tech
Page: 69
CD Baby has mostly exited the physical distribution business: “Going forward, we won’t have a warehouse, we won’t stock CDs, we’re no longer doing mail orders and that sort of thing,” says Scott Williams, president of CD Baby.
“We don’t take a decision like this lightly,” he adds. “But it’s just not as not as relevant for us and not as valuable to the artists that we serve. And so it’s time has come.”
That said, CD Baby isn’t exiting the physical business completely: Artists can still get CDs and vinyl manufactured through the company, CD Baby just won’t warehouse them. “We will still sell them, but those will be shipped to the artists that have purchased them,” Williams explains. “They can use Bandcamp; they can set up their own Shopify site. We have a lot of overlap today with Bandcamp — a lot of people that use us for digital distribution prefer to do their own physical distribution through Bandcamp, and they can still do that.”
CD Baby was founded roughly 25 years ago to sell compact discs for independent artists. (Downtown Music acquired CD Baby’s owner in 2019.) But CD sales started to decline in the 2000s, falling for 17 years straight until experiencing a small uptick in 2021. Sales of vinyl, the other primary physical music product, have traced the opposite path, recently celebrating their 17th consecutive year of growth.
In the first 10 weeks of 2023, CD sales ran slightly ahead of 2022 — 6.8 million in 2022 to 6.9 million, according to Luminate. CD prices are more affordable than vinyl, which often pushes past $30, executives say, and there are fewer production delays. Stars often sell them as a collectible item, and for touring acts, CDs are easier to take on the road to sell at shows.
Some distributors have seen the growth of the vinyl market as an opportunity to get into the physical distribution side of the business. Symphonic Distribution announced that it was adding physical distribution capabilities in partnership with AMPED in 2020. Pieter van Rijn, CEO of FUGA, told Billboard last year he was excited about the company’s recent entry into the physical distribution space. (Downtown also owns FUGA.)
But Williams says the CD has “fade[d] in relevance” for many of CD Baby’s acts. “Operating the fulfillment side of it isn’t going to be part of our core strategy going forward,” he continues. “I think we have better opportunities and things to focus on on the digital side.”
One of the most prominent developers of do-it-yourself music creation platforms, BandLab Technologies, raised $25 million in Series B1 financing at a valuation of $425 million, the company announced Tuesday (May 23).
The round was led by existing investor Cercano Management – formerly Vulcan Capital, the venture capital arm of the late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s Vulcan Inc. Holding company – with participation from Prosus Ventures, a giant technology investor with a portfolio that includes e-commerce, delivery, fintech and education platforms.
The new funding will allow BandLab to augment its work force, offer more emerging creator campaigns, boost its support services – such as BandLab for Education – the company stated in a press release. Last year, the company raised $65 million in a Series B round that valued BandLab at $315 million – $110 million less than the latest valuation – and was led by Vulcan Capital with participation from Caldecott Music Group and K3 Ventures.
BandLabs Technologies is best known for its namesake platform, BandLab, a mobile-first digital audio workstation with over 60 million registered users. The company also owns the long-running digital audio workstation Cakewalk, which it acquired in 2018; ReverbNation, a 16-year-old independent artist services provider acquired in 2021; and Airbit, a beats marketplace acquired in February.
It competes in a growing category of cloud-based music creation tools that offer a far more simplified user experience than common studio platforms like ProTools. Like BandLab, Soundtrap, acquired by Spotify in 2017, makes creating songs an easy and collaborative process. RapChat boasts more than 10 million music creators on its feature-rich mobile app.
“BandLab serves a vital role in today’s music creation ecosystem, enabling more artists to break through at previously unfathomable levels,” Meng Ru Kuok, BandLab CEO and co-founder, said in a statement to Billboard.” This additional investment amplifies our position in today’s environment to accelerate our vision and deepen meaningful collaborations, bridging the gap between emerging talent and established industry players. We’re ready to double down on our mission, empowering artists at scale.”
Over the last two decades, independent musicians have been given digital tools that markedly lowered the barriers to entry. Digital audio workstations like Apple’s GarageBand gave anybody with an Apple computer the ability to easily record and edit audio files. Digital distribution services such as TuneCore allowed anybody to sell their music online. Now, tools to create music have been simplified to mobile phone apps and artificial intelligence-powered products – such as BandLab’s SongStarter – give the average internet user the ability to make music.
