guest column
Page: 2
TikTok’s decision to boycott Merlin and pursue direct deals with Merlin’s member labels is a troubling move that undermines the rights of labels to choose how their music is licensed. While TikTok frames this shift as a way to tackle streaming fraud, it’s clear that the real motive is to weaken the bargaining power of independent labels and use that leverage to suppress rates.
Merlin has built strong partnerships over the last 16 years with more than 40 digital services worldwide. These partners recognize the value Merlin brings—efficiency, scale, and a deep understanding of the independent music community. TikTok’s move to sideline Merlin is not about protecting against fraud but about undermining the ability of independent labels to achieve competitive terms, not just now but for the long term. The ultimate consequence of its refusal to negotiate with Merlin for the music that earns TikTok billions of dollars, will be to damage artists’ ability to make a living from their art.
This tactic is not new. It echoes the historical struggles of the music industry with partners such as terrestrial radio and MTV, both of which profited massively from the use of recorded music while refusing to pay artists under the pretext of “promotional value” or “exposure” — ostensibly for the sale of an artist’s CDs or LPs. In this largely digital economy the stream is the sale – and it has been widely reported that TikTok pays rights holders far less than other services for equivalent uses of music.
Trending on Billboard
Richard James Burgess, President and CEO of A2IM
Independent labels choose Merlin to license their rights, because of its expertise, experience and track record in striking these kinds of deals. This ensures compensation at levels enabling them to compete with the majors and protects independents from being unfairly exploited. TikTok’s decision to bypass Merlin and demand direct deals is an assault on the freedom of small and medium sized enterprises to determine their own business strategies. The fact that TikTok is giving Merlin members a matter of days to accept TikTok’s terms or lose access to its massive platform, is an unfair exercise of its market power.
This apparent divide-and-conquer strategy is, we believe, designed to keep payouts for indie artists low by exploiting their perceived reliance on TikTok’s platform. It’s not about addressing fraud or improving the digital music ecosystem. In fact, by exponentially multiplying the number of license deals TikTok will need to strike and by losing Merlin as a partner in the fight against fraudulent material, more fraud is likely to ensue. Merlin simplifies licensing, making it easier for platforms to access diverse, independent music. Fragmenting this system hurts artists and fans and will limit the range of music available on TikTok.
At its core, this issue is about respecting the rights of independent labels to determine how their music is licensed. TikTok’s behavior doesn’t reflect a problem with Merlin; it reflects TikTok’s lack of respect for the value of music. Every other major platform has struck responsible deals with Merlin that balance the needs of the service with optimized compensation for artists. TikTok’s refusal to do so sets a dangerous precedent for recording artists and their labels.
TikTok must stop undermining and disrespecting the independent music community. It can do this by working with the labels’ rights management agency of choice to establish a fair, transparent licensing system that benefits all stakeholders in the music ecosystem. Independent labels have the right to choose their representatives to negotiate deals that truly reflect the value of their artists’ creative contributions. Anything less is a disservice to the artists and the fans and undermines the very fabric of music culture.
Dr. Richard James Burgess is an acclaimed musician, singer, songwriter, record producer, composer, author, manager, marketer and inventor, who presently serves as the president and CEO of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM).
Chhappell Roan recently canceled two shows just one day before they were due to take place, saying that she felt overwhelmed and needed to take a break. She’s not alone — over the past few years, artists including Adele, Rihanna and The Rolling Stones have all done something similar, and likely at an eye-watering cost for all involved.
People will always get sick, but the kind of health issues artists state are often more complex. While it seems that labels and management companies have put an increasing amount of investment into mental health programs over the last few years, is there anything more that could help cancellations like these to be prevented?
Trending on Billboard
One area of the business slow to change is allowing adequate recovery time on tour for emerging artists. Costs are high and labels want to get the maximum amount of exposure for new artists, but scheduling proper breaks is so important when it comes to preventing illness, overwhelm and vocal issues. A quick glance at Chappell Roan’s tour dates shows her playing in three different cities on three consecutive nights. Combine this approach with a meteoric rise in profile and you’ll have an exhausted, overwhelmed artist in no time.
It is in this state that pre-existing health issues can raise their head. Exhaustion and stress will do that to any of us. No amount of mental health support can compensate for an over-tired artist who can’t cope. But also, for artists, exhaustion and stress impact their live performance in ways that executives often forget. An artist experiencing visceral symptoms of overwhelm, as Chappell stated, will find it incredibly hard to perform. She even said: “I want to be present when I perform and give the best shows possible,” suggesting that her current state is preventing her from doing that.
For singers, their body is their instrument, and signs of tiredness, illness or stress will show in their voice. Tension in the body can result in feelings of tightness, vocal fatigue and an inability to reach high notes. Sharing their music onstage with fans is incredibly meaningful to artists, so they want to be fit and strong enough to do the material justice. The world of social media is brutal — any significant vocal issues or performance mistakes will likely end up being shared online, inviting a wealth of stress-inducing (and often unfair) criticism. No artist wants to go onstage worrying that their voice might give out at any point, so they need to be properly supported to prevent this from happening. Additionally, increased stress can raise performance anxiety levels to unmanageable states, even for those who haven’t suffered from it before.
How can things change? Firstly, executives need to work with artists to find out what a reasonable tour workload is for them, remembering that everyone is different. Be mindful that promo is tiring for the voice, and the body doesn’t process a TV or radio appearance as a “day off” from performance, no matter how tempting it is to squeeze an opportunity into a scheduling gap. Travel days are also exhausting.
