> Tidal will hold AI-generated music to a higher standard of content integrity. We will not tolerate AI-generated music that exploits an individual’s or group’s music, name or likeness, deceives listeners, or diminishes the quality of our service.
I think this is a very reasonable approach, and probably also the best way to treat AI-powered copyright infringement as a whole. Just like we don't penalize artists for consuming content unless they produce actually infringing content, we should set the same focus for AI systems.
> Starting today, AI-generated music will not be monetizable. We are only in the beginning of the era of AI-generated music.
Don't really agree that this follows from the stated principle here ("... ensuring royalties go to original works produced, written and performed by people"), but will definitely help with spam etc.
Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.
Claiming otherwise is to treat each book as a packet of Pokémon trading cards, where you know you’re getting some cards, but you don’t get to choose which ones.
> having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle
because of AI slop is new benefit of sticking to older texts that I hadn't anticipated.
I've found myself applying this rule, sometimes unintentionally, to almost all media I consume. It's now a very rare occasion that there's something new that I want to read, watch, or listen to. It just isn't that good, tbh. My music library is full of music from ~2018 and older, most books I enjoy are even older than that, and I can't remember the last time a movie came out that I was dying to see since about 2016-ish.
It's not like I'm intentionally filtering out for old stuff, my own tastes just seem to prefer it. Not sure if its due to my own age (I'm not that old, mid thirties), or if we've just so over optimized media for revenue extraction that its become too formulaic and boring.
Obviously if one doesn't read these genres, this is a whole foreign world, but it is increasingly the state of mainstream fiction reading, and AI slop is a problem for them that you may be asked to help avoid if you are the nerdy loved one of such a reader.
Or, you know, you've just read the old books already because they came out 10 years ago and that's a lot of time to read.
I doubt it has anything to do with "romantasy" as a genre, anything that has people actually reading books, on a regular basis (as opposed to the people who mean reading as consuming one "notable" novel a year).
In any case, epublishing has made a lot more books available and filtering through them was a difficult task even before AI increased the output dramatically.
I've been saying for a while now there's a large untapped market for actually effective recommendation systems (almost certainly human driven given the demonstrated limitations of computer systems so far), as mentioned it was a problem to find "the good stuff" even among just self-published pre-ai books, now it's way beyond that.
I guess to some degree it's the same basic problem as spam filtering, but considerably more nuanced and difficult.
It's big business and is really not that deep. For someone who isn't part of that world(which is big business) to judge what is good or not is hard.
And now it's cheap to produce that "pulp romance" novels en masse. So people who have little clue about this genre can produce something that seems good, but doesn't appeal to the reader.
I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective or curate my playlist, but it's just work. I would love a stream of AI generated music in a particular style I can work to.
Some people are listening to music as an experience, internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing turns into a mess.
There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)
AI generated music is also not at all original. Which scares all of the "artists" who lack originality.
This is a musicaly illterate position. You only find the instruments passable because you're not familiar enough with music. You hear vocals and because you have a decent understanding of what a human should sound like you can tell how bad it sounds. Anyone with a musical ear hears the same thing of the horrible AI generated instrumentals.
dozens if not hundreds of synthwave channels and internet radio stations. but sure, listen to your ai slop muzak.
As a lifelong songwriter, using AI to produce my own melodies and lyrics lets me listen to the diary of my own life, which allows me to reminsce and realize my songs are the best songs ever for JUST me :). I dont subject others to them ... much.
People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.
But AI does seem to make it easier.
Also not that it takes skill to come up with a remix/cover/homage of a song that is close enough to the original that people can enjoy it like the original, but not so close that you are just plagiarizing it. So this problem before AI is limited to talented musicians who for some reason would rather copy somebody else then to make their own music.
IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.
So begins the Clone Wars...
Is this their responsibility? Just restrict payment to the registered copyright holder or their delegate, require registration of copyright for music to be payment-eligible, and escalate the problem to a federal crime with (presumedly) federal enforcement, no? Sure, some people will commit federal crimes to get a payout, but it's gotta reduce the problem massively.
Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ?
> 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music
https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...
Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get anything,
Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?
it's not like they'd make the subscription free if you listen to loyalties-free music only.
Tidal's terms and conditions (https://tidal.com/terms) say that:
> “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive of musical works and sound recordings, that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence, with limited or no direct human creative input beyond an initial text prompt or similar instruction. ... You acknowledge that AI detection technology may produce false positives or false negatives.
