RIAA
Page: 4
Today we are releasing U.S. recorded music revenue data for the first half of 2023, reflecting 9.3% growth over the first half of 2022 — the ninth straight year of positive growth.
With overall first-half revenues hitting an all-time high of $8.4 billion at retail value and paid streaming subscriptions nearing 96 million, this report makes clear the strength of American recorded music’s fundamentals.
For example, this new data shows broad strength across formats — especially digital streaming, which now comprises some 84% of recorded music revenues and grew at a robust 10.3% rate this period. Looking solely at paid streaming subscriptions, that figure climbs to 11%.
In fact, paid subscription services were responsible for nearly two-thirds of total revenues and more than three-quarters of streaming revenues. And they continued to grow at an even faster rate than ad-supported revenues.
But it’s not only streaming; the new data also show the lasting power of physical formats — which grew by 5% — including growth in the value of sales of CDs and vinyl. Overall, physical revenues reached their highest level since a full decade ago, topping $880 million so far this year.
And digital and customized radio music revenues, which include SoundExchange distributions for revenues from services like SiriusXM and internet radio stations, grew 16% to $657 million for the period.
As we’re fond of saying, “Music doesn’t just happen.” This success reflects the hard work, innovation, and creative genius of the artists, songwriters, labels, publishers, and services that make up the U.S. music community.
Finally, with annual Latin music revenues in the U.S. exceeding $1 billion for the first time in 2022 and the first half of 2023 showing continued growth faster than overall revenues, Latin music continues to shine — both economically and creatively. We look forward to releasing a full report on the Latin segment during Hispanic Heritage Month and as a capstone to our upcoming RIAA Honors Celebration of Latin music where we will recognize legends Gloria and Emilio Estefan, superstar Sebastián Yatra and other Latin music trailblazers as well as the policymakers who protect it all.
RIAA is proud to develop and release this transparent data which shows the continued power and vitality of U.S. recorded music.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Recorded-music revenues in the United States grew 9.3% in the first half of 2023, reaching an all-time mid-year high of $8.4 billion at retail value, the RIAA said in its mid-year report released today (Sept. 18). That reflects a second year in a row of 9% increases at the mid-year mark, as growth steadies after the upheaval of the pandemic led to market unpredictability.
Once again streaming was the primary driver of both revenue and growth, increasing 10.3% over the first half of 2022 to reach $7 billion, accounting for 84% of all revenue and marking the fourth year in a row that it has accounted for 83%-84% of the overall total.
Paid subscription streaming accounted for the bulk of that number, growing 11% year over year to $5.5 billion, up from $5 billion halfway through 2022 — making up 65.4% of the total revenue figure, and 78.6% of streaming. Notably, the RIAA points out that subscription streaming revenue is growing at a faster rate than the average number of subscriptions — the latter number is up to 95.8 million, from 90 million last year, up 6% — suggesting that some of the price hikes instituted by digital service providers like Apple Music and Amazon Music have begun yielding results. (Increases from YouTube Music Premium and Spotify are too recent to be reflected in the first half of this year.)
Ad-supported streaming, however, is a different story. Total revenue from such services was essentially flat year-over-year, at $870 million, up just 0.6% from 2022. Digital and customized radio revenues were up 16% year over year, reaching $657 million; within that, SoundExchange distributions ticked up 7% to $498 million.
Overall, sales revenue reached $1.1 billion, up slightly from the same period last year, with the growth in physical sales offsetting a decline in digital downloads. Digital sales accounted for just 3% of revenues, and dropped 12% year over year to $225, with digital albums dropped 12% to $107 million and digital tracks declining 14% to $97 million.
Meanwhile, physical revenues of $882 million marked the highest level since the first half of 2013, growing 5% year over year. Vinyl continued to dominate, accounting for 72% ($632 million) of the sector, despite growing just 1.3% year over year, while CD revenue grew 14.3%, to $236 million. Vinyl, for the third year in a row, outsold CDs. But as a window into how prices are changing, unit sales of both vinyl (down 1.8% to 23.4 million) and CDs (down 17.2% to 15.1 million) both declined, despite those increases in the revenue derived from them.
