Almost seven months after kicking off an investigation into Ticketmaster, the UK’s CMA is calling for the platform to make multiple changes. Photo Credit: Simon Emmett

Ticketmaster “may have breached consumer protection law” when selling Oasis tickets – at least according to the UK’s CMA. Now, the competition watchdog is “engaging with” the Live Nation subsidiary on sought changes.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) disclosed as much in a brief update on its Ticketmaster investigation, which kicked off in September 2024. This probe, we reported seven months back, initiated after strong demand sent Oasis ticket prices into the stratosphere.

Even so – and despite the CMA’s continued references to the relevant reunion tour – regulators underscored that the inquiry would extend to several components of Ticketmaster’s operations.

Returning to the CMA’s new update, then, the entity is said to be “concerned that Ticketmaster’s approach may have misled Oasis fans,” hence the initially mentioned alleged consumer protection law violations.

Interestingly, the qualms at hand don’t appear to involve an “algorithmic pricing model” – meaning Dynamic Pricing, which adjusts ticket costs based on actual demand and which Oasis ditched for its North American tour leg.

(In fact, the CMA “has not found evidence that” Dynamic Pricing factored into the situation at all. “Instead, Ticketmaster released a number of standing tickets at a lower price and, once they had sold out, then released the remaining standing tickets at a much higher price.”)

Rather, the CMA pointed to alleged misrepresentations regarding “platinum” tickets.

In short, during the Oasis on-sale, Ticketmaster allegedly jacked up those passes’ prices “without sufficiently explaining that they did not offer additional benefits and were often located in the same area of the stadium” as their non-platinum counterparts.

“This risked giving consumers the misleading impression that platinum tickets were better,” the CMA claimed.

Additionally, the CMA in a 61-word sentence pointed to a second alleged Ticketmaster misrepresentation, pertaining to Oasis’ standing-ticket prices.

“Not informing consumers that there were two categories of standing tickets at different prices,” the CMA penned of Ticketmaster’s alleged infraction, “with all of the cheaper standing tickets sold first before the more expensive standing tickets were released, resulting in many fans waiting in a lengthy queue without understanding what they would be paying and then having to decide whether to pay a higher price than they expected.”

Of course, we should know sooner rather than later whether the investigation’s “enforcement stage” has teeth.

At present, the Live Nation-owned ticketing platform (which, citing alleged bot purchases, canceled a number of Oasis tickets last month) “has made changes to some aspects of its ticket sales process,” per the CMA.

But these purported adjustments aren’t “sufficient to address” the concerns, the agency communicated. Now, talks are said to be ongoing between the CMA and Ticketmaster on further changes to ticket labels, information provided to consumers, and more.

In a concise statement, Ticketmaster UK told DMN that it continues to “welcome the CMA’s input.”

“At Ticketmaster,” the company relayed to DMN, “we strive to provide the best ticketing platform through a simple, transparent and consumer-friendly experience. We welcome the CMA’s input in helping make the industry even better for fans.”

Stateside, Live Nation recently settled an investor class action, but is still staring down a DOJ antitrust suit.

TikTok remains unavailable on the Apple App Store as of Monday, January 20th at 8: 30 am PT (Photo: Digital Music News)

Where is TikTok down in the US? Here’s the latest availability report.

Apple App Store: ⊗ Not Available (see Apple statement here)

Google Play Store: ⊗ Not Available

Existing, Already-Downloaded Apps: √ Available (Restored)

Web Version: √ Available (Restored) 

Akamai: √ Available (Restored)

Oracle: √ Available (Restored)

TikTok, along with ByteDance-owned apps, was officially banned in the United States as of Sunday, January 19th, 2025. On January 20th, President Trump signed an Executive Order allowing a 75-day stay on the ban while ByteDance and the United States negotiated a joint ownership arrangement.

The ban was instituted across multiple platforms late Saturday (January 18th) to comply with the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, and TikTok shuttered access to its app on Saturday evening. As of Sunday (January 20th), TikTok and various internet backbone providers began reinstating the app following assurances by Donald Trump, while both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store have pulled the app entirely and have not reinstated the app. Here’s the latest.

Latest developments

January 20th, 5:30 pm PT

Incoming President Trump signs an Executive Order delaying the ban by 75 days. Trump indicated interest in negotiating a joint ownership arrangement with ByteDance, with the United States a 50/50 joint venture partner.

January 19th, 1:00 pm PT:

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issues a warning on X that “any company that hosts, distributes, services or otherwise facilitates communist-controlled TikTok could face hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous liability.”

The post was a direct response to TikTok’s announcement that it was restoring service.

January 19th, ~10:00 am PT:

Major CDNs like Akamai and Oracle have restored availability of the app, based on assurances from incoming President Trump that an Executive Order would extend the ban deadline and lift all fines against carriers of the app. Most users are reporting that the app is coming back online for them, with a ‘Welcome Back!’ message from TikTok.

January 19th, 6:30 am PT:

TikTok states via X that its service is being restored, while thanking Trump.

“In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive.”

January 19th, 4:00 am PT:

On Truth Social, Trump urged a pause on the ban and outlined a deal in which the United States would own 50% in a TikTok joint venture.

“I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up,” the post outlined.

At this point, it’s unclear if ByteDance or any other stakeholders have agreed to this top-level ownership structure.

January 18th, 11:15 pm PT:

After the Supreme Court denied a late-stage appeal, the TikTok app was removed on the evening of January 18th from most platforms, including Apple’s App Store and Google Play Store. Existing users were also told the app was blocked and unavailable.

The removals from the App Store and Play Store prevent future downloads and updates; blocks on the existing app were done by TikTok itself.

Anyone who removed the app ahead of the January 19th ban cannot currently re-download the app.

]]> https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/pro/litigation-top-10-weekly/ Thu, 18 Jul 2024 04:00:45 +0000 https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/?post_type=dmn_pro&p=296031

Photo Credit: Mohamed Hassan

From infringement complaints against generative AI developers to unpaid royalty actions targeting streaming platforms, the music industry certainly isn’t lacking high-stakes litigation. Here are ten particularly important lawsuits with major implications to watch moving forward.

How many active lawsuits, conflicts, settlements, negotiations, and legal stare-downs are happening in the music industry — right now? At last count, Digital Music News is tracking more than 140 different filed lawsuits in the United States alone, all in various stages of litigation. And that doesn’t include the drumbeat of cease-and-desists, government proceedings, and private discussions and upcoming suits.

(Stay tuned for our complete litigation tracker from DMN Pro.)

As any attorney can attest, most of those suits aren’t groundbreaking or precedent-setting. Here’s a familiar litigatory tune: Artist A uses a sample from Artist B without permission, demands go nowhere, and litigation ensues. But some of the cases roiling the industry will have serious implications and impacts for years and decades to come. That includes battles in arenas like AI, statutory royalties, government regulation, and even national security.

Plucking from the latter, here are ten lawsuits with the potential to reshape the music industry ahead — for better or for worse, depending on where you’re seated.

Report Table of Contents

Introduction: An Overview of the Music Industry’s Litigation Landscape.

I. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) v. Suno and Udio

II. The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) v. X (Formerly Twitter)

III. Epidemic Sound v. Meta

IV. TikTok and ByteDance v. Department of Justice

V. Department of Justice v. Live Nation

VI. Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) v. Spotify

VII. MLC v. Pandora

VIII. SoundExchange v. SiriusXM

IX. UMG Recordings et al. v. Internet Archive et al.

X. RIAA v. Verizon

XI. Bonus: Cleveland Constantine Browne et al. v. Rodney Sebastian Clark Donalds et al.

Please do not redistribute this report without permission. Thank you!

Apple is officially facing allegations of Digital Markets Act violations in the EU, where a new investigation is moving forward against the App Store developer. Photo Credit: Trac Vu

It turns out a nearly $2 billion fine wasn’t the end of Apple’s EU regulatory woes, as the tech giant is now being accused of violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

The EU’s European Commission unveiled fresh charges against Apple today, close to four months after the iPhone maker was ordered to pay $1.93 billion for allegedly “abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps.”

Apple is still appealing the sizable penalty, and reports have for months pointed to additional investigations into the company’s business practices.

Returning to today’s DMA charges, Apple – along with Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft – was named a “gatekeeper” under the voluminous law back in September of 2023. In the interest of brevity, that classification and its formal announcement gave the Apple Music owner and the other so-called gatekeepers “six months to ensure full compliance with the DMA obligations.”

This timetable laid the groundwork for revamped EU developer terms from Apple, which revealed the changes in January. These changes include a flat €0.50-per-install fee, on top of the existing reduced fees for downloads, for “iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace” once they crack one million annual first-time installs.

Chief among the affected developers is, of course, the longtime App Store critic Spotify, which promptly called for Commission action against Apple.

“Will the European Commission follow through with its intent to right-size Apple’s abuse of power?” Spotify raged at the time. “Or will the DMA be nice in theory, but in practice, have no substantive meaning for most developers?”

Five months later, the Commission, having kicked off a probe in March, has apparently selected the former path. And in many ways, its newest claims against Apple read like a summary of Spotify head Daniel Ek’s longstanding criticism.

Apple, the Commission maintained today, fuels bolstered App Store revenue by preventing “app developers from freely steering consumers to alternative channels” for purchases. As described by the EU executive arm, developers are unable to “provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way” about non-App Store options.

The current “link-out” workaround, through which developers place an in-app link to a webpage where one can complete a purchase, is allegedly inhibited by “several restrictions imposed by Apple” – with the result being an alleged inability to facilitate direct communications with consumers.

Lastly, in terms of the latest EU allegations against Apple, the fees it charges for facilitating through the App Store “the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers” allegedly “go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration.”

“For example,” the Commission elaborated, “Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app.”

As to how the situation proceeds, Apple will now have the chance to defend itself against the “preliminary findings,” which, if “ultimately confirmed,” would set the stage for “a non-compliance decision.”

And that decision, the Commission relayed, will arrive by March 25th, 2025, or one year after the underlying investigation initiated. While this, the aforementioned appeal, and other components yet play out in the EU, Apple will have to grapple with a different investigation as well; the Commission today disclosed a DMA inquiry concerning three additional elements.

Included in the just-detailed probe are looks at the DMA compliance of the previously noted per-install charge, the “multi-step user journey to download and install alternative app stores or apps on iPhones,” and the developer eligibility requirements for alternative distribution, the Commission communicated.

Estimated Mechanicals Paid, U.S., February 2024 (Last Month Prior to Spotify Bundling Discounts) (Source: Digital Music News/DMN Pro)

How much are streaming music platforms actually paying for publishing in the U.S.? Amid an intensifying battle over Spotify’s bundling and a corresponding mechanicals decline, here’s a comprehensive look at actual payout data preceding Spotify’s big move.

DMN Pro’s latest trove of exclusive data — sourced from actual mechanical payments receipts and documents — gives us the closest look yet at how Spotify’s mechanical royalty payments compare to other streaming platforms in the United States. That is, for the last month before Spotify switches a large percentage of its accounts to bundled status.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: A Recap of Spotify’s Bundling Reclassifications and the Forecasted Mechanical Royalties Decrease

II. Streaming Services’ Compositional Royalty Calculations: A Methodology Overview

Graph 1: Total U.S. Paid Accounts (Not Users) by Music Streaming Service and Plan, February 2024

Graph 2: Leading Streaming Services’ Public Performance Payments by Individual Plan, February 2024

III. U.S. Mechanicals At a Glance — A Synopsis of How On-Demand Streaming Royalties Are Calculated Under Phonorecords IV

IV. Mechanical Royalties by the Numbers: What Leading DSPs Are Paying in the U.S.

Graph 3: 2024 U.S. Mechanical and Performance Payments, Ad-Supported and Paid, by Service

Graph 4: Estimated Payable Mechanicals, U.S., February 2024 (Last Month Prior to Spotify Bundling Discounts)

V. How Will the Battle Over Spotify’s U.S. Mechanicals Play Out? A Summary of Near- and Long-Term Possibilities

Please note: unauthorized redistribution of this report is prohibited — thank you.

Where will Spotify’s bundling adventure take us next?

On Tuesday, NMPA president David Israelite advanced a different licensing schema to members of Congress that would change the game for music publishers — and complicate the game for everyone else.

Just moments after the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed suit against Spotify, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) dropped another bomb. In a letter floated on Tuesday (May 21st) by NMPA chief David Israelite to members of Congress (see the full text here), a brand-new licensing schema was advanced.

Under the proposed update, the MLC and statutory mechanical licensing would remain, but music publishers would also have the freedom to negotiate their rates directly with streaming platforms like Spotify.

This is the type of change that music publishers have always wanted. However, Israelite was clearly motivated by Spotify’s sneaky shift into bundling and the statutory licensing discounts that come with it.

“The continued abuse of the statutory system by digital services, most recently Spotify, has made clear that additional action by Congress is needed,” Israelite wrote while pointing to routine, fraught renegotiations before the US Copyright Office’s Copyright Royalty Board (CRB).

“In these proceedings, music publishers and songwriters must face off against some of the biggest tech companies in the world: Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Google, among others, to establish rates for the use of musical works.”

But what if music publishers could call the shots with direct licensing negotiations, just like record labels? “Rather than picking who wins and who loses, Congress should allow rights holders the choice to license through the MLC using the statutorily set royalty rates or to withdraw from the MLC and operate in a free market if they meet certain conditions,” the proposal continues.

All of which sounds like a fantastic change for music publishers and a long-overdue shift — though for obvious reasons, Spotify would rue the day that publishing direct-licensing arrived.

There are many details that need to be clarified. But under the new plan, if a publisher or songwriter decides they’d like a higher rate than what is currently offered under statutory rates, they simply withdraw their catalog and demand more. Spotify (and other streaming platforms) must then negotiate or risk losing the song entirely.

That’s great for publishers and a worthwhile shift toward normalizing music licensing. But for Spotify, there’s plenty to hate here. For starters, licensing costs for publishing IP would quickly increase, and recording owners might not budge. The result is that songs would become more expensive to license, which is bad news for Spotify’s profitability ambitions.

Wall Street, now firmly focused on profitability instead of growth and pushing Spotify in this direction, would also seriously dislike this change given that Spotify’s core asset — the music — could become significantly more expensive. Those riding the wave on Spotify’s stock (SPOT) might decide it’s an opportune time to sell.

But beyond the direct content costs, there would be serious administrative and logistical issues to weather. Instead of sending data to the MLC and writing a fat check, Spotify would suddenly have to manage millions of individual negotiations with songwriters and publishers that want more money.

Nearly every IP owner behind a song with significant plays will likely demand more cash. And this isn’t something you can staff up against. Instead, Spotify would have to retool its entire licensing framework to manage millions of micro-negotiations at scale.

That’s not to say this isn’t the right answer and a step in the right direction. But it’s not a step that Spotify ever wants to take.

And make no mistake, there will be prices Spotify won’t pay, which means more grayed-out content and more dissatisfied customers. Though the exact details haven’t been hashed out, it’s possible that a single songwriter could remove a popular track from Spotify at any time, simply because they want a higher rate that Spotify doesn’t want to pay.

Which brings us to the next loser in this scenario: the labels.

It’s not that recording owners aren’t winning in this equation. They enjoy unfettered, direct negotiations with platforms like Spotify and receive far more than their music publishing counterparts. Theoretically, publishers should enjoy the same freedoms, though that doesn’t mean recording owners want to hand over a slice of their (far more significant) pie.

There’s a reason major label bigwigs haven’t been rallying to the defense of music publishers. Any substantive gains by music publishers probably translate into less money for recordings. Beyond that, a shift towards publisher direct licensing also means more disruption to the smoothly running, streaming gravy train.

Suddenly, publishers and songwriters can yank their content if they’re unhappy. At any moment, Spotify and other streaming platforms can get dinged by serious content holes and spotty selections.

Right now, Spotify has everything listeners want — except for the now-rare holdout like Garth Brooks. But what if users were routinely hitting unplayable potholes? None of that is good news for the billion-dollar streaming music pipeline that is now express-pumping cash into every major label coffer.

