Ex Stanford swimmer Brock Turner. Former Vanderbilt football player Branden Vandenburg. Loyola University's golfer Benjamin Holm. At first glance, this may appear as a list of college athletes. In reality, this is a list of white college men who have been charged with the rape of innocent women. Every time you see a headline involving rape and a college athlete, the latter title comes first. When reporters place the school and sport before the actual crime, they are distracting readers from the actual issue. This is a public relations mind-trick employed to humanize the perpetrator while normalizing rape culture across college campuses.
By listing the man's accomplishment before his heinous act, it provides protection. As if to say, "boys will be boys" because an athlete cannot be held responsible for raping an unconscious girl, or holding the video camera while his friends do. Maybe he was too tired from his early morning practice to know right from wrong. Maybe there was peer pressure from his teammates to break laws and break lives. This mentality demonstrates the acceptance of rape culture and diminishes the severity of this crime. Providing these men excuses is the last thing this society needs. They need jail time that lasts longer than three months (if it even happens at all). They need to understand that just because they think they are a superstar on their campus does not guarantee immunity. Being an athlete should be a symbol of leadership and morale, but instead becomes an alibi for getting away with evil.
When did it become acceptable for society to value sports more than the safety of women? It seems that the world consistently sides with the male athlete over the woman for a variety of reasons that are incomprehensible. "She was drunk" and "did you see what she was wearing?" are not excuses for sexual assault. It does not matter if the man plays a sport, runs a club, commutes from home, shared his math notes with you that one time, or bought you a drink: no means no. Just because someone plays a sport does not change the meaning of the word. As a society, it is time to stop cushioning the blow of rape culture by using titles to defend the guilty.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Politics and Activism![Jenna Pizzi and her mom smiling by a waterfront with a historic ship in the background.]()
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
