umg
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Cole Burston / Getty
Just when it seemed like Drake was about to move on from the massive loss he took at the hands of Kendrick Lamar by dropping his legal petition against Universal Music Group and Spotify over their promotion of “Not Like Us,” the Certified Lover Boy artist shocked the Hip-Hop world by turning around and suing UMG for “defamation” over the record. Christ on crutches.
Continuing to make himself look funny in the light, “Deposition” Drizzy sued his own record label stating that the new classic diss record slandered his reputation for alleging that he was a pedophile amongst a few other head-nodding allegations. Not taking the lawsuit lying down, Billboard is reporting that Universal Music Group has responded to Drake’s lawsuit by calling it “illogical” and accusing the Canadian crooner of “weaponizing the legal system.”
While it’s safe to say that many Hip-Hoppers agree that Drake is reaching with his latest lawsuit, it’s also become obvious that Drake is looking for any way to save some face, as Kendrick’s scathing diss track has cost Drake not only his “street credibility” but also his popularity amongst Hip-Hop fans who aren’t so interested in hearing any new material from Drake anytime soon. That being said, filing such a lawsuit not only makes him look that much worse out on these streets, but continues to give life and notoriety to Kung Fu Kenny’s now-classic club diss record.
Per Billboard:
In a strongly-worded statement issued Wednesday afternoon (Jan. 15), UMG flatly denied the allegations in Drake’s lawsuit — filed earlier in the day in New York federal court — and sharply criticized its superstar artist for bringing it.
“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical,” the company wrote. “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”
In his new lawsuit, Drake claims that UMG knew that “Not Like Us” contained false allegations against his character but that his record label decided to put it out anyway and “chose to place corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
UMG clapped back by saying that Drake himself has engaged in numerous rap battles where he too participated in the slandering of his fellow Hip-Hop peers.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists,” UMG wrote. “He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
“We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual,” UMG said in the statement. “At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”
Most rappers would just take the loss and move on with their life (See Ja Rule). Not Drake though. That man will obviously go to great lengths to salvage whatever “honor” he feels he has left even if it means making him look like a Canadian Karen to millions of Hip-Hoppers in the process.
God help us all.
What do y’all think about Universal Music Group’s response to Drake’s latest lawsuit? Are they in the right? Does Drake have a case given Hip-Hop’s history of rap battles? Let us know in the comments section below.
Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the music giant defamed him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” claiming the label boosted a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a pedophile and put his life in danger.
Hours after his attorneys withdrew an earlier petition, they filed a full-fledged defamation lawsuit Wednesday against his longtime label – claiming UMG knew Lamar’s “inflammatory and shocking allegations” were false but chose to place “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers write in a complaint filed in Manahttan federal court. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Trending on Billboard
In one of the lawsuit’s most vivid accusations, Drake claims that the release of “Not Like Us” has subjected him to risk of physical violence, including a drive-by shooting on his Toronto area home just days after the song was released.
“UMG’s greed yielded real world consequences,” his lawyers write. “With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment, Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family, and his friends.”
Notably, the case does not target Lamar himself — a point that Drake’s attorneys repeatedly stress in their filings.
“UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal, but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists,” Drake’s attorneys say.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is yet another dramatic escalation a high-profile beef that saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks last year, culminating in Lamar’s knockout “Not Like Us” — a track that savagely slammed Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a hit in its own right.
Drake shocked the music industry in November when he filed petitions suggesting he might sue over the fued — first accusing UMG and Spotify of an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song, then later claiming that the song had been defamatory. But those cases were not quite full-fledged lawsuits, and Drake withdrew one of them late on Tuesday.
Now it’s clear why: In Wednesday’s lawsuit, he formally sued UMG over the same alleged scheme, claiming the label “unleashed every weapon in its arsenal” to drive the popularity of Lamar’s track even though it knew the lyrics were “not only false, but dangerous.”
“With his own record label having waged a campaign against him, and refusing to address this as a business matter, Drake has been left with no choice but to seek legal redress against UMG,” his lawyers write.
The filing of the case represents a doubling-down for Drake, who has been ridiculed in some corners of the hip-hop world filing legal actions over a rap beef. It also will deepen further his rift with UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
In his complaint, Drake’s lawyers said the label opted to boost “Not Like Us” despite its “defamatory” lyrics because they saw it as a “gold mine” — partly because UMG owns Lamar’s master recordings outright, but also because it could use the song to hurt Drake’s standing in future contract talks.
“UMG’s contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment … UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would be costly,” his lawyers write. “By devaluing Drake’s music and brand, UMG would gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to UMG.”
