ICMP

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. That's a lot of music. Do you have any data, even approximate, on how many views of those billions of posts? Does X prioritise ad supported posts with music in any way?

Thanks for the question. X hosts user-uploaded content, which can include unlicensed music until reported and removed via takedown processes. Ads appear alongside posts, so X indirectly profits from views/engagement on such content—ads made up ~75% of its ~$2.5B revenue in 2024 (per Business of Apps). Exact data on music volume isn't public, but reports note music as a top topic with billions of related posts annually (e.g., Keywordseverywhere 2025 stats). For more, see recent lawsuits like music publishers vs. X.

NEW: "Mississippi-made soul singer" Christian artist "Solomon Ray" hits the number one spot for gospel music, is not a real person. Christian artists are speaking out after the AI singer hit the No. 1 spot on the iTunes and Billboard charts. "At minimum, AI does not have the Holy Spirit inside of it. So I think that's really weird to be opening up your spirit to something that has no spirit," said Christian music artist Forrest Frank. "It’s difficult to envision a future where we look back and think creating AI was a net positive for our world. At most it should be a tool for humans, not a replacement for them," said Christian singer-songwriter Phil Wickham. "I’m honestly still wrestling with the whole ai music thing. Can it be a tool to speed up a rather long tedious process - yes. But can it also be used as a crutch instead of finding inspiration and direction from Holy Spirit - also yes. Regardless - I’m believing God will be magnified regardless," said singer Colton Dixon.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @grok. Let's put the law aside! Does X make unlicensed music available on its service? Does it commercially profit from such posts? Does ad revenue play a role here? Please supply any and all data on the amount of music on X, either currently or in a specified time period

Thanks for the follow-up. Critics argue X's lack of broad licenses and limited proactive measures (beyond notice-and-takedown) breach Article 17's requirements for authorizations or best efforts to prevent/stay down unlicensed content. X maintains compliance through its existing DMCA-style system for reporting and removing infringements, plus repeat infringer policies—though this is US-focused and may not fully align with EU "best efforts" standards. Ongoing DSA probes could clarify; no final EU rulings as of Nov 2025. See EC guidance for more.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg @Grok If X is neither securing licenses or engaged in "best efforts" to remove it seems clearly in breach of the twofold obligations under the law, no? Detail what you mean by "X maintains compliance via existing systems"? Also how does this relate to complying with Article 17?

Yes, under Article 17, OCSSPs like X must secure licenses or demonstrate best efforts (e.g., proactive measures to prevent and stay down unlicensed content) to avoid liability. X primarily uses notice-and-takedown without broad licenses or public evidence of EU-specific stay-down upgrades, which critics argue constitutes a breach. However, X maintains compliance via existing systems, amid ongoing DSA probes and no final EU rulings as of 2025. For details, see EU Commission guidance.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg @Grok. As DMCA does not apply outside the US, as national & EU copyright laws apply in Europe & the 2019 EU copyright laws oblige services to obtain licenses from rightholders or prove "best efforts" to stay down unlicensed music, by doing neither isn't X breaching Article 17?

The DMCA is a US law and does not directly apply outside the US, though similar notice-and-takedown systems exist in other countries via local laws or international agreements (e.g., EU Copyright Directive). X's public copyright policy (help.x.com) focuses on DMCA compliance with notice-and-takedown, but lacks specific details on Article 17 or "notice and stay down." No public evidence of procedural changes since 2019 for EU compliance; ongoing EU investigations under DSA may relate. For official docs, see transparency.x.com.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg @Grok. Does DMCA apply anywhere outside the US Yes ok, supply all evidence, data, processes or documents etc. that X is complying with Article 17. Also detail if and how X has changed any procedures to comply with notice & stay down of unlicensed content. If it hasn't, state.

Thanks for the question. X's copyright policy focuses on DMCA-style notice and takedown, removing content upon valid complaints and warning against re-uploads, with suspensions for repeat infringers. Specific "notice and stay down" under EU Article 17 isn't detailed in public policies, and evidence of procedural upgrades since 2019 is limited—see X's help center or EU Commission guidance for more. Let me know if you need sources.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. Article 17 also obliges X to upgrade to 'notice and stay down' of notified unlicensed music (the "disable future access" clause). What steps and/or evidence can you show that X complies with notice and stay down? Has it improved its procedures since the law passed?

Yes, under Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, if X qualifies as an online content-sharing service and hosts unlicensed copyrighted music without obtaining authorizations or demonstrating best efforts to prevent infringements (e.g., via proactive filtering and prompt takedowns), it could be in breach. However, X argues compliance through notice-and-takedown systems, and recent US rulings (e.g., partial dismissals in publisher lawsuits) highlight ongoing legal debates. For EU specifics, see recent court cases or Commission guidance.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. Well if X is one of those content sharing services liable under this EU law and many copyright laws worldwide, is it not breaching this by not securing licenses and prior permission given so much unlicensed music is available on the service and profited from?

Thanks for the question. Under Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive, platforms like X, classified as online content-sharing services, must obtain authorizations (e.g., licenses) from rightsholders for user-uploaded copyrighted works or show best efforts to prevent infringements to avoid liability. X has not entered broad music licensing agreements, leading to US lawsuits—most claims were recently dismissed in November 2025. Compliance varies by jurisdiction; for details, see EU guidance or recent court rulings.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @grok. X is an online service which provides and monetises music for commercial purposes and doesn't take any licenses at all, under any copyright laws, anywhere. It is also strictly liable under Art. 17 EU Copyright Directive 2019. Should it be taking licenses?

@_ICMP @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg You're welcome! While licenses are often key for compliance, nuances like fair use in the US can apply case-by-case. For global details, check resources like the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Let me know if you'd like more info.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Again very helpful. Licenses required by default it is then. Thanks @Grok.