Many major artists further along in their careers now demand recovery to be built into their tour schedules, but it’s harder for younger acts to feel they can ask for this. It can also be tough for teams to facilitate — it’s well-documented how long it takes for touring to become profitable, especially when taking into account the rising costs faced by the industry post-pandemic. However, it’s worth taking a long-term view. As we mentioned earlier, cancellations are also expensive and risk harming the important dynamic of trust between artist and fan.
Secondly, invest in some proper performance psychology training for artists. Classical musicians know the importance of this — all major conservatories around the world now educate their students on how to perform under pressure, using virtual reality and mental skills training techniques, among others, to help musicians cope with the challenges of a high-level performance career.
Researchers have suggested that performing live can be compared biologically to sky-diving, in terms of the levels of stress in the body. Without proper management, recovery and support, cortisol levels can stay heightened, contributing to health issues in the long term. This is why management of performance anxiety is vital. All artists need a pre- and post-performance routine to help the body, mind and voice prepare for, and recover from, performance. You’ve probably heard of them from the world of sport, where they’re commonplace for athletes. Classical musicians use them too, but pop is slow to catch on — and to its detriment.
Finally, a routine performance health check-in with artists should be mandatory. These look at vocal health, performance psychology, hearing health, musculoskeletal issues and general mental health. Research suggests that musicians are slow to seek help for health issues, leaving problems until they become chronic, at which point many are harder to deal with and can even be career-ending. These early, cheap interventions can prevent problems from escalating. A standardized offer across the industry for all artists to access support would make a huge difference in reducing performance health-related cancellations long-term.
We cover all of this and more in the upcoming international edition of our health-focused career guide for artists (and those who work with them), Sound Advice, which aims to help prevent health and performance issues before they escalate, through a combination of research, interviews, professional advice and resources.
There’s been so much discussion and headway made on the health issues faced by artists in recent years. However, as Chappell Roan’s example and many others show, there are big gaps in care and provision that need to be addressed if the industry wants to prevent last-minute cancellations and move towards a more sustainable (not to mention ethical) future.
Rhian Jones is a respected freelance journalist who specializes in the business of music. She writes for The Guardian, Music Business Worldwide and Hits, amongst others.
Lucy Heyman runs a performance health and psychology consultancy, Elevate, where she works with industry organizations, advising artists and those that work with them on how to optimize performance. She has an MSc in Performance Science from the Royal College of Music and has published original research on the health and well-being experiences of artists in popular music.
We are in a transformative era of music technology.
The music industry will continue to experience growth throughout the decade, with total music revenue reaching approximately $131 billion by 2030, according to Goldman Sachs. This lucrative business is built on streaming but also witnessing an unprecedented surge in innovation and entrepreneurship in artificial intelligence. With over 300,000 tech and media professionals laid off since the beginning of 2023, according to TechCrunch, a new wave of talent has been funneled into music tech startups. This influx, coupled with the dramatic decrease in cloud storage costs and the global rise of developer talent, has catalyzed the emergence of many startups (over 400 that we have tracked) dedicated to redefining the music business through AI.
These music tech startups are not just changing the way music is made and released; they are reshaping the very fabric of the industry. They’re well-funded, too. After raising over $4.8 billion in 2022, music tech startups and companies raised almost $10 billion in funding in 2023, according to Digital Music News, indicating that venture capitalists and investors are highly optimistic about the future growth of music technology.
As Matt Cartmell, CEO of Music Technology UK, said, “Our members want us to present the music tech sector as a highly investible proposition, educating investors about the opportunities that lie within. Music tech firms are also looking for innovative models of engagement with labels, DSPs and artists, as well as looking for our help to bring diverse talent into the industry, removing the barriers that continue to restrict individuals with passion and enthusiasm from a career in music technology.”
Trending on Billboard
Riding this wave of investment, several startups have already made a splash in the music AI space. Below is an overview of a few of those companies and how they’re contributing to the industry’s rapid evolution.
Generative AI: The New Frontier
At the heart of this revolution is generative AI, a technology rapidly becoming indispensable for creators across the spectrum. From novices to professional artists and producers, AI-powered platforms offer unprecedented musical expression and innovation opportunities. It’s now possible for users without any formal musical training to craft songs in many genres, effectively democratizing music production. Music fans or content creators can utilize products that score their social content, while seasoned musicians can use these tools to enhance their creative workflows.
“I like to think of generative AI as a new wave of musical instruments,” says Dr. Maya Ackerman, founder of Wave AI, a company that has introduced tools to aid human songwriters. “The most useful AI tools for artists are those that the musicians can ‘play,’ meaning that the musician is in full control, using the AI to aid in their self-expression rather than be hindered.” These tools focus on generating vocal melodies, chords and lyrics, emphasizing collaboration with musicians rather than replacing them.
For non-professionals, one ambitious company, Beatoven.ai, is building a product to generate music in a host of different ways for many different use cases. “(Users) can get a piece of music generated and customize it as per their content without much knowledge of music,” says Siddharth Bhardwaj, co-founder/CTO of Beatoven. “Going forward, we are working on capturing their intent in the form of multimodal input (text, video, images and audio) and getting them as close to their requirements as possible.”
The concept of “artist as an avatar” has become increasingly popular, which draws inspiration from the gaming community. Companies like CreateSafe, the startup powering Grimes’ elf.tech, have built generative audio models that enable anyone to either license the voice of a well-known artist or replicate their own voice. This innovative approach also reflects the adaptive and forward-thinking nature of artists. Established artists like deadmau5, Richie Hawtin and Ólafur Arnalds have also delved into AI initiatives and investments. Furthermore, a few innovators are crafting AI music tools tailored for the gaming community, potentially paving the way for the fusion of music and gaming through real-time personalization and adaptive soundtracks during gameplay.