That might explain why major label CEOs like Universal Music Group’s Lucian Grainge haven’t been vocal on Spotify’s bundling fiasco. And why they’ll likely remain disinterested in a direct-licensing future for music publishers.

For major recording owners like UMG, this boat is best left un-rocked.

Books & Music: So simple, yet so complicated (photo: Andrea Piacquadio)

Late yesterday, Digital Music News first reported on the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s lawsuit against Spotify over allegedly underpaid publishing royalties. Now, Spotify is pushing back and seriously questioning the merits of the MLC’s claims. Here’s what they relayed to DMN early this morning.

Spotify is now responding to an aggressive lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), and it looks like we may have a fight on our hands. Late yesterday, the MLC filed its complaint against Spotify USA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (here’s the complete 23-page filing). In summary, the MLC alleges that the streaming music platform is illegally undercutting its royalty obligations by bundling its various music, audiobook, and podcast offerings.

Not so fast, Spotify says. In comments issued to Digital Music News this morning, the DSP asserts that everything is above board, fair and square, and by the book. Specifically, Spotify notes that bundling discounts were baked into the most recent royalty agreement approved by the Copyright Royalty Board — dubbed ‘Phonorecords IV’ — and publishers are refusing to follow their own terms.

“The [MLC] lawsuit concerns terms that publishers and streaming services agreed to and celebrated years ago under the Phono IV agreement,” Spotify told DMN, while linking to a ‘celebratory’ announcement issued at the time by the National Music Publishers’ Assocation (NMPA).

Everyone signed off on Phonorecords IV and popped the champagne afterward, Spotify says, with bundling terms clearly agreed upon. “Bundles were a critical component of that settlement, and multiple DSPs include bundles as part of their mix of subscription offerings,” the streaming platform continued.

It’s worth noting that other streaming music platforms also bundle, with Apple and Amazon both masters of high-priced bundled offerings that span media, e-commerce, and other perks. Exactly how those platforms employ bundling to their advantage on the royalty front is unclear at this stage, though more details could surface if a court battle ensues.

Further flexing its clout — and this could come into play later — Spotify also pointed to its massive royalty contributions to the music industry overall.

“Spotify paid a record amount to publishers and societies in 2023 and is on track to pay out an even larger amount in 2024,” the Spotify executive continued.

That comment was carefully calculated and part of an interesting power dynamic between the platform, the music industry, and music publishers. So far, the recording side of the business has been quiet on the bundling royalty question, with major label toppers like Lucian Grainge (UMG) and Robert Kyncl (WMG) mostly praising Spotify’s bundling strategies. Part of the reason is that Spotify is more intelligently pushing price increases by diversifying its product mix, a strategy likely to spill even more revenues into major label coffers.

DMN Pro Weekly Report: As Spotify Embraces Bundles, Mechanical Royalties Take a Hit — But Are We Missing the Big Picture Here?

Despite lingering fears of a streaming subscription plateau, major labels are still posting double-digit quarterly revenue gains, with paid subscriptions a big reason for the uptick. That might explain why publishers are fighting this battle alone, even though major publishers are often subsidiaries of major label conglomerates.

Back to the MLC situation, Spotify hesitated to spell out its next moves.

That could include a combative legal response, though some negotiations may be in order first. “We look forward to a swift resolution of this matter,” the company offered.

As for the allegations, the MLC alleges that Spotify has sneakily classified its Premium Individual, Duo, and Family plans as bundled subscriptions by including audiobook access. This classification allegedly reduces the reported service provider revenue for music, leading to lower royalty payments.

The MLC argues that Spotify’s bundling approach does not comply with applicable laws and regulations—though Spotify begs to differ on that point. The lawsuit seeks corrected reporting and unpaid royalties from March 2024 onwards, along with future compliance.

The MLC, created by unanimous Congressional mandate in 2018 and designated by the Register of Copyrights, is tasked with collecting and distributing blanket mechanical license royalties and enforcing payment obligations. Since its inception in January 2021, the MLC says it has distributed over $2 billion to songwriters and music publishers.

More as this develops.

Music publishing heavyweight Sony Music Publishing is now threatening action against Spotify over its less-than-welcomed royalty reductions.

Spotify has just poked another giant bear following its transition to bundled subscription packages—and the conveniently lower publishing royalty payouts that come with them. According to internal communications leaked to Digital Music News early Friday (May 17th), Sony Music Publishing chief Jon Platt isn’t in a rosy mood following Spotify’s maneuvers and may take action.

As if a lawsuit from the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) and a cease-and-desist from the National Music Publishers’ Association isn’t enough, Platt is now promising to put all options on the table.

Platt succinctly outlined the issue and possible next steps in a letter sent to member songwriters and composers earlier today. “We are working with the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and considering all options to enforce the improved rates that were achieved in CRB Phono IV,” Platt relayed.

“In addition, earlier this week, the NMPA sent a letter to Spotify putting them on notice that there are unlicensed videos, lyrics, and podcasts on its service, an important step to ensure that songwriters are being paid properly across all aspects of Spotify’s platform.”

Earlier this morning, Spotify told DMN that it strongly disagrees with the MLC lawsuit. The platform pointed to its recently signed ‘Phonorecords IV’ agreement governing mechanical publishing payouts, which includes stipulations related to bundling.

“The [MLC] lawsuit concerns terms that publishers and streaming services agreed to and celebrated years ago under the Phono IV agreement,” Spotify emailed DMN while linking to a ‘celebratory’ announcement issued at the time by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA).

Platt and Sony Music Publishing see matters differently. “We do not agree with Spotify’s position,” Platt noted. “While the CRB rate structure allows for a discounted bundle rate in certain circumstances, we do not believe this offering falls within the parameters that were agreed in the last CRB proceeding.”

Separately, music industry chatter is now focused on whether a ‘nuclear option’ could be next.

But unlike Lucian Grainge’s gutsy TikTok pullout, music publishers may be unable to pull their content unilaterally. For starters, Spotify and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) are now locked in a legal battle, with a court adjudicating whether laws and contacts are being broken. It’s quite feasible that Spotify prevails, which means that publishers won’t have the ability to remove content under statutory and compulsory licensing rules.

Beyond mechanical royalties, however, there’s also the matter of music inclusion within podcasts and videos. The NMPA has put Spotify on notice for its use of music within podcasts as well as its placement of lyrics within videos. Those fall outside of statutory law and require direct handshakes and authorizations to prevent direct infringement.

Here’s the full letter sent by Platt just hours ago.

Dear Songwriters and Composers,

I’m writing to share an important update regarding the mechanical royalties that Spotify pays you in the United States. 

Until recently, Spotify has been paying songwriters at the improved headline rate that was agreed upon in the last U.S. Copyright Royalty Board (CRB Phono IV) proceeding in 2022.

Late last year, Spotify added an audiobook offering to its premium subscription tier in the U.S. and across several other markets.  Spotify then unilaterally reclassified their subscription product as a bundle.  They claim this enables them to pay a reduced mechanical royalty rate. In effect, Spotify is taking the position that all U.S. subscribers are part of a bundle without choosing the bundle option.
 
Beginning with their March 2024 accountings, Spotify began to pay at the discounted rate that they claim they are entitled. This has the effect of reducing mechanical royalty payments to songwriters by approximately 20%. The reduction does not currently impact royalties outside of the U.S.

We do not agree with Spotify’s position.  While the CRB rate structure allows for a discounted bundle rate in certain circumstances, we do not believe this offering falls within the parameters that were agreed in the last CRB proceeding.

Yesterday, the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in New York City challenging Spotify’s actions.

We are working with the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and considering all options to enforce the improved rates that were achieved in CRB Phono IV. In addition, earlier this week the NMPA sent a letter to Spotify putting them on notice that there are unlicensed videos, lyrics and podcasts on its service, an important step to ensure that songwriters are being paid properly across all aspects of Spotify’s platform.

I will continue to reach out directly with important updates as they come.

Jon Platt

Chairman & CEO, Sony Music Publishing

Photo Credit: Pixabay

Even the sexiest music industry deals crash into reality when the contracts come out. Flou is determined to simplify the necessary evil.

Unfortunately, music industry contracts and licensing agreements are typically intricate and dense documents fraught with legal terminology, making them difficult to generate and manage. Once filed away, they become challenging to store and retrieve efficiently.

It’s a mess we’ve all experienced, but the confusion often lasts for the life of the deal. Headaches are best enjoyed with a confusing paper trail or contentious disagreement, with piles of legalese and contradictory details adding to the excitement.

Sadly, the cliché that ‘only the lawyers win’ seems to fit more often than not, though one guy is trying to change that.

His name is Alexiomar Rodríguez, and his disruptive vision doesn’t revolve around new-fangled AI or anything tech-sexy. Instead, Rodríguez’s company, Flou, has a simple mission to revolutionize the cumbersome, painful, and inefficient process surrounding music agreements.

“As an attorney myself, I realized that there’s no central software package for all music contracts,” Rodríguez said. Flou just recently joined forces with DMN to further expand awareness of the platform.

In a nutshell, Flou is an all-in-one platform designed to streamline and simplify every aspect of music contract management.

Think of the aspirin required to get through a music contract and multiply it by 10,000. That’s the general idea here.

Flou’s platform manages every micro-step of the music contracting process, starting with the document creation phase. That’s where a range of industry-specific templates come into play, with subsequent collaboration features guiding the reviewing, negotiating, and editing stages with AI assistance.

The platform also includes other steps and details, including e-signature approvals, centralized storage, deliverable tracking, and reminders.

“Flou is not just a software solution; it’s a revolution in music contract management. We’re committed to empowering music companies, artists, and other stakeholders with the legal tools they need to thrive in today’s industry,” Rodríguez continued.

Of course, many different types of music industry contracts and legal agreements exist. Flou aims to address them all, including work-for-hire agreements, production contracts, collaboration agreements, copyright assignments, artistic management and representation agreements, split sheets for dividing royalties, and good, old-fashioned artist-label contracts.

Unfortunately, all of these contracts face similar pitfalls. Traditionally, music contracts have been notoriously time-consuming and expensive to create and manage. Once finalized, these agreements often become buried within filing cabinets or lost in digital voids, posing significant legal risks and liabilities to music companies.

Additionally, the dynamic nature of music contracts, with their deliverable contingencies, critical dates, ongoing rights, and complex royalty payment triggers, further complicates their management. Apart from the initial challenges, music contracts must also account for tracking recoupments and documenting each release properly (including splits and side-artist agreements, among other specifics.)

These ‘living contracts’ demand a meticulous tracking system, which has been sorely lacking until now. By enabling music companies to create, review, approve, sign, store, and track all their contracts in a centralized platform, Flou seeks to bring unparalleled efficiency and clarity to contract management.

There’s also the business of translating legalese for better tracking, accountability, and understanding.

Through the application of AI, Flou translates complex contract obligations into manageable, actionable tasks. This process simplifies legal compliance and management through reminders, updates, and tracking necessary deliverables.

“We designed Flou to address the unique challenges faced by the music and entertainment industry,” Rodríguez explained. “Our platform offers a much-needed solution for contract management, ensuring that nothing falls through the cracks.”

Flou is to the music industry what platforms like Contractbook and LinkSquares are to other sectors — a digital revolution in contract management. By ensuring greater contract clarity, both pre-and post-execution, Flou also hopes to significantly reduce litigation risk.

Additionally, Rodríguez noted that Flou recognizes the importance of education in contract management, offering resources and tools to aid users in navigating the complexities of legal agreements.

Having successfully raised $250,000 in March 2023, Flou is now focused on expanding its capabilities to keep pace with the rapidly evolving music industry. The roadmap includes drafting a wider variety of contracts from automated templates.

Furthermore, Flou aims to incorporate music data analytics, facilitating better deals for music companies, whether signing an artist or buying and selling intellectual property.

By simplifying the process and providing educational support, Flou is striving to make legal compliance easier and helping the industry forge better, more transparent deals. This sounds like great news for the music business — and bad news for anyone in the business of racking up billable hours.

What music licenses? Lana Del Rey’s recent Coachella performance plays on X/Twitter

X (formerly Twitter) is grappling with a copyright infringement lawsuit from 17 NMPA-corralled music publishers demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. But given a number of setbacks in the case for publishers, will the Elon Musk-owned platform ever pay for the use of music?

Many are asking that question now that the case is proceeding on a scaled-down set of contributory infringement claims. We’ve covered the legal battle since it kicked off with a mid-June 2023 complaint from Concord, Sony Music Publishing, Hipgnosis, Warner Chappell, and other “member companies of the National Music Publishers’ Association.”

In the original action, the plaintiffs maintained that about 1,700 of their compositions had been infringed on X, which allegedly “failed to take the most basic step of expeditiously removing, or disabling access to, the infringing material” and “continued to assist known repeat infringers with their infringement.”

Predictably, X refuted and sought to dismiss the allegations. Multiple months and developments later, the presiding judge in March 2024 granted this dismissal motion in part, tossing the publishers’ direct and vicarious infringement claims altogether and doing away with a portion of the contributory allegations.

All of which raises serious questions about what X/Twitter will actually end up paying for music — if they pay anything at all.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: A Recap of the NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Graph: The NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit At a Glance

II. X’s Potential Licensing Agreement: What the NMPA’s Roblox and Peloton Disputes Tell Us About the Possibility

III. Licensed At Last? What Twitch’s Embrace of Rightsholder Deals Means for X’s NMPA Battle

IV. Music’s Role on X: How Important Are Songs to the User Experience?

Graph: Competing Social Media Platforms’ Usership Overlap With X

V. By the Dates: A Condensed Timeline of the NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit and Related Licensing-Dispute Developments

Please note that reproduction or redistribution of this report is not permitted — thank you!

Universal Music Group HQ in Santa Monica, CA (Photo Credit: Coolcaesar / CC by 3.0)

If you enjoyed watching Universal Music Group remove its entire catalog from TikTok, you’ll absolutely love what’s potentially coming next.

For those who enjoy high-stakes showdowns between major media companies and tech giants, Universal Music Group vs. TikTok has been action-packed. But you might need a fresh bowl of popcorn for what’s next.

According to multiple sources leaking details to Digital Music News, UMG has been flooding TikTok with DMCA takedown notices following its stern content removals in late January. But that may be a prelude to more serious legal action in the coming weeks.

As for the takedown notices being sent, one estimate pegged the number of notices ‘in the tens of thousands,’ with TikTok allegedly still hosting enormous quantities of UMG-controlled content despite the recent pulldown.

What happens after TikTok gets banned in the US?

In this comprehensive white paper, DMN Pro breaks down the likely winners and losers in the music industry over the short and long terms. The breakdown spans major and indie labels, publishers, songwriters, various artist tiers, and sync platforms. If Congress hits delete on TikTok, here’s where you’ll likely stand.

Part of the problem involves altered or modified music. Most commonly, songs are sped up, even slightly, though a range of modifications abound on TikTok. Those altered versions become more challenging to detect and remove, but they’re just as infringing. The situation has forced UMG to put teeth to its takedown and chase down remaining songs on the platform.

Under the rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the US, user-generated platforms are required to remove infringing content when formally notified. A failure to properly comply with a legitimate request can subject the platform to massive infringement penalties if the content isn’t quickly removed.

That’s hardly new: rights owners like UMG have been sending DMCA takedown notices for decades. However, according to sources, those takedown notices are merely the first step in a potentially severe legal attack against TikTok and its Chinese owner, ByteDance.

Here’s how this might work: according to sources with knowledge on the matter, UMG is not only focused on stripping its music from the popular social media site, but also on holding TikTok accountable for failure to comply with the repeat infringer policy, a requirement under the DMCA.

In a nutshell, the DMCA’s repeat infringer policy dictates that platforms must have a procedure for terminating the accounts of repeat infringers or face serious penalties or legal action. In the case of TikTok, it appears that repeat infringers aren’t facing account suspensions or removals — with TikTok either unwilling or unable to successfully scrub its platform of these problematic accounts.

