AI
Page: 8
Founded in 2017, Techstars Music was known as the premier music technology accelerator, providing funding and support to now-thriving companies like Endel, Splash, Hello Tickets, Community and Replica Studios. The company chose 10 startups each year and provided $120,000 to each, along with mentoring from its network of 316 music and entertainment executives from HYBE, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Concord, Quality Control and more.
Of the 70 startups that Techstars selected, the most successful 21 have gone on to raise over $263 million in follow-on funding since. Despite those successes, managing director Bob Moczydlowsky says that the company chose its final class this past summer — but his career as an investor is far from over.
Why is Techstars Music shutting down?
Even though the way we have been investing has been working, it has been held back by the constraints of an accelerator, which we feel is an outdated model. The amount of capital we can provide is limited. It is also held back by the constraints of labeling it “music.” We want to invest in companies solving problems for music, not music tech companies, but the reality is that founders see “Techstars Music” on the door and they bring us their startup to help kids learn to play a violin. We actually believe instruments will become irrelevant and software will mainly replace them. Our thesis now is we want to fund the future of entertainment, self-expression and live events. This changes almost nothing in how we have already been operating and evaluating companies, but we want this thesis publicly understood.
Why are accelerators outdated?
The accelerator is a great product. It was designed around the time of the financial crisis of 2008. Because angel and pre-seed investors largely disappeared, accelerators fit a need and had great returns. Plus, it helped new companies get the mentorship they needed. Now the cost of running a business — talent, travel, etc. — has grown. Smart founders can now find online most of the information accelerators provide on how to structure a company. The economic deal that accelerators offer to founders has not evolved in that time, so every year, the accelerator is providing the same amount of capital investment, buying the same amount of equity from founders, but that capital is buying fewer and fewer things … We need to make more investments and do it on a rolling, year-round basis. We need to provide more capital too so companies can better leverage the connections we can give them.
What does the future of your investing look like post-Techstars Music?
The goal is to be the best investor in this category. To do so we need to make more investments and do it on a rolling, year-round basis. We need to provide more capital too, so companies can leverage the connections we can give them better.
You’re not trying to invest in music companies but “invest in companies solving problems for music.” Can you explain what that means?
Music startups typically do not generate venture returns … You also have competitors like Apple, Amazon and Google that use music as a loss leader for other products. That makes investing in that sort of music startup very difficult, especially a pre-seed investor like us.
Because streaming has become the dominant way we are listening to music, it has altered a lot of other habits around it as a consequence … I want to invest in companies solving problems for music, like Community, a direct-messaging service. It’s not musical at all, but it is used by artists and enables them to connect to their fans directly better than ever.
Do you think it is helpful, given investors know how tough music businesses are to run, to define themselves as something besides primarily a music company?
Let me be clear: You cannot change how you define your company to make investors happy, or you will not raise capital, but you need to be savvy as a founder about how you present your business and find investors who are looking for you. One of the myths about raising venture capital is that founders persuade investors to invest in them. Investors are out there looking for companies to invest in all day long, every day. We are just trying to find companies that match our thesis.
We think about it like this: we see the problems the music business has. We see how music and entertainment are going to change over the years, so let’s invest in the things that solve the problems or get us closer to those new realities, not just saying “Hey, let’s see all the music tech startups.”
Do you think this is a particularly fruitful time for investors, given the rapid rise of AI, the maturation of streaming, etc.?
There is more opportunity and more radical change coming in the next five to 10 years than we’ve had in the last decade. The last 10 years were about maturing the streaming market and putting rights owners and artists on stable financial footing. The music business is now as big as it has ever been by revenue, but growth is slowing in the number of new subscribers. We’re at a point where music streaming 1.0 is perfected — what does streaming 2.0 look like? We’re shutting Techstars Music down so that we can come back with the right vehicle for the next 10 years.
In your crystal ball, what do you think Streaming 2.0 looks like?
If Streaming 1.0 was about making all the music play, Streaming 2.0 should be about being able to play with all the music.
Your thesis focuses not just on music now, but live events, self-expression and entertainment altogether. Do you see these sectors converging?
Absolutely. What is the difference between an athlete, a musician, a TV star at this point in terms of the media they deliver? They all have podcasts, documentaries, merchandise, fashion lines — of course, they all have their specialty, but I think it is evident that there will be even more convergence coming soon.
This story will appear in the Oct. 21, 2023, issue of Billboard.
Mike Shinoda has long incorporated new tech into both his solo work (like the Beat Saber VR pack and sci-fi/horror web video game that helped launch his recent single “Already Over”) and his music with Linkin Park (like the AI-generated visuals used in the recent music video for unearthed band demo “Lost”). But the artist-producer has also become a key investor in music technology — starting with Linkin Park’s Machine Shop Ventures, which launched in 2015 as a mix of venture capital projects and live-music activations, and now more recently on his own. Since April 2022, he has also served as community innovation adviser for Warner Recorded Music, providing a forward-thinking artist’s perspective on subjects like Web3 and AI.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
“With labels and future tech, I feel like doors are opening to new types of artists,” Shinoda says. “At a certain point, you wouldn’t have considered a content creator on a social platform to be a music artist. Now you can! In the future, those doors might also be open to nontraditional projects that are pushing the boundaries of what it is to be an artist.”
Have you been surprised by the degree of industry focus on AI this year, or did you see it coming?
Unless you were already deep in the trenches, I think AI hit everybody in a similar way — it blew up very big, very fast — but part of that is people developing complex things behind the scenes. Once some of the general concepts about how one could use AI became more widely known — and the concerns and the creativity, all the different positive and negative sides of it — people started releasing things, and you started getting a sense of how fast it’s moving and all the things we could do.
It’s exciting and it’s new, but you know, I come from an illustration background, and that artist community was up in arms immediately, saying, “Hey, guys, this technology is stealing from us. These are copyrighted images, and it’s pulling them and riffing off of them to make new things.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
How much has being an artist informed how you interact with these new technologies and potentially invest in them?
Being an artist, there are times when you are relied on to develop a vision of something, and it needs to come from you — you are responsible for it, you curate it, you collaborate with other people to make it the best it can be. And as part of that, you’re also in charge of communicating it, of accepting criticism and sorting through ideas. Whether as a kid growing up doing drawing and painting and graphic design, to everything with the band and all of our releases, that skill set carries over to a lot of the founders that I’ve worked with and had the chance to meet over time.
What is an early highlight of your own investing career?
I was one of many investors and advisers when Spotify came to the U.S. To be honest, it wasn’t a lot of money — but it was fascinating to talk with Daniel [Ek] and his team as they were in the midst of the huge cultural shift that happened.
Which areas of music tech are you most interested in right now?
One thing that has been on my mind is that with new technology comes new responsibilities. Historically, artists have been on the end of this equation where their work gets treated like it doesn’t have very much value. When you’re a smaller artist, you go, “Well, this is just the way it is. This is how I get to the point where people hear me for the first time, so I’m going to give away everything for free and just play that game.” And then when you get to a certain point, you realize, “Oh, my gosh. My stuff really does have value. How do I capture that value?”
Because of the changes in technology, different companies developing new things are trying to take a big bite out of the apple that is the artist’s intellectual property. For any artist that hears me talking about this, I hope that it occurs to them: It’s your job to protect the work, to put a value on it, and that value might actually be higher than other people might say it’s worth.
Additional reporting by Kristin Robinson.
