Business
Page: 29
The Trump Administration fired U.S. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter on Saturday (May 10), sparking concerns in the music business that the White House will take the side of technology companies in debates about AI and copyright.
The move came just two days after the dismissal of Perlmutter’s boss, Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, and a day after the Copyright Office posted a report on the legal issues in training AI algorithms on copyrighted works. Although the White House has not given any reason for the move, it comes as the media business once again finds itself in conflict with Silicon Valley – this time as technology companies have far more influence in Washington.
The Register of Copyrights reports to the Librarian of Congress, and speculation on the reason for Hayden’s May 8 firing varied. Hayden, appointed by President Obama, was the first African-American and woman to hold the position, leading some to view her dismissal as politically motivated. At a May 9 press conference, the White House suggested that “there were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress,” involving DEI and “putting inappropriate books in the library for children” — although the institution isn’t a lending library, let alone one that’s set up for young readers.
Trending on Billboard
Perlmutter’s subsequent dismissal suggests that the Trump administration may be more concerned with copyright policy – and that Hayden’s firing was at least partly a step toward changing the leadership of the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office has the power to issue guidance on the state of copyright law and report to lawmakers on related legislation, and judges often use its interpretations in court decisions. Currently, the office is preparing a multi-part report, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,” the third part of which, about whether scanning works to train AI algorithms would qualify as infringement, was expected to come out this spring. Given the number of court cases involving this issue, as well as the potential damages faced by technology companies in them, the stakes are high.
Late on Friday (May 9), the Copyright Office posted online a “pre-publication version” of the report, which is not its usual practice. Although the issues are complicated, it interprets the law in a way that suggests such copying – especially for commercial purposes, involving generative AI products – would not qualify as fair use. The Copyright Office has no lawmaking power, but courts could be influenced by its analysis of case law.
The next day, according to several sources, Perlmutter received an email telling her she was terminated.
There has been some speculation that Perlmutter’s dismissal was the result of the decision to post the report. However, several sources who had no direct knowledge of the situation, pointed out that Perlmutter might have known her dismissal was imminent, or at least possible, and had the report posted before that occurred. (Right now, no one knows, and neither the White House nor Perlmutter has commented.) And while the report is generally seen to favor rightsholders, it is an expert interpretation of existing law, not a set of policy recommendations.
Certainly, the issue of whether scanning works to train AI qualifies as fair use or copyright infringement has become a hot one. And since the early days of the second Trump administration, music and media lobbyists have worried about the influence of the technology business. In March, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz responded to a request for public comments on the White House AI Action Plan by saying that “neither the Copyright Office nor any other government agency should release guidance related to this issue—or other issues critical to American competitiveness in AI—until the conclusion of the National AI Action Plan process.”
In late April, the right-wing American Accountability Foundation accused both Hayden and Perlmutter of being “deep-state liberals” and suggested that the Trump Administration “return an America First agenda to the nation’s intellectual property regulation.” Although both are Democrats, Perlmutter served in the first Trump Administration as the head of copyright policy in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is part of the Department of Commerce. Copyright has generally been one of the few non-partisan issues in Washington, since it usually unites Democrats who support the arts with Republicans who favor strong protections for property rights.
Perlmutter’s firing is likely to intensify the copyright debate, potentially creating a rift between Silicon Valley venture capitalists aligned with the Trump administration and Democrats, as well as some Republicans, who support copyright protections and believe in the independence of government agencies. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25) released a statement calling Trump’s termination of Perlmutter “a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis.”
The sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs kicked off Monday in a Manhattan federal courthouse, where federal prosecutors told jurors that the once-powerful mogul used his music empire for decades to “feed his every desire.”
On the first day of a trial expected to last two months, prosecutors painted a picture of a man who used “coercive and criminal conduct” to force at least two women to engage in drug-fueled sex parties called “freak offs.”
“For twenty years, the defendant, with the help of his trusted inner circle, committed crime after crime,” prosecutor Emily A. Johnson told the jury during her opening statements. “That’s what we’re here about today. That’s what this case is about.”
Trending on Billboard
Responding for Combs was defense attorney Teny Geragos, who admitted that the star had a “toxic” relationship with former girlfriend Cassie Ventura — including openly acknowledging that it included “domestic violence” — but said he was simply not guilty of racketeering or sex trafficking.
“Sean Combs is a complicated man, but this is not a complicated case,” Geragos told the jury. “We take full responsibility that there was domestic violence. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
The star, once one of the music industry’s most powerful men, is formally accused of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and violating a federal prostitution statute. If convicted on all of the charges, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
At opening statements, prosecutors accused Combs of victimizing at least two women, including Cassie and an unnamed victim listed under a Jane Doe pseudonym. They said he used “lies, drugs, threats, and violence” to coerce the women into routinely engaging in sex with male sex workers in “dark hotel rooms.”
