Salt-N-Pepa, Taylor Swift, Spotify, Sony Music, and Price Increases....
- latifahsnewsletter
- Jun 18
- 7 min read
Salt-N-Pepa is suing Universal Music Group
The creators of the timeless hits “Push It” and “Whatta Man” were ready to claim ownership of their earliest albums. UMG flat out said, “NO”.
Unfair record deals are so notorious that the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted to help artists bounce back. This Act allows artists to terminate past deals and reclaim ownership of their music … after a few DECADES. 35 years to be exact. Salt-N-Pepa’s first album was released in 1986, and it became eligible for reclaiming in 2021. A few more of their hits will be eligible in 2026.
In 2022, Salt-N-Pepa filed the necessary paperwork for their first album, but UMG quickly shut down their request. UMG claimsthat Salt-N-Pepa’s termination request is invalid. According to UMG, those songs were ‘works made for hire”. That means that the artist never had ownership in the first place, and they can’t RECLAIM what they never owned. Since UMG refused Salt-N-Pepa’s request, the rap duo is suing UMG for violating clear copyright laws.
MY VIEW ON THIS:
Lawsuits are commonplace in the music business. Although outcomes vary depending on the case, the types of lawsuits that arise say A LOT about the state of the industry. This isn’t the first legal dispute concerning the Copyright Act of 1976. Paul McCartney, 2 Live Crew, and more have had a hard time successfully invoking this Act.
This very Act was designed to HELP artists. Yet, ten years after the Act was put into effect, Salt-N-Pepa signed a deal with language that expressly excluded them from its benefits. UMG (and the industry as a whole) were thinking 40 years ahead.
Artists & their teams must look at what’s happening NOW and anticipate how it can be used or misused in the future. Become informed enough to ask questions. That’s why I’m sharing this newsletter. The industry’s changes aren’t secret; they’re just not interesting. Those topics will matter down the line.
Check out more on the topic:
Taylor Swift buys back her catalog
You heard the news! Taylor now owns the rights to her entire catalog.
Here’s the quick breakdown. Taylor Swift’s first six albums were MASSIVE, but she did not own the master rights. In recent years, both the music and finance industries have become obsessed with the sale of artists’ catalogs. The rights to Taylor Swift’s first six albums passed through multiple hands before returning to her this May. She bought her rights from Shamrock Capital, the latest holders, and showed the world how much of a powerhouse she is.
Taylor has no problem standing her ground against industry bigwigs. Amidst her fights with Scooter Braun, Spotify, Ticketmaster, and UMG, Taylor Swift makes it abundantly clear that she won’t let industry politics get in the way of her business.
MY VIEW ON THIS:
Taylor Swift is a boss. Look how she completely dominated Billboard charts with her Taylor’s Version releases.
ICYMI: She didn’t like that so much revenue from her first 6 albums was going to people who had no hand in their creation, so she re-recorded her earliest albums. She owned the masters to each Taylor’s Version she released. The WOW Factor? Fans bought and streamed these albums en masse. In 2024, 5 out of the Top 10 Vinyl Record Sales were from Taylor Swift. She was always a huge star, but I believe she became completely inescapable when she decided to stand on business.
Check out more on the topic:
Sony Music Publishing purchases a HUGE music rights company
As you can see, there’s a theme here. Catalogs are selling like hotcakes.
Sony Music Publishing acquires Hipgnosis Songs Group, which once owned copyrights for Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, Shawn Mendes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, One Direction, and many more.
Hipgnosis was one of the earliest and biggest participants in the catalog acquisition-fest that occurred over the past 7 years. Founded in 2018 by Merck Mercuriadis and Nile Rodgers, Hipgnosis became a model for music companies, investment firms, and even artists for how to be successful in the catalog market. In 2021, we saw companies appear out of thin air. After a little digging, we found that many of these companies were affiliated with major investment firms. Hipgnosis was backed by Blackstone. These companies offered artists hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for the rights to their catalogs.
After a 2-year dry spell (when interest rates were super high), catalog sales were back in full effect. This time, they were a little different, though. Fewer offers went straight to artists; more deals were between companies.
Ex: Company A bought the catalogs of Artist 1, Artist 2, and Artist 3 in 2021. Company B bought the catalogs of Artist 4, Artist 5, and Artist 6 in 2021. In 2025, Company A buys Company B. Now, they own the catalogs of Artists 1 through 6.
