JoJoDun #Take on The Music Business
@jojodun.bsky.social
Former Executive Vice President, Sony/ATV Music Publishing; Adjunct Faculty Instructor, UCLA Anderson School of Management.
"The deal sits alongside Spotify’s major-publisher audiovisual agreements, which are widely believed to include large advances and broader protections..."
DUH, I SAY, DUH!
musictechpolicy.com/2025/11/13/w...
DUH, I SAY, DUH!
musictechpolicy.com/2025/11/13/w...
November 19, 2025 at 2:12 AM
"The deal sits alongside Spotify’s major-publisher audiovisual agreements, which are widely believed to include large advances and broader protections..."
DUH, I SAY, DUH!
musictechpolicy.com/2025/11/13/w...
DUH, I SAY, DUH!
musictechpolicy.com/2025/11/13/w...
This is not progress for writers. This is pork for publishers.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-nmpa...
www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/11/11/s...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-nmpa...
www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/11/11/s...
November 12, 2025 at 4:57 PM
This is not progress for writers. This is pork for publishers.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-nmpa...
www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/11/11/s...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-nmpa...
www.digitalmusicnews.com/2025/11/11/s...
Where's the beef? What are the rates? Silence. No facts.
Virtually every direct license (vs. those issued by legacy collective agencies -- e.g., PROs -- who are regulated and transparent) includes advances and fees paid to the PUBLISHERS and never shared with writers. And never disclosed.
Virtually every direct license (vs. those issued by legacy collective agencies -- e.g., PROs -- who are regulated and transparent) includes advances and fees paid to the PUBLISHERS and never shared with writers. And never disclosed.
November 12, 2025 at 4:57 PM
Where's the beef? What are the rates? Silence. No facts.
Virtually every direct license (vs. those issued by legacy collective agencies -- e.g., PROs -- who are regulated and transparent) includes advances and fees paid to the PUBLISHERS and never shared with writers. And never disclosed.
Virtually every direct license (vs. those issued by legacy collective agencies -- e.g., PROs -- who are regulated and transparent) includes advances and fees paid to the PUBLISHERS and never shared with writers. And never disclosed.
Randi Singer!!
October 1, 2025 at 3:22 AM
Randi Singer!!
you go Zach!
July 20, 2025 at 11:54 PM
you go Zach!
Now is the time when he starts every press chat with: I’m the most popular President in US history.
July 20, 2025 at 3:49 PM
Now is the time when he starts every press chat with: I’m the most popular President in US history.
There is only one way: the labels must take less for the recordings' royalties.
Are these publishers (looking at you, Majors) pushing for that?
Or is all this just illusory bluster to pretend to care about songs? Like every press release ever.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-warner-...
Are these publishers (looking at you, Majors) pushing for that?
Or is all this just illusory bluster to pretend to care about songs? Like every press release ever.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-warner-...
April 15, 2025 at 10:29 PM
There is only one way: the labels must take less for the recordings' royalties.
Are these publishers (looking at you, Majors) pushing for that?
Or is all this just illusory bluster to pretend to care about songs? Like every press release ever.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-warner-...
Are these publishers (looking at you, Majors) pushing for that?
Or is all this just illusory bluster to pretend to care about songs? Like every press release ever.
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/sony-warner-...
Would someone explain how "direct licensing" would lead to "higher payments" for songs when the pot of revenue from which digital royalties are derived is FINITE. Where will this new “market rate,” increased royalty come from? Publishers get more only if some other payee gets less.
April 15, 2025 at 10:29 PM
Would someone explain how "direct licensing" would lead to "higher payments" for songs when the pot of revenue from which digital royalties are derived is FINITE. Where will this new “market rate,” increased royalty come from? Publishers get more only if some other payee gets less.
I wonder if those statements by Musk are the kind Musk says should be illegal?
March 29, 2025 at 11:23 PM
I wonder if those statements by Musk are the kind Musk says should be illegal?
I wonder if those statements by Musk are the kind Musk says should be illegal?
March 29, 2025 at 11:22 PM
I wonder if those statements by Musk are the kind Musk says should be illegal?
Those retained fees are blood money. The lawyers who receive them will forever bear a scarlet letter for their shame. But, unlike private sins, this conduct emboldens the extortionist and puts so many more people and institutions at risk.
March 29, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Those retained fees are blood money. The lawyers who receive them will forever bear a scarlet letter for their shame. But, unlike private sins, this conduct emboldens the extortionist and puts so many more people and institutions at risk.
Jenner & Block and other warrior law firms are the private attorneys general we all need.
The firms that capitulate foresake all things holy to the legal profession and the principles of the US Constitution that protect the profession merely to ensure their legal fees will not vanish.
The firms that capitulate foresake all things holy to the legal profession and the principles of the US Constitution that protect the profession merely to ensure their legal fees will not vanish.
March 29, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Jenner & Block and other warrior law firms are the private attorneys general we all need.
The firms that capitulate foresake all things holy to the legal profession and the principles of the US Constitution that protect the profession merely to ensure their legal fees will not vanish.
The firms that capitulate foresake all things holy to the legal profession and the principles of the US Constitution that protect the profession merely to ensure their legal fees will not vanish.
Bad odds. Don't let your children grow up to be recording artists (or songwriters).
variety.com/2025/digital...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/there-are-no...
variety.com/2025/digital...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/there-are-no...
