Royalties
National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) president/CEO David Israelite joined the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) to give his annual State of Music Publishing address on Wednesday (April 2) at Lawry’s in Beverly Hills. In his speech, Israelite discussed hot button issues for publishers, including Spotify bundling (“we are still at war”), AI concerns, PRO reform and more.
Israelite started by sharing the NMPA’s data on the revenue sources for songwriters and publishers. It found that songwriters and publishers earn 45% of revenue from streaming services, 11% from general licensing and live, 9% from traditional synchronization licensing, 8% from mass synch (licenses for UGC video platforms like YouTube), 8% from radio, 7% from TV, 4% from labels, 2% from social media, 1% from sheet music, and 1% from lyrics. The NMPA says that 75% of its income is regulated by either a compulsory license or a consent decree, while the remaining 25% is handled via free-market negotiation.
On the AI front, Israelite explained that the NMPA is actively watching and supporting pending legal action.
Trending on Billboard
“We have not filed our own lawsuit yet, but I can promise you that if there is a path forward with a productive lawsuit, we will be filing it,” he said. As far as trying to regulate AI through policy, Israelite added, “We’re doing everything that can be done.” The NMPA is participating in both a White House initiative and a Copyright Office initiative, but he added, “If you are waiting for the government to protect your rights and AI models, I think that is a very bad strategy.”
Instead, Israelite said that the “most emphasis” should be placed on forming business relationships with AI companies. “When that date comes [that AI companies are willing to come to the table to license music], I believe the most important principle is that the song is just as valuable, if not more, than the sound recording in the AI model,” he continued.
During the speech, Israelite said he had a recent conversation with “the CEO of one of the major AI companies” who told him that “by far, the song [as opposed to the sound recording] is the most important input into these models. I tell you this because I am fearful that as these models develop, if we do not protect our rights, we will find ourselves in a situation where we are not getting as much or more than the sound recording when it comes to revenue…that is a responsibility of this entire community to fight for that.”
Israelite added that his “number one problem when it comes to revenue is how we are treated with these bundled plans,” pointing to publishers’ ongoing issues with Spotify. Last year, Spotify added audiobooks into its premium tier offerings and began claiming those tiers as “bundles,” a term referring to a type of subscription that qualifies for a discounted rate for music. Spotify claimed that it now had to pay to license both books and music from the same subscription price and subsequently started paying songwriters and publishers about 40% less for music, according to the NMPA. At the time, Billboard estimated that this would lead to a $150 million reduction in payments to publishers in the next year, compared to what publishers would have been paid if the tiers had never been reclassified.
In January, news broke that Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify had forged a direct deal that gave UMG’s publishing arm improved terms, effectively minimizing the harm caused by the previous year’s bundling change. Shortly after, Warner Music Group (WMG) followed suit with its own direct deal with Spotify for improved publishing remuneration. “I know in this room in particular, there is a great concern about what those market deals mean for the whole industry,” Israelite says. “I want to be very clear about this. I believe those market deals are a good thing, but until everybody benefits from the same protections about how bundles are treated, we are still at war. Nothing has changed.”
Israelite added later that UMG and WMG’s direct deals could be cited as “evidence” to support the publishers’ position during the next Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) fight, which will determine the U.S. mechanical royalty rates for publishers in the future. The CRB proceedings begin again in 10 months, and Israelite estimates his organization will spend $36 million in the next trial to fight for the publishers’ position. While he often noted that “we shouldn’t be in this system in the first place” during his address, Israelite conceded that despite his calls for a legislative proposal that would give publishers and writers the right to pull out of the 100-year-old system of government-regulated price setting for royalties, the “brilliant idea” is “next to impossible to accomplish.”
Israelite went on to detail all the ways the NMPA and others are still fighting back against Spotify over the bundling debacle. He noted that the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) “is doing a fantastic job of continuing the fight” against Spotify, adding that its lawsuit, which was dismissed earlier this year by a judge who called the federal royalty rules “unambiguous,” has “been revived.” He added, “[It’s] our best chance of getting back what we lost.”
