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.

Photo Credit: Guillaume Périgois

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), SACEM, GEMA, and STIM have officially called on European Union member states “to show global leadership” by approving the long-touted AI Act.

The mentioned organizations, besides approximately 200 others from throughout “Europe’s creative and cultural sectors,” today penned the corresponding letter backing the AI Act. At present, the signatories’ desired outcome is Coreper approval of the bill.

Described as the European Council’s “main preparatory body” and consisting of one representative per member state, Coreper at its weekly meeting on Friday will address (among other things) the AI Act.

On the heels of a December provisional deal in favor of the AI Act, this vote is a key next step on the road to passage and then implementation for the measure, which debuted in 2021 and, against the backdrop of a quick-evolving AI sphere, has faced multiple modifications and ample committee consideration.

Like with the highly controversial Copyright Directive, the burden of enforcing the AI Act’s regulatory framework would seemingly fall on the shoulders of each EU nation. And if some countries’ slow-moving implementation of said Directive is any indication, it could be several years before the AI Act goes into effect even if it’s given the green light tomorrow.

As summarized by Reuters, approval isn’t guaranteed. “French President Emmanuel Macron is skeptical of the AI deal and has called for ‘evaluating’ its implementation,” the outlet wrote. “A ‘blocking minority’ including at least four countries can technically call for evaluation at a Coreper, potentially derailing the deal.”

What is certain, however, is the music industry’s backing of the voluminous AI Act, which isn’t to be confused with the comparatively small-scale No AI Fraud Act that could be gaining legislative traction in the U.S.

“These obligations represent a minimum basis to build on efforts to enable European creators and rights holders to ensure their rights are being respected and that authorization is sought for the use of their content,” the initially disclosed organizations communicated in their joint letter.

“Doing so would foster an environment where rights and commercial freedoms are respected by simultaneously fostering the licensing of creative content to AI models – kickstarting partnership and innovation opportunities,” the entities proceeded.

Last month, a study commissioned by the aforementioned SACEM and GEMA found that music AI solutions already made up a $300 million industry as of 2023’s conclusion – with the potential for that figure to hit $3.1 billion by 2028.

And in other EU legislative news, Spotify has demanded that commissioners act against Apple’s alleged App Store “extortion” amid a quick-approaching enforcement deadline for the Digital Markets Act.

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

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

• Moderator: Paul Resnikoff, Publisher of Digital Music News

Panel 1: UGC Licensing Pitfalls

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

Panel 2: Fixing The Data Debacle

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

Panel 3: Streaming Fraud

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

Federal lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan bill, the No AI Fraud Act, that would establish penalties for unauthorized soundalike tracks and more. Photo Credit: Markus Winkler

As artificial intelligence music continues to make waves, federal lawmakers have introduced a bill, the No AI Fraud Act, that they say would effectively target those responsible for creating unauthorized soundalike tracks.

A bipartisan group of five representatives formally introduced the No AI Fraud Act today, after senators from both sides of the aisle in October unveiled the similar-but-distinct No Fakes Act. Industry responses to the newer legislation are overwhelmingly positive, with the RIAA having indicated in a supportive release that the No AI Fraud Act “builds on” the No Fakes Act.

Expanding upon that point, the latter bill begins by conspicuously summarizing the splash made by unapproved soundalike works including “Heart on My Sleeve” and “Demo 5: nostalgIA” during 2023.

In an effort to combat these and a variety of different unapproved AI outputs, the 13-page No AI Fraud Act stresses at the outset that “every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice.”

Also as described in the proposed law, said “intellectual property rights” exist regardless of whether one commercially exploits them during his or her lifetime.

And for good measure, this more recent publicity-rights bill emphasizes that the relevant likeness and voice IP will, following one’s passing, transfer to the appropriate heirs or executors for a decade.

Next, a contract for digital voice or likeness “replicas” will only be valid if the impacted individual had been over the age of 18 at the time of signing and had been “represented by counsel in the transaction and the agreement was in writing,” according to the legislative text.

Alternatively, these deals could under the No AI Fraud Act be “governed by a collective bargaining agreement.”

Shifting to the penalty side, the bill would slap with fines any person or entity who, without consent and “in a manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” creates or makes publicly available “a personalized cloning service.” This refers particularly to any program or system designed to replicate the appearance or sound of specific individuals.

Likewise on the hook are those who make publicly available soundalike or lookalike media – besides, rather significantly, anyone who “materially contributes to, directs, or otherwise facilitates” the two above-described practices despite knowing that the associated works are unauthorized.

As laid out in the No AI Fraud Act, persons responsible for the “unauthorized distribution, transmission, or other making available of a personalized cloning service” would be compelled to cough up the greater of $50,000 per violation or actual damages, on top of any profits.

Deepfakes, for their part, would be fined at the greater of actual damages or $5,000 per offending “publication, performance, distribution, transmission, or other making available,” once again including profits, the legislation proceeds.

The No AI Fraud Act also goes ahead and notes that “injured parties” need only “present proof of the gross revenue attributable to the unauthorized use,” with each entity or person facing the allegations required “to prove his or her expenses deductible therefrom.”

Further blocked by the bill are any defenses involving disclaimers about the lack of rightsholder permission for the digital re-creation at hand. Leaving nothing to chance, the No AI Fraud Act spells out in more words that labels and distributors can sue on behalf of any person with whom they’ve inked an “exclusive” deal.

Lastly, the act limits related civil actions to four years from when the filing party “discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, the violation.”

A number of industry organizations and companies have reached out to Digital Music News with reactions to the No AI Fraud Act. RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier, for instance, described the legislation as “a meaningful step towards building a safe, responsible and ethical AI ecosystem.”

“To be clear, we embrace the use of AI to offer artists and fans new creative tools that support human creativity,” Glazier proceeded in part. “But putting in place guardrails like the No AI FRAUD Act is a necessary step to protect individual rights, preserve and promote the creative arts, and ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of generative AI.”

Meanwhile, the Human Artistry Campaign (which counts as members the RIAA, the Recording Academy, and many others) summed up its support for the No AI Fraud Act in an email. That message includes similarly enthusiastic remarks from the heads of member organizations including A2IM, the NMPA, and SoundExchange.

Plus, Universal Music head Lucian Grainge in a separate release underscored his company’s backing of the bill.

“Universal Music Group strongly supports the ‘No AI FRAUD Act’ because no one should be permitted to steal someone else’s image, likeness or voice,” communicated Grainge. “While we have an industry-leading track record of enabling AI in the service of artists and creativity, AI that uses their voice or identity without authorization is unacceptable and immoral.

“We call upon Congress to help put an end to nefarious deepfakes by enacting this federal right of publicity and ensuring that all Americans are protected from such harm,” he concluded.

Photo Credit: Sebastian Pichler

Where are the legal battle lines being drawn between the music industry and AI?  This exhaustive DMN Pro white paper takes an in-depth look at a rash of early-stage lawsuits against AI giants, while assessing the core issues at stake and potential outcomes for the music industry and musical artistry overall.

For an industry that revolves religiously around monetization and IP protection, the tigerish response from music labels, publishers, and industry bodies against AI giants is hardly surprising. The music industry’s early position on the matter of copyright places human artistry, creativity, and authorship at the pinnacle of eligibility and value. Generative AI, on the other hand, has a massive appetite for artist data, but little inclination to pay for it.

By now, the complaint against the music industry has become cliché. This is an industry that gets the tremors at the sight of anything tech-related, and there’s truth to that allegation. But generative AI is different: it’s not a standalone piece of tech and nothing like earlier existential threats like P2P file-sharing. AI’s core models run on pre-existing matter as fuel — and that fuel is the music industry’s copyrighted vocals, lyrics, recordings, and compositions.

And despite claims to the contrary, AI giants are usually taking this fuel for free.

One could argue that generative AI tools are assisting the human creative process of developing melodies and lyrics — but there’s still no cash flow for artists. These data-hungry AI models are inhaling copious amounts of datasets to train their models and spitting out derivatives that can potentially compete with artists’ original works. In most cases, artists receive no commercial benefit from this process.

Maybe that’s why it’s raining lawsuits. 2023 has already witnessed important legal precedents on the generative AI front, though bigger battles lie ahead — not just for the music industry, but also multiple other industries that rely on intellectual property protection and safeguards.

In this critical white paper, we take a closer look at every lawsuit that matters — and what they might mean for the future of the music and broader creative industries.

Report Table of Contents

DOES GENERATIVE AI MEAN NO COMPENSATION FOR ARTISTS?

Are generative AI giants really exempt from US Copyright laws? The music industry doesn’t think so, but this is proving to be a steep uphill battle. 

EARLY ACTION: VOICE CLONING AND DEEP FAKES

The music industry has been quick to block pathways for deep fakes and voice cloning content — but it’s too soon to celebrate.

THE STAKES: AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

The Songwriters Guild of America (SGA) explains how AI models would turn the music industry into a creativity graveyard, stab the US economy, and ultimately (interestingly) self-combust because humans will no longer be creating more ‘training data.’

AI MODELS IN ACTION: TRAINING, COPYING, AND EXEMPTIONS

Developers say ‘no copies’ are retained, and protected works are merely ‘an intermediary step’ in the training process. The NMPA says these ‘novel storage devices’ are ‘straightforward copying.’

HUMAN AUTHORSHIP: US COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRECEDENTS

What does ‘human authorship’ mean exactly? A closer look at this important legal precedent.

THE WAR OVER FAIR USE: ASSERTIONS OF AI COMPANIES

Music industry bodies NMPA, SGA, SCL, MCNA, A2IM, RIAA pick apart fact-specific fair use determinations and hit back at false ‘binary choice’ and other unsubstantiated claims asserted by AI companies in recent USCO filings.

PROTECTED WORKS: AI’S INSATIABLE APPETITE

Lawsuits against Anthropic, Microsoft and OpenAI, Google’s ClaudeAI, Stability AI, and injunctions to halt training on protected works — and the big-AI’s offer to pay for their users’ copyright litigation.

GENERATIVE AI: SAVIOR, VILLAIN, OR BOTH?

Is generative AI capable of solving the industry’s problems, or is it the ultimate threat to the music industry’s hard-built success?

ARTISTS: THE BURDEN, COST, AND LOSS

What do all these cases have in common — besides the copyright part — and what does this barrage of litigation mean for the industry?

INFOGRAPHIC: COMPENDIUM OF LITIGATION BY LABELS, ARTISTS, AND AUTHORS AGAINST AI

Major copyright infringement lawsuits against generative AI platforms, and their current status in US courts.

TIMELINE: THE RISE OF MAJOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PLATFORMS

The history of major AI research companies that led to Google DeepMind, Meta AI, OpenAI, Stability AI, and Anthropic — as they secure billions in investments from Amazon, Microsoft, and other tech giants.

Photo Credit: Concord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: ASCAP

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has submitted new comments on artificial intelligence to the Copyright Office, addressing the arguments of AI and tech companies including Anthropic.

Update: Our original title (published Friday, December 9th) used the licensing term ‘direct licensing,’ using language from the submission, though an ASCAP representative requested that we change this to ‘voluntary licensing’ given that ‘direct licensing’ is ‘inaccurate.’ We have since updated this to ‘direct voluntary licensing’ to reflect the exact language of the document.

ASCAP just recently filed this more concise reply, having laid out in detail its position on and concerns about the unprecedented technology roughly one month ago. These remarks (like those from the aforementioned Anthropic, AI music generator Boomy, and several others) were delivered in connection with the Copyright Office’s August 30th request for comment on AI and copyright.

Somewhat surprisingly, ASCAP’s latest submission doesn’t focus on the prevalent claim that training AI systems on protected materials constitutes fair use. Rather, the text centers on three main points, the first being the broader importance of direct licensing for creators. (An ASCAP representative later told us that the organization had contested the fair use arguments in an earlier filing).

“[A]rmchair speculations about the efficiency of licensing do not justify a rampant disregard for creators’ rights,” the PRO relayed of certain parties’ opposition to licensing. “As they have done countless times in the past, licensing models will adapt to the evolving technical environment to ensure that creators are compensated for the use of their intellectual property.”

Behind the stance, ASCAP also took aim at the idea “that the sheer volume of training data required for developing AI tools generally precludes direct voluntary licensing.” And in support of the point, the non-profit cited Boomy, or an AI platform “developed exclusively on the basis of fully licensed or otherwise legally obtained materials.”

Next, ASCAP emphasized that AI, contrasting “innovations like sound mixing, autotune,” and more, “poses the very real threat of supplanting—rather than supporting—human creativity.”

“No previous technology can do what generative AI has made possible: generating new content; near autonomously; at large scale; instantaneously; and at a level of quality that is increasingly indistinguishable from human work,” the organization spelled out. “The resulting threat to creators’ livelihoods is not idle speculation, but a real and growing phenomenon.”

Consequently, it’s imperative that the potential advantages of AI be balanced “against their very real exploitative and displacing effects on the human creators without which they could not exist,” according to the text.

Lastly, ASCAP stressed the perceived significance of an enhanced federal right of publicity, maintaining that arguments against the bolstered protection overlook AI’s “unprecedented possibilities for the unauthorized use of a creator’s image, likeness, and voice” as well as the purported inadequacy of “the existing patchwork of state laws.”

One such bill, the No Fakes Act, debuted in October and, per its discussion draft, would establish penalties for any unapproved “digital replica involving a sound recording artist.” As described by the involved lawmakers, “digital replica” refers to any computer-generated “image, voice, or visual likeness of an individual” that’s “nearly indistinguishable” from the original.

Of course, it’ll be worth following the progress of the legislation as it takes shape and potentially picks up steam in the approaching months. Among different considerations, it’s unclear precisely how the bill would (or whether it could) address digital replicas of original voices that naturally resemble other, commercially prominent original voices – especially given the availability of these replicas’ training data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elon Musk during an interview at DealBook Summit 2023 on November 30th (photo: Digital Music News).

In our most recent DMN Pro Weekly report, Digital Music News tallied the tens of billions of dollars that AI giants have already amassed in funding. But that’s not the biggest threat facing major labels as they lock horns with AI behemoths like Google, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and Microsoft — time is.

