The AI Industry Wants Congress to Create the Next 100-Year Radio Loophole

“Formal property’s contribution to mankind is not the protection of ownership… Property’s real breakthrough is that it radically improved the flow of communications about assets and their potential.”

Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital.

Musicians and other creators are unfortunately familiar with many efforts by big business to extract the economic value of their authorship through expansive free-riding copyright loopholes that pretend property rights don’t exist. The current AI crisis did not originate with Big Tech—they learned it from Big Radio. I distinctly recall having lunch with a Big Tech Washington lobbyist for XM radio (pre-merger) who had just found out that broadcast radio didn’t pay sound recording performances and wanted that same deal for satellite radio. I had to put the quietus on that pronto. And they didn’t even know how close they came to disaster. Sheesh.

In case you were wondering, Congress modernized copyright law in 1995 through the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act. The 1995 law created the statutory framework that launched licensed webcasting while preserving the archaic terrestrial radio performance loophole—preserved due to lobbying by Big Radio.

For decades, terrestrial AM/FM broadcasters have relied on a statutory copyright exception that allows them to broadcast sound recordings without compensating the featured artists, session musicians, and backup singers whose performances attract listeners, or the record companies who bear the substantial costs of discovering, recording, marketing, and promoting those works. Despite years of bipartisan efforts to end that free ride through legislation like the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA) and its predecessor bills, broadcasters have vigorously defended the exemption with overwhelming money and utilization of the very broadcast license they abuse to feather their nests. We have put excellent witnesses in front of Congress only to be outspent by smarmy swamp creatures from the National Association of Broadcasters.

AI disputes echo that familiar pattern. In the end, it all comes down to vast wealth accumulated through safe harbors of one kind or another. Instead of relying on a terrestrial performance exemption, AI companies advance absurd interpretations of fair use and text-and-data-mining doctrines to justify the uncompensated use of stolen works for commercial model training “because China.” They use influence peddlers like White House AI Viceroy David Sacks to try to sneak retroactive safe harbors into the law through Congress in the form of groundless federal preemption of state and local regulation or executive orders that are clearly bought and paid for under the guise of “data center factories” which are not factories at all. Although the legal theories differ between AI and broadcasting, the economic consequence is remarkably similar: sweeping commercial enterprises seek to build profitable businesses by lobbying or litigating (two sides of the same King’s shilling) to expand exceptions to the exclusive rights Congress granted creators, while forcing artists, musicians, writers, journalists, film makers and photographers to absorb the resulting loss in value.

That concern is no longer theoretical. In a recent Bloomberg podcast, SoundExchange President and CEO Michael Huppe—whose organization distributes more than $1 billion annually in digital performance royalties derived from rights created by that market-making 1995 legislation—described AI as “something that has a lot of danger, but also a lot of potential.” But he cautioned that “we need to make sure that human creators are protected” and that “there need to be guardrails so that [AI] doesn’t steamroll over the whole creative industry.” I couldn’t agree more. Rather than treating property rights as obstacles to AI, Congress should remember Hernando de Soto’s lesson that clearly defined ownership creates wealth—a principle it proved when licensing sound recordings gave birth to the webcasting industry largely thanks to SoundExchange and the infrastructure it brings to the table.

Huppe’s concerns are rooted in measurable economics rather than speculation. Streaming now accounts for approximately 85% of U.S. recorded music revenue, and streaming services distribute a finite, shared royalty pool among eligible recordings. Huppe noted that some services report receiving roughly 75,000 new recordings every day, with reports suggesting that more than 80% are AI-generated.

Whether those estimates ultimately prove higher or lower, the underlying economic principle is unavoidable: every AI-generated recording entering the marketplace competes for listener attention and, if streamed, competes for a share of the same finite, shared royalty pool. Huppe also warned that AI facilitates streaming fraud, allowing bad actors to generate AI recordings, deploy bots to inflate plays, and “siphon away payment from the pipeline that would otherwise go to real artists and real record labels.” His conclusion was unequivocal: “It’s fraud, basically. Straight-up fraud.”

Moreover, generative AI takes legitimate recorded performances to create competing works substituting for the originals themselves. This economic effect echoes Judge Vince Chhabria’s observations in the Kadrey v. Meta books litigation, where he suggested that flooding markets with AI-generated works competing against originals could constitute the type of market harm that would block a fair use defense to copyright infringement.

The explosion of AI-generated music that Mike Huppe cites therefore provides strong evidence of repeatable and measurable market harm identified by Judge Chhabria. Every AI-generated stream competes for listener attention while simultaneously reducing each human artist’s share of a finite, shared royalty pool. Unlike speculative claims of future injury, this dilution can be observed, quantified, and modeled using actual streaming and royalty distributions.

The economics become even more troubling when combined with large-scale scraping. As we have seen litigated in the cases against Udio, Anthropic and Meta (and I think will continue to see proven through all of the AI models including Suno), AI has trained on enormous quantities of illegally acquired works without obtaining licenses or compensating the creators whose recordings, performances, writings, images, and other expressive works supplied the raw material that makes those models commercially valuable. Sound familiar?

The same creative ecosystem that furnished the training corpus is then required to compete against a cascading and endless supply of AI-generated outputs while receiving no payment for either the training use or the resulting competition. Worse yet, because nothing says freedom like getting away with it, AI platforms connected to Google, Facebook and Amazon are so used to ignoring copyrights in their day jobs that they clearly planned to ignore our rights.

In music, the effect is especially stark: the recordings that taught music-generation systems how to produce theoretically commercially appealing songs also become the works displaced by those outputs in the marketplace. Creators are effectively asked to finance their own displacement. They suffer a double economic injury—first, uncompensated exploitation of their works to build commercial AI systems, and second, measurable erosion of their share of a finite, shared royalty pool as AI-generated recordings compete for the same listeners and revenues that streamers like Spotify seem unable to stop from invading the ecosystem.

Because of the insane pool allocation formula used for streaming mechanical royalties on interactive services like Spotify, Amazon, Apple and Deezer, songwriters are also subject to the same kind of dilution as artists. Hopefully the Copyright Royalty Judges will address this new humiliation in the current statutory rate proceeding and clearly state that AI works are not eligible for the statutory license under Section 115.

This measurable dilution also helps illustrate the broader market-flooding concern identified by Judge Chhabria. If AI-generated outputs systematically occupy the same commercial markets as human-created works, reducing revenues through sheer volume rather than direct substitution alone, then streaming provides one of the first empirical laboratories for proving market harm for “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Because streaming royalties are transparent, pooled, and data-driven, music offers unusually strong evidence that AI-generated competition can inflict repeatable, measurable, and scalable economic injury. If courts follow Judge Chhabria in recognizing this analysis, the same analytical framework could extend beyond music to books, journalism, visual art, film, software, and other creative industries in which AI-generated outputs compete for the same audiences, revenues, and licensing opportunities as human creators.

Against that backdrop, the American Music Fairness Act is no longer simply a current solution to a decades-old copyright reform proposal. If AI companies are correct that generative AI will place unprecedented pressure on the economics of human creativity, then Congress should strengthen—not further weaken—all of the economic foundations supporting human creators. AMFA would finally require terrestrial broadcasters to compensate featured artists, session musicians, and vocalists for the use of their sound recordings, just as streaming and satellite radio already do. It would also unlock reciprocal foreign performance royalties that American performers currently forfeit because the United States remains an international outlier.

At a moment when AI is intensifying the struggle for creative labor to survive even while platforms seek broad legal exceptions for uncompensated training through lobbying and executive orders, eliminating one of copyright law’s oldest uncompensated uses would send an important signal: the future of artificial intelligence should not be financed by the continued erosion of the livelihoods of human creators.