This story will appear in the Oct. 21, 2023, issue of Billboard.
Whether they’re angel investors offering startups tens of thousands or venture capital power players with hundreds of millions, some of the shrewdest minds in and around the music business are using their expertise to reinvest in the tools of its future. The investors profiled here are just a sampling of the many focusing on new music technology right now; some of their peers prefer to keep their dealings private, while plenty more music executives turned investors have bet on areas other than music technology. Others are interested in music tech but aren’t actively investing. But with generative artificial intelligence, virtual reality and advancements in live-music technology on the horizon, the thought leaders highlighted here see the industry at a “tipping point” — and the next generation of companies may fundamentally change the way the music business works.
The Majors
The Big Three music groups have invested in tech platforms tied to fashion, gaming, music creation and even battling dementia — and executives say there’s more to come.
In February, on his first quarterly earnings call as the new CEO of Warner Music Group (WMG), Robert Kyncl laid out a future of “meaningful upside” for the music business: “As technology opens up emerging economies, the industry’s addressable market will continue to expand even further,” Kyncl told analysts. On top of that, he added, “innovation is constantly creating new-use cases for music, giving us the opportunity to diversify our revenue sources.”
As the major labels navigate a landscape increasingly dominated by streaming platforms and digital creation apps like BandLab and Boomy, it’s not surprising they have eagerly invested over $1 billion, according to label sources, in the nascent technology companies that have the potential to help them diversify and increase their revenue sources.
In the last four years, WMG has invested in gaming platform Roblox, digital fashion retailer DRESSX and music generator Lifescore, which is powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Sony Music Entertainment has backed another music creation (and collaboration) platform, Tully; social platform Fave; and Techstars Music, an accelerator program that provided funding and mentorship to promising music technology startups. (It was quietly shuttered after this summer’s class, according to managing director Bob Moczydlowsky.)
“It is always a highlight for us to support visionary entrepreneurs in developing innovative music tech and to help drive experimentation with new products and revenue models that enhance creativity, consumer experiences and overall value and utility for our creative partners and artists,” SME senior vp of strategy and investments Angela Lopes says.
Universal Music Group eschews venture capital investments, preferring to offer seed money, mentoring and other support for startups. The company has gotten behind two health-related music apps: Endel, which creates personalized AI-generated soundscapes to foster focus and sleep, and Music Health, the company behind Vera, which is designed to help those suffering from dementia, as well as next-generation radio broadcasting toolkit Super-HiFi. UMG senior vp of digital innovation strategy and business development Kristen Bender said in a statement that the company’s “music DNA — incubation, connectivity, mentorship [and] strategic partner network — is the greatest asset we can provide early-stage companies.”
It’s likely that the volume of these investments will only increase. Lopes says, “We continue to focus on strategic investment opportunities” in the tech sector. And on the earnings call, Kyncl said WMG will be “reallocating our internal resources in order to invest in technology and drive not only more tools for monetization for creators but also greater efficiencies for us.” —ELIAS LEIGHT
Music Companies
Willard AhdritzFounder/chairman, Kobalt; CEO, Ahdritz & Co.
Willard Ahdritz
Paul Brissman
Recent investments: Dice, un:hurdInterests: Mobile ticketing, data-driven marketing
As founder and chairman of Kobalt — a publishing administration company that used a technology-first approach to disrupt the world of music publishing — Ahdritz has always had a forward-thinking approach to the music business. In recent years, he has been investing in other newcomers using technology to power music innovation, including popular mobile ticketing app Dice, and he has taken on an investment and advisory role in un:hurd, which uses data to help artists run successful digital marketing campaigns.
Mike CarenFounder/CEO, Artist Partner Group/Artist Publishing Group
Mike Caren
Elisabeth Caren
Recent investments: beatBread, Sound.me, Release.GlobalInterests: AI, music production tools, label tools
The label/publishing entrepreneur entered investing by acquiring music catalogs, but in recent years has expanded his focus to music technology and related startups. He says various forms of music tech are worthwhile “for both financial growth and for the good of the industry.” Caren hopes that the new companies he backs can “unleash creativity for those with huge imagination and limited knowledge” as well as economic and relationship-based limitations. But whether these results come through AI, augmented reality, traditional or currently unheard-of means “is less important for me.”
Startup red flag: “I try to avoid great decks without functioning software. I want to invest in companies with a minimum viable product I can use immediately and a clear road map for their future development.”
Neil JacobsonFounder/CEO, Hallwood Media; partner, Hallwood Media Ventures
Neil Jacobson
Clay Wescott
Recent investments: Disco, Splice, SoundfulInterests: AI, music production tools, creator services, marketplace platforms
Jacobson, former president of Geffen Records and founder of songwriter-producer management powerhouse Hallwood Media, brings decades of experience at labels and publishers to investing. Hallwood Media Ventures was born out of a special purpose acquisition company Jacobson launched in February 2021 with partner Todd Lowen, raising $230 million for a publicly listed vehicle with the intent of merging with a high-growth, music-related business. Now, almost three years later, Hallwood is unencumbered by the restrictions of a SPAC and looking to invest “in the range of $25 million for minority stakes, up to $250 million for larger stakes or full takeouts,” says Jacobson, who adds that though the firm is seeking companies throughout the music sector, “music technology seems to be where we are spending a lot of our time.” Still, as technology evolves, Jacobson envisions that great managers, like those on staff at Hallwood, will be “more critical than ever. The world, especially music, is changing at a pace we’ve never seen before. The need for management teams to react quickly and intelligently will only be amplified.”
Words an investor should live by: “ ‘Show me the money!’ We say that half-jokingly, but companies need to demonstrate the ability to generate EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] … We look for businesses that are executing on a responsible plan that is ready to be scaled with our help — both financially and strategically.”
Nick JarjourFounder/CEO, JarjourCo
Nick Jarjour
Dan Franco
Recent investments: Soundful, mayk.it, HIFI, Xposure, TrillerInterests: Music and gaming, livestreaming, virtual concerts, AI, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), fintech
Jarjour, an entrepreneur and manager for songwriter Starrah, says his first mentor told him: “Don’t just invest in companies. Advise them, consult them, sit on their boards.” So when he provides funding to a startup, he often assumes an advisory role too, as he did with mayk.it, HIFI, Xposure and more. He likens the role of an investor in a fledgling company to A&R, where his career began, and he aims to spot “hit companies” much as he would a song.
In the next five years, music tech will…: “See more artists and celebrity investors, more music and gaming partnerships, more growth in VR/AR music experiences … [There will be] a digital transformation for labels, funds and publishers propelled by breakthroughs like AI and the democratization of things.”
Andrew KahnHead of Crush Ventures
Andrew Kahn
Crush Ventures
Investments: Splice, Audioshake, Sound.xyz, CreateSafe, Rhythm.fmInterests: Fan technology, music production tools, creator tools
Alongside colleagues Aaron Matusow and Dan Kruchkow, Kahn leads the venture capital division for longtime independent management company Crush Music. With Crush Ventures, Kahn and his team make investment decisions that align with the overall company ethos: “We look to invest in building companies that could impact how we manage and grow the careers of Crush Music artists, who are also pop-culture brands,” Kahn says. That’s why the team is so interested in working with companies that create tools empowering artists, like Splice, Audioshake and CreateSafe. In the next five years, Kahn says he sees these companies “narrowing the gap between novice and pro.”
