MBW Reacts is a series of analytical commentaries from Music business worldwide written in response to recent major news or entertainment events. Only one MBW+ subscribers Get unlimited access to these articles. The article below originally appeared in March magazine MBW+ Monthly review email, Exclusive release for MBW+ subscribers.
Sony Music just won a monetary 'victory' after suing an individual artist in a US court.
Sony sued Trefuego his follow 90mhwent viral on TikTok and stacked 170 million live stream Spotify Before then removed from the platform later in 2022.
90m hour based on the sped-up (aka 'modified') sample of the 1986 track Reflect by Japanese composer Hinata. Sony represents both music recording and music publishing for Reflect.
Trefuego Now have to pay Sony more 800,000 USD of damages, according to a ruling from the Texas court. The judge in the case noted the oddity of an artist being sued by a multinational corporation for copyright infringement, saying that while some “may question the wisdom of pursuing claim against a company”. relatively small fish” that does not make Sony “improperly motivated or that its lawsuit is unreasonable.”
However, for me, the biggest significance of this case is not who it is Sony sued. That's who he chose Are not to sue.
Written in small print of the award of damages for Trefuegoit was revealed that DistroKid responsible for distribution 90mh to streaming services.
DistroKidwhich was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, must now pay a sum $14k Trefuego's portion of Sony's damages – represents royalties generated by 90mh that the DIY distributor has not yet paid the artist.
Early this month MBWI published a report highlights a list of other 'modified' tracks – mainly overdrive samples of Popular music group copyright – which I found on TikTok. (Within 48 hours, all the tracks I bookmarked were okay is clearly eliminated from ByteDanceservice of.)
Obviously, just like the case of Trefuegoa digital platform hosting 'modified' (speeded up/slowed down etc) music copyrights – without proper attribution – will not satisfy the owners of these original copyrights.
This happened twice when the original copyright owner was no longer licensing that platform any its category (i.e UMG And TikTok).
TikTok has archived a staggering number of 'modified' Universal tracks: that's why UMG just got beaten ByteDance with via 37,000 Takedown requests individuallyaffect more than 120 million videos.
This big question arises, with Trefuego case in mind: How did all this 'modified' audio end up on TikTok in the first place?
It's actually pretty hard to tell: The sound is on TikTok can be uploaded directly by users as part of their video or as a standalone audio track to TikTok's library through third party distributors such as DistroKid.
However, that is not the case Spotify.
To get your music out there, whether 'modified' or not 'modified', you Have use a third party 'middleman' – whether it's a large music company like Popular music groupor a do-it-yourself upload service like DistroKid.
Currently. Modified versions of copyrighted tracks have expired TikTok: Media monitoring/analysis company Pex estimated that around 38% of music above ByteDance's video platform 'modified' in some way.
However, in the past, a significant proportion of similarly modified music has also made its way onto audio streaming services such as Spotify.
By the end of last year, Pex find more 1 million 'modified' tracks on included audio streaming services Spotify; any of these tracks will be distributed through third-party distribution platforms.
To the seeming credit of Spotify, this situation now seems to have been fundamentally resolved; Many of the most popular acceleration songs are marked by Pex last year no longer appears on the platform.
These now-deleted 'modified' tracks – mostly without credit/payment to the original artist – included a version of Coldplay and The Chainsmokers' Something like this with 12 million+ Spotify plays and a version of by Halsey Without me with 6 million+ Spotify plays.
(by Spotify house no completely however, in order, according to the artist's judgment 'Hiko' who passed 4,000,000 monthly listeners on the platform… all thanks to the speed up/slow down feature, possibly AI-generated, 'covers' of many hits by artists like Fleedwood Mac, AdeleOlivia Rodrigo, Stephen Sanchez and more. Spotify Of course, currently also exploring the legal way Earn money from editing users' tracks directly on its platform.)
What does this tell us?
- (One) There is certainly a very good chance that distributors have 'brought in' pirated modified audio Spotify (before the recent crackdown) was also distributing this material to social video platforms such as TikTok;
- (b) Global music group must be watched very closely to see if any 'legitimate' music industry companies profit from 'modified' tracks based on their own unapproved versions of recordings. Especially if that material is circulating online TikTok.
In turn, all this causes very serious questions about where DIY distributor sits between two well-known definitions in media law:
- (I) User uploaded 'communication'who are generally not legally required to monitor the copyright legality of every piece of media added to their service – but must provide tools/feedback to ensure content is taken down promptly when notified of violations;
- (ii) 'Publishing company'who in general To be are legally expected to monitor the copyright legality of any media added to their library.
For example, if a record label licenses a track from a DJ includes a sped-up, unclear sample of a previous hit recording, you wouldn't be shocked to see the record label become a defendant in a lawsuit from the sample's owner.
But what if this offending music is okay distribution by a company like DistroKidany service over a million songs every month? Maybe DistroKid can reasonably know when a user is uploading 'modified' music, through its platform, blatantly stealing another artist's work without permission?
What if that music starts to give significant flows and money, every month; Does that make the DIY distributor more responsible?
Pursuant to the 'Distribution Agreement' that DistroKid make everything of it 2 million the artist signs… no, it won't.
An example quote from there 'Distribution agreement' is nearly 8,000 words: “You will indemnify and hold harmlessand upon our request, protection DistroKid [from] All claims, suits, proceedings, disputes, controversies, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses… arising out of… any claim that the Recording , Documents, data or information provided or authorized by you… violate or infringe upon the rights of another party.”
In a world where the DIY distribution sector is creating billions of dollars every year, while – as in the case Trefuego – distribute 'modified' versions of major label recordings, does that wording fully indemnify these platforms against any copyright infringement?
Clear, Sony Music feel the targeting is pointless DistroKid with its legal action against by Trefuego 90m hour. Instead, Sony focuses its resources entirely on the individual copyright owners – the artists themselves.
Come to think of it, I can't recall many cases where DIY distributors' liability for copyright infringement in their music libraries has been legally tested. A semi-related case that comes to my mind is Round Hill to sue TuneCore in the US in 2020, through the latter company distributing the record's cover versions Round Hill composed.
Round Hill claims in its lawsuit that TuneCore owed mechanical royalties for cover versions of this and that TuneCore distributed these tracks “to their own servers and then to third party download and streaming sites despite knowing that Round Hill Compositions had never been properly licensed”. The two sides then reached a separate agreement.
More recently, in February 2024the Donna Summer real estate is sued Kanye West And Ty Dolla sign for duos GOOD (DON'T DIE)clearly sampled, seemingly without permission, Summer's 1977 hit I feel the love.
Summer's estate bears the name of West's private company – Yeezy Record Label LLC And Yeezy SND – as a defendant in his lawsuit. The estate's attorneys said that, to the best of their knowledge, the two companies “acted as record labels and distributors of the infringing song.”
What's important about this? It shows what these lawyers believe “distributor” belong to GOOD (DON'T DIE) maybe assume some liability for intentional exposure. (Summer Estate's assumption about the identity of West's distributor is probably incorrect: unless West has a direct distribution agreement with Spotify, Apple Music etc. he may have uploaded his music through a third party service.)
Whether it is Kanye West, Trefuego, or a sea of amateur 'nightcore' remixers above TikTok'modified' audio is becoming a serious problem for major music copyright holders.
Will those major copyright holders have – or more importantly, Maybe – take action against DIY distributor to stop the spread of these traces remains to be seen.
What if they can't? Follow this story for its logical conclusion.
In an era that 125,000 Tracks are hitting streaming services every day, from millions of artists – the majority of whom use DIY distributors – can we move towards a modern twist on this infamous product? 'Napster Nightmare'?
Picture the scene: instead of the record industry suing hundreds of musical individuals listener for copyright infringement… could end up suing hundreds of individual tracks uploader – like Trefuego – for the same misdemeanor?
What a world.Music business worldwide
