Spotify plans to change how it pays artists starting in 2024. A new 1,000 stream minimum for royalties has sparked backlash. We look at whether independent musicians should diversify away from reliance on Spotify.

UMG and Deezer introduced a new "artist-centric" payment model for streaming, gaining traction with Wagram Music's endorsement. While some laud the model for its potential to revolutionize payouts, others stress the importance of inclusivity, transparency, and support for emerging artists. Proposals include subsidizing new artists through top earners, a flat fee for track uploads, anti-fraud measures, and continuous price adjustments. The challenge lies in balancing fairness, genuine music content, and industry growth.

The End of a Legal Battle

After a prolonged legal battle, the estate of Ed Townsend, co-writer of Marvin Gaye’s "Let’s Get It On," has formally ended their court battle with Ed Sheeran over their claims that Sheeran’s "Thinking Out Loud" copied the iconic 1970s R&B song. 

Earlier this week, Tim Ingham at Music Business Worldwide published an insightful analysis on emerging tensions in how the distribution of streaming royalties might change. Specifically, Tim examined proposals by a major music corporation and a well-known streaming service to implement an "artist-centric" royalty model that appears to take inspiration from approaches used by platforms like those popular for video sharing, social networking, and microblogging.

You might have heard whispers about streaming fraud lurking in the corners of the music business. It seems to be a pesky game of hide and seek that platforms like Spotify are grappling with.

The recent court ruling against AI copyright protection upheld the established requirement of human authorship under current law, but broader questions remain as AI creativity advances. Determining appropriate rights and protections for increasingly autonomous machine-generated works poses complex challenges ahead.