Video summary
Madonna expresses strong concerns regarding the current state of artificial intelligence in music creation, specifically highlighting the ethical issue of companies building billion-dollar businesses on top of artists' work without providing any compensation to those creators. While she acknowledges that AI tools offer exciting opportunities for new musicians to experiment with writing songs and creating beats for the first time, she firmly opposes a business model where entities like Suno utilize global music libraries while paying zero dollars to the original artists. She emphasizes that this situation is unacceptable and must be resolved by ensuring systems exist that allow artists to opt out of having their work used or, if they choose to participate, guaranteeing them fair payment for it.
To illustrate her point about how legal frameworks can evolve around new technologies, Madonna draws a parallel between the early days of Napster and the rise of Spotify. She recalls meeting with Shawn Fanning when file-sharing was illegal but exciting, noting that while those platforms eventually shut down due to lack of viable compensation models, Daniel Ek succeeded by creating an ecosystem where users paid for access because it provided clean, reliable music without legal risks. Madonna argues that a similar breakthrough is needed in the AI sector; she believes companies can and should figure out how to pay artists fairly if they wish to train their models on existing catalogs, rather than relying on loopholes or "fair use" arguments which she contends are not actually fair when entire businesses profit from stolen creative labor.
The conversation also touches upon the technical workarounds currently being used by AI companies to bypass copyright restrictions, such as misspelling artist names like Metallica or describing them vaguely instead of using their actual identities. Madonna points out that these tactics allow platforms to claim they are not serving copyrighted material while still effectively training on specific artists' styles and data, a practice she finds deeply problematic given the sheer volume of AI-generated music being produced every two weeks compared to all current Spotify content. She warns against letting major tech giants like OpenAI or Anthropic become gatekeepers that incentivize other companies to ignore artist rights, urging instead for direct solutions where platforms remove artists who do not wish to participate and create a straightforward payment structure for those who agree to be included.
Ultimately, Madonna's stance is clear: she does not care how much money an AI company offers her; what matters is the principle that her music should remain its own thing without being used as raw material for their algorithms. She challenges industry leaders to sit down and solve this issue within a few days by locking themselves in a room until they devise a system that respects artist autonomy, noting even figures like Sam Altman have previously dedicated time to finding ways AI could support rather than exploit creators. While she remains hopeful that the next generation of music platforms or current giants like Spotify will eventually crack the code on sustainable compensation models, her immediate message is one of firm refusal and a call for accountability from companies sitting at the top of this lucrative opportunity.
Read the full video transcript
Well, Guy, I mean, we've covered a lot
of ground. Is there anything else that
you would
like to say before we start landing the
plane?
>> I'd say that
AI and music content it's
on one level exciting that
so many people are experimenting
writing songs for the first time
>> Mhm.
>> writing beats, creating sounds for the
first time. That's pretty exciting. At
the same time, the idea that there's
companies out there
valued at billions of dollars
that are built on the top of
other people's music
where not one artist has ever gotten
paid a dollar
is not okay.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I don't want to bundle it all up
where people get that's all becomes one
thing. It's not all one thing. Mikey, he
runs Suno. He's a great guy. I mean,
great guy like I really like him as a
person. But every time I read about the
company and it's now at a $5 billion
valuation and next thing you know it's
at a $10 billion valuation and it's all
built off of
the world's music
but yet not one music artist has gotten
a dollar.
>> Mhm.
>> So, that's not okay. That has to be
fixed. I'm hoping Mikey does the right
thing and fixes that, comes up with a
system
>> Mhm.
>> that allows
artists, if they want to opt in, either
let them opt out, do not use my music to
build your business.
Okay?
I'm opting out. But if I opt in, find a
way to pay us.
>> Mhm.
>> And I'm really concerned for that.
Because the other part, which is
right now currently
every 2 weeks
more music is made on AI than all of the
music
that's on Spotify today.
That's every 2 weeks.
And all of that is going somewhere,
and people are inspired, and they're
creating songs. Awesome.
But don't build a business
using our music
without getting those rights. And that's
something I'm that I'm been trying to
work on for a long time. I've met with
Mikey many times.
I've met with lots of people many times.
