Do you care if the music you’re listening to is artificially generated?

That question – once the realm of science fiction – is becoming increasingly urgent.

An AI-generated country track, Walk My Walk, is currently sitting at number one on the US Billboard chart of digital sales and a new report by streaming platform Deezer has revealed the sheer scale of AI production in the music industry.

Deezer’s AI-detection system found that around 50,000 fully AI-generated tracks are now uploaded every day, accounting for 34% of all daily uploads.

The true number is most likely higher, as Deezer’s AI-detection system does not catch every AI-generated track. Nor does this figure include partially AI-generated tracks.

In January 2025, Deezer’s system identified 10% of uploaded tracks as fully AI-generated.

Since then, the proportion of AI tracks – made using written prompts such as “country, 1990s style, male singer” – has more than tripled, leading the platform’s chief executive, Alexis Lanternier, to say that AI music is “flooding music streaming”.

‘Siphoning money from royalty pool’

What’s more, when Deezer surveyed 9,000 people in eight countries – the US, Canada, Brazil, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany and Japan – and asked them to detect whether three tracks were real or AI, 97% could not tell the difference.

That’s despite the fact that the motivation behind the surge of AI music is not in the least bit creative, according to Deezer. The company says that roughly 70% of fully AI-generated tracks are what it calls “fraudulent” – that is, designed purely to make money.

“The common denominator is the ambition to boost streams on specific tracks in order to siphon money from the royalty pool,” a Deezer spokesperson told Sky News.

“With AI-generated content, you can easily create massive amounts of tracks that can be used for this purpose.”

The tracks themselves are not actually fraudulent, Deezer says, but the behaviour around them is. Someone will upload an AI track then use an automated system – a bot – to listen to a song over and over again to make royalties from it.

Even though the total number of streams for each individual track is very low – Deezer estimates that together they account for 0.5% of all streams – the work needed to make an AI track is so tiny that the rewards justify the effort.

Are fully-AI tracks being removed?

Deezer is investing in AI-detection software and has filed two patents for systems that spot AI music. But it is not taking down the tracks it marks as fully-AI.

Instead it removes them from algorithmic recommendations and editorial playlists, a measure designed to stop the tracks getting streams and therefore generating royalties, and marks the tracks as “AI-generated content”.

“If people want to listen to an AI-generated track however, they can and we are not stopping them from doing so – we just want to make sure they are making a conscious decision,” the Deezer spokesperson says.

Read more from Sky News:
How Elon Musk is boosting the British right
The extraordinary impact of a crime on UK growth

Concerns about artists’ livelihoods

Deezer’s survey found that more than half (52%) of respondents felt uncomfortable with not being able to tell the difference between AI and human-made music.

“The survey results clearly show that people care about music and want to know if they’re listening to AI or human-made tracks or not,” said the company’s boss Alexis Lanternier.

“There’s also no doubt that there are concerns about how AI-generated music will affect the livelihood of artists.”

Earlier this year, more than 1,000 musicians – including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn and Kate Bush – released a silent album to protest plans by the UK government to let artificial intelligence companies use copyright-protected work without permission.

A recent study commissioned by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers suggested that generative AI music could be worth £146bn a year in 2028 and account for around 60% of music libraries’ revenues.

By this metric, the authors concluded, 25% of creators’ revenues are at risk by 2028, a sum of £3.5bn.

The BBC has apologised to Donald Trump over the editing of a speech in a Panorama programme in 2024.

The corporation said it was an “error of judgement” and the programme will “not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms”.

But it added that it “strongly” disagrees that there is “a basis for a defamation claim”.

It emerged earlier, Donald Trump’s legal team said the US president had not yet filed a lawsuit against the BBC over the
broadcaster’s editing of a speech he made in 2021 on the day his supporters overran the Capitol building.

The legal team sent a letter over the weekend threatening to sue the media giant for $1bn and issuing three demands:

• Issue a “full and fair retraction” of the Panorama programme
• Apologise immediately
• “Appropriately compensate” the US president

On Sunday evening, two of the BBC’s top figures, including the director-general, resigned amid the edit and concerns about impartiality.

In a statement, the corporation said: “Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump’s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.

“BBC Chair Samir Shah has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the President’s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.

“The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary ‘Trump: A Second Chance?’ on any BBC platforms.

“While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news

Some of the biggest names in music – including Coldplay, Dua Lipa and Radiohead – have urged the government to honour a pledge to cap ticket resale prices and shutout touts.

They have joined artists including The Cure’s Robert Smith, New Order, Mark Knopfler, Iron Maiden, PJ Harvey and this year’s Mercury Prize winner Sam Fender to sign a statement calling for a cap to “restore faith in the ticketing system” and “help democratise public access to the arts”.

Other signatories include the watchdog Which?, FanFair Alliance, O2, the Football Supporters’ Association and organisations representing the music and theatre industries, venues, managers, and ticket retailers.

In the statement, the coalition says new protections are needed to “help fix elements of the extortionate and pernicious secondary ticketing market that serve the interests of touts, whose exploitative practices are preventing genuine fans from accessing the music, theatre, and sports they love”.

Labour had promised in its manifesto to put a stop to concert-goers being scammed or priced out of events by touts using bots to buy tickets in bulk the moment they go on sale, which they can then sell on for huge mark-ups on secondary ticketing websites.

In government, the party again made that promise – but more than a year after it vowed action, and seven months since its consultation on the issue closed, there has been no clear indication of when new laws will be introduced.

Read more on Sky News:
NASA cancels space launch as strongest ‘cannibal storm’
PM apologises to health secretary over coup accusations

The campaign comes as a new investigation from Which? found prolific sellers in locations including Brazil, Dubai, Singapore, Spain, and the US hoovering up tickets for popular events in the UK before relisting them at vastly inflated prices on StubHub and Viagogo.

How much?!

Which? found Oasis tickets for Wembley shows listed for £3,498.85 on StubHub and £4,442 on Viagogo.

A seat for the Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns NFL clash at Tottenham Hotspur was listed for £3,568.39 on StubHub, while a Coldplay ticket, also for Wembley, was £814.52 on StubHub.

And a ticket for the All Points East festival in London’s Victoria Park, headlined by Raye, for £114,666 on Viagogo.

The watchdog found it was often difficult for buyers to establish the seller’s identity or to contact them – despite the Competition and Markets Authority securing a court order in 2018 requiring Viagogo to outline the identity of traders.

And there’s more…

Which? also found evidence of speculative selling – when tickets are listed on secondary sites even though the seller has not bought them yet.

Tickets for a Busted vs McFly show in Glasgow, which were available through Ticketmaster – the original seller – were simultaneously being listed on StubHub and Viagogo at double the price.

Government to set out plans ‘shortly’

Which? consumer law expert Lisa Webb urged Prime Minster Sir Keir Starmer to commit to legislation.

A government spokeswoman said it is “fully committed to clamping down on touts,” had listened to comments in response to the consultation earlier this year, and would set out its plans “shortly”.