And that’s a potentially huge problem for TikTok.

Suddenly, a more sophisticated strategy is emerging. UMG wants to remove infringing content, but their deluge of DMCA takedowns may also be targeting a serious vulnerability in TikTok’s content management policies.

“Sure, these DMCA takedown notices are part of UMG’s dispute with TikTok, but the goal isn’t really about scrubbing UMG’s music from TikTok,” one source relayed.

Universal Music Group has yet to offer any comment, and it’s unclear if legal filings will emerge. Separately, the parties are understood to be working through a negotiation process, though so far, those talks have yet to bear fruit.

Who owns what?

DMN Pro’s exclusive Music IP Acquisition Tracker covers every IP acquisition deal across masters, publishing, and related assets happening over multiple years. This information simply isn’t available anywhere else — subscribe now to gain access.

Meanwhile, it’s understood that UMG is not just considering, but actively preparing to take legal action within weeks, with DMCA’s repeat infringer policy a crucial part of their upcoming complaints. “They’re not just sending notices; they’re meticulously tracking TikTok’s response to users who have been the subject of multiple notices,” the source continued, while further noting that “TikTok’s inaction” about its repeat infringer issue is a significant concern.

Separately, one informant noted that ‘easily more’ than 100 million videos on TikTok are being muted. That may not include videos with modified music content, altered for fun or specifically to evade detection by UMG or TikTok.

The removal of a vast number of videos from TikTok—now in its eleventh week—has unsurprisingly initiated a wave of discontent among content creators and their audiences. Strategically, TikTok appears willing to ride out those concerns, potentially due to the prevalence of modified workarounds peppering the platform. Separately, Taylor Swift’s decision to “cross the picket line” and license TikTok also makes life easier for ByteDance.

For UMG, dropping the hammer on TikTok helps to safeguard creative assets while sending a stern message. In that context, the Taylor Swift situation—an event labeled as “a big fat disappointment” by one UMG insider—raised concerns about whether other defecting superstars could further weaken UMG’s position.

In response to the relentless takedown campaign by UMG, some content creators are turning to royalty-free music or independently published tracks to continue their work unobstructed by copyright scuffles.

More at this develops.

The approximately $542 million EU fine against Apple is reportedly set to be announced on March 5th. Photo Credit: Alexey Larionov

Earlier this month, reports suggested that the European Union was preparing to fine Apple about $542 million (€500 million) in connection with an antitrust complaint levied by Spotify. Now, the expected date of the fine’s issuance has come to light, and the iPhone developer is reportedly facing a different investigation yet.

These newest details about the EU’s regulatory actions involving Apple, which has long battled criticism from Stockholm-based Spotify over its App Store fees and policies, just recently emerged. As we recapped closer to February’s beginning, the approximately $542 million fine – which isn’t set in stone but is widely expected to be handed down – stems from a 2019 complaint from Spotify.

The Financial Times previously relayed that the European Commission intended to issue the penalty in “early March” and cite perceived infractions relating to “‘unfair trading conditions'” when doing so.

And while the Commission (the EU’s executive body) still hadn’t commented publicly on the matter at the time of this writing, Reuters has now indicated that the fine is poised to be announced on March 5th. Even with less than a week until that date, the exact amount and timing “could change” depending on the plans of officials, per the outlet.

Besides the fine, the Commission will reportedly order Apple to axe the allegedly unlawful practices at hand, which it appears will be addressed by the Digital Markets Act (DMA) next month in any event. Tech mainstays including Apple have until the 7th to comply with that law, though the specifics associated with this compliance are eliciting pushback from Spotify. Apple, for its part, has argued against the audio-entertainment giant’s qualms in the media.

Shifting to the aforementioned fresh EU investigation into Apple, the probe concerns the Cupertino-based business’s alleged decision to cut off access to certain “progressive web apps.” That refers particularly to apps accessible in web browsers after tapping the appropriate home-screen icon.

Apple has reportedly painted the move as one component of an effort to comply with the DMA; the pivot would seemingly block third-party developers from a possible means of avoiding the 30 percent App Store fee as well.

Confirming the beginning of this latest Apple inquiry, the European Commission communicated: “We are indeed looking at the compliance packages of all gatekeepers, including Apple. In that context, we’re in particular looking into the issue of progressive web apps, and can confirm sending the requests for information to Apple and to app developers, who can provide useful information for our assessment.”

Notwithstanding the recent focus on the EU’s Apple penalty and investigations, the company isn’t alone in grappling with regulatory scrutiny; TikTok is facing a Digital Services Act probe over its impact on minors, advertising transparency, and more.

DMN Pro Q1 2024: Missing Payments? A Look At Loss Prevention In Music

A comprehensive discussion on the state of music licensing, streaming fraud, metadata, and getting paid — with a panel of the foremost authorities in the music industry. Missing payments? Tune in!

• Moderator: Paul Resnikoff, Publisher of Digital Music News

Panel 1: UGC Licensing Pitfalls

• Virginie Berger – Chief Business Development and Rights Officer of MatchTune
• Alexander Baynum – Director of U.S. Operations for Exploration.io
• Ryan Born – Founder of HAAWK and Identifyy

Panel 2: Fixing The Data Debacle

• Jeff Price – Co-Founder and CEO of Word Collections
• Ryan Edwards – Founder and CEO of Audoo
• Jack Cyphers – Founder and CEO of Border Fox Consulting
• Edward Ginis- Founder and CEO of OpenPlay

Panel 3: Streaming Fraud

• Andrew Batey – Co-Founder of Beatdapp
• Abby North – President of North Music Group
• Nermina Mumic – CEO of Legitary

Photo Credit: Concord

There’s good news on the royalty accounting front, thanks to increasingly sophisticated monitoring, collection, and auditing technologies. Now, Concord has tapped Austria-based Legitary to take a closer look at their US-based streaming mechanical royalty statements.

The deal, tipped to Digital Music News this week, suggests that Concord is more seriously examining a lucrative royalty flow: mechanical licenses. According to Concord Vice President of Income Tracking Brian Buchanan, the company tapped Legitary to handle sophisticated analyses of their streaming mechanical licensing statements with an eye towards eliminating errors.

The goal is to more efficiently spot data irregularities that could be reducing royalty payments.

Buchanan has been putting Legitary’s anomaly detection capabilities to work, and using the findings to flag possible issues in streaming mechanical royalty payments. Suddenly, the auditing process has an industrial-strength solution. The Nashville-based executive pointed to ‘at-a-glance insights on our statements’ and a shift from more manual, time-consuming audits.

“Utilizing this tool, we can minimize our manual efforts while maximizing our claims,” Buchanan relayed.

It’s unclear what Concord is spotting in their statements. Earlier, Legitary CEO Nermina Mumic told Digital Music News that anomaly detection audits on streaming statements often produced unexpected results. Sometimes, ‘stream fraud’ and inflated stream counts are detected, while other times, the problem is under-counting based on tech-glitches and downtime.

Legitary has spent years developing its methodology for verifying music stream counts. By cross-comparing streaming activity between different platforms and monitoring billions of streams, Legitary can detect anything abnormal — including fake streams, bad data, missing data, or under-counting of plays.

With this latest deal involving Concord, that know-how is clearly expanding into other arenas. While streaming mechanicals are linked to stream counts on DSPs, plenty of counting problems can arise. That is, if you can spot them.

The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) has officially announced a “Supplemental Matching Network,” or, as its name suggests, an initiative designed to enhance the MLC’s royalty-matching capabilities.

The Nashville-headquartered Mechanical Licensing Collective just recently unveiled the Supplemental Matching Network, centering on partnerships with five “complementary” companies. For background, the MLC has faced considerable scrutiny, relating to a variety of topics, since its formation.

But the criticism took a different turn towards 2023’s beginning, when it emerged that the entity had accumulated a massive tranche of unmatched royalties – or the very compensation that it was designed to forward to the appropriate songwriters, publishers, and other rightsholders.

Although the MLC says its total distributions have surpassed $1.5 billion, several organizations and lawmakers have voiced questions and concerns about the sizable “Black Box” royalties at hand. Topics of particular interest include the precise amount of involved capital and, perhaps more pressingly, exactly how the payments would be distributed if they remained unmatched.

On the latter front, reports have indicated that unmatchable MLC royalties could simply be distributed to rightsholders based upon market share – a possibility that would somewhat astonishingly put huge checks in the pockets of major publishers for works they don’t own.

Enter the aforementioned Supplemental Matching Network, the five companies behind which “will provide data matching services to complement and enhance The MLC’s existing” capabilities, according to the entity.

The MLC says it chose these businesses – London-based Blokur, credits database Jaxsta (now part of the overarching Vinyl Group), Too Lost-partnered Pex, Session parent Salt, and SoundExchange’s SX Works – based upon the results of a “comprehensive selection process” that encompassed pilot programs.

“We conducted an extensive due diligence process to select the initial set of vendors for our Supplemental Matching Network,” elaborated MLC head of analytics and automation Andrew Mitchell.

“These vendors bring complementary technologies and capabilities that can be effectively leveraged to serve our members. This network reflects our ongoing commitment to evolve in innovative ways to best achieve The MLC’s mission,” concluded the Warner Music vet Mitchell.

With these “innovative ways to best” match royalties now including inviting proper businesses into the fold, the MLC has also left the door open to expand the Supplemental Matching Network moving forward.

“The MLC may adjust the scope of services in the Supplemental Matching Network as needed to meet future and evolving needs, including engaging additional vendors in the future if appropriate,” the entity spelled out.

Photo Credit: Aleksandr Popov

After partnering with Australasian music rights management organization APRA AMCOS last year, Music Recognition Technology (MRT) company Audoo has now announced an expanded rollout of its Audio Meters in the region. Audoo’s CEO reveals that the first tranche of installations in key Australian and New Zealand cities was a success — and ‘scaling is now the next step.’

DMN first reported on the initial phase of the partnership between APRA AMCOS and British MRT company Audoo in the summer of 2022. Now a year later, Audoo reveals that APRA AMCOS is committed to the tech’s early adoption. With a focus on that ambition, APRA AMCOS is significantly expanding the number of its devices installed in venues that are licensed for public performances.

Ryan Edwards, CEO of Audoo, explained that the extended rollout will exhibit a significant increase in Audio Meters being installed throughout Australia and New Zealand. “Australia is very populous around the edges, and this next phase will encompass all major cities and major metropolitan areas. We’re already dotted across the country,” Edwards relayed.

The Audoo and APRA AMCOS expansion will allow licensees to ensure that songs played in their premises are more accurately recognized, and paid for in compliance with copyright laws. Several years ago, Audoo partnered with DMN to accelerate its accuracy-focused mission.

Edwards relayed that the partnership and their Australasian model will potentially kickstart a global evolution of methodology for rights management organizations — switching from estimated public performance plays to actual play data.

For decades, the public performance royalty-collection process has been dominated by the use of proxy data and surveys. More recently, innovation-focused organizations like APRA AMCOS have sought out precise methodologies and technologies to enhance their distribution practices.

With Audoo, Edwards believes that rights management companies can implement better technologies to ensure even greater accuracy and transparency of play counts and rights holders’ payments. Focusing on that very aspect, Edwards says, “Audoo utilizes real world data to accurately digitize, streamline, and scale public performance data.”

Audio Meters allow Audoo to tune out the noise of busy public environments, and accurately recognize the music being played via ‘fingerprinting.’

Audoo’s Audio Meter is a multi-patented solution that monitors music played on commercial premises. The technology allows Audoo to tune out the noise of busy public environments, and accurately recognize the music being played via ‘fingerprinting.’ This data is then taken to Audoo’s cloud-based platform to streamline revenue disbursement for partner royalty societies. “Rights management organizations analyze this data alongside other music-use data sources. This is a complex, ongoing process,” says Edwards.

Edwards believes that public performance insights paired with global data will kickstart a new era of accuracy.

He also revealed that Audoo has already partnered with multiple rights management organizations, with more formal announcements to follow in the coming months.

According to Edwards, Audoo is uniquely placed because governments are now inquiring about the standards and quality of metadata across the music industry supply chain. “This is another step towards music modernization. We are now dealing with rights management organizations around the world and seeing different data standards and processes,” he added.

Generic insights involving most-played artists in different locations will also assist labels, publishers, managers, and organizers. By discovering which areas have the highest traction for a certain artist or music genre, Edwards says managers gain another data point to guide targeted promotions — and ultimately higher revenue. “As one example, artist tours could be planned based on higher geographical-based plays,” he relayed.

Edwards admits that this data already exists via social media and streaming numbers, but makes a case that Audoo insights are the missing puzzle piece that make data more usable and implementable. He added, “That’s what we’re plugging. We allow rights management organizations to harness data and use it.”

In July, Audoo also announced partnerships with PRS for Music and PPL for a large-scale UK rollout. Speaking about the move, Edwards said, “The take up from venues has been amazing. We’re getting into as many locations as possible.”

Organizations including Music Creators North America (MCNA), the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), and the Society of Composers and Lyricists (SCL) are entreating U.S. Representative Darrell Issa to address the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s reportedly massive tranche of unmatched/unclaimed royalties.

The mentioned organizations, besides the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance (ECSA), the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC), and several others yet, just recently expressed their concerns with the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) in a concise message to Representative Issa.

The California lawmaker serves as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, which about one month back held a hearing, “Five Years Later – The Music Modernization Act,” in Nashville.

Among those who appeared before the subcommittee as part of this hearing were MLC CEO Kris Ahrend, and predictably, covered topics included the “black box” unmatched royalties held by the MMA-created MLC. Beforehand, the MLC had refused to disclose the precise amount of undistributed creator compensation in its possession, with reports and documents suggesting that the figure could be approaching a cool $1 billion.

Notably, reports have likewise indicated that this sizable collection of royalties will ultimately be distributed to rightsholders based upon market share – meaning that leading publishers would rake in significant sums attributable to works they don’t own.

And the latter point, the signatory parties explained at the start of and throughout their letter, remains a major concern on their end. Moreover, these same organizations had hoped that their corresponding questions for Representative Issa would have been answered in more detail at the above-noted hearing, according to the text.

Expanding upon the idea, Music Creators North America and others rather directly inquired about “what incentive exists for the MLC to identify and contact the rightful owners of” due creator compensation given that its board consists “predominantly of employees of the same entities that would benefit most from the distribution of those royalties.”

“Exactly how much money is currently being held by the MLC in the ‘Black Box’ of unmatched/unclaimed royalties that will be distributed to the music publishers who control the MLC if the rightful owners have not been identified and paid when the clock runs out?” they also asked.

Meanwhile, the MLC has thus far opted against disclosing the exact numbers behind the black box, per the above-highlighted reports as well as a lengthy summary of correspondence provided in the letter.

Consequently, the entities have “strongly” urged Chairman Issa “to look deeper into this very blatant conflict of interest” and to support their call to (via an MMA amendment or a Copyright Office regulation) “hold all unclaimed royalties until and unless an average identification rate of 75% of the previously unclaimed historical royalties has been achieved and sustained and owners paid.”

At the time of this piece’s writing, the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which says it’s “accepting suggestions of songwriter candidates for its” board, didn’t appear to have responded publicly to the letter.

Auckland, New Zealand, one of the cities where Audoo has deployed its Audio Meter. Photo Credit: Dan Freeman

Despite the widespread availability of detailed music consumption figures, royalties attributable to public usages have long been distributed based upon extrapolated data. And without precise play counts from the many bars, restaurants, stadiums, stores, and malls that operate around the globe, it’s difficult to tell what’s actually playing – a potentially glaring unknown when stream totals require only seconds to identify.

Perhaps international superstars like Celine Dion and Mariah Carey are in fact garnering the lion’s share of public plays today. Or, perhaps a slew of 90s grunge bands are being massively undercounted in specific countries, cities, or establishments.

