Business
Page: 11
The PRO business is booming! But could it become a victim of its own success?
For the 75 years after the 1939 founding of BMI, the U.S. had three organizations that collected public performance royalties for songs on behalf of composers and publishers: ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. And for much of that time — from the 1950s, when ASCAP and BMI expanded into all genres, to 1993, when a group of investors purchased SESAC — the competition might best be described as gentlemanly. ASCAP and BMI became the Coke and Pepsi of PROs, licensing similar rights, for different songs, to similar bars, restaurants, concert venues and television and radio stations. The privately owned SESAC was less aggressive than it is now.
Some licensees want to set the clock back to that simpler time. They may have inspired members of Congress to ask the Copyright Office to look into the subject, which resulted in a Notice of Inquiry and then a flood of comments. (Billboard has a guide here.) To understand why, and what this means, it helps to realize how much U.S. performance rights licensing has changed in the last decade.
In 2013, Irving Azoff, ever the disruptor, founded GMR, which like SESAC — owned by the investment group Blackstone since 2017 — signs big songwriters with big advances. Unlike ASCAP and BMI, which are more constrained by antitrust consent decrees and allow all songwriters to join, GMR and SESAC are free to cherry-pick from the most popular. (All four have big writers; GMR and SESAC just don’t have small ones.) With fewer writers, they are thought to bring in more money per performance of a song. They are also thought to be wildly profitable: A recent deal for a stake in GMR valued the company at $3.3 billion. Any business that good attracts competition, and two new PROs have emerged over the last five years: AllTrack, founded by former SESAC board member Hayden Bower; and the Florida-based PRO Music Rights.
Trending on Billboard
Things got complicated. Venues that had once received three bills for their use of music were suddenly getting five or six. Most knew they needed rights from what we might call the big four — and let’s pause for a moment to consider just how weird it is that the U.S. now has more established PROs than major labels — but some weren’t sure if they needed the rights controlled by AllTrack and PRO Music Rights. Costs went up — with the possibility of future increases — and let’s not kid ourselves that this is the real issue here.
Both the Notice of Inquiry and the responses to it are fascinating because, as several executives pointed out to me, this isn’t an issue that the Copyright Office — or even government regulation in general — seems especially well-suited to solve. The Copyright Office administers and consults on intellectual property law, and licensees presumably see the NOI as an opening move in a push for legislation that could constrain PROs — or even empower a government body to set royalty rates, as one does for mechanical rights. That would be a disaster for publishers and songwriters, which get their only negotiating power from performing rights. And licensees have much more lobbying power than the music business, simply because every Congressional district has bars and restaurants, while the music business is relatively concentrated in a few cities.
What, exactly, is the problem here? Look at the NOI, which sets out two very different issues: “The number of PROs in the United States has expanded in recent years, potentially undermining licensing efficiencies” and “PROs do not all disclose comprehensive information concerning the works that are covered by their licenses, and their royalty distribution practices and policies.” The only thing these issues have in common is that neither of them is really a matter for copyright law.
The idea that there are too many PROs is odd because for years the issue was that ASCAP and BMI had too much market power — hence the antitrust consent decrees. In legal terms, this is known as trying to have it both ways. Competition is a good thing, as long as it’s fair. If it’s not, that’s a matter for competition law — which traditionally champions competition! — not copyright.
One of the real issues behind the NOI is that it can be hard to tell which PRO controls what rights. This can be complicated, though, and the issues often have less to do with concealing information than with presenting it in an accessible way. AllTrack, which is focused on the independent market, allows potential licensees to search a database of songs to which it controls rights, but that requires looking up specific compositions. The site displays far more prominently some of the artists who play songs to which AllTrack owns at least some rights, including Billy Ray Cyrus, Elle King and No Doubt. In smaller type, underneath, it says that “The artists above are examples, but not an all inclusive list, of performers of AllTrack music” — and in most, but not all, cases it doesn’t control rights to all these artists’ songs, let alone their rights as songwriters. Billboard readers understand this, but it might drive the average bar owner to drink.
PRO Music Rights is even more controversial. It seems to focus on serving smaller songwriters in the so-called long tail, and it says it controls rights to more than 2 million works, including songs performed by A$AP Rocky, Wiz Khalifa and others. It is unclear how popular many of those songs are, though, and both the ASCAP and BMI responses to the NOI challenge its business practices more directly than those of AllTrack. In its filing, ASCAP says that in 2018 it discovered millions of songs registered by PRO Music Rights “that were apparently either computer-generated sounds or merely random titles” and BMI’s response points out that Spotify in a court filing accused PRO Music Rights founder Jake Noch of flooding its platform with AI music, although the case in question subsequently settled. (PRO Music Rights filed its own response to the NOI that accuses the established PROs of engaging in “anti-competitive practices.”)
The other side of transparency is that it’s not always clear how some PROs distribute some of the money they collect. But it seems hard to believe that licensees really worry about this — most just want to pay less — and that issue is really between PROs and creators and publishers. (Alas, Billboard advertisers seldom ask about the compensation of the publication’s witty and dashing “Follow the Money” columnist.) The best way to address this — maybe the only way to address it in a lasting way — could be a competitive market. Big songwriters who think that the big PROs don’t serve them well can sign with SESAC or GMR, although not all of them do. Why shouldn’t smaller ones have more options as well?
Like every other issue in the music business, this is ultimately about money — rightsholders want to charge more and licensees want to pay less. That’s business. And it seems best to keep it as business, without getting the government involved.
Country Music Foundation, Inc., Soulsville Foundation, International Bluegrass Music Association, Louisiana Folk Roots and the Memphis Listening Lab are among 15 organizations or individuals that were chosen to receive grants by the Grammy Museum Grant Program. A total of $200,000 in grants will be awarded this year. This year marks the 37th year of the program.