And:
> If you use TIDAL Upload, your Tracks may be scanned for the purpose of identifying whether the content is AI-Generated Content, and to label such content accordingly on the Tidal platform. You acknowledge that such scanning and labeling is performed on a best-efforts basis and that Tidal shall not be liable for any inaccuracies in AI detection or labeling. AI-Generated Content uploaded to Tidal is not eligible for monetization. If you believe your Tracks were erroneously tagged as AI-Generated, you can reach out to support@tidal.com.
Is it overall song structure?
If they really cared to much about empowering people creating things for other people, like others have pointed out, they should just ban it.
Sure, in reality it's not so easy to just ban AI content because there is a spectrum of it and it's really not a clear-cut problem.
But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop.
Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.
- I think there are good and useful ways to use AI in art creation
- I also think that AI (especially end to end creation of full songs) is a massive problem for both content moderation and business model aspects of this type of platform
- I don't think a blanket ban on AI in <Field X> is a good idea (even a bad idea in almost all cases)
You can disagree with these three points and that's fine, but it's not fence sitting when someones position isnt 100% one way or the other
A synthesizer is not AI.
Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain).
Only the parts of a work that are human authored can be registered for copyright. If a work was created with AI assistance, the parts that were purely AI generated cannot be registered.
The US copyright office also ruled that prompt engineering does not count as human authorship.
So all those people using Suno to generate AI slop music and flooding the streaming services, their output is almost certainly public domain.
I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin trying to clamp down on AI scrapers, even though they don't own the copyright to the UGC that they're preventing the bots from accessing.
Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.
Its like if you made a painting and put it in a museum. You still technically own the copyright, but the museum owns the building. They can lock the door, charge admissino, kick out anyone they want, prevent anyone they want from seeing it, etc. You licensing it to them makes it their private property to do with what they wish.
> I can't tell them "yeah it's fine to scrape my comment, don't put up any captcha walls".
Correct, because you signed away that control.
> what if I dedicate my comments to the public domain?
That means you forfeit copyright, but you cannot waive the platform's rights regarding their servers.
But, because you still retain copyright (or in the case that its public domain), you can and are welcome to submit it to AI companies yourself. Just because Reddit may not allow a scraper, that doesn't remove my right as the copyright holder to re-submit my comment to another platform that does allow the scraper.
The difference with Anthropic/LLM output is that there are zero intellectual property rights over the outputs once they leave the API endpoint.
They don't need to sublicense it because the license was already granted by you. Stackoverflow comments are licensed under creative commons, which means you don't need to seek a license from stackoverflow to use it. It's same if you found some random MIT licensed repo on github. It's not github granting you a sublicense, it's coming from the original author.
>You still technically own the copyright, but the museum owns the building. They can lock the door, charge admissino, kick out anyone they want, prevent anyone they want from seeing it, etc.
And Anthropic can't decide who gets to use their service, and for what purpose?
It still breaks down once the output has left the system though. Anthropic cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with the LLM's output, they do not own that, its public domain. Anthropic can pursue breach of contract, maybe, but they can't do anything regarding your use of the model's output. If China can't access Claude directly, they can just pay some other user in the states to run some prompts and paste the output on a public website, and then use that output and there is nothing Anthropic can do about it.
Fair point on StackOverflow, but they are the exception rather than the norm. Most social media doesn't license the content under creative commons.
And are they actually doing this? For instance, if you read their press releases about distillation attacks[1], they're not asserting copyright over the outputs, only alleging "fraudulent accounts". So far as I can tell they're not even engaging in legal action.
[1]https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
They are also constantly using the word "illicit" and theft in their communications, and in their lobbying, when there nothing illicit about using model output to train another model. They are trying to create an aura of criminality where none exists.
> But distillation can also be used for illicit purposes: competitors can use it to acquire powerful capabilities from other labs in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, that it would take to develop them independently.
They do have leverage over fraudulent accounts, yes, but the resulting distillation from those is out of their control under the current legal framework. There's nothing they can do about it, for now.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims...
I don't see how this is any different than say linkedin sending cease and desist letters invoking the CFAA, DMCA, and "trespass".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn#Backgroun...
