North Carolina man Michael Smith, 52, was arrested on September 4 and charged with what can only be called a brand-new 21st century crime. What is it? He is alleged to have used artificial intelligence (AI) to create hundreds of thousands of pop songs that prosecutors say he streamed online billions of times.
The trouble is, prosecutors say, that Smith then collected more than $10 million in royalties that streaming services set aside to compensate actual human artists for their music.
Smith obviously sees this very differently, and said “there is absolutely no fraud going on whatsoever.” Indeed, it is not clear from reports exactly which laws Smith allegedly broke. It seems unlikely that laws have been written that specify that songs created by AI are not real songs, or that they are not eligible for compensation, though this case may be testing this out to establish a new legal precedent.
Smith is facing up to 60 years in prison on fraud and conspiracy charges. According to the indictment against him, Smith, who is a musician in real life with a small catalog, created tens of thousands of the tunes and streamed them “billions” of times online. Prosecutors say he bragged by email that he had made four billion streams that netted him $12 million in royalties since he started streaming in 2019.
Damian Williams, U.S. attorney, said in a press release that Smith’s alleged fraud had deprived legitimate musicians of millions in royalties that they were owed. The money came out of a pool meant to compensate songwriters and performers.
The head of the New York FBI office, Christie Curtis, said Smith used “automatic features” on streaming sites to continuously stream the songs and “generate unlawful royalties.” She said that the FBI is keen to detect people who game the system using “advanced technology to receive illicit profits” by depriving actual artists of the money to which they are rightfully entitled.
AI technology is so new and is growing so fast there is no way that laws can keep up with it. The technology is raising serious questions. Is it ethical or legal to use it for artistic endeavors? What about for generating news coverage? Cases like Michael Smith’s may lay the groundwork for a new legal landscape in this brave new world.
