The major record labels are furious. Universal, Sony, and Warner have filed massive lawsuits against AI companies like Suno and Udio. The accusation is clear: artificial intelligence is using copyrighted music to train its models without permission and without paying. The industry calls it unfair. They call it theft.
Yet amid all the noise about copyright and algorithms, there is one fundamental question that almost no one is asking:
How was the music of the major record labels created in the first place?
The answer is simple. Their own artists and producers made music based on what they had heard before. Just like AI today.
From Sampling to Artificial Intelligence
No music is created in a vacuum. Take Michael Jackson, the King of Pop himself. He did not become a genius out of thin air. He studied the footwork and vocal delivery of James Brown and Jackie Wilson down to the smallest detail. He drew inspiration from Diana Ross, the Bee Gees, Little Richard, and Chuck Berry. He absorbed millions of musical impressions, ran them through his own mind, and created something new.
Or look at Max Martin, the world’s most successful pop producer, who is behind countless chart-toppers for everyone from Britney Spears to The Weeknd. He has openly stated that he “steals” from the best.
Then there is sampling, a technique the major labels themselves have made billions from for decades. Sampling is quite simply “borrowing” pieces of other artists’ recordings and building a new song around them. Many of today’s biggest hits rely directly on classic tracks from the past.
AI is really just the natural continuation of this. The only difference is that while sampling cuts out an actual audio clip from an old song, an AI has merely listened to music to learn patterns, rhythms, and harmonies. It is not a break from music history. It is the next step in its evolution.
Money That Doesn’t Exist
So why is it celebrated as artistic genius when a human builds upon the music of others, yet branded as illegal copying when a machine does it? The answer can be summed up in a single word: Money.
The record labels claim they are suing AI companies to protect artists’ incomes. But let’s look at how artists are actually treated in today’s streaming system, which the labels themselves helped build and own major stakes in.
On platforms like Spotify, a song must reach at least 1,000 streams a year before the artist gets paid. If listeners play your song 999 times, you don’t get a single cent. Yet those listeners have paid their subscription fees to Spotify to access all the world’s music, and Spotify uses those very artists’ songs to generate that revenue.
For the artists who do cross the 1,000-stream threshold, the payout is often around a third of a cent per stream. Fractions of a cent. Coins that don’t even exist. If someone listens to your song three times, you are owed a penny, which buys you nothing. Who else in the world sells a product for money you can’t buy anything with in a store?
Double Standards Revealed in 2027
That this is entirely about control and money becomes even clearer when we look at what is happening in early 2027. Spotify plans to launch its own AI tool where users can pay extra to create their own AI remixes and covers of well-known songs.
And who has Spotify partnered with to make this happen? None other than the major record labels, such as Universal Music Group (they also own stakes in Spotify).
The setup is brilliant, for the giants. When you use Spotify’s AI to create a new remix of an old hit, the royalties and stream counts go straight back to the original track and the major rights holders.
The creator behind the remix gets pocket change, while the record labels rake in even more money from their back catalogs. Meanwhile, playlists get flooded with AI versions of old hits, making it even harder for new, independent artists to break into the market.
The Billion-Dollar Giant vs. Independent Creators
Suddenly, it looks as though both Spotify and the major labels are working against the artists of the future. They are not against AI music. They are only against AI music that they don’t own themselves.
The contrast becomes staggering when we look at where the money actually ends up. Today, Spotify is a stock market giant valued at around $125 billion. The company generated roughly €17.2 billion in revenue in 2025 and delivered a net profit of over €2.2 billion. In the third quarter of this year alone, they brought in €672 million in operating profit.
All of this is built on the music of artists. The very same artists who are paid zero dollars at 999 streams and invisible fractions of a cent after that.
Where Should the Money Go Now?
And this brings us to the most important question for the future of the music industry: Where should the money go?
Should streaming revenues continue to be funneled into a closed loop where stock market giants and major record labels take it all, while creators are left with crumbs?
Or will the AI revolution force a new reality where revenues go to those who actually create the new music people want to listen to today?
The record labels can sue all they want, but they cannot sue away progress. The question is no longer whether AI should be allowed to learn from music history. It already has. The question is who gets to keep the value when the hits of tomorrow are created.
Editorial Note: This article and its accompanying imagery were developed with the assistance of AI tools, under the strict editorial control, analysis, and factual verification of the author.