The Community and Collaboration Ecosystem
The journey of music creation is often fraught with challenges, including tedious workflows and a sense of isolation. Recognizing this, several startups are focusing on building communities around music creation and feedback. The Singapore-based music tech giant BandLab recently announced that it has acquired a user base of 100 million, making it one of the biggest success stories in this arena. “Our strength lies in our comprehensive approach to our audience’s needs. From the moment of inspiration to distribution, our platform is designed to be a complete toolkit for music creators and their journey,” says founder Meng Ro Kuok. There are several startups pioneering spaces where creators can collaborate, share insights and support each other, heralding a new era of collective creativity.
A Toolkit for Every Aspect of Music Production
This landscape of music tech startups offers a comprehensive toolkit that caters to every facet of the music creation process:
Track and Stem Organization. Platforms like Audioshake simplify the management of tracks and stems, streamlining the production process.
Vocal & Instrument Addition. These technologies allow for the addition of any human voice or instrument sound to a recording environment, expanding the possibilities for frictionless creativity.
Sound Libraries. Services provide or generate extensive libraries of samples, beats and sounds, offering artists a rich palette.
Mix and Master. The process of mixing and mastering audio has historically relied heavily on human involvement. However, several startups are utilizing AI technology to automate these services for a more comprehensive audio production experience. Others also offer the ability to convert stereo songs to spatial audio.
Remixing and Freelance Musicianship. Many platforms now offer creative and innovative solutions for remixing music. Additionally, some platforms allow users to easily source and connect with talented artists, session musicians and other music professionals. Need an orchestra? There are tech platforms that can arrange and source one for you remotely.
The Future of Music Tech: A Vision of Inclusivity and Innovation
The barriers that once kept people from participating in music creation are falling away. Now, anyone with a passion for sound can create content, engage with fans, find a community and even monetize their work. This more accessible and collaborative music ecosystem offers an exciting glimpse into a future where anyone can participate in the art of creation. The explosion of creators, facilitated by these technologies, also suggests a new economic opportunity for the industry to service this growing creator class.
Drew Thurlow is the founder of Opening Ceremony Media where he advises music and music tech companies. Previously he was senior vp of A&R at Sony Music, and director of artists partnerships & industry relations at Pandora. His first book, about music & AI, will be released by Routledge in early 2026.
Rufy Anam Ghazi is a seasoned music business professional with over eight years of experience in product development, data analysis, research, business strategy, and partnerships. Known for her data-driven decision-making and innovative approach, she has successfully led product development, market analysis, and strategic growth initiatives, fostering strong industry relationships.
In June 2022, Jeffery Williams, the rapper professionally known as Young Thug, said from jail: “I always use my music as a form of artistic expression, and I see now that Black artists and rappers don’t have that freedom.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Rap is the most important musical development of the last half-century. It is a Black art form that reflects, comments upon and helps define the American experience. Like other artistic expressions, rap lyrics are often fictitious and hyperbolic; they cannot be assumed to be autobiographical. And like famous surrealist painters, some rappers combine their experiences with flights of imagination, leaving the audience to decide what is “real” and what is not. Other rappers write wholly fictional accounts without labeling them as such — sometimes for commercial appeal. As Young Thug explained to XXL Magazine in 2016: “I started doing a thuggish style … I started to make cool trap music … Them songs have made millions of dollars but them songs are not me.”
Just like other artists, the creators of rap music are protected by the First Amendment; as such, they are entitled to create ambiguous art that does not separate fact from fiction.
Unlike other types of artists, however, rappers find their art used against them in criminal court, as overly aggressive prosecutors charge rappers with having committed the alleged crimes depicted in their lyrics. It seems the ultimate rap battle is between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment — pitting the freedom of expression against the right to a fair trial. The racial injustice of this tactic is obvious. Directors of horror and action movies are not forced to defend themselves in criminal court against allegations that their films depict actual events. Nor must the creators of country or death metal music justify their songs to a judge or jury as fiction — no matter how violent their lyrics may be. Only rappers are singled out in this way.
Hearteningly, the music industry and the social justice community have joined forces with lawmakers in opposition to this egregious prosecutorial overreach. For instance, California amended its rules of evidence to place additional burdens upon prosecutors who seek “to admit as evidence” of criminality “a form of creative expression.” In New York, proposed legislation similarly seeks to create a presumption against admitting evidence of a defendant’s creative expression in criminal trials. And, at the federal level, the Restoring Artistic Protection Act (RAP Act), seeking to shield artists from the misuse of their lyrics in both criminal and civil proceedings, has been reintroduced in Congress. This bill has support from groups such as the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), the Recording Academy, the Black Music Collective and SAG-AFTRA. All of these pieces of legislation aim to safeguard artists from prosecutors who want to use their creative expressions as evidence in criminal trials — ensuring rap artists enjoy the benefits of both the First and Sixth Amendments of our Constitution.
While these efforts are commendable, a significant loophole remains within the domain of criminal conspiracy prosecutions. A conspiracy is a crime where two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act, and someone in the conspiracy takes an affirmative step — or “overt act” toward the act. While the actual and proposed California, New York and federal statutes would make it harder for prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence of a crime, they do nothing to prevent prosecutors from alleging that rap lyrics themselves are an element of a crime — specifically, the so-called “overt act” element of a conspiracy crime. Additional legislation is urgently needed at the state and federal levels to prevent this from happening.