“This report describes a thriving, growing music ecosystem that continues to reach new heights and shape our culture,” RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier said in a statement accompanying the report. “And it reflects the creative human genius and hard work of all the artists, songwriters, labels, publishers and services who make the music happen and meet fans and audiences where they are in today’s forward looking and innovative music community.”
September marks the 20th anniversary of the RIAA launching litigation against consumers in a bid to extinguish — or at least dampen — the flames of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing. The consumer litigation was part of a multi-pronged effort that targeted internet service providers, the P2P providers like Napster and Limewire and music fans. In early 2003, nearly 40% of internet users in the United States had used a P2P service to download music, or an estimated 54 million individuals. Upon the RIAA’s announcement of consumer suits, parents began asking their children what they were doing with those stacks of blank CDs; coverage of the pending litigation stifled file sharing before the first notice was filed.
Much has been written about the P2P era, but one thing is for sure: The vast majority of downloaders knew it was illegal. If there was any uncertainty in consumer’s minds, the RIAA litigation helped to clear it up. Perhaps that is the greatest legacy of the consumer litigation, which ended in 2008. The actual law was contested for some time, with arguments about technological innovation and the promotion of that technology for purposes of copyright infringement.
By the 10th anniversary of the consumer litigation in 2013, the record labels had largely won the battle against P2P file sharing. After settlement of the Limewire copyright infringement case in May 2011, the number of people using the remaining services rapidly fell in the United States, and by 2013 had dropped 60% from the peak in 2003. Litigation was one of many contributing factors. The P2P file sharing experience was awful for users, fraught with spoofed files, pop-ups, malware, incomplete and incorrect files, and other maladies. iTunes downloads revived the singles era by offering $.99 tracks. Pandora had been at the top of app store charts for several years, and Spotify was gaining momentum. By 2013, half the U.S. internet using population was streaming, and a handful were beginning to pay for subscriptions. The RIAA moved on to other battles, notably the YouTube “Value Gap.”
As the 20th anniversary of the consumer suits approaches, there has been a stunning reversal in progress in the war to limit consumer access to unlicensed music. An estimated 55 million people in the U.S. acquired or accessed “free” music files in the past year, according to MusicWatch research — the same amount as in 2003. What went wrong? There is an abundance of apps and sites that permit consumers to obtain unlicensed music. Apps that permit YouTube stream-ripping are widely available. Mobile apps available with “free downloads” frequently contain unlicensed content. The very social platforms that the industry relies on to promote artists also harbor unlicensed content. Unlike in the P2P era, the law is clear when it comes to these forms of copyright infringement and licensing requirements, though the DMCA still provides a shield to services that rely on content uploaded by fans.
The problem is the consumer. The teenager who knew that they were committing piracy while downloading In Utero from Limewire is now an adult. Today, they can be easily confused. Their Google music searches may include content that infringes on copyright. Same for the app store on their phone. The recent spate of Taylor Swift Eras tour livestreams on TikTok, while technically the same as a stream-rip of “Cruel Summer,” does not register the same in fans eyes. On top of the unlicensed content, MusicWatch studies indicate 20 million streamers are sharing logins to music streaming services.
The industry has not been silent. The RIAA has litigated against stream-rippers. Mixtape app Spinrilla was successfully sued for infringement and shut down in May. Sony and Universal just sued the Internet Archive for copyright infringement. And as an alternative, streaming companies offer family plans, which raise ARPU and blunt the impact of unauthorized account sharing.
Unlike 2003, however, the industry isn’t paying much attention to the infringing consumer. And why should it? There hasn’t been a collapse in revenues as was experienced during the aughts. Most infringing consumers are active streamers and many pay for a subscription — and a vinyl record or two. There’s not much reason to target music fans. But that doesn’t mean that more shouldn’t be done to educate consumers and further protect the rights of artists and copyright holders.
Russ Crupnick is the principal at market research firm MusicWatch.
