Tag: AI training data

Sony’s AI Music Attribution Tool: What It Actually Does (and What It Doesn’t)

As generative music systems like Suno and Udio move into the center of copyright debates, one question keeps coming up: Can we actually tell which songs influenced an AI-generated track? And then can we use that determination in a host of other processes like royalty payments?

Recently a number of people have pointed to research from Sony AI as evidence that the answer might be yes. Sony has publicly discussed work on tools designed to analyze the relationship between training data and AI-generated music outputs.

But the reality is a little more nuanced. Sony’s work is interesting and potentially important—but it is often misunderstood. What Sony has described is not a magic detector that can listen to a generated song and instantly reveal every recording the model trained on.

Instead, Sony is describing something more modest—and in some ways more useful.

Let’s unpack what the technology appears to do right now.

Two Problems Sony Is Trying to Solve

Sony AI has publicly discussed research in two related areas.

The first is training-data attribution. This means trying to estimate which recordings in a model’s training dataset influenced a generated output.

The second is musical similarity or version matching. This involves detecting when two pieces of music share meaningful musical material even if they are not exact copies of each other.

Sony has framed both efforts as research directions rather than a finished commercial product. In other words, this is still a developing technical approach, not a turnkey system that can produce definitive copyright answers.

Training Data Attribution in Plain English

The most relevant Sony work is a research project titled Large-Scale Training Data Attribution for Music Generative Models via Unlearning.

That title sounds intimidating, but the basic idea is fairly intuitive and also suggests the project is part of the broader machine unlearning academic discipline.

The system does not operate like Shazam. It does not simply listen to an AI-generated song and say:

“This track was trained on Song X, Song Y, and Song Z.”

Instead, the approach works more like this.

Imagine you already know—or at least suspect—which recordings were used to train the model. You have a candidate set of training tracks.

The system then asks:

Among these training recordings, which ones seem most likely to have influenced this generated output?

In other words, the system ranks influence among known candidates.

The research approach borrows from an area of machine learning called machine unlearning, which studies how particular training examples affect a model’s behavior. In simplified terms, researchers can test how the model behaves when certain training examples are removed or adjusted. If the output changes meaningfully, that suggests those examples had measurable influence.

The important point is that this is an influence-ranking tool, not a forensic detector.

It tries to answer:

“Which of these known training tracks mattered most?”

Not:

“Tell me every song the model was trained on.”

Sony’s Other Idea: Smarter Music Comparison

Sony has also described work on musical similarity detection.

Traditional audio fingerprinting systems—like those used by Shazam or Audible Magic—are very good at identifying identical recordings. If you upload the same song or a slightly altered version, the system can match it.

But generative AI raises a different problem. An AI output might resemble a song musically without copying the recording itself.

Sony’s research tries to detect those kinds of relationships.

For example, a system might notice that two tracks share melodic fragments, rhythmic patterns, harmonic progressions, or musical phrases even if the arrangement, production, or instrumentation is different.

In plain English, this kind of tool tries to answer a different question:

“Are these two pieces of music related in substance?”

Not:

“Are they the exact same recording?”

The Big Limitation: You Still Need the Training Dataset

Here’s the key limitation that often gets overlooked.

Sony’s attribution approach appears to depend on having access to the candidate training dataset.

The system works by comparing a generated output against recordings that are already known or suspected to have been used during training. It estimates influence among those candidates.

That means the system answers the question:

“Which of these training tracks influenced the output?”

But it does not answer the question:

“What unknown recordings were used to train this model?”

If the training corpus is hidden or undisclosed, the attribution system has nothing to test against.

This makes the technology conceptually similar to many machine-learning research experiments, which measure influence using known datasets. Researchers can test influence among known training examples, but they cannot reconstruct an unknown dataset from outputs alone.

What This Could Look Like in the Real World

If the training corpus were known, a practical workflow might look like this.

First, the recordings in the training corpus would be identified. Audio fingerprinting systems could match those recordings to commercial releases.

That step answers the question:

What copyrighted recordings appear in the training data?

Then an attribution tool like the one Sony describes could be used to analyze generated outputs and estimate which of those known recordings appear to have influenced them.