Conspiracy charges are darlings of prosecutors because many criminal conspiracy statutes permit the government to charge each alleged conspirator with all crimes committed by the conspiracy, so long as the alleged conspirator: (1) knowingly and willfully joined the conspiracy; and (2) committed an “overt act” in support of the conspiracy. Thus, by alleging that a rapper’s lyrics constitute an “overt act,” a prosecutor can seek to hold that rapper criminally responsible for crimes that the rapper did not even commit but rather were committed by other members of the “conspiracy.” In other words, rappers can be charged with and convicted for other people’s crimes merely by virtue of rapping. This prosecutorial tactic is literally criminalizing rap music.
The ongoing Young Thug/YSL trial vividly illustrates the urgent need for legislation banning this tactic. In that case, the prosecution has charged the defendants under a criminal conspiracy statute, Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) law. The grand jury indictment characterizes YSL as a gang engaged in criminal activities, with the Grammy-winning artist purportedly at the forefront. To link various defendants to the alleged “conspiracy,” and thus to ensnare them into the defendants’ seats at trial, the prosecution has alleged that specific sets of rap lyrics constitute “overt acts.” On their face, these lyrics are a mode of artistic expression, involving clever wordplay and other forms of humor. Lyrics cited by prosecutors include the following:
“Red just like Elmo but I never f—in’ giggle”— Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams
“Where you from, I’m from Bleveland, throw your set up” — Wunnie “Slimelife Shawty” Lee
“I shot at his mommy, now he no longer mention me” — Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams
Without legislation preventing these or other rap lyrics from being charged as “overt acts,” prosecutors will continue to use them to bolster their cases. We call for the music industry to unite with its allies to press for the introduction and passage of such legislation. Until that happens, the music industry and its allies should press candidates running for district attorney to promise not to prosecute rap lyrics as “overt acts.” Moreover, and until new legislation passes, criminal defense and music industry attorneys should advise their clients about the risks of prosecutions for merely creating rap, however outrageous and unfair that may be. Otherwise, rappers will continue to navigate a precarious line that could see their lyrics construed as a crime, undermining the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and raising urgent questions about racial and creative justice in the courtroom. Rap artists should not have to choose between their First and Sixth Amendment rights.
Jeffrey Movit is a civil litigator in New York and Los Angeles whose practice areas include copyright, trademark, defamation and entertainment law. He has been called the “lawyer to the stars” by the New York Post, and he was named by Billboard magazine as one of the “Top Music Lawyers” for 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Priya Chaudhry is a nationally-known, award-winning criminal defense trial attorney who routinely handles high-profile, high-stakes criminal cases. With nearly 50 jury trials in 25 years of practice, The Hollywood Reporter named Ms. Chaudhry as one of the “25 Power Lawyers” it recognized as “Hollywood’s Troubleshooters.”
Awais Arshad is a criminal defense attorney at ChaudhryLaw, a Fulbright Scholar and barred in multiple jurisdictions, including New York, England & Wales and Pakistan.
The business of music has transformed in the last two decades, driven by technology that shattered barriers to entry and creators’ determination to control their destiny. At the 66th Grammy Awards earlier this year, more than half of the nominees were independent. And it’s more than just business: the indie movement has enabled diverse voices that could not be heard previously to occupy their rightful place in the industry. This makes music, and our society, more egalitarian and better.
Whether blues, punk, hip-hop or country, America’s most recognizable music genres started out in the indie sector, and today the association I lead has more than 750 members across 35 states, and most of them are small businesses with less than 50 employees. As the music industry has changed, so have they.
Trending on Billboard
Yet, some of the most important players in the music ecosystem cling to a bygone era that was dictated by the motto, “Might Makes Right.”
Exhibit A is iHeartRadio. The corporate behemoth controls 860-plus stations across the country that play over 50 million songs a year. Those songs helped iHeart’s multiplatform group — covering broadcast radio and national sales — generate more than $2.4 billion in 2023 alone, according to its latest earnings report.
But iHeart is stuck in 1990. It doesn’t bother discovering new artists. Instead, it overplays the hits and milks classic songs that were released decades ago. Despite the growing movement to achieve economic justice, iHeart denies artists and labels payment for their work.
Take a moment to reflect on that. iHeart makes $12 billion a year playing music but refuses to pay the hard working and talented people who perform and produce the songs that are the reason consumers tune-in in the first place. In its desperate attempt to cling to the past, iHeart and lobbyist group the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) have spent nearly $100 million since 2020 lobbying Congress and spreading campaign contributions around to maintain the unfair status quo.
iHeart is powerful. But it’s on the wrong side of history. And it’s about to face what it hates most: a public forum where broadcasters must defend their craven practices. On Wednesday (June 26), the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the refusal of broadcasters to pay music creators for their work.
Richard James Burgess speaks onstage during the GRAMMY Influencer Activation at GRAMMY House during the 66th GRAMMY Awards on Feb. 1, 2024 in Los Angeles.
Jerod Harris/Getty Images for The Recording Academy
Of course, iHeartMedia CEO Bob Pittman won’t testify. He leaves the dirty work to the NAB. But that doesn’t matter. When the issue of compensation for AM/FM airplay is held in a public forum, broadcasters lose. That is why their lobbyists work so hard to prevent congressional hearings. But courageous members of Congress such as Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) are making sure there is a public debate. And they have a solution to ending the injustice: the American Music Fairness Act, which would grant an AM/FM performance royalty. This bill would bring AM/FM radio into the 21st Century, and finally grant American recording artists the same rights enjoyed by their counterparts in almost every other country on the planet.