Now, Sony Music Publishing enters the chat. A major publishing company, from a major music group, just bought 4,400 copyrights.
MY VIEW ON THIS:
I always felt like major labels & music groups would scoop these catalogs off the market. Whether they’re buying back rights they once owned or buying rights that they coveted from rival labels, it only makes sense that these catalogs would go back in the hands of the majors.
In 2023, I wrote an article titled, “What The Heck Is Going On With Music Catalogs?” My question was never about why artists were selling them. They needed the money! My question was “Who is buying these catalogs & why?” The more those questions are answered, the more I wish we had asked those questions a little bit sooner.
Check out more on the topic:
Spotify partners with Warner Music and Universal in unprecedented digital deals.
In January, Universal Music Group (UMG) announced multi-year agreements with Spotify. Shortly after, Warner Music followed suit with a similar announcement. UMG is the world's largest music group. Warner is the 2nd largest. Sony Music, which is the 3rd largest music company, hasn’t announced a similar deal.
With these deals, we can expect the following:
· new subscription tiers
· bundled content (both music & non-music)
· fan experiences
· rich audio-visual content catalog
· direct licensing with the Warner & UMG publishing divisions
By 2026, we will likely see how these deals are implemented into our listening experiences.
MY VIEWS ON THIS:
Admittedly, I’m still developing my thoughts on this. My inclination is that the deals will help grow industry revenues and make “paid subscriptions even more attractive”. The biggest industry players are working towards a common goal; of course, it’ll make money. I’m just not sure it’ll have the turnover they’re hoping for.
When you look at that list, does it excite you? Does it make you wanna pay more for Spotify each month? Maybe, slightly. Truthfully, the industry is in a transitional phase. Consumers are still deciding where to place their spending power. Companies want consumers to spend, but they don’t know what we value. These deals are just attempts to figure it all out.
Check out more on the topic:
Expect more price increases for music streaming subscriptions
As major music companies grapple with lackluster revenues, the common solution across the board is continued price increases for music streaming subscriptions.
Since streaming dominates how a lot of the world’s music is heard, a large portion of the music industry’s revenue comes from users who pay a monthly subscription fee. Another chunk of revenue comes from what companies pay to place ads in front of users who listen from free accounts. In recent months, ad revenue has slowed down. According to Warner Music Group’s Q2 results, ad-supported streaming for their artists was down 3% due to a “soft overall ad environment”.
Goldman Sachs recently released their latest Music in the Air report. The summary, provided by Music Business Worldwide, states that music streaming services will “implement regular pricing increases, with second rounds of price hikes…occurring 12-18 months after initial increases”. Companies are considering superfan tiers, similar to the Tencent Music Super VIP tier, that would be twice the price of a normal premium subscription. To be clear, these projections are not set in stone. They are simply developed based on the understanding that the music industry’s growth relies on the amount of money streaming platforms bring in.
MY VIEWS ON THIS:
Booooo!! Haha, no one wants to spend more money, especially in a recession. The main issue isn’t about the money spent. It’s about the value we get in return. The conversation about increased subscription fees focuses on (1) charging for additional features that we used to get for free and (2) the notion that superfans will pay more just because they’re superfans. Every once in a while, they’ll throw in ‘providing users with more value’. It’s normally an afterthought or a disclaimer, but the true tone of the conversation shows a lack of creative interest in providing consumers with something that is really worth our money. Even consumers haven’t figured out what that is. It’ll take some type of disruptor to get the market TRULY excited again.
Check out more on the topic:
Warner Music Quarterly Results | Music In The Air Summary- MBW | Music In The Air Summary – Music Ally | Luminate – In The Lab Podcast Ep1
RESULTS ARE IN!!
Last week, I posted this poll on my Instagram Story. As expected, Spotify Premium was the most used music streaming platform. YouTube Premium was a very distant third. No one voted for Amazon Music.
Notably, 50% of Apple Music voters were UK-based or UK-born. That makes me wonder how Apple Music has positioned itself in that region. Come to think of it, I mainly use my Apple Music subscription to access exclusive podcast & radio content from British creators, Estelle & Julie Adenuga.
FREE GAME: THE MANAGER'S PLAYBOOK FT. RUSS
"There is so much money in music if you own the master...Labels don't tour, and they make billions of dollars...because there's money in music." - Russ.
CATCH THE LATEST ON SINCERELYLATIFAH.COM
Comments