Spotify Paid Over $4.5 Billion to Music Publishers Over the Last Two Years, So Why Are Songwriters Struggling?
Spotify paid $10 billion to the music industry last year, with $4.5 billion to publishers across 2023-24. So why are songwriters still struggling?
variety.com
March 13, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Bad odds. Don't let your children grow up to be recording artists (or songwriters).
variety.com/2025/digital...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/there-are-no...
variety.com/2025/digital...
www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/there-are-no...
For the .4% (800,000 tracks) that had 1 million streams: $.004 x 1MM = $4000 per year (split between labels, artists, publishers, and songwriters).
So, that means … you had to have 250 MILLION streams to earn that $1 million payment.
So, that means … you had to have 250 MILLION streams to earn that $1 million payment.
March 13, 2025 at 4:15 AM
For the .4% (800,000 tracks) that had 1 million streams: $.004 x 1MM = $4000 per year (split between labels, artists, publishers, and songwriters).
So, that means … you had to have 250 MILLION streams to earn that $1 million payment.
So, that means … you had to have 250 MILLION streams to earn that $1 million payment.
The micro (royalty) side:
Each streams generates $.004 (4/10 of 1 cent).
-60% to the labels (with a share to the artists) = $.0024
-15% to the songs = $.0006.
-Spotify keeps 25% -- which is not the problem and is actually standard for a platform (e.g. Apple keeps 30%) = $.001.
Each streams generates $.004 (4/10 of 1 cent).
-60% to the labels (with a share to the artists) = $.0024
-15% to the songs = $.0006.
-Spotify keeps 25% -- which is not the problem and is actually standard for a platform (e.g. Apple keeps 30%) = $.001.
March 13, 2025 at 4:15 AM
The micro (royalty) side:
Each streams generates $.004 (4/10 of 1 cent).
-60% to the labels (with a share to the artists) = $.0024
-15% to the songs = $.0006.
-Spotify keeps 25% -- which is not the problem and is actually standard for a platform (e.g. Apple keeps 30%) = $.001.
Each streams generates $.004 (4/10 of 1 cent).
-60% to the labels (with a share to the artists) = $.0024
-15% to the songs = $.0006.
-Spotify keeps 25% -- which is not the problem and is actually standard for a platform (e.g. Apple keeps 30%) = $.001.
Spotify said this week – proudly -- it has paid $1 million to 1500 artists.
That equals .0001% of the 11 million artists on the app.
It is unclear from the reporting whether the $1MM was paid just to the artists/labels or also included the share payable for the publishers/songwriters.
That equals .0001% of the 11 million artists on the app.
It is unclear from the reporting whether the $1MM was paid just to the artists/labels or also included the share payable for the publishers/songwriters.
March 13, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Spotify said this week – proudly -- it has paid $1 million to 1500 artists.
That equals .0001% of the 11 million artists on the app.
It is unclear from the reporting whether the $1MM was paid just to the artists/labels or also included the share payable for the publishers/songwriters.
That equals .0001% of the 11 million artists on the app.
It is unclear from the reporting whether the $1MM was paid just to the artists/labels or also included the share payable for the publishers/songwriters.
Trump is gonna need to reinstitute the draft to fight all his wars.
February 15, 2025 at 11:27 PM
Trump is gonna need to reinstitute the draft to fight all his wars.
The labels made the deals with the distributors that resulted in crumbs to the creators. The labels were happy to take their equity, advances, and fees; royalties were an afterthought. The distributors actually don’t care how the pot is split once they are permitted to take their 20 or 25% fee.
February 15, 2025 at 5:05 PM
The labels made the deals with the distributors that resulted in crumbs to the creators. The labels were happy to take their equity, advances, and fees; royalties were an afterthought. The distributors actually don’t care how the pot is split once they are permitted to take their 20 or 25% fee.
The Spotify revenue pot split up and paid to content owners each quarter is finite. So, the pot just gets smaller for any writer not signed to the majors.
And, still wondering … did WMG slip in some advances under that new deal? Sweet for it if it did; but, not at all “beneficial” to the writers.
And, still wondering … did WMG slip in some advances under that new deal? Sweet for it if it did; but, not at all “beneficial” to the writers.
February 7, 2025 at 8:14 PM
The Spotify revenue pot split up and paid to content owners each quarter is finite. So, the pot just gets smaller for any writer not signed to the majors.
And, still wondering … did WMG slip in some advances under that new deal? Sweet for it if it did; but, not at all “beneficial” to the writers.
And, still wondering … did WMG slip in some advances under that new deal? Sweet for it if it did; but, not at all “beneficial” to the writers.
That will then cover about 70% of revenue-earning songs in the U.S.
Let’s assume that the rates are better than the royalty Spotify currently pays for book+audio bundles. Where are those new payments coming from?
Let’s assume that the rates are better than the royalty Spotify currently pays for book+audio bundles. Where are those new payments coming from?
February 7, 2025 at 8:14 PM
That will then cover about 70% of revenue-earning songs in the U.S.
Let’s assume that the rates are better than the royalty Spotify currently pays for book+audio bundles. Where are those new payments coming from?
Let’s assume that the rates are better than the royalty Spotify currently pays for book+audio bundles. Where are those new payments coming from?