The AI industry’s habit of predicting existential harm while aggressively commercializing the same technology presents a profound ethical contradiction that Professor Cal Newport calls “doom trolling” in a recent New York Times post. This leads to a conclusion that AI companies cannot credibly claim their technology poses existential risks while continuing to accelerate its commercialization without meaningful restraint.

Newport gives this example reminiscent of my personal favorite, the exploding gas tank in Ford Pintos (not to pick on Ford):

Imagine if the Ford Motor Company put out a report saying that it feared its popular F-150 trucks might soon start bursting into flames, but that there was nothing the company could do about it because automotive technology was too inevitable and important to slow down. You’re probably struggling to picture this scenario because no reasonable consumer product company would ever act like this.

The A.I. companies could start behaving the same way. To do so would require that they stop treating A.I. like some inevitable force that they’re struggling to steward. It’s not. It’s a collection of specific tools that these companies are choosing to design and sell according to specific business plans. Accordingly, they need to talk about their offerings like any other consumer product. This means explaining clearly whom these products are for, justifying their benefits and, critically, taking full responsibility for any harm they might cause. Just because A.I. currently enjoys a high-tech sheen doesn’t make it exceptional with respect to common-sense safety standards.

If these A.I. companies insist on continuing to pretend that they’re merely stoic observers of an unavoidable dystopian future, then perhaps it’s time to force the issue. As consumers, we can refuse to play the doom-trolling game. Next time Anthropic releases a dire report, or Sam Altman’s voice cracks as he imagines the disruption that OpenAI is unleashing, we can pivot back to the pragmatic: “OK, but what benefits am I getting by spending $1,000 a month on tokens?” If they continue to ratchet up the doom, then perhaps it’s time to transform dread into ridicule: The earnest pseudoscience of Anthropic’s white papers already borders on satire. The current zeitgeist surrounding A.I. encourages a fretful submission to these tech leaders, but this could rapidly change.

The AI industry cannot have it both ways. It cannot warn that generative AI will fundamentally transform—or even eliminate—millions of creative jobs while simultaneously insisting that the law should expand uncompensated access to the very works that make those systems possible. If AI companies genuinely believe their own predictions, then the appropriate public policy response is not to weaken copyright, broaden fair use, or create new exceptions for commercial training. It is to reinforce every remaining economic support for human creativity.

The evidence emerging from music streaming already demonstrates why. AI-generated works are not merely theoretical substitutes; they compete for attention, streams, and revenue, measurably reducing each creator’s share of a finite, shared royalty pool. That provides some of the clearest real-world evidence yet of repeatable market harm from generative AI at commercial scale. Congress should take note. The question is no longer whether creators deserve compensation for their work. It is whether the United States will choose to finance the AI economy by systematically eroding the economic incentives that have sustained human creativity for generations—or whether it will insist that technological progress, like every other successful industry before it, pays its own way.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the American Music Fairness Act is not about radio at all. It is about refusing to repeat yesterday’s policy mistakes in tomorrow’s technology. As Mike Huppe observed on Bloomberg, Congress should not be creating new copyright exceptions while it is still trying to fix old ones. That warning applies with even greater force to artificial intelligence. If policymakers know that generative AI is likely to place extraordinary pressure on the economics of human creativity—as many AI companies themselves readily acknowledge—then the answer cannot be to expand uncompensated uses of creative works in the name of innovation and unintended consequences be damned.

The webcasting revolution showed what Hernando de Soto long argued: respecting property rights doesn’t kill innovation—it gives innovators the legal foundation to build sustainable markets. AMFA is a cautionary tale: a narrow copyright exception adopted decades ago has deprived generations of American performers of compensation and remains difficult to unwind. Congress should learn from that history, not repeat it. The AI economy should be built by paying for the creative works that make it possible and respecting the rights of all creators—not by creating another exception that future generations will spend decades trying to reverse and an entrenched bureaucracy of the richest corporations in commercial history will oppose with all the resources they can muster.

Data Center Backlash: Eminent Domain and Stranded Asset Forecast Risk

The most important data center story today wasn’t a zoning hearing, a transmission line fight, or a new hyperscaler valuation announcement.

The most important story is a poll. And that poll may not only capture the sentiment of the public, it may also indicate which way elected officials and financiers are leaning, too.

A new Reuters/Ipsos survey found that only one-third of Americans support the current pace of AI data center construction, while nearly two-thirds oppose it. More than half said they would oppose a data center in their own community, and a substantial majority expressed concern that AI-related electricity demand could increase their utility bills.

The six-day poll, which surveyed 4,531 people across the country and closed on Monday, showed just 33% of Americans agreed with a statement that it was mainly a good thing to build data centers at a rapid pace. Some 64% disagreed….Some 57% of people surveyed – including two-thirds of Democrats and half of ‌Republicans – also said they would oppose a data center ⁠being built in their community. Just 14% of survey takers said they were okay with a center being built near them, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The lopsided result should not be surprising.

For the past two years, the public conversation around data centers has focused on American AI leadership (“because China”), economic development, and technological competitiveness. But many communities are experiencing something very different: transmission line easements criss-crossing private property, industrial-scale facilities near homes, rising utility concerns, water consumption, noise, and tax incentives for some of the world’s largest companies. It may be starting to dawn on the public why the White House AI Czar David Sacks was so obsessed with blocking any state laws that got in the way of AI.

In some cases, the issue goes even further. Landowners are being asked to surrender property rights through eminent domain—or the threat of eminent domain—so that transmission infrastructure can be built to serve facilities whose ultimate beneficiaries are among the wealthiest technology companies in the world.

Imagine you were the man who fell to earth and you knew nothing about AI workflow. Would you look at all these data centers, substations, behind the meter nuclear reactors and transmission lines and say “oh, that makes total sense”? Or would you ask what are these people thinking building a supply chain this kludgy with myriad points of failure? Data centers in space? Really? What could possibly go wrong?

That is where the national security narrative begins to collide with local reality. “We have to do this because China” is a powerful slogan in Washington. For many landowners outside the Imperial City, however, it begins to ring hollow when the immediate consequence is a transmission easement across family property that will never happen in an urban setting.

This is particularly true when the economic justification depends on AI demand forecasts that may not even be tested—much less achieved—for years. Viewed from a kitchen window looking out at a new transmission corridor in what used to be your vegetable garden or a pasture for livestock, the sacrifice is immediate and personal, while the promised strategic benefits remain abstract and distant.

We’ve already seen an econometric study from Professor Michael Hicks at Ball State University showing that all the hundreds of data centers in Texas have led to pretty much a wash in job creation, a major selling point that few ever believed. A University of Texas study shows that data centers could potentially account for 3% to 9% of Texas’ water use by 2040, according to a new white paper. In other words, Big Data has largely been talking about the benefits of AI while residents have been living with the costs of that infrastructure.

Chief Veterinary Officer for Greater Birmingham Humane Society Testifying against data center

Reverse Angle Showing City Council Left the building

The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests the issue may be evolving from a collection of local land-use disputes into a national political movement. Historically, that is the point where elected officials begin to change their behavior. Local opposition can often be dismissed as isolated resistance. National polling is harder to ignore and could be the harbinger of somebody getting unelected.

The challenge for policymakers, utilities, and developers is that public concerns are becoming increasingly tangible while many projected benefits remain tied to forecasts extending years into the future with no current evidence. Voters tend to react more strongly to immediate and permanent impacts than to promised future gains that may never come to pass, particularly gains to other people who don’t have a transmission line in their garden or who were not forced to sell their family home to a power company.

That leads to a data center mobilization question that has received far less attention than corrupting farm land, water use, noise, or electricity rates: what happens if the forecasts are simply wrong?