In honor of Latin music’s explosive growth in the United States, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) will recognize artists, label executives and policymakers who are “driving this rise across American music, culture and society,” it was announced Thursday (Aug. 31). For its annual RIAA Honors, which is set to take place Sept. 19 in […]
Why is the music business picking on Brewster Kahle? All the technology activist wants to do with the Internet Archive, which he founded in 1996 and still chairs the board of, is create a digital library that offers “universal access to knowledge.” Isn’t that the promise of the digital age — that anyone with an internet connection can access anything ever created?
Turns out it’s more complicated than that. On Aug. 11, Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord Music filed a lawsuit, managed by the RIAA, against the Internet Archive, Kahle’s foundation, Kahle himself and an audio archivist who worked on the project, for infringing the copyrights to old recordings that the Internet Archive makes available through its “Great 78s” project to digitize old recordings originally issued as 78rpm records.
Already, in June 2020, four big book publishers had sued the Internet Archive for making available for a limited time copy-protected digital versions of books — first as many as it had in its collection or those of its partners, then during the pandemic, with its National Emergency Library, as many as users wanted. The publishers won on summary judgement, although the Internet Archive has said it will appeal.
The Internet Archive does lot of worthwhile work: its Wayback Machine tracks old web pages, offers access to considerable information in the public domain, and boasts an expansive collection of live Grateful Dead recordings. The Great 78s project makes available some old recordings that might otherwise be lost, but according to the RIAA lawsuit it also offers streaming access to plenty of recordings that are big business, including Bing Crosby’s iconic version of “White Christmas” — by some measures the most popular recordings of the 20th century — plus Buddy Holly’s “Peggy Sue,” Chuck Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” and Frank Sinatra’s “I’ve Got the World on a String.” The 78, may be an obscure format, but some of the music originally released that way is still relatively popular.
The Internet Archive responded in a blog post that it’s a “lawsuit targeting obsolete media.” “When people want to listen to music they go to Spotify,” Kahle said in a statement on the blog. (The Internet Archive did not comment other than pointing to this post.) “When people want to study 78rpm sound recordings as they were originally created, they go to libraries like the Internet Archive. Both are needed. There shouldn’t be conflict here.”
Except that many of those “78rpm sound recordings” aren’t obsolete at all — they’re the exact same recordings that are on Spotify, plus Apple Music and other streaming services. The versions available on the Internet Archive sound scratchy, but the recordings themselves weren’t originally created that way, and the wear on the particular 78s that were digitized by the archive is less about the history of recorded music than about how careful a particular person was with his or her records.
Kahle presents himself as a “digital librarian” who’s making books — and music and other media — available the way libraries always have. But it’s worth remembering that the legal arguments for the Internet Archive’s book-lending program aren’t based on the provision of copyright law that provides exceptions for libraries. Instead, the archive’s legal claim is that copying and distributing books temporarily is fair use. Which means that, if the Internet Archive had won, any library — or, importantly, perhaps any nonprofit entity that defined itself that way, or maybe any entity at all — could copy books it had purchased in order to distribute them. (The archive, in turn, says that its loss is a disaster for libraries, since they have to license books from publishers; but shouldn’t libraries — an essential public good — be funded by the public in a way that’s fair to creators and rightsholders?) Kahle, who has campaigned for years against what he sees as the excesses of copyright, seems to want to change the law.
“The fact that you own a particular copy doesn’t mean that you can make and distribute copies of that copy — this is basic copyright law,” said Maria Pallante, chief executive of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which helped to guide the publishers’ lawsuit. “They were trying to bloat fair use, while also asserting a first sale defense that applies only to tangible goods, not bootleg digital files.”
The RIAA is suing at least partly to establish case law behind the part of the 2018 Music Modernization Act, which extended federal copyright protection to recordings made before 1972, which were previously only covered under state law. The labels may also want to collect damages: Since statutory damages for willful infringement can be set by judges or juries at up to $150,000, this case could potentially cost the Internet Archive as much as $412 million. “This is the kind of egregious behavior that the Music Modernization Act was intended to address,” says RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier.