This is giving weird independent moral grounding to AI as more than a computer that has never existed before. And what kind of AI does it count for ? Does it also count for image classifiers? For image quality improvers? etc
> “Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. … what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression and actually formed the traditional elements of authorship.”
The USCO doesn't care what type of algorithm is used, it cares who determined the traditional elements of authorship. If a human dictates the expression, and then uses a computer to clean, translate, or refine it, it is copyrightable. If a human just provides an idea and a generative algorithm creates the specific expression, the output is public domain. One is using spellcheck, the other is telling the computer "Write me a novel" and letting the computer generate it.
What if I prompt Claude to go prompt Suno? What if the same chain happens internally at Suno? Easy to imagine the human input being very dilute and a small part overall.
Raw LLM output is automatically public domain.
Furthermore, it is an oracle built on copyright infringement.
Do you understand the difference between "tool" and "oracle"?
Oracles are things that give you free stuff if you've been a good boy and respected the oracle's rituals.
Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it.
If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.
Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.
Tie it to in-person concerts and it might actually work as a business, as well as logistically – maybe the company can be a record producer in disguise and physically meet every musician they host.
I also really like the quasi social aspect where users have simple profiles. No messages between users, no likes, no ratings, no BS. About the most you can do is leave a text review. Your profile is an image and text field so you can write a simple bio and provide links to whatever. My entire Bandcamp collection is discovered by crawling profiles and randomly listening to things. I also found some fun personal sites and so on. The site design is also simple and not a JS laden mess like "MoDeRn" ampwall.
For organizing, as another user suggested, Picard is your friend. You point it to your collection and can have it move and correct file tags all in one go. It even has default naming scripts for folders so it will go [Album Artist]->[Album], and if that doesn't suit your fancy you can edit the script however you'd like.
If where you store the music is all local (on your machine), then there are hundreds of great local players depending on platform that you can just point towards your music collection and shuffle. I have a massive collection myself that I will usually browse through randomly ordered albums until something catches my eye.
If you're looking to stream it to your own devices, then you're looking at something like a subsonic compatible server will offer a wide variety of options and platforms for playback. I go through some of this in more detail in a blog post as well, with some specifics https://illegal.solutions/posts/streaming_sucks.
Something like https://picard.musicbrainz.org/ can be used if you want to get more complicated. For instance I like to keep albums in folders per release year.
Other than the simple approach of playlists and/or shuffle, unfortunately no.
> I just want an easy way to put some music on while I'm working.
Think of Bandcamp as a record store, not a radio station.
> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it.
Like most things, this is an overgeneralization. In general, I agree, but not always.
While most AI-generated content is not going to appeal to most people, it's wrong to say that all AI-generated music is not about what music is about. Personally I find _some_ AI generated music to be amazingly fun to listen to, but mostly it's parodies or works that are essentially built on top of existing media.
A creative person using AI well can produce art that people enjoy and which adds to our culture (I selectively choose not to say "create" here to avoid that very overloaded connotation w.r.t. AI creations). That is not to say that most of the work that comes out of AI needs to exist or does any of those things.
Independently-released music is a huge red flag. If you can’t find a single label A&R to support you, you may have to work on the quality of your output… music doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are tens of thousands of labels across nearly every imaginable genre. Their role as gatekeeper is a valuable one.
You've never listened to anything on Soundcloud and found it good?
That being said, I guess I may have some genre bias. Maybe it’s exceedingly difficult to get signed to a small label as e.g. a Midwest Emo Band (bad example because I have friends who released on a small label as a Midwest Emo Band). But you need to put in the effort if you expect me to give you my precious listening time.
Edit: redundancy
"art is in the eye of the beholder."
I listen to a lot of EDM, which can be very mechanical, but I personally have strong emotional connection to. I personally would welcome AI-generated music as an alternative to human-made.
To be clear: I do agree a "human-verified" system would be great, but I don't think it would be black and white. And I would guess that eventually AI music will be better than a lot of human made music.
Doesn’t matter how carefully crafted it was: it’s only real if you couldn’t hit “play”. Sorry, Mike Oldfield. Hate to break it to you that you’re a fake musician.
I agree with you. I do enjoy some live musicians jamming on a stage, but for a lot of the genres I frequently listen to, I’d have no way of knowing if a song was written by human or by AI. If it’s good, it’s good.
Hey, this is really fucking stupid.