Communities are being asked to accept transmission corridors, substations, power plants, and massive industrial facilities today based on projections of future AI demand that may extend a decade or more into the future. Yet the economics of AI remain highly uncertain as this week’s Google $85 billion equity round confirms. When Google’s AI capital expenditures exceeded even Google’s free cash flow, the Leviathan of Mountain View turned to a Silicon Valley favorite: Other people’s money. Revenue models are still evolving, competition is intense, and many of the assumptions underlying today’s infrastructure buildout have not yet been tested through a full business cycle.

Crucially, Investors are funding unprecedented AI capex on the assumption of durable competitive advantages, yet the underlying LLM asset increasingly exhibits commodity characteristics. Meaning the models are all very similar in the fundamental components. As hyperscalers converge on functionally similar models, infrastructure, and services at extraordinary cost, there is less and less that distinguishes one from the other. When Google chooses to finance capex out of equity rather than continue financing from free cash flow and debt, that may also tell us something about the appetite of lenders getting a little skeptical.

It’s not just Google. Consider the implications of the recent reports surrounding SoftBank’s OpenAI investment. SoftBank participated in OpenAI’s February 2026 funding round at a valuation of approximately $840 billion and emerged with roughly 13% ownership. On paper, SoftBank’s stake in OpenAI carried an implied value of approximately $109 billion.

Yet when SoftBank reportedly sought to get a margin loan on those same shares a few weeks ago (three months after the $840 billion valuation was set) using that position as collateral, lenders appear to have viewed the value of the OpenAI shares very differently. The company initially sought a $10 billion loan secured by its OpenAI shares, later reducing the request to approximately $6 billion after lender interest reportedly proved limited. Even at the lower amount, loan negotiations have reportedly stalled.

The significance is not just that SoftBank’s OpenAI position is worth only $6 billion (implied $46B valuation) or $10 billion as margin loan collateral, if that. Rather, it highlights the distinction between venture valuation, financing valuation, and realizable value. An $840 billion venture valuation reflects what investors were willing to pay in a private financing round under specific assumptions about future growth, profitability, and market structure.

A margin lender asks a different question: if the collateral must be liquidated under adverse circumstances like a bubble burst or the recent semiconductor crash, what is it actually worth? The resulting margin discount can be substantial, even taking into account the usual 50%-ish haircut on marginable securities. For AI investors, this episode may be one of the first visible indications that sophisticated credit markets are assigning materially different risk assessments to AI assets than those implied by headline-grabbing private-market valuations fueled by cheerleading from the financial press and, it must be said, the Oval Office.

Similar valuation disconnects have appeared before other major public offerings, including Spotify’s direct listing, WeWork’s failed IPO, and several high-profile technology listings where private-market expectations ultimately confronted public-market price discovery. For AI investors, the significance is less about OpenAI itself than what the episode may reveal about the difference between AI forecasts and the willingness of sophisticated creditors to finance those assumptions with actual cash.

Homes will be sacrificed – said Holly Lovett, spokeswoman for @GeorgiaPower this article is our local newspaper from November of last year. https://t.co/VsVNDg8P05
— Ansley Brown (@Ansleysgarden) June 10, 2026

If those forecasts prove overly optimistic, the result may not simply be disappointed investors. The result could be stranded assets: transmission lines cutting across ranches and farms, substations occupying valuable land, and industrial facilities looming over communities long after the expected economic justification has faded. That burden may ultimately become the defining political challenge of the AI infrastructure era. People are not merely being asked to tolerate temporary construction. They are being asked to accept permanent changes both to their homes, to their property ownership, and to their communities in support of forecasts that may or may not materialize. If a ranch is involuntarily divided, a neighborhood industrialized, or a home taken for infrastructure justified by projected future AI demand, the consequences are real regardless of whether the forecast is ultimately correct.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that the next phase of the debate may be less about artificial intelligence itself and more about who bears the risks, costs, and consequences of the infrastructure being built to support it—and who bears the consequences for an unpopular mobilization if those forecasts turn out to be wrong.

That conversation—and the inevitable litigation—is only beginning.

2 LOCAL ENGINEERS refute the @DCBLOXinc rep’s claims: “Waterless cooling does not mean more environmentally-friendly… they are going to continually burn fossil fuels and pollute our communities… not just the one @NashvilleZoo, the one at @Fisk1866 too.” pic.twitter.com/MpZuqYEQ4j
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) June 12, 2026

The Data Center Backlash Has Arrived

For years, the political conversation around AI data centers followed a familiar script that was straight out of the Chamber of Commerce. Governors competed to announce the next hyperscale campus. Counties rezoned farmland and conservation land into heavy industrial corridors. Legislatures approved enormous tax abatements with little debate. Utilities promised “economic development.” And local officials were told that if they moved too slowly, some other state would take the project instead. Kind of like because China.

Data centers are receiving billions in tax breaks from the state of Georgia and they’re using eminent domain to take people’s family homes.

I’m the only candidate for Lt. Gov talking about this because I’m the only one who voted against it. pic.twitter.com/4jwIQJdVqF
— Senator Greg Dolezal (@DolezalForGA) May 23, 2026

Residents in Crowell, Texas are being forced to live with constant artificial daylight because of Google’s AI data center that is being built right next to them. Residents report severe 24/7 light pollution that creates artificial daylight at night (photo proof shown)

Why? Because even 10 years ago it was self-evidently true that there was no political opposition to Big Tech and nobody looked too hard at the reality of data centers in the places we had observable data like Oregon, for example. If they had, they would have known there was one thing that was absolutely true—data centers were not factories and they produced higher electric bills and fewer jobs. At least once the sugar high of construction had passed.

And speaking of jobs, in a November 2025 difference-in-differences study, economist Michael J. Hicks examined every data center opened in Texas and found zero statistically significant net employment effect — job gains in the data center sector were fully offset by losses in other industries, yielding an average treatment effect of roughly 46 workers per facility that the author concludes is “correctly interpreted as zero,” less than one-tenth the jobs generated by a single Walmart Supercenter.

Good Jobs First has found that the three states that have measured their data center return on investment lose 52 to 91 cents on the dollar, and in Virginia alone, the sales and use tax exemption for data centers consumed 81.3% of the state’s entire economic development incentives budget in FY 2024.

But it’s not just light pollution. Even though it was patently obvious that the massive data centers that were getting built in Louisiana, Georgia, Utah and Nevada were vastly larger than the already operating data centers in Oregon and were guaranteed to chew up the environment way more, nobody bothered to put 2 and 2 together and check how deep the foundations were compared to local aquifers.

Just because she’s a socialist, doesn’t mean she’s wrong.

That script is now breaking down. I’m shocked, said no one.

As we told the UK Intellectual Property Office:

We call the IPO’s attention to the real-world example of the U.S. State of Oregon, a state that is roughly the geographical size of the UK.  Google built the first Oregon data centre in The Dalles, Oregon in 2006.  Oregon now has 125 of the very data centres that Big Tech will necessarily need to build in the UK to implement AI.  In other words, Oregon was sold much the same story that Big Tech is selling you today.

The rapid growth of Oregon data centres driven by the same tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Oracle, and Meta, has significantly increased Oregon’s demand for electricity. This surge in demand has led to higher power costs, which are often passed on to local rate payers while data centre owners receive tax benefits.  This increase in price foreshadows the market effect of crowding out local rate payers in the rush for electricity to run AI—demand will only increase and increase substantially as we enter what the International Energy Agency has called “the age of electricity”.

Portland General Electric, a local power operator, has faced increasing criticism for raising rates to accommodate the encroaching electrical power needs of these data centers. Local residents argue that they unfairly bear the increased electrical costs while data centers benefit from tax incentives and other advantages granted by government.

This is particularly galling in that the hydroelectric power in Oregon is largely produced by massive taxpayer-funded hydroelectric and other power projects built long ago. The relatively recent 125 Oregon data centres received significant tax incentives during their construction to be offset by a promise of future jobs.  While there were new temporary jobs created during the construction phase of the data centres, there are relatively few permanent jobs required to operate them long term as one would expect from digitized assets owned by AI platforms.