For a complete breakdown of recent major label dealmaking in the AI arena, check out our recent DMN Pro Weekly report on AI voice cloning. In that report, we take a closer look at the AI handshakes between Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and YouTube — with Sony Music Entertainment noticeably missing from the picture. We also add up the giant funding war chests being amassed by AI giants like Google, Amazon, and OpenAI ahead of legal battles facing the big three and the entire music and content industries.

For those who believe that AI giants like OpenAI are treating copyrighted content ethically, Elon Musk has a wake-up call. “That’s a huge lie,” Musk bluntly stated during a recent interview at DealBook Summit 2023 while addressing claims by AI platforms that copyrighted materials are not being used to train algorithms. “These AIs are all training on copyrighted data, obviously. It’s a straight-up lie, 100%.”

That’s hardly shocking to those within the music industry, though the more difficult pill involves the lengthy legal and legislative battles that lie ahead. Despite a string of early legislative victories surrounding human authorship and copyrights, a far bigger set of lawsuits will determine whether training on copyrighted content constitutes fair use.

Recently, major AI platforms like Anthropic started saying the quiet part out loud. Last month, the Amazon- and Google-backed Anthropic declared that a “diverse array of cases supports the proposition that [the] copying of a copyrighted work as an intermediate step to create a non-infringing output can constitute fair use.”

Disagreeing are Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord Music Group and ABKCO, who are suing the tech behemoth for copyright infringement. Usually, that type of litigation would stop a startup in its tracks. But Anthropic seems to be navigating a speed bump: despite the massive lawsuit, the company’s feverish funding pace has continued, with hundreds of millions being piled onto the company.

Universal Music Publishing Group, part of the largest music conglomerate in the world, isn’t suing a group of pimply-faced coders anymore. That means millions of dollars in legal fees and potentially years of back-and-forth tussling before a judgment or resolution emerges — with just one of the major AI platforms.

Others are also filing lawsuits against the giants of AI. ChatGPT developer OpenAI is currently fending off a major lawsuit filed by a class of creatives led by Sarah Silverman, with a decision potentially years away. Getty Images’ infringement lawsuit against Stability AI has dragged on for nearly a year.

Note: With frequent investments in on-house AI products and independent AI companies, funding amounts are approximations based on available data and may differ from exact amounts

So, what do all these cases have in common — besides the copyright part?

Unfortunately, all of these cases are likely to burn time — lots of it. And that’s the last thing that litigating copyright owners can afford. “By the time these lawsuits are decided, we’ll have digital God at that point,” Musk predicted. “These lawsuits won’t be decided in a timeframe that is relevant.”

In other words, the longer these cases drag on, the more advantage mega-companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, and OpenAI enjoy. And the more likely that content owners forge ‘amicable’ agreements like those involving YouTube and major labels UMG and WMG.

Weekly Report: Should We Just Get Used to AI Voice Cloning?

All of which raises a scary question: how far will AI sophistication and intelligence evolve in the next few years?

Musk has been particularly alarmist on AI’s growth trajectory, complete with Armageddon-tinged predictions. In the recent DealBook interview, Musk predicted that AI could write a book ‘as good as J.K. Rowling,’ discover a new physics principle, or invent a new technology within three years.

That sounds like a very different world in 2026, particularly for the music industry. Whether the AI train goes that fast is impossible to predict, just like the nuances of AI’s impact on areas like songwriting, synch licensing, music production, and even avatar development. But perhaps one thing is certain: the longer these AI legal battles drag on, the less advantage copyright owners enjoy given the hectic pace of AI training, technological development, the copyright ingestion.

Whether that suggests greater cooperative licensing agreements is worth debating. But for those fighting to defend copyright, the courts simply can’t be the only battlefield.

Sony Music Entertainment CEO Rob Stringer. Photo Credit: Josh Cheuse

Having “sent close to 10,000 takedowns” over artificial intelligence “deepfakes,” Sony Music Entertainment (SME) is now preparing to release a “first of its kind” AI product for consumers.

The noteworthy information and several other interesting details emerged in remarks that SME president of global digital business and U.S. sales Dennis Kooker delivered as part of the Senate’s recently held AI Insight Forum.

Against the backdrop of AI’s rapidly evolving role in the music space – referring not only to voice cloning and a steady stream of auto-generated tracks but to high-profile partnerships and more – Spotify, the National Association of Broadcasters, and SAG-AFTRA also submitted comments for the seventh AI forum.

But the longtime Sony Music exec Kooker disclosed especially significant particulars about artificial intelligence’s prevalence on the infringement front and how his company intends to capitalize on the unprecedented technology.

Sony Music’s Sent Approximately 10,000 Takedown Notices Targeting AI-Powered Soundalikes

Notwithstanding unauthorized soundalike tracks’ continued absence from dedicated streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music, Kooker said that Sony Music has sent somewhere in the ballpark of 10,000 takedown notices targeting the releases.

“To date, SME has sent close to 10,000 takedowns to a variety of platforms hosting unauthorized deepfakes that SME artists asked us to take down,” stated Kooker.

“In this context, platforms are quick to point to the loopholes in the law as an excuse to drag their feet or to not take the deepfakes down when requested,” he continued, proceeding to use the opportunity to reiterate his company’s support for the No Fakes Act that lawmakers introduced last month.

SME’s Exploring Hundreds of Potential Partnerships With AI Companies

Though the AI-focused partnerships of Warner Music and Universal Music have perhaps dominated related headlines as of late, including with tie-ups involving artist estates, YouTube, creation platforms, and others, Kooker provided a look at the scope of Sony Music’s own discussions.

“We currently have roughly 200 active conversations taking place with start-ups and established players about building new products and developing new tools,” specified Kooker.

“These discussions range from tools for creative or marketing assistance, to tools that potentially give us the ability to better protect artist content or find it when used in an unauthorized fashion, to brand new products that have never been launched before.

“They also include potential equity investments which would accelerate the development of these companies,” he proceeded.

Sony Music’s Teeing Up An AI Project That’s “Very Much An Experiment”

Bearing in mind the 200 “active conversations” in which SME is said to be engaged, Kooker also teased a forthcoming project that’s “very much an experiment and a first of its kind.”

Although he didn’t divulge an abundance of information (or a release window), it’s worth highlighting the conspicuous absence of Sony Music artists from the initial list of participants in the pilot for YouTube Shorts’ Dream Track.

“It will have a visual element and a separate audio element,” Kooker described of the as-yet-unnamed offering. “The consumer can combine both experiences to create a new visual and audio experience.

“The training model for the visual element has been developed, with the artists’ enthusiastic blessing, using the artwork and other graphics from the album project,” he continued. “The audio is developed from excerpts of the music from the album.

“Fans will be able to input prompts while listening to the music that will transform the visual experience. They will also be able to play with aspects of the audio to create a new remixed excerpt of the music.

“Consumers will be able to download the visuals and 30 second clips of the music. Eventually, they will be able to purchase a longer version of the song they remixed.”

SME’s Push for AI Regulation

Predictably, given the nature of the forum, Kooker in conclusion laid out his company’s position on legislation governing AI.

Largely aligned with other industry players’ prior statements, these points center on clarifying that training AI models with protected works sans permission doesn’t constitute fair use, compelling developers to maintain comprehensive records of training data, and stopping unapproved soundalike releases via bolstered NIL protections.

Brussels’ Berlaymont bulding. Photo Credit: Guillaume Périgois

Organizations including IMPALA are officially calling for the European Union “to come up urgently with a legislative solution” addressing a court ruling ending “the longstanding principle of material reciprocity” in recorded performance payments to non-EU nations.

IMPALA, Sweden’s Musikerförbundet, Belgium’s PlayRight, and several others yet reached out to DMN with word of their formal push for legislation. For background, stateside terrestrial radio stations pay royalties only for the use of underlying compositions – not recordings themselves.

AM/FM operators in Europe, for their part, cough up both for compositions and recordings. Because the continent’s music professionals (and those in other parts of the world) aren’t compensated for their recordings’ use on U.S. radio, though, CMOs have long opted against forwarding the corresponding royalties to the States, a practice summarized as the initially highlighted “material reciprocity.”

Organizations including musicFIRST have for some time been working to establish a framework through which domestic radio stations would also be compelled to pay for recordings.

But Big Radio has for obvious reasons pushed back against the proposed legislation, which musicFIRST claims would, among other things, stop foreign countries from seizing many millions in “royalties that should go to U.S. artists, due to the lack of an American terrestrial performance copyright.”

Moving beyond this point as well as the adjacent lack of U.S. recorded royalties for different types of public performances, the EU’s Court of Justice in 2020 delivered a ruling that the aforesaid European musician organizations maintain is bringing about the end of material reciprocity.

According to the Court of Justice’s determination in the RAAP-submitted suit, components of a 2006 EU Directive, owing to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, should be interpreted “as precluding a [EU] Member State from excluding, when it transposes into its legislation the words ‘relevant performers’… performers who are nationals of States outside the European Economic Area (EEA).”

However, the same ruling acknowledged that related (and more precisely defined) “limitations may be introduced by the EU legislature.” And it’s against this backdrop that IMPALA, France’s Adami, the Netherlands’ Ntb/Kunstenbond, Sweden’s SAMI and SYMF, Germany’s Unisono, and the previously mentioned organizations are lobbying for legislation.

“Since the judgment was delivered, already back in 2020 (now over three years ago),” the signatory entities spelled out, “the European Commission has on several occasions acknowledged concerns about the impact of the ruling and made clear its intention to find a balanced solution. But a solution has yet to be proposed.

“Unless the principle of material reciprocity is restored in EU legislation,” the organizations proceeded, “European performers and producers in ‘reciprocity’ countries could see revenues from this vital source of income fall by up to 40%, the share of US repertoire in some of these countries.”

Expanding upon the position in a statement, IMPALA executive chair Helen Smith emphasized her belief that it’s “the EU’s responsibility to prevent European artists and producers losing millions every year to the USA, which has chosen not to protect these rights.”

“A proposal is needed now to restore legal certainty, safeguard cultural diversity and European sovereignty,” proceeded the almost 17-year IMPALA head Smith. “This needs to be done in a way that provides for member states to apply reciprocity whilst also allowing a grandparenting clause for countries who have a different system.

“Imposing a mandatory system is a disproportionate response. We call on the EU to act and also exert increased trade pressure on the USA to raise their level of protection. Their stance is costing the world music economy hundreds of millions a year.”

Lastly, Ntb/Kunstenbond chairman Will Maas indicated that the Netherlands, as “the first country to stop applying reciprocity,” is “seeing a clear and substantial drop in the revenue going to Dutch and other European performers and producers.”

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

Happy Thanksgiving, Live Nation: Weeks after reporting its “biggest quarter ever,” the Ticketmaster parent has been slapped with a subpoena from the U.S. Senate.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who serves as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, took to social media to elaborate upon the reasons behind the subpoena. A longtime proponent of regulatory legislation targeting Live Nation as well as Ticketmaster, the Connecticut lawmaker is the co-sponsor of the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act and previously criticized the alleged “clear excesses and abuses of Ticketmaster.”

“Live Nation has egregiously stonewalled my Subcommittee’s inquiry into its abusive consumer practices—making the subpoena necessary,” the senator explained on Twitter/X. “This subpoena demands that the company promptly comply with our request for documents essential to understand its business practices.”

According to Reuters, these essential documents involve tickets’ pricing, fees, and resale specifics, while the subpoena’s cover letter, dated November 16th, claims that Live Nation failed to comply with information requests dating back to March.

(For additional context regarding the document request, January had seen Live Nation CFO Joe Berchtold face a bipartisan congressional grilling, which had itself arrived on the heels of the much-publicized Eras Tour pre-sale fiasco.)

Notably, Live Nation EVP of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall pushed back against the senator’s subpoena and assessment of the situation.

“Live Nation has been cooperating with the Senate Subcommittee’s investigation for months and has in no way been ‘stonewalling,’ Wall penned in a nearly 400-word response. “We have produced documents on every subject that the Subcommittee raised, not only in its initial letter but in subsequent conversations. We have in fact produced nearly 10,000 pages of documents, including more than 2000 emails, dozens of commercial agreements, and voluminous other materials.”

The “highly sensitive client information” sought by the subcommittee “addresses plainly confidential subjects such as how much money artists make from their tours,” per Wall, who further maintained that Live Nation had “told the Subcommittee repeatedly that we would produce such information with normal confidentiality protections.”

“The Subcommittee has refused to provide any confidentiality protections at all,” proceeded the Live Nation exec of about 10 months. “That has led to an impasse that left us with no procedural option other than to decline to produce the third-party confidential information at issue. … The Subcommittee responded by issuing a subpoena, which was expected. It is only in a subpoena enforcement action that Live Nation can assert its rights to protect the confidentiality of this information.”

Bigger picture, the subpoena has entered the media spotlight amid a reportedly intensifying Justice Department antitrust investigation into the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger. Upon unveiling Live Nation’s aforementioned record Q3 financials, Berchtold took aim at the timing of related reports and made clear that the company didn’t believe there was “any real news” concerning the DOJ probe.

Photo Credit: ASCAP

A little over one month after a number of ASCAP songwriters urged legislative action on artificial intelligence, the performance rights organization (PRO) has forwarded nearly 60 pages’ worth of music-specific AI commentary and regulatory recommendations to the Copyright Office.

The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) just recently submitted its remarks to the Copyright Office, which had in late August formally solicited feedback pertaining to the unprecedented technology.

In particular, the Office is seeking insight on whether works created with AI can be copyrighted and, perhaps of more immediate significance, the best approach when dealing with AI models trained on protected media without authorization.

Several lawsuits centering on the latter – or the seemingly prevalent practice of leading AI systems’ ingesting and then tailoring their outputs based upon IP sans creator or rightsholder permission – are already in full swing. And particularly in the music space, unapproved soundalike releases are continuing to make commercial waves.

Towards the beginning of its Copyright Office comments, ASCAP reiterated the six artificial intelligence principles that its board had unanimously adopted earlier in 2023, including the prioritization of human creators and assuring credit and compensation for the use of protected works in AI. Needless to say, the principles also guided the remainder of the commentary, touching upon a variety of pertinent topics and ideas.

