IRMA Responds to Public consultation on the Pre-legislative Scrutiny of the General Scheme of the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026

Introduction

As the representative body for the recorded music industry in Ireland, IRMA supports the development of a balanced and effective regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence. We recognise the complex landscape that the Committee on Enterprise, Tourism & Employment must navigate during pre-legislative scrutiny. Our submission is an effort work constructively with Oireachtas member to ensure that Ireland’s legislation is both innovation-friendly and respectful of rightsholders. IRMA is committed to ongoing engagement with policymakers, regulators and industry stakeholders to identify practical, enforceable solutions that support both technological development and the sustainability of the creative sector.

In response to the consultation, this submission outlines our key areas of consideration. The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, as currently constituted, contains an array of positive positions which should be upheld both at EU and member state level. While there will be efforts to amend some of its provisions as part of the AI Omnibus package, it provides a very strong basis for the implementation of an effective national law. IRMA also recommends vigilance as to how the AI Act interacts with other legislative developments, such as the DSM Review and the Data Act.

For the music industry, it is important to set out the context and economic basis for how the creative sectors can survive and thrive. This includes maintaining key protections that keep up with the rapid pace of technological change. Thankfully, we can offer a constructive approach to achieving this, through specific safeguards in copyright and Intellectual Property; transparency and disclosure requirements; licensing agreements; marking and labelling; and, appropriate enforcement capabilities. Once these provisions are clear, this should provide the way for innovation across sectors and the sustainability of the creative sectors.

How AI should be regulated in Ireland

Music has always embraced technological advancement and Artificial Intelligence is already bringing numerous potential benefits to music. Record labels and artists have been using AI in a variety of technical and management processes in the recording process (mixing, data and trend analytics, enforcement etc.), to enhance the creative process and collaborate on cutting-edge projects for years. In addition, there is an increasing number of ground-breaking deals, partnerships and licensing solutions done in the AI and music space over the recent months.

Although AI in music is filled with possibilities, the reality is that some generative AI services take music without authorisation from rightsholders. We are at a crossroads for what role AI is going to play in our lives. This process of pre-legislative scrutiny offers an opportunity to incentivise ethical practices in the use of AI. It is essential for the creative industries that Ireland’s legislation remains robust and fit for purpose and continues to protect and nurture human artistry. Creative industries, and particularly the recorded music industry, have embraced digital innovation and technological change and recognise that the responsible use of technology and AI have a crucial role in fostering the development of smart knowledge-based economies. Technological development should evolve with, and not at the expense of, the cultural and creative sectors.

The effective implementation of the AI Act is crucial to our overall competitiveness and foreign direct investment offering. Establishing a coherent framework for enforcement demonstrates our commitment to robust and effective regulation that underpins competitiveness and economic growth. In doing so, we can uphold trust in both our cultural and technological ecosystems.

In reviewing the General Scheme of the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026, the Irish Government, together with the EU and the other Member States, should ensure that the relevant provisions of Copyright in the DSM Directive 2019/790/EU are properly applied. Transparency and record keeping obligations under the EU AI Act are also essential to assess whether activities have been performed in a lawful manner per the DSM Directive.

We ask that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Tourism & Employment promotes the full application of the AI Act’s implementation package in Ireland, as well as strong enforcement mechanisms. It must also be ensured that the obligations in the EU AI Act are applied to all providers that place a GPAI model in the EU, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the EU or in a third country.

The role of the new AI Office of Ireland

The enforcement of rights requires effective tools, in particular a meaningful implementation of the record-keeping and transparency obligations included in the AI Act. The application of the GPAI obligations of the AI Act should also be complemented with national procedural measures to tackle cases of non-compliance more effectively. For example, rules on liability for not complying with the AI Act obligations; the introduction of discovery procedures; reversal of the burden of proof on the use of copyright content in appropriate circumstances in proceedings involving AI developers.

We ask that, during pre-legislative scrutiny, Oireachtas members call for the clear enumeration of the various Responsible Authorities tasked with surveillance, supervision and enforcement of the legislation. It should be clear and transparent to the public which entity is responsible for specific areas of responsibility, regardless of the designated Single Point of Contact. The model drawn from the CCPC, HPRA etc and tailored to the individual needs of the AI Act is to be welcomed, and the legislation would benefit from greater clarity and transparency.

Impacts on businesses, workers, consumers and public services

The music industry is worth approximately €1 billion per annum to the Irish economy and accounts for a wide array of businesses and workers who help our communities thrive. Creators and rightsholders can derive significant benefits from the use of AI in certain contexts. However, there are inherent risks in Generative AI developers taking their music to train models without their consent. These AI models can then produce huge volumes of content based on an artist’s music without the artist having any control, or even knowledge of it happening. When AI tracks are trained without permission or payment, the result is that genuine artists are forced to compete with stolen versions of their own music. In addition to widespread availability of digital replicas using artists’ voices and likenesses, we see vast quantities of other generative AI music entering the marketplace.

Deezer recently reported 50,000 GenAI recordings per day entering its service, accounting for more than one third of the total music uploaded to its system today. The main actors implicated are (a) the model providers and deployers that enable generative AI recordings to be generated at scale; (b) the music aggregator/distributor services that deliver recordings at scale to consumer music platforms; and (c) the music streaming platforms that serve music fans. There are also the actors who make use of these services, from music fans, to ‘have a go’ creators, through to streaming fraudsters. Deezer has said that as much as 70% of streaming of GenAI music tracks is linked to streaming fraud activity. Also, a recent Deezer/Ipsos survey found that 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music, creating a major challenge for transparency and fairness for artists.