House music can bring me as much joy as listening to Bach performed by a skilled ensemble. It depends on where I am at mentally. Both are valid forms of human expression.
They would benefit much more from a have a better recommendation and ranking algorithm that carefully monitors all metrics, recommends high-performers, and excludes unpopular content from the feed.
You can use the fact it was AI-generated as a signal, but it is just a signal among other criterias, not an outright ban.
Essentially, explore songs and artists, exploit winners.
Lot of people abort a song/artist/creator/etc.
Lot of fake listens.
People don't like the song of an album
Creator is historically with a low score
etc...
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit )
Then you judge the popularity of a song, an album, a creator, a playlist, etc not its creation method. Exactly like a genre type. It's not because you don't like country music that everybody should be forbidden to listen to country music.
It's good for them too, the more streams they do, the more money they get, and the more their audience is engaged. If the person doesn’t like “AI-generated genre” then just downrank it heavily on its recommandation feed, like YouTube or TikTok does.
Personally I think it’s a bit like cultural junk food: it has the appearance of real food, but leaves one hungry afterward. Which really isn’t all that surprising – music isn’t just some random collection of patterns, it’s intimately tied to real culture. Current AI software is only ever going to copy and regurgitate human culture, not make meaningful creations from scratch.
My own taste in music is pretty junk-food-y I guess. Electronic music and not the pretentious kind. Dubstep, electro. Give me something that goes wub-wub. Incidentally, I think this experience mostly isn't one about human connection? Like, there is some circuit in my brain that likes that sound and wants to be tickled.
I can play classical piano to a mediocre standard. I listen to it and enjoy it occasionally. But, honestly, what I feel like my spirit needs is something that goes wub-wub and I think that space is densely seeded enough that maybe we can scale back human involvement in producing it.
Electronic music is probably my favorite genre, broadly. But there’s a human behind the machine, not a random collection of patterns. To use a concrete example: NIN is about 1000% more interesting because of who Trent Reznor is, and not because it’s merely good music.
This disconnect is much more of an issue with say, country or bluegrass or jazz. To divorce those from the musician and their cultural context is to miss the whole point.
If you can’t see how these are fundamentally different things, I don’t know what to tell you.
Like, a lot of times you're just engaging with someone's desire to have made a song, and what they felt about some songs that someone else made.
For EDM, check out the AI artist "Vibfy". Especially the song "I Hear You" as it has the best mastering so far. The melody and vocals of all the songs are fire, but in some of the earlier songs the mastering is sub-par with strange volume changes and muddy beats.
There is an AI folk band called "We're all f*cked" that is incredibly good and indistinguishable from actual humans.
Most AI music is actually country-pop ballads and indie folk.
Making electronic music with AI is hard and it isn't very good at it.
AI can't do "robotic" math music, it's best at sappy generic emotive stuff. (I guess this isn't at all a surprise for those that know how the musical sausage is made.)
Why do you say that? I'd argue the opposite
> Artificial intelligence and machine learning are not new to music creation, they have just become more commonplace and advanced
In other words, there is no bright line. AI techniques have been a part of music creation from the start. What makes bad AI music hard to detect and remove is the fact that it is a much closer approximation of regular music.
However, startups providing at massive loss wep applications with which you can prompt with few words some inane crap is completely a new phenomenon and it has as much to do with music as spam emails have with literature. It is pretty clear what the difference is.
Don't give ticketmaster any ideas.
You'd probably need to be more generally back-to-basics (instruments-only, no EDM).
I certainly don’t, and I think it’s pretty likely that the vast majority will be the generic derivative slop.
Which is why I’d like a separate platform, so I don’t have to waste my time wading through all the garbage.
And lots of composers can’t play the stuff they write. But the composition is human.
Then there’s emerging AI-supported music, since AI can come up with and test harmonic ideas far more sophisticated than most people. If a human’s saying “no, not that, try using an augmented sixth to get us from F#maj to Cmin”, is that human generated?
Not trying to be contrary, just saying the definition needs to be really clear, and that’s going to be difficult.
Probably too expensive to scale, but... it's an idea.
I honestly like your intent. But we need to find a way to include people who can write sheet music for a symphony without being able to play most of the instruments.
The very act of recognizing some difference is the tool with which the next generation of outputs is refined, until it's so "good" for any and all particular instances of "good" that human perception is insufficient to differentiate the source.