This would not prove copying in every case. But it could dramatically narrow the analysis—from millions of possible influences to a smaller list of likely candidates.

What Sony Has Not Claimed

Sony’s public statements do not suggest that the attribution problem is solved.

Sony has not announced a system that automatically calculates track-by-track royalty payments for AI-generated songs. Nor has it described a tool that conclusively proves copyright copying from an AI output alone.

Instead, the work is framed as research aimed at improving transparency and accountability in generative music systems.

Why Labels Might Still Be Interested

Even with these limitations, the idea could be attractive to rights holders.

If training datasets were known, attribution tools could theoretically support new ways of analyzing how music catalogs interact with generative AI systems.

For example, such tools might help support:

  • royalty allocation models
  • influence-weighted compensation frameworks
  • catalog analytics
  • AI audit trails showing how repertoire contributes to model behavior

In other words, the technology could potentially become a measurement tool for how music catalogs influence generative systems.

What Sony did and did not do (yet)

Sony’s work does not magically reveal every song an AI model trained on. And it does not eliminate the need to know what is in the training dataset.

Instead, its value appears to lie after the training data is known.

Once you have a candidate training corpus, tools like the ones Sony describes may help analyze which recordings influenced particular outputs.

That makes the technology best understood as a post-disclosure attribution layer, not a substitute for knowing what recordings were used in training in the first place.

Infrastructure, Not Aspiration: Why Permissioned AI Begins With a Hard Reset

Paul Sinclair’s framing of generative music AI as a choice between “open studios” and permissioned systems makes a basic category mistake. Consent is not a creative philosophy or a branding position. It is a systems constraint. You cannot “prefer” consent into existence. A permissioned system either enforces authorization at the level where machine learning actually occurs—or it does not exist at all.

That distinction matters not only for artists, but for the long-term viability of AI companies themselves. Platforms built on unresolved legal exposure may scale quickly, but they do so on borrowed time. Systems built on enforceable consent may grow more slowly at first, but they compound durability, defensibility, and investor confidence over time. Legality is not friction. It is infrastructure. It’s a real “eat your vegetables” moment.

The Great Reset

Before any discussion of opt-in, licensing, or future governance, one prerequisite must be stated plainly: a true permissioned system requires a hard reset of the model itself. A model trained on unlicensed material cannot be transformed into a consent-based system through policy changes, interface controls, or aspirational language. Once unauthorized material is ingested and used for training, it becomes inseparable from the trained model. There is no technical “undo” button.

The debate is often framed as openness versus restriction, innovation versus control. That framing misses the point. The real divide is whether a system is built to respect authorization where machine learning actually happens. A permissioned system cannot be layered on top of models trained without permission, nor can it be achieved by declaring legacy models “deprecated.” Machine learning systems do not forget unless they are reset. The purpose of a trained model is remembering—preserving statistical patterns learned from its data—not forgetting. Models persist, shape downstream outputs, and retain economic value long after they are removed from public view. Administrative terminology is not remediation.

Recent industry language about future “licensed models” implicitly concedes this reality. If a platform intends to operate on a consent basis, the logical consequence is unavoidable: permissioned AI begins with scrapping the contaminated model and rebuilding from zero using authorized data only.

Why “Untraining” Does Not Solve the Problem

Some argue that problematic material can simply be removed from an existing model through “untraining.” In practice, this is not a reliable solution. Modern machine-learning systems do not store discrete copies of works; they encode diffuse statistical relationships across millions or billions of parameters. Once learned, those relationships cannot be surgically excised with confidence. It’s not Harry Potter’s Pensieve.

Even where partial removal techniques exist, they are typically approximate, difficult to verify, and dependent on assumptions about how information is represented internally. A model may appear compliant while still reflecting patterns derived from unauthorized data. For systems claiming to operate on affirmative permission, approximation is not enough. If consent is foundational, the only defensible approach is reconstruction from a clean, authorized corpus.

The Structural Requirements of Consent

Once a genuine reset occurs, the technical requirements of a permissioned system become unavoidable.