There are also perplexing cross-territorial questions: artists based outside Europe, for instance, could be in heavy rotation in France and have no idea under the current system.

So what’s the solution to this quandary? Bucking a long legacy of rough reporting estimates is Audoo, a company working to optimize performance royalties with a simple device called the “Audio Meter.” Designed to monitor and identify (via digital-fingerprinting technology) all public plays, the Audio Meter is already being used in establishments from restaurants to shopping malls, according to the London-headquartered company. Audoo has been collaborating with DMN to further expand Audio Meter adoption and more accurately count public plays.

“Installing an Audio Meter in venues is just a matter of plug, play, set, and forget,” Matthew Fackrell, Audoo’s SVP and GM for the Asia-Pacific region, told Digital Music News. “Our Asia-Pacific rollout, which started in Australia and New Zealand across gyms, retail, dance studios, cafes, restaurants, and bars, has been really positively received.

“We’ve obtained the largest set of public performance data ever created, now surpassing millions of reports every quarter and bringing to life our mission of revolutionizing performance royalties through accurate play totals,” continued Fackrell. “We’re also making best-practice reporting easy for individual venues, which ultimately benefits performance rights and collective management organizations.”

With time, the Audio Meter could establish exact figures as the foundation of public play accounting. And along the way, more than a few musicians may learn that their work is entertaining a sizable number of fans in far-flung parts of the world – a possibility that’s not without historical precedent. 

The documentary Searching for Sugar Man introduced viewers to Rodriguez, a singer-songwriter who famously flew under the radar for decades starting in the 1970s. Unbeknownst to the Detroit native, his work had for years been making waves in South Africa. It’s estimated that Rodriguez has sold more albums in the nation than Elvis, but before the film, the artist had been unaware of his significant listenership figures.

These days, the odds of encountering a situation of a similar scope are exceedingly low. But the fact remains that lesser-known acts frequently go unnoticed – and potentially miss out on public play compensation. Without precise play counting, it’s impossible to know.

More broadly, for indie artists, smaller IP owners, and others without strong representation, global PRO connections, or proper metadata, the implications of undercounted plays extend well beyond royalties. Utilizing the insights associated with accurate performance data, musicians and rightsholders can better plan tours, promotional initiatives, and different career endeavors yet.

A musician with a UK top 10 song to his credit, Audoo founder and CEO Ryan Edwards has personally experienced the frustration of undercounted plays. 

And this firsthand understanding prompted him to create Audoo and help the industry put its payment problems in the rearview.

“Experiencing this frustration as a musician,” Edwards told DMN, “I delved into the wider ecosystem, looking to find a solution within public performance distribution with music royalties. The Audoo mission is simple: to have all songwriters and artists receive more accurate compensation with the most optimized data and transparent reporting.”

PROs are taking note. July of 2022 saw Audoo ink a song-detection agreement with Australian PRO APRA AMCOS, under which OneMusic-licensed businesses in Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, and Auckland were equipped with Audio Meters. Evidence suggests that the pact will deliver potentially game-changing stats and payments while simultaneously laying the groundwork for a wider expansion.

Aside from clear-cut advantages on the data and compensation fronts, PROs as well as participating businesses and establishments are also benefiting from the Audio Meter’s simplicity and ease of use, Audoo told DMN. 

The Audio Meter takes just minutes to set up in any standard outlet and, by eliminating manual-reporting requirements, removes human error (including inadvertent omissions) from the equation. For business owners, the Audio Meter is likewise an important step on the multifaceted road to guaranteeing that royalties end up with those who actually created their patrons’ preferred music.

And with the tool’s growing prevalence, future consumption data appears positioned to become increasingly precise and accurate – ushering in potential upsides for both indies and key players.

As highlighted, for smaller rightsholders and acts without massive global followings, the perks of knowing about (and being compensated for) each public song usage go without saying. Tech-centered approaches to monitoring radio have in the past pinpointed indie plays that had fallen through the cracks.

But the industry’s biggest names and most popular tracks also stand to gain from a pivot to hard numbers and concrete data, including when it comes to understanding core listening trends and assuring that all the usages of today’s top songs are being counted.

Ultimately, making empirical stats the foundation of public play calculations is a matter of bringing fairness and accuracy to the forefront of the industry in the long run, regardless of where the cards fall in the short term.  

In an era where physical sales are tracked down to the unit and stream totals reveal exact personal-consumption habits in real time, proper performance tracking may be sorely overdue. That’s a memo being received by PROs and CMOs across multiple continents, with major upgrades and partnerships likely to emerge over the next few quarters.

“The Audoo mission has attracted support from a number of industry peers who believe it will change the landscape in this sector,” Edwards told us. “There are some influential investors too, including music and business icon Björn Ulvaeus, who believes our product ‘will change the music industry forever.’ We’re excited to demonstrate this to more music fans, players, creators, and executives.”

Photo Credit: Javier Miranda

Just a day before the June 13th trial for the now-infamous YouTube Content ID lawsuit, Grammy-winning composer Maria Schneider has officially stepped back. After failing to secure the much-talked-about class-action status, the war is over and the case has been voluntarily dismissed.

In a strange turn of events, YouTube and Schneider said in a joint court filing that they agreed to end the case ‘with prejudice,’ which means that the case cannot be refiled.

Grammy-winning jazz composer Maria Schneider had sued YouTube back in 2020, accusing the leading video-sharing platform of structurally permitting infringement of some of her works. Schneider’s lawsuit claimed that YouTube ‘limits access to Content ID’ for ‘ordinary’ copyright owners like her, allegedly enabling piracy and events of repeat infringement. Meanwhile, production houses and labels can access the system’s advanced features — safeguarding their content from infringement.

YouTube had vehemently denied the allegations, saying it goes ‘above and beyond’ to protect copyrights, adding that its copyright management tools are so powerful they ‘must be used with care.’

On major content-sharing platforms, savvy creators typically prioritize monetization over the accumulation of users and fans. With a focus on this aspect, companies like Identifyy (owned by HAAWK) are assisting creators in successfully matching and monetizing their content on sub-platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube — all by leveraging the capabilities of Content ID.

While Schneider’s lawsuit initially appeared to many as the turning point that would forever alter the copyright infringement landscape — and YouTube — the climax has been quite the buzzkill.

During the last few weeks, a series of smaller wins for YouTube quickly turned the tables. The death blow to Schneider’s lawsuit occurred last month when Judge Donato denied the plaintiffs’ request for class action status, noting that “Every copyright claim is subject to defenses that require their own individualized inquiries.”

With the June 13th trial date looming, Schneider’s legal team made another attempt to attain class-action status, appealing to the Ninth Circuit to halt court proceedings while Donato’s ‘erroneous’ ruling was theoretically overturned.

This last-minute leap for class-action certification has spelled suicide for the lawsuit, leading to Schneider retreating from battle.

The joint filing dated June 11th states, ‘Plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC, and AST Publishing, LTD, and Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the action. All claims that Plaintiffs raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Each Party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.’

Photo Credit: Gerd Altmann

The YouTube lawsuit that originally had creators on the edge of their seats is now losing its glamor. Plaintiff Maria Schneider, a Grammy-winning jazz musician, now faces the prospect of trying a case that will do little to move the needle on Content ID.

With mere days until the June 12 trial, Schneider is making one more desperate attempt to certify the case for class action status. Schneider’s legal team has appealed to the Ninth Circuit for case proceedings to be paused until their appeal against Judge Donato’s May ruling is heard.

Maria Schneider’s Content ID lawsuit came into the spotlight last year, appearing to be the savior that could redefine the copyright infringement landscape. But to the despair of many, the case has progressed quite disappointingly. YouTube seems to be emerging unscathed, and creators’ dreams of universal access to Content ID might remain just that — a dream.

When Schneider’s team first requested class-action status, they stated it would include 10,000 — 20,000 claimants. But Judge Ronald Donato ruled that “Copyright claims are poor candidates for class-action treatment.”

Schneider’s legal team believes this ruling was “erroneous” and should be overturned. They are now requesting the Ninth Circuit to halt the upcoming court proceedings until a decision is reached regarding the class action certification.

If the lawsuit proceeds as scheduled on June 12, and the district court’s ruling against class certification is not reversed, Schneider’s lawyers argue that the plaintiffs will be forced to make individual claims. According to them, this will result in significant costs associated with duplicate trials.

Schneider and other plaintiffs argue that YouTube does not adequately assist independent creators in preventing the unauthorized distribution of their content on the platform.

The lawsuit alleges that while YouTube’s Content ID is a sophisticated rights management system, it is only accessible to large copyright-holding companies. Meanwhile, independent creators must manually monitor and manage the unlicensed use of their content. Plaintiffs allege that the manual system provided by YouTube is flawed, implying that the Google-owned company fails to fulfill its obligations under copyright law to prevent infringement of works on its platform.

Unless Schneider’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit comes to fruition, the lawsuit’s original ambition of forcing YouTube to offer universal access to the Content ID management system, seems highly unlikely.

A sobering chat on AI at CRS (l to r): Rahul Sabnis (EVP, Chief Creative Officer, iHeartMedia), Sean Peace (Founder & CEO of SongVest), David Boehme (CEO, VBO Tickets), Zach Bair (CEO, VNUE), Chris McMurtry (VP at Pex & Head of RME), and Noah Itman (Chief Revenue Officer, Digital Music News) (Photo Credit: CRS)

The music industry, understandably, is deeply concerned about AI’s impact on creativity — and the jobs and companies that could be eliminated in the process. But take a closer look, and the AI picture is far more complicated, with different use cases, applications, and approaches that could prove beneficial to the business. As the discussions ensue, two very distinct types of AI music creation are coming into focus: Assistive AI and Generative AI.

One of the more interesting nuances coming out of the AI debate in music is the emergence of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ applications and outcomes. It all depends on the individual perspective, but the ‘evil’ might include Generative AI — AI that’s replacing songwriters by writing lyrics from scratch and creating scores of royalty-free music that’s supposedly ‘new.’ On the flip side, Assistive AI is increasingly being cast as a ‘good’ and helpful creative tool.

Regardless of the type, AI-generated content doesn’t exactly appear from thin air. Instead, AI is great at cribbing content from thousands of successful artists and songwriters. Earlier this month, Universal Music Group put its foot down by demanding that DSPs remove Generative AI content drawing from its catalog. Moments later, UMG was putting the squeeze on YouTube, Spotify, TikTok, and others to rip down a viral ‘collaboration’ between Drake and The Weeknd, just one of several Drake-inspired AI songs to surface.

But what is ‘Assistive AI,’ and why is it arguably ‘good’? 

In a nutshell, Assistive AI applications allow enhanced musician creativity and collaboration, including the ability to quickly master songs to perfection. There are also rising applications like AI-powered sync mapping that could potentially bump the value of music IP assets by remonetizing old gems via sync opportunities.

There are early indications that artists are utilizing Assistive AI to augment their creative production processes, with generally positive takeaways.  But Assistive AI is also controversial: for example, finishing a lyric with AI is a creative accelerant. But what was the source material for the eloquent additions that rhymed?

Digital Music News recently delved into the fast-emerging AI discussion by interviewing multiple leading experts in the field at CRS in Nashville. 

DMN’s Noah Itman hosted the packed panel, which led to some thought-provoking perspectives about the bigger price we pay for using AI — and its broader, longer-term implications for the music industry.

While AI offers the magic of ‘creating something from nothing,’ AI also holds the power to put artists out of work. But does AI’s lack of emotion put it at a disadvantage?

Companies like CAA have announced broad-scale agreements with virtual talent, and Itman posed the question of whether a move like that is ethically acceptable. At a certain point, a scary question could emerge: what’s the incentive to continue working with human artists?

Chris McMurtry, VP of Product and Head of RME at PEX, noted that AI could ultimately fail to create music like humans, simply because all of its inputs are the products of human creativity. “A machine will react to what you tell it,” he said.

Zach Bair, CEO of VNUE

Zach Bair, CEO of VNUE agreed that even though AI is developing faster than anyone expected, “There’s no substitute for humanity and heart that goes into songwriting.”

Of course, there’s only so much that can be outsourced to a machine when discussing an emotional product. But AI’s true capability of interfering in music production processes, and influencing the royalties it generates for millions of artists, is only just beginning.

Recently, Ditto Music surveyed 1,299 independent artists that are actively releasing music in 2023. Surprisingly, the survey showed that 60% of musicians are already using AI to make music. Dig deeper, and the data gets more interesting.

A mere 28.5% said they would never use AI, though the reasons had absolutely nothing to do with not trusting artificial intelligence. In fact, the top two reasons for not using AI were a lack of access to AI tools and a lack of time.

These numbers paint the picture of broader AI adoption, and potentially greater creative output and positive benefits. But the broader AI future remains highly unpredictable.

“Attribution is the biggest challenge,” Rahul Sabnis, CCO at iHeartMedia,

Rahul Sabnis, CCO at iHeartMedia, suggests taking cautious steps with AI tools. Even in the past non-AI world, the collective music industry failed to regulate music rights effectively, and it won’t be easy in the AI world. “The [AI] genie’s out of the bottle. I’m very curious how fast this sweeps through, because it’s a wildfire coming that is about to hyper-accelerate the ability for us to do things.”

But if AI is drawing from this vast pool of music and there’s a way to fingerprint those resources, can this pave the way for artists to receive compensation for the music that’s ‘inspiring’ AI? 

According to McMurtry, fingerprinting could be the solution, as it can point to the original rights holder that inspired AI. “Essentially, you can train AI to recognize itself.”

For Assistive AI that augments artists’ skill and expertise, Bair is optimistic that copyright laws will protect artists royalties from getting stolen by AI. “Imperative changes need to take place in our music royalty system.”

While the Assistive AI train is garnering support, Generative AI is rapidly becoming problematic. When AI generates royalty-free music, with no expiry of ownership and an inability to be copywritten, Bair believes compliance gets too complicated.

With Generative AI pumping out royalty-free music in bulk, it becomes challenging to trace it back to true rights holders. “Producers and developers of that original content will have to be compensated in some manner,” Bair argued, “Because there are 100-year old copyright laws at play. At the end of the day, it’s going to have to be a legislative solution, combined with a tech solution.”

It’s also worth noting that Generative AI has its eventual limits. At some point, AI ‘creativity’ starts feeding upon itself, creating a ouroboros of bland output. Sean Peace, founder and CEO of SongVest, says that AI is only as smart as what it has heard. “AI is taking bits and pieces of existing things and mashing them up. But from a legal standpoint, the copyright does get complicated.”

But how does a system compensate the potentially thousands of creators that were sourced by the AI itself to create something ‘new?’

Peace thinks that lawyers will have a field day trying to figure that out. “It’s an interesting conundrum, because AI created it, but humans gave it the input to create it.”

And in case you wanted something more complicated: Peace also believes that in the current climate of lack of regulation and legislation, “The software developer could very well be able to put a claim on the copyright.”

More questions than answers continue to surround the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) as both royalty payouts and unallocated ‘black box’ holding accounts reach astronomical levels.

The Mechanical Licensing Collective, or MLC, is now trumpeting cumulative payouts of more than $1 billion to songwriters, publishers, and other compositional IP owners since its formal inception in 2020. That heady payout, however, is being rivaled by unallocated ‘black box’ royalty accounts that may also be approaching the $1 billion threshold.

Details of the $1 billion payout threshold, which the MLC has described as properly collected and paid to rights owners, emerged this morning (February 27th). But the organization did not disclose dollar figures related to its unallocated ‘black box’ accounts, and executives have repeatedly declined any comment to Digital Music News on the matter.

Earlier this month, MLC tax filings shared with Digital Music News revealed an ‘unmatched royalties’ account topping at least $521 million in 2021 alone, with similarly-labeled line items potentially placing total black box royalties held by the organization at more than $700 million.

