Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Advocates of Sony's litigation-first approach argue that Udio was built by copying tens of thousands of recordings without consent or payment, and that allowing this to stand unchallenged would set a dangerous precedent undermining artists' rights over their own work. They contend that only a court ruling can definitively establish that such large-scale AI training constitutes infringement, and that settling too readily risks locking in licensing terms that undervalue creators' contributions before the legal questions are properly tested. Pursuing litigation, on this view, is a matter of principle and long-term protection for musicians, not merely a negotiating tactic.

The case against

Those who favour the negotiated licensing route taken by Universal and Warner argue that AI music generation is a technological shift too significant to fight indefinitely in the courts, and that securing prompt, guaranteed compensation and creative safeguards through commercial deals serves artists better than years of costly, uncertain litigation. They contend that engaging constructively with AI firms allows labels to shape how these tools are developed and monetised responsibly, rather than risking an adverse ruling or missing the chance to establish sustainable revenue streams as the technology matures. On this view, pragmatic collaboration protects artists' interests more reliably than confrontation.