Artificial Artists, Real Consequences: The First AI Music Fraud Case Unveiled

In a groundbreaking case, United States prosecutors have charged a musician for creating hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs and using bots to manipulate streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. By setting up fake accounts, he streamed these songs billions of times, fraudulently earning over $10 million in royalties. His operation spread streams across thousands of tracks to evade detection. The case marks the first criminal indictment for AI-driven streaming fraud, raising significant concerns over the integrity of digital music platforms.

At ISINA, we are committed to working exclusively with genuine artists and live music created by people. Maintaining this standard is crucial for our image and aligns with our belief that real artistry cannot be replicated by machines. We recognize the value of AI as a powerful tool that can aid in the creative process, offering new possibilities and efficiencies. However, we firmly believe that AI can never replace the human touch, infusing art with genuine emotion and depth the way a person can. 

In our new ISINA Insights series, where our mentors and expert team discuss key moments in the music industry, producer and mentor Davix Foreman shares his thoughts on this case:

— Using AI to generate or create a fake artist is definitely ethically wrong, manipulating income that doesn't exist for a person with a soul. The culture will always gravitate toward a person with feeling, a story, a reason to be in front of you, express, and build a relationship with their audience. That’s what makes an artist an artist, or a celebrity. We get to peek into their life and relate to what they share through their music. I’ve never been afraid of AI artistry taking the place of icons or legends. I don’t think human beings would ever care to engage or accept that. 

What could be happening, though, is that creators are using AI to create foundations for their ideas, to express themselves. I don’t see anything wrong with that. AI can assist in ways a human might right now, like helping you clarify the vocal in a mix or find sounds faster. Some DJs use AI to pull acapellas apart from instrumentals and create remixes. In that way, AI is a great tool, especially for learning how a song’s anatomy works.

It’s been useful for me, too. I’ve used AI to pull apart acapella from my own song that I didn’t have before. Like I said, it’s a tool—a useful one. But we can’t be naive. People will always use tools in ways that may not be ethical, just like some people put pineapple on pizza. They’ll find ways to change the original intent.

— It’s here to stay, right?

— Yes, that’s my perspective — it’s here to stay. It’s not going anywhere. But I think we can create regulations to prohibit the ways AI can be taken advantage of and how it can exploit the music industry.

— They say it’s the first criminal case on such a matter. Do you think there might be more regulations in the future?

— Absolutely, because the reason why this is a big deal is that a tech company got outsmarted by another tech person. The tech company is only concerned about algorithms and nuances that feed the popular algorithm. And if someone used AI to generate content that they didn’t have to work hard to create and were able to amass a catalog in a very short amount of time to create the result they wanted... Which was, what, millions of dollars?

So, it was a very smart move, but we’ve all thought about this. Creators have thought about, "What if there’s a way to generate 100 songs in an hour?" Which I’ve seen done. And there’s a way to populate them onto distribution platforms and yield a monetary result. But to falsify or claim that these are artists, that these are real people, is very misleading. Because at the end of the day, you want to become a fan of something you heard and follow up on it. Even if it’s a one-hit wonder, you still want to know, "Oh, this person eats food, breathes air, feels emotions, and has a life or had a life," you know what I mean?

— Created artists just don’t offer that…

— Exactly. Even with holographic artists and digital models on Instagram — I’ve seen it with The Sims. People ask, "What if we create artists within these Sims and do concerts?" That’s gamifying, though. Could it ever reach mainstream? I don’t know, but it depends on what your metric of mainstream is. There could be 500 million people over in China who love AI-created or virtual artists, you know? They might treat these artists like video game characters. But that’s the extent of it. 

At the end of the day, you can only go so far in loving a digitally created character. But if it’s a real person you could possibly see at Starbucks down the street — that’s a whole other level of connection.

I think as human beings, we’ll always love that connection. That’s what makes us human — that love of physical connection, the possibility that we can be 20 feet away from our favorite artist or celebrity. That’s why we buy tickets — because we might get close enough to touch their sweat or catch the towel they throw from the stage. Those are the memories we create. That's why the relationship between the artist and the fan is so important. There’s so ЦКmething physical there, like looking into the eyes of your audience. That’s a big thing.