In this day in time it is critical for one to shine a spotlight on those individuals who exemplify integrity, and whose moral and legal principles cannot be purchased. It was just announced this morning that an ex whistle blower who worked in risk analysis for Deutsche Bank during the financial crisis has rejected a $16.5 million reward from the SEC for his role in exposing fraudulent behavior within Deutsche Bank. In order to clarify the order of events on the matter let us start with the beginning. Like many large investment banks, during the crisis Deutsche had poor performing credit derivatives on their balance sheet, and for fear of bankruptcy they falsified the value of these assets to their shareholders and market participants. Some examples of a credit derivative include credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. These are essentially value producing financial securities that trade on domestic and foreign exchanges. They act as insurance policies against loan portfolios that have the potential to default (ex: mortgages, possibly student loans etc). In this case they were mortgage backed securities. These credit derivatives once gave high returns, however, with the financial crisis and the general recognition of the toxic nature of mortgage loans, the value of these securities plummeted and Deutsche panicked. As a result they inflated the value of these securities on their books by $3.3 billion in order to avoid a potential bailout. In 2012, two whistle blowers, one by the name of Eric Ben-Artzi, called attention to this fraudulent behavior. As a result there was an investigation by the SEC, however coincidentally, Deutsche's top lawyers had been vacillating in and out of positions at the SEC and also within Deutsche Bank. Naturally a conflict of interest and corrupt interpretation of legal precedent ensued as a result. Ultimately the bank was fined $55 million for their illegal activity, no one went to jail, and none of the managers who benefited from inflated portfolios lost any personal funds, whereas the shareholders were the ones to actually pay for the mistakes. It was just announced today that Eric has declined his $16.5 million compensation from Congress upon principle and to protest the corruption behind the punishment to Deutsche Bank. He did write a letter
stating his position.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.]()