To keep both women silent, Johnson told the jury that Combs threatened to release videos of the encounters, one of many moves that she said kept them under his control: “It had the power to ruin her life.”
But Geragos told a very different story, repeatedly stressing that Cassie and other alleged victims had consensually chosen to have relationships with Combs and partake in what she termed his “swinger lifestyle.”
“That may not be what you like to do in your bedroom,” Geragos told the jurors. “She was not being trafficked.”
The trial will continue Monday afternoon, potentially with testimony from Cassie herself.
Billboard will update this story with more details from the trial as it unfolds.
Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis is launching his own coffee brand, and he’s turning to Live Nation for help getting it in front of coffee drinkers.
Today, Kiedis and longtime friend Shane Powers are debuting their coffee in a can consumer brand JOLENE along with a marketing campaign, which a press release says is “built to move with the rhythm of live entertainment and meet the ambition of those living life to the fullest.”
Kiedis and Powers have partnered with Live Nation as both an investor and distribution partner for JOLENE. The global concert promoter will carry the coffee brand at its festivals and 40 amphitheaters owned or operated by Live Nation, including the Gorge Amphitheater in Washington, Northwell at Jones Beach Theater in New York and Allianz Amphitheater at Riverfront in Richmond, Virginia.
Trending on Billboard
Live Nation is an equity investor in JOLENE as is consumer spirits company Global Brand Equities and h.wood Group founder John Terzian. The agreement is similar to one Live Nation struck with water company Liquid Death in 2021 and its celebrity ownership group that included Wiz Khalifa, Machine Gun Kelly, Steve Aoki and Tony Hawk. That agreement had Live Nation selling Liquid Death at its 120 owned-and-operated venues as part of a larger sustainability effort to phase out the sale of single-use plastics at all owned and operated venues and events.
JOLENE comes in two flavors: Black (cold brew) and White (oat milk latte) and will be used to make four signature cocktails at Live Nation-owned venues. According to a press release, JOLENE is sourced through an all-female co-op in Peru, “ensuring high-quality beans while directly supporting the women growers and their communities,” the release reads. The product is also available for purchase online at retailers in Los Angeles and New York.
The origin of the coffee goes back several years, according to Kiedis. “Shane shouted at me down the sidewalk ‘Let’s do something!’ I shouted back ‘how ’bout coffee’? He said ‘done.’ And so began the adventure of putting a high-quality spin on a can of coffee.”
The name JOLENE is a spin on the phrase “cup of Joe” and the common descriptor “skinny latte” or “lean latte” referring to a latte without whole milk, as well as a reference to the hit country music song “Jolene” by Dolly Parton.
Russell Wallach, Live Nation’s global president of Media & Sponsorship added “Fans want options that fit the pace and energy of live music,” noting, “Cold brew has come up again and again, and JOLENE delivers — it’s high quality, easy to enjoy, and adds something new to the fan experience. It’s one more way we’re evolving to meet what fans are asking for.”
On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report examining copyrights and generative AI training, which supported the idea of licensing copyrights when they are used in commercial AI training.
On Saturday (May 10), the nation’s top copyright official – Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter – was terminated by President Donald Trump. Her dismissal shortly follows the firing of the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who appointed and supervised Perlmutter. In response, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, said that he feels it is “no coincidence [Trump] acted less than a day after [Perlmutter] refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”
This report was largely seen as a win among copyright owners in the music industry, and it noted three key stances: the Office’s support for licensing copyrighted material when a “commercial” AI model uses it for training, its dismissal of compulsory licensing as the correct framework for a future licensing model, and its rejection of “the idea of any opt-out approach.”
Trending on Billboard
The Office affirms that in “commercial” cases, licensing copyrights for training could be a “practical solution” and that using copyrights without a license “[go] beyond established fair use boundaries.” It also notes that some commercial AI models “compete with [copyright owners] in existing markets.” However, if an AI model has been created for “purposes such as analysis or research – the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness,” the Office says “the outputs are unlikely to substitute” for the works by which they were trained.
“In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights,” the report reads.
While it is supportive of licensing efforts between copyright owners and AI firms, the report recognizes that most stakeholders do not hold support “for any statutory change” or “government intervention” in this area. “The Office believes…[that] would be premature at this time,” the report reads. Later, it adds “we agree with commenters that a compulsory licensing regime for AI training would have significant disadvantages. A compulsory license establishes fixed royalty rates and terms and can set practices in stone; they can become inextricably embedded in an industry and become difficult to undo. Premature adoption also risks stifling the development of flexible and creative market-based solutions. Moreover, compulsory licenses can take years to develop, often requiring painstaking negotiation of numerous operational details.”
