From melody to machine: who owns the future of creativity?

Not only is the angry backlash from some established artists against the rise of generative AI short-sighted, protectionist and opportunistic; it’s a waste of time.

Nobody should be surprised that people like Elton John, Dua Lipa, or Chris Martin have joined forces to sign an open letter pressuring the British government. The old business models — the ones that thrived under tight control of copying and distribution — have no intention of giving up an inch of their profitability. But their outrage has no technological merit or legal logic. They simply want to keep collecting tolls on innovations they fail to understand.

What artificial intelligence does with copyrighted works is neither copying nor distribution. It’s analysis, pattern recognition, machine learning. Claiming that AI “steals” by training on protected works is as absurd as saying a musician steals by listening to thousands of records before composing. AI doesn’t copy — it synthesizes. Demanding that every use of a copyrighted work require permission or payment isn’t just technically unworkable — it’s incompatible with progress.