In the filing, large tranches of unmatched funds were sprinkled across several accounts, each with vague identifiers. Per the “Other Liabilities” section of a nearly 30-page-long IRS filing for 2021, “Unmatched Royalties” totaled $561,773,734 at 2021’s end. But the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s “Funds on Account” tipped $109,611,436 in 2021, the filing indicated, alongside $46,546,630 worth of “Royalty Liabilities.” The various accounts suggested a possible unallocated ‘black box’ total of nearly $718 million for 2021 alone, a substantial increase over 2020-level holdings.

Executives at the Mechanical Licensing Collective have repeatedly declined to offer additional information on unmatched totals.

MLC chief executive Kris Ahrend has declined multiple requests by Digital Music News to clarify the specific black box amounts held by the organization. Also declining comment is chief marketing officer Ellen Truley, who initially offered to explain the amounts but has since declined to offer any information. According to one source close to the operations of the MLC, Ahrend receives an estimated annual compensation package of nearly $1 million.

The enormous fund totals, held in MLC accounts and not paid to any rights owners, raise serious questions about inefficiencies and bloat at the organization. In 2021, the group revealed that it had ‘ingested’ approximately $424 million in unmatched mechanical royalties, though those totals appear to be ballooning. The initial tranche of unmatched funds were funneled from a range of streaming and online music partners, whose mechanical payment obligations were redirected through the MLC.

The tranche of unmatched funds also raises questions about the MLC’s ability to properly license, collect, match, and remunerate rights owners for mechanical licenses across platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music. The organization was founded in 2020 following the passage of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), which received rare unanimous votes in both the House of Representatives and Senate before being signed by then-President Trump.

Another sticky question relates to the interest revenue being generated from the massive, unmatched ‘black box’ tranche.

In the current high-inflationary economic environment, cash accounts can readily accrue annual payouts in the 3.5-4% range, if not higher, with liquidity levels of 100% possible. A theoretical tranche of $1 billion in unmatched, unpaid royalties would amount to a single-year payout of roughly $40 million. The MLC has not offered any details on accrued interest profits, including the possibility of redistributions back to platforms like Spotify, rights owners, or the MLC itself.

Questions also surround the deadlines for matching funds and what happens to amounts deemed permanently ‘unmatchable.’ According to the current protocol described to DMN, existing rights owners would receive a portion of unmatched totals based on current market share totals. That would result in significant payouts to the largest music publishers, albeit from catalogs they do not own.

Pictured at the 65th Annual Grammy Awards in Los Angeles on February 5th, 2023 (l to r): Peter Leathem OBE, CEO of PPL; Gebre Waddell, CEO & Founder of Sound Credit; and Tim Smith, Bee Partners (Photo Credit: Sound Credit)

A just-signed Sound Credit-PPL partnership will now allow North American performers to better collect international royalties from a range of neighboring rights. Music rights holders can now increase their payouts from music played overseas in public (shops, bars, nightclubs) or broadcast (TV, radio, and some online streaming services).

The black box got a bit smaller this week, thanks to a cross-Atlantic partnership aimed at identifying and matching more music royalties to creators. Sound Credit and PPL have joined forces to bring international royalties to Sound Credit users based in North America. Both companies have been on a mission to provide comprehensive solutions for royalties via accuracy of metadata — and the infrastructure to support it all.

Since its launch in 2017, Sound Credit has become a powerhouse of metadata sharing and collection, amassing more than 15,000 users who are now cashing bigger and better royalty payouts. Labels, publishers, administrators, and independent artists rely on Sound Credit’s decentralized cloud-based architecture because it allows metadata capture at the place of origin, so more artists can be connected to royalties from the start of a project. DMN recently joined forces with Sound Credit to further expand metadata ingestion and resulting royalty collection.

Now, Sound Credit’s North American users can access PPL’s expertise in international collections of neighboring rights royalties. PPL currently represents over 100,000 performers and record labels, including the likes of John Legend, Anderson .Paak, and Rita Ora.

PPL reports that it collected $301.6 million in global royalties for 165,000 performers and recording rights holders in 2022. These payouts marked an impressive 7.1% increase in royalty collections compared to 2021, with payments made directly to PPL members or to non-members via various collective management organizations (CMOs) working with the company.

Neighboring rights, sometimes called ‘related rights,’ can be tricky to capture. Songs frequently have multiple rights owners, particularly across the recording and publishing components of a work. Threading those rights, even across the same song, has proven complex and a source of significant unrecognized royalties.

Terms of the deal were finalized in the run-up to the Grammys in Los Angeles, with Sound Credit structuring the deal via its sister brand Soundways.

Speaking to Digital Music News about the Sound Credit-Soundways-PPL partnership, Sound Credit CEO Gebre Waddell said, “We are thrilled to be working with PPL to provide our community in North America access to PPL’s expertise in the international collection of neighboring rights royalties. Our partnership will help ensure that artists and rights holders are properly compensated for their work, and that the process of collecting and distributing neighboring rights royalties is as smooth as possible.”

Photo Credit: @ppl_uk/Instagram

CEO of PPL, Peter Leathem OBE, also spoke about the partnership, saying, “We are aligned in our ambition to improve data quality across the global music industry, and have been impressed by the suite of services offered by Sound Credit to support the music community. I am delighted that we will be further developing our relationship with Sound Credit to provide neighboring rights international collections for performers that work with them. This agreement is the next logical step in working together to ensure performers and recording rights holders get paid swiftly and accurately for the use of their music around the world.”

The two companies have collaborated since 2019 to improve accuracy of performer data on recordings, and ensure quicker royalty payouts via Sound Credit’s ecosystem. Sound Credit’s North American performers can also opt to give PPL their metadata and recording information, so it can be shared and distributed throughout the music industry supply chain.

Following the partnership announcement, Sound Credit also revealed a $30 million advance facility that provides artists and industry professionals the resources they need to manage neighboring rights royalties.

This industry-leading chunk of money will provide artists monetary advances on future expected earnings, which can then be used to cover expenses or investments in new projects.

Sound Credit has always aimed to connect more artists to lost royalties, and this partnership with PPL appears to be another step in that direction. With a desktop app, two mobile apps, and metadata collection kiosks, Sound Credit has managed to create a network of over 150 major music organizations, with the aim of streamlining complicated processes for the broader music industry.

Photo Credit: EU Audiovisual Service

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew met with EU officials to discuss privacy concerns and child safety protections.

The European lawmakers asked the TikTok chief several questions focused on its preparation for EU rules focused on content governance and safety. EU commissioners also discussed child safety on the platform, the spread of Russian disinformation, and the transparency of any paid political content. TikTok will face even more scrutiny from the European Commission itself if it falls under the ‘gatekeeper’ criteria laid out in the Digital Markets Act.

“The objective of the meeting with TikTok was to review how the company is preparing for complying with its obligations under the European Commissions regulation, namely the Digital Services Act (DSA) and possibly under the Digital Markets Act (DMA),” The European Commission’s statement about the meeting reads. 

“At the meeting the parties also discussed GDPR and matters of privacy and data transfer obligations with a reference to the recent press reporting on aggressive data harvesting and surveillance in the US,” the statement concludes. 

More than 22 state governments in the United States have banded together to ban TikTok on government devices. That’s because the app can harvest data to build a profile on users. That information then has the possibility to be shared with the Chinese government, due to current CCP laws. 

On December 23, TikTok parent company ByteDance admitted to accessing the data of two journalists on the platform. ByteDance says it was in an effort to track down company leaks, but the news has sparked more security concerns about ByteDance employees in China accessing U.S. data. The data accessed included IP addresses–which reveal a person’s general location. 

The first results of an investigation into TikTok’s transfer of European data to China is expected in early 2023. Ireland’s Data Protection Commission is responsible for TikTok’s compliance with EU privacy rules–the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). TikTok’s European Head of Privacy, Elaine Fox, admitted in November 2022 that European data can be accessed by employees in China. The data is stored in the United States and Singapore. 

Several buildings on the University of Oklahoma campus. Photo Credit: Nicholas Benson

After a number of states prohibited government employees from using TikTok due to security concerns – and as Congress weighs a similar measure at the federal level – public universities are now outlawing the highly controversial app.

This latest step to curb the prevalence of the ever-popular TikTok, which is owned and operated by Beijing-headquartered ByteDance, arrives amid ample stateside scrutiny of the platform’s user-data policies and alleged threat to under-18 users.

In brief, after years of far-reaching criticism of TikTok in the U.S. and abroad, states including but not limited to South Dakota, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia have since late November barred employees from using the service, citing data concerns.

Additionally, 15 state attorneys general recently signed a letter calling on Google and Apple to raise the app’s age rating in their respective stores, while the state of Indiana is suing both ByteDance and TikTok for allegedly flouting “Indiana’s consumer protections by misleading and deceiving parents about the safety and appropriateness of its application for young users.”

On the global stage, Jordan has joined India in banning TikTok (albeit temporarily, unlike India’s permanent ban), and newly introduced legislation, the ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act, would outlaw the app in the States.

As it stands, though, faint-hearted lawmakers have instead rallied around the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, which unanimously passed a Senate vote and has found its way into the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill.

And now, as mentioned at the outset, multiple universities are complying with their states’ orders to ban TikTok and taking preliminary steps to shield themselves from the alleged security threat posed by the app, which has been criticized by the FCC and the FBI.

The University of Oklahoma’s chief information officer informed students and faculty of the development in a brief note earlier this month, making clear that TikTok will be inaccessible via the school’s Wi-Fi networks and that any official OU accounts will be deleted.

“In compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2022-33, effective immediately, no University employee or student shall access the TikTok application or website on University-owned or operated devices, including OU wired and wireless networks,” the message reads, according to regional outlets.

“As a result of the Executive Order, access to the TikTok platform will be blocked and cannot be accessed from the campus network. University-administered TikTok accounts must be deleted and alternate social media platforms utilized in their place.”

It’s unclear exactly when the measure will go into effect, particularly in terms of prohibiting the use of TikTok on the public university’s internet; at the time of this writing, a University of Oklahoma TikTok profile, billed as the “official” account, was still live.

In any event, local outlets have also reported that Alabama’s Auburn University has likewise banned TikTok on its Wi-Fi networks and employee devices. And according to CNN, the 26 schools that comprise the University System of Georgia are reportedly preparing to take a similar step.

Against the backdrop of these on-campus TikTok bans – which won’t prevent students from accessing the app on their own devices and networks but could prompt a pivot to extremely similar competitors such as Triller, YouTube Shorts, and Instagram Reels – ByteDance has reportedly admitted that its employees improperly accessed user data.

According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal, ByteDance specifically acknowledged “that its employees improperly accessed the user data of two journalists on the social media service.”

Photo Credit: Stephen Poore

Virginia joins the growing list of U.S. states that have banned TikTok for government officials.

“TikTok and WeChat data are a channel to the Chinese Communist Party, and their continued presence represents a threat to national security, the intelligence community, and the personal privacy of every single American,” Glenn Youngkin said in a statement on Friday announcing the ban.

The U.S. Senate approved a bill that would ban TikTok on devices used by federal agencies. Meanwhile, several governors of states have issued their own bans on government officials. States that have banned TikTok include Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, Maryland, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Nebraska. 

Even FBI Director Christopher Wray has raised concerns with lawmakers that the app could be used to control users’ devices. Several branches of the U.S. military took action against the app, including the Navy, Army, and Air Force. Meanwhile, Florida Senator Marco Rubio is seeking a bipartisan effort to ban TikTok outright that originates in any country of concern – a list that includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. 

On Friday, the nation Jordan announced it would impose a ‘temporary ban’ on TikTok following protests that killed a police officer. Truck drivers in the country launched a strike last week to protest high fuel prices. As clashes erupted across the country, police used tear gas to disperse the protestors.

Videos of this action flooded the social media network, prompting Jordan’s Public Security Directorate to issue a ban on the app for “failing to deal with publications inciting violence and disorder.” It’s unclear how long the ban on TikTok will last in the country.

In 2021, India permanently banned TikTok and 58 other Chinese-owned apps from operating within its borders. Some of the apps caught up in that ban include TikTok, WeChat, and UC Browser. The Indian government said it was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the companies on their position for “compliance with privacy and security requirements.”

Photo Credit: Daniel Romero

iHeartMedia and Google have settled a lawsuit with the FTC and seven states over deceptive advertising of its Pixel 4 smartphones.

The lawsuit claims that Google paid radio hosts to read endorsements for the Pixel 4 phone–despite not using the phone. Google allegedly paid more than $2.6 million to iHeartRadio and $2 million to smaller radio networks for the deceptive advertising featuring the Pixel 4 phone.

According to the complaint, Google provided a script for radio hosts to read about the phone. “The only thing I love more than taking the perfect photo? Taking the perfect photo at night,” reads another script. “I’ve been taking studio-like photos of everything,” reads another.

The FTC says for the ‘majority’ of the Pixel 4 ads that aired on the iHeartMedia network, none of the hosts were given Pixel 4 devices before the spots were recorded. iHeartMedia asked Google to deliver the phones ahead of recording in October 2019 and again in 2020 after Google requested more ads. The FTC says nearly 29,000 deceptive ads were aired in 2019 and 2020.

The proposed FTC orders and the state judgments settling the allegations bar Google and iHeartMedia from similar misrepresentations in the future. The state judgments also require both companies to pay $9.4 million in penalties.

“Google and iHeartMedia paid influencers to promote products they never used, showing a blatant disrespect for truth-in-advertising rules,” says Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine. “The FTC will not stop working with our partners in the states to crack down on deceptive ads and ensure firms that break the rules pay a price.”

“It is common sense that people put more stock in first-hand experiences,” adds Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. “Consumers expect radio advertisements to be truthful and transparent about products, not misleading with fake endorsements. Today’s settlement holds Google and iHeartMedia accountable for this deceptive ad campaign and ensures compliance with state and federal law moving forward.”

iHeartMedia has not responded to requests for comments about the settlement.

Photo Credit: Tunedly (Chris Erhardt and Mylène Besançon)

Blockchain technology is rapidly evolving with new use cases. Supply chain tracking and tracing, compliance auditing, and simplified payment processing are all some of the applications for which the technology is being adopted. Now Tunedly aims to disrupt the music industry by introducing blockchain-fueled reward mechanisms to help encourage user engagement.

The following was created in collaboration with Tunedly, a company DMN is proud to be partnered with.

The technology has drawn the attention of artists, publishers, agencies, managers, and more, all in efforts to develop new revenue models. Blockchain technology can help redefine the rights and royalties process, ensuring that everyone in the music industry’s complex value chain gets paid fairly. To that wit, Tunedly is introducing its new TunedCoin project. The project aims to offer TunedCoins and distinctive music NFTs as a reward for music consumers. These rewards can also be used to get access to exclusive events and royalties with their favorite musicians.

Musicians and music managers started Tunedly in 2016 to remove the barriers to entry into the music industry. It provides a live collaboration music production and publishing solution for anyone. Tunedly helps decentralize the music industry by lighting the way for independent artists through its commitment to helping songwriters and other music creators get connected with world-class session musicians for professional music production and music publishing. 

After becoming a market leader in the specialty of music creation, Tunedly branched out into music publishing and then into music discovery in an effort to improve the fairness and transparency of the A&R process. Through the TunedCoin project, Tunedly aims to enable music consumers to vote once a day for a song they believe should be signed. Listeners get rewarded by earning TunedCoins and NFTs as well as a share of future royalties.

How TunedCoins and Tuned NFTs Work

The Tunedly ecosystem is an example of how blockchain technology, non-fungible tokens, and decentralized finance could revolutionize the music industry. First budding artists get discovered on Tunedly by uploading their music on the Tunedly Music Discovery app.

After uploading the song, Tunedly will feature music from new artists next to songs from established artists with no branding to eliminate bias. After this, music listeners can upvote their favorite songs based only on music–no references to the artist’s name or other identifying info. 

Top songs upvoted by the Tunedly community get a publishing offer, and TunedCoin is allocated along with a signing bonus. When the company signs a song listeners gave a star to, the listeners get rewarded by earning TunedCoins and NFTs.