Authorized training corpus. Every recording, composition, and performance used for training must be included through affirmative permission. If unauthorized works remain, the model remains non-consensual.

Provenance at the work level. Each training input must be traceable to specific authorized recordings and compositions with auditable metadata identifying the scope of permission.

Enforceable consent, including withdrawal. Authorization must allow meaningful limits and revocation, with systems capable of responding in ways that materially affect training and outputs.

Segregation of licensed and unlicensed data. Permissioned systems require strict internal separation to prevent contamination through shared embeddings or cross-trained models.

Transparency and auditability. Permission claims must be supported by documentation capable of independent verification. Transparency here is engineering documentation, not marketing copy.

These are not policy preferences. They are practical consequences of a consent-based architecture.

The Economic Reality—and Upside—of Reset

Rebuilding models from scratch is expensive. Curating authorized data, retraining systems, implementing provenance, and maintaining compliance infrastructure all require significant investment. Not every actor will be able—or willing—to bear that cost. But that burden is not an argument against permission. It is the price of admission.

Crucially, that cost is also largely non-recurring. A platform that undertakes a true reset creates something scarce in the current AI market: a verifiably permissioned model with reduced litigation risk, clearer regulatory posture, and greater long-term defensibility. Over time, such systems are more likely to attract durable partnerships, survive scrutiny, and justify sustained valuation.

Throughout technological history, companies that rebuilt to comply with emerging legal standards ultimately outperformed those that tried to outrun them. Permissioned AI follows the same pattern. What looks expensive in the short term often proves cheaper than compounding legal uncertainty.

Architecture, Not Branding

This is why distinctions between “walled garden,” “opt-in,” or other permission-based labels tend to collapse under technical scrutiny. Whatever the terminology, a system grounded in authorization must satisfy the same engineering conditions—and must begin with the same reset. Branding may vary; infrastructure does not.

Permissioned AI is possible. But it is reconstructive, not incremental. It requires acknowledging that past models are incompatible with future claims of consent. It requires making the difficult choice to start over.

The irony is that legality is not the enemy of scale—it is the only path to scale that survives. Permission is not aspiration. It is architecture.

South Korea’s AI Action Plan and the Global Drift Toward “Use First, Pay Later”

South Korea has become the latest flashpoint in a rapidly globalizing conflict over artificial intelligence, creator rights and copyright. A broad coalition of Korean creator and copyright organizations—spanning literature, journalism, broadcasting, screenwriting, music, choreography, performance, and visual arts—has issued a joint statement rejecting the government’s proposed Korea AI Action Plan, warning that it risks allowing AI companies to use copyrighted works without meaningful permission or payment.

The groups argue that the plan signals a fundamental shift away from a permission-based copyright framework toward a regime that prioritizes AI deployment speed and “legal certainty” for developers, even if that certainty comes at the expense of creators’ control and compensation. Their statement is unusually blunt: they describe the policy direction as a threat to the sustainability of Korea’s cultural industries and pledge continued opposition unless the government reverses course.

The controversy centers on Action Plan No. 32, which promotes “activating the ecosystem for the use and distribution of copyrighted works for AI training and evaluation.” The plan directs relevant ministries to prepare amendments—either to Korea’s Copyright Act, the AI Basic Act, or through a new “AI Special Act”—that would enable AI training uses of copyrighted works without legal ambiguity.

Creators argue that “eliminating legal ambiguity” reallocates legal risk rather than resolves it. Instead of clarifying consent requirements or building licensing systems, the plan appears to reduce the legal exposure of AI developers while shifting enforcement burdens onto creators through opt-out or technical self-help mechanisms.

Similar policy patterns have emerged in the United Kingdom and India, where governments have emphasized legal certainty and innovation speed while creative sectors warn of erosion to prior-permission and fair-compensation norms. South Korea’s debate stands out for the breadth of its opposition and the clarity of the warning from cultural stakeholders.