“In accordance with these principles, voluntary collective licensing is the best way to harness the power of generative AI while preserving the livelihoods of creators,” ASCAP wrote, proceeding to call for the creation of “a federal right of publicity” and for AI developers to retain information on “all copyrighted material present” in their systems.

Expanding upon the point, this clear-cut push for “a voluntary licensing scheme whereby the copyright holders can choose whether they wish their content to be used for AI training” may be the most noteworthy takeaway from ASCAP’s comments.

Although public performance royalties (for ASCAP as well as Broadcast Music, Inc.) are guided by government-mandated rates, the PRO emphasized its opposition to any sort of compulsory licensing for AI. Of course, this sentiment resulted from the positions of member songwriters and publishers, who evidently believe voluntary licensing and assistance from AI-usage laws to be the keys to maximizing revenue.

“Voluntary licensing—as opposed to compulsory licensing—is the most efficient solution to the copyright problems posed by generative AI,” spelled out ASCAP. “In order for it to work effectively, however, there needs to be clear guidance from the Copyright Office that consent of the rights holders must be obtained before the use of their copyrighted works for AI training.

“As a result, we oppose statutory changes concerning music licensing. In particular, we emphatically oppose any compulsory licensing requirements,” the organization proceeded. “Compulsory licensing in the music sector has been riddled with numerous inefficiencies and shortcomings to the detriment of music creators, resulting in price-suppression, multi-year litigations, and significant delays in payments to music creators.

“ASCAP has consistently supported and advocated for a free market with willing buyer and willing seller standards for pricing without government intervention,” the PRO emphasized.

Elsewhere in the voluminous document, ASCAP explained its opposition to an “opt-out” model through which creators, after their works have been ingested by an AI system, can request their removal. “We oppose an opt-out approach because it assumes that the copyrighted materials were obtained in a legitimate fashion to begin with,” indicated ASCAP.

Additionally, the entity expressed the belief that the sources from which AI models access troves of data should also face repercussions – “Common Crawl or similar organizations should be held responsible for knowingly facilitating infringement” – and stressed the overarching need for transparency regarding the works used by AI developers.

“As of now, AI companies do not take the view that the use of copyrighted works in generative AI development is unlawful,” ASCAP specified. “The Copyright Office must therefore play a critical role in the development of a rational and legitimate market for the use of copyrights in generative AI by making it clear to AI platforms that they must obtain the consent of the rightsholders of the copyrighted materials they use.”

Photo Credit: Live Nation

Last week, a U.S. senator called out Live Nation and Ticketmaster for alleged shortcomings in their implementation of all-in pricing. Now, the promoter’s head has responded to the criticism with a firmly worded letter.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino’s official response was just recently published to Twitter/X in its entirety by the Ticketmaster parent’s EVP of corporate and regulatory affairs, Dan Wall. To recap, Senator Amy Klobuchar, a longtime Live Nation critic, took aim at the business earlier in October for allegedly failing to honor an all-in-pricing commitment it’d made during a White House event over the summer.

As reported by Digital Music News in September, Ticketmaster itself has made all-in pricing – referring to a model that displays tickets’ complete cost, inclusive of fees, at the outset as opposed to solely during checkout – the default where required by law. But the system must be manually toggled in different states – one of several points the senator touched upon in her own letter.

This same message requested a response before November 15th, and the decidedly well-compensated Rapino promptly sent a follow-up to the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act sponsor, as initially mentioned. To summarize, the text claims the promoter has “no right to impose all-in pricing” on events held at “venues owned or operated by other companies.”

From there, the document reiterates Live Nation’s support for “mandatory all-in pricing legislation” – though competing live-entertainment players previously expressed reservations about the precise proposals at hand.

Live Nation’s latest war of words with a U.S. lawmaker has arrived as the Clockenflap owner and Ticketmaster, which have for some time been grappling with a Justice Department investigation into their merger, face a potential federal antitrust lawsuit. Over the summer, sources with knowledge of the matter indicated that this legal action could be formally initiated by yearend.

Here’s the full text of Live Nation head Michael Rapino’s response to Senator Amy Klobuchar.

“Thank you for your letter regarding Live Nation’s commitment to all-in pricing. We agree wholeheartedly that tickets to live entertainment events should be marketed, listed and sold to fans using the full ticket price, all per ticket fees included. The all-in price should be the price fans see throughout the shopping and purchase process. We have supported mandatory all-in pricing legislation for years, including the new all-in pricing law in California and several bills currently working their way through Congress. And unlike several of our major competitors, Ticketmaster complies with both the letter and spirit of existing all-in pricing laws such as in New York. Anyone can confirm this by searching for tickets to a sporting event or concert in New York on Ticketmaster, StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. On Ticketmaster the fans sees [sic] the all-in price; on the other sites the fan first sees a price without fees which increases substantially if they try to buy tickets.

“We were proud to participate in President Biden’s June 15 White House forum on transparent pricing. In advance of that event, the President’s team asked us if we could move all of Ticketmaster’s sales to all-in pricing. We explained that Ticketmaster does not have the unilateral right to do that, as it is an agent for the venues that issue tickets and along with content owners (artists, sports teams, etc.) determine ticket pricing and how fees are displayed. However, Live Nation also operates concert venues and festivals in the U.S., and therefore we could institute all-in pricing at those venues and festivals. We therefore announced at the White House forum on June 15 that Live Nation would adopt all-in pricing ‘for concerts at the venues and festivals the company operates across the United States starting this September.’ https://www.livenationentertainment.com/2023/06/live-nation-venues-lead-industry-with-new-all-in-pricing-to-make-ticketing-more-transparent-for-consumers/. We have met that commitment.

“It is true that we have not adopted all-in pricing for the many events that take place at venues owned or operated by other companies, but that is because we have no right to impose all-in pricing on those events. If we had the power to do that it would have been part of our commitment to the White House and our June 15 announcement. This just underscores the importance of all-in pricing legislation. Not everyone in the live entertainment industry shares our views on all-in pricing. Without all-in pricing legislation, there will be patchwork adoption of all-in pricing at best.

“We are grateful for your continued interest in this issue and look forward to working together on effective all-in pricing legislation.”

Photo Credit: Mike Stoll

Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary are facing renewed lawmaker scrutiny over an alleged failure to comprehensively adopt all-in pricing.

This latest round of Capitol Hill criticism against Live Nation arrived in the form of a firmly worded letter addressed to CEO Michael Rapino and penned by Senator Amy Klobuchar. A longtime critic of the promoter as well as Ticketmaster, the senator in February urged Justice Department action against the Páramo Presenta parent, which continues to grapple with a federal antitrust investigation.

Then, April saw the lawmaker introduce a bill, the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act, that was described as a means of curbing “the clear excesses and abuses of Ticketmaster.” Finally, in terms of pertinent background details, Live Nation and others at a June White House event committed to embracing all-in pricing – displaying upfront tickets’ total cost, inclusive of fees, that is – beginning in September.

But when September came around, Ticketmaster had turned on all-in pricing only where required by law, enabling customers to toggle the feature in different states. And according to Senator Klobuchar, that means the platform “has not yet made the all-in ticket price—including fees—the default setting.”

“For many events, including those for its own venues,” the senator spelled out in the letter, “it is still too difficult to see the all-in price before checkout.”

From there, the lawmaker expressed the belief that consumers are “in most instances” required to “find and select a filter buried within a tab that gives no indication that it contains an option to display all-in pricing.”

The presence of said filter demonstrates a “technical ability to display all-in prices,” the senator maintained, further indicating that Live Nation “chooses not to display” tickets’ complete cost and acknowledging that Ticketmaster itself doesn’t set all on-platform fees.

Consequently, Live Nation and Ticketmaster must “take additional steps to honor” the aforementioned commitment, the lawmaker said, also calling on the companies to respond by November 15th with an update about their “efforts to disclose the all-in ticket price to consumers up front.”

Notwithstanding this weeks-off deadline, the Clockenflap owner Live Nation has reportedly fired back against Klobuchar’s claims in a letter of its own, relaying therein that “‘Ticketmaster does not have the unilateral right to do that, as it is an agent for the venues that issue tickets.’”

Meanwhile, Klobuchar proceeded to take issue with this description, per the same report, and a Live Nation rep attempted to shift the discussion to “‘the importance of all-in pricing legislation.’”

Bigger picture, while across-the-board all-in pricing would presumably benefit consumers to some extent, its overall impact could prove modest given the continued prevalence of and apparent demand behind tours with astronomically priced Ticketmaster tickets. In any event, the Federal Trade Commission earlier in October formally proposed a ban on “junk fees,” among them “hidden mandatory fees” for concerts.

Photo Credit: Aleksandr Popov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With artificial intelligence music – including a growing number of unauthorized soundalike releases – becoming increasingly prevalent, four U.S. senators have introduced a bill that they say would “protect the voice and visual likenesses of individuals from unfair use.”

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) formally announced the bipartisan legislation, dubbed the No Fakes Act, today. To this point in 2023, more than a few industry organizations and companies have publicly addressed the need for a cohesive regulatory approach to AI’s rapidly expanding role in the creative space.

Meanwhile, amid litigation over the protected works upon which generative models are trained, AI-powered soundalike songs have for some time been making waves. Third parties have released the vast majority of the projects without permission from the appropriate professionals, and despite being booted from leading music platforms such as Spotify, the tracks are continuing to rack up millions of views/plays.

Enter the No Fakes Act (full title “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act”), which the aforementioned lawmakers claim will establish “the right to authorize the use of the image, voice, or visual likeness of the individual in a digital replica” and, in the process, help stop the distribution of AI soundalike works absent clear-cut consent.

According to a discussion draft, persons including “sound recording artists” (as well as their heirs/representatives when applicable) would under the No Fakes Act be able to pursue legal action against defendants who create “digital replicas” sans authorization.

Also potentially on the hook for these unauthorized usages are those who facilitate the “publication, distribution, or transmission of, or [are] otherwise making available to the public, an unauthorized digital replica, if the person engaging in that activity has knowledge that the digital replica was not authorized.”

As described in the draft, “digital replica” refers to any computer-generated “image, voice, or visual likeness of an individual” that’s “nearly indistinguishable” from the original at hand and is featured in a recording or video in which the mimicked party didn’t actually appear.

Notably, the text further outlines an array of exceptions to the proposed law, including for certain digital replicas used in “a news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or report,” “a documentary, docudrama, or historical or biographical work,” or adverts for the works.

Exceptions would likewise exist for replicas used for the “purposes of comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody” as well as instances wherein usages are “de minimis or incidental,” the document shows.

Predictably, individuals whose “image, voice, or visual likeness” rights were allegedly violated by an AI-made digital replica, on top of those who own allegedly violated rights, would be able to bring civil actions under the legislation. Plus, as written in the draft, record labels would too have the option of suing for alleged soundalike/lookalike efforts.

Regarding “a digital replica involving a sound recording artist,” the draft spells out, “any person that has entered into a contract for the exclusive personal services of the sound recording artist as a sound recording artist” could sue.

In any event, plaintiffs seeking relief under the bill would be entitled to (among other things) the larger of “$5,000 per violation” – of course, the definition and extent of “violation” will prove rather important – or “any damages suffered” due to the alleged violation(s).

The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) reached out to Digital Music News with a statement about the No Fakes Act, touting the proposal as a meaningful step in the right direction.

“Independent record labels and the artists they work with are excited about the promise of AI to transform how music is made and how consumers enjoy art, but there must be guardrails to ensure that artists can make a living and that labels can recoup their investments,” A2IM president and CEO Richard James Burgess said in part.

“Generative AI could be the next step in a downward spiral of devaluing music on the Internet that started with digital piracy and has continued with underpayment by streaming services and social media platforms.

“The time is now to do away with the state patchwork of laws on the rights of creators to fight against fakes, and we are committed to working with the Senators and all stakeholders to get this right.

“Our experience with the DMCA and other enforcement tools is that real enforcement can become elusive and prohibitively expensive for small creators. We will be laser-focused on making sure that any federal solutions on digital replicas are accessible to small labels and working-class musicians, not just the megastars,” he concluded.

Additionally, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) emailed DMN a statement on the No Fakes Act, underscoring a broader goal of stemming the tide of “illegal and immoral” unauthorized soundalike music.

“We applaud Senators Coons, Blackburn, Tillis, and Klobuchar for recognizing that unauthorized uses of one’s name, image, likeness, and voice are a clear threat to artists, songwriters, performers, authors, journalists, photographers, and the entire creative community,” the RIAA relayed in part.

“We look forward to engaging in a robust bipartisan process with a strong bill that effectively protects against this illegal and immoral misappropriation of fundamental rights that protect human achievement,” the entity finished.

An optimistic FTC estimate of the time savings that could be delivered to fans with the across-the-board adoption of all-in pricing for live-entertainment tickets. Photo Credit: Digital Music News

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has officially proposed a ban on “junk fees” – including hidden charges attached to the purchase of tickets to concerts and other live-entertainment events.

The government agency announced the suggested rule, aptly referred to as the “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees,” in a formal release as well as a north of 160-page proposal. For background, the White House in November of 2022 disclosed plans to target “hidden junk fees,” which, as described at the time, included certain ticketing charges but focused chiefly on credit-card, airline, and hotel fees.

Following the well-documented Eras Tour presale fiasco (and an adjacent congressional testimony from Live Nation CFO Joe Berchtold), the matter continued to command headlines during early 2023. Capitalizing upon the mood, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle went ahead and put out multiple bills – among them the Junk Fee Prevention Act, the TICKET Act, the BOSS and SWIFT Act, and the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act.

Finally, in terms of pertinent background details, the White House over the summer announced during a press conference “all-in pricing” commitments from SeatGeek, Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary, and others. Live Nation/Ticketmaster last month activated all-in pricing – albeit only where required by law, with the option available to toggle in different states.

“In response to the White House calling for disclosure of hidden fees,” the FTC explained of its decision to continue focusing on the live-entertainment space in spite of the concession, “some ticket sellers have voluntarily pledged to show ‘all-in prices’ when the consumer begins the purchase process.