Sometimes, BandLab users have found legitimate chart success using the app’s entry-level toolkit. Last year, “Romantic Homocide,” created on BandLab by 17-year-old Houston artist d4vd, reached No. 45 on Billboard’s Hot 100 after another of his songs “Here With Me” got him signed to Darkroom/Interscrope Records. Also last year, BandLab teamed with Billboard to launch the Bringing BandLab to Billboard portal to help expose its creators to a global audience. Two artists were featured at Billboard.com as a result: The Moon City Masters and Hitha.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Source: SOPA Images / Getty / Instagram
With Twitter still on a path to self-destruction thanks to Elon Musk, Instagram is looking to offer people a substitute.
The Verge reports Instagram is working on its own text-based social media component that aims to be a direct competitor to Twitter, according to Social and Influencer Marketing teacher Lia Haberman. Via her ICYMI Substack newsletter, she shared a screenshot of a marketing slide detailing the new app.
According to the slide, the new app has no name and is just “Instagram’s new text-based app for conversations.” Haberman reports it is codenamed P92 and Barcelona.
Users can sign in using their current Instagram username and password, and their bio, IG handle, followers, and verification status will transfer over.
Per The Verge:
In the app, you’ll see a feed, and you can make text posts up to 500 characters long with attached links, photos, and videos.
The app looks pretty much like if you mixed Instagram and Twitter together, based on two screenshots included in the leaked marketing slide. And Meta will apparently have some good moderation controls from the start, “equipping you with settings to control who can reply to you and mention your account,” the slide says. Any accounts you’ve blocked on Instagram will apparently carry over.
Per the slide, the new Instagram App will feature some form of decentralization, noting, “Soon, our app will be compatible with certain other apps like Mastodon.”
Instagram Suffered A Serious Service Outage
No one asked for this new app, but okay. But it would also be nice if Meta made sure Instagram works appropriately. On Sunday, the popular photo-sharing app turned TikTok clone was down “for a couple of hours,” according to The Verge.
Timelines did not refresh, and users were receiving error messages when refreshing them. If you hit Instagram via the website, it only loads a blank page.
“Earlier today, a technical issue caused some people to have trouble accessing Instagram. We resolved the issue as quickly as possible for everyone who was impacted, and we’re sorry for any disruption this has caused,” Meta spokesperson Dave Arnold told The Verge in an email following the service outage.
Like any time Instagram is down, social media (Twitter) has plenty of jokes because nothing is serious on that app.
You can see the jokes in the gallery below.
—
Photo: SOPA Images / Getty
2. Howling
The European Union slapped Meta with a record $1.3 billion privacy fine Monday and ordered it to stop transferring users personal information across the Atlantic by October, the latest salvo in a decadelong case sparked by U.S. cybersnooping fears.
The penalty of 1.2 billion euros is the biggest since the EU’s strict data privacy regime took effect five years ago, surpassing Amazon’s 746 million euro fine in 2021 for data protection violations.
Meta, which had previously warned that services for its users in Europe could be cut off, vowed to appeal and ask courts to immediately put the decision on hold.
The company said “there is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.” The decision applies to user data like names, email and IP addresses, messages, viewing history, geolocation data and other information that Meta — and other tech giants like Google — use for targeted online ads.
“This decision is flawed, unjustified and sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and U.S.,” Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs, and chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead said in a statement.
It’s yet another twist in a legal battle that began in 2013 when Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems filed a complaint about Facebook’s handling of his data following former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations of electronic surveillance by U.S. security agencies. That included the disclosure that Facebook gave the agencies access to the personal data of Europeans.
The saga has highlighted the clash between Washington and Brussels over the differences between Europe’s strict view on data privacy and the comparatively lax regime in the U.S., which lacks a federal privacy law. The EU has been a global leader in reining in the power of Big Tech with a series of regulations forcing them police their platforms more strictly and protect users’ personal information.
An agreement covering EU-U.S. data transfers known as the Privacy Shield was struck down in 2020 by the EU’s top court, which said it didn’t do enough to protect residents from the U.S. government’s electronic prying. Monday’s decision confirmed that another tool to govern data transfers — stock legal contracts — was also invalid.