In the last two decades, how we discover and listen to music has dramatically changed, and not just the move from vinyl records to streaming. We can now ask a device in our house, such as Alexa, to play music, and it does. Spotify and SiriusXM are now buttons next to AM/FM on the dashboard of our cars. Polling from 2020 found that of the people who regard staying up to date on new music as important to them, only 11% turn to AM/FM radio to do so. Even in my generation, that number is only 27%. OK, Boomers!
We need to update the laws to catch up to these changes. It makes no sense if, when driving, music creators heard on SiriusX are being compensated, but not if you hear them on an AM/FM station. If you listen to radio programming through the iHeartMedia app on your phone, through a smart speaker, or even in your car, iHeart has to pay creators too. That’s why they have their hand out to Congress asking for a mandate to keep AM radios in cars.
The American Music Fairness Act brings justice and balance to the industry. Music creators get paid for their work. AM/FM stations have to pay just like the streaming services. And, because the legislation protects truly local radio stations, most stations in the country would pay just $10 to $500 a year to play music.
I know independent music creators, who I represent as president and CEO of the American Association of Independent Music, could definitely use the income from those royalties. My members love partnering with true locally controlled community radio stations, but the behemoths usually don’t take their calls. There are hundreds of thousands of artists and other creators who hustle and struggle to make a living by giving us the music we love.
This approach is fair, it’s equitable, and it’s just. And iHeart hates it.
Broadcasters try to create as much fear, uncertainty, and doubt to avoid doing what’s right. They claim a $500 annual fee to play music would decimate stations’ ability to broadcast emergency communications – then they hike the annual dues it charges its members. They cling to the asinine rationale that the alleged promotional value of radio play justifies their immoral scheme. Worse, broadcasters claim they shouldn’t have to pay for the songs they play while demanding Congress get more money for them when their content is used by YouTube and other platforms.
Broadcasters do all of this with a straight face. But time is running out. When the arc of justice comes around, iHeart and the National Association of Broadcasters will learn they are on the wrong side of history.
Dr. Richard James Burgess is an acclaimed musician, singer, songwriter, record producer, composer, author, manager, marketer and inventor, who presently serves as the president and CEO of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM).
A few weeks back, a member of the team at my company, Ircam Amplify, joined one of the multiple AI music generators available online and input a brief prompt for a song. Within minutes, a new track was generated and promptly uploaded to a distribution platform. In just a couple of hours, that song, in which no human creativity played a part, was available on various streaming platforms. We diligently took action to remove the track from all of them, but the experiment highlighted a significant point.
It is now that simple! My aim here is not to pass judgment on whether AI-generated music is a good or a bad thing — from that perspective, we are neutral — but we think it is important to emphasize that, while the process is easy and cost-effective, there are absolutely no safeguards currently in place to ensure that consumers know if the music they are listening to is AI-generated. Consequently, they cannot make an informed choice about whether they want to listen to such music.
With AI-generated songs inundating digital platforms, streaming services require vast technological resources to manage the volume of tracks, diverting attention away from the promotion of music created by “human” artists and diluting the royalty pool.
Trending on Billboard
Like it or not, AI is here to stay, and more and more songs will find their way onto streaming platforms given how quick and easy the process is. We already know that there are AI-generated music “farms” flooding streaming platforms; over 25 million tracks were recently removed by Deezer, and it is reasonable to speculate that a significant proportion of these were AI-generated.
In the interest of transparency, consumers surely deserve to know whether the music they are tuning into is the genuine product of human creativity or derived from computer algorithms. But how can AI-generated tracks be easily distinguished? Solutions already exist. At Ircam Amplify, we offer a series of audio tools, from spatial sound to vocal separator, that cover the full audio supply chain. One of the latest technologies we have launched is an AI-generated detector designed to help rights holders, as well as platforms, identify tracks that are AI-generated. Through a series of benchmarks, we have been able to determine the “fingerprints” of AI models and apply them to their output to identify tracks coming from AI-music factories.
The purpose of any solution should be to support the whole music ecosystem by providing a technical answer to a real problem while contributing to a more fluid and transparent digital music market.
Discussions around transparency and AI are gaining traction all around the world. From Tokyo to Washington, D.C., from Brussels to London, policymakers are considering new legislation that would require platforms to identify AI-generated content. That is the second recommendation in the recent report “Artificial Intelligence and the Music Industry — Master or Servant?” published by the UK Parliament.
Consumers are also demanding it. A recent UK Music survey of more than 2,000 people, commissioned by Whitestone Insight, emphatically revealed that more than four out of five people (83%) agree that if AI technology has been used to create a song, it should be distinctly labeled as such.
Similarly, a survey conducted by Goldmedia in 2023 on behalf of rights societies GEMA and SACEM found that 89% of the collective management organizations’ members expressed a desire for AI-generated music tracks and other works to be clearly identified.
These overwhelming numbers tell us that concerns about AI are prevalent within creative circles and are also shared by consumers. There are multiple calls for the ethical use of AI, mostly originating from rights holders — artists, record labels, music publishers, collective management organizations, etc. — and transparency is usually at the core of these initiatives.
Simply put, if there’s AI in the recipe, then it should be flagged. If we can collectively find a way to ensure that AI-generated music is identified, then we will have made serious progress towards transparency.