Startup red flags: “We try to avoid founders who are not living the culture of the market they are trying to enter or feeling the pain acutely of the problem they are trying to solve. Other nits are requests to sign [nondisclosure agreements] too quickly and early-stage companies using agencies to build core products.”
Naoki OsadaCEO, Avex USA; founder, Future of Music Fund
Naoki Osada
Caris Yeoman
Recent investments: Wave, Endel, Liminal Space, Strangeloop StudiosInterests: Metaverse, 3D, live experiences, virtual artists, music production tools
When he’s not running label and publishing operations at Avex USA, the thriving American outpost of the Japanese entertainment company, Osada is vetting emerging companies to invest in through Avex USA’s corporate venture capital division. Called the Future of Music Fund, Osada says he invests “in a selective, boutique way” in companies he feels build “immersive multisensory experiences of music” — like Endel’s personalized soundscapes that promote relaxation and Wave’s high-tech virtual concert production tools. So far, the fund has invested about $5 million and has now expanded to $25 million “based on the past successes.” Still, Osada notes that due to saturation in the market, he doesn’t “see quite as many mind-blowing early-stage companies these days as five years ago.”
Words an investor should live by: “In general, [our] motto is ‘innovate or die.’ We must constantly become different for the better in aspects of business/life to survive.”
Hazel SavageAngel investor; vp of music intelligence, SoundCloud
Hazel Savage
Alison Emerick
Recent investments: un:hurd, AudioShake, mayk.itInterests: AI and “all areas of deep tech in the music industry”
After building her own successful startup, Musiio, which SoundCloud acquired in 2022, Savage says she is “proud to invest in exceptional founders” as an angel investor. “I am looking for a founder or co-founders I believe in. They need that magic spark where when I look at them, I just know I could be working for them in 10 years and whatever they do, they will be successful,” she says. Since getting started, Savage has invested just shy of $1 million, the bulk of which has gone toward forms of AI that can ease pain points in the music business. She says she “learned from [her] own cap table about the kind of investor [she] wanted to be.”
In the next five years, music tech will…: “I think generative AI is here to stay … If we learn how to harness the tech and make it work for the musicians and the industry, it will be a net win all ’round. I also think we are evolving out of the existing stage of music streaming and into a new era where we all learn and figure out how to make sure the money fans want to spend goes directly to the artists they want to support.”
Agencies
Phil QuistInvestor, Connect Ventures; music/emerging tech agent, CAA
Phil Quist
Courtesy of CAA
Recent investments: Royal, Deep VooDooInterests: AI, music production tools, smart ticketing, live-concert experience enhancements
Kendrick Lamar’s innovative music video for “The Heart Part 5” — which used AI to morph the rapper’s face into the likenesses of Kanye West, O.J. Simpson, Kobe Bryant, Nipsey Hussle and Will Smith — was made possible by Deep VooDoo, an AI visual effects company and one of Quist and Connect Ventures’ recent investments. Since Connect’s establishment, Quist and his colleagues have invested “eight figures” into music-related technology that empowers creative innovation (like “The Heart Part 5”) because Quist feels “we are nearing a tipping point in the music industry” and a coming decade that’s “transformative and full of opportunity.” He believes the greatest opportunities in music lie in evolving the live-concert experience, investing in the fan-artist relationship, AI and the democratization of music creation, and he envisions a future where the Internet of Things finds its place in music, “transforming everyday objects into musical instruments or interfaces.”
Words an investor should live by: “Warren Buffett once said, ‘Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.’ This quote reminds me to approach both investing and life with a contrarian mindset, not being swayed by the prevailing market sentiment or popular trends, but to rather look toward the future.”
Sam WickPartner, UTA; head, UTA Ventures
Sam Wick
UTA
Recent investments: Moment House, Stem, CameoInterests: AI, livestreaming, e-commerce, distribution
As head of UTA Ventures, Wick consistently asks founders the same five questions: “What is the problem? How big is the market? How are you solving it? Why are you the right team to solve it? What is your competitive advantage?” UTA Ventures’ portfolio includes startups from industries as diverse as its client roster, which ranges from music to film/TV to gaming and sports, but it has dipped into music technology with investments in Moment House and Stem. One of the most important considerations for investing in music, Wick says, is remembering that “music defines culture and is continually at the forefront of technological disruption and innovation … Any trend that impacts the arts more broadly will impact music first.”
Words an investor should live by: “A venture investor will make hundreds of investments throughout their career. When all is said and done, your relationships and reputation are paramount … Conduct yourself with integrity.”
Finance
Fred Davis and Joe PuthenveetilPartners, The Raine Group
Joe Puthenveetil (left) and Fred Davis photographed on March 21, 2023 at The Raine Group in London.
Paul Stuart
Recent investments: SoundCloud, Firebird, Amuse, Rock the BellsInterests: Decentralized distribution, streamlining royalty collection, generative AI
Raine Group partners Davis and Puthenveetil combined their backgrounds — Davis’ as a longtime music attorney, with generational music expertise imparted by his father, Clive Davis, and Puthenveetil’s in advising and investing for Grail Partners and 13 years helping steer Raine’s music and entertainment efforts — to become a dominant music business force. Apart from investing in some of the industry’s fast-growing new music technology firms, they have also had their hands in facilitating many of the industry’s biggest music technology transactions, such as the sale of tech-focused publisher Kobalt to Francisco Partners and the sale of AVL Digital (CD Baby) to Downtown.
In the next five years, music tech will…: “Platforms and distribution will evolve to connect artists directly with fans and unlock opportunities for engagement and monetization beyond streaming,” Puthenveetil says. “Music discovery and consumption will continue to integrate more deeply into other forms of entertainment, particularly in gaming. Music rights management will continue to get more complex and, hopefully, more transparent and efficient for rights holders.”
Bob MoczydlowskyManaging director, Techstars Music
Bob Moczydlowsky
Jen Hall
Recent investments: Endel, Triller, Tribe XR, Strangeloop Studios, Amper MusicInterests: Streaming, music production tools, AI
As the managing director for premier music technology accelerator Techstars Music, Moczydlowsky facilitated 70 pre-seed investments in startups like Endel, Community, Triller and Tribe XR for a total of $8.2 million during the existence of the program that started in 2017 and ended this year. Techstars connected founders not just with money but with mentors from many of the other investors and companies mentioned on this list, including Sony Music Entertainment, HYBE and Warner Music Group. “I invest at the earliest possible stage,” Moczydlowsky explains. “So 90% of my process is about the team … At the early stage, what matters are the people and their passion for the market and the problem.”
In the next five years, music tech will…: “I’m most interested in what comes next in this mature streaming market we’re entering. If music streaming 1.0 was about solving the problem of ‘make all the music play,’ I think music streaming 2.0 is going to be allowing fans a way to ‘play with all of the music.’ ”
Shachar OrenFounder/CEO, Sound Media Ventures
Shachar Oren
Courtesy of Shachar Oren
Recent investments: Boomy, Tribe XR, Dance FightInterests: Generative AI, blockchain, user-generated content, streaming, metaverse
For 18 years, Oren was CEO of the startup he founded — business-to-business music licensing platform Neurotic Media — which Peloton acquired in 2018. After the sale, he moved to Peloton as its vp of music before founding Sound Media Ventures, where he applied the skills he learned as an entrepreneur to invest in other founders’ businesses. Since then, Sound Media has invested about $500,000 in total seed funding for music-related startups like Boomy, Tribe XR and Dance Fight in addition to significant investments in other areas of entertainment and technology. As Oren puts it, his firm offers founders more than money: “Our experience and expertise in the music space, along with our relationships, give us the ability to drive growth for our founders.”
