Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteAI is neither automatically good nor bad for musicians. Its value depends on whether it assists accountable human creators, respects permission and identity rights, and improves the systems that match music to royalties. Its risks include unlicensed training, voice imitation, fraudulent releases, metadata errors and pressure on the limited revenue available to human-made music.
That is the practical significance of Daniel Abowd’s interview with TechBullion. Abowd combines experience as a musician and songwriter with his work as Royalty Network’s president and general counsel. His “people-first” argument is that new tools should strengthen—not replace—human authorship, informed consent, fair compensation and reliable administration. The interview is best read as an industry-insider perspective, then updated against the U.S. Copyright Office’s evolving work on digital replicas, AI-generated output and training data.
Who is Daniel Abowd?
Royalty Network identifies Daniel Abowd as its president and general counsel. The company describes him as a lifelong musician and songwriter, practicing attorney and trained litigator with experience in copyright, trademark, trade-secret and other intellectual-property matters. It also says he advises on protecting and enforcing client rights and participates in employee, client and business operations. Royalty Network’s team page provides those biographical and organizational details.
That combination matters. Abowd is not speaking only as a technology commentator. He is discussing AI from the overlapping viewpoints of a creator, rights lawyer, publisher and administrator. His statements are professional opinions, not binding legal authority or a consensus position for the music industry.
#1 Best Overall
Abowd’s framework: use the helpful tools, protect people from the harms
In the TechBullion interview, Abowd does not reject every use of artificial intelligence. He points to assistive applications such as editing, mastering and generating an initial building block that a songwriter substantially develops. He also sees potential for AI to improve copyright administration and monetization.
Assistive creation
An AI tool may help a human clean a recording, explore an arrangement or develop an idea. The relevant question is what the person actually contributed: lyrics, melody, arrangement, performance, production choices, selection, editing or transformation. A creator who makes the expressive decisions and can document them has a different authorship story from someone who releases an output generated almost entirely by a system.
Administrative automation
Less visible than song generation, administrative AI could identify recordings, reconcile ownership data, detect unauthorized uses, match usage reports and flag royalty anomalies. Better matching can mean fewer works sitting unclaimed and fewer disputes caused by inconsistent titles, writer names or identifiers.
The risks Abowd emphasizes
- Copyrighted music being copied into training datasets without permission.
- Voice, name, image, likeness or persona being imitated without authorization.
- Fraudulent releases and impersonation.
- Large volumes of inexpensive AI music competing for attention and streaming revenue.
- Metadata pollution that prevents the right people from being paid.
- Unclear ownership and commercial rights in machine-generated outputs.
These are risks and contested propositions, not universal legal conclusions. The legality of a particular training use depends on facts such as the source of the material, purpose of copying, market effects, licenses, jurisdiction and applicable contracts.
Rank #2
What “people-first” means in practice
Royalty Network presents its model as relationship-driven, independent, self-funded and family-owned. Abowd’s description emphasizes education, empathy, fairness, long-term relationships and helping writers understand both the value of their work and the value an administrator or publisher adds.
The company’s team description lists functions including administration, copyright and new media, distribution, creative work, catalog maintenance, licensing and client correspondence. Those roles illustrate what a people-first model would need to do operationally, but the available information does not establish service-level metrics, fee schedules, royalty-recovery rates, catalog size or a specific AI policy.
For any publisher or administrator, translate the slogan into questions:
- Are statements and deductions explained in language a songwriter can understand?
- Who corrects metadata and ownership disputes, and how are corrections tracked?
- Does the company help register works with the relevant collection systems?
- What rights remain with the creator?
- What are the commission, expenses, term, territory, audit and termination provisions?
- How does the agreement treat AI-assisted works, disclosures, warranties and confidential recordings?
Why the interview needs a 2026 legal update
The U.S. Copyright Office launched its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence initiative in 2023 and reports receiving more than 10,000 comments on its notice of inquiry. Its published timeline records:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →| Development | Date and significance |
|---|---|
| AI initiative launched | March 16, 2023 |
| Part 1: digital replicas | July 31, 2024 |
| Part 2: copyrightability of generative-AI outputs | January 29, 2025 |
| Part 3: generative-AI training | Prepublication version released May 9, 2025 |
The May 9, 2025 document should not be described as a final report without confirmation of a later final release. Courts, Congress and regulators may also change the analysis after those milestones. As of the interview’s subject matter, the safest conclusion is that AI law is developing along separate tracks rather than forming one settled rule.
Keep the rights categories separate
- Musical composition: lyrics, melody, harmony and related authorship.
- Sound recording: a particular recorded performance and production.
- Identity interests: voice, name, image, likeness and persona, which may involve publicity, trademark or other laws.
- Contracts: publishing, work-for-hire, platform, label and AI-tool terms can allocate rights differently.
- Metadata: information needed to identify owners and route money; accurate metadata is not itself a substitute for copyright ownership.
The Copyright Office explains that copyright protects original works of authorship, including musical works and artistic works. Its copyright FAQ does not make every AI output automatically protectable or automatically public domain. Protectability depends on the extent and nature of human authorship and applicable registration guidance.