Elsewhere in his speech, Israelite told the crowd of independent publishers that the NMPA has now sent three rounds of takedown notices to Spotify for various podcast episodes, citing copyright infringement of its members’ songs, and that “over 11,000 podcasts have been removed from Spotify” as a consequence.
The recent calls for performing rights organization (PRO) reform are also top of mind for publishers in 2025. Last year, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, requesting an examination of PROs, citing two areas of concern: the “proliferation” of new PROs and the lack of transparency about the distribution of general licensing revenue. This spurred the Copyright Office to take action, opening a notice of inquiry that allows industry stakeholders to submit comments, sharing their point of view about what, if anything, should be reformed at American PROs. However, some fear that the notice of inquiry could lead to increased regulation at the PROs, further constraining publishing income.
Israelite addressed this by giving publishers a preview of the NMPA’s forthcoming comments. “I will tell you today exactly what our comments are going to say,” he said. “It is very simple. Music publishers and songwriters are already over-regulated by the federal government. Congress should be focused on decreasing regulation of our industry, not increasing regulation of our industry, and to the extent that any of these issues are substantive issues. This should be dealt with between the PROs and their members. It has nothing to do with the Copyright Office. It has nothing to do with Congress. It has nothing to do with the federal government.”
SiriusXM wants a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming the company earns billions by foisting a deceptive “royalty fee” on subscribers, arguing there’s “nothing misleading” about its pricing.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court last year, claims that SiriusXM adds a huge “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto the advertised price — an “invented” charge with a deceptive name designed to falsely make consumers think that it’s mandated by the government to pay for music rights.
But in a Monday response, attorneys for the satcaster argue that the company “prominently and repeatedly” discloses all fees that consumers face before they purchase their subscription, including a base price and “taxes and fees.”
Trending on Billboard
“There is nothing misleading about Sirius XM’s practices,” the company’s attorneys say. “Every piece of information which plaintiffs say Sirius XM attempted to ‘conceal’ is and has always been out in the open. Plaintiffs were told what they had to pay if they wanted their music plans, and they received what they paid for—as contemplated by every statement exchanged between Sirius XM and its customers.”
The case, filed in June by four aggrieved SiriusXM customers who say they want to represent millions of other subscribers, claims that the Royalty Fee amounts to 21.4% of the original price – netting the company a whopping $1.36 billion in 2023 alone. The accusers say the fee itself is not illegal, but that it needs to be clearly advertised and explained to potential buyers.
“This action challenges a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges,” attorneys for plaintiffs wrote at the time. “SiriusXM intentionally does not disclose the fee to its subscribers. SiriusXM even goes so far as to not mention the words ‘U.S. Music Royalty Fee’ in any of its advertising, including in the fine print.”
The name of the fee aims to make it sound important and official, the lawsuit claimed, but it’s really just a “disguised double charge for the music plan itself” that no other competing music services imposes on their users as an additional fee on top of the actual price.
“Reasonable consumers would expect that the advertised price for SiriusXM’s music plans would include the fundamental costs of obtaining the permissions necessary to provide the music content that SiriusXM has promised is included in those plans,” lawyers for the subscribers wrote in their complaint.
But in Monday’s response, Sirius said there was nothing misleading about the name of the fee, which they say “offsets royalties payable to holders of copyrights in sound records and holders of copyrights in musical compositions.”
“Sirius XM has done exactly what it said it would do: charge a monthly price for music subscriptions, plus ‘fees and taxes,’ for a prominently and repeatedly disclosed total price that is the sum of the two,” the company wrote. “And the fee Sirius XM charges is exactly what its name suggests: one to cover the royalty expenses.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs will file a response in the weeks ahead, and then a judge will rule on SiriusXM’s motion at some point in the next few months. If denied, the case will proceed toward an eventual trial.
With the recent news of slowing streaming growth in the U.S. and declining global revenue growth in recorded music, one might think the trends could have a negative impact on the market for publishing and recorded music catalogs.
Think again. For a handful of reasons, industry insiders who spoke to Billboard don’t believe the slowdown will have much — if any — effect on the continually brisk business in music intellectual property rights. Subscription revenue, which accounted for roughly 66% of U.S. revenue and approximately 51% of global revenue in 2024, according to the RIAA and IFPI, respectively, will continue to grow in mature markets and elsewhere.
