ANA OLIVEIRA

The music industry has drastically changed as a result of digital music streaming services, which have changed the way of how we listen to music today, from the old CDs, radio, and vinyl to digital copies of artists’ work. Music is easily accessible now more than ever thanks to music streaming service apps like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube, which have helped musicians become more well-known both in real life and on a digital landscape with the rise of popular social media like Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok. Although this shift in music publication has made it easier for listeners to access the endless lists of songs, artists, and music genres, this change has also brought new forms of exploitation. Many artists now find it extremely difficult to earn enough money from their music, as record sales are replaced with streaming rates, which often give artists less than pennies for every stream. In this essay, I will analyze the rise of these music streaming apps and compare the music publication business before and after them, using Britney Spears as a case study. The dangers that artists confront in this digital environment are not new, and are, in fact, highlighted by Britney Spears’ experience, since she has publicly discussed her issues with restrictive contracts and unethical management from early in her career, when streaming was not yet invented. Her story helps us review these predatory industry norms, see how artists are working within this changing music field, and question equitable treatment and economic fairness within this area of publication.

Since the beginning of recorded music, when record companies and producers had even greater control over artists and their songs, exploitative practices in the music publication have existed and thrived in silence. Record companies, often referred to as “record labels,” almost always kept all rights to an artist’s creations through lengthy contracts that significantly reduced the musicians’ profit percentage. Labels received large percentages of an artists’ revenue in return for resources like production, distribution, and advertisement, causing artists to receive just a small portion of the money made from their own work. A lot of these contracts had tight ownership clauses, meaning that artists often mistakenly gave up control over the use and distribution of their music. Apart from these exploitative agreements, artists’ management has been another doorway for financial abuse. Young or inexperienced musicians were often used by managers, who were meant to act in their best interests, but who ultimately took control over their public image and career choices or by demanding large percentages of all their earnings. 

Multiple well-known musicians have been exploited by these predatory publishing practices, and Britney Spears’ experience with tight contracts and limited ownership of her music serves as a reminder of a much larger problem in the music publishing industry. One more recent example would be Taylor Swift’s battle to reclaim her early works; she notably lost the rights to her first few albums as a result of a contract with her old record label. The dramatic path that artists occasionally take to regain ownership of their work is shown by Swift’s response, which involved re-recording all her early works. Because of these contracts that prioritize labels above creators, at the expense of those who may be at the top of their game, artists run the risk of losing their financial and creative freedom. These stories highlight the systemic and structural nature of exploitative contracts in the business. 

Spears is a great example of predatory publishing practices in both traditional music publication, as well as streaming publication. The contracts Spears had with her management and many record labels had a significant negative impact on her career, creative freedom, financial stability, and ownership rights to her songs. Spears, in an interview with People Magazine, says, “’the label wanted me in a studio immediately,’ Spears recalls in the book of recording her debut album, …Baby One More Time: “I worked for hours straight’” (Blanchet, 1). With Spears having been a public figure for decades now, she serves to show audiences the dark side of music publication before streaming, when artists were made to work constantly for only a fraction of their earnings. We can understand this even more after the scandal of her conservatorship came to light. These contracts by labels and her management limited her artistic independence, as the people in charge of her career made most, if not all decisions, about her songs, live performances, and public appearance. Spears’ situation has gained widespread attention as it shows how musicians can be kept away from both financial freedom and the ability to directly express their creativity due to restrictive music business contracts. 