Brussels and Washington signed a deal last year on a reworked Privacy Shield that Meta could use, but the pact is awaiting a decision from European officials on whether it adequately protects data privacy.
EU institutions have been reviewing the agreement, and the bloc’s lawmakers this month called for improvements, saying the safeguards aren’t strong enough.
The Ireland’s Data Protection Commission handed down the fine as Meta’s lead privacy regulator in the 27-nation bloc because the Silicon Valley tech giant’s European headquarters is based in Dublin.
The Irish watchdog said it gave Meta five months to stop sending European user data to the U.S. and six months to bring its data operations into compliance “by ceasing the unlawful processing, including storage, in the U.S.” of European users’ personal data transferred in violation of the bloc’s privacy rules.
If the new transatlantic privacy agreement takes effect before these deadlines, “our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users,” Meta said.
Schrems predicted that Meta has “no real chance” of getting the decision materially overturned. And a new privacy pact might not mean the end of Meta’s troubles, because there’s a good chance it could be tossed out by the EU’s top court, he said.
“Meta plans to rely on the new deal for transfers going forward, but this is likely not a permanent fix,” Schrems said in a statement. “Unless U.S. surveillance laws gets fixed, Meta will likely have to keep EU data in the EU.”
Meta warned in its latest earnings report that without a legal basis for data transfers, it will be forced to stop offering its products and services in Europe, “which would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”
The social media company might have to carry out a costly and complex revamp of its operations if it’s forced to stop shipping user data across the Atlantic. Meta has a fleet of 21 data centers, according to its website, but 17 of them are in the United States. Three others are in the European nations of Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Another is in Singapore.
Other social media giants are facing pressure over their data practices. TikTok has tried to soothe Western fears about the Chinese-owned short video sharing app’s potential cybersecurity risks with a $1.5 billion project to store U.S. user data on Oracle servers.
How magical would it be if we listened to music and music listened back to us?” asks Philip Sheppard, the co-founder/CEO of Lifescore, a U.K. startup that creates soundtracks tailored to users’ functional needs, from sleep to focus to fitness.
Though the premise sounds like science fiction, a number of new companies are already working with technology that attunes music to listeners’ movements in video games, workouts, virtual reality — even the aesthetics of their Snapchat lenses. Much as a film composer accentuates pivotal moments in the story with perfectly timed swells and crescendos, these innovations are being used to create bespoke soundtracks in real time.
One of the most fertile testing grounds for “dynamic” or “personalized” music, as it is called, is the gaming sector. Gamers tend to be avid music fans who stream songs an average of 7.6 hours a week — more than double the rate of the average consumer, according to MIDiA Research — and for some time now, game developers have linked players’ in-game movements to changes in lighting, setting and other parameters to enhance their storytelling.
David Knox, president of Reactional Music, the maker of an interactive music engine for video games, says “the final frontier for innovation in gaming is music.” Until recently, video-game music has consisted of loop-based scores or licensed tracks. Because of its repetitiveness, Knox says many users mute game soundtracks in favor of Spotify or Apple Music.
To compete with this, Knox says Reactional’s “rules-based music engine” applies the same reactive technology used in gaming graphics to the soundtrack, enabling, for example, a player in a first-person-shooter game to fire a gun in time with the beat of a song. As the technology evolves, Knox says soundtracks could transform to reflect the state of a player’s health or the level of danger.
This same technology could work with augmented reality and the so-called metaverse. Minibeats, a company that creates social media lenses with interactive musical elements, is in the process of incorporating dynamic music technology, which it calls “musical cameras,” into its AR filters for Snapchat. For one of its first launches, Minibeats partnered with Rhino and Stax Records in February to promote the 30th anniversary of the release of Booker T. & The M.G.’s’ “Green Onions.” One Minibeats filter turns users’ heads into green onions and allows them to control when the song’s signature Hammond organ riff courses through body and facial movements. Another filter morphs users’ faces into spinning vinyl records, allowing them to control when the song’s guitar and keys start and stop by opening and closing their mouths.