What is TunedCoin? (TUC)

TunedCoin (TUC) is the utility token for the Tunedly Ecosystem. The token is built on top of the Polygon blockchain, which is a second-layer Ethereum smart chain. TunedCoins will be limited to a total number of 21,000,000 (21 million). 

Tunedly says TunedCoin will be a versatile token that prioritizes users of the ecosystem, and use cases for TUC will grow as the platform receives continuous development and updates. The TunedCoin is scheduled to ICO in Q2 2023. Prior to the official ICO, music listeners can acquire TunedCoin by listening to music at the Tunedly Music Discovery app. 

Tunedly says it also plans to distribute royalties to NFT holders of the songs with music listeners. The company will share the royalties of songs signed to publishing deals with users of the music discovery platform, setting aside 50% of its net royalty income of a particular song and pay out that amount proportionally to holders of that song’s NFT, proportionally to the NFT holder’s TunedCoin holdings. In order to make use of the royalty share utility of TunedCoin, a user must own an NFT of a royalty-generating song and TunedCoins both.

Tunedly says it plans to pay close attention to customer feedback to understand their evolving demands as it develops this new system. It hopes the TunedCoin project will be at the cornerstone of disrupting the music industry and the way exclusive content is consumed and distributed.

Photo Credit: Spotify

A new report says Spotify is facing issues getting Apple to approve an App Store update featuring audiobooks.

The New York Times reports that Spotify’s latest update has been rejected at least three times. Apple says it’s because Spotify’s new audiobooks offering breaks the rules governing how developers may communicate with customers about online purchases. Spotify says this is just another example–similar to the 30% App Tax–that hampers competing services like itself.

Spotify says it included its legal team in the product development for its audiobook offering, specifically to deal with Apple. It also tapped former start-up founder Nir Zicherman to help spearhead that effort. But according to the Times, Apple chased Spotify around the table.

“Apple initially approved the new feature in Spotify’s existing app before later reversing course, sending Spotify into what it considered to be a Kafkaesque world where Apple simultaneously told the audio company that it could send customers emails about online purchases but couldn’t provide a button inside its app to request those emails,” reads the report. “After a series of rejections, Spotify said that Apple on Tuesday approved a version of its app with the audiobook experience.”

The difference here is how both Apple and Google handled the Spotify audiobooks update. Spotify’s update on Google Play went seamlessly, allowing listeners to click a button inside the app to receive an email about how to purchase audiobooks online. An Apple spokesperson told the Times that it had no objections to Spotify adding audiobooks.

“We provided them with clear guidance on how to resolve the issue, and approved their app after they made changes that brought it into compliance,” the spokesperson told the times. Spotify’s compliance team called those guidelines effectively hurdles that had to be worked around.

Spotify’s solution on iOS appears to remove information about how to purchase an audiobook from the Spotify website. Now the message tells users there is no way to purchase audiobooks from inside the app. “We know it’s not ideal,” the message reads.

Photo Credit: Bill Oxford

Earlier this month, leading music publishers and streaming giants including Spotify released an unredacted version of their Phonorecords IV settlement. But songwriter organizations then called for the disclosure of any “side” agreements, and the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has now ordered the parties to shed light upon deals related to (but not included in) the core settlement.

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge David P. Shaw just recently filed the order, which arrives about two months after the streaming platforms and the publishers announced that they had reached an agreement for the Phonorecords IV proceeding. In brief, the proposed deal would, among other things, slightly raise songwriter and publisher royalty rates from on-demand streaming services for the 2023-2027 period.

That the quickly negotiated pact would increase the royalty rate (to a headline rate of 15.35 percent) is significant, for the same entities that hammered out the compromise had for years battled over the Phonorecords III proceeding and its 43.8 percent rate hike.

Notwithstanding the Phonorecords IV rate increase, though, organizations such as Music Creators North America (MCNA) and individuals including songwriter (and longtime mechanical-rate critic) George Johnson promptly demanded transparency regarding the precise terms of the deal and those of any adjacent contracts.

MCNA likewise took issue with a “joint notice of lodging” submitted by Google and the NMPA after the Copyright Royalty Board in late September ordered the settling parties to confirm “that there are no other related agreements and no other clauses” behind the Phonorecords IV deal.

“However, the Joint Response and the Joint Submission do not completely and adequately respond to Order 63,” Judge Shaw wrote of the previously highlighted disclosure of the unredacted settlement agreement. “The Judges note that Order 63 directed all Settling Parties to certify that there are no other related agreements or clauses beyond the Motion and Proposed Regulations annexed to the Motion, and that if any such other agreements or clauses exist, the Settling Parties shall “file” them within the aforementioned deadline.”

And before diving into the details associated with these mandatory filings, Judge Shaw made clear that he and the two other CRB judges “will not be moving forward with the procedures for adoption of statutory rates and terms set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 801(b)(7)(A) unless and until they understand that they have the full production and disclosure of the agreement of the Settling Parties that is proposed as a basis for such statutory rates and terms, and full compliance with Order 63 and this order.”

The body of the firmly worded latest order, for its part, compels the streaming services and the publishing companies to “file (not ‘lodge’) any supplemental written agreements…that represent consideration for, or are contractually related to, the Settlement referenced in the Motion.”

Not stopping at “supplemental written agreements,” however, the order also requires the entities to forward “a detailed description of any supplemental oral agreements” relating to the Phonorecords IV deal, besides “a certification or certifications from a person or persons with first-hand knowledge stating that there are no other agreements, written or oral, beyond the Settlement” and the agreements forwarded under the order itself.

In closing, Judge Shaw ordered the recipients to “explain in a supplemental brief why the remaining restricted portions of the Joint Response, apart from Exhibit A, from which the Restricted designation has been removed, would, if disclosed, interfere with the ability of the Producer to obtain like information in the future.”

The entities in question have until Thursday, October 27th, to provide the requested information and documents, and MCNA as well as the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) reached out to Digital Music News with a joint statement about the development.

“We are elated that the US Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has today responded positively to the filings by songwriter George Johnson and the organization Music Creators North America (MCNA) regarding the dire need for transparency in the mechanical rate setting process.

“By ordering all participant digital music distributors and music publishers that they must file on record with the CRB either all relevant, ancillary information and agreements concerning the scope and nature of their proposed streaming royalty settlement, or alternatively, certify under oath that no such ancillary information or agreements exist, the CRB has sought to ensure that comprehensive CRB analysis and the submission of comments by the independent music creator community can both be accomplished prior to the CRB’s adoption or rejection of the proposal.

“This is exactly the type of openness that the US Congress intended and that the US Copyright Act demands, and we thank the CRB for its steadfastness in applying the law,” the remarks conclude.

Moscow, Russia. Photo Credit: Astemir Almov

Warner Music Group (WMG) continued to operate in Russia even after announcing that it would cease conducting business in the nation, while indie label and distributor Believe is actively pursuing deals in the country of about 144 million residents, according to reports.

Warner Music Group’s purported post-suspension efforts in Russia – as well as Believe’s alleged moves to expand its presence in the market – just recently came to light, including in a report from The Guardian.

For reference, WMG announced in March of this year that it would halt operations in Russia, referring specifically to shelving “investments in and development of projects, promotional and marketing activities, and manufacturing of all physical products.” The move arrived less than one year after the debut of the major label’s Moscow-headquartered Atlantic Records Russia.

According to the aforementioned Guardian piece, however, an ADA Russia exec sent a marketing email in April, nearly one month after WMG unveiled its plans to exit Russia. The seemingly straightforward message attempted to attract Russian clients by touting the perceived advantages of ADA’s services for indie acts and labels.

Save for this lone email, it doesn’t appear that Warner Music is still operating in Russia; Universal Music Group, the first of the major labels to pull out of the country, is likewise continuing to pause its local business, whereas Sony Music earlier in September withdrew from Russia altogether.

“We suspended our operations in Russia in March,” a Warner Music spokesperson said of the matter. “This email is more than five months old, but it should not have been sent. We’re investigating what happened and we’ve also reiterated the rules of our suspension to our local team.”

Shifting to the initiatives that Believe is reportedly spearheading in Russia, the Paris-headquartered company is allegedly functioning on a “much larger scale” than WMG.

These allegedly extensive operations include attempts from Believe Russia MD Denis Gorshkov (who joined the business in November of 2021) to sign catalog deals and artist agreements with domestic parties, per The Guardian. The entity is also said to be making payments to a streaming service that formerly belonged to Russia’s largest lender, which is facing US, UK, and EU sanctions.

Believe – which posted H1 2022 revenue of €352.2 million, a 35.4 percent YoY hike – previously signaled in a statement that it was “continuing to fulfil its agreed-upon obligations to our people, our artists and labels, including its payment obligations to Russian labels in full compliance with international sanctions.”

Excluded from these agreed-upon Russian obligations are activities such as hiring team members, investing in the music industry, and releasing new indie projects, The Guardian specified in March.

(Responding to the latest reports on the subject, Believe communicated in part that one email from Gorshkov refers to a new tie-up with an existing client and therefore doesn’t represent a Russian expansion. Similarly, higher-ups relayed that their business’s new Russia-based employees are replacing staff as opposed to filling just-created positions and, as a result, aren’t indicative of an investment in the country.)

“Believe has pledged for peace and made the choice to continue to operate with its local clients, artists, and partners in the Russian market in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,” a Believe spokesperson said of the topic.

“Believe is maintaining all its operations in Russia in order to support its artists, labels and protect its people’s safety as well as ensure access to music production and distribution. Believe’s mission always remains to protect creation, artists, music and its people all over the world, and to support both teams and people.”

Of course, many Russian artists have spoken of the hardship (financial and otherwise) that they’re experiencing due to companies’ abrupt withdrawals. And needless to say, these unprecedented challenges are having a far more direct and devastating impact on musicians than government officials.

About six months after disclosing its intention of spearheading a secondary stock listing, Tencent Music (NYSE: TME) is reportedly preparing to make shares available on Hong Kong’s exchange “as soon as next week.”

Update (9/15): Tencent Music has confirmed its Hong Kong listing plans, and shares are expected to begin trading as “1698” next Wednesday, September 21st. In a separate release, the company quietly announced that Liang Tang had resigned from the board, with one Jeanette Kim Yum Chan (currently chief legal, compliance, and risk officer at Australia’s Airwallex) signing on as an “independent director.”

An existing director, Edith Manling Ngan, has replaced Tang on the board’s compensation committee. Below is our original coverage of Tencent Music’s secondary listing.  

The seemingly concrete secondary-listing plans of the Shenzhen-headquartered company – which operates China’s QQ Music, Kugou, and Kuwo streaming services as well as the WeSing karaoke app – came to light in a recent report from Bloomberg. At the time of this writing, however, Tencent Music execs hadn’t commented publicly on the subject, and the precise timing of the rumored listing remains unclear.

In any event, Tencent Music (which reported a 25 percent year-over-year jump in paid subscribers during Q2 2022) could kick off related “marketing activities” sometime during “the coming days,” according to the report. Additionally, TME’s Hong Kong stock market debut will reportedly be executed “by introduction,” meaning that the company won’t be issuing new shares or raising fresh capital.

During today’s trading hours, Tencent Music’s already-listed shares improved slightly from yesterday’s close, finishing at $4.78 apiece. Though the figure reflects a 33.52 percent boost across the past six months, it likewise represents a more than 30 percent falloff from 2022’s beginning and an over 40 percent decline since mid-September of 2021.

Of course, a number of tech-sector stocks – and particularly shares in subscription-based entertainment services – have suffered material price decreases on the year. Spotify stock (NYSE: SPOT) ended today’s trading at $102.45 per share (down 58.04 percent from 2022’s start), for instance, against $224.12 per share for Netflix stock (NASDAQ: NFLX), which has slipped by 62.48 percent during the past nine and one-half months.

And needless to say, observers have for years expressed concerns that Tencent Music (and an array of other China-based companies) could be delisted from its stateside exchange due to broader geopolitical trends. Last month, five state-owned Chinese businesses revealed that they would voluntarily delist from the New York Stock Exchange as they faced scrutiny from regulators.

Should the Hong Kong listing proceed, Tencent Music would be joining the likes of NetEase’s Cloud Village, which includes the Cloud Music streaming service.

Cloud Village made shares available to the public in December, after Sony Music Entertainment (SME) took a $100 million stake. More recently, TikTok parent ByteDance – which launched a streaming service in China five months back and may be preparing to roll out a U.S. counterpart – reportedly shelved its own IPO plans. However, this wasn’t the first time that the controversial entity had decided against pursuing a listing on the public market.

Photo Credit: AccessibleFestivals.org

A new grant program offers free festival passes to several popular festivals for people with disabilities. Here’s what you should know.

The Dan Grover Memorial Ticket Grant Program offers free access to concerts, festivals, and conventions for individuals with disabilities. Anyone who is impacted by a newly acquired, temporary, or lifelong disability is encouraged to apply for free access to their favorite events. Anyone with disabilities who is experiencing financial hardship is also encouraged to apply.

Accessible Festivals has partnered with several high-profile music festivals, including Electric Daisy Carnival, Lollapalooza, Rolling Loud, Stagecoach, Beyond Wonderland, BottleRock Napa Valley, and many more to offer free festival passes.

Pitchfork reports the program is spearheaded by Austin Whitney, Founder of Accessible Festivals. Whitney was left paralyzed from the waist down following a car accident in 2007. Whitney credits attending Coachella in 2007 with helping him get through adjusting to his new life.

“Ultimately my business life is all about working to improve festivals for people with disabilities and working promoters to reduce their liabilities and improve their businesses for all things ADA,” Whitney told Billboard about the grant initiative. The program itself is named after Dan Grover, an accessibility consultant for the live music industry. Grover helped lead ADA compliance operations for many events across decades.

“One of his colleagues sent me an Excel sheet that he had, where he basically took notes on every concert he went to in his life,” Whitney continues. “He absolutely fell in love with it and became an advocate for accessibility within the industry.”

Dan Grover was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at an early age and began using a wheelchair at the age of 21. The first show he attended was a Yes concert in Philadelphia in 1979 – where he noticed the venue’s lack of accessibility for people like him.

Over the course of 40 years, Dan Grover attended more than 400 concerts with accessibility notes for each. Sadly, Dan passed away on July 27, 2022. The grant program is intended to keep Dan’s legacy alive and honor him by sharing his passion for music and continuing to help people with disabilities see their favorite music acts by offering free festival passes to them.

Following slow revenue growth for Q2 2022, Audacy has started layoffs after disappointing financials.

The Philadelphia-based company is expected to make job cuts that will impact all divisions and geographic markets. According to one report, the layoffs will impact less than 5% of Audacy’s workforce, with no more layoffs expected this year. The company has more than 5,000 employees spread across the United States.

“We remain committed to this exciting transformation which has made us a much stronger organization, but in light of current macroeconomic headwinds, like so many other companies, we have been proactively taking actions to mitigate against the impact of any downturn,” an Audacy spokesperson told the Philadelphia Business Journal. “These include evaluating budgets, reducing expenses, and also reducing our workforce.”

According to Radio Insight, on-air personalities from Dallas and Baltimore have confirmed they’ve been let go. Audacy is looking to cut expenses by “working to enact substantial sustainable savings through a number of measures to improve margins and profitability across the business. We believe we will be able to deliver meaningful cost reductions without hindering our strategic priorities and growth plans.”

Chief Financial Officer Rich Schmaeling told analysts that expenses for Q1 were up 8% YoY and up 6% in Q2. He says Audacy expects Q3 expenses to be up 1-2% and calls that substantial progress. “We are working on a program to meaningfully reduce our expenses and we will provide further details about the scope and extent of those actions on our Q3 call,” Schmaeling told investors.

Audacy attributes the stumble to deteriorating macroeconomic conditions and increasing uncertainty. Q2 revenue grew 5%, below what was expected within guidance. Adjusted EBITDA declined slightly from $39.9M to $38.5M. Audacy lost $11.8M in H1 2022, compared to losing $20.2M during H1 2021. Audacy’s top advertising category is automotive, and spending in that category is down 40% from 2019 (before the pandemic).