The Office notes the perspectives of music-related organizations, like the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which all hold a shared distaste for the idea of a future compulsory or government-controlled license for AI training. Already, the music industry deals with a compulsory license for mechanical royalties, allowing the government to control rates for one of the types of royalties earned from streaming and sales.
“Most commenters who addressed this issue opposed or raised concerns about the prospect of compulsory licensing,” the report says. “Those representing copyright owners and creators argued that the compulsory licensing of works for use in AI training would be detrimental to their ability to control uses of their works, and asserted that there is no market failure that would justify it. A2IM and RIAA described compulsory licensing as entailing ‘below-market royalty rates, additional administrative costs, and… restrictions on innovation’… and NMPA saw it as ‘an extreme remedy that deprives copyright owners of their right to contract freely in the market, and takes away their ability to choose whom they do business with, how their works are used, and how much they are paid.’”
The Office leaves it up to the copyright owners and AI companies to figure out the right way to license and compensate for training data, but it does explore a few options. This includes “compensation structures based on a percentage of revenue or profits,” but if the free market fails to find the right licensing solution, the report suggested “targeted intervention such as [Extended Collective Licensing] ECL should be considered.”
ECL, which is employed in some European countries, would allow a collective management organization (CMO) to issue and administer blanket licenses for “all copyrighted works within a particular class,” much like the music industry is already accustomed to with organizations like The MLC (The Mechanical Licensing Collective) and performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI. The difference between an ECL and a traditional CMO, however, is that under an ECL system, the CMO can license for those who have not affirmatively joined it yet. Though these ECL licenses are still negotiated in a “free market,” the government would “regulat[e] the overall system and excercis[e] some degree of oversight.”
While some AI firms expressed concerns that blanket licensing by copyright holders would lead to antitrust issues, the Copyright Office sided with copyright holders, saying “[the] courts have found that there is nothing intrinsically anticompetitive about the collective, or even blanket, licensing of copyrighted works, as long as certain safeguards are incorporated— such as ensuring that licensees can still obtain direct licenses from copyright owners as an alternative.”
This is a “pre-publication” version of a forthcoming final report, which will be published in the “near future without any substantive changes expected,” according to the Copyright Office. The Office noted this “pre-publication” was pushed out early in an attempt to address inquiries from Congress and key stakeholders.
It marks the Office’s third report about generative AI and its impact on copyrights since it launched an initiative on the matter in 2023. The first report, released July 31, 2024, focused on the topic of digital replicas. The second, from Jan. 29, 2025, addressed the copyright-ability of outputs created with generative AI.
Led by two entertainment companies in the Dolan family portfolio, music stocks collectively eked out a small gain this week, marking their fifth consecutive weekly gain after a Trump tariff-induced two-week slide in early April.
Sphere Entertainment Co. shares jumped 18.9% to $28.05 after the company’s quarterly earnings on Thursday (May 8) showed that the Sphere venue’s cost management helped offset a 12.8% decline in revenue. CEO James Dolan told analysts he isn’t concerned about a possible downturn in tourism from a sluggish U.S. economy or a drop in international visitors. “When it comes to concerts,” he said, “demand exceeds capacity, so we have room to absorb any issues.”
MSG Entertainment, another Dolan family-controlled company, rose 7.7% to $33.59 after the company’s quarterly earnings report on Tuesday (May 6) showed a 6% revenue increase and steady consumer spending despite a decrease in event-related revenue due to fewer events. JP Morgan maintained both its “neutral” rating and $41 price target.
The 20-company Billboard Global Music Index (BGMI) rose 0.8% to 2,717.17, its second-highest mark and its first time above 2,700 since it closed at a record 2,755.53 the week ended Feb. 14. With five consecutive weeks in the black, the BGMI is up 10.2% since President Trump announced his tariff policy and set off a stock sell-off.
Music stocks outperformed the Nasdaq composite (down 0.3%), the S&P 500 (down 0.6%), the U.K.’s FTSE 100 (down 0.5%) and South Korea’s KOSPI composite index (up 0.7%). China’s SSE composite index gained 1.9%.
Universal Music Group, which reported earnings on April 29, received a healthy bounce this week, gaining 4.5% to 25.86 euros ($29.10). That brought its year-to-date gain to 13.0%.
Warner Music Group (WMG) shares fell 8% on Thursday after its quarterly earnings release and finished the week down 9.6% to $30.26. WMG stock was likely impacted by a 0.3% decline in streaming revenue, a metric closely watched by investors. The decline took WMG’s year-to-date loss to 11.8%. Numerous analysts reacted by decreasing their WMG price targets: Morgan Stanley (to $31 from $32), Barclays (to $28 from $31), UBS (to $38 from $41) and TD Cowen (to $36 from $41).