When imagining the future of dynamic music, Mike Butera, the company’s founder and CEO, says Disney’s Fantasia comes to mind. The ambitious 1940 film, which mixes animation and live action and features Mickey Mouse in his iconic sorcerer’s hat, syncs vibrantly colored dream-like visuals with a score that enhances what’s transpiring onscreen. “Imagine if we transformed your day-to-day life into something like that?” Butera says. “The mundanity of drinking coffee, walking the dog and driving to work [turned] into something [that] can be soundtracked with your own personal score that you control, whether that’s through a phone camera or AR glasses.”
These startups all claim that they have received only glowing feedback from the music business so far, and many have formed key partnerships. Hipgnosis recently announced a deal with Reactional Music to help bring its catalog of hit songs to the startup. Bentley and Audi have made deals with Lifescore to get dynamic soundtracks into cars, and Warner Music Group counts itself as an investor as well. Minibeats says it’s “in discussion with all the major labels,” though beyond its Rhino-Stax partnership, the company declined to disclose more details.
These emerging capabilities are typically powered by artificial intelligence to adapt recorded music to malleable experiences, but unlike other AI companies trying to create machine-made music with the touch of a button, these dynamic music startups either license preexisting, human-made songs or commission composers to create new or more dynamic compositions.
Lifescore pays composers to record a number of separate elements of a song, known as “stems,” and then, Sheppard says, its technology works with the resulting audio files like “shuffling a deck of cards,” assembling newfound arrangements in configurations intended to support a user’s need for focus while studying or working, for example, or sleep.
In the case of preexisting tracks, companies like Minibeats partner with Audioshake, a firm that uses AI to break down songs into individual, standardized stems, so that they can easily manipulate a song’s instrumental mix — guitar, drums, vocals, etc. — in real time. Audioshake’s proprietary technology is especially helpful in the case of older recordings in which the copyright owner no longer has the stems.Audioshake founder/CEO Jessica Powell says one reason she thinks the music industry has embraced this innovation is its potential to spur music discovery. “I think the same way TikTok pushes new songs, gaming — as well as other use cases — have enormous potential to introduce people to music,” whether that be a catalog track or a new release.
Though this technology is new, interactivity has been long seen as a way to create powerful bonds between fans and songs. Powell points to popular video games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band as successful examples. Karaoke is another. One could even point to the more recent novelty of stem players, like those Ye peddled during the release of his album Donda 2, as a way of engaging listeners. At a time when much of music discovery is passive — scrolling TikTok, streaming an editorial playlist or turning on the radio — musical interactivity and now personalization promises a stronger bond.
Knox at Reactional says interactive music also has economic potential. In-game purchases — which allow players to buy customizable elements like cars, weapons and outfits — dwarfed global recorded-music revenue in 2020, with players spending $97 billion in-game compared with music’s $35.9 billion (retail values), according to MIDiA Research. “In the same way you put hooks into a game, allowing someone to pay to change their appearance at a certain point, a game developer working with us could create a hook that unlocks access to the Reactional platform, letting players buy their favorite songs,” he says.
Since at least the advent of the transistor radio, consumers have used music to soundtrack their lives, but until recently, personalization of those soundtracks was limited to song selection and playlist curation. The songs themselves were unchangeable. Those on the forefront of dynamic music contend that it marries recorded music with the goose bumps-inducing, real-time experience of listening to something live.
“You know how you listen to a live performance, and the musicians are influenced by your energy in the room?” asks Erin Corsi, director of communications for Lifescore. “That’s what this is. Though this also feels like something new, it feels like we are finally able to get back to how music started.”
All products and services featured are independently chosen by editors. However, Billboard may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.
When we think of Alexa services, our first thought probably goes to the classic Echo Dot, but no longer do these devices have to be confined to our homes. Amazon has released the latest edition of the Echo Auto for $54.99, which brings Alexa on the road, allowing you to go completely hands-free in the car.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Whether you’re looking for directions or want to stream the Foo Fighters‘ newest single “Under You” before their album comes out, the second-generation Echo Auto has got you covered. It brings all the capabilities of the Alexa you know and love in your home and makes them mobile. Now you won’t have to be at home to indulge in her vast knowledge — especially when it comes to giving you directions to that concert venue.
What makes this one different from its previous variation? Well, this time around, Amazon made the second generation a slimmer design for an easier mounting process to your dashboard. There’s also a five-mic built in that’ll allow Alexa to pick up your voice over the sound of the AC, radio and other road noises. And, for the days you forget to pack your portable charger, the Echo Auto comes with a fast car charger to juice up your phone on the go.