This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated with additional details as they become available.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Drake shocked his legion of fans and detractors by taking pre-trial legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify for allegedly platforming “Not Like Us,” the scathing diss track from his rival Kendrick Lamar. This week, Drake filed to drop the legal petition against UMG and Spotify which prompted many on X to assume that the OVO honcho is waving the white flag.
As reported in detail by Billboard, Drake and his legal team filed for the withdrawal of the petition on Tuesday (Jan. 14) in a Manhattan court. The Canadian superstar’s Frozen Moments LLC was the top name on the petition and as the outlet adds, the company still has an active filing aimed at UMG and iHeartRadio in Texas courts. No official statements have been made by the aforementioned parties in these matters.
In November, Drake took action against UMG and Spotify in the aftermath of his explosive audio feud with Kendrick Lamar, with “Not Like Us” topping the Billboard charts and shifting the musical landscape. Many on the sidelines believe that the Canadian superstar’s light has dimmed since taking the heavy blows delivered during the back-and-forth battle, along with unproven accusations of sexual misconduct and other heinous charges.
The petition was a revelation for many considering the longtime partnership between Drake and UMG, which began with Lil Wayne’s Young Money outfit before signing with Republic Records. In 2022, Drake signed a deal with UMG reported to be up to $400 million, adding to the shockwaves felt by the industry with the filing of the petition.
In it, Drake states that UMG violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and added that Spotify worked with the company by offering reduced licensing fees in exchange for pushing “Not Like Us” into the algorithms of users of the streaming service. The Texas petition levies similar charges. The outlet rightly explains that a petition is a pre-trial action that legal teams use to gather information ahead of filing a full-on lawsuit.
On X, formerly Twitter, music fans are taking shots at Drake for pulling the petition. We’ve got those reactions below.
—
Photo: Getty
Universal Music Group and Amazon Music have expanded their global partnership, embracing “Streaming 2.0” as both companies aim to enhance artist-to-fan engagement through exclusive content with UMG artists, innovative product opportunities and increased fraud protection.
The partnership will explore new and enhanced product opportunities, including advancements in audiobooks, audio and visual programming and livestreaming content. UMG and Amazon Music will also collaborate to combat issues such as unlawful AI-generated content, fraud and misattribution, ensuring the integrity of creative works.
“We are very excited to advance our long-standing, excellent partnership with Amazon Music that marks a new era in streaming — Streaming 2.0,” said Sir Lucian Grainge, chairman & CEO of UMG. “We appreciate Amazon Music’s deep commitment to the interests of our artists, and look forward to progressing our shared artist-centric objectives through product innovation and accelerating growth of their service.”
Trending on Billboard
UMG laid out its Streaming 2.0 strategy — focusing on innovation, consumer segmentation, geographic expansion and higher average revenue per user (ARPU) — at the company’s capital markets day gathering in August. UMG plans to grow subscriptions in developing markets, where subscribers significantly boost ARPU. Additionally, UMG aims to attract audiobook listeners and satellite radio subscribers to convert them into music streaming users, leveraging these new audiences to drive further growth.
Steve Boom, vp of audio, Twitch and games for Amazon, noted that the expanded partnership would redefine streaming services by introducing more artist-to-fan connections through innovative products and exclusive content. “We’re thrilled to expand our relationship with UMG which will enable us to partner on meaningful new ways for artists to deepen their engagement with fans around the world, while working together to protect the work of artists, songwriters and publishers,” he said.
UMG has partnered with several AI technology companies to enhance artists’ creative and commercial opportunities while ensuring ethical practices. These collaborations include YouTube/Google, ProRata.AI, Endel, SoundLabs and BandLabs, among others.
The two companies expanded their working relationship in 2022 as well, providing Amazon Music and Twitch users with greater access to UMG content, including live streams, spatial audio, artist merchandise and other exclusive experiences.
Universal Music Group, the owner of Republic Records, has reached a settlement to resolve a trademark lawsuit the music giant filed against a music investment platform called Republic.
The deal will end a case in which UMG accused the smaller company of confusing consumers by expanding into music royalties investing – a move UMG warned could dupe people into thinking Republic Records was involved in the project. But a judge later ruled that the case would be difficult to win.
In an order last week (Dec. 13), the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit said that all claims had been “settled in principle” and ordered the case dismissed. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for more details.
Trending on Billboard
Launched in 2016, OpenDeal Inc.’s Republic platform lets users buy into startups, cryptocurrency projects and other investments across a wide range of sectors. In October 2021, the company announced it would start allowing users to invest in music royalties by purchasing NFTs (non-fungible tokens), calling itself the first to “bring music investing to the masses.”