Of course, the UK has approximately 16 times the population of Oregon.  Given this disparity, it seems plausible that whatever problems that Oregon has with the concentration of data centers, the UK will have those same problems many times over due to the concentration of populations.

This message is getting through to elected officials around the world because citizens are freaking out.

Quietly at first, and then all at once, states and local governments across the country began pushing back. Some are freezing approvals entirely. Others are reconsidering billions in tax incentives. Some are demanding that data centers pay the real cost of the transmission infrastructure they require instead of socializing those costs onto ordinary ratepayers and anyone else who drinks water and breathes air.

This is no longer a niche zoning issue in Northern Virginia or some European bureaucratic nonsense. It is becoming a national political movement that has some real populist overtones worthy of a Brexiteer. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), at least 11 states have introduced statewide moratorium or ban legislation targeting data centers. Meanwhile, Good Jobs First reports more than 60 local moratorium efforts nationwidethat at least 14 states and scores of localities are failing to disclose tax abatement revenue losses they are suffering to data centers — even though they have been required to do so under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) since FY 2017.

The reasons vary by region as you’d suspect, but the themes are becoming remarkably consistent, many of which Artist Rights Institute raised in our comments on the US AI Action Plan and the UK IPO AI consultation:

• massive electricity demand;
• water consumption;
• transmission line expansion;
• opaque tax subsidies;
• industrialization of rural communities;
• secrecy surrounding the ultimate hyperscale users;
• and growing fear that ordinary households will subsidize AI infrastructure through higher utility bills.

What is striking is not merely the existence of resistance. It is the geographic breadth of it.

In Texas, lawmakers enacted new large-load interconnection rules while Hill County adopted a temporary construction pause and Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller publicly called for broader scrutiny of data centers. In Virginia, long considered the unquestioned capital of the data center industry, legislators are openly debating whether to scale back tax exemptions that helped fuel “Data Center Alley.” In Illinois, Governor Pritzker proposed suspending new tax incentives entirely for two years.

Even places that aggressively courted data centers are beginning to hesitate.

In Reno, Nevada, officials adopted a pause on approving new data centers while they reevaluate land-use and infrastructure impacts. Duh. Ya think?

The Reno–Tahoe industrial corridor became a symbol of how quickly hyperscale development can transform an entire region once incentives and transmission infrastructure align. Nevada approved hundreds of millions in projected abatements over the last decade. Now local officials are asking whether the public actually understood the scale of what was being built. If you build it they will come, and they will take a huge dump in your backyard.

That same questions are emerging everywhere else: Who is the real end user? Who pays for the substations and 765-kV transmission lines? What happens if AI demand projections collapse halfway through construction? And why are local taxpayers subsidizing facilities that often employ surprisingly few permanent workers once operational? Well…not really surprisingly, but surprisingly if you believed the Chamber of Commerce hoorah.

The politics are changing because the physical footprint of AI is no longer abstract. The cloud is becoming visible. And you cannot bribe your way out of that one.

Residents now see the cooling towers. They see the transmission corridors. They hear the backup generators. In some communities they are learning about low-frequency industrial noise and infrasound issues that do not show up on ordinary decibel measurements. They see conservation land rezoned into industrial districts almost overnight. They see shell companies quietly assembling land while refusing to identify the ultimate hyperscale beneficiary.

Most importantly, they are beginning to understand that these projects are not temporary construction booms. They are permanent industrialization decisions. A 765-kV transmission corridor is not a pop-up startup. Neither is a hyperscale campus consuming as much electricity as a mid-sized city. And once the infrastructure is built, communities live with the consequences for generations.

The result is a new kind of political coalition that cuts across ideological lines. Environmental advocates, fiscal conservatives, rural landowners, grid-reliability hawks, and anti-subsidy activists are increasingly finding themselves on the same side of the debate. That does not mean the data center industry is stopping. Far from it. Billions are still flowing into AI infrastructure. Utilities continue planning enormous generation and transmission expansions. States remain eager for construction spending and property tax growth.

But the era of automatic approval is ending. The central political question is no longer whether AI infrastructure will expand. It is who bears the cost.

And there is another revealing development occurring at the federal level. What does it tell you that President Trump reportedly pulled back an executive-order framework that would have required certain AI labs to obtain government cybersecurity approval or clearance before launching advanced systems?

Whatever one thinks of the policy itself, the episode suggests intense behind-the-scenes conflict inside the administration and the AI industry over whether any meaningful federal guardrails should exist at all. Sources around Washington describe the push as a last-ditch effort by what critics derisively call the “Zombie AI Viceroy” David Sacks, the lobbyist who seemingly cannot be fired because the entire AI infrastructure race has become too politically and financially entangled. We will see whether federal safeguards reappear in another form. But at this moment, the practical reality is striking: the only governments actively imposing meaningful friction on AI infrastructure expansion are states, counties, and local municipalities.

State and Local Data Center Restriction / Tax Rollback Tracker (May 2026)

Alabama — Considering rules requiring data centers to bear infrastructure/grid costs

Arizona — Chandler pause; grid-cost proposals under consideration

California — Bills addressing ratepayer and environmental protections

Colorado — Denver moratorium; Larimer County pause; Logan County restrictions

Connecticut — Morris moratorium; Groton zoning restrictions

Florida — Enacted protections for local zoning authority and ratepayer safeguards

Georgia — HB 1059 introduced forbidding local permitting until December 2028; local pauses; estimated $2.5 billion per year in tax abatement revenue losses (highest in nation)

Illinois — Governor called for two-year pause of data center tax incentives

Indiana — Considering restructuring of tax incentive revenue sharing; fails to disclose data center costs despite ranking fifth-best in subsidy transparency nationally

Louisiana — New Orleans temporary moratorium

Maine — LD 307 moratorium on data centers over 20 MW (vetoed by Governor); local moratoria

Maryland — Proposed statewide approval restrictions (SB 931 / HB 1369)

Massachusetts — Lowell moratorium

Michigan — State moratorium proposals; Ypsilanti pause

Minnesota — Removed electricity sales tax exemption; created new annual energy-use fee; Minneapolis moratorium discussions

Nevada — Reno approval pause; growing tax-abatement controversy; Controller issues exemplary annual report of local revenue losses from state-awarded abatements

New Hampshire — HB 1265 one-year moratorium on data center construction (failed)

New Jersey — Millville ban/restrictions; prevailing wage requirement for data center construction (enacted February 2026)

New York — AB 10141 / SB 9144 statewide moratorium and Public Utility Commission rulemaking (introduced); Athens/Dryden/Mount Morris local restrictions

North Carolina — Chatham County moratorium; additional local reviews

North Dakota — Oliver County temporary moratorium activity

Ohio — Numerous local pauses; growing subsidy backlash

Oklahoma — SB 1488 moratorium until November 2029 (introduced); incentive rollback proposals

Oregon — Affordability/reliability proposals tied to large-load users

Pennsylvania — Moratorium discussions underway (HB 1370 introduced per NCSL)

South Carolina — SB 567 proposal to restrict approvals pending oversight framework (introduced)

South Dakota — SB 232 one-year statewide moratorium (introduced); local-control protections enacted

Texas — Large-load legislation; local moratoria and review fights; estimated $1 billion or more per year in tax abatement revenue losses; Hicks (2025) causal study found zero net job growth from data centers statewide

Vermont — S 205 proposed moratorium through 2030 with impact study requirement (introduced)

Virginia — HB 1515 prohibiting new approvals until interconnection requests fulfilled or July 2028 (continued); major debate over scaling back tax exemptions; estimated $1.94 billion per year in revenue losses; data center exemptions consumed 81.3% of state’s entire incentive budget in FY 2024

Washington — Restrictions tied to emissions-credit eligibility

Wisconsin — Moratorium proposal (status unverified; not listed in NCSL tracker)

The important point is not that every proposal will pass, which it may or may not. The important point is that resistance is no longer isolated. The backlash has become national. And resistance is not futile.