At some point we're going to have to admit that the distinction based on source is a problem, and perhaps there's a lot of nuance in the context of any particular piece of media such that an arbitrary dismissal of a song, or image, or piece of writing, for the mere reason that AI was used to produce it in whole or in part is missing the point.
If you enjoy a song, your enjoyment is real. If you appreciate beauty, your perception of beauty is real. If you feel deeply about a written text, your feelings are real.
How you perceive things, while not entirely conscious, does involve elements of choice. Make the choice to judge things on meaningful merit, and if the next generation of musicians and artists use AI tools to explore new territory, don't dismiss their art and passion and creations out of hand.
An electric guitar is artificial. People used to make the same sorts of "that's not music" statements people are making now about music and art. Imagine being so twisted up over some arbitrary distinction that you miss out on Jimi Hendrix or BB King, or Joe Satriani, or any of the brilliant musicians that have wrung beauty and soul from "artificial" electronic signals.
I see the same thing in music. I accidentally clicked on a couple of AI albums in YouTube. On a minute-by-minute basis they aren't necessarily bad. But if you keep listening, even though the stream is nominally an hour long, it's the same couple of minutes over and over again, more or less.
In the case of music I could see a coder preferring that for their background noise, but for direct listening for its own sake, once the initial impression wears off there isn't anything left.
I'm not necessarily saying this from an anti-AI position, either. This is just the current reality of the situation. At the moment, AI art has a very flattening effect.
What's more, I spent some time at Suno and tried to get it off the beaten track. I was able to get it to create broken music with chopped up words and instruments that were confused about what they were by trying to make an excessively-interesting combination of genres. It broke before I could get anything really interesting going on musically. Possibly if someone spent a lot of time with the higher-touch music tracking tools they could get something interesting happening but I had enough of the same problems there that I bailed. Even if you try to inject your own inspiration, the AI has a very strong flattening effect.
Text I think you could probably do better with. I have not tried to write fiction but I've done a lot of non-fiction writing with it at work. But no matter how I prompt it, it is always flabby. I can style-shift it away from Default LLM Voice, and it's at least somewhat more concise than that, but I can't get it to be truly concise.
When you're paying attention, and if you actually care about art and music as human expression, then it will matter. And maybe AI music will still "fool" someone then. Maybe we'll discover the next Michael Jackson was just prompting their way to the top of the charts. But that won't really be the point, just like it wasn't the point when everyone discovered that Milli Vanilli were faking it.
People don't like liars. And using AI to generate art is lying. You didn't make it, the AI that did make it was only possible because it collectively stole from every human musician and artist before it. You can wrap it up however you like, but at the end of the day its just a lie.
And yeah there's some nuance here. Lets take Milli Vanilli for example. They were considered frauds because they weren't actually singing on their tracks. What if they had been singing, but using autotune? I don't know where you draw the line but for me its somewhere around people who have no appreciation of the amount of effort that goes into producing art that think they can create it whole cloth from a couple of prompts.
That seems pretty uncommon to me, for most people. The most popular musicians in the world are basically celebrity characters, with the music as a key ingredient, not the only one. Do Taylor Swift fans or Kanye fans or [musician] fans just listen to the music and not follow the person? Pretty unlikely IMO.
I also think it’s an entirely false equivalence to say using electronic instruments are like AI music tools. Very different things – an electric guitar doesn’t play music by itself. It’s still a tool at the end of the day.
Yes, and AI music generation (like auto-tune before it) enables people to choose their celebrities from a wider pool than "the type of dork who practices guitar for 10000 hours".
If I happen to like it, I hit thumbs up/like. Otherwise I ignore it.
I sometimes go through and browse musicians, mainly to see if they have other songs I might like, but generally speaking... it's not high on my list of priorities. Then again, I don't give a shit about the "pop" aspect of music at all. It's mainly background noise I put on while doing something else.
---
As an aside:
> I also think it’s an entirely false equivalence to say using electronic instruments are like AI music tools. Very different things – an electric guitar doesn’t play music by itself. It’s still a tool at the end of the day.
I think this is where it gets weird, and I think you're pretty solidly incorrect here. Samplers and grooveboxes absolutely play music by themselves. I think there's also a weird world where things like "Girl Talk" are somewhat spiritual successors to AI music...