Recordings were only covered under state law until the Copyright Act of 1976, but it wasn’t retroactive. And although some opponents of copyright characterized the Music Modernization Act as a land grab by media companies, that doesn’t hold up: Some state laws made it unclear whether copyright protection ever lapsed at all. Indeed, one reason that sound recordings copyrights were federalized in the first place was to help libraries and archives take advantage of the exceptions and limitations that exist in federal copyright legislation, including fair use and specific exceptions for libraries and archives.
As it happens, the subject of federal copyright protection for pre-1972 recordings was studied in a 2011 report by the Register of Copyrights, and substantial attention was devoted to “challenges of preservation and access.” “Substantively,” the report recommended, “the use of section 108 and the fair use exception should encourage more preservation and public access because they provide time—tested rules with which libraries and archives have experience.”
The law under which the Internet Archive is being sued was actually set up partly to help it and other archives, especially in its “orphan works” provision, the result of a compromise between Music Modernization Act proponents and opponents, that allows organizations to use pre-1972 recordings for non-commercial purposes after checking to make sure they’re not in commercial use. (There’s a procedure for this.) If the Great 78s project really intends to make available music that is in danger of disappearing, the law allows for that. Why aren’t Kahle and the Archive following it? It’s hard to imagine that Kahle doesn’t understand the law.
And that’s why the music business is picking on Brewster Kahle — because it sometimes seems as though the Internet Archive is as much about pushing the boundaries of copyright law as it is about preserving creative works in the first place. Libraries play a crucial role in any democratic society, and Kahle and the archive do a lot of important work. But so do the performers and songwriters — and, yes, the labels and publishers — who made all of these recordings possible in the first place.
Above & Beyond are going further than ever before, with the electronic trio earning their first RIAA Gold Record via their 2019 track “Don’t Leave.” The song comes from the group’s 2019 ambient album Flow State, which was designed for use during yoga and meditation. The certification marks 500,000 units moved of the song, with […]
Lawyers for the RIAA are aiming to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models, the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
In an action filed last week in D.C. federal court, attorneys for RIAA obtained a subpoena demanding that Discord reveal the identities of users on “AI Hub,” a message board with 145,000 members that calls itself “a community dedicated to making AI voices and songs.”
In a letter to Discord presenting the company with the subpoena, the RIAA said those users had “infringed … copyrighted sound recordings” and that the tech company was required to hand over names, physical addresses, payment info, IP addresses and other identifying details.
The group’s lawyers also sent Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to Discord, first in late May and then again next week. The group demanded that Discord disable access to the server, remove or disable the infringing material, and inform the server’s users “of the illegality of their conduct.”
“This server [is] dedicated to infringing our members’ copyrighted sound recordings by offering, selling, linking to, hosting, streaming, and/or distributing files containing our members’ sound recordings without authorization,” the RIAA’s lawyers wrote in their June letter to Discord, which was obtained by Billboard. “We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.”
The subpoena against Discord was obtained under the DMCA’s Section 512(h), which enables rights holders like the RIAA’s members to unmask the identities of anonymous online infringers in certain circumstances.
Discord can fight back by seeking to “quash” the subpoena; Twitter won such a challenge last year, when a federal judge ruled that the First Amendment rights of a user trumped the need for an unmasking order. It could also refuse to honor the takedown, but that would put the site itself at risk of litigation.
As of Thursday evening (June 22), the main AI Hub server remained up on Discord; it was unclear if individual content or sub-channels had been removed. A spokesperson for the company did not return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard, an RIAA spokesperson confirmed that the group had taken the action against AI Hub. “When those who seek to profit from AI train their systems on unauthorized content, it undermines the entire music ecosystem – harming creators, fans, and responsible developers alike. This action seeks to help ensure that lawless systems that exploit the life’s work of artists without consent cannot and do not become the future of AI.”
The RIAA’s actions are just the latest sign that the explosive growth of AI technologies over the past year has sparked serious concerns in the music industry.
One big fear is that copyrighted songs are being used en masse to “train” AI models, all without any compensation going to the songwriters or artists that created them. In April, Universal Music Group demanded that Spotify and other streaming services prevent AI companies from doing so on their platforms, warning that it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
Another fear is the proliferation of so-called deepfake versions of popular music, like the AI-generated fake Drake and The Weeknd track that went viral in April. That song was quickly pulled down, but its uncanny vocals and mass popularity sparked concerns about future celebrity rip offs.
For RIAA, AI Hub likely triggered both of those worries. The server features numerous “voice models” that mimic the voices of specific real singers, including Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra. And in the wake of the RIAA’s actions, users on the Discord server speculated Thursday that the takedowns were filed because users had disclosed that some of the models had been trained on copyrighted songs.
“We have had certain threats from record labels to takedown models, mainly because some posters decided to share datasets full of copyrighted music publicly,” one AI Hub admin wrote. “If you want to avoid unnecessary takedowns[,] most importantly, do NOT share the full dataset if you have copyrighted material in the dataset. The voice model itself is fine, but don’t share the dataset.”
In 1994, at the dawn of the internet era, Rolling Stone asked Steve Jobs if he still had faith in technology. “It’s not a faith in technology,” he responded. “It’s faith in people.”
Today, at the dawn of the artificial intelligence era, we put our faith in people too.
It’s hard to think of an issue that has exploded onto the public scene with the furor of the debate over AI, which went from obscure technology journals to national morning shows practically overnight. This week, Congress is convening the first two of what will surely be many hearings on the issue, including one with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and another with musician, voice actor and SAG-AFTRA National Board member Dan Navarro.
As members of the global Human Artistry Campaign, made up of more than 100 organizations that represent a united, worldwide coalition of the creative arts, we welcome this open and active debate. It’s gratifying to see policymakers, industry, and our own creative community asking tough questions up front. It’s a lot easier to chart a course in advance than to play catch up from afterward.
We don’t have long to get this right, either. The internet is already awash in unlicensed and unethical “style” and “soundalike” tools that rip off the writing, voice, likeness and style of professional artists and songwriters without authorization or permission. Powerful new engines like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Jukebox, Google’s MusicLM and Microsoft’s AI-powered Bing have been trained on vast troves of musical compositions, lyrics, and sound recordings — as well as every other type of data and information available on the internet — without even the most basic transparency or disclosure, let alone consent from the creators whose work is being used. Songwriters, recording artists, and musicians today are literally being forced to compete against AI programs trained on copies of their own compositions and recordings.
RIAA Chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier
Othello Banaci
We strongly support AI that can be used to enhance art and stretch the potential of human creativity even further. Technology has always pushed art forward, and AI will be no different.
At the same time, however, human artistry must and will always remain at the core of genuine creation. The basis of creative expression is the sharing of lived experiences — an artist-to-audience/audience-to-artist connection that forms our culture and identity.
Without a rich supply of human-created works, there would be nothing on which to train AI in the first place. And if we don’t lay down a policy foundation now that respects, values and compensates the unique genius of human creators, we will end up in a cultural cul-de-sac, feeding AI-generated works back into the engines that produced them in a costly and ultimately empty race to the artistic bottom.
That policy foundation must start with the core value of consent. Use of copyrighted works to train or develop AI must be subject to free-market licensing and authorization from all rights holders. Creators and copyright owners must retain exclusive control over the ways their work is used. The moral invasion of AI engines that steal the core of a professional performer’s identity — the product of a lifetime’s hard work and dedication — without permission or pay cannot be tolerated.
David Israelite
Courtesy of NMPA
This will require AI developers to ensure copyrighted training inputs are approved and licensed, including those used by pre-trained AIs they employ. It means they need to keep thorough and transparent records of the creative works and likenesses used to train AI systems and how they were exploited. These obligations are nothing new, though — anyone who uses another creator’s work or a professional’s voice, image or likeness must already ensure they have the necessary rights and maintain the records to prove it.