I I hope that this gets solved. You
know, when Napster first started, I met
with Shawn and Shawn when they started
cuz it was so exciting to see people
were all, you know, downloading music,
but it was illegal. So, you were hoping
they'd crack the code on, okay, how do
you turn this into how artists get paid?
And before they
I don't know if they were going to or
not going to, but before it that could
even happen, it got shut down.
So, and out of nowhere,
Daniel Ek in Stockholm
built Spotify and figured out that
people would pay for music
if you give it to them in this way where
they had all the music in the world
without having to try to piece it
together or try to illegally download
songs that were not even clean or clear,
and they it could be corrupt.
To get it clean, to hold on to it,
they'll pay for it. And he was right.
They have paid for it. Now, are all the
payment plans there picture perfect? No.
But it is the core of where money is
coming in today. It's to music artists
through streaming.
And I'm hoping that
people figure out how if you're going to
be using people's music, how you pay for
it.
>> Yeah.
>> Fair use is not fair.
>> Yeah, I'm curious to see where it goes
because if you say, create a song that
sounds like Metallica, it'll say we
cannot serve up any copyrighted music.
If you say serve me up some music that
sounds like Moralica and you
just misspell it then lo and behold
though it looks like it was trained.
>> Yeah, that's the problem.
>> There's a lot of workarounds and they'll
you know you'll they'll look you in the
eye and tell you no no you can't you
cannot type in Madonna.
>> Yeah.
>> But you can sort of describe Madonna.
The problem is is when in in discovery
we're going to find out a lot.
>> Sure.
>> And discovery is going to say
all of
this music is in there. And they know
that.
>> Yeah.
>> And
that's not okay. It's just like
literally not okay. I don't understand
it. And by the way, what's wrong with
paying artists?
>> Yeah.
>> Why not figure out a way to do it? Sit
down with a team, figure out how to pay
music artists if you're going to train
on their music.
>> Where do you think it goes because I
could see one future for instance even
if
legally they aren't required or for
whatever reason that's not compatible
with the vision they've pitched to
investors and
and I'm not singling out Suno. I mean
there are lots of lots of different
options here.
>> They're the main ones.
>> They're the big they're the 800 pound
gorilla. But I could see a point at
which
possibly
Claude, Chat GPT become the interfaces
to everything, right? It's almost like
the App Store but
somewhat like WeChat in China. Like if
you want to do anything, you want to
book a restaurant, you want to make a
song
>> Okay.
>> there are few interfaces to everything
at which point then
those companies, right? OpenAI,
Anthropic
>> Mhm.
>> can gatekeep in some way and maybe they
end up being the entities that
incentivize these other companies like
the Sunos of the world
to
to reimburse artists. So I guess I'm
just wondering if you have any thoughts
on how it gets there.
>> Yeah. Because if if Claude or Chat is a
distribution, they probably won't carry
it because it's it's got so many
lawsuits involved and it's just not
worth
taking on that responsibility. And
again, the guy who runs Suno, I find him
to be a really good guy and I'm hoping
that he does the right thing. But it's
really their responsibility. They're
they're sitting at the the top of this
opportunity.
Take off the artists that don't want to
be on there
and find a way to pay the ones that are
okay being on there. It's that simple.
It's not complicated. I think go in a
room, lock yourself in a room for 3 days
and come out and figure out how to pay
people and take people off that don't
want to be on there. Madonna does not
want her music trained on.
Don't care what you want to pay her.
She's very clear, I do not want my music
to be trained on. I want my music to be
its own thing.
So take her off. It's okay. You you'll
still do fine. Take her off. You don't
have to have
her music. So
where this goes, but this is I've been
the last few years I've really tried to
figure this out and even, you know, Sam
at one point, he's really wanted to
figure this out too. Like Sam was A lot
of people give him a hard time on this
stuff, but he really did dedicate
time to try and figure out if there was
a music thing to do, how to do it in a
way that supported
artists.
>> Yeah, I mean there may be someone who
comes along also if it's not Suno,
someone who comes from behind like a
next generation Spotify
and figures out how to do it.
>> Spotify can do it.
>> Yes, if Spotify can do it.
>> Yeah.