In the music industry, predatory publishing is the unethical business practices that often tie musicians to restrictive contracts that give them little creative freedom and minimal financial reward. These agreements usually include royalty arrangements, in which publishers keep the majority of the income from the work while artists only get a small portion. Additionally, a lot of these agreements have clauses that give record labels ownership of the artists’ songs, which results in long-term loss of financial and creative control. Due to this, artists have no power to change the terms of their contracts or reclaim the rights to their music, which feeds a vicious cycle in which the industry makes more money at the expense of the artists. Despite the giant accessibility and reach, music streaming services have also made music publishing even more predatory. Without a large following, it is extremely hard for musicians to make a living, as streaming only pays them a fraction of a cent for every listen. In the article “Spotify and the War on Artists”, Niko Smith states, “For the last decade since Spotify broke into the mainstream, it has paid artists between $0.003 and $0.005 cents per stream. However, this amount is not paid directly to musicians, but instead to the rights holder of the music, which more often than not is the record label to which the artist is signed” (Smith, 1). Even while artists’ work is their primary source of income, the majority of the money made from these platforms goes to publishers, record companies, and management, leaving them with little profit. Major streaming services also frequently collaborate with publishers, which divide control and back up contracts that disadvantage artists. Predatory tactics are further embedded into the digital music platforms by this approach, which not only keeps low earnings but also reduces artists’ control over the distribution of their songs.

Due to these payment arrangements that prioritize companies and publishers over artists, streaming platforms have further decreased the power of artists over their work. Streaming services mostly pay “royalties,” a percentage, to the owners of the music rights, which are typically record labels or publishers. For artists like Britney Spears who do not control those rights, it left her with only a small part of their earnings. Because these streaming services work on a fixed “pay-per-stream” rate, which are most often estimated in fractions of a cent, regardless of an artist’s success, this approach limits their ability to get their appropriate financial compensation. Artists are stuck with these platforms’ basic rates, which are significantly low in comparison to the profit from popular streams since they lack control over their songs and the opportunity to determine contracts. Zoe Stern states, “Streaming platforms such as Spotify do not pay artists who are featured on its platform directly. Instead, once Spotify streams a recording, it pays part of its sales to the intermediaries that each take a cut before paying the artists” (Stern, 1). This explains the chain of command in music publication, putting artists at the lowest rank. Artists like Britney Spears lose out on the profit that their music creates, and instead maintain streaming platforms because of this imbalance, which also reduces their earnings from their own work and takes away their control over how their music is listened to and shared. Additionally, because the ownership aspect of digital distribution encourages long-term contracts and exclusivity with labels, streaming has made it difficult for artists in similar scenarios to regain control over their work.

The emergence of streaming services has led to a substantial change in predatory publishing practices, as we just discussed. While these platforms have revolutionized music availability to us listeners, they have also made it more difficult for musicians to have appropriate pay and ownership over their work. Labels and rights holders have largely profited from the streaming model of publication rather than artists, keeping the majority of streaming revenue while artists only receive a small portion. Britney Spears’ career serves as an example of how these problems really are, despite the appeal and cultural influence of her library, she has received little financial gain, compared to her management and label, from her own songs due to her restrictive contracts. Spears’ limited earnings and lack of ownership of her songs show how artists are frequently dismissed both before and in the digital age, especially those with old, limited contracts. In order to keep artists’ rights and guarantee equal compensation, her experience highlights the need for reform in the music industry as well as bigger openness from digital platforms. In a music industry that is always changing quickly. Britney Spears’ legacy and that of other big artists who have struggled for control over their work emphasize how important it is to provide artists with the freedom to continue being creative, independent, and financially stable. Their stories can act as lessons for changes that should put equal treatment, revenue, and appreciation for their creative work. 

Works Cited

Blanchet, Brenton. “Britney Spears on Signing Record Deal at 15: ‘Rooms Full of Men Looking Me Up and Down in My Small Dress’ (Exclusive).” People.com, 18 October 2023, https://people.com/britney-spears-reflects-signing-record-deal-at-15-exclusive-8362548. Accessed 3 November 2024. 

Smith, Niko. “Spotify and the War on Artists.” Spotify and the War on Artists – Michigan Journal of Economics, 29 January 2024, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2024/01/29/spotify-and-the-war-on-artists/. Accessed 3 November 2024. 

Stern, Zoe, et al. “The Inequalities of Digital Music Streaming.” The Regulatory Review, 30 May 2024, https://www.theregreview.org/2024/05/30/stern-the-inequalities-of-digital-music-streaming/. Accessed 3 November 2024.