Now ban corporately produced music.
Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
11–20 of 103 posts
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#12I mean, good, maybe if this is intended to preserve the value of human-produced art and/or to limit the scope of official charts. But I'm not sure how you actually prove this or thus justify any particular instance of enforcement.
There are many reasons you might want to outlaw or ban something even when there isn’t an easy way to detect it. Case in point: the existence of this law, even in the absence of enforceability, makes “using AI for a song intended for the charts” into an active and intentional act of deception by the artist. That is a moral threshold that will deter the most marginal of the bad actors, and supplement the willpower of the insufficently principled good actors.
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#13Is Australia a "banning lab" or something. (Disclaimer: I'm an Australian citizen)
[dead]
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#14Are these the same Recording Industry Associations who are so good at predicting tech trends they took the opportunities the Internet gave them and decided to focus the efforts on suing torrenters?
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#15This is in response to a possibly (?) AI generated cover of "Like a Prayer" topping Australian radio play charts in July and ARIA deciding it was illegitimate.
>But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software.
> ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week to seek his response to the criticism, but he has not responded.[1]
I think Ben Lee's point in the NYTimes article is good:
> The Australian musician Ben Lee, who is known for hits like “Cigarettes Will Kill You” and “Catch My Disease,” said non-generative A.I. was used by artists in the process of music production, including for pitch correction and noise reduction. But generative A.I. and its impacts on the industry needed to be looked at more closely, he said.
> “I’m not the kind of person who is at all fundamentally opposed to technological changes in my industry,” he said. “It feels like healthy pushback is a really vital part of us looking responsibly at the way to integrate these technologies into our industries.”
I remember when autotune came out and people wanted to ban that too.
The rules seem pretty loose:
> For example, if a song’s lead vocal or key instrumental performance is generated by A.I., the track would be ineligible, ARIA said. But a human lead vocal with A.I. backing vocals would be allowed.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-10/most-played-song-in-a...
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#16I mean, good, maybe if this is intended to preserve the value of human-produced art and/or to limit the scope of official charts. But I'm not sure how you actually prove this or thus justify any particular instance of enforcement.
There are many reasons you might want to outlaw or ban something even when there isn’t an easy way to detect it. Case in point: the existence of this law, even in the absence of enforceability, makes “using AI for a song intended for the charts” into an active and intentional act of deception by the artist. That is a moral threshold that will deter the most marginal of the bad actors, and supplement the willpower of…
Oh, I don't disagree at all!
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#17Have generative AI create the music and then become a cover artist for AI generated music. No one will notice. Lots of musicians are cover artists because perhaps they are skilled in their playing instruments and or singing but have a hard time coming up with good music. So instead let AI come up with the music and just copy it and make it yours.
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#18This is the right path.
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many reasons you might want to outlaw or ban something even when there isn’t an easy way to detect it. Case in point: the existence of this law, even in the absence of enforceability, makes “using AI for a song intended for the charts” into an active and intentional act of deception by the artist. That is a moral threshold that will deter the most marginal of the bad actors, and supplement the willpower of…
Oh, I don't disagree at all!
Hah, my apologies - I jump at any chance I get to explain why nebulous, unenforceable, or even impossible laws can nevertheless have concrete and worthwhile benefits, it’s a favorite pet topic for me.
Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts
#20Have generative AI create the music and then become a cover artist for AI generated music. No one will notice. Lots of musicians are cover artists because perhaps they are skilled in their playing instruments and or singing but have a hard time coming up with good music. So instead let AI come up with the music and just copy it and make it yours.
Do you think people that use machines to generate music have the technical skills to be a cover artist? (I suppose you mean with real instruments)
The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.