“However, these voluntary pledges were announced after the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the proposed rule and may be in response to proposed national legislation. Absent the proposed rule, market forces would likely return to the equilibrium of hidden mandatory fees.”

The FTC is now seeking comments on said proposed rule and will be accepting this public feedback for 60 days, according to officials. And while the agency dedicated a number of pages to exploring the perceived possible benefits of the rule for consumers – including potential saved money as well as time, in the entity’s view – Live Nation previously indicated that it was unworried about an all-in mandate.

“We don’t believe there will be any impact whatsoever if there was a nationwide mandate for all-in pricing,” the aforementioned president and CFO Joe Berchtold spelled out in November of 2022.

Of course, at least when it comes to the tours of commercially prominent acts who boast exceedingly dedicated fanbases, evidence suggests that Berchtold’s assessment will prove accurate.

Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. speaking at the ‘Global Music Diplomacy Initiative’ launch event, where he named Quincy Jones the inaugural recipient of the ‘Peace Through Music Award.’ Photo Credit: Recording Academy

About nine months after the namesake Peace Through Music Diplomacy Act became law, the Recording Academy and the State Department have launched a program called the “Global Music Diplomacy Initiative” and presented Quincy Jones with the first-ever “Peace Through Music Award.”

The Recording Academy reached out to Digital Music News with word of the new music-diplomacy program and award, both of which were unveiled during a State Department event yesterday evening. Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr., YouTube global head of music Lyor Cohen, and JFK Center for the Performing Arts chairman David Rubenstein were on hand for the event, as were, of course, a number of government officials and musicians.

“We’ve had a few dignitaries come through this building,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during the happening, “but it is a special treat to have so many members of music royalty here tonight. Dave Grohl. Herbie Hancock. Rakeem. Denyce Graves. And my dear friend Aimee Mann.

“We are also joined by so many other outstanding artists who are shaping the music industry today. Gayle is in the house. Armani White is in the house. Jamie Barton is in the house. Myles Frost. And Mickey Guyton is in the house tonight too.”

According to the State Department’s description, the Global Music Diplomacy Initiative, in capitalizing upon public-private partnerships with non-profits and businesses, will look “to elevate music as a diplomatic tool to promote peace and democracy” on the world stage.

Components of the initiative include a State Department-Recording Academy tie-up, the American Music Mentorship Program, that will work to afford “international mid-career music industry professionals, which may include musical artists,” stateside “mentorship and networking opportunities.”

Meanwhile, the Department is poised to “incorporate music into its existing $40 million investment in English-language learning worldwide,” per the official release provided to media.

“The State Department is formally incorporating music into the English-language classes that we offer around the world. … We’re going to include American songs and lyrics in the curriculum. We’ll share our diverse culture. We’ll help students improve their English fluency,” elaborated the secretary of state, who also performed during the event.

Lastly, in terms of the specifics of the Global Music Diplomacy Initiative, the aforementioned Center for the Performing Arts is expected to collaborate with the Fullbright Program on “a new fellowship opportunity for foreign scholars.” An initial “award competition” is scheduled to be announced this autumn, with the Kennedy Center preparing to host the winner during the 2024-25 academic year.

Shifting past these details (as well as a number of planned international performances), Harvey Mason Jr. took the stage to give the first Peace Through Music Award to 90-year-old Quincy Jones.

“It’s my honor to announce the establishment of the Peace Through Music Award,” said the Recording Academy head Mason Jr. “Usually, we celebrate through our Grammy Awards. But this very special award recognizes and honors an American music industry professional, artist, or group that has played an invaluable role in cross-cultural exchanges and whose music and work advance peace and mutual understanding around the globe.

“While there are many deserving Americans of this award, one person stood out as the perfect inaugural recipient. This esteemed individual served as music director and trumpeter for jazz ambassador Dizzy Gillespie during his overseas tours in the 1960s,” Mason Jr. relayed before diving into Jones’ more recent career accomplishments.

“His work, his actions continue to advance peace through music, and I am sure they will for generations to come. It’s my true honor to recognize my friend and mentor, Mr. Quincy Jones, as the first-ever recipient of what will now and into the future be known as the ‘Quincy Jones Peace Through Music Award.’

“While Quincy could not join us tonight, it is my sincere honor to welcome his daughter, Rashida Jones, via video to accept this award on his behalf,” communicated Mason Jr., proceeding to play the prerecorded clip and, upon its conclusion, introduce David Rubenstein.

Photo Credit: ASCAP

Songwriters and composers descended on Capitol Hill today as part of an ASCAP-organized “Advocacy Day,” urging lawmakers to protect music and human artistry amid the rapid evolution and expansion of artificial intelligence.

The PRO just recently outlined its plans for the “Stand with Songwriters” Advocacy Day, including the broad discussion objectives of participants. On the latter front, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, Matthew West, and Cirkut are among the ASCAP members who visited Washington in connection with the initiative, joining a dozen individuals from the non-profit’s board.

Following the ASCAP Foundation-sponsored “We Write the Songs” annual concert at the Library of Congress yesterday evening, these and other professionals from the music community met with lawmakers today, entreating them to adhere to “six key, creator-centric principles for AI.”

Unanimously adopted by the ASCAP board earlier in 2023, the straightforward-but-important principles cover topics like the prioritization of rights and compensation for human creators, assuring that generative AI developers obtain permission to use protected works, and guaranteeing that credit is provided to those whose projects become components of AI music.

“Making sure creators are paid fairly when their work is used in ANY way by AI,” reads the “compensation” principle, “which is best accomplished in a free market, NOT with government-mandated licensing that essentially eliminates consent.”

At the time of this writing, details about the closed-door discussions hadn’t been publicly disclosed. The aforementioned ASCAP members didn’t appear to have addressed the topic (with photos or otherwise) on social media, nor had the congressmembers who are typically quick to weigh in on industry issues.

But ASCAP is also encouraging its other members to contact their representatives and senators about the subject, having made available a letter template (which auto-fills based upon one’s location and basic identification information) for good measure.

“Artificial intelligence is moving at the speed of light and we need lawmakers to act now,” summed up ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews. “We fully embrace innovation but only innovation coupled with regulation that protects the rights of creators.”

While legislative progress doesn’t arrive overnight (especially when it comes to complex and unprecedented technology), stateside lawmakers have already discussed the need for AI regulations in the music space. Particularly given the above-described regulatory push (and similar efforts from other industry organizations and companies), it’ll be worth closely monitoring the situation in the U.S. and elsewhere moving forward.

As it stands, AI is allegedly being used to create no shortage of unauthorized soundalike music, “train” on and then incorporate all manner of protected works without permission, and otherwise make it more difficult for a number of people to achieve success and earn a living.

Photo Credit: Brandon Wilson

Back in October of 2021, the Protect Working Musicians Act, which would have ostensibly allowed artists “to negotiate fairer rates and terms for the use of their music online,” debuted in the House. Now, a federal lawmaker has introduced a retooled version of the bill – complete with provisions related to protected media’s role in generative AI.

Several individuals and organizations emailed Digital Music News with word of the revamped Protect Working Musicians Act, which Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC) introduced. (The lawmaker behind the 2021 bill resigned from Congress in September of 2022.)

Once again developed with and endorsed by the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) and the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), this latest iteration of the Protect Working Musicians Act would afford select independent professionals “the power to collectively negotiate with both streaming platforms and generative artificial intelligence (AI) developers for fair compensation,” according to the release put out by the representative’s office.

Digging into the seven-page bill itself – which begins by declaring music “a cultural treasure and a unique source of spiritual inspiration, emotional comfort, community connection, and joy” – the text accuses leading digital platforms of compelling “music creators into licensing agreements that do not reflect market value.”

The deals “essentially dictate a price to music creators,” the legislation proceeds. “If music creators do not agree to licensing terms, the online platforms profit from unlicensed uploads of music anyway.”

“These platforms game the system created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows dominant online platforms to ignore and profit from unlicensed use of music and places the responsibility for finding each and every instance of unlicensed use of music on music creators,” continues the legislation, also pointing to the “millions of dollars” that the RIAA spends “engaged in this effort.”

But as said takedown initiatives have become “‘largely useless’” for the majors as well as other labels, per the bill, they’re further “an exercise in futility” for indie creators, who “lack the economic, legal, and political resources to stand up to” leading platforms.

“That power imbalance means that Independent Music Creator Owners are forced to take whatever terms dominant online platforms offer for their work,” the Protect Working Musicians Act reads. “If they decline, the platforms simply ignore them since in most cases lacking access to any single artists’ [sic] work does not present a threat to the platforms’ overall attractiveness to consumers.”

To remedy the alleged power imbalance, the measure would exempt from antitrust-law negotiating limitations certain artists and businesses – referring to professionals who own the rights to recordings that “earned less than $1,000,000 in licensing revenues” during the prior year as well as rights-holding entities that qualify “as a small business under the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 512250.”

Specifically, the mentioned individuals and small businesses would gain the right “to collectively negotiate music licensing terms” with platforms that provide access to recordings via an online service (seemingly including Spotify, YouTube, and major social media players alike) and generate $100 million or more from music operations annually.

A co-sponsor of the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, Representative Ross went ahead and clarified in the bill that the platforms subject to indie collective negotiations cannot be eligible for a radio-retransmission exemption as described in section 114(d)(2) of title 17 of the U.S. Code.

Also covered by the safe harbor are negotiations with generative-AI services, defined here as those that are “capable of generating novel text, video, images, audio, and other media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by a person.”

Eligible creators “shall not be held liable under the antitrust laws for agreeing” to spearhead joint negotiations with the described platforms and AI developers or for the collective refusal “to license their music,” according to the legislation.

These exemptions are however dependent upon negotiations’ not being “limited to price” and being “nondiscriminatory as to similarly situated independent creator/owners.” Plus, joint engagement with platforms must be “directly related to and reasonably necessary for negotiations,” and predictably, the bill wouldn’t extend to individuals and companies that don’t fit the descriptions outlined for creators and platforms.

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

In late June, singer-songwriter and copyright-reform activist George Johnson urged the Copyright Office to initiate a study concerning the repeal of the Section 115 compulsory license. Now, the Office, citing changes already implemented under the MMA, has expressed the belief that a new inquiry would be “premature.”

The Copyright Office just recently responded to the formal request, and a copy of the government entity’s approximately 400-word-long message was shared with Digital Music News. To recap, Johnson previously explained his position in a letter to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter as well as an approximately 19-page supplemental resource.

Within the documents, Johnson stressed the Big Three labels’ alleged “anticompetitive misuse of the compulsory license” at the Copyright Royalty Board and made clear his view that said license had been “designed for a different time.” In support of the stance, the musician took aim at the “broken” Mechanical Licensing Collective and, elaborating upon the initial point, drew attention to the perceived conflict of interest stemming from the major labels’ also owning today’s largest publishers.

Back to the newly penned response from the Copyright Office – and specifically associate register of copyrights Suzy Wilson – the text off the bat points to alterations enacted via the Music Modernization Act as the main reason for deciding against initiating the sought study.

“As the changes made to the license through the MMA have been effective only for the past two and a half years,” reads the relevant portion of the message, “the Office believes that it would be premature at this time to engage in a new study of the section 115 license.”

Additionally, the brief response points to the Office’s 2015 “Copyright and the Music Marketplace” policy report, which is said to have brought with it (among many other things) a recommendation of “modernizing, but not repealing, the section 115 license.”

“While the Office was sympathetic to arguments in favor of repealing the license,” proceeds the follow-up, “it was also concerned that eliminating the license would cause extraordinary difficulties associated with negotiating individual licenses for the millions of musical works offered on digital music providers’ services.”

Johnson told DMN that the Copyright Office response was “disappointing” but “somewhat expected” – while touching on plans to adjust accordingly his strategy amid a continued push for compulsory-license reform. Additionally, the longtime music professional noted that the five-year review of the Mechanical Licensing Collective could present a separate opportunity for a fresh compulsory-license study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brussels, Belgium. Photo Credit: François Genon

Amid ongoing trilogue negotiations over the EU’s AI Act, music industry organizations including the IFPI, IMPALA, and GESAC are urging lawmakers to assure that the legislation compels artificial intelligence systems to “comply with the existing EU copyright framework.”

The mentioned entities, in addition to the ICMP, the IMPF, and a number of non-music media representatives, jointly called for “meaningful transparency obligations on AI” via a brief release that was emailed to DMN.

This latest push to establish clear-cut copyright protections in the AI Act has arrived as the bill continues to inch closer to passage – and as a growing list of creators are taking legal action against AI developers for allegedly “training” their platforms on protected media without authorization.

“Progress in AI innovation and effective copyright protection are not mutually exclusive,” the signatories spelled out in their message about the AI Act. “On the contrary, AI processes that depend upon the ‘input’ of protected works or other subject matter derive their purpose and value from these works or subject matter.”

Building upon the point, the IFPI and the other aforesaid entities drove home their position that the companies behind AI offerings should be required under the AI Act to “keep detailed records of third party works or other protected subject matter used.”

This information, the organizations continued, should likewise be accessible to rightsholders – in large part so they can “effectively enforce their rights” if protected works are utilized without permission.

“The obligation to keep accurate records should go back to the start of the development to provide a full chain of use,” the media and entertainment reps wrote. “Further, to avoid ‘AI laundering’ it must extend to all systems that are made available in the EU, or that produce output used in the EU, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the training or testing may have taken place.”

Bearing in mind these remarks, the IFPI, the ICMP, the IMPF, GESAC, and IMPALA in closing described as “a first step in the right direction” the European Parliament’s recent proposal to require AI-training recordkeeping.

“We call on the European institutions to support these provisions, and we look forward to working with them to make further improvements to ensure the AI Act is fit for the purpose of protecting the work of European creators and rightsholders,” they concluded.

Of course, artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly significant role with each passing day – particularly in the music space, where unauthorized soundalike tracks (and entire streaming platforms dedicated to AI efforts) are attracting serious attention.

Authorized AI music services are also on the rise (Mubert said this month that its catalog had topped 100 million songs), and companies including but not limited to TikTok parent ByteDance have rolled out AI-powered music generators as of late.