“Generously funded by the Recording Academy,” to use the Grammy Museum’s phrase, the Grammy Museum Grant Program provides funding annually to organizations and individuals to support efforts that advance the archiving and preservation of the recorded sound heritage of the Americas for future generations, in addition to research projects related to the impact of music on the human condition.
“The Grammy Museum and Recording Academy have continued their partnership to provide fundamental funding for music research and preservation projects across the United States and Canada,” Michael Sticka, president/CEO of the Grammy Museum, said in a statement. “ … We are honored to support these remarkable projects that continue to shape the future of music, science and technology.”
Trending on Billboard
In 2008, the Grammy Museum Grant Program expanded its categories to include assistance grants for individuals and small to mid-sized organizations to aid collections held by individuals and organizations that may not have access to the expertise needed to create a preservation plan.
Here are the 2025 recipients:
Scientific Research Grantees
CERVO Brain Research Center — Quebec City, Quebec
Awarded: $20,000
Their goal is to uncover how choir singing impacts communication and auditory cognition in older adults, supporting healthy aging through a randomized training study. This project aims to inform community choirs and music-based interventions, aligning with the foundation’s mission to enhance quality of life through music.
Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital – CISSS Laval — Laval, Quebec
Awarded: $19,500
Stroke typically leads to persistent deficits in arm and hand function. This project will examine the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a six-week piano training intervention aimed at improving manual dexterity and the functional use of the arm and hand. For the first time, such intervention will be delivered as part of a home-based, early, and intensive rehabilitation program for individuals with stroke.
New York University — New York, N.Y.
Awarded: $9,000
Many people struggle with speech-language disorders due to developmental issues or brain injuries. Although music therapy can help these individuals regain speech functions, its effectiveness varies. By combining neuroimaging and machine learning, this study will explore how the brain can bypass damaged speech language networks by leveraging musical networks to enhance communication.
University of South Florida — Tampa, Fla.
Awarded: $9,000
This randomized trial will examine the effects of a novel woodwind program on neural responses and respiration function in adults 50+ with Long-term COVID (LTC). Adults will complete measures of cognitive processing (EEG) and respiration function (spirometer), pre- and post-10 weeks of either Nuvo jsax lessons or an attentional control task.
University of Toronto — Toronto
Awarded: $20,000
Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS) uses rhythmic sound cues to help people with Parkinson’s disease (PD) start and maintain stable movement. This project is the first to examine how these cues impact brain chemistry in PD, revealing the brain’s response to these cues. Their findings could improve the use of RAS as part of PD care, refining clinical applications that work alongside standard medication to support movement and enhance quality of life in PD.
Preservation Assistance Grantees
Lex Gillespie — Washington, D.C.
Awarded: $5,000
The project will preserve 75 interviews from the 10-hour Peabody Award-winning public radio series, “Whole Lotta Shakin’.” It tells the story of rockabilly, the exciting 1950s mix of blues, gospel and country that is the cornerstone of rock and roll. This diverse collection features singers, musicians, producers, DJs, and record company owners. The goal: to digitize these decaying recordings for use by scholars, content providers and the public.
Memphis Listening Lab — Memphis, Tenn.
Awarded: $5,000
Grammy Museum Preservation Assistance funding will enable the Memphis Listening Lab (MLL) to hire an expert consultant to conduct a preservation assessment of MLL’s extensive collection of recorded music. The consultant will provide MLL with a written report detailing their observations and recommendations for preserving MLL’s collection, which is freely accessible to the public.
Preservation Implementation
Country Music Foundation, Inc. — Nashville, Tenn.
Awarded: $20,000
The Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum (CMHFM) sought funding to assess, catalog, re-house, and make accessible a collection of 18,000 12-inch radio transcription discs containing historically significant, non-commercial recordings. This collection features interviews and performances with various country artists. Building on a successful project with 16-inch discs, CMHFM aims to begin Phase 2 of cataloging this larger collection.
Forgotten Futures Fund Inc. — Brooklyn, N.Y.
Awarded: $20,000
Louis and Bebe Barron were American electronic music pioneers. This project digitizes nearly 800 magnetic tapes. It will make available to the public, for the first time, their sci-fi, experimental and commercial sounds. The Barrons, moving in parallel to European composers of musique concrète, were DIY artists who lacked institutional support.
International Bluegrass Music Association — Nashville, Tenn.
Awarded: $20,000
The “Preserving the Legacy of Bluegrass Music” project will digitize and make accessible audio and visual materials from the 40-year history of the International Bluegrass Music Association (IBMA). Recordings include industry awards show performances and speeches, special performances, conference presentations, workshops, and other IBMA events, featuring first-, second- and third-generation bluegrass musicians from 1985 to the present day.
Louisiana Folk Roots — Lafayette, La.
Awarded: $15,000
Louisiana Folk Roots (LFR) will digitize and preserve at-risk audiovisual tape recordings of Cajun and Creole heritage folk music performances and presentations that occurred from 2001-15. This LFR archival collection of analog formats is not currently available online. Following digitization, this collection can become publicly accessible in partnership with the University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s Library and Institutional Repository.
Matthew White — Columbia, S.C.
Awarded: $10,000
Marian McPartland’s Piano Jazz stands as NPR’s longest-running cultural program, airing from 1978 to 2011. Currently, those programs exist on a server at SCETV (where the show was produced), along with more than 5,000 physical documents, including McPartland’s notes, photos, sheet music, and promotional materials. This proposal is to complete the digitization of these materials and create a free website where these materials can be accessed by the public.