You’ll still be able to enjoy the classic capabilities, too, such as streaming your favorite playlists whether it’s through Apple Music, Amazon Music or Spotify. You can also use it to call for roadside assistance: Just say “Alexa, call roadside assistance” and you’ll be connected to an Amazon agent who can request help on your behalf. You can also control your other compatible smart home devices and call and message — all while you’re driving.
Make sure to snag one of these handy devices before your next road trip to enjoy an easier driving experience.
Shop the Amazon Echo Auto below. And for more product recommendations, check out our breakdown of the Ring Dash Cam, a car purse holder that will make your life easier and a roundup of record players and turntables.
Amazon
Echo Auto (2nd Gen, 2022 release)
$54.99
The three major label groups have been in talks with the big music streaming services to find a way to get them to remove recordings with AI-generated vocals created to sound like popular artists, Billboard has learned. The idea under discussion with Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music would operate much like the one laid out by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but would cite violations of rights of publicity, rather than copyright, according to sources at all three majors. Unlike the DMCA, however, this arrangement appears to be voluntary.
The 1998 DMCA gives online services that use, store or transmit copyrighted works a “safe harbor” from secondary liability for copyright infringement as long as they abide by a notice-and-takedown system that allows rightsholders to ask them to remove copyrighted content. That law would not apply to most AI-generated soundalike tracks because they do not infringe protected elements of copyrighted recordings or compositions but rather a trademark or a right of publicity, the protection celebrities may be able to receive to protect their names and likenesses from unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Songs that imitate the voices of big-name talent have become a trend over the past month, reaching widespread attention in mid-April when the track “Heart on My Sleeve,” which apparently used AI to mimic the style and tone of vocals by Drake and The Weeknd, was uploaded to streaming services and then swiftly removed. (The song did not credit those artists, although they were referred to in social media posts about it.)
Citing rights of publicity can be more complicated than copyright, because they are matters of state law in the U.S., backed by limited legal precedent. Rights vary by state, protections for deceased artists vary even more widely, and the use of soundalike vocals for creative purposes may in some cases be protected as free speech. Further complicating matters, these rights almost always belong to artists, not labels, which would presumably file notices on their behalf with authorization. Right now, however, this is the most obvious legal argument with which to keep AI-generated soundalikes off major streaming platforms.
In an April 26 earnings call, UMG CEO and chairman Lucian Grainge seemed to signal this approach to investors. “The recent explosive development in generative AI will… create rights issues with respect to existing copyright law, in the US and other countries, as well as laws governing trademark, name and likeness, voice impersonation, and right of publicity,” he said. “Further, we have provisions in our commercial contracts that provide additional protections.” It is not clear if takedowns issued by the majors would rely on these provisions, state law, goodwill, or some combination.
Some executives have raised concerns that AI soundalikes that imitate the voices of popular artists could result in consumer confusion. Still, a few artists like Grimes and Holly Herndon have embraced the technology, training their own AI voice models and making them available to the public.
Meanwhile, companies like Uberduck, Supertone, Lingyin Engine, and Covers.ai are marketing models with which to replicate voices. Covers.ai, which launched last week, has said that it received over 100,000 sign-ups in anticipation. Tencent Music Entertainment executives announced in November that with the company’s Lingyin Engine they had created and released over 1,000 songs containing synthetic AI voices already, one of which amassed 100 million streams.
This stance taken by the leading streaming services counters a recent announcement from the blockchain-based music platform Audius, which announced that artists can now “opt-in” to allow AI-generated works on their artist page. To organize this new music and avoid confusion, Audius would create a separate tab on the artists’ page especially for user-generated content.
Representatives for Universal, Sony, Warner, Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music did not respond to requests for comment.
A U.S. senator representing Music City had tough questions about artificial intelligence’s impact on the music industry during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday, at one point asking the CEO of the company behind ChatGPT to commit to not using copyrighted songs to train future machines.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee about potential regulation for AI, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) repeatedly grilled Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, over how songwriters and musical artists should be compensated when their works are used by AI companies.
Opening her questioning, Blackburn said she had used OpenAI’s Jukebox to create a song that mimicked Garth Brooks – and that she was clearly concerned about how the singer’s music and voice had been used to create such a tool.
