Listen to the AI generated podcast on this article:
We live in AI’s Golden Age #
We are currently in the Golden Age of AI. What does that mean? It means we’re living in a special place, a bridge between what has always been, and what will be. In the past, man has created all of his own art, whether that be poetry, painting, photography, sculpture, music, and even programming (those who code understand what I mean). In the future, the best of all of this may be generated artificially. It is quite possible we reach a place where man is less qualified, less artistic, less creative, less thought provoking, etc. when compared to AI.
In our current Golden Age, the bridge exists between man and machine. Machines (AI) can now rapidly create almost all artforms quickly and with increasing accuracy and quality. But the best “art” coming from these generative platforms is still being prompted by man.
As a generative platform, today’s AI does not create or innovate the way that man does. Man has a huge leg up in terms of creativity and quality of idea.
We the people, can create quicker than ever – and it’s a problem #
And thanks to the platforms AI provides, creative people can now innovate and generate at unprecedented speeds. And for corporations whom have made billions as distributors, talent scouts, and producers, the ability for you and I to create and distribute on our own is a Major Threat to their bottom line.
Corporations seeks to shift control left #
In various software development methodologies, we have a saying called “shift left”. This basically implies that if you want to control different aspects of software being created by your team, you want to shift control points, or process earlier (or left) in your development cycle.
In the world of AI, copyright holders and seeing a real and tangible threat to their dollars. The ease at which something can now be created, and distributed, and even monotized at an independent level is staggering compared to just 5 years ago. Earlier this month it was reported that The #1 Country Song in the country was AI generated .
This becomes a giant threat to these production/distribution companies. And as always, instead of embracing the future and trying to adjust their business model and find new ways to work, they instead seek to stop creativity and rights ownership at the source.
Media attention is being suppressed #
Most of these large corporations (Universal, Warner, Paramount, etc.) control news media, and have a huge hand in how information is presented and distributed… or what information isn’t widely distributed. But the evidence is out there, that these companies are increasingly seeking to control not only the means of production, but now the means of creativity and innovation themselves.
In just the last few months, we have seen various attempts to control how someone can create or interact with generative or creative medium, and in most cases this involves a rework of terms-of-service which remove your personal ownership rights over the creations you produce:
- Adobe adds access rights to your media
- Udio partners with UMG - Takes ownership rights / Removes Download Capabilities
- Anthropic CEO wants LLM regulation and no open source options
- Suno partners with Warner - Will remove ownership rights / Limits Downloads / Will cripple models
Many, if not all, major publication editions of these stories and more, attempt to spin these “partnerships” and “calls for regulation” into positives for the consumer, or artist protection. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is all about the money #
It is hard to find a case where a large media company attempts to seize control of the creative process that doesn’t tie back to simple dollars and control. In the case of the Udio and Suno takeovers, both claim that they are trying to protect the artists. Both plan to strip rights to ownership and distribution from their terms of service for creators, and protect their artists with an option to opt-out of having their music included in any future AI capabilities.
However, what will opt-out mean for an artist? Artists who opt-in will probably be offered the deal of a proportionally small amount (compared to the record company) of royalties when someone wants to generate a song in their likeness. Opt out and get zero. It’s the same deal that record companies give them for making albums. It’s the same control and hold-hostage deal that has made so many artists hate the recording industry to begin with. It has made many bands stop releasing studio albums, and even change their names to try and get out of recording contracts. In the end, the only thing that matters is studio profit and control.
Toward Digital Freedom: What True Autonomy Requires #
True digital freedom means creators retain ownership of their work, control over distribution, and equitable compensation—not corporate oversight of the creative process. As AI tools become more accessible, the industry’s path forward must prioritize enabling creators rather than controlling them. The question isn’t whether AI will transform creativity—it already has. The real challenge is ensuring this transformation empowers all creators, not just those who can navigate corporate gatekeeping.
The future of digital freedom depends on whether we build systems that treat creators as partners, not as revenue streams to be managed.
