Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#71

Post by empressplay »

paul7986 wrote: post #25

Interesting so far the majority of the comments here are for typing into a textbox (no talent needed) to create songs vs. hating AI Music. I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it. A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where…

> I'm not a good singer

Which is fine, but you could just use it to fix your vocal track

I teach recording, mixing and mastering and I know it's tedious but all of it is very creative and there's art in the imperfections. Sanitizing it away may make it more appealing to the 'average' listener but you won't get actual fans that way.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#72

Post by D-Machine »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #35
copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

But why do I have be prohibited from it just because you have an unintelligible feeling it's bad somehow?

No one is banning or prohibiting AI generated music from being listened to hear, just they are saying that to be considered on a very specific chart, there need to be limits on the amount of AI used. Very weak overall, especially given the irrelevance of these kinds of charts today.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#73

Post by glimshe »

dahart wrote: post #53
glimshe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically incr…

> People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other. > Banning AI music many only protect the same people How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse…

You could be right and my statement is speculative/provocative. But I'm far from sure that AI Music would hurt that many small musicians. Please keep in mind that we've seen this story before... Record albums (CDs, cassettes etc), Electronic music and even MIDI were at one point seen as a threat to small musicians but the market only grew as a result.

Is AI a bigger threat to musicians than, let's say, Spotify? That commoditized music to a degree we had never seen before. It would be fair to ask "does the world need ANY music to ever be made again?". To me, the answer is a clear YES, but the amount of music available on Spotify is so mind-boggling (I heard a "1 million new tracks a year" figure somewhere) that it already appears to be impossible for a professional musician to survive. Yet, they do. So there's something off in the assumption that AI will wipe out small musicians.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#74

Post by apercu »

delichon wrote: post #51
apercu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful. I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts. And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)

> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications. This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility. I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.

Mine is a different issue - I've produced hundreds of specifications over the years and it's obvious that implementation teams don't read them at all before they are "approved" because I never get questions or comments until it's time to build.

Now, granted, I'm an experienced software developer in my own right, and I know that sometimes you aren't giving something full attention until you need to, but my experience is that it's different than that.

You are correct that in identifying the issue - but that's a separate one from what I intended. I cannot stand sycophantic LLMs and use methods to get rid of any anthropomorphizing they do. But I feel like I'm somewhat outside as a person whose life is far more analog than most.

I just hung some laundry outside. I'll be (manually) splitting some firewood later today. HN is my ONLY social media.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#75

Post by ksymph »

inigyou wrote: post #49
tass wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers (or possibly pre-negotiated amounts). So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not…

> many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers Those are the same thing

They're similar, but subtly different.

Say Bob pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Foo, 100 song plays. Alice pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Baz, but plays their songs a whopping 300 times.

If it was paid out per user, Foo and Baz would both get $5. But paying out based on overall listener numbers, Foo would get $2.50 and Baz would get $7.50.

Essentially, it's a zero sum game, and one artist getting a play takes away revenue from every other artist. Even if you exclusively listen to your favorite artists, the vast majority of your subscription money is going towards the top artists.

This is why Spotify is always pushing their own playlists, smart shuffle, and encouraging background listening with ambient / sleep playlists and such; the more they can shift listeners toward music they've produced themselves or have special license agreements with, the less they have to pay out to typical (i.e. smaller) artists using their platform.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#76

Post by ahartmetz »

delichon wrote: post #51
apercu wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful. I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts. And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)

> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications. This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility. I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.

Of course, Mark Zuckerberg is eager to disrupt the meatbag friendship industry: https://futurism.com/zuckerberg-lonely-friends-create-ai

These guys are satirizing it quite well. https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/06/zuckerberg-the-average-...

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#77

Post by happymellon »

inigyou wrote: post #49
tass wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers (or possibly pre-negotiated amounts). So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not…

> many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers Those are the same thing

No they aren't.

I pay $5 and listen exclusively to artist A.

10 other people pay their $5 but listen exclusively to artist B.

I would expect the artist cut of artist A to be the $5 (or their cut after Spotify), aka the artist I listen to.

However the 10 other platform users have more free time so each listen to twice as much music by artist B. So my 1 hour is dwarfed by their 20 hours, and my artist would only get $2.60 (or their cut after Spotify). Overall listener plays.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#78

Post by dahart »

glimshe wrote: post #73
dahart wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other. > Banning AI music many only protect the same people How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse…

You could be right and my statement is speculative/provocative. But I'm far from sure that AI Music would hurt that many small musicians. Please keep in mind that we've seen this story before... Record albums (CDs, cassettes etc), Electronic music and even MIDI were at one point seen as a threat to small musicians but the market only grew as a result. Is AI a bigger threat to musicians than, let's say, Spotify? That…

Spotify pays musicians something, and tracks that go viral pay better and can occasionally lead to break out deals. Spotify may be putting price pressure on musicians, but it still depends on musicians directly. AI music doesn’t. AI doesn’t pay anything and never turns into a publishing deal. I feel like you’re ignoring the chilling effect of the narrative that AI has, and like I mentioned, I think that chilling effect is already happening.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#79

Post by dosisking »

copemaxxxing wrote: post #66
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever. Let's hear this music then.... What's the guessing it's not very good.

Well, you'll be surprised. I am probably better than you. Taste is relative after all.

Based on your attitude, bcjdjsndon is probably correct.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#80

Post by bad_haircut72 »

copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

This is as much protectionism by the music industry as it is a humanitarian ideal. They banned AI works from the top40 cause without it in the next few years, all generic pop music will be AI generated, marketed at teenagers by AI persona influencers on youtube/tiktok. I genuinely see a future where people pay $100 to go to a "concert" to communally watch an anime girl "sing and dance" on a giant screen, as a mainstream activity.
Post reply on HN