“You’re training it on these copyrighted songs,” Blackburn told Altman. “How do you 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.”
At one point, Blackburn demanded a firm answer: “Can you commit, as you’ve done with consumer data, not to train [AI models] on artists’ and songwriters’ copyrighted works, or use their voices and their likenesses without first receiving their consent?”
Though Altman did not directly answer that question, he repeatedly told the senator that artists “deserve control” over how their copyrighted music and their voices were used by AI companies.
“We think that content creators need to benefit from this technology,” Altman told the committee. “Exactly what the economic model is, we’re still talking to artists and content owners about what they want. I think there’s a lot of ways this can happen. But very clearly, no matter what the law is, the right thing to do is to make sure people get significant upside benefit from this new technology.”
Blackburn’s questioning came amid a far broader discussion of the potential risks posed by AI, including existential threats to democracy, major harm to the labor market, and the widespread proliferation of misinformation. One witness, a New York University professor and expert in artificial intelligence, told the lawmakers that it poses problems “on a scale that humanity has not seen before.”
The music industry, too, is worried about AI-driven disruption. Last month, a new song featuring AI-generated fake vocals from Drake and The Weeknd went viral, underscoring growing concerns about AI’s impact on music and highlighting the legal uncertainties that surround it.
One of the biggest open questions is over whether copyrighted music can be used to train AI platforms – the process whereby machines “learn” to spit out new creations by ingesting millions of existing works. Major labels and other industry players have already said that such training is illegal, and cutting-edge litigation against the creators of such platforms could be coming soon.
At Tuesday’s hearing, in repeatedly asking Altman to weigh in on that question, Blackburn drew historical parallels to the last major technological disruption to wreak havoc on the music industry — a scenario that also posed novel legal and policy questions.
“We lived through Napster,” Blackburn said. “That was something that really cost a lot of artists a lot of money.”
Though he voiced support for compensation for artists, Altman did not get into specifics, saying that many industry stakeholders had “different opinions” on how creators should be paid. When Blackburn asked him if he thought the government should create an organization similar to SoundExchange – the group that collects certain blanket royalties for streaming – Altman said he wasn’t familiar with it.
“You’ve got your team behind you,” Blackburn said. “Get back to me on that.”
In 1994, at the dawn of the internet era, Rolling Stone asked Steve Jobs if he still had faith in technology. “It’s not a faith in technology,” he responded. “It’s faith in people.”
Today, at the dawn of the artificial intelligence era, we put our faith in people too.
It’s hard to think of an issue that has exploded onto the public scene with the furor of the debate over AI, which went from obscure technology journals to national morning shows practically overnight. This week, Congress is convening the first two of what will surely be many hearings on the issue, including one with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and another with musician, voice actor and SAG-AFTRA National Board member Dan Navarro.
As members of the global Human Artistry Campaign, made up of more than 100 organizations that represent a united, worldwide coalition of the creative arts, we welcome this open and active debate. It’s gratifying to see policymakers, industry, and our own creative community asking tough questions up front. It’s a lot easier to chart a course in advance than to play catch up from afterward.
We don’t have long to get this right, either. The internet is already awash in unlicensed and unethical “style” and “soundalike” tools that rip off the writing, voice, likeness and style of professional artists and songwriters without authorization or permission. Powerful new engines like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Jukebox, Google’s MusicLM and Microsoft’s AI-powered Bing have been trained on vast troves of musical compositions, lyrics, and sound recordings — as well as every other type of data and information available on the internet — without even the most basic transparency or disclosure, let alone consent from the creators whose work is being used. Songwriters, recording artists, and musicians today are literally being forced to compete against AI programs trained on copies of their own compositions and recordings.
RIAA Chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier
Othello Banaci
We strongly support AI that can be used to enhance art and stretch the potential of human creativity even further. Technology has always pushed art forward, and AI will be no different.
At the same time, however, human artistry must and will always remain at the core of genuine creation. The basis of creative expression is the sharing of lived experiences — an artist-to-audience/audience-to-artist connection that forms our culture and identity.