Radio companies enjoyed a positive week amidst uncertainty about the U.S. advertising market. The greatest gainer of the week was iHeartMedia, which jumped 18.9% to $1.06 ahead of the company’s first quarter earnings release on Monday (May 12). Year-to-date, the radio giant’s shares have fallen 40.8%. SiriusXM rose 5.4% to $20.47.
K-pop companies had a mixed week. YG Entertainment spiked 9.9% after the company reported large increases in both operating income and net profit in the first quarter. Elsewhere, HYBE rose 2.1% while SM Entertainment, which announced earnings on Wednesday (May 7), fell 0.9% and JYP Entertainment dropped 1.8%.
Secondary ticketing marketplace Vivid Seats (which is not listed on the BGMI) fell 33.9% to $1.79 after the company’s first quarter revenue plummeted 14% due to what CEO Stan Chia called “softening industry trends amidst economic uncertainty.” While Live Nation previously told investors it’s seeing strong demand for events later in 2025, Vivid Seats painted a different picture. The company suspended guidance for the full year and said it expects industry volumes to be flat or decrease in 2025. Previous guidance called for mid-to-high single-digit growth.
Billboard
Billboard
Billboard
Taylor Swift has been hit with a subpoena that officially drags her into the tense legal drama between her friend Blake Lively and Lively’s It Ends With Us director and co-star Justin Baldoni. And the pop star’s reps aren’t happy, saying the move is “designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
The subpoena, reportedly sent to Swift by Baldoni’s legal team, makes her a witness in the messy legal battle over alleged sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation stemming from It Ends With Us, which was released last year.
But Swift’s representatives say she has no place in the fight between Baldoni and Lively.
“Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see ‘It Ends With Us’ until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history,” a spokesperson for Swift tells Billboard.
“The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet,’” Swift’s rep adds. “Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
The It Ends With Us litigation dates back to December, when Lively brought claims alleging Baldoni sexually harassed her on the set of the film and then orchestrated a public relations smear campaign to retaliate against her after she complained.
Baldoni vehemently denied the claims and countersued Lively for defamation and other wrongdoing in January. Baldoni’s suit said Lively leveraged her close relationship with a “megacelebrity friend,” presumed to be Swift, to take control of the movie.
The Baldoni filing includes text messages concerning an alleged meeting attended by “Ryan and Taylor,” seemingly referencing Swift and Lively’s husband, Ryan Reynolds. In one message sent by Lively, the actress called Swift and Reynolds her “most trusted partners,” comparing them to the “dragons” in the show Game of Thrones.
“The message could not have been clearer,” Baldoni’s lawyers wrote in the countersuit. “Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively’s ‘dragons,’ two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world, who were not afraid to make things very difficult for him.”
Baldoni and Lively’s lawyers did not immediately return requests for comment Friday (May 9).
It’s no secret that Canadian festivals have been facing hard times.
The post-lockdown years have seen high-profile festivals filing for creditor protection, like Montreal’s comedy behemoth Just for Laughs; scrambling to reorganize or downsize programming, like Toronto Jazz Festival and Calgary’s JazzYYC, after TD withdrew sponsorship; or cancelling editions altogether, like Toronto food and culture festival Taste of the Danforth.
Of course, major festivals closed before the pandemic, too, for a range of reasons. And many festivals wind down naturally, through generational or leadership shifts. But Erin Benjamin of the Canadian Live Music Association agrees that festivals are facing a difficult landscape in the years after 2020.
“COVID ripped up the playbook,” she tells Billboard Canada.
“The cost of goods and services and labour and talent is extremely high,” Benjamin adds. “And it continues to go up.”
Audience habits have shifted, too. She notes that festival-goers are definitely buying tickets later, leaving event planners with cash flow troubles.
In its 2025 Hear and Now report, the Canadian Live Music Association states that in 2024, the problem stretched beyond Canada. “Cancelled tours and festivals due to lower ticket sales, rising costs, and environmental impacts has led to overall industry decline,” the authors write. “High prices for top acts are exhausting fan budgets leaving less for mid-range artists.”
International mega-music festivals aren’t immune. After slow ticket sales in 2024, more than half of Coachella’s 2025 general admission attendees bought tickets through payment plans.
When festivals shut down, people lose a connection to local history and a chance to meet their neighbours. Benjamin adds that arts workers lose livelihoods, while local communities lose economic impact.
If the live industry is facing hurdles, it’s also true that music tourism is still a popular vacation choice. “We’ve got to capitalize on that music tourism piece here in Canada,” Benjamin says. “We have incredible infrastructure already. We need to take care of our infrastructure, need to continue to create opportunities for artists.”
Benjamin adds that each level of government — municipal, provincial and federal — has a role to play in harnessing that potential.
