For over a decade, the world has seen YouTube as one of the top media consumption platforms in existence. With hundreds of YouTubers now able to support a stable livelihood off of the monetization of their videos, the new Youtube update to the terms of service raises concerns.
As it turns out, YouTube has been demonetizing videos that it deems “not advertiser-friendly” for a while now. However, creators haven’t been aware of this and have been losing out on a lot of money.
As YouTuber Philip Defranco reported in his daily show on August 31, YouTubers have only become aware of this due to the new YouTube update. While he discusses how YouTube is far within their rights to make these changes to the terms of service since it’s a business and private website, the ethics are another discussion entirely.
DeFranco, who has been on the website for over 10 years, has seen YouTube grow and change since the very beginning. Now, he is concerned about this new change and what it means for “the little guy." Defranco, who owns clothing and merchandise company For Human Peoples, doesn’t solely rely on YouTube for his income but is concerned about those who might just be starting on YouTube and can no longer say whatever they want because their content may not be monetizable.
YouTube is a place for anyone to create a space to share their ideas and discuss the world around them. From channels that talk about gaming, cooking, unboxing, makeup and so much more, viewers can find almost anything on YouTube. However, it’s a concern to the public that now the pool of ideas might become tainted. “The little guy” might not want to say everything on their mind because they are more concerned with being able to generate revenue from advertising on their video.
Other YouTubers, such as makeup guru Jeffree Star, have commented saying that their videos have been flagged or listed as age-restricted due to the content in the videos, whereas this might not have been the case before the update.
Besides the fear of censorship in the content that viewers can possibly expect on YouTube, there is also the conversation behind the fact that apparently, YouTube has been demonetizing videos for a while, and only now will YouTube email a creator saying that their video cannot be monetized. This has caused creators to lose lots of money over the years, potentially without their knowledge. Again, this affects those who potentially depend on YouTube and the monetization of their videos for their livelihood.
As of now, the new YouTube update allows creators to appeal if they believe that their videos are in fact “ad-friendly," monetizable and within the terms of service.
YouTube is one of the most popular ways to reach the masses, and so what YouTube decides to do next will definitely have an impact on how viewers consume media. YouTube is more than just a business—it’s a platform for discussion and a pool of ideas. Hopefully, it’s also a place that experiences positive growth in the immediate future.
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
