At least the pirates were sued. There is no one to fight the neural network - the platform is already on its side.
Spotify decided to bet on artificial intelligence and has already faced the first wave of criticism. The platform announced a feature that will allow premium users to create their own remixes and covers with AI based on the tracks participating in the program of artists. The idea resembles the future of music services, but not everyone is sure that it will find a place for live performers.
The new feature will appear as part of an agreement with the Universal Music Group, after which Spotify shares increased by 16%. The head of the company Alex Norstrom explained the logic of the transaction to the publication Financial Times: Spotify seeks to offer a “managed” alternative to piracy and uncontrolled AI content, where musicians will be able to agree to the use of their works and receive remuneration for this. According to him, such unregulated attempts on the network is already enough. The paid function, as Norstrom said, is able to turn “one song into ten thousand.”
The details of the function have not yet been disclosed. It is not known whether users will be able to share their AI remixes publicly or they will remain private, and how the platform intends to label such content.
Composer and copyright advocate Ed Newton-Rex admits: if AI music is inevitable, it is better that it relies on the consent of artists. However, he warns that depending on the device of the function, it can run a “vicious circle”: live artists will face increasing competition with AI content and will be forced to participate in the system even against their will. If remixes can be shared publicly, they risk literally flooding the platform and supplanting the tracks of real musicians.
The demand for AI music is quite real: last year, three tracks created by artificial intelligence topped the charts, including the ratings of Spotify itself. AI-music is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from the compositions created by man, and listeners often simply do not ask about its origin.
The theme of copyright remains painful for the entire industry. In March, the British government abandoned the plan to allow AI companies to use copyrighted materials without the consent of the right holders after the protests of thousands of musicians.
Meanwhile, Meta * and OpenAI are suing because of the alleged use of other people’s content to train models, and last week two Meta employees were personally prosecuted for the alleged pirated download of a whole terabyte of Llama models.
Newton-Rex is convinced that Norström deliberately shifts the accent. Speaking about the choice between the “right” and “junk” AI, the head of Spotify bypasses a much more acute confrontation: live artists and cars.
Spotify decided to bet on artificial intelligence and has already faced the first wave of criticism. The platform announced a feature that will allow premium users to create their own remixes and covers with AI based on the tracks participating in the program of artists. The idea resembles the future of music services, but not everyone is sure that it will find a place for live performers.
The new feature will appear as part of an agreement with the Universal Music Group, after which Spotify shares increased by 16%. The head of the company Alex Norstrom explained the logic of the transaction to the publication Financial Times: Spotify seeks to offer a “managed” alternative to piracy and uncontrolled AI content, where musicians will be able to agree to the use of their works and receive remuneration for this. According to him, such unregulated attempts on the network is already enough. The paid function, as Norstrom said, is able to turn “one song into ten thousand.”
The details of the function have not yet been disclosed. It is not known whether users will be able to share their AI remixes publicly or they will remain private, and how the platform intends to label such content.
Composer and copyright advocate Ed Newton-Rex admits: if AI music is inevitable, it is better that it relies on the consent of artists. However, he warns that depending on the device of the function, it can run a “vicious circle”: live artists will face increasing competition with AI content and will be forced to participate in the system even against their will. If remixes can be shared publicly, they risk literally flooding the platform and supplanting the tracks of real musicians.
The demand for AI music is quite real: last year, three tracks created by artificial intelligence topped the charts, including the ratings of Spotify itself. AI-music is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from the compositions created by man, and listeners often simply do not ask about its origin.
The theme of copyright remains painful for the entire industry. In March, the British government abandoned the plan to allow AI companies to use copyrighted materials without the consent of the right holders after the protests of thousands of musicians.
Meanwhile, Meta * and OpenAI are suing because of the alleged use of other people’s content to train models, and last week two Meta employees were personally prosecuted for the alleged pirated download of a whole terabyte of Llama models.
Newton-Rex is convinced that Norström deliberately shifts the accent. Speaking about the choice between the “right” and “junk” AI, the head of Spotify bypasses a much more acute confrontation: live artists and cars.
