In recent years, and especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, the artistic community and cultural science have focused on the labor issues of musicians in the digital age (finding or creating employment) and on Intellectual Property challenges, arising from the online exploitation of their works, primarily through streaming technology.

Research in these fields highlight:
• The inherent precariousness of musical professions,
• The need for adaptation and upskilling in new technologies, and
• The inadequate legal protection of intellectual and neighboring rights, which remain

exposed to the business risks of the free market.

Artificial Intelligence has now been added to these challenges. Currently, this cutting-edge application of new technologies is being developed and funded without regulation. It raises critical ethical and legal issues, which, if unregulated, are exposed to lobbying and risk creating irreversible realities in the field.

Historically, the music industry has experienced technological innovations as crises—and has always found ways to overcome them. The first printed sheet music, mechanical pianos, magnetic tape, personal computers, broadband networks and file-sharing, all brought radical changes to music production and consumption. Musicians responded to these challenges by embracing innovations and adapting to them. Where this did not happen, the system failed: at the dawn of the digital age (late 20th century), record labels fought the internet by all possible means. As a result, they missed the digital revolution, which is now led by tech companies.

The artistic community suffers unprecedented income damage. The misuse of AI, fueled by its unregulated exploitation, is leading to a loss of composure and perspective. The mistake of adopting a combative stance—"AI is the enemy; we must banish it from Art"—is being repeated. This extreme tendency is inspired by a narrative of an asymmetrical digital Armageddon, an uncontrollable machine developing superior intelligence and destroying culture. While this makes for a gripping sci-fi dystopia, reality is far more nuanced. AI should simply be another tool musicians must integrate into their toolkit. You don’t throw away a hammer because you hit your finger—you learn to wield it skillfully.

Cultural Sciences have developed tools, methodologies, and conducted in-depth research on the Creative Industries. Yet its conclusions circulate only within academic circles, failing to reach the artistic community, labor movements, or—most critically—policy

implementation. This gap persists at a time when tech oligarchs are even willing to rewrite the "social contract" if it stands in the way of innovation.

The law is lagging behind rapid advancements. Legislative initiatives so far are hesitant, ambiguous, and don’t seem to measure up to the scale of the challenges. This is evident in the EU’s 2024/1689 Directive on Artificial Intelligence, which reflects the priorities of a political landscape where investors dominate. Similarly, the U.S. Copyright Office concludes that "existing legal doctrines are adequate and appropriate to resolve questions of copyrightability”.

Generative AI is a manufacturing process, divorced from lived experience, expression, or creative identity. This ethical dimension is not immediately visible in the output, as audiences cannot discern the creator of a work. Thus, interim measures must ensure fair remuneration for artists whose works train AI systems. Parallel losses arise on the output side: cannibalization of musicians’ traditional revenue streams as AI-generated works displace theirs. By 2028, an estimated 24% of creators’ income could be at risk, amounting to €22 billion in cumulative losses.

A fair and pragmatic approach would be extending private copy Levies: the expanded application of private copying compensation (Greek Law 2121/1993, Art. 18), adapting existing frameworks to this new frontier.

When it comes to streaming, artists’ earnings are truly disheartening. Musicians earn fractions of a cent per stream, even while streaming accounts for 67% of the recording industry’s revenue. The music industry’s shadowy financial management, the predatory contracts of record labels, and the naivety of the artistic community allow Spotify—the world’s largest streaming service—to pay rights holders an average of just $0.003 per stream. To earn $15/hour (the equivalent of a full-time wage), an artist needs over 800,000 monthly streams.

In his 2015 shareholder letter, CEO Daniel Ek declared that Spotify "doesn’t sell music"—it sells subscriptions and access. To the platform, music is merely an operational cost to be systematically minimized. If AI-generated music avoids licensing fees, providers will inevitably favor it as the cheaper alternative. This will flood an already oversaturated content ecosystem with “rights-free" music, further cannibalizing artists’ income— especially since the prevailing pro-rata remuneration algorithm exclusively benefits the super stars.

Despite their dominance, streaming platforms consistently report losses, raising questions about financial transparency. The principle of fair remuneration must be clarified and enforced—either through WIPO guidelines or similar "soft law" mechanisms. Until then, a permanent oversight committee with local observatories could improve transparency and foster industry-wide collaboration.