The AI Subsidy Is Over. Or Maybe It’s Just Beginning.

The current narrative says the “AI subsidy era” is ending. Prices are rising. Rate limits are tightening. Ads are creeping in. Enterprise tiers are replacing all-you-can-eat plans. In short: users will finally start paying what AI actually costs.

Haydon Field writing in The Verge tells us:

Earlier this month, millions of OpenClaw users woke up to a sweeping mandate: The viral AI agent tool, which this year took the worldwide tech industry by storm, had been severely restricted by Anthropic.

Anthropic, like other leading AI labs, was under immense pressure to lessen the strain on its systems and start turning a profit. So if the users wanted its Claude AI to power their popular agents, they’d have to start paying handsomely for the privilege.

“Our subscriptions weren’t built for the usage patterns of these third-party tools,” wrote Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code, on X. “We want to be intentional in managing our growth to continue to serve our customers sustainably long-term. This change is a step toward that.”

The announcement was a sign of the times. Investors have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to help them scale and build out their compute. Now, they’re expecting returns. After years of offering cheap or totally free access to advanced AI systems, the bill is starting to come due — and downstream, users are beginning to feel the pinch.

That’s true but it’s leaving out a lot.

Yes, the consumer subsidy—venture-backed underpricing of inference—may be winding down. But the broader subsidy system that made AI possible isn’t going away. It’s expanding. Just ask President Trump.

To understand why, you have to go back to the last great digital disruption.

From P2P to Streaming to AI

Start with Napster.

P2P didn’t just enable infringement. It rewired expectations. It taught users that all music should be available, instantly, for free. Why? Because there was gold in them long tails. Forget about supply and demand, we had infinite supply so demand would take care of itself.

Every artist, songwriter, label and publisher in the history of recorded music were not compensated for this shift. They were its involuntary financiers. Their catalogs created the demand, the network effects, and the user adoption that built the early internet music economy.

Streaming—think Spotify—didn’t reverse that logic. It formalized it. (Remember, streaming saved us from piracy and we should all be so grateful.) It actually transferred that involuntary financing from the p2p balance sheet to Spotify’s, and took it public.

Streaming platforms accepted a new baseline: the entire world’s repertoire must be available at all times, regardless of demand. That is a costly and structurally inefficient mandate, but it became the price of competing in a market shaped by P2P expectations. Licensing systems like the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) were built to support that scale, but the underlying premise remained: total availability first, compensation second.

AI changes the game again.

AI Doesn’t Just Distribute Works. It Consumes Them.

P2P distributed music. Streaming licensed it. AI models ingest it.

That’s the critical difference.

Generative AI systems are trained on massive corpora that include copyrighted works, performances, and what we might call personhood signals—voice, style, tone, phrasing, and creative identity. These inputs are not just indexed or streamed. They are transmogrified (see what I did there) into model weights that can generate new outputs that compete with, mimic, or substitute for the originals.

So the role of the artist evolves:
    •    In P2P: unpaid distributor subsidy
    •    In streaming: underpaid inventory supplier
    •    In AI: uncompensated production input
That is not a marginal shift. It is a structural one.

The Real Subsidy Stack

When people say the “AI subsidy era is over,” they are usually talking about one thing: cheap access to compute.
But AI has always depended on a multi-layered subsidy stack:

    Creators – supply training data, cultural value, and identity signals without compensation or consent
    Users – supply prompts, feedback, and behavioral data that improve the models
    Communities – absorb land use, water consumption, and environmental costs
    Ratepayers – fund grid upgrades, transmission, and reliability for data center demand
    Venture capital – underwrites early losses to drive adoption and scale

The shift we are seeing now is not the end of subsidies. It’s a reallocation. Or as a cynic might say, it’s rearranging the deck chairs to hide the lifeboats.

Users may start paying more. But creators still aren’t being paid for training. Communities are still being asked to host infrastructure. And the physical footprint of AI is accelerating. Just ask President Trump.

The World Turned Upside Down

What makes this moment different is the scale of the buildout.
We are not just talking about apps anymore. We are talking about an industrial transformation:
    •    New data centers the size of small cities
    •    High-voltage transmission lines
    •    Water-intensive cooling systems
    •    Semiconductor supply chains
    •    And even discussions of new nuclear capacity to support compute demand

This is infrastructure on the scale of a national project, or more like national mobilization. But it is being built on top of a premise that has not been resolved: the uncompensated use of human creative work as training input.

That is the inversion: We are building power plants for systems that depend on not paying the people whose work makes those systems possible.

A Better Frame

The cleanest way to understand this is as a continuum:

P2P turned infringement into consumer expectation.
Streaming turned that expectation into platform infrastructure.
AI turns uncompensated authorship into industrial feedstock.

Or more bluntly:
The AI free ride is not ending. It is being re-invoiced. Users may now see higher prices. But the deeper subsidies—creative, environmental, and civic—remain off the books.

What Comes Next

If the industry is serious about “pricing AI correctly,” it cannot stop at compute.

It has to address:
    •    Compensation frameworks for training data
    •    Attribution and provenance standards
    •    Licensing models for style and voice
    •    Infrastructure cost allocation (who pays for the grid?)
    •    Governance of large-scale compute deployment

Otherwise, we are not exiting the subsidy era. We are doing what Big Tech lives for.

We are scaling it.

And this time, instead of a few server racks in a dorm room, we are building an global energy system around it.

Same Popcorn, Different Wrapper

In ancient Rome, Marcus Licinius Crassus was the wealthiest man alive. And he had a system. He owned real estate and he also owned the fire brigades. When a house caught fire, Crassus sent his men to the scene. But they didn’t rush in with water.

First, he made the owner an offer. Sell me your house for pennies. The house that is literally on fire. Agree to the price, and the fire would be put out. Refuse… and his fire brigade would simply watch it burn.

Some even whispered that Crassus’s men set fires themselves, just to create new ‘opportunities.’ Ya think?

It was ruthless. Ingenious. And it gave him his own kind of safe harbor. If you controlled the fire brigade… there was no liability. No regulator. No competition. Just profit. Because Crassus set the valuation.

Now—fast forward two thousand years. AI hyperscalers haven’t just rediscovered Crassus’s model. They’ve reimagined it.

The Valuation is the Thing

There is a moment in every cycle when the story stops even pretending to line up with the business. That moment usually shows up quietly at first, almost as a joke, and then all at once everyone realizes the joke is being taken seriously.

We may be there again.

Allbirds, a company that built its brand selling wool sneakers to a very specific kind of customer, is now pivoting into AI compute infrastructure. Not adjacent. Not evolutionary. Just a clean jump into GPUs and datacenters. The rebrand writes itself. NewBird AI.

If that sounds absurd, it should. But it should also feel familiar. The mistake is to focus on the technology. The technology is always real. The internet was real. AI is real. The mistake is to assume the valuation attached to that technology has anything to do with the underlying business. That part is almost always where things go sideways. The people. The ones who set the fires.

Fire Good, Valuations Bad

Look at the comps. Spotify sits around a one hundred billion dollar market cap. Universal Music Group is closer to thirty eight. Warner Music Group is around fifteen. The companies that own the music, the actual asset, the thing that endures, are worth a fraction of the company that packages and distributes it and will one day be replaced, just like streaming replaced CDs.

That is not a story about innovation. It is a story about what the market chooses to value.

