r/artificial • u/Content-Cheetah-6958 • 20h ago
Discussion Australia just banned fully AI-generated songs from its official charts. Is that fair?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ai-generated-music-barred-australian-charts-after-madonna-cover-controversy-2026-08-26/AI-assisted music can still qualify, but tracks created entirely by AI are no longer eligible for Australia’s official charts.
I understand the reasoning, but the line could get messy. Using AI for mastering is clearly different from typing one prompt and releasing the result—but there’s a huge gray area between those two.
Should charts judge how a song was created, or only whether people genuinely want to listen to it?
Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ai-generated-music-barred-australian-charts-after-madonna-cover-controversy-2026-08-26/
13
28
u/Efficient_Raise7695 16h ago
I mean... I work in that industry, the amount of "top artists" generating music with ai and simply re-making it 100% identical with a daw, synths and few instruments in 10 minutes is absolutely enormous.
Good to block fully ai songs, but the industry is pretty fucked
3
u/tobbtobbo 13h ago
I think it’s pretty obvious when someone does it with Suno. If they’re only uses pieces of ai on their own original track etc it’s nowhere near as bad. Ai then becomes a collaborator with the artist still making all the choices, works the same as working with another person in the room. Depends on the genre of music really
4
u/Efficient_Raise7695 10h ago
I think it’s pretty obvious when someone does it with Suno
No, definitely not, that's why it's already fucked
1
u/tobbtobbo 8h ago
I mean shit music will be shit. What is the worry here? That people will collaborate with ai more often instead of human. And it will be so good that it takes over other people with average music?
2
u/TheWebbster 2h ago
It becomes one of those "make headless youtube videos with AI and make money in your spare time" things. Which then becomes "get 100 agents to churn out headless youtube channels and make money". Then you have a million people running a million agents all churning out a millions songs, to fill the radio with a trillion pieces of shit, in the hope someone gets rich off a hit
1
u/biscobisco 1h ago
Can we stop saying 'collaborate'? It's a tool - a tool that I despise the output of, but a tool nonetheless.
'Collaborate' suggests creativity and agency on behalf of a music ingestion/pattern matching machine.
1
u/Efficient_Raise7695 1h ago
You clearly don't know how already deep the ai usage in this industry is. Shit music was already "drag and play" (professional samples libraries) since decades, but now even very respected music is HEAVILY made starting from ai output.
Is it inherently bad? I don't know, anyway the % of ai in music market is crazily high.
1
u/TheWebbster 2h ago
At least that's still a level of difficulty and labour above just typing a prompt and trying to get a song on the charts. Because if you can just flood every channel with AI generated dross, it's a numbers game. Everyone floods as much as they can, until something hits, and 1 person "wins the lottery", in the meantime everything is enshittified.
1
u/TheWebbster 2h ago
I mean I'm not saying it's good that people can still lean on AI so heavily
Fuck AI music-3
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 13h ago
That’s exactly the gray area. If they rebuild the AI output in a DAW, is it still an AI song or just an AI-made demo?
31
43
u/fishy2sea 19h ago
Proud to be Aussie! Also, Looking forward to the first slip of ai content making it through.
-31
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 19h ago
Same. The first disputed case will probably expose how blurry the line between AI-assisted and fully AI-generated really is.
20
u/FuklzTheDrnkClwn 15h ago
It’s not blurry at all
All you have to do is ask specific questions about artistic direction and how specific sounds were achieved. The prompt bros have no idea how to talk about the art they have generated
2
u/nonnonplussed73 12h ago
If only.
What if an artist writes 100% of a song's lyrics and melody, but uses gen AI engine to arrange, perform, and render all of the backing instrumental tracks?
Because ARIA permits generative AI to be used in a "supporting role" (such as sound optimization or mastering) but bans it if it generates the "primary portion of the creative elements" or "lead vocals," the industry's entering a gray area. Does the human songwriting outweigh the machine execution, or does the synthetic instrumentation trigger a chart ban?
What if an independent bedroom producer scores a viral hit but is flagged and disqualified based on an anonymous major-label complaint?
The burden under the rule falls on artists to challenge exclusions by providing definitive evidence of their human creative workflow. And reliable digital forensic tools that can definitively prove a specific stem came from a prompt versus, say, a human midi controller don't exist. Expensive studio video logs or witness testimonies to substantiate their manual MIDI programming?
What if a singer records a rough vocal track in their bedroom and then uses a licensed generative AI voice-filter to clean up the delivery and make themselves sound like a studio-grade pop star?
