group of Seven (G7) under the initiative of the Joe Biden administration. It was hailed as an ingenious, ground-breaking mechanism to mobilise the collective power of Western allies and cripple Russia's high-intensity war machine. As part of the plan, the G7, together with Australia, passed laws prohibiting their domestic companies from providing services, such as insurance, financing and flagging, to Russian tankers that sold seaborne crude oil above a predetermined price. The secret lay in market power: for decades, Western firms, particularly British ones, have dominated the sector of Protection and Indemnity (P&I), a type of insurance that gives shipowners broad protection and allows them to cover potentially huge costs from any accidental harm caused to the crew, their property or the environment. Due to the inherent risks of moving oil in high waters, P&I is today considered the norm in maritime trade and a must-have to be accepted in a foreign port. By leveraging their leading firms, the G7 intended to create an extraterritorial effect that would cap the price of Russian oil not only within their jurisdictions but all around the world. Following intense behind-the-scenes talks, the cap was set at $60 per barrel, a compromise between hard-line and cautious member states. The strategy only worked up to a point however. Although the price of Russian Urals oil gradually decreased, it consistently remained above the $60 mark, often exceeding the $70 threshold. The blatant circumvention was attributed to the "shadow fleet" that Russia deployed at high sea. These tankers are so old and poorly kept that they fall outside P&I standards and rely on alternative, obscure insurance systems that escape G7 surveillance. By the time the cap entered into force, Moscow "had spent months building a 'shadow fleet' of tankers, finding new buyers like India and China, and creating new payment systems, to the point that its oil does not need to be greatly discounted to sell," Luis Caricano, a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent analysis. "What should have been a blow became a manageable problem," Caricano said. With few sectors in the Russian economy left to sanction, Brussels has turned its sight to the cap as a means to tighten the screws on the Kremlin and secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Commission has reportedly pitched a revision between $50 and $45 per barrel, which the UK and Canada are believed to support. However, the US has so far refrained from endorsing a lower price cap, raising the stakes ahead of crunch talks at the G7 summit in Alberta, scheduled for mid-June. Now, a tough question emerges: Can the EU dare, and afford, to go it alone? In the strictest legalistic sense, the EU could, indeed, establish a lower price cap on its own. After all, the G7, as an organisation, lacks regulatory powers: each ally amends its laws individually to fulfil a collective mission. In this case, the EU introduced new legislation to prohibit EU companies – rather than, say, American or British companies – from servicing Russian tankers that bypassed the $60-per-barrel cap. Similarly, the bloc could now change the text to adjust that prohibition to a tighter price without waiting for other allies to reciprocate. Here appears the first roadblock: any change to sanctions must be approved by a unanimous vote among member states. It is highly unlikely that all 27 countries would choose to move forward with a lower cap without having an explicit guarantee that Washington will follow suit. Hungary, in particular, has fully aligned itself with the Trump administration and could veto any proposal opposed by the White House. Even if the bloc managed to overcome internal differences and agreed to a lower cap on its own, more formidable obstacles could impede its success. The bloc's revised cap would have to co-exist with America's existing cap. This means that one side of the Atlantic Ocean would apply a $50-per-barrel limit while the other side would apply a $60-per-barrel limit, creating a cacophony for all actors involved. "Different price caps across G7 countries could confuse maritime service providers and weaken overall enforcement," Petras Katinas, an energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told Euronews. "A solo move by the EU could cause friction within the Price Cap Coalition, damaging trust and coordination, both of which are crucial for keeping pressure on Russian oil revenues," Katinas added, warning the project could be rendered "largely symbolic". The legislative chaos would immediately benefit the Kremlin, which has long sought to exploit loopholes to evade and undermine international sanctions. Moscow, though, would also face hurdles: the continued crackdown on "shadow fleet" vessels has forced the country to increase its reliance on G7 insurance, which, in theory, could make it easier for the EU to apply the revised measure. "If the EU alone decides to tighten the screws on the cap, it's an additional constraint on Russia's oil exports but not as tight as with a whole of G7 approach," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Reform (CER). Besides practical snags and legal matters, there is geopolitics to consider. One of the reasons why the G7 initiative has fallen short of expectations is that, as the name suggests, it has remained a G7-exclusive plan. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have refused to play along and join the coalition. China and India openly buy Russian crude oil, sometimes to refine it and resell it under a different label. Having the EU and the US go separate ways would further destabilise the Western alliance and create the impression of a transatlantic break-up. But for many, that is already a reality: the "Coalition of the Willing", born after Donald Trump unilaterally launched negotiations with Vladimir Putin, bears testament to the political divide. "The price cap was a G7 + EU initiative, and so in its current form, I do not see any pathway in which the EU could adjust the cap without the support of the broader coalition, including the US," said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow with Bruegel. "That said, the EU is free to implement whatever measures it wants on its own domestic ships and insurance companies, which it could likely encourage the UK to join," McWilliams added. "So the EU can still move ahead – it would just need to be under a different institutional format than currently exists." This week we are joined by Mika Aaltola, a Finnish MEP representing the centre-right European People's Party, Dorota Bawolek, a seasoned EU correspondent for Polish broadcaster TVP and Ian Lesser, Vice President of the German Marshall Fund, the transatlantic think tank. US President Donald Trump's renewed trade offensive has left Brussels rather stressed with sweeping tariffs hitting European steel, aluminium, and car exports — and threats of more to come. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is trying to defuse the crisis, warning that retaliatory EU measures could kick in as early as July 14. MEP Mika Aaltola blasted the US approach as 'unfair treatment'. The OECD also warned this week that Trump's tariffs are dragging global growth to its weakest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic. In a very tight presidential race, Poland elected conservative Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist and eurosceptic, narrowly defeating pro-EU candidate and Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. The result marks a blow for Prime Minister Donald Tusk who has called for a vote of confidence in his government early next week. Nawrocki's rhetoric — emphasizing national sovereignty, anti-migrant policies, and a rejection of 'Brussels diktats' — has alarmed Europhiles. However, his nationalist platform resonated with a rather divided electorate. "He's not very presidential", Dorota Bawolek told the panel adding that history shows Poles prefer an 'ordinary guy'. Finally, the panel discuss the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez' diplomatic setback after the EU Council rejected his proposal to make Catalan, Basque, and Galician official EU languages. The move, promised to Catalan separatists in exchange for political support, was rejected by member states over fears of a domino effect involving other regional languages. Watch the full episode in the player above.
LeMonde
7 hours ago
- LeMonde
LVMH hit by cognac crisis and champagne slump
The luxury group LVMH has long prided itself on owning some of the world's most prestigious wine and spirits brands. The cognac Hennessy, champagnes Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, Krug, and Dom Pérignon, as well as, more recently, the rosé from Provence Minuty, are the jewels of its Moët Hennessy division. These brands have cemented its position as the global leader in both cognac and champagne. While this was once a source of pride as bottles flew off the shelves, the division has become a source of tension as the cognac crisis and champagne slowdown have upended forecasts. After an initial slowdown in 2023, Moët Hennessy – 34% owned by British group Diageo, the world's leading spirits company – reported 2024 revenue of €5.9 billion, down 11%. The trend continued into the first quarter of 2025, with another 9% decline in sales to €1.3 billion. At first glance, the wines and spirits division might seem like a small contributor to the group led by Bernard Arnault. It accounts for just about 7% of total sales, far behind the fashion and leather goods powerhouse, and trailing distribution, watches and jewelry, and perfumes and cosmetics. But its share of operating profit is significant. Thanks to their high margins, cognac and champagne fit seamlessly into the world of luxury.
France 24
14 hours ago
- France 24
Trump says fresh US-China trade talks in London next week
The talks in the British capital on Monday will mark the second round of such negotiations between the world's two biggest economies since Trump launched his trade war this year. "The meeting should go very well," said Trump in a post on his Truth Social platform. The president added that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would meet the Chinese team. The first talks between Washington and Beijing since Trump slapped levies on allies and adversaries alike took place in Geneva last month. While Trump had imposed a sweeping 10 percent duty on imports from most trading partners, rates on Chinese goods rocketed as both countries engaged in an escalating tariffs battle. In April, additional US tariffs on many Chinese products hit 145 percent while China hit back with countermeasures of 125 percent. Following the talks last month, both sides agreed to temporarily bring down the levels, with US tariffs cooling to 30 percent and China's levies at 10 percent. But this temporary halt is expected to expire in early August and Trump last week accused China of violating the pact, underscoring deeper differences on both sides. US officials have accused China of slow-walking export approvals of critical minerals and rare earth magnets, a key issue behind Trump's recent remarks. While Trump's long-awaited phone call with Xi this week likely paved the way for further high-level trade talks, a swift resolution to the tariffs impasse remains uncertain. © 2025 AFP