Without a rich supply of human-created works, there would be nothing on which to train AI in the first place. And if we don’t lay down a policy foundation now that respects, values and compensates the unique genius of human creators, we will end up in a cultural cul-de-sac, feeding AI-generated works back into the engines that produced them in a costly and ultimately empty race to the artistic bottom.
That policy foundation must start with the core value of consent. Use of copyrighted works to train or develop AI must be subject to free-market licensing and authorization from all rights holders. Creators and copyright owners must retain exclusive control over the ways their work is used. The moral invasion of AI engines that steal the core of a professional performer’s identity — the product of a lifetime’s hard work and dedication — without permission or pay cannot be tolerated.
David Israelite
Courtesy of NMPA
This will require AI developers to ensure copyrighted training inputs are approved and licensed, including those used by pre-trained AIs they employ. It means they need to keep thorough and transparent records of the creative works and likenesses used to train AI systems and how they were exploited. These obligations are nothing new, though — anyone who uses another creator’s work or a professional’s voice, image or likeness must already ensure they have the necessary rights and maintain the records to prove it.
Congress is right to bring in AI developers like Sam Altman to hear the technology community’s vision for the future of AI and explore the safeguards and guardrails the industry is relying on today. The issues around the rapid deployment of novel AI capabilities are numerous and profound: data privacy, deepfakes, bias and misinformation in training sets, job displacement and national security.
Creators will be watching and listening closely for concrete, meaningful commitments to the core principles of permission and fair market licensing that are necessary to sustain songwriters and recording artists and drive innovation.
We have already seen some of what AI can do. Now it falls to us to insist that it be done in ethical and lawful ways. Nothing short of our culture — and, over time, our very humanity — is at stake.
David Israelite is the President & CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association. NMPA is the trade association representing American music publishers and their songwriting partners.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the RIAA, the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major recorded-music companies.
As a musician, educator, and author, I’ve spent the last few years examining AI’s challenges to the music ecosystem. But recently, after a comical misunderstanding on a U.S. podcast, I ended up playing devil’s advocate for the AI side of the AI and music equation. The experience was thought-provoking as I took on the role of an accidental AI evangelist, and I started to refocus on the question of, “Why are we fighting for ethical use of AI in music in the first place? What are the benefits, and are they worth the time and effort?”
As we hurtle from the now-quaint AI chatbot ChatGPT, to the expected text-to-video and text-to-music capabilities of GPT 5 (rumoured to drop in December), to Microsoft’s acknowledgment that AGI is feasible (artificial general intelligence, or a sentient AI being, or Skynet to be alarmist), to viral AI-generated hits with vocals in the style of Drake & The Weeknd and Bad Bunny & Rihanna, it can be easy to focus on the doom and gloom of AI. However, doing so does us a disservice, as it shifts the conversation from “how do we harness AI’s benefits ethically” to “how do we stop AI from destroying the world?” There are many, with a cheeky chappie nod to Ian Dury, “Reasons to Be Cheerful” (or at least not fearful) about music and AI. Here are nine reasons why we need to embrace it with guardrails, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fun: Yes, damn the ethics – temporarily. Generative AI technologies, which ingest content and then create new content based on those inputs, are incredibly fun. They tease and capture our curiosity, drawing us in. We might tell our employers that we use text-to-image services like DALL-E and Stable Diffusion or chat and search bots like ChatGPT and Jasper to optimise workflow to stay ahead of the technological curve, but they are also so seductively entertaining. Elementary AI prohibition won’t work; our solutions must be at least as stimulating as our challenges.
Time-saving: According to a survey by Water & Music, this is what music makers desire most. Many musicians spend countless hours managing social media accounts, wishing they could focus on music-making instead. AI solutions promise to grant that wish, allowing them to auto-generate text for social posts and announcements, and providing inspiration and potential starting points for new tracks, giving them the gift of time and helping them write, record, and release music more quickly. Let’s use automation wisely to free up musicians for their art and their economics.
Education: Despite dwindling funds for music education, technology offers new ways to make music accessible to everyone. Affordable AI tools can help students break through privileged barriers, providing access to personalised learning. I work with Ableton, which makes a variety of music production hardware and software. Successful initiatives such as the Ableton Push 1 campaign, which provided discounts to those who traded in their Push 1 midi controller and then refurbished and provided them for free to schools that needed them, demonstrate how digital tools can empower the economically marginalised, enable them to explore new musical styles and techniques, and nurture their passion for music.
