This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’
Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.
Last week, Universal Music Group filed a $500 million lawsuit against TuneCore and its parent company Believe over alleged copyright infringement of UMG’s recordings. The lawsuit presented two core issues: first, that bad actors used TuneCore to upload songs to streaming services that were simply sped up or remixed versions of UMG-copyrighted recordings, often listed under slight misspellings of the real artist, like “Kendrik Laamar” or “Arriana Gramde.” Second, it claimed that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to record labels.
If you’ve been following the issues in this case over the last few years, this lawsuit feels like a long time coming, and the concerns that UMG raises are certainly not just TuneCore-specific problems — they’re industry-wide DIY distribution issues. With the vast scale of songs being uploaded through these companies, and staffs that are too small to catch every bad actor, infringing material has, according to just about everybody, flooded onto streaming services.
The distributors know it’s a problem, too. It’s why TuneCore, DistroKid, CD Baby, Symphonic, Downtown and more formed the Music Fights Fraud coalition in 2023 and say they have increasingly invested in preventing fraud and infringement. Unfortunately, Beatdapp, the industry leader in identifying streaming fraud, believes the problem has only worsened since then. UMG is also not convinced that TuneCore is doing enough, saying that the company’s business model incentivizes them to “turn a blind eye” to this damaging activity.
Below, I’ve condensed some of the arguments I’ve heard among industry leaders both for and against DIY distribution continuing just as it is today. I’ll let you judge which outcome is better.
Argument #1: Why its essential to protect DIY distribution as is
It’s easy to take for granted today that anyone who wants to release a song can do it themselves, but that wasn’t always the case. When physical records reigned supreme, record label contracts often favored the companies involved, and seldom went the artists’ way. At the time, artists were essentially forced to sign to a record label if they wanted a chance at shelf space in stores — especially worldwide. This left artists vulnerable to unequal label deals that locked them in for many albums while the label took the lion’s share of the royalties and the copyrights, often in perpetuity.
When Distrokid, CD Baby, TuneCore and the like emerged in the 2000s, they let anyone sign up for distribution services to digital outlets like the iTunes Store for a flat fee and forever altered the power dynamic. Today, the playing field has leveled significantly: hobbyists can get their music out to the world and artists with professional aspirations can wait as long as they want before they have to give up a single percentage point of their master recordings to a label. These companies helped shift negotiating power to the artists, and for the first time, started the process of allowing music fans to decide what songs would pop, rather than the labels that pulled favors with the gatekeepers who worked in radio, retail and the press.
The shift also presented a new, lucrative business opportunity. Music companies no longer need superstars in their catalogs to make their numbers. In fact, they don’t need catalogs at all. A company can now make money by providing services, like distribution, to the masses of previously-overlooked musical hopefuls instead, relying on volume to make up the numbers.
But that volume allowed for the proliferation of fraud, which is a problem that evolves every day, and bad people will always find loopholes. Already, most distributors have implemented common-sense regulations and checks to curb fraud and invested money into quality control teams. But for many experts, it feels impossible to totally solve the problem. As it’s commonly said, this is an endless game of “wack-a-mole.”
But if the barriers to DIY distribution are too significant — like limiting the number of releases, gating who can use it, hiking the platform fee, adding a streaming threshold, or slowing down release time — it could take power away from indie musicians that they have become accustomed to. Such a move would be a step backward for artistic freedom, and the cost of implementing these regulations could threaten to put some of the smaller distributors out of business. Less choice and competition in DIY distribution isn’t better for users.
It’s impossible to put the DIY distribution genie back in the bottle. Artists, who have become used to the current system, would still find ways to get their music out there quickly and cheaply — whether fraudulent or not. Likely, that music would go out on social media or to social-streaming hybrids like YouTube and SoundCloud, both of which pay out royalties and can still be cheated. Streaming services, like Spotify, Apple and Amazon, would risk losing listenership and music discovery to social media platforms — something they already struggle with in today’s TikTok era — and it might not even solve the problems it targeted.
Argument #2: Why the DIY distribution system is in need of serious reform
Currently, over 120,000 songs are uploaded to streaming services every day, a rate that has rapidly increased for years and will likely continue to do so. This is mostly due to DIY distributors. While it is great that aspiring artists can get their music out there cheaply and easily, this has also led to rampant fraud and copyright infringement that puts excessive burdens on rights holders to police their own catalogs online. What happens when we inevitably get to a point where 1 million songs are uploaded every day? We can’t keep going as we are now, and we are in need of serious reform.
While DIY distributors have announced initiatives like Music Fights Fraud and have hosted panels at industry conferences to explain the new methods they are using to stop bad actors, some people say these companies have an incentive for at least some of it to slip by their watch, given their business models rely on receiving fees in exchange for uploading as many songs as possible. Self-policing is not enough, considering this problem only seems to get worse.
The introduction of generative AI has made this matter even more pressing. While it’s impossible to know how much of the music being uploaded today is AI-generated, and to date the streaming services have no regulations against this, it is certainly contributing to the rising number of songs released to streaming services per day. AI songs are believed to be exploited by bad actors to commit streaming fraud, as we saw in the September lawsuit which alleged a musician named Michael “Mike” Smith stole $10 million in streaming royalties by uploading AI-generated songs using a distributor and then used bots to stream them. Bad actors upload AI songs en masse to spread out artificial streams and make their schemes tougher to detect.
It’s hard to argue that it makes a user’s streaming experience better when a platform has a vast number of AI songs and tracks that not a single person has streamed, and it’s clear that these songs, largely stemming from DIY distributors, are diluting the royalty pool at the expense of what some stakeholders have called “professional artists.” The negligibly low payments earned by hobbyists who have accrued hundreds or just a few thousand streams are sometimes lower than the fees one would incur from transferring the royalties into their bank account.
These distributors, the argument goes, should be penalized for the bad actors they let through. This has been proposed in many forms so far, including a financial penalty instituted by streaming services, requirements for significant “know your customer” checks to slow down uploads and verify users’ identities, a minimum stream count threshold before artists can be eligible for royalty collection, a limit to the number of songs a user can upload at a time, an additional fee for storing massive uploads to streaming services, and more.
It’s not a viable business if you rely on a massive scale of song uploads but can’t afford the proper staffers and tools to police them.