“I don’t think the numbers that we’ve seen are enough to make any [music investors] worry too much,” says MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan. “I know that a lot of these funds have seen our numbers, and our numbers are relatively cautious about the outlook. We’re not bearish, but we’re not bullish either.”
Trending on Billboard
Numerous people pointed to Goldman Sachs’ estimates — a closely watched music forecast that remains something of a gold standard in the business — that both global recorded music and publishing revenue will grow at approximately 8% annually through 2030. What’s more, equity analysts seem comfortable with Universal Music Group’s forecast of 8-10% subscription growth through 2028.
In mature markets, future growth will come from higher prices after more than a decade of unchanged subscription fees. “We’ve all gotten comfortable with getting music at what I believe to be a subsidized rate versus its value,” says Jeremy Tucker, founder/managing member of Raven Music Partners, an investor in music catalogs. That subsidy is an underpricing of music subscriptions in order to attract new customers and help platforms achieve scale. Now that there are 818 million global subscribers, according to MIDiA Research, labels and streaming services seem intent on getting more from each subscriber.
Many streaming services raised their prices in 2022 and 2023, and Spotify raised prices in a few markets in 2024. Major labels that have renewed their licensing agreements with Spotify suggested the deals allow for higher-priced superfan tiers. Additionally, Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl said at a March 10 banking conference that “there’s quite strong evidence that there’s a lot of room to grow on pricing, especially in … mature markets.” All of this means there will be more value coming to rights holders, says Tucker, who looks at a lengthy time horizon, not any single year’s results, when considering potential gains. “We think there’s going to be growth over the medium to long term. But, in any given year, the actual growth is not something I’m too worried about.”
Additionally, people expect rights holders will extract more value from catalogs through better blocking and tackling. While companies focused on subscriber growth over the last 15 years, the next era will be marked by better execution, says a person in the music investment field. Artificial intelligence, this person says, can help rights owners expand the global reach of their music by creating versions in multiple foreign languages at little cost. AI can also make royalty collection more effective and cost-efficient. These wins may not have the appeal of, say, a biopic that boosts an artist’s catalog. But from a financial point of view, expanding a song’s reach and cutting costs serve the buyer’s core mission of improving the return on investment.
While U.S. growth slows, much of the world is growing quickly, and Western companies that focus on English-language repertoire face a “bleak” future as emerging markets outpace markets where English-language music is most popular, says Mulligan. As a result, companies that failed to invest a decade ago are playing catch-up in markets dominated by local music. “What they should have done is started signing loads of artists [in emerging markets] 10 to 15 years ago,” Mulligan says.
Still, there’s opportunity in emerging countries and their local repertoire. Subscription penetration rates — the ratio of subscribers to the country’s adult population — are a good proxy for a country’s potential, explains Mulligan. Developed markets like the U.S. and U.K. have penetration rates in the high 40 percent, according to MIDiA’s latest data. Elsewhere, lower penetration rates suggest subscription revenue will increase down the road and, as a result, the local music business infrastructure will grow over time. Poland’s subscription penetration rate, in contrast, is 17%, Brazil’s is 16% and China’s is 13%. Indonesia, the world’s fourth-most populous country, has a 1.8% penetration rate. India, the world’s second-largest country, has a penetration rate of just 1.3%.
Low penetration rates correspond with growth potential, as streaming platforms help fuel infrastructure growth and subscription adoption adds more value to the market. “You get this virtuous circle of influence,” Mulligan explains, “where if you establish the infrastructure to create an audience, that creates the virtuous circle of investment, where people start setting up labels, people start being able to have their careers as artists, they create more music, more of that music exports, and the impact on the global market increases. India is maybe a third of the way along in the journey, whereas Indonesia has not even got started.”
In a first for a music streaming company, Paris-based Qobuz has publicly released the per-stream royalty rate it pays to rights holders. Qobuz tells Billboard it paid out an average per-stream royalty rate of $0.018732, or 1.8782 cents, in the 12 months ended March 31, 2024. That all-in rate, which covers both recorded music and publishing, works out to $18.73 for every 1,000 streams.