The South Korean government avoids using the term “safe harbor,” but its plan to remove “legal ambiguity” reads like an effort to build one. The asymmetry is telling: rather than eliminating ambiguity by strengthening consent and payment mechanisms, the plan seeks to eliminate ambiguity by making AI training easier to defend as lawful—without meaningful consent or compensation frameworks. That is, in substance, a safe harbor, and a species of blanket license. The resulting “certainty” would function as a pass for AI companies, while creators are left to police unauthorized use after the fact, often through impractical opt-out mechanisms—to the extent such rights remain enforceable at all.

Anna’s Archive, Spotify, and the Shadow‑Library Playbook: Why Spotify is a Crime Scene

A pirate “preservation” collective best known for shadow libraries now claims to have scraped Spotify at industrial scale, releasing massive metadata dumps and hinting at terabytes of audio to follow. That alone would be alarming. But the deeper significance lies elsewhere: this episode mirrors the same shadow-library acquisition pipeline already at the center of major AI copyright cases like Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta. It raises uncomfortable questions about Spotify’s security obligations to licensors, the chilling effect of its market power on enforcement, and whether centralized streaming platforms have quietly become the most valuable—and vulnerable—training datasets in the AI economy.  Spotify sold itself as the cure for BitTorrent piracy but may have become the back door for the next generation of AI scraping.

Anna’s Archive, a pirate-adjacent “preservation” collective best known for shadow‑library aggregation is now claiming it has scraped Spotify at scale starting before July 2025—releasing a metadata torrent and promising bulk release of audio files measured in the hundreds of terabytes.  Spotify has acknowledged unauthorized access, describing scraping of public metadata and illicit tactics used to circumvent DRM to access at least some audio files.

Here’s what Anna’s Blog said:

Spotify leakDownload

The immediate story will be framed as piracy. But for Spotify, the real exposure is corporate and contractual. As a public company, Spotify has to manage security and platform-risk disclosures in a way that doesn’t mislead investors, and it has to satisfy rightsholders that its delivery architecture meets the security commitments embedded in licensing practice. If tens of millions of full-length files and user-linked playlist metadata were extractable at scale, the question isn’t only who infringed—it’s whether Spotify’s controls, incident response, and contractual assurances withstand audit, cure, and reputational scrutiny.

This is not just a piracy story or corporate disclosure embarrassment for Spotify. It is a familiar pattern for anyone tracking the book‑dataset litigation side of generative AI: shadow libraries as industrial infrastructure.  And that sounds like billion with a B.

THE SHADOW‑LIBRARY PIPELINE: FROM BOOKS TO MUSIC

In the major AI copyright cases involving books like Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta, the recurring issue has not merely been whether training is fair use, but how the training corpus was acquired in the first place. Allegations in cases such as Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta focus on bulk ingestion of pirated works from shadow libraries such as LibGen, Z‑Library, and Anna’s Archive as an upstream act distinct from downstream model training and fair use.  It’s this ingestion issue that has Anthropic offering a $1.5 billion with a B settlement to authors (which itself is based on the 1999 statutory damages amendment to the Copyright Act that to deter…wait for it…CD ripping).

The Spotify scrape follows the same architectural logic. Swap “books” for “tracks” and the structure seems identical:  a centralized, mirrored corpus assembled outside the licensing system, optimized for scale, and perfectly suited for machine‑learning pipelines.  Voila.

THE ENTERPRISE TURN: AI ACCESS FOR A FEE

What distinguishes this moment is that shadow libraries are no longer operating solely as donation‑funded activist projects to save humanity. Anna’s Archive has openly described an enterprise‑style access tier, offering high‑speed bulk access to AI labs and other institutional users in exchange for large “donations.”  You know, to save humanity.  Ahem…

This AI connection reframes shadow libraries as industrial suppliers in my view. The Anna’s rhetoric may be preservation for the good of mankind, but whatever you believe the motives are, the product is dataset procurement—precisely the bottleneck facing AI developers seeking massive, curated, labeled corpora.

SPOTIFY’S SECURITY OBLIGATIONS — AND WHY MARKET POWER MATTERS

Spotify is not just a random consumer app. It is a licensed distribution platform bound by dense contractual obligations to labels, distributors, and other rightsholders. It likely has made substantial commitments to labels, particularly major labels and likely publishers, too regarding its security commitments.  Large‑scale scraping raises questions that go well beyond copyright:

• What controls existed to prevent automated extraction at scale?