There is no public good or justification to take music without permission or payment, and no reason to legitimise this activity through unwarranted copyright exceptions. Fundamentally, it risks jobs in the creative and production process, and serves as a warning to other sectors of what is to come. This will cause irreparable harm to creativity, hurting up-and-coming artists, national culture, and undermining trust in AI providers who behave ethically. Regulation that fails to protect rightsholders undermines the capacity to establish an ethical AI licensing system.

The recorded music industry follows high standards of transparency, and it is vital that AI platforms are required to do the same. Record companies have invested significant resources in royalty accounting and reporting tools, to respond to the demands of the increased volumes of usage on digital services and to provide additional services to their artists. Generative AI developers have a responsibility to demonstrate transparency in the manner in which they use others’ musical data to train their models and to seek relevant permissions.

Rules on labelling deepfakes and AI-generated and manipulated content: the reduced transparency obligations when the deepfake content forms part of an artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work should not apply to situations where relevant authorisation has not been obtained, as there is a high risk that the content could be falsely attributed to the deep-faked person. The tens of thousands of deepfakes of music artists that have lately been flooding DSPs for fraudulent purposes are clearly not the ‘artistic’ works that the EU legislator had in mind when adopting this measure. Fraudsters could exploit this legal loophole to avoid full disclosure of the deepfake nature of their content.

Safeguards for people’s rights and protections

As a point of principle, copyright should only apply to human endeavours. Music and culture are about conveying emotions and computers do not have them. At the same time, AI slop dilutes the listener’s experience.

Without the right guardrails, AI platforms can take music without authorisation or payment, diverting money away from genuine artists and rightsholders. AI-generated content could drown out human created music, hurting local culture. With this in mind, we recommend the following safeguards:

• Protect human-centred copyright: There should be no free pass for AI developers to steal music. In line with the AI Act, the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill should ensure copyright does not stray away from the protection of copyright as the preserve of humans.
• Strengthen transparency obligations: Require AI developers to maintain and disclose records of the creative content they use to develop their models to ensure accountability. The transparency needs to be meaningful, with the ability to request source code from AI systems to ensure compliance with the Act. Added to this, the legislation could benefit from clear outlines as to the bases upon which contravention notices can be issued for failures to meet transparency obligations (per Articles 50-52).
• Support the development of an AI licensing market based on contractual freedom: Reject changes to copyright law that would undermine rightsholders’ protection when their works and other protected subject-matter are used to develop AI models.
• Proper application of the law: The enforcement of rights requires effective tools, in particular a meaningful implementation of the record-keeping and transparency obligations included in the AI Act. Legislation must ensure that the obligations in the EU AI Act are applied to all providers that place a GPAI model in the EU, irrespective of whether those providers are established or located within the EU or in a third country.
• Enforcement of Intellectual Property rights: The EU, together with the Member States, should assess whether the existing EU acquis on Intellectual Property rights enforcement is implemented effectively and whether the compliance with the current EU legal framework is sufficient to prevent the unauthorised use of copyright-protected content for AI training purposes.
• No TDM exceptions: The Irish legislation should not include any suggestions to introduce any new exception concerning text- and data-mining in the context of Generative AI. Ensure that the risk-based system takes account of the challenges to the creative sector from exemptions for personal use, open-source platforms and research.
• Marking AI-generated content: Legislation should promote the multi-layered marking of AI-generated content. This is technically feasible, proportionate and the most efficient way to implement Article 50 in a cost-effective manner. Audio fingerprinting in the field of music audio is highly developed and widely available (commercially and open source). We would therefore suggest that, at least with regard to those sectors where the deployment of fingerprinting is widespread, and in particular in the audio content sector, the obligation to deploy said technologies is maintained.
• Strict disclosure requirements: Irish legislation should oblige the disclosure of AI-Generated and manipulated deepfakes and published text, including through the use of clear labels, icons and disclaimers. The integrity of protections requires the closure of any loopholes or reduced disclosure requirements when it comes to artistic and creative work. Loopholes create openings for fraudulent activities, whereby unauthorised deepfake sound recordings compete for attention with original content. If not authorised, these deepfakes cannot qualify as being ‘evidently’ artistic or creative works and thus should not benefit from advantages accrued to genuine creative work.

Practical considerations and suggestions for improvement

In order make a substantial and positive impact for people, communities and businesses, it is important that citizens see their core personal, social and cultural issues given priority alongside broader economic planning.

In practical terms for the cultural sector, this means:

• The implementation of the existing EU legislative framework, including in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property.
• Evidence-based policy making, based on robust economic data, in full consultation with all relevant stakeholders. A fair and competitive market based on legal certainty fosters an environment that encourages investments in both the creative sector and in new technologies. This ultimately benefits end users and consumers.
• Encouraging discussion on how to harness the existing tools to continue combating infringements of intellectual property rights. This must also include new challenges such as streaming fraud, which are not only detrimental to artists and the entire music ecosystem but can also engender mistrust in new technologies among audiences.

Conclusion

The Irish Recorded Music Association has adopted a constructive position to how our society and economy can adapt to the rapid technological advancement presented by Artificial Intelligence. We support a framework that recognises the pre-eminence of human creativity and rewards ethical behaviour from AI platforms. As such, we promote the full application of the AI Act’s implementation package in Ireland, as well as strong enforcement mechanisms. We ask that our legislators defend licensing practices, avoiding any changes to copyright law that would undermine the protection of rightsholders.

In an age of increased complexity, strengthening transparency obligations in the use of AI will serve to protect not just the creative sectors, but will help improve trust in media, public institutions and the democratic process too. Added to this, our laws should not stray from the protection of copyright as the preserve of humans. This standard helps uphold trust in our cultural and technological ecosystem, and protect personality and IP rights. A balanced framework, grounded in transparency, licensing, and fair remuneration, provides a basis for sustainable innovation, a vibrant culture, and a strong position in the global digital economy.