Every festival faces its own particular set of circumstances that help secure or shut down the next edition. But it’s clear that conditions across the industry are putting pressure on festivals, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
For a list of festivals that have closed or called for support, head here. – Rosie Long Decter
Craig “Big C” Mannix Joins CMRRA as Industry Relations Consultant – Community Engagement
The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA) is making a key hire to reflect the diversity of Canadian music.
Craig “Big C” Mannix has joined the CMRRA as industry relations consultant – community engagement.
An influential figure in the Canadian music industry, Mannix has served as vp of Black music at Universal Music Canada; held roles at Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Music Canada and Virgin Records Canada; and had a founding role with ADVANCE, Canada’s Black Music Business Collective. He has also played a key role in developing the careers of major Canadian names like Kardinal Offishall, K-os and Pressa.
The CMRRA is one of the leading reproduction royalty distribution agencies in Canada. It distributed $96 million in royalties in 2024, a 23% increase from 2023. That growth was significantly driven by music on TikTok, where royalties increased by 126%. Mannix looks to continue working with creators moving forward.
The CMRRA also reported a 50% increase in international revenues, highlighting the importance of global potential in the current Canadian music landscape. Mannix’s role specifically focuses on community engagement and deepening relationships with underrepresented music communities.
“I’m thankful for the opportunity to work with CMRRA. My love for music and art is what brought me into this business over 35 years ago — and it’s what’s kept me in it,” says Mannix about his latest career chapter. “I’ve always focused on driving culture with integrity, passion, and decency. I’m looking forward to connecting with more creators and communities through this new role.”
CMRRA is turning 50 this year. In a special industry newsletter, president Paul Shaver celebrated the organization’s growth.
“We have over 7,000 clients worldwide and a well-earned reputation across the industry for being efficient, technology-forward, client-focused, and trustworthy,” Shaver wrote in the newsletter. “Many of these clients represent hundreds or thousands of songwriters, further amplifying our global reach and impact.”
As global reach improves, it’s also important to focus on the communities that exist within the country. Royalty distribution is an important sector of the country’s music industry, and CMRRA is making strides to open it up to the full diversity of Canadian musicians. – Stefano Rebuli
Toronto Music Experience to Open a Permanent Museum by 2029
Toronto’s music scene is getting its own museum.
The Toronto Music Experience (TME) has unveiled plans to launch a permanent cultural home by 2029, commemorating the city’s worldwide impact through music.
The TME announced plans for its expansion on Monday (May 5) at a private event at Live Nation’s The Lounge in Toronto featuring artists including Rush’s Alex Lifeson, Jully Black and Lorraine Segato.
The organization announced that it has been granted charitable status, which means it can go ahead with fundraising, partnerships and community engagement as part of its five-year plan towards its permanent home.
TME’s goal is to highlight Toronto’s musical past, present, and future through immersive exhibits, pop-up activations, live performances and education initiatives. It aims for a storytelling approach, highlighting the achievements that have shaped the city’s music scene, from its historical Indigenous roots to the global impact of superstars like Drake, The Weeknd and Rush.
The museum fulfills the city’s need for a hallmark representation of its impactful musical legacy that is currently missing.
“We don’t have a museum devoted to what is arguably Toronto’s biggest cultural phenomenon, its biggest international export,” TME board director and longtime music journalist Nicholas Jennings told Billboard Canada in November 2024. “This is an untapped area for the city, and there is a need for it, because we’re losing some of these stories.”
TME has been actively telling these stories through a number of exhibitions in partnership with Friar’s Music Museum, located in a Shopper’s Drug Mart at Yonge and Dundas, the former home of the Friar’s Tavern music venue. TME hosted its first-ever live show experience with the Sound of Rhythms & Resistance concert at TD Hall in November 2024, serving as an extension of its “Rhythms & Resistance” exhibit in 2021.
“The success of the two exhibits that we’ve held at Friar’s has shown us that there’s an appetite and a market for something more permanent,” Jennings said.
TME wants to incorporate a mix of production, retail and café spaces as well as pop-up exhibits, pairing music education alongside interactive experiences featuring memorabilia.
“Our mission is to build an experiential space where artifacts meet immersive experiences in tribute to the artists, communities, and cultures that make our city sing,” says Denise Donlon, a music industry and broadcast executive and member of TME’s advisory board. “It’s a powerful way to celebrate our past and inspire the next generation of creators.” – SR
The festival business has struggled to find its footing this summer, but one production company is finding success in the festival space with a new strategy: smaller, lighter footprint events.
Tomorrow, Activated Events will open its sixth Boots in the Park festival for 2025 in Santa Clarita, Calif., with Old Dominion headlining and support from Nate Smith, Josh Ross, Mackenzie Porter, Noah Rinker and more. The one-day festival combines food, beverage and live music, with a price tag of $59 for general admission (GA) when tickets first go on sale in January, with the price steadily climbing as the event gets closer (GA tickets are currently priced at $119, with VIP tickets going for $255.)