Painted Bride Art Center, as fiscal sponsor for Philadelphia Jazz Legacy Project — Philadelphia, Pa.
Awarded: $10,000
Philadelphia Jazz Legacy Project, through its fiscal sponsor Painted Bride Art Center and in partnership with Temple University Libraries, sought a Grammy Museum Grant to digitize, preserve and make available several dozen interviews with Philadelphia jazz musicians. Conducted from the early 1980s to early 2020s, the interviews document the lives and careers of both world-famous and local Philadelphia jazz musicians.
Soulsville Foundation — Memphis, Tenn.
Awarded: $12,500
Acclaimed Memphis historians have donated interviews of Memphis music legends. These unstable digital tapes represent the richest collection of Black music history interviews ever received by the Stax Museum. The interviews will allow for enhanced storytelling in future exhibitions and online presentations.
T. Christopher Aplin — Pasadena, Calif.
Awarded: $5,000
American Indian Soundchiefs was a record label owned by Kiowa Linn D. Pauahty—the earliest, longest-running label launched with an ear toward Indigenous aesthetics. This project will help Pauahtyʼs granddaughter Mary Helen Deer, the Linn D. Pauahty Foundation, and Kiowa tribe digitize surviving American Indian Soundchiefs instantaneous discs, reel-to-reels, and cassettes featuring Kiowa-language songs for cultural revitalization purposes.
Warner Music Group has filed a lawsuit against Crumbl, the Utah-based cookie company, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed on April 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, accuses Crumbl of using WMG’s copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions in its social media marketing campaigns without proper licenses.
Crumbl has built its brand primarily through social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, often featuring popular music tracks in its promotional content. WMG claims that Crumbl has misappropriated at least 159 sound recordings and musical compositions in its videos. These tracks, which include works by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, are said to be key to Crumbl’s marketing strategy. Many of these videos rely heavily on music, with little to no dialogue, highlighting the central role of the unlicensed tracks in Crumbl’s advertising efforts.
WMG’s complaint provides several examples of this alleged misappropriation. For instance, Crumbl’s TikTok video promoting its blueberry cheesecake features the unauthorized use of “Blueberry Faygo” by Lil Mosey, the label said. Another video promoting Crumbl’s yellow sugar cookie, while also advertising the film Minions: The Rise of Gru, uses Coldplay’s “Yellow” without permission. A video promoting a butter cake cookie features — you guessed it — BTS’ “Butter.” Additionally, there’s a video featuring Crumbl employees dancing to K CAMP’s “Lottery (Renegade),” and Crumbl even referenced music used in some videos, such as a TikTok post featuring Lizzo’s “Juice,” with the caption repeating the song’s lyrics.
Trending on Billboard
Other songs that WMG contends were infringed upon by Crumbl include Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It),” Bruno Mars’ “Locked Out of Heaven,” Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” George Michael’s “Careless Whisper,” Gwen Stefani’s “Holdback Girl,” Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know,” Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well,” Miley Cyrus’ “Party in the U.S.A.,” Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On,” Mariah Carey’s “Fantasy” and dozens more.
WMG asserts that Crumbl’s actions constitute direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argue that Crumbl, which has over a thousand stores nationwide and is reportedly exploring a sale, according to Reuters, should have been aware of the need to secure licenses for the music used in its promotional materials. Despite this, Crumbl allegedly persisted in using WMG’s music without authorization, even after similar cases, including separate lawsuits against Bang Energy by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, brought attention to the overarching issue.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and a permanent injunction to prevent Crumbl from any further infringement. The company is also pursuing statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work, potentially totaling nearly $24 million if the court awards the maximum penalty for all 159 cited works.
This legal action underscores the music industry’s ongoing efforts to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age, particularly as brands increasingly leverage popular music in social media marketing. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how companies approach the use of copyrighted music in online promotions.
WMG is being represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Workman Nydegger.
Crumbl has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment on WMG’s lawsuit.
Universal Music Group Nashville is undergoing a rebranding under CEO Mike Harris and chief creative officer Dave Cobb. The company will now be known as Music Corporation of America (MCA).
Harris and Cobb came aboard in early February following the departure of UMGN CEO/chairman Cindy Mabe in January. For Harris, it marked a return as he had served as COO/executive VP at UMGN until his departure last September.
“With the popularity of country music and the tremendous impact that it continues to make in popular culture, we recognize the importance of Nashville and the impact it has always made in America,” Harris said in a statement.
Cobb adds “I want to let the art lead, embrace community, and approach the business with intention. We show up, work hard, and put artists, songwriters, community, and fans first. We want to get this right for them. That’s what this is all about.”
Trending on Billboard
A number of staffing changes have also been made that reflect the changes. Katie McCartney, former GM of the recently shuttered Sony joint venture Monument Records, has been named EVP/General Manager and Tom LaScola is head of artist and audience strategy, through an expanded alliance with his company, The Trenches. The digital promotion and marketing firm formed a partnership with Republic Collective last October.
Under Cobb, the company has also formed a creative strategic alliance with award-winning songwriter Jessie Jo Dillon as the newly minted Song Buddy, a position that highlights the company’s commitment to the vital role songwriters play in the Nashville’s creative ecosystem.
MCA will continue to operate is frontline labels, Mercury Nashville, EMI Nashville, Capitol Nashville and MCA Nashville along with the newly launched Lucille Records, founded by Cobb.
Lucille Records will be lead by Cobb and Austin Jenkins, senior vp of A&R for MCA and Head of Lucille. Its diverse inaugural roster includes Lamont Landers, Landon Smith, Isabel Dumas, and Sons of Habit.