• What anomaly detection or rate limiting failed?

• What representations were made to licensors and licensees about safeguarding licensed content?

Here, Spotify’s monopoly (or at least dominant) market power becomes its most effective shield. Even if licensors could plausibly argue that security covenants were breached, many are economically dependent on Spotify’s distribution and algorithmic visibility. Enforcement is chilled not by law, but by leverage.

THE DOG THAT DIDN’T BARK: USER DATA

Public reporting has focused on sound recording catalog metadata and audio files. But any incident involving large‑scale access naturally raises a secondary question: what else was accessible through the same pathways? There is no public confirmation that user data has been posted. But “not posted” is not the same as “not taken.”

Listening histories, playlists, device identifiers, or internal engagement metrics would be far more valuable off‑market than in a public torrent.

SPOTIFY’S SHAREHOLDERS SAY WASSUP?

Public reporting that Spotify’s systems were scraped at scale—whether limited to metadata or extending to audio—raises issues that go beyond piracy narratives and into material risk disclosure territory. Spotify is a licensed platform whose core business depends on representations to labels, distributors, and artists about safeguarding catalog integrity and platform security.

Allegations of large-scale scraping, DRM circumvention, or control failures may implicate not only contractual obligations but also cybersecurity risk factors that a reasonable investor could consider material.

Under SEC guidance on cybersecurity disclosures, companies are expected to disclose material risks and incidents, even where investigations are ongoing, if the nature and potential scope could affect operations, relationships, or revenue. The question is not whether piracy exists—it always has—but whether centralized control failures expose Spotify to rightsholder claims, regulatory scrutiny, or renegotiation pressure that could affect future earnings.

So far (and this may change any minute so stay informed), Spotify’s public statement in media outlets is something like this:

“An investigation into unauthorized access identified that a third party scraped public metadata and used illicit tactics to circumvent DRM to access some of the platform’s audio files. We are actively investigating the incident.”

Spotify is circling the wagons and this nonstatement statement tells you everything you need to know:  “Investigating” plus “some audio files” is classic damage control.  The spin does three things at once:  Narrows scope (“some audio files”) without committing to facts; deflects responsibility (“third party,” “illicit tactics”); avoids quantification (no numbers, no dates, no systems).  

But—there is no acknowledgment of scale or contradiction.  Spotify does not address Anna’s 86 million file / 300 TB claim; or Anna’s claim that files were Spotify-native OGG Vorbis; the presence of Spotify-specific file artifacts, the inclusion of playlist/user-linked data.  They don’t even say “the claims are inaccurate.” They just… don’t…engage.  

In fact, they never mention Anna’s Archive at all.  

“Not necessarily a breach” is a lawyerly non-answer.  By emphasizing that this may not represent a breach of internal infrastructure, Spotify leaves open: credential abuse, client-side exploitation, API misuse, session hijacking, DRM circumvention at the delivery layer which seems like it must have happened.  In other words: it doesn’t reassure anyone—investors, licensors, or regulators.

Let’s not forget—Anna’s Archive wrote this up in a detailed blog post that is PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET.   People know about it.  It’s believable but rebuttable.  So rebut it.

That may be fine for one-day PR triage—but it’s not informative enough for me and it may not be for the SEC, either.  And I can’t imagine this is what they are telling the labels or publishers.

So while I was posting this, Billboard released a new statement from Spotify:

“Spotify has identified and disabled the nefarious user accounts that engaged in unlawful scraping. We’ve implemented new safeguards for these types of anti-copyright attacks and are actively monitoring for suspicious behavior. Since day one, we have stood with the artist community against piracy, and we are actively working with our industry partners to protect creators and defend their rights.”

Oh, well “new safeguards” solves everything. In the immortal words of Ronnie Scott, and now back to sleep. This public description indicates an account-based circumvention pathway (as opposed to a traditional server intrusion) and reinforces that the incident may involve large-scale extraction through consumer-facing mechanisms. That context heightens the importance of law enforcement inquiry into the scope of data accessed and retained, the representations made by the scraping entity about the nature and purpose of its collection, and the foreseeable downstream uses of redistributed audio and user-linked data.

