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.
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.
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.
Yesterday, I wrote a post exploring the potential downsides for songwriters of a BMI sale to private equity. I laid out the legitimate concerns around declining royalty distributions and lack of transparency. However, after reflecting further, I decided to challenge myself to see if I could make a case for why the deal could potentially turn out alright for creators. As an industry observer aiming for nuanced perspective, in today's post I present some counterpoints arguing why a BMI sale may not be all bad for writers' incomes.
The Crucial Role of Performing Rights Organizations
Performing rights organization BMI is exploring a sale to private equity, and songwriters are right to be extremely concerned. As a passionate industry observer and advocate for fair creator compensation, I'm taking a deep dive into what this deal could mean for writers' incomes.
SoundExchange is once again at odds with Sirius XM, accusing them of misrepresenting and underpaying royalties related to their internet streaming service. This conflict revolves around the distinction between Sirius' two primary services: its satellite subscription and internet streaming. Given that the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board has set different royalty rates for each, the lawsuit alleges Sirius XM has been strategically bundling these services, skewing revenue towards 'webcasting revenue' to reduce royalty costs.