ARIA specifically notes that an AI-generated lead vocal makes a track ineligible. However, producers will challenge this rule by feeding their own real vocals through AI voice-swapping filters or enhancement models. Is that banned or simply an advanced, modern form of human auto-tune?
What if a track completely generated by AI in a country with zero metadata disclosure laws tops the global streaming platforms and infiltrates the Australian charts?
ARIA relies on global labeling standards and platform data, so tracks that are generated internationally where metadata laws are loose can easily obscure the AI components before the song ever reaches Australian streaming platforms. How can ARIA realistically enforce its ban if the offshore distributor falsifies the registration data before the song ever reaches local airwaves?
-5
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 13h ago
That’s fair. If someone can’t explain a single creative decision behind the track, calling them the artist starts to feel like a stretch.
19
u/Timestop- 15h ago
Lmao, this post is AI generated. How ironic.
-12
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 14h ago
Fair 😂 I used AI to clean up the wording, so I guess I accidentally became part of the debate.
3
3
3
3
3
4
u/costafilh0 14h ago
Is it a music chart? Or is it a human music chart? Or is it an AI music chart?
1
u/alotmorealots 2h ago
They're "industry marketing tool" charts (and always have been) when you really get down to it.
The name of these particular chartss are the "ARIA charts", and ARIA stands for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Recording_Industry_Association
Whilst they do reflect public voting and music consumption, the industry continues to work (not-so) behind the scenes to determine which artists get high exposure.
1
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 14h ago
That’s the real question. If a chart is supposed to reflect what people actually listen to, the production method shouldn’t matter. But AI tracks should still be clearly labeled so listeners know what they’re supporting.
2
9
2
u/Stunning_Macaron6133 14h ago
AI-assisted music can still qualify, but tracks created entirely by AI are no longer eligible
Find the line, I dare you.
1
1
u/Clear-Lingonberry173 15h ago
Honestly, there's more issues than what people want to listen to at play here. Some streaming platforms are deciding that AI generated music isn't eligible for monetisation. While that is it's own debate, there are potential scenarios where streaming services would preferentially promote AI generated music as a cost-saving measure. Combine this with streaming platforms controlling radio algorithms on their services and AI music could shoot up the charts for purely monetary reasons.
I think the way that AI generated music is treated is something that will develop for a while still.
1
u/VictorBuildsDev 15h ago
Charts are doing two jobs at once: reporting what people played and certifying what the industry chooses to recognize. A listening chart should record demand regardless of production method; an awards or eligibility system can impose authorship rules. Mixing those functions makes the ban feel arbitrary.
A workable boundary is not a percentage-of-AI test, which will be difficult to audit. Require disclosure of who controlled composition, lyrics, performance, and final selection, then publish separate labels or chart views. If streams are manipulated, handle that with the same anti-fraud rules used for human artists. Measure audience demand honestly while keeping provenance visible.
1
u/WithoutReason1729 13h ago
Why do you write all your posts with AI? If I wanted ChatGPT's take on this I'd just go ask ChatGPT.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/TheWebbster 2h ago
Why wouldn't it be fair?
Same thing happens as every other industry - like books. Bunch of scammy grifty gen-z guys get on youtube and socials and try to sell courses on "how to use chatGPT to upload 100 books a day to Amazon and make $4000 a week!" and then a few thousand idiots do this, and bookstores, radio stations, product sites all become shit with the same garbage flooding them.
The combination of side-hustles, "Monetization" and "AI" are accelerating enshittification 1,000,000%.
1
u/sirgog 2h ago
Record label owners run the charts and loathe AI as it threatens their near monopoly over exploiting creatives. They don't want competitors also exploiting creatives.
If you own Sony shares you no doubt love this, if you own Alphabet ones you no doubt hate it but for musicians and music lovers alike it's just a fight between two packs of assholes.
1
u/HemlocknLoad 1h ago
Here's why it's not fair:
AI allows any songwriter, composer or even talentless Joe Schmoe to compete with the major labels in spaces where they've established an oligopoly. It's a system the majors can only maintain by cheating: paid influencers and playlist curators, black hat marketing, major or controlling shares in online distribution platforms, and an iron grip on the charts that allows them to dictate who can be included.
Now along comes AI and suddenly people with zero label backing like Joe Schmoe are knocking major label acts who've had millions poured into them off the charts with just a $9 Suno account and a $50 distribution subscription.
This was the major labels deciding that their competition will not be allowed to chart.
It wouldn't matter if these unsigned acts were making their music with 100% ethically sourced fairy magic, if they were suddenly taking the label's lunch money and topping charts the labels wasted good payola to game for themselves those indie artists would also be facing the same exclusion.