Training is contested, not automatically lawful or unlawful
Stakeholders have presented sharply different arguments about copying, transformation, licensing and market effects. The Copyright Office’s music and sound-recordings listening-session transcript documents that disagreement. A claim that all training is infringement is too broad; a claim that all training is fair use is equally broad.
Where the Music Modernization Act fits
The Music Modernization Act (MMA) has three titles:
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
- Musical Works Modernization Act
- Classics Protection and Access Act
- Allocation for Music Producers Act
Title I created a blanket licensing system for certain digital music uses and designated The Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) to collect and distribute eligible mechanical royalties. The Copyright Office lists January 1, 2021 as the license availability date. Songwriters and publishers generally need to register and claim works through The MLC’s portal to receive applicable royalties.
Copyright Office registration and MLC registration are different actions. The MLC maintains musical-work and ownership information, receives usage reports and handles unmatched-work and ownership-claim processes, as explained in the MMA FAQ. The MLC does not replace every performing-rights organization, distributor, label, publisher, administrator, neighboring-rights service or sound-recording collection route.
The royalty infrastructure a creator must understand
| Income or right | Underlying asset | Typical collection route | Common failure point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanical royalty | Musical composition | The MLC, publisher, administrator or direct license | Unmatched works or incorrect ownership shares |
| Public-performance royalty | Musical composition | Performing-rights organization or publisher | Missing registration or wrong affiliation |
| Digital performance royalty | Sound recording | SoundExchange or another applicable arrangement | Incorrect recording metadata |
| Streaming master income | Sound recording | Label, distributor or direct platform arrangement | Contract and platform-reporting terms |
| Synchronization income | Composition and/or master | Direct license, publisher, label or administrator | Failure to clear both sides |
| YouTube and other new-media income | Composition and/or recording | Platform systems, administrator or distributor | Claims, conflicts and incomplete metadata |
Collection depends on territory, ownership, contracts and the use involved. No single registration or company automatically captures every stream.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.A practical AI-release checklist
- Preserve evidence of human contribution. Keep drafts, lyric files, project sessions, stems, prompts, edits, dates and collaborator records.
- Read the tool’s terms before uploading. Check commercial-use rights, output ownership, provider training, retention, indemnities and restrictions on voice or style imitation.
- Protect confidential material. Do not upload unreleased or third-party recordings unless you understand what the service may retain, analyze or reuse.
- Obtain permission for recognizable identity use. Do not imitate a performer’s voice or persona commercially without appropriate written authorization.
- Document splits and contributors. Identify every human writer, producer, performer and rights owner in a signed split sheet or equivalent record.
- Follow disclosure rules. Tell a distributor, publisher, platform or contracting partner about AI involvement when its terms require it.
- Register accurately. Claim the human-authored elements and do not represent wholly machine-generated expression as human authorship.
- Use the right collection systems. The MLC may be relevant for eligible digital mechanical royalties, while PROs, sound-recording services and distributors address other rights.
- Review statements and usage. Watch for duplicate registrations, missing recordings, incorrect shares and unexplained deductions.
- Get advice for high-stakes releases. A qualified music or intellectual-property lawyer can assess contracts, identity rights, warranties and ownership disputes.
How to evaluate a publisher or administrator
Before signing, ask for clear answers to these questions:
Best Value
- Is the deal administration-only, co-publishing or a full publishing transfer?
- What rights, territories and term are granted, and when do rights revert?
- Who owns the copyright during and after the agreement?
- What percentage, flat fee, advance, recoupable expense or commission applies?
- How often are statements issued, and what audit rights exist?
- Who registers works with The MLC, PROs and other relevant systems?
- How are unmatched works, conflicting claims and foreign collections handled?
- What human support is available beyond a dashboard?
- What representations, warranties and disclosure duties apply to AI-assisted works?
- Can the creator terminate if communication, reporting or registration obligations are not met?
Where royalty collection commonly breaks
- Song-title or writer-name variations prevent matching.
- Split percentages are agreed verbally but never documented.
- ISRC, ISWC or related identifiers conflict or are missing.
- Alternate versions and translations are not registered.
- The composition is registered without the correct recording, or the recording without the composition.
- Foreign collection is not included in the chosen arrangement.
- A creator assumes Copyright Office registration automatically triggers MLC, PRO or neighboring-rights payments.
The MLC’s database, claims procedures and unmatched-work processes are described in the Copyright Office’s FAQ. Creators still need to maintain accurate ownership and recording data.
What creators should take from Abowd’s people-first argument
Abowd’s central point is less about choosing “AI” or “no AI” than about preserving accountability. Assistive technology can reduce production friction and improve administration. It becomes dangerous when permission, identity, authorship or payment data disappears behind an opaque system.
For creators, the practical standard is straightforward: document what humans made, understand the contracts governing the tools and services, register each right with the appropriate organization, and insist on statements and metadata that can be checked. A publisher’s people-first claim is meaningful only when those practices are visible in its agreement and day-to-day support.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →
