The Trump administration is firing back against a lawsuit filed by axed Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. Photo Credit: Tabrez Syed

An intensifying battle for USCO control: The Trump administration is firing back against the lawsuit filed by axed Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter.  

We first covered that lawsuit (including a push for reinstatement) last week, and DMN Pro yesterday took an in-depth look at Perlmutter’s largely procedural action. Long story short: the former Copyright Office head maintains that the Library of Congress is part of the legislative, not the executive, branch, and is therefore off limits to the President.

Consequently, per Perlmutter’s complaint, President Trump’s dismissal of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden is “unlawful.” (Among other things, said Librarian is tasked with appointing the Register of Copyrights.)

And in Perlmutter’s view, since Hayden’s firing is allegedly unlawful, the acting replacement (Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche) lacks the authority to boot her (Perlmutter) at all.

Perlmutter’s complaint contains several relief requests, the most noteworthy being a sought injunction declaring that she “may not be removed from her office as Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, or in any way be treated as having been removed.”

Enter the Trump administration’s initially highlighted opposition to Perlmutter’s requested restraining order.

As described by the newer legal document, because the Library of Congress “is part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control” under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), “[t]he President had the power to remove the Librarian and designate an acting replacement.”

But even in the absence of the FVRA, “the President’s power to designate Mr. Blanche comes from the Constitution, not any statute,” per the defendants.

Following the idea to its logical conclusion, Perlmutter’s firing was lawful, and the presiding judge should deny the restraining order motion, according to the Trump administration.

“Because Mr. Blanche is properly serving as acting Librarian,” the legal text reads, “he had clear authority to remove the Register of Copyrights, as he did in designating Paul Perkins as acting Register. In addition, the President removed the Register directly—a removal that likewise is within his constitutional power where, as at that time, there is no Librarian.”

On cue, Perlmutter’s legal team submitted a reply supporting the restraining order motion and opposing the defendants’ above-described arguments. In brief, the follow-up mainly builds on the existing central position that the executive branch lacks the authority to dismiss the Librarian.

“Historical practice confirms that the President lacks any inherent authority to fill vacancies in principal offices,” the retort claims.

“Because the FVRA does not confer authority on the President to appoint an officer to temporarily perform the functions of the Librarian of Congress, the President’s appointment of Mr. Blanche was ultra vires,” the filing proceeds.

Suffice to say that it’ll be worth closely monitoring the courtroom confrontation – and especially the near-term trajectory of Perlmutter’s crack at reinstatement.

As explored in detail by DMN Pro’s aforementioned report, while evidence points to longshot odds of Perlmutter’s taking the USCO reins once again, the music industry may still be able to record IP wins under the new Copyright Office guard.

Also important is the “acting” nature of this guard; it remains to be seen who will serve as Librarian and Register on a permanent basis and when they’ll begin doing so.

Washington’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the US Copyright Office (Photo: UpstateNYer)

The battle over who controls the US Copyright Office now heads to the courts. But can ousted Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter litigate her job back? The answer is of utmost importance to the music industry and billions in IP assets — and the focus of this report.

As first reported on Digital Music News, Perlmutter is now suing the Trump Administration and various Trump officials over what she claims was an ‘unlawful’ dismissal. Perlmutter is seeking a court order to reinstate her position, arguing that Trump lacked the legal and Constitutional authority to issue the firing.

(The case, Perlmutter v. Blanche, 1:25-cv-01659, is currently being tracked in DMN Pro’s Music Industry Litigation Tracker; check this page for ongoing developments in this case).

Most of Perlmutter’s filing is focused on procedural arguments, including whether the US Copyright Office is a legislative or executive entity. Arguments over separation of powers and the limits of presidential power abound, though Perlmutter is battling a number of unfriendly precedents.

In this weekly report, we dig into those arguments and consider whether Perlmutter has a case — or whether judges will quickly dismiss the action.

Report Table of Contents

I. An Ousted US Copyright Office Chief Fights Back In Court

II. Perlmutter v. Blanche: An Overview of the Legal Arguments

III. Is This Case a Prayer? A Hard Look at the Merits of This Case – And Similar Legal Battles In Washington

IV. The Problem With a Perlmutter Victory: Strategizing Within the Music Industry Begins

V. Chronology of the Chaos: A Timeline of the US Copyright Office Meltdown – So Far

Please note: the following report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute — thank you!

Photo: Krivitskiy

For those trying to make sense of the post-apocalyptic hell-scape known as the US Copyright Office, we wish you the best.

What started as a tech bro ambush has shifted into an all-out war for control over the US Copyright Office — and the critical policy direction that comes with it. It’s not entirely clear why former US Copyright chief Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired, though widespread conjecture pointed to the handiwork of tech bro operators like Elon Musk and David Sacks — not to mention the very powerful cadre of pro-AI, Trump-allied tech titans.

The theory sounds logical enough, but why can’t they finish the deal?

As recently-fired Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter launches her legal counterattack against the Trump Administration, we’re guessing the White House will forge ahead with their chosen replacements at the Copyright Office and its umbrella org, The Library of Congress.

But wait: the White House’s interim picks aren’t very pro-AI or pro-tech, raising serious questions about the tech bro puppet master theory. If Musk & Co. directed the dismissal of the more pro-copyright Perlmutter, why aren’t more AI-friendly replacements being named?

Tossing another perplexing incident into the riddle: Trump himself ‘re-truthed’ a rather anti-tech post on Truth Social — from legal ally Mark Davis, who has sharply questioned the copyright-be-damned mantra of the AI class.

As we head into the weekend, some top-ranking Department of Justice officials are assuming positions at both the Library of Congress and US Copyright Office. But is that how this works?

A key argument in Perlmutter’s legal filing is that the White House and Department of Justice lack any authority to fire the head of the Copyright Office. Instead, the head of the Library of Congress has the sole authority to appoint and dismiss the Register of Copyrights, though it should be noted that the President does appoint the Librarian of Congress with Congress’ consent and has the power to remove the Librarian as well.

Perhaps this is procedural quibbling, but it raises the question: will a federal judge issue an injunction and restore Perlmutter to her former post?

If so, get ready to crank the mayhem meter to 11. But will the Trump Administration simply seek another method to dispose of Perlmutter if a judge steps in?

Perhaps the more vexing question for the music industry is whether a restored Perlmutter will have anything close to her previous influence. Shaping copyright policy with a Director-under-attack seems dicey at best, with one policymaker telling DMN that Trump-appointed, pro-copyright people might be the best outcome here.

But who might those people be?

Besides the legal questions (and lawsuit) surrounding the shakeup, it remains to be seen whether the aforementioned DOJ officials will stick around in their new posts or make way for non-acting replacements.

Meanwhile, getting far less attention is a pernicious piece of pro-AI legislation in ‘The One Big, Beautiful Bill.’

‘The One Big, Beautiful Bill’ recently passed the House by the narrowest of margins before heading to the Senate. And buried with the voluminous Bill — at least as currently written — is a dastardly 10-year moratorium on state-led AI regulations. That’s right: by law, states would be prevented from enacting AI regulations of any size or flavor.

It’s a big, beautiful bonus for AI megaliths like Alphabet, Meta, and OpenAI, with pesky regulations off the table for a full-blown decade.

As one might expect, state attorneys general are arguing that the moratorium would be “sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.” In a recent open letter to Congress, they point out that the absence of federal protections means states are often a first line of defense against technological harms—including those impacting personal identity, privacy, and creative rights.

On the AI side, the argument is that over-regulation will kill technological development and competitiveness with rivals like China. Of course, the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ still has a gigantic Senate hurdle, and plenty of changes are likely to occur. Can pro-copyright forces — not to mention state AGs — remove or soften the 10-year provision?

Sadly, this isn’t the best of times for copyright defenders like the NMPA, RIAA, and others.

The Trump Administration has its copyright defenders and big tech challengers, but can music’s well-heeled lobbyists steer this ship towards a zone of content protection and compensation? Part of the problem is Hollywood, which is ardently anti-Trump and, well, Californian.

That anti-Trump energy has certainly dominated the music side as well. However, DMN keeps hearing that the music industry would be wise to fire up its Nashville contingent, including its Red State superstar musicians, to shift the discussion. Incidentally, that includes Trump pals like Kid Rock, who flanked the president during his ratification of the momentous Music Modernization Act during the first term.

Perhaps it’s time to roll out that game plan again in the more critical battle against AI?

More as this chaotic situation develops.

Photo Credit: US Copyright Office

It looked like a quick solution to a nagging roadblock for AI’s tech bros. But gutting the US Copyright Office and its IP protections is proving trickier than originally planned. Here’s the latest in the fast-moving and quickly-shifting battle over control of IP’s most important government agency.

Just one week after a shocking shakedown at the US Copyright Office and Library of Congress, things might be going sideways for the tech bros. Suddenly, the premise that Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter was fired at the whim of tech bros is coming under question. Or, perhaps Elon Musk and associates – including White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks – are exerting far less influence over this situation than originally imagined.

Enter the appointed replacements, none of whom are ardently pro-AI, to say the least. According to details now confirmed by the Department of Justice, Trump allies Paul Perkins, Brian Nieves, and Todd Blanche are filling key roles at the Library of Congress and USCO – at least for now.

A huge question is whether these appointees will stick around, or whether they are merely transitional figures. But aside from the Constitutional questions surrounding Trump’s appointed replacements, an interesting question surrounds the philosophies of all three — in particular their tough attitudes towards tech.

A live performance from Abby Anderson, one of the many artists publicly backing the No Fakes Act.

It’s time for Congress to pass the No Fakes Act – at least according to 21 Savage, Billy Idol, Deadmau5, Joe Walsh, Lainey Wilson, and a number of others who are backing the bill ahead of a Senate hearing today.

Just shy of 400 artists and actors signed a petition in support of the legislation, which, designed to tackle AI deepfakes, would establish bolstered voice and likeness protections. Originally introduced in 2023, the bipartisan No Fakes Act resurfaced in Congress last month with 40% more pages than its initial iteration.

As we summarized then, the extra words pertain to updated liability exclusions, penalties for online services as well as individuals, and subpoena particulars, to list a few elements. Besides growing in the length department, the bill is finding new proponents this time around.

Continued industry endorsements – RIAA head Mitch Glazier and country star Martina McBride will testify at this afternoon’s hearing – are now accompanied by backing from YouTube, the Walt Disney Company, and OpenAI.

Stated differently, with music-space giants and tech companies alike throwing their weight behind the measure, the odds of passage seem better than ever. Still, when it comes to maximizing the chances of a successful legislative journey, it makes sense to emphasize the bill’s creative-sector positioning.

Enter the aforementioned Human Artistry Campaign petition touting the No Fakes Act, which is supported by talent from CAKE to Lee Greenwood and Luis Fonsi to Lamb of God.

Common, Reba McEntire, Elvis Costello, Peter Frampton, the Black Keys’ Patrick Carney, Steven Tyler, and Mary J. Blige represent some of the numerous other signers. Though many of these individuals are music professionals, actors such as Jack Nicholson and an apparently ticked off Scarlett Johansson also added their names to the petition.

“This diverse coalition of artists, actors and creatives who know the importance of protecting these individual qualities as well as the support from leaders in both political parties on Capitol Hill, highlights how vital the NO FAKES Act is to preventing AI-generated deepfakes and fraud from exploiting who we are,” Human Artistry Campaign senior advisor Moiya McTier added in part.

Now, days after President Trump signed the Take It Down Act into law, all eyes are on the initially highlighted Senate hearing, dubbed “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI-Generated Deepfakes in 2025.”

On top of the above-noted appearances from Glazier and McBride, the Capitol Hill outing is set to feature remarks from YouTube global music publishing senior counsel Suzana Carlos.

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

Part I of this article discussed the different type of works and copyright rights in music. In Part II, we discussed different types of music licenses. In this final part of the article, we’ll discuss what happens when someone does not have a license to use the musical work or sound recording and the use is not otherwise allowed by the law. This is known as copyright infringement.

When is a Musical Work or Sound Recording Infringed?

Anyone who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, engages in an act that is covered by one or more of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is an infringer of copyright unless:

1. The musical work or sound recording is not protected by copyright (for example, if it’s in the public domain); or
2. The act is permitted by an exception in copyright law.

In other areas of law, in order to be culpable, the actor must have had knowledge or intent to do the wrongful act. Not so in copyright. Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer. In other words, it makes no difference whether the infringer knew what they were doing constituted copyright infringement. The only time that the actor’s state of mind may come into play is when a court is determining how much money in to award to a copyright owner in damages for the infringement.

How To Prove Copyright Infringement

Courts usually require a copyright owner to prove that they owned the copyrighted work, and the defendant violated one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. In a case where infringement of the reproduction right is alleged, since there is seldom direct evidence of the offending act, a copyright owner may prove infringement through circumstantial evidence establishing that: (1) the defendant had access to the original work, and (2) the two works are substantially similar.

It is not necessary that the entire musical work or sound recording be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur, nor that the copying be literal. All that is necessary is that the copying be substantial and material and that protected expression is copied. Likewise, the similarity between the two works must also be a similarity of protected elements, not unprotected elements. For example, in music, this means that copying of common musical ideas like chord progressions or basic scales will not qualify as copyright infringement, but copying of more unique melodies might.

The portion taken by the alleged infringer must also be more than a trivial amount to qualify as infringing. In music, this issue usually arises in the context of sampling. In most instances, a license is needed to use a sample of another song in your song. Typically, sampling (without a license) is only permissible in very limited circumstances, where the quantity and quality of what is taken is considered to be insignificant. 

Remedies for Copyright Infringement

If one or more of the exclusive copyright rights of the owner of a musical work or sound recording have been infringed and the copyright owner wishes to seek monetary damages and profits, attorneys’ fees, and/or an injunction, they can initiate a lawsuit in federal court against the alleged infringer for civil copyright infringement. Before a copyright owner can initiate a copyright infringement suit in federal court, they must have applied for a copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office for the work at issue in the case and the Office must have rendered a decision om the copyrightability of that work by either issuing a registration or rejecting the application on copyrightability grounds. 

The various remedies for copyright infringement in federal court are available to copyright owners who registered their works in a timely fashion. These remedies are explained in detail below.

• Injunctions: In federal court, a copyright owner may seek a preliminary or permanent injunction to prevent or restrain the infringer from continuing the infringement. Courts often grant permanent injunctions where liability is established and there is a threat of continuing infringement.
• Damages: At any time before final judgment is rendered, a copyright owner may elect to recover either (i) actual damages and profits of the infringer or (ii) statutory damages (i.e., damages determined by the statute, here the Copyright Act). Actual damages may be awarded in the amount of the copyright owner’s losses plus any profits of the infringer attributable to the civil copyright infringement. Statutory damages are only available when the copyright owner registers their work with the U.S. Copyright Office either (1) within three months of publication of the work, or (2) before the infringement starts. Statutory damages in federal court may be awarded in an amount between $200 and $150,000 per work infringed, with the former available only for “innocent infringers” and the latter available in cases of willful infringement. Remember, intent is not necessary to prove infringement, but it is factored into a court’s analysis on damages. 
• Court Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: Federal courts have discretion to allow the recovery of full court costs by or against any party, including the awarding of reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances. However, plaintiff copyright owners cannot be awarded attorneys’ fees unless they have timely registered their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.
• Impoundment and Destruction: Federal courts may order the impounding of infringing goods at any time an action is pending. As part of a final judgment, the court may also order the destruction or any other reasonable disposition of the infringing goods.

An Alternative to Federal Court—the Copyright Claims Board (CCB)

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is a voluntary alternative to federal court for resolving certain types of small copyright disputes. The total monetary damages that can be awarded by the CCB is limited and cannot exceed $30,000 in one case and $15,000 per work. The CCB also cannot issue injunctions. However, if the parties reach an agreement where one party agrees to cease a particular conduct, the CCB can include a requirement in its final determination that the party abide by the agreement to cease the conduct. As a general rule, at the CCB, parties must pay their own attorneys’ fees and court costs. The CCB is often used instead of federal court where the infringement is not a large amount and/or the copyright owner may not be able to afford the cost of litigating in federal court.

Conclusion

Obviously, there is much more that we could discuss when it comes to music copyright. After all, there are many books written on the topic. Hopefully, the information provided in the three-part series offer a strong foundation for you to understand your basic rights and how to license your music to someone and what to do if they use it without your permission. It may have also sparked an interest to learn even more about music copyright. 

If you’re still looking for more information, here are few additional resources from the U.S. Copyright Office that we’d recommend:

• What Musicians Should Know about Copyright
• How Songwriters, Composers, and Performers Get Paid
• Musical Works, Sound Recordings & Copyright
• Sampling, Interpolations, Beat Stores, and More: An Introduction for Musicians Using Preexisting Music

If that’s not enough, two other books you might find helpful include All You Need to Know About the Music Business by Donald S. Passman, which includes information about the legal financial and practical information about music copyright and is considered by many to be the industry bible on music copyright; and Music Money and Success by Jeffrey and Todd Brabac, which includes detailed information about licensing and royalties. 

And don’t forget to join the Copyright Alliance’s FREE Creator Membership to continue your educational journey on how to protect your creative work.

Cover of the US Copyright Office’s latest update of ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,’ pre-released just prior to Shira Perlmutter’s firing. The report’s recommendations may be getting shelved.

The music industry is battling another flurry of AI-related developments, with few positive developments for IP owners and creators. Here’s a look at the latest tumult in the AI world — and the industry’s possible next steps.

Those in the music industry hoping for an ‘ethical AI’ future were dealt serious blows over the past week, with concepts like permission-based training, fair use limitations, and creator compensation potentially tossed out the window. This DMN Pro Weekly report examines what just happened at the US Copyright Office, the latest proposed legislation surrounding AI training, the political underpinnings at work, and possible next steps for music publishers, label groups, IP owners, and artists.

Table of Contents

I. What Just Happened at the US Copyright Office – And What It Might Mean for the Music Industry

II. Unfettered AI: Will the Tech Bros Get Their Way?

III. Hollywood’s Hate Affair With DC: Can the Music Industry Chart a Different Path?

IV. The Music Industry Mafia, v2.0: How a Self-Regulating Industry Can Address AI Problems

The following report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute. Thank you!

The House of Lords chamber, where an amendment to the UK’s heavily debated AI bill has passed 272-125.

One much-publicized opposition campaign later, the UK AI bill, including a controversial “opt-out” approach to generative model training, has suffered a setback.

That’s according to outlets from across the pond, which have described a new amendment to the proposed law as “a heavy defeat” for the government. As we previously noted, said law as written would have given gen AI developers the green light to train their models on protected works without prior permission.

Instead, it’d be up to rightsholders themselves to “opt out” of training. While the government painted the system as part of a “blueprint to turbocharge AI,” the majors, Merlin, and a multitude of artists criticized the measure as a serious blow to the creative community.

Now, the tidal wave of pushback, including op-eds, a silent album, and an Elton John- and Paul McCartney-signed letter, looks to have delivered the industry’s desired result.

As described by The Independent, politician (and film director) Beeban Kidron in more words criticized the proposed law as enabling tech giants to steal protected media and then undercut creatives. A related amendment to the bill is said to have passed in a 272-125 House of Lords vote.

Digging into the amendment itself, the suggested change would empower copyright owners to obtain “information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.”

Additionally, AI developers would be compelled to “provide an effective mechanism to allow copyright owners to identify all individual works that they own that are used” in training, per the amendment.

And the same owners would reportedly have to approve beforehand – not proactively opt out of – training usages. The text describes several other obligations for AI developers (including in relation to bots) as well.

Seemingly every gen AI business operating in the UK will be on the hook under the amendment as written; the requirements would apply to any model that “has a significant number of United Kingdom users” or that counts the UK as one of its “target markets,” the document shows.

As for where the legislation goes from here, the amended bill is on its way to the House of Commons “for further debate,” according to The Indian Express.

Stateside, the battle over AI training is as heated as ever, referring both to high-stakes legislative proposals and ongoing suits. Even individual platforms like SoundCloud are finding themselves at the center of training debates.

And while it happens to be a key argument from the AI side, evidence strongly suggests that developers based in countries with less robust IP protections are, in fact, training their models on protected works. Put differently, there are more than a few angles to consider when it comes to the unprecedented technology’s ongoing fallout.

OpenPlay cofounder and Chief Client Officer Edward Ginis.

Is it time for the music industry to radically reconsider its approach to AI? Edward Ginis, cofounder and Chief Client Officer of OpenPlay, is already focused on monetizing AI instead of fighting it. An ardent activist for modernizing the industry’s data infrastructure, Ginis launched OpenPlay in 2013 after serving as CTO at Concord Music Group and views AI as an opportunity to evolve rather than a threat to resist.

With over 15 years of experience in music, technology, and finance specifically, Ginis has serious chops in building large-scale software systems and data management solutions for the music industry.

At OpenPlay, Ginis’ focus is on building independent and flexible data hubs for artists and IP owners — instead of limiting, isolated silos. At DMN, we’re excited to partner with OpenPlay to further broaden that mission.

In this interview, we asked Edward to share his vision on how the music industry can improve its metadata management and monetize AI, and what he’s doing to bring that vision to reality.

Digital Music News: Edward, thanks so much for joining us. We’re really keen to dive into what’s happening with OpenPlay and your vision for upgrading and changing the music industry’s data infrastructure and approach to metadata.

Let’s start with the AI landscape. What’s your take on the AI battle right now?

Edward: Paul, it’s great to be here. The “AI battle,” as it’s perceived, is fundamentally about monetization. It’s not really about stopping the technology or purely about preserving artistry; it’s about figuring out how to monetize something that the industry doesn’t quite know how to monetize yet. We’ve seen this pattern before with other technological disruptions. For example, YouTube was initially viewed as a threat to the industry until Content ID was developed, allowing rights holders to identify and monetize their content on the platform. Now, Content ID has transformed from a defensive tool into a significant revenue stream that most rights holders embrace.

Digital Music News: Alright, so let’s monetize this AI beast. But how can this industry do that?

Edward: The biggest challenge is attribution. Who gets paid when a piece of AI-generated content draws from thousands of existing works? Very few companies are tackling this.

There’s a need to solve the problem of where the generation comes from. We need to control the input into LLMs by protecting and fingerprinting catalogs before they’re ingested. If we can trace a generated work back to its source, we can accurately distribute fractional royalties, even to creators whose works haven’t seen much revenue in a long time.

Digital Music News: So that’s a good segue into OpenPlay. You created OpenPlay because you saw huge issues with how the music industry handles data. It’s a mess out there, but what are the biggest problems you’re trying to solve?

Edward: The biggest problems in the music industry today revolve around data fragmentation and the lack of control. Content owners often have limited options, relying on distributors or publishing administrators who essentially become gatekeepers to their own intellectual property. When these deals end, retrieving their content and associated data can become a nightmare. At OpenPlay, we abstract all that complexity. Rights holders can maintain control of their assets while still delivering content directly to their distributors, societies, or DSPs via our platform.

Digital Music News: Can you explain how that would change the life of a typical artist or IP owner?

Edward: Absolutely. Whether a rights holder is working with FUGA in Latin America, Spotify directly in the US, or AudioSalad in Europe, OpenPlay acts as a central hub. They can set up all those connections from one place without worrying about getting their content back if relationships change. It’s about giving rights holders leverage. If they’re unhappy with a deal, they should be able to switch within 24 hours, not face a mountain of complications.

Digital Music News: And you’re also expanding beyond distribution?

Edward: Yes, we’re expanding into UGC, royalty processing, video generation, and even providing advanced revenue. We see a future where these services operate more like an app store or HubSpot, where labels and publishers can choose and pay only for what they need.

For instance, companies like AudioShake, which offer stem dissociation and lyric translations, can be seamlessly connected through OpenPlay. It simplifies how content and metadata are exchanged, so the focus can be on the commercial value, not technical headaches.

Digital Music News: Perhaps there’s too much power concentrated in distribution hubs.

Edward: Precisely. Distribution as a revenue source is eroding. We need a marketplace where parties pay for what they need, and OpenPlay facilitates those connections. We’re creating an environment where new players have immediate access to the tools they need and can easily try new technologies. Music is notoriously unfriendly to entrepreneurs, and we want to change that.

Digital Music News: So, speaking of changing things, is there anything stopping a major artist or label from mirroring their content onto OpenPlay, even if they have a major distributor?

Edward: No, not at all. In fact, a big part of our business is helping them do exactly that. We’re not telling them to leave their distributors. We’re saying, bring your content into OpenPlay. Moving forward, they enter their content with us, and we deliver it to their existing distributor. They’ll have one entry point, reducing errors and simplifying their workflow. This also gives them the option to switch distributors easily if needed.

Digital Music News: It seems crazy: why is it so hard to wrestle control over your own IP?

Edward: Rights holders are entitled to all the data related to their IP, including stream data. Distributors often make it technically difficult to get this data, citing issues like file sizes or complexity, but in the end, it isn’t their data. Sidestepping this mess, OpenPlay combines publishing and label data into one ecosystem, offering a full view of the copyright assets and facilitating accurate data delivery to the MLC and others. This helps prevent data “black boxes.”

Digital Music News: You’re building a separate data storage and application hub, which sounds like a refreshing progression. Is it too far-fetched to then reconsider a global resource database?

Edward: Well, to work effectively, it needs to be highly decentralized. Trying to build ‘one silo to rule them all’ is impossible and impractical. What we need instead are interconnected systems with standardized interfaces – what technologists call APIs – that allow data to flow freely between different platforms while respecting ownership.

Think of how Plaid works in the financial industry, connecting your bank to services like Venmo without requiring these companies to directly communicate. Your bank doesn’t need a relationship with Venmo for you to move money between them. This level of interoperability is essential for the music industry to move forward.

Digital Music News: Swinging back to the AI discussion – and next steps – is it too late to identify works already ingested into LLMs?

Edward: No, I don’t think so. We’ve seen the early stages of systems like Suno and Udio, but many more are coming. The most successful ones will start with authorized content, working directly with rights holders and ingesting properly fingerprinted material.There’s also a huge need for AI detection technologies – tools that can analyze music and determine what percentage was AI-generated versus human-created. These detection systems would use pattern recognition and other techniques to identify AI signatures in the music.

Ultimately, DSPs like Spotify and Apple Music will be the arbiters of what gets in and stays out, likely implementing their own detection systems alongside content policies.

Digital Music News: Edward, I think we’ve found our fearless metadata and AI monetization leader. Thanks for outlining your vision here.

Edward: Thank you, Paul. The technology is inevitable, so our focus needs to be on creating systems that benefit artists and rights holders in this new landscape.

The DOJ and the FTC have officially launched a public inquiry in connection with a March executive order targeting ‘unfair practices in the live entertainment market.’ Photo Credit: ActionVance

The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have officially launched an inquiry into “unfair and anticompetitive practices” in the live entertainment space.

The DOJ and the FTC formally announced this public inquiry today, a month and change after President Trump signed an executive order targeting “unscrupulous middlemen who sit at the intersection between artists and fans.”

As we noted then, the order gave the mentioned department and agency (besides the Treasury Department) 180 days to provide a report describing “any recommendations for regulations or legislation necessary to protect consumers” in the ticketing world.

And it’s in connection with the report that the entities are now fielding comments concerning “harmful practices” in the live sector. The public, from consumers to companies, have until Monday, July 7th to weigh in if so inclined, according to the inquiry announcement.

In addition to insights pertaining to the previously highlighted “unfair and anticompetitive practices,” the DOJ and the FTC are welcoming comments about “the competitive effects of current state and federal regulations and laws in the live concert and entertainment industry.”

“We will continue to closely examine this market and look for opportunities where vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws can lead to increased competition that makes tickets more affordable for fans while offering fairer compensation for artists,” Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater added in part.

Time will, of course, reveal exactly what comes of the inquiry and different components of the executive order, which also instructed the FTC to ramp up enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS Act).

Today’s announcement underscored that the commission is “taking the lead” here. Though new charges have yet to materialize under the scalping-focused law, the FTC last month fired off a warning shot of sorts with an explainer entitled “BOTS Act compliance: Time for a refresher?”

In the bigger picture, one needn’t be a Washington insider to sense the bipartisan regulatory mood regarding crowd-based entertainment.

To name one immediate example, today’s public-comments release also reiterated that the DOJ as well as 40 state and district attorneys general are litigating against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary over “monopolization and other unlawful conduct.”

Meanwhile, the House closed out April by overwhelmingly approving the TICKET Act (which, in a nutshell, would mandate all-in pricing for tickets), and senators from both sides of the aisle kicked off a new round of Live Nation antitrust scrutiny.

This time, the involved lawmakers (who aren’t strangers to expressing concerns about the Ticketmaster parent’s operations) are zeroing in on a Fanatics pact.

Photo Credit: ThoroughlyReviewed / CC by 2.0

Snapchat owner Snap Inc. has finalized a broad number of licensing agreements with major music publishers, according to details tipped to Digital Music News.

The yellow ghost isn’t ghosting music publishers — according to signed agreement details shared with Digital Music News.

Per paperwork that somehow found its way to DMN’s place of business, Snapchat owner Snap Inc. is signing deals with a bevy of music publishers under deal terms structured by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). And for those who enjoy counting Benjamins, this is a juicy pot of revenue of nearly $15 million over two years.

Even better for the biz: apparently, this is the latest in a string of licensing agreements involving Snap, a decision that removes the need for those pesky, multi-year lawsuits. That hasn’t been the case with X, née Twitter, which has refused to pay for music licensing and remains locked in a legal battle with major music publishers led by Bob Valentine’s Concord Music Publishing and the NMPA.

Incidentally, Snap’s more cooperative stance could be paving the way for some high-profile artist collaborations ahead. In that light, which massive artist is planning a major event with Snapchat as soon as this week? — Stay tuned.

NMPA chief David Israelite confirmed to Digital Music News that this isn’t the first deal between music publishers and Snap Inc. — far from it.

Instead, this is simply the latest re-up of a longstanding licensing agreement, meaning the terms were ironed out years ago and inked multiple times.

Shifting to the dollar amounts involved, the blanket agreement covers a two-year span and a guaranteed pot of $14,660,010. The opt-in agreement window lapsed in March after a 90-day window, and participating publishers will claim their share of the purse based on a pro-rata, market share calculation.

For Snap and its collection of properties, this deal looks all-encompassing.

Beyond the core Snapchat app, the licensing agreement also covers Bitmoji and Zenly and associated players, pages, apps, websites, tools like Lens Studio, and Messaging products — though it looks like the Snapchat kitchen sink isn’t included.

Ted Suh, Head of Music Partnerships at Snap, appears to have been quarterbacking the deal for the social media platform. Snap declined to comment on the licensing agreement.

According to the contract terms, any NMPA member publisher can jump into the agreement. In terms of who isn’t part of this opt-in deal, the language strongly suggests that the biggies have already structured separate contracts, including Sony Music Publishing, EMI Music Publishing, Kobalt Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner Chappell Music, and BMG Rights Management.

For everyone else, the deal flexes the NMPA’s muscle and its representation of a broad swath of the global music publishing industry. And what about those who aren’t members of the NMPA? According to more information spilled to DMN, non-NMPA publishers will have to strike their own agreements, though we’ve also learned that Snap flat-out isn’t doing deals with them.

The NMPA opt-in itself is global in scope, with Argentina the only exception.

And in case you think we’re making up the whole ‘sign here or we’re going to court’ vibe, it’s actually spelled out in the contract.

Indeed, the agreement acknowledges that while “the parties disagree as to whether or not, under the copyright laws, Snap is required to obtain a license for Snap’s users’ use and/or exploitation of musical compositions and/or lyrics,” the participating music publishers agree “not to sue Snap or its users for the use of musical compositions or lyrics… in order to enter into the License Agreement.”

In other words, ‘we came to an understanding’ — music industry style.

Still fending off App Store regulatory scrutiny, Apple has officially appealed last month’s ruling in its courtroom confrontation with Epic Games. Photo Credit: Laurenz Heymann

As expected, Apple has moved to appeal last month’s ruling in its Epic Games legal battle over App Store terms. Meanwhile, the Open App Markets Act is poised to be reintroduced in Congress.

Apple attorneys confirmed the appeal in a brief notice, after CEO Tim Cook underscored that the maneuver was forthcoming. The concise filing doesn’t dive into the iPhone developer’s exact position here, but it does emphasize that the arguments will zero in on the court’s April 30th approval of Epic’s injunction-enforcement motion.

We explored the ruling (which took effect at once, appeal or not) in detail immediately after it was handed down. Keeping the focus on the order’s impact, however, Fortnite quickly returned to the App Store, and Spotify promptly received approval for a fresh version of its iOS app.

The music platform also described those pricing and payment changes on social media as well as in a dedicated blog post. “After nearly 10 years,” CEO Daniel Ek applauded on X, “Spotify can now show pricing + direct purchase links in our app for U.S. users. This is a huge win for consumer choice and tech innovation.”

In other words, there’s quite a lot riding on Apple’s appeal for Spotify and different companies, and it’ll be worth monitoring the legal showdown (besides adjacent disputes) in the coming months.

Bigger picture, the long-running confrontation over App Store terms isn’t confined to the Epic case.

First, the European Commission slapped Apple with a more than half-billion-dollar fine last month for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act. One of several penalties handed down against the company in the EU, the decision elicited criticism and an appeal pledge from Apple.

At the intersection of these points – intensifying App Store scrutiny on multiple continents – Epic certainly isn’t letting its foot off the regulatory gas. When addressing Apple’s EU fine to close out April, Epic made clear its belief that “[n]ow is the time to follow through” on the Open App Markets Act in the States.

We took a look at the bipartisan legislation, which would impose a variety of new requirements on both the App Store and Google’s Play Store, at the time of its 2021 introduction.

Last week, Punchbowl News reported that one of the lawmakers behind the Open App Markets Act, Senator Richard Blumenthal, intended to reintroduce the bill. Though a timetable isn’t set in stone, the senator touched on a possible goal of getting the ball rolling before Memorial Day (Monday the 26th).

Walt Disney Concert Hall in Downtown Los Angeles, home base for the LA Philharmonic (Photo: Monica Volpin)

Ticketing scams and glitches remain a serious concern for concertgoers, particularly given the difficulties many experience attempting to recover lost funds. The latest meltdown happened in Los Angeles over the weekend, where potentially dozens of LA Philharmonic concertgoers were turned away after StubHub sold the same tickets multiple times to different buyers.

It was a rough weekend for classical aficionados in Los Angeles, thanks to an unfortunate meltdown involving StubHub secondary tickets. The issue, which may have been the result of a coordinated scam, resulted in the same tickets being sold to multiple different buyers.

The result: a crowd of LA Philharmonic buyers were turned away despite holding StubHub-purchased tickets — while being told that people had already claimed their seats. According to those running the box office and ticketing at Disney Concert Hall in Downtown Los Angeles, the issue was a recurring theme all night, with potentially dozens of concertgoers left in the lurch.

The LA Phil’s Friday evening concert looked like a sellout, though the Philharmonic box office was able to directly sell a limited number of full-priced tickets to scrambling fans.

That included me: after StubHub informed me that my tickets had already been claimed and people were sitting in my seats, I scrambled to purchase a last-minute ticket. Others weren’t so lucky.

The LA Phil’s performance — which included a Mozart Piano Concerto and the work of early-20th-century composer Nielsen —  continued throughout the weekend. It’s unclear if the problem was resolved for the other shows.

StubHub offered to refund my original purchase ‘within 5-8 business days,’ and subsequently emailed that the issue was ‘under review’. A StubHub representative also offered to look into the situation, though others experiencing StubHub issues have reported struggles getting refunds on problematic tickets. For many, a refund simply isn’t enough — if it arrives.

(The ‘under review’ status for refunds seems to be a common point of frustration, with delays lasting weeks or even months — if the money is returned at all).

The problem is the latest ticketing snag impacting unlucky concertgoers.

Just recently, Irish and Scottish authorities warned of large-scale scams involving Oasis tickets sold by Ticketmaster. Those scams also involved tickets that didn’t exist, with fans being bilked of “large sums of money” after purchasing advance tickets or last-minute tickets that did not exist.

Similar problems have plagued Oasis tickets in North America, which prompted an ugly war-of-words between Ticketmaster and StubHub over the source of fake or ‘phantom’ tickets. After getting jabbed for offering fake tickets, StubHub quickly accused both Live Nation and Ticketmaster (as well as the National Independent Venue Association) of “partnering to spread false information about ticket availability in an attempt to further their own policy agenda and create distrust in the secondary market.”

In a quick retort, Live Nation fired back that “StubHub is lying,” while blaming the secondary ticketing platform for offering fake tickets immediately after tickets went on sale.

“Oasis tickets were offered for sale on StubHub immediately after the North American dates and venues were announced, before any on-sale, and before anyone had rights to particular seats – as the listings explicitly claimed,” the ticketing giant blasted.

Just last month, StubHub hackers were busted after scamming $600,000 worth of fake Taylor Swift tickets. The massive heist, which involved over 900 tickets, was the result of an inside job.

Photo: Luis Quintero

Changes are afoot in the music industry conference circuit.

You’re probably too young to remember the decadent days of MIDEM in the South of France, though these days, look no further than SXSW for shifts in the modern-day music conference landscape. Suddenly, South-by — once an obligatory time- and budget-drainer — looks to be shedding attendees.

Ahead of the controversial 2026 programming changes, DMN’s on-the-ground team noticed something funny this year: the crowds were distinctively thinner in Austin. Blame it on mass label layoffs, more profit-conscious companies, a shift away from low-productivity debauchery — or heck, the rain — but SXSW doesn’t look like it’s heading north in terms of its 2026 attendance.

Those favoring the kvetch note that the days of a music-focused, expertly-curated SXSW are over. The showcases have declined, according to one disaffected A&R exec, with another lamenting the long flight for an overly-diluted tech/film/eco/music/whatever blob of a party — I mean, ‘conference’.

If the industry is looking for something more serious, that theoretically plays into the hands of Music Biz. But was a Nashville uproot to Atlanta a good call?

That’s a question we’ll be able to answer in a few weeks. But why the switch?

DMN has learned that Music Biz had always intended to switch cities yearly, but COVID planted the event in Nashville for a prolonged stretch. But given the growing momentum of Music Biz and its association with Music City, was shifting to Atlanta the wise play?

Aside from logistical arguments, there’s also a pressing political reason for keeping the action in Nashville. While we loathe to wade into politics, the industry is now facing some distinct challenges trying to get the Trump Administration and Republicans to care about urgent issues like AI and copyright.

Time couldn’t be more critical, though insiders lament that similarly-situated Hollywood is getting nowhere on critically important AI and IP-related concerns, for obvious reasons. But maybe there’s a strategic answer to this riddle.

The logic goes something like this: Hollywood is certainly a related industry, but music isn’t as fixed geographically — or politically. During his first term, Trump was flanked by country superstars and a certain Detroit rocker when he signed the Music Modernization Act (MMA). Given that success, is Tennessee the perfect hub for lobbying this administration and Congress again — particularly given the shutout being experienced by Hollywood and others on the wrong side of this political aisle?

Meanwhile, speaking of Capitol Hill fixers, National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) topper David Israelite could be building the industry’s next ‘It’ conference.

Israelite’s Music Investor Conference (MIC) is now in its third year, kicking off this June in Manhattan. But this event has a totally different game plan involving limited capacity and an invite-only, serious dealmaking crowd. That’s generating some surprisingly nice pre-event buzz, with New York offering a more serious backdrop. Are we looking at a budding Davos for music taking shape?

So far, we’re hearing that MIC isn’t yet getting the ‘heavy heavies’ like UMG titan Lucian Grainge — at least en masse — though a fairly influential cast of folks are expected to attend again this year (at least based on the 2024 list).

Meanwhile, it’s tricky to get a read on future industry crowds given a tough year+ of layoffs.

For obvious reasons, labels and tech bros like to keep layoffs on the hush, though heavy downsizing at mega-companies like Spotify and WMG could be trimming crowds at future industry conferences. Was SXSW just a preview of what a leaner business looks like?

On the flip side, a lot of money has been pouring into this industry. As of mid-April, north of $2 billion worth of investments have dropped in 2025 alone, according to DMN Pro’s latest tallies. Will that tailwind mark the start of a surprisingly bullish 2025 for the music business despite the economic turbulence of late?

That topic and more coming to a music conference panel near you.

ASCAP and BMI have officially responded to the Copyright Office’s performing rights inquiry, which was set in motion after lawmakers raised transparency concerns last year.

We covered those concerns – extending to the accuracy of public performance payments, the “increased costs and burdens imposed on licensees,” and more – back in September 2024.

Then, the Copyright Office in February 2025 kicked off the mentioned inquiry and set an April 11th deadline for comments. Unsurprisingly, ASCAP and BMI (besides others yet) provided responses as part of this initial feedback window.

And in the follow-ups – BMI’s comments span 30 pages, compared to 40 for ASCAP’s – the PROs touched on a number of overlapping points. Most notably here, both consent-decree-bound entities made clear their opposition to bolstered public performance regulations in the States.

“In sum,” Broadcast Music, Inc. wrote, “BMI strongly believes the U.S. market for the licensing of the public performance right benefits from free and fair competition.”

“ASCAP firmly believes that legislative action or regulatory action with respect to these issues is unnecessary and would ultimately disserve music creators,” echoed the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. “We believe the free market and open competition benefits music creators and users alike.”

Similarly, the respondents addressed lawmakers’ concerns that small businesses are grappling with heightened licensing costs and burdens due to the growing collection of stateside PROs.

In a stance that’s unlikely to resonate with the congressmembers who requested the inquiry, ASCAP and BMI in more words urged public establishments to “program around” licenses.

“All venue owners have the right to choose whether or not they play any music and can similarly choose the music they play,” ASCAP added. “If a music user wishes to limit or reduce its PRO licensing fees, the music user can do so by programming around the need to take a given PRO’s license.”

“[M]ost other music users—including the vast majority of small businesses—do not need the ability to perform all musical works available in the United States and, therefore, need not secure licenses from all four domestic PROs,” BMI weighed in. “Businesses that perform a limited amount of music can elect, for example, to secure only a BMI license and limit their playlists to musical works in BMI’s repertoire.”

As for the fractional-licensing considerations at hand, ASCAP and BMI emphasized their jointly developed Songview database. The same PROs “are currently exploring the inclusion of GMR and SESAC data” in Songview, per the text.

With all that said, ASCAP and BMI each covered unique angles as well. The latter, for instance, dedicated several pages to pinning some of the possible licensing-confusion blame on “new entrants” Pro Music Rights and AllTrack.

“Based on a review of the publicly available information regarding two new entrants—AllTrack and Pro Music—and their respective repertoires,” the for-profit PRO communicated, “BMI appreciates these concerns and the difficulties faced by music users in determining whether to obtain a license from these entities and at what cost.”

And on the usage- and payments-accuracy side, ASCAP defended its practices and called out concert promoters’ approach to reporting.

“Where logging music usage is not a traditional process by music users or technology is not efficiently available,” ASCAP relayed, “we may see more data omissions and ASCAP will be required to exert more resources to fill those gaps. For example, as is most relevant to this NOI, live concert promoters have generally placed the burden on ASCAP to obtain that information.”

When it comes to monitoring establishments’ music usages with new devices in real time, ASCAP rattled off considerations pertaining to “tracking reliability,” “guardrails to prevent fraud,” “the cost of acquisition and implementation,” and a whole lot else.

Senators from both sides of the aisle are reportedly urging the DOJ to zero in on the recently announced deal between Live Nation and Fanatics. Photo Credit: Bernini123

Besides fending off a Justice Department lawsuit — and regulatory obstacles across the pond — Live Nation is now grappling with a new round of bipartisan antitrust scrutiny.

That scrutiny pertains to the sports side of the Ticketmaster parent’s operations, but is certainly important from the perspective of Live Nation’s broader antitrust woes as well.

According to Sportico, the fresh pushback arrived in the form of a letter penned by Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mike Lee. Though on opposite sides of the aisle, the senators have long been critical of Live Nation; this isn’t even the first time the lawmakers jointly called out the promoter.

For a bit of quick background, Ticketmaster and the self-described “global digital sports platform” Fanatics unveiled a ticketing tie-up early last month. The companies have been partnered for a while, but the March agreement brought the official rollout of a standalone “Fanatics Ticket Marketplace.”

(In detailing the “two-way” tie-up, Sportico outlined a means of selling Ticketmaster passes via the Fanatics app, with the merch business then listing its own products on Ticketmaster.)

As reportedly described by the senators (who wrote to assistant AG Abigail Slater, the DOJ’s antitrust division head), however, the bolstered Live Nation-Fanatics union is the latest example of “‘anticompetitive behavior’” from the former entity.

Fanatics higher-ups, instead of opting to “‘innovate, disrupt and compete themselves as they have in numerous other sports-related markets,’” united “‘with an online ticketing monopolist,’” the senators reportedly said.

Driving home their point, the lawmakers asked the DOJ to identify and pursue remedies for possible antitrust-law violations. Here, those potential violations refer to the alleged use of Live Nation’s “‘monopoly power to prevent Fanatics from entering the online ticketing market, depriving consumers of the benefits of competition,’” per the mentioned report.

Unsurprisingly, a Ticketmaster representative refuted the letter’s claims in a statement shared with DMN.

“The agreement simply provides that Ticketmaster can sell secondary tickets to sporting events on Fanatics websites and mobile apps, giving fans additional ticket-buying opportunities,” this rep told us. “The secondary ticketing market is extremely competitive. Ticketmaster competes with StubHub, SeatGeek, Vivid Seats and numerous others and is in no way the leading secondary ticket seller, as the Senators’ letter suggests.”

Especially because the U.S. government’s initially mentioned Live Nation/Ticketmaster antitrust case remains active, it’ll be interesting to see whether the DOJ feels the same way. In any event, the bipartisan criticism appears to underscore the legislative mood when it comes to competition concerns.

Said mood could set the stage for the passage of not just the reintroduced TICKET Act (which Live Nation actually supports), but different ticketing-competition and -resale legislation yet.

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. speaks during Grammys on the Hill in support of the expanded No Fakes Act. Photo Credit: The Recording Academy

Federal lawmakers have reintroduced the No Fakes Act, which is drawing strong support from in and well beyond the music industry.

Senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle reintroduced the legislation today. We’ve covered the years-old bill (which, looking to tackle AI deepfakes, would establish bolstered voice and likeness protections) from the outset.

In April 2024, for instance, Warner Music CEO Robert Kyncl appeared before Congress to back (among different measures) the No Fakes Act, which received legislative pushes in July and September of the same year.

Of course, those particular pushes didn’t lead to passage. But much has changed – in the AI world and elsewhere – since then. Like during the summer of 2024, DMN’s inbox is currently filled with statements touting the No Fakes Act.

However, in addition to enthusiastic remarks from the Recording Academy, the RIAA, the NMPA, ASCAP, the NAB, the major labels (Kyncl and Randy Travis were on Capitol Hill for the bill’s reintroduction), A2IM, and several others, support is now coming from outside the industry as well.

OpenAI has endorsed the revamped No Fakes Act, YouTube signed off on the bill in a blog post, and the Walt Disney Company applauded the “important and meaningful protections” at hand, to name a portion of the examples.

It probably goes without saying, but this newfound unity resulted from months of back and forth on the No Fakes Act, the latest iteration of which is 40% longer than the original by page count.

Just scratching the surface here, the bill contains updated liability exclusions, including for any “service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data” and any “online service” provider for which it’s “not technologically feasible” to remove “offending material.”

Meanwhile, the heftier legislation dives into a variety of penalties, for both online service providers and individuals, pertaining to alleged deepfake violations. And perhaps most notably, the No Fakes Act would enable litigating rightsholders to ask any district court clerk “to issue a subpoena to a provider of an online service for identification of an alleged violator” of the law.

For obvious reasons, that rightsholder-tech compromise could spell trouble for those who’ve uploaded soundalike AI works without permission.

Here are a few of the many music industry statements backing the new version of the No Fakes Act.

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr.: “The Academy is proud to represent and serve creators, and for decades, GRAMMYs on the Hill has brought music makers to our nation’s capital to elevate the policy issues affecting our industry. Today’s reintroduction of the NO FAKES Act underscores our members’ commitment to advocating for the music community, and as we enter a new era of technology, we must create guardrails around AI and ensure it enhances – not replaces – human creativity.

We thank Senators Blackburn and Coons, and Representatives Dean and Salazar for their unwavering support on this issue, and we look forward to working alongside them to pass the NO FAKES Act this Congress.”

Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl: “I applaud Senators Blackburn and Coons and Representatives Salazar and Dean for their leadership in introducing the NO FAKES Act. This bill reflects what can happen when tech and creative industries come together – foster cutting edge innovation while protecting human identity and artistry. We look forward to working with key members of the US Senate and House to help pass the NO FAKES Act this year.”

NMPA president and CEO David Israelite: “NMPA is proud to support the reintroduction of the No Fakes Act. In an era where artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the creative landscape, it is critical that we protect the rights of creators from exploitation, fraud, and misuse. We commend Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis for their leadership in protecting songwriters and artists from illicit theft of their work. By establishing new protections against the harmful use of digital replicas, the No Fakes Act will provide the necessary framework to ensure that AI serves as a tool to enhance creativity rather than undermine the rights of those who create it. We urge the Senate to move swiftly in passing this critical legislation and securing the protections the creative community deserves.”

The reintroduced TICKET Act is riding a fresh wave of congressional support. Photo Credit: Claudio Schwarz

Riding a new wave of bipartisan support, the Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act (TICKET Act) is one step closer to becoming law.

Lawmakers made this latest round of approval official during a House Energy and Commerce committee markup today. Nearly all the involved representatives voted in favor of the reintroduced TICKET Act, which is also picking up steam in the Senate.

(As part of the same four-hour hearing, the House committee considered 25 other bills, among them the American Music Tourism Act.)

And for those who’ve followed the legislation’s years-running journey, that probably won’t come as a surprise. Before being booted from a spending bill late last year, the TICKET Act passed overwhelmingly in the House.

“We have worked a long time on this legislation – it’s been a couple of years,” Representative Jan Schakowsky summed up during today’s hearing. “And we should not have any problems with this right now. Because we know that this legislation has passed the House of Representatives pretty much unanimously. And we have had sponsors across the aisle at all times.”

Most notably, the TICKET Act would mandate all-in pricing, thereby compelling ticket marketplaces to display fee-inclusive costs at the outset.

Outside the halls of Congress, several players have endorsed this key provision (and the bill itself). Chief among the all-in advocates is Ticketmaster parent Live Nation; some evidence suggests that the market-leading promoter will benefit from the measure.

In any event, the concise TICKET Act would further ban speculative ticket listings, referring to those advertising passes that the sellers don’t actually possess. But possible workarounds seem straightforward enough here.

Provided the appropriate listings are labeled accordingly, ticket marketplaces could still allow the sale of services to obtain as-yet-unsecured passes, the TICKET Act text shows. Stated differently, it doesn’t appear that the legislation will outlaw speculative tickets altogether.

Another section of the bill describes bolstered ticket-refund requirements for postponed or canceled happenings, and the TICKET Act calls for an FTC report on the little-enforced BOTS Act.

(President Trump’s March 31st executive order instructs the FTC to “rigorously enforce” the BOTS Act. Separately, the MAIN Event Ticketing Act was reintroduced towards 2025’s beginning and, in short, would heighten the BOTS Act’s enforcement power.)

In a statement shared with DMN, the National Consumers League applauded the TICKET Act as “the solution that millions of fans have been seeking.”

“This bill is the solution that millions of fans have been seeking to finally get rid of hidden junk fees, crack down on predatory ticket resale practices, and guarantee refunds in the event of event postponements and cancellations,” VP of public policy, telecommunications, and fraud John Breyault said in part.

A federal lawmaker is criticizing the latest TikTok sale deadline extension. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

Is the latest extension to the TikTok forced-sale deadline “a clear violation of the law”? At least one member of Congress believes so, and he’s expressing “deep reservations” as a result.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) just recently voiced that pushback in an open letter to President Trump, who last week extended the cutoff for ByteDance to divest from TikTok in the U.S.

Prior to this extension (which is the second overall), evidence pointed to an imminent deal for TikTok in the States, we covered in detail. But just before the transaction’s anticipated announcement – and following the White House’s tariffs rollout – China pulled back from the agreement.

Now, against the backdrop of intensifying trade and tariff negotiations, it remains to be seen how the marathon TikTok episode will conclude. Ahead of the grand finale, however, Senator Warner is taking aim at the deadline extension and the reported sale terms for TikTok U.S.

On the former front, the senator reiterated “that the law passed by Congress” – it’s been almost one year since then-President Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act – “only allowed for a single extension of no more than 90 days.”

“This second delay, announced April 4, 2025,” Senator Warner proceeded, “is a clear violation of the law while also continuing to leave Americans vulnerable to malign influence operations conducted by an adversary country.”

Building on the position, the senator called out the divestiture’s reported particulars – including a non-controlling stake in TikTok U.S. for ByteDance when all is said and done.

(The “reported” descriptor is important; concrete specifics haven’t been directly confirmed in this area. The senator in his letter cited terms highlighted in “news reports.”)

“A successful and comprehensive divestiture will require any successor to scrupulously prevent influence or access by ByteDance or other entities under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China,” the lawmaker wrote. “The deal being discussed undermines confidence that the divested app can be trusted to protect national security and ensure compliance with the law.”

Time will tell exactly what the criticism (coming only from the senator, with no co-signers on the letter) means for TikTok’s possible U.S. sale.

Most immediately here, from the perspective of support among younger voters, logic and evidence suggest that aggressively advocating for TikTok’s stateside shutdown is ill-advised.

Thus, it’s unclear whether the pushback will pick up steam and fuel a broader campaign against the extension. But if so inclined, the senator and others could perhaps increase the pressure on Google and Apple, which are still carrying TikTok in their respective app stores and could technically face massive fines under the language of the forced-sale law.

Regardless, amid reportedly devolving U.S.-China trade talks, it’s also possible that the well-defined TikTok deal (which would require Beijing’s approval) won’t wrap at all. On the other hand, should the long-discussed divestiture come to fruition, it’s safe to say the platform’s executive team will look different under the new owners.

TikTok USA, circa 2025 (Photo: TCY)

Months after ‘the ban,’ there’s no telling what happens to TikTok next in the US.

After inching oh-so-close to a deal to secure TikTok in the US, China apparently pressed hard pause on the arrangement following Trump’s tariff slap. So what does that mean for the music industry?

If you love uncertainty, this one’s for you. Trump is now extending the ban by another 75 days, though a hard clock is now ticking on a deal that was apparently 99% done. Congressional pushback on the ‘phase 2 extension’ is already happening, and Apple is seeking White House assurance that the app can remain on its App Store.

This slow-motion cookie crumble could go in any direction. Among the possibilities within the next 30 days: TikTok shutting down for good or continuing business-as-usual — or, potentially, some insane variation in the middle.

Last we checked, TikTok is available on both the iOS App Store and Google Play Store, though this situation is volatile. And certainly not a recipe for crafting stellar, long-term artist marketing campaigns — or advertising campaigns, for that matter.

Most music folks are smartly spreading their marketing efforts across the gamut of social media giants, with IG Reels and Shorts getting a nice stability bump. That said, as long as TikTok is ticking, it has the power to blow stuff up — including entire artist careers and dusty catalog tracks.

While the over-under on TikTok’s survival has gone haywire, some executive ship-jumping is worth noting — particularly TikTok Music ex-honcho Ole Obermann, who recently packed his bags for Apple Music. And he’s not the only one potentially pondering the writing on the wall.

Meanwhile, other platforms continue to seize the moment. On that note: what major social media platform just inked a broad-reaching deal with major music publishers? (Hint: the first letter isn’t ‘X’…)

On a broader note, few in the music business seem to be rooting for TikTok’s survival.

It’s not that TikTok isn’t making some effort to play nice with the music business. Just last week, for example, TikTok was among the supporting sponsors at the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) golf classic and fire relief efforts in Los Angeles. But for the most part, the vibe within the music industry isn’t warmly supportive, to say the least.

TikTok famously refused to reasonably compensate rights owners until absolutely forced, with the aforementioned Obermann battling it out with Universal Music Group for weeks before a deal was hammered out. Indies are also understandably cool on this low-paying platform, though TikTok’s marketing muscle is certainly potent — especially if the viral fairy gods tap your shoulder.

Then again, that’s the aspiration for rivals like Reels and Shorts, among others. And we get the sense that witnessing a heavy door slamming on TikTok’s derriere would be oh-so-satisfying for many industry folks.

Guess everyone’s replaceable — and let’s face it, life will go on in the music industry, with or without TikTok USA playing a role in it.

More as this develops.

Got a juicy tip? Hit me up at paul@digitalmusicnews.com or Signal (@digitalmusicnews.07).

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.

Photo Credit: Igor Omilaev

A federal appeals court unanimously ruled that AI-generated works without human involvement do not qualify for copyright protection in the US.

Computer scientist Dr. Stephen Thaler created a generative artificial intelligence (genAI) called “Creativity Machine,” which generated a picture Thaler titled, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.”

The US Copyright Office denied Thaler’s application, citing a requirement that work must be authored by a human being. Thaler had listed his Creativity Machine as the work’s sole author.

Thaler challenged the decision, but the US District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal court, upheld the Copyright Office’s decision. Thaler appealed; the federal appeals court affirmed the federal district court’s ruling.

“The Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authorized in the first instance by a human being,” said Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett for US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. “Even if the human authorship requirement were at some point to stymie the creation of original work, that would be a policy for Congress to address.”

The Copyright Office has permitted the registration of works made by human authors who have used artificial intelligence. The issue remains over how much AI contributes to a human author’s work. In Thaler’s case, he listed his genAI as the sole author.

“Photography, sound recordings, video recordings, and computer programs are all technologies that were once novel, but which copyright law now applies,” Judge Millett continued, noting that Congress is key in updating copyright law, not the courts.

“[The Court’s] well-reasoned holding is consistent with decades of copyright law and the holdings of other courts that have considered similar questions and found the same result — that to be copyrightable, an expressive work must be created by a human,” said Alicia Calzada, Deputy General Counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). “That is why several years ago, a court held that a selfie taken by a monkey was not copyrightable, and it is why images created solely by AI are not copyrightable.”

A newspaper conglomerate is pushing back against OpenAI proposals for the stateside regulation of artificial intelligence. Photo Credit: Roman Kraft

A newspaper conglomerate is taking aim at OpenAI’s “absurd” training proposals and calling on the U.S. government to resist “[g]utting generations of copyright protections.”

Technically, said conglomerate refers to two distinct entities, MediaNews and Tribune Publishing. But both those companies are majority-owned by Alden Global Capital, and the appropriate editorial made its way into north of 60 daily newspapers.

Taking a step back for a moment, most are well aware of gen AI giants’ all-encompassing training processes. Leading models have ingested all manner of protected works sans rightsholder permission – with their developers describing the underhanded maneuver as a necessary step towards AI dominance.

Consequently, several of the AI giants are adamant that training on copyrighted materials constitutes fair use. And they’re entreating governments to carve out related training exceptions, which, for obvious reasons, are eliciting criticism in the music world and elsewhere.

Stateside, with the government currently mapping out an “AI Action Plan,” OpenAI last week submitted a 15-page response. In a nutshell, the company not-so-subtly painted a favorable AI regulatory environment as an essential ingredient in the recipe for competitive success against nations including China.

Unsurprisingly, this favorable regulatory environment seemingly refers to implementing relaxed training rules.

“The federal government can both secure Americans’ freedom to learn from AI,” the ChatGPT developer wrote, “and avoid forfeiting our AI lead to the PRC by preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.”

From there, OpenAI claimed that “rigid copyright rules are repressing innovation and investment” in other markets – and purportedly inhibiting the involved AI operations’ growth in the process.

Enter the newspaper-conglomerate pushback, which roundly attacks OpenAI’s attempt to draw a connection between relaxed copyright rules and national security.

“Gutting generations of copyright protections for the benefit of AI bots would have a chilling effect not just on news organizations but on all creative content creators,” the text reads in part.

On the other hand, “fairly compensating” and obtaining permission from rightsholders “is the right, just and American thing to do,” the document proceeds. “The government should reject these self-serving proposals and protect the work of artists” as well as others yet, per the conglomerate.

Overall, most of the music space appears to agree that training generative AI models without rightsholder permission or compensation is anything but fair. However, it remains to be seen if the courts will feel the same way.

Meanwhile, if OpenAI is right about one thing, it’s that training protections are (and probably always will be) nonexistent in multiple countries around the globe. Especially given AI’s breakneck evolution, it’s unclear how rightsholders can effectively tackle this unprecedented problem in the long term.

Sony Music head Rob Stringer, whose company says it’s taken down over 75,000 AI deepfakes to date. Photo Credit: SME

As the UK considers a controversial AI law, Sony Music Entertainment (SME) has revealed that it’s taken down a total of over 75,000 tracks containing unauthorized soundalike audio.

SME disclosed as much in remarks submitted as part of a consultation on AI copyright regulations. As we previously reported, said consultation coincided with a UK government proposal for (among different things) an AI-training “opt-out” option.

Like its name suggests, that regulatory framework would establish a system under which AI giants can lawfully train models on protected materials without prior authorization. In a nutshell, it’d be on rightsholders to expressly opt out of training.

Against the backdrop of justified rights-related concerns in the AI space, many are far from thrilled about the approach. The majors, Merlin, music orgs including AIM, and a variety of non-music players called out the potential law via public remarks.

Meanwhile, most if not all those parties undoubtedly offered comments for the actual consultation, which spanned 10 weeks and stopped taking responses on February 25th.

(Looking to simultaneously “turbocharge AI” and drive economic growth, the government, for its part, says it’s reviewing the information “to help design the best possible policy to achieve the aims and objectives set out in this consultation.”)

It’s here that Sony Music pointed to the more than 75,000 takedowns of unapproved digital replicas.

Considering the figure from multiple angles, there is, of course, a clear-cut commercial downside to deepfake audio for today’s most commercially prominent artists and labels. And the pile of unauthorized uploads, presumably deflecting streams and fan interest from the impacted professionals, is nothing to scoff at.

On the other hand, as of November 2023, Sony Music placed the deepfake-takedown total at approximately 10,000 – for a low-end average of 144 flagged works per day in the interim. Given the popular acts in question, SME’s presumably robust flagging procedures, and the outputs’ relative absence from platforms including Spotify, the average isn’t necessarily terrible from the company’s perspective.

Nevertheless, deepfakes are deepfakes, some of the AI creations are presumably falling through the cracks, and the problem could well intensify in the coming years.

More immediately, SME also took the opportunity to push back against the opt-out proposal as well as the broader idea of relaxing rules at the intersection of AI and copyright. Moving forward with the plan, Sony Music said, would harm artists, disrupt ongoing training-license negotiations, negatively affect the wider IP arena, and fuel economic fallout to boot.

Unsurprisingly, these and adjacent worries are prompting continued discussions across the pond. The Independent yesterday described the regulatory talks, and the UK government has reportedly delayed the overarching AI Bill’s publication until at least summer.

Ahead of an April 5th TikTok sale deadline, ByteDance and potential buyers have yet to begin negotiating, per a new report. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

Are TikTok sale negotiations nonexistent? About one month out from a divestiture deadline in the U.S., the possibility is once again taking center stage.

The subject reentered the media spotlight in reports from Axios and others, which, citing anonymous sources, touched on the purported absence of divestment discussions between ByteDance and prospective purchasers.

As most are well aware, the Beijing-headquartered TikTok parent has until April 5th to sell the app in the States. And while the already-extended deadline may change (more on this in a moment), any successful talks will have to commence in earnest sooner rather than later.

Behind the obvious point, it’s worth bearing in mind the little-discussed multibillion-dollar price tag and logistical hurdles at hand. Data migration, the app’s algorithm, competition among potential buyers, and a whole lot else stand out here – with the bigger takeaway being the many moving parts in play.

At least for now, though, the most pressing of those moving parts concern the sale discussions themselves. It’s not a secret that it’ll be up to the Chinese government (which actually owns a piece of ByteDance) to allow and then sign off on a transaction involving TikTok.

Nor is it a secret that Beijing might not be inclined to green-light the deal; last month, we covered the Chinese government’s reported “slow-rolling” approach to the TikTok sale.

According to the mentioned Axios report, little has changed in the interim; there “still haven’t been negotiations” between ByteDance and possible buyers, per the update. Assuming the information is accurate, it doesn’t exactly bode well for TikTok’s U.S. future.

On the other hand, the above-noted April 5th deadline might not be set in stone. Should the date arrive without a TikTok deal (or progress towards a deal), President Trump this week said he’d “probably” grant another extension.

Thus, unless a sale agreement comes out of left field, it doesn’t look like TikTok’s U.S. fate will be decided during the next month or so. But as highlighted, especially owing to the eye-watering price tag, ByteDance and the Chinese government will presumably dive into discussions soon if serious about selling.

Meanwhile, TikTok’s future is irrelevant to many in the industry – a reality fueled by far-from-ideal music monetization (especially for indies), questions about virality’s ability to drive sustainable streaming growth, and more.

Universal Music head Lucian Grainge is once again weighing in on the UK’s AI regulatory landscape amid continued debate over an ‘opt-out’ system for rightsholders. Photo Credit: UMG

Amid continued debate over proposed AI regulations in the UK, Universal Music Group head Lucian Grainge is doubling down on calls for “reasonable public safeguards” for protected works.

The London native reiterated his position in a roughly 400-word Times column today, after previously weighing in on the important subject earlier this week.

As many know, these remarks – besides a silent protest album and comments from a variety of different industry players – have arrived as the UK considers an “opt-out” AI-training law.

In short, the measure would seemingly enable generative AI developers to train their models on protected works unless individual artists, rightsholders, and others expressly opt out.

Though the proposal is eliciting ample pushback (not confined to the music world, it bears noting), Grainge didn’t mention training or opt-out requirements at all in his newest comments.

Instead, the 64-year-old emphasized the central role of human creativity in music, the industry’s ability to adapt in the face of change, and the UK’s “world-leading creative industries.”

Then, getting to the heart of the matter, the UMG CEO wrapped by summing up the pitfalls that could stem from “a failure of leaders to establish reasonable public safeguards” at the intersection of AI and IP.

“AI will transform society,” Grainge concluded, “but how it transforms society is up to us. That’s why governments, industries and creators must work in harmony, seeking fairness and compromise to chart a path toward responsible AI.”

Of course, it remains to be seen what that path entails. DMN Pro in its latest weekly report provided updates on the industry’s multiple AI cases – and the adjacent chance that artificial intelligence giants might score “fair use” rights to copyrighted works.

While far from ideal, the potential outcome raises questions about an opt-out system’s possible revenue upside for labels and others. And in the bigger picture, will a UK-specific AI law really have teeth given the technology’s global impact?

To reiterate the obvious, several AI developers operate out of (or will at some point set sail in) countries where IP protections aren’t exactly ironclad. It’s difficult to cover every base (or even most bases) in this area, but DMN Pro last year explored the training particulars of Kunlun Tech’s Melodio, billed as “the world’s first AI-powered music streaming platform.”

Also worth considering are the long-term obstacles associated with soundalike AIs. In general, even with the absence of U.S. legislation addressing the issue, rightsholders have been able to decommission leading offenders here.

But down the line, strong laws and effective takedown efforts or not, it’s hardly a stretch to imagine that the systems behind unauthorized digital replicas will become more capable, widespread, and commonly utilized. Meanwhile, lawfully trained music AIs appear poised to fuel unique challenges of their own in the not-so-distant future.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware: Ground zero for Thomson Reuters v. Ross (Photo: City of Wilmington, DE

A flyover of where things stand in the music industry’s critical AI legal cases.

We’ll open with the obvious: AI is not only transforming the music industry, it’s also shaking up thousands of other major industries and shifting daily life – for better or for worse. While ‘disruptive’ has become an overused tech-cliché, it truly fits AI – with changes churning through creative processes, production, streaming music platforms, consumer electronics, and rights management arenas.

But in the all-important arena of content creation, copyrights, and IP ownership, where do things stand on the legal front? In the AI arena, the truism remains: technology moves more quickly than the grinding court and legislative tribunals. However, developments are emerging, including a declarative judgment in the long-running battle between Thomson Reuters and ROSS Interactive.

Shifting back to the music industry, where do the pressing music-specific legal cases surrounding AI stand? Let’s do a flyover.

Please note: the following report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute — thank you.

Photo Credit: Merlin Network

Merlin has officially added its voice to the choir of opposition surrounding a proposed AI training law in the UK.

The indie collective just recently took aim at the controversial measure, which would, in short, allow generative AI developers to (lawfully) train models on protected works without permission.

Under the suggested framework, it’d then be up to individual rightsholders to opt out of training. In other words, the arrangement would seemingly prove positive only for AI developers, to the detriment of a variety of industry players and the wider IP space.

Hence the music sector’s clear-cut pushback against the possible law, which, we previously covered, promptly elicited retorts from the majors and the Association of Independent Music (AIM) alike.

Now, Merlin, which isn’t a stranger to expressing AI-related concerns, is also addressing the potential training free-for-all.

All told, the indie giant estimated that its members could incur north of $200 million in annual damages – referring to would-be music revenue soaked up by artificial intelligence companies – as a result of AI audio.

“The Government’s proposal would enable AI developers—many of them massive global corporations—to extract value from independent artists without permission or compensation,” drove home Merlin CEO Jeremy Sirota.

“Independent music is not raw material for tech companies to exploit without consent. AI should be additive, not a tool for devaluing human artistry. These changes must be immediately reconsidered before irreparable damage is done,” the Merlin head concluded.

Instead of rolling back IP protections, Merlin proceeded, the government should compel AI developers to seek training permission beforehand and, as that ship has in many instances sailed, disclose all materials already ingested by their models.

On this front, it looks as though expanded copyright protections (or at least the prevention of a rights rollback) could be in the cards across the pond, we noted. And London-based Merlin concluded by applauding reports that the government “may revise its approach” on the training side.

More immediately, the major labels, AIM, and Merlin certainly aren’t alone in calling out the proposed law, several responses to which have reached DMN’s inbox.

On top of the silent album protesting no-holds-barred AI training, for instance, Independent Music Publishers’ E-Licensing (IMPEL) CEO Sarah Williams criticized the floated law as “a huge misstep.”

“Instead of changing the law to place an opt-out burden on the creators and the copyright industry,” Williams relayed in part, “the UK Government should show global leadership and innovate. We call upon them to direct their political will towards supporting technical and commercial initiatives that enforce transparency, enable good actors in the AI space to license responsibly, and most importantly, support the creators and the industries behind UK’s sought-after cultural output.”

Lastly, Independent Music Publishers International Forum (IMPF) President Annette Barrett voiced support for the overarching Make It Fair campaign, which has a number of backers in and well beyond the music world.

“The Labour Government’s proposed change to copyright law, which favours big tech and AI developers at the expense of artists, their rights, and their work, represents an existential threat to IP in the UK,” added Barrett.

“It is encouraging to see such unification on the issue and the huge impact the Make It Fair campaign has had in such a short time. We urge a different approach from the UK Government that will protect one of the country’s greatest exports,” concluded Barrett.

An aerial shot of London. Photo Credit: Jaanus Jagomägi

The major labels and the indie sector alike are pushing back against a UK government proposal that would allegedly allow AI giants to train on protected works with impunity.

Universal Music’s Lucian Grainge, Sony Music’s Rob Stringer, Warner Music’s Robert Kyncl, and others just recently took aim at the controversial training framework, which we first covered back in December.

In short, the measure as outlined would enable gen-AI developers to (lawfully) train models on copyrighted materials unless rightsholders expressly opt out. Amid well-documented artificial intelligence training concerns, the likes of news companies, authors, and music-space players promptly voiced their opposition.

At least in theory, the training proposal is designed to encourage UK investments from AI companies, which are grappling with stiff regulatory scrutiny in the EU. (Even so, some maintain that the EU’s voluminous AI Act is failing to adequately protect copyrights.)

To be sure, Prime Minister Keir Starmer in mid-January not-so-subtly unveiled a “blueprint to turbocharge AI,” which will purportedly “deliver a decade of national renewal.”

But according to critics including the majors, which weighed in ahead of a February 25th consultation cutoff, the proposal would compromise intellectual property rights as well as the monetization of music.

Without diving too far into the corresponding remarks, which span hundreds of words in total, Grainge indicated that the United Kingdom “stands at a decisive crossroads” regarding its ability to protect IP.

Kyncl added that the training proposal would be “very detrimental” to the music sphere, and Stringer underscored the belief that “creators must be rewarded for being part of this [AI] technological revolution.”

Additionally, Association of Independent Music (AIM) chief executive Gee Davy told Digital Music News that the AI training “exception would put Britain in a race to the bottom.”

“The UK’s independent music businesses are innovative, tech-friendly early adopters who are excited about where AI can help them, but not at the expense of musicians’ abilities to make a living,” Davy said to DMN.

“A text and data mining exception would put Britain in a race to the bottom rather than fostering a system where both music and AI can thrive across the UK,” the AIM head continued. “What’s more, the Government’s proposal of an opt-out system would place a disproportionate burden on smaller players and market entrants. Independents want to work with AI developers to create frameworks for mutual growth and success.”

Instead of having an opt-out option, creators should automatically enjoy training safeguards, the above-mentioned Daily Mail campaign relayed.

Lawmakers should further amend the UK’s Data Bill to bolster copyright protections in the AI era, according once again to the campaign. Said amendment has drawn support from Paul McCartney, Elton John, several organizations, and, perhaps most importantly, a number of peers, per regional reports.

As the multifaceted lawmaking process plays out across the pond, pressing AI questions remain in the States. Just in passing, that includes conflicting views and decisions about what exactly constitutes fair use – besides a recent AI (but not generative AI, it’s worth reiterating) legal win for Thomson Reuters.

The five-piece group known as NewJeans and NJZ. Photo Credit: TenAsia

What’s stopping K-pop sensations from nixing agency contracts, rebranding, and setting out on their own? Not too much, according to Korean music groups, which are warning that the ongoing NewJeans/NJZ controversy “threatens the entire industry.”

Five organizations (including the Korea Management Federation and the Recording Industry Association of Korea) recently voiced this concern and entreated lawmakers to rally behind a related anti-tampering proposal.

By now, many are aware of the much-publicized dispute between NJZ (previously NewJeans) and the group’s seemingly former professional home, Hybe-owned Ador.

As we’ve covered at length, this back-and-forth battle (stemming from a showdown involving Ador’s one-time head and Hybe) has delivered several twists. However, things took a major turn during the final months of 2024, when NewJeans, capitalizing on a prior ultimatum, moved to axe its existing contract.

Unsurprisingly, the aggressive maneuver isn’t sitting right with Ador and Hybe, which maintain that the deal is still valid and are looking to prove as much in court. But the five-piece act, far from remaining on the sideline ahead of the case’s reported March 7th initial hearing, opted to rebrand as NJZ.

Under this fresh name, and with the same lineup as the original NewJeans, the group has spearheaded a Calvin Klein deal, teed up live performances, and even teased upcoming music releases.

And while NewJeans superfans are thrilled, leading players in K-pop, which in many ways revolves around marathon contracts and multifaceted development processes, aren’t quite so enthusiastic.

Returning to the aforementioned release, the noted organizations (as well as the Korea Entertainment Producer’s Association, the Record Label Industry Association of Korea, and the Korea Music Content Association) say it’s high time for K-pop stakeholders to cease “seeking to advance their own interests through groundless public-opinion manipulation.”

That refers in part to ending press conferences (like those hosted by NewJeans and Ador’s Min Hee-jin) and appearances before lawmakers (Hanni testified to parliament in October).

Instead, the Korean-language document indicates in more words, the appropriate parties should put disputes to rest in private.

Running with the point, after stressing the considerable public pushback that accompanies K-pop disputes, the organizations’ letter calls for lawmakers to pass an anti-tampering measure tailored for South Korea’s music industry.

If the reps get their way, that law would by their own description protect the space’s exclusive contracts. “If contracts are not legally protected and are terminated by a unilateral declaration,” the translated document spells out, “the K-pop industry will lose its foundation for survival.”

Especially because K-pop diehards aren’t shy about voicing opinions – particularly when it comes to agency disputes involving their favorite acts – it’s unclear whether the legislative push will deliver the desired result.

Closer to the present, NJZ members’ parents (Hyein is still just 16 years old) are operating an Instagram account dedicated to PR.

In one recent statement, these individuals doubled down on the perceived legality of the Ador contract termination and criticized the sought anti-tampering law.

(Also according to NJZ members’ parents, the five organizations, not stopping at putting out a release in favor of the law, are teeing up a press conference for next Thursday, February 27th.)

And in a follow-up statement, the same individuals accused Hybe’s Bang Si-Hyuk of attempting to cancel NJZ’s upcoming ComplexCon show. Firing back with a statement of its own, Ador denied the claim, insisting instead that it’d only urged event organizers to use the group’s “official” name, NewJeans, and coordinate with Hybe on the show.

The FCC has officially issued an enforcement advisory targeting payola involving free performances. Meanwhile, a radio-royalties battle has reignited in Congress. Photo Credit: Eric Nopanen

Look out, radio stations: The FCC has issued an enforcement advisory, complete with a dedicated email address for related complaints, targeting payola.

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau just recently put out that firmly worded advisory, after Senator Marsha Blackburn expressed concerns about possible appearance- and performance-focused payola.

In her letter to FCC head Brendan Carr, the lawmaker specifically pointed to claims that various radio stations had compelled established and emerging artists alike to deliver free performances in exchange for airtime.

In effect, the alleged practice amounts to a little-discussed (and still-illegal) form of payola, or undisclosed payments for radio spins. The Enforcement Bureau began examining the claims, and in an update posted to X, Chairman Carr indicated that “[s]ome radio stations appear to be violating the FCC’s prohibition on Payola.”

The identified potential violations involve “forcing musicians to choose between (1) performing for free (or for reduced fees) at station events or (2) losing out on valuable radio airplay,” he added for good measure.

Enter the aforesaid enforcement advisory, which spells out off the bat that “neither broadcast licensees nor their personnel can compel or accept unreported free or unreported reduced fee performances by musicians in exchange for more favorable airplay.”

On the “personnel” front, perhaps the most interesting component of the advisory pertains to radio-station licensees’ obligation to ensure that individual employees aren’t selling airtime perks.

And when it comes to the “reasonable diligence” required by law in this area, certain stations could face higher standards. Employee affidavits promising to avoid payola might not cut it, the notice warns in more words.

“Thus, for example,” this important section reads, “we would expect stations that report to record charting services to demonstrate greater diligence to prevent improper conduct by its principals and employees than would a station with an all-news format.

“It may fall short of ‘reasonable diligence’ if the licensee of such a reporting station does nothing more than require its employees to execute affidavits stating that they will not violate laws and regulations prohibiting payola,” the text proceeds.

Stations that host events featuring artists – whether the professionals are compensated or not – “must take appropriate steps to ensure that all such promotions or events comply with the payola requirements,” the letter continues.

As to where things go from here, the FCC’s “enforcement staff will consider investigating substantive allegations of payola that come to its attention,” and any such claims can be forwarded to PayolaComplaints@fcc.gov, per the letter.

Closer to the present, a long-running showdown over radio royalties has quietly reignited in Congress. That refers in part to the late-January reintroduction of the American Music Fairness Act, which has support from lawmakers (including the mentioned Senator Blackburn) on both sides of the aisle.

Terrestrial radio stations only cough up for the use of compositions in the U.S., and the noted law would compel (relatively modest) payments for recordings to boot.

Unsurprisingly, the push isn’t sitting right with big radio, which has responded with the Local Radio Freedom Act. House lawmakers last week reintroduced this years-old resolution opposing the implementation of any new performance fee or tax on AM/FM radio stations.

According to the National Association of Broadcasters, the Local Radio Freedom Act already has the support of 114 representatives. Stated bluntly, that means the American Music Fairness Act is once again facing an uphill battle.

Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

Is it time for a public performance overhaul? Members of Congress expressed transparency concerns last year, and the Copyright Office has now launched an official inquiry.

The Copyright Office formally disclosed the notice of inquiry today, just shy of five months after Representatives Scott Fitzgerald, Jim Jordan, and Darrell Issa asked Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to “examine current practices involving licensing fees paid to performing rights organizations” (PROs).

The House Judiciary Committee members’ letter, we reported at the time, touched on the possible “proliferation of PROs” as well as the accuracy with which public performances register and see the corresponding royalties reach the appropriate parties.

On the “proliferation” front, ASCAP and its for-profit rival BMI count as consent-decree-free competitors GMR, SESAC, and AllTrack.

Writing with small businesses (bars and restaurants chief among them) in mind, the lawmakers emphasized the purported “increased costs and burdens imposed on licensees for paying an ever-increasing number of PROs.”

“Thus,” the representatives relayed in part, “licensees are concerned that the proliferation of PROs represents an ever-present danger of infringement allegations and potential litigation risk from new and unknown sources.”

And on the rightsholder side, the lawmakers inquired about “potential recommendations for policymakers” and more regarding royalty-calculation improvements.

(Across the pond, Audoo is popularizing the Audio Meter, a device that simply plugs into any standard outlet and identifies establishments’ actual music usages. However, to the detriment of all but the biggest players, non-digital public performances in the U.S. and elsewhere are still mainly calculated via not-so-accurate estimates and extrapolations.)

“For example,” the lawmakers penned, “it is difficult to determine how accurately lesser known and independent artists as well as smaller publishers are being compensated compared to widely popular artists and major publishers.”

Enter the Copyright Office’s aforementioned inquiry, which has set an April 11th deadline for initial public comments.

After that, follow-up responses will be due by May 27th, the Copyright Office indicated. Of course, the PROs themselves will weigh in as part of the inquiry, which has already drawn support from the MIC Coalition.

In a statement, that organization, which counts as members the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, and many others, applauded the inquiry and urged “much-needed improvements.”

“The continued proliferation of PROs creates growing challenges for businesses of all sizes,” the MIC Coalition proceeded, “further complicating an already complex licensing system.

“By launching this inquiry, the Copyright Office can drive much-needed improvements to the music licensing marketplace by helping provide increased transparency and competition. Addressing this fragmentation will help business owners nationwide and create a fair and more efficient music licensing system for everyone.”

The FCC is officially set ‘to examine’ radio payola in the form of free artist shows. Photo Credit: Eric Nopanen

Are radio stations pressuring artists to play free concerts in exchange for airtime? At least one federal lawmaker believes so, and the FCC is now investigating the comparatively little-discussed type of payola.  

Senator Marsha Blackburn expressed concerns about the possibility in a late-January letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Paying for traditional radio spins and then failing to disclose the plays’ nature to listeners – i.e., payola – is illegal in the U.S.

(It’s a far different story for paid promotional options on streaming services; Spotify’s Discovery Mode, which pushes tracks in exchange for a reduced royalty rate on the resulting plays, has drawn particular criticism from the indie sector.)

But as described by Senator Blackburn, radio stations “have adopted a troubling new tactic” in an attempt “to sidestep these restrictions.”

“Instead of demanding cash or lavish perks from record labels in exchange for airplay,” the lawmaker wrote to the FCC chair, “they now pressure artists to perform ‘free radio shows’ – also referred to as ‘listener appreciation shows’ or ‘charitable concert events.’”

Interestingly, the senator revealed as well that the practice is directly affecting “essentially all artists,” regardless of career stage. “Artists in the industry have told me that it is not unusual for them to perform anywhere from 10 to 50 such shows in any given year. Those just starting out in their career will often perform more,” Senator Blackburn continued.

According to the follow-up Chairman Carr posted on X, we should have additional information sooner rather than later. The FCC head indicated that he’d instructed the agency’s Enforcement Bureau “to examine” the claims, with plans to provide a related update on X sometime “this week.”

On top of the FCC’s payola probe, legislative support is once again building for the American Music Fairness Act.

Senators and representatives (including Senator Blackburn) from both sides of the aisle reintroduced that years-old bill towards January’s end and kicked off February by publicly announcing as much.

And it’ll certainly be worth monitoring the legislation’s progress throughout 2025. In the U.S., unlike in most other nations, AM/FM radio broadcasters pay only for the use of underlying compositions, not recordings themselves.

That reality can be traced to traditional radio’s heyday as a hitmaker – days when labels and others, far from seeking pay for plays, commonly coughed up for spins. To reiterate two obvious points, though, a whole lot has changed since radio payola was the norm decades ago, and big radio has a clear-cut interest in preserving the present royalty system.

Thus far, broadcasters have done just that; the American Music Fairness Act has failed to pass in Congress, where many previously backed the opposing Local Radio Freedom Act.

The latter resolution simply called for lawmakers to abstain from compelling local radio stations to pay any new royalties, taxes, or performance fees. But time will tell whether the American Music Fairness Act can ride its current wave of bipartisan support to passage and then law.

Photo Credit: Ri Ya

Here’s a music industry newsflash: everybody hates Spotify’s cut-rate ‘bundled’ royalty payments — except for Spotify. Six-year-olds enjoy cauliflower more, but now that Spotify just whipped the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) in court, is there anything music publishers can do about it?

This is not just a topic of spirited industry conjecture, but a matter that could potentially reshape the music industry in 2025. But where do music publishers and songwriters go next?

For starters, NMPA chief David Israelite, music publishers, and The MLC may appeal this decision, even if that means losing again. This wasn’t a close case, but it’s the principle of it. However, according to sources eyeing this chess match, the court system is only one battleground, with legislation another vital arena for publishers.

After all, the legislative branch (not to mention the President) approved the landmark Music Modernization Act and created the MLC and its many rules — which included vast indemnifications and protections against licensing litigation for Spotify and other DSPs. You’re welcome Spotify, though rules can be changed and updated, especially when enough special interests want to make it happen.

There’s also the matter of David Israelite, who is almost certainly not walking away from this fight. Speaking of legislation: Israelite was just recently lobbying for across-the-board direct publishing deals last year. For now, however, Spotify gets to send out its discounted mechanical royalty checks after ramping up its US-based bundled subscriptions past 99%, as first tracked by DMN Pro.

But what happens when music publishers are finally sick of cashing those checks?

Previously, all indications were that major label bosses wouldn’t be intervening in publishing-specific disputes, at least in a meaningful way. But those assumptions were incorrect. Enter Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), which corralled its bigger brother parent to force Spotify to pay more and modify its cut-rate payouts.

Now, the hundreds-million-dollar question is what happens next — and more importantly, who rattles the cage demanding a direct licensing relationship.

Under US Copyright Law, any direct deal supersedes a statutory one. So who’s next to demand a direct deal to shutter the bundling loophole?

We don’t have the specific deal terms of the UMPG direct deal. But it’s certainly not worse than what Spotify was paying before. Big deals with UMG tend to set templates for smaller deals, which means that Spotify might end up paying more money to more music publishers than they did pre-bundling via direct deals and demands.

Net-net on a royalty-revenue basis, it’s hard to predict whether Spotify actually wins or loses here. But back at Spotify HQ, life is good: the stock is soaring, and Spotify’s brass are filthy rich. So who cares if a few publishers get stepped on?

This is reminiscent of TikTok’s scorched-earth licensing approach, though Spotify’s hearts-and-minds problem could spell trouble down the line. Already, we’re seeing more fallout, with songwriters boycotting Spotify’s songwriter-themed Grammy party (which itself got canceled).

(As a quick aside, there’s a reason why few in the music industry are advocating for TikTok as it struggles to remain in the US.)

It’s also important to note that Apple Music could easily ‘pull a Spotify’ and flip their subscriptions into bundles overnight. But they aren’t doing that according to DMN Pro’s research on bundling. But will major label and publisher bosses reward Cupertino for ‘doing the right thing’ and paying more to rights owners — even if they technically don’t have to? Others are also playing far more cooperatively than Spotify, and deserve to be rewarded with more exclusives, access, and other perks that come with friendlier partnerships.

Perhaps Spotify foolishly wants to have it both ways. But it’s hard to be the villain and the savior at the same time.

Spotify wants you to believe that they saved the music industry, and they’re pumping billions in found money into the industry ecosystem (we’d know, being on the receiving end of their PR machine). That assessment isn’t entirely incorrect, though for a company trying to shake its image of screwing artists and songwriters, bundling loopholes wasn’t the smartest idea.

Even today, prominent artists like Björk are landing zingers at Spotify over their measly royalties and artist-unfriendly practices. And she’s not wrong, either. Fresh data shows that Apple Music is the better industry partner, with better payouts to rights owners and creators. Whether it’s fair or not, Spotify remains the villain to many, and the shift to bundling isn’t helping.

More as this develops.

Got a tip? Confidentially email me at paul@digitalmusicnews.com; drop a text to (310) 804-0560; or send a Signal to digitalmusicnews.07. 

Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

Can you copyright works created entirely by AI? Definitely not, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, which has elaborated on this existing position and adjacent topics in a 50-page report.

That newly released report, specifically concerning AI copyrights, is the second that the USCO has put out in connection with an August 2023 artificial intelligence inquiry.

Unsurprisingly, the Office received more than a few responses (including from a variety of music industry companies, entities, stakeholders, and professionals) – to the tune of over “10,000 comments representing a broad range of perspectives.”

The inquiry’s first report, centering on soundalike and lookalike outputs, released last year. And an all-important third report, exploring “the training of AI models on copyrighted works, licensing considerations, and allocation of any liability,” is forthcoming.

Keeping the focus on the just-revealed copyrightability report, however, the USCO indicated that “[t]he vast majority of commenters agreed that existing law is adequate in this area and that material generated wholly by AI is not copyrightable.”

As many know, the position isn’t exactly new; the Copyright Office itself has already decided against protecting several works pumped out via AI. But what about works generated partially by AI and instances when AI tools (not straight generative models) are incorporated into the creative process?

The short answer is that it’s complicated – with the long answer proposing a continued case-by-case analysis of whether AI works can be copyrighted.

“Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis,” the Copyright Office summed up.

“Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process,” the Office proceeded, “its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.”

Elsewhere in the all-encompassing AI copyrights report, the Office also tackled the possibility of protecting generative outputs owing to the individual’s role in penning the underlying prompts.

“The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output,” the USCO found.

“In theory,” the entity proceeded, “AI systems could someday allow users to exert so much control over how their expression is reflected in an output that the system’s contribution would become rote or mechanical. The evidence as to the operation of today’s AI systems indicates that this is not currently the case.”

Lastly, when it comes to apparently human-created works (like music or illustrations) inputted into and then modified by AI models – or largely human-created works containing well-defined AI components – copyright will solely protect the “perceptible human expressions” at hand.

“[The individual’s] own creative expression will be protected by copyright,” the USCO summarized, “with a scope analogous to that in a derivative work. Just as derivative work protection is limited to the material added by the later author, copyright in this type of AI-generated output would cover the perceptible human expression.”

And at least for the time being, it’d be wise to stick with the aforementioned case-by-case AI copyrights determinations as opposed to addressing the heretofore unseen issue via new laws, the Office reiterated in conclusion.

“Because the copyrightability inquiry requires analysis of each work and the context of its creation,” the USCO wrote, “statutory language would be limited in its ability to provide brighter lines. Unless and until future developments raise new problems, the Office does not recommend a change in the law.”

Since early 2024, Spotify has been ramming nearly every subscriber into a cut-rate ‘bundled’ package involving music and audiobooks — and boasting about the huge royalty savings while fighting publishers tooth-and-nail. Now, there’s serious pushback coming from Universal Music Group itself — and a brand-new, direct licensing deal with Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) to deal with the bundling funny business.

Earlier this month, DMN Pro revealed that Spotify had successfully migrated more than 99 percent of its subscribers into bundled packages in the all-important US market, part of a dramatic shift that started in March 2024. Now, the pushback is expanding beyond the music publishing sector, forcing Spotify to potentially reconsider those royalty downgrades.

According to fresh deal terms confirmed to Digital Music News over the weekend, Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) have finalized a multi-year agreement encompassing recorded music and music publishing with important direct-licensing components.

It’s a first-of-its-kind deal on the publishing side and a signal of a potentially colossal royalty correction ahead.

Spotify re-ups with UMG every few years, but this time, it’s different — very, very different.

A significant aspect of the refreshed agreement is a direct licensing arrangement between Spotify and Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) in the United States and other regions. This direct deal is the first of its kind since the Music Modernization Act of 2018, and signals a potentially profound shift in the dynamics between streaming platforms and music publishers — and their label group parents.

As of this weekend, it’s unclear exactly how Spotify’s deal with UMPG changes the publishing payout structure, particularly for bundled royalties. However, at least two sources noted that UMPG is getting substantially better payouts than the statutory mechanical royalties being metered out to other publishers, particularly regarding bundled plans. That involves a substantial rollback or modification of bundling-based discounts, though it’s unclear whether Spotify is doing away with them entirely.

Beyond the UMPG deal, Spotify is understood to be keeping its payments for other music publishers the same.

But that could change very rapidly as mega-label groups like Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and even Merlin start making demands—potentially with the threat of content removals on the recording side. You can almost feel the rumblings coming ahead, particularly given that UMG tends to set the tone for ‘downstream’ deals involving smaller major labels and IP owners.

But why would a direct publishing deal be needed if the Music Modernization Act outlined terms for all music streaming platforms (DSPs) and music publishers?

One reason is that the MMA pact is simply breaking down, with music publishers effectively despising Spotify for exploiting statutory loopholes to pay them less. That includes UMPG, one of the largest music publishers in the world, which has become increasingly vocal about its mistreatment by Spotify. After a year of fruitless pushback, perhaps it was time for a sit-down with UMG’s bosses.

Leading up to this point, major music publishers—represented by the NMPA and its battling CEO David Israelite—spent a good chunk of 2024 pushing back against Spotify’s bundling shenanigans, which involved significantly lowered royalty payments to publishers and songwriters. The Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) even sued Spotify over the bundling shifts, though Spotify has been litigating back.

At one point, David Israelite even started pushing for a direct licensing structure between music publishers and streaming platforms to complement current statutory rates. Israelite certainly has the pull on Capitol Hill, though it’s unclear where those direct-licensing efforts stand now.

Either way, Spotify’s message to publishers has been extremely unfriendly. Given the predefined statutory rates and agreements, publishers have little recourse outside protracted legal battles and protests that rarely make it outside of industry circles.

Total US-based Spotify subscribers, November 2024, broken down by tier (Source: DMN Pro).

All of which necessitated a change in the game plan for 2025, with a different sort of blowback now coming from Universal Music Group. But there are also other aspects to this deal.

In the agreement announcement, Universal Music Group said its Spotify agreement supports its “Streaming 2.0” vision, which seeks to reshape the economics of music streaming and ensure fairer compensation for artists and songwriters. That vision includes new product developments and offerings, including new subscription tiers, bundled content offerings, and enhanced audio and visual experiences.

And, of course, there’s the reset on bundles combining music and non-music content.

Notably, the deal also continues UMG’s focus on ‘artist-centric principles,’ which, according to UMG, ensures that artists are rewarded based on their contribution to listener engagement and that their royalties are protected from fraudulent activity.

That includes previously established rules like a 1,000-stream-per-annum threshold for triggering payments and weeding out the ‘noise’ of background sounds and AI-generated recordings.

(As a humorous aside, one indie label manager called this ‘Streaming 2X’ given that UMG is using its muscle to get a bigger cut from Spotify. Indeed, UMG has been shifting the tables to drive more revenues into their coffers and away from indie labels, producers of background tracks, and AI factories, among other camps.)

Sir Lucian Grainge, Chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group, expressed his enthusiasm for the deal, stating that it aligns perfectly with UMG’s ‘Streaming 2.0’ vision. “When we first presented our vision for the next stage in the evolution of music subscription several months ago—Streaming 2.0—this is precisely the kind of partnership development we envisioned,” Grainge relayed.

“This agreement furthers and broadens the collaboration with Spotify for both our labels and music publisher, advancing artist-centric principles to drive greater monetization for artists and songwriters, as well as enhancing product offerings for consumers.”

Got a tip? Confidentially email news@digitalmusicnews.com, text +1 (310) 804-0560, or Signal to digitalmusicnews.07.

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/2025/01/14/junk-fees-rule-ftc-expansion-request/ Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:35:26 +0000 https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/?p=312217

Washington, D.C.’s Apex Building, which serves as the headquarters of the FTC. Photo Credit: Harrison Keely

About one month after the FTC announced a rule pertaining to “junk fees” for concert tickets and more, the National Independent Talent Association (NITO) is pushing for the rule’s expansion.

NITO expressed its clear-cut position in a recent letter that was sent to the FTC and shared with DMN. As we reported in December, the relevant government agency voted 4-1 in favor of the so-called Junk Fees Rule, which, the FTC acknowledged at the time, won’t “prohibit any type or amount of fee.”

Rather, as laid out in the appropriate release, the measure would compel certain businesses (hotels and vacation rentals, besides those in live entertainment) to “tell consumers the whole truth up-front about prices and fees.”

That’s a long-winded way of describing all-in pricing, or, when it comes to live entertainment, a model where tickets’ total cost, inclusive of all fees, is displayed to consumers before checkout.

Already mandated under multiple states’ laws, all-in pricing counts as proponents not just a number of lawmakers, but Live Nation. On the latter’s Ticketmaster subsidiary, Kendrick Lamar’s forthcoming tour is utilizing all-in pricing, for example.

Though a larger sample is needed to draw concrete conclusions, all-in pricing reportedly improved sales for the leading promoter – which has for some time drawn heavy criticism from federal lawmakers. In other words, the commercial consequences of the rule, officially slated to go into effect in mid-April, remain to be seen.

Meanwhile, as Commissioner Andrew Ferguson (who cast the lone vote against the rule and, importantly, is President-elect Trump’s pick to chair the FTC) summed up in his dissenting statement, it’s also unclear whether the FTC under the incoming administration will enforce the Junk Fees Rule.

Instead of waiting to find out, NITO has touted the Junk Fees Rule as “a positive step forward” – while simultaneously urging its expansion to target underlying charges. (Technically, the final Junk Fees Rule was dialed back substantially from the initial iteration disclosed in October 2023.)

“The FTC’s junk fee ruling however does nothing to address or reduce actual junk fees that are now buried inside each concert ticket,” NITO wrote to the Federal Trade Commission. “Transparency that shows the price gap between the amount that an artist wants to charge and the amount the fan pays has been lost with this ruling.

“NITO will continue to work with industry stakeholders to limit the costs passed onto consumers and ensure concert goers pay a fair price to see their favorite artists,” the entity concluded.

Moving forward, it’ll be worth keeping an eye out for the FTC’s response here and the fate of the Junk Fees Rule itself. Across the pond, the UK government last week unveiled a plan targeting resale tickets, floating, among other things, a cap on secondary passes’ prices.

An investor group has officially submitted an offer to buy TikTok in the U.S. Photo Credit: Visuals

Ahead of a quick-approaching divestment deadline for TikTok in the U.S., an investor group has submitted a formal buyout offer.

That proposal has arrived courtesy of Project Liberty founder Frank McCourt’s The People’s Bid for TikTok, which disclosed the offer in a release.

Per Kevin O’Leary-supported People’s Bid, its varied backers include “major” private equities, various family offices, and a number of “high net worth individuals,” with “debt financing from one of the largest banks in the United States” to boot.

And while the entity opted against disclosing the precise size and terms of its offer, reports previously indicated that People’s Bid had secured a cumulative $20 billion in capital commitments.

“We’ve put forward a proposal to ByteDance to realize Project Liberty’s vision for a reimagined TikTok – one built on an American-made tech stack that puts people first,” weighed in Frank McCourt.

“By keeping the platform alive without relying on the current TikTok algorithm and avoiding a ban, millions of Americans can continue to enjoy the platform. We look forward to working with ByteDance, President-elect Trump, and the incoming administration to get this deal done,” the former Dodgers owner concluded.

Of course, time will tell whether the deal does, in fact, close. ByteDance has long been adamant that a sale isn’t in the cards – with TikTok’s much-touted algorithm a sizable hurdle.

However, on top of McCourt’s comments regarding “the current TikTok algorithm,” O’Leary, who’s still making the media rounds in support of the bid, last week emphasized that the sought transaction wouldn’t encompass the algorithm.

It remains to be seen whether that point and the imminent TikTok forced-sale cutoff will prompt ByteDance to warm up to the possibility of selling.

Keeping the focus on what we do know, though, the Supreme Court doesn’t appear too sympathetic to TikTok’s arguments against the underlying sell-or-shutdown law.

Similarly, it’s unclear whether President Biden will grant a once-off 90-day extension (which is an option under the relevant law) to TikTok’s January 19th ban deadline. Meanwhile, with an administration change set for January 20th, it’s possible that President-elect Trump will revive the app.

Stated differently, we should soon have answers to several key questions about TikTok’s U.S. future – with competitors including but not limited to the revamped Triller already maneuvering to attract users should the ban move forward.

As for how the (betting) market expects the unprecedented episode to play out, at the time of writing, Kalshi odds were pointing to a 68% chance that the U.S. “bans TikTok before May.”

Much higher than at January’s beginning, this percentage looks to pertain to the app’s operating continuously in its current form – not necessarily the potential for the platform’s revival under a non-ByteDance owner.

On the other hand, when asked about the chance of the TikTok ban going through, Evercore ISI senior managing director Mark Mahaney recently told Bloomberg Technology that “it’s less than [a] 50% chance, maybe it’s 20-25%.”

The UK government has revealed a plan to crack down on concert ticket prices, including via pricing caps for resale passes. Photo Credit: Vienna Reyes

The UK government has officially announced a “plan to tackle greedy ticket touts” – including by introducing resale-pass price caps and more.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as others revealed that initiative, one component of the government’s wider Plan for Change, via a formal release today. Of course, given 2024’s particularly well-documented ticket-price complaints, the development doesn’t exactly come as a surprise.

To be sure, the release pertaining to the ticket-tout clampdown rather directly mentions the expensive cost of attendance for Taylor Swift gigs as well as Oasis’ comeback tour. (Last year, related ticketing fallout unfolded across the pond for Oasis, which opted against using Ticketmaster’s Dynamic Pricing for its North American leg.)

Returning to the actual effort to rout ticket touts in the UK, the undertaking is kicking off with a “public consultation” exploring “a range of options to make ticket resales fairer,” per the announcement.

Chief among those options is the initially highlighted resale-price cap, with an eye on “seeking views on a range from the original price to up to a 30 per cent uplift” as part of the public consultation. Also on the table are limits targeting the number of primary passes “ticket resellers” can purchase and then list.

“These measures would prevent organised touts reselling a large number of tickets at vastly inflated prices and disincentivise industrial scale touting,” the UK government claimed.

Of course, secondhand tickets can only sell for “vastly inflated prices” when buyers are willing to cough up massive sums. With commercially prominent acts’ millions upon millions of fans, demand can quite easily outstrip supply and send pricing into the stratosphere.

Following the idea to its logical conclusion, it’s unclear whether capping prices on ticket-resale platforms would ultimately benefit consumers, who could, at least in theory, simply arrange for supplemental off-platform payments to score especially hot passes.

In any event, the plan seemingly reflects consumers’ continued frustration with climbing concert-ticket prices. Expectedly, the same plan is poised to deliver “new legal obligations” for ticket-resale platforms concerning “the accuracy of information they provide to fans.”

In the cards as well is a review of existing legislation to bring consumer enforcement “up to date,” per the government. A “new licensing regime” for resale platforms and a possible increase to the current $6,111/£5,000 top-end fine for ticketing-rule breaches could be forthcoming to boot, according to the announcement.

As 2025 ramps up, it’ll be worth following the ticket-tout crackdown and the pricing impact thereof. Notably, while consumers are evidently still willing to shell out to see their favorite artists on tour, multiple festivals are struggling with sluggish demand and adjacent operational woes.

An investor group has reportedly secured over $20 billion in capital commitments to buy TikTok, though ByteDance is adamant that a sale isn’t in the cards. Photo Credit: Jonathan Kemper

Will a last-minute sale save TikTok from shutting down in the U.S.? Former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt is moving forward with a reportedly $20 billion bid to purchase the ByteDance-owned app.

The Project Liberty founder McCourt confirmed as much yesterday, in a formal announcement message. We briefly covered the development when providing an update on the platform’s Supreme Court challenge to the relevant law.

Without retreading too much ground there, that law is compelling ByteDance to cash out of TikTok or effectively shut down the platform by January 19th in the States. A high-stakes oral argument before the Supreme Court is set for Friday, and Beijing-based ByteDance is adamant that it won’t sell under any circumstances.

This clear-cut declaration hasn’t stopped investors – including but certainly not limited to the initially mentioned Frank McCourt – from lining up to buy the app’s stateside operation.

We’ve charted the purchase interest from the get-go, and McCourt’s exploring a deal specifically via a group called The People’s Bid for TikTok. These details aren’t new, but the addition of businessman Kevin O’Leary to the effort only emerged yesterday.

O’Leary himself first expressed interest in buying TikTok closer to the beginning of 2024. And as part of the just-revealed tie-up, the 70-year-old has folded his TikTok-buyout crowdfunding platform, WonderfulTikTok.com, into People’s Bid.

All told, the latter has secured north of $20 billion in capital commitments from investors, according to Reuters’ description of McCourt’s comments. Per the same outlet, the billionaire expects the Supreme Court to uphold the TikTok ban law and is anticipating more earnest sales discussions with ByteDance after the fact.

Meanwhile, O’Leary has been in contact with President-elect Trump (who’s urged the Supreme Court to pause the ban law until he assumes office). And in a recent X post, the Montreal native O’Leary emphasized that he and McCourt wouldn’t insist on the inclusion of much-coveted algorithms.

In short, ByteDance (part of which belongs to the Chinese government) has long considered the algorithms a key component of TikTok – and, in turn, a major roadblock to any potential sale.

“What Frank McCourt and I wanted to eliminate is the misconception that we can’t sell it because no one will buy it without the algorithm,” O’Leary wrote in part. “NOT true. We’ll buy it without the algorithm. We don’t need them. We’ll do it ourselves and make TikTok wonderful again.”

As to where things go from here, all eyes are now on TikTok’s previously highlighted January 10th oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Also worth bearing in mind is that President Biden has until January 19th to decide whether to extend the forced-sale deadline by up to 90 days. Lastly, regarding what the post-TikTok landscape may look like, many on social media are already discussing the possibility of using VPNs to access the platform.

And as the ban law zeroes in particularly on the app’s digital-marketplace distribution and updates, Reuters “experts” believe it’s “likely” that existing users would (at least for a time) have post-ban access. Needless to say, however, there isn’t exactly a straightforward playbook for the unprecedented situation, and the video-sharing giant could only survive for so long without releasing updates.

The Supreme Court Building. Photo Credit: Joe Ravi

The last-minute Supreme Court review of the TikTok ban law is underway, and confidential documents are officially being transferred to the nation’s highest court.

That documents transfer has arrived just days before the Supreme Court will hear a decidedly important oral argument in connection with the TikTok ban challenge.

As most already know, the app and its ByteDance parent have long been pushing back against the relevant law, under which the latter company must divest from TikTok’s U.S. operation or cease operating the platform domestically.

Thus far, however, this multifaceted opposition has failed to bring about the desired result for TikTok. Unless the platform sells in the States or receives a once-off 90-day extension to find a buyer, it’ll seemingly be forced to go dark stateside.

The sale deadline is set specifically for January 19th – one day before President-elect Trump’s inauguration. Meanwhile, the mentioned extension, which senators from both sides of the aisle are urging, would have to come from the president.

It’s unclear whether President Biden intends to delay the forced-sale cutoff. But the president-elect has urged the Supreme Court to pause the deadline until after he assumes office.

In other words, there’s quite a lot riding on TikTok’s Supreme Court appeal, for which a two-hour oral argument is slated to take place on Friday, January 10th.

Lengthy briefs have already been filed ahead of this oral argument – and confidential documents are evidently making their way to Supreme Court justices as well. “Sealed portions of the record were transferred to the Supreme Court via Syncplicity,” appeals court clerks told the Supreme Court clerk in a recent letter.

Additionally, a “classified information security officer” would handle “the delivery of the classified material” that’s part of the litigation, per the concise text.

Though it perhaps goes without saying, it’ll be extremely interesting to see how the oral argument – and the overarching Supreme Court appeal – unfolds.

Closer to the present, the unprecedented TikTok ban situation is for obvious reasons continuing to fuel uncertainty for the creators and businesses that utilize the popular platform.

On the personnel side, Sameer Singh, TikTok’s global business solutions head for North America, has reportedly exited the company. And businessman Kevin O’Leary (who previously emphasized his desire to buy the app) has formally joined up with former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt to explore a bid via “The People’s Bid for TikTok.”

Despite the long list of potential TikTok buyers at hand, the app’s sale is extremely far from set in stone. ByteDance has been adamant from the outset that a divestment simply isn’t in the cards, and any deal would bring a number of logistical hurdles pertaining to user data and a whole lot else.

Two U.S. senators are asking the president to approve a once-off 90-day extension to the TikTok ban deadline. Photo Credit: Scrumshus

With just 30 days remaining until TikTok’s forced-sale deadline in the U.S., senators from both sides of the aisle are asking the president to approve a one-time 90-day extension.

Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) made that request in a straightforward letter to President Biden. As more than a few creators, businesses, and users are already aware, a months-old law will soon force TikTok to go dark in the U.S. unless its ByteDance parent divests.

Less widely known than that January 19th cutoff, however, is the president’s ability to extend the TikTok ban deadline by 90 days under the relevant law, full title the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

TikTok and ByteDance have long underscored that they don’t intend to sell. And while they’ll bring their challenge before the Supreme Court next month, the sought result isn’t guaranteed. Plus, with an oral argument slated for January 10th, it’d be an understatement to say that the challenge will go down to the wire.

Enter the senators’ concise extension request, which spans approximately 170 words and cuts directly to the chase.

“The stakes here are high: As a practical matter, even if the Court rules that the law is constitutional by the January deadline, ByteDance cannot divest TikTok in that limited time,” the to-the-point letter reads in part. “Consequently, absent a judicial injunction, decision overturning the law, or action by you, TikTok will soon be banned in the United States, causing its creators and users serious hardship.

“Given the law’s uncertain future and its consequences for free expression, we urge you to trigger the 90-day extension before January 19,” the text concludes.

Notably, some reports are suggesting that the president is unable to extend the deadline under the law as written. Returning for a moment to the measure’s actual text, the president can “grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days.”

To do so, though, he’d have to acknowledge to Congress that “a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified,” present “evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture,” and confirm that “there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.”

Notwithstanding these requirements, logic, the senators’ letter, and loose definitions of “significant” as well as “in place” suggest that President Biden could probably green-light the extension without issue.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether this extension will come to fruition. But as the senators also noted in their letter, the decision is particularly important given that President-elect Trump’s inauguration will take place on the 20th, one day following the TikTok ban cutoff.

NIVA is voicing support for the inclusion of the American Music Tourism Act in a new congressional spending bill. Photo Credit: NIVA

The American Music Tourism Act has found its way into the lengthy spending bill being considered by Congress, and NIVA is applauding the development.

Update (12/19): Following our initial coverage, the original spending legislation made way for a dramatically dialed back bill, the American Relief Act. The latter dropped the TICKET Act as well as the American Music Tourism Act and, in a 218-155 House vote Thursday evening, failed to pass.

The National Independent Venue Association reached out today with comments touting the legislation’s presence in the spending package. Though it perhaps goes without saying given its 1,547-page length, the pork-laden bill, only recently released in its entirety, contains more than a few components.

Keeping the focus on the music space, these components include whole pieces of existing legislation like the TICKET Act (which the House passed in May) and the American Music Tourism Act (which arrived in Congress with the support of the RIAA and others that same month).

(Assuming the TICKET Act becomes law, it’ll be interesting to see its actual impact. Ticketing platforms seemingly already comply with the bill’s refund requirements, and all-in pricing adjustments wouldn’t be too difficult to implement. Plus, although the measure proposes a “speculative ticketing ban,” it expressly allows for the sale of “a service to an individual to obtain an event ticket on behalf of such individual.”)

At the time of this writing, lawmakers, who would enjoy a material pay bump under the spending bill, hadn’t yet voted on the measure. However, reports were pointing to a far-from-guaranteed path to passage, at least in the legislation’s current form, amid growing criticism of the innumerable expenditures and provisions therein.

In any event, the bipartisan American Music Tourism Act appears unlikely to elicit significant pushback in the grand scheme of things, and its inclusion in the oversized spending package is telling.

We first covered the legislation at the time of its mentioned May introduction. Just to summarize, the proposal would amend the tourism-focused Visit America Act (which, like a growing list of laws pertaining to the industry, itself passed in a gigantic spending bill) to also include music venues.

Specifically, that refers to tasking the Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for travel and tourism with “identifying locations and events in the United States that are important to music tourism and promoting domestic travel and tourism to those sites and events.”

Of course, one needn’t stretch the imagination to see why venues and other stakeholders strongly favor the American Music Tourism Act, which NIVA executive director Stephen Parker is touting particularly when it comes to the potential upside for indie venues.

“Independent venues and festivals are the lifeblood of local communities, not just as cultural hubs but also as powerful engines of economic activity,” Parker communicated. “They attract millions of tourists annually, fueling spending at local hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments, while creating jobs and opportunities in every community across America.

“By commissioning the first national strategy and focus on music tourism, this legislation ensures that these spaces continue to thrive, offering diverse programming and unforgettable experiences to audiences from all over the world,” concluded the NIVA higher-up of two years.

The Supreme Court Building. Photo Credit: Joe Ravi

TikTok’s battle for stateside survival just became even more interesting, as the Supreme Court has officially agreed to hear the platform’s ban-law challenge.

The nation’s highest court granted TikTok’s request for review moments ago, after the app and its ByteDance parent submitted a corresponding petition earlier this week.

Said petition came on the heels of an appeals panel ruling upholding the ban law, which, barring court intervention, TikTok’s sale, or a once-off 90-day extension from the president, would result in the app’s domestic ban on January 19th.

While it perhaps goes without saying given that this cutoff is about 30 days away, the stakes are decidedly high for TikTok, which (along with ByteDance) remains adamant that it has no intention to sell.

Keeping the focus on the showdown before the Supreme Court, both TikTok and the government have until 5 PM ET next Friday, December 27th, to submit up to 13,000-word-long opening briefs. Reply briefs, capped this time at 6,000 words apiece, are due the following Friday (January 3rd), with the all-important oral argument scheduled for a total of two hours on Friday the 10th.

The core discussion, the brief spells out, should zero in on whether the TikTok ban bill violates the First Amendment.

“The parties are directed to brief and argue the following question:  Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment,” the relevant text states in no uncertain terms.

As for the injunction sought by TikTok – pertaining to blocking the January 19th deadline from going into effect, that is – the Supreme Court decision is being “deferred pending oral argument.”

In other words, it’d be an understatement to say that there’s a lot riding on this oral argument. From there, just a week and change will remain until the law blocks the app from operating in the world’s largest economy.

(Regarding the logistical considerations at hand, Congress has already notified the Play Store and the App Store to begin preparing for TikTok’s removal.)

Additionally, January 19th will arrive one day before the administration change. Consequently, though President-elect Trump has acknowledged having a “warm spot” for the platform, TikTok’s operational cutoff will precede his taking office. (It’s unclear whether President Biden will grant the extension.)

Without diving too far into the numerous factors at play, there’s a lot more to the situation than simply turning off TikTok in the U.S. on the 19th and then, assuming the president-elect grants the 90-day extension, powering the platform back up for its approximately 150 million domestic users.

The Supreme Court Building. Photo Credit: Joe Ravi

As its U.S. fate hangs in the balance – and moments following a meeting between its CEO and President-elect Trump – TikTok is now petitioning the Supreme Court for an emergency injunction pending review.

ByteDance-owned TikTok made the emergency injunction push official yesterday, after an appellate panel upheld the relevant law closer to December’s beginning. As most are well aware (and as we’ve covered in detail), that law will result in TikTok’s stateside shutdown on January 19th unless the platform sells or the president extends the deadline by 90 days.

On the former front, TikTok and its parent have long criticized the prospect of selling as (among other things) unworkable from an operational perspective. With just 33 days until the cutoff, the position, on top of free-speech arguments and more, certainly hasn’t changed.

This past Friday, the same appellate court that ruled against TikTok rejected the app’s attempt to pause the deadline pending Supreme Court review. The development then set the stage for TikTok to try and bring the matter before the nation’s highest court.

In its petition for an emergency injunction and review from the Supreme Court, TikTok off the bat criticized the appropriate measure as “a massive and unprecedented speech restriction.”

Furthermore, allowing TikTok to go dark in the States – Congress has already notified Google and Apple to begin preparing for the removal from their app stores – would drive “substantial and unrecoverable monetary and competitive harms,” per the petition.

The “countless small businesses” on TikTok would likewise suffer monetary harms, the platform maintained in the 50-page document, exploring as well the perceived unconstitutional nature of the law and a variety of different arguments.

Without diving too far into those multifaceted arguments, it’s worth noting that the platform further stressed the logistically “complex task” of shutting down solely in the States. In the absence of an injunction, TikTok would need “a period of lead time” to swing the shutdown – hence a request that the Supreme Court rule on the petition by January 6th.

In other words, we should know the Supreme Court’s position (and have additional context about TikTok’s U.S. future) sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, TikTok is also appealing directly to President-elect Trump, who recently acknowledged having a “warm spot” for the app. Even so, and despite a meeting yesterday between the president-elect and CEO Shou Zi Chew, the divest-or-ban deadline will arrive one day before Trump’s inauguration.

Stated differently, however the incoming administration handles the TikTok situation, the app will cease operating in the U.S. on January 19th without an injunction or the above-highlighted extension.

Consequently, it’d be an understatement to describe the stakes as high for TikTok, which continues to face regulatory scrutiny in different nations to boot.

The Senate side of the U.S. Capitol. Photo Credit: Scrumshus

Should generative AI developers be required to disclose the protected materials upon which their models trained? At least one member of Congress believes so, and the lawmaker has introduced the “TRAIN Act” as a result.

Short for the “Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks Act,” that straightforward bill comes from Senator Peter Welch (D-VT).

Spanning six pages, the TRAIN Act, in keeping with its title, would establish a subpoena-focused process through which rightsholders could determine “which of their copyrighted works have been used in the training of” AI models.

Any rightsholder who “has a subjective good faith belief that the model” at hand “used some or all of 1 or more” of their copyrighted works during training would be able to pursue a subpoena, per the bill itself.

To do so, each relevant party would “request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to” an AI developer, seeking “records sufficient to identify with certainty, the copyrighted works” actually incorporated into training, the TRAIN Act proceeds.

Unsurprisingly, given that a number of generative AI developers have allegedly trained their products on protected music without permission, industry companies and organizations are supporting the TRAIN Act. That includes the RIAA, the Recording Academy, and the American Federation of Musicians.

Notwithstanding this backing, however, time will tell whether the measure picks up congressional momentum and becomes law. As things stand, different AI bills – chief among them the NO FAKES Act, which, in a nutshell, would establish federal voice and likeness protections – have made seemingly little legislative progress despite multiple industry pushes.

Then there’s the all-important “fair use” question. Logic suggests that ingesting troves of human creations via increasingly advanced AI models (which developers acknowledge rely heavily on protected materials) without rightsholder permission or compensation is anything but fair.

Nevertheless, AI players are adamant that this very practice does, in fact, constitute fair use; related legal battles are underway.

To state the obvious, if generative systems can lawfully train on whatever content they want, permission or no permission, related subpoenas will be of comparatively little import for rightsholders, who’ve already identified alleged infringement based on AI outputs.

Meanwhile, as litigation and legislation plod along (even the EU’s already-passed AI Act will take some time to ramp up, and training-related questions remain), artificial intelligence is continuing to evolve by leaps and bounds.

Music creation, voice replication, and video generation represent some of the many areas where companies have made noteworthy announcements to this point in November.

Photo Credit: iXimus

A closer look at whether TikTok can beat the ban under the Trump Administration in 2025 — and why many in the music industry couldn’t care less.

The emergence of TikTok as a dominant social media platform has not only transformed how users engage with content and music. It has also raised significant concerns about data privacy, underage exploitation, influence peddling, and national security over the past few years.

For many within the industry, the sentiment toward TikTok is ambivalent at best. And if TikTok is shown the exit door, some will undoubtedly advise the app to monitor its rear on the way out.

But will that happen?

Under the previous Trump administration, TikTok was at the center of a contentious political debate, leading to calls for a ban on the app due to its ties with China. Under President Biden, those calls intensified and led to a law banning the app in 2025. With Trump set to return to the presidency, however, the fate of TikTok remains a toss-up.

This DMN Pro report will delve into the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” the potential timeline for a TikTok ban, Trump’s new stance on the app, international developments, including Canada’s recent ban, and the implications for the American music industry amidst these changes.

Report Table of Contents

I. The Looming TikTok Ban: A Look at the Fast-Dropping ‘Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act’

II. Could TikTok Actually Go Dark In January 2025?

III. Trump’s 180 on TikTok – And Where He Stands Heading Into 2025

IV. A Look at Canada’s Recent Ban

V. How Would a Reversal in the U.S. Work, Anyway?

VI. Why the American Music Industry Might Not Miss TikTok, After All

VII. Trump: TikTok Savior?

Please note that this report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Thank you.

GEMA has officially published a collection of 10 AI principles. Photo Credit: Markus Spiske

About two weeks after disclosing new details about its licensing framework for generative AI, GEMA has now unveiled an official “AI charter.”

The Berlin-based society reached out with that 10-principle charter today. Previously, September saw GEMA outline an ambitious royalties framework for music created via generative AI – complete with derivative-track compensation for professionals whose works trained the underlying models.

That set the stage for the initially mentioned late-October details as well as the just-published AI charter. Importantly, said charter isn’t an in-depth collection of detail-oriented policy proposals. By GEMA’s own description, the concise resource “shall serve as food for thought and provide guidelines for a responsible use of generative AI.”

Running with the point, at least a few of the principles reiterate general ideas. “Generative AI is obligated to the well-being of people,” the first principle reads, with the second underscoring that “intellectual property rights are protected” notwithstanding the unprecedented technology at hand.

But the third principle explores in relative detail what’s perhaps the most significant element of GEMA’s generative AI compensation model. Not limiting its vision to once-off training payments, the entity believes creators and rightsholders should receive a piece of derivative tracks’ royalties and long-term revenue to boot.

“On the contrary,” this section reads in part, “the economic advantages must be considered which arise through AI content being generated (e.g. income from subscriptions) and are achieved in the market through ensuing exploitation (e.g. as background music or AI generated music on music platforms on the internet).

“In addition, the competitive situation with the works created by people must be taken into consideration. After all, these very works made AI content possible in the first place. This also must apply in cases where synthetic data was used for training the AI. Synthetic data are, in turn, based on works created by people whose creative power continues in such content when generating AI music,” the relevant text proceeds.

The remaining principles touch on well-treaded (albeit meaningful) areas including the need for generative AI training transparency and NIL protections against unauthorized soundalike works. (In the States, many in the industry are advocating for the related NO FAKES Act, which arrived in Congress earlier in 2024 and would establish a federal right of publicity.)

Plus, bearing in mind the ongoing implementation of the sweeping AI Act and the European Union’s unique regulatory environment, any company offering “AI systems that will be rolled out in the EU or that affect people in the EU must stick to the EU regulations,” another principle emphasizes.

Lastly, in terms of brass-tacks takeaways, sizable AI players must engage in “collective negotiations” with rightsholders, per GEMA. “The large digital corporations must find their way back to respecting copyright,” the “negotiations at eye level” principle states.

While it perhaps goes without saying, outlining plans to secure rightsholder compensation from generative AI is only the first of several involved steps. But especially because multiple artificial intelligence companies are adamant that training on protected materials constitutes fair use, it’ll be worth closely monitoring the effort – besides different regulatory pushes and ongoing litigation.

Washington, D.C.’s Apex Building, which serves as the headquarters of the FTC. Photo Credit: Harrison Keely

It’s about to get easier to cancel subscriptions in the U.S. – at least according to three of the FTC’s five commissioners, who have voted in favor of a “click to cancel” rule that will purportedly “make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up.”

Said rule represents one component of a modification to the FTC’s broader negative option rule. The latter dates back to 1973 and, in a nutshell, concerns products and services delivered automatically under a prior agreement in the absence of a proactive cancellation from the consumer.

That was, of course, long before digital subscriptions and even the internet had arrived on the scene – meaning that the measure allegedly stops short of reaching contemporary streaming offerings and other negative option services.

Moreover, according to critics, newer regulatory efforts in this department failed to adequately protect consumers, referring in part to blind spots affecting “continuity plans, automatic renewals, and free-to-pay conversions,” per the FTC’s final negative option rule.

Though heavy in footnotes, said final rule spans an appalling 230 pages in total, including an analysis of public comments in the leadup to the corresponding vote as well as a whole lot else. Needless to say, covering each involved element would require a substantial amount of time and space.

In the interest of relative brevity, then, the retooled negative option rule, expected to (largely) go into effect 180 days following its publication in the Federal Register, will as laid out by the FTC (or at least the three commissioners who passed it) compel sellers to display pertinent purchase information and terms upfront.

(In her dissenting statement, Commissioner Melissa Holyoak claimed the “overbroad” and “likely unlawful” rule exceeded the FTC’s authority and, in terms of its timing, was politically motivated. On the opposite side of the aisle, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who voted to pass, lamented the absence in the final rule of a provision that would have “required annual reminders of subscriptions that do not involve the delivery of physical goods.” The other dissenting commissioner’s statement is said to be forthcoming.)

But the main attraction here appears to be the initially highlighted FTC click to cancel rule. Diving directly into the relevant regulatory text, the rule says a “simple cancellation mechanism must be easy to find when the consumer seeks to cancel” a negative option service via an “interactive electronic medium.”

That includes barring customer-service-rep conversations as a mandatory precursor to canceling (unless reps had been contacted as part of the initial signup process, that is).

It’s a violation of the rule and “an unfair or deceptive act or practice” under the FTC Act for negative option sellers “to fail to provide a simple mechanism for a consumer to cancel,” the regulation spells out. Also prohibited is preventing consumers from avoiding charges (including for an increased amount) or taking steps to “immediately stop any recurring” charges.

Exemptions are available for certain businesses, and penalties are in place for infractions, per the rule. Concluding by bringing the focus back to the music space, cancellations don’t seem to be too big an issue for consumers when it comes to axing on-demand streaming services. But in the satellite radio world, SiriusXM is still facing a lawsuit over its “US music royalty fee” surcharge.

Furthermore, as many know, there are plenty of consumer complaints in and around the live entertainment sphere – meaning big regulation-fueled changes could potentially be forthcoming.

An aerial shot of Sydney, Australia. Photo Credit: Jamie Davies

Amid continued concert-price pushback from fans, the Australian government has revealed plans to ban dynamic pricing outright and implement a number of other measures targeting the ticketing sector.

Regional outlets just recently highlighted the promised regulatory initiatives, billed by the current administration as components of a broader policy package that will roll out ahead of the island nation’s 2025 elections.

Keeping the focus on the package itself as opposed to the early regional coverage, the Australian government today underscored plans to tackle dynamic pricing, referring specifically to any online listing where “a product’s price changes during the transaction process.”

As many already know, that description definitely extends to live-event tickets, the prices of which frequently enter the stratosphere due to consumer demand as well as dynamic pricing. Last month, for example, Australian fans saw Green Day concert passes begin fetching massive sums.

Importantly, however, acts themselves can choose to forgo dynamic pricing – Iron Maiden recently did so, as did Oasis for its North American tour leg – and it’s unclear whether eliminating the option will bring about the desired effects.

Without diving too far into the multifaceted topic, dynamic pricing can only elevate ticket costs in the first place because customers are willing to shell out considerable amounts of cash to attend limited-availability happenings.

Halting these automatic pricing adjustments, which have admittedly gone off the rails in some instances, probably won’t curb the underlying demand or the pricing-related byproducts thereof. But from a policy perspective, the move might make sense; even those who score hard-to-get tickets are presumably far from thrilled about paying an arm and a leg.

Besides the possible demise of dynamic pricing Down Under, fans could see an attempt to do away with “‘drip pricing’ practices where fees are hidden or added throughout the stages of a purchase.”

Of course, “hidden” and “junk” fees are also the target of stateside scrutiny, but like with axing dynamic pricing, the ultimate effects of outlawing the charges by mandating “all-in” models remain the subject of continued discussion.

Lastly, in terms of the regulatory measures that could affect concert tickets in Australia, the current administration says it’s further plotting a crackdown on “online practices that aim to confuse or overwhelm consumers, omit or hide material information, or create a false sense of urgency or scarcity.”

This includes “warnings that a customer only has limited time to purchase a product,” per the relevant text. As to where things go from here, the Treasury Department intends to “consult on the design before the Government legislates a general prohibition on unfair trading practices,” according to the government-penned outline.

Bigger picture, we aren’t without ticketing laws (and laws in the making), investigations, and litigation outside Australia, where, incidentally, Four Corners recently took aim at Live Nation with an exposé. Internationally, perhaps most conspicuous on this front is the DOJ antitrust suit aiming to separate Live Nation and Ticketmaster, though the latter is facing a new dynamic-pricing probe in the U.K. as well.

Photo Credit: StubHub

Earlier this week, the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) took aim at secondary ticketing platforms – and urged congressional action – following an alleged wave of “fake” Oasis tickets. Now, one of the accused platforms is firing back and stirring an ugly war-of-words with Ticketmaster.

We covered NIVA’s letter and adjacent Fans First Act push in detail yesterday. To summarize, the organization called out StubHub and Vivid Seats in particular over thousands of allegedly fake/speculative tickets to the North American leg of Oasis’ forthcoming tour.

These resale passes, the organization indicated, had presumably inflated price tags and were allegedly listed before there was “evidence of a single ticket going on sale to the public” for the high-demand concert series. Lawmakers, NIVA emphasized as well, should promptly address the “widespread deceptive practices perpetuated by predatory ticket brokers and resale platforms.”

Of course, there are two sides to every dispute, and unsurprisingly, the accused ticketing platforms have much to say about the allegations. Running with StubHub’s response for now, a representative told us that the Oasis tickets in question weren’t fake/speculative at all.

Rather, the company maintained, the passes derived from more targeted pre-sales that initiated before the main pre-sale. As we noted yesterday, Oasis’ North American pre-sale – at least as billed in a tweet from the band itself – is said to have kicked off on October 3rd.

In the interest of clarity, September 30th saw Oasis address the matter on X. “A ticket pre-sale will be held this Thursday, 3rd October,” the group wrote. “Entry is by private ballot only. Ballot registration is open now and closes 8am ET tomorrow, Tuesday 1st October.”

Meanwhile, Ticketmaster on September 30th formally announced the tour leg via a media release. “Registration for the presale is currently open at www.oasisinet.com until Tuesday, October 1st at 8am EST,” the Live Nation subsidiary wrote in part. “General ticket onsale will begin Friday, October 4th at 12pm local time and will be available from www.ticketmaster.com.”

Absent from both messages is any mention of different pre-sales. But according to StubHub, which added a relevant email screenshot for good measure, individuals including but not limited to Chicago Bears season ticketholders were invited to buy Oasis tickets on the 30th. (The NFL team’s home stadium is set to host an Oasis show in late August of 2025.)

“CLICK ON THE BUTTON BELOW TO ACCESS YOUR EXCLUSIVE PRESALE STARTING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, AT 12PM (CT),” that all-caps notification, sent by what appears to be the Bears’ official email account, reads in part.

Not stopping there, the platform provided an in-depth statement from global head of government relations Laura Dooley, who called on Ticketmaster to “do their part to better protect fans.” We included those comments in full at the time of publishing; shortly after that, Ticketmaster reached out with a response of its own, bluntly declaring that “StubHub is lying.”

In other words, the decidedly public verbal sparring suggests that the broader dispute probably won’t be ending anytime soon. On the policy side, especially given NIVA’s initially highlighted push for legislation – and the House’s quick passage of the TICKET Act, which NIVA also supports, earlier in 2024 – it’ll be interesting to see how (or whether) StubHub’s disclosure affects the Fans First Act’s path forward.

Here’s the full statement from StubHub global head of government relations Laura Dooley:

“It is clear that Live Nation Entertainment-Ticketmaster and National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) have partnered to spread false information about ticket availability in an attempt to further their own policy agenda and create distrust in the secondary market. There is a lack of transparency around how tickets are allocated, sold, and distributed in the primary ticket market, preventing consumers from understanding how the ticket industry works and allowing dominant players to manipulate the marketplace. Tickets may appear on resale marketplaces before public on-sale because many industry stakeholders, such as season ticket holders, sponsors, and professional resellers, receive early access – this was the case with Oasis. 

At StubHub, our top priority is getting fans into events. We prohibit the sale of speculative tickets and call on Ticketmaster to open lines of communication, offer ticket verification services, and do their part to better protect fans.” 

And the retort provided by a Ticketmaster spokesperson: 

“StubHub is lying. Oasis tickets were offered for sale on StubHub immediately after the North American dates and venues were announced, before any onsale, and before anyone had rights to particular seats – as the listings explicitly claimed. The season ticket holder excuse is baseless. For the shows in Pasadena, Toronto, Mexico City and New Jersey, no one had season ticket holder rights to receive tickets. Even in Chicago, no one had advance rights to the particular seats listed for sale on StubHub.   

Ticketmaster prohibits anyone from listing resale tickets before an official onsale. StubHub and other resellers choose to look the other way. This continuing pattern of deception requires Congress to pass and enforce a comprehensive ban on speculative ticketing.”

Pointing to thousands of resale-platform listings for allegedly fake Oasis tickets, NIVA is once again urging Congress to pass the Fans First Act. Photo Credit: National Independent Venue Association

Citing an influx of allegedly “fake tickets” to Oasis’ North American stops, NIVA is urging congressional approval of the Fans First Act, which it says will address “deceptive practices perpetuated by predatory ticket brokers and resale platforms.”

The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) just recently entreated senators from both sides of the aisle to enact related reforms, pointing specifically to the Fans First Act as a possible solution. That bipartisan bill surfaced towards 2023’s end and received a renewed public push from multiple artists this past April.

In other words, though the relevant legislation isn’t exactly new, the alleged influx of higher-priced Oasis tickets on secondary platforms represents another opportunity to advocate on behalf of the Fans First Act.

As used here, “fake” refers mainly to speculative tickets. NIVA’s letter is dated October 2nd, and Oasis’ North American pre-sale didn’t kick off until today, ahead of a general on-sale tomorrow.

But even before the pre-sale, NIVA found “at least 9,000 fake tickets on sale” through the likes of StubHub and Vivid Seats, per the letter to lawmakers. These findings, the organization spelled out, preceded “evidence of a single ticket going on sale to the public.”

(As a pertinent aside, amid ticket-price complaints and regulatory scrutiny across the pond, Oasis isn’t utilizing Dynamic Pricing for the North American dates.)

The “egregious” alleged examples of fake tickets include 4,354 such passes on StubHub and approximately 3,450 passes on Vivid Seats, all identified between 8 PM and 11 PM ET on October 1st. Hundreds (and potentially thousands) more fake tickets were allegedly listed soon after Oasis yesterday announced four additional shows.

Leaving no stone unturned, the letter features as exhibits a number of screenshots that appear to show the appropriate Oasis tickets, complete with seemingly hefty resale price tags.

Meanwhile, NIVA also took aim at “messaging on Vivid Seats sharing misinformation with fans” – referring to an alleged indication that “‘1% of tickets [were] left’” even before the pre-sale – and took a shot at Live Nation to boot.

The letter, NIVA wrote on the Live Nation front, “is not a defense of the publicly-traded, multinational conglomerate that’s promoting the tour, as they are under legal scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice and 40 state attorneys general.”

As to where things go from here, the entity is calling for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing centering “on predatory ticket practices, including the sale of speculative tickets,” as well as the previously mentioned passage of the Fans First Act in “a comprehensive year-end legislative package to reform ticketing practices.”

If NIVA gets its wish, the latter package would undoubtedly include the fast-moving TICKET Act, which is now awaiting a Senate vote after passing the House in May.

Lainey Wilson, one of the many artists urging Congress to pass the No Fakes Act, kicking off the U.S. leg of her Country’s Cool Again Tour. Photo Credit: Erick Frost

It’s time for Congress to establish federal AI soundalike and lookalike protections with the No Fakes Act – at least according to the Human Artistry Campaign and hundreds of involved creators.

This latest push for the No Fakes Act’s passage kicked off with an advert from the Human Artistry Campaign, which counts as members the RIAA, A2IM, and several others. In said advert, which was printed in Politico, the likes of 21 Savage, Billy Idol, Cardi B, Elvis Costello, Mary J. Blige, Lee Greenwood, deadmau5, Common, Joe Walsh, Randy Travis, and many more expressed support for the legislation.

Besides arriving on the heels of California’s new SAG-AFTRA-backed AI laws, the current showing of No Fakes Act support has come about seven weeks after the bill’s formal introduction in Congress.

Short for the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act,” the proposed law dates back to October of 2023 and would, we covered in detail, establish a federal right protecting one’s voice and likeness.

In the interest of brevity – and though it perhaps goes without saying given the above-mentioned support and the continued prevalence of AI media – the music industry has strongly backed the bill from the outset. That includes a related April appearance before Congress from Warner Music head Robert Kyncl.

However, like with California’s five just-implemented AI laws, the No Fakes Act has attracted criticism as well. ReCreate Coalition executive director Brandon Butler, for instance, is of the belief that it “threatens free expression online” and “would create more problems for creativity and society than it solves.”

Running with the point, proponents of federal AI soundalike and lookalike regulations haven’t had an entirely smooth ride thus far. While it’s been out of the media spotlight for eight months, the No AI Fraud Act was introduced at the top of 2024 and, by the RIAA’s own description, “builds on” the No Fakes Act framework.

But with the seemingly more robust bill still stuck in committee despite a carefully coordinated support campaign, the focus has evidently shifted back to the No Fakes Act.

In keeping with the renewed focus, the Songwriters Guild of America, Music Creators North America, and the Society of Composers & Lyricists also reached out to DMN today, albeit with a letter they’d sent to four representatives.

This letter doesn’t mention the No Fakes Act by name, but thanks the lawmakers for their support in the AI space and other areas. (All three organizations are part of the Human Artistry Campaign in any event.)

Bigger picture, it’ll be interesting to see whether the developments spur a No Fakes Act vote in Congress. Worth highlighting on this front is that rightsholders and broadcasters (for obvious reasons, the latter strongly oppose the unauthorized AI-powered replication of voices and likenesses) seemingly find themselves on the same page here.

Possessing considerable legislative sway, broadcaster associations yesterday expressed support for the bill in a different open letter, touting it as “a step in the right direction.”

Photo Credit: MLC

The road to redesignation just got a bit rockier for the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), which is facing urgent calls for reform from a federal lawmaker as well as organizations including the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) and Music Creators North America (MCNA).

SGA, MCNA, and the Society of Composers & Lyricists (SCL) today reached out with a formal release doubling down on demands for “much-needed operational and structural improvements” to the Mechanical Licensing Collective.

Those improvements were most recently described by Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) in a letter to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter late last month.

For a bit of background, the MLC has long faced criticism. Beyond pushback about the non-profit’s budget, board make-up, and much more, various individuals, organizations, and companies have for some time voiced concerns about the entity’s ability to connect unallocated “black box” mechanicals with their rightful owners.

Reports have pointed to difficulties in accurately paying out the sizable tranche in question, which, regardless of the parties to whom the funds actually belong, will seemingly be forwarded to publishers based on market share, regardless of ownership, when all is said and done.

(“It is estimated that over $300 million remains in this so-called ‘black box,'” per Representative Fitzgerald’s letter.)

As it relates to lawmaker scrutiny, the topic came up during a June of 2023 congressional hearing featuring higher-ups including MLC CEO Kris Ahrend, whose organization would later the same year tap a variety of proper companies to help bring unmatched royalties to their rightful recipients.

Fast forward to 2024’s opening month, when the Copyright Office kicked off its “periodic review” of the MLC’s designation under the Music Modernization Act. Stated concisely, though the Mechanical Licensing Collective was selected in 2019 to administer the law’s blanket license, its designation is subject to review every half of a decade.

In keeping with a Copyright Office-established timetable, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), Word Collections, copyright-reform advocate George Johnson, individual publishers, and many others have formally commented on the matter.

Of particular interest, however, is the mentioned August 29th letter penned by Representative Fitzgerald, who believes that as a whole, the Mechanical Licensing Collective “has done a commendable job in carrying out the MMA’s statutory requirements, processing more than two billion dollars in royalty payments, and building towards a robust and accessible database of musical works.”

But as the congressman sees it, “additional transparency and oversight measures” will improve the MLC, which still has work to do in order “to meet its full potential.”

To be sure, as one condition for the MLC’s redesignation, Representative Fitzgerald is calling for the publication of “specifics around how funds are being spent within each category, how they are contributing to improved outcomes, and why significant increases are necessary in certain categories.”

These specifics include but aren’t limited to “detailed” spending accounts for employees, vendors, litigation, and “other core categories,” besides information about the organization’s investment policy.

More noteworthy yet is the lawmaker’s push for enhanced “board neutrality” – with a clear-cut emphasis on the current presence of major publishers on the MLC’s board.

“For example, in both 2023 and 2024, all ten publishers represented by the voting members on the MLC Board of Directors were also members of the NMPA’s board,” reads a relevant section from Representative Fitzgerald’s letter.

“This not only raises questions about the MLC’s ability to act as a ‘fair’ administrator of the blanket license but, more importantly, raises concerns that the MLC is using its expenditures to advance arguments indistinguishable from those of the music publishers—including, at times, arguments contrary to the positions of songwriters and the digital streamers.”

(The latter point could well refer, at least in part, to the unpaid-royalties lawsuit the MLC is spearheading against Spotify over its bundling reclassifications, which have elicited vocal criticism from the NMPA.)

Not stopping there, the lawmaker’s letter also targets the voting-power structure behind the board (the Nashville Songwriters Association International’s continued presence “paints a troubling picture of a figurative rubber stamp within the MLC boardroom”) and asks the Copyright Office “to examine whether there should be additional changes to the MLC board as a precondition for redesignation, such as changes to the MLC bylaws” and more.

By way of summary – the letter contains a number of other sweeping proposals and requests – the text closes by diving into the black box royalties subject, and especially the highlighted market-share distribution model thereof.

“While I commend the MLC’s efforts thus far to distribute historical amounts of mechanical royalties to rightsholders,” the representative’s letter spells out, “questions remain about whether the eventual market share based distribution serves as a disincentive to continue innovation. I would encourage the Copyright Office to define clear timeframes and transparency measures in the distribution process as a condition of redesignation.”

Bringing the focus back to the aforesaid organizations, the Songwriters Guild of America and others “appreciate the consistent outreach and earnest work of MLC” head Ahrend, but wholeheartedly back the reforms floated by Representative Fitzgerald.

In short, the three entities have taken the opportunity to double down on the above-described criticisms (particularly including the Nashville Songwriters Association International qualms) and bill their sought MLC reforms as “essential prerequisites to” redesignation.

“Our coalition will meanwhile continue its work on Capitol Hill and with the Copyright Office advocating for genuine protections of independent, individual music creator rights by the MLC,” the message concludes.

Though it’s perhaps implied in light of the above information, it’ll be interesting to see how the Copyright Office’s redesignation process proceeds from here – and whether recent developments translate into reforms. Late July saw the MLC submit a nearly 70-page reply addressing issues raised in prior comments.

Seoul, South Korea, where Spotify and others are reportedly grappling with regulatory scrutiny over their cancellation and refund policies. Photo Credit: Tuan P.

South Korean regulators are reportedly cracking down on Spotify and other streaming platforms over their cancellation and refund policies.

The Korea Economic Daily reported on this latest regulatory initiative from South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (FTC), which has zeroed in on K-pop agencies’ sales practices, YouTube Music’s bundled offerings, and more throughout the past year or so.

March saw reports point to a wider FTC campaign to rein in streaming platforms with the Platform Competition Promotion Act. While that controversial measure has seemingly been shelved following ample business-sector pushback, the underlying streaming-reform objective is evidently alive and well.

Per the mentioned outlet, South Korea’s FTC has forwarded “examination reports” to music streaming services including Spotify and NHN’s Bugs! as well as video counterparts like Netflix. And according to the summary of these reports, the platforms have allegedly failed to allow subscribers to easily cancel mid-billing cycle or neglected to inform them of the option.

Additionally, as the government agency sees it, domestic streaming platforms are required to provide partial refunds based on how long one has remaining on the involved plan at the time of cancellation.

Predictably, the companies themselves don’t feel the same way and, in short, are reportedly arguing that the appropriate law doesn’t apply to them.

Among other things, this law, called the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, reportedly obligates establishments like gyms (and different service providers with models revolving around “recurring transactions”) to cough up partial refunds for mid-cycle subscription cancellations. Internet giant Naver is reportedly facing similar scrutiny.

But once again in the interest of brevity, the streaming services are maintaining that the law would make it easy for binging-minded superfans to game the system by signing up for a day and then bailing on the rest of the subscription period.

A relatively late arrival to South Korea’s music space, Spotify only offers paid options in the nation, referring to the standard Individual plan (₩10,900/$8.23 per month) as well as a “Basic” alternative (₩7,900/$5.96 per month) that includes all the former package’s features save offline listening.

In other South Korean streaming news, KakaoBank recently purchased about 15% of fintech startup Naivy. The developer behind PLAM, which pays small amounts to users for listening to certain songs, Naivy has, in turn, integrated its products into the Kakao-owned online bank.

Consequently, KakaoBank now enables users to access PLAM directly through a tab in its main banking app.

Photo Credit: Kunlun Tech/Melodio

On August 14th, 2024, Kunlun Tech announced Melodio, “the world’s first AI-powered music streaming platform.” Free to use and promising unlimited custom-listening options, the service immediately ignited conversations about the materials on which it was trained — and its potential to disrupt well-entrenched players like Spotify down the line.

Perhaps the most pressing question that remains unanswered: is Melodio being trained on copyrighted music, including works from major labels like WMG, UMG, and Sony Music? In an attempt to answer that question, DMN Pro took a look under the Melodio hood.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: The Questions Raised by Kunlun Tech’s Melodio Announcement

II. Kunlun Tech’s AI Music Products: What We Know About Melodio (And Its Training Data)

Graph: Kunlun Tech’s Organizational Structure and Products At a Glance

III. Has Melodio Been Trained on Copyrighted Music? What the Available Evidence Tells Us

IV. AI Music Streaming in the Long Run: Are We Witnessing the Beginning of a Fundamental Industry Shift?

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

TikTok is pushing back amid an attempt to block a quick-approaching forced-sale deadline in the U.S. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

A little over five months ahead of its scheduled U.S. ban, TikTok is doubling down on arguments against the relevant law – including by maintaining that its ties to China are being misrepresented.

The video-sharing app explored those positions in a detail-oriented reply (about which it penned a concise press-room update) to a late-July brief from the Justice Department. As many know, TikTok has from the outset criticized the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act as an outright ban.

Consequently, with no plans in place to sell the platform in the U.S. as required by the law – TikTok and ByteDance have said in more words that doing so would be logistically impossible – the platform is facing the very real possibility of being forced to shut down in the States early next year.

However, TikTok isn’t sitting idly by while this deadline nears. Instead, the controversial app has launched a public campaign targeting the law and challenged the allegedly unconstitutional measure in court. Regarding the latter push (including a sought injunction), high-stakes oral arguments are scheduled to kick off one month from today, on September 16th.

Enter TikTok’s reply, which will be familiar to those who’ve been tracking the courtroom confrontation even casually.

“The government’s core legal contention—that a monumental speech restriction is subject to mere rational-basis review—flouts decades of settled precedent,” the filing indicates off the bat, proceeding from there to take aim at “the government’s dramatic rewriting of what counts as protected speech.”

“TikTok Inc., a U.S. company,” the text proceeds, “is not stripped of First Amendment protection because it is ultimately owned by ByteDance Ltd., a Cayman-incorporated holding company. Does the government seriously believe, for example, that Politico (owned by a German company) has no First Amendment rights?”

Also covered are the DOJ’s alleged failure to identify any “compelling justification for banning TikTok,” the “plainly wrong” assertion that TikTok’s recommendation engine is based in China (it’s purportedly “in the United States, under Oracle’s protection”), and, perhaps most notably, a counter to the claim that the Chinese government can access Americans’ user data.

“It misstates where sensitive U.S. user data resides—not in China, but in the secure Oracle cloud,” the document reads of the DOJ. “It admits it has no evidence that China has ever accessed U.S. user data.”

Lastly, in terms of brass-tacks takeaways, TikTok has further refuted its classification as controlled by a foreign adversary (pointing to ByteDance’s international ownership structure), doubled down on the position that it doesn’t collect stateside users’ precise location data, and reiterated its existing security-related concessions.

Taken as a whole, the points should compel the court to enjoin the law altogether or at least pause the forced-sale deadline pending proceedings, TikTok’s reply brief drives home in conclusion.

Amid this decidedly important effort to avoid shutting down in the world’s largest economy – and while fending off a separate children’s privacy lawsuit from the DOJ and the FTC – TikTok has hardly let up on music-focused initiatives. As of today, said initiatives include an “in-app experience” promoting Post Malone’s debuting country project, F-1 Trillion.

Photo Credit: Timo Wagner

The Department of Justice has urged a New York judge not to grant Live Nation’s request to switch to courts in Washington D.C. based on the consent decree that regulates Live Nation’s conduct.

The DoJ argues that the consent decree is irrelevant in this request because the case does not seek to “enforce, construe, or undo” the existing consent decree. “Defendants’ arguments rest on a single foundation—that this case seeks to modify or enforce a prior consent decree between Defendants and certain Plaintiffs, filed in the United States Disctrict Court for the District of Columbia in 2010, and amended in 2020,” the DOJ writes in its opposition to Live Nation’s motion to transfer venue.

“Put more directly, this case does ‘not seek[] to enforce or construe or undo’ the Decree. Without that foundation, defendants’ transfer arguments collapse, and the factors not only do not save defendants’ position, but in fact, plainly support this court’s retention of this case.”

In its response, the DoJ highlights multiple instances in which it argues Live Nation and Ticketmaster acted as interconnected monopolies, engaging in anticompetitive behavior across the live music industry. The United States, 29 states including New York, and D.C. allege that Live Nation and Ticketmaster have become the gatekeepers of delivery for nearly all live music in America today.

It argues that this monopoly on live music is “harming competition and consumers in five different markets through sweeping, multifaceted, and mutually reinforcing conduct that violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and numerous states’ laws, including those of New York. Primary complaints include:

1. Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintaining monopolies in markets for primary ticketing, concert promotion, and large amphitheaters
2. Foreclosing a substantial share of commerce in primary ticketing through long-term exclusive contracts.
3. Anticompetitively tie artists’ ability to perform in large amphitheaters to their agreement to purchase Live Nation’s promotion services

“The impact of [Live Nation’s] unlawful conduct is substantial and affects nearly every corner of the live music ecosystem,” the DoJ argues. A laundry list of conduct that the DoJ alleges goes beyond breaching the consent decree is listed in the response, including the “acquisitions of rival ticketers, amphitheaters, promotion companies and festivals; leveraging of secondary ticketing markets; agreements not to compete; cooperation rather than competing with actual and would-be competitors; forced access to competitors’ data; long-term exclusive agreements; conduct in fan-facing and artist-facing markets, and more.”

The DoJ argues that a New York court is more suited to hearing the case because New York itself has long been a hub in the live music industry for artists, fans, and industry participants. “New York is home to two of Ticketmaster’s few competitors, twenty-plus entities from the parties’ initial disclosures, numerous amphitheaters and arenas, material non-party and party witnesses, and defendants’ largest office outside of California.”

A breakdown of active music industry lawsuits by category, August 2024 (Source: DMN Pro)

One thing the music industry doesn’t lack is litigation – or threats of litigation. But what kinds of disputes are behind the steady stream of lawsuits?

DMN Pro zeroed in on that question by analyzing data from its soon-to-be-released Music Industry Litigation Tracker. Comprehensive and filterable, the one-stop database of industry and industry-adjacent suits will feature a variety of case-specific details – from the involved parties and their counsel to assigned judges and court venues.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction – And a Teaser for DMN Pro’s Upcoming Music Industry Litigation Tracker

II. Industry Litigation At a Glance: A Percentage Breakdown of Case Types, August 2024

III. Copyright Infringement Actions Take Center Stage – With Surprisingly Little Precedent to Show for It

IV. Trouble Beneath the Surface: The Influx of Royalty-Collection Lawsuits Against Music Services

V. Music-Space Lawsuits Moving Forward: What to Expect in 2024 and Beyond

VI. Appendix: A Grab Bag of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Lawsuits Roiling the Music Industry

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

Warner Music head Robert Kyncl and FKA Twigs testify before Congress in support of federal protections (including the No Fakes Act) against AI deepfakes. Photo Credit: RIAA

Federal lawmakers have officially introduced the No Fakes Act, and the AI-focused voice- and likeness-rights legislation is receiving overwhelming support from throughout the industry.

Senators Coons, Blackburn, Klobuchar, and Tillis introduced the full 28-page bill today, almost 10 months after publicly disclosing and summarizing the legislation. Short for the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act,” the No Fakes Act, we reported based on the mentioned October of 2023 discussion draft, would establish a federal right protecting one’s voice and likeness.

Of course, the proposal arrived against the backdrop of more than a few unauthorized soundalike tracks, and the problem hasn’t abated in the interim. Late April of this year saw Warner Music CEO Robert Kyncl testify before Congress in favor of the bill, which, it was suggested at the time, would enable individuals and rightsholders to pursue legal action over unauthorized voice and likeness media.

The actual legislation appears to be in line with that months-old framework, describing a robust new right – and a path to seeking damages – for individuals and rightsholders when it comes to “digital replicas.”

Here, digital replica refers specifically to “a newly-created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual” who didn’t actually make the work or whose existing genuine work was altered materially by AI.

Regarding brass-tacks takeaways, the lengthy bill would preserve the proposed voice and likeness “property right” for 70 years following one’s death provided the right is renewed every five years after an initial decade-long window. And if passed and then signed into law, the legislation wouldn’t simply set the stage for civil litigation against individuals and entities responsible for making AI deepfake content.

To be sure, a sweeping definition of “online service” would ensure that the measure applies to any UGC-focused “public-facing website, online application, mobile application, or virtual reality environment.”

Leaving no stone unturned, the proposed law would also extend to digital music providers, social services, and entire app stores. These parties would seemingly be able to avoid deepfake liability by promptly removing flagged content after receiving takedown notices, per the text.

And unfortunately for those inclined to try and avoid liability by acknowledging content’s AI origins with a disclaimer, any such statement “shall not be a defense in a civil action brought under” the measure, per the detail-oriented No Fakes Act.

Shifting to the industry response, all manner of organizations reached out to Digital Music News with comments in favor of the No Fakes Act.

The Recording Academy’s Harvey Mason Jr. touted the “major step forward in our fight to ensure that AI is used ethically,” for instance, and the Human Artistry Campaign applauded the “landmark legislation.” Additionally, RIAA head Mitch Glazier spoke positively of the “huge step forward for smart, effective, guardrails against irresponsible and unethical uses” of AI, with supportive statements from the majors themselves to boot.

Moving beyond these and many other enthusiastic positions, some outside the industry are, predictably, less than thrilled with the No Fakes Act. This includes ReCreate Coalition executive director Brandon Butler, who claimed that the bill “threatens free expression online” and “would create more problems for creativity and society than it solves.”

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!

Photo Credit: Ugglemamma

Spotify is now taking serious issue with Digital Music News’ assertion that ‘Basic’ is getting buried from would-be subscribers.

Spotify has every incentive to bury its newly launched, unbundled ‘Basic’ subscription tier. But does that mean Spotify is intentionally hiding ‘Basic’ from would-be subscribers to steer them into its more lucrative bundled options?

Given the economics, it’s hard to imagine Spotify not wanting to bury its Basic tier. Not only are bundled plans more expensive, but they’re also substantially cheaper when it comes to royalty payments (and for proof of that, look no further than the hard data outlined in this DMN Pro report).

That may explain why Spotify has shifted more than 98% of its plans into bundles, according to our just-released Bundling Barometer.

Over the past few weeks, Digital Music News found overwhelming evidence that Basic is being buried. In response, Spotify has begged to differ and demanded corrections. We’re unsure if Spotify is helping or hurting their case here, but let’s air this out.

Perhaps the biggest tell is that new subscribers cannot subscribe to a Basic, unbundled plan. Despite the quibbling over details, Spotify didn’t dispute this critical fact.

“Basic plans are only available to existing subscribers,” a Spotify representative confirmed to Digital Music News.

Not only are newer subscribers forced into bundled tiers, but they are also unlikely to downgrade into a Basic, un-bundled tier after initially subscribing. The main reason? Few will know a simpler and cheaper plan exists — unless they accidentally stumble upon this option.

These ‘stumble upon’ moments would include revisiting the subscriber options page while logged in, clicking through other subscription options in the ‘Account’ page, or hearing about the cheaper option from a friend, forum, or other source. In all likelihood, only a tiny percentage of new subscribers will encounter the Basic option after subscribing to a bundled tier, and of those, only a subset will take action.

Spotify did note that both Family and Duo bundled Premium plans can be downgraded into Basic options, something we said didn’t exist.

The company also stated that it email-blasted all of its subscribers about the expanded option, though we somehow didn’t receive that email (and it didn’t land in our spam folder).

(On this last point, we did receive a note titled ‘Information about your plan’ on June 21st, which low-key informed us of a $1 price hike. This actually had some information about the Basic downgrade.)

None of that adds up to ‘shouting from the rooftops,’ though Spotify is trying to make the case that Basic isn’t being buried. But why are they doing this?

And why launch Basic at all if the real money is in bundling?

There may be a few motivations at work here. Spotify has been lambasted by music publishers over its sneaky, royalty-cutting shift into bundling. They have also been sued (by the Mechanical Licensing Collective) and referred to federal regulators (specifically the FTC) over this shift.

The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) is also stirring trouble for Spotify: NMPA chief David Israelite is already pushing for changes on Capitol Hill following Spotify’s shift while dangling the threat of litigation against the platform for separate infringement claims (specifically related to Spotify’s lyrics, music videos, and podcasting diversifications).

But what if Spotify can simply point to a bundle-free Basic option? After all, if subscribers have a choice between bundled and unbundled, then Spotify is merely serving the marketplace instead of abusively steering people towards royalty-lowering bundles.

Meanwhile, there are rumblings that the NMPA is preparing to litigate against the aforementioned infringement allegations. But that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

Stay tuned.

Federal lawmakers are targeting AI deepfakes and unauthorized training with the newly introduced Copied Act.

Federal lawmakers are officially taking another stab at regulating unauthorized AI deepfakes and training, this time with the bipartisan “Copied Act.”

Senators from both sides of the aisle just recently introduced that bill, in full the “Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act.” Endorsed by the RIAA, the Artist Rights Alliance, and others, the measure has arrived about 10 weeks after Warner Music CEO Robert Kyncl testified before Congress in support of federal AI regulations.

To date, said regulations have been proposed via the No Fakes Act and the more comprehensive No AI Fraud Act. Of course, despite the expectedly slow legislative progress on a key matter, unauthorized soundalike works are continuing to roll out en masse.

Meanwhile, that several leading generative AI systems are still claiming the right to train on protected media without authorization also remains a major problem. Enter the Copied Act, introduced specifically by Senators Marsha Blackburn, Martin Heinrich, and Maria Cantwell.

Extending to the deepfake and training issues alike, the 18-page bill calls for establishing “a public-private partnership to facilitate the development of standards” for determining content’s origin and whether it’s “synthetic” or “synthetically modified” with AI. Here, “content” refers not only to music, but to “images, audio, video, text, and multimodal content,” hence the measure’s support from outside the industry.

In brief, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s under secretary of commerce for standards and technology would spearhead those efforts with input from the register of copyrights as well as the director of the USPTO.

Not short on detail, the legislation spells out that the “voluntary, consensus-based standards and best practices for watermarking” and automatic detection will particularly involve synthetic content and “the use of data to train artificial intelligence systems.”

Running with that important point – identifying at scale exactly which media has been generated by AI and who owns what – the measure would compel “any person” behind generative AI systems to enable users to label media outputs as synthetic.

Additionally, these users must have the choice of attaching to outputs “content provenance information,” or “state-of-the-art, machine-readable information documenting the origin and history of a piece of digital content.”

Major search engines, social media players, and video-sharing platforms – those generating at least $50 million annually or with north of 25 million monthly users for three or more of the past 12 months – would be expressly barred from tampering with said content provenance information.

Most significantly, the Copied Act would bar generative AIs from knowingly training without permission on any media that has or should have provenance details attached to it.

The only exception, the text indicates, would be if a platform obtained “the express, informed consent of the person who owns the covered content, and complies with any terms of use.”

The FTC, state attorneys general, and rightsholders themselves would be able to sue for alleged violations under the act, but the content provenance requirements wouldn’t go into effect until two years after the law’s enactment. And litigation would have to commence within four years from when one discovered or should have discovered the alleged violation(s) at hand.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of its major label clients Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, announced the filing of two copyright infringement lawsuits against AI music services Suno and Udio, alleging the unlicensed use of copyrighted sound recordings to train their generative AI models.

In an email to Digital Music News, the RIAA described both lawsuits as ‘landmark’ — and that may not be an understatement.

According to the trade group, the lawsuits against Suno and Udio, filed in Boston and New York federal courts, respectively, mark a significant step in protecting artists’, songwriters’, and rightsholders’ control over their works in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technology. The plaintiffs, specifically Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., and Warner Records, Inc., assert that Suno and Udio have copied and exploited countless sound recordings without permission, spanning various genres, styles, and eras.

The cases seek declarations of infringement, injunctions to prevent future infringement, and damages for past infringements. The core allegations highlight the unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a massive scale for training, development, and operation of Suno and Udio’s services.

The filings can be found here (Suno) and here (Udio).

In its communication with DMN, the RIAA compiled a breakdown of numerous examples of copyright infringement that exemplify the issue at hand.

RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier emphasized the music community’s embrace of AI while highlighting the need for responsible development: “The music community has embraced AI, and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools. But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us.”

Glazier has been critical of unlicensed services like Suno and Udio for exploiting artists’ work without consent or compensation, hindering the potential of innovative and ethical AI.

RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow reinforced the necessity of the lawsuits, stating, “These lawsuits are necessary to reinforce the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical, and lawful development of generative AI systems and to bring Suno’s and Udio’s blatant infringement to an end.”

The music community, including various organizations and prominent figures, has rallied to support the RIAA’s efforts to protect creative works and foster responsible AI development.

In emails to DMN, executives from The Recording Academy, A2IM, SoundExchange, SONA, the NMPA, and others emphasized the importance of fair compensation, respect for artists’ rights, and the ethical use of AI technology.

The core legal arguments presented in the RIAA lawsuits against Suno and Udio revolve around copyright infringement and fair use, with several key points:

Unauthorized Copying of Sound Recordings: The complaints allege that both Suno and Udio engaged in the mass copying and ingestion of copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining the necessary permissions from rightsholders. The RIAA argues that this act of reproduction constitutes a direct violation of copyright law.

Commercial Exploitation: The lawsuits assert that the unauthorized copying was done for commercial purposes, as both Suno and Udio are profit-driven enterprises that monetize their AI-generated music services. This commercial exploitation of copyrighted works without permission further strengthens the copyright infringement claim.

Harm to the Music Industry: The RIAA contends that the unauthorized copying and exploitation of sound recordings by Suno and Udio not only deprives artists and rightsholders of fair compensation but also poses a significant threat to the music industry as a whole. By generating synthetic music that imitates and competes with genuine human creations, these AI services risk devaluing and potentially replacing human-created music, leading to a decline in the quality and diversity of music available to consumers.

Rejection of Fair Use Defense: The complaints anticipate a fair use defense from Suno and Udio but argue that such a defense is invalid in this context. The RIAA maintains that the fair use doctrine, which allows for limited use of copyrighted material without permission under certain circumstances, does not apply to the wholesale copying and commercial exploitation of sound recordings for the purpose of generating derivative works.

Deliberate Evasion and Lack of Transparency: The lawsuits accuse both Suno and Udio of being deliberately evasive about the scope and extent of their copying of copyrighted sound recordings. This lack of transparency, the RIAA argues, is an attempt to conceal their willful copyright infringement.

Negative Impact on Human Creativity: The RIAA emphasizes that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in AI models not only harms the economic interests of artists and rightsholders but also undermines the value of human creativity and ingenuity. By relying on the unauthorized copying of existing works, AI services like Suno and Udio risk stifling innovation and reducing the diversity of musical expression.

Overall, the legal arguments in these cases center on the fundamental principle that AI companies, like all other businesses, must abide by copyright laws and respect the rights of creators. The RIAA seeks to establish a clear precedent that the unauthorized copying and exploitation of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, even in the context of AI development, constitutes copyright infringement and will not be tolerated.

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.

Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

Amid continued criticism over – and legal challenges against – Spotify’s aggressive embrace of bundling, federal lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have reached out to the Copyright Office with “serious questions” over the change.

Those lawmakers, Representatives Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff as well as Senator Marsha Blackburn, just recently released a public copy of the appropriate letter. Far from coming as a surprise, the message, one component of an increasingly involved campaign against Spotify’s bundles, was touted at the National Music Publishers’ Association’s 2024 annual meeting yesterday.

“As part of this legislative effort,” NMPA head David Israelite revealed after underscoring plans to enable direct publisher negotiations with DSPs, “I am pleased to announce that today, Congressman Ted Lieu of California, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as Senator Marsha Blackburn and Congressman Adam Schiff, have sent an official letter to the Copyright Office regarding the Spotify matter.

“The letter warns of Spotify’s abuses of the statutory rate process and questions whether there are sufficient protections in place to ensure companies that use the compulsory license cannot abuse the system,” proceeded Israelite.

In keeping with that description and the NMPA’s direct-negotiation ambitions, the letter itself, addressed to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter and spanning a little over 500 words, begins by taking aim at the compulsory license.

“American songwriters create the music we love but have long labored under a compulsory licensing system that robs them of control over their work and the ability to receive fair compensation,” the lawmakers penned, touting the Music Modernization Act and then reiterating the much-discussed specifics of Spotify’s bundling reclassifications.

“Digital service providers should not be permitted to manipulate statutory rates to slash royalties,” the representatives and the senator proceeded, “deeply undercutting copyright protections for songwriters and publishers. A fair system should prevent any big tech company from setting their own price for someone else’s intellectual property, whether the owner wants to sell or not.”

And from there, the lawmakers acknowledged an intention to “explore a response to these recent developments.” For the time being, though, two related (and decidedly straightforward) questions were posed to the Copyright Office to help the congressmembers “understand the available options.”

The first requests details about “protections in place to ensure” that the compulsory license cannot be abused “to the detriment of copyright owners.” And the second concerns the availability of “an efficient, low-cost process by which copyright owners may seek relief where improper or illegal actions are taken by licensees.”

While it’ll be interesting to see how the Copyright Office responds and how Congress approaches the multifaceted situation from there, it can safely be said that there’s growing fallout surrounding Spotify’s bundling. Although the MLC is suing over the change and alleged royalties underpayments, the NMPA has levied a complaint with the FTC, and a different legal action yet could well be on the way, Spotify doesn’t appear to plan on backing down.

Image adapted from an illustration by CDD20.

Last week, the music industry learned that Spotify accounts for 42% of all mechanical royalty payments in the US — following Digital Music News’ exhaustive breakdown of one of the most recent reporting months. That market-leading percentage is now likely to take a severe hit — but how low will Spotify go?

Spotify’s ‘bundle-pocalyse’ is nigh, with nervous IP owners pouring through early royalty statements to assess the damage.

One source to Digital Music News noted that the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) has already distributed preliminary reports for March, the month that marks the beginning of Spotify’s massive royalty cuts to music publishers, songwriters, and other compositional IP owners. Apparently, the data isn’t fully baked yet, though rights owners are getting a preview of the carnage.

Spotify’s sudden and massive shift towards bundled offerings—a move that dramatically lowers its publishing payment obligations—is officially barreling forward. DMN understands that MLC’s March statements are now in the final stages of being tallied and distributed.

A working estimate of a $150 million annual drop has been widely bandied about, though let’s see how that ballpark figure holds up. DMN is currently working to obtain preliminary data, with some serious number-crunching on tap for the remainder of this week.

Depending on the exact nature of the drop, it’s possible that Apple Music could surpass Spotify in total mechanical royalty payments. Apple Music is now slightly ahead of Spotify in the all-important individual subscription tally in the US, according to eyebrow-raising market share data exclusively revealed by DMN.

And what about the MLC’s legal battle with Spotify?

The MLC, which oversees mechanical licensing payouts in the US, is now locked in a legal battle with Spotify over allegations that the platform’s bundling reclassifications are illegal. But barring an injunction or sudden shift in that litigation, Spotify will now be doling out its discounted royalties to less-than-thrilled publishers and songwriters.

As first reported by DMN, a federal judge recently granted Spotify’s request to delay its response to the MLC litigation. Judge Analisa Torres signed off on the request, thereby moving the deadline for Spotify’s response from June 10th to July 19th.

Which means Spotify’s attorneys cleverly bought some time while the royalty-chopping carnage gets underway. And the clock is ticking: based on the $150-million-per-year estimate, that comes out to $12.5 million monthly – or north of $20 million between now and the new response deadline.

Meanwhile, there’s little indication that Spotify execs are losing sleep over this.

Music publishers and songwriters are understandably agitated, though Spotify appears less concerned about the pushback. Instead, Wall Street investors seem to be the more critical audience, with profitability representing the critical benchmark for the stock’s performance.

Speaking of Spotify’s SPOT stock, two top Spotify insiders have already cashed out a cool $90 million in Spotify shares this month alone, which ironically represents nearly two-thirds of the estimated annual royalty drop for music publishers. The cash-outs suggest that insiders are hardly fretting about publishing haircuts, with cost-cutting measures like the reduction in Spotify royalty payments handsomely boosting SPOT shares and resulting payouts.

Separately, appeals to ethical considerations seem to be blowing in the wind.

Just recently, a former Spotify executive criticized the company for its move, though Spotify itself seems unswayed. Former Global Head of Publisher Licensing Adam Parness called Spotify’s decision to switch its subscriptions to bundles “misguided and unfair,” describing it as an “ill-informed attempt to deprive songwriters and music publishers of their rightfully earned U.S. mechanical royalties.”

Parness said he framed his critique not as a way to disparage Spotify but as an appeal to the company to honor the spirit of its agreements. A strong appeal indeed, though perhaps that messsage-in-a-bottle didn’t quite make it to Daniel Ek’s superyacht.

Meanwhile, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) has been pushing for a hybridized direct and compulsory licensing framework for mechanical royalty payments in the United States.

However, we’ve heard little movement on this front, though Israelite is a notorious 3D chess master when it comes to pulling levers on Capitol Hill.

The NMPA has called on Congress to allow direct negotiations between music publishers and streaming platforms alongside existing statutory mechanical rate payouts. This shift would maximize negotiating power and payouts for publishers but faces significant legislative hurdles.

More as this develops.

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.

Will all-in pricing be good for business? The question is taking center stage following the House’s TICKET Act passage and new comments from Live Nation. Photo Credit: Benjamin Sharpe

Is all-in ticket pricing better for business? As the TICKET Act rides a wave of congressional momentum, Ticketmaster parent Live Nation is emphasizing its support for the model – and prompting related discussion.

Live Nation’s latest endorsement of all-in pricing (which compels the display of tickets’ entire cost, inclusive of any fees, at the outset) just recently entered the media spotlight. Notwithstanding the timing – the House on Wednesday passed the mentioned TICKET Act – the promoter has for some time been an all-in-pricing advocate.

That includes the commitment the company made at a White House event in June of 2023. October of the same year brought a renewed congressional grilling for Live Nation, with lawmakers claiming that the company hadn’t fully embraced all-in pricing. CEO Michael Rapino closed the month by reiterating “the importance of all-in pricing legislation.”

Now, with that legislation taking shape following this steadfast support from the quick-growing promoter, will all-in pricing actually improve sales?

Of course, absent an across-the-board rollout of all-in tickets involving each company in the space, we don’t yet have a comprehensive answer to the question. But as described by Live Nation, early results from the pricing model’s integration have proven positive.

(As an important aside, Ticketmaster enables all-in pricing by default in a select few states, where ticketing laws are becoming increasingly common. In other states, there’s a toggleable option to “show prices including fees.”)

Per TheTicketingBusiness, Live Nation has specifically disclosed an 8% bump in “completed sales” since debuting all-in pricing last year. Not stopping there, Rapino once again noted his support for the “commonsense policy,” with Live Nation itself calling on consumers to contact the appropriate state-level authorities to report pricing infractions attributable to “other ticketing platforms.”

Despite this purported improvement in completed sales, logic and evidence suggest that “hidden” ticketing fees, which are common in a number of non-music industries as well, might actually contribute to a larger revenue pot.

Particularly amid what execs maintain is shaping up to be another record year for Live Nation, the business is comparatively well-positioned to absorb any such revenue decline. Competitors, however, will have a harder time grappling with the possible hit.

This isn’t to say that Live Nation is entirely without operational obstacles – the most significant being the Justice Department antitrust lawsuit that it’s reportedly staring down. Although speculation has long surrounded the probe, Billboard reported today that we still lack a “clear timeline” for the investigation’s official close or the suit’s filing.

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

Minneapolis, where Minnesota’s governor signed a ‘Taylor Swift’ bill into law on Tuesday, May 7th. Photo Credit: Tom Conway

Another “Taylor Swift” bill has surfaced, this time in Minnesota, where ticket resellers and the involved platforms will be subject to a number of new requirements beginning next year.

The North Star State yesterday adopted House File 1989 (the latter is Swift’s birth year and the title of her fifth studio album), with Governor Tim Walz having signed the measure into law at downtown Minneapolis venue First Avenue, per local reports.

This law is just the latest in a line of legislation enacted at the state level following the Eras Tour pre-sale fiasco, which, owing to ample fan demand for the record-breaking concert series, left many without tickets. Notably, though, House File 1989 covers more ground than and differs from related legislation in different states.

At the top level, the Minnesota law (which won’t go into effect until 2025, once again) extends to tickets for “all forms of entertainment,” including but not limited to theater and opera performances, concerts, amusement parks, sports events, “and all other forms of diversion, recreation, or show.”

Similarly all-encompassing is the bill’s classification of “ticket reseller,” referring to any person who “offers or sells tickets” to in-state events following the original sale. That includes transactions completed over the internet, via “telephone, mail, delivery service, [or] facsimile,” or through other means, but expressly excludes sales attributable to individuals who purchased passes “solely” for their own use or the use of their “invitees, employees, or agents.”

Running with those significant definitions, ticket resellers and online ticket marketplaces are required to disclose at the point of sale tickets’ all-in cost, a conspicuous breakdown of fees, a notice that the pass or passes are being resold, a refund policy, and more. However, the requirements only apply to individual resellers who move north of $5,000 in tickets annually.

Furthermore, ticket resellers and marketplaces are barred under the law from advertising “more than one copy of the same ticket,” listing tickets before they’ve first gone on sale, offering tickets without providing specific seating information, and enlisting individuals “to wait in line to purchase tickets” (with plans to resell) if the practice is prohibited generally or by the venue, among different things.

Next, ticket-resale marketplaces, “unless acting on behalf of the” venue, event, or act(s) at hand, cannot incorporate into the relevant URLs the venue name, the event name, or the name of the entertainment professional, according to the law.

Lastly, individuals are blocked from circumventing “any portion” of the ticket-purchase process, including “security or identity validation measures or an access control system,” besides disguising their identities to buy more than the maximum-allowed number of tickets.

Even an individual who knows that a ticket was obtained in violation of these validation measures cannot resell the pass under the law. Ticket marketplaces, for their part, must turn over “information about technology and methods used” in alleged violation of the law to the commerce commissioner on request.

After this piece was published, a Live Nation representative reached out with a statement, attributed specifically to Ticketmaster, in support of Minnesota’s ticketing law.

“We applaud Governor Tim Walz, Representative Kelly Moller, and Senator Matt Klein for championing protections for Minnesota consumers and holding ticket resellers accountable,” Ticketmaster said. “We’ve long advocated for a ban on speculative ticketing, mandating all-in pricing, and enforcing stricter bot laws. This legislation enacts one of the nation’s strongest ticketing reform laws.”

The Young Americans are listening: Edison’s ‘Share-of-Ear’ data for Q2 2023–Q1 2024

The data is both encouraging or depressing — and the landscape is more complicated than ever. But where does radio stand in 2024, given a quick-evolving streaming landscape and an increasingly digital music space? Six experts tackled the complex question and discussed the medium’s path forward during our latest DMN Pro event. Here are some of the takeaways.

If radio is dead, listeners haven’t quite noticed. Nielsen, in its Radio Today report, pointed out that AM/FM reaches 91% of American adults each month. Edison Research found in its Share of Ear survey that radio reaches 53% of Americans between the ages of 13 and 34 on a daily basis, with 56% of that group listening only in the car.

But how engaged are all those listeners — and how are they listening? More importantly, where will this space find itself in five or ten years, especially considering the breakneck gains in on-demand streaming and rapid in-car dashboard upgrades?

In this DMN Pro Weekly Report, we take a closer look at the data while interviewing leading experts in the space. Everyone — from will.i.am to SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe — had unexpected insights into this space. And nobody was willing to write this format off.

Report Table of Contents

I. Where Radio Stands in 2024: The Surprising Stats

• • • Graph: Young Adult Listeners and Terrestrial Radio In the U.S.
    • Graph: Median Age by Platform

II. What’s Right With This Format: A Look at Radio’s Competitive Strengths

III. How Exactly Is Radio Coming Up Short in 2024? A Look At the Medium’s Missed Opportunities

IV. The Bottom Line: How Can Radio Evolve to Remain Popular and Reestablish Its Relevance?

Please note: redistribution of this report is prohibited.

Several industry organizations have come out in support of the new American Music Tourism Act. Photo Credit: Michel Stockman

Federal lawmakers have officially introduced bipartisan legislation designed “to increase music tourism,” and the measure is drawing support from the Recording Academy, the RIAA, and others. 

Senators John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) just recently unveiled the American Music Tourism Act, which they say aims to increase the number of “domestic and international visitors” giving their business to “venues nationwide.”

And on this front, the senators summarized as well that the bill would require the Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for travel and tourism to spearhead a plan to enhance music tourism among stateside and global fans alike. Additionally, the legislation would compel a yearly report to Congress “on the findings and achievements” of said plan.

Digging into the text of the concise bill itself, the American Music Tourism Act would simply amend the Visit America Act, which became law as part of a massive spending package in late 2022 and created the assistant secretary position.

As its title suggests, the Visit America Act aims “to support the travel and tourism industry, which produces economic impacts that are vital to our national economy.”

Under the American Music Tourism Act, the existing law would be updated so that the secretary’s responsibilities include “identifying locations and events in the United States that are important to music tourism and promoting domestic travel and tourism to those sites and events.”

A similar addition would institute the same requirement for international tourism, and the assistant secretary would then present the mentioned annual congressional reports on the “activities, findings, achievements, and vulnerabilities relating to the” promotional undertakings.

Lastly, the American Music Tourism Act specifically defines music tourism as the act of traveling to attend live performances or “to visit historic or modern day music-related attractions, including museums, studios, venues of all sizes, and other sites related to music.”

As noted, multiple industry organizations are backing the bill, with National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) executive director Stephen Parker touting the broader focus on “music tourism as a catalyst for economic development.”

“From rural communities to city centers,” Parker relayed in part, “independent stages attract investment and visitors for the artists and professionals that put on shows and the restaurants, retail, and attractions around them. The American Music Tourism Act finally recognizes music tourism as a catalyst for economic development and ensures its growth is a national priority.”

In other stateside legislative news, lawmakers including Senator Blackburn yesterday participated in a hearing on the No Fakes Act and the wider issue of infringing AI media. FKA Twigs, Robert Kyncl, and several others appeared as witnesses, with the Warner Music head Kyncl having urged near-term regulatory action on AI and described the sought components of this framework.

Warner Music Group head Robert Kyncl speaking before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Photo Credit: RIAA

Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl has testified before Congress in support of the No Fakes Act (and the No AI Fraud Act), federal legislation designed to target, among other things, unauthorized AI soundalike releases.

Kyncl appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property today, nearly seven months after lawmakers unveiled the bipartisan No Fakes Act. From the outset, we’ve covered the legislation – and the comparatively sweeping No AI Fraud Act, which was introduced at the top of 2024 and per the RIAA “builds on” the older bill.

Of course, these and related proposals – including at the state level, where Tennessee enacted the ELVIS Act last month – have arrived against the backdrop of a quick-evolving AI landscape. And as part of this landscape, auto-generated music (such as unapproved projects made to resemble releases from prominent artists) is making waves. Additionally, industry infringement litigation is ongoing with AI giants like Anthropic.

Enter the No Fakes Act and the No AI Fraud Act, which Kyncl supported in his opening remarks. (Witnesses including FKA Twigs, identified simply as “twigs” by the appropriate name plate, also appeared before Congress. In an opening statement of her own, the artist disclosed that she’s developed a personal AI deepfake.)

In brief, the Warner Music head’s introductory comments didn’t cover any especially groundbreaking details, instead reiterating his backing of the mentioned legislation and specifically urging a framework to license protected media for AI training processes.

Federal legislation, Kyncl proceeded, must enable “each person” to enforce personal name, likeness, and voice rights, besides establishing “meaningful consequences for AI model builders and digital platforms that knowingly facilitate the violation of a person’s property rights.”

Shifting to the congressional hearing itself, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle kicked things off with lengthy remarks about AI soundalike music – including by playing a “Tupac or AI?” audio clip to underscore the highly precise nature of artificial intelligence song outputs and the commercial pitfalls thereof.

Notwithstanding the fact that the majors promptly booted unauthorized AI tracks from dedicated streaming platforms like Spotify – and took aim at a number of non-infringing AI releases – Kyncl expressed the belief that many artists are competing against the machine-generated works for revenue.

“When you have these deepfakes out there, the artists are actually competing with themselves for revenue on streaming platforms. Because there is a fixed amount of revenue within each of the streaming platforms. And if somebody is uploading fake songs of Twigs, and those songs are eating into that revenue pool, there’s less left for her authentic songs.”

Elsewhere in the hearing, Kyncl answered affirmatively when asked whether “new digital replica rights need to be fully transferable,” opining that artists should decide between licensing said rights and transferring them altogether.

Regarding non-negotiable elements of the relevant legislation, Kyncl stressed a need for one’s “consent” when his or her name, likeness, and/or voice are used “to train AI models and create outputs.” And with AI platforms having already ingested all manner of protected media, the exec further emphasized the significance of maintaining detailed training records and the ultimate development of an auto-identification system.

“We are in the unique moment of time where we can still act, and we can get it right before it gets out of hand,” Kyncl relayed of regulating AI. “The genie is not yet out of the bottle, but it will be soon.”

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has pushed back against the new law requiring ByteDance to sell the app or face a U.S. ban. Photo Credit: Jonathan Kemper

As his company prepares legal actions opposing its forced sale in the U.S., TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has come out swinging against the relevant law.

TikTok itself penned a brief response to the “unconstitutional ban,” after President Biden yesterday signed the appropriate legislation (along with a number of other measures) into law. Per said law’s text, TikTok parent ByteDance now has about nine months, with a possible three-month extension, to divest from or shut down the video-sharing app in the States.

Predictably, TikTok, far from preparing to accept the situation quietly, has emphasized plans to challenge the law in court, also underscoring the belief that it “will ultimately prevail.” Not stopping there, the company’s CEO put out a lengthy video statement, as mentioned, touching on everything from the platform’s purported data-security efforts to the perceived impact of a ban.

“Rest assured,” the Singapore-born exec communicated, “we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident, and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.”

Despite the possible ban it’s staring down, TikTok is in many ways continuing to operate as usual.

Today, the platform reached out with a fresh “Global Music Newsletter,” described as a “new monthly look at the songs and artists from around the world trending on TikTok.” Among other things, the newsletter highlighted the 1.5 million “Add to Music App” uses that Taylor Swift’s The Tortured Poets Department racked up during the first two days it was available to fans.

On the other side of the equation, TikTok’s high-profile users are likewise continuing to utilize the app (mostly) as normal. Notwithstanding its uncertain U.S. future – and its music industry confrontation – the service remains a key promotional tool for the likes of Billie Eilish and Dua Lipa, both of whom have plugged forthcoming albums in their bios.

In another testament to TikTok’s reach – especially with younger demographics – President Biden’s official campaign account is still live on the platform as well. Having last posted yesterday, this account is rather unsurprisingly being inundated with comments from ticked-off TikTokers upset about the forced-sale bill.

Here are the complete remarks delivered by TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew about the legislation’s passage.

“Hi, everyone. It’s Shou here. As you may have heard, Congress passed a bill that the president signed into law that is designed to ban TikTok in the United States.

That will take TikTok away from you and 170 million Americans who find community and connection on our platform. Make no mistake, this is a ban – a ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice. Politicians may say otherwise, but don’t get confused. Many who sponsored the bill admit a TikTok ban is their ultimate goal.

It’s obviously a disappointing moment, but it does not need to be a defining one. It’s actually ironic, because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.

TikTok gives everyday Americans a powerful way to be seen and heard, and that’s why so many people have made TikTok part of their daily lives. Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident, and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.

Our community is filled with people who have found acceptance and compassion, offered inspiration and encouragement, increased their awareness and broadened their perspectives, ultimately adding more delight and joy to their lives. Our community is also filled with seven million businessowners who have built their livelihoods on TikTok.

While we make our case in court, you’ll still be able to enjoy TikTok like you always have. In fact, if you have a story about how TikTok impacts your life, we would love for you to share it, to showcase exactly what we’re fighting for.

Meanwhile, we will continue to invest and innovate to keep our community vibrant, exciting, and safe. Through our U.S. data-security efforts, we have built safeguards that no other peer company has made. We have invested billions of dollars to secure your data and keep our platform free from outside manipulation.

I can’t say this enough: This extraordinary, diverse community is what makes TikTok so special, what makes it matter, and what makes it meaningful. And we’ll keep working to ensure you will always have the opportunity, the safety, and the freedom to enjoy all TikTok has to offer. Thank you.”

A TikTok ban edges closer to reality following Senate and Presidential approvals (photo: Ian Hutchinson).

The music industry is pondering what happens next as the ink dries on President Biden’s authorization of a Congressional bill that includes a TikTok divestiture order. DMN Pro subscribers have already parsed through a detailed breakdown of the potential winners and losers following a TikTok ban, thanks to our exhaustive white paper on the topic.

For those just tuning in: Congress recently passed — and President Biden just signed — a bill that mandates that Chinese parent company ByteDance must sell TikTok within roughly nine months. If that doesn’t happen, the app faces a ban in the United States.

The legislation springs from national security concerns regarding Chinese access to American user data and the potential for propaganda dissemination. Teenage TikTokers aren’t sold on the seriousness of the threat, though their votes only have so much impact here — literally.

The law’s implementation will likely be highly complicated. As the New York Times neatly sums up: “Now the law faces court challenges, a shortage of qualified buyers, and Beijing’s hostility.”

Almost immediately, TikTok will challenge the sale mandate in court, arguing it violates the company’s and its users’ First Amendment rights. Finding a qualified buyer with sufficient funds and government approval also poses challenges, as does the technical difficulty of separating TikTok’s technology from its Chinese parent company.

Furthermore, China’s role is a significant factor. Chinese government officials have opposed a forced sale of TikTok or a resulting TikTok ban. It’s possible China may enact export restrictions that block the sale of core technology like TikTok’s recommendation algorithm or retaliate against American companies as a result of such a sale.

Overall, the coming months (or even years) promise a turbulent period as this sale mandate unfolds. Court battles, the search for a qualified buyer, and potential Chinese interference will heavily influence the ultimate fate of TikTok in the United States.

However, after legal challenges and buyer options are exhausted, TikTok could disappear from the US-based app landscape.

A TikTok ban would be great news for competitors like Meta, YouTube, and Snap, who are expected to receive traffic onslaughts. But the development will prove more complicated for the various sub-sectors of the music industry.

In our latest white paper, DMN Pro takes an exhaustive look at the post-TikTok music industry’s winners and losers, from the major labels to DSPs and artists to UGC competitors. In each case, we also analyze the potential impact over various time horizons — with potentially significant industry changes materializing over the longer term.

DMN Pro subscribers can access the report here and start the ‘what’s next’ strategic planning. If you’re not yet a subscriber, you can become a DMN Pro member here.

Here’s a peek at what’s inside.

REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: The Post-TikTok Music Landscape Could Give Rise to Unprecedented Changes – With Implications for Fans, Artists, and Companies Alike

Record Labels: Majors and Indies Stand to Lose in Several Areas (and Win in Others) With TikTok’s Ban

• • • • Graph: A Breakdown of Global Recorded Music Revenue from UGC and Ancillary Licensing Sources
      • Graph: 2023 Global Recorded Music Revenue by Segment

Publishers: Short-Term Losses, Particularly for Smaller Indies, Could Make Way for Long-Term Improvements

Songwriters: A Possible Licensing Revenue Upside Won’t Offset Immediate Discovery Setbacks, Especially for DIY Professionals

Artists: Post-TikTok, Artists At All Career Stages Will Suffer Varied Near-Term Professional Consequences

• • • • Graph: Selected Artists’ Social Media Followers, YouTube Subscribers, and Spotify Monthly Listeners
        Superstar and Legendary Artists
      • Mid-Level Artists With Substantial Followings
      • Developing and Emerging Artists
      • Pre-Traction Artists
      • Graph: A 2023 Breakdown of Emerging Artists by Home Country

Competing UGC Platforms: Reels, Shorts, and Others Will Be the Clear Winners

Overall Licensing Revenue: Ancillary Setbacks Aside, TikTok’s Ban Will Have a Minimal Licensing Revenue Impact

• • • • Graph: Universal Music’s Estimated TikTok Revenue Versus Permanent Downloads Revenue, 2020 – 2023

Non-Label Sync Platforms: The Post-TikTok Industry May Look Different for Sync Platforms and Music Libraries

The Fans: More Than a Letdown for Fans, TikTok’s Ban Will Dramatically Affect Music Discovery

DSPs: What Does a TikTok Ban Mean for Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music?

Promoters and Venues: The TikTok Ban’s Significance for Live Music

Report Summary: The Post-TikTok Music Landscape’s Many Changes

By the Dates: A Timeline of TikTok Regulatory Scrutiny, December 2022 – April 2024

One-Sheet Infographic: The Post-TikTok Winners & Losers

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.

The Capitol Building in Washington, DC: Ground zero for TikTok deliberations.

The ‘TikTok ban bill’ is back with a vengeance: The House of Representatives passed a modified bill on Saturday (April 20th) that could lead to a nationwide TikTok ban — or something close to it.

The vote saw the measure clear the chamber with overwhelming support (360-58), the second lopsided vote on the TikTok problem. The bill, which includes a measure that could effectively ban TikTok in the United States, now moves to the Senate, where a vote could come within a matter of days.

Digital Music News reported last week that the latest version of the TikTok ban bill extends the deadline for ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell the app to a US-based buyer or face a forced shutdown in the United States. The new deadline of approximately nine months, with a potential three-month extension, provides additional time for negotiations.

But this is suddenly much bigger than TikTok. After a lull in the Senate, momentum for the bill accelerated when it was attached to a broader foreign aid package supporting Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, dramatically elevating its legislative priority.

Such is the horse-trading and re-packaging that often defines Congressional legislative deliberation — and leads to bills becoming law. On that note, President Biden has indicated his willingness to sign the bill into law despite the potential for significant legal challenges and far-reaching consequences for US-China relations.

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.

The latest vote has been a surprise slap for ByteDance and its US-based TikTok executives. In the months leading up to this legislation, executives like TikTok CEO Shou Chew found themselves getting dragged through Congressional grill sessions, though the sentiment internally was that a ban was off the table. That assessment now turns out to be a critical miscalculation.

However, while the Senate is expected to pass the ban legislation, potential delays from opponents like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) could arise. TikTok is also gearing up for a vigorous legal challenge against the bill.

On that front, courts typically defer to the government in national security matters, but TikTok may argue that the ban unfairly singles the company out, raising questions of constitutionality.

If the bill becomes law, TikTok’s headaches multiply. Finding a buyer willing to meet the massive price tag is difficult, compounded by China’s restrictions on exporting TikTok’s core algorithm technology. ByteDance and China have already indicated an unwillingness to sell TikTok, which would effectively result in a shutdown.

The push for banning TikTok stems from concerns that the Chinese government could exploit the app to collect user data, spread propaganda, or interfere in elections. Chew assured lawmakers that data was being treated carefully and not being shared with ByteDance. However, TikTok ex-employees have contradicted those claims and pointed to outright data-sharing with ByteDance’s Chinese headquarters.

What Will UGC Licensing Look Like After the UMG-TikTok War?

In this DMN Pro Weekly report, we offer an analysis of where the high-stakes impasse stands – and how the episode’s fallout could drive a fundamental shift in how music factors into the UGC space.

Looming in the background is the simmering standoff between Universal Music Group and TikTok — and Taylor Swift’s recent embrace of the platform.

The latest Congressional vote closely follows TikTok’s splashy partnership with Taylor Swift to promote her just-released album, The Tortured Poets Department. That makes sense for Team Taylor, though Universal Music Group hardly welcomed the news.

Swift, signed to Republic/UMG, was given the royal treatment by TikTok in a move that could easily be construed as a slap in the face for both UMG and the broader music industry. Once upon a time, Swift was a staunch defender of music valuation and artists’ rights, though perhaps those are now quaint ideological ideas for an artist of her stature.

TikTok’s direct engagement with Swift could also be seen as part of a broader attempt by TikTok to solidify its influence over the music industry by leveraging its extensive user base to overrule protests by labels, publishers, and other music IP stakeholders.

Separately, sources to Digital Music News have pointed to rekindled negotiations between UMG and TikTok, though progress appears to be plodding. DMN’s sources have also shared details of a possible legal attack against TikTok and its parent ByteDance, specifically over issues tied to repeat infringer violations and clear violations of DMCA regulations.

Incidentally, Elon Musk has also chimed in with his two cents, arguing on Saturday that a ban would set a dangerous precedent undermining free expression.

Musk tweeted, “In my opinion, TikTok should not be banned in the USA, even though such a ban may benefit the X platform. Doing so would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression. It is not what America stands for.”

(Separately, it should be noted that X/Twitter ranks highly on the music industry’s s—t list, thanks to a complete refusal to pay music royalties. Here’s a deep-dive into the latest on X/Twitter’s legal battle against the music industry, including the very real prospect that X will never pay for music rights.)

On a broader scale, the debate surrounding TikTok spotlights the ongoing tension between national security concerns and the protection of free speech rights in the digital age.

This complex issue raises questions about the extent of government power in regulating technology and social media platforms.

A forced sale or ban of TikTok in the US would be unprecedented, sending ripples through the global tech industry and potentially straining already tense US-China relations. China has signaled strong opposition to a TikTok sale, and retaliatory moves against US companies operating in China are a distinct possibility.

Beyond the serious music industry implications, this legislation would have far-reaching consequences for the future of social media, national security policy, and the complex power dynamics between the US and China — not to mention the fate of supermodels like Leah Halton.

Stay tuned for more fireworks.

Got a tip? Send it confidentially to Digital Music News via Signal — our handle is digitalmusicnews.07.

The Capitol Building.

Following weeks of uncertainty as to its legislative path, the TikTok ban bill is being fast-tracked in the 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act – with a House vote set for this weekend.

Multiple outlets have reported on the modified legislation’s inclusion in a broader spending package, after the House first passed the forced-sale measure in a bipartisan vote last month. Per the appropriate text, the retooled version of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act simply features a larger post-passage window (roughly nine months and a possible three-month extension instead of six months flat) for ByteDance to divest from or shut down TikTok in the U.S.

Now tied to multibillion-dollar bills earmarking aid for Israel, Ukraine, and more, the TikTok ban measure, owing in part to its current legislative grouping, could well be destined for congressional approval. Last month, the White House indicated that the president would sign the legislation into law if it reached his desk.

Consequently, the bill’s near-term journey is decidedly important. Running with the timetable identified by the Wall Street Journal and the official congressional schedule, the House vote is poised to take place tomorrow, April 20th, as mentioned, with a Senate vote expected “as soon as next week.”

And in summary, lawmaker comments published by the Journal as well as Axios indicate that certain politicians on both sides of the aisle intend to approve the package despite possible reservations about the TikTok ban bill. On the reservations front, it is, of course, an election year, and TikTok has launched a multimillion-dollar ad campaign in battleground states.

Building on that point, the controversial platform has rather directly rallied its generally young userbase to oppose the legislation, and TikTok-partnered businesses are presumably less than thrilled with the situation. Some senators have voiced free-speech concerns about the TikTok ban bill, which will be considered in a single vote in the chamber as part of the gargantuan aid package.

In the House, however, representatives will seemingly vote on each component (four bills in total) of the legislative proposal individually. Interestingly, Politico has reported that Democratic leadership is urging a yes vote on the components that would send sizable sums to the aforementioned nations – while not making a recommendation either way on the TikTok ban bill itself.

Provided the above-highlighted schedule proves accurate, the coming week should eliminate all doubt as to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act’s fate.

Bigger picture, TikTok, having pushed back aggressively against a ban in Montana, is all but certain to challenge the federal law (assuming passage) in court. That raises additional questions yet about how the unprecedented episode, complete with massive implications for the music industry, will unfold.

Photo Credit: Charles Deluvio

Federal lawmakers have agreed to update the TikTok forced-sale bill, affording ByteDance a longer post-passage window to divest from the video-sharing app. The development suggests the bill could win critical Senate approval.

This movement on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act came to light in an update from Senator Maria Cantwell, who chairs the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. While March saw the mentioned legislation quickly pass through the House in a bipartisan vote, it’s had a comparatively slow journey in the Senate.

To that end, reports closer to April’s beginning suggested that Senator Cantwell intended to push for changes – among them an extension of the six-month period ByteDance would have to sell or shut down TikTok in the States.

Running with the idea, the senator in a recent statement indicated that she was “very happy” with House Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to adjust this selloff stretch to one year.

“I’m very happy that Speaker Johnson and House leaders incorporated my recommendation to extend the ByteDance divestment period from six months to a year,” the senator’s statement reads.

“As I’ve said, extending the divestment period is necessary to ensure there is enough time for a new buyer to get a deal done. I support this updated legislation,” the remarks conclude.

Of course, assuming the bill becomes law, it’s unclear whether ByteDance, part of which belongs to the Chinese government, will opt to cash out of TikTok in the U.S. at all.

To be sure, the platform and its execs have painted the measure as an outright ban, including in the multimillion-dollar TikTok ad campaign that’s underway in battleground states. And the possibility of a full-scale stateside shutdown probably isn’t sitting right with the massive companies, sports teams and leagues, and others that TikTok counts as partners.

Nevertheless, prospective buyers – or more precisely groups of buyers, given the huge price tag TikTok’s U.S. operations would fetch – are still lining up to pursue a takeover.

Moving beyond the legislative-process implications of these and related points – besides the situation’s far-reaching industry impact – the divestiture-period adjustment is significant when it comes to the bill’s path through the Senate. According to The Hill, the retooled Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act provision is specifically part of a multifaceted package including fresh sanctions on Iran and much more.

Notwithstanding its uncertain U.S. future, on top of its intensifying Universal Music licensing battle and the quick-approaching end of its NMPA agreement, TikTok is still making industry moves. Earlier this week, the app announced a global ticketing tie-up with AEG’s AXS.

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.

A live performance from Taylor Swift. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Arizona’s “Taylor Swift Bill” (House Bill 2040), which would prohibit the use of bots to purchase live-event tickets in a number of situations, has moved one step closer to becoming law.

The relatively little-discussed legislation passed through Arizona’s Senate (22 votes in favor, five against) on Monday and through the House (48 in favor, 11 against) yesterday. Of course, the measure’s introduction and legislative momentum have followed the well-documented Taylor Swift Eras Tour pre-sale fiasco, which prompted all manner of lawmaker outrage and spurred no shortage of criticism against Live Nation.

According to coverage from local outlets including the Arizona Capitol Times, HB2040 hearings took place earlier this year, when a Live Nation attorney expressed support for the bill and a Vivid Seats representative voiced reservations.

Said reservations – lawmakers have modified the relevant legislative text since its introduction, it bears noting – concerned HB2040’s perceived potential to disrupt the ticket-resale market, besides the existence of a federal law that addresses bot-powered ticket purchases. The latter, aptly entitled the BOTS Act, went into effect in 2016; the FTC handed down the first ticket-scalping charges under the measure in early 2021.

Moreover, Live Nation’s counsel acknowledged the federal-state overlap between the BOTS Act and HB2040, but nevertheless indicated that “‘having this conduct prohibited under state law and empowering the state attorney general to police conduct is something we think is important and necessary,’” the mentioned outlet transcribed.

Digging into the concise legislation itself, the bill proposes adding a bot- and live-event-focused chapter to the Arizona Revised Statutes.

The text defines “bot” as “any automated software program that performs automatic and repetitive tasks and that is designed to impersonate or replicate human activity online” and underscores that the bill would cover public concerts, theater shows, sporting events, exhibitions, and other happenings requiring “payment of an admission fee to attend.”

Running with those points, HB2040 would bar the use of bots (but not password-autofill features or related tools) to “purchase tickets in excess of the posted limit for an online ticket sale”; utilize multiple IP addresses, accounts, or email addresses to bypass these posted limits; or otherwise circumvent a security measure or “an electronic queue, waiting period, presale code or other sales volume limitation system.”

Especially because the bill would seemingly fall short of prohibiting outright the use of bots to purchase tickets, it’s unclear exactly how alleged infractions would be identified and how possible workarounds, including multi-person and -address schemes, would be addressed. Furthermore, the legislation, which is now awaiting the governor’s signature, would apply specifically to any “person” who engages in the above-described ticket-buying practices.

But Arizona’s attorney general would spearhead investigations, HB2040 shows, with civil penalties coming in at up to $10,000 per violation and a maximum of $100,000 total per alleged violator, according to the Arizona Capitol Times.

Emerging artists could be hardest hit by a TikTok ban. The United States produces the most emerging artists globally, according to Chartmetric data.

TikTok is battling its greatest regulatory threat to date in the U.S., where the ByteDance-developed app’s shutdown would affect a multitude of individuals, companies, and spaces. But what does this mean for the music industry — and all of its complicated sub-sectors?

In this white paper, DMN Pro takes an exhaustive look at the post-TikTok music industry’s winners and losers, from the major labels to DSPs and artists to UGC competitors.

REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Introduction: The Post-TikTok Music Landscape Could Give Rise to Unprecedented Changes – With Implications for Fans, Artists, and Companies Alike

Record Labels: Majors and Indies Stand to Lose in Several Areas (and Win in Others) With TikTok’s Ban

Graph: A Breakdown of Global Recorded Music Revenue from UGC and Ancillary Licensing Sources
Graph: 2023 Global Recorded Music Revenue by Segment

Publishers: Short-Term Losses, Particularly for Smaller Indies, Could Make Way for Long-Term Improvements

Songwriters: A Possible Licensing Revenue Upside Won’t Offset Immediate Discovery Setbacks, Especially for DIY Professionals

Artists: Post-TikTok, Artists At All Career Stages Will Suffer Varied Near-Term Professional Consequences

Graph: Selected Artists’ Social Media Followers, YouTube Subscribers, and Spotify Monthly Listeners
Superstar and Legendary Artists
Mid-Level Artists With Substantial Followings
Developing and Emerging Artists
Pre-Traction Artists
Graph: A 2023 Breakdown of Emerging Artists by Home Country

Competing UGC Platforms: Reels, Shorts, and Others Will Be the Clear Winners

Overall Licensing Revenue: Ancillary Setbacks Aside, TikTok’s Ban Will Have a Minimal Licensing Revenue Impact

Graph: Universal Music’s Estimated TikTok Revenue Versus Permanent Downloads Revenue, 2020 – 2023

Non-Label Sync Platforms: The Post-TikTok Industry May Look Different for Sync Platforms and Music Libraries

The Fans: More Than a Letdown for Fans, TikTok’s Ban Will Dramatically Affect Music Discovery

DSPs: What Does a TikTok Ban Mean for Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music?

Promoters and Venues: The TikTok Ban’s Significance for Live Music

Report Summary: The Post-TikTok Music Landscape’s Many Changes

By the Dates: A Timeline of TikTok Regulatory Scrutiny, December 2022 – April 2024

One-Sheet Infographic: The Post-TikTok Winners & Losers

Join the DMN Pro subscriber-only discussion below.

Also please note that any authorized redistribution of this report is prohibited — thank you.

A new report suggests that the TikTok ban bill is facing a slower-than-expected journey through the Senate. Photo Credit: Jonathan Kemper

Following the House’s quick passage of a bill that would compel ByteDance to sell or shut down TikTok in the U.S., senators are reportedly preparing for a lengthy debate on the measure.

This update in the multifaceted discussion about TikTok’s stateside future entered the media spotlight in a Wall Street Journal report. After the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, in early March, immediate evidence suggested that the bill’s path through the Senate would perhaps be slightly slower.

Nevertheless, a material delay appeared unlikely at the outset; senators on both sides of the aisle expressed support for the measure, which could potentially apply to non-TikTok companies and platforms as well. On the other side of the equation, different senators voiced concerns about the bill’s scope, and TikTok, far from throwing in the towel, urged its users to contact lawmakers and launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign.

The latter is zeroing in on a number of battleground states in a critical election year. And it’s against this backdrop, with many young adults opposed to a TikTok ban, that the bill’s facing a seemingly lengthier journey in the Senate.

Expanding on reports that circulated last month, the Journal indicated that Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell “will make the push for changes” to the bill. That could reportedly include language pivots designed to render the proposal more difficult to overturn if it’s signed into law – possibly by targeting other social services’ practices in the text and/or by extending the currently six-month divestment window that would be afforded to ByteDance.

Of course, any alterations may well fuel additional debate yet or otherwise affect the bill’s current support, referring to that of congressmembers and the White House. Moreover, Senator Cantwell is per the mentioned outlet planning “to hold at least one hearing.”

These and adjacent steps would, needless to say, take time, and proponents of the bill as written worry that modifications could “significantly delay” or permanently derail the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, per the Journal.

In any event, the exact schedule of this reported hearing and possible modifications isn’t clear. Beyond its previously highlighted advert campaign, TikTok recently debuted the Youth Council, an initiative that it says “further strengthens how we build our app to be safe for teens by design.”

TikTok, long the subject of criticism over its impact on minors, is grappling with fresh investigations from the FTC and the EU. For obvious reasons, related headlines are soaking up ample media spotlight. But following Universal Music’s TikTok exit, qualms expressed by the NMPA, Sony Music, and others could be indicative of an imminent confrontation between the app and the wider industry.

Surveys have found opposition to a TikTok ban among young Americans, and the app is reportedly plotting a major ad campaign across battleground states. Photo Credit: BoliviaInteligente

As the Senate weighs the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, two new surveys are shedding light on public opinion of the measure and the broader idea of a TikTok ban.

The results of these surveys – Quinnipiac’s University National Poll and CNBC’s All-America Economic Survey – were just recently published. Of course, the responses aren’t providing the first look at how Americans feel about the government-ordered sale or domestic ban of TikTok, which has long faced criticism over its user-privacy practices, data policies, and more.

But they are particularly noteworthy amid the rapid legislative progress of the aforementioned Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. In brief, this bill would compel ByteDance to sell or shutter TikTok in the States – also leaving the door open for similar regulatory action against different platforms down the line.

For Beijing-based ByteDance and TikTok, that effectively amounts to a ban – a point underscored by the app’s CEO when he encouraged users to contact their senators about the legislation.

Returning to the surveys, Quinnipiac found when speaking with 1,569 adults (including 1,407 self-identified registered voters) that 47 percent of voters “oppose a national ban of TikTok,” with 41 percent in favor.

Despite TikTok’s efforts to paint the bill as an outright ban, though, 51 percent of voters are said to have expressed support for the above-described legislation, against 40 percent in opposition.

Unsurprisingly, given TikTok’s young and evidently warning-averse userbase, among voter respondents between the ages of 18 and 34, 60 percent said they opposed the forced-sale bill; 71 percent of these voters said they opposed TikTok’s national ban.

But 53 percent of the same group nevertheless acknowledged concerns “that there is potential for a foreign government to have easy access to users’ information on TikTok,” according to the results. Moreover, 74 percent of all voter respondents said they held the concern.

CNBC’s findings are in some ways similar, with a total of 47 percent of the 1,001 respondents having expressed support for a ban in any event (20 percent) or a ban unless the app’s sold to a non-Chinese company (27 percent).

Democrats said they supported a ban (outright or unless sold), 40 percent to 38 percent, compared to 60 percent in favor and 20 percent opposed among Republican respondents, the survey shows. Especially important in an election year, however, independents said they opposed a ban, with 40 percent against and 34 percent in favor.

In keeping with TikTok’s demographics, 48 percent of this survey’s participants between the ages of 18 and 34 said the platform “should not be banned.”

Earlier this week, TikTok reportedly kicked off an over $2 million advertising campaign in several strategically selected states (including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Montana, and Nevada), with the involved television spots centering on how the app’s shutdown might impact users and businesses. A digital component, billboards, and other initiatives are reportedly forthcoming.

Lawmakers are urging the intelligence community to declassify information pertaining to the “significant risks” of TikTok. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

Ahead of a key Senate vote that will determine TikTok’s fate in the U.S., lawmakers are calling on the director of national intelligence to declassify information about “the significant risks the social media platform’s Chinese ownership poses to our national security.”

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) just recently made their case for declassification in an open letter to Director Avril Haines. Of course, the bipartisan public-disclosure entreaty has arrived after the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would compel ByteDance to sell or shut down TikTok in the States.

And with the White House having already expressed support for the measure, the forthcoming Senate vote will prove important in and well beyond the music industry. Moreover, while evidence suggests that the bill might be proceeding quickly through the Senate, its exact path in the chamber, not to mention the vote outcome itself, remains to be seen.

Enter the initially highlighted declassification letter, which, along with a possible public hearing on the relevant TikTok bill, could have far-reaching effects on forced-sale discussions.

“American intelligence and law enforcement officials on a bipartisan basis have repeatedly raised alarms that the Chinese government can use its direct and absolute control over ByteDance to exert malign influence over what users see on TikTok and spy on their private information,” Senators Blackburn and Blumenthal recapped, reiterating for good measure examples of the ample security and data criticism surrounding TikTok.

From there, the senators emphasized that they “are deeply troubled by the information and concerns raised by the intelligence community in recent classified briefings to Congress.”

“TikTok is a weapon in the hands of the Chinese government, and poses an active risk to our democratic institutions and national security,” the lawmakers proceeded.

Needless to say, the clear-cut remarks are prompting speculation as to the details of the “recent classified briefings.” Assuming said briefings have in fact delivered especially troubling information, their declassification could potentially influence public opinion.

On the other side of the equation, though, this influence’s scope won’t necessarily be substantial. A number of senators have seemingly locked in their positions on the bill, while massive security and data-privacy concerns have for years failed to convince TikTok users to abandon the app.

Those concerns include but certainly aren’t limited to the storage of U.S. user data in China, where Beijing can order ByteDance (part of which belongs to the Chinese government) to turn over information.

Separately, TikTok has long been banned on government devices in the States, the European Union, and elsewhere, with ByteDance and the app having been fined on multiple occasions for allegedly misusing children’s data.

Notwithstanding these points, it’ll be worth keeping an eye out for the possible declassified TikTok information – and the vote on the forced-sale bill. Despite the threat of a possible stateside shutdown, on top of a well-documented Universal Music licensing dispute, TikTok isn’t shying away from the music space.

To be sure, the platform only yesterday released its “TikTok Global Music Newsletter,” described as a “new monthly look at the songs and artists from around the world trending on TikTok.”

Multiple investor groups have now expressed interest in purchasing TikTok. Photo Credit: Sebastian Herrmann

Following reports of former Activision CEO Bobby Kotick’s interest in purchasing TikTok – with the investor group at hand potentially including OpenAI – others are looking to acquire the app as well.

These latest possible TikTok purchasers include former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who spelled out his goal of spearheading a buyout in a recent appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box. Of course, the House yesterday overwhelmingly passed a bill that would compel ByteDance to sell (or shut down) TikTok in the U.S.

And while the measure’s Senate path seems less straightforward (with ByteDance and TikTok also prepping a legal challenge should the bill become law), third parties have already started taking preliminary steps to scoop up the service.

“I think the legislation should pass,” the Liberty Strategic Capital founder Mnuchin said, “and I think it should be sold. I understand the technology. It’s a great business, and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok. … I’ve spoken to a bunch of people [about buying TikTok].”

Likewise exploring a TikTok purchase is businessman Kevin O’Leary, who during a CBC News sit down touched upon the seldom-discussed considerations and uncertainty inherent in a bill and a forced sale of this nature.

“Are we going to be allowed to leave any remnant ownership with the Chinese at all, or are they requiring 100 percent that it be sold to an American entity?” the Montreal-born investor asked. “And that’s question number one.

“That’s very difficult, because if you think about who owns companies like Google, and who owns Meta, and who owns Microsoft – those are international owners. Sovereign wealth companies own those companies. Are you going to make a difference just for this one? And we need to know the answer to that. … We need some guidance on how we’re going to do this valuation.”

Expanding on these points, TikTok hasn’t hesitated to paint the appropriate legislation as an outright ban. The Chinese government owns a piece of ByteDance – a key component of longstanding content, data, and privacy concerns surrounding TikTok – and the possibility of a TikTok sale refusal has also been covered in the media.

“I really, Andrew, don’t think there’s any chance the Chinese government allows TikTok to be sold in the U.S.,” The Information founder and CEO Jessica Lessin said in a Squawk Box appearance of her own. “They’ve said previously they wouldn’t, and I don’t see that being any different. … The Chinese government – a), they don’t want Chinese algorithms in the hands of U.S. companies.”

Bringing the focus back to the present – that is, the bill’s path forward in Congress – the New York Post yesterday indicated that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had opted against pinpointing a precise timetable for a Senate vote.

Roll Call today confirmed the bill’s expected “slower pace” in the Senate, where several lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, reportedly intend to review the measure before deciding which way they’ll vote.

After receiving strong support in the House, a bill that would compel the sale of TikTok (and possibly other platforms) in the U.S. is heading to the Senate. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

The House has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would compel ByteDance to divest from (or shut down) TikTok in the U.S. – setting the stage for a high-profile Senate vote.

352 representatives supported the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act today, after the measure exited committee in a unanimous vote last week. Meanwhile, 65 lawmakers (15 Republicans and 50 Democrats) opposed the bill, and their pushback might offer a preview as to the arguments that could come up as the Senate weighs the legislation.

“This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez summarized of her no vote. “There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.”

On the other side of the aisle, some lawmakers have taken issue with the bill’s comparatively broad scope. As we reported closer to March’s beginning, the act would seemingly enable the possible forced sale not only of TikTok, but, based on the term “foreign adversary” and the president’s discretion to determine which covered companies “present a significant threat to the national security of the United States,” different apps, websites, and programs.

Also featured prominently in the bill, we previously summarized, are clauses that would stop internet companies and app stores alike from providing services for or involving “foreign adversary controlled applications.”

“The passage of the House TikTok ban is not just a misguided overreach; it’s a draconian measure that stifles free expression, tramples constitutional rights, and disrupts the economic pursuits of millions of Americans,” Senator Rand Paul wrote on Twitter/X.

Moving beyond the many other remarks from lawmakers about the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the exact timetable associated with the legislation’s Senate vote is unclear.

Similarly unclear, of course, is the measure’s outlook in the chamber, where ByteDance and the long-controversial TikTok are reportedly lobbying heavily. But the White House has signaled that the president would sign the bill should it reach his desk.

After that, the penalties described in the legislation would go into effect for all foreign adversary controlled apps 180 days post-enactment. Predictably, TikTok, far from standing idly by or committing solely to the aforementioned lobbying efforts, is reportedly set to challenge the measure in court if it becomes law.

Worth noting in conclusion is that this isn’t the first – or even the second – time TikTok has been staring down a possible ban or forced sale in the States. Nevertheless, the latest congressional push appears to have relatively substantial momentum behind it, and prospective buyers are already lining up to purchase the ultra-popular (but music-limited) service if ByteDance is made to divest.

And it’s against this backdrop that TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew has responded to the “disappointing” House vote with a video, taking the opportunity to tout his company’s data policies and claim that the bill “will lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States” if it’s signed into law. Moreover, the exec emphasized the purported economic fallout of a ban and, unsurprisingly, encouraged TikTokers to reach out to their senators.

The European Parliament’s Strasbourg, France, headquarters, where MEPs voted overwhelmingly in favor of the AI Act. Photo Credit: Frederic Köberl

The European Parliament has officially voted in favor of the AI Act, and in keeping with the longstanding industry support behind the measure, the IFPI and others are applauding the development.

EU lawmakers today approved the AI Act with 523 affirmative votes, compared to 46 votes against the voluminous legislation and 49 abstentions. Introduced years back, the roughly 90,000-word law was modified several times en route to passage and, as its name suggests, will attempt to address all manner of AI considerations.

The latter include but certainly aren’t limited to the use of AI to compile “facial recognition databases,” the instances wherein law enforcement can legally deploy real-time AI tools, what constitutes “high-risk” AI usages, mandatory labels for AI media, and a whole lot else.

Of particular interest to the industry are the training-related safeguards at hand. As most know, the data and (protected) media upon which large language models (LLMs) are “trained” remains the subject of debate and litigation.

Troublingly, some AI giants continue to express the belief that utilizing an abundance of copyrighted works to develop an LLM, which then draws from and possibly reproduces the information when responding to queries and performing tasks, constitutes fair use.

But the EU’s AI Act explores training-data disclosures, the rights of creators to opt out of training, and much more. (Last year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman indicated that his company could potentially exit the European Union over artificial intelligence regulations.)

“Any use of copyright protected content [to train AIs] requires the authorisation of the rightsholder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions and limitations apply,” the AI Act reads in part, also calling on “providers of such models [to] draw up and make publicly available a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training.”

Notwithstanding today’s passage, the AI Act must still receive “a final lawyer-linguist check” and formal sign-off from the European Council. Furthermore, the law will only “enter into force” 20 days following its publication in the EU’s official journal, becoming “fully applicable” 24 months after that.

Independent of this full-scale implementation date, though, prohibited practices (like the previously highlighted surveillance and facial-recognition uses) will be barred under the law six months after its entry into force, with the AI Office-developed “codes of practice,” covering “obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models,” set to go into effect nine months after the entry into force.

Meanwhile, “general-purpose AI rules including governance” have a 12-month deadline, compared to 36 months for “obligations for high-risk systems.”

Building on these timetables, the aforementioned International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), along with GESAC, ICMP, IMPALA, and many others, is touting the AI Act’s passage – and zeroing in on its implementation specifics.

“We welcome the approval of the EU AI Act by the European Parliament,” the organizations said in part, “and we thank Members of the European Parliament for the essential role they have played in supporting creators and rightsholders throughout the legislative process.

“While these obligations provide a first step for rightsholders to enforce their rights,” they proceeded, “we call on the European Parliament to continue to support the development of responsible and sustainable AI by ensuring that these important rules are put into practice in a meaningful and effective way, aligned with the objectives of the regulation.”

Former Activision and Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick. Photo Credit: Steven Simko

As congressional momentum builds behind a bill that would compel ByteDance to divest from TikTok, a potential bidder has reportedly emerged in former Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.

Word of Kotick’s rumored interest in scooping up TikTok’s stateside operation entered the media spotlight in a Wall Street Journal report. But at the time of this writing, neither the exec nor ByteDance seemed to have commented publicly on the matter.

Per the Journal, however, Kotick floated the possible purchase of TikTok to business professionals including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The latter’s decidedly well-funded company could, of course, train its AI models on TikTok clips.

Predictably, given the video-sharing app’s significant stateside reach, the transaction would bring an estimated price tag of “hundreds of billions of dollars,” according to the same report.

Beyond the considerations associated with raising the sizable sum at hand, different prospective buyers would undoubtedly come to the table should the forced-sale legislation, specifically the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, become law. (About four years back, as part of a separate government-powered push for TikTok’s sale, Microsoft appeared poised to buy the platform.)

While the White House has signaled support for the measure, its congressional fate isn’t entirely clear. The bipartisan 50-0 vote that took the bill out of committee in the House looks to suggest that the scheduled Wednesday floor vote will see lawmakers approve the act.

But its path in the Senate could prove rockier; some senators have expressed free-speech reservations about the legislation, which isn’t the first bill of this nature. Unsurprisingly, TikTok and ByteDance, hardly strangers to lobbying, are reportedly working to thwart any progress for the act in the Senate.

Lastly, should the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act be signed into law, ByteDance would have approximately five months to step away from TikTok in the States. That window would presumably allow for a legal challenge as well; in December, a federal judge blocked TikTok’s full-scale ban in Montana following opposition from the service.

Needless to say, it’ll be worth monitoring the act, with an initial eye on the aforementioned Wednesday vote in the House, moving forward. Also significant (though in many ways relegated to the background amid the forced-sale speculation) is the app’s licensing showdown with Universal Music Group and possibly others.

Notwithstanding these and adjacent obstacles, TikTok is continuing to build out, including with last week’s announcement of the “Creator Rewards Program” as well as expanded subscription options.

Two bipartisan TikTok bills have been unanimously voted out of committee, with a floor vote expected to arrive next week. Photo Credit: Charles Deluvio

A pair of bills centering on TikTok – one of which would compel the platform’s ByteDance parent to sell or shut down the service in the US – are gaining momentum in Congress, raising significant questions about the short-form app’s future.

We reported yesterday on the unanimous committee approval behind what appears the more serious of the legislative proposals, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. That measure would effectively require Beijing-based ByteDance to cease operating TikTok, which has long faced user-privacy and data-security criticism, in the States.

While a number of other pieces of legislation would have also set the stage for the forced sale or outright ban of TikTok, the mentioned act is especially noteworthy given the strong bipartisan support it’s garnering. A unanimous vote saw 50 Energy and Commerce Committee members, from both sides of the aisle, back the bill, which essentially amounts to a ban for ByteDance itself and has now been teed up for a wider House vote next week.

(TikTok encouraged users to contact their representatives about the bill, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers reportedly indicated that lawmakers had “received ‘record’ numbers of calls.” The disturbing nature of some of these calls, many seemingly attributable to young non-voters, reportedly compelled certain on-the-fence parties to green-light the act.)

Furthermore, though the subject’s received comparatively little attention, a companion bill scored unanimous committee approval as well.

The Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act, in keeping with its title, would attempt to prohibit the transfer of a variety of “sensitive data” from “data brokers” to any “entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary.” Predictably, the measure would have far-reaching implications for ByteDance and TikTok.

Needless to say, the TikTok ban bills’ legislative momentum could spell trouble for the video-sharing platform and its owner. That the involved committee votes were unanimous appears to suggest stronger-than-reported anti-TikTok sentiment in Congress. Exactly why that opposition is reaching a boiling point at present, after years of pushback and less-than-ideal developments involving TikTok, isn’t entirely clear.

But the situation may simply mark the culmination of these developments, including but not limited to government-level TikTok bans in nations around the globe, hundreds of millions of dollars in fines against the app for alleged data shortcomings, and an abundance of troubling reports regarding the Chinese government’s influence over TikTok.

In any event, while the bills’ fate remains to be seen – referring not only to the quick-approaching House votes but also to their progress in the Senate – the current operational obstacles of TikTok aren’t confined to the halls of Congress.

Besides the above-outlined legislation, the platform is staring down a European Union investigation over its impact on minors; should ByteDance actually be made to sell TikTok stateside, the EU could well take steps to realize a similar outcome.

Additionally, the highly problematic Universal Music licensing dispute is now threatening to snowball into a wider industry confrontation for TikTok, on which nearly 85 percent of clips reportedly featured music as of December of 2023.

Seoul, South Korea, where a forthcoming competition law could extend to music streaming platforms. Photo Credit: Tom Hill

A music streaming crackdown could be coming to South Korea – complete with potentially massive penalties for certain business practices.

The possible regulatory action involving streaming services just recently came to light in regional reports from outlets including Korea JoongAng Daily. According to that breakdown, December saw South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (FTC) announce the forthcoming introduction of the Platform Competition Promotion Act.

In keeping with its title, the measure will per the mentioned source establish “strict rules” – and the threat of the aforesaid massive penalties – for “monopolistic behavior.” From the outset, the law has been expected to affect the likes of Meta, Google, and Apple, besides domestic tech players such as Naver and Kakao.

Now, however, FTC Chairman Han Ki-jeong has signaled that the law could likewise impact music streaming services.

Per the translation provided by Korea JoongAng Daily, the government official during an event in Seoul yesterday spelled out that the Fair Trade Commission “‘is eyeing music streaming services to be included in this bill, as such platforms have infiltrated deep into people’s lives.’”

Of course, those comments raise far-reaching questions about exactly how the streaming landscape could change in the nation of approximately 52 million. For reference, Spotify launched in South Korea a little over three years ago – and without a free tier.

Meanwhile, reports last month indicated that Apple had cracked a 25 percent share of the Asian nation’s smartphone market for the first time, presumably driving material growth for services including Apple Music.

In any event, it looks as though it’ll be some time before concrete details, let alone passage and implementation specifics, emerge regarding the legislation. Per the same outlet, “intense backlash” from the business community immediately followed the measure’s initial announcement, prompting the FTC to “tentatively defer the bill.”

And when asked at the Thursday event about the legislation’s timeline, Han Ki-jeong declined to weigh in, instead relaying that the FTC would “‘actively seek voices from the industry.’”

Worth highlighting in conclusion are other recent regulatory measures affecting music streaming platforms. Earlier this week, Spotify announced a price increase in France following the implementation of a “streaming tax.” This France-specific cost bump, expected to be laid out in detail soon, is directly tied to the much-protested 1.2 percent tax, the Stockholm-based company made clear.

Lastly, it was only in December that Spotify revealed it wouldn’t be leaving Uruguay after all, reversing a late-November announcement set in motion by a copyright-law overhaul. At the eleventh hour, government officials and the platform’s execs hammered out a decree that seemingly shifted the appropriate payment obligations to labels themselves.

A bill that would effectively ban ByteDance from operating TikTok in the U.S. is making rapid progress in Congress. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

Despite an aggressive counteroffensive from TikTok, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has voted unanimously in favor of bipartisan legislation that would compel ByteDance to divest the short-form app. Now, the proposal is speeding toward an expected vote on the House floor next week.

We first reported on this latest bill targeting TikTok, which has for years grappled with data-policy and user-safety criticism, two days back. Introduced by Representatives Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi (who previously spearheaded similar legislative efforts involving TikTok), the measure at hand is entitled the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

In brief, the bill would effectively outlaw any “foreign adversary controlled app” – including but perhaps not limited to TikTok – at both the app-store and web-hosting levels. Also described in the legislation are massive fines for related infractions as well as a way to avoid these and other obstacles for the companies behind adversary-controlled apps: finalizing a “qualified divestiture.”

For Beijing-based ByteDance, a forced stateside selloff of TikTok would essentially represent a ban – and, besides cutting off its access to a crucial market, could set the stage for regulatory measures in the EU (where the service is being investigated) and elsewhere.

The businesses’ concerns presumably entered high gear today, when, as mentioned, the Energy and Commerce Committee voted 50 to zero to advance the aforesaid bill. Far from sitting idly by amid this progress, however, TikTok according to reports and social media posts prompted its users to voice their less-than-thrilled feedback about the legislation.

To be sure, one screenshot of what appears the appropriate in-app page shows a “call now” button and a search box through which one could, by inputting a zip code, find the contact information for his or her representative. “Let Congress know what TikTok means to you and tell them to vote NO,” reads the on-screen text.

While the move failed to bring about the desired result for TikTok – which was previously slapped with multimillion-dollar fines for allegedly misusing children’s data – the response seems to underscore the bill’s relative gravity.

Moreover, Politico’s Olivia Beavers has shed light on the troubling content of many of the calls received by lawmakers from fired-up TikTokers. The deluge of nasty messages, the reporter indicated, had incensed “members who were on the fence” and potentially contributed to the unanimous vote.

Needless to say, the occurrence will do little to defuse longstanding arguments that TikTok, the parent of which is partially owned by the Chinese Communist Party, allegedly possesses undue cultural influence as well as an adjacent ability to spur pernicious behaviors and societal trends.

Expanding on the bill’s potential path forward, both House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House have reportedly expressed support for the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. And Majority Leader Steve Scalise has said that he intends to “bring this critical national security bill to the House floor for a vote next week.”

Time will, of course, reveal the fate of the legislation, which, notwithstanding its seemingly strong momentum, is hardly the first bipartisan measure of this nature.

In any event, it goes without saying that a TikTok ban would, among many other things, rather decisively put an end to the ongoing Universal Music Group (UMG) dispute and other brewing showdowns. As it stands, the UMG confrontation could be driving a fundamental shift in the way music is licensed for UGC platforms and different services yet.

As it faces continued regulatory scrutiny and pricing-related complaints, Live Nation has penned a close to 3,000-word explanation of “the truth about ticket prices.” Photo Credit: Hanna Tche

Weeks after reporting record fiscal-year revenue – and as it grapples with an intensifying Justice Department investigation – Live Nation has penned a lengthy breakdown of the perceived “truth about ticket prices.”

Live Nation EVP of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall wrote the explanation, spanning an astonishing 2,800 or so words, and posted the piece directly on the Beverly Hills-based business’s website. It’s hardly a secret that the leading promoter has encountered all manner of criticism and regulatory scrutiny over the years.

While even a semi-detailed recap of this long-running pushback would prove involved, it’s worth noting that late October of 2023 saw Live Nation as well as Ticketmaster face a renewed congressional grilling over “all-in pricing” – or that which displays event passes’ total cost, inclusive of all fees, at the outset.

Towards November’s end, the Senate slapped the promoter with a subpoena for purportedly “stonewalling” an inquiry into its alleged “abusive consumer practices.” Separately, the Justice Department has for some time been conducting an antitrust probe into the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger, with February of 2024 having reportedly delivered a fresh batch of related document requests.

Moving beyond these pertinent background details, Wall in the mentioned breakdown attempted to diffuse “antitrust attacks” against his employer by describing at length its alleged lack of genuine influence over ticket prices.

“Tickets are actually priced by artists and teams,” Wall reiterated. “It’s their show, they get to decide what it costs to get in.”

Predictably, the Live Nation exec of a little over one year also dove into the ever-controversial topic of ticketing fees, indicating in part that “Ticketmaster does not set service charges, venues do, and most of the money goes to the venues.” (Of course, Live Nation itself owns a substantial number of venues.)

And for good measure, Wall included a visual resource comparing the “commission rates of digital marketplaces,” with Ticketmaster (seven percent) at the bottom thereof and Twitch (“50% on net subscription revenue”) situated at the top.

Next, Wall zeroed in on “the role of the promoter,” explaining in more words that artists and their teams ultimately set prices – and decide whether to employ dynamic pricing models, for instance. The “real explanations for high ticket prices are well-understood and have very little to do with Live Nation or Ticketmaster,” instead pertaining to simple supply and demand, according to the document.

“Statements to the effect that Live Nation and Ticketmaster ‘keep ticket prices high’ are just flat wrong,” Wall added in conclusion, after taking the opportunity to drive home that Taylor Swift is promoted by AEG’s Louis Messina. “Anyone with a basic understanding of the industry knows this. Those who perpetuate this falsehood are cynical at best. They do a disservice to consumers and to rational political discourse.”

Bearing in mind the latter mention of political discourse, time will tell whether the multifaceted text has a material impact on the positions, statements, and legislative initiatives of lawmakers, who, needless to say, are likelier than irked customers to wade through the explanation. When the market closed today, Live Nation stock (NYSE: LYV) was worth $99.19 per share, just below its 52-week high.

The Senate side of the U.S. Capitol. Photo Credit: Scrumshus

Federal lawmakers are officially considering a bill, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, that would compel Beijing-headquartered ByteDance to sell off TikTok.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today announced a scheduled Thursday committee mark-up for the legislation (as well as the adjacent Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act).

Spanning 12 pages, the former bipartisan bill expressly defines TikTok – which has admitted to storing user data in China, where the Communist Party reportedly possesses backdoor access to the sensitive information – as “a foreign adversary controlled application.”

Under the relatively straightforward act, said adversary-controlled apps would effectively be outlawed (at the app-store and web-hosting levels alike) in the U.S., with massive per-user penalties in place for related violations. Meanwhile, the legislation calls for the parent companies of affected apps to hand over “all the available data” to users who request the information during a pre-ban window.

Impacted businesses, chief among them ByteDance, would have until this window’s conclusion to execute a “qualified divestiture” – thereby avoiding the far-reaching penalties described in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Assuming the bill proceeds beyond committee, it’ll be worth following its legislative progress – particularly given the bipartisan support at hand and the potentially more palatable push for a sale as opposed to an outright shutdown.

Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the bill represents one of many pieces of legislation targeting TikTok via a divestment requirement and/or a compelled cessation of operations. (To be sure, the lawmakers behind the above-highlighted bill, Representatives Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi, in December of 2022 introduced companion legislation for Senator Marco Rubio’s ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act.) Needless to say, though, these measures have thus far failed to become law.

But the longstanding user-safety and data-collection concerns surrounding TikTok, which is grappling with an EU investigation over its impact on minors, have elicited comparatively prompt responses at the government level. TikTok is already banned on government devices and networks in a number of countries, states, and cities.

In other words, legislative threats to ban TikTok outright in the U.S., besides the underlying worries, are nothing new. However, the service is simultaneously facing a heretofore unencountered obstacle in the form of a licensing impasse with Universal Music Group (UMG). To the apparent dismay of many users, the removal of the Universal Music Publishing Group parent’s recordings and compositions (with the latter affecting releases from non-UMG artists as well) is in full swing.

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.