“The twin punches of the pandemic and now the economic slowdown over the past two plus years have definitely adversely impacted our business,” says CEO David Field. “But it’s essential to distinguish between the adverse impact of the pandemic and slowdown on our business and Audacy’s fundamental strength and earnings potential going forward.”

These layoffs are the first to impact Audacy since 2020, when the company went through two rounds of layoffs in response to the pandemic. They also come at a time when the company has received notice from the New York Stock Exchange that its stock is not in compliance with the minimum average closing price of $1 per share over 30 consecutive trading days. The stock was last above $1 on July 5.

FN Meka (Photo Credit: Capitol Music Group/UMG)

Yes, robots can get canceled, too. Effectively immediately, Capitol Music Group and its parent Universal Music Group have ‘severed ties’ with virtual artist FN Meka following allegations of racism and cultural appropriation.

Earlier this month, Capitol Music Group proclaimed FN Meka as the first virtual artist to be signed by a major label. Now, just two weeks later, FN Meka is also the first virtual artist to get dropped by a major label. According to Capitol, FN Meka was nixed from the roster following allegations of racism and cultural appropriation. Shortly after the termination, FN Meka’s music was wiped from streaming music platforms like Spotify.

“Capitol Music Group has severed ties with the FN Meka project, effective immediately,” a label representative emailed Digital Music News. “We offer our deepest apologies to the Black community for our insensitivity in signing this project without asking enough questions about equity and the creative process behind it. We thank those who have reached out to us with constructive feedback in the past couple of days — your input was invaluable as we came to the decision to end our association with the project.”

FN Meka, which is algorithmically modeled after popular rappers with AI-driven songwriting and lyrics, also pulls from thousands of data points across gaming, social media, and music. But that mimicry quickly landed FN Meka in hot water once signed to Capitol. Of particular concern was the robot’s use of the n-word and other lyrics deemed offensive, among other factors.

The decision by Capitol closely followed a public protest by music industry group Industry Blackout, which describes itself as “a unified body of black people in the industry committed to changing the community.”

“[FN Meka] is a direct insult to the Black community and our culture,” Industry Blackout declared in a Twitter post. “An amalgamation of gross stereotypes, appropriative mannerisms that derive from Black artists, complete with slurs infused in lyrics.”

“This digital effigy is a careless abomination and disrespectful to real people who face real consequences in real life,” the group continued. “For example, Gunna, who is currently incarcerated for rapping the same type of lyrics this robot mimics. The difference is, your artificial rapper will not be subject to federal charges for such. For your company to approve this shows a serious lack of diversity and a resounding amount of tone-deaf leadership. This is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

The group demanded the immediate termination of the FN Meka project, the removal of all music released, a public apology, and the reallocation of all funds budgeted for the robot rapper “to charitable organizations that directly support Black youth in the arts, as well as marketing budgets for Black artists signed to Capitol Records.”

“We look forward to your response and compliance,” the group concluded.

FN Meka, described as the ‘biggest AR rapper,’ is the brainchild of virtual artist label Factory New, helmed by Anthony Martini and Brandon Le.

The virtual rapper first bubbled on SoundCloud and eventually blew up on TikTok before attracting major label attention. Just recently, FN Meka collaborated with non-virtual rapper Gunna on ‘Florida Water,’ which is now stripped from Spotify but still available on YouTube (as of this article’s publication).

Photo Credit: Raph_PH / CC by 2.0

Muse is set to become the first music act with a chart-eligible NFT album.

British rock group Muse and Warner Music UK have partnered with eco-friendly web3 music marketplace Serenade for the release of Muse’s ninth studio album, Will of the People. The record, set to be released on August 26, features the singles “Won’t Stand Down,” and “Compliance,” and will be available on physical formats (CD, vinyl, and cassette) in addition to download and streaming services. The world-first Digital Pressing version will be a limited edition collectible and the first new chart-eligible format since the inclusion of album streams in 2015.

NFTs have always been chart-eligible, provided they conform to existing chart rules, but Will of the People is the first release with a chance of charting that is prepared in an NFT format. While previous albums have come bundled with an NFT, no release has yet charted where the album itself was in an NFT format.

Serenade defines a Digital Pressing as a standalone, chart-eligible release — as opposed to being part of a wider release as a bundle — designed to cater to a “superfan’s” appetite for exclusivity and community recognition. 

“What a fan wants is something simple and understandable but that gives them a sense of proximity to an artist and a sense of recognition from other fans,” explains Max Shand, founder of Serenade. 

Shand describes the Muse Digital Pressing as “the black T-shirt of NFTs” — a digital format that is straightforward to buy and practical in function. Unlike with most NFTs, buyers will not need an existing crypto wallet. Serenade’s website handles the purchase, where a digital wallet is created, and the NFT is automatically transferred. Still, if a user has an existing crypto wallet, they can use that instead.

“There has been loads of noise about NFTs being the future of music, the future of entertainment, the future of ownership,” says Martin Talbot, chief executive of the UK’s Official Charts Company (OCC). “It’s great this is becoming a reality.”

The OCC made NFT albums eligible for charts several months ago, but this will be the first release where the vendor is approved as a chart-return digital retailer. Talbot says the Muse release didn’t force an update of the OCC’s chart-eligibility rules but will be the first in its format that meets the entry criteria.

“As a simple, standardized, and chart-eligible format, Digital Pressings will be a game-changer on the global stage, and we wouldn’t have been able to achieve this without the support of the visionary teams at Warner Records and the Official Charts Company,” adds Shand. “I have always been a huge fan of Muse, so I am beyond excited that they will be the first artist to release a Digital Pressing with Serenade.”

The Muse NFT release is limited to 1,000 copies globally. Buyers get a downloadable version of the album in high-res FLAC files with its own custom sleeve digitally signed by the band. Buyers will have their names listed on the linked roster of purchasers for recognition.

Photo Credit: Magnus Höij / CC by 2.0

About three months back, a court rejected Spotify’s motion for a protective order in a long-running legal battle, thereby determining that CEO Daniel Ek would have to provide an up to three-hour deposition. Now, a different judge has affirmed the ruling despite the Stockholm-based streaming platform’s objections.

This latest verdict represents one of several twists in a much-publicized lawsuit that kicked off three years ago. In brief, regarding the marathon showdown’s history, Eminem publisher Eight Mile Style in August of 2019 accused Spotify of infringing upon 243 of the rapper’s compositions and failing to pay royalties on billions of streams.

Interestingly, Eight Mile demanded not only north of $36 million in damages from Spotify, but called for “advertising revenue and the value of the equity interest Eight Mile was deprived of by virtue of the infringement.” Spotify refuted the allegations (“the underlying infringement claim by Eight Mile lacks merit”) while also maintaining that it had been “licensed by Eight Mile’s agent, Kobalt” to offer fans access to the popular tracks, including “Not Afraid” and “Lose Yourself.”

As a result, Spotify named Kobalt as a third-party defendant, and Eight Mile Style then roped in the Harry Fox Agency (HFA) as an additional defendant, alleging that it and the streaming platform had coordinated on a “fraudulent scheme” to cover up an overarching “failure to acquire timely compulsory mechanical licenses.”

Moving beyond these basic background details and to the deposition of Daniel Ek, Judge Jeffery S. Frensley denied Spotify’s motion for a protective order at March of 2022’s end, as initially disclosed.

“The Court credits Spotify’s assertion that he [Daniel Ek] is very busy indeed,” the judge explained. “Yet, the issue of proper licensing relationships with the artists whose work comprises the entirety of Spotify’s business and its sole product is surely also a matter of importance to Spotify, worthy of some of Mr. Ek’s time and attention. … Plaintiffs may take the deposition of Mr. Ek by remote means only for a maximum of three hours.”

Spotify promptly pursued a review of the ruling – albeit without objecting to “the conclusion that Ek should be subject to deposition,” according to today’s determination. “Rather, Spotify ‘seeks to modify the order to defer any deposition of Mr. Ek until the damages phase of this case,’” Judge Aleta A. Trauger wrote in an order dated July 15th.

In support of the deposition delay, Spotify stated that the previous ruling’s judge had overlooked purported discovery limits for when sought information can be more conveniently obtained from other sources (different execs in this instance).

Additionally, Judge Frensley was said to have erred by “violating the applicable Case Management Order’s bifurcation of discovery” – liability under the Music Modernization Act (MMA) on the one hand and any owed damages on the other – “because Ek’s testimony would only be relevant to the issue of damages” in the second phase, per the lawsuit’s newest decision.

After reiterating that “the court is not empowered to reverse the magistrate judge’s ruling simply because this court would have decided the issue differently,” however, Judge Trauger indicated that “the court has little difficulty rejecting” the first of Spotify’s aforementioned arguments against the deposition, concerning the possibility of substituting another exec for Daniel Ek.

“The Magistrate Judge concluded that an appropriate balance could be reached [between Ek’s professional responsibilities and the deposition] by allowing a time-limited, remote deposition of Ek that could be completed from virtually anywhere on Earth in less than half a day,” according to the ruling.

“Spotify argues that, even if Ek is able to testify about whether Spotify took an inappropriately loose approach to licensing requirements in order to quickly establish its foothold in the streaming market, that testimony would be relevant, if at all, only to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enhanced damages based on Spotify’s willfulness,” Judge Trauger continued.

But the prior ruling “concluded that Ek’s testimony was relevant to the subject matter covered by the first phase of discovery because it bears on the court’s analysis pursuant to the MMA” – or Spotify’s liability under the law, specifically with regard to damages limitations afforded to streaming services that take certain actions.

“The MMA provision to which Ek’s testimony appears most likely to be relevant is not an outright safe harbor from liability, but rather a limitation on remedies, meaning that, under a conventional two-phase inquiry, evidence bearing on the applicability of that provision would be relevant only to the second phase,” the judge finished in denying the defendant platform’s motion for review. “But Spotify concedes in its briefing that the first phase of discover[y] encompasses both ‘liability and MMA compliance.’”

At the time of this piece’s publishing, Ek didn’t look to have commented publicly on the development. Last month, the 39-year-old laid out his ambitious vision for Spotify’s long-term revenue potential, after buying $50 million worth of the company’s stock in May.

Photo Credit: Eyestetix Studio

TikTok postpones a controversial privacy policy change following European regulatory pushback.

TikTok has agreed to postpone a controversial privacy policy update in Europe that would have enabled the platform to stop asking users for consent to be tracked for targeted advertising. The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), the lead privacy regulator that oversees TikTok for the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), says the “pause” follows engagement between TikTok and the oversight office.

“Further to engagement with the DPC yesterday, TikTok has now agreed to pause the application of the changes to allow for the DPC to carry out its analysis,” a spokesperson for the DPC told TechCrunch.

“While we engage on the questions from stakeholders about our proposed personalized advertising changes in Europe, we are pausing the introduction of that part of our privacy policy update,” says a company statement from TikTok. “We believe that personalized advertising provides the best in-app experience for our community and brings us in line with industry practices, and we look forward to engaging with stakeholders and addressing their concerns.”

The DPC’s concern follows a formal warning issued to TikTok from Italy’s data protection watchdog that the company’s proposed switch would breach the ePrivacy Directive and potentially the GDPR. TikTok claims it could process user data to run “personalized” ads without obtaining consent under a legal ground known as “legitimate interest.” Privacy experts question the appropriateness of using legitimate interest as grounds to run behavioral advertising, but TikTok continues to defend its plan.

Regarding the formal warning from the Italian DPA, a TikTok spokesperson says the company is evaluating the notice while also claiming to be “committed to respecting the privacy of our users, being transparent about our privacy practices, and operating in compliance with all relevant regulations.”

For legitimate interest to be considered a valid legal foundation on which to process personal data under European law, a data processor must first conduct a series of tests. Those tests assess whether it has a legitimate cause for the processing and that the processing is necessary for the stated purpose. A third test also considers the rights and freedoms of the individuals whose information is involved.

While the UK’s data protection watchdog, the ICO, offers some cautionary guidelines for the first two tests, the third will likely be TikTok’s biggest hurdle. The third test requires the company to justify any impact on individuals, which includes the users’ ability to exercise their data protection rights per the ICO guidelines.

Notably, the Dutch DPA takes the stance that legitimate interest cannot be used as a legal basis for commercial interests, period. Should the Irish DPC take a similar view, TikTok would be hard-pressed to have its cake and eat it too.

NMPA president and CEO David Israelite.

The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) has officially taken aim at about 100 apps that it says are using unlicensed music – in addition to sending “formal notices” to the Play Store owner Google and the App Store owner Apple, “demanding accountability for this problem.”

The effort to curb the allegedly unauthorized use of music in apps – and to prompt action from Google and Apple – came to light yesterday, in a speech delivered by National Music Publishers’ Association president and CEO David Israelite.

Speaking at the NMPA’s annual meeting in New York, Israelite highlighted songwriter and publisher revenue in the U.S. in 2021, touched upon his organization’s “legal recoveries,” and reiterated the deals that were struck last year with Twitch and Roblox after much-publicized confrontations.

“Today, we are announcing a new initiative that targets the use of unlicensed music by applications or apps that run on mobile devices, such as phones, tablets, and watches,” segued Israelite. “Earlier today, NMPA, on behalf of seven representative publishers, filed a lawsuit in the federal court in the Northern District of California against an app known as Vinkle.”

(Vinkle, described on the Play Store as “an amazing video maker for video editing beginners,” didn’t respond to a request for comment in time for publishing.)

“Also today, NMPA has sent cease-and-desist letters to nearly 100 apps that use music without proper licenses,” Israelite continued after describing Vinkle’s operational specifics. “Now, the responsibility of licensing music is not just limited to the app companies themselves. The app stores which empower these apps also have responsibilities to make sure that the apps that they make available to their customers are legal and not infringing.

“This is particularly important given that these app stores are also run by companies that offer music services, and they profit from making these apps available,” proceeded Israelite, whose group has been the subject of firmly worded criticism in recent months. “So today, in addition to the lawsuit that was filed and the cease-and-desist letters that were sent to the apps themselves, NMPA has sent formal notices to both Apple and Google demanding accountability for this problem.”

Later in his speech, the 17-year NMPA head Israelite made clear that he intends to curb the allegedly unauthorized use at hand sooner rather than later.

“Like with our gaming initiative a year ago, we expect to see quick results from this new initiative,” he communicated. “There is a reason why NMPA has never lost a lawsuit and why our enforcement efforts have brought in more than a billion dollars. If you are an app that is using music illegally, you can make the smart choice to resolve your transgressions and become a legitimate business partner, or you can shut down. There is no other choice.”

To urge app developers towards the former option – and the associated payments – the NMPA likewise unveiled a “strategic partnership” with Songclip, a music-integration platform that three days back inked an agreement with Universal Music Group. Additionally, Israelite shed light upon “a strategic partnership with the ACT Association, which is a trade association representing the app developer community.”

Universal Music Group headquarters in Santa Monica, CA.

About 15 months after announcing an $11 million funding round, music-integration platform Songclip has inked “a multi-year global strategic partnership with Universal Music Group” as well as Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG).

Five-year-old Songclip unveiled its pact with the Big Three label and the namesake publishing operation this morning. Songclip bills itself as an “all-in-one patented music licensing and integration solution for offering music as a feature in dating apps, gaming apps, messaging apps, social platforms, and more.”

(Songclip co-CEO and co-founder Andy Blacker holds the same roles at Cliipcast, formerly Audiobyte, which higher-ups describe as “a patented technology company that clips and curates video and audio content.”)

And according to the startup’s website, “Songclip is the only streamlined solution for adding commercial music clips to your app,” specifically via a “plug-and-play API.” Licensing deals take “8 weeks to 8 months” for apps to execute via Songclip, once again per the entity’s website, and exclusively cover “tracks up to 30 seconds, and in some cases 45 seconds.”