Startup red flag: “Testing the product and getting a feel for the market fit it can find, or better yet, interviewing customers and assessing how passionate they feel about the solution is key. If one can’t establish a clear market fit for a product or service, that’s a clear warning.”
Guy OsearyCo-founder, Maverick Management; co-founder, Sound Ventures
Guy Oseary
Amanda Edwards/Getty Images
Recent investments: Community, SeatGeek, Shazam, OpenAI, Stability AIInterest: AI
After making his name as a superstar manager and music executive, Oseary has more recently turned his attention to venture capital and funding the future of innovation, both inside and outside music. In 2015, he and co-founder Ashton Kutcher launched Sound Ventures, where he says he leans on his skills at spotting talent as a former A&R executive to find the next big company. At the National Music Publishers’ Association’s annual meeting this year, Oseary gave a keynote address that focused on AI: “There’s a whole new wave that’s happening, and it’s happening very quickly. That means things can scale quickly,” he said. He has two funds dedicated to AI; one has raised $200 million to make investments specifically in “foundational AI models,” which Oseary feels will be the bedrock of all companies in the future. “Our thesis is that everyone is going to plug into one of these foundational models. In a few years, I’m going to ask whatever company I’m working with, ‘Which one do you use?’ And they’ll say Google or OpenAI or Anthropic — it’ll be one of five or six companies that you’re going to put all your information into and use that model to help run your business.”
Shara SenderoffCo-founder, Born Ready; co-founder, Raised in Space
Shara Senderoff
TCK Photo
Recent investments: Audigent/Music IQ, Songclip, The WaveXR, Spatial Labs, Altered State MachineInterests: AI, blockchain, royalty collection, music production tools, AR
Through funds Born Ready and Raised in Space, Senderoff has invested approximately $30 million into music tech startups during her career. These days, she is most interested in the evolution of the creator economy and how generative AI tools will affect it, but her investments range widely, from blockchain-based solutions for royalty collection to generative music to virtual reality. “I’m relentlessly focused on viability of a business model and its alignment with market timing and demands,” she says.
Startup red flag: “Consistently investing in cutting-edge technologies, such as blockchain and AI, before they hit the mainstream has made it easy for me to spot hype cycles while also enabling efficient discernment of innovation from buzzwords. I pride myself on deep diligence.”
Matt SpetzlerPartner/co-head of Europe, Francisco Partners
Matt Spetzler
Courtesy of Francisco Partners
Recent investments: Kobalt (acquisition), AMRA (acquisition), Native Instruments, iZotope, Plugin Alliance, Brainworx, JKBXInterests: AI, music production, royalty collection, business-to-business music licensing
It has been a landmark year for Spetzler and his colleagues at Francisco Partners, which purchased tech-focused music publisher Kobalt and its global digital collection society, AMRA. The team also has invested significantly in music creation tools because, as Spetzler puts it, “technology has been, and will remain, a driving force behind empowering independent artists and creators.” His goal is to make Francisco Partners “one of the top technology and media investors” globally — and given that its last three years of investment into its audio portfolio has led to a combined value of over $4 billion, the company is well on its way toward that goal.
In the next five years, music tech will…: “I believe the power and economics will shift toward the artist/creator, and this empowerment will be driven by technology and increasing transparency.”
This story will appear in the Oct. 21, 2023, issue of Billboard.
Universal Music Group (UMG) and other music companies are suing an artificial intelligence platform called Anthropic PBC for using copyrighted song lyrics to “train” its software — marking the first major lawsuit in what is expected to be a key legal battle over the future of AI music.
In a complaint filed Wednesday morning (Oct. 18) in Nashville federal court, lawyers for UMG, Concord Music Group, ABKCO and other music publishers accused Anthropic of violating the companies’ copyrights en masse by using vast numbers of songs to help its AI models learn how to spit out new lyrics.
“In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works,” lawyers for the music companies wrote. “Publishers embrace innovation and recognize the great promise of AI when used ethically and responsibly. But Anthropic violates these principles on a systematic and widespread basis.”
A spokesperson for Anthropic did not immediately return a request for comment.
The new lawsuit is similar to cases filed by visual artists over the unauthorized use of their works to train AI image generators, as well as cases filed by authors like Game of Thrones writer George R.R. Martin and novelist John Grisham over the use of their books. But it’s the first to squarely target music.
AI models like the popular ChatGPT are “trained” to produce new content by feeding them vast quantities of existing works known as “inputs.” In the case of AI music, that process involves huge numbers of songs. Whether doing so infringes the copyrights to that underlying material is something of an existential question for the booming sector, since depriving AI models of new inputs could limit their abilities.
Major music companies and other industry players have already argued that such training is illegal. Last year, the RIAA said that any use of copyrighted songs to build AI platforms “infringes our members’ rights.” In April, when UMG asked Spotify and other streamers in April to stop allowing AI companies to use their platforms to ingest music, it said it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
On Wednesday, the company took those steps. In the lawsuit, it said Anthropic “profits richly” from the “vast troves of copyrighted material that Anthropic scrapes from the internet.”
“Unlike songwriters, who are creative by nature, Anthropic’s AI models are not creative — they depend entirely on the creativity of others,” lawyers for the publishers wrote. “Yet, Anthropic pays nothing to publishers, their songwriters, or the countless other copyright owners whose copyrighted works Anthropic uses to train its AI models. Anthropic has never even attempted to license the use of Publishers’ lyrics.”
In the case ahead, the key battle line will be over whether the unauthorized use of proprietary music to train an AI platform is nonetheless legal under copyright’s fair use doctrine — an important rule that allows people to reuse protected works without breaking the law.
Historically, fair use enabled critics to quote from the works they were dissecting, or parodists to use existing materials to mock them. But more recently, it’s also empowered new technologies: In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the VCR was protected by fair use; in 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that Google Image search was fair use.
In Wednesday’s complaint, UMG and the other publishers seemed intent on heading off any kind of fair use defense. They argued that Anthropic’s behavior would harm the market for licensing lyrics to AI services that actually pay for licenses — a key consideration in any fair use analysis.
“Anthropic is depriving Publishers and their songwriters of control over their copyrighted works and the hard-earned benefits of their creative endeavors, it is competing unfairly against those website developers that respect the copyright law and pay for licenses, and it is undermining existing and future licensing markets in untold ways,” the publishers wrote.
In addition to targeting Anthropic’s use of songs as inputs, the publishers claim that the material produced by the company’s AI model also infringes their lyrics: “Anthropic’s AI models generate identical or nearly identical copies of those lyrics, in clear violation of publishers’ copyrights.”
Such litigation might only be the first step in setting national policy on how AI platforms can use copyrighted music, with legislative efforts close behind. At a hearing in May, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) repeatedly grilled the CEO of the company behind ChatGPT about how he and others planned to “compensate the artist.”
“If I can go in and say ‘write me a song that sounds like Garth Brooks,’ and it takes part of an existing song, there has to be compensation to that artist for that utilization and that use,” Blackburn said. “If it was radio play, it would be there. If it was streaming, it would be there.”