That quickly sparked the lawsuit from UMG, which acquired Republic Records in 2000 and now operates it as one of its top imprints, home to Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Drake, Post Malone and many others. In a November 2021 complaint seeking an immediate injunction, UMG called OpenDeal’s new service a “wanton effort to usurp plaintiff’s Republic name and trademarks for itself.”
“The artists, labels, managers, agents, and fans who currently know of plaintiff’s Republic label would be presented with two different companies offering identical services under identical names in the same industry,” UMG’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Confusion is inevitable.”
But in July 2022, Judge Analisa Torres ruled that that UMG was unlikely to be able to prove such allegations in court. She said the evidence of potential confusion was “extremely minimal,” since the services and consumers of the two companies “differ significantly” — and that a shared connection to the music industry was “not enough.”
“It is conceivable that there may ultimately be some overlap between the parties’ consumers—for instance, fans of a popular artist may both purchase that artist’s music through Republic Records, and make crowdfunded investments in recordings by that artist through the Republic Platform,” the judge wrote. “But, such scenarios remain hypothetical.”
That ruling – denying UMG’s request for a so-called preliminary injunction that would have forced OpenDeal to change its name while the case was litigated – was not a final decision on the case. But it indicated that UMG was unlikely to win, and such trademark cases often settle after such early skirmishes.
After that decision, UMG later filed an updated version of its allegations, and the case proceeded into discovery – the process of exchanging evidence in a civil lawsuit. But the lawsuit has largely been paused for more than a year as the two sides engaged in settlement talks that ultimately resulted in last week’s agreement.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Joe Budden has made a career out of dissecting music and Hip-Hop culture with his popular eponymously named podcast, and the latest episode found him aiming his sights at Drake. After the news went wide that Drake launched a pair of lawsuits against Universal Music Group, Joe Budden proceeded to heave heavy critique upon the Canadian superstar, which has social media reacting.
On episode 779 of The Joe Budden Podcast, Budden and his cohosts bumped into a conversation regarding Drake’s lawsuits against UMG, the label he’s currently signed to and accusing of boosting Kendrick Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” single. Since this episode exists on a Patreon subscription service, we’ve only seen clips that surfaced online, which we’ll share from X below.
Joe Budden telling the unfiltered truth about Aubrey Drake Graham. pic.twitter.com/K2hMLZFuII
— Busby 🏁 (@MrBusby4o8) November 27, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Joe Budden Podcast cooking again sheesh
🦉 “was disrespecting someone’s dead mom” “ idc about his dead mom tell him send a beat”
( I wonder if this why metro booming got upset)
🦉 “is more scared of Not Like Us being played at the SuperBowl”
Kendrick Lamar GNX out now pic.twitter.com/GsQ7fU141K
— Whooping feet (@WhoopingFeet) November 27, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As the clips highlight, Budden believes the industry has conspired in some regard against Drake due to alleged shady dealings with the personal affairs of his foes up to the business side of things. Fans online are taking note of Budden’s jabs as he’s been known to be friendly with Drake over the years but fell out of favor with the entertainer after Budden was critical of his musical direction For All The Dogs.
On X, formerly Twitter, the JBTV community space and others are sharing their thoughts about Joe Budden using the pod to air out his grievances against Drake. We’ve got the reactions listed below.
—
Photo: JBP/Screengrab
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Ethan Miller / Getty
Drake is doubling down. After initially accusing Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify of boosting Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” to his detriment, in a second filing, Drizzy claims that UMG and iHeartRadio defamed him in the process of making the song massive.
According to Billboard, Drake filed this latest petition in Texas, and he alleges that K. Dot “falsely” accused him of being “a sex offender” in his megahit diss song “Not Like Us.” But his label promoted it anyway.
Per Billboard:
A day after filing an action in New York accusing UMG of illegally boosting Lamar’s track on Spotify, Drake’s company leveled similar claims in Texas court regarding radio giant iHeartRadio. The new filing, filed late Monday and made public on Tuesday, claims UMG “funneled payments” to iHeart as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote the song on radio.
But the filing also offers key new details about Drake’s grievances toward UMG, the label where he has spent his entire career. In it, he says UMG knew that Kendrick’s song “falsely” accused him of being a “certified pedophile” and “predator” but chose to release it anyway.
Part of the backlash to Drake’s initial filing was that he had all this energy to question Kendrick Lamar’s ht song getting all these spins, but none for the accusation of being a pedophile. However, the way he addresses it in this filling is not earning him any points. Instead, the Toronto rapper sounds sour that UMG dared to make money at his expense—when considering they surely made cash off his own diss tracks.