It’s against this backdrop that the major labels are exploring streaming-compensation reform in earnest and entreating U.S. lawmakers to enact stricter AI protections.

Moreover, July has seen Epidemic Sound debut “an AI-powered music discovery tool” called Soundmatch and K-pop artist Mark Tuan launch an AI “digital twin” that can interact with fans. Meanwhile, Aimi is now using artificial intelligence to generate trap music, whereas BMG-partnered MatchTune has created a self-described “natural language search engine for music,” Audioatlas.

The Montana State Capitol. Photo Credit: Martin Kraft

Amid an ongoing legal battle over a Montana law that’s set to ban its use beginning on January 1st, 2024, TikTok is attempting to block the much-publicized measure from going into effect.

TikTok just recently moved to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent the full-scale prohibition, violations of which could each bring a $10,000 fine, according to reports. Earlier in 2023, Montana became the first state to approve legislation banning TikTok outright, after north of 30 states (and several countries) barred government employees from using the highly controversial video-sharing service on official devices.

Predictably, TikTok fired back against Montana’s law at once, claiming in a late-May lawsuit against Attorney General Austin Knudsen that the ban had resulted from “unfounded speculation” about the platform and would constitute (among other things) a violation of the First Amendment.

Additionally, five TikTok creators likewise filed a complaint in May challenging the ban – though it subsequently came to light that the company itself would be covering these users’ legal fees in connection with the action. Bearing in mind the latter point, both TikTok and the creators are seeking preliminary injunctions, according to the Associated Press.

And in support of their push to block the quick-approaching ban in Montana, where TikTok reportedly boasts about 380,000 users, the plaintiffs expressed the belief that the prohibition would result in “irreparable harm,” per the noted outlet.

Now, the state will reportedly have until mid-August to respond to the injunction motions, which Emily Flower, a press secretary with the attorney general’s office, addressed in a statement.

“TikTok users don’t use the app – the app uses them and turns them into a spying apparatus for the Chinese Communist Party,” spelled out Flower. “TikTok’s ‘support’ is bought and paid for – Montanans recognize the threat that the app poses to their privacy and national security.”

Of course, it’s unclear whether the above-highlighted 380,000 Montanans as well as other TikTok users throughout the United States and the world do in fact “recognize the threat that the app poses.” Notwithstanding numerous reports of and fines pertaining to the service’s alleged misuse of personal data, not to mention other troubling claims and lawsuits as well as separate actions levied by state governments, TikTok remains extremely popular.

Specifically on the music side, the subsidiary of Beijing-headquartered ByteDance is continuing to expand rapidly despite the ever-present possibility of facing a complete ban in the States. Most recently, higher-ups this week rolled out TikTok Music, a paid-only streaming platform, in Brazil and Indonesia. The offering has licensing deals in place with each of the major labels and costs less than Spotify in the listed nations.

Photo Credit: musicFIRST

Capitalizing upon a congressional hearing on the Music Modernization Act (MMA), the musicFIRST Coalition is once again calling for the passage of legislation that would compel stateside terrestrial radio stations to pay recorded royalties.

Held specifically by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, the mentioned hearing (“Five Years Later – The Music Modernization Act”) took place in Nashville this morning. As its title suggests, the hearing was designed to analyze the effectiveness of (and potential areas of improvement within) the half-decade-old MMA.

Witnesses including Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) CEO Kris Ahrend, DiMA CEO Garrett Levin, and Big Machine GM Michael Molinar – the latter two individuals also sit on the MLC’s board – appeared at the hearing, ahead of which musicFIRST sent a letter to the committee’s chairman, ranking member, and other members.

Shared with Digital Music News today, the message urged the previously noted recipients “to also consider the ways in which artists’ fight for compensation for the use of their work continues” – while simultaneously underscoring the current royalty framework’s global implications.

“By failing to pay artists anything at all when their music is played domestically,” musicFIRST wrote, “American artists also lose out on royalties abroad. The vast majority of foreign nations – those who do already pay artists for radio plays – withhold royalties from American music artists whose songs are played in their countries, simply because the United States does not pay their artists here. Annually, this amounts to approximately $200 million in lost income for American artists.”

Of course, the organization’s claim that “the United States does not pay their artists here” refers to the fact that AM/FM radio stations cough up only for the use of underlying compositions (not recordings) in the States. And on this front, musicFIRST likewise took the opportunity to call for the passage of the American Music Fairness Act.

Reintroduced in February, this bipartisan measure would compel traditional radio stations to begin paying for recordings. Needless to say, Big Radio has ample incentive to keep the existing framework in place. And as part of the comparatively straightforward goal, the National Association of Broadcasters has long been pushing its competing Local Radio Freedom Act, which simply prohibits the imposition of “any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge” on local stations.

“We urge you to continue building upon the MMA’s progress by supporting the balanced, bipartisan and bicameral American Music Fairness Act,” concluded musicFIRST, which counts as members the RIAA, the Recording Academy, SoundExchange, and SAG-AFTRA, to name some. “We look forward to working with you and your staff on this essential next step in the continued effort to modernize the music industry.”

Notwithstanding the letter, terrestrial radio royalties received only brief mentions during the congressional hearing itself. Instead, despite previous criticism of the MLC, Ahrend touted the entity’s performance thus far (“we have already matched nearly 300 million of the historical royalties that DSPs were not previously able to pay”), whereas different witnesses expressed concerns about artificial intelligence and the accuracy of MLC data.

“The unpaid royalties that we have accrued, we hold,” Ahrend said during one of the hearing’s more interesting exchanges. “And we hold them until we are able to pay out the underlying royalties, and then we pay those royalties with interest. The monies that we hold are invested conservatively through institutional financial firms in financial investments intended to deliver the rate of return the statute requires while minimizing risk as much as possible.

“That is not an easy task, but it is one that we have undertaken. We monitor it carefully, we work with outside fee-based advisors, who have no financial benefit in the process either, to ensure that we’re doing that as effectively as possible.”

“Are the board members participating in that process, in that decision-making process, or is that a decision-making process that you are solely in charge of?” asked Virginia Representative Ben Cline.

“No, the board is fully involved in that process,” responded Ahrend, who subsequently disclosed that the MLC has “$321 million in pending blanket royalties” and “historical unmatched royalties” of north of $400 million. “They adopted a policy, an investment policy, that guides how we hold those monies, and we update them regularly on our progress – as do the advisors that we’ve hired.”

“Do you make public that information as well?” the lawmaker inquired.

“We have not made public the investment policy,” replied Ahrend, “because the policy contains not only the parameters that I just described, but also the specific guidance that our advisors have given us on where to invest the money. And they advised us that it is not good for security purposes or for market-manipulation purposes to make public the information about where we’re investing the money.”

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

Is it time to repeal the Section 115 compulsory license? Singer-songwriter George Johnson believes so, and he’s calling on the Copyright Office to initiate a formal study as well as related roundtables on the matter.

A longtime copyright-reform activist, Johnson just recently described his position – and the perceived positives associated with the rarely discussed Section 115 repeal – in a letter to Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. Additionally, the Nashville-based musician elaborated upon his view of the relevant Copyright Act section across a detail-oriented 19-page supplemental resource.

“The 1909 compulsory license was designed for a different time, for the local sale of piano rolls and not contemplated to be used billions of times, by the largest trillion-dollar corporations in the history of the world, with teams of attorneys,” the mentioned letter reads towards its start, proceeding to describe the Big Three labels’ “current anticompetitive misuse of the compulsory license at the” Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) as the multifaceted situation’s foremost issue.

The text also points to “several studies” (initiated by former Register Marybeth Peters) that are said to have “questioned the continued necessity of the compulsory license” – before underscoring the perceived need for sweeping regulatory action spurred by the Copyright Office.

“The license, the rate-structure, and the CRB process are all truly broken in almost every way and must be fixed immediately or completely abandoned,” the letter reads closer to its end. “All rational market actors who currently use private collective blanket licensing providers would certainly switch, proving no need for federal licensing to operate efficiently.

“We all could really benefit from the Copyright Office’s input, ideas, and legal opinions on these extremely important issues since each and every songwriter cannot compete with RIAA and NMPA counsel, nor 25 years of their regulatory capture,” the message indicates.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned 19-page resource explores at length all manner of related topics and information, with the central theme being the alleged conflicts of interest stemming from the major labels’ owning today’s largest publishing companies.

Of course, these Big Three-owned publishers have a substantial presence within the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), which has in the past rallied with the majors behind what critics described as highly questionable royalty proposals.

The CRB last year rejected one such proposal, which would have left in place a longstanding mechanical rate of 9.1 cents per song for physical products and downloads. In explaining the decision, the three-judge entity made clear the belief that “vertical integration linking music publishers and record labels raises a warning flag.”

(Subsequently, the NMPA and the majors agreed to increase said rate to 12 cents per song. 2022 further delivered the announcement of a cost-of-living adjustment for webcaster royalty rates as well as the CRB’s approval of a Phonorecords IV settlement, spanning 2023 through 2027, for on-demand streaming services. The latter likewise elicited pushback and preliminary calls to do away with the compulsory license.)

Elsewhere in the document, Johnson explored the “broken” Mechanical Licensing Collective (and raised questions about how exactly its seemingly massive pile of unmatched royalties, destined for distribution to existing rightsholders based upon market share despite deriving from works they don’t own, is being used), reiterated that 16 years have passed since the last “comprehensive” compulsory license study, and tied these and other points back to songwriters’ economic reality as well as the real-world impact thereof.

“I lived on Music Row for almost 25 years,” Johnson’s white paper states, “and when I got there in 1997 there were about 4,000 songwriters or ‘publishing deals’ according to the Tennessean, and in 2018 there were less than 400 songwriters! That is a 90% percent drop in 20 years and nobody cared!

“All due to the negative harmful effects of Congressional price-fixing and central-planning under the 1909 compulsory license, compounded by the regulatory capture of 3 major record labels, their lobbyists, Google/DiMA, and their armies of attorneys,” the text proceeds.

Photo Credit: Waldemar

A little over one month after the formal approval of negotiations on the EU’s AI Act, the regulatory measure has moved another step closer to becoming law. And while the legislation’s precise music industry impact remains to be seen, the bill as written would ban certain AI applications altogether.

The European Parliament just recently announced that it had “adopted its negotiating position on the” AI Act – specifically with 499 votes in favor, 28 votes against, and 93 abstentions – “ahead of talks with EU member states on the final shape of the law.” Plus, the EP in an overview highlighted some of the newest additions and changes to the voluminous two-year-old bill.

On the latter front, the legislation’s “high-risk AI” category has once again expanded, per the summary, referring particularly to “recommender systems used by social media platforms (with over 45 million users).” Needless to say, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram all boast far more than 45 million users apiece and have each grappled with EU fines and/or regulatory scrutiny as of late.

Regarding the outright “bans on intrusive and discriminatory” practices, these AI uses at present encompass “remote biometric identification systems” in public, “emotion recognition systems in law enforcement,” and the “untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases,” among others.

Closer to the music space, generative AI systems “like ChatGPT” would under the AI Act be compelled “to comply with transparency requirements” – including “disclosing that the content was AI-generated” and publicly releasing “copyrighted data used for their training,” according to the text.

The stipulations have entered the AI Act’s draft and the media spotlight about 10 days after European Commission VP for values and transparency Věra Jourová called for labels on AI content. And in a press conference announcing today’s vote, MEP Brando Benifei drove home the point and his commitment to making the sweeping legislation law.

“We need to be clear that no voluntary initiative,” Benifei spelled out, “no global effort to coordinate – which is crucial, I said it at the beginning – will hinder or influence in a limiting way the work that we are doing to have strong legislation (especially on transparency in this case) when we deal with generative AI. We want content that is produced by AI to be recognizable as such.”

With AI playing an increasingly significant role in the music sphere – as unauthorized soundalike releases are debuting alongside non-infringing tracks – it’ll be particularly interesting to see what the requirement means for streaming services like Spotify. (Lobbying data shows that the Stockholm-headquartered platform has held multiple high-level European Commission meetings in 2023.)

As it stands, though, evidence and history suggest that the AI Act is a ways off from becoming law and going into effect. Of course, artificial intelligence’s rapid evolution isn’t showing any signs of slowing, with a growing list of all-time-great artists now incorporating the unprecedented technology into the creative process. Stateside, some members of Congress have expressed interest in passing legislation that would establish a regulatory framework for AI.

Photo Credit: Rene DeAnda

About seven months after the president promised to crack down on live entertainment tickets’ “hidden junk fees,” representatives from Live Nation, DICE, SeatGeek, and other companies are convening at the White House to announce or reiterate their respective commitments to “all-in upfront pricing.”

The White House formally announced the meeting with execs (and outlined the represented companies’ efforts to do away with hidden ticket charges) this morning; a livestream for the event is scheduled to begin at 10:45 AM PST. Back in November, on exactly the same day that Live Nation posted its Q3 2022 financials, the president in a tweet called out “hidden junk fees – like processing fees on concert tickets.”

Not long before the thinly veiled swipe at Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary – which have continued to post strong financials this year – President Biden had delivered a speech announcing an overarching campaign against allegedly deceptive banking, airline, resort, and credit-card fees. And in spite of the initiative as well as the focus on event tickets, Live Nation execs made clear that they weren’t concerned with a potential pivot to all-in pricing.

“We don’t believe there will be any impact whatsoever if there was a nationwide mandate for all-in pricing,” Live Nation president and CFO Joe Berchtold spelled out in November, before facing a bipartisan congressional grilling to kick off 2023.

And since Berchtold’s appearance before Congress – a substantial portion of the corresponding discussion concerned the Eras Tour fiasco – lawmakers have pushed several bills (among them the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act, the BOSS and SWIFT Act, the Junk Fee Prevention Act, and, most recently, the TICKET Act) that they say would curb the prevalence of excessive and hidden fees.

It’s against this backdrop – as well as an ongoing Justice Department antitrust investigation into the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger – that the aforementioned companies claim to be taking steps to embrace all-in pricing.

According to the White House, Live Nation has specifically pledged “to roll out an upfront all-in pricing experience in September.” And the lobbying-adept promoter’s Ticketmaster “will also add a feature to give consumers the option to receive all-in upfront pricing for all other tickets sold on the platform,” per the announcement.

