RIAA,
NMPA, and more file amicus brief backing UMG, Concord and ABKCO in original Anthropic case, arguing AI firm’s unlicensed copying is ‘inexcusable’
The RIAA, NMPA, and six other key music industry groups have thrown their weight behind the music publishers suing Anthropic over AI copyright infringement.
The coalition, which also includes A2IM, SoundExchange, SONA, BMAC, the Music Artists Coalition, and the Artist Rights Alliance, filed an amicus brief on Monday (March 30) urging a federal court to reject Anthropic’s fair use defense in the case brought by Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO in October 2023. Anthropic, it notes, is raising money at a $380 billion valuation following a $30 billion Series G round — and “indisputably has the means to compensate copyright owners.”
Want to Track How Much Money 'AI Slop' Drains From Artist Royalties?
AI-generated “artists” flood Spotify, rack up millions of streams, and siphon revenue from real musicians; SlopTracker wants to make this impossible to ignore. A new website called SlopTracker aims to visualize the potential economic impact of AI-generated music on streaming platforms — particularly Spotify — by identifying suspected AI artists and estimating how much money their streams may be diverting from real musicians.
The site presents a running dashboard that tracks streams, estimated royalties, and the number of Premium subscriptions effectively needed to generate that revenue. Its central argument: while the music industry is facing a surge of AI music tools, it's also dealing with a surge of AI music profiles already operating inside streaming ecosystems.
Because generative tools can produce tracks quickly and cheaply, large numbers of AI-generated songs can be uploaded to streaming services in bulk, potentially gaming recommendation systems and accumulating streams at scale. For independent artists — who already compete in an environment of massive content oversupply — that shift could have major implications. The rise of AI music has already sparked industry debates around copyright, training data, and the role of generative tools in the creative process.
TikTok’s distro service SoundOn cracks down on manipulated audio via ACRCloud partnership to intercept unauthorized tracks
SoundOn, the music distribution and promotion platform owned by TikTok, is cracking down on unauthorized uploads by deploying a new detection service from content recognition firm ACRCloud. The tech uses audio fingerprinting to identify these modified works before they reach streaming platforms, flagging them for pre- and post-distribution review.
With Derivative Works Detection, SoundOn will use what it describes as a “rigorous customer identification process,” requiring uploaders to verify their identity with photo ID, with flagged content escalated to “human review”.
TikTok said that the partnership adds “an extra layer of anti-fraud detection” into SoundOn.SoundOn says this ensures that the content delivered to DSPs like Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music is “original, authorized, and trusted.” “By enabling accurate identification and verification of music at scale, we’re helping support a more transparent and reliable ecosystem for artists, rightsholders, and digital services alike.”
The Unsung: Why Songwriters Still Live in the Shadows of Streaming
With digital distribution moving so quickly, releases will often gather thousands of plays before appropriate songwriter attribution is accredited, leaving recognition and revenues behind. It's a big problem. There is something magical about a great song. It can trigger a memory, set the scene for an iconic TV or movie moment, or fill a room with people singing the same chorus without even knowing why it hits so hard. Songs are the connective tissue of our culture, yet the people who write them remain some of the least visible and least understood figures in the music business. In this digital age, we don't have that same tangible medium anymore. There are no liner notes to pore over, no label copy to study. Credits exist on streaming platforms, but finding them requires an active search, and in an era built for immediate consumption, most listeners never take that step. Because releases move so quickly, a song can come out before that credit information is even fully finalized. That information is provided to DSPs by the label or distributor, and because publishers are not part of that delivery chain, they often have little visibility into missing or incorrect credits until after the fact. The pace of digital releases means a song can reach millions of people before a songwriter’s name is properly attached.
For
more read here.