Nathalie Birocheau currently serves as CEO at Ircam Amplify and is also a certified engineer (Centrale-Supélec) and former strategy consultant who has led several major cultural and media projects, notably within la Maison de la Radio. She became Deputy Director of France Info in 2016, where she led the creation of the global media franceinfo.
As the author of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), I am thrilled with the benefits it has provided music creators and music streaming services. Rarely does Congress come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to respond to a market problem with a comprehensive, collaborative and business-driven solution.
The bill updated copyright law for the digital generation, and the cornerstone of the legislation — the creation of the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) — has been a shining example of an industry working together to solve major market challenges. However, recent attempts by streaming services to redefine the original intent of the statute, to benefit themselves, are concerning and must be corrected.
The MLC was created to solve a massive music industry problem. Streaming services often failed to find the correct copyright owners and therefore held on to large sums of money owed to songwriters and music publishers. This both kept earnings from rightful owners and also opened streaming services up to large amounts of liability — from which lawsuits were piling up, costing them hundreds of millions of dollars. Both sides had a major incentive to find a better way forward.
Trending on Billboard
Along with my colleague, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), I authored a bill to establish a company that would be funded by the digital streaming companies, and governed by copyright owners, which would receive all of the streaming mechanical money owed and then distribute that money based on copyright ownership. The company would also operate a first-of-its-kind public database so that song ownership information would be more transparent than ever.
To create the MLC, the U.S. Copyright Office held an impartial designation period where anyone could campaign to run the company. A coalition representing the vast majority of the music publishing and songwriting industry came together and was selected.
In five short years, the MLC was activated and is now a towering example of success. It has distributed over $2 billion in royalties to publishers and songwriters. It has a match rate of over 90%. It operates the most accurate, open database of music rights information in the world.
Crucially, as the MLC is responsible for ensuring accurate payments to its songwriter and publisher members, the MMA made clear that it not only has the authority but is mandated to enforce the rights of its members if it determines any streaming service is not reporting or paying properly. Most recently, the MLC was forced to litigate against Pandora for underpaying royalties.
Unfortunately, this has led DiMA, which represents the major streaming companies and has a seat on the MLC’s board, to attempt to reinterpret the original intent of the MMA. They are pushing the misguided idea that the MLC was meant to be “neutral” when it comes to enforcing the rights of copyright owners. Nothing could be further from our objective.
This definition of neutral is simply another way to take the voice away from those who have struggled to be heard when it comes to receiving what they are owed for their labors. This was never the intent.
Should the MLC not enforce and litigate when necessary to uphold the rights of its members, those members would have absolutely no recourse to defend their property rights. This notion of neutrality would make the MLC toothless and completely undermine the important role of the Collective. Allowing the MLC to dole out royalties is inextricable from its primary purpose of ensuring those royalties are correct.
It is a perversion of the legislation to attempt to convince current lawmakers that the MLC was meant to give equal weight to the opinions of the digital companies as the rights of songwriters. Of course, there is a massive incentive for DiMA and its membership to want the MLC to relinquish its role as enforcer of music creators’ copyrights. Billions of dollars in royalties are on the line.
The streaming services’ vision of a neutral MLC is not in line with the original intent of the MMA, and they know it because they were intimately involved in the lengthy negotiation of the language of the bill. The resulting legislation was fair and allowed for the collective and the courts to do their jobs when it comes to disputes.
The five-year milestone since the MMA was signed into law is an important time for reflection and refining. However, it is not a time to redefine the most important music legislation of our time.
Doug Collins is a lawyer and former Member of Congress representing Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District. He served as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee as well as Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. He introduced the Music Modernization Act along with the bill’s lead cosponsor, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
As the founder of LaPolt Law, a Los Angeles-based entertainment firm, I actively seek out talented students from underrepresented backgrounds to promote diversity within my firm and provide these students with an opportunity that their privileged counterparts may take for granted. I have been working with the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), co-founded by my esteemed colleague and co-writer of this piece, Willie “Prophet” Stiggers, since 2021, and I currently serve as their executive leadership council. Our collective aim remains steadfast: to champion diversity and promote developmental opportunities for minorities in the music industry.
Recently, my firm was set to hire a Black woman from Harvard Law School for an internship position. However, the candidate encountered a significant obstacle due to Harvard’s Summer Contribution Policy. I was dismayed when I learned she couldn’t accept the offer because the school’s policy would require that she apply 90% of her summer internship earnings to her tuition bill, which would have made it impossible for her to afford to live in Los Angeles for the summer and pay her bills, while also helping to support her family.
Trending on Billboard
Most aspiring law students seek admission to a top law school for the promise of excellent job prospects. This is particularly true for students from underserved communities and underrepresented students of color who face significant barriers at the outset of their careers. For these underrepresented students able to attend these high-ranked institutions and secure summer employment, it serves as an opportunity to not only change their own circumstances but those of their families. However, at Harvard, the No. 5 law school in the nation, the financial support for need-based students becomes challenging as the institution deducts up to 90% of students’ summer employment income and applies it to the next year’s tuition bill.
Pursuing a career in “Big Law” allows students to earn a salary upwards of $200,000 post-grad and a pro-rated version of this salary as a summer associate. For students from affluent backgrounds, this path often continues building generational wealth. For students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, it offers a chance to change the trajectory of their families’ lives by providing additional income to support household and medical bills.
Harvard Law’s Summer Contribution Policy stretches beyond those students working in Big Law summer associateships by imposing this policy on any student earning over $9,500. Those accepted to Harvard Law are typically aware the school doesn’t offer merit scholarships, but many students only grasp the significant impact of the policy when they embark on their 1L summer job search, often realizing its implications too late. The policy disproportionately impacts those who receive need-based aid, the majority of whom are students of color.
