liberation.fr
Deezer combats AI-generated music to fairly compensate artists
Deezer announced that 10% of its uploaded tracks are AI-generated, prompting the development of an internal detection tool to identify and remove approximately 10,000 daily AI-created tracks to better compensate artists, contrasting with Spotify's use of AI-generated "Perfect Fit Content.
- What is the impact of AI-generated music on the music industry's revenue model and artist compensation?
- Deezer, a French music platform, detected that 10% of its uploaded tracks are AI-generated, leading to the development of a detection tool that identifies approximately 10,000 AI-created tracks daily. This tool, which has resulted in two patent applications, specifically detects AI-generated content without needing extensive training data.
- How does Deezer's approach to AI-generated content differ from that of its competitors, and what are the ethical implications of each?
- Deezer's initiative aims to fairly compensate artists by removing artificially generated content that currently receives royalties. The platform plans to develop a system to mark AI-generated content and exclude it from algorithmic recommendations, addressing the growing disruption of AI in the music industry.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of AI-generated music on the creative process, the music industry's structure, and the future of artist-audience relationships?
- Deezer's proactive approach contrasts with Spotify's use of "Perfect Fit Content," which employs AI-generated tracks to reduce royalty costs. Deezer's focus on detecting AI-generated content, including deepfakes, and its collaboration with SACEM, highlights a significant industry debate regarding fair compensation for artists in the face of AI-generated music.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Deezer's actions as proactive and positive, highlighting its efforts to protect artists' rights and compensate them fairly. In contrast, Spotify's use of "ghost artists" is presented negatively, emphasizing the potential for exploitation. The headline itself could be considered framing bias, potentially pre-judging the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses language that generally favors Deezer's perspective. For example, describing Deezer's tool as "cutting-edge" while portraying Spotify's use of "ghost artists" as potentially exploitative. More neutral language could be used to present both companies' actions without explicit value judgments.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Deezer's approach to AI-generated music and its impact on artist compensation. However, it omits discussion of the broader ethical implications of AI in music creation, such as the potential displacement of human artists or the impact on musical creativity. The article also lacks a detailed comparison of the financial implications of Deezer's approach versus Spotify's use of "ghost artists.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple opposition between Deezer's fight against AI-generated music and Spotify's apparent embrace of it. It overlooks the nuanced approaches and complex considerations within the music industry's response to AI.
Sustainable Development Goals
Deezer is actively combating AI-generated music to ensure fair compensation for human artists. This directly addresses SDG 8 by protecting the livelihoods and economic opportunities of musicians, preventing exploitation, and promoting fair labor practices in the music industry.