“Today, we are taking this step for greater transparency,” Qobuz deputy CEO Georges Fornay said in a statement. “Our payout rates are now public. This unprecedented move in our industry is a necessary first step toward promoting a fairer and more sustainable streaming model. Choosing Qobuz means taking concrete action for fairer compensation for all artists and supporting musical diversity, values that our customers cherish.”
One reason streaming companies haven’t released their per-stream royalty rates is because royalties aren’t paid on a simple, per-stream basis. Rather, royalties are the result of complex calculations based on such factors as market share and guaranteed minimums. Qobuz admits as much in the press release announcing its first-of-its-kind calculation, which was conducted by a major accounting firm. “It should be noted that the methods of payment to labels and publishers are not systematically based on remuneration per stream,” it reads. “Calculation methods may vary from one contract to another.”
Trending on Billboard
Nevertheless, the per-stream royalty rate has persisted as a popular metric for gauging streaming services’ value to artists and rights holders. And although Qobuz is often mentioned as the platform with the highest per-stream rate, there are no official numbers to show its place in the royalty hierarchy. Companies have disclosed the amounts of royalties paid annually and cumulatively, but never, until now, on a per-stream basis.
At approximately $0.0187 cents per stream, Qobuz ranks well ahead of its peers, based on the limited, imperfect information available. The best comparisons come from music catalog investor Duetti, which released its own calculations in January for per-stream rates paid to independent artists. That report said the average royalty for master recordings—excluding the publishing component that Qobuz included—was $0.00341 per stream in 2024, though Qobuz wasn’t included in those rankings. Publishing typically accounts for approximately 20% of music streaming content costs, which would put Qobuz’s recorded music per-stream royalty at approximately $0.015—4.4 times the average on Duetti’s list.
Amazon ranked first on Duetti’s list at $0.0088 per stream and was followed by TIDAL at $0.0068, Apple Music at $0.0062 and YouTube at $0.0048. Spotify’s $0.003 per-stream payout was lower than its peers because of high usage, geographical mix, reliance on free and discounted plans and Discovery Mode, through which artists accept a lower royalty in exchange for in-app promotion.
One reason Qobuz pays relatively well is because it charges a relatively high price. Average revenue per user (ARPU) at Qobuz is $121.13 annually or $22.38 per month, while Spotify’s latest ARPU (for the quarter ended December 31, 2024) was 4.85 euros ($5.29). In the U.S., Qobuz charges $12.99 per month—$1 more than Spotify’s music-and-audiobook tier—or $129.99 per month when purchased annually. In its home country of France, Qobuz charges 14.99 euros ($16.35) per month or 149.99 euros ($163.55) annually. That’s 34% higher than the 11.12 euros ($12.13) per month Spotify charges.
The company cited other aspects of its business that result in the relatively high royalty rate. Qobuz does not have an ad-supported tier that would pay less than subscriptions. Additionally, the platform provides greater valued through uncompressed files and high-resolution audio, which, along with “exclusive editorial content,” merit a higher price, the company says. And Qobuz highlights artists and genres—jazz and classical, for example—that are underrepresented at other streaming platforms. As a result, the company argues, more revenue is generated for a wider range of artists.
Geography also plays an important role in the size of Qobuz’s royalties. In the 26 markets where where Qobuz is available—including the U.S., Japan, U.K., Germany, France, Sweden and Canada—consumers tend to spend money on music subscriptions. The service is not available in many emerging countries such as India where subscription prices are low and listeners overwhelmingly opt for free, ad-supported options. And while Qobuz available in places like Mexico and Brazil where subscription costs are lower, it costs more than its competitors in those markets. In Mexico, for example, Qobuz’s monthly price is 150 pesos ($7.49) to Spotify’s 129 pesos ($6.44). In Brazil, Qobuz costs R$25.90 ($4.59) to Spotify’s R$21.90 ($3.88).
The difference between Qobuz and its peers may narrow over time as royalty rates improve—slightly—in the coming years. Spotify, according to reports, plans to launch a higher-priced plan that includes high-quality audio. Various companies are taking measures to marginally improve payouts. Deezer, for example, has changed its royalty scheme by demoting AI-created tracks, removing “non-artist noise content” and provide better payouts to what it terms “professional artists.” Spotify changed its royalty payout scheme in 2023. As more platforms follow suit, average royalty rates should inch upward.