While some entertainment internships may escape the policy’s impact, others, such as at Disney and certain boutique/mid-sized firms, are impacted as their pay can place a student over the $9,500 threshold. Considering the difficulty of breaking into the entertainment industry, forgoing these summer opportunities can make a Harvard Law student’s dream of working in entertainment harder to realize.
With its $9,500 allowance, the Summer Contribution Policy fails to adequately support students, especially those pursuing summer employment in major entertainment cities such as Los Angeles and New York, where the average monthly rent is over $2,000. This perpetuates a cycle for low-income students of color: they receive need-based financial aid, obtain high-earning summer employment opportunities and lose most of their earnings (which are absorbed by Harvard), leaving these students economically disadvantaged or reliant on additional loans. Rinse and repeat. This cycle persists throughout their time at Harvard and contrasts starkly with the experience of wealthier students who do not rely on need-based aid.
Despite numerous attempts to eliminate or amend the policy through longstanding protests, the students’ informal movement has been unsuccessful. In a world where students of color from low socioeconomic backgrounds must work twice as hard to succeed and three times as hard to be heard, Harvard Law’s Summer Contribution Policy reflects the disadvantages these students face and thus, needs to be abolished or modified to accommodate these students instead of targeting them. My recent experience underscores the challenges faced by aspiring professionals from marginalized communities and emphasizes the importance of advocating for equitable policies within educational institutions to ensure equal access to opportunities for all students, regardless of their financial circumstances.
Dina LaPolt, owner and founder of LaPolt Law, P.C., is an entertainment attorney and activist. LaPolt Law is the only firm of its stature owned and operated by a sole female attorney. As a result of her activism in the Black community, Dina was a recipient of the Black Music Action Coalition’s Change Agent Award, and she also serves on the organization’s Executive Leadership Council.
Willie “Prophet” Stiggers is a lifelong activist, music executive and co-founder/CEO/president of the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC). Prophet has built BMAC into a unified force of action for racial equity and justice within the music industry and a catalyst using the power of music to improve communities and drive systemic change.
As we come to the end of Mental Health Awareness Month, the music community would be remiss to not critically examine the mental health of the most vulnerable among us — specifically, the child and youth labor that represents a significant portion of our market share, revenues, and slots on the new artist charts. The state of our entertainment union, one that venerates youth above seemingly all else, ironically puts a low value on artist’s holistic wellbeing, putting them in myriad situations that are age-inappropriate, and that are dangerous mentally, emotionally and physically.
The discussion of youth safety in the workplace is hardly new and as the recent documentary about abuses at Nickelodeon, Quiet on the Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, showed, we’ve seen embarrassing and tragic cases of industry putting commerce before conscience. Having only minimal guard rails in place, such practices in the entertainment industry have resulted in mental health damages that oddly run counter to the fiscal goals of the industry itself, but more importantly, cause mental scars on young artists that are carried long into adult life.
Trending on Billboard
A study published by JAMA Psychiatry last month echoed what so many other studies have shown: over 40% of adult mental illness — anxiety, depression, substance use and suicidal ideation — is directly linked to traumatic events sustained in childhood and adolescence. The study strongly advocates for policy-driven prevention measures to reduce the rates of youth mistreatment, thereby reducing the rates of serious mental illness in adulthood.
The entertainment industry, and specifically the music industry, needs to enact deep systemic, policy-driven changes, ones that introduce the presence of mental health therapists in virtually all situations and venues encountered by new artists. Shadows, if you will, that protect the artist, thereby indirectly protecting the asset the label has so dearly invested in: the artist themselves.
What would this look like? Just as we require on-set academic tutoring and child labor OSHA protections, the music industry should lead the way and have 24/7 mental health support people shadowing each and every new label signing, helping the artists navigate their new reality of constant adoration, free-flowing money, highly-sexualized environments, the prevalence of drugs and alcohol, and long, unsupervised hours in studios and on the road where rampant sexual/gender-based harassment and assault can and does occur. Labels and publishers would present standardized curricula related to mental health on-boarding upon signing, mental health de-boarding upon termination (ie, when an artist is dropped), gender-based assault/harassment safety best practices, recording studio safety, balanced and healthy touring, and general psychotherapy, among other things.
Some forward-thinking industry players are already part of that change. Nettwerk Music Group builds “wellness budgets” into their artist deals. Limited Edition Music Publishing, a new independent publisher, is doing the same. There are also non-profits including MusiCares, Sweet Relief and Backline that offer valuable assistance. But the list of agencies, labels, and publishers giving only lip service during Mental Health Awareness Month is pathetically long.
For more than 15 years, I was a senior level A&R guy. Over those years, I signed a number of young songwriters and bands (Disturbed, Michelle Branch, Hoobastank, BRMC, Remy Zero, among others). The industry thrives on the young. Michelle Branch was 14 when I signed her. The stories many young women tell of being harassed, including Phoebe Bridgers and Billie Eilish, very likely could have been minimized or outright avoided with the presence of therapist shadows (and zero tolerance for the men doing the harassing). But as it stands now, mental health initiatives in the music industry are mostly just performative talking points.
Artists are our livelihood. Artists are our passion. We as an industry need to do better, proactively protectingthem at all costs from predatory, dehumanizing behavior that relegates them the status of a disposable widget (and not someone’s daughter or son). To be sure: artists will be dropped, singles won’t be worked, and albums will be shelved — that’s business — but how the artist is treated when these events occur can make all the difference in their lives going forward.