Once you see that, the Allbirds pivot stops looking irrational. It starts looking like one of the only logical moves available. If the market assigns higher multiples to infrastructure, to platforms, to anything that can be described as scalable, then the rational response is to become that thing. Not because the company has any particular advantage in doing so, but because the category itself carries the valuation.

We have seen this movie before. In the late nineties, companies selling ordinary products wrapped themselves in the language of the internet. They were not retailers. They were platforms. They were not losing money. Oh no, no, no. They were scaling. They could IPO with four quarters of top line revenue. The technology stack became the story. The story became the valuation. The underlying business became almost incidental. Larry Ellison’s famous spoof Internet company, HeyIdiot.com was a “cash portal” that only sold one product, being shares of HeyIdiot.com stock at incrementally higher prices to even greater fools.

The systems built around those businesses grew increasingly complex. Layers of software justified layers of capital. At the same time, the basic economics often made less and less sense. Somewhere outside the pitch decks, the vulnerabilities were obvious. The infrastructure was fragile. The incentives were misaligned. But the narrative carried everything forward until it didn’t.

This cycle has its own vocabulary. Instead of platforms and portals, we have models and compute. Instead of e commerce infrastructure, we have GPU clusters. The words are different. The behavior is not.

But somebody’s AI is not in on the joke…

“Part of their exploration into new ideas within the tech industry?” Say what? Somebody’s not in on the joke.

The pattern is simple. Take something real and wrap it in something that can be described as infinite, like you know, shelf space for the long tail. The wrapper gets the multiple. The underlying asset becomes an input cost. Over time, the market forgets the difference. Particularly with help from Mary Meeker.

That is how you end up with a distributor valued above the content it distributes. It is how you end up with a sneaker company presenting itself as a datacenter operator. It is how each cycle convinces itself that it has broken from the last one when it is mostly repeating it with better branding.

Same popcorn. Different wrapper.

None of this requires believing that AI is not important. It is. None of this requires believing that compute does not matter. It does. The question is not whether the technology is real. The question is why the valuation attached to it keeps drifting so far from the businesses claiming it.

There is a point where companies stop explaining how they make money and start explaining what category they belong to. That is usually the point where the market has shifted from pricing businesses to pricing narratives.

When that happens, the incentives become clear. You do not need to build the best company. You need to be seen as the right kind of company. You need the HeyIdiot wrapper.

So no, this is not about the macro environment. It is not about timing the cycle or reading the tea leaves of innovation.

It is simpler than that.

It is the valuation, stupid.

And yes, it is still stupid. But as Crassus might tell you, the house is also still on fire, mofo. What do you want to do about it?

The SXSW–PwC Report Is Polished—But It’s Still a Conference Echo Chamber of an Echo Chamber

The 2026 SXSW–PwC Insights Report is well-written, highly readable, and professionally assembled with lots of graphics. It succeeds at what it sets out to do: synthesize themes from a sprawling, interdisciplinary conference into something digestible for executives and strategists.

But it is important to be clear about what this document actually is—and what it is not.

It is not a study.
It is not an empirical analysis.
And it is certainly not the product of anything resembling peer review.

It is a reflection of conference discourse. And lunches. But at least they don’t mention “because China.”

The missing story: creators and labor

Perhaps the most notable gap—particularly given SXSW’s cultural footprint as a music festival that never paid a musician it couldn’t stiff—is the absence of a meaningful discussion of creators and labor.

Adding insult to injury, the report’s most conspicuous nod to the music business that spawned SXSW is in the report section titled “Replay vs. Breakout Hit,” a cute music metaphor for what is essentially a self-grading exercise. Why are we not surprised. For a conference rooted in the labor and culture of musicians, the report has remarkably little to say about musicians as workers or rights-holders. Or at all. It reads a bit like those tech offices that name their conference rooms after artists while inside those rooms people figure out how to disintermediate, devalue, or extract from the artists themselves. Not mentioning names but their initials are Google.

Technology throughout the report is framed as expanding capability, but not as transferring wealth.

There is little engagement with:
– whether creators are compensated or displaced
– how value flows through AI systems
– the asymmetry between platforms and individuals

This is not a minor omission. It goes to the core of whether the trends being described are sustainable—or extractive.

The “Replay vs. Breakout Hit” page is less a retrospective than a self-grading exercise. It does not test last year’s insights against events or outcomes. It simply shows that if you keep attending the same conference circuit, you can usually hear enough of the same themes to call your prior buzzwords validated.

SXSW sits at the intersection of music, film, and technology. If a report emerging from that environment cannot meaningfully account for creators, it is not just incomplete—it is asking the wrong question.

Start with the source: SXSW is not a neutral environment

The report is based on PwC’s attendance at more than 100 SXSW sessions and conversations with “thought leaders.” That sounds comprehensive, but it also tells you everything you need to know about the limits of the exercise. And that’s a whole lot of lunches.

SXSW—like TED and similar marquee events—is not designed to test ideas. It is designed to showcase them.

Panels are curated. Speakers are selected. Topics are framed in advance. And most importantly, participants are there for a reason: to promote something. A company. A framework. A product. A worldview. And oh, yes. A band.

That doesn’t make the content worthless. But it does mean the incentives are not aligned with truth-seeking.

They are aligned with visibility.

When panels become pitch environments

In practice, this structure often produces what anyone who has spent time in these rooms recognizes immediately: panels that function less as discussions and more as coordinated signaling exercises.

Especially in the tech space, you frequently see:
– Panelists advancing aligned narratives about “inevitable” technological change
– Framing that assumes adoption rather than interrogates the wisdom of adoption
– Soft, non-adversarial questioning that avoids meaningful challenge

And yes, there have long been instances where the “moderator” is not a neutral facilitator at all, but an industry advocate or policy lobbyist shaping the conversation, sometimes with only a token dissenting voice on stage who wasn’t in on the joke and looked confused.

The result is not debate. It is choreography.

Narrative momentum is not economic reality

SXSW is a narrative marketplace. It is very good at surfacing what people are excited about. But more precisely, SXSW is very good at surfacing what people with funding are excited about—which is usually themselves. And also their products and the narratives that make both more valuable. It is also a place where the ability to show up is itself a form of signaling—funding is not just the topic, it is the price of admission. Did I say “themselves”?

That framing matters because it explains why the output looks the way it does. The report is not simply identifying trends—it is reflecting a filtered environment in which access, funding, investment capital, and narrative are tightly intertwined.

The report expands and echoes those incentives like a meta-leave behind pitch sheet.

The SXSW–PwC report does not correct for this dynamic—it amplifies it.

By design, the report takes curated panels featuring self-selected speakers operating in a self-promotional environment
and distills them into “insights” for business leaders.

That is a closed loop.

What emerges is not independent analysis, but a refined version of the same narratives that were already being performed on stage—particularly around AI, innovation, and organizational transformation. Like every other tech-influenced conference.

The AI story: all acceleration, limited friction

Unsurprisingly, AI dominates the report.

The framing is familiar:
– AI as a creative amplifier
– AI as a competitive necessity
– AI as an organizational transformation layer

What is much less developed are the counterweights:
– Substitution effects (especially in creative labor markets)
– Market dilution and “flooding” dynamics
– Legal and regulatory constraints (copyright, privacy, liability)
– The question of who actually captures the value created

Instead, AI is largely treated as a capability problem: How quickly can organizations adopt and deploy? Thinking that leads to statements like this:

Complex stories underperform, while reactive, emotionally charged content thrives—and bad actors reverse-engineer those dynamics to move from the margins to the mainstream. Compounding the problem, under-resourced newsrooms are losing experienced journalists needed to maintain editorial standards, leaving the information vacuum to be filled by algorithmically optimized noise.

Yes, experienced journalists are just up and leaving, wowza. What’s the world coming to? Any interest in connecting some dots there, PwC lunchers?