SeatGeek, for its part, “will roll-out product features over the course of the summer to make it easier for its millions of customers to shop on the basis of all-in price,” the White House said of the company.

Early industry reactions to the president’s hidden-fee announcement and meeting appear positive. The National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), for instance, told Digital Music News that the developments represent a step towards “comprehensive ticketing reform.” (Des Moines venue and NIVA board member xBk has committed to introducing “all-in pricing for over 15,000 tickets sold to over 100 events,” the White House relayed.)

“Up-front pricing should be the start of comprehensive ticketing reform that protects consumers from price gouging and deceptive practices by predatory resellers,” NIVA executive director Stephen Parker said in part. “Other needed reforms such as banning speculative tickets and deceptive websites would further protect consumers in the ticketing marketplace.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: Javier Miranda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: Gerd Altmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: Jonathan Kemper

Following troubling reports about the alleged storage of TikTok creators’ sensitive financial information in China, U.S. senators from both sides of the aisle are calling out the video-sharing app’s alleged “pattern of misleading or inaccurate responses.”

Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) scrutinized TikTok’s alleged misrepresentations – and made clear that the above reports allegedly contradict sworn congressional testimonies from execs – in a letter to CEO Shou Zi Chew. During an appearance before Congress in March, the Singapore native touted the perceived effectiveness of his app’s purported efforts to protect U.S. user data.

“The bottom line is this: American data, stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel,” relayed Shou Zi Chew. “We call this initiative Project Texas. That’s where Oracle is headquartered. Today, U.S. TikTok data is stored by default in Oracle’s servers.

“Only vetted personnel operating in a new company called TikTok U.S. Data Security can control access to this data. … Now there’s still some work to do,” continued the 40-year-old. “We have legacy U.S. data sitting in our servers in Virginia and in Singapore. We’re deleting those, and we expect that to be complete this year. … This eliminates the concern that some of you have shared with me, that TikTok user data can be subject to Chinese law.”

Of course, absent from these remarks is any mention of the possibility of financial details’ being stored in China – a point that the aforesaid lawmakers seized upon in their letter.

“These reports directly contradict statements you and other TikTok representatives have made to the public and under oath before Congress about where TikTok stores U.S. user data and the ability of employees in China to access that information,” the senators wrote.

“When you testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in March 2023,” the congressmembers continued, “you similarly said that TikTok user data ‘has always been stored in Virginia and Singapore in the past.’ … Nowhere in your response did you mention that TikTok stores user data in China, or that information about U.S. users — including sensitive information like photos and driver’s licenses or reports containing illegal materials like child sexual abuse materials — would be shared on Lark, and therefore accessible to ByteDance employees.”

Given the alleged “misleading and inaccurate representations to the American public” at hand, the senators have called on Shou Zi Chew to answer 14 multifaceted questions by next Friday. The queries concern the storage of and ByteDance’s access to Americans’ TikTok data in China, how long the data’s been housed on servers in the nation, and whether CFIUS has been informed of the practice, among several other subjects.

Longer term, it’ll be worth monitoring the possible legislative and regulatory byproducts of the latest round of TikTok scrutiny. In keeping with a long-running strategy – which it’s also employed amid rocky licensing talks with the Big Three, numerous bans at the government level, and millions in fines to this point in 2023 – TikTok is still plowing ahead with expansion initiatives.

About three weeks after announcing the “Artist Impact Program,” TikTok today unveiled a collaboration with Songtradr’s MassiveMusic “to develop a unique sonic identity that embodies the sound of our global community and creative democracy at its core.” Additionally, the ByteDance subsidiary has teed up “30 Days of #GamingonTikTok” in order “to celebrate the global gaming community.”

European Commission VP for values and transparency Věra Jourová, who’s calling for enhanced artificial intelligence content-identification requirements.

Content created by artificial intelligence “must be recognized and clearly labelled” – at least according to European Commission VP for values and transparency Věra Jourová, who’s calling for a broader crackdown on AI media.

Jourová voiced the demand for labeled AI content today, during a meeting with the signatories of the EU’s controversial Code of Practice on Disinformation. Purportedly designed to combat disinformation on the internet, the Code of Practice, encompassing “44 commitments and 128 specific measures,” was finalized in June of 2022 by the 44 signatory entities at hand.

Among the latter are Adobe, Clubhouse, Twitch, TikTok, Google, Meta, Kinzen (which Spotify, a dedicated EU lobbyist, acquired in October of 2022), and an array of comparatively obscure players. Each of the companies and organizations that added its name to the Code of Practice selected and agreed to various “commitments” (the essentials of which are outlined in the voluminous legal text) ostensibly designed to prevent the spread of disinformation.

And while the verbose Code of Practice includes a lone commitment pertaining to artificial intelligence, it goes without saying that the technology’s reach and prevalence have expanded dramatically during the last year. Consequently, Jourová in the leadup to today’s meeting disclosed her belief that the Code of Practice “should also start addressing new threats such as [the] misuse of generative AI.”

In keeping with the remark, Jourová emphasized in a tweet this morning that signatories’ “main homework” includes “addressing risks of AI.”

When it comes to generative AI “like ChatGPT” – the parent company of which could exit the EU altogether as MEPs continue to mold the lengthy “AI Act” – the government official communicated that “these services cannot be used by malicious actors to generate disinformation” and said that “such content must be recognized and clearly labelled to users.”

“Image generators can create authentic-looking pictures of events that never occurred,” Jourová said during a brief speech. “Voice-generation software can imitate the voice of a person based on a sample of a few seconds. The new technologies raise fresh challenges for the fight against disinformation as well.

“Signatories who have services with the potential to disseminate AI-generated disinformation should in turn put in place technology to recognize such content and clearly label this to users,” proceeded the 58-year-old, who also touched upon the quick-approaching implementation of the Digital Services Act. “I said many times that we have the main task to protect the freedom of speech. But when it comes to the AI production, I don’t see any right for the machines to have the freedom of speech.”

Though outside the “disinformation” category, all manner of music (including authorized and unauthorized releases alike) would be affected by a regulatory requirement obligating the identification of media generated entirely or in part by AI.

Notwithstanding the Code of Practice on Disinformation’s relatively limited scope, time will tell whether the possible rule makes its way into the aforementioned AI Act, another preliminary vote on which is scheduled for later this month. Meanwhile, as the legislation continues to take shape, more than a few artists and professionals are speaking out against the perceived pitfalls of artificial intelligence, the music-specific effects of which have prompted some financial experts to downgrade Warner Music Group stock.

Photo Credit: Spotify

Amid a continued push for regulatory action against the App Store in both the United States and Europe, Spotify dropped nearly $1 million on EU lobbying efforts last year, according to recently released data.

The Stockholm-headquartered platform’s sizable lobbying expenditures came to light on LobbyFacts, a project of European Union lobbying watchdogs Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl. According to the resource, which pulls pertinent self-reported data from the EU’s transparency register, Spotify during 2022 racked up between €800,000 and €899,999 ($861,363 and $969,032 at the present exchange rate) in EU “lobbying costs.”

That’s the same range LobbyFacts identified for 2021, but represents a substantial boost from the €650,000 in EU lobbying expenses that Spotify declared for 2019. (The appropriate profile doesn’t display the streaming giant’s lobbying costs for the pandemic-impacted 2020.) Meanwhile, the Rockstar Energy-partnered company disclosed three full-time lobbyists acting on its behalf and has per the profile participated in 73 high-level European Commission meetings to date.

The latter excludes any “lobby meetings with lower-level staff” and isn’t necessarily indicative of policy-significant sit downs. Within the handful of high-level meetings attributed to Spotify during 2022, for instance, one July outing concerned the “preparation of the September meeting with CEO” Daniel Ek, who personally traveled to Brussels nine months back.

Of course, Spotify’s long-running campaign against App Store fees and rules is hardly a secret; the service first targeted the Apple Music parent in an EU competition complaint more than four years ago. On the heels of the above-outlined lobbying initiatives, the European Commission in late February of 2023 narrowed the corresponding inquiry’s scope to focus specifically on the music streaming space.

Stateside, Ek in April of this year visited Washington to lobby for the Open App Markets Act, bipartisan legislation (introduced in August of 2021) that according to its text aims “to promote competition and reduce gatekeeper power in the app economy, increase choice, improve quality, and reduce costs for consumers.”

But evidence suggests that Spotify – which is leaning into (and has touted the unprecedented creative implications of) artificial intelligence – is likewise working to protect its AI interests as the EU moves closer to the passage of the aptly named AI Act. LobbyFacts shows that two of the business’s three high-level Commission meetings to this point in 2023 have involved artificial intelligence.

Worth mentioning in conclusion is the still-surging stock price of Spotify (NYSE: SPOT), which today cracked a new 52-week high of $154.55 per share – reflecting a close to 90 percent upswing since 2023 kicked off and an approximately 94 percent hike during the last six months.

The Palace of Westminster. Photo Credit: Ugur Akdemir

Following a lengthy investigation into the economics of music streaming, the UK government has officially “agreed to establish an industry working group” designed “to explore issues around fair pay for creators in the music streaming industry.”

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee (which dropped “Digital” from its name last month) unveiled the working group via a brief release today. For background – and in the interest of relative brevity – the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMS Committee) launched an investigation into music streaming way back in October of 2020.

More than a few testimonies, hearings, and headlines later, the CMS Committee in July of 2021 published a voluminous “final report” on the matter, calling for (among other things) a “complete reset” of the streaming sphere.

Notwithstanding this firmly worded request and the findings that prompted it, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) after spearheading a related “market study into music streaming” opted in July of 2022 not to pursue a broader investigation. November of 2022 then saw the CMA publish its own final report on the subject, spanning an astonishing 165 pages.

“Given the evidence on positive outcomes for consumers, the lack of sustained excess profits of record companies, and the declining share of music streaming revenues paid out to rightsholders, our current view is that the limited competition in the supply of music to music streaming services is not a substantial cause for concern,” the government agency made clear.

Undeterred by the conclusion, the CMS Committee kicked off 2023 by claiming in another report that “a wide-ranging national strategy for music,” including the initially mentioned working group, was needed to ensure “creators and performers receive a fairer cut of the money made from streaming.”

Now, the UK government has according to the CMS Committee agreed to form said group, which will purportedly “be composed of representatives and experts from across the music sector.” The multi-member entity is poised “to explore and develop industry-led actions that support fair remuneration for existing and future music creators as part of a successful and globally competitive music industry,” the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology penned in a letter to CMS Committee Chair Caroline Dinenage.

While concrete details about the group and its implications are few and far between – the noted letter’s authors highlighted the “many positives” of streaming and indicated that they would initiate relevant stakeholder conversations “over the coming weeks” – Dinenage applauded the overarching development as “a welcome step.”

“The creation of a working group we have been calling for is a welcome step towards addressing the frustrations of musicians and songwriters whose pay falls far short of a fair level given their central role in the success of the music streaming industry,” said the Gosport MP.

“The Government must now make sure the group is more than a talking shop and leads to concrete change so the talented creators and performers we have in this country are properly rewarded for their creativity.

“The Committee will be keeping a close eye on progress and also looking more widely at artist and creator remuneration to ensure everyone who works in our creative industries can share in its successes,” finished Dinenage.

London, England. Photo Credit: Eva Dang

Back in August of 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) called for “stronger laws to tackle illegal ticket resale” and published a comprehensive report on the secondary market. Now, the UK government has formally rejected the reform demands.

Thirsk and Malton MP Kevin Hollinrake, who serves as parliamentary under secretary of state within the Department of Business and Trade, just recently responded to the Competition and Markets Authority report “on behalf of the government.” For background, the CMA had recommended changes such as the establishment of “a new system of licensing for platforms that sell secondary tickets.”

“While it is clear that concerns about the sector remain, there are limits to what the CMA and other enforcers can do with their current powers,” CMA senior director for consumer protection George Lusty spelled out nearly two years ago. “With live music and sporting events starting back up we want the Government to take action to strengthen the current laws and introduce a licensing regime for secondary ticketing platforms.”

In explaining the decision to opt against pursuing the proposals, though, Hollinrake pointed to the unprecedented economic damage inflicted upon the entertainment sector by COVID-19 lockdown measures. “Events across the UK are only now beginning to proceed on a predictable basis and that has significantly impacted the volume of tickets coming to either the primary or secondary ticket markets,” he wrote on this front.

Similarly, Hollinrake expressed the belief that certain regulatory initiatives in the ticketing sphere – among them the CMA’s ordering Viagogo to offload StubHub operations outside North America and the 2020 prosecution of scalpers – had “only recently been taken.”

“How that affects the market including compliance with competition and consumer protection rules on the separate platforms would be a question for CMA monitoring, but its outcome remains to be seen,” the MP indicated of the regulatory steps involving Viagogo/StubHub.

Finally, in terms of the CMA’s requested “dedicated enforcer…funded by a levy on the secondary ticket market,” Hollinrake emphasized he’s “not convinced that the additional costs that would fall on ticket buyers (as regulatory costs would be passed on) are justified by the degree of harm set out in your report.”

“I feel it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market. … As you are aware, there are a number of improvements to other aspects of consumer law which we have now published in our response to the 2021 consultation,” the 59-year-old concluded. “These will be our priority in the immediate future, rather than changes to the secondary ticketing regime specifically.”

Last month, The Cure’s Robert Smith forced Ticketmaster to refund and cancel scalped tickets to his group’s tour, while this week brought with it a PROFECO-led class-action suit against the Live Nation-owned ticketing platform in Mexico.

Photo Credit: Waldemar

A European Parliament vote has set the stage for final negotiations on the AI Act, which EU officials are billing as “the world’s first rules on artificial intelligence.” Meanwhile, early music industry responses to the sweeping legislation’s progress appear positive.

The European Parliament announced the AI Act’s moving “a step closer” to passage via a formal release today, after the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy as well as the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs green lit the aforesaid negotiating mandate.

Approved by 84 votes in favor (accompanied by seven votes against and 12 abstentions), the mandate features several proposed changes to the voluminous AI Act framework introduced by the European Commission back in 2021. Needless to say, artificial intelligence (including its prevalence and its applications) has developed dramatically in the interim as part of an ongoing evolution that’s showing few signs of slowing down.