The Boots in the Park brand is the culmination of Activated Events president Steve Thacher‘s decade-plus in the music business, first with the launch of Wet Electric in 2010 — a Las Vegas-style dance and electronic show held at waterslide parks in the southwest. That evolved into the launch of Coastal Country Jam in Huntington Beach, Calif., and then Boots in the Park starting in 2017.
“Our festivals are more boutique than some of the other major country and mainstream festivals,” Thacher tells Billboard. Indeed, Boots in the Park events range in size from 10,000 to 20,000 and don’t include camping or overnight visitors.
In 2025, Activated will host Boots in the Park festivals in Bakersfield, Calif.; San Diego; Las Vegas; Fresno, Calif.; Albuquerque, N.M.; and Tucson, Ariz. Thacher notes that Activated works closely with city leaders to create “a more intimate and personalized experience than some of the larger festivals.”
“Our fans love that they can enjoy 10 hours of some of the best country music and still sleep in their own beds at the end of the evening,” Thacher tells Billboard, noting that Boots in the Park’s California festivals all take place one to two months after the massive Stagecoach country music festival in Indio, Calif., that’s regularly attended by more than 80,000 fans.
“We think there is a place for both boutique festivals as well as large festivals to exist in the same market,” Thacher says. “The benefits of being an independent festival producer has allowed my team and I to really know our events, brands, and customers extremely well. It also allows our creative side to come out. When we come up with a fun idea, whether it be a new art installation, a fun festival activity, discover a new venue or curating amazing lineups, we get to have fun letting our creativity run wild.”
Being independent, however, does come with its challenges, especially when it comes to booking talent and competing against the big corporate promoters with much larger budgets.
“Fortunately, all of the artists that have played our festivals appreciate the level of production, hospitality and full houses of fans,” says Thacher. “This has made the country artists want to come back and continually play Boots In The Park, Coastal Country Jam and The Smoke Show. “We have developed the trust and respect of the artists, management and agents in Nashville and they feel confident that the artist will be well looked after when they play our events.”
One of the keys to their festivals’ success, Thacher explains, is making sure fans feel like they’re getting a good value for the money they spend on tickets.
“Boots In The Park is more than just a music festival, it’s a full day of immersive experiences. Beyond the incredible live performances, fans can jump into line dancing lessons, sample a variety of 101 unique whiskeys at our curated tastings, and compete in cornhole tournaments for a chance to win exclusive meet-and-greet opportunities with the artists,” he says. “The event also features interactive art installations that add a creative and memorable touch, making it a well-rounded celebration of music, culture and community.”
Boots in the Park takes place this Saturday in Santa Clarita. For more, visit bootsinthepark.com.
An anonymous artist is suing Uproxx for $15 million, claiming the media company’s production director sexually assaulted and harassed her at industry events, including a music festival, as well as at a Miguel video shoot.
In a lawsuit submitted to state court in Los Angeles on Thursday (May 8), the lawyer for a woman going by Jane Doe says she’s the victim of a “sustained campaign of sexual harassment, assault, stalking, fraud and workplace misconduct” by Uproxx creative production director Steven Victor Vasquez Jr.
“Defendants’ actions encompassing coerced sexual encounters, nonconsensual distribution of intimate images and persistent stalking constitute a profound violation of plaintiff’s fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, privacy and professional dignity,” writes Doe’s attorney, James Bohm. “These acts have inflicted severe emotional trauma, physical harm and substantial economic loss.”
Doe, a Phoenix-based artist published by Warner Chappell, allegedly met Vasquez at a February 2024 Grammy brunch event hosted by Uproxx. Warner Music Group (WMG) owned Uproxx at the time but has since sold the entertainment news and production company. (WMG is not named as a defendant in the complaint.)
According to Doe’s attorney, Vasquez lured her into a series of unwanted sexual encounters by promising to secure her collaborations with Uproxx and lucrative deals with brands like Sour Patch Kids, Zillow, Sparkling Ice and McDonald’s.
In June 2024, for example, Vasquez allegedly convinced Doe to attend “The Gorge music festival” (seemingly Beyond Wonderland at The Gorge) with him in Washington state. There, he apparently “pressured her to share a room, plied her with alcohol and psychedelic mushrooms and appeared naked in her bed without consent, committing sexual assault.”
Doe’s lawyer says Vasquez also forced her to look at pornographic images while on a trip to the Dominican Republic and engaged in other inappropriate behavior during an Uproxx event at Howard University and a video shoot for the R&B singer Miguel.
“Vasquez gaslighted plaintiff, accused her of fictitious affairs, attempted to terminate an employee for complimenting her and pressured her for unprotected sex,” writes Bohm.