Not only does the report not even dig an inch deep into any issue involving labor, or question the bargaining leverage that AI confers on employers much less ask who benefits, who loses, and under what terms?

“Act now or fall behind” is not analysis. Like many consulting-adjacent outputs, the report leans heavily on urgency. But these claims are not tied to measurable benchmarks or falsifiable outcomes.

One More Thing

The real issue with reports like this is not that they are wrong.

It is that they are produced within an environment where skepticism is disincentivized and narratives are shaped before the conversation even begins.

The SXSW–PwC report captures that environment faithfully. But it does not escape it.

And in that sense, it perfectly illustrates why you don’t turn to a firm like PwC to analyze creators—they’re looking through the wrong lens from the start. The report shows little evidence that anyone with direct experience representing creators was meaningfully involved in reviewing it.

To be clear, this is not inherently a flaw. SXSW has hosted genuinely thoughtful and introspective panels, alongside plenty of circular admiration society panels as well. But no one has ever suggested that polling those panels would produce anything resembling decision-maker work product. And, to be fair, bravo to the PwC employees who managed to get their trip expensed to talk their book. That’s the true spirit of SXSW.

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.

Grassroots Revolt Against Data Centers Goes National: Water Use Now the Flashpoint

Over the last two weeks, grassroots opposition to data centers has moved from sporadic local skirmishes to a recognizable national pattern. While earlier fights centered on land use, noise, and tax incentives, the current phase is more focused and more dangerous for developers: water.

Across multiple states, residents are demanding to see the “water math” behind proposed data centers—how much water will be consumed (not just withdrawn), where it will come from, whether utilities can actually supply it during drought conditions, and what enforceable reporting and mitigation requirements will apply. In arid regions, water scarcity is an obvious constraint. But what’s new is that even in traditionally water-secure states, opponents are now framing data centers as industrial-scale consumptive users whose needs collide directly with residential growth, agriculture, and climate volatility.

The result: moratoria, rezoning denials, delayed hearings, task forces, and early-stage organizing efforts aimed at blocking projects before entitlements are locked in.

Below is a snapshot of how that opposition has played out state by state over the last two weeks.

State-by-State Breakdown

Virginia

Virginia remains ground zero for organized pushback.

Botetourt County: Residents confronted the Western Virginia Water Authority over a proposed Google data center, pressing officials about long-term water supply impacts and groundwater sustainability.

Hanover County (Richmond region): The Planning Commission voted against recommending rezoning for a large multi-building data center project.

State Legislature: Lawmakers are advancing reform proposals that would require water-use modeling and disclosure.

Georgia

Metro Atlanta / Middle Georgia: Local governments’ recruitment of hyperscale facilities is colliding with resident concerns.

DeKalb County: An extended moratorium reflects a pause-and-rewrite-the-rules strategy.

Monroe County / Forsyth area: Data centers have become a local political issue.

Arizona

The state has moved to curb groundwater use in rural basins via new regulatory designations requiring tracking and reporting.

Local organizing frames AI data centers as unsuitable for arid regions.

Maryland

Prince George’s County (Landover Mall site): Organized opposition centered on environmental justice and utility burdens.

Authorities have responded with a pause/moratorium and a task force.

Indiana

Indianapolis (Martindale-Brightwood): Packed rezoning hearings forced extended timelines.

Greensburg: Overflow crowds framed the fight around water-user rankings.

Oklahoma

Luther (OKC metro): Organized opposition before formal filings.

Michigan

Broad local opposition with water and utility impacts cited.

State-level skirmishes over incentives intersect with water-capacity debates.

North Carolina

Apex (Wake County area): Residents object to strain on electricity and water.

Wisconsin & Pennsylvania

Corporate messaging shifts in response to opposition; Microsoft acknowledged infrastructure and water burdens.

The Through-Line: “Show Us the Water Math”

Across these states, the grassroots playbook has converged:

Pack the hearing.

Demand water-use modeling and disclosure.

Attack rezoning and tax incentives.

Force moratoria until enforceable rules exist.

Residents are demanding hard numbers: consumptive losses, aquifer drawdown rates, utility-system capacity, drought contingencies, and legally binding mitigation.

Why This Matters for AI Policy

This revolt exposes the physical contradiction at the heart of the AI infrastructure build-out: compute is abstract in policy rhetoric but experienced locally as land, water, power, and noise.

Communities are rejecting a development model that externalizes its physical costs onto local water systems and ratepayers.

Water is now the primary political weapon communities are using to block, delay, and reshape AI infrastructure projects.

Read the local news:

America’s AI Boom Is Running Into An Unplanned Water Problem (Ken Silverstein/Forbes)

Residents raise water concerns over proposed Google data center (Allyssa Beatty/WDBJ7 News)

How data centers are rattling a Georgia Senate special election (Greg Bluesetein/Atlanta Journal Constitution)

A perfect, wild storm’: widely loathed datacenters see little US political opposition (Tom Perkins/The Guardian)

Hanover Planning Commission votes to deny rezoning request for data center development (Joi Fultz/WTVR)

Microsoft rolls out initiative to limit data-center power costs, water use impact (Reuters)

Grass‑Roots Rebellion Against Data Centers and Grid Expansion

A grass‑roots “data center and electric grid rebellion” is emerging across the United States as communities push back against the local consequences of AI‑driven infrastructure expansion. Residents are increasingly challenging large‑scale data centers and the transmission lines needed to power them, citing concerns about enormous electricity demand, water consumption, noise pollution, land use, declining property values, and opaque approval processes. What were once routine zoning or utility hearings are now crowded, contentious events, with citizens organizing quickly and sharing strategies across counties and states.

This opposition is no longer ad hoc. In Northern Virginia—often described as the global epicenter of data centers—organized campaigns such as the Coalition to Protect Prince William County have mobilized voters, fundraised for local elections, demanded zoning changes, and challenged approvals in court. In Maryland’s Prince George’s County, resistance has taken on a strong environmental‑justice framing, with groups like the South County Environmental Justice Coalition arguing that data centers concentrate environmental and energy burdens in historically marginalized communities and calling for moratoria and stronger safeguards.

Nationally, consumer and civic groups are increasingly coordinated, using shared data, mapping tools, and media pressure to argue that unchecked data‑center growth threatens grid reliability and shifts costs onto ratepayers. Together, these campaigns signal a broader political reckoning over who bears the costs of the AI economy.

Here’s a snapshot of grass roots opposition in Texas, Louisiana and Nevada:

Texas

Texas has some of the most active and durable local opposition, driven by land use, water, and transmission corridors.

Hill Country & Central Texas (Burnet, Llano, Gillespie, Blanco Counties)
Grass-roots groups formed initially around high-voltage transmission lines (765 kV) tied to load growth, now explicitly linking those lines to data center demand. Campaigns emphasize:
- rural land fragmentation
- wildfire risk
- eminent domain abuse
- lack of local benefit
  These groups are often informal coalitions of landowners rather than NGOs, but they coordinate testimony, public-records requests, and local elections.
DFW & North Texas
Neighborhood associations opposing rezoning for hyperscale facilities focus on noise (backup generators), property values, and school-district tax distortions created by data-center abatements.
ERCOT framing
Texas groups uniquely argue that data centers are socializing grid instability risk onto residential ratepayers while privatizing upside—an argument that resonates with conservative voters.

Louisiana

Opposition is newer but coalescing rapidly, often tied to petrochemical and LNG resistance networks.

North Louisiana & Mississippi River Corridor
Community groups opposing new data centers frame them as:
- “energy parasites” tied to gas plants
- extensions of an already overburdened industrial corridor
- threats to water tables and wetlands
  Organizers often overlap with environmental-justice and faith-based coalitions that previously fought refineries and export terminals.
Key tactic: reframing data centers as industrial facilities, not “tech,” triggering stricter land-use scrutiny.