“The incredible staff of these labels will operate with a sense of independence and autonomy, but with a pursuit of excellence and healthy competition as a shared agenda,” Harris said.
In addition to the full resources provided by the Nashville headquarters, MCA artists also leverage the support of the REPUBLIC Collective in the U.S. and UMG globally.
The newly rebranded MCA’s roster includes Alan Jackson, Brothers Osborne, Carrie Underwood, Chris Stapleton, Darius Rucker, Dierks Bentley, Eric Church, George Strait, Jon Pardi, Jordan Davis, Keith Urban, Little Big Town, Luke Bryan, Maddie & Tae, Parker McCollum, Priscilla Block, Reba McEntire, Sam Hunt, Tyler Hubbard and Vince Gill.
Billy McFarland says he’s ready to sell Fyre Festival 2 to the highest bidder.
Earlier today, the convicted fraudster took to social media to post a mea culpa about his failures as a festival promoter while once more rebranding Fyre Festival as “one of the most powerful attention engines in the world,” in his words.
The double-speak is part of McFarland’s attempt to liquidate Fyre Festival’s only assets — its trademarks and IP — to the highest bidder now that Fyre Fest 2 has been indefinitely postponed. Early this month, government officials with the city of Playa del Carmen, Mexico, poured cold water on the long-shot festival — designed in part to rehabilitate McFarland’s image following the disastrous, aborted 2017 edition of the event in the Bahamas that resulted in global mockery, competing documentary films and a federal prison sentence for McFarland — by writing on social media that “there is no record or planning of any such event in the municipality.”
McFarland has said the idea for a follow-up festival came to him while serving time in solitary confinement, and he began pitching Fyre Festival 2 after his release from prison in 2022, hyping his plans on social media with splashy videos and spurious claims. As McFarland would finally admit on Wednesday (April 23), he has failed to regain the trust of fans, major talent agencies and the municipal government of Playa Del Carmen.
In his letter to fans, McFarland explained, “I can’t risk a repeat of what happened in Playa Del Carmen, where support quickly turned into public distancing once media attention intensified,” noting, “For FYRE Festival 2 to succeed, it’s clear that I need to step back and allow a new team to move forward independently, bringing the vision to life on this incredible island.”
Trending on Billboard
On Fyre’s website, where McFarland once hawked $1.1 million ticket packages for Fyre Fest 2, he now features a short pitch deck for the sale of Fyre’s IP, sharing details about Fyre’s web traffic and Google analytics while noting he’s ready to hand off the tarnished brand.
Giving control “to a new group is the most responsible way to follow through on what we set out to do: build a global entertainment brand, host a safe and legendary event, and continue to pay restitution to those who are owed from the first festival,” McFarland wrote, noting that he owes his victims from the first Fyre Festival more than $26 million.
On Monday (April 21), news broke of Fyre’s first licensing deal: an agreement for Fyre Music Streaming Ventures, LLC, a fan-curated on-demand music video streaming service and ad-supported TV channel. As its founder, Shawn Rech, told Billboard: “I just want people to remember the [Fyre] name.”
To view the sales material for Fyre, visit Fyre.mx.
Radio broadcaster Cumulus Media was notified by the Nasdaq Composite on Wednesday (April 23) that its shares will be de-listed from the exchange on May 2, according to a Cumulus regulatory filing. The stock will transition the same day to trading on the over-the-counter (OTC) market and will retain the CMLS ticker. Shares of Cumulus […]
Back in September, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, requesting the examination of “concerns” and “emerging issues” with U.S. performance rights organizations (PROs). More specifically, the Committee expressed concerns about the alleged “lack of transparency” with PROs and the so-called “proliferation” of new PROs in the market.
So early this year the U.S. Copyright Office opened a notice of inquiry that allowed licensors and licensees to submit a comment and weigh in about whether or not they like the way that the U.S. PRO system works today.
Trending on Billboard
The inquiry has become one of the most important issues facing the music publishing sector this year, and it’s one that is especially sensitive, given mechanical royalties and the majority of performance royalties (for those signed to ASCAP or BMI) in the U.S. are not negotiated in a free market — a common complaint amongst publishers, PROs and songwriters. The idea that this inquiry could bring additional scrutiny or inspire Congress to pursue additional regulation to performance royalties in the future has become a stress point. Those who have to license music through PROs, however, believe that the system has grown to be too complicated and too expensive and a renewed conversation about reform is needed. (For more background, read Billboard’s explainer here).
The comment period ended on Friday (April 11), and the 12,344 comments were released on Monday (April 14). Since then, Billboard has been reviewing the comments submitted by key groups and individuals — like publishers, songwriters, venues, restaurants and, of course, the PROs themselves.
Here is a guide to those comments.
What did the PROs say?
Of the six U.S. PROs, five of them — ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR and PRO Music Rights (PMR) — submitted comments to the Copyright Office. AllTrack, one of the two new entrants to the market along with PMR, did not.
ASCAP: American Society of Composers Authors and Publishers, one of the two U.S. PROs that operates under a consent decree and the only one operating on a not-for-profit basis, wrote that “American songwriters, composers and music publishers are some of the most heavily regulated business owners in the country.” The organization then called the complaints about “lack of transparency” “particularly disingenuous,” pointing out that ASCAP has already invested significant resources into its public repertory database, called Songview, which it shares with BMI, “and yet little evidence suggests these licensees ever use that information.” Plus, ASCAP says that “distribution” of royalties “should be decided between music creators and their chosen PROs, not by licensees or government entities.” They note that “further regulation of ASCAP and its members would “harm music creators.”