The lawsuit says Doe tried to cut off contact with Vasquez in December 2024, but he flew to her home in Arizona and demanded sexual favors, leading her to call the Phoenix Police Department. Vasquez continued to harass her with “messages, videos, sexually explicit images and gifts” through April 2025, Doe’s lawyer alleges.
The lawsuit brings a total of 16 claims, including sexual harassment, sexual battery and stalking, and it seeks more than $15 million in damages from both Vasquez and Uproxx.
Bohm declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday (May 9). Vasquez and Uproxx’s representatives did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
A spokesperson for the Phoenix Police Department confirmed to Billboard that it did receive a report about the alleged December 2024 incident but says no arrests were made.
Private equity’s involvement in the active market for music catalogs continues to be a sore subject at one of America’s finest literary outlets.
“There are vested interests now that don’t want new music to flourish,” music historian Ted Gioia told The Atlantic. “The private-equity funds just want you to listen to the same songs over and over again, because they own them.” A similar argument — or warning — came last year from The New York Times, which bemoaned that “private equity is destroying our music ecosystem” and “gobbling up the rights for old hits and pumping them back into the present.” Gioia made the same argument in 2022 at his Substack publication, The Honest Broker, which The Atlantic later republished.
Not only are these big investors contributing to old music’s dominance, the arguments go, but record companies’ dedication to the past is hurting the music of the present — both in terms of quality and its share of listening on streaming platforms. Record labels “don’t spend any money on research and development to revitalize their business, although every other industry looks to innovation for growth and consumer excitement,” Gioia dubiously wrote in 2022.
Okay, so private equity has a bad reputation — sometimes deservedly so — for its involvement in unbridled capitalism. Think of the infamous leveraged buy-out, in which investors borrow money to acquire an underperforming company. The buyer inevitably makes drastic changes, often including mass layoffs and selling off subsidiaries. The company may be resuscitated. But if the endeavor fails, it may also go bankrupt (see iHeartMedia) or be sold for parts by the creditors (see EMI Music).
But blaming private equity for the current state of music — whatever it might be, but I’ll get to that below — shows a misunderstanding of institutional investments in music assets. Private equity firms aren’t interested in making their purchases popular — they invest in catalogs that never stopped being popular. The rise of streaming platforms made music an attractive asset class because the royalties became more predictable, and that evergreen nature of desirable catalogs fits into institutional investors’ desire for steady, low-risk returns. It’s true that new releases account for a minority of on-demand music streams. In 2024, the share of catalog — releases more than 18 months old — stood at 73.3% of on-demand audio streams, according to Luminate. That was up from 66.4% in 2020.
But, as Billboard noted in 2022, the rise in catalog’s share of streaming can be attributed to “shallow catalog” rather than legitimate oldies. Shallow catalog is relatively young music that has aged out of the current category but, with the help of streaming platforms’ playlists, remains relevant far longer than radio hits of decades past.
According to Luminate’s 2024 recap, nearly half — 49.6% — of U.S. on-demand audio streams were songs released in the 2020s, and about 90% of streams came from songs released this century, the same percentage as when Billboard ran the numbers three years ago.
To believe that old catalog is crowding out new releases, you’d have to think that the major labels’ partnerships with private equity have infected their desire to develop and break new hits. In 2024, Universal Music Group invested in Chord Music Partners, which was co-founded by Dundee Partners and KKR (the latter exited Chord last year). This year, Warner Music Group bought a majority stake in Tempo Music, while founder Providence Equity Partners retains a minority stake.
If these owners of music portfolios are trying to sabotage young artists, they’re doing a lousy job. The old catalogs prized by private equity-backed investors — music from the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s — accounted for just 5.7% of streams in 2024. That’s roughly 1 in 19 streams coming from music that originated before the Gulf War.
To say that old classics crowd out new music assumes the music business is a zero-sum game with an equal number of winners and losers. It’s not. An opportunity won by an old song doesn’t necessarily equate to a loss for a younger song. A Post Malone track might work fine for an action scene in a Vietnam War-era film, but the director is going to prefer Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Run Through the Jungle” almost every time.
Catalog valuation expert Citrin Cooperman recently ran across an example that shows music’s value isn’t finite. Between 2022 and 2024, after an older generation started streaming music during the pandemic, catalogs from the ‘80s outperformed music from other decades. But the surge in ‘80s music “has not crowded out newer music,” says Citrin’s Barry Massarsky. “It’s just added more value to the supply of music on streaming.”