Six months after ex-Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was convicted on foreign lobbying charges, he’s now demanding a new trial — making the extraordinary claim that his ex-lawyer used an unproven artificial intelligence (AI) tool to craft closing arguments because he owned a stake in the tech platform.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a Monday (Oct. 16) filing in D.C. federal court, Michel claimed attorney David Kenner “utterly failed” him during the April trial, denying him his constitutional right to effective counsel. Among other shortcomings, the rapper said Kenner outsourced prep work to “inexperienced contract attorneys” and “failed to object to damaging and inadmissible testimony” during the trial.
Most unusual of all, Michel accused Kenner of using “an experimental artificial intelligence program” to draft his closing arguments for the trial, resulting in a deeply flawed presentation. And he claimed Kenner did so because he had an “undisclosed financial stake” in the company and wanted to use Michel’s trial to promote it.
“Michel never had a chance,” the rapper’s new lawyers wrote Monday. “Michel’s counsel was deficient throughout, likely more focused on promoting his AI program … than zealously defending Michel. The net effect was an unreliable verdict.”
Kenner did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
Michel was charged in 2019 with funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He was also accused of trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
In April, following a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Michel was convicted on 10 counts including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China.
During that trial, Michel was represented by Kenner, a well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who has previously repped hip-hop luminaries like Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight and, most recently, Tory Lanez. But earlier this summer, Michel asked for permission to replace Kenner with a new team of lawyers; in August, Kenner and his firm were swapped out for lawyers from the national firm ArentFox Schiff.
Now, it’s clear why. In Monday’s filing, Michel’s new lawyers accused Kenner of wide-ranging failures — including many that have nothing to do with AI tools or secret motives. They claim he “outsourced trial preparations” to other lawyers and “failed to familiarize himself with the charged statutes or required elements.” They also say he “overlooked nearly every colorable defense” and “failed to object to damaging and inadmissible testimony, betraying a failure to understand the rules of evidence.”
But the most unusual allegations concerned an alleged scheme to promote EyeLevel.AI, a computer program designed to help attorneys win cases by digesting trial transcripts and other data. Days after the trial concluded, the company put out a press release highlighting its use in the Michel trial, calling it the “first use of generative AI in a federal trial” and quoting Kenner.
“This is an absolute game changer for complex litigation,” Kenner said in the press release. “The system turned hours or days of legal work into seconds. This is a look into the future of how cases will be conducted.”
But according to Michel’s new lawyers, Kenner’s use of the program was harmful, not helpful, to his client’s case. They say it may have led to some smaller mistakes, like Kenner misattributing a Puff Daddy song to the Fugees, but also to massive legal errors, like conflating separate allegations against Michel — an error that Michel’s new lawyers say caused Kenner to make “frivolous” arguments before the jury.
“At bottom, the AI program failed Kenner, and Kenner failed Michel,” Michel’s attorneys at ArentFox Schiff wrote. “The closing argument was deficient, unhelpful, and a missed opportunity that prejudiced the defense.”
According to Michel’s new lawyers, the mistake of using the AI tools was compounded by Kenner’s alleged motive: an undisclosed ownership stake in the startup that sells it. By using a criminal trial as a means to promote a product, Monday’s filing says Kenner created “an extraordinary conflict of interest.”
“Kenner and [his partner]’s decision to elevate their financial interest in the AI program over Michel’s interest in a competent and vigorous defense adversely affected Kenner’s trial performance, as the closing argument was frivolous, missed nearly every colorable argument, and damaged the defense,” they wrote.
“OK — now Ghostwriter is ready for us.”
For almost three hours, I have been driving an airport rental car to an undisclosed location — accompanied by an artist manager whose name I only know in confidence — outside the U.S. city we both just flew into. I came here because, after weeks of back-and-forth email negotiations, the manager has promised that I can meet his client, whom I’ve interviewed once off-camera over Zoom, in person. In good traffic, the town we’re headed toward is about an hour from the airport, but it’s Friday rush hour, so we watch as my Google Maps ETA gets later and later with each passing minute. To fill the time, we chat about TikTok trends, our respective careers and the future of artificial intelligence.
AI is, after all, the reason we’re in this car in the first place. The mysterious man I’ve come to meet is a “well-known” professional songwriter-producer, his manager says — at least when he’s using his real name. But under his pseudonym, Ghostwriter, he is best known for creating “Heart on My Sleeve,” a song that employed AI voice filters to imitate Drake and The Weeknd’s voices with shocking precision — and without their consent. When it was posted to TikTok in the spring, it became one of the biggest music stories of the year, as well as one of the most controversial.
At the time of its release, many listeners believed that Ghost’s use of AI to make the song meant that a computer also generated the beat, lyrics or melodies, but as Ghost later explains to me, “It is definitely my songwriting, my production and my voice.” Still, “Heart on My Sleeve” posed pressing ethical questions: For one, how could an artist maintain control over their vocal likeness in this new age of AI? But as Ghost and his manager see it, AI poses a new opportunity for artists to license their voices for additional income and marketing reach, as well as for songwriters like Ghost to share their skills, improve their pitches to artists and even earn extra income.
As we finally pull into the sleepy town where we’re already late to meet with Ghost, his manager asks if I can stall. “Ghost isn’t quite ready,” he says, which I assume means he’s not yet wearing the disguise he dons in all his TikTok videos: a white bedsheet and black sunglasses. (Both the manager and Ghost agreed to this meeting under condition of total anonymity.) As I weave the car through residential streets at random, passing a few front yards already adorned in Halloween decor, I laugh to myself — it feels like an apropos precursor to our meeting.
But fifteen minutes later, when we enter Ghost’s “friend’s house,” I find him sitting at the back of an open-concept living space, at a dining room table, dressed head to toe in black: black hoodie, black sweatpants, black ski mask, black gloves and ski goggles. Not an inch of skin is visible, apart from short glimpses of the peach-colored nape of his neck when he turns his head a certain way.
Though he appears a little nervous to be talking to a reporter for the first time, Ghost is friendly, standing up from his chair to give me a hug and to greet his manager. When I decide to address the elephant in the room — “I know this is weird for all of us” — everyone laughs, maybe a little too hard.
Over the course of our first virtual conversation and, now, this face-to-masked-face one, Ghost and his manager openly discuss their last six months for the first time, from their decision to release “Heart on My Sleeve” to more recent events. Just weeks ago, Ghost returned with a second single, “Whiplash,” posted to TikTok using the voices of 21 Savage and Travis Scott — and with the ambition to get his music on the Grammy Awards ballot.
In a Sept. 5 New York Times story, Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. said “Heart on My Sleeve” was “absolutely [Grammy-]eligible because it was written by a human,” making it the first song employing AI voices to be permitted on the ballot. Three days later, however, he appeared to walk back his comments in a video posted to his personal social media, saying, “This version of ‘Heart on My Sleeve’ using the AI voice modeling that sounds like Drake and The Weeknd, it’s not eligible for Grammy consideration.”
[embedded content]
In conversation, Ghost and his manager maintain (and a Recording Academy representative later confirms) that “Heart on My Sleeve” will, in fact, be on the ballot because they quietly uploaded a new version of the song (without any AI voice filters) to streaming services on Sept. 8, just days before Grammy eligibility cutoff and the same day as Mason’s statement.
When the interview concludes, Ghost’s manager asks if we will stay for the takeout barbecue the owner of the house ordered for everyone before the manager and I arrived. At this, Ghost stands up, saying his outfit is too hot and that he ate earlier anyway — or maybe he just realizes that eating would require taking his ski mask off in front of me.