ASCAP also pushed back on the idea of rising costs for licensees: “The market for musical compositions continues to grow year over year, as does the volume of copyrighted music,” it said. “It is nonsensical, and contrary to the foundational principles of a free market, that licensees could obtain permission to use more and more music each year without a corresponding increase in what they pay for it.”
It also pointed to the emergence of DIY distributors like DistroKid and Tunecore, private equity’s increasing interest in music as an “asset class,” and technology lowering barriers to entry as reasons why new PROs have emerged. ASCAP then cast doubt on PMR’s catalog, saying, “We discovered copyright registrations for literally millions of ‘musical works’ that were apparently either computer-generated sounds or merely random titles.” Read the full comment here.
BMI: Broadcast Music Inc., the second of the PROs in the U.S. that operate under a consent decree, said in its comments that additional regulation of PROs would harm songwriters and composers and that licensees called for this inquiry “with the goal of further reducing licensing fees at the expense of songwriters, composers and music publishers that depend on them.” In addressing licensees’ accusations that PROs lack transparency, BMI said it “rejects” the idea that these so-called issues “have any impact on a licensee’s obligation to compensate copyright owners for the use of copyrighted works,” though BMI added that it “is confident that [it] succeed[s] in this effort.”
It wrote, however, that AllTrack and PMG, “in stark contrast” to BMI, “make little information readily available regarding the contents of their repertoires.” BMI continued to cast doubt on PMR, writing that evidence suggests “that [PMR] greatly overtates its relative share of copyrighted and performed works… it is unclear whether certain of the results in [PMR’s] search function are even authentic musical works,” later adding that Spotify alleged that PMR’s founder, Jake Noch, “‘flood[ed] online streaming services with large quantities of’ AI-generated music.” Read the full comment here.
GMR: Global Music Rights, an invite-only PRO founded in 2013 for “top-tier songwriters,” said that it believes “the competitive [PRO] marketplace fostered by the four major PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR)” “ensure[s]” that music creators and publishers are “fairly compensated.” It also stated that “some of the entities that are now appealing to the Office to intercede…are themselves not licensed by GMR, yet continue to use GMR’s music.” The organization also cited its differences from other PROs, saying that it offers “an identical rate card to all of its clients” and “individualized service, increased transparency, and enhanced economic terms” that songwriters allegedly couldn’t find in the “incumbent PROs.”
GMR also took shots at AllTrack and PMR, saying they “appear to be contrary to the customs and practices of the four major PROs.” “A PRO that offers no threshold level of transparency and is paired with a repertoire that is largely devoid of any meaningful value to any licensee is deeply problematic,” GMR wrote. “Coupled with attempts to take advantage of small businesses by relentlessly threatening litigation while failing to provide music users with insight into the repertoires that they represent, such a PRO should certainly be subject to further inquiry.” Read the full comment here.
PMR: Pro Music Rights wrote that the more established PROs have engaged in “anti-competitive practices” and have tried to box PMR out of the market. The organization also claimed that “BMI’s board — despite publicly disparaging Pro Music Rights — approved confidential discussions about selling BMI to Music Licensing, Inc., culminating in meetings with Goldman Sachs.” They proposed a number of reforms, including “mandated transparency” and “uniform licensing fees” so that “every voice in music, from small establishments to major corporations, is treated with fairness and respect.” Read the full comment here.
SESAC: Society of European stage Authors and Composers, the second-oldest PRO in the U.S. and the first for-profit player, said that maintaining “freedom of choice” for publishers, songwriters and composers was important in the U.S. PRO marketplace, forcing the PROs to “adjust or modif[y]” their operations “when [members] raise concerns.” SESAC noted that it has a publicly available database to search through their works and that they are more concerned that “nearly 70% of restaurants and over 90% of bars remain exempted” from paying royalties to PROs. SESAC also noted that ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR are “currently exploring the inclusion of SESAC and GMR data to enhance Songview’s reconciled view of copyright ownership information” for increased transparency.
And SESAC pointed out that there are multiple ways to license music without using a PRO at all, including easy-to-license song libraries Mood Media, Soundtrack Your Brand and more. Read the full comment here.
What did the publishers say?
Publishers work with the U.S. PROs every day to ensure they are getting properly compensated for public performances. Some top publishers, like UMPG, opted not to submit comments. Those that did typically aligned closely with the stance also expressed by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) (which counts the vast majority of U.S. publishers as members), implying that the top publishers — major and indie — are fairly unified in their stance.
NMPA: The NMPA’s comment called the inquiry a “thinly veiled attempt by licensees to reduce the already depressed rates they pay” for performance royalties and called for Congress and the Copyright office to “take such claims skeptically.”
Instead, the NMPA advocated, as it often has, for “unregulated music licensing markets” and said that “musical works copyrights are already significantly undervalued…due to overregulation.”
The NMPA believes that the “creation of new PROs…is an indication of a competitive marketplace…which improves PRO performance for their members.” The NMPA said that it is “disingenuous [to] characterize the growth of the PRO market as a negative development…In reality an increase in licensing costs is an inevitable outcome of a growing market…Requiring licensees to pay fairly for the music that they use is not the systematic injustice that licensees portray; it is simply the cost of operating a business built on performing music someone else wrote.” Read the full comment here.
Warner Chappell: Warner Chappell raised in its comment that it would like to have the ability of “selective withdrawal of digital rights” from PROs’ blanket license. This resurrects a hot button issue that divided publishers and PROs dating back to 2013. The same idea was brought up again in 2019 and has previously been supported by the NMPA, the three major publishers and many of the biggest indies. Read the full comment here.
