> what's the argument for it
Record companies can sell it and don't have to pay any royalties. They only pay the artists pennies as it is, but that's too much for them.
Record companies can sell it and don't have to pay any royalties. They only pay the artists pennies as it is, but that's too much for them.
AI "music" has the same issues as electronic music but worse: because it's trying to imitate humans rather than be its own thing like electronic music, it's not only emotionally unavailable but also creepy. Can you imagine listening to an AI "musician" laughing, for instance? It makes my skin crawl even thinking about it.
Strong disagree on "most"; most people listen to music simply because it sounds good. For that, AI serves the purpose very well.
Someone will surely attempt some kind of end-run around this, perhaps through ToS alterations at the service you obtain the music from, but it's undoubtedly a problem for the labels. In the meantime they have a strong incentive to keep human creativity in the loop.
To me the anti-AI crowd is looking at this through the wrong lens, it's now possible to generate an infinite library of music that isn't copyrighted, and can be freely shared, some of which is quite good. There is a pathway all the way from conception to mass distribution that doesn't require the major labels. Whatever else happens that seems like a silver lining at least.
Many YouTube channels started using AI music because they were getting sick of copyright strikes, and I agree some of it is actually very good.
artists complaining about not making enough is like programmers complaining their 7 star repo on github isn't making them enough on ko-fi
I mean my github is like that but I wouldn't expect to live off it unless I was Evan You