Spotify’s subsequent statement that it identified and disabled “nefarious user accounts” points to an account-side extraction pathway (perhaps through an account farm) rather than a traditional server breach. While server-side compromises are generally considered more severe, account-based abuse is a well-known and operationally plausible vector for large-scale data extraction when distributed across many automated accounts over time. A corpus on the order of hundreds of terabytes as Anna claims could be exfiltrated in this manner without triggering immediate public disclosure, particularly if activity was geographically distributed and designed to mimic legitimate streaming behavior. The relevant question is therefore not whether such extraction was technically possible, but when it was detected, how it was scoped internally, and whether public representations accurately reflected the magnitude and nature of the activity.

The new statement is still kind of a nondenial denial that could have been written: “Spotify identified and disabled user accounts that unlawfully scraped its platform. Spotify implemented new safeguards against these anti-copyright attacks and is actively monitoring for suspicious behavior.”

But…from an SEC perspective, this new statement makes it harder for Spotify to treat the episode as purely hypothetical risk. They’ve acknowledged an “attack,” they disabled accounts, and they changed safeguards. That’s the kind of “known event” that can support 10-Q risk factor updates (and possibly more, depending on materiality and contractual fallout).

Near silence may be defensible in the very short term (and getting shorter with each passing moment), but prolonged opacity increases the risk that disclosure comes later, under less favorable conditions.

Even if they said something like this, they’d be better off:  

Spotify identified unauthorized access in which a third party scraped public metadata and used illicit tactics to circumvent DRM to access some of the platform’s audio files. Spotify is actively investigating the incident.

At least sentient beings could tell what in the world happened.

ENTER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Understand that this is just postponing the inevitable in my view.  Spotify’s response is notable less for what it says than for what it avoids. By neither confirming nor rebutting the scale and technical specifics described by Anna’s Archive, the company leaves unresolved whether tens of millions of Spotify-delivered audio files were extractable at scale—and whether existing controls matched the assurances Spotify has long made to rightsholders, users, and investors.

This disclosure probably belongs in a SEC Form 10Q, but it could go in an 8-K which will attract a bunch more attention.  Form 8-K (Item 1.05 or 8.01) is likely only required if certain thresholds are met, mostly that Spotify deems the incident is deemed material to investors now, and there is a known impact (financial, operational, or contractual), not just investigation.

Given Spotify’s current public posture (“actively investigating,” “some audio files,” “safeguards”), an 8-K would usually be triggered only if they confirm large-scale audio extraction, licensor disputes or termination notices occur, regulatory action is initiated, or remediation costs or litigation exposure become quantifiable.

Right now, Spotify appears to be deliberately staying below the 8-K threshold, and I can’t say as I blame them. There’s no telling how much of Spotify’s share price is attributed (incorrectly in my view) to Spotify selling itself as a tech play, not a music play. The financial press has yet to pick up this story as of this writing, and most of Spotify’s press is in the “how do you manage your awesomeness” BS because the financial press never has understood the music business.

At this stage, the issue fits squarely in an SEC Form 10-Q risk-factor update rather than an 8-K: the company is acknowledging elevated platform and data-extraction risk without conceding a material event that requires immediate disclosure.  That could change.

That risk factor might look something like this:

Risks Related to Unauthorized Access, Data Extraction, and Platform Security

We rely on technical controls, contractual restrictions, and digital rights management technologies to protect our platform, our content catalog, and data derived from user and licensor activity. From time to time, third parties may attempt to circumvent these controls through unauthorized access, scraping, or other illicit techniques.

We have identified instances in which third parties have engaged in unauthorized access to certain platform data, including the scraping of public metadata and the circumvention of technological measures designed to protect audio files. While we are actively investigating the scope and impact of such activity and implementing remedial measures, unauthorized access could expose us to reputational harm, regulatory scrutiny, contractual disputes with licensors, litigation, and increased costs associated with security enhancements and enforcement efforts.