The selective withdrawal of digital rights from the PROs would basically mean publishers could still use the PROs’ services for the general licensing of bars, restaurants, venues and more, but that publishers could negotiate directly with digital services like Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora or iHeartRadio, cutting out any fees associated with royalties first going through the PROs before reaching publishers and allowing for global, not U.S.-specific, deals. But this would mean more work for the publishers, given there’s a large number of digital services beyond just the streaming and digital radio giants.
In the past, raising this point has also raised other, much less welcomed, ideas, like a 100 percent licensing system (meaning licensees only need a license from one of the songwriters on a song instead of all of them, as they have to do today, a system referred to as “fractional licensing”). Plus, it would be a seismic shift for the U.S. PROs, which have been investing in developing complex systems for digital royalty collection over the years. More background information is available on that issue in Billboard’s past coverage here.
Sony Music Publishing: SMP’s comments largely echoed the NMPA’s comments, saying that “SMP believes that less and not more regulation is not only good for songwriters but also a sensible pro-competitive approach where the true value of musical compositions is determined in a free market.” Read the full comment here.
What did the licensees say?
Licensees, such as clubs, bars and restaurants, are thought to have kicked off this inquiry in the first place. And the fact that they exist in every political jurisdiction in the U.S. likely gives them more political power than the music business, which lives mostly in clusters around New York, Los Angeles and Nashville.
National Restaurant Association: This organization said that the “emergence and proliferation of new PROs” has “jeopardized” the “efficacy of the U.S. music licensing system” “to the detriment of small business restaurant operators across the nation” and pointed the finger specifically at “recent” PROs such as GMR, PMR and AllTrack. The restaurants say they could face “costly litigation” if they accidentally play an unlicensed song. To date, the association found that its members pay “just shy of $4,500 on average to license music on an annual basis, which represents upwards of nearly 0.5 percent of the average U.S. small business restaurant’s total annual sales … for an industry that runs on an average pre-tax margin of 3 percent to 5 percent, this cost is significant.” The organization proposed three key solutions: requiring PROs to create centralized databases of their performance data; allowing establishments to receive itemized statements of works licensed from PROs upon request; and “a public registry of PROs that also summarizes what portions of the music industry they represent.” Read the full comment here.
Fox Theater: The famous Atlanta theater said in its comment that AllTrack and Pro Music Rights’ attempts to collect licensing fees are “redundant” and “create a significant financial burden” on venues. The theater also accused PROs of “routinely rely[ing] on trade magazines to determine artist appearance schedules, rather than actual reports submitted by the venue. This often leads to incorrect invoices submitted by PROs, which leads to countless hours of administrative work.” The Fox Theater suggested that “PROs should be required to undergo public audits…to ensure that they are not routinely overbilling licensees.” Read the full comment here.
International Association of Venue Managers: This organization pointed to the complexity of licensing music when many songwriters and many PROs are involved. “Venues often find themselves paying high fees without understanding what rights they are actually securing,” the comment read. The organization suggested a few changes to the US PRO system, including a publicly accessible and legally reliable database; that PROs should be required to update and maintain the database; the establishment of a federal registration system for PROs; mandated itemized statements upon request from licensees; and ensuring rate-setting processes reflect the PROs’ market share. Read the full comment here.
What did the songwriters and independent advocates say?
Songwriters and independent advocates in the music business have long advocated for change — often taking even greater swings than the industry establishment and calling out issues too political for music companies to touch in their advocacy. They are all also known for centering songwriters in their efforts, but still — that doesn’t mean everyone in this grouping holds the same ideas about how to effect positive change in music.
Songwriters of North America: SONA, a songwriter organization founded in 2015, said that it “does not believe that any aspect of this requires action from any regulatory or legislative body regarding copyright. We believe that any existing issues can and should be handled outside of the purview of the U.S. government and can be solved within the industry itself.” The organization also said it “recognizes the concerns from licensees” about the so-called “proliferation” of PROs, but “SONA does not take an official stance in regards to this issue.” Read the comment here.
Artist Rights Institute, North Music Group, Blake Morgan: led by songwriter David Lowery, songwriter Blake Morgan, attorney Chris Castle and North Music Group founder Abby North, the group wrote a comment, that said, “We are apprehensive that the subtext of the NOI is the justification of yet another compulsory license for songwriters,” calling them “among the most regulated workers in America.” The comment also likened PROs to “representative bodies for independent contractors who lack the protections afford by traditional labor unions,” and while they are not actual unions, “PROs serve a crucial function by negotiating…on behalf of their members.” Without this, the commenters believe indies would be more “vulnerable.” Among their proposed solutions is the idea of a “localized PRO at the city level,” royalty auditing of the PROs, and allowing songwriters to do “partial withdrawals” to manage some of their rights outside of the PRO. For a full explanation of these ideas, read the comment here.
Songwriters Guild of America / Society of Composers and Lyricists / Music Creators of North America: This comment noted that “the independent music creator community agrees without reservation that maintenance of the competitive PRO collective licensing system in the US as described above (including its ‘fractional licensing’ structure) is essential.” In response to licensees’ complaints about there being too many PROs, SGA/MCNA/SCL said these complaints are “a renewed effort by users to invent new, unfounded, inconvenience-based excuses for royalty payment-avoidance supported by no reasonable motivation other than generation of windfall user profits.” Read the comment here.
IBIZA, Spain — The annual dance industry conference IMS Ibiza began today (April 23) on its namesake island, with hundreds of people from around the sector gathering for three days of discussions, presentations, panels, music and more looking at the global electronic music scene and industry from all angles.
As is tradition, the Summit began with the presentation of the annual IMS Business Report, which tracks the key trends from the global business over the last 12 months. Marking its 11th edition this year, the report was authored by MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan and is available here.
