So as everybody probably already knows, the Khan family took the stage during the DNC and had a few choice words for Donald J. Trump. It was a huge moment for the DNC during an otherwise troubling convention. In a time of email scandals, and DNC chairs stepping down, this story took off. Khan had two main issues with the Republican nominee. Khan feels as though Trump has no idea what true sacrifice is, and that Trump has not actually read the United States constitution. It's entirely possible that this story would not be as big as it is today if Trump had not responded. In interviews, Trump refuted the claim that he has never actually sacrificed anything by stating that he has, then going on to say that he's created countless jobs. I'm sorry Mr. Trump, but as great as the act of creating jobs is, it is no sacrifice, especially not one on or anywhere near the level of the Khan family's. Trump would also say on Twitter that Khizer Khan had no right to publicly attack him on stage as he did. Well, Mr. Trump, actually he did. It is right there in the first amendment: the freedom of speech. Even if Trump were to claim that it is slander and defamation, the first amendment was designed with the purpose of allowing citizens like Khizer Khan to criticize public officials and leaders, which Trump is in the process of running for. The slander bit might have stuck if Trump were merely a businessman, but the second he decided to run for office, he opened himself up to the critics. Now because of the back and forth between the two, Trump appears nearly inhuman to some. It is now a business man versus the family of a fallen hero... that narrative doesn't look too good on Trump's end. Trump's public policies and his comments are alienating not only the people of this nation, but the people of his own party as well. Trump has publicly attacked Senator John McCain before, stating that he prefers his soldiers not to be captured, insinuating that McCain was a failure as war hero. This new attack on soldiers seems to be the final straw for McCain, as he now publicly denounced Trump. The speaker of the house has also publicly denounced Trump after the candidate's attacks on the integrity of a fallen hero. This has turned itself into a huge issue, one that could have been avoided by Trump simply stating that he feels for the Khan family, or by ignoring it all together. So in a long line of political gaffs by the Republican nominee, one can only guess if the latest mistake will be the one to derail Trump on his run to the White House.
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![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.]()
