AI is not a threat to music any more than drum machines were in the 1980s. Wealthy artists crying about AI are fearmongering, writes Robin Millar
Yet again, a small group of extremely wealthy, high-profile artists are climbing on each other’s shoulders to declare that their oeuvres must be “protected” from AI. It’s a rallying cry that echoes the panic around Napster in the late 1990s: Ban it! Shut it down!
Back then, the argument was that digital music distribution would destroy the industry. Instead, common sense prevailed. Streaming became not just the great democratiser of music but also a way to reduce the environmental cost of plastic, vinyl and global distribution.
AI is not a music copyright issue
Let me be clear: I am for copyright. As a creator myself, I have no interest in anything that would harm artists’ rights or income. But that’s not what’s happening here.
The misconception being pushed by some in the industry is that allowing AI models to study and learn from a broad range of music is equivalent to theft or plagiarism. That is simply not the case. If these critics spent any time on AI music platforms, they would see that the vast majority already implement strict safeguards. Most refuse outright to allow copyrighted material to be directly used or replicated.
The demand to stop AI models from analysing music, images, films, television, books, medical research and architecture is neither practical nor necessary. Reference libraries have existed for centuries – long before copyright laws were formalized. Academics, musicologists, novelists and painters have always studied past works, making notes, drawing inspiration and producing something new. Artists have imitated each other for generations – some more successfully than others. Artistic evolution has always depended on reinterpreting the past.
We need nuance not fearmongering
The outrage over AI fails to acknowledge this basic reality. No AI system is “stealing” Kate Bush’s voice or Elton John’s melodies. Their revenue streams will not dry up because someone, somewhere, has used AI to generate a chord progression that resembles something from the past. Copyright law is already well-equipped to handle genuine cases of misrepresentation, plagiarism and fraud. The same legal principles that prevent counterfeit Gucci handbags and fake iPhones apply to music.
AI-generated content is not a threat any more than drum machines were in the 1980s or digital sampling in the 1990s. Both were met with similar outrage from some corners of the industry. Both became tools that empowered new generations of artists.
Yes, there are risks. There must be clear guidelines to ensure artists are compensated fairly and that AI-generated works do not mislead consumers. But calling for blanket bans and fuelling hysteria is not the answer. AI is not the death of creativity – it is another tool in the artist’s arsenal. Just as synthesizers, samplers and Pro Tools once were.
The real conversation should be about how to integrate AI responsibly into the creative landscape and music business. That requires nuance, not fearmongering.
Sir Robin Millar is founder of Blue Raincoat Music and chairman of SCOPE