Mulligan also presented the report to a packed room on Wednesday afternoon, giving context to the data and illustrating that while revenues may be lagging in clubs and festivals, electronic music culture is booming both on and offline. These are 11 key findings from the 2025 report.
Trending on Billboard
1) Streaming Is Way Up in the Global South
The report finds that while streaming revenue growth slowed to 6% in 2024, subscriber growth saw huge gains, with the overall streaming sector seeing a 12% growth in its subscriber base.
Incredibly, nearly four fifths of this growth came from Global South markets, an area the UN Trade and Development organization defines as comprised of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Oceania. Mulligan noted that Global South statistic is especially crucial given that user growth will eventually give way to global cultural growth “as these users drive the rise of large local music scenes that will increasingly export their sounds to the West.”
The reports also found that Spotify stayed in the lead in terms of DSPs, maintaining its 32% market share and registering more than a quarter of a billion subscribers globally. The report notes that “YouTube Music was the only other global DSP to also enjoy strong growth in 2024, gaining to a 10% market share.
2) Electronic Music Is a Market Leader
The report notes that electronic music has the top or second highest count of Spotify followers in nine of the genre’s top 13 markets, compared to hip-hop, Latin and rock. And while Latin and hip-hop growth may be statistically stronger, the reach of these audiences, especially Latin, varies strongly by region, versus electronic music’s more global growth.
Additionally, the world’s top four electronic music markets — Germany, Australia, the U.S. and U.K. — all gained significant listener counts in 2024, although Mexico, the U.K. and Germany saw the highest growth, respectively. (Incredibly, electronic music was up 60% in Mexico.)
Meanwhile, electronic music consumption is considered endemic in The Netherlands and Australia, where the report found that the number of monthly electronic music listeners on Spotify is higher than the total population. (This is possible because individuals can consume more than one style of electronic music on the platform.)
3) Electronic Music Fans Over-Index For Time & Money Spent
Mulligan repeatedly emphasized the crucial nature and influence of IRL scenes, which dance music excels in cultivating and which many younger people are prioritizing over online existence.
“This idea of scenes is going to become more and more important,” he said, “because superstars are getting smaller and everything is fragmenting. It’s time to look simply beyond the stream counts, beyond the social numbers to measure the cultural impact, even though that’s nearly impossible to do. But that’s probably a good thing. If it’s not measurable, it’s harder for people to go and overtly commercialize it.”
He referred to culture as “the fuel in the engine,” saying that things like revenue, stream counts and social and followings “will come as a result of the culture. So the fact that the cultural indicators are beginning to really light up in 2024 points to a really strong few years coming up.”
4) Revenues in Ibiza Were Up, But Ticket Sales Were Slightly Down
The report notes that the average number of events per venue on the island “is on a steady, albeit modest decline and ticket volumes were down in 2024, with higher average ticket prices thereason that revenues were up once again. “You keep charging people more until they can’t afford it anymore” said Mulligan, “and there will come a point when people say ‘I literally can’t afford any more for this at the moment.’” This is especially true now, he noted, in a period of global economic uncertainty.
5) Afro House Continues to Rise
Mulligan reported that Afro-house “has absolutely rocketed” in the last year, while drum & bass is also in a “real era of resurgence.” A survey of the digital sample library Loopcloud indicates a large rise in samples of African music genres, suggesting the genre will continue growing.
6) Hard World = Hard Music
The Loopcloud survey also found a rise in harder electronic genres like hardcore and hard dance, while “softer” genres like ambient and chill out are going down and losing share. This is, Mulligan posted, is “because culture reflects the world around us. It’s a crappy world out there at the moment. There’s wars and famine and inequality, and I think that’s beginning to really come through in the music that people are making and the music that people are listening to.”
7) There’s Been a 45% Growth of Electronic Music Hashtags on TikTok
Amapiano and trance saw especially big growth on the platform. “Again,” Mulligan said, “there are all of these cultural indicators that are growing more strongly than the revenue indicators are.”
8) SoundCloud Also Remains a Strong Cultural Indicator
The platform saw 100% growth in uploads of UKG (UK garage) with jungle uploads also up 45%.”These tend to the genres that tend to be owned by Gen Z and even Gen Alpha,” said Mulligan. “SoundCloud has so many of these bootleg remakes … of course [the people who make them] can never get the rights cleared and put them onto Spotify, but a lot of this culture is happening online on places like SoundCloud.”
9) Music Catalog Investors Have a Growing Interest in Dance
“Mainly what happens is old white males invest in old white males, so you still see the Bob Dylans [of the world getting invested in], but we are beginning to see more and more of other genres,” Mulligan said of investor acquisitions of artist catalogs. The report states that the share of catalog deals for electronic artists doubled between 2020 and 2024, with recent notable examples including Kevin Saunderson, Tiga and deadmau5.
10) Dance Music’s Gender Divide Persists
In terms of the number of people producing music and playing events, Mulligan reported that “this is still a heavily male world,” although there’s also been a slight increase in the representation of female artists. This determination is based on a survey of data from AlphaTheta, where the registered userbase, the report says “points to the steady rise of female DJs, many of whom will be inspired by the growing share of top DJs that are now female.”
“We are beginning to see change,” Mulligan added in his presentation. “It’s not dramatic, but it’s good and steady progress.”
11) The Global Electronic Music Industry Was Valued at $12.9 Billion in 2024
This number includes live, merchandising, sponsorships, recorded music, publishing, music hardware and software, clubs, festivals and more. The number represents a 6% growth over 2024, which Mulligan noted “might not sound huge, but remember live music revenues — festivals and clubs — which is a really big part of the revenue mix, is beginning to slow, so that sort of drags down the overall numbers. But most importantly, the culture is absolutely booming. With 0.6 billion new social followers of electronic music followers in 2024 they’re the foundation for what’s set to be a really vibrant few years.”