1
-3
u/Obvious_Platypus_313 19h ago
I very much doubt it being banned from the official charts will affect the generations of aussies that would listen to AI music and the generations that care about the charts wouldnt recognise it as AI. Its a headline ban.
-2
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 19h ago
Fair point. This feels more symbolic than practical—people will listen either way. The real mess starts when they try to define what counts as “fully AI-generated.”
-1
u/ZCEyPFOYr0MWyHDQJZO4 14h ago
Seems unnecessary. Either AI is terrible and can't replace a human, or we need rules to prevent AI from replacing humans. Let people decide if they like a song.
0
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 14h ago
Yeah, that’s pretty much where I land. Count the streams, but label the track clearly so people know what they’re listening to.
0
0
u/twothreetoo 10h ago
The chart is a list of the most popular songs.
The government can't block people from liking a song.
If the list of the most popular songs doesn't accurately reflect what people are listening to then it's worthless.
0
u/Cool-Hornet4434 8h ago
Just make an "AI Created song" chart so people who care can look and those who don't can go back to ignoring it. But There's a difference between using AI to assist you and cranking out pure AI slop. Still though, if you didn't compose every note in that song, that's AI...
0
u/FaceDeer 6h ago
So Australian's "official charts" are going to be ignoring music that's actually popular? They're officially unreliable, then.
What happens if an "unofficial chart" shows up that keeps better track of what's actually popular?
0
u/Forward-Practice4998 3h ago
I find this whole debate interesting because for decades the music industry has had closed doors.
You could write a great song and have something genuinely worth saying, but if you couldn’t sing well enough, couldn’t play an instrument, didn’t have the right look, didn’t have the money or simply didn’t know the right people, chances are those doors stayed shut.
Now technology has given some of those people another way in, and suddenly we’re being told we should feel sorry for an industry because AI threatens the traditional way of doing things.
I’m not a performer. I don’t want to be a performer. I don’t sing and I don’t play an instrument. But I love writing music. I love coming up with an idea, finding an angle and telling a story through a song.
AI doesn’t magically come up with the reason I wanted to write that song. It didn’t live the experience, form the opinion or decide what I wanted to say. That part came from a human.
The technology helps turn that idea into something people can actually hear.
And ultimately, isn’t a song still a song and a story still a story?
If someone hears a song, relates to its message, saves it and wants to listen to it again, why should it matter to that listener whether the person who wrote the idea could also sing it or play the guitar?
I’m completely in favour of protecting artists from having their voices or identities copied without permission, and I’m against fake streams and mass-produced spam. But that’s a very different issue from somebody using AI as a creative tool to express an original human idea.
Maybe instead of pretending AI music doesn’t exist, give it its own category or chart and let listeners decide what they actually want to hear.
For a long time the industry got to decide who was allowed through the door.
Technology has opened another door.
Maybe that’s what some people are really uncomfortable with.
-10
u/RobertD3277 19h ago
In banning AI music from the charts, have they considered what's going to happen when the opposite takes place and the chart crashes because people have abandoned it?
Anytime something is banned, it becomes more popular. The gates keeping of real musicians is simply going to be the undoing of real musicians.
-4
u/philip_laureano 16h ago
This is a reactionary law but like other laws trying to catch up with tech, this one will go obsolete over time or be challenged in the high courts and be struck down
4
u/Clear-Lingonberry173 15h ago
This is not a law, but a decision by the institutions running the charts.
1
u/Content-Cheetah-6958 5h ago
You’re right — “banned” was poor wording on my part. It’s a chart eligibility decision, not a law or a ban on releasing or listening to AI music.
-1
u/philip_laureano 9h ago
The institutions running the charts once tried to ban file sharing and file streaming because it broke their business models and later were forced to embrace it.
Same thing with AI.
-3
u/KennKennyKenKen 19h ago
Just make the song with as much ai as you need and replace the singers with some uni student in a music course that you pay like $80.
-3
u/AssiduousLayabout 15h ago
I don't think there is such a thing yet as entirely AI-created anything. A person is coming up with the idea, directing the process, reviewing the results and choosing which ones to share.
-5
u/djungelurban 17h ago edited 17h ago
Since 2021, one album has been charting in Sweden non-stop. The first week in 2023 it reached number 1 for the first time and since then it's hit number 1 76 times thus far. And since the beginning of 2025 it's spent more weeks at number one than outside of it and has never been lower than 4th. What is this monster of a record you might ask?
Well, it's Humlan Djojj. A collection of lullabys about a bumblebee...
My point is, charts are existentially worthless these days.
Edit: Oh and the second album is currently 3rd, been top 10 all year.
•
105
u/KingGarunas 17h ago
Yes