‘Culture and Content are two cross-cutting descriptors that can help us signpost the commercial value gap between human-created and AI-generated works.’
MBW Views is a series of exclusive commentaries/reports from music industry luminaries… with something to say. The following article comes from Sarah Williams (pictured inside), CEO of IMPEL, the international collective licensing agency that represents digital music publishing rights. IMPEL members include independent publishers such as Bucks music group, beggar Music, reservoir Music, Kassner Music, CTMABKCO, Truelove Music, Faber Music, Mute Song, Budde UK, Phrased Differently and more.
People vs machines, challenges vs opportunities, regulations vs innovation.
The music industry is on high alert about AI, and as the debate continues, the pendulum will swing this way and that in our efforts to find that sweet spot where we can both leverage and control the waves AI is capable of creating.
As someone whose day job is digital licensing of musical works, I want to make another case to guide our strategy. One end is Culture; a C-word that I wish was used more often in discussions within our industry. On the other side is Content; a fairly common C word. For my money, Culture and Content are two cross-cutting descriptors that can help us point out the commercial value gap between human-generated and AI-generated works.
Culture is a flexible and evolving product of continuous human interaction. It is how we discover and express meaning in our lives and although it takes many forms, music is its heartbeat. For millennia, we have shared our ideas and emotions through rhythm and song.
We've created tools to express and enhance our creativity, and we've found ways to share and document our creations. Culturally derived musical works can be magical storytelling time machines, shaping our identities, communities, and the emotional tone of our lives. We love them, value them, and they have great social capital.
In contrast, content simply fills time and space. It can have a high value or a low value and is usually measured quantitatively. Contents can be multiplied, scaled, sliced and diced. Culture, on the other hand, can only be truly understood qualitatively.
So why is this distinction useful to the discussion of AI? Because it helps us orient our strategy in a positive direction by focusing on the rich cultural value of human-created works rather than the emptiness of AI-generated works. That doesn't mean AI-generated works never have cultural value.
They can contain some of that unique energy if they are fueled by meaningful human intention or if they inspire people to create stories around them. However, the important point is that they must have meaning to them. They don't come with it. From a licensing perspective, another way to put it is that human-generated music is both Culture and Content, whereas, with a few honorable exceptions, AI-generated music is just is Content.
A practical example of how this framework can be useful is the question of tagging. For very good reasons, consensus is growing around the need to classify and tag AI-generated works and recordings. However, a Culture/Content approach might encourage us to look the other way from the telescope and consider whether we should (or are) instead classifying and tagging human-made music. out or not. This would create a kind of human 'mark', giving the song or recording an enhanced status from the outset as a cultural artifact. In a collective licensing environment, Cultural works can then be distinguished from works of pure Content and given value according to the way their cultural capital attracts customers and users. using the licensee's services.
In the publishing world, a tagging system already exists through a writer's IPI number. These specify the claim that the registered work is a work of human creativity capable of having copyright status. In the recording industry, making a mark will require more thought and effort due to the widespread use of AI tools by human producers and engineers.
However, if we choose to look for it, perhaps we can find some kind of boundary that we can live with. After all, we have lived for years with fluid and contested concepts like “originality” and “substantiality,” and we have built workable systems around them. to handle commercial exploitation. Of course there are nuances, especially for composites. However, having difficulty claiming enhanced status for the human-made works that are part of our Culture puts us in a very different position than devoting our energies to to downplay the status of AI creations, the creation of which is largely beyond our control. .
“Content can be multiplied, scaled, sliced and diced. Culture, on the other hand, can only be truly understood qualitatively.”
As we know, AI is here to stay, and I think we can assume that AI-generated music will have its place in the commercial sector. It has been consumed and appreciated in certain contexts, and in the streaming environment it has competed with human-generated works to some extent. However, it is not as appealing to 'inclined' listeners as human-made music because it is not part of the Culture and it does not carry with it the multitude of meanings that connect us to ourselves and to together. Yes, we might be confused for a moment because AI can give off some adorable vibes.
However, while AI can fake sounds, it can't fake Culture, and pretty quickly, we'll be drawn to music that reminds us what it was like to go to our first gig. first or where we were when we had our first kiss and where we were. will continue to share the sounds that connect us to our social “tribe.” Let's face it, a streaming service consisting entirely of AI-generated music would have low appeal. It might be fun for a moment but it's a fake experience…like an online concert by an avatar.
Yes, there is something special about the online experience, and the sound quality through your headphones can be amazing. However, it can never compare to a live event even if the gig is a bust, involves questionable beer drinking and requires you to catch the last bus home. The reality is we're happy to pay and put our best foot forward because live music is real and it makes you feel something. Moving to digital services, it is the intrinsic human appeal that delivers premium experiences and attracts users to its fire. This is why marking music we consider Cultural is worth the effort.
Making the argument for a Culture premium will certainly generate opposition from DPS and other music-using businesses, who will see the strengthening of their offering and dilution of the licensing pool with Content Cheaper content will be attracted. However, we must be decisive. Changing the licensing model takes effort, time and collective debate, but it can happen. We have seen the emergence of artist-centric models in digital licensing. So, why not adopt a Culture-centric approach?
A Culture-Centric approach is not just a way to leverage value as a matter of simple market logic, but also an approach that can give us more control over what's to come. . Currently, CMOs are not subscribing to AI Content… but the collective licensing industry may eventually decide that finding accommodation for this could benefit us.
After all, playing a key role in a single overarching Culture/Content licensing program with varying ratios may be a better outcome than separate programs running along these lines. different routes where we only have influence in one route. If that's the case, then having an active marking strategy for human-created music would make the decision to sign up for AI work much less risky. Our unique footprint means we can easily identify anything that isn't in the Culture group without having to rely too much on the integrity or accuracy of our suppliers' tagging Pure AI content.
As CEO of an international collective of independent music publishers, I take pride in the business of Culture. Supporting Culture and ensuring its value is what we do. Focusing on that positive task instead of the fear of a content tsunami is definitely the best strategy.Music business worldwide
