INTRODUCTION
It is difficult to overlook the significant changes that have occurred in the music industry during the last ten years. The emergence of digital platforms and the subtle but potent influence artificial intelligence currently has in choosing what we listen to are major contributors to that change. Music is now more accessible than ever thanks to streaming applications, but they have also given algorithms unexpected more power. These algorithms now have an impact on how musicians compose music as well as what reaches listeners.
The rules pertaining to technology have not advanced as quickly as the technology itself. India's legal system is still largely based on pre-AI, pre-streaming foundations. For artists, platforms, and even fans, this disparity breeds insecurity. In this article, we examine how AI and algorithms are changing the music industry, why the present legal structure is unable to keep up and what changes India needs to do to safeguard artistic expression without impeding innovation.
ALGORITHMIC DISTRIBUTION: WHO REALLY DECIDES WHAT WE LISTEN TO?
Nowadays, the majority of listeners let apps suggest new songs instead of looking for them. Everything is tracked by services like Spotify, YouTube Music and Apple Music, including the duration of a song, whether you skip it, the type of music you typically listen to and even the time you listen. Algorithms use these signals to determine which tracks are advanced.
As a result, traditional industry players now have less influence. In addition to competing with one another, artists now have to contend with an unseen system that favors particular patterns, such as shorter tracks, catchy loops, or songs that fit "platform-friendly" formats. For the sole purpose of getting picked up by the algorithm, some musicians confess to altering their creative style.
The issue is that this new reality is not taken into account by India's present copyright and intermediary legislation. When algorithms take over as the primary gatekeepers, the question of whether regulations guaranteeing fairness or transparency are necessary emerges. The legal response is now unclear.
AI-GENERATED MUSIC: WHEN MACHINES START SOUNDING LIKE MUSICIANS
The emergence of tools that can produce whole songs or eerily accurately mimic an artist’s voice is another disruption. Everyone has seen AI-generated covers on social media that nearly perfectly replicate the voice of a single singer. As they mimic popular patterns, these AI vocals frequently go viral sometimes even surpassing the original artist’s output.
However, this presents challenging issues under Indian law that “Who is the owner of a machine generated song? Is it possible to imitate a singer’s voice without their consent? What safeguards are available to artists in the event that their digital likeness is exploited?
AI-generated music is in a gray area because Indian copyright law is based on human authorship. Furthermore, although section 21’s personality rights can provide some protection, they weren’t explicitly codified until recently, when courts started intervening.
An excellent illustration of how Indian courts are beginning to acknowledge digital likeness rights is the Delhi High Court’s ruling shielding Kumar Sanu[1] from unapproved AI-generated sound recordings.
However, artists are still susceptible to abuse of voice cloning and synthetic performances in the absence of a specific legal framework.
ALGORITHMS + LOW PAYOUTS = ARTISTS LEFT BEHIND THE MONEY PROBLEM
Artists now have access to a worldwide audience thanks to streaming; however the financial benefits have not kept up. Only viral songs typically approved by the algorithm produce significant revenue and per stream revenue is infamously low. The competition gets even more fierce when AI is added. Rapid, inexpensive and limitless production of machine-generated music is possible. They compete for the same streams and swarm the same platforms. This, of course, makes human artists less visible.
As of right now, India has no law requiring platforms to reveal how their algorithms determine rankings.
No explicit commitments regarding equitable payouts, AI-generated music is not required to be labeled. As a result, platforms and tech companies benefit from both economic and moral imbalances.
INDIA'S FRAMEWORK IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS ERA: LEGAL GAPS
The Copyright Act, the IT Act, and the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines, three of our fundamental laws never foresaw algorithm driven cultural distribution or AI generated content. Despite the almost editorial role of modern algorithms, they treat platforms as passive intermediaries. Several governments around the world are already making progress: Europe is advocating for algorithmic transparency requirements; certain nations mandate disclosures of AI-generated content. Laws pertaining to personality rights are being updated to protect digital likenesses.
India will require a similar change. If not, artists will continue to work in an unaccountable system where platforms and machines have the upper hand.
PRACTICAL REFORMS: WHAT INDIA SHOULD DO NEXT
The legal system needs to change if India is to have a music industry that is prepared for the future. Among the crucial actions are:
1. Requiring recommendation systems to be transparent - The algorithms used by platforms to rank or demote songs should be made public. The power balance can be altered by even a simple reporting system.
2. Acknowledging digital likeness and voice as legal rights - This would shield artists from unauthorized AI replicas, deepfake music, and voice cloning.
3. Labeling music produced by AI - Customers can distinguish between machine production and human creativity with the aid of clear tags.
4. Ensuring equitable allocation of income - Platforms may be forced to adopt more equitable payout models by regular audits or SEBI-style regulations. These adjustments would only guarantee that human creators are not marginalized in an AI-dominated industry, not impede innovation.
CONCLUSION
The music industry in India is at a turning point. Although technology has given artists amazing opportunities, it has also put them under new risks and pressures, many of which were nonexistent even five years ago. AI obscures authenticity, algorithms determine visibility, and the law hasn’t fully adjusted to this new setting.
India must update its legal frameworks to take into account the realities of digital distribution and AI driven creation if it hopes to have a flourishing creative ecosystem. We can create a future where technology fosters creativity rather than stifles it with open systems and more robust safeguards for artists.
[1] Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Jammable ltd & Ors. CS (COMM) 1097/2025