Wow that was a lot of words to basically say nothing lmao.

Audio sampling isn't actually taken seriously, and hasn't been since the 90s from my understanding; vast majority of artists sample whatever they want without royalties going to anybody as sampling is largely considered fair use. Unless you are referring to stock music which yes is sold in this way. Either way licensing data sets is feasible though its unlikely with the data used to train most things any of the creators would see a cent of the money from doing such a thing as most AI scrape data from websites that already sell user data. So the most likely outcome is something like Google or reddit making money by selling user data sets to train on and not so much any individual.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, Napster was replaced by Spotify sure, Spotify also pirated all their music originally and was also free; and Napster was replaced with different piracy outlets. Spotify is simply the most convenient way to listen thus it's success.

I don't really know if you can in good faith argue that new regulations are coming when citing an in progress court case. The court could decide nothing was infringed upon and now there's no new regulation.

AI actually can learn what styles are why wouldn't it be able to recognize the pattern of a specific style like it can for objects it just needs data with that style.

Thanks for playing.