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
While Spotify and iHeartRadio have yet to respond, UMG did so on Monday (Nov. 25). From the tone of its statement, the entity is not to happy with their superstar rapper and the nefarious actions he is insinuating.
“The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” said the company in a statement to Billboard. “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
This is only going to get more interesting, while Drake is going to continue getting cooked online.
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.”
Universal Music Group made a pair of announcements on Wednesday that signal the global leader in music is getting more and more serious about China.
Universal Music Greater China and Modern Sky, a leading independent music label in the country, pressed send on a strategic distribution agreement giving the domestic label’s catalog and artists access to UMG’s global distribution network, fostering collaboration and promoting Chinese music and youth culture internationally.
Additionally, UMGC announced a pact with iQIYI, China’s leading online entertainment platform, to distribute new releases from contestants of reality show The Rap of China 2024 worldwide. This agreement includes support for the rap artists and opportunities for the top three finalists of the iQIYI-produced show to visit UMG’s global music labels and studios, with a goal to foster international collaborations with other artists and producers.
Modern Sky, founded in 1997 by Shen Lihui, has been a key player in China’s indie music scene, producing over 500 albums and working with influential bands and artists. The label’s roster includes over 150 acts, featuring Matt Lv, Aflou, DOUDOU and other established and emerging talents across diverse genres. Modern Sky is also known for organizing the Strawberry Music Festival, China’s first large-scale outdoor music festival, and hosting over 30 festivals and 1,000 performances annually. The label has expanded internationally with divisions in New York, Liverpool and Tokyo, with plans to debut the Strawberry Music Festival in Tokyo in 2025.
Trending on Billboard
As for The Rap of China, a hit since its debut in 2018, UMGC will dedicate a team to support the narrative-driven show’s artists in A&R, management, marketing and merchandise development.
Timothy Xu, chairman and CEO of UMGC, expressed excitement about both collaborations, highlighting their potential to amplify Chinese music on the global stage. He said the Modern Sky agreement “not only broadens the global reach of Chinese music but also highlights the distinct energy and creativity that define China’s young generation today,” and noted the alliance with iQIYI’s The Rap of China 2024 “reaffirms our commitment to nurturing Chinese rap talent but also extends their global reach, bridging cultural gaps and enriching the international music landscape with the dynamic culture of Chinese rap.”
Modern Sky founder Shen Lihui said his label has “always embraced an independent spirit and a forward-looking vision,” adding they hope to “bring a fresh side of Chinese originality to the world, inviting audiences everywhere to experience the unique energy and cultural depth of China’s youth.”
Earlier this year, UMG expanded its partnership with China-based Tencent Music Entertainment, parent of streaming platforms QQ Music, KuGou, Kuwo and WeSing. In 2021, UMGC became the first major music company to establish multiple frontline label operations across China with the launch of Republic Records China, and the re-launch of historical labels Polygram Records China and EMI China alongside Universal Music China.
This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’
Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.
Last week, Universal Music Group filed a $500 million lawsuit against TuneCore and its parent company Believe over alleged copyright infringement of UMG’s recordings. The lawsuit presented two core issues: first, that bad actors used TuneCore to upload songs to streaming services that were simply sped up or remixed versions of UMG-copyrighted recordings, often listed under slight misspellings of the real artist, like “Kendrik Laamar” or “Arriana Gramde.” Second, it claimed that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to record labels.
If you’ve been following the issues in this case over the last few years, this lawsuit feels like a long time coming, and the issues that UMG raises are certainly not just a TuneCore-specific issue — they’re an industry-wide DIY distribution issue. With the vast scale of songs being uploaded through these companies, and staffs that are too small to catch every bad actor, infringing material has, according to just about everybody, flooded onto streaming services.
The distributors know it’s a problem, too. It’s why TuneCore, DistroKid, CD Baby, Symphonic, Downtown and more formed the Music Fights Fraud coalition in 2023 and say they have increasingly invested in preventing fraud and infringement. Unfortunately, Beatdapp, the industry leader in identifying streaming fraud, believes the problem has only worsened since then. UMG is also not convinced that TuneCore is doing enough, saying that the company’s business model incentivizes them to “turn a blind eye” to this damaging activity.
Below, I’ve condensed some of the arguments I’ve heard among industry leaders both for and against DIY distribution continuing just as it is today. I’ll let you judge which outcome is better.
Trending on Billboard
Argument #1: Why its essential to protect DIY distribution as is
It’s easy to take for granted today that anyone who wants to release a song can do it themselves, but that wasn’t always the case. When physical records reigned supreme, record label contracts often favored the companies involved, and seldom went the artists’ way. At the time, artists were essentially forced to sign to a record label if they wanted a chance at shelf space in stores — especially worldwide. This left artists vulnerable to unequal label deals that locked them in for many albums while the label took the lion’s share of the royalties and the copyrights, often in perpetuity.