A songwriter who unsuccessfully sued Mariah Carey over “All I Want for Christmas is You” is pleading with a judge to reject demands that he repay her six-figure legal bill, warning it would push an “elderly man” to “the brink of a financial collapse.”
After beating Vince Vance’s copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic, Carey, Sony Music and other defendants told the judge earlier this month that they had paid nearly $186,000 to a team of lawyers to defeat “frivolous” motions advanced by Vance’s attorneys.
But in a response filing on Monday, Vance’s lawyers said that such a award was “simply not reasonable” and completely out of proportion for the amount of litigation at issue – and that it could bankrupt an an “elderly man now without vast resources.”
Trending on Billboard
“The plaintiff is elder and living off his music catalog and some touring,” the songwriter’s attorneys say. “One artist should not push another artist to the brink of a financial collapse.”
Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey in 2022, claiming “All I Want” infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. He said his track had received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her now-better-known hit.
The case was a big deal because Carey’s song is big business. The 1994 hit, which became even more popular after it appeared in the 2003 holiday rom-com Love Actually, has re-taken the top spot on the Hot 100 for six straight years and earned a whopping $8.5 million in revenue in 2022.
But in a ruling last month, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani said Vance had failed to show that the songs were similar enough to violate copyright law. She cited analysis by a musicologist who said the two tracks were “very different songs” that shared only “commonplace Christmas song clichés” that had been used in many earlier tracks.
The judge not only tossed out Vance’s case, but also ruled that he and his lawyers should be punished for advancing meritless arguments that the judge said were aimed to “cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”
Earlier this month, Carey and the other defendants told the judge they had paid a combined $185,602.30 for a total of 295 hours to defeat those motions. They said they spent a lot because Vance was demanding “drastic” thing, like $20 million in damages and the “destruction” of all copies of Carey’s song.
Carey, repped by Peter Anderson and others from the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, asked for about $141,000; Walter Afanasieff, a co-writer on Carey’s track repped by Kenneth D. Freundlich, asked for $7,000; Sony Music, represented by Benjamin Akley, Donald Zakarin, Ilene Farkas and others from Pryor Cashman, asked for $32,000; and Kobalt, repped by Bert Deixler and others from Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, asked for $5,000.
But in Tuesday’s response, Vance’s lawyer (Gerard P. Fox) said those demands were far too high for a case that he said had been filed with good intentions and sound legal reasoning.
“He heard something that to him seemed substantially similar and spent money that is sparse for him on two of the top musicologists in the country and asked them for their independent opinions, and they both gave him the same opinion: there was infringement,” Fox writes.
“The loss of this case … is staggering enough for this plaintiff and saddling him with $185,000 of big law firm billing that is unreasonable and forcing him to sell parts of his catalogue of music will accomplish nothing,” the lawyer writes.
Jay-Z’s rape accuser wants a federal judge to dismiss his defamation lawsuit against her, arguing she cannot be sued over allegations she made in court – and that a headline-grabbing NBC News interview is protected under the same legal logic.
In a court motion filed Tuesday, attorneys for the Jane Doe accuser and her attorney, Tony Buzbee, argued that her shocking accusations against the rapper were covered by the “fair report privilege” – a legal doctrine that largely bars defamation cases over allegations made during legal proceedings.
Jay-Z’s lawsuit – filed in March after Doe dropped her case against him – claims that she also defamed him by making similar allegations during an interview with NBC News. But in her new motion, she says those statements are also covered by the “fair report” protections.
Trending on Billboard
“The average person watching the report, and indeed anyone watching the report, would certainly understand that the statements refer to allegations in the lawsuit,” her lawyers write.
The case against Jay-Z, filed in December, claimed that he and Sean “Diddy” Combs had drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. Jay-Z forcefully denied the allegations, calling them a “blackmail attempt.” After just two months of heated litigation, Doe dropped her case without a settlement payment.
Weeks after the case was dropped, Jay-Z sued both Doe and Buzbee for defamation, malicious prosecution and other wrongdoing, claiming they had carried out an “evil conspiracy” to extort a settlement from him by making the “false and malicious” rape allegations.
“Mr. Carter does not commence this action lightly,” his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit, filed in Alabama federal court. “But the extortion and abuse of Mr. Carter by Doe and her lawyers must stop.”
In Tuesday’s motion to dismiss that case, attorneys for Doe and Buzbee argued that they cannot be sued because they had made such statements in court. And they said the “fair report” privilege also clearly applies to the NBC interview, even if Doe gave statements that weren’t exactly the same as the claims she had raised in court.
“It is immaterial that the NBC News piece does not preface every statement with a reference to Doe’s amended complaint,” her lawyers write. “Doe’s statements in the NBC News piece are substantially the same as the allegations of her underlying amended complaint, even if they are not identical.”
Attorneys for Doe and Buzbee also argued that the other claims in Jay-Z’s case are similarly faulty, saying he has not “come close” to showing that he can sue for malicious prosecution. A representative for Jay-Z did not immediately return a request for comment.
The Alabama lawsuit is part of a sprawling legal battle between Jay-Z and Buzbee in the wake of the rape allegation. A separate case in California, in which Jay-Z is suing the lawyer for extortion and defamation, is awaiting an early-stage ruling by a judge. Buzbee has also filed his own cases against both Jay-Z’s Roc Nation and his longtime law firm, Quinn Emanuel, alleging they have harassed his clients and committed other wrongdoing.