Imperfect charm: AI’s imperfections and quirks make it endearing and relatable. AI’s unpredictable nature can lead to happy accidents and repurposing technologies for new musical uses. The fact that LMMs (large language models), which analyze huge swaths of text and then generate new text based on the patterns it learns, can be flawed retains a touch of human magic and humour in our interactions with them. Let’s enjoy this fleeting VHS fuzziness before it’s gone.
Affordable: Setting aside the environmental costs for a moment, AI has become exponentially accessible. AI allows creators to produce incredible results with basic tools. Last July, I purchased an expensive GPU-filled MacBook with dreams of making mind-blowing AI musical creations, but by September, I was doing just that using only my old phone’s browser. This so-called “democratisation” of music production can level the playing field for musicians worldwide, allowing more people to pursue their passion. Can we get it to increase their income too?
Tech Stacking: Experimenting with new combinations of generative AI APIs (application programming interfaces) opens up a world of DIY creativity. APIs are essentially pre-made functionality that developers can slot into their code easily, allowing them to focus on innovation rather than spending their time creating generative AI applications from scratch. This collision of technologies can encourage collaboration between musicians and developers, fostering a dynamic and innovative environment that crucially must be aligned with new licensing and rights payment models.
Elevated Chatter: As AI becomes more prevalent, the quality of conversations surrounding it has improved. People are starting to debate the legality of using copyrighted material to train AI, particularly in the music world, with a variety of strong arguments being made on behalf of human creators. In my research, I tried to address the complexities of AI in the music ecosystem, and now, I find these discussions happening everywhere, from John Oliver to barber shops. This elevated discourse can help us as a global industry make informed and necessarily swift decisions about AI’s role in our lives, better integrating its reasonably cheerful benefits and not being overwhelmed by its many chilling implications.
Inspiring the next generation: Introducing AI to young minds can be inspiring and terrifying. In my undergraduate module at Windmill Studios Dublin, I tasked students with inventing new music IP using existing cutting-edge technologies, with one rule of thumb: they could use a hologram but not bring someone back from the dead. Initially, I felt terrible about presenting such a potentially dystopian vision to young minds. But what happened next amazed me: all 40-odd students (from two classes) came up with outstanding commercial ideas. Their creativity and enthusiasm reminded me that the adage, “no one knows anything,” holds as true for music as it ever did.
Time to adapt: Perhaps the biggest reason to be cheerful at the moment, we still have enough time to address AI’s challenges. As Microsoft announces the “first sparks of AGI” and we face a saturated streaming market, we must work quickly together to ensure an equitable future for music makers. In my book, “Artificial Intelligence and Music Ecosystem,” my fellow contributors and I delve into the pressing issues surrounding AI, and now, more than ever, we need to take action to steer the course of music’s evolution. As AI continues to develop, it’s crucial for musicians, industry professionals, and policymakers to engage in open dialogue, collaborating to create a sustainable and equitable music ecosystem. Otherwise, what looks like Drake and sounds like Drake may not actually be Drake in the future.
The Human Artistry Campaign is the first step in this direction and interlinks with the concerns of MIT’s Max Tegmark’s “Pause Giant AI Experiments Open Letter” (which currently has 27,000+ signatures and called for a pause in the development of AI to give governments the chance to regulate it) for a big-vision picture. As we work together, we can ensure that AI serves as a tool for artistic growth and sustainability. But we must move fast and nurture things as AI’s growth is exponential. Do you remember back when ChatGPT was on the cutting edge of AI? Well, that was only five months ago, and we’re now talking about the possibility of sentience. That’s why I am working with some of the biggest companies in music and big tech to create AI:OK, a system to identify ethical stakeholders and help to create an equitable AI music ecosystem. If you are human and would like to help shape this future, it might be the most significant reason to be cheerful of all.
Dr. Martin Clancy, PhD is a musician, author, artist manager and AI expert. He is a founding member of Irish rock band In Tua Nua, chairs the IEEE Global AI Ethics Arts Committee, serves as an IRC Research Fellow at Trinity College Dublin, and authored the book Artificial Intelligence and Music Ecosystem. He also manages Irish singer Jack Lukeman and is a leading voice in advocating ethical use of AI in music.