According to the EU’s summary of lawmakers’ suggested changes to the AI Act, the involved MEPs “substantially amended” a list of prohibited practices “to include bans on intrusive and discriminatory uses of AI systems.” Among these uses are real-time biometric identifications in public spaces and the “indiscriminate scraping of biometric data from social media or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases.”

Similarly, expansions are said to have reached components of the legislation concerning “high-risk AI” (now including “harm to people’s health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment”), rule exemptions (“for research activities and AI components provided under open-source licenses”), and, of course, protected media such as music.

“Generative foundation models, like GPT, would have to comply with additional transparency requirements, like disclosing that the content was generated by AI, designing the model to prevent it from generating illegal content and publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training,” reads the EU’s summary of the multifaceted development.

Brussels’ GESAC reached out to Digital Music News with an early response to the latter suggestions and the “welcome” vote on the AI Act.

“Transparency and accountability standards are necessary as regards data sets used to train AI tools that generate new content based on preexisting works of authors,” said GESAC GM Véronique Desbrosses. “We welcome the positive direction taken in the European Parliament and trust that this will be translated into a clear and effective obligation in the final version of the AI Act.”

In terms of when this version may arrive, the previously noted release pertaining to the committee votes indicates that the entire European Parliament will have to endorse the draft negotiating mandate before talks can begin with the European Council “on the final form of the law.” The corresponding vote is expected to take place during the June 12th-15th plenary session.

Amid continued controversy over the business practices and alleged market dominance of Live Nation’s Ticketmaster, lawmakers have formally introduced legislation (the “Unlock Ticketing Markets Act”) that they say would “help restore competition to live event ticketing.”

Senators Amy Klobuchar and Richard Blumenthal just recently announced the bill, which arrives about three months after Live Nation president and CFO Joe Berchtold received a bipartisan congressional grilling over the Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticketing fiasco.

Meanwhile, Senator Klobuchar in February urged the Justice Department (which is investigating the 2010 Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger) to take action against the ticketing platform and its promoter parent. Subsequently, it came to light that Live Nation was still leaning heavily into lobbying – and touting seemingly favorable legislation in an attempt to quell the calls for enhanced regulation.

Notwithstanding the latter efforts, the Unlock Ticketing Markets Act would improve competition in the ticketing sphere specifically by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “to prevent the use of excessively long multi-year exclusive contracts,” according to its authors.

Said contracts “lock out competitors, decrease incentives to innovate new services, and increase costs for fans,” per the senators’ description of the legislation, which wasn’t yet available to view through the congressional database at the time of this writing.

In statements, the lawmakers emphasized the perceived competition drawbacks associated with the operations of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which are scheduled to post their Q1 earnings next Thursday, May 4th.

“Right now, one company is leveraging its power to lock venues into exclusive contracts that last up to ten years, ensuring there is no room for potential competitors to get their foot in the door,” Senator Klobuchar said in part, with Senator Blumenthal bringing attention to “the clear excesses and abuses of Ticketmaster” in remarks of his own.

Worth highlighting in conclusion is that the White House in February urged Congress to pass the “Junk Fee Prevention Act,” claiming that the bill (later introduced by Senator Blumenthal) would address “the huge service fees that companies like Ticketmaster slap onto tickets for concerts or sporting events.”

In brief, the legislation (which extends beyond live events and to airline tickets and more) would afford the FTC the power to make and enforce rules “regarding the disclosure and imposition of mandatory or deceptive fees,” according to its text.

The bill would also authorize state attorneys general to spearhead civil suits against “covered entities” believed to be in violation of these rules, and at least 72 hours before “the first public sale or presale of” passes to live entertainment events, a portion of the same entities would be required to “clearly and conspicuously” identify “the total number of tickets offered for sale.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zach Bair, CEO of VNUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the ruckus from Taylor Swift’s ‘Ticketmaster debacle’ simmers down, the ticketing space is quietly working on solutions. That includes VBO Tickets, which is road-testing a sophisticated queueing technology and finding early success.

Ticketmaster-bashing is now America’s favorite pastime — especially if you’re a Swiftie or a politician seeking re-election. But what are the solutions to managing hundreds of thousands of fans who are demanding tickets at the same time? That is now the million-dollar question challenging the industries of live concerts and ticketing.

Perhaps Ticketmaster’s headache spells opportunity for tech-focused ticketing players. Among these well-timed innovators is Silicon Valley-based VBO Tickets, which has been developing a queueing solution that neatly handles all-at-once crushes. The company has managed mass events involving over 100,000 simultaneous buyers and aims to scale those numbers soon.

VBO Tickets is a behind-the-scenes ticketing provider focused on small and mid-sized venues, artists, and events. Founded in 2012, the company has been powering built-in ticketing solutions for theaters, museums, comedy clubs, and music venues for years. Just recently, the company joined forces with DMN to further expand its footprint.

VBO has also been managing one-off events and festivals with an essentially ‘white-label’ solution that is typically invisible to the ticket buyer. Now, those events are getting bigger, showcasing the company’s technologies.

That includes its queueing solution, which has been handling increasingly-substantial crowds. VBO Tickets pointed Digital Music News to one recent success story in Europe, where the company’s queueing solution efficiently dealt with a crush of more than 140,000 prospective buyers within a two-hour timeframe. The company has also pressure-tested double that number in half the time.

“Our system performed flawlessly,” VBO Tickets founder and technology innovator David Boehme told DMN. “The thousands upon thousands of ticket buyers had a seamless experience. If a fan flies through their ticket purchase and nobody knows our name, we’ve made a happy customer for our client.”

Boehme said that while VBO Tickets could have tapped commonly used ticketing industry solutions to help it handle crowd crushes, the company chose to start from scratch. Boehme believes VBO Tickets has built a faster, more robust, and more secure queueing technology. This approach required more significant capital investment and resources, but resulted in a built-in feature immediately ready for client use while operating quietly in the background.

As soon as VBO Tickets identifies a high-load demand, Boehme says the platform’s queueing technology kicks in to manage simultaneous buyers.

This feature can handle surges without advanced preparations or additional per-buyer costs. “We have a 24-7 queueing system that’s always ready,” Boehme revealed. “We don’t need to be notified in advance, and there’s nothing to ‘turn on’ to start the queueing process.”

According to Boehme, another perk of the system is that queueing can be targeted to isolate specific buying subgroups. For example, if one promoter drives an unexpected surge of buyers without offering advanced notice, VBO Tickets’ queueing technology can isolate that surge without penalizing everyone else.

But is VBO Tickets ready for a Ticketmaster-level surge of purchasers? According to Boehme, the platform requires further testing in real ticket-buying situations.

“We can guarantee our capabilities to 95% of artists and venues. We can take care of most of the market,” Boehme continued. “We know we can handle the volumes that we’re aiming for. But right now, we’re looking at emerging to surging artists — not a Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift.”

Those are modest reflections, though VBO Tickets’ capabilities are growing. While its recent handling of more than 140,000 sessions sounds impressive, the company estimated that it could comfortably handle half-a-million simultaneous buyers.

Regarding throughput, VBO Tickets estimates it can process 2,000 ticket transactions every minute, translating into a smoothly sold-out amphitheater in roughly ten minutes. That same sellout would take a manageable forty minutes for a large-scale stadium. But Boehme points out that faster throughput can quickly scale if needed.

The company appears ready to flex its muscles on larger-scale events, which could further validate the robustness and security of VBO Tickets’ technology.

Meanwhile, Ticketmaster itself is undoubtedly working out better platform solutions. System crashes aren’t always bad news, especially when they involve record-breaking audiences. But getting grilled by legislators and regulators — many of whom are pushing for a reversal of the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger — is motivation enough to develop crash-proof systems and approaches in the future.

Photo Credit: Collabstr

As TikTok grapples with continued user-data criticism and regulatory scrutiny, a Senate vote to ban the controversial video-sharing platform has been blocked.

This newest development in the long-running push to prohibit TikTok in the U.S. – one of many countries where the social media app cannot be used on government devices – just recently came to light. Of course, the ByteDance-owned service, through which many songs have been popularized (or re-popularized), has for years faced opposition over its alleged security shortcomings.

But the criticism has ramped up as of late, following reports that employees of the app’s Beijing-headquartered parent company had improperly accessed account information and spied on stateside journalists. Numerous government officials have spoken out against the service, and multiple lawmakers (from both sides of the aisle) are attempting to outlaw the platform altogether in the U.S.

One of these lawmakers, Senator Josh Hawley, announced in January that he would introduce legislation to bar TikTok’s use domestically, citing its alleged threat to “our children’s privacy as well as their mental health.”

As mentioned at the outset, the senator – whose “No TikTok On Government Devices” bill became law near 2022’s conclusion and went into effect in March – just recently called for a vote on the legislation concerning the countrywide ban. (Senator Hawley also voiced his opposition to the comparatively far-reaching RESTRICT Act, which he says would “give new open-ended authority to federal bureaucrats.”)

“And now we must take the next step to ban TikTok nationwide, to protect the security of every single American whose personal lives, whose personal data, whose personal security is in danger from the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing.

“And it’s time to act now because we’ve seen just in the last week, the TikTok CEO come before the United States Congress and confirm that the reasons we acted four months ago [on the aforesaid government ban] were right and valid. And that the need at this hour is urgent,” the senator explained.

Senator Hawley likewise drew attention to troubling reports that TikTok tracks users’ keystrokes on and off the app, monitors users’ physical locations, and spies on journalists, besides highlighting ByteDance’s seemingly close ties to the Chinese Communist Party and the requirement (under Chinese law) that the company must turn over information to Beijing when ordered to do so.

“Years ago, the last administration tried to ban TikTok for all of these same national-security reasons that led us as a Congress to ban it on federal devices. This has been a long time coming; there’s no rush to judgement here. This is what administration after administration has concluded. That it’s time to take action.”

Later, the senator communicated: “But the First Amendment does not protect the right to spy on American citizens. It does not protect espionage. It does not protect what the Chinese Communist Party is trying to do in harvesting the data of millions of Americans.”

Also as highlighted at the outset, Senator Rand Paul blocked Senator Hawley’s formal request for a vote on the bill, expressing the belief that a full-scale TikTok ban would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

“There are two main reasons why we might not want to do this,” said Senator Paul. “The one would be the First Amendment to the Constitution. Speech is protected whether you like it or not. The second reason would be that the Constitution actually prohibits bills of attainder. You’re not allowed to have a specific bill against a person or a company. So this fails on two egregious points, pretty obvious points, and I think we ought to think about that.”

Additionally, Senator Paul spoke of the perceived pitfalls of different legislation that would (among other things) ban TikTok and maintained that “every accusation of data gathering that’s been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big-tech companies.” (Senator Hawley responded to these comments, elaborating upon his own above-transcribed remarks about the First Amendment.)

Notwithstanding this disagreement and the blocked vote, evidence suggests that TikTok – which is still being investigated in the House and is reportedly dealing with a forced-sale order from the White House – is far from out of the woods in the U.S.

Arkansas is now levying multiple lawsuits against the platform (as well as a single complaint against Meta) for allegedly exposing children to explicit content; Indiana took legal action against ByteDance and TikTok for similar reasons towards 2022’s end.

And specifically on the music side, the platform remains engaged in licensing negotiations with the Big Three labels. A report this week indicated that TikTok’s attempt to demonstrate its limited reliance on popular music had resulted in a usership decline in Australia.

Paris, France. Photo Credit: Anthony Tan

Days following TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew’s appearance before Congress, France has become the latest country to prohibit the video-sharing app’s use on government devices.

France’s minister of public transformation and service, Stanislas Guerini, just recently confirmed the development on social media, attributing the ban to “cybersecurity and personal data protection issues.” The US, the UK, the EU, and Canada have likewise banned TikTok on government devices (with Jordan and India having outlawed the platform altogether).

Of course, logic suggests that any app so wholly unsuited for use among elected officials and their teams also poses a significant threat to the general public. In the States alone, the NSA, the FCC, the FBI, the Justice Department, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed national-security concerns about the ByteDance-owned service.

A portion of ByteDance belongs to the Chinese Communist Party, which can compel any domestic company to turn over (even sensitive) information at its discretion. Moreover, the Beijing-headquartered entity has acknowledged that its employees improperly accessed user data. Meanwhile, some have alleged that the CCP uses TikTok “as a propaganda tool,” including by influencing media trends and related discussions to its benefit on the world stage.

This far-reaching stateside pushback against TikTok – which the State of Indiana is suing for allegedly exposing children to explicit content – set the scene for the initially mentioned congressional testimony of Shou Zi Chew last week. And with his comments having evidently failed to stem the tide of lawmaker scrutiny, it’ll be worth keeping in mind the possibility that one countrywide prohibition could set in motion full-scale TikTok bans in key markets around the globe.

Consequently, France’s above-highlighted ban of TikTok (as well as other “recreational” apps, it appears) on all government devices is important for multiple reasons. According to a translation of a French-language release from Guerini’s agency, the restriction went into effect “immediately.”

“For several weeks, several of our European and international partners have adopted measures restricting or prohibiting the downloading and installation of the TikTok application by their administrations,” the translated text reads in part. “After an analysis of the issues, particularly security, the government has decided to ban the downloading and installing [of] recreational applications on business phones provided to public officials.

“Indeed, recreational applications do not have the levels of cybersecurity and protection of sufficient data to be deployed on administrative equipment,” the document continues. “These apps can therefore constitute a risk to the protection of the data of these administrations and their public officials.”

On the music side, TikTok remains engaged in long-running licensing talks with the Big Three, and a recent report suggested that the service had experienced a usership decline in Australia after limiting the availability of popular tracks.

Beijing, China. Photo Credit: zhang kaiyv

As the White House reportedly demands that ByteDance sell its interest in TikTok or grapple with the short-form app’s potential stateside ban, both the video-sharing service and the Chinese government itself are firing back against the ultimatum.