And what’s the payoff? How about fewer artists with devastating identity issues, severe depression, debilitating anxiety, substance use disorders, suicidal ideation and more? How about artists that don’t flame and burn out? How about artists whose creativity is boundless and ever evolving? And how about cultivating a whole generation of young artists who are emotionally, mentally, spiritually and physically at the top of their game — thriving and creating — and not traumatized by the very industry meant to nurture them. Now there’s a legacy we could all be proud of.
David Andreone is the founder of ArtistServices Therapy, a psychotherapy and coaching practice tailored to artists, creatives and creative executives. Andreone has held senior level A&R positions at Warner/Chappell Music Publishing, and Columbia Records, and continues to manage artists and produce TV content.
You’ve most likely heard by now the news that Spotify, through a surprising bundling maneuver, has unilaterally decided to give songwriters a substantial pay cut. As part of our ongoing efforts to provide the songwriting community with data and details related to this incredibly important income stream — which at this point must feel like a continual moving target — we have reviewed and analyzed Spotify’s reporting for the first month where they instituted this change (March), and compared it with the month prior (February).
What Is Happening?: Spotify has decided to bundle audiobooks in its premium tier offerings (affecting 85% of total Spotify subscribers). By doing so, they are now claiming that nearly half of total subscriber revenue is attributed to audiobooks, reducing reported service revenue to music to 52%. This results in a substantial decrease in payments to songwriters, which we explain below.
Trending on Billboard
In March, total mechanical revenue paid by Spotify was reduced by 33.9% (from $36.7 million in February to $24.3 million). This is where the reported yearly $150 million reduction comes from — an estimate built on Spotify’s prior-year performance and payment reports to the Mechanical Licensing Collective. The twist here is that Spotify reported that performance royalties increased 18.75% from February to March (from $31.2 million to $37 million).
Spotify’s performance royalties always fluctuate from month to month (by as much as +/- 10%) but the magnitude of this change is unusual (and unexplained). Was March’s unexpected growth in Spotify’s performance royalties an anomaly, or a precursor to a new level of payments for that royalty? Due to the structure of the mechanical royalty payment formula, an increase in performance payments results in a decrease in mechanical payments.
For many songwriters who have agreements with music publishers, performance royalties are beneficial because half are paid directly to the songwriter and not through their publishing agreement, whereas mechanical royalties run through the publisher.
So, while mechanical payments in March were reduced by 33.9%, the total reduction in payments to songwriters was 9.75% ($67.9 million to $61.3 million), which on an annual basis comes out to $80 million.
Historical Performance vs. Mechanical Payments for CRB III: This harkens back to prior reporting (and confusion) a couple of months ago when the streaming services reported an increase in performance revenue over the prior five-year period (2018-2022). While we cannot explain exactly why performance revenue changed in this historic accounting period, we can presume that it had something to do with deals that were being negotiated during that time and were finalized and took retroactive effect by the time the final remanded reporting was provided and required by the final determination of the appeal.
If Spotify Cut Revenue in Half, Why Aren’t We Seeing a 50% Reduction? The payment structure has various protections so that Spotify and other similar digital service providers cannot unilaterally adjust their prices to the detriment of songwriters, as Spotify has done here. One of those protections is an obligation to pay songwriters a portion of what they pay record labels, to the extent that that amount is greater than the service revenue percentage. This is called the “TCC Prong,” or “Total Content Cost Prong.” Because Spotify’s deals with the record labels apparently do not give them the flexibility to choose what they can bundle into offerings and make price reductions, what they pay the labels has not changed. In fact, in March, that percentage increased by 5.86%, or $13.1 million.
So is the Total Yearly Reduction 150M or 80M? This will most likely land somewhere in the middle, as it depends on what Spotify reports paying on performance (i.e., if March’s performance royalty growth was an anomaly) and what it pays to the labels. Over the course of the next several months, if Spotify does not change its position, we will be monitoring and reporting trends in percentage and actual results as part of our ongoing effort to provide the songwriting community with actual and up-to-date information related to their royalties. You can also check the current going rate of publishing revenue yourself at any time with our royalty calculator, updated monthly.
Spotify spent five years litigating against publishers and songwriters to establish rates for 2018-2022. The result was a positive increase but a major delay in payment. In total, the mechanical increase from all digital service providers came out to about $250 million over that period. Of that, Spotify contributed $98.6 million more, and that’s just from its restated 2021-2022 period. Songwriters did not receive the eventual rate increase until earlier this year.
When Spotify, the NMPA and NSAI reached an agreement for 2023-2027, we thought the fight was over. We were wrong.
At the end of March, Spotify reported yearly revenue of $15 billion. This audiobook bundling maneuver, which affects 100% of all musical content on its service, reflects less than a 1% cost savings for the tech behemoth. And for a limited time, at that, since the settlement referenced above ends in 2027. This begs the question to Spotify analysts and shareholders alike as to whether it is worth it — and leads to the obvious answer: “It is not.” Spotify should reverse course immediately and find 1% savings somewhere else that doesn’t work to decimate the revenue of millions of American songwriters, the lifeblood of our treasured American music industry.
Jordan Bromley leads Manatt Entertainment, a legal and consulting firm providing services to the entertainment industry for over 45 years. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Music Artists Coalition, an artist first advocacy coalition established in 2019.
Trent Smith is a financial analyst at Manatt Entertainment with extensive experience in the streaming economy.