Nevada

Nevada opposition centers on water scarcity and public-land use.

Clark County & Northern Nevada
Residents and conservation groups question:
- water allocations for evaporative cooling
- siting near public or BLM-managed land
- grid upgrades subsidized by ratepayers for private AI firms
Distinct Nevada argument: data centers compete directly with housing and tribal water needs, not just environmental values.

The Data Center Rebellion is Here and It’s Reshaping the Political Landscape (Washington Post)

Residents protest high-voltage power lines that could skirt Dinosaur Valley State Park (ALEJANDRA MARTINEZ AND PAUL COBLER/Texas Tribune)

US Communities Halt $64B Data Center Expansions Amid Backlash (Lucas Greene/WebProNews)

Big Tech’s fast-expanding plans for data centers are running into stiff community opposition (Marc Levy/Associated Press)

Data center ‘gold rush’ pits local officials’ hunt for new revenue against residents’ concerns (Alander Rocha/Georgia Record)

You Can’t Prosecute Smuggling NVIDIA chips to CCP and Authorize Sales to CCP at the Same Time

The Trump administration is attempting an impossible contradiction: selling advanced NVIDIA AI chips to China while the Department of Justice prosecutes criminal cases for smuggling the exact same chips into China.

According to the DOJ:

“Operation Gatekeeper has exposed a sophisticated smuggling network that threatens our Nation’s security by funneling cutting-edge AI technology to those who would use it against American interests,” said Ganjei. “These chips are the building blocks of AI superiority and are integral to modern military applications. The country that controls these chips will control AI technology; the country that controls AI technology will control the future. The Southern District of Texas will aggressively prosecute anyone who attempts to compromise America’s technological edge.”

That divergence from the prosecutors is not industrial policy. That is incoherence. But mostly it’s just bad advice, likely coming from White House AI Czar David Sacks, Mr. Trump’s South African AI policy advisor who may have a hard time getting a security clearance in the first place..

On one hand, DOJ is rightly bringing cases over the illegal diversion of restricted AI chips—recognizing that these processors are strategic technologies with direct national-security implications. On the other hand, the White House is signaling that access to those same chips is negotiable, subject to licensing workarounds, regulatory carve-outs, or political discretion.

You cannot treat a technology as contraband in federal court and as a commercial export in the West Wing.

Pick one.

AI Chips Are Not Consumer Electronics

The United States does not sell China F-35 fighter jets. We do not sell Patriot missile systems. We do not sell advanced avionics platforms and then act surprised when they show up embedded in military infrastructure. High-end AI accelerators are in the same category.

NVIDIA’s most advanced chips are not merely commercial products. They are general-purpose intelligence infrastructure or what China calls military-civil fusion. They train surveillance systems, military logistics platforms, cyber-offensive tools, and models capable of operating autonomous weapons and battlefield decision-making pipelines with no human in the loop.

If DOJ treats the smuggling of these chips into China as a serious federal crime—and it should—there is no coherent justification for authorizing their sale through executive discretion. Except, of course, money, or in Mr. Sacks case, more money.

Fully Autonomous Weapons—and Selling the Rope

China does not need U.S. chips to build consumer AI. It wants them for military acceleration.Advanced NVIDIA AI chips are not just about chatbots or recommendation engines. They are the backbone of fully autonomous weapons systems—autonomous targeting, swarm coordination, battlefield logistics, and decision-support models that compress the kill chain beyond meaningful human control.

There is an old warning attributed to Vladimir Lenin—that capitalists would sell the rope by which they would later be hanged. Apocryphal or not, it captures this moment with uncomfortable precision.

If NVIDIA chips are powerful enough to underpin autonomous weapons systems for allied militaries, they are powerful enough to underpin autonomous weapons systems for adversaries like China. Trump’s own National Security Strategy statement clearly says previous U.S. elites made “mistaken” assumptions about China such as the famous one that letting China into the WTO would integrate Beijing into the famous rules-based international order. Trump tells us that instead China “got rich and powerful” and used this against us, and goes on to describe the CCP’s well known predatory subsidies, unfair trade, IP theft, industrial espionage, supply-chain leverage, and fentanyl precursor exports as threats the U.S. must “end.” By selling them the most advanced AI chips?

Western governments and investors simultaneously back domestic autonomous-weapons firms—such as Europe-based Helsing, supported by Spotify CEO Daniel Ek—explicitly building AI-enabled munitions for allied defense. That makes exporting equivalent enabling infrastructure to a strategic competitor indefensible.

The AI Moratorium Makes This Worse, Not Better

This contradiction unfolds alongside a proposed federal AI moratorium executive order originating with Mr. Sacks and Adam Thierer of Google’s R Street Institute that would preempt state-level AI protections.
States are told AI is too consequential for local regulation, yet the federal government is prepared to license exports of AI’s core infrastructure abroad.

If AI is too dangerous for states to regulate, it is too dangerous to export. Preemption at home combined with permissiveness abroad is not leadership. It is capture.

This Is What Policy Capture Looks Like

The common thread is not national security. It is Silicon Valley access. David Sacks and others in the AI–VC orbit argue that AI regulation threatens U.S. competitiveness while remaining silent on where the chips go and how they are used.

When DOJ prosecutes smugglers while the White House authorizes exports, the public is entitled to ask whose interests are actually being served. Advisory roles that blur public power and private investment cannot coexist with credible national-security policymaking particularly when the advisor may not even be able to get a US national security clearance unless the President blesses it.

A Line Has to Be Drawn

If a technology is so sensitive that its unauthorized transfer justifies prosecution, its authorized transfer should be prohibited absent extraordinary national interest. AI accelerators meet that test.

Until the administration can articulate a coherent justification for exporting these capabilities to China, the answer should be no. Not licensed. Not delayed. Not cosmetically restricted.

And if that position conflicts with Silicon Valley advisers who view this as a growth opportunity, they should return to where they belong. The fact that the US is getting 25% of the deal (which i bet never finds its way into America’s general account), means nothing except confirming Lenin’s joke about selling the rope to hang ourselves, you know, kind of like TikTok.

David Sacks should go back to Silicon Valley.

This is not venture capital. This is our national security and he’s selling it like rope.

Chris Castle's Solutions for Music-Tech Entrepreneurs

Share this:

The most important data center story today wasn’t a zoning hearing, a transmission line fight, or a new hyperscaler valuation announcement.

Share this:

Share this:

From P2P to Streaming to AI

AI Doesn’t Just Distribute Works. It Consumes Them.

The Real Subsidy Stack

The World Turned Upside Down

A Better Frame

What Comes Next

Share this:

The Valuation is the Thing

Fire Good, Valuations Bad

Share this:

The missing story: creators and labor

Start with the source: SXSW is not a neutral environment

When panels become pitch environments

Narrative momentum is not economic reality

The SXSW–PwC report does not correct for this dynamic—it amplifies it.

The AI story: all acceleration, limited friction

One More Thing

Share this:

Two Problems Sony Is Trying to Solve

Training Data Attribution in Plain English

Sony’s Other Idea: Smarter Music Comparison

The Big Limitation: You Still Need the Training Dataset

What This Could Look Like in the Real World

What Sony Has Not Claimed

Why Labels Might Still Be Interested

What Sony did and did not do (yet)

Share this:

State-by-State Breakdown

The Through-Line: “Show Us the Water Math”

Why This Matters for AI Policy

Read the local news:

Share this:

Texas

Louisiana

Nevada

Share this:

AI Chips Are Not Consumer Electronics

Fully Autonomous Weapons—and Selling the Rope

The AI Moratorium Makes This Worse, Not Better

This Is What Policy Capture Looks Like

A Line Has to Be Drawn

Share this:

Menu