I feel like the introduction of AI music is shortchanging musicians: musicians have made the AI generation possible, it pushes them aside, and they don't get a cent from it.
Perhaps legal, but not in the spirit of fairness.
Much like visual artists, graphic designers, and soon authors.
And truth be told - musicians are an excellent example of how a hostile industry can fuck over the working man long before AI enters the equation. Established musicians needed to be managed, and that management typically came from a label that would sign you if you weren't rich enough to go indie. Then, you're effectively contracted talent that has little to no ownership of your own life work. You are expected to provide all of the emotional gravitas while retaining none of the artistic control, and it only got worse in a digital era that further highlighted how valueless physical music had become. Artists had to make their money off tours and merch sales while simultaneously honoring arbitrary record deals demanding X amount of music over Y period of time.
Yes it does, your own AI generated pieces are based in your prompt, not purely generated by AI. So they are meaningful to you, but still worthless to others. They can generate their own AI shit. What I mean is that AI content is useful if you had a hand shaping it.
Pretty much the past 5 years of model finetuning has been predicated on the idea that AI cannot reliably steer itself in the right direction. Models perform better in almost every way when you seed them with additional, non-unique and human-generated training data.
One year away, two max.
I only ever required attribution
didn't stop OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Amazon shitting all over even that minimal condition
parasites
Or FLACs, if you can get them, which you can on bandcamp. I've got a terabyte of music in my offline playlist. It takes a few months to cycle through everything, then top it up with any new discoveries and latest releases before the next cycle starts.