Ex - I definitely love girl talk, and I'm not in any way implying that those albums don't take skill and taste, but he's literally just playing samples of other artists. If that's real music (and I'd argue strongly that it IS real music) then I think I struggle to rule out AI generated songs that are edited by someone (and if you've used this tooling, it still requires lots of editing).
I disagree. You cannot take your Akai MPC out of the box and ask it to play music. You have to load samples, you have to arrange them and you have to instruct it to play. That seems like a far cry to me from "playing themselves." You still have to... write the music.
And a model does not play good music by itself. Only slop if your contribution is nil. Models are more like pianos than parrots.
Music is about making my brain feel good. I don't care what/who makes it. If I like it, I like it.
I was already a creative before AI, but now I have a lot more control in more domains than I could express myself in before.
The music industry has stepped up its efforts globally to crack down on small businesses that play copyrighted music. They actually hire people to go into these places and spot violations.
People blame social media for the death of the monoculture but I think music rights holders have done a fair share of the damage to themselves.
The way royalties get assigned is based on a percentage of your listening versus your monthly payment.
For example, spend an entire month listening to Taylor Swift’s new album, she gets the entire royalty share.
But if you listen to the album 100 times but then listen to lofi beats 900 times, Taylor only gets 10%.
The “earnings per stream” number you’ll see cited is only an average and varies greatly because there’s only so much money to go around since your listening is unlimited.
But now you have services like Spotify that are removing real songs from “mood” playlists and replacing them with AI music that directs royalties toward Spotify.
Another factor that has happened: record labels have been working to screw over artists so much that they actually negotiated lower royalty rates with Spotify in exchange for company stock.
Giving up royalties but then instead owning a part of Spotify effectively directs money away artists and toward the labels.
> But if you listen to the album 100 times but then listen to lofi beats 900 times, Taylor only gets 10%.
Hahaha, I wish this was how it worked, but it's not. At all.
Suppose I spend all month listening only to Fugazi. Now some miniscule tiny fraction of my (and everyone else's) monthly payment will go to Fugazi. The biggest portion of my monthly payment will go to Taylor Swift because she got the most plays on the platform. This means it actually matters very little what I listen to because I listen to only a few hours of music a week. A coffee shop running Spotify will generate 16+ hours of listening per day and this will determine who gets my subscription money far more than my actions will.
What you're describing would be like heaven for independent artists compared to the status quo.
Having said that, you're right that AI music is partially about funnelling more money to the streaming platform. Even before AI generated music, Spotify was cutting deals with "chill vibes" artists where they would receive a smaller payment per play than a "normal" artist[1]. Mysteriously those artists ended up getting placed on "chill vibes" playlists more often than you would expect. Funny how that works. I expect the same chicanery is happening with AI.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_fake_artists_...
I think food is a good analogy here. This is a bit like saying I can’t tell the difference between the McDonald’s that is 90% automated and the McDonald’s that’s 20% automated. You’re still just talking about McDonald’s, which is manufactured and engineered to deliver a very specific taste and flavor.
Pop music, almost by definition, is not innovative. Consider the experimental bleeding edge that pushes the evolution of genres. Eventually, that experimental sound enters the pop cycle. Off the top of my head, Fred Again was innovative in 2022, Kettama was innovative in 2025. Fred’s already pop-adjacent, if not full on directly impacting the pop industry at this point. If you want slightly older examples, I would give you Skrillex circa 2010, or Zedd circa 2014.
Incentives are mismatched here - the indie band benefits from being noticed and sought out, the coffee shop wants to set a vibe without distracting or irritating anyone (which music can do simply by repeating, if you don't curate a large enough collection).
So unless your playlist is, like, part of the product you're selling (which it is for a number of coffee shops to be fair), you just look for something like "10 hours of lo-fi beats to study to" and throw it on.
With SACEM, if you have a cafe, then you have to pay 4000 USD per year to support musicians, etc etc.
Of course, this is only broadcasting rights, you have to acquire the music (or rent it) on a B2B platform.
If you play AI Lofi in theory you don't have to, but don't worry that inspectors will find a way to fine you.
Ironically, the human band you are playing will get zero, and it will go to the big rich and popular artists.
I have my various beefs with them personally, but I am glad to see them approaching this in a fairly responsible way.
https://open.spotify.com/track/0jGJtiDfEO9syfSL8AshBF?si=b92...
Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't.
And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.
My Tidal "feed" is full of new releases that are clearly AI-generated. They use the same artist name as artists that I really like, but the music is clearly not from the artist as advertised.
I have no problem with AI-generated music, I just don't want someone trying to spoof the artists I am interested in.
However, you’ll also notice that none of these streaming platforms highlight which record label is responsible for which release, though you can find it under additional info sometimes. Tin foil hat is that the large record companies don’t want such a feature to be present on streaming platforms. But more likely is that product employees at streaming platforms don’t think users care about record labels, which they’re right, 80% of users don’t currently care about which record label releases which track or recording.
Give me a streaming platform with “Label” as a first class entity that I can like, follow, etc. My theory is that it will produce a much healthier long tail, because trustworthy labels are already a robust source of non-AI music.
I didn't see the naming issue that the other reply had with "Yes", but I do frequently see their name pop up with slop.
I think this needs more clarity. I can think of a lot of different ways AI is used in music today as a part of the song generation process and not sure whether or not this definition would apply to it. They specifically mention developments in "text-prompted generation" but if anything that confuses the issue more, for example what about training on specific music.
This isn't a comment on how expansive or narrow the definition should be, just that they need to spell it out more to allow for consistent application (to say nothing of enforcement). If someone uses ChatGPT for lyrics, but writes the instrumentals themselves, does this policy apply? I genuinely have no idea.
HECK YES, TIDAL!!!!!! This is exactly the right move.
I only read the first half of this policy, and I absolutely love it. I hope Apple Music follows suit. (I don't trust Spotify to do so.)
Everything in-between seems to me to be extremely fair game for the problem of music production. We can hold our nuanced debates about what constitutes "AI generated" while listening to some minimal EDM tracks to remind ourselves how fine a line we must walk.
Would love for YouTube to follow suit on this
> Generative models synthesize sound mathematically. These synthesis methods leave unnatural dips, specific spectral noise profiles, or phase alignments that rarely occur in real, human-recorded audio
Ultimately this isn't really solvable without a way of marking audio with a verifiable signature that it was produced by a specific human, with some kind of reputation algorithm.
You really just want your users, who hate AI, to see a big "REPORT AI" button they can click. The problem you are trying to solve is the perception among your users that your platform is dominated by AI slop. So at the end of the day the only thing you actually have to figure out is what your users think is AI slop, have a quick trigger on un-popular stuff, and basically never enforce on popular stuff unless there is actually some controversy.
This would then become something similar to how legal tech where a license is required to practice law relies on a few lawyers sitting as a gate after the AI
I wish Youtube Music would offer some relief from the flood of AI music on their platform. My frustrations with YTM are exacerbated by the fact that it has the absolute minimum in functionality when it comes to browsing or searching.
I don't understand the user hostile nature of so many services these days when it comes to content discovery. We all know the data is there, but making it available for the user to actually browse or god forbid a modicum of search filters is like some forbidden fruit.
That said, there are a lot of people who simply enjoy having something playing in the background, it doesn't matter what, and if you're into country music it's great to have 10,000+ hours of country music to play.
If Tidal provides a checkbox so you can choose whether to exclude AI content, I think that would work for both audiences.
I know professional musicians that will use AI models like Suno as an aid to their tracks - mostly where they'd previously use samples or program things themselves. In these cases, where the track may be x% AI and (1-x)% Human performance, where x is very small, I think monetization or even copyright shouldn't be too difficult.
But I also know people that use tools like Suno for everything, where every single aspect of the song: Lyrics, music, production is all done by AI tools. They basically just prompt some style and vibe they want, and will upload the result. In these cases, I don't think monetization or copyright should be possible.
Then again, it is difficult to know how much AI someone used to generate their tracks, so I'm not sure how this could be enforced. I also know people that are earning very good money off their (entirely) Suno-generated tracks.
I'd love some Internet Pirate Radio. If someone wants to sort through the best all-AI tracks and run those, that'd be cool. I don't want an AI to pick the best AI tracks.
> AI music generation tools are changing how music is created and distributed. As this technology evolves, Tidal is introducing platform standards to protect artists, their craft, and inform listeners.
> Here are the highlights of our new AI Policy:
> - Tidal will identify and tag AI-generated music in our app. Listeners will see an "AI" badge next to music we detect as wholly AI-generated.