Congress is right to bring in AI developers like Sam Altman to hear the technology community’s vision for the future of AI and explore the safeguards and guardrails the industry is relying on today. The issues around the rapid deployment of novel AI capabilities are numerous and profound: data privacy, deepfakes, bias and misinformation in training sets, job displacement and national security.
Creators will be watching and listening closely for concrete, meaningful commitments to the core principles of permission and fair market licensing that are necessary to sustain songwriters and recording artists and drive innovation.
We have already seen some of what AI can do. Now it falls to us to insist that it be done in ethical and lawful ways. Nothing short of our culture — and, over time, our very humanity — is at stake.
David Israelite is the President & CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association. NMPA is the trade association representing American music publishers and their songwriting partners.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the RIAA, the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major recorded-music companies.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Post Malone achieves a high status with the Recording Industry Association of America and is toasting the feat with a new album containing his greatest hits.
On Thursday (April 20th), three songs from the artist – “I Fall Apart,” “Better Now” and “Circles” – all were certified by the Recording Industry Association of America to have crossed the diamond threshold in certified units sold, which is ten million. Universal Music Group announced the achievement on Twitter along with the cover for a new album from Post Malone entitled The Diamond Collection, which will be released from Republic Records on Friday (April 21st).
Related Stories
The new album will contain nine diamond-certified hits from the rapper and singer, along with a new track, “Chemical”. The song, the lead single from his upcoming fifth studio album, was recently projected to debut on the United Kingdom hit charts just shy of its top ten. For the Utah-based artist, the new song marks a change in his process.
“Trying to shove 20 to 25 songs, it doesn’t work. Talking to the label [it’s like], ‘Oh, if you have less songs, you’re not going to stream as much,’ but the whole thing is that you don’t want to compromise your art and your gut vibe on anything,” he said to Billboard. “I’ve made a lot of compromises, especially musically, but now I don’t feel like I want to anymore. I don’t need a No. 1; that doesn’t matter to me no more, and at a point, it did.”
He previewed the song to his followers on Instagram before its release.
Malone’s feat broke the previous record of six songs having attained a diamond status, which was previously held by Bruno Mars. The artist also has tied for the highest certified single of all time, with his hit “Sunflower” with Swae Lee for the Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse soundtrack. That song would go on to become seventeen-times platinum per RIAA records.
The status is a hard one to obtain, having been first created in 1997 with “Something About The Way You Look Tonight / Candle In The Wind 1997″ by Elton John.
—
Photo: Jerritt Clark / Getty
Tomorrow comes the most wonderful time of the year: Record Store Day. As fun as some fans find it – and I joke that it’s my favorite holiday – it’s hard to remember how odd an idea it seemed when it started, in 2007. Back then, CD sales were sliding fast, download sales were growing a lot slower, and mass-market streaming was still taking shape. The idea of a day devoted to buying vinyl, much less in physical stores, was anything but obvious.
Now look. Vinyl generated more revenue in the U.S. than CDs by 2019, and more unit sales by 2022, according to the RIAA. Last year, vinyl generated $1.2 billion in the U.S. — more than Latin music, which brought in $1.1 billion, although Latin music brings in far more worldwide. And much of this growth came at a time of serious challenges, from insufficient manufacturing capacity to supply chain problems.
Now what? The future of vinyl was one subject that came up at a Nov. 3 panel that I moderated at RIAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. With me were Vinyl Me Please CEO Cameron Schaefer, Byrdland Records co-owner Alisha Edmonson, Thirty Tigers director of physical sales Mike Couse and consultant Simone Piece.
Among the topics that came up:
How vinyl fulfills a need for “better connection with music”
How the pandemic supercharged growth
Whether recent new buyers will stick around for the future
The most important question, of course, is what this means for artists. It was disheartening to hear that delivering vinyl to stores even close to an album’s release date requires up to ten months of advance planning. Even so, many independent acts make more money on vinyl than they do from streaming.
Another highlight? A performance from Lola Kirke:
No one knows what the future holds for vinyl. Judging by the format’s fast growth, however, it will remain an important part of the recording industry’s revenue mix for at least the next few years, and perhaps long after that.
Watch the entire panel here: