Royalties
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.”
Songwriters Jessi Alexander, Amy Allen, Jessie Jo Dillon and RAYE will not be attending or performing at Spotify’s Songwriter of the Year Grammy party slated for Jan. 28, with Allen and Dillon citing Spotify’s treatment of songwriters as the reason for their absence. As a result, four out of five nominees in the Songwriter of the Year category at this year’s Grammys will be opting out of the event. (A representative for the fifth, Edgar Barrera, has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment.)
Representatives for Allen (“Espresso” by Sabrina Carpenter, “Adore You” by Harry Styles and “greedy” by Tate McRae) and Dillon (“10,000 Hours” by Dan + Shay, “Lies Lies Lies” by Morgan Wallen and “Am I Okay?” by Megan Moroney) confirmed to Billboard that they both made the decision not to attend due to Spotify cutting royalty rates on premium streams for songwriters and publishers in April of last year, which Billboard estimated will lead to a $150 million decrease in royalties over 12 months compared to how much they would have made had the royalty rate not been reconfigured.
Trending on Billboard
Spotify believes it qualifies for a lower mechanical royalty rate for songwriters and publishers because it has added audiobooks to its premium subscription tiers and reclassified those services as “bundles,” with multiple services included in one price. Now, the royalty originally intended for songwriters and publishers alone is split between paying for music and audiobooks.
“After some thought, I couldn’t in good conscience support this initiative given their approach to bundling royalties,” said Dillon in a statement to Billboard. “It is very nice to be individually honored, but it is better for me and my entire songwriter community to be paid fairly for our art. There are no songs without songwriters.”
A representative for RAYE (“Escapism.” by RAYE, “Dancing With a Stranger” by Sam Smith & Normani, “Secrets” by One Republic) says the singer/songwriter never committed to attending or performing at this event, so “there’s nothing for her to back out of at present,” but adds that RAYE has been “an outspoken advocate on behalf of songwriters’ rights igniting an industry-wide dialogue on the topic.” A representative for Alexander (“Ain’t No Love in Oklahoma” by Luke Combs, “The Climb” by Miley Cyrus, “You, Me and Whiskey” by Justin Moore & Priscilla Block) confirmed to Billboard that she will not be attending the event but did not provide a reason for dropping out.
A representative for Spotify declined Billboard’s request for comment.
Spotify started its Songwriter of the Year Grammy event to celebrate the nominees for the prestigious writing award, which the Recording Academy established in 2023. Each Songwriter of the Year nominee has been invited to take the stage at Spotify party and sing the songs they wrote for other artists in a room full of their peers.
Other songwriters have taken to social media to express their dismay about Spotify’s upcoming event after receiving Save the Dates from the streamer. Songwriter Ross Golan said, via an Instagram Story, “If you are a songwriter, you cannot go to this. Do not let Spotify f— you on bundling and then give you free booze.” A 2023 Grammy Songwriter of the Year nominee Laura Veltz said in her own Instagram Story, “Spotify is robbing you. Songwriters: do not fall for this horse s—.”
In April 2024, Spotify officially added audiobooks as an offering to its premium tiers (which include premium, family and duo plans). By adding audiobooks, the streaming service claimed it now qualifies to pay a discounted so-called “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium, duo and family tier streams.
At the time, a Spotify representative said that “changes in our product portfolio mean that we are paying out in different ways based on terms agreed to by both streaming services and publishers” and called its decision to reclassify premium tiers as bundles as “consistent” with “multiple [other] DSPs.” Other competitors like Apple Music and Amazon Music do have bundled offerings — including Amazon bundling Prime and Amazon Music and Apple bundling Apple Music and Apple News — but Spotify’s move to make its popular premium tiers into bundles has a much larger impact than its competitors, given that Spotify is the most popular streaming service in the U.S. and the premium tiers are a widely used offering.
“Spotify is on track to pay publishers and societies more in 2024 than in 2023,” the Spotify representative added at the time, citing the company’s Loud and Clear report that says the streamer has paid nearly $4 billion to publishers, PROs and collection societies in the last two years.
The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), and various songwriters did not take the news lightly. The MLC filed a lawsuit against Spotify in May, claiming the streamer “improperly” classified its premium tiers as bundles. The NMPA’s CEO/president David Israelite said Spotify had “declare[d] war” on songwriters and launched a multi-faceted attack that included sending a cease-and-desist for unlicensed lyrics, video and podcast content; unveiling a legislative proposal; and filing complaints with the FTC and nine other consumer trade groups.
Israelite has also voiced his disapproval over Spotify’s Songwriter of the Year party, saying in an Instagram post: “Is this a joke? Spotify declares war on songwriters. Is attempting to gut what they pay them. Is being sued by the MLC. And they think they can throw a party honoring songwriters? I’m at a loss for words. Actually, I’m not. Hubris. Audacity. Crassness. Hypocritical. Cynical. Forward this and add your own word.”
Sony Music pulled its catalog from the streaming service Boomplay on Monday (Dec. 9) due to late royalty payments, Billboard has confirmed. Several other prominent labels and distributors also confirmed to Billboard on Monday that they have not received recent royalty payments from the service. Additionally, a monthly payment report published by the distributor Symphonic […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) is firing back at a lawsuit from Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst claiming the label owes the band more than $200 million, calling the allegations “fiction” and demanding they be thrown out of court.
The blockbuster lawsuit, filed last month in Los Angeles federal court, claimed that Durst had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades — and that hundreds of other artists may have been treated similarly under “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies.
But in UMG’s first response on Friday, attorneys for the label said the lawsuit must be dismissed immediately because it is “based on a fallacy.”
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs’ entire narrative that UMG tried to conceal royalties is a fiction,” writes Rollin A. Ransom, an attorney with the law firm Sidley Austin who represents UMG in the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs’ complaint fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
The key problem with Durst’s claims? According to UMG’s attorneys, it’s that documents included in his own lawsuit “eviscerate” his allegations. They specifically cite emails in which a UMG exec appears to have reached out to get royalties flowing, but was rebuffed by the band’s own business manager.
“Over a year before plaintiffs’ ‘discovery’ of allegedly ‘concealed’ royalties, UMG affirmatively and unilaterally reached out to Limp Bizkit’s representative so that it could begin making royalty payments to the band, and was instead informed by him that all members of Limp Bizkit but one (including plaintiff Durst) had assigned their royalty shares to others, and were therefore not entitled to any royalty payments from UMG,” the company wrote in Friday’s filing.
Durst’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday. They will have a chance to file a formal response in court opposing UMG’s motion to end the case.
Durst and Limp Bizkit sued UMG 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 the company essentially kept Limp Bizkit in the red with shady bookkeeping, allowing it to falsely claim the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances.
But in Friday’s response, UMG said such claims of “concealment” were undercut by those emails. UMG says the message show a senior royalties director reaching out on his own initiative to Paul Ta, the band’s business manager, to “start making royalty payments,” but being rebuffed.
“Mr. Ta rejected that proposition, responding that all the Limp Bizkit members but one (including Plaintiff Durst) ‘have … sold/assigned their share [of the royalties] to various companies,’ such that no royalty payments were owing to any of those individuals (including Plaintiff Durst),” UMG wrote in Friday’s motion.
UMG says Ta later emailed back that his statements had been incorrect, at which point the label paid out roughly $3.4 million to the band and its companies – a fact that contradicts the lawsuit’s claims of “never received any royalties.”
“Plaintiffs concede thereafter receiving millions of dollars in payments from UMG,” the label wrote Friday. “Plaintiffs nevertheless brought this suit alleging breach of contract and fraud on their ‘suspicion’ that they are owed more royalties, and seeking rescission of the parties’ agreements.”