They are soulless because often they are AI covers of existing songs trying to mimic the original artist so that they get substituted in as replacements for the original with limited realization on the part of the average listener.

Which of course that means the AI covers get the listens and the associated revenue instead of the original artist.

So instead of listening to "System of a Down", you get a cover from the AI artist "System of the Down" and now that you listened to that cover you start getting more covers in your recommended from them and eventually you are getting covers from them instead of from the real band since you started listening to them instead.

And even if it's not that extreme, the listener is getting served these knock off covers with no actual person behind them. If the listeners don't realise that's what's happening it will reflect poorly on the original creator and hurt their listenership (which wouldn't be impacted if shitty AI covers weren't being subbed in).

It even gets to the point that now you have artists who have upcoming albums and AI cover artist bots scrape the song list and upload auto generated "covers" of the unreleased original song to try and capture listens that would go to the original artist while people go to pull their music up prior to, on, and after release day of their new album.

Overwhelmingly AI songs on Spotify are autogenerated slop from bots trying to leech off of actual artists by creating a shitty knock off to skim some cash out of those artists' paycheck. (This is distinct from actual cover artists who at least contribute their own unique human touch to the covers).

If you want to make music and you happen to use AI in the process then whatever but Spotify has a major AI cover/clone problem.

▲

threepts 5 hours ago | parent [-]

"soulless" is a term YOU label people with for enjoying a certain type of music. This is your problem, not the people's problem for enjoying this sort of music.

But I agree with your second point, an AI should NOT BE able to mimic a brand/personality such that it brings harm to them.

Your third point, actually it is NOT distinct from actual cover artists, because if I tomorrow pick a system of the down hum and then remix it and it gets popular, their automated DRM system will probably C&D me and their label sue me to oblivion using the same AI.

	▲	OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> system of the down System of a Down > then remix it and it gets popular, their automated DRM system will probably C&D me and their label sue me to oblivion using the same AI. Yes it will because remixing is not a cover. Remixing is a derivative work of the recording and therefore is subject to the terms of the mechanical license on the recording itself. The copyright on a recording is legally distinct from the copyright on the composition (the melody and lyrics). You are protected under a provision of the Copyright Act of 1909 to modify and perform your own renditions of the original composition (provided it has been recorded previously). Provided you supply some level of original creative input and don't use the recording in your work, the original rights holder are required to provide you at no cost what is called a "mechanical license" for your cover granting you the right to distribute and sell the recording of your copyright. In the past, granting of mechanical licenses was between parties (i.e. IP holder reaches out when they discover you made a cover and they grant you a license or you go to court and the court grants you the license. But as of 2021 a non profit body was formed under the guidance of the federal government to handle the blanket granting of mechanical licenses to any and all human covers (provided they did not use the original recording in their work). If you sample the original work at all then you are now creating a derivative work of the recording and you must negotiate for a mechanical license (which is not required to be free). Likewise if you remix it.