> - Tidal will not tolerate AI-generated music that impersonates an artist or group, or that facilitates fraudulent activity. We're implementing automatic tools to remove these releases immediately and on an ongoing basis.
> - Tidal will not allow music that is 100% AI-generated to be monetized. No royalties will go to such releases, nor will AI-generated uploads be eligible for direct-to-fan sales.
> - We will expand these policies to music that is substantially AI-generated when AI detection technology is sufficiently reliable to do so.
> You'll start seeing these changes from July 15.
> Check out the full policy here. To learn more, please visit our FAQ.
> For the music,
> The Tidal Team
All in all seems reasonable. There's definitely been a wave of cheap slop flooding Tidal's library lately and removing the incentives for it seems like the exact correct approach to stemming that tide.
The only thing worrying to me is the use of “AI detection technology”; that stuff is notorious for both false positives and false negatives, and it seems to only be getting worse as AI is getting better at hiding its “tells”. As long as there's an appeals process with a human in the loop it should work out fine.
I'm also curious about how they'll define “substantially AI-generated”, i.e. where they'll draw that line. Human vocals over an AI backing track? AI vocals over a human backing track? All human performers, but using instruments with AI-generated sounds?
Here we are. music is great, people do not suspect it's ai, artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy. It's just the voice and instruments are not real. How is it different from club music made in fruity loops? This music is just more complicated, hence no fruity loop. With AI you don't need to assemble the entire band do to funk music. Isn't that democratize access to music production?
I would not call someone typing words into a prompt an "artist" doing "real work", and they definitely should not be monetizing it.
Speak for yourself.
Take away the attraction to the grifters and you reduce the issue.
Of course this does not eliminate the problem of the streaming platforms tolertating AI generated work so that they do not need to pay as much out for your subscription fee.
Personally, if there were a decent Spotify alternative that had a zero tolerance to gen AI policy, I'd switch without a second thought.
That has some different second order consequences that I don't think you're seeing. It's not that they will be free to you as a user, it's more that they will be free from the platform perspective to do whatever they want with the revenue they get from it.
Say for example you have a platform with Spotify monetization scheme for instance, which is already very unfair to small artists. But now imagine you have to compete to be included on auto play or playlists against something that's basically free for Spotify, what's your chance of getting any money out of it? Say Spotify changes their algorithm and starts pushing 20% of all auto play playlists to consist of AI songs, that's basically a 20% bump on their profit basis.
It’s pretty cool technology. You just ask for a certain feeling to be evoked and you can have it done. Magical.
If you use ai tools not for full generation of a song but perhaps a bass track would they allow monetizing?
Coming soon in 276 days from now.
In reality, I don't think this is how it'll shake out. But it's a valid argument.
But "creators" pushing AI music won't tag their slop as such because they want to monetize (surprise, they're not doing it for the love of the game).
So this hinges on Tidal being able to reliably identify AI-generated music.
I strongly agree on labeling the generated content.
Okey, that's all I needed to know. They could just put this one sentence in the doc and be done with it.
Edit: Nevermind, see riddley's comment. That's what I get for being logged in, I guess?
Which is to say, there are a lot of people who think "they can tell AI" in music, wherein you can cue the famous picture of the airplane with the bulletholes.
I'm not sure what you can do about it, and part of me hates it too -- but youtube has absolutely given me 100% AI generated music that's full of soul and better than, say, Bruno Mar,s IMHO.
(For those interested, my two examples would be the gospel "Thong Song" and the fake rock-n-roll dis track against 50 cent "by TI's Son," 2 quarters...)
Anyway the battle with slop is curation. Eurodance by AI is as shitty as eurodance by humans.
Tl;dr. Another one bites the dust.
The other aspect that's missing from the discussion here is LEGAL. If Tidal is making money from stolen music -- although arguably they still are by offering it on a subscription basis -- then that opens them up to litigation. From that perspective, this may double both as risk-mitigation and also a marketing opportunity for them, would love an attorney to weigh in there.
(From the comments here, Spotify is the market leader and already pays out for AI generated music. But I can't say that independently.)
AKA: We will take the value, if any, AI-generated music gives, but we will not be paying royalties. This is a contradictory statement. How does the AI-generated music give value if the generated content is inherently worthless?