Photo Credit: Sasun Bughdaryan
Are we about to learn Udio’s definitive “training number”? Perhaps, as a federal judge has vacated an earlier motion concerning the AI music platform’s purportedly confidential data.
Both Suno and Udio, repped by the same counsel in two distinct infringement complaints from the major labels, are aggressively pushing to prevent the public disclosure of their training numbers.
And as we previously reported, the figures, identified by the majors during marathon discovery processes, refer to the overall number of recordings used to train the generative models at hand.
The way the defendants see (or claim to see) things, the totals’ public disclosure would benefit rival platforms in multiple ways. Admittedly, this argument is curious. At the top level, Suno has already acknowledged that its “training data consists of tens of millions of public music audio files and corresponding textual metadata.”
But to reiterate an obvious point not mentioned in the relevant filings, attaching hard numbers to the training process wouldn’t do Suno or Udio any favors from the legal and PR perspectives.
Back to the new filings, then, quite a lot’s happening in the Udio action, which counts Sony Music and several of its subsidiaries as the only remaining plaintiffs.
Late last month, Sony Music moved to file a redacted version of its supersized amended complaint due to the presence of details that Udio “believes to be sensitive confidential information that should be sealed from the public record.”
Though we already knew what those details pertained to – the training number, of course – Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein technically signed off on Sony Music’s motion this past Tuesday. And on Wednesday, the judge issued a distinct order vacating a previously approved request from Udio to seal the training number references.
Said approval had seemingly arrived the day beforehand, after Udio kicked off June by seeking “to maintain under seal discrete portions” of the documents. While it’s unclear precisely what transpired in the interim, Judge Hellerstein’s new order is straightforward enough.
“My Order granting Defendants’ motion to seal, ECF No. 166, is hereby vacated,” the judge wrote. “The parties may brief that motion to seal, ECF No. 163, in the ordinary course.”
Forthcoming filings should offer more context, and we’ll provide updates as additional developments materialize. Elsewhere in the multifaceted AI litigation arena, Suno is urging the court to press pause on Universal Music’s and Sony Music’s dramatically expanded suit in favor of answering the central fair use question.
“After two years of extensive fact discovery,” the cash-flush company vented, “Suno is entitled to a timely consideration of its fair use defense. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to expand this case beyond that can be manageably litigated, at least without undue and indeterminate delay.”