Songclip has equipped its homepage with the logos of BMG, Sony Music Publishing (but not Sony Music Entertainment), Warner Music and Warner Chappell, Reservoir, Kobalt, Believe, and Peermusic, to name some.

Of course, Universal Music Group and UMPG are now part of this list given today’s agreement, which will see Songclip manage “search, catalog & compliance, licensing, royalty payments and reporting” as it brings the involved body of work to apps moving forward.

Addressing the deal in a statement, UMG EVP of digital strategy Michael Nash said: “As industry leaders in forging digital ecosystem partnerships, we are always looking for innovative ways to engage audiences, creators and services across consumer apps and social platforms.

“Our ongoing, elevated relationship with Songclip allows us to extend our reach in the digital ecosystem, with proper management and monetization for the IP of our artists’ music,” concluded the former Warner Music digital exec Nash.

The continued growth of apps featuring music, including video-sharing platforms and other social-media offerings, is hardly a secret. Snapchat, for instance, reported an 18 percent year-over-year jump in daily active users for Q1 2022, the first full quarter in which it had licensing deals in place with each of the major labels.

And Universal Music last year quietly signed off on licensing agreements with fitness app Variis as well as TikTok rivals Lomotif and (after a much-publicized impasse) Triller. The publicly traded company also expanded its relationship with TikTok itself and revealed a prior deal with Warner Music-backed Lickd. The latter licenses music for use on YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, LinkedIn, and other platforms.

Now, with the addition of UMG’s catalog to Songclip, it’ll be worth seeing which apps the tracks at hand (or snippets of select tracks, more specifically) appear in across the approaching months and years. Songclip has already spearheaded licensing arrangements for apps such as Fanbase, CardSnacks (“a mobile-first greeting card app”), and Lyritext (“the first music messaging app”), its website shows.

Photo Credit: Waldemar Brandt

Amazon is making changes to its suite of apps which removes music, books, and audiobooks purchases on Android devices. Here’s why.

This month Amazon began notifying Kindle app users that the app would be changing. Users can no longer buy and rent ebooks or subscribe to the Kindle Unlimited Service in the app. This change also applies to the Audible and Amazon Music Unlimited apps – so what’s changing?

Google is enforcing a policy to require all developers to process payments involving ‘digital goods and services’ through the Play Store billing system. Amazon was one of a few third-parties that were excepted from this rule, but no longer. Rather than give Google a commission for each song, book, or audiobook sold, Amazon is removing the ability to purchase from the apps altogether.

Android users who want to buy books, music, or audiobooks will need to visit the Amazon website in a browser to do so. Of course, Amazon isn’t the only company that has stopped offering digital sales to be in compliance with Google’s new policy. Barnes & Noble has also removed direct purchasing from the Android app.

Match Group has filed a lawsuit against Google in May over the guidelines, alleging they break antitrust laws. Match Group says Google previously assured the company that it could use its own payment processing systems. But the lawsuit claims Google threatened to remove its suite of dating apps from the Play Store if it did not comply with the June 1st policy deadline. “Ten years ago, match Group was Google’s partner. We are now its hostage,” the company’s complaint says.

Google says Match Group is eligible to pay 15% commission on in-app purchases. But the lawsuit comes at a time when both Apple and Google are facing increasing regulatory pressure over their share of in-app purchases commission.

In February, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the Open App Markets Act. If the legislation becomes law, it would prevent Google and Apple from allowing companies to use their own payment processors. Meanwhile Google is partnering with Spotify to test third-party billing systems.

Late last month, reports revealed that Bandcamp was facing a possible removal from the Play Store amid a broader billing-policy battle between its Epic Games parent and Google. Now, the involved parties have finalized a temporary agreement that will keep Bandcamp available for download as the courtroom confrontation plays out.

The just-inked deal from Google, Epic, and Bandcamp came to light in a joint legal filing as well as a promptly published blog post on the musician-powered platform’s website. In brief, regarding the specifics of the Google-Epic Games clash, the much-publicized dispute centers on a Play Store rule change that would compel Bandcamp and other apps to pivot from their billing programs and adopt Google’s own framework.

Google unveiled the change in September of 2020, indicating that it was updating the Play Store payment terms “to be more explicit that all developers selling digital goods in their apps are required to use Google Play’s billing system.”

A July of 2021 delay pushed back the deadline for compliance with the new rule until March 31st of this year, and Google subsequently communicated that on “June 1, 2022, any app that is still not compliant will be removed from Google Play.”

By using Play’s billing system, the impacted apps would have to “pay a revenue share to Google,” Bandcamp CEO Ethan Diamond emphasized in a different blog post. Consequently, the Epic subsidiary, in seeking a preliminary injunction preventing its takedown, maintained that it would need to absorb the associated fee, pass this fee onto consumers and/or musicians, or cut digital sales on Android altogether.

As mentioned at the outset, Epic and Google have negotiated a pact that will keep Bandcamp on the Play Store for the time being.

According to the corresponding filing, which Digital Music News obtained, Google won’t “remove from, de-list, refuse to list on, or otherwise make unavailable the Bandcamp app on the Google Play Store.”

Additionally, the tech giant has agreed not to “reject, unreasonably delay, or refuse to distribute updates of the Bandcamp app, on the basis that the Bandcamp app or updates to the app offer in-app purchases of digital goods or services through means other than Google Play’s billing system.”

But starting on June 1st, Epic is poised to begin paying into “a mutually acceptable escrow account, on a monthly basis, the applicable fee under the DDA” – the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, that is, with the charge coming in at 10 percent – “on all revenue collected for in-app transactions of digital goods and services in the Bandcamp app,” the legal text explains.

If, when the high-stakes lawsuits wrap, the final judgement is in Google’s favor and exceeds the amount held in escrow, Epic will have to turn over these funds and cover the difference. In the event that Google wins a judgement for less than the capital within the escrow account, Epic will hold onto the difference, besides receiving the entirety of the sum if it wins outright, of course.

Bandcamp CEO Ethan Diamond in his previously highlighted blog post signaled that Epic “will bear” the 10 percent charge on digital transactions on Android, thereby “paying artists the same share of sales.”

Photo Credit: Sam Moghadam Khamseh

Are you leaving money on the table as an artist, producer, songwriter, label, or publisher? Mismanaged metadata is one of the biggest problems plaguing indie artists and the broader music industry today — but it doesn’t have to be. Now, solutions like Session are finally tackling the metadata headache and dislodging billions in missing royalties.

In a nutshell, metadata is all the underlying information tied to any released song or album. That includes everything from song titles, songwriter cuts, producer names, publishers, the record label, and more. Think of it as all the info printed on the CD or vinyl jacket if you’re a physical music lover, but expanded into a digital repository that can travel anywhere.

Missing, incomplete, or incorrect metadata has been a serious music industry headache for decades. However, there’s now hope that these issues will eventually be resolved, thanks to new solutions like Session, a company intently focused on fixing this billion-dollar riddle.

A song’s information needs to be synchronized across digital streaming providers like Apple Music and Spotify, as well as critical industry sectors like performance rights organizations (PROs). Metadata ensures that the right people are identified, credited for their work, and paid their royalty share. But often, that metadata isn’t transmitted correctly – or at all.

While some standards exist for how music metadata is collected, organized, and displayed, compliance with those standards is often lax. There’s also no standard way to verify the accuracy of a song’s metadata before it is released. And even minor entry details can cause serious crediting and payout problems, with small typos or changes in translation submerging correct data forever.

Three Types of Music Metadata

There are three main types of music metadata – descriptive, ownership/performing rights, and recommendation metadata. Let’s take a quick look at each of them.

Descriptive Metadata

Descriptive metadata details the contents of the recording with objective text tags. These include song title, release date, track number, performing artists, main genre, cover art, and more.

This type of metadata is the oil that makes digital service providers work. Spotify can serve up a playlist full of ‘Red Hot Chili Peppers’ music based on a variety of descriptive metadata provided by the band to the label.

Ownership/Performing Rights Metadata

The artist or band performing on a track isn’t the only song owner or contributor. The performing artists, lyricists, producers, songwriters, and more may all claim a share of revenue generated from digital streams, airplay, and movie sync placements. Ownership metadata can specify the contractual agreements behind the release for the purposes of these royalty calculations.

Ownership metadata ensures that every party participating in the track or album creation process is remunerated according to their contract. Splits like this can be extremely complicated in the music industry. It’s one of the most commonly litigated issues in music law, and it is often a result of bad metadata.

Ownership metadata errors hurt the artists’ pocketbook the most. A human error or database glitch can result in thousands of unpaid, unclaimed royalties. Corrupted ownership metadata robs artists and musicians of money and credit for their creations.

Recommendation Metadata

Recommendation metadata is more subjective than the previous two types. Think of mood labels, genre tags, and song similarity scores to help algorithms rank songs among playlists. This type of metadata is used to make connections between music that a listener may enjoy based on previous listening habits. It’s the secret sauce that powers music discovery on DSPs like Apple Music and Spotify.

Each platform has its own approach to recommendation metadata, and this is a very different animal than objective metadata. Description and ownership metadata is often created on the artists’ end, while DSPs and their affiliates create recommendation metadata.

Despite the importance of entering metadata at the point of creation (for example, the recording studio), the chore of keeping track of data is one of the last things on most creators’ minds.

But without an accurate record of the session, someone is leaving money on the table. So how do you track who did what when writing a song while in the moment? What about share splits? Does everyone agree on the contributions?

Session, a company that builds collaboration tools for creators, co-founded by songwriter and producer Max Martin, ABBA member Björn Ulvaeus, and songwriter, producer, and publisher Niclas Molinder, approached the problem by simplifying the process of capturing the data as it happens.

The Session platform uses standard industry identifiers in a single location and makes sending metadata downstream to rights holders and other relevant participants a more straightforward process. Session is embedded within digital audio workstations (DAWs) to capture authoritative song information and data at the point of creation.

“I had the great opportunity and great honor to run this company and my initiatives together with Max Martin and Bjorn Ulvaeus of ABBA,” Session’s Niclas Molinder told Digital Music News. “So the three of us, we teamed up almost six, seven years ago when I came up with the idea of developing a platform that allows the creators, in an easy way, to just capture information about who’s doing what, where and when, on a song.

“Because my goal has been, if we only can make sure that we identify everyone that’s involved, we can sort out splits, we can sort out any other kinds of disputes as long as we know who the people are.”

Session Studio is the company’s app-based collaborative solution. It allows musicians to collaborate with other creators while keeping lyrics, audio, and credits in sync between everyone involved. It can synchronize with leading music production software, and shares verified data with labels, publishers, and managers. Session Studio also captures information on who contributed what during a recording session so everyone can agree on their splits.

The end goal is to capture unique creator identifiers to ensure that everyone gets paid with 100% accuracy. Session’s apps enable users to digitally send accurate data downstream to the music ecosystem, creating a solid, verified data-collection hub. Earlier this year, Session and Digital Music News joined forces to broaden awareness of metadata solutions, as well as industry-wide initiatives like Credits Due.

Credits Due: The mission to standardize accurate metadata collection at the point of creation

Collecting 100% accurate metadata from start to release is critical to fixing the metadata problem. Otherwise, artists, musicians, and other collaborators are simply leaving royalties on the table. Initiatives like Credits Due, which is strongly backed by Session, aim to make sure artists capture accurate metadata at the point of creation. Too often, music recordings and songs are simply not linked with the proper metadata.

Credits Due is the result of The Ivors Academy of Music Creators and The Music Rights Awareness Foundation working together. They aim to increase knowledge of music rights through education and support. Credits Due enables music creators to be aware of how they should be credited fairly for the music they share with the world.

As part of its ongoing awareness campaign, Credits Due emphasizes five elements necessary for accurate metadata attribution.

• • Creator identifiers & role codes (IPI, IPN & ISNI)
  • Musical work identifier (ISWC)
  • Recording Identifier (ISRC)
  • Song Title & Alternative Song Titles
  • Writer, Performer, Producer & Contributor Names

Solving the metadata problem at the point of creation has enormous benefits for the music industry as a whole. It avoids the pain of missing and inaccurate income, which can take years to arrive. It also avoids the added cost and inefficiency of sorting out royalties and splits after the track’s release.

Metadata problems can also lead to restricted experiences on digital music services. Spotify and Apple Music are less likely to feature a song with their proprietary recommendations metadata if the songs lack any objective metadata. All of these issues hurt creators, publishers, DSPs, music societies, and fans by making music less accessible than it should be.

Want to get involved with the Credits Due initiative? You can pledge your support by visiting the Credits Due website.

How to Get Started With Session

The Session Studio tool is the best place to start to make sure all five of these key data points are gathered during music sessions. Creators can access Session Studio for free on the web, mobile and desktop. Downloading Session Studio on the desktop app enables integration with the most popular DAWs on the market. Additionally, the service is connected with some of the most prominent music societies in the world, so creator identifiers will be verified upon account creation.

“From that moment on, when you use Session Studio, when you go into any kind of collaboration creating a song, Session will make sure that you get identified and the registration will be correct in the end. So you will be credited, and most importantly, you will be paid if there’s any money to be received,” Molinder added.

Molinder further explains that after Session Studio is set up, it’s just a simple act of scanning a QR code inside Pro Tools or Logic. “Just by doing that, we automatically capture all the five to eight data points about you, linked to the role you have on that song,” Molinder notes. But Session isn’t a database; it’s a data hub that makes gathering data and forwarding that metadata downstream into a standardized process.

“It gets very complicated,” Molinder continues. “And how can we expect the creators in the studio to know about this? We should not expect that. What we should do is use technology, like Session, for them to just scan in and make sure that the links are made at the point of creation and are pushed downstream, and that’s what Session is doing for creators.”

Ashley King also contributed to this report.

After getting slapped with a $5.7 million dollar fine by the FTC for violating child privacy laws, TikTok is making sweeping changes to the platform — including deleting accounts.

People under the age of 13 now have a drastically different app experience to better conform with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

Some of those changes include being unable to share videos or have a public profile.  The TikTok app now prompts people to verify their birthdays, but the algorithms appear to have gone wonky.  Some people who have registered accounts as 13 and over have found their accounts deleted.

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, a 15-year-old confirmed that she used her current birthdate, but the account was instantly deleted.  Her account had over 17,000 fans, and they were wiped clean with just a simple age verification check.

Some users caught in the crossfire include individuals who entered fake birthdays that make them appear to be under 13.  These accounts were instantly deleted with no chance to correct the birthdays to the actual age.

TikTok said those people who have experienced an account deletion in this manner will have to verify their true age with a copy of their government ID.  The instant deletion was probably designed as an attempt to prevent young users from lying about their age to skirt the new age-gated app.

Users who have been locked out of their accounts report having trouble accessing the report tool linked by TikTok.

TikTok has support staff working to help individuals affected, but this just goes to show what a clusterfuck this whole situation has been.

Some reports indicate that child predators have targeted the popular video-sharing app as a place to meet young people.  The app’s user base trends overwhelmingly to those 18 and below.  Unlike Snapchat, videos shared with fans are not deleted after a set period of time.

Just months after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued payola-related penalties against US-based radio conglomerates, a prominent lawmaker is assuming the role of compliance cop.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) recently mailed a letter to heads of several major station groups requesting detailed reports on anti-payola measures implemented.  The letters were specifically issued to CBS Radio, Inc., Entercom Communications Corp., Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, all of whom signed detailed anti-payola agreements.

Among other remedies, the agreements called for the allocation of airtime for independent content, a measure designed to offer more exposure to less “radio-friendly” artists.  But reports of partial compliance, and the discovery of tilted deals that would force independent artists forfeit digital royalties, helped to stir the Feingold letter.  “I am concerned by recent reports that some Clear Channel stations are requiring the grant of a royalty-free right and license to the music upon submission,” Feingold wrote.  “As the debate surrounding the recent Copyright Royalty Board decision to increase the royalty rate for digital performances indicates, these rights clearly have value.”  Feingold threatened legislative remedies if voluntary compliance requirements were not adhered to.