Whether it was Shaboozey’s “A Bar Song (Tipsy),” LiAngelo Ball’s “Tweaker,” or the six songs at the heart of Drake and Kendrick Lamar’s epic rap battle last year, Billboard has recently spent a lot of time reporting on how much money a hit song generates.
For a look back at our coverage, we estimated how much the top 10 songs of 2024 earned, what GELO’s locker room anthem has netted, and the millions made from Drake and Lamar’s diss tracks.
Trending on Billboard
These stories sparked questions from readers, including one that came up repeatedly: Does a hit song today make more money than a hit did before streaming took off?
We asked this question of roughly a dozen music economists, entertainment industry bankers, and record label and streaming company executives, and they largely agreed that streaming has increased the long-term value of a hit song. However, hit songs used to drive album sales, which may have been more lucrative upfront.
It is difficult to directly compare the value of a hit song in 2024 to a hit song in 1999 — the year that record industry revenue peaked in the modern era — because the business largely moved away from issuing singles by the late 1990s. To hear a hit song, then, a fan would buy an album for as much as $18.98.
In 1999, when albums were the dominant configuration for music, 88 albums sold more than 1 million units in the U.S., according to Billboard. Albums often sold for more than their wholesale price of $12, which could mean certain older hits had a greater upfront value. However, the sources Billboard spoke with for this story all agreed that after a fan owned an album, they had little incentive to pay for that particular music again — so after about 12-18 months, the album would stop making much money.
In contrast, streaming keeps all music closer to fans’ fingertips, and hits tend to continue making money over a longer period, as opposed to a brief hype window in the album sales era.
One longtime record label executive who asked to remain anonymous estimated that a gold record in 1999 generated more than $6 million in sales, based on a wholesale price of around $12. Adjusted for inflation, that’s the equivalent of $11.3 million in 2024 dollars, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve.
In 2024, the biggest hit was Shaboozey’s “A Bar Song (Tipsy),” and Billboard estimated it generated $10.7 million from U.S. audio, video and programmed streams, digital downloads, and radio airplay spins. But due to streaming’s long tail, which has helped keep “A Bar Song” in the top five of the Billboard Hot 100, the track has continued earning significant streams in 2025: more than 140 million on-demand audio and video streams, or $192,000 in additional streaming revenue, just this year.
“[Back then], after a huge spike in revenue, a hit would have decayed over time by 60%, 70%, 80%, and eventually the song would drop to a much lower base,” says Concord CEO Bob Valentine. “Now in the streaming world, a song comes out, you get the huge pop from consumption and revenue, and because of the way algorithms keep a song in playlists and rotation, the song is much stickier. It has a higher base.”
Valentine says this is why companies like his have been able to persuade outside investors that music royalties can be securitized and sold to institutional investors like insurance companies. Concord has become the music industry’s model for raising money from such asset backed securitizations (ABS), having raised more than $5 billion to date.
While Concord is known for owning famous catalogs from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, it scored a top 10 hit in 2024 with Tommy Richman’s “Million Dollar Baby,” which Billboard estimates generated around $7.4 million.
If Concord’s catalogs are like bonds — generating consistent revenue that can be relied on for decades — hits are more like venture capital. After an initial investment, a hit can present substantial upside, Valentine says. Concord is now comfortably the fourth or fifth largest music company thanks to the strength of its publishing division and catalog, so it can afford to take risks to get more hits, which is why it’s pushing to develop its front-line business to release more songs like “Million Dollar Baby.”
The music industry globally made $41.3 billion in 2023, according to the most recent data from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the Confédération Internationale des Sociétés d´Auteurs et Compositeurs (CISAC).
The IFPI, which reports figures on an absolute dollar basis, not adjusted for inflation, says global recorded music revenues are at their highest level since it began tracking them in 1999.
Several sources interviewed for this story noted that, despite record-high revenues in the music industry, not everyone who contributes to making or performing a hit song makes more money today, and that many songwriters may have made more money in 1999.