The touring business offers more proof that young artists aren’t being hamstrung by their predecessors. Billboard Boxscore’s top tours of 2024 includes numerous newcomers whose careers took off after private equity fell in love with music. The No. 3 artist on the list, Zach Bryan, released his first major label album in 2022. Bad Bunny, who finished at No. 9, released his breakthrough album, YHLQMDLG, in 2020. Elsewhere in the Top 40 are several relatively young artists, including Luke Combs (No. 11), Karol G (No. 12), Travis Scott (No. 13) and Olivia Rodrigo (No. 14).
The top tours list does feature legacy acts that have — or easily could — sell their catalogs for large sums, such as Coldplay (No. 1), Bruce Springsteen (No. 5), The Rolling Stones (No. 6) and U2 (No. 7). But there’s also Noah Kahan (No. 29), who broke just three years ago, and K-pop group SEVENTEEN (No. 31), who didn’t land on a U.S. album chart until 2022.
But what about claims that the quality of today’s pop music is lacking? Since I’m not the best person to make qualitative statements about the state of pop music, I talked to some Billboard co-workers who follow trends, interview artists, review concerts and generally have their fingers on pop music’s pulse. They gave me sober assessments of current music that contrasts with The Atlantic’s naysaying.
One reason today’s pop music could seem suffocated by the past is because listening has become personalized and fractured. Numerous co-workers point out that radio- and MTV-driven hits have been replaced by countless niches and sub-genres. Dig deep enough and you’ll find innovative and meaningful music that isn’t surfaced by TikTok and Spotify algorithms.
Catalog’s apparent dominance could also be the result of newer ways to measure popularity. “Streaming has made catalog success stories more visible,” says Billboard’s Jason Lipshutz. “We can see how long the classic Christmas singles linger around the top of streaming playlists every holiday season or hear The Neighbourhood’s ‘Sweater Weather’ soundtrack more TikTok clips with every new autumn.”
And as Billboard’s Andrew Unterberger notes, the revival of old songs didn’t start in either the private equity or TikTok-streaming eras. The Everly Brothers’ 1965 hit “Unchained Melody” re-entered the Hot 100 chart due to its inclusion in the 1990 motion picture Ghost. In 1992, the movie Wayne’s World breathed new life into Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” The Dirty Dancing soundtrack, filled with songs from the early ‘60s, was a huge success in 1987. People have always relived the past — especially on radio — but now it’s more obvious.
Maybe the quality of today’s music isn’t a problem in the first place. “In the last 18 months or so, I think we’re actually in the healthiest time for pop music of the last decade — definitely of the 2020s,” says Unterberger. Since the pandemic, which Unterberger believes coincided with a drought in future superstars, artists such as Chappell Roan, Sabrina Carpenter, Kahan and Bryan became hitmakers and arena-fillers without following traditional industry blueprints. “People like that are saying something a little different or saying something a little bit more specific to their times,” he says.
There’s some evidence that pop music was especially potent in 2024. MIDiA Research noted last week that from 2016 to 2023, the top tracks in the U.K. had a decreasing share of total audio streams, with the top 10’s share falling from 2.0% in 2016 to 0.7% in 2023 while the top 100 dropped from 10.3% to 3.7%. But both figures reversed course in 2024: the top 10 inched up to 0.8% and the top 100 rose slightly to 3.8%. What’s behind the increase? MIDiA attributes it to a particularly notable year for superstar releases (Taylor Swift, Beyonce) but also “a new class of superstars” (Carpenter, Roan, Gracie Abrams) and an A&R process that puts developing stars over signing TikTok viral hits.
It’s not a stretch to say today’s pop music isn’t as deep as, say, Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi.” The opening line, “They paved paradise, put up a parking lot,” provides more social commentary than the average pop song. But maybe critics like Gioia are expecting too much from stars of the current era. Billboard’s Lyndsey Havens notes that artists seem unwilling or uninterested in commenting on potentially divisive issues and are instead focusing on relationships rather than cultural or political commentary. “Sabrina Carpenter’s ‘Espresso’ is catchy, and it was obviously a huge hit, but it’s not saying anything,” she says.
That’s not private equity’s fault, though. That’s the era we live in. People don’t get their politics from musicians the way they did when the U.S. had only three national TV networks and people received their news from one or two local papers. In the internet age, politics and cultural issues permeate everything. Infusing controversial themes into music is like talking politics during Thanksgiving dinner — somebody is likely to feel alienated. Popular artists don’t want to divide people. At the end of the day, says Havens, pop songs “are doing their job.” Maybe the best lesson here is not to over-romanticize the past. The classic catalog sales that grab headlines don’t necessarily represent the most popular music of their day. “Big Yellow Taxi” — which Mitchell has not sold, by the way — has become a timeless classic, but was less popular than dozens of other tracks while reaching No. 67 on the Hot 100 in 1970 and No. 24 in 1975. “Even at the most innovative moments in pop music history,” says Unterberger, “there was still dreck on the charts.” Additional reporting by Liz Dilts Marshall.