In addition, even where extracted data does not include sensitive personal information, large-scale aggregation of platform data—particularly content files or behaviorally derived metrics—may be repurposed by third parties in ways that we cannot control, including for analytics, competitive modeling, or artificial intelligence training. Such downstream uses could adversely affect our relationships with licensors, artists, and other stakeholders, and may give rise to additional legal, regulatory, or commercial risks.

Any failure, or perceived failure, to prevent or respond effectively to unauthorized access or misuse of our platform could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects.

THE FINAL IRONY: FROM BITTORRENT TO AI BACK DOOR

Daniel Ek built Spotify in the long shadow of peer‑to‑peer piracy. Spotify’s founding pitch to the music industry was explicit: centralized licensed access would replace BitTorrent as the dominant mode of music consumption. Spotify was sold as an anti‑piracy intervention right along with its fixed prices and shite royalty.

That argument persuaded rightsholders to centralize their catalogs inside a single platform. If you’ve ever sat in a major label marketing meeting, it’s like there are no platforms outside of Spotify.

As of today, Spotify has a huge target on its back.  It represents one of the largest curated music corpora ever assembled—the precise object desired by pirate “archivists” and AI developers alike. And the allegation on the table is not marginal leakage, but industrial‑scale scraping that somehow did not get noticed by Spotify.  Or so we are expected to believe.

At the same time, Ek has repositioned himself as a major AI and defense‑sector investor, backing companies like Helsing that frame artificial intelligence as strategic infrastructure for fully automated weapons (which are likely a violation of the Geneva Convention as I have discussed with you before). The AI sector’s most valuable input is not code, but data—large, clean, labeled datasets.

The same founder who persuaded the music industry to centralize its catalog inside Spotify as a solution to piracy now presides over a platform alleged to have left a back door open for the next extraction regime: AI scraping at scale.

Piracy did not disappear.

It centralized.

It professionalized.  

And now, it has an enterprise pricing tier.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Deduplication and Discovery: The Smoking Gun in the Machine

WINSTON

“Wipe up all those little pieces of brains and skull”

From Pulp Fiction, screenplay by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary

Deduplication—the process of removing identical or near-identical content from AI training data—is a critical yet often overlooked indicator that AI platforms actively monitor and curate their training sets. This is the kind of process that one would expect given the kind of “scrape, ready, aim” business practices that seems precisely the approach of AI platforms that have ready access to large amounts of fairly high quality data from users of other products placed into commerce by business affiliates or confederates of the AI platforms.

For example, Google Gemini could have access to gmail, YouTube, at least “publicly available” Google Docs, Google Translate, or Google for Education, and then of course one of the great scams of all time, Google Books. Microsoft uses Bing searches, MSN browsing, the consumer Copilot experience, and ad interactions. Amazon uses Alexa prompts, Facebook uses “public” posts and so on.

This kind of hoovering up of indiscriminate amounts of “data” in the form of your baby pictures posted on Facebook and your user generated content on YouTube is bound to produce duplicates. After all, how may users have posted their favorite Billie Eilish or Taylor Swift music video. AI doesn’t need 10000 versions of “Shake it Off” they probably just need the official video. Enter deduplication–which by definition means the platform knows what it has scraped and also knows what it wants to get rid of.

“Get rid of” is a relative concept. In many systems—particularly in storage environments like backup servers or object stores—deduplication means keeping only one physical copy of a file. Any other instances of that data don’t get stored again; instead, they’re represented by pointers to the original copy. This approach, known as inline deduplication, happens in real time and minimizes storage waste without actually deleting anything of functional value. It requires knowing what you have, knowing you have more than one version of the same thing, and being able to tell the system where to look to find the “original” copy without disturbing the process and burning compute inefficiently.

In other cases, such as post-process deduplication, the system stores data initially, then later scans for and eliminates redundancies. Again, the AI platform knows there are two or more versions of the same thing, say the book Being and Nothingness, knows where to find the copies and has been trained to keep only one version. Even here, the duplicates may not be permanently erased—they might be archived, versioned, or logged for auditing, compliance, or reconstruction purposes.