For one thing, the number of songwriters credited on a hit song has increased significantly in the last decade, according to an analysis by Chris Dalla Riva in 2023. Dalla Riva found that the average number of songwriters per Hot 100 No. 1 hit rose from 1.8 during the 1970s to 5.3 in the 2010s. He noted that with interpolations, many songs credit far more songwriters: For example, Beyoncé’s Renaissance song “Alien Superstar” listed 24 songwriters.
“There is more money, we can all agree, but there are way more mouths to feed,” former Spotify chief economist and author Will Page said in an interview with the BBC in January.
Songwriters don’t just make less money because more of them work on major hits; they also make less because of the way streaming changed payouts, sources say. When the industry revolved around album sales, a songwriter on a less popular song earned the same as a songwriter on the album’s most popular song.
The rising tide effect no longer applies today because fans stream songs on a mostly a la carte basis.
Additional reporting was contributed by Ed Christman.
How much are 1,000 streams worth? A new report from catalog investor and lending platform Duetti attempts to answer this question.
According to the report, released Thursday (Jan. 23), independent artists and others who own master recordings received about $3.41 per 1,000 streams globally in 2024.
That global payout rate is down from $4.04 per 1,000 streams in 2021, according to the study, which included data related to Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube, Amazon Music, TIDAL, Qobuz, Deezer, SoundCloud and Pandora.
Of those companies, Amazon Music paid the most at $8.80 per 1,000 streams in 2024.
While the rate paid per 1,000 streams has declined each year since 2021, Duetti CEO Lior Tibon says rates appear to be plateauing because the higher price of streaming subscriptions at some companies is raising royalty payouts. Tibon says they also found that the portion of overall payouts coming from YouTube, which Duetti found pays more than Spotify, increased for the artists in its study — while the portion coming from Spotify for those artists decreased 2%.
Trending on Billboard
Duetti, which provides financing for independent artists in exchange for a stake in their master recordings, says that Spotify’s Discovery Mode and its greater adoption outside the U.S. are the main drivers driving down payout rates, even though Spotify raised subscription prices in most major markets. Artists who sign up their tracks for Spotify’s Discovery Mode program gain more algorithmic exposure on the platform through Spotify Radio and autoplay in exchange for a lower royalty rate. The program, which was expanded in 2023 to be open to anyone with access to Spotify For Artists, has been criticized by music trade organizations and some in Congress who are concerned it puts artists in a position where they feel the need to pay to play.
Spotify did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The growth of Discovery Mode’s contribution to overall streams for independent artists in this study is slowing, which means its impact on payout rates is starting to stabilize, Tibon says.
“We are at the point where it is not going to continue to increase as much as it did over prior years, and the growth of YouTube is counteracting the impact of its growth outside the U.S. and [the growth of] discount plans,” Tibon says.
Certain subgenres, such as hyperpop, saw slightly higher royalty payouts — as much as 30 cents more per 1,000 streams — than mainstream genres, in part because artists who produce this music less often enroll in Discovery Mode, according to the report.
WHO PAYS WHAT
According to the study, Amazon Music pays the highest royalty rate of any streaming service at $8.80 per 1,000 streams. (Amazon Music services are bundled with a Prime membership, which costs $139 per year.)
TIDAL pays the second most at $6.80 per 1,000 streams, while Apple Music pays $6.20 per 1,000 streams “due to their foothold in higher price markets, and the lack of ad-supported tiers,” the report found.
Though YouTube’s payout rates vary significantly among artists, Duetti found that on average across the independent artists in its study, the video streaming platform paid out $4.80 per 1,000 streams in 2024.
Meanwhile, Spotify paid out around $3 per 1,000 streams due to “high usage, geographical mix, reliance on discounted [and] free plans, and their Discovery Mode program,” according to the report.
Counter to conventional wisdom, going viral on TikTok only resulted in higher royalty payouts 15% of the time, the report found.
Amazon, TIDAL and YouTube did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
TikTok has said in the past that it plays a major role in artists getting their songs discovered, claiming that 84% of all songs on the Billboard Global 200 in 2024 started as viral hits on its platform.