When Distrokid, CD Baby, TuneCore and the like emerged in the 2000s, they let anyone sign up for distribution services to digital outlets like the iTunes Store for a flat fee and forever altered the power dynamic. Today, the playing field has leveled significantly: hobbyists can get their music out to the world and artists with professional aspirations can wait as long as they want before they have to give up a single percentage point of their master recordings to a label. These companies helped shift negotiating power to the artists, and for the first time, started the process of allowing music fans to decide what songs would pop, rather than the labels that pulled favors with the gatekeepers who worked in radio, retail and the press.
The shift also presented a new, lucrative business opportunity. Music companies no longer need superstars in their catalogs to make their numbers. In fact, they don’t need catalogs at all. A company can now make money by providing services, like distribution, to the masses of previously-overlooked musical hopefuls instead, relying on volume to make up the numbers.
But that volume allowed for the proliferation of fraud, which is a problem that evolves every day, and bad people will always find loopholes. Already, most distributors have implemented common-sense regulations and checks to curb fraud and invested money into quality control teams. But for many experts, it feels impossible to totally solve the problem. As it’s commonly said, this is an endless game of “wack-a-mole.”
But if the barriers to DIY distribution are too significant — like limiting the number of releases, gating who can use it, hiking the platform fee, adding a streaming threshold, or slowing down release time — it could take power away from indie musicians that they have become accustomed to. Such a move would be a step backward for artistic freedom, and the cost of implementing these regulations could threaten to put some of the smaller distributors out of business. Less choice and competition in DIY distribution isn’t better for users.
It’s impossible to put the DIY distribution genie back in the bottle. Artists, who have become used to the current system, would still find ways to get their music out there quickly and cheaply — whether fraudulent or not. Likely, that music would go out on social media or to social-streaming hybrids like YouTube and SoundCloud, both of which pay out royalties and can still be cheated. Streaming services, like Spotify, Apple and Amazon, would risk losing listenership and music discovery to social media platforms — something they already struggle with in today’s TikTok era — and it might not even solve the problems it targeted.
Argument #2: Why the DIY distribution system is in need of serious reform
Currently, over 120,000 songs are uploaded to streaming services every day, a rate that has rapidly increased for years and will likely continue to do so. This is mostly due to DIY distributors. While it is great that aspiring artists can get their music out there cheaply and easily, this has also led to rampant fraud and copyright infringement that puts excessive burdens on rights holders to police their own catalogs online. What happens when we inevitably get to a point where 1 million songs are uploaded every day? We can’t keep going as we are now, and we are in need of serious reform.
While DIY distributors have announced initiatives like Music Fights Fraud and have hosted panels at industry conferences to explain the new methods they are using to stop bad actors, some people say these companies have an incentive for at least some of it to slip by their watch, given their business models rely on receiving fees in exchange for uploading as many songs as possible. Self-policing is not enough, considering this problem only seems to get worse.
The introduction of generative AI has made this matter even more pressing. While it’s impossible to know how much of the music being uploaded today is AI-generated, and to date the streaming services have no regulations against this, it is certainly contributing to the rising number of songs released to streaming services per day. AI songs are believed to be exploited by bad actors to commit streaming fraud, as we saw in the September lawsuit which alleged a musician named Michael “Mike” Smith stole $10 million in streaming royalties by uploading AI-generated songs using a distributor and then used bots to stream them. Bad actors upload AI songs en masse to spread out artificial streams and make their schemes tougher to detect.
It’s hard to argue that it makes a user’s streaming experience better when a platform has a vast number of AI songs and tracks that not a single person has streamed, and it’s clear that these songs, largely stemming from DIY distributors, are diluting the royalty pool at the expense of what some stakeholders have called “professional artists.” The negligibly low payments earned by hobbyists who have accrued hundreds or just a few thousand streams are sometimes lower than the fees one would incur from transferring the royalties into their bank account.
These distributors, the argument goes, should be penalized for the bad actors they let through. This has been proposed in many forms so far, including a financial penalty instituted by streaming services, requirements for significant “know your customer” checks to slow down uploads and verify users’ identities, a minimum stream count threshold before artists can be eligible for royalty collection, a limit to the number of songs a user can upload at a time, an additional fee for storing massive uploads to streaming services, and more.
It’s not a viable business if you rely on a massive scale of song uploads but can’t afford the proper staffers and tools to police them.