In AI training contexts, deduplication usually means removing redundant examples from the training set to avoid copyright risk. The duplicate content may be discarded from the training pipeline but often isn’t destroyed. Instead, AI companies may retain it in a separate filtered corpus or keep hashed fingerprints to ensure future models don’t retrain on the same material unknowingly.

So they know what they have, and likely know where it came from. They just don’t want to tell any plaintiffs.

Ultimately, deduplication is less about destruction and more about optimization. It’s a way to reduce noise, save resources, and improve performance—while still allowing systems to track, reference, or even rehydrate the original data if needed.

Its existence directly undermines claims that companies are unaware of which copyrighted works were ingested. Indeed, it only makes sense that one of the hidden consequences of the indiscriminate scraping that underpins large-scale AI training is the proliferation of duplicated data. Web crawlers ingest everything they can access—news articles republished across syndicates, forum posts echoed in aggregation sites, Wikipedia mirrors, boilerplate license terms, spammy SEO farms repeating the same language over and over. Without any filtering, this avalanche of redundant content floods the training pipeline.

This is where deduplication becomes not just useful, but essential. It’s the cleanup crew after a massive data land grab. The more messy and indiscriminate the scraping, the more aggressively the model must filter for quality, relevance, and uniqueness to avoid training inefficiencies or—worse—model behaviors that are skewed by repetition. If a model sees the same phrase or opinion thousands of times, it might assume it’s authoritative or universally accepted, even if it’s just a meme bouncing around low-quality content farms.

Deduplication is sort of the Winston Wolf of AI. And if the cleaner shows up, somebody had to order the cleanup. It is a direct response to the excesses of indiscriminate scraping. It’s both a technical fix and a quiet admission that the underlying data collection strategy is, by design, uncontrolled. But while the scraping may be uncontrolled to get copies of as much of your data has they can lay hands on, even by cleverly changing their terms of use boilerplate so they can do all this under the effluvia of legality, they send in the cleaner to take care of the crime scene.

So to summarize: To deduplicate, platforms must identify content-level matches (e.g., multiple copies of Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre). This process requires tools that compare, fingerprint, or embed full documents—meaning the content is readable and classifiable–and, oh, yes, discoverable.

Platforms may choose the ‘cleanest’ copy to keep, showing knowledge and active decision-making about which version of a copyrighted work is retained. And–big finish–removing duplicates only makes sense if operators know which datasets they scraped and what those datasets contain.

Drilling down on a platform’s deduplication tools and practices may prove up knowledge and intent to a precise degree—contradicting arguments of plausible deniability in litigation. Johnny ate the cookies isn’t going to fly. There’s a market clearing level of record keeping necessary for deduping to work at all, so it’s likely that there are internal deduplication logs or tooling pipelines that are discoverable.

When AI platforms object to discovery about deduplication, plaintiffs can often overcome those objections by narrowing their focus. Rather than requesting broad details about how a model deduplicates its entire training set, plaintiffs should ask a simple, specific question: Were any of these known works—identified by title or author—deduplicated or excluded from training?

This approach avoids objections about overbreadth or burden. It reframes discovery as a factual inquiry, not a technical deep dive. If the platform claims the data was not retained, plaintiffs can ask for existing artifacts—like hash filters, logs, or manifests—or seek a sworn statement explaining the loss and when it occurred. That, in turn, opens the door to potential spoliation arguments.

If trade secrets are cited, plaintiffs can propose a protective order, limiting access to outside counsel or experts like we’ve done 100,000 times before in other cases. And if the defendant claims “duplicate” is too vague, plaintiffs can define it functionally—as content that’s identical or substantially similar, by hash, tokens, or vectors.

Most importantly, deduplication is relevant. If a platform identified a plaintiff’s work and trained on it anyway, that speaks to volitional use, copying, and lack of care—key issues in copyright and fair use analysis. And if they lied about it, particularly to the court—Helloooooo Harper & Row. Discovery requests that are focused, tailored, and anchored in specific works stand a far better chance of surviving objections and yielding meaningful evidence which hopefully will be useful and lead to other positive results.