DATA FROM CATALOG VALUATIONS
Founded in 2022, Duetti is a catalog investment company that provides independent artists with capital — amounts range from $10,000 to $3 million — in exchange for a stake in the master recordings of certain songs. The data Duetti uses to value artists’ catalogs before buying them — including royalty statements, streaming performance and other analytics — underpin the findings in the report.
Duetti works with more than 500 artists, including Shayne Orok, known for his Japanese versions of pop songs, and Adán Cruz, a Mexican rapper and songwriter, to promote their works digitally, including across Duetti’s network of YouTube channels.
“YouTube has always been the foundation of my career, allowing me to connect directly with fans and build a sustainable livelihood doing what I love,” Orok said in a statement from Duetti. “Partnering with Duetti has taken that connection to the next level by helping my music reach new audiences in ways I couldn’t achieve on my own.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Jay-Z and his Roc Nation business have reportedly entered into a partnership with a South Korean company that will enable fans to invest in the music royalties of artists. The deal with Jay-Z, Roc Nation, and Musicow was mentioned late last year and is now in total fruition according to new reports.
As reported by Billboard, the partnership is framed as “the first Music Equity Service Provider in the United States” and will allow investors to earn while betting on music royalties and the like. The owners of the song rights will be able to trade royalty shares and they will be allowed to sell shares of those tracks.
As said by Roc Nation Vice Chairman, Jay Brown, “The music industry is evolving into a shared ecosystem where fans and creators can earn together. Our mission is not only to support and empower artists by providing the tools and services they need to build a better music ecosystem but also to give everyone access to the financial opportunities the music industry offers.”
Musicow CEO Woo Rhee added that partnering with the company is an “incredible opportunity to drive innovation and redefine the future of our industry. I’m confident that together, we have the vision, expertise, and enthusiasm to create transformative progress and unlock limitless potential.”
The Korea Economic Daily reported on this deal in November 2024, writing that Jay-Z was investing $5 million and would become the second-leading shareholder of the company.
The service is expected to launch in March of this year.
—
Photo: Getty
Limp Bizkit has suffered a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group, with a federal judge ruling that the band cannot legally void its contracts of “nearly 30 years” over accusations of underpaid royalties.
The blockbuster case, filed last year in Los Angeles federal court, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” over the years. Among other claims, the lawsuit argued that the band is therefore entitled to a ruling of “rescission” that terminates its deals with UMG.
But in a decision Friday (Jan. 17), Judge Percy Anderson ruled that the band had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to record and distribute Limp Bizkit’s albums – meaning the band doesn’t deserve the drastic remedy of terminating the decades-old deals.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 – nearly 30 years – because the agreements should be rescinded as fraudulently induced,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission of the parties’ agreements.”
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
If finalized, the decision is something of a double blow for Durst’s lawsuit. It would not only reject his efforts to rescind the contracts, but would sink one of his other core allegations: that UMG has infringed Limp Bizkit’s copyrights. Such a claim — which could carry a huge damages award — can only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights, the judge wrote.
That could also mean the case is headed to another court entirely. If Limp Bizkit’s lawsuit no longer contains federal copyright claims, a federal court would no longer have jurisdiction over the case, meaning the lawsuit’s remaining accusations against UMG would need to be refiled in a state court.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, attorneys for Durst and Limp Bizkit downplayed the impact of the ruling, noting that the court had “upheld a majority of our claims” and given them a second shot at the rejected claims.
“The facts speak for themselves,” said Frank Seddigh, the band’s lead attorney. “Universal will be held accountable for its actions and will not get away with its conduct at the expense of artists.”
A spokesman for UMG declined to comment.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued in October, claiming the band had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite its huge success over the years: “The band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action.”
That claim was something of a stunner. How had one of the biggest bands of its era, which sold millions of records during the music industry’s MTV-fueled, turn-of-the-century glory days, still never have been paid any royalties nearly three decades later?
According to Durst, the answer was an “appalling and unsettling” scheme to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.” He claimed UMG had essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing the label to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount paid in upfront advances.
UMG hit back a month later, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court. The music giant’s attorneys argued that Limp Bizkit’s own legal filings contradicted the accusation that the band had not been paid: “Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit.