Beijing (which owns a piece of ByteDance) and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew (who’s scheduled to testify before Congress next week) just recently took aim at the White House’s reported demand. The reported sale requirement derived specifically from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and arrived on the heels of ample user-privacy and national-security scrutiny of the platform.

To be sure, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised far-reaching concerns about TikTok, which the U.K. yesterday banned on government devices. Meanwhile, Congress, all federal agencies, and a number of state governments have outlawed the use of the service, which the Chinese Communist Party allegedly utilizes to amass sensitive data and mold cultural trends to its benefit on the world stage.

Now, the aforementioned Shou Zi Chew is, predictably, disputing the idea that TikTok’s sale would remedy the security worries at hand.

Instead, the Singapore-born executive is continuing to tout “Project Texas,” or a purportedly $1.5 billion restructuring plan under which TikTok user information would ostensibly be held in an Oracle-managed data center in the Lone Star State. Project Texas, the 40-year-old maintains, is a viable alternative to Beijing-headquartered ByteDance’s selling its stake and would resolve the multifaceted problems over which TikTok is facing criticism.

“So far I haven’t heard anything that cannot actually be solved by this,” the TikTok CEO told the Wall Street Journal of Project Texas, as his company is reportedly battling a Justice Department investigation over alleged spying on U.S. journalists. More broadly, TikTok has likewise been accused of suppressing certain ideas, being used to track the locations of American citizens, and threatening “children’s privacy as well as their mental health.”

Needless to say, these and related topics will come up when Shou Zi Chew appears before the House next Thursday, March 23rd. In a further testament to the high-stakes nature of the showdown – and the Chinese government’s clear-cut desire for ByteDance to remain TikTok’s parent and for the app to stay live in the States – Foreign Affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin addressed the situation during a briefing.

“The U.S. should stop spreading disinformation about data security, stop suppressing the relevant company, and provide an open, fair, and non-discriminatory environment for foreign businesses to invest and operate in the U.S.,” said the CCP official, whose comments enter the media spotlight as federal senators are pushing “bipartisan legislation to crack down on trade cheats like China.”

Worth mentioning in conclusion is that TikTok, despite being banned by governments around the globe and eliciting music industry pushback amid evidently drawn-out licensing talks with the Big Three, has continued to expand in recent months with the rollout of an updated Creator Fund and a “Series” paywall feature.

Photo Credit: TikTok

After months of intensifying scrutiny over TikTok’s user-data policies and national-security implications, the White House is reportedly “demanding” that Beijing-headquartered ByteDance sell its stake in the short-form app or grapple with a possible stateside ban.

This latest twist in the growing crackdown on TikTok, which is prohibited on government devices in the U.S. (federally and in north of 20 states), the EU, Canada, and elsewhere, just recently came to light in a report from the Wall Street Journal. Of course, the ultra-popular platform has long been the subject of privacy-related criticism.

But the opposition has ramped up dramatically during the past five or so months, including with the introduction of bipartisan legislation that would outlaw TikTok in the States altogether. Meanwhile, the FCC, the FBI, the NSA, and top Justice Department officials alike have publicly expressed concerns about TikTok, the parent company of which is owned in part by (and must provide any requested data to) the Chinese Communist Party.

And it’s against this backdrop that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and TikTok have for more than two years been in negotiations, with previous reports having indicated that the Treasury Department-led entity was pushing for a forced sale.

Now, as mentioned at the outset, the White House has reportedly formalized said push by calling on ByteDance to cash out of TikTok – or face the reality of the service’s ban throughout the U.S.

The Journal, citing anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter, indicated that CFIUS had “made the sale demand recently.” Predictably, TikTok has fired back against this reported demand in the media, with a company spokesperson claiming that “a change in ownership would not impose any new restrictions on data flows or access.”

“The best way to address concerns about national security is with the transparent, U.S.-based protection of U.S. user data and systems, with robust third-party monitoring, vetting, and verification, which we are already implementing,” said the TikTok rep, whose company is reportedly willing to spend $1.5 billion on a program that it claims would safeguard U.S. user data.

Time will tell whether the domestic TikTok ban comes to fruition, and while the service continues to play a significant role in the contemporary music industry, the RIAA earlier this week took aim at the platform, claiming that it “exploits recorded music to build an audience.”

Finally, TikTok’s seldom-discussed CEO, having visited with a number of lawmakers in recent weeks, is scheduled to testify before Congress next Thursday, March 23rd.

Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

Despite the introduction of yet another bipartisan bill that would set the stage for a stateside TikTok ban, the video-sharing app is now allowing creators to offer “premium content behind a paywall” with a feature called Series.

Series came to light in a general release today, and the newest piece of federal legislation targeting the ByteDance-owned platform will be formally unveiled at a press conference this afternoon. On the former front, the highly controversial service is billing Series as “a new way for creators to share their stories, talents and creativity as premium content.”

According to TikTok – which just recently debuted a revamped Creator Fund, implemented screentime limits for under-18 users, and launched “Sounds for Business” – each Series can feature a maximum of 80 videos. And in keeping with the company’s long-running effort to pivot from short clips, said videos can span up to 20 minutes apiece.

On the price side, TikTokers “can select how much their Series should cost that best reflects the value of their exclusive content,” the platform relayed. This exclusive content must abide by the service’s community guidelines, TikTok emphasized, and Series is “only available to select creators” at present. Applications to join the program are expected to open “in the coming months,” however.

Notwithstanding the rollout of Series and the other mentioned features and programs, TikTok is continuing to face far-reaching scrutiny over alleged user-data shortcomings and adjacent national-security threats.

To be sure, the last month alone has seen a top Justice Department official advise against using TikTok, which the White House has ordered all federal agencies to block. Meanwhile, a number of U.S. lawmakers are taking aim at the app with legislation, and Canada as well as the European Commission have likewise prohibited TikTok on government devices.

Later today, Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and John Thune (R-SD) are expected to formally reveal the initially highlighted legislation, which the congressmembers say would enable the commerce secretary to curb the domestic prevalence of tech platforms owned by or based in China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Warner expressed his view of the multifaceted threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party in the digital age – and spoke about the bill – during a Fox News Sunday sit down over the weekend.  

“This week, I’ve got a broad, bipartisan bill that I’m launching with my friend John Thune, who’ll be the Republican lead, where we’re going to say, ‘In terms of foreign technology coming into America, we’ve got to have a systemic approach to make sure that we can ban or prohibit it when necessary,’” the Virginia Democrat communicated.

“You got 100 million Americans on TikTok 90 minutes a day – even you guys would like that kind of return, 90 minutes a day. They are taking data from Americans, not keeping it safe. But what worries me more with TikTok is that this can be a propaganda tool – the kind of videos you see would promote ideological issues.

“If you look at what TikTok [known as Douyin in China] shows to the Chinese kids, which is all about science and engineering, versus what our kids see, there’s a radical difference,” continued the senator, whose comments and legislation arrive a little under two weeks before TikTok’s CEO will testify before Congress.

Photo Credit: Rene DeAnda

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has officially advanced a bill that would allow the president to prohibit the use of TikTok and other digital services “that threaten U.S. national security.”

This latest development in the crackdown on TikTok – which federal agencies have about 27 days to remove from government-owned devices – just recently came to light, including in an update from Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul.

The Texas representative has sponsored legislation, H.R. 1153, that he says would enable the president “to ban TikTok” as well as any other app that constitutes a threat to national security, as mentioned. (At the time of this writing, the newly introduced legislation’s text wasn’t yet available via the congressional database.)

In any event, the ByteDance-owned platform, which is limiting the daily screen time of under-18 users, has long faced criticism over its alleged personal-data shortcomings, especially because the Chinese government can freely access accounts’ private information. The associated scrutiny has ramped up dramatically as of late, with the FCC, Canadian government officials, and the European Union having taken steps to curb the security threats that TikTok allegedly poses.

Now, the aforesaid H.R. 1153 (“Deterring America’s Technological Adversaries Act,” or the DATA Act) has passed out of committee in a 24-16 vote, and Representative McCaul is calling on his fellow lawmakers to support the measure.

“While the nation looked at the sky in disbelief as a spy balloon from [the] Chinese Communist Party’s military traversed the continental U.S., gathering sensitive data and sending it back to the mothership in Beijing,” McCaul communicated in part, “many Americans do not realize one of the greatest surveillance efforts from the CCP has been silently gathering personal data in their pockets. … It is no secret that TikTok is beholden to the CCP.

“In fact, President Biden [and] his national security officials have been sounding the alarm over the last three months,” proceeded the representative, noting also that the FBI director, the deputy attorney general, and the director of national intelligence alike have spoken publicly of the idea that TikTok presents far-reaching dangers to users.

“The United States Congress, literally the people in this room, agreed that TikTok is so dangerous that we banned its use on federal government devices. And it’s not only Congress; more than 30 states have banned TikTok from state-issued devices, including my home state of Texas,” the lawmaker continued.

“So why is Congress and the majority of states blocking access to TikTok? We’ve all seen what the PRC does with this type of data against its own people: interrogations, imprisonment, and shipping minority groups to genocide camps. TikTok is a modern-day Trojan horse of the CCP used to surveil and exploit Americans’ personal information.

“This legislation is a first step in protecting Americans against subversive data collection. Currently, the courts have questioned the administration’s authority to sanction TikTok. My bill empowers the administration to ban TikTok or any other software application that threatens U.S. national security. And make no mistake, TikTok is a national security threat,” McCaul stated.

Of course, time will tell whether the legislation (one of several measures touted as a means of outlawing TikTok in the States) will become law. The White House earlier this week signaled that it has “concerns about the app,” and TikTok’s seldom-discussed CEO is scheduled to testify before Congress later in March.

Brussels’ Berlaymont building, which serves as the headquarters of the European Commission. Photo Credit: EmDee

In April of 2021, the EU’s European Commission formally accused Apple of distorting “competition in the music streaming market.” Now, amid continued pressure from Spotify and others, the Commission has further narrowed its antitrust probe to focus on App Store rules’ impact on streaming platforms.

This latest development in the years-running Apple investigation, which kicked off after Spotify submitted a complaint in early 2019, came to light in a modified European Commission statement of objections (and a corresponding announcement message) today.

For background, Spotify and others have long criticized App Store policies and fees, and Apple has, predictably, pushed back against the Stockholm-headquartered company’s qualms. But with four years having passed since Spotify filed its EU complaint against Apple, Daniel Ek last year personally visited Brussels in an effort to “accelerate” the case.

Meanwhile, Deezer (which is looking to dramatically increase its revenue by 2025) joined Spotify at 2023’s start in urging the Commission to take “swift and decisive action” against Apple’s “anticompetitive and unfair practices.”

Bearing in mind the latter pressure, the European Commission is zeroing in on the App Store’s impact specifically on streaming services, as mentioned at the outset.

As part of the recalibrated investigation, the Commission has relayed that it will “no longer take a position as to the legality of the IAP [in-app purchase] obligation,” or Apple’s requiring that developers utilize “its own in-app purchase payment technology.” (The iPhone developer made certain related concessions for “reader” apps including Spotify in 2021, but the streaming platform maintained that the changes didn’t go far enough.)

Rather, the Commission’s antitrust probe now focuses on “contractual restrictions” that allegedly prevent developers “from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription options at lower prices outside of the app,” per a release that the EU executive branch published this morning.

“The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple’s anti-steering obligations are unfair trading conditions in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’),” the text indicates of the updated investigation’s legal basis.

Moreover, said “anti-steering obligations” are “detrimental” to music streamers (“who may end up paying more”) and “negatively affect the interests of music streaming app developers by limiting effective consumer choice,” according to the Commission.

In closing, the government entity took the opportunity to reiterate that there’s “no legal deadline for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end,” besides emphasizing that it can fine Apple as much as 10 percent of its “annual worldwide turnover” should “sufficient evidence of an infringement” come to light.

During the final three months of 2022 alone, Apple reported revenue of $117.2 billion – a figure that reflects a roughly five percent year-over-year (YoY) decline. Included in the sum is nearly $21 billion from services such as Apple Music.

Photo Credit: Rene DeAnda

About two months after the No TikTok On Government Devices Act became law, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has officially instructed all executive agencies to remove the highly controversial app within 30 days.

The White House order for federal agencies (as well as certain contractors) to delete TikTok arrives on the heels of a similar measure in Canada, where the ByteDance-owned service is now prohibited on government-issued devices due to the “unacceptable” security risk that it poses.

Stateside, the OMB’s TikTok guidance, penned specifically by director Shalanda Young, resulted from the initially mentioned No TikTok On Government Devices Act. Signed into law as part of a nearly $2 trillion spending bill last year, this iteration of the TikTok legislation gave Young 60 days to “develop standards and guidelines for executive agencies requiring the removal of any covered application from information technology.”

Of course, “covered application” refers quite directly to TikTok, which the European Commission banned on all corporate devices just last week. Federal agencies in the U.S. have up to 30 days (from yesterday) to “remove and disallow the installations of a covered application on” their own devices. An identical deadline is in place to “prohibit” the video-sharing platform’s access on government internet connections.

Agencies that are unable to comply with the order and the timeline due to their “mission or operational posture” must notify the federal chief information officer by the deadline, the document makes clear.

Meanwhile, the OMB’s TikTok edict gives federal agencies 90 days to assure that new contracts “do not contain requirements that may include the use of a covered application” and to exit any such existing contracts. The final component of the directive comes with a 120-day deadline and outlines a requirement for prospective federal contractors to also follow the TikTok ban if the agreement that they’re seeking “may involve” the “use of information technology.”

Needless to say, this latest setback for TikTok – one of several obstacles that the app is grappling with as its CEO prepares to testify before Congress – could potentially lay the groundwork for an outright ban in the U.S.

Logic suggests that any app so wholly unsuited for use among government officials likewise presents significant security threats to the general public. Additionally, a growing number of lawmakers (on both sides of the aisle) are expressing far-reaching concerns about TikTok.

Nevertheless, the ByteDance subsidiary is continuing to expand generally and on the music side, having rolled out a retooled Creator Fund and unveiled a new #AltMusic featured artist last week. Today, the service launched “Sounds for Business,” billed by higher-ups as “a mix of music, voice over, and other directional sound cues” with which businessowners can create promotional videos.