When did Ghostwriter first approach you with this idea, and what were your initial thoughts?
Manager: We first discussed this not long before the first song dropped. He had just started getting into AI. We wanted to do something that could spark much needed conversation and prep us so that we can start moving toward building an environment where this can exist in an ethical and equitable way. What better way to move culture forward around AI than to create some examples of how it can be used and show how the demand and interest is there?
As the person in charge of Ghostwriter’s business affairs, what hurdles did you see to executing his idea?
Manager: When anything new happens, people don’t know how to react. I see a lot of parallels between this moment and the advent of sampling. There was an outcry [about] thievery in 1989 when De La Soul was sued for an uncleared sample. Fast-forward to now, and artist estates are jumping at the opportunity to be sampled and interpolated in the next big hit. All it took was for the industry to define an equitable arrangement for all stakeholders in order for people to see the value in that new form of creativity. I think we agreed that we had an opportunity to show people the value in AI and music here.
Ghostwriter’s songs weren’t created with the consent of Drake, The Weeknd, Travis Scott or 21 Savage. How do you justify using artists’ voices without their consent?
Manager: I like to say that everything starts somewhere, like Spotify wouldn’t exist without Napster. Nothing is perfect in the beginning. That’s just the reality of things. Hopefully, people will see all the value that lies here.
How did you get in touch with the Recording Academy?
Manager: Harvey reached out to Ghostwriter over DM. He was just curious and interested. It’s his job to keep the industry moving forward and to understand what new things are happening. I think he’s still wrapping his head around it, but I thought it was really cool that he put together an industry roundtable with some of the brightest minds — including people in the Copyright Office, legal departments at labels, Spotify, Ghostwriter. We had an open conversation.
I don’t know if Harvey has the answers — and I don’t want to put words in his mouth — but I think he sees that this is a cool tool to help people create great music. [Ultimately,] we just have to figure out the business model so that all stakeholders feel like they have control and are being taken care of.
I think in the near future, we’re going to have infrastructure that allows artists to not only license their voice, but do so with permissions. Like, say I’m artist X. I want to license my voice out, but I want to take 50% of the revenue that’s generated. Plus users can’t use my voice for hate speech or politics. It is possible to create tech that can have permissions like that. I think that’s where we are headed.
“Heart on My Sleeve” is Grammy-eligible after all, but only the version without AI voice filters. Why was it so important to keep trying for Grammy eligibility?
Manager: Our thought process was, it’s a dope record, and it resonated with people. It was a human creator who created this piece of art that made the entire music industry stop and pay attention. We aren’t worried about whether we win or not — this is about planting the seed, the idea that this is a creative tool for songwriters.
Do you still think it pushes the envelope in the same way, given that what is eligible now doesn’t have any AI filter on it?
Manager: Absolutely, because we’re just trying to highlight the fact that this song was created by a human. AI voice filters were just a tool. We haven’t changed the moment around the song that it had. I think it’s still as impactful because all of this is part of the story, the vision we are casting.
Tell me a little about yourself, Ghostwriter. What’s your background?
Ghostwriter: I’ve always been a songwriter-producer. Over time, I started to realize — as I started to get into different rooms and connect with different artists — that the business of songwriting was off. Songwriters get paid close to nothing. It caused me to think: “What can I do as a songwriter who just loves creating to maybe create another revenue stream? How do I get my voice heard as a songwriter?” That was the seed that later grew into becoming Ghostwriter.
I’ve been thinking about it for two years, honestly. The idea at first was to create music that feels like other artists and release it as Ghostwriter. Then when the AI tech came out, things just clicked. I realized, “Wait — people wouldn’t have to guess who this song was meant to sound like anymore,” now that we have this.
I did write and produce “Heart on My Sleeve” thinking that maybe this would be the one where I tried AI to add in voice filters, but the overall idea for Ghostwriter has been a piece of me for some time.
Why did you decide to take “Heart on My Sleeve” from just a fun experiment to a formal rollout?
Ghost: Up until this point, all of the AI voice stuff was jokes. Like, what if SpongeBob [SquarePants] sang this? I think it was exciting for me to try using this as a tool for actual songwriters.
When “Heart on My Sleeve” went viral, it became one of the biggest news stories at the time. Did you anticipate that?
Ghost: There was a piece of me that knew it was really special, but you just can’t predict what happens. I tried to stay realistic. When working in music, you have to remind yourself that even though you think you wrote an incredible song, there’s still a good chance the song is not going to come out or it won’t do well.
Do you think that age played a factor in how people responded to this song?
Manager: For sure. I think the older generations are more purists; it’s a tougher pill for them to swallow. I think younger generations obviously have grown up in an environment where tech moves quickly. They are more open to change and progression. I would absolutely attribute the good response on TikTok to that.
Are you still writing for other people now under your real name while you work on the Ghostwriter project, or are you solely focused on Ghostwriter right now?
Ghost: I am, but I have been placing a large amount of focus [on] Ghostwriter. For me, it’s a place that is so refreshing. Like, I love seeing that an artist is looking for pitch records and I have to figure out how to fit their sound. It’s a beautiful challenge.
This is one of the reasons I’m so passionate about Ghostwriter. There are so many talented songwriters that are able to chameleon themselves in the studio to fit the artist they are writing for. Even their vocal delivery, their timbre, where the artist is in their life story. That skill is what I get to showcase with Ghostwriter.
You’ve said songwriters aren’t treated fairly in today’s music industry. Was there a moment when you had this revelation?
Ghost: It was more of a progression…
Manager: I think the fact that Ghost’s songs feel so much like the real thing and resonate so much with those fan bases, despite the artists not actually being involved, proves how important songwriters are to the success of artists’ projects. We’re in no way trying to diminish the hard work and deserving nature of the artists and the labels that support them. We’re just trying to shine a light on the value that songwriters bring and that their compensation currently doesn’t match that contribution. We owe it to songwriters to find solutions for the new reality. Maybe this is the solution.
Ghost: How many incredible songs are sitting on songwriters and producers’ desktops that will never be heard by the world? It almost hurts me to think about that. The Ghostwriter project — if people will hopefully support it — is about not throwing art in the trash. I think there’s a way for artists to help provide that beauty to the world without having to put in work themselves. They just have to license their voices.
The counterpoint to that, though, is that artists want to curate their discographies. They make a lot of songs, but they might toss some of them so that they can present a singular vision — and many would say songs using AI to replicate an artist’s voice would confuse that vision. What do you say to that?
Ghost: I think this may be a simple solution, but the songs could be labeled as clearly separate from the artist.
Manager: That’s something we have done since the beginning. We have always clearly labeled everything as AI.
Ideally, where should these AI songs live? Do they belong on traditional streaming services?
Manager: One way that this can play out is that [digital service providers] eventually create sort of an AI section where the artist who licenses their voice can determine how much of the AI songs they want monetarily and how they want their voices to be used.
Ghost: These songs are going to live somewhere because the fans want them. We’ve experienced that with Ghostwriter. The song is not available anymore by us, but I was just out in my area and heard someone playing “Heart on My Sleeve” in their car as they drove by. One way or another, we as the music industry need to come to terms with the fact that good music is always going to win. The consumer and the listener are always in the seat of power.
There’s 100,000 songs added to Spotify every day, and the scale of music creation is unprecedented. Does your vision of the future contribute to a scale problem?
