The People vs the British government’s plan for AI in music
Let’s face it: the world can often seem pretty bleak. We look at the news braced for devastation, and in many ways, it’s difficult to know what situation we will find ourselves in a year from now, let alone in decades. A major part of that malignant shift is rooted in the technological uprising of artificial intelligence; the system, it seems, more and more politicians are becoming hooked on like a drug.
When over 400 music and movie stars signed an open letter to Donald Trump baulking at his plans to overhaul copyright laws for the profit of AI companies, the issue was pulled rightly into sharp focus. But for all of Trump’s Draconian measures, the British are shrouded in a naïve microcosm if they believe such terrifying policies could not reach their shores – because, in fact, it’s already on their doorstep.
The British government can feign horror at Trump’s many stark proposals all they like, but the truth is that in terms of AI, they are simply looking to follow suit. With an investigation currently ongoing as to the role that the software can take in shaping the country’s music industry in future, the noise surrounding the proposals is often complex and overwhelming. So, what exactly is going on?
In essence, the Westminster plans are not all that dissimilar to the Oval Office’s. They want to create prime economic conditions for AI companies and systems to thrive with as minimal human input as possible. However, their route to achieving this is based on training AI models through existing content. In the case of music, this would involve overriding the permissions of artists, songwriters, and rightsholders to use their work without consent or compensation.
The UK government is currently flaunting the idea of an opt-out system where all music could be used to shape AI unless the rightsholder stipulates otherwise. This sounds simple enough in theory, but the hurdles involved in freeing yourself from the shackles of such a system are being rendered deliberately almost impossible to escape.
In layman’s terms, it’s pretty much like trying to clear your email inbox of the endless stream of spam. You trail through the fine print to find the tiny unsubscribe button, go through the labour of deleting your details from the database, only to be unsuccessful and find yourself faced with another never-ending onslaught from different companies once again. The same is true for the proposed opt-out system – the creator would have to enter into the tedious process of requesting to remove their work from the hands of each and every AI company in existence, and with more and more of these cropping up incessantly, it’s a battle they’re ultimately never going to win.
It’s hardly surprising, in this sense, that backlash across the industry against the proposals has been fierce. Whether formally submitting comments to the government or speaking out in the media, every facet of the music world, from sound engineers to the biggest stars, has had its say. Some of the most prominent ones include the likes of Paul McCartney, who claimed back in February when the investigation was first announced that it would create a “Wild West” if AI were to be allowed to run riot in the music industry.
There’s no denying that AI has its creative uses – after all, McCartney himself utilised it to enhance John Lennon’s demo vocal to create the band’s 2023 resurgence hit ‘Now and Then’. It may seem hypocritical of the Beatle in one sense, but his point is that technology could and should come into force to enhance raw music, not completely decimate it.
This is only proved by the stark statistics that Sony Music submitted to the government last week, which revealed that the company has already had to remove over 75,000 AI deepfake versions of its most successful artists’ tracks from the web – and even at that, the number supposedly only represents a tiny drop in the ocean. They appealed that the threat of AI was existential, as it could result in “direct commercial harm to legitimate recording artists, including UK artists.” With this backdrop in mind, it is admittedly easy to feel powerless, but it’s worth remembering that there is still a long way to go.
What can be done about the threat of AI in music?
The ultimatum here is whether we allow the government to single-handedly destroy music or whether we, as the people, band together and propel the current industry to thrive in spite of it. With the seismic success of artists like Charli XCX dominating the charts, as well as legacy acts such as Oasis facing a cultural resurgence, it’s without doubt that music is one of the country’s biggest economic exports. However, that will only continue to capitalise if AI loses the fight.
It means getting out there and buying physical copies of music. Going to gigs, small and large. Getting involved in campaigns against the government’s proposals, whether through social media or in-person. No matter how small the contribution, everything helps in turning the tide of grappling music away from the technological unknown and safely back into human hands.
The world seems at a crossroads on many different fronts, and compared to conflicts or the cost of living, music can all too quickly be dismissed as insignificant when it comes to the matters we should focus our attention on. But songs are the key to power; art is vital to any hope of social mobility, and we ignore or undermine that at our peril. Imagine going to a gig in 20 years’ time, and instead of an electrifying rock band, a robot wheels out on stage. It may seem farcical, but that truly is the direction of travel. Once and for all, the government needs to hear that before it’s too late.