Artists face steep income decline due to AI
The latest edition of Re|Shaping Policies for Creativity, UNESCO’s flagship monitoring report covering more than 120 countries, warns that generative AI is projected to drive significant income losses for artists by 2028. ‑generated content in global markets. The report stresses that these disruptions are occurring at a pace that outstrips current policy responses, exacerbating inequalities and threatening the livelihoods of millions of cultural workers. Music creators could see their revenues fall by 24 per cent, while those working in the audiovisual sector may lose 21 per cent of their income due to the expanding presence of AI generated content in global markets. The report stresses that these disruptions are occurring at a pace that outstrips current policy responses, exacerbating inequalities and threatening the livelihoods of millions of cultural workers.
AI in the Music Industry: Art or Slop?
In November 2025, a new song began circulating and gaining traction on TikTok. The song, “I Run” by HAVEN. seemed to become instantly popular in videos and across many social media platforms. You may remember it from your own ‘For You’ page. However, within a few weeks of its release, suspicions started circulating that the song was in fact a product of AI. The vocals, in particular, were compared to singer Jorja Smith. Smith, however, commented under HAVEN.’s profile, confirming it was not her singing. After doing a bit more digging on the profiles, it was revealed by a TikTok user that one of the creators of the song plugged the vocal into Suno, an AI music creation program, to give it a higher tone. A new version of the song was released in December with a real singer, and the controversy surrounding the song quickly fizzled out. But it wasn’t to be the last example of AI-generated music not only being produced but gaining the kind of traction or surpassing that of real artists. Music is an art that is created painstakingly by the artists who have spent years on their vocal skills, performing skills, technical and production abilities, and instrumental skills. AI-generated music is not art. Is it “AI slop” as many are calling it? Maybe. Maybe it’s actually pleasing to listen to. But in a world where AI is in danger of taking over many jobs, let’s not let AI take over the arts. Promoting AI on streaming platforms amounts to stealing from real artists on these music platforms.
Amid rise of AI
deepfakes, Spotify to let artists vet releases before they appear on their profiles
Spotify is giving artists a new way to protect their profiles from AI deepfakes and misattribution.
The streaming platform is piloting a new opt-in feature that lets artists review and approve eligible releases before they go live.
The company says protecting artist identity has become “a top priority for 2026,” noting that “the rise of easy-to-produce AI tracks has made the [misattribution] problem worse” across streaming services.
Spotify’s new Artist Profile Protection feature — now in limited beta — has been designed to combat ongoing issues with misattributed releases, whether from metadata errors, artists sharing the same name, or “bad actors” who are “maliciously” attaching music to artists’ profiles.
“Open-access distribution channels have lowered the barrier for independent artists to share music with the world, promote collaborations easily, and transfer music between distributors seamlessly,” says Spotify. “But that openness comes with gaps that bad actors can exploit.”
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Cox Communications In $1 Billion Major Label Copyright Battle — With Major Implications for Other ISP Battles
In a judgment that will dramatically affect the copyright litigation landscape, the Supreme Court has unanimously held that ISPs, in providing internet access without actively encouraging piracy, aren’t contributorily liable for users’ infringement.
The nation’s highest court handed down the significant decision today, the better part of a decade after a jury ordered Cox Communications to pay $1 billion. Stemming from an infringement complaint levied by the major record labels, the massive verdict specifically concerned the ISP’s alleged failure to address subscribers’ repeat infringement.
Unsurprisingly, the penalty didn’t sit right with Cox, which spearheaded a multi-year appeal. And on the opposite side of the dispute, the majors moved forward with several distinct-but-similar complaints against different ISPs; multiple actions were paused pending the Supreme Court’s decision here.
Streaming fraud man who pocketed $8m using hundreds of thousands of AI songs streamed billions of times by bots pleads guilty
The man at the center of what’s been described as the first-ever criminal prosecution for AI-assisted streaming fraud in the United States has pleaded guilty.
Michael Smith, of Cornelius, North Carolina, pleaded guilty today (March 19) to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud before U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in the Southern District of New York.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Smith has also agreed to pay over $8 million in forfeiture.
Smith is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Koeltl on July 29.