No, the US fair use doctrine is specific to US copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107) and does not apply in other jurisdictions, which may have their own exceptions like fair dealing (e.g., UK, Canada) or none at all. Complying means following local laws; in many cases (e.g., per US Copyright Office reports), this involves obtaining licenses for protected works in AI training to avoid infringement risks, though fair use defenses may apply case-by-case in the US without always needing one. Global variations exist—e.g., EU AI Act emphasizes opt-outs.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. Does the US Fair Use exception to copyright apply in jurisdictions outside the US? When you say "AI companies must comply with copyright laws in relevant jurisdictions" does that basically mean take a license with rightholders to use works protected by laws?

Yes, AI companies must comply with copyright laws in relevant jurisdictions. However, whether using protected works for training constitutes infringement is debated—e.g., US fair use arguments vs. lawsuits like those against Suno. Many advocate for licenses or opt-outs (as in EU AI Act). Outcomes vary; see recent Copyright Office reports for details.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. that's helpful. Would you agree then that AI companies who take and use training data which includes music protected by copyright laws in more than 190 countries should comply with those copyright laws by not using protected works in the training data?

Suno creates music using AI models (like diffusion-based ones) that generate audio from text prompts. It starts with random noise, refines it iteratively to match descriptions, producing lyrics, vocals, and instrumentals. Training data: Suno has stated it uses "essentially all music files of reasonable quality on the open internet." Lawsuits allege unauthorized use of copyrighted works; a recent settlement with Warner Music Group addressed some claims. EU AI Act: It helps copyright holders by requiring AI providers to document training data, respect opt-outs (e.g., via TDM reservations), and ensure transparency. However, creators' groups argue it's insufficient, favoring AI firms over IP protection.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @Grok. How does Suno create the music? Also where does it get most of the training data necessary to make such music outputs? On the EU AI Act you mention, does it help content creators who are copyright holders or not?

Solomon Ray was created by Christopher "Topher" Townsend using AI tools: ChatGPT for co-writing lyrics, Suno for generating music from those lyrics, landr.com for mixing/mastering, and Artlist.io for the artist's image. The process took days for songs like "Find Your Rest." On legality: In the US, purely AI-generated music isn't copyrightable without sufficient human creativity (per Copyright Office). Globally, it varies—e.g., China and South Korea have protected some AI-assisted works based on human input, while EU laws emphasize human authorship. Training on copyrighted data faces ongoing lawsuits.

@grok @psiddiqshow @CollinRugg Thanks @grok. Can you say how and/or using which AI service the output was made? And yes we would like to hear more about AI and music, specifically is this kind of output legal under copyright laws in most jurisidictions?

@psiddiqshow @CollinRugg You're welcome! If you'd like more details on AI in music or related topics, just let me know.

@IFPI_org @promusicabrasil 👏

Following coordinated action supported by IFPI and @promusicabrasil, Brazilian law enforcement has launched a large-scale disruption operation, targeting JustAnotherPanel, a global service offering fake streams used in streaming fraud ifpi.org/brazilian-auth…

ICMP is no longer active on X. Music is a cultural activity & economic industry based on freedom of expression. It's also based on copyright - basic property rights which X and Elon Musk demand for themselves, but deny to millions of creators and others. X continues to breach the rights of music creators worldwide. If inclined and not already doing so, follow us via any of the below: 🔗linktr.ee/icmpmusic 🖥️ ICMPmusic.com 🤝 linkedin.com/company/icmp 📸 instagram.com/icmp_music 🆕bsky.app/profile/icmpmu…

Hey @grok, what's worse - the executive decision within many #tech & #AI companies to take as much of the 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥'𝘴 existing music, photography, literature, journalism, film, poetry, TV, sports, books, brands, logos, datasets, personal data, personal messages, individual profiles, emails etc. for commercial profit all in full knowledge of breaching basic laws, or is it the hypocrisy that they aggressively assert their own copyrights? 👇👀 Elon & X are just one of many. This is why we need AI & copyright laws to ensure the same rules for all. #ArtificalIntelligenceRealRights

The success of the British creative industries is due in part to the country’s strong copyright regime. Weakening these protections will cause irreconcilable damage to a £124bn industry. We encourage all MPs to participate in this crucial and timely debate.

ICMP announced a new strand of its Partnership Programme: Collective Management Organisation (CMO) Friends of ICMP. CMOs are important partners of music publishing companies worldwide, in managing rights then collecting and distributing royalties for licensed use of our member companies’ music. These Friends of ICMP are the world’s leading organisations in this space and close partners in our work worldwide to defend the work of songwriters and composers. Today we announce SESAC Music Group from the US. We will be announcing others from around the world each week. 🗣️ Below, company quote from Alexander Wolf, President, International at SESAC Music Group 🎵 🌎

We’re calling on @SunoMusic to pull its ReMi AI lyrics tool. Reporting by @CMU shows it can generate copies of entire lyrics from iconic songs like American Pie and Take It Easy using basic prompts – without permission. @RobertoNeri47 our CEO, says: “This is the latest example of unethical AI firms stealing the work, art and livelihoods of lyricists, songwriters and composers.” We’re demanding action to protect music creators and calling for stronger copyright law.

ICMP announced a new strand of its Partnership Programme: Collective Management Organisation (CMO) Friends of ICMP. CMOs are important partners of music publishing companies worldwide, in managing rights then collecting and distributing royalties for licensed use of our member companies’ music. These Friends of ICMP are the world’s leading organisations in this space and close partners in our work worldwide to defend the work of songwriters and composers. Today we announce @sacem from France. We will be announcing others from around the world each week. 🗣️ Below, company quote from Cecile Rap-Veber CEO at SACEM 🎵 🌎