Roc Nation is expanding its music business portfolio with a trailblazing partnership. The Roc has teamed up with South Korean fintech company Musicow to launch what it describes as the first Music Equity Service Provider in the United States. Musicow aims to offer Americans the opportunity to invest in music royalties. This partnership allows music […]
At least half a dozen distributors and record labels are frustrated with the streaming service Napster due to late royalty payments, executives tell Billboard. In some cases, rights holders say Napster is a few months behind schedule; in others, the lag on payments is well over a year.
Napster, despite its history as a pirate-disruptor to the recorded music business around the turn of the century, has long operated as a licensed streaming service, albeit a small one. But “for years, they have cited fundraising struggles as an excuse for delayed royalty payments,” according to one executive at a distributor who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Napster’s CEO, Jon Vlassopulos, declined to comment.
Trending on Billboard
Napster is not the first streamer accused of falling behind on payouts. A lawsuit against TIDAL in 2021 revealed that the platform had $127 million in liabilities, mostly in the form of unpaid streaming fees to record labels. TIDAL CEO Jesse Dorogusker told Billboard in 2023 that the payment situation had been remedied following TIDAL’s acquisition by Block.
More recently, labels and distributors have said they are struggling to get timely payments from Boomplay, a streaming service with a large user base in Africa. In December, Sony Music pulled its catalog from the platform.
At the end of 2023, Boomplay said it had 98 million monthly active users across Africa. Napster is considerably smaller: It had a little more than 1 million monthly active users at the end of 2020, according to Music Ally.
Rights holders acknowledged to Billboard that the royalties they had received in the past from Napster account for just a small fraction — often less than 1% — of their overall streaming income. “What we earn from it as a distributor isn’t that much,” says an executive at another distribution company that is missing many months of Napster payments.
“But,” he continues, “in terms of payouts to the artists and the labels who we represent, it can be a solid sum of money.” $100,000, for example, may be a drop in the bucket for a volume distributor. However, that money can make a meaningful difference for a small indie label.
Napster launched in June 1999 as a file-sharing service that allowed users to download tracks for free. It was soon battling copyright infringement lawsuits from various heavy-hitters, including Metallica, Dr. Dre and the RIAA. “Napster is not developing a business around legitimate MP3 music files, but has chosen to build its business on large-scale piracy,” the RIAA wrote in a suit filed in 1999.
This first version of Napster shut down in 2001. The following year, Bertelsmann announced that it would acquire the service and turn it into a licensed listening platform. But a judge later blocked the sale.
In the years since, Napster has bounced from one home to another. It was first acquired by Roxio and then by Best Buy for $121 million in 2008. Three years later, Napster was scooped up by Rhapsody, an early music streaming service. Rhapsody subsequently rebranded itself as Napster in 2016.
In 2020, the virtual reality concert app MelodyVR bought Napster for $70 million. The company changed hands yet again in 2022, with Hivemind Capital Partners and cryptocurrency company Algorand becoming the new owners.
Vlassopulos took over as Napster’s CEO in the fall of 2022 following a stint as global head of music at Roblox. Two decades before, he had worked at Bertelsmann and been part of the team that put together the deal for Napster — only to have it scuttled months later. “It always stayed with me: What if we could have finished what we started?” Vlassopulos explained in an interview last year.
But first, he had to work on “cleaning up the Napster business.” “The company had been around for 20 years, and so now we’ve modernized,” Vlassopulos added. “We’re right at break even, and we’re kind of in a process now to raise material funds, or the company is maybe looking to roll us up into something bigger.”
Despite this progress, some rights holders told Billboard that they were considering pulling their catalogs from Napster, or no longer delivering new releases to the platform.
When labels and distributors are not receiving payments from streaming services, taking their catalogs off platforms is one of their only options. The other is to take legal action against the streamer.
But litigation is costly and time-consuming, which means rights holders are usually stuck sending follow-up emails over and over again. This hasn’t worked for several companies trying to get money owed to them by Napster, though. “Not only have they failed to pay royalties,” says the first distribution executive, “but they have also been unresponsive when we’ve attempted to resolve these matters.”