Manager: We don’t really see it as a problem. Because no matter how many people are releasing music, you know, there’s only going to be so many people in the world that can write hit songs. The cream always rises to the top.
Ghost: My concern is that a lot of that cream-of-the-crop music is just sitting on someone’s desktop because an artist moved in a different direction or something beyond their control. My hope is we’ll see incredible new music become available and then we can watch as democracy pushes it to the top.
Can you explain how you think AI voice filters serve as a possible new revenue stream for artists?
Manager: Imagine singing a karaoke song in the artist’s voice; a personalized birthday message from your favorite artist; a hit record that is clearly labeled and categorized as AI. It’s also a marketing driver. I compare this to fan fiction — a fan-generated genre of music. Some might feel this creates competition or steals attention away from an artist’s own music, but I would disagree.
We shouldn’t forget that in the early days of YouTube, artists and labels fought to remove every piece of fan-generated content [that used] copyrighted material that they could. Now a decade or so later, almost every music marketing effort centers around encouraging [user-generated content]: TikTok trends, lyric videos, dance choreography, covers, etcetera. There’s inherent value in empowering fans to create content that uses your image and likeness. I think AI voice filters are another iteration of UGC.
Timbaland recently wrote a song and used an AI voice filter to map The Notorious B.I.G.’s voice on top of it, essentially bringing Biggie back from the dead. That raises more ethical questions. Do you think using the voice of someone who is dead requires different consideration?
Manager: It’s an interesting thought. Obviously, there’s a lot of value here for companies that purchase catalogs. I think this all ties back to fan fiction. I love The Doors, and I know there are people who, like me, study exactly how they wrote and performed their songs. I’d love to hear a song from them I haven’t heard before personally, as long as it’s labeled [as a fan-made AI song]. As a music fan, it would be fun for me to consume. It’s like if you watch a film franchise and the fourth film isn’t directed by the same person as before. It’s not the same, but I’m still interested.
When Ghostwriter introduced “Whiplash,” he noted that he’s down to collaborate with and send royalties to Travis Scott and 21 Savage. Have you gotten in touch with them, or Drake or The Weeknd, yet?
Manager: No, we have not been in contact with anyone.
“Heart on My Sleeve” was taken down immediately from streaming services. Are you going about the release of “Whiplash” differently?
Manager: We will not release a song on streaming platforms again without getting the artists on board. That last time was an experiment to prove the market was there, but we are not here to agitate or cause problems.
You’ve said that other artists have reached out to your team about working together and using their voices through AI. Have you started that collaboration process?
Manager: We’re still having conversations with artists we are excited about that have reached out, but they probably won’t create the sort of moment that we want to keep consistently with this project. There’s nothing I can confirm with you right now, but hopefully soon.
Why are you not interested in collaborating with who has reached out so far? Is it because of the artist’s audience size or their genre?
Manager: It’s more like every moment we have has to add a point and purpose. There hasn’t been anyone yet that feels like they could drive things forward in a meaningful way. I mean, size for sure, and relevancy. We ask ourselves: What does doing a song with that person or act say about the utility and the value of this technology?
Ghost: We’re just always concerned with the bigger picture. When “Whiplash” happened, we all felt like it was right. It was part of a statement I wanted to make about where we were headed. This project is about messaging.
After all this back-and-forth about the eligibility of “Heart on My Sleeve,” do you both feel you’re still in a good place with Harvey Mason Jr. and the Recording Academy?
Manager: For sure, we have nothing but love for Harvey … We have a lot of respect for him, the academy and, ultimately, a lot of respect for all the opinions and arguments out there being made about this. We hear them all and are thinking deeply about it.
Ghostwriter, you’ve opted to not reveal your identity in this interview, but does any part of you wish you could shout from the rooftops that you’re the one behind this project?
Ghost: Maybe it sounds cheesy, but this is a lot bigger than me and Ghostwriter. It’s the future of music. I want to push the needle forward, and if I get to play a significant part in that, then there’s nothing cooler than that to me. I think that’s enough for me.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Oct. 7, 2023, issue of Billboard.
AI-powered hit song analytics platform ChartCipher has successfully completed its beta phase and is now accessible to the public, MyPart and Hit Songs Deconstructed jointly announced on Tuesday (Oct. 10).
“Our mission is to empower music creatives and industry professionals with comprehensive, real-time insights into the DNA of today’s most successful songs, and the trends shaping the music charts,” said Hit Songs Deconstructed co-founder Yael Penn in a statement. “Streams, engagement, and other performance metrics only tell part of the story. ChartCipher is the missing link. It provides comprehensive data reflecting the compositional, lyrical and sonic qualities fueling today’s charts.”
Added Hit Songs Deconstructed co-founder David Penn, “The correlations we can now draw between songwriting and production, spanning various genres and charts, offer unprecedented insights that have the potential to significantly enhance both the creative journey and the decision-making process.”
“ChartCipher’s beta phase confirmed that our AI analytics provide invaluable insights to music creatives and decision-makers,” said MyPart CEO Matan Kollenscher. “From selecting singles through exploring remix and collaboration opportunities to optimizing marketing investments and maximizing catalog utilization, ChartCipher equips users with unique, actionable data vital to making better informed business and creative decisions and understanding the musical landscape.”
Launched in April 2022, ChartCipher combines MyPart’s AI-powered analysis of songs’ compositional, lyrical and sonic qualities with Hit Songs Deconstructed’s analytics delivery platform and song analysis methodologies to offer real-time insights into the qualities that fuel today’s most popular music. The platform utilizes analytics from 10 of Billboard‘s most prominent charts going back to the turn of the century: the Billboard Hot 100, Hot Country Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Hot Dance/Electronic Songs, Hot Rock & Alternative Songs, Pop Airplay, Country Airplay, Streaming Songs, Radio Songs and Digital Song Sales.
“Billboard has consistently led the way in global music charts, and we are thrilled to introduce ChartCipher with analytics for 10 of their most prominent charts,” added Yael Penn. “Our longstanding relationship with Billboard, spanning over a decade, marks the start of an exciting new chapter. Together, we aim to provide even deeper, more actionable insights into the driving forces behind today’s most successful songs.”
Gary Trust, senior director of charts at Billboard, added, “Spotlighting ChartCipher’s intriguing insights about the sonic makeup of hit songs further rounds out Billboard’s coverage. We’re excited to add even more analysis of popular charting songs to our reporting on streaming, radio airplay and sales data, as provided by Luminate.”
To celebrate its official launch, ChartCipher has created a Billboard Hot 100 quiz available to anyone who would like to test their knowledge of the compositional, lyrical and production qualities driving the chart.
Independent musicians will have more power to negotiate with artificial intelligence developers over “fairer rates and terms for the use of their music” if a newly introduced version of the Protect Working Musicians Act passes the U.S. House, according to Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.).
“AI threatens the creator — finding the person or entity that has co-opted your work and turned it into something else and then going after them is so onerous,” Ross, who sponsored the revised act and sits on the House Judiciary Committee, says in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. “That’s one of the reasons for this bill — to allow people to do this collaboratively. We need to do this sooner than later. We’re seeing this threat every single day.”
The Protect Working Musicians Act, which Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced in October 2021 a few months before he left Congress, would allow indie artists to collectively bargain for royalty rates with streaming giants such as Spotify and Apple Music. As it stands, the major labels that own most worldwide master recordings have enormous negotiating power to set rates; the act would “give the smaller independent more of a voice,” says Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance, which worked with Ross on revising the bill.
Ross picked up the bill when Deutch announced he would not return to the House, then held hearings with indie artists in her district, which includes Raleigh. Since then, Ross says, “The AI issue has become even more important.” The revised act would allow artists to behave like plaintiffs in a class-action suit, she adds, “fighting for their rights” with a central attorney.
“Our work is being scraped and ingested and exploited without us even knowing,” Jacobsen says. “Adding the AI platforms seemed like a relevant and important thing to do.”
Writers and artists have warned for months that AI could transform their ideas into new works with no way to get paid for the usage. In April, “Heart On My Sleeve,” an AI-created song that mimics the voices of Drake and The Weeknd, landed millions of TikTok, Spotify and YouTube plays. At the time, Sting told the BBC: “The building blocks of music belong to us, to human beings. That’s going to be a battle we all have to fight in a couple of years: defending our human capital against AI.”
“Musicians are really worried about this — not just the big-name ones, but small artists, too. Small ones, especially,” Jorgensen says. “The most important thing for this bill is that small, independent artists and record labels need to be recognized and have each others’ backs.”
It’s unclear when the House might vote on the revised bill — or if it would pass. “As you can see in Congress, lots of bills aren’t passing — like the budget!” Ross says. “But this has been a very bipartisan issue in the judiciary committee. It’s the perfect time to bring these issues up.”
Urgent action is needed to protect the United Kingdom’s longstanding success as one of the world’s biggest exporters of music, warns a new report from umbrella trade organization UK Music.
In particular, robust copyright laws must be put in place to ensure that creators and rights holders are shielded from the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI), says the trade body’s “Manifesto for Music,” published Tuesday (Sept. 12), which calls for increased government support to grow the sector.
In 2021, U.K. music exports totaled £2.5 billion ($3.1 billion) — up 10% on the previous year, but still lower than 2019’s pre-pandemic figures — according to data from UK Music. Those export totals are made up of record sales, publishing revenue, overseas touring by British acts and tourism spending by international tourists attending live shows in the United Kingdom.
When it comes to recorded music, hit albums by Harry Styles, Glass Animals and Ed Sheeran helped British music exports climb to a record high of £709 million ($910 million) last year, maintaining the country’s long-held position as the second largest exporter of music globally after the United States, according to labels trade body BPI.
Overall, the United Kingdom is the world’s third biggest recorded music market, as per IFPI rankings, behind the United States and Japan.
However, the growth of streaming in emerging territories such as Latin America, the Middle East and South Korea has eaten into the United Kingdom’s share of the global music market, which has fallen from a peak of 17% in 2015 to 12% in 2022. To arrest that decline, UK Music has published a five-point plan to boost exports, protect venues and studios, and promote diversity.
Among the trade group’s recommendations is the enforcement of strong copyright protections against generative AI systems, including clear labeling and a requirement for AI developers to keep and disclose records of any music works used for training purposes.
UK Music is additionally asking policymakers to introduce specific personality and image rights into the British legal framework — and ensure that AI-generated music is clearly distinguishable from human-created works.
Last month, a U.K. Parliament committee issued its own report on regulating the use of AI technology in the music and creative industries. One of the committee’s key recommendations was for the British government to commit to abandoning plans for a proposed (and since shelved) new text and data mining (TDM) exception that would allow AI companies to freely use copyright-protected works for commercial purposes.
“It’s critical that we ensure AI enables and supports human artistry and creativity, and does not damage it,” said UK Music interim chief executive Tom Kiehl, echoing the committee’s request to rule out any new TDM exceptions.
“Strong copyright and intellectual property protections must be at the center of any approach when it comes to AI,” said Kiehl.
Other recommendations in UK Music’s manifesto include the introduction of a new tax credit — similar to what’s in place in other European markets and some U.S. states — encouraging new music production in the country.
The trade group, which recently saw chief executive Jamie Njoku-Goodwin exit the London-based organization to work for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, is also calling for increased investment in music education and for the government to secure a post-Brexit cultural touring agreement with the European Union that would reduce costs for U.K. acts touring Europe.
“Without action, the U.K. risks being overtaken by countries who are more proactive and ambitious in promoting their music sectors,” said Kiehl.
The United Kingdom’s moves to police the rapidly evolving AI sector come as other countries and jurisdictions, including the United States, China and the European Union, explore their own paths toward regulating the nascent technology.
A U.K. Parliament committee is calling on the British government to ensure that artificial intelligence (AI) developers are prevented from the free use of copyright-protected musical works for training purposes — and to commit to abandoning much-criticized plans that opponents say would significantly weaken copyright protections for artists and rights holders.
A report from the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee published Wednesday (Aug. 30) says that any future legislation governing the use of AI technology in the United Kingdom, the world’s third-biggest music market, must not risk “reducing arts and cultural production to mere ‘inputs’ in AI development.”
Committee members also state that urgent action must be taken to improve protections for artists and creators against the misuse of their likenesses, image rights and performances by emerging technologies such as generative AI.
The report comes more than a year after U.K. government body The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) first proposed the introduction of a new text and data mining (TDM) exception allowing AI developers to freely use copyright-protected works for commercial purposes.
Those plans, announced by the IPO last June, gave rights holders no option to opt out of the TDM exception, although they did state that tech developers would still require “lawful access” to any copyright-protected data, enabling rights holders to agree to license fees and charge for access.
The proposals drew strong criticism from across the creative industries, with Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, CEO of umbrella trade body UK Music, describing them as a “green light to music laundering.” In response, the government announced in February that it had listened to the objections and would no longer be proceeding with the original plans.
The CMS Committee welcomed the change of course but warned that the government’s handling “shows a clear lack of understanding of the needs of the U.K.’s creative industries.”
“The chorus of warnings from musicians, authors and artists about the real and lasting harm a failure to protect intellectual property in a world where the influence of AI is growing should be enough for ministers to sit up and take notice,” said CMS Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage in a statement.
Dinenage said the government must follow through on its pledge to abandon plans for a text and data mining exception to copyright-protected works and regain the trust of the creative industries by developing “a copyright and regulatory regime that properly protects them” from the potential risks of AI.
The U.K.’s current legal framework, which contains TDM allowances for non-commercial research purposes while also allowing rights holders to commercially license their work, “provides an appropriate balance between innovation and creator rights,” said the committee report.
The U.K.’s moves to police the rapidly evolving AI sector comes as other countries and jurisdictions, including the United States, China and the European Union, explore their own paths toward regulating the nascent technology.
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which was first proposed in April 2021 and is now being negotiated among politicians in different branches of government, is leading the way as the world’s first comprehensive legislation around AI. It states that generative AI systems will be forced to disclose any content that they produce that is AI-generated — helping differentiate computer-created works from those authored by humans — and provide detailed, publicly available summaries of any copyright-protected music or data they have used for training purposes.
Other provisions in European law, most notably those contained in 2019’s EU Copyright Directive, also deal with AI and text and data mining exceptions of copyrighted content, such as music, although these are more robust than those initially proposed — and since abandoned — by the U.K. government. These EU provisions include allowing rights holders to stop AI systems from using their content for training purposes, or to limit which ones can in order to license that right.
Responding to the CMS Committee’s recommendations, BPI chief executive Jo Twist said it was “essential that artists and rightsholders can work in partnership with technology and that policies do not allow AI to get a free ride, but to always respect human creativity by seeking permission and remunerating the use of creative content.”