english.elpais.com
AI to Cost Music and Audiovisual Industries \$8 Billion by 2028: CISAC Study
A new study commissioned by CISAC predicts that AI could cost the music and audiovisual industries \$4 billion each by 2028 due to the unauthorized use of copyrighted works; the study, based on interviews with over 50 stakeholders, including Google and Microsoft, urges governments to regulate AI.
- How does the study account for the differing perspectives of AI developers and artists regarding the impact of this technology, and what methodology was used to arrive at its conclusions?
- The study, commissioned by CISAC and conducted by PMP Strategy, analyzes the economic impact of generative AI on the arts. It quantifies potential revenue losses for artists while simultaneously highlighting the substantial profits expected for AI developers. The report underlines the issue of AI models training on copyrighted works without permission.
- What is the projected financial impact of generative AI on artists in the music and audiovisual sectors by 2028, and what are the key legal and regulatory challenges highlighted by the study?
- A new study by CISAC predicts that AI could cause the music and audiovisual sectors to lose 25% and 20% of global revenue, respectively, by 2028. This loss is projected to exceed \$4 billion for artists in each sector. The study highlights legal battles between artists and AI developers, emphasizing the urgent need for regulation.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the predicted revenue shift from artists to AI developers, and what specific actions are recommended to mitigate potential negative impacts on artists' livelihoods?
- The report suggests several scenarios where AI could replace human artists, such as background music in various settings and AI-generated content for low-budget productions. It underscores the need for regulatory action to balance technological advancement with the protection of artists' rights and livelihoods. The EU's recent AI regulation is cited as a positive step.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately set a negative tone, emphasizing the threat AI poses to artists. The repeated use of terms like "dystopia," "stealing," and "apocalypse" frames the narrative around a sense of impending doom. While the report acknowledges some potential benefits, the negative framing dominates the overall presentation.
Language Bias
The report uses emotionally charged language such as "cannibalization," "apocalypse," and "stealing," which are not neutral terms. These words strongly influence the reader's perception of AI's impact. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as "disruption," "transformation," and "competition." The repetitive use of negative terms contributes to a biased overall tone.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the negative impacts of AI on artists' livelihoods and revenue, but it could have included more on the potential benefits and opportunities AI might offer artists. While it mentions artists using AI as an ally, this aspect is underrepresented compared to the emphasis on potential harm. The omission of a balanced perspective on AI's potential benefits might mislead readers into believing that AI is solely a threat.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a somewhat false dichotomy between the potential harm to artists and the potential benefits to AI developers. It highlights the massive profits predicted for AI developers juxtaposed with significant losses for artists, creating a simplistic 'us vs. them' narrative. The complexity of the issue and the possibility of mutually beneficial outcomes are underplayed.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report predicts significant revenue losses for artists in the music and audiovisual sectors by 2028 due to AI-generated content, potentially impacting their livelihoods and job security. This directly affects decent work and economic growth within the creative industries.